Just suppose we had no global warming. Just suppose that if we had warming, or virtually any climate change, it was caused all or mostly by the sun. Not by humans.
Just suppose our air quality was fine. Getting better year after year.
Just suppose the earth was, in fact, cooling.
Just suppose we are simply not, not running out of natural gas and oil.
You do not have to suppose. Lots of serious scientists tell us the above is true. 
On air quality, it is the Environmental Protection Agency that assures us our air quality gets better all the time. It zeroes in on six major pollutants. They have all fallen steadily and dramatically in the last 29 years. For instance, carbon monoxide levels are 76 percent lower. Sulfur dioxide levels are 68 percent lower and barely exist any more in the air we breathe. Lead levels are 91 percent lower.
Just suppose these things are true. If they are true - if we are not fouling the air - then we should feel free to burn gasoline in our cars, should we not? 
We are told we need to drive cars that get 42 miles per gallon. Why?  Because we are running out of the oil that gives us the gasoline. That is what we are told. But if we are not running out of oil, why bother with the 42 mpg?  Especially if it means lightweight cars that let more people die in crashes.
We are not running out of oil. If you want to challenge that, I offer to debate you on radio, tv, at a town hall meeting, in newspapers, anywhere, any time. You will not win. The facts are totally against you.
We are told we need to use more solar and windmill power and other sources of alternate energy. Why? To save oil, we are told. But we do not need to save oil. We have no shortage. To keep power companies from fouling the air by burning coal, we are told. Yet our air quality is good and gets better year after year. To reduce our dependency on quasi-enemies, Muslim oil producers, etc, we are told. Yet Canada and Mexico have more than enough oil for us. And we have vast amounts of oil and gas we refuse to drill for.
Just suppose the globe is not warming. According to lots of scientists it is actually cooling. And it has been cooling for several years. This clearly is why the alarmists like Al Gore have dropped the term “global warming” for the new one “climate change.”
Well, excuse me. If it is cooling, then carbon dioxide is no longer a problem is it?  The alarmists blamed carbon dioxide for the warming, right? (Even though lots of scientists said that was rot.)  They tried to make us all feel guilty about our carbon footprints.
 If the alarmists blamed carbon dioxide for warming, how about now?  While the globe is cooling. You would think they would embrace carbon dioxide. If it warms the planet as they claim it does, we could use a little of it now.
Just suppose the globe keeps cooling. Does this mean that in a few years the alarmists will call for more car driving?  Will they call for less solar, less wind power, more coal-fired power plants?  In order to push more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?  To warm us up.
If our air is clean, our globe cooling, our supply of oil and natural gas secure for eons to come, why are politicians writing this cap and trade legislation?  Supposedly to cut down on carbon emissions. Which do not hurt us and may help us. Truth is, they are creating this legislation to tax us. Because they are desperate for tax money to pay for the outrageous spending they have foisted upon us.
They do not really care whether we have more carbon or less of it. They need the money. This carbon footprint stuff makes a good cover for them.
Here is a wee test - a question you know the answer to. Just suppose tobacco companies created cigarettes that did not cause cancer. Do you suppose politicians would then reduce the exorbitant taxes they levy on cigarettes?
Just suppose carbon was no culprit at all. Do you suppose politicians would stop trying to tax you for it?
From Tom ... as in Morgan.                   

For more columns and for Tom’s radio shows (and to write to Tom): tomasinmorgan.com.