Thank you,

Fred

Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Executive Summary

"This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator."

…………………….

From Supreme Court ruling 2007

EPA’s Endangerment Finding explicitly acknowledges that its decision must be exclusively governed by science: “the [Supreme] [C]ourt clearly indicated that the Administrator’s decision must be a ‘scientific judgment.’ She must base her decision about endangerment on the science, and not on policy considerations about the repercussions or impact of such a finding.”

This far more than the allowable 370 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is about 17% to 21% oxygen.

Never mind that the arterial blood level moderates oxidation in the lungs and arteries.

Never mind that the EPA Endanger document summarizes UN reports and leaves the decision to her.

Never mind that she's not a doctor or scientist, she made the call based on prior pledges and a political agenda.

The whole process makes a mockery of our system of government and the protection of our own people.

Most knowledgeable scientists will not touch this subject for fear of marginalization and research grants.

On the other side, home owners with equity need to understand the direct exposure to UN/ Cap&Trade assessments.

Direct access to customer accounts allows the government here to claim it is not a tax.

There are less than seven countries subject to assessments and 185 countries who are eligible for three kinds of financial aid assessed by the UN Secretariat for Climate Change.

The UN wants American citizens to finance third world nations with money we don't have.

The EU wants to lessen the United States ability to industrially compete, as we make the same things.

1. AGW theorists totally ignore previous periods of a much warmer earth such as the Eocene Epoch. They are not looking at geologic time.

2. The Vostok ice core studies have shown where the earth went up and the carbon dioxide levels went down. Hence, CO2 is not a real green house gas. Water vapor is.

So, why would the earth change temperature. Its mostly due to plate tectonics, volcanism, geomagnetism, solar position, and solar activity. It is pure ego to think man can equal the above.

1. In the last 150 years the earth has seen a 10% decline in the strength of the magnetosphere. That means more high energy particles and radiation from the sun (infrared=heat) reaches the earth's surface where the magentic poles are most exhibited, the subpolar, high latitude areas such as the Arctic and Antarctic.

2. Volcanism the biggest engine of climate change has been totally ignored by AGW theorists. JK Hilliar of Cambridge University discovered over 200,000 volcanic sea mounts in just a portion of the earth's oceans. That means there are volcanic vents which heat the water to 750 degrees Fahrenheit. These vents turn on and off in a geologic instant. They exhude CO2 and heat the ocean's waters, thereby, taking CO2 out of solution.

I have more. Lots more. I wrote a book about it, titled, "Stealing Americas Future"

http://www.stealingamericasfuture.com

First is the corruption of the language and history of the term greenhouse gas, starting in 1805.

Then the abuse of accusing freon of destroying the earth's ozone layer,

which now proven to be a crystallization of oxygen and solar protons.

They are now claiming similar abuse by twisting definitions of climate change with abusive terms like global warming and (nasty) greenhouse gases.

It's really a lowdown use of serious authority and a set back for real science.

Even the UN CC founders know and admit that the claim is a business decision backed by a primitive sales pitch.

The early 2008 claim "The Earth has a Fever" and trapped CO2 in the ozone layer lasts for over 200 years and it is steadily destroying the protective ozone layer had to be written by PR writers or a salesman.

Even if you believed that, Endangerment Findings must be clear threats to US citizens that can be reasonably moderated.

The EPA has refused to make a legitimate endangerment case and has blatantly chosen to disregard the Supreme Court' exact instructions.

It has also chosen to ignore serious criticism by it's own experts about the age, the source, and the interpretation of old UN material as the sole basis for it's 2009 findings.