However premature, the legal hardware for federally mandated carbon cuts is just about in place: the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, President Barack Obama’s budget, U.S. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s massive bill, and negotiations for a binding Kyoto Treaty II. The President, congressional leadership, and the United Nations propose the most expensive, ambitious, and enforceable carbon mandates to date.

Once regarded a barrier to immediate carbon cuts, the recession is now used to justify expanding federal control of energy and generating “climate revenue.” The Senate Majority Leader claims carbon tax revenues are necessary to pay for universal health care. Redistribution of energy income and central energy planning meet the light of day. Energy independence now means the end of oil.

Before decision makers take the final steps, and thus rupture the fossil fuel-based energy system on which modern prosperity hinges, how about some cogent answers to fundamental questions never answered by the climate alarmists?

In what sense is the science of man-made global warming “beyond dispute?” I thought no genuine science was beyond dispute; such is the domain of dogma. What is the relative certainty of this science? Is this science, as based on correlations and physical chemistry spun into complex models, solid enough to justify an “end to the era of fossil fuels”? Why not first refine the emerging empirical science from NASA satellites actually measuring the function of CO2 in the upper atmosphere? Initial data indicate minimal to no “temperature-forcing effects” from CO2. Observational measurement inherently trumps speculative models.

Climate alarmists declare that the scientific debate is settled beyond dispute. In fact, alarmists have prevented any policy debate about scientific integrity. Voters must question the quality of science driving our government’s decision. Before weak and exaggerated science transforms our country, have the courage to ask the questions.

– Kathleen Hartnett White