EPA Chief doesn't know whether climate model projections are accurate

“I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to”

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

gina-mccarthy-epaEPA Chief Gina McCarthy struggled to answer questions, at a recent Senate Environment and Public Works committee hearing, refusing to provide immediate answers even to basic questions, such as whether IPCC climate models were skilful at forecasting global temperature. The EPA is seeking an inflation busting 6% increase to their budget.

According to Yellow Hammer News (video below)

“Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years,” Sessions asked, “that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”

“I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded.

“This is a stunning development,” Sessions shot back, “that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase—doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”

A video of the question and answer session between McCarthy and Sessions:

Based on Gina’s performance, it seems likely the EPA will face significant ongoing opposition to its request for a budget increase.

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “EPA Chief doesn't know whether climate model projections are accurate

    • Philip.
      It seems to happen in all walks of life, bankers with a track record of failure keep getting employed, heads of Child Protection Agencies that fail get jobs doing the same thing elsewhere, sports coaches with a record of unmitigated failure get employed and named the best of their generation.
      I wish I knew the secret.

    • Actually it is easy. First you have to “buy in” to whatever the “crisis de jour” is in the sense that you know what “the people that drive the world” want you to believe. Then, like a good little soldier, you take your orders and soldier on, no matter how stupid you look. As long as you can vocally, to borrow from Muhammad Ali, “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee,” you will be promoted upwards. Judging by THIS performance, however, McCarthy seems to have lost that ability since she couldn’t put real sentences together that could explain anything other than quote the party line. Unfortunately, this display of ignorance seems to be actually “in step” with this administration’s policies, so she probably is safe from being sacked. But to rise to this level only takes knowing how to graciously kiss gluteals, and smile while doing it. It normally takes some sense of articulation, but it doesn’t take knowledge.

    • I doubt whether they’ve even been asked whether their forecasts actually work.
      Most politicians have lapped up the this or that “could happen” and forecast to ask the straightforward question “did anything you say would happen actually did happen?”

      • Climatological models don’t make forecasts. They make “projections.” Projections exhibit error but do not have truth-values. Thus, a projection is insusceptible to being falsified by the evidence.

    • Her skills are in politics, not science. That is she is an expert at following the herd and kissing the right butts. Independent thought is neither desired or appreciated.

    • She is very smart and knows exactly what she is doing. She doesn’t want to flat out say the models are wrong, that would be a BIG headline. She feigns ignorance — says that the models are real complicated, I’m not a modeller, I don’t really know what you are referring to — so that people won’t be able to say, “The head of EPA acknowledges that the models are wrong.”
      She may come across here as not quite up to the task, but that is because it is best for someone in her position not to publicly acknowledge that the models have significantly overpredicted warming.
      It is a headline if she were to say that; but if Sen. Sessions says that, it’s just because he is a Republican denier.

      • +1 … She couldn’t admit that the models are wrong, else she wouldn’t be asking for more money. The models are wrong, but the 6% increase is real.

      • Better to look like a fool than to contradict Obama’s ideology.
        Lysenko used the same tactic and kept his job under Stalin as a result.
        McCathy is no different.

      • Any just why cannot the Federal Government get out of the environmental business and let the States deal with it?(except for Federal lands)

      • ECB, pollution isn’t necessarily local. Industrial crud from Augusta, GA, winds up in South Carolina.

      • Because many of the states won’t deal with it – too close to big vested interests who don’t want to clean up their acts. That’s why the FedGov took it on in the first place. People tend to forget, or have never known because they weren’t around back then, how bad environmental pollution used to be. I’m not so opposed to them dealing with air (CO2 excepted) and water standards and such but I’d surely like to get them out of the AGW business. Maybe a 50% reduction in budget for starters to force some rational prioritization? And stop them doling out billions to the green blob.

      • All government coercion, without exception, faces the problem of diminishing returns. Successive doublings of the military, or number of policemen, or number of prisons, produces a smaller and smaller benefit in law and order despite the at least linear increase in costs. At some point, an additional increment of government coercion always makes things worse and not better. This is the root argument for liberty and limited government.
        Environmental law is certainly not an exception to this general principle. Back in the 1960s and 70s, there was a lot of pollution and the environmental laws of that time almost certainly yielded substantial net benefits. However, the problem of diminishing returns has long since kicked in. It is insane that the EPA is destroying the coal industry without any new legislation passed by Congress. The agency is out of control.

    • Don’t you get it, we had this with the IRS and Lois Learner’s Emails they said they needed a budget increase so they could find them. The EPA needs a budget increase so she can find out what the models say, or in her case what models are.

  1. Not only does McCarthy not know how accurate the models are, but she thinks its warmed 1 deg in the last 18 years, and that severe weather events have increased.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/jeff-sessions-leaves-epa-chief-unable-to-justify-money-grab/
    In other words, she is utterly clueless. If, in the private sector, I had a budget request based on this level of knowledge, the budget would be decreased by at least her salary. And probably her bosses salary as well.

    • I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded.

      My guess is that after this embarrassing episode she will want to take a look at the various projections since the first assessment report.. She may also want to see them compared to observations. If she does these things she must harbor doubts about dangerous warming but won’t tell a soul.
      PS she should know as well that the models don’t make predictions!

