Last week during Snowmageddon, I missed posting the awesome igloo that Senator Inhofe and his family built in DC.

As a former constituent of Al Gore and one of the voters that helped protect the country from having that lunatic in the White House, I thoroughly enjoyed Senator Inhofe’s antic.

Climate change hasn’t gotten much coverage here simply because I’m not a scientist. I took a few climatology courses in college, so I’ve followed the issue of global warming closely. However, I’m not qualified to debate the nuances of this issue.

Why am I writing about it tonight then? Because it frightens me that the EPA is about to launch regulations similar to cap-and-trade.

Amidst Climategate and IPCC revelations that keep leaking out and weakening their “claims” that the earth is warming, should a regulatory agency radically change how energy is taxed and used in this country?

According to a Pajamas Media article, Senator Inhofe is once again drawing attention to the questionable science behind the policies regarding climate change. Last week, he gave a floor speech questioning the EPA:

Inhofe’s speech didn’t directly call for any particular action on the part of Congress, but it did point out that the Obama administration has asserted that if a cap and trade bill doesn’t pass, it could achieve similar effects by a simple finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — a finding the EPA actually made late last year. However, as Inhofe pointed out in his on-floor remarks, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had testified to his committee that the CO2 finding was largely based on the IPCC reports.

Today, the New York Times mentioned the EPA in an article on Obama pondering the use of executive orders:

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

Is anyone else bothered that a regulatory agency is about to change policies that could impact every single person in this country based on a politicized science?

Climate change is possible. I’m not one of those conservatives who turn a deaf ear towards environmental issues. I’m probably one of the greener conservatives out there.  As a Christian, I believe that it is our duty to take care of the earth and our environment. However, climate change enthusiasts have gone overboard on this issue.

We should not make any drastic changes to any U.S. policy without being 100% sure of the science that drives it. History shows that science of the moment is not always correct, yet anyone that has questioned the science of anthropogenic climate change has been nearly crucified. It’s eerily reminiscent of how the Catholic Church controlled science and persecuted Galileo and Copernicus when they questioned prevailing thought.

Perhaps I went to an old-fashioned high school, but I was taught that the scientific method questions every hypothesis until all other possible conclusions are ruled out. There are endless hypotheses that have not gotten much press or consideration in policy debates. Senator Inhofe is absolutely correct in questioning regulations and bills regarding climate change.

In light of the revelations of the East Anglia CRU and the IPCC coming clean time and time again, neither President Obama, Congress nor any regulatory agency should even consider acting on climate change. This entire issue should be tabled for a while and allow the science community to debate without politics or agenda.

It bothers me that we’re not even allowed to debate this issue. The science is questionable, yet believers expect us to blindly follow their views and radically change our lives. That is not acceptable. We should not be called stupid or ignorant because we dare question policy changes. If scientists and believers are so confident in their research and findings, they should welcome rigorous debate and questioning and not bully those of us who are cautious.

Michelle Malkin has a post up today about new revelations from the IPCC and East Anglia.