“Not one cent of foreign welfare via Copenhagen, the International Monetary Fund, or any other international institution should be committed,” wrote Wilson, “until the national debt is brought down to a manageable level: about 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.”

Wilson demanded that members set the record straight: “ALG calls on you to publicly state your position on this foreign welfare scheme.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Clause after complicated clause of the draft [Copenhagen] treaty requires developed countries to pay an ‘adaptation debt’ to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that ‘by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].’”

Wilson warned that the U.S. was at risk of having its debt downgraded. He wrote, “At $12 trillion today, the national debt will surpass 100 percent of the GDP in 2011. The nation faces the increasing likelihood of a debt downgrade by Moody’s Investor Services. Future generations of taxpayers are being bound in the shackles of an insurmountable debt that cannot be paid.”

Last week, Moody’s Investor Services stated that U.S. “public finances are deteriorating considerably and may therefore test the Aaa boundaries…”

Wilson wrote that the cost of implementing the Copenhagen “wealth transfer” would be enough to push the U.S. over the edge: “Much of the national debt is already owed overseas to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and elsewhere. Doubling down with a wealth redistribution plan to the Third World via Copenhagen will ensure that the rest of the nation’s wealth not committed to paying down the debt will simply be handed over. There will be nothing left for the American people.”

Although the U.S. Senate has the power to ratify treaties, many of the measures under discussion at Copenhagen require approval of both houses of Congress to appropriate funds. “As members of Congress, you have the power of the purse—and you can stop this blatant theft from American taxpayers,” Wilson wrote.

Wilson concluded, “I strongly urge you to pledge to oppose any foreign aid transfer until the U.S. debt has been brought under control, and to oppose any foreign aid transfer, regardless, until a broad consensus is reached on the so-called ‘science’ of man-made climate change.”

###

“Our worst fears have been realized,” said Wilson. “The Climatic Research Unit gathered much of the primary data that has been used by the IPCC to promote ‘man-made’ climate change for years. It is because of the data CRU reported that there is any ‘consensus’ on climate change at all. Climate scientists worldwide have depended on that data to formulate their conclusions.”

“If that data was cooked, as it appears to have been, the whole ‘man-made’ global warming theory is cooked,” Wilson added.

Senator Inhofe, in an interview with Washington Times radio, said, “on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation.”

The scandal began after computer hackers broke into the servers of the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit. There, they found and published emails showing that researchers deliberately manipulated climate “change” data to hide the actual decline of the Earth’s temperatures. According to the UK Telegraph, “Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics. Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.”

One particular email from CRU director Phil Jones in 1999 stated, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“A full investigation is needed,” Wilson declared. “That must include the release of any and all of CRU’s originally gathered data to Congress, and a comprehensive comparison to published IPCC reports.”

According to National Review’s Patrick J. Michaels, that data is not publicly available. In his piece, “The Dog Ate Global Warming,” when Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded, “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

“They’ve demanded that we bring the global economy to a grinding halt for something that is not even real,” Wilson said, adding, “The IPCC reports have been used for years, first to justify the Kyoto Protocols, and now the upcoming Copenhagen Protocols, cap-and-trade legislation, radical EPA regulations, and even Supreme Court decisions ruling that carbon dioxide is somehow a ‘pollutant.’ Under these treaties, bills, and regulations, the UN has been attempting force industrialized nations to reduce carbon emissions and the use of fossil fuels.”

According to UEA’s website, CRU’s data sets are “widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system.” And CRU “is widely recognised as one of the world’s leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.”

According to CRU history, the IPCC was set up “under the United Nations Framework (later the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) and led to assessments being produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. CRU staff have been heavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size of an institution (see IPCC AR4 Authors).”

“It is the duty of Congress to investigate what could be the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in human history,” Wilson concluded.

###

“Dr. Alan Carlin’s paper was suppressed to cover up clear and convincing evidence compiled in the scientific community that shatters the so-called ‘consensus’ that hydrocarbon fuels oil, gasoline, coal, and natural gas—which our economy depends upon to grow—are somehow causing the earth’s temperature to heat up,” said Wilson.

“This is the greatest scandal in scientific history,” Wilson added.

According to the paper compiled by Dr. Alan Carlin, a PhD economist in EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, the EPA’s “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” (TSD) uses data that is out-of-date and ignores the decade-long decline in the earth’s temperature despite CO2 levels rising and CO2 emissions accelerating.

The EPA’s official findings, writes Carlin, are based largely on the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) AR4 report published in 2007. That report’s data, according to Carlin, “is at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field.”

Carlin writes that the “IPCC projections for large increases [in temperature] are looking increasingly doubtful” in light of “recent substantial decreases in global temperatures”.

“Dr. Carlin’s report proves that the EPA cannot trust without verifying the veracity of the reports of the UN,” said Wilson.

“Under the current administration, the UN’s phony and inaccurate projections of temperature increases—which now have been completely discredited—are being accepted on faith as gospel,” Wilson added.

Wilson said the brakes need to be applied to the climate change bill. “The Senate cannot proceed with the Waxman-Markey legislation mandating carbon emission caps until the fraudulent science that underpins it is completely exposed.”
The legislation, HR 2454, would force carbon-emitting industries coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas to purchase carbon permits. The bill aims to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

The House voted in favor of the legislation was 219 to 212 on June 26th, although Wilson noted that “no member had access to the Carlin paper because the EPA covered it up.”

Wilson again pointed to a study from APS Physics, “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” as discrediting the justification for capping carbon emissions. “The Monckton study, which Dr. Carlin cites, proves that the UN International Panel on Climate Change’s computer models greatly overstate the impact of carbon emissions on global temperatures. The whole hypothesis is not even based on actual observable data that can be confirmed.”

Wilson says that the EPA is lying to the American people about the science behind climate change. “Dr. Carlin is a national hero for exposing the global warming fraud, and it is up to the U.S. Senate to investigate the political suppression of scientific inquiry at the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Attachments: “Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act,” Dr. Alan Carlin, EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation.

Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.