      • Jimbo,
        Please send her a copy of Dr. Spencer’s spaghetti graph. No discussion is needed. Maybe even include the one in the leading post here so as to show her the IPCC’s take on it. Then at least she can’t claim ignorance in a legit manner.

    • Your post made me curious, so I looked up her bio. She has a degree in Social Anthropology, whatever that is, and has never held a job of any consequence outside government. Wikipedia proclaims she is an environmental expert (meaning she is 50 miles from home), and the face of Obama’s Global Warming initiative (translation, she is a priest in the church of AGW). She wouldn’t rise above the level of administrative assistant in a typical corporation.

      • “She has a degree in Social Anthropology, whatever that is”: is the scientific study of humans, past and present, that draws and builds upon knowledge from the social sciences, life sciences, and humanities.
        However based on her handling of the senator, I was say that she didn’t learn much from her course work. Perhaps in her case we should redefine “Social Anthropology” as having done work similar to Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall.

      • My favourite definition of and expert is to break the word down: An “Ex” is a has been; and a (s)pert is a drip under pressure. Certainly fits the video.

      • Why would a person with a degree in social sciences be selected to head an organization whose role is ostensibly scientific? I’d think someone with a management, accounting or science background would be more appropriate. Then again, if social and/or behavioural change is the true aim of the organization, great choice!

      • @BFL, ““Social Anthropology” as having done work similar to Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall.”
        Can you rethink that one please to me that is an insult, at least they lived their studies.

  2. I want to puke, and I don’t even pay American taxes. She has to be run off. If she is not then all I can say is God help America, and I’m not even religious.

  3. Why didn’t John Boehner leave the EPA defunded back in November instead of Homeland Security? Few Americans would care if they shut down the EPA in a funding fight. But then it would not have given him the excuse he wanted to surrender to minority Democrats. I think he was planning to do that from the beginning.

    • Louis: The Senate Environment and Public Works committee should call John Boehner to testify and reply to your question!!!

    • You know the EPA has no specific congressional oversight. Let me ask: Which congressional committee has oversight authority over the EPA? The EPA was created, not by Congress, but by Richard Nixon through an Executive Order.

    • Gina McCarthy twice did not even know who or what the IPCC is. As Sen’ Sessions said, here answers were “stunning”.

    • If Boehner were to do as you suggest, the media would go completely berserk and begin bouncing off the walls. “Republicans are anti-science.” “Republicans want you to drink dirty water and breath dirty air.” “Republicans are owned by evil corporations.”
      The MSM scream would go on at full volume indefinitely. The Low Info voters, who like the rest of us are fond of clean air and water, would respond to poll questions and show the Republican position to be overwhelmingly unpopular. Boehner is a politician, and he and his caucus, like all other politicians, want to be re-elected. He would therefore cave, and the MSM will triumphantly proclaim the collapse.
      If he did not cave, then he and his caucus are likely to be replaced by the Low Info voters, with politicians who “want to preserve our clean air and water”.
      How do you prevent that scenario from playing out? Certainly it is the scenario that has frightened Boehner et al from doing as you suggest.

      • Actually its the Democrats who are anti-science. They succeed in making it sound as though it is the Republicans through artful applications of the equivocation fallacy. Gina McCarthy gave us a lesson on how to do this in the Senate hearing and none of the Republican Senators picked up on it.

    • “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
      http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/this-pretty-much-sums-it-up/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6908f45b9c-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email#sthash.3YiL6Zxe.dpuf

      • TYoke – Bernie hit the nail on the head! In 2007 I gave out bumper snickers “Monica Lewinsky’s ex boyfriends wife for President”. Not sure after watching Hillary speak about emails it would have made much difference which one won then. But I’m sure after watching results in Pennsylvania from the past 4 Pres elections that the rural old white guys not voting will continue to allow the Democrats to occupy the White House. Is there Latin similar to caveat emptor about voter apathy/ignorance? Looking for another good bumper snicker.

  4. If you think it’s bad now, wait until Obama starts playing the second string bench warmers next year.

  5. McCarthy looked like a complete fool during the Senate Environmental hearings.
    All she could do was regurgitate the some vague notion that “scientists” believe in “climate change”…
    McCarthy didn’t have a clue that global temp trends over the past 18 years have been flat as a board:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
    McCarthy was clueless that CAGW CMIP5 climate model projection averages now exceed reality by 2 standard deviations:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
    McCarthy wasn’t aware the IPCC’s AR5 report concluded that over the past 50~100 years, there hasn’t been ANY global increasing trends in severe weather frequency nor intensity for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, droughts, tornadoes, floods, thunderstorms, tropical storms and extratropical storms:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/pielke-jr-agrees-extreme-weather-to-climate-connection-is-a-dead-issue/
    McCarthy is either a liar or is completely unaware of the dismal state the CAGW hypothesis now finds itself in. Virtually NONE of CAGW’s dire predictions are coming even close to reflecting reality.
    In 5~7 years, there is a very high probability CAGW model-mean temp projections may well exceed satellite observations by 3 standard deviations, and that a flat/falling global temp trend may be approaching a 25-year duration…
    Under the rules of the Scientific Method, such huge discrepancies between hypothetical projections vs. observations is sufficient empirical evidence to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis and finally end all the wasteful CO2 sequestration spending.
    McCarthy’s job isn’t about protecting the environment or establishing the truth, it’s about increasing EPA’s budget, control and power to avoid a CAGW “crisis” that clearly does not exist.

