Pure Symbolism: EPA Chief: ‘We don’t have to prove that any reduction’ in CO2 makes a difference in ‘global warming’


By: - Climate DepotFebruary 25, 2016 2:11 PM with 239 comments

Responding to the contention that if all Canadian oil sands production were stopped today it would only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by one-tenth of one percent, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says it doesn’t matter that it wouldn’t make a difference. McCarthy: “You know what? We had that argument at the Supreme Court and we won decisively… We don’t have to prove that any reduction in and of itself will actually make a precipitous difference”.

REPORTER: “It’s one-tenth of one percent of global emissions. If production in the oil sands stopped today, it wouldn’t make a difference.”

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “You know what? You would do that with every single source of greenhouse gases, and we had that argument at the Supreme Court, and we won decisively. Which was that we don’t need to prove that every single source is going to stop greenhouse gas emissions, but if the attitude is that that’s the challenge for us, we will never stop global warming. We will never stop climate change. And, so that has just never been the case for EPA. We don’t have to prove that any reduction will actually make a precipitous difference in and of itself, but we have to admit that there is a lot of efforts need to be done to get at this issue, and it is that combined effort. But, every step, the first step– this is a marathon, and if you don’t take the first step, you ain’t getting nowhere baby.”

IHS Energy CERA Week
February 24, 2014

Related Links:

Watch: Morano on Fox on EPA ‘Climate’ Plan: ‘This is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain’


  • floridanativee

    We need to replace her with a real person.

    • CB

      “We need to replace her with a real person.”

      Try replacing Morano with a real person…

      “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

      • floridanativee

        I can not believe anybody is stupid enough to be reading desmogblog, much less linking to it. Give me a break. I have been following Marino for years. He works for CFACT Exxon. When you rely on crap for information, it get stuck in your brain. http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

        • CB

          “I have been following Marino for years.”

          LOL!

          Sure! You love him so much, you totally spell his name right every time.

          …but is it possible you’re too stupid to see the conflict of interest in an employee of a company writing articles about that company’s product?

          Did you think Mr. Morano was the only paid liar out there? Did you not realise Poptech is on the same payroll?

          “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

          berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

          • floridanativee

            There you go with the biased stuff again. You really think Berkeley is not a bastion of liberalism? You keep quoting the very corrupt surface station data. I am talking about the satellite data which shows no increase in temps for nearly 19 years. NOAA has been caught adjusting data for years. They have a very vested interest in keeping the global warming myth alive. These use only surface station data. If you had studied the problems with their results you would know. They also now add 0.15 degrees to shipboard sea surface temperatures. Please give me the rational to go back after 80 years and adjust temps downward other than the fact that it was hotter than current temps. This is all a complicated subject. When you get you information from the slanted sites, you are going to be caught up in the hoax. Satellites take over 300.000 surface temps daily, The surface station and satellite data agreed for many years until the “pause” and when NOAA started adjusting current temps upwards and adjusting historical temps downward.

          • Isandhlwana79

            She’s another idiot without a clue.

          • CB

            “She’s another idiot without a clue.”

            Help me out, sweetheart.

            If you think the world’s scientists are all conspiring against you, where are you getting your information?

            …the people who stand to make money by lying to you?

            “several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming… Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

          • Enjoy your new POTUS as Antarctica melts and you drown under that 75 metres of agua you’re frightened of.

          • CB

            “You really think Berkeley is not a bastion of liberalism?”

            You really think the Kochs would support it if it were?

            “Financial Support… Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation”

            berkeleyearth.org/funders

            Now that they have been formally notified that they are selling a dangerous product, could they not be held liable for the damages that product will cause?

            “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

          • floridanativee

            Another new to the subject person that doesn’t understand the difference between surface station and satellite data.

          • Dano2

            I am talking about the satellite data which shows no increase in temps for nearly 19 years

            They always know how to spot a gullible mark, don’t they?

            Best.

            D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d5f5415b57b758aab82205a2e23df2d24e3b4f7cce43949db7b630b319d4535.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png

  • ScienceABC123

    Translation: “Our beliefs trump science.”

  • MyOpinionPost

    The EPA as a Partisan Overreaching Bureaucracy doesn’t have to show nobody no stinkin badges!

  • Sam Pyeatte

    What an evil bunch of worthless, dishonest people we have in the Federal Bureaucracy that we allow to have power over us. A full scale revolt/revolution is the way these things eventually end if no relief is provided.

  • odin2

    McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston with a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology in 1976. In 1981 she received a joint Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy from Tufts University. She does not have a background in the hard sciences. She is trained to be an AGW proponent and government bureaucrat.

    • 4TimesAYear

      Yes, she is a mouthpiece – and she’s very good at repeating the global warming mantras.

      • odin2

        It is easier to brainwash the people who lack a hard science background.

        • 4TimesAYear

          Yes, but even someone who remembers what they learned in grade school knows the atmosphere doesn’t function like a greenhouse; that it doesn’t trap heat because it’s cooled by convection currents, etc. 🙂 Might be one of those who simply finds it too painful to do her own thinking – and she’d miss out on a lot of fabulous “business” trips – like to the X-Games in Aspen, CO last year. 😉

          • odin2

            Yes, I believe that is where she gave the speech that she told the audience that the evidence of global warming is all around them. Just look around. How scientific! /sarc

          • Dano2

            Whoa – that’s deep! Answering questions off the cuff has to be scientific, yo!

            Brilliant.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “Answering questions off the cuff has to be scientific, yo!”

            Have you seen the attack these liars have mounted on Ecowatch!?

            It’s crazy!

            …I don’t know what the heck they think they’re accomplishing. It’s not like the audience isn’t aware there’s a propaganda effort afoot…

            disqus.com/home/discussion/ecowatch/world8217s_carbon_budget_is_only_half_as_big_as_thought

            “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

          • Dano2

            That one sockpuppet definitely is annoying, surely.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “That one sockpuppet definitely is annoying”

            Do you think it’s one person or a team?

            The Odin2 account is obviously using a vote-bot and is very narrowly focused on lying about climate science. It’s been on my radar for quite a while now as very likely being a paid liar like Mr. Morano…

            The technique of starting an irrelevant babble thread is relatively new…

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • Dano2

            It might be a PR firm’s account.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “It might be a PR firm’s account.”

            I figured out what they are doing.

            Odin posts misinformation, uses a vote-bot to promote it, as he’s doing here, but then follows it with a number of automated, up-voted posts!

            It’s all computer-generated jibberish made to look like a conversation. The purpose is to drown out any references to actual science. They have run out of volunteers!

            I even think Shirley here is being run by the same people. Wow! How pathetic!

            “2015 was the warmest year in a record dating back to 1850”

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/mobile/news/article/news/releases/archive/2016/2015-global-temperature

          • Dano2

            Innnnnteresting!

            Best,

            D

          • I am Buzzlightyear

            cunsprcy….sockpuppet got sads?
            Best

          • I am Buzzlightyear

            OHhhhhhhh……..I truly thought you were just tossing out the “Paid troll, fossil fuel paid” terms as a simple pointless jab.
            My God, …
            The funny part is you with such a large amount of daily posts, and dano2 with an average 93 posts a day!!!
            Who would actually pay someone to comment on sites like ecowatch where perhaps something like a dozen to 50 people are ever going to read the comments?
            I didn’t know you actually believed the purely idiot conspiracy!

