EPA skips important climate conference

gina mccarthyOver the past 20 years, the American government has spent millions of dollars sending representatives to United Nations climate change conferences. While the public are advised to walk, bicycle, and take the bus more to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, hundreds of civil servants have enjoyed tax payer funded flights to exotic locations across the globe to take part in U.N. negotiations to ‘save the climate.’

It makes little difference who is in power. In 1997, the Clinton administration sent 47 representatives to the two week U.N. meeting in Japan where the Kyoto Protocol was created. Ten years later, the Bush administration sent the same number to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.

President Barack Obama has doubled down on this tradition, with his administration sending 124 representatives to the U.N.’s Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 and 79 reps to last year’s conference in Peru. With basic travel and living expenses of over $10,000 per participant for the ten day yearly event, costs now easily exceed a million dollars per meeting.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of climate change conferences administration officials attend around the world each year. Clearly, the sky is the limit when it comes to covering costs for America’s high flying climate bureaucrats.

But don’t expect administration representatives to be seen at a climate conference that is literally down the street if the point of view the U.N. holds dear is seriously challenged.

For example, not one of Obama’s people, not even from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attended the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-10) organized by The Heartland Institute on June 11 and 12 in Washington DC. 350 people assembled to listen to leading climate science, economics, and policy experts explain how global warming and extreme weather concerns have been vastly overblown. Presenters hailed from major universities such as Princeton, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Alabama, and Canada’s University of Victoria. The U.S. Senate, state governments, and prominent international think tanks provided speakers as well and several dozen U.S. state legislators attended as observers.

Had EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy or her representatives travelled the 1.1 miles between EPA Headquarters and the Washington Court Hotel where ICCC-10 was held, they would have learned that much of what the agency is saying about climate change is wrong.

For example, McCarthy would have heard Princeton University physics professor Dr. William Happer tell the audience that the forecasts of models on which the climate scare is based diverge widely from real world observations. “The models don’t work at all,” said Happer, “and yet we’re supposed to believe them and think that this is an existential threat to the world.”

The Administrator would have learned from University of Pennsylvania forecasting expert Professor J. Scott Armstrong that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts that the Obama administration holds dear are untrustworthy since they violate almost all relevant forecasting principals.

McCarthy would have seen the graph from University of Alabama satellite temperature expert Dr. Roy Spencer showing that there has been no global warming since February 1997.

She would have witnessed Dr. Cornelis van Kooten, professor of economics at the University of Victoria, assert that, “Efforts to control CO2 emissions will be carried out on the back of the most vulnerable in global society. Even if nations conclude an agreement to reduce CO2 emissions, it will cost a lot of money but will have no perceptible impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”

McCarthy would have learned from Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at Australia’s James Cook University that the announcements of national science academies supporting climate alarm “are based, not on the views of the expert members of the societies involved, but on the views of a small cadre of politically active executives. It is a political consensus. It is not a scientific consensus.”

McCarthy and the EPA missed all this and more because, just as for all past Heartland climate conferences, she and her staff completely skipped the event.

With $1 billion dollars now being spent every day across the world on climate finance, hundreds of millions of it by the American government, it’s about time the Obama administration opened its ears to alternative points of view.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. www.climatescienceinternational.org


Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    Crikey! Doesn’t Gina look a bit, well….unhinged?

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn


    Some would like you to believe that global average climate is so complex that you can’t understand it. In fact, over 97% of reported average global temperatures since before 1900 are explained by a comparatively simple expression involving only sunspot numbers and a simple approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles. The ongoing long-term average global temperature trend is down.

    The analysis and a brief description of the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

  • Avatar



    Why would they attend ? They buy their policy support with grant money .

    The EPA is out not interested in listening to anything that contradicts it’s agenda .

    If Nixon could create the EPA with an executive order then the next President
    can reverse it. The EPA has grown too big for it’s britches and no longer balances the public interest .

    CO2 is essential for life on earth and is not a pollutant .

    Are they going to regulate what people breath out as a population control measure ?

    The EPA is an out of control special interest group imbedded in the USA government .

    • Avatar



      Are they going to regulate what people breath out as a population control measure ?

      More than likely. I bet they don’t like the weasel words I just used, which are the same that they use all the time. Don’t believe me, look at any of their reports.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.