patrick.net

When presented in the proper venue, this evidence has the potential to damn the defendant.

Call it Crazy says

Well, she is a gov't employee and a public servant, why would you expect her to know anything about her job?

She's protecting national security, and you just need to learn to trust that she knows what's best for everyone... you.... you.... DENIER!

Call it Crazy says

Oh, so sorry.... I'll go stand in the corner for 10 minutes as punishment...

Just pay up. It isn't cheap to come up with solutions to what these models are predicting.

sbh says

You two should get a room.

Haven't you been paying attention? We can't afford it. We've got to pay for the solutions to problems predicted by models provided by people who can neither explain them nor explain the model's place in the face of contrary evidence.

turtledove says

On droughts, McCarthy said: "I don't know in what context (a scientist) is making statements like that..."

On hurricanes she said: "I cannot answer that question. It's a very complicated issue."

And on temperature she added: "I do not know what the (temperature) models actually are predicting that you are referring to..."

Wow. We don't know the full questions, or even the context of those phrases, which are pretty typical for answers at hearings, but jeepers this seems like like proof of something.

Definitely the kind of thing that would convince a Fox news watcher of ummm, who knows, but it definitely looks kinda bad. I think providing even less context, if that's possible might have been even more damning.

turtledove says

EPA can't tell if its climate models are correct

Sure they can, they just ask the EU.

. If climate change is real then there is no cost that prohibits combating it: none. If, on the other hand, it is just an error in judgement like Reaganomics or WMD-based regime change then we can easily vaporize several trillion bucks without ever changing our spots. If it ain't broke why fix it?

It looks like Grubers work is done here. The heritage foundation thanks you stupid Americans for your propensity to vacate thought and logic

The point is getting grant money over chicken little scenarios as a pretense for establishing tax sucking bureaucracies to "control" the problem.

Even if true, the only real solution is population control. Try to sell that the the reproducing, swilling masses, something liberals would never do. As long as the right to take countless, thoughtless genetic dumps on Mother Earth and society is regarded as a sacrosanct privilege, discussions of hypothetical solutions to a still hypothetical, hysterical and largely unproven problem are moot.

Call it Crazy says

All the context you need was there, but since you're an idiot.... Well, that answers it...

Says the king of the dim bulbs.

You mean like this ?

turtledove says

On droughts, McCarthy said: "I don't know in what context (a scientist) is making statements like that..."

It's implied that this is a general comment on droughts. But the quote is

"I don't know in what context a scientist is making a comment like that.." Meaning that the question was not a general question about droughts, but rather asking for a comment on a very specific quote of a scientist out of context ?

What, if you were at a congressional hearing you wouldn't be careful with your answers to leading and unclear lines of questioning. Probably from people with an agenda ?

The sad thing is that for you this is just a game, and I'm the enemy. If you have the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills you claim to have you definitely have never been willing to put them to use in serious conversation.

So, maybe call me a stupid educator again rather than own up to what kind of person you are.

turtledove says

On hurricanes she said: "I cannot answer that question. It's a very complicated issue."

SO we don't know what the question is, and we should just take this to be indicative of what the EPA has to say about hurricanes ?

Really, Turtledove ? This garbage moves you ?

When the whole global warming brouhahaha started, they predicted Atlantic hurricanes of unprecedented force and much greater frequency as part of the scare.

Strangely, the hurricanes never materialized, Atlantic hurricane seasons have been unusually mild. That seems to be one of the scenarios that the "warmists" try to play down.

I looked at the video. its quite clear what the Jeff Sessions' agenda is. He asks her at the end the following question (and says how amazing it is that she cant answer this question).

Taking the average of what all the models say, are temperatures rising faster or slower than what the models say ?

She's supposed to know what the average of all the models say ? What time frame should she address ? Daily, weekly ? yearly ? I'm sure that many of the models are be constantly adjusted for temperature changes that have already occurred, and everyone knows that the changes per year or even per 10 years are very small in terms of how many degrees the temp has gone up.

It's true she was not prepared for him being such an ignorant dick. And she should have been. But it doesn't prove that she doesn't know what's going on, or that she doesn't understand the subject on a WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY higher level than he does.

Let's put it this way. Her wonks (the wonks behind her) are high IQ scientists. HIs wonks are beltway political operatives that have the intelligence of your average PR executive. Sometimes they may even be extremely intelligent, but their intelligence is put to use in figuring out ways to deceive the public and to do what's best for the 1% and the fossil fuel industries.

Big surpirse. Oil and Gas companies were the second biggest industry contributing to Jeff Sessions campaign.

Ceffer says

When the whole global warming brouhahaha started, they predicted Atlantic hurricanes of unprecedented force and much greater frequency as part of the scare.

Strangely, the hurricanes never materialized, Atlantic hurricane seasons have been unusually mild. That seems to be one of the scenarios that the "warmists" try to play down.

IT wasn't just because of global warming. It was also a radically increasing trend in bad storms and Hurricane's in the Atlantic. I recall in the 90s stories of insurance compaies laying off their risk, by essentially selling investments in insring against hurricanes. That is selling to reinsurers or other investment products created to help them hedge against what looked like an increasing trend.

Look at the data. This (link below) has very detailed data and an interesting graphic at the end.

What would you bet on for the next ten years ? Just based on trends, not the down trend of the past few years, but the longer term trend ?

I wouldn't want to be insuring against hurricanes in Florida, and I'm saying that just based on long term trends, nothing to do with AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season

sbh says

If climate change is real then there is no cost that prohibits combating it: none.

If it's real, do it with your own money Donkey Hotey. Let the smarter folks invest wisely in ways to live with it.

sbh says

If, on the other hand, it is just an error in judgement like Reaganomics or WMD-based regime change then we can easily vaporize several trillion bucks without ever changing our spots.

The ol', "They did sumpin stupid so my stupid idea is okay too", rationale. Lame.