Anyone surprised? Much like Al Gore, Barack Obama, James Hansen, and the recently mentioned IPCC climate chief Christiana Figueres, McCarthy is a typical hypocrite
(Daily Caller) Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy may be a global warming crusader, but her weekly flights home to Boston are causing her to emit tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The EPA recently released a photo album titled “A Day In The Life of the EPA Administrator†that shows what McCarthy does on a typical day, including the fact that she flies home nearly every weekend to spend time with her family.
“Although she keeps a small apartment near EPA headquarters, almost every weekend McCarthy travels back to Boston, to her home and her husband,†according to the EPA.
But flying on an airplane twice nearly every weekend means she is significantly adding to her carbon footprint by using transportation that emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which the EPA says causes global warming.
The Daily Caller News Foundation calculated that McCarthy’s footprint from simply flying is nearly as much as the average total carbon footprint of one person over the course of an entire year. According to the EPA, “20,750 pounds [10.375 tons] is about average in the United States for a household of one person over a year.â€
Numbers from 2006 show the average carbon footprint for a US citizen is 19.78 metric tons. The Daily Caller estimates McCarthy’s footprint for just the flights to and from Boston to be between 7.5 and 9.4 tons yearly. The EPA responded to the Daily Caller stating that sometimes she drives home! Note the photo at the “according to the EPA” link. The first photo is of her getting out a large size fossil fuels chugging SUV. Then getting back in for a trip around town to a meeting (pictures 9 and 10), which features the caption “Given the focus on climate change, and the key role EPA plays on the issue, McCarthy spends considerable time coordinating with the president’s senior advisors.” Do as they say, not as they do. Picture 12 shows her at the airport.
Expect a post saying that the hypocrisy of people pushing AGW doesn’t affect the theory of AGW and that there is no evidence that people like Gina McCarthy are hypocrites.
After all, people being hypocritical is no evidence that they are hypocrites when you have your head in the sand.
That people who understand the science of AGW still have lives to live doesn’t invalidate the theory of AGW. Attacking the people associated with AGW does not invalidate the theory either. But you know that already. All you have left is name-calling.
The Earth is still warming because of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels.
Red states spew much more CO2 per person than do blue states. The worst polluting states emit more CO2/person/year than even Barack Obama!! Based on the evidence it appears your entire premise is shaky. Liberals DO practice what they preach already, and it’s conservatives who are ruining the planet. But you know that already. That’s why you are so furiously defensive about the topic.
Called it!
It’s still the truth.
J- The planet is not warming, and if it was there’s no proof the cause is CO2. “Red states spew more CO2 per person than Blue states.” Thanks for the most ridiculous stat of the day, but if true simply means the people of red states aren’t as stupid as those of blue states by believing in junk science. “Liberals do practice what they preach..” Sorry, no they don’t. “Conservatives are ruining the planet.” The planet’s standard of living is as high as it’s ever been. What you should have said is that “liberals are ruining many of our largest cities.” That’s much more of a true statement.
j,
You lost me at “The planet is not warming…” That is patently false and can only come from someone ignorant or dishonest or both. There’s overwhelming evidence that the cause is CO2.
Actually since you and Teach claim that global warming is a hoax and your only evidence is that liberals are hypocrites, the fact that liberals spew half the CO2 of conservatives kind of puts a stake in the heart of your argument. Liberals do practice what they preach. NY and California citizens emit half the US average per capita CO2! Wyomingites emit almost 7 times the average! If the rest of America emitted CO2 at the rate of liberals like those in NY, CA, MA, CT etc we would cut our total emissions almost in half.
But since the Earth is not warming, CO2 emissions don’t matter. But why do you think it’s smart to emit lots of CO2? The economy? The blue states support the red states. If the liberals are wrong (5% chance) you end up with cleaner air and a stronger economy. If you’re wrong (95% chance) you destroy human society.
Can you generate even one argument to support your cause of pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Yep. It is the truth that people such as yourself don’t have the power of your convictions and won’t do what you demand of others.
Convictions and actions do matter Jeffery.
I’ve asked before and you’ve ducked it every time: Do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis? Any? At all? We can talk again when you answer that.
Clearly liberals practice what the preach and only ask of you what they ask of themselves. At least that’s what the evidence shows. Do you have evidence or just the occasional anecdote? Is Al Gore the best you have?
That’s funny. I love it when you try and tell jokes.
Let’s put some things from this thread together, shall we?