  6. There is nothing stunning or unusual about this witness’ testimony. This is a common sort of performance that I have been seeing since CSPAN first let us watch some of this sort of thing in live action on TV way back in the 1980s. This is political theater.
    The EPA is not in business to protect the environment. It might protect the environment on accident as it pursues its main bureaucratic mission — to increase its own size and importance — but most often the EPA hurts people in the general public and their own employees enjoy doing so. These words are not an indictment of the EPA only, they are just like all the other agencies of the central government. I hope my skeptical friends someday come to realize that the government is not your friend. As Murray N. Rothbard famously said, ” the state is a gang of thieves writ large”.

    • Markstoval– Murray N. Rothbard was a great man! Unfortunately, too few people are aware of his writings.
      After watching this video, I beginning to understand why Rothbard came to the ultimate conclusion that anarcho-capitalism seems to be the only viable alternative to avoid government tyranny from government hacks like McCarthy:
      http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

    • Well the EPA used to have honest goals. For example I can remember flying into the red haze in Los Angeles in the 1970’s and immediately noticing the stink. While L.A. still has issues, it is not nearly what it used to be. However, starting with the super fund & sites, bad law just gave the lawyers a life time of income and did little about the sites. Then the EPA decided on site designation on a whim (much like today) and that process is ongoing as with CO2 and fine particulates. A lot of these organizations have become entities unto themselves (FDA, NIH, FTC, FCC, EPA) without much effective oversight (except by corporate lobbyists through congress). Then there are those that probably are just too dangerous to provide real oversight for obvious reasons (FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA possibly some of the military). It would appear that it’s been all downhill for sometime now. Hoover (FBI) taught them all well.
      http://perc.org/articles/superfund-1

    • I have been searching for a appropriate location to insert this link – see for yourself what I receive almost daily in my work email in-box (my job requires I subscribe to EPA & OSHA updates as well as local environmental & workplace issues). Here is the link for all EPA “News Releases”, where they extoll thier efforts and intiatives (to include grants):
      http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/2015%20Press%20Releases!OpenView
      Most include a nod to “the President’s Climate Action Plan” (read: reduction of atmospheric CO2 through efforts of the EPA). If you have not seen these before, I find them a daily infuriance.
      MCR

  7. Political appointees get their jobs not because of expertise but because of idealogical purity as judged by those in power.

  8. Those who believe in the Cause have to be very vague about the facts, as it is all a matter of faith, not science.
    Rule Number 1 is: Don’t debate with the infidels, as you should never speak to unbelievers, as they will put your faith in doubt. Put another way, this is just another case of:
    “Don’t try and confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!”
    The less you know about climate, the higher you rise in the alarmist hierarchy and the more money you can make from your ignorance; McCathy and Gore are great examples of this.

  9. Maybe I’m being paranoid but this looks to me like a careful and deliberate ploy to avoid answering questions based on a Clinton-esque muddying of the definitions of basic English language words.
    Call me cynical but…

  10. Hey, leave this ditz where she is… just more interviews and questioning.
    The damage she is doing to the alarmista agenda is UNPRECEDENTED. !!
    Why is it that every warmista mouthpiece is so incredibly IGNORANT. !!
    (mosh will be here soon !)

  11. As I have been saying for quite some time now….
    this is not about science anymore, this is policy through Ex Cathedra by idiots, misanthropic social engineers, and communists (by communist, I mean, people who think they and only they should decide what other people should do or behave like, for communism is about a the specially choosen decide for the rest).
    Why is everybody bringing up charts and data to counter argue these people. For get about the data and charts! This is more of a battle about fighting communists who want to change and rule the world, than it is about science and facts.
    AS I HAVE TOLD YOU All MANY TIMES BEFORE, facts, science, truth, data are irrelevant. You can’t fight againts people who are in positions of power, like the delusional heads of the EPA, corrupt professors who run Universities departments, dishonest editors and reviewers of journals, corrupt scientists, and gullible and foolish students who only want to be part of the science in-crowd, all working together to protect their careers, salaries and over hyped egos, with just arguments and counter-arguments.
    The Scientific System and Establishment is irreparably broken. Thanks to Social Entropy:
    Dorian’s Maxim of Desystemization: Centralized controlled systems which constantly grow, even linearly, when embedded, in situ, with elements of corruption, will be overcome and collapse, for eventually corruption will always end up out growing faster than the proper functional system.
    This is why all things fall apart as they grow, including, economies, governments, corporations, or even technical projects, via their budgets. No human being or group of human beings can manage a system growing ever larger for all time. Corruption, errors, poor planning, complexity, greed, dishonest legislating and policing, it matters not, as systems grow, even linearly, these uncontrollable negative forces of entropy, will destroy the system, and always at a faster, exponential rate. This is why collapses occur faster than rises; entropy, including social entropy (i.e. entropy inflicted by human sinful mischeviousness) is always working and eventually faster, against you and the functional system.

