Hon.

Lindsey Graham, Senator

290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Have a Coke™

Dear Senator Graham:

Please accept the gift of the enclosed Diet Coke™. I last wrote you in March in opposition to the
Waxman Markley Climate Bill and urging you to support Sen. Murkowski in vacating the EPA
Endangerment finding. Since that time you have shown some sense on this issue, and I thank you
for you vote in favor of Sen. Murkowski’s effort but alas you still speak of carbon pollution. As I
was trained by the world of advertising in my youth, I want to Buy the World a Coke™1. I am
therefore taking this opportunity to buy you a Coke™. Actually a Diet Coke™, we will save the
battle with Mayor Bloomberg for another day. As I mentioned before, those little bubbles in your
soda, beer or Champagne2 are carbon dioxide, an essential trace gas. Just like a Diet Coke™, our
planet would lose it sparkle without the life giving properties of CO2.

Carbon Dioxide itself is not the problem and there is no good science to support the allegations that
humans have affected the global temperature in a significant and harmful way. There is certainly
no justification for government interference in the energy economy. You have been entrusted with
the power to tax, but with that power comes an obligation to do so rationally. You have the power
to tax, we have the power to vote. You never used the word tax in you letter to me. Let’s be honest,
we know when you say some Congressional action “reduces carbon pollution” what you really mean
is “we are going to tax you till it hurts” and subsidize job killing harebrained alternative energy
schemes with our money.

Making decisions on the assumption that CO2 is a pollutant means we are making the wrong
decisions and wasting resources that could be applied to preventing and cleaning up actual harmful
pollutants. Perhaps if our current administration had not been spending it efforts on pushing offshore
windfarms it could have more profitably overseen the safety of offshore drilling.

I can’t help reminding you that in October of 2009, I asked:

2. Where is the list of the “2500 scientists” who supposedly wrote the IPCC report?
( Hint: If no one can give you the list of scientists for the IPCC report, that is reason
enough to reject it.)

1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAEJbHBB-5Q
2
Or sparkling wine if you Buy American
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Page 3
June 14, 2010

Now we have learned from Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider that the
actual number of scientists who backed that claim that CO2 was warming the planet, was “only a
few dozen experts,”

Hulme states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin
Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that
human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states
unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Accept this gift and take the Pause that Refreshes, get off the Carbon Pollution bandwagon.

STOP THE DAMAGE TO OUR ECONOMY. Stop calling CO2 a pollutant, call it a greenhouse gas
if you will. But don’t tax us until you have proof that human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere
have had an significant and harmful effects.

I remain,

Yours very truly,