Hint: They haven’t in almost two decades.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy, under questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), could not personally say whether global temperatures were increasing Thursday during a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

“I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” she said. “I don’t dissect that information in ways that would impress you, but certainly I’m not qualified.”

Under the Obama administration, the EPA is pushing for a climate action plan aimed at imposing more regulations on the coal industry. The National Journal reports McCarthy denied claims that a delay in the formal publication of climate-change rules for power plants “was political and designed to avoid completing the regulations before the 2014 elections.”

On several occasions President Obama has asserted that the “temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.” In fact, global temperatures have not increased in the last 17 years.

http://freebeacon.com/epa-administrator-...ncreasing/

Not qualified. Seems to be a theme w/in this administration.

Is this EPA admin also a top-secret CIA operative? LOL

(01-17-2014 08:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Not qualified. Seems to be a theme w/in this administration.

"It's above my paygrade" rings a bell..

(01-16-2014 06:19 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  



Hint: They haven’t in almost two decades.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy, under questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), could not personally say whether global temperatures were increasing Thursday during a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

“I just look at what the climate scientists tell me,” she said. “I don’t dissect that information in ways that would impress you, but certainly I’m not qualified.”

Under the Obama administration, the EPA is pushing for a climate action plan aimed at imposing more regulations on the coal industry. The National Journal reports McCarthy denied claims that a delay in the formal publication of climate-change rules for power plants “was political and designed to avoid completing the regulations before the 2014 elections.”

On several occasions President Obama has asserted that the “temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.” In fact, global temperatures have not increased in the last 17 years.

http://freebeacon.com/epa-administrator-...ncreasing/

As usual you and that article are completely wrong. She didn't know if temperature has increased more than predicted(of course, that idiot couldn't even keep his question the same he went from "world" to "US" back to "world". I don't know how she could even answer that question besides the way she did not knowing which prediction the idiot was asking about. It was all theater and politics.

It's sad how easy it is for the oil companies to politicize this issue, fund a small army of scientists to put out shoddy research, and to convince the right that it's some vague leftist conspiracy. You guys are just all too eager to lap it up, too.

It's literally the exact same tactic as the Tobacco Companies took, you guys just don't seem to learn though.

(01-21-2014 03:46 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad how easy it is for the oil companies to politicize this issue, fund a small army of scientists to put out shoddy research, and to convince the right that it's some vague leftist conspiracy. You guys are just all too eager to lap it up, too.

It's literally the exact same tactic as the Tobacco Companies took, you guys just don't seem to learn though.

You mean they aren't going to pay us for doubting unproven ideology?

You really should look into the funding of climate science a little more if you're really questioning where almost all of the support comes from. You should just know you're literally a patsy for people who don't care about you in the least.

(01-21-2014 03:52 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:46 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad how easy it is for the oil companies to politicize this issue, fund a small army of scientists to put out shoddy research, and to convince the right that it's some vague leftist conspiracy. You guys are just all too eager to lap it up, too.

It's literally the exact same tactic as the Tobacco Companies took, you guys just don't seem to learn though.

You mean they aren't going to pay us for doubting unproven ideology?

Look up the history of the heartland institute. They quite literally used same tactics to protect the interests of tobacco companies.

People on this site rant about how climate scientists are bought at paid for, while completely ignoring that the bloggers telling them this are bought and paid for by right wing think tanks. It's hard to take people seriously that quote material from people people who engage in the exact same behavior that skeptics accuse climate scientists of.

(01-21-2014 03:46 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad how easy it is for the oil companies to politicize this issue, fund a small army of scientists to put out shoddy research, and to convince the right that it's some vague leftist conspiracy. You guys are just all too eager to lap it up, too.

It's literally the exact same tactic as the Tobacco Companies took, you guys just don't seem to learn though.

You post misinformation that has been debunked for over a decade, then accuse everyone else of not learning?

And you claim to be some sort of subject matter expert on anything?

Useful idiot. That's what you've nailed.

Politicize an issue than accuse any answer as politicizing.

(01-21-2014 09:41 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Politicize an issue than accuse any answer as politicizing.

Exactly. All to avoid the facts of the issue.

When are you Global Warming guys going to get on a plane to China and demand and begin protesting that the Chinese cut their CO2 polluting? I just heard on the radio that they have cities that are anywhere from triple to 10 times the particulates considered safe.

Oh yeah, and when we shut down all the coal plants and stop burning fossil fuels - what replaces it? And don't give me solar and wind - they can't. What?

