The hundreds of thousands of people who lost power in the recent storms leads me to question the cost to benefit analysis that always seem to leave our electrical distribution systems so vulnerable to weather. Power failure is by far the major cause of hardship and suffering by customers in severe weather. Because of this billions are continually spent on emergency restoration of power.
The electric companies work endlessly to restore power. Their literature is filled with advice to homeowners who lose power. But discussions to the public on programs to reduce the magnitude of the emergencies in the first place are rare. Each severe weather event seems to come with a list of thousands to hundreds of thousands of customers who have lost power. The same old story is told of how the electrical companies are working day and night to restore it.
The techniques available for hardening are well known. They include moving especially vulnerable lines underground, strengthening of lines and poles to support additional ice and wind loads, better connectors, and more attention to tree trimming to provide isolation from tree branches.
Electrical distribution systems are complex and expensive. The payback of hardening is in reduced costs to restore damaged systems on an emergency basis and the tremendous benefits to the customers who are spared days of powerless living. After studying a few of the upgrade proposals which are public and online I find that in true capitalist fashion the value of hardening is often understated when subject to cost analysis. It is hard to place a dollar value on the benefits to the customers even though they are substantial. Reduction in emergency repair costs alone does not seem to pay for an extensive upgrade in most cases.
Here as an example of the give and take which occurs is the presentation made by Oklahoma Gas and Electric to the Utility Board asking for a rate increase to pay for their hardening plan. Notice the importance and expense of vegetation management.
Because the number of failed power events is dependent upon both the hardening and the applied stress simple comparisons between utilities are not always appropriate but could serve as a starting point. Statistics on the long term performance of hardened versus standard systems do not appear to readily available.
This is just one of many examples where the needs of the people are not given adequate consideration. There is work to be done and people who want to do the work. Why can’t our system put the two together?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 01, 2010
Imported Goods Dull the Effectiveness of the Fiscal Incentive Package
Arguments continue on the effectiveness for job creation of the fiscal incentive package. There is no doubt, however, that it would be much more effective if the US was manufacturing a higher percentage of the goods consumed by Americans.
The job intensive part of the program is lost to the country when the stimulus leads to the purchase of goods manufactured outside of the United States.
To illustrate this effect, suppose first that the incentive package entices the citizen to spend on a product manufactured in the United States. The retailer takes the money to pay operating and fixed costs, pay the wholesaler to restock the item, and make a small profit. The wholesaler accumulates its regional orders for the item and places a factory order. So far only some sales and administrative labor has gone into the economy. It is when the order is received by the manufacturer that the benefit of serious job creation starts. The factory places the replacement order into its production schedule and commits to the plant labor to produce the required number of items. The multiplier effect starts as the manufacturer places orders to its suppliers for the required raw materials and sub assemblies. The economic engine starts up and begins to create some real US labor value add.
In the case where the item is not manufactured domestically the wholesaler or importer places the order to a foreign manufacturer and any further value added goes to another country. Not surprisingly, there are not many jobs created in the United States. The trade deficit grows and the chance for the American worker to add value is missed.
There are some “expert” economists who say that a trade deficit is good and doesn’t significantly affect manufacturing employment. (Some were advisors to Bush!!) To counter this the Enterprise Policy Institute (EPI) in 2004 published a detailed analysis of the contribution of the trade deficit to unemployment in manufacturing. It concluded that in contradiction to those “experts”, the trade deficit was an important contributor toward jobs lost in manufacturing, accounting for 59% of the loss since 1998. The other contributor to unemployment was the productivity increase of the American worker.
EPI examined the percent of US production in relation to the total demand for production goods in the US. It is very telling. In 1991 94.7% of the total product demand for the USA was made domestically. It dropped to 76.5% by 2003. 1991 was a time of almost full employment. They stated that if we could return to our previous position of around 90%, millions of jobs would be created. Another interesting fact is that the US had a trade surplus until 1971.
There are some who say that our service business will make up for our loss in manufacturing. In 2008 we had a service surplus of $144 billion. Our negative manufacturing trade was $840 billion. That is a long way to go and very unlikely.
President Obama has set a target to double the US exports. It will be impossible to do this without the increased value add of manufacturing. If it were done, however, it would result in millions of American jobs and return us to economic strength we once knew before the damaging actions of the past. It will take drastic action to reverse the decades of bad decisions. It must be done.