          • Akikoismith2

            ❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here`!b331➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPure/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::`!b331….

          • Isandhlwana79

            odin, check out the 2 AGW kooks just below. They think you are a “sock puppet” with automated up-votes. They ARE that stupid.

          • odin2

            CB and Dano2 are truly wacko. People can check out the voting histories of most of the people up voting any of my posts. It is obvious from their voting histories that they are real people. But, no one has accused either CB or Dano2 of being intelligent. 🙂

          • Isandhlwana79

            CB and Dano2 are truly wacko.

            Exactly why I don’t bother to respond to their garbage!

          • Dano2

            So you never took a physics class then. Got it.

            Best,

            D

          • Indra Blade

            If the atmosphere trapped heat the way the unscientific, political, corrupt alarmist douchebags claim then there would be a runaway feedback effect. Any intuitive or practical grasp of systems engineering knows this. There would be a tropospheric hotspot as heat builds up from the extra water evaporation in turn trapping more heat, in turn releasing more CO2 from the ocean which traps more heat etc. This of course doesn’t occur as cumulonimbic convective radiative subsidence exposes and releases more heat to the emission level and low level cloud albedo from increased moisture reflects incoming radiation cooling the planet.

            No runaway effect, no mid tropospheric hotspot. CAGW theory debunked.

          • Dano2

            Clowntastic comedy! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            And cumulonimbic convective radiative subsidence !!

            Huh-larry-ess!

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Barrel o-laffs!

            no mid tropospheric hotspot

            I LOLzed again!

            Best,

            D

    • Dorian

      If you are going to use that kind of reasoning, that being, you should have a background in “hard science”, to lead an agency like the EPA, then you may as well:
      – Close down all schools for economics, for no single economic theory that has ever been expounded as ever worked, there is NO HARD EVIDENCE that any economic theory works, in fact there is proof to the contrary, that every single economic theory ever devised by Man has failed;
      – Throw out Evolutionary Theory, there is no solid evidence to show evolution, everything is high conjecture; no new species have ever been seen to evolve.
      – Throw out Psychiatry: there isn’t an honest psychiatrist in the world that will tell you have they ever cured anyone, or if they have a drug that does cure anyone; psychiatry has a worse failure rate than Oncology….
      – Throw out Oncology: you know how bad oncology is? Take for example chemotherapy, it has a success rate of only, AT BEST, of 3% of curing people of cancer (and that is only 3% chance of living for 5 years, after 5 years, it goes down to pointless numbers, if 3% is not already pointless; go looking for what your chances are if you don’t take chemotherapy, you’d be surprised). HARD SCIENCE in oncology is an absolute failure.

      – How about HARD FINANCE: take a look at how the experts in Banking are doing, you think HARD EXPERTS in Central Banking know how to manage the world economy? Don’t forget for 99.99% of history, the world functioned without Bankers or Central Banks, and yet it evolved and progressed.

      – How about Astrophysics? All the the theories of Black Holes and Dark Matter etc, and yet, NO SINGLE BLACK HOLE has every been found. We are shown photos (of highly questionable integrity and perspective), we are shown models, we are shown theories, but as for HARD EVIDENCE….NOTHING! Yet we have all those HARD SCIENCE astrophysicists doing what? Answer: the same thing that McCarthy is doing, talking a good story.
      – How about History? All those HARD HISTORIANS writing all those history books filled with lies. You know, things like George Washington chopping down the cherry blossom tree (its a lie), how about how historians conveniently ignore Churchill’s crimes and lies (like how he forged paintings in the ’30s to pass them off as famous painters, he should have been jailed); how about Abraham Lincoln, the man who was antislavery, another big lie, he was pro slavery, and thought blacks were inferior.

      – How about Medicine? All those doctors who push drugs onto people who don’t really need them, just because the doctor gets a nice little kick back from the drug companies.

      I can go on like this for days.

      The problem is not about having experts to manage experts, for even the experts are open to criminality. The problem is we don’t force accountability on the experts, and don’t demand OPEN SCIENCE and OPEN EVIDENCE and OPEN FACTS. But instead we get redacted documents, fake national security laws, and just plain old self serving criminal enterprise, and the latest nice bit of anti-science, gate-keeping of data and knowledge.

      The last thing we need is more EXPERTS. We have enough experts. We need more OPEN ACCOUNTABILITY that can be enforced not by other self-servicing dishonest people like politicians, but through the very people that these EXPERTS are supposed to be speaking on behalf. That means when we find there is a liar or idiot or crook in a position of power, we need to be able to get rid of them, instead of them being protected by shield laws like tenure!

      McCarthy is just emblematic of the real problem. It is not that SHE is head of the EPA that is problem, it is the system that put her there, and that is keeping her there, that is the real problem. People like McCarthy only exist because, the people around her, who put her there are corrupt. If you want a better system, then FIX THE SYSTEM!

      • odin2

        McCarthy does not understand the hard science. She reveals that every time she opens her mouth. She doesn’t have to be an expert, but she should have a basic understanding and respect for science and the scientific method. Would an undergraduate degree with a science major or minor hurt? As for accountability in all areas of government, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think that the EPA is too far gone and has been infiltrated by power hungry zealots with a political agenda. It needs to go.

        • Dorian

          As I stated, its not about having or not having knowledge in the field that you are managing that is the problem. The problem is, that people whether they are white collar or blue collar, are culpable to crimes. McCarthy knows full well what she is saying and doing. This about AGENDAS, agendas of criminals who are protecting each other so that these same criminals can profit. odin2 you really think these people are just incompetent? This has nothing to do with competency, if it did, then what about the competency of those people who put McCarthy as head of the EPA? Ok so you get rid of McCarthy…then what? Another dishonest criminal will take over. McCarthy is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is white collar crime, and the system supporting it that has become corrupted.

          odin2 time to face facts. Scientists are open to being criminals too. Science has gone corrupt. You want to fix the EPA, THEN FIX SCIENCE! We have too many IDIOTS, MORONS AND OUT AND OUT CON-SCIENTISTS all looking to stuff their pockets with money!

          Science is suffering from Social Entropy degradation, and the only way to counter the forces of Social Entropy, like any entropy, is to put energy back into the system and re-organize it. We have big problems in Science, too many leeches and not enough Scientific Method.

          • CB

            “This about AGENDAS, agendas of criminals who are protecting each other so that these same criminals can profit. odin2 you really think these people are just incompetent?”

            lol! Odin is one of those criminals!

            He’s paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product, as is Mr. Morano.

            Is it possible you aren’t aware of that by now?

            “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

        • 2cruise2

          I think we all know that Obama’s appointments are not done by ability but by loyalty. If he did appoint someone with knowledge and experience, they left the administration long ago.

      • Doreen Gaydoon

        Hopefully her ovarian cancer spreads quickly.

    • allencic

      She may be a scientific nincompoop but she’s better than the like of Bill McKibben (or many other reporters like Chris Mooney and Seth Borenstein). McKibben has an English degree from (where else!) Harvard. He admitted to going more by his “feelings” than hard science.

      • odin2

        They are all lightweights.

    • Common Sense

      I take it that the importance of a careful cost benefit analysis was not part of her studies.

      • 4TimesAYear

        Nope – they don’t care what it costs.

