Head of the EPA tosses Tantrum..

[flacaltenn]

Both warmer and skeptic alike are gonna love this video clip.. Represents the frustration and anger that the CAGWarming leadership are feeling right now.. One side is gonna cheer. THe other is gonna jeer. Something here for everyone.

Before you chastize me for the SOURCE of the clip (although I don't know how a video clip can be biased by what site it's on) ---- I knew no one would watch it if it is was posted in long form.. So here it is as the "sound bite" everyone wants to hear...

I WOULD like to know if that was the normal end to speech and she never had dignity and integrity on the topic.
Or whether this rant was triggered maybe by a question from the room.. Would be delicious if someone taunted her into this meltdown..

Watch the video at the link please before commenting..


EPA Chief McCarthy Climate Deniers Are Not Normal Human Beings - Breitbart

Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

Oh -- THAT kind of rant will win hearts and minds.. Good thing I am a "normal person"..

 

[Mr. H.]

Same-sex marriage deniers are also not "normal people". The Supreme Court just told us so.

 

[flacaltenn]

Same-sex marriage deniers are also not "normal people". The Supreme Court just told us so.

That's exactly what you do when your agenda has no traction and has been generally rejected by the public. You find a scapegoat and burn it..

 

[mamooth]

Conspiracy cultists aren't normal. Therefore, most global warming deniers aren't normal.

We're not going to get all PC and declare that conspiracy cultists really are normal. Because they're not. Normal people do not rant about how thousands of scientists around the world are all part of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

And again, avoid the term CAGW, because it instantly destroys a speaker's credibility by identifying them as a WUWT/Breitbart drone.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Well, when she figures out a way to dial down the sun, cause.........

And all that dire shit about what's going to happen if you don't let us spend a big chunk of your pay check to stop it, still, after decades, hasn't happened. Polar bears are increasing, ice at the poles increasing, ice floating in Lake Erie in June. And a decrease in solar flares.

If you think for one second that the EPA is worried about your air, or anybody's carbon footprint, think again. There plan was to sell pollution rights to the highest bidder.

 

[Hossfly]

I've been searching the web and can't find out how the EPA plans to cool down the sun or how many degrees they want to lower the temperature. I would also like to know how much money this is going to cost and what happens when the money runs out. Do they plan to have some kind of automatic thermostat to regulate temperature and an air conditioner the size of the moon. It's mindboggling and enough to drive an idiot crazy.

 

[skookerasbil]

The passive-aggressive tone of the climate crusaders is hysterical..........because you know they are losing. That's the way of the modern progressive. Demonize, label and go mental.


ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

Heard somebody say that soon if one utters, "America is the land of opportunity" one will be labeled a racist!!!

Personally, I am beyond thrilled that all of this shit is coming to a head now.........the level of division is far greater than any time in my lifetime. Awesome...........game on. Pushback is finally going to come from "non-normal" white people. Im just glad Im not on the side that defends their residences with wiffle ball bats!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is the same person who told her staff that if you dont believe in CAGW you should leave HER EPA! She is a self absorbed fool. Her political agenda trumps everything. just suggesting she is wrong prompts a meltdown..

 

[flacaltenn]

Conspiracy cultists aren't normal. Therefore, most global warming deniers aren't normal.

We're not going to get all PC and declare that conspiracy cultists really are normal. Because they're not. Normal people do not rant about how thousands of scientists around the world are all part of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

And again, avoid the term CAGW, because it instantly destroys a speaker's credibility by identifying them as a WUWT/Breitbart drone.

When's the last time a high ranking science official blamed the failure of his/her agenda on a conspiracy cult?
Is that composed, professional, and representing the integrity of the position --- thing to do??

And if skeptics are so small and so marginalized, why does she feel the need to rant about them in front of a audience of 1000 medical scientists? And then skulk off the stage..

 

[flacaltenn]

Massive avoidance of this video by the local warming pom-poim squad.. I thought they'd be cheering her on..

Oh well.. Most NORMAL PEOPLE know when a high ranking official has embarrassed themselves and their position.

 

[Crick]

What's the problem? All of us warmers here know you (and SSDD and Westwall and Kosh and Crusader Frank and jc456 and the rest of the deniers here) aren't normal. YOU know you're not normal. You choose to reject arguments no reasonable person would reject. What's the beef?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's the problem? All of us warmers here know you (and SSDD and Westwall and Kosh and Crusader Frank and jc456 and the rest of the deniers here) aren't normal. YOU know you're not normal. You choose to reject arguments no reasonable person would reject. What's the beef?

NO proof....

No Science to support your position...

So you resort to Ad hominem...

Nice display of why alarmists are wrong and to what lengths they will go to try and discredit others while avoiding any proof or defending their position. Just like Tom Peterson of NCDC did to Anthony Watts. Simply another example of EPA and other federal agency abuses of power. This thread is about the EPA chief and her abuse of power... Cricks actions show he not only approves of this behavior but he himself will do it to further his love of the liberal power agenda.

 

[Crick]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

 

[eagle1462010]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time............and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man............I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming...........then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so...............

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data..........fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it.................and bitch and moan when you get called out on it......................

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court...........The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time.....using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO.............claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.............

It is an ABUSE OF POWER.............and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States.................Finally, someone stopped a part of it..............and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH................

Deal with it..................We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH...............specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS................SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED...........

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism..............and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

 

[Crick]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

 

[eagle1462010]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: Okay. It's gonna cost you a lot of money. Now get hot.

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving he EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

 

[eagle1462010]

Your side has circumvented the Constitution to push your agenda...........
You do it by citing old laws to do any damned thing you want..........
You post the same graph time and time again and still can't quantify the amount of warming by man.......
You take natural phenomenon and equate it to man........
You refuse to look at how much heat is dissipated by natural events like Typhoons and Hurricanes.....Natures AC units..........
You go la la la when your computer models don't match reality.......
You refuse to admit that the IPCC lied it's asses off.......
You refuse that the science was so fucked up in the 70's that they predicted another Ice age....
You change the title over and over again as people ditch your beliefs..........aka Global Cooling to..........

You destroy industry with your bs............and praise the new......while using the old to build it.

and so on.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The EPA should be dissolved.

 

[Crick]

Well, I guess that refutes all my points.