Our current approach just isn’t working for the American people. China, Germany, Japan and every country with a strong export record is implementing a strategic plan to support their critical manufacturing sectors. These plans address innovation, trade, tax, and educational issues. They are eating both our lunch and dinner in manufacturing while we turn our focus on finance. Where is our integrated plan? It is necessary if we are to compete in a capitalist global economy!!!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Watch out 28% Democrat and 24% Republican Blocs, Here Comes the 42% Independent Steamroller!
The Massachusetts win by Scott Brown was a victory for independent voters, not the Republican Party. It was a big loss for Democratic Party politics but in no way an endorsement of the Republican Party. An insightful analysis of the voting was made by the Christian Science Monitor.
The voters were simply sick and tired of the screw-ups and ridiculous inability to govern shown by both parties. They voted for an individual candidate in defiance of party politics. This is strong evidence that the exclusive two party system is losing control. This bodes nothing but good for the nation.
It is good because the first task in rebuilding our sickened system is a massive injection of honesty and dedication into Congress. This depends on the success of two actions:
1. We continue to grow an informed and thoughtful bloc of voters who think independently of the two party system.
2. The two party system loses its almost exclusive power to govern the election process
Independent voters with no allegiance to either party will tend to support honest candidates who support the common good regardless of party affiliation. These voters will also be more aware and less tolerant of purposeful misinformation. Lies and misinformation are an inherent part of the current election process. This need not be the case. Legitimate election points and counterpoints can be made with truth. Parties that routinely incorporate half truths and outright lies in their campaign cannot be trusted with public office. Money spent on misinformation should be a negative marker to its own cause.
Political parties were not mentioned in the Constitution, and the concept was frowned upon by most of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Washington were especially adamant that political parties would be harmful to the nation. Loyalties develop for the party over those for the country. The parties limit creative thought, encouraging “party think” in its place. They limit the quality and quantity of candidates who are presented to the voters.
Neither party is tapping into the vast talent pool of the country. The selection process must be opened to more and better qualified people to become candidates. This will not happen as long as almost all seats in Congress are held by loyal party members.
Perhaps the system performance has finally reached the “tipping point” level of embarrassing incompetence and corruption. The Massachusetts election is an encouraging indication that the citizen has finally turned disgust into votes.
The Founders gave us a Constitution that allows the citizens to correct the government through elections. Unfortunately as it now stands those very elections are strongly influenced by those we hope to correct. This will require extra diligence. Our votes are extremely valuable. We must use them carefully and wisely. We desperately need a congress of citizen-legislators who will focus on the nation’s problems rather than a political party. This should be an important consideration before you give them your vote
The voters were simply sick and tired of the screw-ups and ridiculous inability to govern shown by both parties. They voted for an individual candidate in defiance of party politics. This is strong evidence that the exclusive two party system is losing control. This bodes nothing but good for the nation.
It is good because the first task in rebuilding our sickened system is a massive injection of honesty and dedication into Congress. This depends on the success of two actions:
1. We continue to grow an informed and thoughtful bloc of voters who think independently of the two party system.
2. The two party system loses its almost exclusive power to govern the election process
Independent voters with no allegiance to either party will tend to support honest candidates who support the common good regardless of party affiliation. These voters will also be more aware and less tolerant of purposeful misinformation. Lies and misinformation are an inherent part of the current election process. This need not be the case. Legitimate election points and counterpoints can be made with truth. Parties that routinely incorporate half truths and outright lies in their campaign cannot be trusted with public office. Money spent on misinformation should be a negative marker to its own cause.
Political parties were not mentioned in the Constitution, and the concept was frowned upon by most of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Washington were especially adamant that political parties would be harmful to the nation. Loyalties develop for the party over those for the country. The parties limit creative thought, encouraging “party think” in its place. They limit the quality and quantity of candidates who are presented to the voters.
Neither party is tapping into the vast talent pool of the country. The selection process must be opened to more and better qualified people to become candidates. This will not happen as long as almost all seats in Congress are held by loyal party members.
Perhaps the system performance has finally reached the “tipping point” level of embarrassing incompetence and corruption. The Massachusetts election is an encouraging indication that the citizen has finally turned disgust into votes.
