Typical Response from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Senator Ben Nelson | Novemebr 30, 2009 | Senator Ben Nelson

[TCH]

Here is the inept response I received from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to my faxed "Climategate" letter:

From: senator@bennelson.senate.gov Subject: Responding to your message To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 8:44 AM

Dear xxxxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed cap-and-trade legislation. I was glad to receive your thoughts on this important and contentious issue.

As you know, much discussion and debate has taken place in this 111th Congress on a variety of bills dealing with climate change. The most notable of these are the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, which passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733, which was introduced to the Senate by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. S. 1733 has been reported out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, but certain provisions of the bill are still under consideration by other committees.

While we need to seek ways to be better stewards of our environment, I have concerns with both pieces of legislation as written, most notably, regarding the potential costs of these and other proposals containing a cap on carbon emissions and the effect such a cap may have on Nebraskans:

o The Senate bill, S. 1733, is concerning because of the impact to the economy with the steep ramp to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, as compared to 17 percent in the House bill.

o A recent analysis conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the inclusion of the 50-50 allowance split contained in both the Senate and the House bills shows how Nebraska and other Midwestern states would lose out to northeastern coastal states, who would receive allowances nearly equal to or above their emissions. Additionally, California would receive 12 million more allowances than its total emissions while Nebraska would face a shortfall of 7 million allowances based on emissions.

o Any legislation establishing markets in which allowances for carbon dioxide emissions would be bought and sold on a financial exchange will be ripe to speculation and wild price swings, which would have a direct effect on electric utilities and Nebraska ratepayers, many of whom are senior citizens on fixed-rate incomes.

o A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis states that there would be a decline in employment during the transition because labor markets do not move that fluidly. Even in the best case scenario, which would be every job being replaced by new green jobs, there would likely still be significant reductions in the lifetime earnings of some affected workers.

o Nebraska is unique because it receives 100 percent of its electricity from public power generators, and nearly two-thirds of that power is generated from coal. As such, any increase in costs would be absorbed by the public power ratepayers-who are the hundreds of thousands of Nebraska families, businesses, farmers and ranchers.

I believe the time has come to look for better solutions to address our nation's energy needs, including more renewable, green energy technology and a reduction of our dependence on foreign oil. However, these solutions need to be balanced with the needs of a recovering economy, a ten-percent jobless rate, and the impact that such potential legislation could have in rural and agricultural states. Whenever H.R. 2454, S. 1733, or any other proposal pertaining to climate change comes before the Senate, I will fully evaluate the final proposal and the impact it may have on Nebraska ratepayers, farmers and ranchers, and the industrial sector. If such legislation has an undue burden on any of these sectors, please know I will be unable to support it.

Thank you again for contacting me with your comments. I appreciated your thoughts and concerns on energy legislation and will keep your views in mind as climate change legislation comes before me on the Senate floor.

Sincerely, Ben Nelson U.S. Senator

[TCH]

Here is my response to this drivel:

Senator Nelson,

All the arguments you advance in your November 30 2009 e-mail are moot, because of the glaring fact that the premise for man-made “global warming” or “climate change” is based entirely on fraudulent science, cherry-picked raw data, and computer modeling programs that were manipulated to specifically disregard any data that contradicted the desired outcome. Compounding these blatant acts of dishonesty are additional reams of damning electronic correspondence, authored and exchanged between members of the CRU and other similar facilities, whose material is central to the UN IPCC report. The content of these e-mails conclusively demonstrates an ongoing conspiracy to:

Obfuscate the true historical climate record;

Diminish the reputation of any individual who presents a contrary opinion to the politically correct presumption;

Threaten the careers of those researches who dissent from the fraudulently established global warming “consensus;”

Suppress the submission of contrary articles to established “peer review” journals, so to effectively marginalize their oversight; and,

Commit criminal acts of destruction of documents rightly requested under the UK's Freedom of Information laws.

All the above actions prove the Machiavellian intent of the individuals working at the Climate Research Institute (CRU) in the United Kingdom, upon whose word the majority of the “scientific consensus” for Anthropological Climate Change is based.

Senator Nelson, in your letter you completely ignored this most important development; rather presenting qualifying arguments on the merits and deficiencies of a “Carbon Cap and Trade System” and its resultant impact on the state of Nebraska. Thus, it appears that while you may dissent from the presently formulated Senate legislation, you are still a proponent of the now-discredited theory of Anthropological Climate Change (ACC). Therefore your response is a great disappointment; for it strongly suggests that you are not interested in discerning and halting the willful deception of ACC, nor the propagation of its associated fraudulent “green” enterprise known as ‘Cap and Trade;’ but rather, you cast your lot against the United States and side with those who seek to:

Undermine American exceptionalism;

Further compromise America’s strained economic position;

Cripple America’s struggling industry;

Compromise the private sector’s ability to efficiently provide Americans a gainful employment, without undue government coercion; and,

Severely degrade the quality of life for American citizens.

Senator Nelson, I would much appreciate that you respond properly to the arguments presented in my previously faxed letter regarding the CRU "Climategate" scandal; and resist presenting me any further "form letters" having nothing to do with the issues presented for your consideration. If I am thoughtful enough to take from my time to address you of concerns proper to the governing of this republic, then I think it not too forward to request you grant me a thoughtful response.

