Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large number of those are of the form "If X continues, bad thing Y will happen", and they are being called wrong predictions because bad thing Y did not happen. But Y did not happen because X did not continue, either because we purposefully stopped X from continuing partly to avoid Y, or something replaced X for other reasons unrelated to Y and the new X did not have the properties that could lead to Y.
If X was not happening, then why even say Y will happen? Consider this prediction: if Hillary Clinton (X) gets elected president in 2016, then 10% of the population in Libya will be killed by US bombing campaigns in 2017 (Y). Obviously X did not happen, so Y never occurred as a predicted result, but was Y ever a valid prediction? Y might be considered a valid prediction because Hillary Clinton intervened in Libya in…
They get out of the lake two minutes later, so X ends up not happening. Are you going to argue that my prediction was not correct? Or that it is a wild prediction?
In the case of several of the ones you cited, they were based on an assumption that pollution levels would continue their rapid rise unabated. But we actually did put in a significant effort to get pollution under control, which was fairly successful. (High levels of pollution have significant health, agricultural, and climate consequences, which is why they were a key part of the base of many of those predictions).