    • Dorian
      Centralized controlled systems which constantly grow, even linearly, when embedded, in situ, with elements of corruption, will be overcome and collapse, for eventually corruption will always end up out growing faster than the proper functional system.
      ________________________________
      Certainly true of the USSR, when I was there in 1990. Nothing worked, but everyone pretended it worked – because to say it was not working was disloyal and would bring a ‘detention’ (not the schoolboy variety).
      I see the same today, especially with the BBC which is becoming ever more detached from reality as the years pass. And those who deny this manufactured reality are vilified and ostracised, by using every weapon in the BBC’s arsenal. Pure Orwellian 1984.
      Mind you, it is easier than ever to determine the true truth – listen to the BBC, assume a 180º reversal of what they say, and voila – the truth.
      R

    • Particularly when the only trick this pony has is to destroy the wealth production that they need to live off of.
      Parasites frequently end up killing their host, and then they all die.

  12. Speaking of clueless and models, there was a Jeopardy clue on the show last night in the category of ‘Security’ that was as follows (I’m going by memory) :
    What is Laurence Livermore’s super computer working on that John Kerry says is the most important security problem in the world today?
    Not a single contestant hazarded a guess. I of course had the correct expected answer of “Climate Change”.

    • @garymount
      I saw it. Subject was The Science of Security. The video was of the computers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The clue was, “The lab’s high performance computing, with the capacity of 20 quadrillion operations per second, is not just helping to build weapons systems but to model this, which Secretary of State Kerry in 2014 called directly related to the potential of greater conflict.”
      Of all days I had it recorded. I played it a few times to get the correct wording. I posted about it at Real Science. Loved the contestant silence.

      • Funny I couldn’t find any reference to climate change at the LLNL website. Maybe they have real scientists there.
        Thanks for the effort to transcribe the video. I tried searching for that clue but came up empty. I could have hit the record button when I caught it live, but I had no idea that I would be needing a reference to it a few hours later, and besides, if I recorded everything that mentioned CC, I would quickly run out of room on my DVR as it only holds 300 hours of HD (500 SD).

  13. You may all think this is a pathetic performance on her part. It was, but that is not the point: she still has her job and her budget demands are expensive, not to mention the deliberate damage the EPA is currently and intends to further wreak on the USA and its economy.

  14. Surely her department warned her what to expect? Were these the best answers they could come up with, was she fed to the wolves or was she using a tried and tested climate change formula that will get her the 6% she wants? Mantra is the new obfuscation perhaps?

    • ImranCan, it matters not. The totalitarians in charge have seemingly reached a point where no justification for anything is needed other than their own say-so. There’ll always be a useful idiot to explain it, and the explanation doesn’t even need to be good.

    • It is not so hard to understand, for the past 25 years all that was required for blind acceptance was a ludicrous claim followed by a statement about saving the planet, any questions were dismissed out of hand and the media acted like good little lapdogs.

  15. Anxiously awaiting her defenders to come and explain to us why she’s right and we’re wrong.
    None so far, I see.

    • You’re just not looking in the right place. Tons of disgust how us idiot, Cro-magnon, knuckle dragging “climate change deniers” can so misunderstand something – as usual – over at the Puffington Host.

  16. It was smart of the Senator to not let her suggest he didn’t believe Climate is changing. To ask her about hurricanes and have her throw that barb in and make sure he squashed it was probably the most important thing he did there.

  17. I disagree it was a pathetic performance, she accomplished exactly what she was sent there to accomplish, that is to stonewall the committee and regurgitate the talking points that;
    1. the sequester cuts were wrong so she should get her 6% budget increase, and
    2. climate change is happening now – and she wasn’t going to admit anything to the contrary.
    “Climate change is happenening now” is the same talking point Obama has stressed in order to try and build some momentum for taking all of his economy destroying actions.
    So she was forced to appear clueless to toe the WH line and hide behind her “our scientists tell me” excuse.

  18. McCarthy doesn’t care that she doesn’t know squat!
    Neither do the green people who put her there. In fact, Sessions doesn’t really care either.
    Her work at the EPA has nothing to do with climate anyway. She is just there to enlarge government, oppress free enterprise, and usher in socialism. Her words are just sound effects. Sessions knows that. So this whole affair was to knock a rung out of the PUBLIC’S confidence ladder in AGW so that the public will elect fewer dems, in 2016. He was successful.
    Important that the public hear her botching, regardless of what she is saying. They need to get a feeling that the dems are stupid and incompetent. Success! She sounds stupid.

  19. It was quite a good performance politically, by saying she did not know it really stopped them from proceding with more in depth questions about Obama’s and the EPA’s Climate claims and exposing them for absolute liars.
    This way she just looks dumb, which is much better than the truth coming out or her being caught blatantly lying to Congress.

  20. Briefed from Obama- lie your head off. Pretend not to know. Hilary Clinton did it before with the IRS. A roaring success- great way to waste official Senate committee time. Further the religion that Obama which isn’t Muslim- Extreme Green and Democrat Party.

  21. I hereby ban Climate Change or Global Warming.

    The Sun shall henceforth determine the actions of all winds, seas, seasons and attempts by man to control such events.

