Letter from a Constituent

LetterChad Johnson has had enough of global warming hysteria shaping public policy and he wrote a letter to his state senator that has since been passed around to other legislators. His letter expresses the frustration of ordinary citizens. With Mr. Johnson’s permission, a portion of his correspondence is reproduced below.


I appreciate your political line of the matter of Global Warming. But it is not shown though in the voting record of Democrats and Republicans alike. Yes we all want clean water and clean air. Our water and air are cleaner then they have been in 100 years. Cars and trucks are 97% more efficient than even since 1970. We, the public are driving more, and the air is getting cleaner by the day. Can you explain that? Well, I can. The programs put in place before this ludicrous Global Warming hysteria, have worked.
Did you know that a full size Suburban at 7400 lbs gross weight, getting 21 miles to the gallon on the highway, is 80% more efficient the new Smart car? At 1500 lbs gross weight and 41 miles to the gallon. Its efficiency rating goes down exponentially. Would you rather get into an accident in a Smart Car or a Suburban?
Hybrids rape the land. They use Lithium batteries to work. The lithium is strip-mined. It takes 10 tons of ore to make one hybrid battery. The Lithium is no less than lethal than Oil to the environment. It explodes when introduced to water; the batteries must be recycled by experts, and are a danger to first responders in an accident. There is 500 volts running through the drive train. That’s enough to kill anyone unlucky enough to cut the orange wire.
Now we are making ethanol. In fact you, in the Minnesota government, are paying farmers to produce it. And the funny thing is it is a bigger pollutant than regular gas. Check out the numbers. You get 1 gallon of released energy from a gallon of gas. You would need the equivalent 2.5 gallons of ethanol to get the same output. Why? Because it is up to 41% less efficient. Plus, it takes 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. The equivalent ratio of power used to make a gallon of gas is 1:1. To make a gallon of ethanol, it’s 3:1, because it has to be distilled. How do you do that? You burn fuel, 3 times more fuel. So what do we have? Ethanol takes 3 times the fuel to make, and is half as efficient to burn. Can you do math? Well the rest of the politicians can’t seem to. And now we are seeing the cost of everything that has anything to do with corn go through the roof.
They just released a study on the Kyoto accord. Nations that ratified it saw a 10 to 20% increase in emissions, In that same period the USA saw a 12% drop. Also those same countries saw a much larger drop in their GDP than we did. Why? Because the markets dictated. And they should always be allowed to do so.
States have talked about re-enacting the emissions test. Have you ever wondered why the ethanol lobby is against it? So have I, so I checked into it. It turns out, ethanol puts out more particulates them plain gas alone. And because of it, a car burning ethanol cannot pass the emissions standards of the day 14 years ago.
There are 300 scientists worldwide that are advancing man-made global warming. Less than half are meteorologists by discipline. On the other side, there are over 600 scientists, of which 400 are meteorologists and many others are from the climatologist field, including the man who founded the Weather Channel. They all seem to think this is part of the normal cycle of our planet. The facts are on their side and not the side of the Global Warming alarmists.
When Mount St. Helens erupted a couple of years ago, it released more CO2 and SO2 in one day, than every car in the United States emits in a single year. And it erupted for almost 3 months. So where is all the CO2 coming from? Us, or the earth’s natural processes.
When Krakatau exploded in 1883 it lowered the earth’s temperature by 1.2 degrees C for 5 years. Um, yeah. I am pretty sure we made it through that. Oh and by the way, the polar bear made it and the glaciers in Iceland were still there afterwards, I’m pretty sure.
“The planet has a fever,” ala Al Gore and it’s called liberalism. What is going on has nothing to do with Global Warming. It is economics, something the Democrats have no clue about. You never raise taxes in an economic down turn, unless you are trying to garner voters.
You never institute policies like they are pushing unless you have an agenda. Carbon Credits? Really! AL Gore is a stockholder in the first company to ever offer Carbon Credits. HELLO!!! ANYONE? ANYONE? Wake up now! Before they destroy this country with their complete and utter stupidity.
Oh By the way, I have two vehicles. One gets 28 mpg and the other 26. My wife and I carpool every day and we go nowhere unless we have to. But gas is still going up and we are still suffering. Just the rumor of domestic exploration for oil would send the price of oil through the floor. But then the libs would have nothing to campaign on anymore would they?

Chad Johnson

11 Responses to Letter from a Constituent

  1. Skeptic May 1, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Good points made in that letter, especially about strip mining the ore for lithium. However, I don’t believe it’s the volts that kill you – it’s the amps…but I’m sure there are enough amps in the car to kill an elephant.

    Nice site. Haven’t been here before but I’ll add you to my daily read. Good work exposing the hoax!

  2. Jimberg98 May 1, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    I appreciate the attempt since I am a HUGE global warming skeptic, but it’s important that our side get the facts right when we’re accusing the other side about ignoring them.

