1. The Earth is warming;
2. Human activity plays large role in that warming;
3. Congress can mitigate the risks through legislation.
While each of these is individually disputable, the best part is where the esteemed member of the House of Representatives declares that the first two have been proven. It is always amusing to listen to those who think that if Exxon funds a study it not to be believed, but if the EPA funds a study it is imminently credible. Never mind that the word has already gone out that anyone trying to disprove global warming receives absolutely no funding from the EPA. Why is that? Is it because it would be wasted money? Or is it that it would interrupt the orderly progression to taking over the economy through carbon cap and trade regulations?
I would be interested to know if any of the computer models that are predicting global warming have been tested against historical data. You would think that since we know the temperatures that have existed we could plug in the data and the outcome should be exactly what it is today. Except that no computer model has ever done this. When tried apparently, they generated much warmer temperatures than what we are experiencing. Now why is that? Couldn't be a problem with the model now could it?
But let's destroy our way of life just to do that. That way we will all feel better about ourselves while we freeze.