The media is reporting that the EPA under the Obama Administration is getting ready to announce a "finding" that CO2 is dangerous to human health and welfare, thereby triggering its regulation under the Clean Air Act. Should we all hold our breath?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/epa-expected-regulate-carbon-dioxide-time

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing senior Obama administration officials.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare documentation for a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare, the newspaper said.

As I wrote almost a year ago, liberals need to get their global warming legislation passed fast. The temperature record indicates that temperatures haven't warmed globally for a decade, and 2008 was the coolest year so far this century.

The global warming fearmongers have been trying to perpetuate the hoax but nature has been working against them as the planet has been stubbornly refusing to warm up since about 1997. The public is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for awhile, but at some point the lack of warming was going to be noticed by the public. In fact, the public already noticed: More people now believe climate change is primarily natural rather than man-made.

The threat of global warming has been used by liberals to further their economic agenda, rather than an environmental one. But global warming can only be used for that agenda if, well, if the planet keeps warming. And it really hasn't been cooperating for the last 10 years. They were about to lose their key to social policy as the earth's temperature refused to keep going up.

But now Democrats are in control of the U.S. Government and the EPA. And we have a socialist environmentalist as Obama's top environmentalist adviser. And now they plan on declaring CO2 a threat to the health and welfare of humans so they can regulate it.

And, no doubt, regulate it they will. And, afterwards, if the global temperature remains steady or goes down--as it has been for 10 years--they'll claim it's only because the restricted CO2 emissions. And if global temperature goes up some more they'll claim it's because we haven't restricted it enough.

It'll certainly be helpful in the logical debate that follows that global temperatures will have stopped rising a good 10 to 15 years before any CO2 restrictions are put in place. It's certainly better than if they stopped going up naturally at coincidentally the same time CO2 restrictions were enforced. But we have to expect that they'll try to claim that CO2 restrictions are to be credited with future decreases in global temperatures... even though temperatures stopped rising at least a decade before any CO2 restrictions, and despite the fact they've already said that global warming for the next thousand years is inevitable. So there's no possible way they could logically take credit for any of their CO2 restrictions leading to a temperature drop, right?

Don't bet on it. It'll be amazing to watch, but I don't doubt that if CO2 restrictions are enforced and if the temperature is stable or goes down, they'll claim credit for it even though the trend started more than a decade earlier and even though they had previously said that regardless of what we do, global warming is inevitable for a thousand years.

Oh, and I guess it's our duty to hold our breath so as not to pose a danger to the health and welfare of other humans. And let's not even touch the potential economic impact of restricting CO2 during a recession or, possibly, during the upcoming recovery.

CO2... that which living animals exhale and which grants life to plants which, in turn, produce oxygen which grants life to us. That key ingredient in the cycle of life is about to be declared a poison by the Obama administration.

Fun times, fun times...