"U.N. Predicts entire nations could be wiped-off if Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000"
was made in 1989, I understand it as "we have until 2000 to work. Afterwards, the nations will be lost at some point". That seems what the source article claims too:
> governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
But what is the future point? I have no idea. The website slapped "failed" on this claim, so I guess it's 2000? That's rather useless, it's unresolved at best.
Similar story with "Prince Charles: 'Only 8 years to save the planet'", "French Foreign Minister: '500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos'", "Internet as we know will end if net-neutrality is repealed."
The last one is particularly funny, as all things, as we know them, will end one day. So it's strictly true.
Another issue is not enough claims as "awaited". For example, "'We Are At War,' WHO Head Says, Warning Millions Could Die From COVID-19" is marked as "correct", based on a prediction rather than concrete data.
Another sore one is "'Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left.'" made in 2004 and already marked as failed, together with "Britain to have Siberian climate in 20 years"
On the presentation side, "link" is the most useless way to indicate forther information. Of course it's a link! But what's behind it? Source? Confirmation? Rebuttal? A little labeling would go a long way.
I like the idea, but the execution is a solid 5 out of 10.