VIDEO FLASHBACK: Obama EPA chief ignorant of basic climate facts

AP blowhard and climate bedwetter Seth Borenstein attacked (headline below) Trump administration officials this morning for their various statements about climate.

But where was Borenstein in March 2011 when then-Obama climate chief Gina McCarthy confessed ignorance to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or where was Borenstein in March 2015 when then-Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy confessed ignorance of climate model predictions?

Borenstein isn’t a journalist so much as he is a propagandist for the communism-via-climate movement.

3 thoughts on “VIDEO FLASHBACK: Obama EPA chief ignorant of basic climate facts”

  1. Mr. Sessions is deliberately trying to force specificity where noe can be provide. Such is the business of prediction. Being the path of a hurricane, the length of a yellow light or likelihood of daily high temperature or the risk of insuring a car driver, what Borenstein is saying that CO2 levels are probabilistic. We are given ranges and the percentage of likelihoods for those ranges but exact CO2 values cannot be assessed. Even the Standard world wide temperature, 59 degrees, Fahrenheit was determined was done probabilistically. Also, people don’t want CO2 to be considered a pollutant merely because it raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Not that flooding isn’t deleterious in it’s own way. Towns in Florida are having their streets flooded by high tides.

    Get over it, CO2 warms – on the average – it is, in fact a global warming gas. 99% of our tmoshere is either oxygen or nitrogen, the remaining 1% is everything else.

    Wow, then how can the earth be warmed by so little gas? Well, if we didn’t have that 1% of other gases, the average earth temperature would be 40 to 60 degrees lower! That’s because the suns energy is being trapped by re-reflecting it’s light back to earth.

    If this doesn’t make one crazy, think about this: Without uranium, the earth would also be much cooler. I don’t know by how much. It’s strange but true. Our planet is very unique, we can’t mess it up. No one is trying to blame anyone or make people feel bad about just being alive.

    Those who are truly sincere about atmospheric pollution only want to educate. Whether someone wants to listen is up to them but don’t shoot the messengers.

  2. I love the way AP takes the comments from a few global warming hysteria mongers and converts that into “Science says” . . .

  3. If there is no specificity, how can there be certainty? Also, though water vapor is a weaker green house gas than carbon dioxide, its concentration is much higher, thereby offsetting the difference in potency. Should not water vapor also be considered in climate research? Maybe not. How would people respond to water vapor being called a pollutant?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.