        • Clambaked22

          Or if there are benefits… unless it benefits Al Gore, them and Gubment…

    • Johnno

      This is reminiscent of Australia’s former Climate Change Commissioner, Prof Tim Flannery (aka Tom Foolery), an anthropologist and climate change zealot. He who (im)famously assured us all that South Eastern Queensland would become uninhabitable due to a state of permanent drought – just before the disastrous floods of 2011 and 2013. Those who have an agenda of man made climate change just love to appoint a Professor, regardless of their qualifications, as their spokesman. The public are too easily mesmerised by the title to see the detail.

  • Common Sense

    There is no meaningful global warming, so therefore there is nothing to stop.

    • Dano2

      Sure there is, so there is something to stop.

      best,

      D

      • Common Sense

        Really? Where? Please be specific. Where has there been warming that supports the theory of a high climate sensitivity?

        • Dano2

          On earth, man warms the planet. I don’t know what your deflection of high climate sensitivity is supposed to deflect away from.

          Best,

          D

          • Gus

            “>>> On earth, man warms the planet. <<<"
            This is emphatically not proven. The slight warming of 0.8 deg C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1880, claimed by NASA, is below the average centennial variability of global temperatures, which is 0.98+/-0.27 deg C, based on the analysis of 8,000 years of Holocene records. In other words, over the past 8,000 years temperature has changed by roughly 1 deg C on average EVERY century, not just the last one. Such a change is normal. There is no evidence therefore that anything unusual is happening. Neither is there any evidence of statistically significant change in frequency and intensity of severe weather events, be they droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever. Neither is there any evidence of accelerated sea level rise. It appears to have been linear ever since the end of the little ice age, unaffected by human activities.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Gus, I wouldn’t waste my time on that asswhole. He thinks he has a complete understanding of climate dynamics when he really doesn’t know anything. All he can do is condescend those who don’t believe his religion of AGW. He is simply a fraud not worthy of any response.

          • Common Sense

            61,000 worthless posts. Clearly he is mentally ill.

          • Dano2

            You can’t show that a single byte of what you typed is true, especially the ludicrous He thinks he has a complete understanding of climate dynamics when he really doesn’t know anything.

            You made it all up.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            [citation needed]

            Best,

            D

          • Common Sense

            So you got nothing. Color me shocked.

          • Dano2

            Man warming the planet is something. You can’t flap your hands to hide it.

            Best,

            D

          • Common Sense

            60,000 posts will have no effect on public opinion. You are wasting your time.

          • Dano2

            You can’t deflect away from your derpism.

            Best,

            D

          • Common Sense

            Tell your doctor that your meds are no longer working.

          • Dano2

            That’s not deflecting away from your failure either.

            Best,

            D

          • Common Sense

            60,000 worthless posts…..

          • Dano2

            Nor that. Your failure is still upthread, for all to see.

            Best,

            D

          • Common Sense

            Have you noticed that few agree with you anymore?

          • Isandhlwana79

            I think he’s a troll that needs the attention. Don’t give it to him. He adds zero to the debate. He really knows nothing about climate dynamics.

          • Dano2

            Nor that. Your failure is indelible.

            Best,

            D

          • Duke Silver

            He’s a troll as acknowledged by warmists as well….. walk away.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Interesting. Duke, where have you seen him elsewhere?

          • goldminor

            That is better stated as 61,000 “devoid of content” comments will never have an effect on anyone.

      • Common Sense

        No matter how many posts you make it won’t change the fact that nothing is happening. Get help.

        • Dano2

          The planet is warming. Oceans are acidifying, etc etc.

          /stuff my kid learned in 6th grade

          Best,

          D

          • Common Sense

            Poor kid.

          • Common Sense

            6th grade? That explains everything.

          • Dano2

            It explains why denialists don’t know basic facts indeed.

            Best,

            d

          • Common Sense

            Basic. Exactly. Your understanding of the climate is basic.

          • Duke Silver

            He meant – why skeptics question things instead of learning by repetition.

          • Duke Silver

            He meant things his son was indoctrinated in 6th grade.

          • 4TimesAYear

            The oceans are not acidifying. “The term [acidification] can….lead to confusion when it is wrongly assumed that the oceans will become acidic, when in reality, ocean pH is never expected to fall below 7.0; i.e., the oceans are becoming less basic, but not acidic. Such a penomenon could only occur in the unlikely event that CO2 emissions reach more than 10,000 Pg C”

          • Dano2

            Thanks! that is the term that is used in the profession, so I used it.

            Best,

            D

  • And there you have it.

  • derekcolman

    McCarthy’s argument is illogical. CO2 is produced by burning oil, not by selling it. The people producing the CO2 are the people who buy it and burn it, not the people who provide it. If tar sands oil is stopped, those buyers will buy it somewhere else and still burn the same amount of oil, and produce the same amount of CO2, so stopping tar sands oil will not do anything at all. It will not cause a 1% reduction in CO2. In fact.

    • Common Sense

      In fact more CO2 will be burned because if the US doesn’t buy it it, then it will have to be shipping much further to other markets.

    • Mike435

      The process of extracting and refining oil from tar sands is in itself very energy intensive. That was the only(*) point she was making. You are correct that other factors, like the shipping cost, also be taken into account.

      * Correction: That was the main point she made about tar sands per sa. She went on to point out the obvious fact that small differences can add up.

  • 4TimesAYear

    “We will never stop climate change” – just leave off the earlier qualification of that statement and acknowledge that you can’t stop climate change, period. CO2 emissions just don’t have that big of an influence. There are other things (like concrete and wind turbines, and cutting down trees to plant biomass fuels, and perhaps solar, that may have a greater impact. And yeah, Gina, you need to quantify the benefits – or skeptics don’t need to prove anything either.

  • Charles_Higley

    Wow, it’s a completely non-existent target. As CO2 does not cause any detectable warming, no decrease in CO2 emissions can possibly impact this non-warming. They have a true Catch-22, aimed at us. It does not matter that forcing you to decrease emissions will have no impact at all on anything, but they are single-minded in making you decrease your emissions, because, duh, they are the EPA, a rogue agency that has the power of a dictator and no conscience. This constitutes a sociopathic entity that will impose itself on the world because that’s what it does. How could anybody question its authority?

  • Walther11

    Makes me sick to listen to this bureaucratic dribble. F-ing loons that is what these people are.

  • Walpurgis

    No matter what you put her in charge of she would use her position to oppress citizens and waste massive amounts of money. Its just what she is.

  • FreemenRtrue

    these people have the power. Why? It is ceded to them. Big Corpo is part of the problem – they say “OK raise the electric rates – we’ll get bigger salaries and move more production off shore.” The corruption is thorough, that’s why this demon is so hard to kill even though it is so crazy.

  • jumper297

    Simply amazing… and not one, single news outlet will ever pick this up and run it.

  • Gus

    I refuse to contribute even a penny to leftist grandstanding. Why should I care for their religious symbols? It really is a scandal that such people should occupy such positions in the government.

  • brew_it

    Right, because its not about CO2. Never has been.