  22. The fact is, none of the faithful can or will answer a straight question.
    They behave like the worst kind of politician by obfuscating, changing the subject or simply restating their faith as McCarthy did here several times.
    When in a hole just repeat that the climate is changing and we’re all going to die!
    It was great to see how Senator Sessions persisted with his questions and if a few more journalists could follow his lead no doubt we would see some progress.
    It’s so obvious that the consensus is bogus that I cannot believe the scam can survive, yet on and on it goes.

  23. … it seems likely the EPA will face significant ongoing opposition to its request for a budget increase.

    Given the recent Republican collapse on funding Homeland Security, this this projection bears a striking resemblance to climate model output — it assumes a level of intestinal fortitude several times above anything recently observed.

  24. Ignorant or disingenuous? It’s always the same question, the same question.
    ===================

  25. The EPA policies on climate were, for several years, under the control of a now convicted con-artist. Global warming, climate disruption, climate change, are all just a marketing scheme for pushing a political outcome. The climate was never the issue. Oreskes makes this completely clear in her propaganda pieces.

  26. I have to say that the USEPA does some great work and is a great resource for people who don’t live in the US. Thanks to the American taxpayer – though, of course not in the field of climate science.

  27. Senator Sessions makes me proud to live in Alabama. 🙂 I sent the man a note of support and thanks for this.

  28. Qualifications: EPA Director
    1. Have been to all the major fundraisers for the Sierra Club.
    2. Have been to the most recent Green Peace happenings.
    3. Attended all Earth First board meetings.
    4. Written record of support of using environmental policy to force wealth redistribution.
    5. Unwavering support to the CPUSA platform.
    Things unimportant to position:
    1. Familiarity with the US Constitution.
    2. Concern about private property rights.
    3. Dedication to government transparency.
    4. Familiarity with ecosystem biology.
    5. Ability to synthesize complex problems to draw logical conclusions.
    I am sure others can add to the list.

  29. At least you Americans do have hearings like these. In most other countries, parliaments don’t even bother with any public scrutiny of this kind. Having senior officials publicly roasted, or people like Happer, Lindzen, or Spencer testify in parliament, is unthinkable in Canada or Germany (the places I’m familiar with).

  30. Then why can’t they get her to come back and provide the Senate with a statement as to the relevance of GCMs and how much money is being spent in that area? Treat them like a weapon system: If it doesn’t work it gets cut.

  31. It occurs to me that these budget hearings would be a good way to force an open debate on the science. Let McCarthy bring all the climate scientists she wants to justify her climate-related-budget requests. Let Sessions or others bring any he/they want to counter them and then let a real debate/discussion of the facts occur. The congress can set the budget based on the outcome. Is there a better way to start defunding “the cause?”

  32. Not a big issue really, for politicians it is a belief system, not science.
    The Uk politicians are equally vacuous!

  33. **How do such people get to hold such positions of power?**
    Because birds of a feather flock together. If you are an incompetent boss (in the public sector where results are irrelevant), you employ incompetent underlings, so they don’t threaten you.
    It’s dim bulbs, all the way down (and up).

    • Which is why I think a science debate should occur in the political arena. Congress has budgetary responsibilities and if the EPA chief is claiming sound science as the basis for her budget then let her try to make the case in front of the politicians that control the purse strings. If we can’t stop this based on the science, it has been suggested that the other way is by defunding. Budgetary hearings, it seems to me, are where the science could meet the politics and be exposed for all as to just how weak the alarmist’s argument really is.
      If not this, or something like it, how do you propose to bring an end to this nonsense?

      • I agree with thallstd. We know it’s not about science and never was, but it’s the shield the alarmist crowd are hiding behind. I’d love to see this burst right open – and on public display.

  34. Acting dumb is what the less powerful agency people do when they have to appear in a hearing. The real power brokers like Hillary don’t even show up and make an excuse later or they go with the silence act on emails etc. It would really be fascinating to see the whole EPA list of questions where the act dumb response has been pre-assigned and coached.

  35. Like some American ambassadors, maybe she’s a large Democratic fund-raiser? That is certainly a skill worthy of such high office.

    • A former CEO of REI. Her strings are controlled directly by the White House West wing staff, with little independence. She was put there precisely because she knows zero about environmental policy, and is willing to do the Greens bidding.

  36. The EPA chief knows the answers. It is quite apparent. Whenever the answer matches the White House politics, she answers. Whenever the answer doesn’t match, she evades the question.
    She is in the office she is in for that precise reason. If she did anything else, if she would be removed.

    • You (and other commenters) may be right. In other words, she knows the science does not support the administration’s position.

  37. It’s a shame to see McCarthy dissemble. All Senator Sessions has left to argue is that she should know but doesn’t. It’s time for the environmental movement to admit that climate models are NOT robust. Journalists are all to happy to leave the climate story in the simplest of terms which makes it hard for skeptics point out that feedbacks have been overweighted in the models.

  38. People like Gina McCarthy are true believers in the religion of global warming. The adherents to the religion give penance in public by professing undying devotion to the core tenants of the religion. The more absurd the public profession is the more righteous they feel. They essentially pray:
    Our mother, who lives in the earth. Forgive us our carbon as we pursue your deniers. Give us the strength to stand against science and reason, and deliver us from knowledge. In the name of the holy earth, we believe in global warming.

