“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.
The most transparent administration evah……. right?
Yay,
Wish we had politicians in my country who are prepared to ask reasonable questions like we see here.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
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.
We see yet again that George Monbiot is pushing the climate scare in the UK’s Guardian. On many subjects, he comes across as informed and intelligent. Can he watch a video like this and remain convinced the AGW scaremongers know what they are talking about?
In fact, the article shows he thinks policy makers are not scared or scarey enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/10/keep-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground-to-stop-climate-change
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.”
Folks,
Write Senator Sessions an email or letter asking him to cut EPA’s funding for climate research and implementation.
Good idea! Even better, let’s ask Sessions to eliminate funding until the EPA embraces the scientific method.
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.
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.
climate model projections and warming “climate change” (as if climate ever DIDN’T “change”) are a worldwide JOBS program y’all!!!
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.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Ms. McCarthy shows herself to be not only a religious zealot steeped in the talking points and dogma of the Gaia fundamentalism, but she shows herself to be ignorant.
“Then, gentlemen,” said Napoleon, “let us wait a little; when your enemy is making a mistake , never interrupt him.”
“Napoleon Bonaparte”
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!
Here’s an article about her from two years ago:
Gina McCarthy, history of misleading the Congress
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/12/epa-nominee-gina-mccarthy-has-a-history-of-misleading-congress/
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.
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’.