From the article:
The Daily Caller News Foundation calculated that McCarthy’s footprint from simply flying is nearly as much as the average total carbon footprint of one person over the course of an entire year. According to the EPA, “20,750 pounds [10.375 tons] is about average in the United States for a household of one person over a year.â€
Is that what you consider “practicing what you preach?”
And then there is this “challenge” from you:
Can you generate even one argument to support your cause of pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere?
So here you have the head of the EPA who every week puts into the atmosphere the same amount of CO2 as a household and you say “there is no hypocrisy there! Liberals always do what practice what they preach!”
There are but two choices here: you are either defending McCarthy because her “pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere” doesn’t matter to you and the theory of AGW, or you are defending another hypocrite who believes that they do not have to do what they demand others do.
Oh, and by the way:
That too is a lie. Just because you cannot or will not read what is said doesn’t mean anyone is ducking you. If anything, the only “fowl” thing is your ostrich head stuck in the sand. Perhaps we need to revisit Teach’s question to you where you did not answer at all but claimed you did? (Twice in fact.) I am perfectly happy to show more evidence of your hypocrisy and inability to debate a subject.
You have anecdotes that you repeat. This is a consistent emotional tack taken by conservatives unable to debate evidence. That said, ad hominem attacks, mockery and ridicule are effective.
A few public officials performing their official duties out of a nation of over 300 million is not evidence.
“Data” is not the plural of anecdote.
You and Teach contend that the theory of AGW is false largely based on the hypocrisy of those you slur as “warmists”. You haven’t proven that most are hypocrites (in fact, the evidence on CO2 emissions proves you wrong), and importantly – even if you could prove they’re hypocrites, that is unrelated to whether the theory is correct.
Happy to talk when you find some evidence to support your argument. Until then… see ya. You can wallow in the pigsty of your ignorance alone.
Yes, it is plain these outspoken public officials have no genuine concern over AGW, otherwise they would change their habits. Hypocrites. Unprincipled.
Really?
I didn’t realize that Teach had written about McCarthy being a hypocrite before.
You seem to think that more evidence – adding to the list of hypocrites like yourself – is repeating “anecdotes.”
Which actually brings up a decent question: “How is it that falsely claiming that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on AGW (adding more people to a list that say they believe in it) is “proof,” but adding to a list of people who act against their stated beliefs is “anecdotal” and should be dismissed?
Funny how your morals and beliefs shift depending on the position you are defending.
Really?
I didn’t realize that taking a plane back to another state on the weekends to see their spouse was part of someone’s “official duties.” Can you show me where that is written down as part of the job description and duties of the head of the EPA? I looked up the statutes defining their role and I don’t see “flying home on the weekends” in there.
You haven’t proven that most are hypocrites
Really?
Let me repeat myself and someone else in this very thread:
From the article:
The Daily Caller News Foundation calculated that McCarthy’s footprint from simply flying is nearly as much as the average total carbon footprint of one person over the course of an entire year. According to the EPA, “20,750 pounds [10.375 tons] is about average in the United States for a household of one person over a year.â€
Is that what you consider “practicing what you preach?â€
And then there is this “challenge†from you:
Can you generate even one argument to support your cause of pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere?
So here you have the head of the EPA who every week puts into the atmosphere the same amount of CO2 as a household and you say “there is no hypocrisy there! Liberals always do what practice what they preach!â€
Who was that person who demanded an argument to support “pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere” and then saying McCarthy is not a hypocrite for doing just that? Got any clues to who said that Jeffery?
Well, I understand that when you refuse to actually look at evidence you will never see it, but that is okay. We are used to childish antics from you.
Got it. McCarthy flies home so global warming is a hoax. I think you’ve said that in previous comments, and Teach made that point too. Try again.
Clearly you don’t.
McCarthy, like you, is a hypocrite for not going by the very beliefs she wishes to force on others at the end of the government sword.
In other words, you don’t have it at all.
And you’ve never addressed your hypocrisy or the hypocrisy of others such as McCarthy. In fact, you have done all you can to try and dismiss it.
Hypocrisy does caste doubt onto a belief system whether you want to believe that or not. No one can force you to have the brains to see that or the morals to act on it.
Try what again?
You asked for proof, got it and ignored it.
Typical of you.
Poor gitar – so many words, so little sense. You’ve proven nothing.
If your point is that you routinely call a person who understands global warming that also uses any fossil fuel derived energy at all a hypocrite, than I’ve already agreed with you. So what? As I’ve said before I don’t care what you call me or McCarthy or Gore or Obama. It’s just name-calling from someone who has little else to offer.
