EPA Chief invokes God: ‘What in God’s name can anyone say to climate deniers that would make them figure it out?’


ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “So, people have to start living a life that’s commensurate with reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent they can, but also as you said demand government to be responsive to this. But, I would waste no time with climate deniers. If they haven’t figured it out by now, what in God’s name can anyone say to them that would make them figure it out. The science is overwhelming. I don’t check out flat earth society, and I’m not talking to climate deniers. That’s it.”

ANDREW FREEDMAN: “I hear you.”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “Sorry. I know that I’m supposed to be for everybody but my patience has worn thin over eight years and twenty years before that talking about this issue.”

ANDREW FREEDMAN: “No, I hear you. I hear you.”

Interview with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
October 18, 2016


102 Responses

  1. The EPA should be shut down…… McCarthy’s name reminds me of the senator that every liberal knows about….. she is just as wrong as Joe was but she is too uneducated to recognize the truth…… AGW is complete and utter nonsense propagated by the Left in the USA. It is a religion with nothing to do with real science.

    1. But Joe was right, that is the difference. After the Iron Curtain came down, we were able to see the KGB records that showed all the Hollywood people who actually were in bed with Stalin. But, just like the climate alarmists, the anti Joe forces were shown proof they were wrong.

      1. Yes, I agree, he got MOST of it correct !!!….. some of his information was wrong but overall there is NO DOUBT based on the Venona papers that the
        US Government was and still is (!!!) occupied by many Communists and Socialists (the entire Democratic Party for example).
        One of the best books on the Venona papers is “In Denial”…… do you realize that Gina’s degree is in “Social Anthropology” (sorry for the quiet laughter)
        and she has spent north of 25 years in government service (no one else would be stupid enough to hire her)

      1. Read my reply to Todd, I agreed that Joe got most of it right ….. the list of Commie spys in FDRs administration was shocking….. the worst being Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White and the VP Wallace. FDR changed out Wallace with Truman because of his fear that Wallace could end up as Prez if he died !!! I think you mean the NKVD which became the KGB

        1. Pardon my “M” where an “N” should be. You are correct. FDR did fear Wallace. Jimmy Byrnes wrote of it in “All In One Life” where he documented his long-term friendship with FDR who was fascinated with Jimmy as he had a hard-scrabble background that FDR, like many rich men’s son’s, had intense curiosity about. Wallace was really a bit nuts.

          Somewhere I recall reading Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were the men who convinced Eleanor Roosevelt that “nuclear weapons are too horrible to use,” on the orders of no less than Joseph Stalin as he wanted to buy time to steal the A-Bomb design which he got part of from the Rosenbergs, but on seeing their papers it is clear to me what they died for was little more than a schematic and not a full design.

          Eleanor then went on to convince Harry S. Truman of their idea at a moment in history when he could have outlawed war on this planet, but then the “defense” suppliers could not make their billions. Every war we have fought since WWII has been for their profits.

      1. I have read many books on this subject (e.g. “In Denial”, Anne Coulter’s book on McCarthy, “Target Patton” (particularly shocking !!) etc.) as I have written in other comments on this site….. Joe was wrong, for example, on Acheson and Marshall but overall, he WAS correct that the US Gov was (and still is !!) infiltrated by many subversive Communist spies. The Venona papers identified 329 active and highly placed Communists in the FDR and Truman administrations. Less than half were ever identified.

  2. This is provable utter nonsense and I have designed several “demo” experiments that prove it. The facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

    CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

      1. Why am I not surprised at your presumption, insincerity and anger that I am still opposing this BS.
        I note that your response has no content. Why don’t
        you break down and spend $2.99 for the Kindle version of Vapor Tiger and learn the history of this fraud, how the atmosphere really works and that additional CO2 actually cools the air in sunlight. I note that you still fail to give your name, but then robbers wear masks just at climate frauds hide behind “handles.”

