With days where they come off like this, who needs enemies? Two things happened on March 1st that make me question how this government organization can function reliable and serve the people of the United States. First was a Carl Sagan moment; instead of “billions and billions” we have millions and trillions. That was followed by “uh, what was the question about again Mr. Barton?”. /sarc
EPA’s Clean Air Act: Saving millions and making trillions?
By Steve Milloy JunkScience.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed today that it is saving millions of lives and making the U.S. trillions of dollars through the Clean Air Act.
JunkScience.com has prepared a response to the agency’s fanciful claims. Though it is still in draft form, we are posting “EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is” early in response to the EPA’s wild assertions.
The full story with links is at JunkScience.com.
(worth a click for the sheer simplicity – Anthony)
And then there’s this:
Shocker: EPA air chief ignorant of atmospheric CO2 levels
By Steve Milloy
March 1, 2011, JunkScience.com
At today’s House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s job killing greenhouse gas regulations, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked panel witness Gina McCarthy – chief of EPA’s air programs, including the agency’s greenhouse gas regulation – whether she had any idea of what the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is, she responded that SHE DID NOT.
The full story is at JunkScience.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That EPA release is genuine Ministry of Truth material.
Nevertheless, the business percepts it in a different way:
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/industry-has-spoken-will-the-president-listen/
“…she responded that SHE DID NOT.”
Wow.
I cannot even begin to describe how thoroughly surprised I am at this totally unexpected revelation.
This compares with the absolute shock and surprise I felt when I found out that a whitewash committee composed of mates of those to be investigated and using evidence selected by the same people came to the conclusion that everything was just fine!
I really will have to protect my weak heart fro these sudden surprises….
Sounds like she needs your climate widget. Even I would negligently toss off “around 390 ppm” without having to think too deeply about the question, and I am not a climate scientist. What gives at the EPA… shortage of qualified personnel?
Greenness and knowledge are incompatible.
I would say I am shocked, but I am not. You can’t expect much from political appointees that are there only because they believe the way they are supposed to believe. That is kinda embarrassing though.
I bet even Al Gore could answer that question. He might not understand the answer, but I bet he could answer it.
John Kehr
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/
Are we surprised..?
Ms McCarthy’s response is unsurprising. Must be following the UK’s format, put someone in charge of the BBC who knows nothing about broadcasting, tv/radio. Put someone in charge of the Wet Office who knows nothing about climate or weather (but a whole whopping lot about advocacy). It’s satandard practice here in the PDREU!
EPA has a MESSAGE for congress.
Not only can’t you fix stupid it seems like we can’t beat it either lately.
Re-read your intro, Anthony… ‘reliably’ not ‘reliable’, and please forgive my impertinence, but I really appreciate what you’re doing and want it to look good!
Typical Green “cherry-picking”.
And over here in the U.K.
New Study: Green Sector Costs More Jobs Than It Creates
BBC News, 28 February 2011
Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed. A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry. It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in “honest debate” about the issue.
That word “honesty” is key and there has been far too little of it from the Environmentalists and greedy Politicians.
Was this the same lady who said Co2 is a pollutant?
A lesson in how to price yourself out of the manufacturing market, and make everyone unemployed.
In fact, the Clean Air Act will INCREASE world pollution. You can be sure that China is not passing such a law, and will continue polluting and making cheap goods. So all the expensive but relatively pollution-free industries in the USA will move to China, where they will spew out ten times as much pollution.
So the US goes bankrupt, and we increase world pollution. Does this make any sense?
(The UK did this 15 years ago, so we know the consequences. We now have salmon swimming in the Tyne and Thames, and a bankrupt economy. We don’t produce anything, the balance of trade is shot to pieces, and if the world refused to give us any more goods until we paid back our debts, we would be stuffed.)
.
The EPA is not fit for purpose. Unless you redefine its purpose.
What this shows is: you don’t need facts to believe.
The EPA: home of the Megalodon Hurdlers Association…
when Ms. McCarthy said I Don’t Know did a bucket of green slime fall on her?
The air became substantially clean about 20+ years ago, since then the EPA has been essentially a waste of space.
I’ve had the “pleasure” of working for various overgrown introverted companies and agencies before. Making bafflegab over the top self promotional pieces is one of the sure giveaways that they are in the make-work business.
Oh, and while filling up with $4 / gallon gasoline, realize that Coal-To-Liquids could make it for about @2.75 / gallon (That’s about what it is selling for in South Africa where they make their gas from coal and it’s running about $2.62 / gallon per these folks):
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
Thank you EPA, for making my fuel costs about 50% higher than needed…
Global warming is driven by two major components – CO2 and stupidity. The EPA attempts to regulate one while setting no limits whatsoever on the other.
Could we make that, “job-killing greenhouse gas regulations”? I thought for a moment that the EPA’s new job is to kill regulations about greenhouse gases.
Why do people that are out to save the planet always end up turning into a cheap Dr Evil knock off?
And at what point does bending the truth or holding back all the information amount to lieing?
Oh well the way the elite of the world are taking us it will not be long before we’re burning goverment buildings down for heat.
Ralph says:
March 2, 2011 at 2:05 am
Yes, Ralph, it most certainly does, to those who would like to see the demise of western democracy. There are enough anti-US/UK/Europe/capitalists living among us to make this happen. It is thanks to the vigilance of people like McIntyre – breaking CAGW – and Molloy – breaking the news on the EPA – that we can possibly save our way of life.
I read Molloy’s rebuttal analysis of the EPA’s plans for CATR over at Junkscience: it is a ‘must read’. It shows what non-democratic agencies in our governments have lined up to replace their failing AGW scams. What the EPA have proposed is truly an eye-opener and shows that the AGW ‘scientific process’ (computer models and hypotheses) is alive and well within the EPA.
I urge you read Molloy. “EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is” (link above in main article)
Don;
3.7 real jobs killed for every greenwash job created? Not tea bags! That beats the Spanish record of 2.2 kills handily. Shows how much more competent the Scottish gov. is than Spain’s, obviously!
Anthony: Is there a new system for posting? I just wrote a long comment, pressed the ‘post comment’ button and it disappeared…….
[nothing has changed]