May 6, 2015

United States Senate

Senator Brian Schatz

722 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Regarding climate change legislation and your recent failed amendment.

Dear Senator Schatz,

Thank goodness your amendment failed.  Your website says, “Senator Schatz has been committed to a clean energy future since the beginning of his public life and continues his leadership on clean energy and climate issues in the U. S. Senate.”

In the few pages that follow this cover letter, I will present the truth about the fraud being perpetrated on the American people and you so that you can never say that no one ever told you.  This will be presented in layman’s terms so that you and your staff can understand it.

I am a retired life sciences executive, degreed in chemistry and natural sciences.  I have been senior vice president and vice president of 4 NASDAQ and London listed, high tech, life sciences companies after 19 years in analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software and computers group at HP.  I know how to measure carbon dioxide, methane and mixed gases by multiple methods and have done so.  I retired to Hawaii.  Please don’t screw it up.

I write to provide you with evidence opposed to your amendment and opposed to the fraud that the U.S. government, the EPA, the Department of Energy, Obama and his administration, the UN, and many wealthy bankers, NGOs and individuals are involved in.  No, fraud is not too strong a word and I am using it in its legal meaning.

I ask that you oppose global warming/climate change legislation and Agenda 21 from now on.  Oppose it for Hawaii.  Oppose it for you own good.  Oppose it for our kids and grandkids.

If you would like to talk about this in person, by phone, mail or private email, then I can arrange that.  If you would like to meet and discuss this with businessmen or renowned scientists, then I would be pleased to arrange that for you and your staff.

It is past time to remove yourself and our state from this fraud.

Sincerely,

Clare L Bromley, III (Bud)

Holualoa

858-342-0780 (cell)

Bud.bromley@gmail.com

In 1981 David Packard invited me to his office in Palo Alto. I worked for HP about 19 years. I was not expecting a conversation about climate change, but that was what Dave wanted to talk with me about, except it was called ‘global cooling’ back then. As you probably know, Dave was a visionary businessman, a hunter and an environmentalist.  At the time I was not aware of an issue with global cooling or climate change. Dave had been Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Nixon administration.  Dave told me, “This is a scam.  Follow this topic as it is one of three issues with the potential to separate the American people from their government in your lifetime.” I have.  He was right.

Worldwide, tens of thousands of scientists understand that reducing human–produced CO2 will have no SIGNIFICANT effect on global temperature.  (As a result of your errant attempt at an amendment, no doubt you have heard the word SIGNIFICANT many times now.  But did you learn anything?)  One hundred and thirty German PhD’s have protested to Chancellor Merkel about the global warming agenda.  American chemists and American physicists are protesting the climate change statements by the management of those associations.  Those associations don’t take ask for a vote of members on this subject.  A large group of highly credentialed scientists told President Obama he was wrong on his climate change statements and policies in a full page open letter in the New York Times.  A large group has written in protest to UN Secretary Ban.  More on each of these is below.

The truth is that reducing the trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will harm plants, humans, economies and this planet.  If you vote for climate change legislation or continue your support of this fraud, or if you do nothing, then you, your constituents here in Hawaii, Americans, people and economies worldwide and all living things on the planet will be harmed. This is not conjecture or opinion. This is hard evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by the very best scientists.

Scientists know outgoing radiation from earth’s surface is not being trapped in the atmosphere as much as predicted by climate change proponents.  Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT published a paper that plots real-world changes in outgoing long-wave radiation, as measured by the ERBE satellite system, against real-world changes in global mean surface temperature.  Observed reality is entirely different from what the UN’s, NASA’s and Al Gore’s models predict.  Instead of 6 degrees F warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is what they have been predicting, only 1 degree F can be expected, because nearly all the radiation they claimed was being trapped in the atmosphere or oceans is escaping to space.

Global warming proponents have no scientific answer to this.  So, they personally attack Dr. Lindzen as a climate “denier” or worse.  Dr. Lindzen is an eminent senior scientist at the top of his field.  Meet with him.

The climate scare is truly over.  If atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles, (and it has only increased by 40% since the industrial revolution began), then global temperature will rise not by the 6 degrees F imagined by the UN, EPA, DOE, NASA et al, but by a harmless 1 degree F.