  39. The EPA asked for 6% so they can get 3. Senator Sessions offered 2.5% as a result, instead of what he should be doing, which is to cut the EPA budget dramatically.
    Instead the Republicans are cutting Homeland Security? That makes no sense in an age of terrorism. However, cutting the EPA budget in favor of areas already administered by the States would be very popular.
    The federal government in the US has grown out of proportion to what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. They recognized the dangers of big government, and purposely gave the power to the States. Over the years the federal government has whittled away at state powers, taking more and more for itself, with less and less freedom for the individual the result.

    • The problem in Homeland Security is they lumped about 900 disparate functions into one agency called DHS. The funding for the national terrorist data center isn’t in doubt. Neither is the funding for border patrol. The gist of the issue is the President issued an “Executive Finding” (not even an executive order!) that instructed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to ignore the law duly passed by congress and signed by the executive which sets the requirements to be legally present and employed in the United States. As the INS is now part of DHS (used to be state department), the only way to affect its funding is to attach a proviso to their funding forbidding any expenditure to implement the unconstitutional “Executive Finding” to the DHS appropriation. One party decided to circle the wagons around their unconstitutional president to thwart the other party’s attempt to rein him in, and thus the whole DHS funding debacle. NO ONE WANTS TO CUT FUNDING TO DHS, as they seem to like groping grannies at airports.
      I was in the intelligence field when the DHS was founded (since retired) and mostly observed it as a disorganized, dysfunctional goat-rope that was more likely to be used to oppress the American people than it was to defend or protect them. Most of it isn’t on sound constitutional footing (along with that monstrosity the USA Patriot Act) and tends to completely disregard the protections of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. The law forming DHS and USAPA both vitally depend on leadership that is adamant in defending the Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, and the current administration doesn’t seem to have much zeal in defending citizens’ rights.

  40. At least EPA is establishing a treatise on what bad public policy looks like for all generations to see. This will not be some murky artifact of history like the causes of World War 1 when civilization looks back on the misspent resources and maligned science process.

  41. Senator Sessions should have had some graphs pre-prepared. Apart from that he did a fine job.
    R

    • That’s what I was thinking while watching! If when Gina asked “what models?” Jeff should have pulled out a n enlarged chart like Jimbo shows us -saying “like [u] this [/] one from the IPCC!”

  42. GIna only has one job – the Left has a big pair of boots, and her job is to lick them constantly.
    And she does that very well.

  43. Somehow her boss who hired her is left out of the discussion. Obama hired her to continue his dirty work against the American people. The dirty work is to drive people into energy poverty and financial poverty. Of course the EPA should have its budget dramatically cut so as to limit the damage they inflict on the American people and beyond.

  44. People such as McCarthy must continue playing for the CAGW opponent team. We then have a better chance of winning the game.
    (Similar to thoughts I have about Vivienne Westwood being a major ‘player’ in UK anti-fracking campaigns).

  45. Under Obummer protecting the environment is merely an excuse to implement policies of control over the economy. The policies being instituted actually have nothing to do with the environment — therefore knowledge about the environment is irrelevant.to the person implementing those policies. When you are installing socialist control over the economy you don’t want someone in charge who is actually concerned about the environment. She knows what her job actually is and she has been doing it. The existence or non-existence of global warming is irrelevant information.
    To put it another way if your political job was to make make sure that all local police forces was under the strict control of the federal government would you be concerned about law and order in the streets? Loyal but dishonest cops would be far preferred to disloyal but honest cops. In fact the latter would soon get the ax. Such is how authoritarian government operates.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  46. She must have been talking to Kevin Trenberth: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
    “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
    In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
    Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
    That was in June 2007, so it was funny how in February 2007, he had promoted the IPCC AR4 report conclusion to the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives, which said:
    “The iconic summary statement of the observations section of the IPCC (2007) report is “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.”

  47. I believe that we must now demonstrate that global temperature is:
    a) man made
    b) closely correlated to the budgets of governments.
    Then sit back and just watch how fast they will be to point out the hiatus in temperature rise!

  48. Senator Sessions must demand she re-appear and bring answers. Nothing of this importance should ever be left hanging like this.

  49. Glad you posted this interview on WUWT. I posted this video in several places on my Facebook (and got some really negative feedback)
    “They” should do more interviews of this woman, and maybe interview Richard Windsor also…

  50. Obviously it’s time to personally attack senator Sessions or have him “investigated” Isn’t that how this administration aswers reality?

  51. She is NOT ignorant. She is avoiding contradicting Obama, Kerry and Holdren. Each has made statements that are inconsistent with observations McCarthy refers to. She doesn’t want to go on record as refuting what the President tells the world.
    The evasion is significant. It says that at the highest levels of non-elected government, the divergence between modeling that underpins policy and commonsense observation is a huge problem. The EPA and other CAGW baded groups must avoid yes/no questions about climate change. A skillful debater could exploit this weakness and reveal the true inner thoughts of the agencies.

