It was June 23, 1988 when NASA's Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress about the coming catastrophic warming of the planet. He gave three different scenarios for the progress of global warming over the next 30 years.

Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Hansen's testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A "business as usual," as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and '80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the "most plausible," and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000. Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios – enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen's model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn't. And it isn't just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

This is nothing new to those who have tracked the hysteria of global warming advocates over the years. But the Journal article illustrates not only just how wrong they've been, but how they continue to ignore evidence from their own mainstream sources that their predictions are bogus.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland's ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland's ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland's surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Note that both the IPCC data and the study in Nature magazine directly contradict Hansen, yet he continues to spout his predictions as if they're going to come true any time now.

Other swings and misses by Hansen on climate:

Several more of Mr. Hansen's predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn't happen is long and tedious.

Skeptical arguments against climate change are dismissed out of hand by scientists like Hansen, because many of them have staked their careers and reputations on the notion of catastrophic climate change. As the evidence continues to show this not to be the case, their arguments devolve into personal attacks on their critics. The ignoramuses who write on "science" for mainstream publications lap up the predictions of doom and gloom, knowing it's what the public wants.

We may be close to a tipping point on opinions regarding climate change, as the preponderance of evidence that says Hansen's and his colleagues' predictions of catastrophe have been, at best, exaggerated and, at worst, deliberately misleading continues to grow.

Perhaps that shouldn't surprise us. The debate over global warming is at the confluence of science and politics. And any time politics is involved, you can expect dishonesty and slavery to an ideological agenda having nothing to do with science.