Friday, July 27, 2007


July 27, 2007

Today, July 27, 2007, Senator Inhofe hailed the agreement reached on the Conference Report for the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA) (H.R. 1495). The bill, which passed the Senate on May 16, 2007, by a vote of 91 to 4, will authorize America’s essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects in a way that is fiscally responsible and technically sound.  As the Ranking Member and former chairman of the Committee, Senator Inhofe has made passage of the WRDA bill a top priority. With the agreement reached today, the bill now goes back to the Senate and the House for a final vote.

“Today’s agreement is great news for improving our nation's water resource needs in a fiscally responsible manner,” Senator Inhofe said. “I commend the hard work of my colleagues to complete this long overdue bill that provides our nation with numerous project authorizations and policy improvements that are vital to the nation’s economy, public safety and environment.”

“In this WRDA bill, we took a serious look at the needs of critical inland and intracostal waterway projects.   Our inland and intracoastal waterway system carries one-sixth of the National intercity cargo.  Given the congestion on our nation’s highways, we need to be developing and maintaining alternative ways to move freight.”

“I am proud that our bill helps address community needs for flood control.  Although the Army Corps of Engineers cannot prevent floods, flood control efforts do significantly reduce the cost of flood events.   To illustrate this point consider that during the 10 years from 1991 through 2000 the country suffered $45 billion in property damage from floods.   However, if Corps flood damage reduction measures had not been in place that figure would have been more than $208 billion in damage.  Clearly, flood control is a wise investment.

“This bill also takes an unprecedented leap into authorizing environmental infrastructure projects.   Although I have been critical of this step because these types of projects are not part of the Corps traditional mission and a program already exists through the EPA to address these concerns, I can certainly understand and appreciate member frustration.   I hope that our efforts in WRDA will not lessen the need or desire to complete a comprehensive Water Infrastructure bill.”

“Finally, I am also pleased that we were able to reach agreement on an several provisions designed to help Louisiana recover from the devastation of hurricane Katrina and provide additional protection from future storms.   The Conference Report addresses several critical and immediate needs of Louisiana plus establishes a process for moving future projects forward in an efficient and expeditious manner.  I would note that we would not have been able to get as much done as we did without the able help and cooperation of Senator Vitter and Congressman Baker, who did an able job of representing their State as conferees.”  



July 24, 2007

On Tuesday, July 24, 2007, Senator Inhofe blasted Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for accusing the Senate Republicans this week of failing to ask the ‘hard questions’ about Yucca Mountain. Clinton failed to attend the last two EPW hearings on the issue. Senator Clinton was quoted asserting that the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) and DOE (Department of Energy) have been unaccountable to Congress because they have “not had to answer questions up until now because the Republican Congress has not been willing to ask the hard questions,” according to a July 22, 2007 article by the Associated Press.

“When Senator Clinton had the opportunity to ask ‘hard questions’ of Administration officials about Yucca Mountain, she was missing in action. In fact, Senator Clinton failed to ask ANY questions because she was absent from the last two EPW hearings on Yucca Mountain,” Senator Inhofe said.

“The ‘hard questions’ now need to be asked of Senator Clinton: Why didn’t she attend either hearing? What is her plan for nuclear waste disposal? If it’s not going to Yucca Mountain, where will it go? If we’re not building Yucca Mountain, do the electricity consumers get their $28 billion refunded?” Inhofe asked.


Under Senator Inhofe’s leadership, the EPW committee conducted two hearings on Yucca Mountain in 2006. Senator Clinton failed to attend either hearing. There was a full committee hearing on March 1, 2006 chaired by Senator Inhofe and an EPW subcommittee hearing  on September 14, chaired by Senator George Voinovich (R-OH).

For more information:

EPW White Paper: Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet (March 2006)

# # #


July 26, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano (4:12pm ET)

Update (3:00pm ET, Friday, July 27, 2007): American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) contacted the Inhofe EPW Press Blog and asked that we include a link to Michael Eckhart's response. Also included here is a response by Marlo Lewis.

During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

 “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.

After Senator Inhofe read Eckhart's comments, Johnson vowed to launch a probe concerning the threatening e-mail. Johnson responded to Inhofe saying, “I was not aware of this quote.” He continued, “Statements like this are of concern to me.  I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors.” Johnson then added, “This is an area I will look into for the record.” (See YouTube video of exchange between Senator Inhofe and Johnson)

Senator Inhofe replied, “I would like to have you look into this and make an evaluation, talk it over with your people and see if it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement.”

Following the hearing, Senator Inhofe announced that he will be sending letters to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and EPA, urging them to “reconsider their membership in ACORE.” 

Full Text of Eckhart’s July 13, 2007 e-mail to CEI’s Lewis:

Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Michael T. Eckhart
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)



During today’s hearing ( “Examining the Case for the California Waiver: An Update from EPA” ), Senator Inhofe explained to the Committee that this kind of vilification of climate skeptics and subsequent threats to their professional integrity are not uncommon.

