I failed to do that during a conversation about global warming where I asked you to list the consequences of inaction that have materialized in the last decades of hysteria.


 I thought I had responded to that:

 Nope.  Not going to do the work for someone who hasn't been paying attention.

 NASA has volumes of accurate prediction models.

"ONLY ONE CAN BE ACCURATE..."

 Incorrect.  Models can carry a finite timeframe, and be of varying values.  Such as a 1 day horizon, 10 year horizon and 100 year horizon, of which they can all be things like ambient atmospheric temperature, barometric change scales, cloud cover etc.  Also they can be specific to geographical location.

 It is possible that one prediction of a 5 year timeframe claiming a rise in temperature in a specific geographical location can be correct while another prediction that median sea-level current speeds will slow as sea level increases.  This would be two correct models.

 I think the problem is you are focusing on the political factors and not the empirical data provided by modern science.  It is known that deforestation causes temperature increases, and deforestation is man-made.  Many models predicting weather changes due to deforestation are correct, and many are incorrect, all of them scaling for a man made issue.  No forest fires are not deforestation, this is specific to tropical canopies unaffected by mass fire destruction and subsequent erosion.  

 People were warned about the effects of deforestation.  People were warned about sea current changes effecting fishing channels.  People were warned about cloud seeding.  People were warned about mass-farmland erosion.

"And
Satellite imagery SHOWS the world is
More Green NOW than twenty years ago. "

 We already had this discussion when you only read the abstract of the Nature article that very clearly, when read in its entirety, indicated man made damage has affected weather and that more trees is because of massive reforestation initiatives and the increase in plantations in Asia to combat their own deforestation.

 "The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example."

A pointless point?
The thing I read said
There is more green now,
And
The increase in the horrible toxin
Carbon Dioxide was a contributing factor.

This is why our goverment should never be in the "belief" business, of any kind.
You either understand the ramifications as such, or you shall always be in conflict.
When a "belief" impacts, impinges, alters the pursuit of happiness, of any individual, and you endorse it as such, then expect to be challenged, like for like, as in, hate vs. hate, anger vs. anger, so on, and so forth.....