“…there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake… However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence.” Source: Richard Lindzen (1), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Recent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been unprecedented and dangerously low, on a geological time scale.  Plant growth shuts down at 200 ppm in air. Currently CO2 concentration in air is about 400 ppm. (parts per million) Plant life is stressed and unhealthy at such low levels.  Life evolved over the past 500 million years at levels of CO2 that were on average a healthier 1500 ppm (see paleo-climate graphs at sites such as Geocraft.com). A dangerous upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere would be from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm. We are in no danger of approaching these high levels.  Our atmosphere is currently “CO2 deprived.”

“We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.” – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

“Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm” (Hagar 2003).

If CO2 is dangerous to human health at 400 ppm as EPA says, then why is it allowed in U.S. submarines carrying nuclear weapons at 20 times higher levels?

CO2 and methane are naturally occurring trace components of our atmosphere.  If there were no humans on earth, the concentration of these gases might be 5% less.   Carbon dioxide and methane are not pollution at current levels or even at 10 times current levels. When you exhale, the concentration of CO2 in your breathe is 100 times higher than the concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.  Do you intend to regulate breathing?  Again, carbon dioxide has only increased about 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution 200 years ago.  A ten times increase in CO2 – if it ever occurred – is many hundreds of years in the future.

“More CO2 makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions…and this expands the habitat of many plants…and enhances agricultural productivity…and helps tropical rainforests” (2). We subsist almost entirely on carbon dioxide. “The food used by all living things, to grow and to live, is carbon dioxide…food is carbon dioxide…the food of all plants and animals is carbon dioxide.” (3) Everything is made of carbon and fueled by carbon. All things need carbon to grow and reproduce. Charts in the most recent UN IPPC scientific working group reports show that in the geologic past, CO2 levels have been many times higher than present levels and have sustained a large flora and fauna [Berner 1997;Berner and Kothaualla 2001; UN IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 441].

Some 176 experiments on trees and other woody plants reveal a mean growth enhancement of 48 percent for a 300 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 content [Poorter 1993; Ceulemans and Mousseau 1994; Wullschleger et al. 1995, 1997]. Research by the Smithsonian Institute and others shows that higher CO2 concentrations have contributed to the sustained high growth of forests, foods and other agriculture in the last century.  Studies of NASA satellite images reveal that the planet earth is getting greener as the CO2 is rising.

The effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health and most living things on this planet. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans because the reduction of wintertime mortality / morbidity would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress-related mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000].

The 2009 report of the World Heath Organization ranked the risk of death and other measures of risk.  Climate change is ranked next to last or last in a long list of more important priorities and even then they point out that risk of death is higher from cold.

Removal of human-contributed CO2 from the atmosphere will not significantly change global temperature, but on the other hand, removing CO2 from the atmosphere can be confidently projected to reduce growth rates of plant life on this planet, which in turn reduces the amount of food available.  If this CO2 removal contributes to cooling, then many more humans will die of climate related causes than if this action had not occurred.

To demonize carbon/CO2, as global warming/climate change proponents have done, is to demonize life itself. This anti-carbon movement is ideologically-driven extremism with political power and greed as its purpose. It has now gone utterly mad. Its real goal is to slow, halt, and even reverse economic growth and development and to re-distribute wealth.  It uses carbon as a proxy to fight growth and the human enterprise. This is an attempt at a massive transfer of wealth and sovereignty based on ideology and false science.

The central theme of the global warming/climate movement is that humanity and industrial civilization are destroying nature/earth. This has attained the status of conventional wisdom. And it is wrong. All of us must act to stop this deception, and the evidence makes it clear that this is intentional deception.

Melting glaciers, polar bears, Obama’s daughter’s asthma condition, more or less tornadoes, etc., whether true or not true, none of these are evidence that humans cause significant global warming. According to the conclusions of these former NASA scientists and engineers, “It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute.” http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/TRCSConclusionsRecommendations.

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Vaclav Klaus (4), Czech economist, politician and President of the Czech Republic, former President of the EU.