The Founders gave us a Constitution that allows the citizens to correct the government through elections. Unfortunately as it now stands those very elections are strongly influenced by those we hope to correct. This will require extra diligence. Our votes are extremely valuable. We must use them carefully and wisely. We desperately need a congress of citizen-legislators who will focus on the nation’s problems rather than a political party. This should be an important consideration before you give them your vote
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee: A Possible First Step
On November 6, 2009 we made a post detailing how almost all citizens feel completely betrayed by both government and private institutions. They see that the government is acting for special interests, not the public good as required by the constitution. To restore our nation we stated that:
The banks however have been operating under the assumption that their only obligation toward the citizens suffering from the economic meltdown they caused is to repay the TARP funds at some point. They expected no further consequences for the misery they have caused the nation. They are reporting large profits and intend to reward themselves with record bonuses-while the rest of the nation suffers.
The announcement by the administration of its intention to impose a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee* on banks with over 50 billion dollars in assets is the first credible indication that the necessary consequences may be coming. It could mean that the cozy financial sector/government relationship is starting to unravel under the relentless anger of the US citizens. Of course the 90 billion dollars expected to be recovered in 10 years is minuscule compared to the damage done to the nation. But at least it initiates a principle of collecting consequential damages that should deter future similar behavior. Watching how congressmen react to this bill will be a real marker for those who must be replaced.
As currently described the bill will only apply to banks with over fifty billion in assets and will be structured so that there will be a strong incentive to pay the fee from the planned excessive bonus pool. This will protect the smaller banks and prevent the large banks from simply passing the fee through to its customers. It is indeed meant to have the large banks who acted against the public good suffer additional consequences.
The drumbeat of the bank lobbyists against the bill is already underway. There will be a very aggressive effort to have it either killed or weakened with loopholes. Hopefully this will not end as a Republican versus Democrat issue. We must follow the life cycle closely and be sure that our congressman and senators understand that regardless of their party affiliation you expect them to act in the public good. Follow their statements and votes very closely. Its will be a good warm-up for the many battles we have yet to fight.
The citizens require a strong program that will absolutely guarantee that the psychology and ethics that led to the betrayal is completely disgraced and placed outside the American system forever. It is critical that those in the entities who were responsible for the meltdown are publically identified and punished. There must be significant retribution with large sums recovered for the people who innocently suffered. The public consequences to those that caused the situation must be adequate to prevent any thoughts of ever returning to similar behavior.
The banks however have been operating under the assumption that their only obligation toward the citizens suffering from the economic meltdown they caused is to repay the TARP funds at some point. They expected no further consequences for the misery they have caused the nation. They are reporting large profits and intend to reward themselves with record bonuses-while the rest of the nation suffers.
The announcement by the administration of its intention to impose a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee* on banks with over 50 billion dollars in assets is the first credible indication that the necessary consequences may be coming. It could mean that the cozy financial sector/government relationship is starting to unravel under the relentless anger of the US citizens. Of course the 90 billion dollars expected to be recovered in 10 years is minuscule compared to the damage done to the nation. But at least it initiates a principle of collecting consequential damages that should deter future similar behavior. Watching how congressmen react to this bill will be a real marker for those who must be replaced.
As currently described the bill will only apply to banks with over fifty billion in assets and will be structured so that there will be a strong incentive to pay the fee from the planned excessive bonus pool. This will protect the smaller banks and prevent the large banks from simply passing the fee through to its customers. It is indeed meant to have the large banks who acted against the public good suffer additional consequences.
The drumbeat of the bank lobbyists against the bill is already underway. There will be a very aggressive effort to have it either killed or weakened with loopholes. Hopefully this will not end as a Republican versus Democrat issue. We must follow the life cycle closely and be sure that our congressman and senators understand that regardless of their party affiliation you expect them to act in the public good. Follow their statements and votes very closely. Its will be a good warm-up for the many battles we have yet to fight.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The Big Question: How Much Incompetence Can a Great Nation Stand Before it Becomes Not Great?
Is the US running out of runway?
The previous decades have been characterized by incompetence from our elected government and private sectors that have eaten up large amounts of runway.
There just isn’t much runway left!
All this has happened on our watch. To avoid the terrible disgrace of destroying a great country we must turn it around.
So what weapons do we have?
If we use them wisely they should be enough. Let us begin by accepting certain high level truths and targets for correction:
We have to keep this great country great!
The previous decades have been characterized by incompetence from our elected government and private sectors that have eaten up large amounts of runway.