        1. You are mistaken…. your comment above is harmless enough and quite on point. I agree that AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
          What I am referring to is that in your past comments you mistakenly quote the Le Chatelier principle as part of your reasoning.
          Apparently you have abandoned this false notion, as I read your comment above.

          1. You remain rude and crude, not offering an alternative explanation, but declaring that I am in error without reason apparently thinking your allusion to a “PhD” degree grants you authority. Please state the institution granting you said degree, the title of your thesis and the library where it is on file.

            The Le Chatelier equation for the atmosphere is:
            [H2Og] x [CO2g]
            ————————- = Kt

            Where “g” is for gas, “l” is for liquid “K” is for constant and “t” degrees Kelvin. “[ ]” denote moles/liter. Solving for water vapor yields:

            [H2Ol] x Kt
            ——————- = [H2Og]

            The Le Chatelier Principle applies to the atmosphere where water can be a liquid or gas and is driven out by adding CO2.

            Water vapor is seven times better at absorbing IR energy from sunlight as CO2 thus CO2 driving H2O from air and into the sea, etc. reduces the capacity air has for heating by IR.

            I have a demo showing that CO2 does cause water to be driven from air and anyone who has seen a CO2 fire extinguisher in operation has seen this phenomenon. Water mist is a large part of the fog seen. I also have a demo in my book “Vapor Tiger” that shows this happening in a controlled environment.

            1. Why dont we just agree to disagree on some of your rationale …… we agree on the result that AGW is nonsense. So not sure why you seem so much more annoyed than the issue warrants ???
              And you go on the attack with the usual ad hominem “phd” nonsense ??

              What does the concentration of both water vapor and CO2 (or any intermediate mix of those gases) in the atmosphere have to do with proving that man made global warming is wrong ……. enlighten me ? You act as if it is a deciding factor ?? Why do you think this ??

              1. If you care to disagree while you allude to a superior education with a “Ph.D.” “handle” instead of your real name, then what do you offer the discussion? Nothing, nor do you appear to understand what I have presented.

                The point that I explained comes down the paragraph, “Water vapor is seven times better at absorbing IR energy from sunlight as CO2 thus CO2 driving H2O from air and into the sea, etc. reduces the capacity air has for heating by IR.” Therefore, the temperature falls.

                Increasing CO2, cools the atmosphere and cannot warm it, but as my demos show it takes quite a bit to be effective, several thousand ppm. The levels the panic mongers are wailing over do nothing as my $3 demo clearly confirms and as important: It cools the atmosphere! It does not heat it, as even a fool can see by what I have gone to some trouble to try to explain to you.

            2. The total amount of absorption by ALL atmospheric gases is 18%
              I know the LeChatelier principle already…… your application of it is irrelevant to discussing man made global warming. It remains about Theemodynamics and NOT Chemistry. Sorry but your argument is not relevant.

              1. “The total amount of absorption by ALL atmospheric gases is 18%” What? 18% of what? This is nonsense.

                “Theemodynamics?” The Le Chatelier Principle applies to both chemistry and physics as any real physicist or chemical engineer knows well where it is there applied every day.

                Again, which institution granted your Ph.D., name the library where filed and title of your thesis or it is clear you are a total fraud, which has been my conclusion from the beginning of this travesty.

                  1. My publication record is published at WorldCat.org, input “Adrian Vance” to the search routine and you will see about 600 films, filmstrips, audio programs, a couple of my dozen books, all for major publishers, a few of my magazine articles for the ten national magazines I have appeared in, but not the two on which I have been on the masthead as an “Editor.” My CV is on “iPatriot and it notes my degree from Illinois State University where I was a Chemistry major, Biology minor, one course short of a minor in Physics, same story in Ed. Psych. Awards and honors for science films, etc. and you dare to say “…you clearly have no formal education in Physics and Chemistry?” while you hide behind “PhD?” You sir, are an idiot, fraud, phony and candidate for a room with mattresses for wallpaper.

