The Theory of Global Warming as it Relates to Energy Independence

We’ve been pounded year after year with theories on global warming and climate change, and the impending crisis if we don’t act quick.  And as coincidence would have it, acting quick is proposed as carbon based taxation made payable to a global regulation bank.  Surely there are precious profits to be made in the grand scheme of things, for those have poised themselves for the change in rules.

The problem with global warming theory is that it isn’t sound science.  For every scientist or engineer you find in favor, you will find one in opposition.  Predicting the long range weather patterns of the earth is some complicated math, and we all have different ways we would do it.  Therefore, by the very definition of science itself, which is skepticism and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot hold global warming theories as truth.  At the moment there is too much dissent among the professional community.  Yet some lawmakers and mega millionaires would have us believe otherwise.

In relation to energy independence, and what it means for the republic of the United States, the global legislation regulations under consideration represent a giant risk to our economy and ultimately to our sovereignty as a country.  Entering global treaties based on unproven science is counterintuitive to everything this country is about.  And imposing additional taxes on an already excessively taxed public does nothing for the average family trying to get by, and does everything for those who have positioned themselves to reap the benefits.

We should not let computer models control our vision as a country.  Having worked as an engineer in high tech industry, I can say that the fact that global warming arguments are made on advanced computer modeling alone are especially troubling.  And most of my colleagues agree.  As engineers, when we design for mass production or for complex experimental theory, we often use computer models as tools.  Due to the amount of money involved, however, and the potential losses of a failed product, computer models are never taken alone.  Even with a simple model, and boundary conditions known relatively well, we can get a failed result.  And read this carefully, within the realm of engineering, no experimental computer model is considered valid until it has been tested and verified in the field!

That’s the engineering approach to computer models, because when we are wrong it costs too much money, or could mean a failure of safety.  And here in lies the biggest problem with global warming theory.  Yes, sophisticated supercomputing is being used, and yes advanced climatology centers study the issue.  But simply put, when and how have any of these computer models been validated in the field?  That would require time, many many years worth of time for the predictions they claim.  And this has yet to take place.

The Earth’s weather patterns across the long term are incredibly dynamic and complex.  Just think of all the advanced thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and biosphere mechanics interacting and taking place!  Are we really that sophisticated to put it all in motion with mathematical equations?  I know from my time in Engineering school that even some of our best and most widely used equations involve a broad range of simplifications and assumptions just so they can be solved.  In other words, even some of our best equations aren’t always that accurate.  That is why we must turn to field experimentation.

We have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether we can accurately predict such long term changes in the Earth.  And as is often the case with advanced modeling and experimentation, there are always principals to consider that we always inadvertently omit.  We don’t know what we don’t know, is the old saying.  The Earth has it’s own natural buffering mechanisms, so are we to claim also that we understand exactly how the Earth responds when there are climatic changes?

Now that we’ve asked a lot of good questions about the global warming theory, one can see the difficulty in someone claiming they can predict what will happen 100%.  Surely it should be a matter, at least, of open public debate (which none of the advocated parties seem interested in doing).  Even more troubling, recently, are the sequences of e-mails obtained by computer hackers from a reputable climatology university.  These e-mails are under investigation as they expose a potential behind the scenes campaign to manipulate and cherry pick data promoting the climate change position.

In summary, it is the opinion of many in the engineering community that global warming is unproven.  I will also maintain that is a very dangerous proposition to our country’s energy independence.   The last thing we need is to tie ourselves down to global taxation and global treaty, and stifle our own internal creativity.

This is not to say we should not be pursuing new methods and advanced energy technologies.  There is, in fact, much room for improvement with the advancement of solar power and solar thermal storage systems to be used in our homes.  There are ripe possibilities for wind power systems and new wind turbine designs that will propel us into the 21st century.  We should all consider the use of biofuels such as wood burning stoves, biodiesel, or cellulose based ethanol technologies in our local economies where they make sense.  We should all look at new ways for installing micro generation stations, and other alternative energy systems that put us more in touch with the Earth.  There is no argument there.

These are improvements, however, we should perform on our own as a society that cares about it’s future generations.  These are things we need to stimulate by re-investing in ourselves, and resurrecting our natural American creativity.  And as we know, excessive taxation and excessive government control stifles creativity.  Linking ourselves to a globally controlled monstrosity will derail our journey as a nation whose best interests are to move toward energy independence.

In short, it is time for us to rise up and debunk the global warming myth and resist the government legislation up on the table.  On the other hand, however, it may also be time for us to become more mindful in how we consume energy, and how the planet is maintained for future generations.  Solar power, wind power, and alternative energy systems can play a key role in this.  We should consider it our duty to mankind to leave the world a better place.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Alicia Meyer February 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm

Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

admin March 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Alicia,

Thanks for the comment. I agree with your comment on water supply being an issue going forward especially since it is already a major problem in most third world countries. I love the idea of installing a solar panel, wind turbine hybrid system in remote areas to pump water from wells and to purify water.

Jesse

Leave a Comment