Escape & Evade: EPA’s McCarthy refuses to quantify climate impact of Paris climate agreement

Despite repeated questioning by Congressman Lamar Smith, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy refuses to quantify or acknowledge any climate impact resulting from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

CONGRESSMAN LAMAR SMITH: “If the Paris Climate Agreement involving 177 countries was completely implemented, okay, the entire climate agreement completely implemented, you have distinguished scientists including Bjorn Lomborg and twenty-seven other top climate scientists including three Nobel laureates have concluded that the reduction in global warming would only be one-twentieth of a degree Celsius by 2030, one-sixth of a degree Celsius in the next eighty-five years. It sounds to me like if they’re anywhere close to being right, then this Paris Climate Agreement is almost all pain and no gain. Why is that not the case?”

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “Well, no sir. The Paris Agreement was an incredible achievement that changed the direction of the world and is going to ultimately allow us–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree– Do you think the Paris Climate Agreement will have a greater impact on climate change then I just said and that these twenty-seven scientists said?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I think it sets us on a course to work together on a planetary scale to address the biggest environmental–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “Understand. As far as the actual impact on climate change do you disagree with these twenty-seven top climate scientists–”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I disagree with the way in which you’re characterizing it, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, it is a tremendous step in the right direction.”


ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The numbers you’re talking about–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “I know those are wonderful words. I’m talking about quantifying the impact. The impact is one-sixth of a degree over then next 85 years. If every country all 177 countries, implemented–”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “Sir, there is not a single country that signed that expecting that the 2020 goals would get us where we need to be. It is a step in that direction–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “But, you don’t disagree with the conclusion of these scientists as far as the climate agreement goes in Paris, as it stands right now?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The agreement itself was designed as a step forward.”


ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “It was not designed to produce all of the action–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “Understand. But, as far as the step forward goes, the step forward was as I described it?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “Well sir, you can’t make a marathon without getting across the starting line.”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “Okay. It’s clear you don’t disagree with their conclusion. You may think it’s a beginning, but you can’t disagree with their conclusion.”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I don’t even know what their conclusion– the context of their conclusion. What I do know sir–”

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “Again, it’s reducing global warming one-sixth of a degree Celsius over the next 85 years.”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “It’s better than we were before and it’s only the first step.”


Hearing: Ensuring Sound Science at EPA
House Science Committee
June 22, 2016


55 Responses

  1. This is all totally ridiculous and the facts are very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It 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 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

    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, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    1. I’ll take these abundant points on offer:

      o CO2/GHGs such a small amount can’t matter (50 extra points if you ask if the person should increase their dosage by a similar amount and it gets them mad) [10 points]

      o No greenhouse effect [50 points]

      o Greenland got its name because it was “Green” and life flourished in Medieval times, including grapes in England [10 points]

      o CO2 lags temp in Vostok record [10 points]

      o Scientists are in it for money [2 points]



            1. No need to deal with your long-refuted talking points. They were dealt with long ago.

              In fact, they were dealt with, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again, deniers trotted them out despite being refuted, they were refuted again…

              And so on. Deniers and denialists never learn, so a fun game was made out of denialist talking points.

              That is: joke’s on you.



                    1. I’m long past debating these inane denier talking points, refuted a billllllllllllllllllllll-yun times, and incompetent denier rubes parroting them again anyway.

                      Here you go. You embarrass yourself by pretending ignorance that your talking points are anything but a punch line now.



                    2. Years ago people decided to make a joke out of your faithful recitation of the talking points.

                      I’ve scored mine off your ignorance and am moving on. You are dismissed.



                    3. That is news to me. Produce a link to one or two. You cannot as none exist. I am a physical scientist, identify myself fully, cite the listing of 614 of my publications, films, audio programs, etc. at, which only a fraction of the material bearing major publisher copyright in my name where dare not show your name! My full list of publications in several media is more than 800 and you do not do that if you are the idiot you accuse me of being. You are clearly fools practicing mental self-abuse and are disgusting.

                    4. These Bozo’s are intellectual midgets Adrian. They have no argument that can disprove your point unless they use the lies of the money grubbers. They are truly lost in the wilderness with their feeble talking points….all the while denying all truth that comes their way as a mere casualty of life.

                    5. Thank you. It is very frustrating to have these snipes trying to be clever, which some readers may buy, when I have paid a great price for my having fought this fraud since it began by trying to use the media where I had been an accepted,
                      authentic source because the publishers either were told or realized the Federal government was determined to tax carbon fueled power production and they dared not get in the way. Fortunately, the publishing business is now in the hands of people and we can beat these people down by producing materials that help everyone prove this BS for themselves as do I in “Vapor Tiger” on sale at for only $2.99 in Kindle and they will give you a free reader for your computer which opens your machine to universe of free and low-cost materials of great value.