                    1. The minor in Physics tells me everything….. that’s great that you make films and write articles.
                      My degree is very real…… your petulant anger tells me you are not used to being doubted or questioned. Stick with your films and articles.

                    2. Atmospheric heating is dependent on the Le Chatelier Principle as water vapor does 99.8% of it and can change state unlike the other gases. You do not need a Ph.D. to understand that. I could teach a working understanding of the atmosphere to a junior high science club.

                      You are a phony or you would name the institution granting your degree, the title of your thesis and the library where it is filed, but you know I, and others, would make the phone calls to prove you are a fraud. Put up or shut up.

                    3. No Ad, atmospheric heating is dominantly caused by that big yellow globe in the sky called the Sun. Le Chatelier’s principle is Chemistry. Thermodynamics covers the transfer of heat within the Earth system. The proof against AGW is entirely using thermodynamics. The internal ordering and concentrations of water and CO2 in the atmosphere does not deal with the overall heat flows in the Earth’s system.
                      My degree is real. I do not need to prove anything to you…… too bad you only have a minor in Physics….. it explains your lack of system perspective needed with AGW. You only see the trees.

                    4. My name is not “Ad.” It is Mr. Vance to you.

                      You have clearly demonstrated you are not a physicist if you say Le Chatelier’s Principle only applies to chemistry. It applies to gases that are reacting chemically or changing state as anyone in his first year of physics would know.

                      Atmospheric physics very much involves Le Chatelier as water and its vapor are the critical components and where the state change involves a 1:1200 change in volume Le Chatelier’s Principle is critical to understanding the system

                      Gas thermodynamics is a bit different than that for “black bodies” as changes of state are involved as well as absorption spectra.

                      You are a total fraud and the more you write the more you prove it, as you have here.

          2. AGW is complete and utter nonsense.

            ~2 centuries of physics and chemistry is complete and utter nonsense, everbuddy!

            I LOLzed, thanks for the amusement.



            1. Dano2 (David Appell), we are still waiting (its been several years now) for you to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

              1. If you think I’m David Appell, you’re just the Titanic dunce savvy investor I’ve been looking for to take advantage of my latest can’t miss opportuni-TEA! PM me right away if you wanna get rrrrRRRRRRich!



            2. Knew I could count on you showing up. Have you made 100,000 comments yet. Who in the Democrat party gives you your marching orders ? Maybe you will get featured on Wikileaks like that steaming pile of lying sh’t Hillary

                1. Oh my Democrat apparatchik, the last ones to get the jokes are the Lefties like you. No one cares about the AGW hoax any more……. but here you are defending a dying ember of a false idea.

                    1. Congratulations, you have just received the Disqus Boobus Emeritus award for over 100,000 comments completely devoid of any insight or relevance to the world.

                    2. Still not refuting ~2 centuries of science.

                      Hint: clowning and prancing isn’t refuting.



            3. LMFAO my Democrat friend…… every Democrat I know is cringing behind the scenes at the marvelous destruction being caused by Wikileaks…… people are starting to understand just how crooked the Left is…… they do not stop at any normal boundary of decent behavior. We see this in the AGW hoax commenters all the time LMFAO

                  1. You have no physics, chemistry, or science to back your claim. You have nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis. Diddly.

                    Fake PhD with fake claims.



    1. There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere.


      I LOLz at you still, every time you amuse me with this Internet Performance Art!



      1. Do the demo I have in “Vapor Tiger” and you can prove it for yourself. You have been lied to by people that sell fear of the future in return for new taxes, bureaus, power and grants that will send them to the south of France in time for the Truffle harvest. Have you ever tasted a Truffle sauce? The elected ruling class is selling you something that is also brown, but it tastes like dog doo! And, you love it! I offer you the truth and prove it.

        1. Adrian–” You have been lied to by people that sell fear of the future”
          ME— Wrong – Dano2 is a physics PhD and knows to facts. Instead he prefers to spread Democrat partisan crap that is totally unsupported by the facts.