This is a non-trivial life and death issue because these initiatives to stop global warming have caused great suffering to the poorest people of the world. Biofuel initiatives have caused a global food crisis as food crops were forced to compete with biofuel crops, which drives the price of basic food staples beyond the means of the poor.  Furthermore, Obama policy and world banks will not loan money to developing countries to build electric power plants if they are fueled by coal.  People are dying my the thousands not from global warming but from a useless attempt to reduce CO2.  The attempt to replace inexpensive coal fired power plants with very expensive and unreliable alternate energy sources such as solar and wind power, has raised the cost of power.  This is not only affecting the poor, but also affects industry by reducing the ability to compete with countries like China which use inexpensive power to manufacture products.

Our use of fossil fuels has contributed to rising CO2 levels. No one denies that CO2 levels are rising.  But there is no real world evidence of harm.  There are only computer models and those models are so far unable to accurately predict temperatures.  The models have never validated against real world data.  On the other hand, higher CO2 levels have benefited plant life with a marked 6.17% increase in Net Primary Production (global vegetative productivity- NPP). This significant greening of the earth occurred from 1982-1999 in response to these rising CO2 levels (see Greening of the Earth at co2science.org).

While there are many peer-reviewed scientific studies showing the benefits of warmer climate, if this should occur, and many benefits of higher levels of CO2.  However, after more than a decade and billions of dollars spent on research directed to show that CO2 causes global warming, still there are no peer reviewed studies using hard, real world evidence that CO2 produces significant warming of the planet.  The steadily increasing trend of CO2 concentration is poorly correlated with global temperature trend.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are so-called ‘greenhouse gases’.  They absorb and re-emit radiation and contribute a small amount to warming, mostly by retaining heat in the atmosphere that would have been re-emitted to outer space.  But, increasing concentration of CO2 does not contribute to linearly higher warming.  The brief technical explanation is that the quantum energy bands in CO2 and methane which are available for absorbing heat are already full.  In addition, the total amount of CO2 contributed by humans from all sources is less than 5% of the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.  About 95% of total atmospheric CO2 is natural.  Consequently, the amount of greenhouse warming produced by the small human component of the 400 ppm CO2 total is very, very small.

The amount of warming that results from human-produced CO2 and methane is so small that it cannot be measured in the real world.  THE WARMING EFFECT OF HUMAN CO2 IS SO SMALL IT CANNOT BE MEASURED.  This is due to the fact that the error in the measurement process is larger than amount of warming due to CO2 and methane.  The error in the measurement of the temperature effects from atmospheric water vapor and clouds is much larger than the effects of total CO2 and methane and very much larger than the small human component of CO2.  Water vapor and clouds are usually much higher concentration and vary more in atmosphere than CO2 and methane.  The warming effect produced by CO2 and methane is literally lost in the measurement error (or noise) in the measurement of water vapor and clouds.  That is a layman’s explanation of the meaning of the scientific and statistical term “significant” which doomed your amendment.  Thankfully more than 50 Senators were paying attention.

Since the greenhouse warming effects are of CO2 and methane cannot be measured in real world atmosphere, this has meant that the computer models cannot be validated, have never been validated against real world data.  People try to calculate the effects in computer models, but so far the models have only produced wrong answers.  Unfortunately for global warming proponents, politicians, ‘green’ businesses and their investors, the global warming hypothesis has failed the tests of science.

So, where is the fraud?

“In 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen et al published a paper “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model” in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This paper introduced a “CO2 forcing parameter.” This parameter had no actual physical basis, but was merely based on the assumption that a 100ppmv increase in CO2 was directly and primarily responsible for the measured increase in global temperature of 0.6°C that had been observed over the past century.”

“This assumption ignored the fact that over this time period there was both cooling and warming concurrent with rising CO2 concentration, and considering that this paper was published just 13 years after a 33 year cooling trend that also had a concurrent increase in CO2 concentration there is no possible valid rational for this assumption. Essentially in the 46 year period from 1942 to when the paper was published in 1988, there were 33 years of cooling and only 13 years of warming concurrent with increases in CO2, yet the models used a forcing parameter that directly related only warming to CO2 concentration increases.”

“With no basis in fact, this parameter is entirely a fabrication, and the projections of climate models that are based on this fabricated parameter are also meaningless fabrications.”

“In addition to the fabrication, there is a bit of scientific fraud in the creation of this CO2 forcing parameter.”