Sincerely, Bruce Desautels Stratton Nebraska

[NEMDF]

Thank you for making another run at it. I get so tired of getting the same canned responses from Nelson, and it is so insulting when he insinuates that we ordinary people just do not understand the issues like he does. Or he gives some half-hearted response that makes you think he’s listening, until the next vote comes up, and he has some manufactured excuse as to why he went with the party and against what the people of Nebraska want. I hope he sees himself out of office next election.

Please update us on any response you receive.

[Marty62]

How much you want to bet you don’t get an answer to your rebuttal to his form Capa nd Tax support letter.

[TCH]

Oh, I do not know for sure... but I will not hold my breath! I am working so hard not to be cynical, but these fools sure do make it difficult to maintain even a modicum of optimism.

[TCH]

Bet on it!

[UAConservative]

Even in the best case scenario, which would be every job being replaced by new green jobs, there would likely still be significant reductions in the lifetime earnings of some affected workers.

Then why the heck would we voluntarily set our standard of living to self-destruct for a fraudulent theory? Does he even look at the news of Climategate?

Ben Nelson was rated the most popular US Senator in April 2006 (73%); I'll bet that number is in the 30s now. 2012 is going to be ugly for the RAT.

[Prince of Space]

I was going back and forth with my representative, Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), last summer regarding energy, drilling, etc. He'd send me 4 pages of legislative mumbo-jumbo, and I'd send him 1 page back refuting his claims.

At least he responded to me, but frankly who has time to do that over and over? Especially when they don't listen to us anyway.

I applaud your efforts though. Very nice letter but needs to be boiled down to just a couple of sentences, in large print of course since they are obviously of limited mental capacity....

Mrs. Prince of Space

[MountainDad]

This is a strikingly similar response to my question for him regarding the health care bill.

Unbelievable!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I used to be rather naive. “I vote for the man not the party” sort drivel. I learned my lesson quickly. The democrat says one thing to get elected then votes like Nancy Pelosi when push comes to shove. It appears Nelson sold Nebraska a bill of goods.

[Nuc1]

Your rebuttal letter was so well written that use parts of it on my own congress critters, the Three Stooges of Vermont, Curly, Curley, and Larry. No Moe b/c we don't have a smart one. Would that be OK with you.

[Nuc1]

Your rebuttal letter was so well written that I would like to use parts of it on my own congress critters...

Long Day.

[TCH]

Sure, have a go at it. One correction though. I used the wrong term with “Anthropological” ... That is incorrect. The proper term is “Anthropogenic” — although I have seen both terms used interchangeably, I think the latter is more correct.

I also cleaned the letter up a bit to make it more concise:

Senator Nelson,

The arguments advanced in your November 30 2009 e-mail compose a straw dog, because the central premise for man-made global warming and climate change is fraudulent, and based on dubious computer modeling programs that were designed to disregard any data that contradict the desired outcome. Compounding this blatant act of dishonesty are logs of damning electronic correspondence, authored and exchanged between members of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and its sister facilities, whose material is central to the UN IPCC report. The combined evidence conclusively demonstrates an ongoing conspiracy to:

• Obfuscate the historical climate record;

• Diminish the reputation of any individual who presents an opinion contrary to the politically-correct presumption;

• Threaten the professional career of any researcher who dissents from the fraudulently established global warming “consensus;”

• Suppress the submission of contrary articles to established “peer review” journals, so to effectively marginalize their oversight; and,

• Commit criminal acts of destruction of documents rightly requested under the UK’s Freedom of Information laws.

All the above actions prove the Machiavellian intent of the individuals working at the CRU, and upon whose word the majority of the “scientific consensus” for Anthropogenic Climate Change is based. My question, Senator Nelson, is why do you disregard the implications of this scandal?

Senator, in your letter, you ignored this most important development; rather presenting the merits and deficiencies of a Carbon Cap and Trade System and its resultant impact on Nebraska. Thus, it appears that while you dissent from the presently formulated Senate legislation, you are still a proponent of the now-discredited theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Your last response is disappointing; for it suggests that you are not interested in discerning the truth. It suggests that you are compelled to ignore the gross deception of the CRU and IPCC, to propagate a fraudulent enterprise known as ‘Cap and Trade’ for whatever partisan gain it may avail your political party. Therefore, Senator, you cast your lot against the United States, and side with those who seek to:

• Cripple American industry;

• Collapse the American economy;

• Undermine American private sector;

• Degrade quality of life for American citizens;

• Demoralize the American entrepreneurial spirit, and;

• Usurp American liberty to institute international dictatorial power;

Senator Nelson, I would much appreciate a proper response to the arguments presented in my previously faxed letter regarding the “Climategate” scandal; Please abstain from writing further “form letters,” which have little relevance to the issues I presented for your consideration. If I am thoughtful enough to devote my time to address you of concerns proper to the governing of this republic, then I think it not too forward that I request you grant me a thoughtful response.

Sincerely,
Bruce Desautels
Stratton Nebraska

[TCH]

Actually, Senator Nelson’s office staff did send me another e-mail, though shorter, but having similar patronizing nonsense, wholly unrelated to the questions I asked. Now it is time that I make the good senator a personal visit; and woe to him that he should compel I make such a journey!

[Marty62]

Good . My Senator pulled this stunt on me too.
I kept on him until he gave me a straight answer.
The last thing some aide wants is this type of BS to get to their boss.

[Nuc1]

Thanks FReeper friend. Will do. Pls excuse me for the Anthropological thing as I was tired.