To John Key from Peter M 26 March 2010

Dear Prime Minister,

I write to you because I am concerned that the advice you have been given in
respect to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is not based
on sound science and because my original query put to my local MP well over
a year ago has remained unanswered. My emails to Heatley were never even
acknowleged. Two further emails were copied to Nick Smith and yourself. My
original question was,"Who will be held accountable when the science
surrounding CAGW is shown to be flawed?"

Nick Smith evaded the question but replied to my other concerns with NIWA
and the ETS. He pointed me to the NIWA website but there is no indication
that NIWA have given satisfactory answers to the NZ Climate Science
Coalition concerns and he is of the opinion that the ETS is an international
obligation. I am aware that the Hon Nick Smith is an engineer and believes
the ETS measures are justified by the risk (the precautionary principle).
I too have had a lifetime of practical engineering experience and have been
lucky enough to have worked in the fields of hydrology, dam safety, computer
aided design and large scale project management. It appears that the climate
science scare is deeply flawed, particularly because the computer models are
the basis of the argument, the original data subjected to questionable
statistical manipulation and the basic climate science poorly understood.

As a taxpayer who voted for National and wanted NZ to catch up with
Australia I find that not only are the taxpayers to be called upon to add
more GST to the coffers but forced to contribute to the ETS ponzi scheme by
raising the price on petrol and electricity and other services that will
drain the economy with an exodus of billions to bottomless pits for no
climate gain. New Zealand has nothing to gain by rushing into carbon trading
in the midst of a financial crisis. France and Australia have adopted a wait
and see stance thus giving themselves a exit strategy.

I call upon you to properly review the science, let it be openly debated and
at least delay the ETS until it is quite clear that CAGW is not based on
poor science and is completely free of fraud and the devious underhand
tactics that are being used to promote it.

Yours faithfully

Peter M