  52. It would be wonderful if this interaction with Sessions could be repeated in all media outlets world wide. Unfortunately it’s appearance on sceptical web sites only reinforces what skeptics already know. The facts on climate change which Sessions blurted out in the 6 minutes shown are not widely known because Joe Average citizen gets his climate change knowledge from a complicit media. If this video somehow went ultra viral it would do much for our cause.

  53. Gina McCarthy is a nice democrat, a nice liberal, that is one of the primary criteria for selection for democrat senior jobs. ‘Nice’ people vote for ‘nice’ parties. What is or is not ‘nice’ is defined by the party and does not change. Nice people vote based on gender of the person or race of the person, based on political correctness, rather than the most qualified person for the job. The green/liberal/democrat parties skip the stage of policy formation where there is first analysis and discussion of problems to determine what is or is not a problem and then the next logical stage which is to determine solutions that will or will not work when the problems are prioritized.
    To question the party line is to be a ‘denier’, rather than ‘nice’. One of McCarthy primary job tasks is to defend the party line. It does not matter whether logic and reason contradicts the party line. i.e. It does not matter that the party policies do not work, nice people will continue to vote for the ‘nice’ party.
    The problem is the democrat/liberal/green party line is the same as the EU party line, CAGW is the tool, the wedge, the magic wand that will ‘transform’ the world’s economy. The party line is even if there is no CAGW problem to solve, mandating that the developed countries and the developing countries spend trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work is a good thing (an investment opportunity), not a bad thing (an astonishing waste of money that does not work for fundamental engineering reasons, does not significantly reduce CO2 emissions, maximum reduction in CO2 emissions is around 15%, ignoring the energy input of installation of green scams, with 100% green scam and 100% fossil backup based on German’s experience without the use of nuclear power – and requires complete backup of ‘fossil’ fuel plants which will more than triple the cost of electrical power vs using just ‘natural’ gas or coal). Included with the green scams is the conversion of food to biofuel which is madness, not just a bad idea.
    It is a fact (German provides the example) that the green scams do not work, do not significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, not a theory. The only policy that will significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions (60% reduction, note goal is 0% which is ridiculous.) is a massive conversion to nuclear power and draconian policies such as the banning of air travel, private automobiles, and private homes.
    And, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 23, 2014:

    “The great thing about this [EPA Power Plan] proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control.”

    At a news conference in early February, 2005 in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reining for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”–Investor’s Business Daily, 10 February 2015

  54. Since the lady’s performance received such a disapproving rating here I wondered what the US news media made of it , especially , say Washington Post . The only reference I could find is this : ( I am not familiar with the paper):
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/05/the-gops-climate-change-skepticism-in-one-groan-worthy-video/
    They seemed to think that the Senator was basically play acting. The conclusions of the write-up , concerning McCarthy’s apparent lack of technical knowledge were:
    “Of course, McCarthy could very well go back to her office and submit a scientifically detailed response rebutting all of Sessions’s points. And as our Fact Checker has noted, Sessions and his fellow Republicans aren’t on such solid ground when they say that the EPA rules would devastate the economy.
    But that doesn’t matter, as Sessions wasn’t trying to disprove climate change. He was merely trying to sow doubt. This has been the GOP playbook on climate change for years now. Today, we’re seeing a slightly different version of it. In past years, Republicans sought to sow doubt on climate change science itself. But here, Sessions was trying to cast doubt on McCarthy’s scientific knowledge to call into question her agency’s policy response to climate change.
    Still, there’s no guarantee that the doubt strategy will work this time. Previously, it worked well, given that many Americans still believe scientists are divided on climate change and that Congress ultimately killed various climate bills. Now, however, the policymaking ball is in the EPA’s court. Absent a party change in the White House or a court ruling against the EPA, there’s little Republicans can do right now to stop the rules, no matter how much doubt they try to sow.”
    It will be a long time before any scepticism appears in the US media if this example is typical.

    • As a university graduate in economics, I would say it is screamingly obvious the that EPA’s actions are actually the very best way to devastate an economy. Look what happened to Greece and Spain who took EPA type policies too seriously.. Could California be next?
      Cheers
      Roger
      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  55. I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to“, good answer! /sarc

    • Maybe she thought toy trains. Models, we were talking about climate science, right?
      She did refute every example,
      1. More frequent and extreme hurricanes.
      2. More frequent and extreme droughts.
      3. A significant rise in temperatures 1 F.
      Don’t know who the IPCC is, but scientists say.

  56. No need to talk about climate models any more. The logic goes like this:
    1. If CO2 were not dangerous to public health and welfare, EPA would not be authorized either to regulate it or to classify it as a pollutant.
    2. EPA does in fact regulate CO2 emissions and classifies it as a pollutant, even below concentrations of 0.1%, when it does not have any effect on humans or other beings whatsoever, except plants (when its concentration is too low, like 0.01% or something).
    3. EPA was never ordered by either courts or Congress to stop this practice.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Therefore CO2 is a pollutant and as such, it is dangerous to public health and welfare, so EPA can’t help but regulate it.
    That’s it.