I predict that temperatures will rise in the summer months and fall in the winter months. Over long enough periods of time, short-term increases and decreases in average global temperatures will average out, and any net increase or decrease will be statistically insignificant. Special interest groups from both sides of the argument will present flawed data and research in order to further their cause. Developed countries will be punished through taxes and carbon caps, while developing countries will be allowed pollute the environment in the name of fairness despite the same groups of people screaming about global warming disasters also pushing for relaxed regulations on developing nations in the name of equality.

I have sunscreen for the summer and firewood for the winter. Don't tell me my energy costs are going to necessarily skyrocket because of shaky research and without giving me a feasible and cost-effective replacement.

(01-21-2014 10:53 AM)Crebman Wrote:  When are you Global Warming guys going to get on a plane to China and demand and begin protesting that the Chinese cut their CO2 polluting? I just heard on the radio that they have cities that are anywhere from triple to 10 times the particulates considered safe.

Oh yeah, and when we shut down all the coal plants and stop burning fossil fuels - what replaces it? And don't give me solar and wind - they can't. What?

I'm only arguing that those who think Climate Change is some liberal plot are blind to the actual plot behind the scenes, I'm not commenting on current US policy regarding CO2 output. But I find the reaction of 'LOOK, THEY'RE WORSE THAN US!' to be a fascinating response even if I actually were claiming our policy needed to be changed. It's such a childish reaction, and one which inherently implies that you know there are negative consequences to using of coal for energy, yet are more focused about the actions of another nation than limiting those negative consequences in our own nation. I'm proud that we're nothing like China currently, and take insult to the thought we should do anything to emulate their environmental regulations. Let's compare the beautiful susents in each of our capital cities, as a quick demonstation of these differences I take such pride in.





As for the answer, we've had it since the 70's; Nuclear.

(01-21-2014 11:06 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I predict that temperatures will rise in the summer months and fall in the winter months. Over long enough periods of time, short-term increases and decreases in average global temperatures will average out, and any net increase or decrease will be statistically insignificant. Special interest groups from both sides of the argument will present flawed data and research in order to further their cause. Developed countries will be punished through taxes and carbon caps, while developing countries will be allowed pollute the environment in the name of fairness despite the same groups of people screaming about global warming disasters also pushing for relaxed regulations on developing nations in the name of equality.

I have sunscreen for the summer and firewood for the winter. Don't tell me my energy costs are going to necessarily skyrocket because of shaky research and without giving me a feasible and cost-effective replacement.

The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything. It's just easy to instill doubt when people want a reason to believe it anyways; see the Tobacco Companies in the 1950-60's.

The only difference between then and now is that if the same 1964 Surgeon Generals finding about tobacco came out now, there is a media machine in place to allow for the echo chamber necessary to dismiss such a convincing report and valid scientific report as part of the 'liberal conspiracy'.

(01-21-2014 01:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  As for the answer, we've had it since the 70's; Nuclear.

Then why does this administration make it impossible for new nuclear plants to be built and put into operation? Nuclear has it's downside, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 01:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  As for the answer, we've had it since the 70's; Nuclear.

Then why does this administration make it impossible for new nuclear plants to be built and put into operation? Nuclear has it's downside, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Because there is a large segment of the population, far more prevalent in Democrats, which are just afraid of nuclear energy. They don't understand the total costs to society that the particulate matter released by coal has, costing tens of thousands of lives in the US alone, and instead focus on 'meltdowns' like 3 mile island which cost ~0 lives.

It's the same reason people are more afraid to fly than drive, a lot of us just react viscerally without actually delving into the issue itself.

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:06 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I predict that temperatures will rise in the summer months and fall in the winter months. Over long enough periods of time, short-term increases and decreases in average global temperatures will average out, and any net increase or decrease will be statistically insignificant. Special interest groups from both sides of the argument will present flawed data and research in order to further their cause. Developed countries will be punished through taxes and carbon caps, while developing countries will be allowed pollute the environment in the name of fairness despite the same groups of people screaming about global warming disasters also pushing for relaxed regulations on developing nations in the name of equality.

I have sunscreen for the summer and firewood for the winter. Don't tell me my energy costs are going to necessarily skyrocket because of shaky research and without giving me a feasible and cost-effective replacement.

The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

That is utter horseshit.

Quote:It's just easy to instill doubt when people want a reason to believe it anyways; see the Tobacco Companies in the 1950-60's.

The only difference between then and now is that if the same 1964 Surgeon Generals finding about tobacco came out now, there is a media machine in place to allow for the echo chamber necessary to dismiss such a convincing report and valid scientific report as part of the 'liberal conspiracy'.

You clearly know nothing about physics or climate science.