•Emergence of the financial sector as the nations policy leaderThis has resulted in:
•Failure to develop a reasonable integrated energy plan for independence from enemies
•Disastrous trade policies that seem designed to weaken America manufacturing
•A misdirection of effort on climate change
•Ill thought out wars
•Major public policy being controlled by gullible uneducated media, alarmist environmentalists, and special interests
• A global recession
• Millions of Americans losing jobs and homes while being forced into government assistance
• Thousands of our young dying in those ill thought out wars
• A complete loss of faith by the people in both their government and private institutions
• Disastrous trade balances
• Gigantic misallocations of resources
There just isn’t much runway left!
All this has happened on our watch. To avoid the terrible disgrace of destroying a great country we must turn it around.
So what weapons do we have?
• A population with a continuing love of country and respect for freedom
• Intelligence.
• Tools our founders gave us to change the elected government.
If we use them wisely they should be enough. Let us begin by accepting certain high level truths and targets for correction:
1 First, we must acknowledge that the two party system we now have is corrupt and is failing us. There is nothing in the constitution about political parties. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were among the founders who were outspoken against them. Their fear being that people would develop loyalties for their party that would override their loyalty to the country. We have seen this come true in spades! The two national parties focus on sustaining their own standing. They have passed laws that purposely limit citizen choice. Their sole control of the election process must be broken and the process re-opened to the citizens.This is just a beginning list and shows how far we have to go. Once again, can we trust the current elected government to initiate these and other steps? If not, the Founders built in the ability to replace the House in two years and the entire Senate in six.
2. The financial sector must be placed in its proper role as a simple service to the producing sectors of the economy-not its current commanding position of control. Its current consumption of the wealth created by the country is completely out of line.
3. The government is not able to adequately manage the large sums of money being spent on major R&D projects. Climategate is but one example. The citizens must have a better view of these expenditures. The country has thousands of experienced engineers, scientists and tradesmen working in the private sector or retired who would provide an independent view as a public service-possibly organized by the professional societies. This would be an important step for the citizens to regain control of the country finances and allocation of resources.
4. The availability of education opportunities to the citizens must be greatly expanded to match the increasing need for an informed electorate.
5. The media should be distinguished for providing, facts, education, and free discussion by the public. The ownership and control of media assets by only a few corporations is not desirable.
6. The Founders went to great effort to protect the individual citizen against infringement by the government. They are well stated in the Bill of Rights. We must reaffirm these protections in all our actions.
We have to keep this great country great!
Sunday, January 03, 2010
With Global Cap &Trade and Climate Change in Free Fall Where is USA Energy Plan B?
In accordance with its standard policy of minimizing the useful information it provides to the public the mainstream media has only discussed two choices for a US energy program.
1.Lead the world in an economy killing global cap and trade system to control CO2
2.Allow civilization to be destroyed by CO2 caused climate change.
In spite of our elected government’s record for bad decisions, surely climate gate and the general impracticality of an energy policy based totally on the global control of CO2 will prevent the first option. The second is not worth discussing. But where is the plan for a third option that presents an environmentally sustainable and balanced energy plan free from the noise of global CO2 control? A plan that is directed to what is best for the USA?
.
We need an integrated energy plan that uses all of the technologies in their best applications and is based on quality engineering, science and economics. It must be created for the general good of the US citizens and not the result of public relations and lobbying by special interests.
After over thirty years and untold billions you would think that the Department of Energy could pull a copy of a plan like that right out of the files. They might make a few adjustments to reflect the increased domestic reserves of natural gas before publishing it widely for Congress and the public to judge. It should be open and well explained so the public can judge how intelligently their congressmen are addressing the problem. It will be a base case for risk/benefit analysis against which the demands of global CO2 control advocates could be publically judged.
Sadly, this is a fantasy. The intimidation of the media and political system by the climate change alarmists has been so complete that they could politically stop any such plan from being developed. This is another example of just how blundering these institutions are as guardians for the public good. However, climate gate has finally opened the subject for objective analysis and correction. Can we count on either institution to correct the errors of their ways and lead? Sadly again, that is fantasy B.
We must somehow change this situation.
1.Lead the world in an economy killing global cap and trade system to control CO2
2.Allow civilization to be destroyed by CO2 caused climate change.
In spite of our elected government’s record for bad decisions, surely climate gate and the general impracticality of an energy policy based totally on the global control of CO2 will prevent the first option. The second is not worth discussing. But where is the plan for a third option that presents an environmentally sustainable and balanced energy plan free from the noise of global CO2 control? A plan that is directed to what is best for the USA?
.
We need an integrated energy plan that uses all of the technologies in their best applications and is based on quality engineering, science and economics. It must be created for the general good of the US citizens and not the result of public relations and lobbying by special interests.