How does my driving a Mazda invalidate the theory of AGW??
gitar typed: “Hypocrisy does caste (sic) doubt onto a belief system…”
I guess. Does the revelation of hypocrisy that a married family-values conservative Senator banging hookers cast doubt on the conservative belief in family values? Or does it reflect on the trashy Senator?
Does the revelation of hypocrisy that a tough-on-crime radio blowhard was actually a junkie cast doubt on the conservative belief in the war on drugs? Or does it reflect on the blowhard?
Does the revelation of hypocrisy that a budget hawk representative has only held government jobs his entire adult life and depended on government handouts at one time cast doubt on the conservative belief that cutting government spending to the bone is good for society?
Finally, your contention that the theory of AGW is a “belief system” is not supported by the evidence. There is no doubt that the Earth has warmed rapidly the past century. There is no doubt that atmosphere CO2 has increased rapidly. There is little doubt that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yet, the theory could be invalidated tomorrow with data. But in the face of overwhelming evidence, science skeptics still deny that the Earth is warming from CO2, saying there is not enough evidence. In fact, there is no evidence that will undo a science skeptic’s denialism. That, gitar, is evidence of a belief system.
What more evidence do you require?
Guitar,
I think you got the little twit upset. Keep up the good work.
Poor little Jeffery….
Of course that is not the point, but either you cannot understand the written word or you are deliberately lying.
Given your history, it may be both.
Really?
No one is arguing that the climate is changing. It is the cause that is at issue.
Since you cannot address that issue, you keep trying to attack people who disagree with you, supporting those who want to enslave the rest of us, and acting in a manner that demonstrates that you and people of your ilk don’t even believe the manure you are spewing.
david,
I thought you had a Klan rally tonight. Are you like a Kleagle or something?
So when your revolution starts and the old confederacy is restored how will the confederates support themselves? Meth labs? Child porn? Stock car racing?
Jeffery has resorted to name calling and personal attacks. When that happens we can say is it is ‘settled science’ that he has failed once again.
To call into question motives, sincerity and honesty of people who financially benefit from AGW alarmism is reasonable. AGW alarmists want to say the science is settled however as I see it science is not settled unless you share your data and your methods are reproducible by third parties. AGW is a theory only. Further, withholding data and methods and data being modified to fit theory of AGW is well documented.
Alarmists habits of idling their limousines while giving speeches and use of private jets does not invalidate AGW (certainly makes one question sincerity of alarmists), but dishonest science certainly does not validate AGW.
don,
waah, waah, waah… Our resident secessionist and white supremacist called me a twit. So now you whine about me kicking him? You guys need to develop a thicker skin, if all you’re going to do is ridicule others.
Gravity is only a theory, too. You should look up the definition of a “scientific theory” rather than whining on and on.
You typed: “Further, withholding data and methods and data being modified to fit theory of AGW is well documented.” Bullshit. Show your work, rather than repeating zombie lies wandering around the internet.
Please show examples of dishonest science. It’s an easy cop-out for deniers to reject as dishonest any data that threatens their belief system.
I can supply an example of dishonest science. Look at Mr. Teach’s graph of the RSS satellite dataset where he concludes there has been no warming for 17 years, 8 months. Mr. Teach is not a scientist but it’s been explained several times that the graph is misleading to the point of being a lie. At the same time, he’s a hypocrite because he denies that he denies that it’s warming!! He claims it’s warming but not because of fossil-fuel burning, yet he claims it’s not warming at all for 17 years, 8 months!!
It-fraudulent and modified data by science denying AGW alarmists- is well documented. I would have no problem believing the theory of AGW if the data and methodology supported it. It does not. AGW alarmists are the science deniers- not me. If you don’t know about, and accept the reports of fraudulent data and collusion by the AGW scientists over the past 10 years- we likely have no further need of discussion. The earth has cooled and warmed in mega cycles and mini cycles for thousands of years -at least- and for AGW science denying alarmists to state the last 100 years or 17 years or 30 years or 22 years is being caused by human activity then publish the data and methodology. Publish it-publish it- publish it and if someone asks for additional specific data you claimed to have used then provide it along with your methodology- . As I see it the AGW so-called ‘97% consensus’ is in reality nothing more than a consensus to study climate change further so it should be called the ‘97% lets study the climate consensus’.
don,
Agreed. We have little to discuss if you deny the Earth is warming. We have little to discuss if you cling to the notion that data are being hidden or manipulated. We have nothing to discuss if you make unsubstantiated claims. By all means, please direct me to the fraudulent data and collusion.