I sent the following letter to my US and State congressional leaders requesting a NC Climate Change Summit

"My name is Neal Thomas and I reside in Shelby, North Carolina. I am sending this letter to all of my elected officials to strongly urge you all to unite together and confront the issue of “man-made” global warming for what it is; a hoax.

I am requesting that my North Carolina and U.S. Congressional leaders call for a Climate Change Summit. It would be composed strictly of scientific experts from both sides of the global warming debate, and would be designed to allow equal time for each panel of experts to publicly present and defend the scientific evidence for and against man-made global warming.

The assertion that there is 100% consensus within the scientific community that global warming is “man-made” is absolutely, positively, and categorically false. The Petition Project has grown considerably since Gore’s movie was released.

“More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.” May 19, 2008, Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily.

A movie soon to be released entitled Not Evil Just Wrong; The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria, is designed as a rebuttal to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The original founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, asserts that Al Gore and all others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud:

“Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose… That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention… as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute, 3/5/2008.

Democrats in congress are working very hard to pass legislation that would as stated in their climate principles letter,

“Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming…”

“Progressive Democrats of America has endorsed a science-based global warming bill now in the House of Representatives, The Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590, Henry Waxman, D-CA-30). Now three House leaders, including Rep. Waxman, are circulating a climate principles letter among their colleagues which clearly defines the goals and elements a final law must contain to be successful. Speaker Pelosi supports the letter, and a large number of signatures from House members will help her to press for the best possible global warming bill.” Progressive Democrats of America, Action Alerts, http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=11569301

And Democrats in congress are not the only concern. Now it would seem the EPA will step in and mandate CO2 regulations single-handedly.

“The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Environmental Protection Agency will release a document later this week that could become “the legal roadmap for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S.” Using the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the EPA claim they have the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a decision would unleash a regulatory Pandora’s Box, vesting the EPA with vast control over the entire economy. Worse yet, when regulating pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is forbidden to take into account the economic costs of their regulations.” Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, June 30th 2008.

Insurance companies are also beginning to cash in on the hysteria:

“Scientists say the jury is still out on whether rising sea temperatures will cause more hurricanes to hit U.S. coastlines. Yet some insurance companies are boosting premiums based on assumptions that they will. Helping to drive these developments is a little-known tool of the insurance world: Computerized catastrophe modeling. Crafted by several independent firms and used by most insurers, so-called cat models rely on complex data to estimate probable losses from hurricanes. But regulators and other critics contend that the latest cat models -- which include assumptions about various climate changes -- are triggering higher insurance rates.” WSJ.com July 1, 2008 HURRICANE WATCH Insurers Criticized For New Rate Models, M.P. MCQUEEN

I believe very strongly in being a good steward of our planet, but if man-made greenhouse gases are NOT causing global warming which many world renowned scientists believe, then it needs to be exposed for the hoax it is. I for one think a Climate Change Summit would be an acceptable expenditure of our tax dollars due to the huge amount of taxes we will face if the EPA is allowed to proceed unchecked. It is time to stand!"

All responses have been posted on the blog towards the bottom. I scanned them in so I apologize if they are a little difficult to read.

I am in the 10th US Congressional district so I sent this letter to Rep. Patrick McHenry. I was somewhat encouraged by Rep. McHenry's response. He in a round-about way admits that there is no "scientific consensus" that climate change is man-made. On the other hand, it is quite obvious to me that this is a form letter response because Rep. McHenry does not even mention or comment at all on my request for the Summit.

Being in NC I sent this letter to Senator's Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr who sent almost identical responses which I will post below. Sen. Dole and Burr also sent form letters, and I wonder if Sen. Dole's letter is pre-2006? Based on the letter the Sen. sent in response to mine, it makes me wonder if she even read mine? How could she possibly believe there is a "scientific consensus" about man made climate change when there are 31,000 US scientists who have gone on the public record to say that it is not? The IPCC claims to have less than 3000 scientists backing up their data. I will admit that before Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick dropped the equivalent of an atom bomb on Mann's "hockey-stick fraud", there may very well have been a scientific consensus. But there certainly is not a consensus now other than within the media, and the IPCC. I plan on engaging Sen. Dole and Burr in more conversation to clarify their opinion's about the 31,000 amoung other things.

I reside in Cleveland county NC so that places me in the 111th district for the House of Representatives, which is Rep. Tim Moore. Unfortunately I have misplaced his response. However his response about man made climate change left no doubt that he believes this issue needs much more debate, and so far he is the only elected official that penned a personal response to my letter. He is in favor of having the issue debated publically. Thank you Rep. Moore for taking the time to read and respond to my letter.

My state senate district is 46 so my state senator is Walter Dalton and he has NOT sent a response to my letter. I plan on sending my original letter to Rep. Debbie Clary and allowing her to comment. I am pretty sure she is running against Sen. Dalton for his seat in the NC Senate.

And lastly I sent this letter to the Governor of North Carolina, Michael Easley. His was by far the poorest of all. He did not comment on my request for a Summit, but from his coldish response I do believe he at least read my letter.

VP of the NC Forestry Association and member of the LEGISLATIVE COMM ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE says "climate change has moved from science to religion"

On July 30th I sent the following e-mail to every member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change:

"A rocket scientist that spent six years "carbon accounting" by building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office now says man-made global warming does not exist

You have received this email from a citizen of North Carolina that would very much like to see man-made climate change debated publicly, by scientists, in terms that average Americans can understand, and because you are listed as being a member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change.

The attached and linked article was written by Dr.David Evans himself and he states two important points:

First, "There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None." Secondly,
"There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts..."
I have attached a Word version of the July 18th, 2008 article, and I have also provided a link:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html

I am determined to see this issue debated in North Carolina and have started a blog in an attempt to give North Carolinian's an opportunity to connect with the evidence, one another, and their legislators about man made climate change. My first goal is to allow officials from North Carolina an opportunity to let the public know which side of the debate they fall on.

After you have had an opportunity to read the article I would appreciate a reply to this message stating your thoughts about Dr Evans assertions. Your comments will be posted to my blog un-altered.

Thank you for your time."

As of Friday Aug 1st Mr. Robert Slocum, Vice President of the North Carolina Forestry Commission, and member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, is the only, of the 34 total members, that have responded to my request. Here are his comments:

"I applaud your objective and wish you the best of luck. Dr. Evans paper is very good and in line with a substantial amount of scientific work that is finally coming to light. Unfortunately, “Climate Change” has moved from science and become its own religion. That makes rational, scientific debate very difficult, if not impossible, in the political arena. Climate change is now the rational for almost every action anyone can think of and the cause of almost every ill.

Bob Slocum"

I cannot stress enough to my fellow North Carolina citizens to contact your legislators and find out where they stand on this debate. The economic future of our state my depend on it. Our schools are crumbling around us and there are elements at work within our states government who are preparing to spend billions of dollars of our tax money to "save the planet" as Nancy Pelosi puts it, FROM A HOAX!

Boy if only we could be so alarmed about the state of our schools we would probably have the smartest school children in the Republic.

Another Rocket Scientist, who spent six years building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office now says no to man made global warming!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html

The Australian

No smoking hot spot

David Evans July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005."

If the EPA gets their way your taxes will skyrocket!

The following was taken directly from the EPA's climate change website:

"Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.

The Advance Notice
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;

How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;

Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,

Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background
In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

How to Comment

Comments should be identified by the following Docket ID Number:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

Comments should be submitted by one of the following method
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

Fax: 202-566-9744

Mail:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.


North Carolina use these links to let your comments be heard.