To John Key from Jack B 4 January 2012

4^th January 2012

Dr N Smith                               cc The Prime Minister

Minister for Climate Change         Rt Hon John Key

Parliament Bldgs                           Parliament Bldgs

Wellington                                    Wellington

Dear Dr Smith,

Your letter of Jun 30 2010

The book Air Con (post Climategate Copenhagen edition) returned unread

The Canadian withdrawal from Kyoto and your response

ETS Committee called to consider rate of implementation and quality of data – also returned my book unread.

Your Quote within the book when the massive fraud was being discovered

Your response to Canadian withdrawal from Kyoto

Minister, with the greatest respect you’re a zealot with your head in the sand. For a man with a doctorate on an issue such as this that is really quite shameful. However your response to the Canadian withdrawal was so pathetic, mealy mouthed and weak that I suspect you may be developing a little cynicism regarding what you’ve been fed and may now choose to do some research yourself. I truly hope so!

The Canadian decision, given how “green” they are even in comparison to us, was right, proper, gutsy and most importantly in the interests of their taxpayers and economy! We on the other hand continue to be taxed on the basis of FRAUD and a $76 billion dollar industry putting money in the hands of crackpot scientists who are paid to tow Govt Lines – (rubbish lines). You only have to open the book Minister – in fact you need only read the last 2 – 3 chapters of Air Con to see the extent of the fraud being visited on the world by corrupt people and corrupted science.

Re CO2.

1. It is patently obvious that this has minimal impact on anthropogenic global warming – which actually doesn’t exist.
2. CO2 is vital for plant growth and how badly is this needed since the decimation of the rain forests in Brazil and Indonesia in particular. With more CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow more quickly, larger and in a healthier state.

2

3. Man’s “pollution” of CO2 is puny, infinitesimal, compared to volcanoes both above and below sea level. I also believe there is a release of CO2 from the sea in certain conditions. Anyhow as stated above it is vital for re-establishment of rain forests and agricultural produce on which humanity depends far more than this anthropogenic climate warming rubbish.
4. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour – BY FAR.
5. Ever heard of cyclical events – warming and cooling?  Ice Ages were being forecasted almost daily in US newspapers as recently as the 70’s.
6. I have been fascinated this Christmas to note that the weather patterns (rain and wind) are exactly the same as they were when I was a child growing up in the 50’s. But instead we’re now being told that the accelerating rate of change is so fast we may never be able to bring it under control. I trust you don’t subscribe to that nonsense? If you do why aren’t you preparing us for the worst – you’ve been very quiet apart from your “It was to be expected” rebuke of the Canadians.

You speak in your Jun 30 2010 letter of the cost (borne by taxpayers) of meeting New Zealand’s International obligations. Surely the Canadians had the same obligations?

The difference I suspect is that they have far better informed politicians who couldn’t care less about becoming the pariahs of the Green World and those with their heads in the sand. They can see first hand how quickly the Arctic Ice Cap has reformed. They experienced one of the coldest Winters ever in Europe during Copenhagen as they did in North America. Doesn’t anybody pay any attention to A Priori evidence?

Do you feel comfortable supporting people like Al Gore – the first billionaire to be created from this fraudulent industry? Soros must be close if not way past.

Why would a committee like the ETS committee not be interested in the quality of data or the lack of peer review? When peer review means rubber stamping by colleagues it brings so called “Science” entirely into disrepute – all science - even that unrelated to this.

You say Wishart’s book is scientifically flawed. He would be the first to acknowledge that he is not a scientist and your statement is a cop out. Wishart investigated the claims that were being made, investigated the lies that were being told and presented the evidence. The book is far too detailed and cross referenced to be other than an extremely well researched and damning expose – not as you say “flawed science!”

In the book you were quoted as saying to a citizen who wrote to you,

1. I note your concern over leaked documents
2. They do not undermine the scientific case that climate change (not global warming I note) is real (of course it is AND CYCLICAL).
3. That human activity is almost certainly the cause
4. The scientific case is supported by multiple robust lines of evidence.

So why Canada? They obviously don’t think so! Are they on to it or do we have our heads in the sand and finding it very difficult to abandon the taxes.

3

What did Durban throw up in the wake of “we may never be able to bring it under control” as we rush headlong towards massive human and animal partial extinction. You haven’t mentioned that to the public. Don’t you think we have a right to know? The hypocrisy is that Durban yielded nothing but a “resolve” to meet again in 2015 to have another go at getting consensus. So how fast are we moving towards Armageddon? Will the major polluters be more amenable by 2015?

Or praise be, in the meantime might we see a few more informed repeats of Canada, a country not persuaded as you are, a country which is indeed working for the benefit of its taxpayers and a country unwilling to stifle its industry or economy with taxes based on FRAUD. The day New Zealand starts to legislate ethically, the day it puts principles ahead of revenue, the day it remains sceptical of anything that will put extra tax burdens on people as long as there is any shadow of doubt is one I long for. How can you tax people like this following a huge recession? The US and European debts really are out of control and perhaps even uncontrollable. Why is that not receiving our attention? It is far more potentially ruinous and urgent than “Climate Change”! I fear I shall be dead and will never see that day. Shameful.

Do I hear you say,”You don’t know what you’re talking about?” Well Minister, I suspect you don’t either. Why else would you return my book unread? Why else would the ETS committee do likewise? And why else would neither you nor any of the principal protagonists of this nonsense not debate with Lord Monkton when he was here.

You are a National Party Minister. That used to mean you were bound to take a conservative approach. National were lucky this election. I forecast that you will not be so lucky next time. National have deserted their core supporters and preferred radicalism to conservatism; not just on this issue but on many others.

I saw the Iron Lady a couple of nights ago and I remember this quote from the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20^th Century. “Men are weak, WEAK, WEAK.”

But not Canadian men!

Might I respectfully suggest you become a realist, devoted to your people – not some trumped up International Obligation.

Yours faithfully,

J R Butland