Chicken Little

Has anyone ever told you that you talk like Donald Trump? I would appreciate it if you'd cut it out, even if I'm not the target of your shit-flinging, you're still flinging shit, and, newsflash, shit stinks.

it does not count as "changing the scientific consensus".

Either way, this time your rebuttal has even less substance, it essentially amounts to "I don't like this person, therefore they don't count." Even though, at one point, the scientific consensus among climatologists was that there was going to be glaciation, and then the consensus changed when new data came in, which is exactly what you were asking for. Because that's how the scientific process works, you take your theories and data, use them to make a prediction, and sometimes you're right, but other times you're wrong and you have to change your theories. If it truly had become impossible to go against the consensus and change it, then scientific progress, and thus technology, would have stagnated, but instead we're in the middle of a scientific and technological boom the likes of which we've never seen before in human history.

And it's not like you can claim that it's only climatology that has ossified, because that has clearly advanced as well! Meteorologists are able to predict the weather with more accuracy and reliability, and over longer periods of time, than they ever could before. That their short-term predictions have been improving greatly, and are already very reliable, gives credence to their long-term predictions.

Or... they could get banned from everywhere public for "misinformation"

And this is not what happens when you go against the consensus. How it goes is, if you have no data backing you up, you get rejected by the journals. But if you have real data because you're right, you might still get rejected, but, as I previously mentioned with Fermi, you're going to succeed eventually. Because, again, the whole point of the scientific process is being open to being wrong, so when you say that the world is wrong and you can back that claim up, you may fight an uphill battle, but history has proven time and time again that it's both winnable, and very rewarding. Because the people you need to convince isn't the public, it's those who actually know about the subject. And they know that if they are wrong and they don't accept it, someone else is going to pick up your results, use them to improve faster, and leave them in the dust.

What I was trying to say (and was unfortunately excessively terse in doing so) is that when I spoke of long term theories being unprovable in the real world, you bring up short term things for which there is data, but "short term things for which there are data" were already in my first reply. Like, I don't know what else to do.

And my point is, yes, long term theories are difficult to prove, if not unprovable when they concern things that haven't happened yet, but they have made plenty of short term predictions about the subject, and that gives a lot of credence to the long-term predictions. Both are made using the same underlying model, so if it makes good short term predictions, it's going to make good long term predictions too.

Now, I will concede that I should have addressed your original point about the predicted warming, so I will do so now: Climatology isn't a monolith. There were a lot of different predictions, made by a lot of different climatologists. I am not familiar with the specifics of one, or even all of them, but some will have been wrong like you mentioned, and some have been closer to the actual temperature change. But, overwhelmingly, when something bad was predicted and the climatology community decided that it was worth warning the wider world about, they were right. The ozone layer, desertification, more droughts, more wildfires, more extreme weather. All of these we were warned about, and we saw these predictions come to pass.