“The Earth had been warming since the Little Ice Age at a rate of about 0.5°C/century. The temperature value that went into determining the CO2 forcing parameter was 0.6°C, with the difference from the 0.5°C/century value likely due to the urban heat island effect.  Even if this difference was directly due to CO2 increases, the difference between the observed temperature and the natural warming since the Little Ice Age is only 0.1°C but the full 0.6°C was used to fabricate the forcing parameter.”

“It seems that one fabrication leads to another, and when it became obvious that the natural warming of 0.5°C/century since the Little Ice Age demonstrated the obvious deficiency in this forcing parameter of the climate models, the MBH98 temperature proxy also known as the “hockey stick” was fabricated to remove the Little Ice Age and allow the full 0.6°C temperature increase to be related to CO2 increases.”

“Considering that the climate models are the only support for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) premise, and the AGW premise is the only support for the climate models, exposing this simple fabrication is all that needs to be done to put an end to this circular argument that forms the basis for the entire climate change lunacy.”  These quotes are from Canadian scientist Norm Kalmanovitch (5) You may recall that Canada no longer supports the UN climate change agenda.

Studies in quantum physics and atmospheric physical chemistry explain that the currently increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 have a small but diminishing effect on global temperature.  The various natural effects dominate (i.e. natural effects which humans cannot change in any significant amount), and since the effect of either increasing or diminishing human CO2 emissions is only a small fraction compared to the total natural effects such as water vapor and clouds, it is clear that any initiatives aimed at reducing human CO2 emissions for the purpose of reducing global warming are entirely without merit and serve no environmental purpose whatsoever.

Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud. All of the global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of  global temperature trend clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to 1975, at which time the world reverted to warming which all global temperature datasets clearly show ended after 1998, with a slight cooling but statistically flat trend that is still continuing until today.  We are now 18 years into a flat temperature trend with no significant warming or cooling on a global scale.

Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942. This equates to each gigatonne increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature.

As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975 global emissions increased from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20 billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975. During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increased by 16 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.  Based on the previous warming this should have caused 16C of global warming but instead there was a long cooling period.  In the 1970’s scientists and news media were claiming “global cooling,”

It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a forcing parameter that related global warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from humans.

Since these are supposed climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The relationship of the forcing parameter of the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) in which C0 represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration, clearly shows that increases in CO2 concentration will produce an increase in temperature. This did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975 and therefore this parameter is clearly not valid.

The modelers also related global warming directly to human sourced CO2 emissions, but these CO2 emissions were increasing as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years, making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.

Since physical data already existed that completely falsified the forcing parameter of the climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had to be known by the modelers, it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one. Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that would accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

Even though the only evidence is to the contrary, we often hear statements such as the “science is settled” and “global warming is mostly caused by human emissions of CO2” stated with absolute conviction.  A confused public wonders why the “climate skeptics” have not been able to prove that warming is not caused by human CO2 emissions and the simple answer is that we are up against a combination of rhetoric, alarmism, and a peculiar type of indisputable but faulty logic.

The logic is best demonstrated by a silly “elephant joke” that went something like this: Why do elephants paint their toenails red? Answer: So they can hide in cherry trees. Question: Have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree? Answer: No. Comment: See how well it works! No matter what argument you use, since you have never seen an elephant in a cherry tree, you cannot prove that there are no elephants with painted toenails in cherry trees because of the way the logic is presented.

To transpose this logic to global warming there are several indisputable facts, followed by a faulty conclusion.

(1) Global temperature has been in a long term warming trend since the end of last ice age.

(2) CO2 is a trace component of the atmosphere at 400 ppm.

(3) CO2 has a strong “greenhouse effect.”

(4) Burning fossil fuels produces CO2.

(5) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing steadily since the industrial revolution.

(6) Therefore human generated CO2 is causing global warming.  Just like the elephant joke it is impossible to argue with this logical fallacy.  But just like the elephant joke when you put in some values of proportion and size, the concept becomes no more than a silly joke.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing at a steady rate of 2ppmv/year.  When the Al Gore “Inconvenient Truth” film was released, the world had already been cooling for several years in spite of the fact that CO2 continued to increase.  These two facts alone contradict the theory of human-caused global warming.  All of these facts and the intentional deception eventually will be presented in courts of law.

