EPA Head Wants Climate Scientists To Speak Truth To Push Obama’s Agenda

The politicization of science continues

(CNS News) Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asked scientists at a climate change conference on Thursday in Arlington, Va., to explain the science of climate change. (snip)

“I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.

“To tell people that science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA, which is to look at climate change as something where we can innovate and we can move forward to grow the economy, to grow jobs, to understand how we’re producing sustainable, livable communities,” McCarthy said.

Well, now, if you work for the EPA in any fashion, and its head is telling you to support the President in this manner, which way will your work take you?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “EPA Head Wants Climate Scientists To Speak Truth To Push Obama’s Agenda”

  1. Cold_Spring_Gumballs says:

    further proof that the EPA is a completely unbiased pro-science non-policy based environmental protection agency.

    and I’m a space-faring duck with a laser gun

  2. […] The Pirate’s Cove where William Teach noted this is just more politicization of science. That’s been going on […]

  3. […] The Pirate’s Cove where William Teach noted this is just more politicization of science. That’s been going on […]

  4. Jeffery says:

    How dare she ask the scientists to tell the truth!?!

    The big problem with RWNJ deniers is that due to their cloistered nature they think their position is close to mainstream thought. Not even close. The rational world has passed you by and recognizes the reality of global warming. So when the EPA head tells the troops to tell the truth, of course she thinks it will be in support of AGW. Do you have solid evidence that the theory is false?

  5. gitarcarver says:

    How dare she ask the scientists to tell the truth!?!

    When did she do that?

    The problem is that the EPA is working behind the scenes with environmental groups to create standards after which the environmental groups sue companies and other groups. The action is clearly illegal, but that doesn’t stop the EPA, with the blessing of Obama, from doing it.

    “Truth” and “the Obama administration” do not live in the same world.

  6. Jeffery says:

    gitar,

    “I need you now more than ever to speak the truth,” McCarthy said. “I need you to stand up together with us and explain what the science is telling you.”

    Nice try at changing subject from her asking the scientists to tell the truth, to a general broadside at our President and the EPA that may or may not be true. Here’s a fair-and-balanced look at the EPA and lawsuits forcing the agency to perform the actions that Congress mandates:

    http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20131221/OPINION05/312210028/Does-EPA-s-sue-settle-policy-circumvent-legislative-regulatory-process-

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You haven’t answered one question about the “science”. Now lets try again. The fundamental premises of the CO2 theory is that a considerable amount of CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. So, what is the quantitative analysis of the oceans establishing the level of carbonic acid, if any? What is the acid that is causing the acidification of the oceans, by measurement, not by theory. This should be all over the internet, but it is not, so to believe, you must have an article with the information. Where is it?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Nice try at changing subject from her asking the scientists to tell the truth, to a general broadside at our President and the EPA that may or may not be true.

    The funny thing is Jeffery is that you link to an article which says that “sue and settle” is wrong. BOTH opinions say that the practice is wrong. However, while trying to deflect the practice of the EPA meeting with environmental groups outside of the public light, you bring forth another issue where the EPA and the administration is clearly wrong.

    I am always amused at liberals such as yourself who make citations that clearly undercut their own positions.

  9. david7134 says:

    I just read Jeff’s comment and noticed that he wants proof that the climate change theory is false. The fact is that when you propose a theory, the burden of proof is on you, not the critics.

  10. jl says:

    Yes- and the fact that he wants proof that it’s false says all you need to know about their “theory”.

  11. Jeffery says:

    dave and jl,

    You’re a little confused about what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, think of the Theory of Evolution. Are you really still waiting for proof? No, in fact, you would need to present evidence to refute evolution since the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming. It’s the same with global warming. The evidence supporting the theory that human generated CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm is overwhelming.

  12. Cold_Spring_Gumballs says:

    You are a complete buffoon J. That is not how the scientific process works. Scientists do not come up with a theory and then demand others refute it in order to find it false. A theory is false until proven it is correct. and it is ONLY correct for that small specific condition. When a theory becomes proved it has a larger context and satisfies a broad swath of contexts and situations. When a proof becomes so profound, and so generalized that there is nothing that can be found to refute the theory, the theory becomes a law.

    Not sure how or why you wanted to bring back the theory of Evolution on a topic regarding the EPA, but the Theory is based solely upon suppositions and each insight is found to be false or explainable through adaptation.

    Per your link – which is more of a entry level chemistry class document than a peer-reviewed journal article – in it, the author states: “One specific buffer factor, the so-called Revelle factor, is important in the context of the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2.

    Again, how does the earth know the difference between man-produced CO2 and nature-produced CO2? Why would the ocean only be concerned with the uptake of man-produced CO2?

  13. Medbob says:

    You start with a false assumption. CO2 levels and temperature have tracked with one another for hundreds of years before the industrial revolution. The problem is that these two variables are no longer linked. Your assumption that CO2 is the driving variable and temperature is the dependent variable has been shown to be invalid, considering that CO2 has skyrocketed while Temperature remains linked at the hip to Total Solar Output.

    The “Science” has not only been debunked in scientific observation, it has also been de-legitimized by documented evidence of data tampering and hypothesis of convenience toward political power. The “AGW” crowd is now mumbling to themselves, while “thinking people” understand that there IS no scientific fact behind an anthropogenic understanding of Climate.

    http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/cliemate/

  14. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I read your article. You didn’t understand it did you? If still did not prove a single point and you have not answered my basic question. You haven’t even had a general biology class in college, have you?

  15. […] at Pirate’s Cove is blogging about “EPA Head Wants Climate Scientists To Speak Truth To Push Obama’s […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 8500 access attempts in the last 7 days.