Jump to content
and comment continued.
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we've had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn't answer because "it's a very complicated issue." Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.
The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.
Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:
"Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?"
McCarthy replied that she didn't know "what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to."
Sessions called her ignorance and inability to outline the danger we supposedly face from climate change, as well as her failure to justify the EPA's funding request, a "stunning development." So do we.
The science is indeed settled, but not the way climate zealots think. McCarthy's lack of knowledge and facts on her side only underscores the fact we have wasted billions on fighting a nonexistent threat and shackled our economy with lower growth and higher job loss.
I know your time is limited so I have posted the whole article, rather then just the link.
Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of your agenda.
Climate Change: Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can't answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn't know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.
If the science of climate change was "settled," you'd think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.
But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn't help her case.
One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind's increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.
"Let me ask you this," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. "There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg ... from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we've had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?"
The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn't "know in what context he's making statements like that." Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn't aware of, or didn't want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.
Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have "for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century." Globally, he said, "there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years."
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030515-742253-epa-chief-cannot-answer-global-warming-questions.htm#ixzz3TjMozakM
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
I will politely ask you again as to why I should find a source that disputes that CO2 levels have increased. Please cite an occasion when I have denied that.
Tim K., Scott W., Dan S... For giggles and grins you should go to iloveco2.com
Dan S. It's not that lengthy a site so I think you can squeeze it in even though your schedule sounds pretty full.
Spoiler alert, some of their info may not fit your settled science agenda.
Tim, what does politics have to do with this. Are you saying that only conservatives think that climate change/global warming is not settled science.
When does the re-education camp we non believers will soon be forced to go to begin. Hope they have a swimming pool, a spa and masseuses.
http://www.iloveco2.com/p/about-co2.html on CO2
what is the argument against devoting the same amount of time, energy and research that we used to get into space, to developing cleaner, renewable sources to power our vehicles and to produce our energy
There is no argument against it. If private enterprise can generate a profit doing so it will be done. If the government does it, it will be all about thrown away money given as subsidies to our politicians favorites - the friends and family plan.
Here is some fun info regards the true believers' Looks like they are so besides themselves they are starting to eat their own.
Consider the case of Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. Like Bjorn Lomborg, Pielke fully accepts the core claim of the climate campaign that the planet faces potentially catastrophic warming several decades from now.
What did Pielke do to end up on the list of climate criminals? Simple: He did the math. And the mathematics of the chief pillar of climate orthodoxy—suppression of fossil fuels—reveals one inconvenient truth after another. The target of climate orthodoxy—an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2050—would require reducing U.S. fossil fuel use to a level last seen a hundred years ago. As Pielke quantifies with example after example, this rate and time scale of decarbonization is simply fantastic, and requires magical thinking to maintain with a straight face.
based on raw data from the Department of Energy, that the climate change advocates’ emissions targets for the U.S. for the year 2050—an 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels—would require rolling back hydrocarbon energy use to the level of 1910 (or 1905 by a separate analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a federal government lab I should point out). On a per capita basis (since our population has grown so much), this would mean reducing U.S. hydrocarbon energy use to the per capita level of Somalia today.
Free speech apparently is not so free if you are not one of the true believers. When will the "Inquisition" begin.
Democratic Senators Boxer, Markey and Whitehouse wrote to Koch Industries to request information, covering the last 10 years, “about Koch Industries’ payments made in support of scientific research and scientists, as well as support for other efforts related to climate change, if such payments have been made.
Senator Markey’s web site contains a list of 100 “fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations” to which the senators have sent the same request. The “other organizations” include the Chamber of Commerce, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Hoover Institution, Hudson Institute, Institute for Energy Research, John Locke Foundation, John Williams Pope Foundation, Bradley Foundation, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Searle Freedom Trust, Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Dan S., Scott W., Tim K.,
It looks to me like those that pray at the altar of climate change/global warming have no interest in debate. Dan S. says blah, blah, no need for debate. Scott W. demands that I prove something that I don't recall every saying as truth. It's all about intimidation. Debate is not allowed. Science is settled. Next, there will be an inquisition with all deniers sent to a re-education camp.
A couple of real life examples
link to article attached.
"If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.
I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”"
Link to article attached - the following written by Dr Lindzen
Lindzen is a prominent atmospheric physicist with the cachet of MIT and he has felt free to set forth the facts that mock the climatistas as he sees fit."
"Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling."
"Where all this will lead is still hard to tell. At least Mr. Grijalva’s letters should help clarify for many the essentially political nature of the alarms over the climate, and the damage it is doing to science, the environment and the well-being of the world’s poorest."
PS: Rep. Grijalva is the Democratic congressman from the 3rd district of AZ.
Scott, why should I find proof to defend something I never said. I have asked you expand or expound on statements you actually made and you don't respond to those. So please, again explain to me why I would try to defend some thing I never said.
If you want to carp on and on about how science is settled and how science is not debate class, go ahead and bloviate. I have no problem with that. Personally, I enjoyreading your silly rants. Actually scientists debate about their findings based on their research in hopes of coming to a consensus but apparently you believe that not necessary. So sayeth the wizard of oz
So the question is which of us is the Galilleo of our day. The consensus back then was Galilleo is wrong throw him in prison. The consensus today is the deniers are wrong, give them no voice. At least we who open mindedly believe it's not settled science have not been put in prison, yet. LOL
I am just a neanderthal knuckledragger who doesn't believe the science is settled. I do believe the earth is round and the earth revolves around the sun so I guess there may be hope for me yet eh. It is a lot of fun tweaking those who hate the non believers that refuse to worship at the man made climate is destroying our planet altar. Many ancient civilizations used human sacrifices. Maybe the true believers should round up we skeptics and sacrifice us an example of what can happen to the deniers. Except if you burn too many of us the carbon released into the air may cause more man made (pun intended) climate change.
Regards NASA I found this.
"Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data technical specialties," but that, nonetheless, given their experience in their separate fields of physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and others, they felt the need to speak out.
Specifically, the report responds to what the group feels is unfounded pulpit pounding by certain NASA bureaus regarding a false damnation of global warming that is seen strictly the result of human sin in the form of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states.
First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the rise the global rise in temperatures is not "settled," despite what James Hansen or others of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies may say. To support this statement, the report cited several groups all with varying opinions on the subject, including the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, Hansen himself, Richard Alley of Penn State, Rchard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Roger A. Pielke Sr. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences"
97% of which scientists? I will be happy to match my guys vs. Your guys for as long as you want. My point is I believe science is not settled regards climate change. If you would like I can provide you info from, wait for it, wait for it, scientists that will suggest that an increase in CO2 can be a good thing. If you want to believe the science is settled, go for it. I will stay in the open minded camp that thinks it is not.
I am tired of the zealots that have one agenda. Man is killing the planet and woe unto us that don't believe. We are neanderthal knuckledraggers because we don't worship at the altar of man made climate change. Please tell me what caused climate change before we fossil fuel sucking humans showed up. I am still waiting if it's global warming climate change or polar vortex climate change we should worry about.
Last login: Thursday, March 26, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.