Quite a few people who have campaigned against anthropogenic climate change have argued that in the past predictions had been made that by this time we'd be facing a climate catastrophe. But when examining these claims, often times the person who made these predictions wasn't an expert on climate science and when they were, it often wasn't in a peer reviewed source. So in these cases, it's not that the scientists couldn't predict future climate patterns, it's that someone made exaggerated claims that media outlets picked up on. Also, many of those "failed predictions" back in the 70s & 80s that were in peer reviewed sources made predictions based on current trends at the time and at that time the global per capita carbon footprint was rising AND accelerating. Since then many countries have taken action to curtail carbon emissions so while CO2 levels continued to rise, the rate at which they did began to level off/decelerate so it's not that all of these predictions were "wrong" per se, but had instead been averted by climate activism. I mean using these examples as arguments against climate change would be like having an epidemiologist saying that unless we vaccinate a large portion of the population we'll face an epidemic, applying said vaccinations and when the epidemic doesn't happen saying "the epidemic that guy predicted didn't happen so there's no need to vaccinate people anymore and he's just fear mongering".Most short term models (where you can assume the CO2 increase trends will be steady) have been accurate or underestimated how much warming would occur.