Reference (6)

This letter provides you with evidence and references showing that human-produced greenhouse gas emissions have no significant effect on global warming. Therefore, reducing human-produced CO2 will have no significant effect on global warming.  Therefore, no legislation or funding is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“An April study by Charles River Associates tells us that if the Obama proposal to reduce CO2 emissions becomes law, it will have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.” (7)

Economics professors at The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston published a severe critique of the Waxman-Markey ‘global warming’ tax bill which was passed by the House. In addition they specifically blasted fundamental errors in three studies that trumpet “green jobs” which supposedly result from global warming reduction initiatives. Their most severe rebuke is directed at UN studies. (8)

Former NASA scientist James Hansen, a long-time, outspoken proponent of global warming and supporter of Al Gore, did not support the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.  Hansen is creator of the erroneous concept of the CO2 forcing parameter described earlier in this letter. (9)

It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing, their actions have led to the waste of enormous amounts taxpayer money.

More than 130 German PhD scientists and doctors of engineering and many more Germans sent a letter to Chancellor Merkel. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

“When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.”

“A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, [now in 2015, it is 18 years] and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.”

“Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.”

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

“In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community.” The full translated letter along with names, their expertise or affiliations can be found at the reference below. (10)

Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III, explicitly affirmed the economic objective of the climate change agenda and conferences. He said a few years ago: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection…One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

A long list of PhD’s wrote to UN Secretary General Ban in December 2007.  “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for  implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

Here is a excerpt from an April 23, 2009 testimony in Congress by Robert J. Michaels about the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation.   Robert J. Michaels is Professor of Economics at California State University and an independent consultant, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute. His remarks are not the official positions of his affiliations. He holds an A.B. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D from the University of California, Los Angeles, both in economics. He has performed research, published and spoken on developments in the electricity and gas industries since the 1980s. “Put simply, this is the most profoundly anti-consumer legislation ever brought before a Congress. Its acknowledged purpose is to raise energy prices to all Americans and in doing so it will make America less competitive in an ever more competitive world.”

Senator Schatz, instead of debating climate change legislation, the U.S. Senate should be investigating the perpetrators of fraud and misuse of billions of taxpayer dollars chasing a non-existent crisis. Whether or not the Senate investigates, there will be criminal fraud charges brought in courts.  Too many people are being hurt. Both fraud and attempted fraud are crimes.  Who knew what and when will be evidence required, including from you and your staff.  In the end, scientific evidence and expert testimony will win against this fraudulent hypothesis.  You and your staff could go down in history alongside the greatest scammers in history like Bernie Madoff, Enron, and the UN Oil for Food scandals  Or, you and your staff could go down in history with those who finally recognized this giant fraud and help to stop it.

Senator, it is time for you to put aside partisan politics on behalf of your constituents in Hawaii and to stand up and fight against this massive deception and fraud. The facts are now out on the table. If you fail to do so, the electorate of Hawaii will be obliged to remove you.

Again, if you would like further information from me or renowned scientists in this field, by phone, in person or by mail or email, it can be arranged.  Please let me know.

References:

(1) http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

(2) http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

(3) http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/

(4) http://www.hrad.cz/en/president-of-the-cr/current-president-of-the-cr-vaclav-klaus/curriculum-vitae.shtml

(5)http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HOW_MANY_IPCC_SCIENTISTS_FABRICATE_AND_FALSIFY_RESEARCH.pdf

(6)http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/AIT/CBC%20OMBUDSMAN%20Norm1.pdf

(7) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124529064317626263.html

(8) The complete study is available Full Text of Study (PDF) http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/GreenJobs09/BHIGreen_Collar_Job_Critique090625.pdf

The press release is here: http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/GreenJobs09/PressReleaseBHIGreenJobsStudy090625.htm

(9) http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/14/14climatewire-does-nasas-james-hansen-still-matter-in-clim-82897.html?pagewanted=all

(10) http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3815

(11) S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008.

(12) No. 05-1120, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Petitioners,

1. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF CLIMATOLOGISTS AND SCIENTISTS

SALLIE BALIUNAS, JOHN R. CHRISTY, CHRIS DE FREITAS, DAVID LEGATES,

ANTHONY LUPO, PATRICK MICHAELS, JOEL SCHWARTZ, AND ROY W. SPENCER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

Note: A photocopy of the full page open letter from scientists to President Obama was enclosed with the hardcopy of this letter and mailed to Senator Schatz.