                    6. LOL…The paid hacks with no scientific authenticity are out in full force. I am an Architect and not a scientist but in being an architect we deal in the real world to solve problems. No lies no BS….we don’t have time for it cause we still have to make a profit. Not working for the government has that effect on you. That being said…anytime I find data disguised or manipulated it is 100% discounted, most likely for all time. I appreciate the work you have done to enlighten us all and bring honesty to the debate. If not for real and open debate we are lost.

                    7. Thank you. This is the first time in several years anyone has expressed appreciation. Believe me, I have paid a big price for opposing this insanity.

              1. CO2 is innocent. It is not a phase change compound. Why bicker when you apparently don’t know any SCIENCE ????? I seriously avoid descending to the depths of inanity displayed by certain web users but some will try anyone’s patience just for the hell of it.

                    1. If you think you have science, you are just the gullible rube savvy investor I’ve been looking for to take advantage of my latest can’t miss opportuni-TEA!

                      PM me right away before its too late!



        1. Let me explain, Adrian, since you’re apparently too dense to figure it out on your own. Dano is playing a game with your words and not taking anything you say the least bit seriously. Which is exactly the insult you deserve.

          1. You are a real jerk, snob and ass rolling into one really repulsive person. I am trying to be civil to the man who is obviously trying to be clever and missing the mark. He, like you, is trying to show us how smart he is while hiding behind a phony or clipped name, like you. Why don’t you guys get a room?

    2. Even trickier is the question ‘ Why did the agw climate zealots choose to site their Carbon Dioxide monitoring device so close to an active Hawaiian volcano ? Surely they were not hoping to benefit from the extra CO2 WAFTING ABOUT ? Or all that CO2 getting emitted by the warm Eastern Equatorial Current surrounding it. Heaven forfend!! What lily livered varlets they are all are.

      1. If you are talking about Charles David Keeling you should know that he had two passions in life: Surfing and Dairy Queen ice cream cones. While working for Scripps he made a trip to Hawaii and found a location with perfect waves and a Diary Queen on the beach!

        He cooked his whole fraud so he could spend his life on that beach and within walking distance of that Dairy Queen. I tell the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” on sale at in Kindle format for $2.99.

        1. My initial response to your reply did not give credit where it is most certainly due.You are an actual scientist. I am just some enthusiastic amateur with a passionate hatred of Agenda 21 and all that jazz. You might know about the late would-be wrecking-ball a.k.a. Saul D. Alinsky and the fans he has in the States? That Hawaiian Kenyan fool and that harridan Hitlary Clinton. I am glad not to own well manicured suburban property within reach of Hitlary and her running mate Julian Castro. Do you know what she has plans to do with them?

  2. They have never been able to quantify anything about the supposed benefits. We’ve been nothing but the run around since the git-go on this. It was about leadership, now it’s “a step in the right direction” – but she was right the first time when she said “this is not about pollution control”. Nope, none of the above – it’s about control and endless source of revenue from taxing greenhouse gases – a never-ending source because it will never be enough; they will always have to do more. God help us get people in office that will put an end to this madness.

    1. Ethanol, Ecofuel that rides under false colours .E C O -B L O O D Y- L O G I C A L ?? Horse material ! The stuff has already given off quite enough Carbon Dioxide in the act of getting brewed from sugar never mind the extra completely innocent CO2 given off when burnt, Methane is also a totally spurious guilty party. Methane is given off by some bacteria and consumed by others and termites and vegetarian intestines and by vegetation in the Pantanal flood forests during part of the year . Has anyone totted up all those kilotons of CO2 released by the incompetently managed forests bought needlessly by the EPA AND THEN ALLOWED TO BURN ?

  3. It is always a worry when a governmental administrator says that an action is “only the first step”. Oh, oh! What’s the next step? What’s the whole march going to be? Trampling rights for one thing, raising taxes for another, greater governmental control, and on and on. You see, governmental agencies must continue to do more and more to keep their jobs and increase their staffs and then their pay check. It always, always happens. The Feds now have more departments gaining power, and the White House has more czars which create a two tiered system of tyranny. They are all now on their twentieth step so watch out. Now you know!