“This is so typical of these hate filled people who threaten and use vile language. I was called a traitor by one of the extreme left, this is what happens when you lose your case and [this threatening e-mail by ACORE’s president] is the best evidence of it,” Senator Inhofe explained. “We have all of these people who have a stake in [promoting man-made climate hysteria] like the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen.  If the trend now in science is refuting that anthropogenic gases are a primary cause of climate change, then she is out of business, her whole weekly program (The Climate Code) is gone, her career is gone,” Senator Inhofe concluded.

Sampling of recent threats and intimidation targeted at climate skeptics:

RFK Jr. Lashes out at skeptics of global warming: 'This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors' (July 8, 2007)
Excerpt: "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.
Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
Excerpt: Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
War declared on ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007)
Excerpt: Global warming driven by greenhouse gas pollution (but ultimately by greed, racism and lying) is killing our Planet. Our Planet, the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our Planet).
Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Excerpt:  Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
# # #


July 26, 2007

Madame Chairman, I am disturbed that we are having this hearing today. Just two months ago, we had a hearing on this. And shortly before that, Administrator Johnson told Members of the Committee that EPA would conduct a thorough process to make a decision in an expeditious and timely manner. EPA has met this commitment so far and there is no indication that it will not continue to do so.

In making a decision of this magnitude, it would be improper for EPA not to involve the public and formally solicit notice and comment. It has done so. EPA intended to close the public comment period on June 15th. It did so.

EPA has received more than 60,000 comments. While some of these are what I call “postcard comments” that provide us no information of any value other than knowing how effective special interests are in their fundraising efforts, many are very technical and very substantive. EPA needs to read them, assess them, and compare them. It needs to: investigate the issues raised by California thoroughly; analyze each and every document California relies upon; review supporting comments that may add new information California did not include; examine each argument raised in opposition to granting the waiver; determine the most relevant arguments and points that need to be taken into account in making the final decision; determine the ramifications of its decision; and then… and only then… EPA needs to make a decision.

It has been just over a month since the comment period closed. One month, Madame Chairman! With what the EPA must go through, I would be highly disturbed if EPA said that it planned to make a decision before the end of the year. Rushing this process is unacceptable. In fact, it would be arbitrary and capricious – in law and in fact. Mr. Administrator, I expect you to fully deliberate this important issue so that all the facts and considerations are taken into account.

I’m having trouble understanding the need for this waiver. One of the prerequisites for granting this waiver is that it is needed in California to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” 

Among the problems California listed that would occur from global warming are that higher temperatures will bring increases in heat waves, droughts, forest fires, flooding and smog, and harm to the State’s water supplies and agricultural productivity. 

There is one small problem with all of that – California is not experiencing global warming; the State is experiencing global cooling. In fact, temperatures in California are lower today than average temperatures since the beginning of the 20th Century.

I want to draw your attention to this chart of California ’s temperatures over the last two decades. As you can see, temperatures have trended downward at 0.12 degrees Fahrenheit. If this were to continue through the remainder of this Century, California ’s temperatures would decline by more than one degree.

Exactly where is the harm that is compelling and extraordinary? California’s actual temperatures may inconveniently vary from the models, but if the models show California should have warmed, and in fact it has been cooling, shouldn’t we view these estimates of future warming with somewhat of a jaundiced eye.

A bill has been introduced that would force you, Mr. Administrator, to approve or disapprove a waiver request within 30 days. I assume supporters hope EPA will rubber-stamp all future requests on the basis that EPA has not denied a waiver before. Two major reasons for this are that California ’s standard has always been confined to addressing local problems and has been more protective than federal standards.

But this is not a local issue, it is a global one and California has shown no harm. As this chart I’ve showed you demonstrates, if anything California is experiencing cooling, not warming.

Also, unlike past waivers, it appears this time California ’s waiver request would not result in more protective standards. I ask that this report by NERA economic consulting be placed in the record. It concludes California ’s light duty vehicle regulations are less protective than federal regulations. If that is the case, Mr. Administrator, you cannot grant this waiver. And if serious economic modeling finds this is the case, you had better have far more detailed economic modeling with far different conclusions before you were to grant a waiver.

In fact, I believe that if the legislation were to pass, you would be compelled to deny the waiver.

Thank you.



July 25, 2007

Today we are going to take a hard look at EPA’s environmental justice program and its application.  EPA’s attempts to interpret the broad and largely undefined concept of environmental justice have been challenging.  A series of highly criticized internal guidance documents have created confusion on the practice of executing the duties of President Clinton’s executive order 12898.   Today, environmental justice means many things to many people, creating a complicated and inconsistent understanding of its purpose and application.  It is not a formal rule, but often it is treated like one.  As a matter of law, I am concerned that we may be giving a non-binding, legally unenforceable executive order more official standing than is legally permissible.