  57. sad to say but the maxim of this administration seems to be “the less you know the higher you go!” or perhaps “the more you lie the higher you’ll fly.” All headed by the president that doesn’t find anything out until he reads it in the press. Truly a sad state of affairs for America.
    Cheers,
    Joe

  58. Sessions is an idiot, I’m surprised he didn’t ask her when she stopped beating her husband! Just a load of grandstanding, framing questions which are impossible to answer properly, and doesn’t really want the data!

    • Which of Session’s questions do you find impossible to answer? The one about more frequent/severe droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms? The one about observed temps tracking well below model projections? These are both easily answered by looking at the data which apparently he did and she didn’t.

  59. Not only is her response clueless, she couldn’t even manage to respond to what he asked. Sessions’ question was past tense, specifically about the past 18 years and the models utter failure to even remotely match reality. She’s an idiot, she knows it, and her response was a feeble attempt at deflection.

  60. EPA is much better at cooking science in the back rooms than addressing basic model validity questions in public and in reference to key models that underlie their whole mandate. Beyond the witness though, the whole congressional hearing process is lame as usual with no visuals and no clear citation of such key models in question. It is not a serious examination of anything, just a verbal dance around big topics. The citizens are the real losers here. No wonder the new “industrial military complex” is environmentalism and AGW climate change hacks. There exist no competent checks and balances to verify anything, anywhere, anytime, except maybe a Swiss referendum vote.

  61. Maybe it was done but I wish he’d gone down the very substantial list of fellow citizens who have been abused, jailed and ruined by the EPA and asked her, “why should I support an increase in your budget when you abuse, jail and bankrupt my constituents?

  62. I noticed Sen. Sessions did not bring a snowball to this fight, but may have referenced it. (:

    The weather in New England was unseasonably cold, and if there was a Real Media, the whole country would be watching every day how many people are out of power in Massachusetts and all the rest of the states.
    There were 10’s of thousands who lost power during two major blizzards.
    Instead the Meedja cackled and mocked at Inhofe for bringing a snowball and saying it is unseasonably cold.

  63. As others have pointed out the main issue for Ms McCarthy was to avoid admitting a “pause”, that extreme weather is no more common than previously. Otherwise she was admitting that the White House lies about these issues. The cost was to look a complete idiot to any sane person, but to be on message for the left.

  64. If EPA Chief Gina McCarthy is representative of the general intelligence of the EPA then it explains why the EPA has made so many stupid decisions recently.

  65. From this June 2014 WUWT article (link below) – worth reading again:
    “Mr. Obama and EPA chief Gina McCarthy are nevertheless determined to slash reliance on coal, even in 20 states that rely on this fuel for half to 95% of their electricity, potentially crippling their economies. The President has said electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket,” coal companies will face bankruptcy, and if Congress does not act on climate change and cap-tax-and-trade, he will. Ms. McCarthy has similarly said she “didn’t go to Washington to sit around and wait for congressional action.”
    However, they know “pollution” and “children’s health” resonate much better than “climate disruption” among voters. So now they mix their climate chaos rhetoric with assertions that shutting down coal-fired power plants will reduce asthma rates among children. It is a false, disingenuous argument.”
    Ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/19/fixing-our-dictatorial-epa/

  66. The transcript of her testimony reveals McCarthy to be either a dupe of the equivocation fallacy or a duper. An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of an argument. An equivocation looks like a syllogism (argument whose conclusion is true) but isn’t one. Consequently, one cannot draw a logically proper conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is an “equivocation fallacy.” Rather than being built upon logically valid arguments global warming alarmism is based upon applications of the equivocation fallacy. Among them are ones in which the word that changes meaning is “predict.”

  67. Folks,
    Write Senator Sessions an email or letter asking him to cut EPA’s funding for climate research and implementation.

  68. It’s her job to follow orders. If acknowledgment of the scientific case, made it harder for her to do what her boss wants, then it’s best that her understanding be highly selective.

  69. I’m sorry to be trivial but Gina McCarthy looks just like Sir Paul McCartney. I actually though it was him testifying. That would explain her ignorance, though.

  70. climate model projections and warming “climate change” (as if climate ever DIDN’T “change”) are a worldwide JOBS program y’all!!!

  71. Sessions ask the questions but that was all he could do. Bravo for doing that Sen. Sessions. I think the Senator and his staff really need to brush up on the Global Warming Fiasco so that they can forcefully push the issues. Few in power seem to have a handle on CAGW issues.

    • Above all, people in power need to understand how and why environmentalists use the equivocation fallacy in making deceptive arguments about CAGW. In the hearing, Ms. McCarthy employed this fallacy in making her argument but nobody including Sen. Sessions realized that she was deceiving them in this way.

  72. This really is remarkable. The head of the EPA, who is looking to impose regulations based to a large extent on the theory of AGW can’t even manage to come across as knowledgeable in a hearing to determine her budget.
    Can it be that people like her are so convinced that the climate debate is over that she doesn’t have to even understand the basics?
    Yikes!

  73. Once over reach is set in motion, there is no turning back with complex things like fact checking prediction errors for models on which the whole effort is premised.

  74. One thing that may jog her memory of force her hand McCarthy) would be to cut the EPA budget by 12% for starters. Call her before Congress and if she continues to be ignorant cut it another 12%. A few appearances and she will either be replaced or learn about ‘real change’.

Comments are closed.