On May 14, 11:05*am, Meteorologist wrote:
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...policy/31531/e...

"If new climate legislation is not enacted this year, the
Environmental protection Agency (EPA) will be ready to step in with a
new rule aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from the largest
emitters in the United States."

Fat chance. The EPA isn't that stupid. Like everybody else, they
witnessed the tea party backlash to obamacare.

It comes down to this. If they can answer these questions, maybe. If
not then no way:

http://tinyurl.com/2ehvme4

1) Even slashing carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 2005 levels
would
reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by barely 0.2
degrees F, according to a study that used the UN's own climate
models.
That's because China, India and other developing countries are
building
new coal-fired power plants every week, even as the United States and
Europe shackle their economies and send more jobs overseas. How do
you
justify such destructive, punitive, meaningless legislation?


2) Reflecting agreement with thousands of scientists, most Americans
now
say climate change is natural, not manmade. Fully 75% are unwilling
to
spend more than $100 per year in higher energy bills to "stabilize"
Earth's unpredictable climate. What provision of the Constitution,
your
oath of office or your duty to the overall health and welfare of this
nation permits you to ignore the will of the people, the mounting
evidence that "climate disasters" are the product of computer models,
manipulated data and falsified UN reports, and the job-killing
impacts
of the laws and regulations you seek to impose?


3) If carbon dioxide is causing "runaway global warming," why have
average global temperatures not risen since 1995, and why have they
been
COOLING for the past five years - even as atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels have continued to rise to levels unprecedented in the modern
era?


4) What properties does manmade carbon dioxide have that enable it to
replace the complex natural forces that clearly caused the Ice Ages,
Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dust Bowl, ice-free Arctic seas
in
1822 and 1922, Alaska's 100 degree F temperature record in 1915, and
all
the other climate and weather changes and anomalies, blessings and
disasters that our planet has experienced during its long geologic
and
recorded history?


5) What physical or chemical properties does manmade carbon dioxide
have
that would enable it to overturn the laws of thermodynamics - and
cause
temperatures in Antarctica to rise 85 degrees F, from an average of
minus 50 F to plus 35 F year-round (or 48 degrees C, from -46 C to +2
C), to melt that continent's vast ice masses, raise sea levels 20
feet
or more, and flood coastal cities?


6) Precisely what chemical, physical and thermodynamic processes
would
drastic carbon dioxide reductions alter, and how? Precisely what
weather
and climate improvements would those reductions achieve? Precisely
how
will CO2 reductions stabilize planetary temperature, climate and
weather
systems that have been turbulent, unpredictable and anything but
stable
throughout Earth's history?


7) Is there ANY direct physical observation or evidence that would
falsify your climate crisis thesis, and cause you to admit human
greenhouse gas emissions are not causing a planetary climate
disaster?
Or do you think everything that happens confirms your climate
disaster
hypothesis: warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more snow and ice or
less, more hurricanes and tornadoes or cyclical periods with few such
storms?


8) Replacing hydrocarbons with unreliable, subsidized "green" energy
will require millions of acres of land for wind turbines, solar
panels
and transmission lines - plus hundreds of millions of tons of steel,
copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for all those
facilities.


Do you support delaying wind, solar and transmission projects for
years,
to protect the rights and property of local communities and private
landowners? Or do you favor regulatory edicts and eminent domain
actions, so that government can seize people's property and expedite
construction of these projects?


Do you support opening US public lands for renewed exploration and
development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create
American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, and
force
us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?


Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and
other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their
obvious impacts on wildlife and habitats? Or do you want them
subjected
to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy
projects,
so that renewable energy projects cannot be built, either - and we
have
massive blackouts?


9) Over 1.5 billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America still do
not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator.
Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely
eradicated
with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, modern hospitals, and
industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you
justify using taxpayer money to finance UN and environmental activist
programs that claim global warming is the biggest threat they face,
and
they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams
of
better lives, because YOU are worried about global warming? Doesn't
that
violate their most basic human rights to improved living standards,
and
even life itself?


10) If you're so sure about your data and conclusions - and intend to
use climate disaster claims to justify sending our energy costs
skyrocketing, killing millions of factory jobs, controlling our
lives,
and totally overhauling our energy, economic and social structure -
why
do you refuse to allow fair, open and balanced congressional hearings
and debates on climate science and economics? Why do you refuse to
debate skeptical experts in a public forum, or even answer questions
that challenge your alarmist thinking? Why do you refuse to require
that
scientists who get taxpayer money for their research must share and
discuss climate data, computer codes, methodologies and analyses?


11) How much money and campaign help have you gotten from companies
and
activist groups that benefit from renewable energy mandates and
subsidies, carbon offset and trading schemes, coal mining and oil
leasing bans, and other provisions of climate and energy legislation?


12) What if you vote for these job-killing, anti-growth, anti-poor,
anti-human-rights "climate disaster prevention" laws - and it turns
our
you are WRONG on the science or economics? What will you do? Give up
your congressional seat, home, pension and worldly wealth - and
pledge
yourself and your children to an austere life of service to the
people
you have harmed? Or just say, "Oh I'm so sorry," and then pass more
intrusive, oppressive laws, before retiring to collect a nice
government
pension - while millions freeze jobless in the dark?


13) If you can't or won't answer these questions, then why do you
think
you have a right to tell anyone on this planet that we have a
"climate
crisis," and dictate how they must live their lives - especially when
you've done so little to slash your own taxpayer-funded air travel,
staff, and home and office energy use?


http://tinyurl.com/2ehvme4