“Stunning Development” … EPA Chief Doesn’t Even Know If Climate Projections Are Rights Or Wrong!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

It is indeed stunning. A must-watch. It’s as damaging a performance on behalf of a cause that you will ever see.

EPA chief Gina McCarthy also says she doesn’t even know whose models policy is being based on.

She says that the models diverging from actual observations “on the whole makes no difference to the validity in the robustness of climate science that is telling us that we are facing an absolute challenge that we must address …blah blah blah…”

Sorry, but it makes all the difference in science. McCarthy thus confirms observational data mean nothing and that climate science is a religion at the EPA.

“Whose models? What projections?” she asks – as if she has no idea what’s going on at all. This is as incompetent as you will ever see.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

29 responses to ““Stunning Development” … EPA Chief Doesn’t Even Know If Climate Projections Are Rights Or Wrong!”

  1. gary turner

    Never been that much of a fan of Pete Sessions, but his reaming of McCarthy has improved my opinion of him a butt load.

    1. Patrick

      I think you meant Jeff Sessions.

  2. JB

    If ignorance was bliss she ought to be one of the happiest people on earth.

  3. DirkH

    Government monopoly science at its finest.

  4. Kurt in Switzerland

    Hilarious.

    But Sessions missed a great opportunity here.

    Everyone knows the IPCC is the “Bible” of “Consensus Climate Science.”

    If he’d only come prepared with the actual predictions from the various IPCC Reports over the past quarter of a century (and the actual global surface temperature measurements since 1990), he could have nailed this to the wall. Then he could have dropped a zinger about the “religion” and “dharma” of the recently fallen IPCC Chairman Pachauri.

    But Sessions is a politician and McCarthy is an administrator. Both are way outside their comfort zone here.

    And some wonder why nobody from the “AGW mitigation is urgent” camp is willing to debate this in public!

  5. BobW in NC

    Like Obama, Gina McCarthy has no shame, doesn’t care what truth is or what any one may think or say. She lives in her own bubble, her own world, and answers to no one but herself and her boss.

    Reason? She has an ideological agenda to enact. That is her entire raison d’etre. And she will do it until she is thrown out.

    That’s the reality, the bottom line.

  6. dennisambler

    They can do MAGICC:
    May 2011 “The United (Nations) States Environmental Protection Agency” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html

    The EPA simply re-gurgitates the IPCC models, one of the most used is one from CRU, and which they helped to fund.

    “The widely-used MAGICC model,(Tom Wigley), has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990, to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the AR4 conclusions. “Changes have been made to MAGICC to ensure, as nearly as possible, consistency with the IPCC AR4.”

    “The EPA insists that it has relied on “major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science and that this approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.

    It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.

    The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company.”

    (Joel Smith of Stratus has a considerable EPA and IPCC history, Stratus do a lot of the EPA web pages on climate)

    “The front page of the 2008 version of SCENGEN said, “Development supported by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Although four separate bodies are shown as contributors to the model, implying independent scientific agreement, in fact all are connected via the IPCC, and by current or former positions at CRU and UEA, including model originator, Tom Wigley, at NCAR, who is a former Director of CRU. At least five of those mentioned on the front page were significant names in the CRU e-mails.”

    You might also find the activist antics of Gina McCarthy’s predecessor at the EPA of interest: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html

    Lisa Jackson is now working for Apple and is a Board Member of the Clinton Foundation.

    (Doesn’t Al Gore have a finger in the Apple Pie? Oh, maybe: http://www.forbes.com/sites/igorgreenwald/2013/01/18/dont-hate-on-al-gore-for-his-big-apple-score/)

  7. Henning Nielsen

    She certainly has a name of ill omen.

    1. DirkH
  8. sod

    She should not even answer a guy, who ist calling CO2 a “plant food”. Beacuse this is not of any relevancy.

    Her return question is absolutely right. What models is he refering to? he can not name it. So it is HIS FAULT, not hers!

    1. DirkH

      So, sod, you genius, what do YOU think is the tissue of plants made of?

    2. DirkH

      Also, it is not irrelevant, because the hallway-pooping, pr0n-surfing geniuses at the EPA keep refering to CO2 as a pollutant.

    3. AndyG55

      It is entirely relevant that CO2 is plant food.

      The world is still very near its lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in the whole of the planet’s existence.
      Still dangerously low.

      CO2 is the building block of ALL life on this Earth, and its been in short supply for a many hundreds of thousand of years.

      Human release of sequestered CO2 is starting to have a beneficial affect, with the biosphere now starting to expand. But more is needed. 700+ ppm should be a first target.

      Plant love CO2.. and plant feed us. !!

      1. AndyG55

        last line should be….

        Plants love CO2.. and plants feed us. !!

        1. DirkH

          A Moroccon I talked to confirmed to me that his country is greening. (only the more humid North gets about 500 mm of precipitation a year -and that concentrated in the winter months-, the rest is pretty arid year-round.)
          (For sod: higher CO2 allows plants to get along with less stomata, reducing their evaporation and enabling them to grow in regions that are too arid under low CO2 conditions. Look up stomata, sod, it’s interesting.)

          1. AndyG55

            Basic biology is WAY beyond this SOB !!

      2. sod

        CO2 has multiple effects. The “plant food” aspect simply is not the most relevant one. Please ask a scientist and do not take all your information from “sceptic” blogs!!

        1. AndyG55

          CO2 being a plant food is the ONLY relevant aspect of CO2.

          It is you that needs to ask a real scientist (as opposed to an “alarmista climate scientist”).

          You have been conned big time, sob. !

        2. DirkH

          “The “plant food” aspect simply is not the most relevant one.”

          As a carbon-based lifeform living on a planet terraformed by photosynthetic plants, I strongly object. It is by far the most relevant aspect.

    4. BobW in NC

      Actually, our geniuses at the EPA refer to “carbon” as the pollutant.

      Good gravy!

  9. oeman50

    Our EPA administrator does not want facts to enter into the discussion. When it was pointed out that many of the power plants needed during the “polar vortex” last year were coal pants that would be retired due to EPA rules, she said she was “tired of hearing about the polar vortex.” What that says to me is she does not want reality to interfere with EPA’s rulemaking.

  10. Joe Chang

    why is this stunning, why should the head of the EPA be expected to have more than cursory knowledge or awareness of minor nuisances (science)

  11. Graeme No.3

    DirkH:

    Waste of time telling him that. sod only looks for confirmation of his belief, so he never learns.

  12. Greg

    Thanks for this, quite astonishing. Is the full session available anywhere? I’d like to watch the rest of it.

  13. Anything is possible

    Unfortunately, we live in an era where failure and incompetence are handsomely rewarded, and innovation and success are regulated to death.

  14. Anything is possible

    Unfortunately, we live in an era where failure and incompetence are handsomely rewarded, while innovation and success are regulated to death.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close