  • Wayne Milligan

    The case against the Alberta oilsands and Keystone is even weaker than that expressed by the Canadian reporter. If the oilsands were closed tomorrow, its production would be immediately replaced by conventional oil. The only reduction in CO2 emissions would be the extra 15% required for extraction. Worldwide emissions would be reduced by only 0.015% which would have no detectable impact on the world’s climate. The alternative to pipelines is railcars; pipeline pumping stations have lower emissions than diesel locomotives. Obama’s veto of Keystone XL was irrational, based solely on pre-Paris optics. Because of that he’s currently being sued for $15 billion by TransCanada.

  • steve

    What makes Gina McCarthy think she can make people believe that if we do everything she tells us to do she will stop the climate from changing.

    After all it has not stopped changing
    for billions of years.

  • SaneSage

    In other words: the GW agenda is a fraud.

  • Duke Silver

    Yes, Gina, you do need to prove that our $Bs won’t be wasted. With the departure of Barry the benefactor your job WILL depend upon it.

  • Mike435

    McCarthy is simply pointing out that small differences can add up to a substantial difference.

  • Will Haas

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    This is all a matter of science

  • Doreen Gaydoon

    With a name like McCarthy, a beheading by cooler heads is the best we can hope for.

  • Doreen Gaydoon

    Climate always b changing. It is not a bad thing. Recently, all that forecast sea level rise …. that hasn’t, was explained away by pointing out the land soaked up all the water. So now we have it that sea level rise is not something to be concerned about, and is de coupled from “warming”. I hope she suffocates.

  • Clambaked22

    I like to make their “job” harder,,, I just fired up my V8 Boat, and essentially burned way cheap gas to essentially go around in one big giant circle… Kind of like when McCarthy flies to these summits and then home..

    I didn’t have to prove that it contributed to anything…

    It was a lot of fun, and I caught a nice fish too! a few…

  • steve

    We don’t have to prove co2 causes global warming

    Anybody would think these trillions of dollars we want to take from the poor has a scientific basis.

    No no this is about more riches and power for the rich and powerful.

  • February 16th, 2016 The SUPREME COURT sided with SCIENCE against OBAMA! This is an important step forward for jobs.

    On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

    • Dano2

      You are telling little fibs.

      Busted.

      Best,

      D

  • Wed, Feb 3, 2016 What global warming? Large parts of Earth expected to COOL over next five years

    LARGE areas of the globe are set to cool over the next five years, according to weather forecasters. In its latest five-year forecast, up to 2020, the Met Office has said the Antarctic ocean is expected to cool over the period.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/640519/What-global-warming-Large-parts-of-Earth-expected-to-COOL-over-next-five-years

  • Isandhlwana79

    I wonder why the AGW climate kooks bother coming here to spout their garbage. Do they think they are actually changing anyone’s opinion on the debate? Especially when NONE of them are scientists themselves (they may pretend to be, but it is obvious they aren’t).

    • Mike435

      Did it occur to you that the person running this website is not a scientist but a long time political operative? If you want to read what scientists think about climate change see…

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

      • Isandhlwana79

        realclimate????????????????????hahahahahhahaaahahahahahaha

        • Mike435

          As I thought. You do not wish to read what climate scientists have to say about climate science. You would rather read from sources that confirm your ideologically determined preferences. Thanks for your candor.

          • Isandhlwana79

            I have read enough on the subject to know that the premise is flawed. You a scientist? If not don’t waste my time with a response.

          • Mike435

            I am a mathematician. I work in chaos theory, but not as applied to climate or weather. The issue not what you think of the “premise,” but whether clearly political sites, such as this one, or the writings of climate scientists have greater validity. There are many of scientist run sites, organizations and publications one can turn to besides RealClimate. Below are two others.

            http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

  • markkozikowski

    Time to abolish the EPA.
    Admin. torment team that is not bound by The People, yet can torment them into slavery?
    A Tormenting arm of the government that does not have to show reason for their torment?
    It is time to remove ALL $’s from the budget headed for these Charlatans.

  • Will Haas

    Proof? Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    This is all a matter of science

    • Isandhlwana79

      Will, great post.

    • Mike435

      More H2O does not mean more clouds. You are confusing absolute and relative humidity. You have mangled almost every part of the science. The science can be found here:

      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

      • Will Haas

        More H2O in the atmosphere causes increases in both relative and absolute humidity which increases the probability of cloud formation. What you have referenced is a very biased and selective history document describing the history of the development of the AGW conjecture. If you believe that there are problems with the science that I have described then please point it out, item by item.

        • Mike435

          When the temp rises the air can hold more water vapor. Thus, the absolute humidity goes up, but not the relative humidity. I will not humor you by giving you a point by point critique. It is up to you to learn the science. I have given you a site where you can learn the science. It is biased toward the science.

          • Dano2

            It is biased toward the science.

            That’s why it gave that one the sads.

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            Temperatures vary. Warm air rises, Temperature decreases with altitude according to the lapse rate which has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of gases. On a global basis, warm moist air formed in the tropics is carried toward the poles where it cools. It is all part of the Earth’s climate system. You won’t because you can’t. The biased history article that you refer to just does not cut it.

          • Dano2

            …and GHGs absorb and re-radiate LWIR, some of it down to warm the planet.

            Basic physics. You can’t show that basic physics doesn’t work on earth – you have no NewPhysics to show an alternate mechanism.

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            In the lower troposphere, the delay between a CO2 molecule absorbing an LWIR absorption band photon and reradiating it out again is on average .2s. In that .2s, that same molecule interacts with other molecules around a billion times, sharing energy with each interaction. Heat transfer in the troposphere is dominated by conduction and convection. Heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation is relatively trivial. Colder gases in the atmosphere cannot cause the warmer Earth’s surface to increase in temperature without violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a matter of basic physics. The convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, predicts that the Earth’s surface will be 33 degrees C warmer then it would otherwise be without the atmosphere and that 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no evidence of any additional warming caused by greenhouse gases.

            In a recent article the author pointed out that the initial calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were off by more than a factor of 20. The initial calculations did not take into consideration that adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually lowers the lapse rate which signifies cooling. The AGW conjecture depends upon the idea that H2O provides a positive climate feedback to changes in CO2 to make the effect of changing CO2 to seem significant. But as I have pointed out, that positive feedback assumption is based very incomplete science. When you include all that must happen, the feedbacks are really negative. The feedbacks also have to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved on this planet. When one includes the factor of 20 and the negative feedbacks which have to be there one comes up with the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 must be close to zero and hence changes of CO2 have no effect on climate.

          • Dano2

            Sure. Why not? Whatever gives you the good feels.

            Let us know when your NewPhysics Revolution takes hold. Oh, wait: you won’t have to – we’ll read about it in the paper and we’ll all brag that we knew him when.

            Best,

            D

          • Mike435

            You have said nothing, just a few unconnected truisms. You have made clear you are unable to consider science based points of view. Enjoy your fantasy world.

          • Isandhlwana79

            In reading him and you, I suspect he knows more about it than you do.

          • Mike435

            When someone does not understand the role of absolute versus relative humidity, it is a pretty good bet they do not understand climate science.

          • Will Haas

            It is not my fault that you do not understand what is really going on, The climate system is much more complex then the AGW conjecture would have us believe. I believe that Man’s burning up Earth’s very finite fossil fuel resources just as quickly as possible is not a very wise thing to be doing. I would have liked to have used AGW as an additional reason to conserve on the use of fossil fuel but the AGW conjecture just has too many holes to defend,

          • Isandhlwana79

            Will, you hit it on the head. The climate system is VERY COMPLEX and our CO2 contribution is a minute part of it. The AGW folks have taken one known property of CO2, that is LWIR redirection and said “ah ha!”, that drives climate change! If it were only that simple. It isn’t and the scientists studying it know that as well.

