A warmer enviroment will also mean a drier environment. Sure your plants have plenty of CO2 to breathe but they'll also be struggling to get their necessary water.

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+predictions+that+did+not+happen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

take your pick from those, or show me some that have come true i'm open for that

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/rahn-the-world-did-not-end/

that one sums up a few

I dont see global travesty, i dont see coastlines reciding. OUr time to act has passed according to global warming alarmist. I still see ice on the polar caps, i dont see raised temps across the globe, i dont see heightened weather patterns or more severe storms. Find me a global warming prediciton that has happened, im all for it.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

"Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade."

Sounds like real hard science and accurate data to me. yea right. data should never have to be back adjusted like that. it looks fishy, and leaves the data up to readjustment down the line. If they can't even take and keep basic temp records what good is the "science" we base off it?

what are the agencies? please link me to non NOAA temperature data. or temperature data that hasn't had to go through "adjutments". I'm all for the hard work scientist put into this, but as you said its a complex system, very complex. In fact i would say so complex with so little data (at least reliable data past 50 years out) that to make massive changes to society over incomplete data is absurd and stupid. When the science is good enought to actually predict something that happens i will take notice. Until than its incomplete, and being used to make econimc changes that arent needed. ON top of that I still see nothing on sun spt activity and solar flares and how they factor that into their adjusted and weighted temp data. I mean the sun, the source of all heat on the surface on the earth, not being factored in or talked about is pretty absurd. The sun goes through high and low activity.

PLease someone show me some predictions that have come through, show me the floods, show me the ice caps being gone, show me the dead oceans, show me the end of the world i keep hearing about if we dont act now, we must act now is what i have heard for 20 years. Well the earth is surviving, we are urviving, the oceans are surviving, the ice caps are surviving. Show me some concsisty among climate scientists

Al Gore is a MFer.

Were any of these predictions published in any peer-reviewed journals?

You'll be happy to know alarmism and just the same, denialism can both be disregarded safely. Neither of them are a substitute for good scientific research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Here is an article published in the American Meteorological Society in September 2008: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 . It takes a look at a number of articles that predicted global temperatures from 1965 to 1979. Some papers predicted cooling, some were neutral, but the overwhelming number of papers predicted global warming. It seems average global temperatures are indeed steadily climbing as the NOAA attests: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I don't know about him being a "MFer" but I DO know what he isn't and that's a scientist with a publishing history in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Last I checked, Al Gore did not have any scientific qualifications or scientific publishing history to speak of.

In other words, be wary of the things he might have to say.

No it doesn't at all, a warmer environement leads to a wetter environment as the processes of evaporation and evapotranspiration and so on act much quicker due to the atmosphere having a greater capacity for water vapour in the air, and the warmer temperatures being able to evaporate the water quicker and more easily... Like this is basic science, how do you not know this?

The NOAA takes their data from the GISS, who massage and manipulate their data to get a warming trend, and have recently resorted to increasing the weighting of ship based temperatures (and if you know anything about ships, you should be able to see how this alone should bring absolutely monstrous margins for error into the data) and sea bouys, just to pause bust the data. It's all a load of shit the GISS, and unfortunately so much of the climate science education uses this crap without even explaining their methodologies and end dates used.

The science is indisputable.

 hit this link for more proof.

https://www.facebook.com/EvolvedMusic

If you don't believe then you have bought the propaganda feed to you by the largest polluters in the world. All the denial groups are funded by Exxon, Koch's etc... They use the same misinformation group that said smoking don't give you cancer. Sorry but you're wrong, all the science says so.

You are a Denier, the proof has already been submitted. It really comes down to denying the overwhelming Science and facts. The burden of proof is now on people who deny it to prove it wrong.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/14/do-97-of-scientists-really-agree-on-climate-change-nope-its-more-like-99-9-says-expert/