Global warming as seen from Martin, TN

I read this in the “Views” section of a small regional newspaper, the Jackson Sun. I skimmed it the first time and was going to move on assuming it was written by just another Leftie in love with Obama… then I realized the author is chancellor emeritus of The University of Tennessee Martin.

It starts out like a paean of a typical eco freak.

“I'm concerned about the negative impact mankind is having on our planet. We are not being good stewards of the earth. We are overpopulating, destroying wetlands and overharvesting our natural resources.”

Power to the People!

“With our consumer spending might, we can set the pace to deploy clean, renewable energy, and the world will follow. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) presents an opportunity to spur innovation and economic investment and strengthen American competitiveness.”

Right on brother! But can we talk?

“I strongly believe that we can develop and deploy renewable technology and thus be poised to sell, manufacture and develop those technologies. The proposed solar panel farm at the Haywood County megasite is a good example of clean energy and a positive impact on West Tennessee.”

I understand you strongly believe. But the problem is you use words like “proposed” and “good example.” Can you tell me this? Will it produce electric power that I can purchase, with no subsidies, for what I am paying now? That’s around 9 cents per KWH.

“Transitioning to a clean-energy economy offers pathways out of poverty for the 78 million people in the United States who are presently poor or near-poor. On a national level (according to "How clean-energy policies can fight poverty and raise living standards in the United States," from the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst), a $150 billion annual level of clean-energy investments in the U.S. economy would generate a 1.7 million net increase in job creation, roughly 870,000 of them jobs that would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less. Jackson native Van Jones is working hard as the "green energy czar" to make this happen.”

Again it sounds great. But how can producing power that costs more than what we are paying now be a path out of poverty for anyone? The poor pay a higher percentage of their income for utilities, gasoline and groceries than the non-poor. So unless you are going to pay a direct subsidy to the poor, there is no way you aid them. And if you do, you will have to take money in increased taxes from the middle and upper income people, plus… of course…they will see the same increases in utilities, gasoline and groceries that the poor will.

I must say that for someone who apparently was exposed to higher education for a lengthy period your logic seems to be under developed.

“The clean-energy economy is already proving to be a strong economic boom on top of doing the right thing. New analysis reveals that by 2007, 1,090 businesses in Tennessee had generated more than 15,000 jobs in the clean-energy economy.

As noted by a report this month from the Pew Charitable Trusts, "The clean energy economy: Repowering jobs, businesses and investments across America," about $16.3 million of venture capital investments were directed toward clean technology businesses in Tennessee between 2006 and 2008. We have the third-fastest-growing clean-energy economy in the nation, according to the Pew study.”

I have a few problems with this. The first one is that you don’t provide any references for your claims, and frankly, they don’t make sense. If 1090 businesses generated around 15,000 jobs in clean energy, then that is around 15 jobs per business. That's a low number. Now you don’t say if these are new companies or new hires to existing companies. Plus, while $16 million seems to be a lot of money I can tell you that a high tech start up is a capital intensive operation. $16 million is not a drop in the bucket.

I also get concerned when you don’t define what a “clean energy” company is. You wouldn’t be calling a farm switching from cotton to saw grass a “clean energy” company would you?

“What really gets my passion up is thinking about the world we will leave to our grandchildren. I want them to have a chance to breathe clean air and see the same beautiful Tennessee that I'm experiencing. It is time we think about the future and not just what is happening to us today.”

I am glad to see that you want a pretty Tennessee. I grew up in Tennessee and I remember the pretty green grass we walked on. But let me give you some advice. If you give people the choice of green grass or brown shoes the shoes will win every time.

“I'm also concerned that we must develop an alternative to Middle East oil. For national security reasons, we must break from our dependence on the oil cartels that are influenced by governments that are not friends of America. Do we set the terms for our energy needs, or do we let other, not-so-friendly, nations set our agenda?”

That sounds wonderful. But you don’t tell us how you would do that. And based on what you have written prior to this,I would guess that you are against drilling for more oil off the coast and in ANWR. I would also say you don’t want to mess with oil shale, wouldn’t touch coal and nuclear… well nuclear is just out of the question.

So how would you do this? We use 390 million gallons of gasoline a day. If you convert all of it to a 10% ethanol blend that means 39 million gallons of ethanol. And since saw grass isn’t yet a practical source and since we have a huge import tax on sugar… have you figured out how many acres of corn will be needed? And have you considered the damage that all the new corn production does to the environment… including release carbon dioxide when the soil is tilled??

BTW – Just to give you an idea, even with saw grass it will take around 13 million acres of new production just to break even. Now that would a fair sized spread in any state. And that assumes 100% efficiency. The actual number would most likely be 16 million acres.

Wind? Solar? Both have technical and cost problems, but even if you solve those and develop an electric car with batteries that will last, you have the problem of distribution. Can you imagine millions of cars all needing to be charged at the same time? The existing grid simply won’t do the job. So what happens to those electric bills when the new grid must be paid for? And what happens to the environment when all the new power lines, power stations and other new equipment is put in place?

Nuclear is the obvious choice for electric power generation. It has all the distribution problems I mentioned above if we are to go to electric cars but it is more reliable and cheaper.

You know, petroleum… gasoline…didn’t just get picked as the fuel of choice to run our transportation system. It won because it was cheaper better and easier to use.

“We are not going to come up with a perfect solution to our energy crisis, and all parties are not going to be 100 percent pleased. We can talk this issue to death, or we can begin to solve the problem.

The world's leading scientists have clearly stated the problem. The question is, do we respond like the frog that is placed in a pan of cool water that is slowly warmed to a boiling point and thus perishes, or do we take steps to turn down the temperature? The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a good start in turning down the temperature. Let's not be like the frog.”

The problem is that the problem has not been clearly stated, nor proven. As I write this we find that a 38 year EPA employee’s simple request for the EPA to use other inputs beside the UN’s was denied. That, in my opinion, is criminal. At the least the Administrator should be fired along with all others associated with this action.

Even worse, we have ample evidence that man made Global Warming is not worth worrying over, and that the real driver is the sun, as it has been for millions and millions of years.

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather .

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

Link to source article.

BTW – The Little Ice Age came on quite quickly. You might consider that as you demand we rush to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, we might want to think about this.

“At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"


I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.


The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.



Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.


In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.


Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?


This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?


Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.


Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.


Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.”

Link to source article.

So your to claim that the discussion is over with is laughingly inaccurate. You either do not keep up with what is going on and merely spout the Left’s party line, or you know but still spout the party line.

As a private citizen that is acceptable. But when you seek to add authority to your claims by bringing in your previous position with The University of Tennessee it is not acceptable.

“Nick Dunagan is chancellor emeritus of The University of Tennessee Martin.”