          • Will Haas

            The AGW conjecture sounds very plausible at first until one goes into the details. Upon a more detailed study, the AGW conjecture is based only a partial understanding of science. They keep changing the explanations in order to cover up the holes but new holes in the AGW conjecture keep showing up. In part to generate evidence the IPCC sponsored development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of these models is evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. The models predicted a wide range of possible values for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong, they have predicted global warming that has not happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that there is something very seriously wrong with the AGW conjecture.

            In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range in possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. Only one value can be correct. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same wide range of values. There is nothing more important for the IPCC then to find the actual true value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 yet after more than 2 decades they have learned nothing for them to refine their initial guesstimate. The IPCC has been ignoring a large body of evidence indicating the true climate sensitivity is really much lower then they originally thought for fear of losing their funding. As I have pointed out, there is really good reason to believe that the true climate sensitivity of CO2 is really close to zero.

          • Mike435

            The complexity of the climate system is why I rely on the scientists instead of political activists to see what we can understand about it.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Yet the scientists don’t really understand it themselves. To say that they do is a “fantasy land”.

          • Mike435

            You’d have to read them to have an informed opinion. Try it.

          • Isandhlwana79

            I have. It isn’t very impressive. For someone who understands “chaos theory”, you better restudy it. You’ve lost something.

          • Will Haas

            Well I am not a political activist. Science and technology is my profession. But my resume is not at issue here. The problem with climate science is that one cannot perform definitive experiments to either prove or disprove anything. There are just too many variables that we do not have any control over. The IPCC, in part to provide some evidence that the AGW conjecture was at least plausible, sponsored a plethora of models in the form of climate simulations to serve as evidence that AGW was at least plausible. The large number of models serves as evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. Apparently they started with weather simulation models and modified them to predict climate in finite time. What they had to do ti get the simulations to run in a reasonable time surely made the models less realistic then the weather simulations and may have introduced numerical instabilities. They had to hard code in that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming but so doing caused the simulations to beg the global warming question. The different models provided a wide range of results as one would expect. The simulations all had one thing in common. They all failed to predict today’s global temperatures. They have all predicted global warming that has not occurred. The IPCC has failed to recognize and correct the problem and they go on as if there were no problems with the AGW conjecture but there apparently are. Others have developed climate models that do not include any CO2 based warming but that do adequately predict today’s global temperatures. The IPCC choses to ignore such models because they threaten the IPCC’s existence. In their first report the IPCC presented a wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2 where only one specific number can be correct. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same numbers. So after more than 20 years of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to at least narrow the range of possibility just a little. Others have come up with estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 that is far less then anything the IPCC has been guesstimating. Apparently the IPCC will not admit that the climate sensitivity is far less then their previous guesstimates for fear of losing their funding.

          • Mike435

            Sorry. I see through your blather. Science and technology are not the same. The type of education a scientist gets is very different from a programmer or engineer. You may have some sort of techie job and you have picked up some of the jargon, but you have no idea what you saying.

            You said: “The problem with climate science is that one cannot perform definitive experiments to either prove or disprove anything.” This demonstrates clearly that you have no training in science. Many experiments have been done in climate science. But, science is not about proofs like in mathematics. It is about developing plausible models. Science produces probabilities, not certainties. In the case of climate science, scientists have found that there is a high risk that CO2 emissions will cause serious harm to the ecological systems we and other species depend upon.

            That climate sensitivity estimates have been stable over the last 20 years shows that the science is well established. The level of uncertainty is intrinsic to the subject. If it were some sort of hoax, you’d expect the “scientists” to cook up much more precise estimates.

          • Will Haas

            My resume is not the issue here. You tell me then what experiments have been conducted that prove the AGW conjecture. If such experiments have been run the IPCC should have been able to refine their estimate as what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is. They should be able to settle on a single climate model but none of that has happened yet. They guessed a wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity more than two decades ago and they have learned nothing over the past two decades that would allow them to improve their guess. The IPCC is ignoring estimates that are far below their range of guesses. A recent article shows that the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 are too great by a factor of more than 20 because a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the lapse rate which will result in cooling, not warming. Another concern are feedbacks especially that caused by H2O. The AGW conjecture depends on positive feedbacks to amplify the effects of CO2 to make these effects significant. But, for the climate to be as relatively stable as it has been, the feedbacks have to be negative which further diminishes the effect that CO2 can possible have on climate. I never said that the AGW conjecture was a hoax. The real threat to ecological systems is not the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere but rather Mankind’s out of control population.

          • Mike435

            “You tell me then what experiments have been conducted that prove the AGW conjecture.”

            Read what I wrote. Read Popper. You are not able to have a meaningful conversation about science at this time.

            “If such experiments have been run the IPCC should have been able to refine their estimate as what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is.”

            You do not get it. I am sorry, but there is no point to trying to talk with you.

            “But, for the climate to be as relatively stable as it has been, the feedbacks have to be negative…”

            The comings and goings of glaciations for the last few million years can only be explained by positive feedbacks. You have it exactly backwards.

            Be like Descartes; forget everything you thought you knew about climate science and start over.

            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          • Isandhlwana79

            Your own link starts out saying this:
            A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand
            what people are doing to cause climate change.

            Tell me, what part of “partly” don’t YOU understand? Climate is more COMPLEX and CHAOTIC than YOU can understand despite you supposedly understanding “chaos theory”. Stick to math.

          • Mike435

            Wow! You started to read the intro. Good for you. Of course, there is no field of science that is completely understood. Keep reading.

            If you want to learn bout chaos theory, here is a very good series of videos. Chapters 7 & 9 touch on climate.

          • Isandhlwana79

            As I’ve said, climate is very COMPLEX and CHAOTIC. It can’t be modeled effectively. You, of all people, should understand that. I guess you don’t. We are done because you are too wedded to a bogus theory that time and the climate ITSELF is DISPROVING!

          • Mike435

            Chaotic systems can still have statistically robust features. And the warming continues.

          • Isandhlwana79

            The warming continues? Depends on whom you trust. Even if it is, it is not at a rate predicted. That should clue you in on something. For you it doesn’t, I know. Also, even if you trust those warmist numbers, that doesn’t show CO2 is causing it! Too many variables without a real understanding of their interaction, something you obviously can’t comprehend. Yeah, just rely on the scientists that you believe in. Question, can you even think for yourself? I highly doubt it.

          • Mike435

            The warming continues. The rate is somewhat slower than projected. There is a good bit of debate and research on why that is and even if it is statistically significant. But, the vast majority of researchers have concluded that continued CO2 emissions pose a risk of dangerous global warming. Hence, it makes sense to find reasonable means to reduce those emissions.