          1. What is your name? Name the institution that granted your degree, the title of your thesis and the library where it was filed. I have yet to see
            one of you jerks comply with this request after
            claiming to have a Ph.D. in Physics, especially
            after not stating or punctuating it correctly, as I have here. And, all with that credential that I have known, as both my parents were college professors, would have jumped on that demo and done it in a day to confirm what I am saying. You do not show that kind of curiosity or capacity. I say you are just another fraud.

      2. Dano
        The lapse rate of temperature decline from surface to “out there” is about 3 F per 1000 feet. It stands to reason that those molecules of CO2 “out there” would be at air temperature. The higher, the colder. Those pesky laws of thermodynamics insist that heat flows from hot to cold. Not the other way around.
        No hot up there, no heat flows from cold to hot.
        No “Greenhouse” story. Impossible, nada, no, forget about it.

          1. D
            A long time ago when at school there were a couple of rough translations of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
            The First Law was “It is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.”
            The Second Law states “Who says it is going to get any better?”
            I recently published “Denier Pride”, which can be Googled.

            1. Middling comedy skit at best. You aren’t shopping that for a TV pilot I hope.

              Nor are you shopping your ignorance of basic physics at any Uni, surely.



  3. I did see the light. That was around 2014 when Al Gore came out with his catastrophic predictions which forced me to check out the science. I was mildly in acceptance of the hypothesis of man-made global warming. based on media hype and I was too busy at work and at home to check things out, but following Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth I had to check it out, I could not let those catastrophic predictions go by unchecked. So I goggled ‘global warming’ and hey presto I discovered that there was another world out there, made up of bloggers/scientists who actually had the science, the real science, about the climate.
    So you see GINA MCCARTHY, I did figure it out. You are the denier not me.
    Thank God for making me see the light.

    1. My experience exactly but happened in 2004. I was so enamored of the theory that I planted mid-atlantic grasses in my new yard in Maine in order to withstand the coming warmer temps. Big mistake. Subsequent research pointed out my folly very well.

  4. All the climate alarmists have to do is show us PROOF there is actually manmade global warming. Computer projections are not proof. They need to stop blaming things like COWS for destroying the planet. Termites, alone, produce more methane gas than all the cows combined. They need to stop altering the history of temperatures to make it look warmer now. In short, the EPA and all the high priests of AGW have to do is actually adhere to REAL science, not Algore flim flam

    1. Methane, CH4 does not absorb IR significantly, but it auto-oxidizes in sunlight to water vapor and CO2 that both absorb IR but with only 18 ppm it is utterly insignificant. Professional meterologists stipulate that anything with less than 10,000 ppm is insignificant. CO2 now has 390 ppm.

      1. Dano2 (David Appell)–“Science doesn’t prove, lad. Educate yourself”
        ME–Educate YOURSELF David. I have been asking you for evidence for several years and the best you could do is point to the FAILED IPCC models. Educate yourself – models that fail to make predictions are NOT evidence of anything except their utter failure and the gullibility of those who keep saying we can predict climate 100 years out.

  5. A fatuous statist bureaucrat is impatient with citizens that don’t accept her weak unproven hypothesis as gospel. Where have we seen this before?

    “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Shakespeare

    You can’t make this stuff up. Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is for sure NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely causes are well documented elsewhere.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to limestone and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. A drone like McCarthy will never “get it”.

    All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%. Everything else is sophistry or mass hysteria.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.

    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Longfellow

  6. What could you say?

    Well, Gina, you could say “we haven’t altered the data” if only it were true.
    And, you could say, “we haven’t homogenized the data” if only it were true.
    And, you could say “we use only USCRN data” if only it were true.
    And, you could say “we have had open debate” if only it were true.
    And, you could say “the studies weren’t bought/paid for by the government” if only it were true.
    And, you could say “the graphs actually match the data” if only it were true.
    And, you could say “the verbiage matches the graphs” if only it were true.

    Those are the things that would be convincing, but of course they are fabricated.

