Sunday, December 27, 2009

Climategate and Climate Change: We Urgently Need an Energy Plan That is Not Deferential to the Climate Change Agenda

By making solutions to known energy problems submissive to an unattainable global CO2 agenda we have created a terrible misapplication of valuable time and technical resources.

Climategate highlights the lack of engineering and science basics in our private, political, and government leadership that allows glaring errors to happen. It is bad that climate change activists broke rules of science to mislead us. The larger disgrace is that we are just discovering the deception and impracticality of a CO2 control focus after spending billions of dollars and wasting years of valuable time. The various review committees responsible for overview on the program failed us.

In retrospect, giving climate change alarmists the popular lead on energy policy was preordained to fail. The climate change support came from academics in a soft and immature science, advising government and political leaders who were largely attorneys. financial specialists and economists. Add to this a cheering section made up of an undereducated press, Wall Street licking its chops to be brokering carbon credits, and emotionally driven environmentalists. It seems inevitable that such a lineup would come up with an impractical program that lacked good engineering and science.

The country has the technology and innovative spirit right now to support an environmentally sound energy plan. A knowledgeable and objective leadership could at this stage initiate a plan that would return us to world industrial leadership. The engineering, hard science, and willing workers are available. The technologies are at a ready state to be engineered for national application.

Unlike climate change research, energy technology has a backbone of traditional engineering and hard science combined with practical experience. New technology has given us vast reserves of natural gas. We are the world leader in agriculture and biotechnology. The country has the land resources for wind, solar, and biofuels from numerous sources while our biotechnology is increasing both the food and fuel supply. Nuclear electrical technology has been on standby in the US for over 25 years for no legitimate reason.

With these vast resources, why in the world are we not moving forward with a solid energy plan supported by the entire nation? The enemies are internal.

A major reason is the lobbying and public relation efforts by many oil and coal companies who have outdone climate gate with half truths and misleading data. There is also plenty of evidence that Congress is in the control of lobbying by those corporations that are highly vested in the current system, no matter how it harms the nation Finally, we have fallen for the fantasy requirement to control CO2 on an emergency basis.

Where is the knowledgeable and objective national leadership that will sort out the lies and exaggerations that are coming from dishonest sources? We disparately need a community that can put together a level-headed energy package for the nation. A plan that will really be for the common good.

I suggest that the professional engineering and science societies are the only candidates. They must rise to put partisan politics aside. They are qualified and generally free from special interests. The could organize the independent and objective technical guidance the national leadership so desperately needs. An important part of this contribution would be to honestly educate the general public so they could make informed decisions.

Your members have the knowledge. Let them be heard!

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Climategate: How Much of Climate Change Policy is Fruit from a Poisonous Tree?

Sophisticated Americans Want to Know.

In court, evidence that is derived from prior evidence judged erroneous or inadmissible is itself inadmissible. It is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Our government certainly owes its citizens the respect to apply this same principle of thorough examination of information and decision flows. The current climate change proposals are too costly and life changing to the nation to be based upon any poisonous trees or their fruit. This, of course, applies to both sides of the issue.

It appears that the only solution is to make all information available for review and critique by specialized and qualified private citizens who would volunteer their time as a patriotic responsibility. I would like to see that the following information is available for qualified citizens to examine before any major government initiative:

Details of the underlying data collection system combined with assurance that it was carried out in an objective manner by professionals with no vested interest.

Modification of raw data for analysis is thoroughly documented and available for full examination by other organizations or citizens.

The analysis behind the recommendations is thorough and presented in an orderly manner for critique by citizens and other organizations.

Consequences of the recommended or alternate actions are thoroughly explained and documented

As revealed by climategate we are far from these standards now.

This objective participation by specialized private citizens would provide an objective technology source to counter the existing decisionmaking methodology of using dueling public relation programs. It would also be one step in the process of the citizens outside of Washington having some disparately needed representation in the Washington government technology monopoly.

Is there a truly non-partisan, objective, privately funded organization that could provide the required administration leadership?

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Climategate and Climate Control: Policies Based Upon Unvalidated Computer Models Can Lead to Enormous Misallocation of Resources

The country definitely needs to address its energy problems. We actually have an excess of technology to do that. We can begin serious engineering and construction as soon we develop a levelheaded plan and schedule.

What we don’t have is the practical technology to control carbon dioxide. Nor do we have convincing evidence that it is even necessary. The computer models that provided predictions of future values have done poorly and are certainly not sufficiently validated. The cost to society of trying worldwide carbon dioxide cap and trade control at the current level of knowledge is incalculable.

Because the climate control advocates chose to not provide their raw data, much of which was later destroyed, there has not been the opportunity by skeptics to participate in detailed analysis. Participation by opposing views is normally a part of any event which claims to be science. There is a lot of work required before we have an objective climate control program. Meanwhile critical energy programs await the resolution of climate control issues that may be years away

By making the energy program dependent upon carbon dioxide control we have reversed the priorities. We should go foreword full bore on an energy plan which does not wait for either carbon dioxide or climate control resolution. The energy plan would certainly include environmental fixes where well-founded information is available.

Climate control work should be restarted as objective programs aimed at resolving the list of current unknowns. A validated predictive computer model based upon improved understanding of governing principles should be high priority. All data must be available to all researchers. As objective and validated information is developed it would be integrated into the energy program.