            Who do you trust and why? I do not trust Marc Morano or Al Gore. I put more trust in the National Academy of Sciences and other associations of professional scientists. I do not trust the big oil companies, but it is telling that now even they admit the scientists are right.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Do you really believe that ALL the members of those associations agree with what the ruling body says? Do you? If you do then you are a fool. I do trust Curry and Spencer. You have bought into the catastrophic scenario by saying “dangerous global warming”. B S !!!! NOTHING catastrophic has or will occur. The linkage between CO2 and temperature rising has yet to be confirmed. It IS conjecture at this point due to an agreed physical property of CO2 that if nothing else were in play THEN temperatures would rise because of it. There are other variables that affect climate and may mitigate C02 ‘s contribution. I don’t know and neither do you or ANYONE else. THAT is what is up for debate. Climate studies are still in their infancy and a lot has yet to be learned. That should be evident. Have you ever considered that researchers are dependent on grants? Saying something contrary gets one thrown out of the club.

            As I’ve said, time and the climate itself are failing to substantiate the theory. You just don’t see it. I find it most interesting that the AGW folks want to shut down debate and prosecute those who don’t believe. That is really scientific, wouldn’t you say?

            You are no scientist so therefore you are wasting your time trying to convince me. Good luck elsewhere.

          • Mike435

            I asked not just who you trusted, but why. You did not say why you trust Spencer and Curry. It is likely because their views fit your politically motivated preconceptions. You’ve presented no evidence that the leadership of any of the dozens of science organizations that have issued warnings about the dangers of continuing CO2 emissions are not representative of the members.

            “It IS conjecture at this point due to an agreed physical property of CO2 that if nothing else were in play THEN temperatures would rise because of it.”

            Finally, a glimmer of truth peaks out. But then you conjecture: “There are other variables that affect climate and may mitigate CO2 ‘s contribution.”

            So, unknown factors might save the day. But who pays the price if they don’t? I realize nothing I say will convince you. That is exactly the point I wanted you to admit to. Evidence does not matter to you.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Evidence does not matter to you.

            The same could be said for you. How ironic.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Overall, the survey of AMS scientists paints a very different picture than the official AMS Information Statement on Climate Change.
            Drafted by the AMS bureaucracy, the Information Statement leaves
            readers with the impression that AMS meteorologists have few doubts
            about humans creating a global warming crisis. The Information Statement
            indicates quite strongly that humans are the primary driver of global
            temperatures and the consequences are and will continue to be quite
            severe. Compare the bureaucracy’s Information Statement with the survey
            results of the AMS scientists themselves.

            Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual
            International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect
            throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of
            scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the
            non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict
            what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these
            organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position
            statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS
            survey results are very powerful.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/#6983d2927336

            Keep believing the BS. You have no clue.

          • Mike435

            Read the actual survey. Taylor misrepresents what it says. It was not a survey of scientists, but included people who just report weather on T.V. Further, Taylor was using a preliminary report on the survey. Below are links to both the preliminary and final reports.

            Preliminary
            http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

            Final
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

            The upshot, in case you are wondering, is that those who do research on climate mostly agree with the mainstream scientific position on climate change. This should help you see just how dishonest Taylor is. Curry is not as dishonest as Taylor, but her attempts to rationalize away the survey author’s finding are … heroic.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You are a sheep who obviously can’t think for yourself. Figures.

            “what if it’s too late and we can’t do anything?” MY GOD! You have bought the garbage hook,line and sinker. Meanwhile the Earth moves on.

            bah…..bah……bah….

          • Mike435

            Inventing a quote from me that I never said shows your desperation. Read the survey report for yourself.

            “To learn and not think over what you have learned is perfectly useless. To think without having first learned is dangerous.” — Gore Vidal, paraphrasing Confucius in his novel “Creation”.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have yet to learn HOW to think. Your education is meaningless without being able to think critically. Something you obviously lack.

            My desperation? I paraphrased just what you meant and you know it too. Your EXACT words were “But who pays the price if they don’t?” An implication that the world was going to suffer some sort of cataclysmic event. Now LIE and say you didn’t mean that. Come on! Mike, at this point I regard you as an educated simpleton truly not able to put your pants on without direction. Waste your time with some one else you blowhard.

          • Mike435

            A paraphrase does not use quotation marks. As for cataclysms, they will happen with or without climate change. Certain types of cataclysms are likely to happen more often under climate change. Crop failures will likely cause an increase in the number of famines for example. We are causing many species to go extinct now from over hunting and habitat loss. Climate change will likely worsen this.

            In the 1900s we had WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII. Three huge cataclysms. We came through it and we will survive global warming. But, if by smarter planning we could have avoided them, we should have done so. The total impact of unmitigated climate change over the next couple of hundred years has been estimated to be of a similar order of magnitude. We can see this coming and know how to reduce the risk. Why not do so? It is never too late, but the longer we procrastinate, the worse the future impacts will be.

            But, the real reason you invented that quote was to dodge the issue: I said you should read the study on the survey yourself and you came back with calling me a “sheep” and a “non-thinker” and now a “simpleton” and a “blowhard”. You could have just said, “I’ll read it when I have time”. If you read the study you will see for yourself how wrong Taylor is.

          • Isandhlwana79

            As you do, I’ll rely on people who are much more knowledgeable on the subject. You ain’t one ’em. Thanks for the grammar lesson. Do you feel superior? Your other garbage didn’t enlighten me either. Keep believing the sky will fall because of mankind.

            “The total impact of unmitigated climate change over the next couple of
            hundred years has been estimated to be of a similar order of magnitude.

            BS conjecture. You choose to believe it fine. I don’t. WHY? It can’t be shown by ANYBODY to have ANY basis in REALITY.

            As I’ve said, you just can’t think for yourself.

            BTW, I’m not wishing you any good weekend either.

          • Will Haas

            So you do not know of any such experiments and you do feel that you have adequate knowledge to talk about this topic. Despite all the climate variations, the Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to evolve. We are here. There is evidence that warm periods caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warm water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water. But there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 caused any additional warming. Such is all conjecture. If greenhouse gases were involved in the warm up from the last ice age then H2O has got to be the primary culprit but that is not part of the AGW conjecture.

          • Mike435

            The H2O feedback is central to scientific understanding of CO2 induced climate change.

            Google “snowball Earth”.

          • Will Haas

            The theory is that CO2 caused warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. In fact, molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than CO2. What the AGW conjecture ignores is the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O then by convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means more heat energy gets moved which is a negative feedback. Then there is the issue of clouds which provide another positive feedback. The wet lapse rate is significantly less then the dry lapse rate which is further evidence that more H2O in the atmosphere causes cooling and not warming. If H2O provided a net positive feedback then this positive feedback would act on an increase in H2O itself which would cause even more warming and cause even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which would cause even more warming and so forth until the oceans boiled away but that has not happened, Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable yet the climate has been stable enough over more than the past 500 million years for life to evolve. In the past CO2 levels have been more than 10 times what they are today and no climate tipping point was ever reached.

          • Mike435

            Your claim that H2O has a net cooling effect is false.

            Your statement that a positive feedback would necessarily lead to the oceans boiling away is false and absurd. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

          • Will Haas

            No it is true. Evidence of that is that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. Adding H2O to the atmosphere lowers its insulation effect. I have already explained it in terms of heat energy being transported by H2O via the heat of vaporization. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently than the clear atmosphere they replace. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable having positive exponentials in their transient response. If more H2O causes warming which in turn causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere, there would be nothing to stop the process until there was no more H2O to enter the atmosphere. It is the idea that H2O provides a positive feedback that is absurd. There has to be a negative feedback to keep the climate system stable.