    1. Well said. If the point is to start at horrendous cost what is the destination and its expected cost? Further if the point is to start why make excuses about fixing the climate? If she can’t define the goal how can she defend taking the first step?

      1. The point is, to confuse you all just long enough so that you are hypnotised by this treacherous MADNESS OF STOATs to not realise the bigger picture. ‘The actual goal is Alinsky -style confusion and financial ruination of the DOING RACES and your replacement by brain dead simpletons whose EBT doesn’t work and whose DISTANT neighbours’ only triumph is back -biting rhetoric and empty point scoring that never discusses the curious but unmissable stench of ELEPHANT ####.

    2. We won’t know until they have all our money. Then it will be just an “innocent mistake”, and “good news” that fossil fuels don’t affect climate after all.

      But we won’t be made whole for tens of trillions of dollars of wasted expense.

    3. A fix, a fudge, a fiddle, an agreement to ignore the ACTUAL facts, call it what you please, people sent overseas to lie for their bread and butter, will inevitably come to a cosy arrangement if co- conspirators will allow it. Water is a phase change molecule at the Earth’s temperatures and pressures but Carbon Dioxide is always a gas. There is a constant supply of CO2 from the Earth’s crust ,from volcanos both above ground and underwater, from forest fires , from animal breath including our own, and the respiration of zooplankton. There is also an an ENORMOUS reservoir of available Water molecules in the seas of the world to provide a ready supply of a much more potent greenhouse gas.than CO2 in other words W A T E R . Another greenhouse gas is the element Oxygen which comprises fully 20 % of our atmosphere and it transforms Ultraviolet light from the Earth’s upper Atmosphere into heat by undergoing ionisation into separate atoms and recombination of them. This process generates heat. The only reason to blame industry for the change that they pretend to believe might happen is to hamper Western Industry and our broader economy. W E A R E N O T G E T T I N G H O T T E R. The so called ‘scientists’ have been busy switching off most of the temperature monitoring stations because these keep on reporting inconveniently cold readings. I have been posting info on this topic for at least 5 years but how long they stay posted is another matter. I take a screenshot of my postings that show up these exaggerations and outright insults to the scientific process. To give you all a chance to get the skinny on why AGW is tosh all in the same article I would ask you to look up online, the archive back number copy of the New Scientist magazine for the 28th of October 1982. Starting on page 228 you will find most but by no means all of the factual Niagara that is available to wash away the Augean heap of mystical pseudo-scientific tosh that is AGW propaganda.

  4. it’s reducing global warming one-sixth of a degree Celsius over the next 85 years

    That’s what Lomborg and the other non-climate scientist said?

    Great news!

    That means the Paris Accord (PA) will work better than planned! Thanks Bjorn! Thanks to you, we know the PA will work better than we could have thought!




        1. My temp goes up more than that when a pretty girl walks by. It’s inconsequential – even in it’s exaggerated version of 0.17 degrees.

  5. hmmm, Gina was unable to be forced into a coherent prediction? Don’t know if she’s thought of it but she’d make an excellent gov’t employee….

  6. There are 400 PPM of CO2, a critical, naturally occurring gas in atmosphere. That’s 400/1,000,000.

    Mankind is responsible for less than 10%. (IPCC)

    10% of 400 PPM is 40.

    USA emits 25%, or 10 PPM. That’s 10/1,000,000

    It would be 100’s of billions of dollars to get a 20% reduction in our CO2 emissions.

    Assume we did reduce emissions 20%. That would be 2 PPM or 2/1,000,000.

    So the USA could effect perhaps a 2 parts per million change in the atmosphere.

    With seasonal CO2 variations of about 7 PPM, it would be near impossible to even measure any CO2 changes outside the typical margin of error.

  7. I personally hope that the truth would be verified regarding the genuinely (and negatively) adverse effects of the so-called “Paris climate agreement” on various societies and economies around the globe. – J.P.K.

  8. How many billions or trillions are the American people being compelled to pay or forego to take this one small step into what the EPA Administrator admits is the Unknown?

    How can this be lawful exercise of Federal Government power?

    1. If someone in that Kenyan THIRD GENERATION MARXISTS’ ENTOURAGE BELIEVES THAT OIL COMPANIES CAN BE THREATENED WITH SO CALLED “WIRE FRAUD” for not giving in to the fact free bluster of the warmists then what sort of a “Wire fraud” might the warmists be guilty of when they constantly fake and suppress data that is inconveniently cool and unhelpful to their treachery? WAKE UP LANGLEY, VIRGINIA SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET A VISIT from some of you slackabeds.

Leave a Reply