EPA chief clueless on climate change facts

Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, insisted that climate change science is a settled topic and no heresies are allowed, but she can’t offer any facts to back up her religion.

She claimed droughts “are becoming more extreme and frequent,” but the opposite is true.

She claimed hurricanes are more frequent and more intense, but the opposite is true.

She claims climate change is real and it is happening now. But Bjorn Lomborg, writing in The Wall Street Journal, reports, “The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.”

Never let the facts get in the way in the way of your dogma.

Gina McCarthy grilled by Jeff Sessions. (IBD photo)


24 comments on “EPA chief clueless on climate change facts

  1. agent provocateur says:

    Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.

  2. Winston Smith says:

    Standard govbot reactions when feet being held to fire…obfuscate.

  3. nyp says:

    So Thomas Mitchell believes that global warming is not happening.

  4. Rincon says:

    I would heartily agree that McCarthy is a bureaucrat and not a climatologist and showed a shameful lack of knowledge about the science behind climate change. Nevertheless, your specific complaints are rather minor. She incorrectly stated that hurricanes have increased, but immediately corrected herself.In the video, McCarthy did state that there are more frequent and severe droughts in recent years. This is in agreement with a large study conducted in 2007. A 2012 study called the methodology into question, but failed to establish with certainty that there has been no increase. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/9677724/Droughts-steady-since-1950s.html This means there is a distinct possibility that the 2007 study is correct in the first place. The latest study is not always the correct one. So was she right or wrong? No one really knows, especially Sessions.

    Sessions’ questions were disingenuous. This is typical for conservative ideologues. Although global temperature has changed less in the past decade than the models predicted, the ’90’s saw a temperature increase greater than the models predicted, so guess what? Over a 25 year period, the models are pretty close, but of course, Sessions intentionally chose to ignore the data from the ’90’s because the truth was not useful to him. This is called cherry picking and is essentially scientific malpractice. But we let him get away from it because he’s just a stupid politician, not a scientist., Because of our woeful educational system in this country though, the average citizen actually buys what idiots like Sessions – or McCarthy for that matter – say. The education of the average citizen in this country regarding scientific methodology and the proper use of statistics is essentially nonexistent.

    One thing is certain. Arguing the minutia of climate change is the proper realm of scientists, not politicians or ideologues. Unfortunately for Conservatives, , a great majority of scientists disagree with their religion, necessitating all kinds of nit picking, lying, claiming hoaxes without proof, and constant quoting of a small cadre of outliers. One would think that with all of the potential funding by fossil fuels interests, the deniers would do some real research instead of waging a massive propaganda campaign. I’ve tried to find some bona fide research efforts by skeptics. They are few and far between. As a matter of fact, I couldn’t find one after checking 75 or so papers in 2005 or so. Can any of you find anything major today?

  5. The climate is changing all the time. The questions are: What is causing it? What can humans do about it? Should we do anything?

  6. nyp says:

    But the questions and supposed evidence you cite so approvingly clearly imply that global warming is not happening. No increased droughts, no more intense hurricanes, the models are supposedly wildly overstated, etc., etc.

    You clearly believe that global warming is not happening.

  7. Winston Smith says:

    Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences from MIT: “The whole thing is fairly absurd” – “We are demonizing a chemical – a molecule essential to life – CO2”


    Meanwhile, Rajendra Pachauri, the long-time chairman of the IPCC has resigned over a sexual harassment complaint. What was his scientific background that qualified for such a important position? Does he have a doctorate in Climatology? No. Maybe Atmospheric Sciences, like Lindzen? No. Is he, at least, a Meteorologist? No.

    In fact, he has a PhD with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics.

    But his religion is AGW!


    So, I guess just about anyone can be anointed an expert about AGW, as long as you agree that it’s going to melt the icecaps, flood the world’s major coastal cities, and end life as we know it. Like Al Gore, for instance, who’s still waiting for his billion dollar AGW payoff, along with his partner, David Blood.

  8. nyp says:

    someone else who agrees with Mr. Mitchell that global warming is not happening.

  9. Winston Smith says:

    DARPA, are you referring to Dr. Lindzen from MIT?

  10. Steve says:

    That is the problem with all these “efforts” to “fix” AGW.
    They all seem to benefit a very specific few. And it’s always those same people in positions of power with lots of wealth.