          • Mike435

            No. First, the positive H2O feedback, for a given fixed increase in CO2, tappers off. The impact of each increment of increase in H2O decreases logarithmically, so the total impact tappers off to a finite limit. If H2O had a negative feedback, Earth would be covered in ice. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the cloud response. This are the main source of uncertainty in estimating climate sensitivity. Clouds trap heat and reflect light. The increase in H2O, which has been measured, does not necessarily translate into more clouds. Even if cloudiness increases, the impact on global temperature would depend on the altitude of the clouds. the time of day they form and other factors.. For example, if higher H2O caused more clouds, but mostly at night, the net impact would further amplify the warming. Most recent empirical work shows that the net impact of clouds is toward more warming, but the work in this area is very preliminary.

            Again, read reference I provided. It is a good source for people like you who know little to nothing about the topic of climate change.

          • Will Haas

            So exactly how does the positive H2O feedback that you are claiming, for a given fixed increase in CO2, tapper off? Then what about the positive H2O feedback for a given fixed increase in H2O itself? Of course H2O could keep increasing until the oceans boil away. The Earth would not be covered in ice because the Earth is constantly being heated by the sun, The conjecture you are talking about neglects heat transport via phase change as provided for by H2O. It ignore’s the fact that besides reflecting incoming solar radiation, clouds radiate to space more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. The atmospheric mechanism that keeps the surface of the Earth warm is not a radiative greenhouse effect but rather a convective greenhouse effect. It is a function of the energy received by the sun, the depth of the atmosphere, the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no room left for a radiative greenhouse effect. If there were an additional radiant greenhouse effect then the Earth’s surface should be much warmer than it actually is.

          • Mike435

            You are just making this up. If you want to learn the science, you now know where to start. Goodbye. Enjoy your weekend. Good health and happiness to you and yours.

          • Will Haas

            I am not making any of this up and I am not the originator of what I am telling you. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The natural lapse rate, aka. the environmental lapse rate which is a good measure of the insulation characteristics of the atmosphere is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases.

          • Isandhlwana79

            “but the work in this area is very preliminary.”

            A glimmer of truth peaks out. Yet you can claim later on that drastic things are going to occur in the next several centuries by saying ” The total impact of unmitigated climate change over the next couple of
            hundred years has been estimated to be of a similar order of magnitude”.

            Hmmmm……very preliminary yet you can state authoritatively that we need “smarter planning” for something we really don’t know is going to happen. WOW! Along with the other names I’ve called you, you now fall into the ‘kook’ category.

        • Dano2

          a very biased and selective history document

          Standard reference = very biased and selective history document

          Sounds legit.

          Best,

          D

          • Will Haas

            The document in question presents a very selective history of the development of the AGW conjecture. It leaves out the work of many well known scientists that might indicate that the AGW conjecture is flawed which it is.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Will, you are wasting your time on him. He has no science knowledge and can’t refute what you say. Watch.

          • Dano2

            Big fibbin: He has no science knowledge and can’t refute what you say

            You’re just having a little sads and telling fibs cuz has bad feels. Here’s a hankie. There, there.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            You made this up: It leaves out the work of many well known scientists that might indicate that the AGW conjecture is flawed which it is.

            You can’t show it is true. Like all your other cut-paste misinformation that you can’t show is true.

            Best,

            D

    • Dano2

      Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record.

      An intro science class awaits your enrollment and attendance.

      Best,

      D

      • Isandhlwana79

        He laid out a cogent argument, something your pea-brain can’t refute. You have NO science background otherwise you’d refute his assertion point by point. You are just an insecure fool who can only insult others while you reveal your shallowness. Go play in traffic boy.

        • Dano2

          False, false, you made that up, false, false, false, false, creepy.

          My, my.

          Best,

          D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Pure truth. You can’t refute it. hahahahahahahahahahahaha

            Now we’re done. No more attention for you little boy.

          • Dano2

            I’d run away too if I were you and called out on your nincompoopery – stick to your pattern.

            Best,

            D

      • Will Haas

        If you have such evidence then please present some of it. There is evidence that warmer climates cause an increase in CO2 but no real evidence that the increased CO2 causes any additional warming.

        • Isandhlwana79

          He will provide zero evidence other than to say “you made it up”. hahahahahaha

        • Dano2

          no real evidence that the increased CO2 causes any additional warming.

          Are you saying the evidence in the link that gave you the sads isn’t true? Where is this NewPhysics that works only on earth and nowhere else in the universe?

          For everyone else, this was finalized almost two generations ago.

          HTH

          Best,

          D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Your link is to a propaganda paper written in the last couple years. You still haven’t refuted him. 2 generations ago? Got a link for that one? You are a fraud.

          • Dano2

            Big fibbin.

            Non-fibbers realize that chapter sums up all the scholarship that solved the Detection and Attribution problem.

            An intro to basic science class awaits your enrollment and attendance.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Ah yes! You think that is the be-all, end-all, huh? You are the Lowfo who really doesn’t understand how COMPLEX climate dynamics really is. More than your pea-brain can absorb, for sure! Try again, fraud.

            BTW, curious how you can’t show how CO2 either precedes or comes after temperature rises. How come? Identifying types of carbon and what produces them really means NOTHING.

          • Dano2

            Feel free, smartie, to use your gigantic, awesome brain to actually refute the actual information I actually provided.

            Tell us how man has NOT identified evidence that the increased CO2 causes any additional warming.

            Provide something, Anything, in contrast to poor hapless Haas upthread who falsely stated no real evidence that the increased CO2 causes any additional warming, and that the increased CO2 is from man, as several here have pointed out and given evidence for, and you’ve given…..given….you’ve given squat.

            That’s right: I don’t see that you have provided a single, solitary reference, paper, doi, link or anything at all to support a single solitary wish, hope, vague thought on this thread. Or ever on any other thread ever in existence ever, AFAICT. You’ve never provided anything. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You haven’t provided anything. That is the crux of the matter. I’m laughing at your shallowness. Will is correct. You have ZERO evidence other than the propaganda sites you cite.

          • Dano2

            So you have nothing then, clearly, to refute the scholarship myself and others have provided. Clearly.

            You can’t provide anything. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.

            Thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            I don’t have to give anything. YOU are making a claim you can’t substantiate. That simple. Case closed. Now, you got the sads…..LMAO!!

            WOH!!! you claiming some scholarship that YOU have developed???

          • Dano2

            Thanks LOLO, you lack talent to dissemble away from the fact I have, in fact, substantiated it.

            You are a horrible bluffer. You want to come play poker with us? We have a great time, lots of laughs. Bring lots of money.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You keep repeating the same crap over and over. You show yourself as a light weight. How about taking your act over to WUWT?

            I’m not bluffing about anything because it isn’t incumbent upon me to show anything. Something your pea-brain can’t grasp, evidently. You have yet to provide any evidence that humans are driving climate change. I am not alone in that assessment. Hundreds, no make that thousands of scientists agree with that position. Try arguing with Judith Curry or Roy Spencer or any of the others. You won’t because you can’t, light weight.

          • Dano2

            You have yet to provide any evidence that humans are driving climate change.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            I checked with my poker buddies and gave them some examples of the quality of your comments. After looking at your comments, they all agree you’d be a great fit for our poker night! PM me for directions! Bring lots of money!

