EPA Chief Gina McCarthy Doesn’t Know Percentage of CO2 in Atmosphere

[timosman]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-chief-gina-mccarthy-doesnt-know-percentage-of-co2-in-atmosphere/


Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) asked McCarthy, “What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?”

“What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? I don’t have that calculation for you sir,” said McCarthy.

“Maybe you could tell us what your personal guess is on what percentage CO2 is,” said the congressman.

“I don’t make those guesses sir,” McCarthy said.

“You’re the head of the EPA and you don’t know—you’ve based all of these laws based on—oh you’re going to get your staffer to tell you now,” said Rohrabacher. “But you’re the head of the EPA and you did not know what percentage and now are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn’t even know what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was, which is the justification for the very policies you’re talking about.”

“No that isn’t—if you’re asking me how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage but how much we have just reached levels of 400 parts per million,” McCarthy read from her notes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT65MXW5G-I

[Ronin Truth]

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This is just as golden as the guy who couldn't answer how large a prison cell was.

[luctor-et-emergo]

OMG..

Percent comes directly from the French word for 100, 'Cent'.
How uneducated in science are you when you do not know that percent and ppm are essentially the same number/value written differently. Usually to avoid rows of 0's.

[Ronin Truth]

OMG..

Percent comes directly from the French word for 100, 'Cent'.
How uneducated in science are you when you do not know that percent and ppm are essentially the same number/value written differently. Usually to avoid rows of 0's.

It's probably that "written differently" part that's screwing them up. ;) :D Unless they are, in fact, just idiots.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

There's already a mini-revolution going on, where I live anyway. Almost every block has at least one house with solar panels now, pretty cool stuff. I've already seen the benefits, even though I don't use them yet. There's way less power outages than we used to have. Lots of streetlights have some panels too.

[luctor-et-emergo]

It's probably that "written differently" part that's screwing them up. ;) :D Unless they are, in fact, just idiots.

I think the latter is safe to assume.

Also, Rohrabacher is trying to make the point that such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere cannot have an impact on weather patterns. This shows more lack of understanding of science.

The basics are pretty well understood. Radiation from the sun comes in, gets absorbed or reflected and a gazillion different factors influence how much gets absorbed and how much gets reflected. CO2 definitely plays a part in this and everyone who denies that is mongering the worst unscientific crap. What I personally find more interesting is how people continue to focus on CO2 so much when it's scientifically proven that other gasses like methane and nitrous oxides are hundreds of times stronger in absorbing infrared (heat radiation) but hardly ever get mentioned in the public debate (although they are well known among (climate) scientists). Not to mention the reflectivity of the earth itself.

I'm not at all sure what the nature is of climate change at the moment, how much influence humanity has on it. I do know for sure that the people in charge WILL mess it up if they are able to. From both sides of the debate.

[CaptUSA]

Still can't beat this one, though...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

[Ronin Truth]

I think the latter is safe to assume.

Also, Rohrabacher is trying to make the point that such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere cannot have an impact on weather patterns. This shows more lack of understanding of science.

The basics are pretty well understood. Radiation from the sun comes in, gets absorbed or reflected and a gazillion different factors influence how much gets absorbed and how much gets reflected. CO2 definitely plays a part in this and everyone who denies that is mongering the worst unscientific crap. What I personally find more interesting is how people continue to focus on CO2 so much when it's scientifically proven that other gasses like methane and nitrous oxides are hundreds of times stronger in absorbing infrared (heat radiation) but hardly ever get mentioned in the public debate (although they are well known among (climate) scientists). Not to mention the reflectivity of the earth itself.

I'm not at all sure what the nature is of climate change at the moment, how much influence humanity has on it. I do know for sure that the people in charge WILL mess it up if they are able to. From both sides of the debate.

Current Atmospheric CO2 = 400 ppm, per NASA. ;) Big Wooo! :rolleyes:

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Still can't beat this one, though...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

LOL LOL LOL how can a representative be that stupid? No, don't answer that please.
He.. he doesn't know Islands don't actually float. LOL

[Ronin Truth]

LOL LOL LOL how can a representative be that stupid? No, don't answer that please.
He.. he doesn't know Islands don't actually float. LOL


floating islands

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=floating+islands&gbv=2&oq=floating+islands&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0l10.7847391.7862266.0.7865282.18.10.1.7.8. 0.328.2063.0j5j4j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.2438.s93sdUJMS1U

[timosman]

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/co2/


What levels of CO2 are considered safe?

Carbon dioxide is not generally found at hazardous levels in indoor environments. The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. This means the average concentration over an 8-hour period should not exceed 10,000 ppm and the average concentration over a 15 minute period should not exceed 30,000 ppm. It is unusual to find such continuously high levels indoors and extremely rare in non-industrial workplaces. These standards were developed for healthy working adults and may not be appropriate for sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly. MDH is not aware of lower standards developed for the general public that would be protective of sensitive individuals.

[Cleaner44]

OMG..

Percent comes directly from the French word for 100, 'Cent'.
How uneducated in science are you when you do not know that percent and ppm are essentially the same number/value written differently. Usually to avoid rows of 0's.

Please don't question the education of the King's Experts.

[timosman]

Percent comes directly from the French word for 100, 'Cent'.

Try Latin.

[devil21]

Please don't question the education of the King's Experts.

Just more proof that the heads of these departments are nothing but PR people for corporations and NWO agenda-pushers and have absolutely no personal, educational, or scientific knowledge of the subject matter they're supposedly 'in charge of'. Heck, if she had guessed and said 3% I'd at least give her credit for trying. But no, she hasn't even enough personal knowledge of the issue to make even a guess!

[GunnyFreedom]

Current Atmospheric CO2 = 400 ppm, per NASA. ;) Big Wooo! :rolleyes:

400 ppm = 0.04%

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

400 ppm = 0.04%

we have our new EPA chief

[devil21]

we have our new EPA chief

Gunny for Pres 2020!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XShqCISYk4

[alucard13mm]

I think the latter is safe to assume.

Also, Rohrabacher is trying to make the point that such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere cannot have an impact on weather patterns. This shows more lack of understanding of science.

The basics are pretty well understood. Radiation from the sun comes in, gets absorbed or reflected and a gazillion different factors influence how much gets absorbed and how much gets reflected. CO2 definitely plays a part in this and everyone who denies that is mongering the worst unscientific crap. What I personally find more interesting is how people continue to focus on CO2 so much when it's scientifically proven that other gasses like methane and nitrous oxides are hundreds of times stronger in absorbing infrared (heat radiation) but hardly ever get mentioned in the public debate (although they are well known among (climate) scientists). Not to mention the reflectivity of the earth itself.

I'm not at all sure what the nature is of climate change at the moment, how much influence humanity has on it. I do know for sure that the people in charge WILL mess it up if they are able to. From both sides of the debate.

I believe water vapor is thousands of times more potent as a "greenhouse" gas. We need to ban water now!

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe water vapor is thousands of times more potent as a "greenhouse" gas. We need to ban water now!

and ~1% of the atmosphere vs CO₂ at 0.04% :eek:

[muh_roads]

Doesn't know CO2 levels, but I bet she knows the carbon tax numbers being planned in secret.

[timosman]

bump as it relates to the Cruz story - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483368-Ted-Cruz-Destroys-Fool-On-Climate-Change