“I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to”
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
EPA 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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM
Based on Gina’s performance, it seems likely the EPA will face significant ongoing opposition to its request for a budget increase.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ignorant or disingenuous? It’s always the same question, the same question.
===================
Neither are acceptable.
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.
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.
Senator Sessions makes me proud to live in Alabama. 🙂 I sent the man a note of support and thanks for this.
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.
I think a firm belief that the “tooth fairy” exists should be in there.
She had to walk a fine line.. Lying to Congress is a REAL crime, being ignorant is not.
Lisa Jackson lied to congress about PM2.5. What are her consequences?
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).
Well, in Canada the Canadian equivalent of the EPA was prevented from having anything to do with energy policy. I have seen debates carried out in the Canadian Senate about climate science.
The Canadian senate even threw out a bill that was passed by the federal government that had something to do with Carbon Dioxide:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/canadian-senate-kills-climate-change-bill/
OK, but my point was more about having this kind of unscripted audition, with the participation of experts from outside. Do they do that in Canada?
McKitrick testified before a parliamentary committee there a couple of years ago. WUWT had a thread on it, with a video.
I saw this reported by FOXNews, the day it happened. No wander the left hates FOX.
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.
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?”
Not a big issue really, for politicians it is a belief system, not science.
The Uk politicians are equally vacuous!
**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).
Forget the science debate, this never was is now or ever will be about science
Pure political bs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“and the current administration doesn’t seem to have much zeal in defending citizens’ rights.”
It may be that it’s a bit too hazardous to buck entities like the NSA, CIA, FBI and similar. After all they do know all and could do about anything “accidental”
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/148458/wiretap-sorry-we-did-spy-on-congress-cia-says
http://www.wired.com/2007/06/cias-deep-secre/