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Is that it? Figures, light weight.

          • Dano2

            Perfect. PM me. Bring lots of money.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            hehehe

          • Isandhlwana79

            I would take ALL yours and your friends money. I’m VERY good at this:
            http://www.mademan.com/mm/how-count-cards-texas-hold-em.html

          • Dano2

            PM me.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You PM ME

          • Will Haas

            If you believe that there is such evidence then please provide it in you own words. The convective greenhouse effect which has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres, even the Earth. The convective greenhouse effect on Earth causes the surface to be 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise without an atmosphere. The 33 degrees C has been derived from first principals and is what has been observed. There is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The radiant greenhouse effect upon which the AGW conjecture depends has not been observed on Earth nor on any planet in the solar system.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You are going over his head, obviously.

          • Dano2

            The convective greenhouse effect on Earth causes the surface to be 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise without an atmosphere.

            Sure, sure. What NewFizzix textbook has these….erm…first principals so I can read about them?

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            You can start with James Clerk Maxwell’s book on the “Theory of Heat”. Most of what I am telling you can be found on the Internet.

          • Dano2

            Sure, sure.

            Best,

            D

  • Isandhlwana79

    I would suggest that the poster known as “Dano2” get flagged and banned for his obnoxious behavior. He offers no knowledge to the debate, just insults of the grade school variety. It would be poetic justice, because after all that is what his side does to anyone disagreeing with their bogus theory.

  • ASarchus

    Awww bless her! But that global warming thing, er, shouldn’t there actually be some, ah, warming? You know, if you’re proposing to tackle a forest fire then there would have to be some wood on fire first – surely – wouldn’t there? There hasn’t been any warming in this millennium so what on earth is she banging on about? She appears to be proposing to trash the economy of the US based on an imaginary problem. If she were to propose that 200′ high coastal defenses should be erected encircling the continent in case Godzilla decides to come ashore do we have to go with that too? Quite mysterious really.

    • Dano2
    • Isandhlwana79

      The fraud just supplied his usual bogus graph. I could supply one showing the opposite. What’s the point? LMAO!!

      • Dano2

        You can do no such thing, which is why we want you to come play poker with us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111one

        <3

        Best,

        D

        • Isandhlwana79

          hhehehehe….see I can do that too

          • Dano2

            Right, you can’t back your claims, everyone knows. Obvies.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79
          • Dano2

            Dishonestly cherry-picked graph from discredited Monckton. The owner of the dataset Monckton cherry-picks has called out liars for lying with his data:

            My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset. [emphases added]

            Duped. SHOCKER

            Here are honest graphs: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/566ccfe1cf9235b557883332b3d3430ad16521bc32fc16df31c0c23019865b64.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d5f5415b57b758aab82205a2e23df2d24e3b4f7cce43949db7b630b319d4535.png

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            hahahahahahaha………yeah, sure, and your graph is a fraud too. See? I can do that too. Woodfortrees is worthless. See? I can do that too. You got something else, fraud?

          • Dano2

            “we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5simulations of historical climate. … (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)”

            Dishonest cherry-picking.

            You were duped. You lack capacity to comprehend it.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Sure, you’ve been duped into believing the biggest scam in history. That humans are driving climate change. What a joke. Even your boy Michael Mann had to put his name to a paper acknowledging a temperature slowdown that was NOT predicted by models. Your scam is falling apart. Why? Simply because NO ONE really has a full understanding of COMPLEX climate dynamics at this time. How do I know this? If they did they would not have to do study after study explaining anomalies not accounted for. Boy, you sure are shallow not to understand this!

          • Dano2

            You can’t deflect away from the fact you were duped into believing a dishonestly cherry-picked chart, designed to dupe the gullible.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            That chart really means nothing as does yours. You can’t support human caused climate change and it frustrates you, little man. YOU are NO scientist and that is the bottom line, isn’t it?

          • Dano2

            That’s not deflecting away from your failure either.

            best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Note how I provide evidence for your dishonesty and you flap your tiny hands?

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            I gave you counter evidence that showed you wrong and yet you have NOTHING to return with. Figures.

          • Dano2

            I showed – in several ways – how it was dishonestly cherry-picked.

            You can’t hide your use of a dishonest chart.

            “we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5simulations of historical climate. … (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)”

            Dishonest cherry-picking.

            You were duped. You lack capacity to comprehend it.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You lie…..hahahahaha

          • Dano2

            Weak play. I detect a pattern….

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            YOU are NO scientist, bottom line. Therefore, you aren’t to be believed. Simple. Got something else?

          • Dano2

            You made that up too. Another weak play. I detect a pattern…

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Well, are you? fess up

          • Dano2

            I am. I have two undergrad BS and a masters specialty in ecology, both from top American unis. I’m currently working on three applied articles about remote detection in forests, all due the 15th, and a separate presentation about disruptive technology, delivered in two weeks to a conference exhibiting enough demand I’m delivering it twice. I have an applied energy grid article coming out in a week, and another I just turned in they tell me goes out in April, and I saw the blurb on their social media so it must be accepted. I’m published in several journals, more symposia, more trade mags, several white papers for practitioners, and hold applied technology workshops for licensed practitioners several times a year, including the largest of its kind ever held last fall. Before that, I was a weatherman in the USAF, got out and studied bioclimatology before switching to a similar discipline from the plant side.

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Yeah, sure. Direct me to something you’ve published. Also, are you over on WUWT with a different nom de plume? If you are so educated, why do you waste your time here?

          • Dano2

            Ah, well. I used to hang out at Climate Audit but not LoWatts – I like the amusement.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Direct me to something you’ve published.

            I suspect you won’t go to WUWT because that is the major leagues. Those commenters are seriously knowledgeable folks. You like to spar with us ‘rubes’ to avoid getting unmasked. You would be roasted over there and I think you know it.

          • Dano2

            I suspect you won’t go to WUWT because that is the major leagues

            LoWatts is all KINSPEERCY ideation. Climate Audit was the last place where there used to be one or two people with a brain. There is nothing but organ grinder monkeys at LoWatts. Not surprising you can’t tell the difference.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You still haven’t directed me to something you’ve published. Why is that?

            If they are “organ grinder monkeys” why don’t you go there and show them the error of their ways? Afraid?

            What difference I can tell is that despite your education, you must be a fraud. Now where are you published? Afraid to reveal it?

          • Dano2

            Why is that?

            Dano has gotten two malware attacks in the past. If you need to tell yourself little fibs to have the good feels, that’s great!

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            BS. I’m not asking to go to your private page. How about a magazine or journal. Your deflection belies a fraud.

          • Dano2

            Sure, sure – whatever gives you the good feels.

            And whatever deflects away from your errors and failures and comical derp on this thread.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            FRAUD. I knew it. You are weird speaking of yourself in the third person. Strange!

          • Dano2

            Sure, sure. Good feels? You have good feels?

            Best,

            D

  • 4TimesAYear

    “if you don’t take the first step, you ain’t getting nowhere baby”
    We ain’t going nowhere “baby” anyway because she’s got the cart before the horse. CO2 levels are driven by temps, not the other way around.

  • Mike435

    If you want to follow the science, forget about Al Gore, Marc Morano, Bill Mckibben and Anthony Watts. They are not scientists. Instead …

    http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

    There, that wasn’t that so hard, now was it?