After over thirty years and untold billions you would think that the Department of Energy could pull a copy of a plan like that right out of the files. They might make a few adjustments to reflect the increased domestic reserves of natural gas before publishing it widely for Congress and the public to judge. It should be open and well explained so the public can judge how intelligently their congressmen are addressing the problem. It will be a base case for risk/benefit analysis against which the demands of global CO2 control advocates could be publically judged.
Sadly, this is a fantasy. The intimidation of the media and political system by the climate change alarmists has been so complete that they could politically stop any such plan from being developed. This is another example of just how blundering these institutions are as guardians for the public good. However, climate gate has finally opened the subject for objective analysis and correction. Can we count on either institution to correct the errors of their ways and lead? Sadly again, that is fantasy B.
We must somehow change this situation.
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!
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:
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?
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.
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Please Truth, Come Set Us Free
The truth shall set you free. Religion, history and philosophy agree that knowledge of the truth is an important component of enduring freedom. Dictators and oppressive governments rarely have an interest in talking truth to their citizens.
It therefore appears logical to think that a society that values freedom, such as the United States, would be very good at detecting lies and deceptions and strong on the truth. Our forefathers, through our constitution have given us powerful freedom of expression rights that strongly support the pursuit of truth.
Then why is the US awash with such a confusing mess off half-truths, deception and outright lies?
One night, after a particularly painful evening of trying to sort out truth from the cacophony of noise from TV, the internet, politicians and just plain conversation my mind was exhausted. I tried prayer as I went to sleep.
“Please God, we are so confused. Could you intervene and help us know truth?”
To my surprise I had a dream that night with a reply. Not directly from God, but from a spirit who identified himself as the Apostle of Truth. I know that skeptics will attribute this to an overactive imagination or midnight pizza but I choose to take it as a legitimate answer.
It started as a light entered my bedroom and a voice began speaking. After introducing itself the voice offered the reason it could not intervene.
The light slowly dimmed and I was again in a darkened room. I was awake and apprehensive. This was advice that it was reasonable for us to follow. But would we?
It therefore appears logical to think that a society that values freedom, such as the United States, would be very good at detecting lies and deceptions and strong on the truth. Our forefathers, through our constitution have given us powerful freedom of expression rights that strongly support the pursuit of truth.
Then why is the US awash with such a confusing mess off half-truths, deception and outright lies?
One night, after a particularly painful evening of trying to sort out truth from the cacophony of noise from TV, the internet, politicians and just plain conversation my mind was exhausted. I tried prayer as I went to sleep.
“Please God, we are so confused. Could you intervene and help us know truth?”
To my surprise I had a dream that night with a reply. Not directly from God, but from a spirit who identified himself as the Apostle of Truth. I know that skeptics will attribute this to an overactive imagination or midnight pizza but I choose to take it as a legitimate answer.
It started as a light entered my bedroom and a voice began speaking. After introducing itself the voice offered the reason it could not intervene.
“As you know, your universe is special in that it is very complex and tightly balanced. God is reluctant to make changes. I knew he would not allow me to directly intervene for you. I did describe your prayer and he was glad to see you were working hard in the right direction. He also gave me permission to pass on to you the explanation he had given me a long time ago
About one million years ago God decided to give man the very precious gift of creative thinking. After a short time I noted that your species (humans) were abusing the gift. You were overwhelming my presence with your own imagined fabrications. God said that the gift of creative thought was absolutely essential to reach the high goals he had set for your species. Under no conditions would he limit this power. He had provided balance, however, by adding higher cerebral functions to your brain. With this power you can search the universe for information and apply reasoning that allows you to identify the actual truth over imagined events. These processes had only been in place for a short time. Natural selection would eventually strike a balance between the two competing processes and those based on truth would surely do well.
So God has given you the tools you need to win. Diligently use your cerebral processes to seek out the truth. Win your debates by truthful statements in which you can have confidence, not lies. You must put great effort into it if you are to be really free.
The United States is a great favorite for those of us who have been watching you from this side of the black hole. Although we have been a little disappointed in you recently, we think that you will eventually replace the people and their values that have weakened you. You will once again be great. Even though you have many friends here, however, you must do it yourselves.
Good luck. We will be following you with hopefulness.”
The light slowly dimmed and I was again in a darkened room. I was awake and apprehensive. This was advice that it was reasonable for us to follow. But would we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)