EPA Chief Can’t Answer Whether Climate Models Correct Or Not

Poor Gina McCarthy, having her Constitution right to not be questioned over her religion violated

(Breitbart) At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions grilled EPA chief Gina McCarthy and left her unable to justify her money grab, showing that she could not explain whether climate change models were correct or not.

McCARTHY: I am happy to submit the full breadth of science that we have behind climate; we’ve submitted it on many occasions, we’ll do it again.

SESSIONS: The full breadth of science? I’d just like some numbers. Would you acknowledge that over the last eighteen years, that the increase in temperature has been very little and that it is well below, as a matter of fact, ninety percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?

McCARTHY: No, I would not agree with that, sir. A one-degree temperature is significant. I don’t know what you’re looking at.

SESSIONS: No, no, no, no. I am asking you, is it below the models, or above the models?

McCARTHY: I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you’re referring to. There are many models.

SESSIONS: The head of the environmental—

McCARTHY: And sometimes it’s going faster, and sometimes slightly slower than the model predicts, but on the whole it makes no difference to the validity and the robustness of climate science that is telling us that we are facing an absolute challenge that we must address both environmentally, economically from a national security perspective, and for EPA, from a public health perspective.

SESSIONS: All right. Carbon pollution is CO2, and that’s really not a pollutant; that’s a plant food, and it doesn’t harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases. Let me ask you one more time: Are you asserting, just give me this answer; if you take the average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase, is the temperature in fact increasing less than that or more than that?

McCARTHY: I cannot answer that question specifically.

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I would just say, this is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who should know more than anybody else in the world, who’s proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to prevent this climate and temperature increases, doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.

In fact, the models have failed to the tune of 95%. And Sessions is exactly correct in that it is is stunning that Ms. McCarthy doesn’t have/know the answers to the questions as she is looking to spend lots and lots of taxpayer earned money. Because she was unable to answer many many questions, if you check the transcript. She was unable to competently discuss hurricane landfalls, atmospheric moisture, and drought conditions. But, she is rushing ahead to make sure that Everyone Else pays for her beliefs

(The Hill) Gina McCarthy is locked in a race against time to complete landmark climate change regulations before President Obama leaves office.

With just 22 months left in Obama’s presidency, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator and her team are burning the midnight oil to enshrine emissions regulations for power plants in federal law.

McCarthy says she’s “busier than [she’s] ever been” as the caretaker of what Obama hopes will be a legacy-defining achievement on climate change.

Obama and McCarthy will be gone and living the post-presidency high life while those in the middle and lower classes suffer the results.

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

13 Responses to “EPA Chief Can’t Answer Whether Climate Models Correct Or Not”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Jefferson Beauregard Sessions: if you take the average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase, is the temperature in fact increasing less than that or more than that?

    EPA Head McCarthy: I cannot answer that question specifically.

    Who could answer that dumb, non-specific question specifically? A more polished climate scientist would have whipped Beauregard up and down, but the Republican clown show would never invite a professional scientist to their show.

    What models is Beauregard talking about? According to the IPCC: Models of known “natural” phenomena greatly underestimate warming. Models of anthropogenic factors slightly underestimate warming. Models incorporating both natural and anthropogenic factors together are very close to observed.

    I suspect Beauregard reads the same Roy Spencer/WUWT/Mark Moroni BS that you do and probably also incorrectly concludes that the models are way off.

    The models also underestimate observed loss of ice from the Arctic (it’s melting much faster than the models show). Sea level in increasing faster than the models predicted, too.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      So, little Jeffery, when the models don’t agree with the data then reality is in error?

  2. Jeffery says:

    when the models don’t agree with the data then reality is in error?

    Of course not, you silly little goose. You know so little, yet type so much!

    What specific models are you talking about?

    Is that a picture of your girlfriend?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Little Jeffery, no need to be snotty.
    That’s my dog.
    And to answer your other question:

    ALL of the models that predicted a catastrophic rise in global temps due to the rise of CO2 but failed to predict or reconcile the “pause” of the last 18 years or so.

  4. Jeffery says:

    no need to be snotty

    That’s rich, coming from you, you silly little mean-spirited goose.

    Have you spent any time examining the model outputs?

    It’s probably fair to say that the observed temperature increase in the past 15 years falls in the lower half of the CMIP5 model runs (see Fig 9.8, IPCC Working Group I. p 784)

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

    Does that mean the models failed? No. Does it mean the Earth stopped warming in 1998. No.

    As has been already pointed out, the warming rate during that period is not different from the warming rate of 1970 until present.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    As has been already pointed out, the warming rate during that period is not different from the warming rate of 1970 until present.

    Exactly!

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    Dr. Hervé Douville et al – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
    The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
    The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062775

    Had to put some “sciency” stuff for ya.

  7. Jl says:

    “McCarthy is locked in a race against time to enact landmark climate change regulations before Obama leaves office.” Only to be changed by the next president.

  8. Tuesday morning links

    Top 10 secrets of Grand Central Terminal Why I Am Catholic – It saved my life. Definitely the tweet of the day Extramarital Dating Site Unsettles the Land of Discreet Affairs How not to raise a narcissist Popular antioxidant likely ineffe

  9. Jeffery says:

    Only to be changed by the next president.

    President Clinton will not change it during her 8 years.

  10. jsgolfer says:

    It’s not stunning at all, I met Gina back when I was working on an EPA contract for one of the beltway bandits, and the lack of breadth of her knowledge is frightening. I would say the majority of the people in charge of these agency’s are nothing more than political hack appointees who would know a climate model if it fell out of the sky and hit them in the head.

  11. Hoss says:

    The warmists are getting more and more shrill…I think even they see the end of the gravy train coming to an end. Too bad all the lefties who have been blindly shilling for them won’t have the decency or ability to feel the shame that they should.

  12. Jeffery says:

    The warmists are getting more and more shrill…I think even they see the end of the gravy train coming to an end.

    Actually, just the opposite. I’ve wondered how the right-wing followers will respond when the Denier elites finally admit they were misleading their troops. Just like in the tobacco wars, when the Denier elites decide there is more money to be made elsewhere, they’ll quietly move on.

    I suspect you’ll just dig in your heels and hike deeper into the woods of irrationality. There will always be a vocal minority that refuses to understand. In a recent Gallup poll, 42% of Americans think that a god created humans in their present form! It’s not surprising that many Americans reject the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of AGW. Evidence will never convince them – it’s similar to a religion or a cult.

    Cigarettes kill people. The Earth is some 4 billion years old. CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7231 access attempts in the last 7 days.