EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

U.S. House Science Committee
July 9, 2015

Via: The HARRY READ ME File: Testifying before Congress, EPA’s McCarthy defends the Agency’s climate regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ when asked about the rules climate benefit of reducing global temps by just one one-hundredth of a single degree Celsius.

CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH: “On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. At the same time it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do much good and isn’t this all pain and no gain.
ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”
CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never…”
CHAIRMAN SMITH: “But if you are looking at the results, the results can’t justify the cost and the burden that you’re imposing on the American people in my judgement.”
Related Links: 
Watch: Morano on Fox News on EPA Calling Skeptics NOT ‘Normal’: It’s abnormal to believe symbolic regs by U.S. govt would impact future extreme storms’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. on EPA climate regs: ‘Won’t influence future extreme weather or its impacts in any detectable way’ – ‘The so-called climate benefits of the regulations are essentially nil’ – Pielke Jr. : ‘The so-called climate benefits of the regulations are thus essentially nil, though I suppose one could gin some up via creative but implausible cost-benefit analyses. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a stock and flow problem and these proposed regulations make a only a very tiny contribution to the flow side of the equation. That is just math. The US carbon regulations won’t influence future extreme weather or its impacts in any detectable way. Hard to believe I felt compelled to write that…These regulations mainly switch electricity from coal to gas and thus do very little to increase the US proportion of carbon-free electricity generation.’

EPA: CO2 emission reduction has little impact on climate change – ‘Any policy that the U.S. does that purports to be climatically important, in fact is not’ – ‘Nothing to do with saving the planet from carbon dioxide emissions.’ – ‘EPA’s so-called ‘temperature change calculator’, which shows how reducing carbon emissions would affect climate change, indicates that a doubling of fuel economy in trucks by 2018 would have virtually no impact on rising temperatures.’

Watch Now: Morano in 3 against one Aljazeera TV debate over EPA Climate regs: ‘They are bastardizing science…demonizing carbon dioxide’


23 Responses

  1. A computer scientist is a scientist. A political scientist is not. Period. And you are right. You are not a scientist.
    Also: Computer science is an apropriate topic for some aspects of the EPA concerning thier climate science regulations since the climate scare has been propogated through the use of computer models which are totally inadequate for modeling something as complex as the climate… a computer scientist would know this, a political scientist would not.

  2. The guys data was —spooned — to their wantings====and now the guy is up-set —and wants to tell the TRUTH===== not something the regime knows or cares about====

  3. This is like saying “If I conserve energy, my neighbor will, too” – and it just doesn’t work that way. This is not like “keeping up with the Joneses”.

  4. The EPA chief is being overly optimistic. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Man does not have the power to change it. There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. In terms of the postulated radiant greenhouse effect, the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is H2O which provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect that these other gases might have have on climate. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. So to on Earth. The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be, not because of the action of heat trapping gasses but because gravity limits cooling by convection. What keeps the Earth warm is a convective greenhouse effect. The natural temperature lapse rate in the troposphere 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 greenhouse gases. The gravity induced convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. For example on Venus, the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude where the pressure equals one bar, the same pressure at the surface of the Earth, can be explained by how much closer to the Sun Venus is than the Earth. CO2 exists in the Earth’s atmosphere at .04% yet even at 96% in the atmosphere of Venus, there is no measurable radiant greenhouse effect caused by CO2. So even if the USA cut all CO2 emissions to zero, it would have no effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. We should not be waisting our efforts trying to change things that we cannot change. Our real environmental problem stems from Man’s uncontrolled population in a world of finite space and finite resources. It is a problem that we can solve. If Man does not control his own population then Nature will, catastrophically.

    1. “There you go again”, as Prez Reagan used to say. Just relying on DATA and provable theories that HAVE NO PLACE in the GREEN religion. Don’t you want to “Save the Earth? Can you doubt our President, the Papa, Al gore? What is this world coming to. Why you are as nothing but another GALILEO. HRUMPH.

  5. “Beneficial symbolic impact”

    Hmm. Let’s see, suppose one thing is symbolized as ravaging the planet and threatening all life on earth but is actually responsible for longer, healthier, wealthier lives for more people than at any previous time in human history and suppose the dismantling of this thing is symbolized as being wonderful, responsible, and the best thing anyone could do when, in reality, it will lead to extreme privation and the deaths of billions.

    Obviously, pushing for the latter based on its symbolism is an act of insane self-destruction.

    It’s symbolic value is great only if you’re someone angling for the destruction of the human environment and people are believing you and helping to make it happen while thinking the opposite is occurring.

  6. Yep … this is now all about something other than reducing global temperature. Whatever action is taken by governments, it will have no discernible effect on global average temperature and here is why:-

    1. 95% of the atmospheric heat is due to water vapour and 5% is due to so called “greenhouse gases” of which carbon dioxide is responsible for 3.6% of the heat in the atmosphere.

    2. Of all the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year, the IPCC AR4 asserted that only 3% is from human activity, 97% coming from natural sources.

    3. On that basis, the human 3% is only responsible for 0.11% (3.6% x 3%) of the heat on the atmosphere.

    Any proposition to destroy the world’s energy system over such an irrelevant and insignificant human contribution to the atmospheric heat content is simply absurd and preposterous.

    To waste an obscene amount of money on climate change is not just insane, it is grossly immoral because the money could be better spent helping the poor people in third world countries.

  7. “>>> The value of this rule is […] measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action <<<"

    How can moronic and totally ineffective grandstanding like this "trigger global action?" On the contrary, nations of the world, seeing how the US shoots itself in the leg, destroys its economy, military power and wipes out its freedoms and civil society in the process, will only turn away from such a "glorious example" in droves and go back to doing whatever they have been doing, in full knowledge that the American example, while ruinous, accomplishes nothing and that there is nothing to accomplish anyway, because "climate change" is fraud.

    People like McCarthy, a scientific and economic illiterate that she is, unelected government bureaucrat, a fanatical environmentalist, are the bane of our democracy and our political system. It is high time to take a broom to EPA and other federal agencies and clean up the mess, while restoring full legislative power to the Congress.

    "No regulation without representation."

  8. “…strong domestic action…can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”

    So basically, until the US leads the fight against climate change, nothing will get done. Assuming that is true, the US apparently causes 20% of global warming (source below).

    So, even if the *entire world* implements these regulations, it will lead to about 5 one-hundredths of a degree difference. Still immeasurable.


Leave a Reply