    How does 41% less efficient calculate to 2.5 gallons? If the 41% was correct, that would mean that it takes 1.41 gallons of ethanol to equal 1 gallon of gasoline. The auther divided 1 gallon by .41 when he should have multiplied by 1.41. This diminishes the messenger. The number is more like 20-30%, as well. Picking the biggest number to make a point is one that the opponents use.

    Mt. St. Helens errupted 28 years ago, not a couple. Scientists can determine the source of CO2 by looking at which carbon isotope is in the CO2. They’re not guessing.

    Charles Schumer said that we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because it will take 10 years before we start seeing any oil production. We should tell them that we shouldn’t try to reduce carbon dioxide since we will NEVER see a reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide. And, as the author points out, Europe’s trying has only increased their output.

    The author is also correct that oil prices will drop just by agreeing to drill in the places where we currently don’t drill. It doesn’t matter if oil is produced in a year or 10 years. In the mean time, we should develop the technologies that work to gain energy independence and not hope for some experimental technologies to come to fruition. We need to drill more and build more nuclear power plants.

  3. William May 3, 2008 at 12:54 pm #

    It’s too bad facts and truths don’t matter in this one sided detate.

  4. steve P May 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    In the 1960s, we were taught that we were in global cooling. That’s why they built the Biosphere! It was supposed to be too cold to grow tomatos in the Midwest so everybody would have to move to AZ or the sunbelt. Funny how time changes perception.

  5. hub May 12, 2008 at 8:05 pm #

    Didn’t China have a huge earthquake? Nature will do what nature will do without regard to humans or animals. Here’s the question: can Nobel take back the peace prize from Algore without looking like the biggest customer of P.T. Barnum? When are we going to take back our country?

  6. Mike Carlson May 18, 2008 at 1:02 am #

    Hey William, how’s it goin’? If you want facts and truths, just watch Fox News… just kidding. Ha ha. These flat-earthers believe what they want to. If there ever was a group deserving of extinction… but alas, it is people like them that are pushing us all over the void. No matter how bad things get they will still blame progressives and liberals. It’s hard-wired or something. Should be studied, probably, and maybe a cure could be found. It used to be kind funny, but now it’s just plain scary.

  7. Dan McGrath May 19, 2008 at 11:58 am #

    Ah. A cure. Good old fashoined reeducation.

  8. David Pierce May 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm #

    Lame come back Dan. Re-education occurs everytime everyone turns on a TV, radio, and reads a newspaper. All owned and operated by right-wingers. True. You can fool some of the people some of the time… BTW all the election machine companies are also right-wing owned and operated. But I’m sure Dan will refute that and say no one group has that much control and power. Oh but they do- unless you are immune from reality based facts, in denial, or otherwise blinded by partisan hatred for whatever deep subconsious reptilian reasons.

  9. Dan Korzenowksi May 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

    George Orwell’s description of how it all works:
    “A Party member…is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party. The discontents produced by his bare, unsatisfying life are deliberately turned outwards and dissipated by such devices as the Two Minutes Hate, and the speculations which might possibly induce a skeptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by his early acquired inner discipline…called, in “Newspeak”, crimestop. Crimestop means the ability of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any “dangerous” thought. It includes the inability to grasp analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are against those in power or the perceived superiors one identifies with, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means “protective stupidity.”

    Taking issue with those who have argued that the ‘tough love compassionate conservatism’ policies of the past two decades have spawned the growth of a new global middle class, many reports indicate the world became ever more divided between the super-rich and the rest of the world. The richest 1% of the world’s population (around 60 million) now receives as much income as the poorest 57%, while the income of the richest 25 million Americans is the equivalent of that of almost 2 billion of the world’s poorest people. Take note- this means that the middle class is shrinking, and this is not what America was supposed to be about.

  10. Dan Korzenowksi May 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    Lame come back Dan. Re-education occurs everytime everyone turns on a TV, radio, and reads a newspaper. All owned and operated by right-wingers. True. You can fool some of the people some of the time… BTW all the election machine companies are also right-wing owned and operated. But I’m sure Dan will refute that and say no one group has that much control and power. Oh but they do- unless you are immune from reality based facts, in denial, or otherwise blinded by partisan hatred for whatever deep subconsious reptilian reasons.

  11. Hal Groar May 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm #

    Ok Dan, let me get this straight. America is not about earning as much as you can and providing a good life for your family? I didn’t think my income was going to be compared to that of a rice farmer in N. Korea. What your saying is I should give half of what I earn to the government of N. Korea to prop up a communist dictator and a failing government. I am sorry but I DO think America is about earning more then 2 billion other people in the world and I am proud to live in a country that affords me that opportunity. Actually, I am not sorry. I applaud every single one of the 25 million and I wish them more success! I do not envy the rich, I try to learn from them!

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.