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.

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

  1. Goluscombe since Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen all hold more heat than CO2 your conclusion is beyond ignorant. Nevermind that CO2 is actually only .00035% of the atmosphere and not even coming close to the 1% you mention.
    We also know that CO2 may act better as a cooling agent than a heating agent.
    Also the heat range of CO2 is very narrow compared to the other gasses mentioned. It heats up faster and cools down a little more slowly than the other gasses but that explains the narrow heat range.
    Humidity is a perfect example of a gasses ability to hold heat. Also known as water vapor, H2O in the atmosphere holds so much more heat per molecule than CO2 it’s not even a fair discussion.

  2. Goluscombe since Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen all hold more heat than CO2 your conclusion is beyond ignorant. Nevermind that CO2 is actually only .00035% of the atmosphere and not even coming close to the 1% you mention.
    We also know that CO2 may act better as a cooling agent than a heating agent.
    Also the heat range of CO2 is very narrow compared to the other gasses mentioned. It heats up faster and cools down a little more slowly than the other gasses but that explains the narrow heat range.
    Humidity is a perfect example of a gasses ability to hold heat. Also known as water vapor, H2O in the atmosphere holds so much more heat per molecule than CO2 it’s not even a fair discussion.

  3. how about this experiment. take away the water vapor in the atmosphere and see how much greenhouse effect remains. see ya on the ice ball

  4. As a trader in stocks and currencies I (and everyone else) have come up against the practical world of Chaos Theory. Everyone that is, except the warmists who guarantee me they can tell the Earth’s temperature 100 years from now. Yeah.. not so much really. Here’s the bad news for them right from the horse’s mouth (or maybe the other end).
    ———-
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

  5. you guys should wander over to tallbloke’s site and read the paper recently released on warming as a function of atmospheric pressure and insolation. If you combine that with Scafetta’s papers on orbital variance, solar variance, and Earth eccentricity/wobble you get a pretty good track on atmospheric climate change.
    ——————-
    ‘Testing An Astronomically Based Decadal-Scale Empirical Harmonic Climate Model vs. The IPCC (2007) General Circulation Climate Models’ by Nicola Scafetta, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW5-h9wn3OQ
    ———
    New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model – Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574

  6. John, if people can be convinced the air that trees breathe is a pollutant I’m sure we can convince them water is a pollutant.

  7. 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?

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

  9. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.