EPA does not currently provide an official definition or specific guidance regarding the full effects to consider in environmental justice complaints.  The community impact analysis, which takes into account the socio-economic and public heath effects of a targeted population, is complicated and often lacks the required data needed to calculate the net benefits industrial development can have in the community.  We must make sure that environmental justice programs don’t discourage Brownfields redevelopment efforts and other programs that would bring jobs to low income areas.

For example, in 1997, a group of environmentalists opposed Louisiana’s issuance of air permits to a $700 million plastics manufacturing facility in Covenant, Louisiana.    The coalition argued that the facility would impose a disproportionate pollution burden on the mostly African-American community.   The city, its elected officials, and the local chapter of the NAACP supported the project and eagerly awaited the 165 jobs, the $5.6 million in expected school revenue, and the associated health benefits from increased community prosperity. Unfortunately, however, the charges of environmental racism led to EPA’s objection to issuance of the permits.   In response, the company decided to relocate the facility to Texas. In this case the environmental justice advocates may have won, but at the expense of the state and the local community.  The term environmental justice was used as a rhetorical tool and prevented much needed and desired development in the community. Unfortunately it lacked the cumulative impact analysis required of such a comprehensive sociological issue.

In an attempt to clarify the agency’s policy on environmental justice and in response to the criticisms of inconsistent application, EPA created the Environmental Justice Smart Enforcement Assessment Tool (“EJSEAT”).  Although the EJSEAT is considered strictly by the agency as an internal management document for screening agency actions, I am concerned that this internal document alters the rights of outside parties and acts outside its legal reach and its intended purpose. 

EPA’s various guidance on environmental justice over the last 13 years is considered an interpretive rule, stating what the agency “thinks” and serves only to remind affected parties of existing duties.  The courts have decided that interpretive rules are not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and are outside the scope of judicial review.  This leaves ultimate discretion to the EPA on what are “high and adverse impacts.”  The APA, set forth by Congress 60 years ago, created a consistent and transparent process for agency rule makings.  An interpretive rule, like the EJSEAT, is not meant to affect substantive change in regulations or serve as a basis for denying permits, as it has effectively done in the past. 

EPA’s continued efforts to protect vulnerable communities from intentional discrimination are commendable.   But I fear for every success story of where an EPA justice grant made it possible for a community to educate its residents and improve public health, there is an example of where the term environmental racism was used as a rhetorical tool to mobilize activists, cast blame, and generate unfounded pressure on targeted institutions.  I look forward to hearing from the Administration on its progress in implementing its Environmental Justice program, and ideas for making the program more uniform and predictable in its application. 


 # # #


July 25, 2007

If Senate Democrats have their way, Congress may soon be returning to the days when politics trumped science in deciding which contaminants warranted a federal drinking water standard. Legislation introduced by Senate Democrats earlier this year to regulate percholrate – that may soon be considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee – seeks to do an end-run around a carefully crafted process established by Congress. The American Water Works Association recently explained the importance of the 1996 vote, noting previous practice by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was to “regulate contaminants purely for the sake of regulating.”

FACT: Congress, in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) in 1996, unanimously voted to establish a process by which EPA would determine which contaminants warranted a federal drinking water standard. Current law states that to regulate an unregulated contaminant like perchlorate, EPA must find that:

*The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

*The contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and

*In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

 Further, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in a very conservative assessment, recommended a safe level that is based upon a precursor to the adverse health effect which may occur at 24.5 ppb drinking water equivalent. The NAS chose this level to protect even the most sensitive members of our population from any possible effect of perchlorate.  EPA has gathered data from 3,858 drinking water systems between 2001 and 2003. Only 2 percent of the more than 34,000 samples analyzed were above the 4 ppb reporting threshold. The average concentration was 9.8 ppb, well below NAS’s health effects level of 24.5ppb.

EPA must now determine the relative source contribution (RSC) of perchlorate from other sources to determine if a drinking water standard will present “a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.”

EPA sought public input in a May 1, 2007 Federal Register notice, “Regulatory Determinations Regarding Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List – Preliminary Determinations (72 FR 24016 (May 1, 2007)” on whether the regulation of perchlorate provides an opportunity to address a public health risk and how to best calculate the RSC.  The Agency received comments from those who thought it had sufficient data to make a determination and those who did not; it also received comments from those who thought that data pointed to the need for a federal drinking water standard and from others who thought it did not. 

The Agency must consider all of these viewpoints and the data it receives to determine if regulating perchlorate through the SDWA will protect the public health.

