Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook slams study: "If we take an average of about 1.5 ft per century, expected sea level along the Texas coast by 2100 will be about 12 inches, a far cry from the 6-7 ft predicted by this (stupid) report!"

Czech Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: "Well, the actual history of CO2 followed Scenario A most closely – the CO2 emissions kept on rising at a slightly accelerating rate. So you can see that Hansen predicted the warming trend about 3°C per century. The actual observed trend from the 1980s (well, early 1980s) has been about 1.3°C per century according to satellite and slightly below 2°C per century according to weather stations. Although we didn't really stop CO2 emissions at all, the temperature was growing almost exactly like Hansen's scenario in which the CO2 concentration becomes constant after 1988!"

...

"There's nothing "worse" about the climate of 2018 relatively to the climate of 1988."

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels and Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue:

"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..."

"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."

Marc Morano statement: "I have been in regular contact with Dr. Gray for over a decade and he once almost came to testify in front of the U.S. Senate. Gray is also featured in my new book, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.' Gray states in the book, “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.” The world will miss Gray's passion for science and scientific truth. RIP." 

Flashback: UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Vincent Gray: ‘There is not a scrap of evidence in any IPCC reports that human emissions of CO2 have any harmful effect on the climate’ - 'Nobody seems to realise that the most elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest that has been inflicted on the public is the 'Global Warning" Theory'...I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of IPCC'

Dr. Pat Michaels: "This week’s good news is that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS), by far the world’s biggest ice mass, was largely intact during the entire Pliocene epoch.  The Pliocene was slightly less than three million years in length and preceded the Pleistocene, the epoch of the ice ages. The implications for human-caused warming from enhanced carbon dioxide are enormous. (Study published in the journal Nature) ...

We can now confidently say that human-induced climate change cannot make it happen... The Pliocene heat load was 1,200 times what humans could possibly exert on the EAIS, and it still remained largely intact.  Because of that, fears about the ultimate climate catastrophe can no longer even be entertained."

Scientists tend to agree ice loss has increased in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has increased. Measurements of the eastern ice sheet, however, are subject to high levels of uncertainty. That’s where disagreements are. “In our study East Antarctic remains the least certain part of Antarctica for sure,” Andrew Shepherd, the study’s lead author and professor at the University of Leeds, told TheDCNF. “Although there is relatively large variability over shorter periods, we don’t detect any significant long-term trend over 25 years,” Shepherd said. However, Zwally’s working on a paper that will show the eastern ice sheet is expanding at a rate that’s enough to at least offset increased losses the west. The ice sheets are “very close to balance right now,” Zwally said. He added that balance could change to net melting in the future with more warming.

...

Zwally’s 2015 study said an isostatic adjustment of 1.6 millimeters was needed to bring satellite “gravimetry and altimetry” measurements into agreement with one another. Shepherd’s paper cites Zwally’s 2015 study several times, but only estimates eastern Antarctic mass gains to be 5 gigatons a year — yet this estimate comes with a margin of error of 46 gigatons. Zwally, on the other hand, claims ice sheet growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year. 

Summer snow falls in summer…in Poland/Ukraine!
Yesterday, on the second day of summer, snow fell in Poland! according to Severe Weather Europe at Facebook.
In Ukraine in the Karpaten 27 children had to be rescued from summer camp by emergency crews as “several centimeters of snow fell and temperatures dropped near freeing,” the German Weser Kurier herereports.

The four senators called for the foundation’s inspector general to investigate the $4 million program to increase climate reporting by meteorologists, saying it “is not science — it is propagandizing.” The senators — Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, both of Oklahoma — said the program, run by the nonprofit Climate Central, epitomizes National Science Foundation grants that stray beyond their appropriate scope of “basic research.”

(See related article: Effort to turn weathermen into climate activists fraught with bad science & backed by RICO supporting professor & funded by taxpayers )

"I had no idea that so little progress had been made until I looked at these data." The whole thing is seriously discouraging because it means that despite huge policy efforts, like the Paris accord, the power sector looks almost identical to its 1990s counterpart.

Via UK Guardian: Jame Hansen’s long list of culprits for this inertia are both familiar – the nefarious lobbying of the fossil fuel industry – and surprising. Jerry Brown, the progressive governor of California, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, are “both pretending to be solving the problem” while being unambitious and shunning low-carbon nuclear power, Hansen argues.

James Hansen: ‘Promises like Paris don’t mean much, it’s wishful thinking. It’s a hoax that governments have played on us since the 1990s.’  

There is particular scorn for Barack Obama. Hansen says in a scathing upcoming book that the former president “failed miserably” on climate change and oversaw policies that were “late, ineffectual and partisan”. 

Hansen even accuses Obama of passing up the opportunity to thwart Donald Trump’s destruction of US climate action, by declining to settle a lawsuit the scientist, his granddaughter and 20 other young people are waging against the government, accusing it of unconstitutionally causing peril to their living environment. “Near the end of his administration the US said it would reduce emissions 80% by 2050,” Hansen said.

That’s right, the U.S.’s oldest environmental group is pushing a recent study that claims “high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change.” “The percentage of white Americans who said that they believed climate change is a very serious problem declined during the Obama administration. Why?” The Sierra Club tweeted on Monday. "The percentage of white Americans who said that they believed climate change is a very serious problem declined during the Obama administration. Why?"

On September 16, 2016, the Obama EPA entered into a memorandum of understanding(MOU) with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Concluded just a few weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the MOU bears the signature for the U.S. of then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. In the document, UNEP and the Obama EPA vow to “consolidate, further develop and intensify their cooperation and effectiveness to achieve their common goals and objectives in the field of the environment.”

And therein lies the problem. For the “common goals and objectives” shared by the U.N. body and the Obama administration are specifically crafted to hamstring American fossil-fuel energy development, promote an assortment of politically fashionable, but otherwise uncompetitive, green technologies and products, and perpetuate the deplorable living conditions in the world’s poorest countries.