  11. Rincon says:

    Fox Business? Climatedepot.com? Washington Times? Freebeacon.com? These are your sources of information about a scientific issue? Let me introduce you to a window into the scientific community. It’s called Google Scholar. It’s not hard. I’m sure you can do it. You just Google the words “Google Scholar” and then clikck on it and do a search of “climate change” See how many articles you find that are skeptical of manmade climate change. Go ahead, make my day.

    You guys ramble on about conspiracies in the scientific community, which has never been shown in the past to engage in any major conspiracy, yet you are willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker, anything that spouts from the maw of political communications, where conspiracy is the norm. I’ll trust the scientists over the political parties any day.

  12. Winston Smith says:

    Oh Rincon, I guess a professor of Atmospheric Sciences from MIT isn’t a scientist. My mistake. Like DARPA, apparently you have a personal list of unqualified sources that the rest of us can’t use to prove our points.

    Pls give us that list so we’ll know in advance who we’re not allowed to reference.

  13. Rincon says:

    Here’s a list of about a hundred PhD’s that believe in creationism: http://creation.com/creation-scientists You can join their little group. Why don’t you try to find some scholarly articles written by these PhD’s that deny climate change? There are very few. For every on you find, I can easily find one on creationism.

  14. Steve says:

    The problem with people like Lindzen, Curry and Lomborg is they don’t like the alarmist activity of the green religion.
    the truth is there WILL be good things and bad things as the climate changes…and it matter NOT what ever be the cause of this change, it is changing and there is little humans can do to stop it. This is spelled out clearly in every one of the alarmist so called “reports” on the effects of AGW.

    People like Lomborg , Curry and Lindzen generally call for calm and thoughtful discussion. The problem with THAT is it enriches no one.

  15. Rincon says:

    Although the alarmists are just as looney as the skeptics, Lomborg, Curry and Lindzen claim to know that the risk of manmade climate change is near zero. No human is capable of that. Their claim is just as specious as those who forecast an apocalypse. I keep saying nobody can forecast the future and you can’t buy it because it’s against your religion.

  16. Steve says:

    I keep saying it doesn’t matter if it’s man made or not, climate is changing and all humans can do is adapt.

    Lomborg says the same thing.

  17. Rincon says:

    In medicine, prevention is usually cheaper than treatment after the fact. I submit the same is true if we take a moderate approach to our use of fossil fuels. Using fuel more efficiently saves fuel and money, yet we fail to motivate our citizens to use fuel efficiently because we subsidize it in numerous ways. We can save money while saving the environment, but Conservatives say we shouldn’t be ants. Being a grasshopper is so much more fun.

  18. Steve says:

    All the climate alarmists claim it’s already too late for prevention……then they all cry for prevention!

  19. Rincon says:

    I don’t know of any climate alarmist that says it’s so late that action would no longer be helpful. They claim we’re already in the soup and that the best we can do is to minimize future warming. They are internally consistent, but of course, just as with conservative zealots, they are fools to think that they know how this will play out.

  20. Steve says:

    Oh…that tipping point they all hailed when they said we passed wasn’t what they claimed it was.

    400PPM pffft.

    Alarmist speak:
    “Already we’re seeing the deadly effects of climate change in the form of rising seas, wildfires and extreme weather of all kinds, and passing 400 PPM is an ominous sign of what might come next.

    The safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere (sic) is 350 parts per million, but the only way to get there is to immediately transition the global economy away from fossil fuels and into into renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable farming practices in all sectors (agriculture, transport, manufacturing, etc.).”

    They need to fire their proofreader. I would give the link but I don’t want to encourage them.

  21. Rincon says:

    The zealots on both sides are plain wrong. Nobody knows the safe level of CO2. The extreme weather and wildfire claim is specious, although the part about the rising seas appears to be accurate. Why do you insist on quoting views that I have not espoused as if I’m on their side?

    The other nonsense is that extremists on both sides consider this an all or none proposition. My assessment is that warming is a risk, and that risk and possible penalty will be proportional to the amount of excess greenhouse gasses. It’s entirely possible that reducing excess greenhouse gasses 20 % may reduce the risk or penalty by 20%. Reducing the risk 100% may be too expensive, but reducing greenhouse gasses by 20% is probably achievable at a zero or minimal cost. I’ll take a free 20% risk reduction any time. Why won’t you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s