      1. As you’ve stated many times – and I quote, “science can’t prove anything”.

        As the science IS on my side, you’re correct in your trite little quip.

        Trollish, but correct.

          1. There is no denialist science, nor zealot science. There’s physical science and political science. You’ve been duped into confusing the two. On your way – they’re buying (selling actually) your snake-oil in DC – not mainstream America.

            1. Right. The actual science does not support denialist worldviews or denialist self-identities. The actual science is not on the denialists’ side, therefore your As the science IS on my side was typed in error.

              That is: man is changing the planet’s climate due to his emissions, and land use changes and the science is clear that the planet was cooling until we warmed it.

              You can’t refute that with the science [that] IS on my side




              1. Well, you are the queen after all. Guess I should just genuflect and get it over with, right?
                Or, maybe you could go back and have a redo party on all that data you guys have damaged over the years and lets see what a statistician would say regarding it’s relevance.
                Or, take back the money from the biased studies, or rewrite the stories to match the data, or…
                I know – you’re the queen so you’ll have your people take care of it….

                  1. You’re the one relying on NewPhysics, not me. Meteorologists consider anything under 10K ppm as a mini driver for IR heating and CO2 is at 390 +/-.

                    …. except when funding is threatened.

                    How did it warm from the Dalton minimum or the Maunder minimum without man’s help?

                    If your payment for trolling the sites depended upon you support of the Loch Ness monster, you’d believe a lot harder.

                    1. Still not refuting established science that shows the planet was cooling until man warmed it.



                    2. You’re just overlooking the fact that it’s done it many times (non-anthro) because it doesn’t jive with the (indoctrinated) paradigm you’ve been spoon fed.

                      When you started altering the database, physical science has been displaced by it’s red-headed cousin political science.

                    3. Justin Data!

                      Will the right’s new heartthrob finally be THE ONE to validate their self-identity?!?!?



                    4. Let me say it a different way for the logic-impaired. Established science also shows it cooling during man’s worst attempts (under your logic) to warm it.
                      You trolls get paid by the post, eh? Doesn’t need to be either coherent or logical? Well, repetition is what you were taught in school and that’s what your good at.

                    5. Still not showing. You can’t show, because there is no science that says otherwise.




    1. SCAY-UM ever’buddeh!

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux/Breitbartian faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW.

      And, to hide their scam, scientists have recruited the natural world into going along with their plot, namely:

      o Scientists have tricked animals and plants to move up and poleward;

      o scientists have tricked plants to bloom earlier;

      o scientists have tricked seasons to begin earlier;

      o scientists have tricked the ocean into acidifying;

      o scientists have tricked carbon to change its isotopic signature from natural carbon to fossil carbon in the atmosphere, corals, and plants to further the scam;

      o scientists have tricked the tropopause to rise;

      o scientists have tricked the oceans to warm rapidly and sea levels to increase their rate of rise;

      o scientists have tricked the outgoing spectra of the earth into emitting less EM waves in the GHG wavelengths;

      o and all have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



  7. “What in God’s name can anyone say to climate deniers that would make them figure it out?’”
    Start with providing a computer model that accurately predicts temperatures, precipitation, and sea level rise.

    Until an accurate model exists, we know the “science” isn’t right.

  8. The problem is that the AGW conjecture is so full of holes that it cannot be believed. For example, it CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a detectable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The increase in CO2 has had had no effect on the insulation properties of the atmosphere so it cannot have had ay effect on climate. It is all a matter of science.

  9. I saw the light when the local radio station kept talking about the “global temperature” and realized there was no such thing – and also realized that a global average temperature wasn’t a temperature; it was a statistic and would not melt ice anywhere. Any climate change is local. Only local temps matter. 70 in Chicago will not melt ice in Antarctica or at the North Pole. There’s more than one way sea levels rise – one is sea levels may actually rise – the other is that the land may be sinking – i.e., subsidence. It is a huge mistake to focus on man’s puny 3%/yr of CO2 as a climate driver.

Leave a Reply