Dismissing this process, Democratic legislation seeks to bypass this analysis and demand the EPA promulgate a drinking water standard for perchlorate without all the data being assessed and all of the comments reviewed.   Many of us may question whatever final decision EPA makes but the Agency should be given the opportunity to meet its statutory obligations, assess the science and propose a resolution to this issue.  The proposed legislation prejudges the outcome of EPA’s deliberations and bypasses the carefully crafted bi-partisan process that Congress put together in 1996 to ensure an open and fair system for determining where local governments will spend their limited resources.

The 1996 Amendments passed the Senate by a 98-0 vote.   Is Congress really ready to throw that system away and go back to a politically charged system that that isn’t based on science?



July 23, 2007

Earlier this year, Senate Democrats introduced legislation (S.595) to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Burden Reduction Rule that was announced on December 18, 2006 [Link to final rule ]. At an EPW Committee hearing on February 6, 2007, Democrats on the committee characterized the new TRI rule as weakening the public’s right to know, eliminating disclosure requirements, and allowing facilities to hide the amounts of chemicals they may use. 

FACT: The new TRI rule does not exempt any facility from reporting its releases. It simply changes the eligibility requirements for using the shorter, easier to complete Form A, allowing certain smaller reporters to use the less-detailed version.  Everyone still has to report; no one is off the hook.    

So who are these small businesses who get to use the shorter form?  They are the good guys; the environmental stewards.  The shorter form is available to those reporters who have lowered their emissions to zero and who manage their waste using preferred methods, such as recycling and treatment. 

Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Association, testified at the February 6 hearing:

"[S]mall businesses are disproportionately impacted by regulation.  The overall regulatory burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion.  For firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the most recent estimate of their regulatory burden is $7,647 per year per employee." [Link to SBA commissioned report]

An SBA Office of Advocacy contracted report released in 2004 revealed that businesses incur costs of $300 million annually for compliance with the TRI program.

The new TRI rule attempts to relieve some of those costs on smaller reporting facilities and retain the integrity and public accessibility to information in the TRI program.

Based on studies commissioned by the SBA Office of Advocacy, the increased reporting threshold in the new TRI rule involves very little change in the potential risk associated with releases that are being reported on the more detailed TRI Form Rs.  In fact, these studies report that for 99% of all the nation’s 3,142 counties, the changes in reported risk are not significant.   [Link to entire SBA work on TRI]  

So why do Senate Democrats want to make everyone use the more-detailed version?  Perhaps it’s because they don’t think people should be rewarded for doing the right thing.  Perhaps it’s because they still believe command and control is better than environmental performance incentives.  Despite their protestations to the contrary and all the evidence that incentives work, they still believe sticks are better than carrots. 



July 24, 2007

The United States Senate has passed two similar resolutions establishing a standard for passing global warming legislation. In 1997, the Byrd-Hagel Sense of the Senate, which passed 95 – 0, resolved that the U.S. should not be a signatory to any international agreement that would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy or did not mandate reductions from the developing world. Similarly, the Bingaman Sense of the Senate, passed in 2005, resolved that the U.S. should address global warming as long as it will not significantly harm the United States economy and encourages comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.

FACT: Not a single bill before Congress meets these criteria – not one. They range from costly to ruinous. But they all fail to meet the requirements of Byrd-Hagel or Bingaman.
For instance, according to an MIT study, the Sanders-Boxer bill would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found the Lieberman-McCain bill would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. And a new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman – McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050 – and that was based on assumptions designed to low-ball the number, begging the question of how high the real figure would be.
Further, none of the proposed bills does anything to encourage reductions from the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide – China. That’s right, China just surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter. In fact, like all these bills, it would worsen the problem. Even the Bingaman bill would export hundreds of thousands of jobs – mostly to China. But the U.S. emissions as a measure of productivity are far lower than China’s, or Europe’s, for that matter. So every job sent there will increase emissions, not lower them. China has made it abundantly clear that it will be decades before it signs onto mandatory limits because it wants to grow – and unilateral global warming bills will help them do so at our expense.
The fact that not one proposal before the Senate meets this standard indicates that it is highly unlikely the Senate will pass carbon cap-and-trade legislation anytime in the near future.  





July 27, 2007

Link to Article

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote.

"If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

CEI does not dispute climate change, however it differs with certain environmental groups, including ACORE, on the causes. After Mr. Inhofe read Mr. Eckhart's comments, which were first reported by Inside the Beltway two weeks ago, the EPA chief promised to probe the matter.

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."

When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

Based in Washington, ACORE's mission is to increase the use of renewable energy. Its 400-plus "paying" organizational members come from government, financial institutions, trade associations, academia, and other professional services.

Besides ACORE, Mr. Eckhart is co-chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy and a member of the Clinton Global Initiative.

Previously, he was CEO of United Power Systems; vice president of the venture capital firm Arete Ventures; a General Electric manager; and a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton's energy practice.

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr.

Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr.

Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."