Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Categories: The Science of Think by Chris on 4/3/2011 1:51 PM | Comments (0)

 

   For some time now I’ve wanted to do a piece on energy and public policy. Now that the summer (energy consumption ) season is upon us I thought now would be a great time.

   Most if not all of us are familiar with the debate over global warming. There are two parts to the global warming assertion. One is that global warming is occurring and two, that global warming is “man-made” (M.M.G.W.). Believers couch these debates in scientific data quotes about average mean temperatures indicating the “overall” global temperature is rising. A direct means of getting to the point on this is to identify a simple fact; that being, geological time tables are extreme (often measured in millions of years) and our data points comparatively speaking only go back a few moments in time. It is difficult to keep this in mind when reading about this subject because so many  reporters appear to have political agendas and write in an opinion leading fashion. (Caution: this article may not be any different. Please make your own decisions about objectivity.)

  Science is the study of facts not opinion. A scientist can express an opinion but scientists are people too and as such are fallible, therefore fact and opinion can amalgamate and sometimes do without full disclosure.

  My statement is basic and mathematical. Due to insufficient data points we just don’t know if the extremely short term temperature rise (if any) has any significance in what could be a large or much larger series of cyclical temperature changes brought about by forces exceedingly beyond our control. The primary driver of Earth’s ecology is a gigantic nuclear furnace positioned 93 million miles away. We have zero control over this. Therefore “if” global warming is occurring at all, we can do nothing about it.

  The second part is the “made-made” assertion. The statement that CO2 traps heat within our atmosphere does have some scientific factual basis but the statement becomes moot when mixed with only a few other realities in the larger question of it being man-made. The chief of which in my mind is the extremely dynamic and voluminous atmosphere of planet Earth, an atmosphere so grand and so dynamic it can create tornadoes and hurricanes of near unbelievable force. This occurs on a regular basis. The weather (driven primarily by the Sun) redistributes H20, CO2 and other particulates around the planet like a vacuum cleaner/washer/scrubber. The nature of this dynamic means the most intelligent statement a scientist can make about the subject is that “we don’t know for sure and we’re studying the problem”.    

 
  Energy has made our world better not worse. There is an undeniable pretentious school of thought, propogated by environmentalists, that petroleum production is bad. I’ve heard it all my life. This is an attempt at socially re-engineering people’s perceptions. Environmentalists told us the Exxon Valdese oil spill was an ecological disaster. It was but far more short term than what they insinuated. That area now seems as pristine and natural as it ever was. Apparently the oil spill in the Gulf recently was an equally severe disaster. Where is all the “yucky” oil now? Apparently months and months ago “Mother Earth” emulsified the oil and it has dissipated. Didn’t Mother Earth create that oil originally? Perhaps she knows what to do with it.


  The agenda of the environmentalist sympathizers is clearly economics. They reason that when the price of oil gets high enough the world will turn to the panacea of “alternative fuel” and all will be well with the world. The assumption (just like their M.M.G.W. assumption) is there is an alternative fuel chemically or otherwise viably STRONG enough to replace petroleum in the near term and economic enough to be practical. Most of this is void of fundamental physics and chemistry which is the stuff of energy. Beyond are the economic motivators none of which adds up, at least not yet. Movies like “Chain Reaction” are self evident of this magic thinking or a “Mr. Fusion” attached to the trunk of your car, “a few banana peels and I’m off to grandma’s house”. It‘s easier for society to believe the movie screenwriters than the science. Hydrogen fuel cells (HFC’s) apparently have a chance but we are still looking at it. Ethanol is too weak for the money invested. Nuclear is dangerous and highly toxic as the Japan reactor situation is proving once again. One thing is for sure, any transition will have to be slow and calculated and not based on fear and sensationalism. It will take years and require an economic incentive for everyone. The environmentalists are attempting to create an artificial economic bubble using exacerbated claims and conjecture. The intent is to create fear they think will motivate people to action. This is a window into their decision processes and core belief systems. Fear is a poor decision premise and used this way insults the intelligence of people.

  People have believed in all kinds of things over the years including Big Foot, Chupacabra and The Loch Ness Monster and of course we all know aliens have pear shaped heads. However, none of these believers has ever produced any material evidence of their actual existence. It makes good T.V. though! The horses of Arabia don’t have silver wings and pigmies do not mate with elephants in deepest dark Africa. Oh yes, and the world is not flat, it is round. Trust me on this.

  Once again I find myself in a position to challenge conventional thinking. Therefore here is what I think we need to do:

  Tell the truth.

  Secondly, explore and drill domestically. To accomplish this we will have to incentivize the industry by removing their economic and political barriers. Thirdly, build refineries. We need continued research on alternative energy. Personally I would like to have an electric car or HFC. Solar can contribute significantly. What if every roof top on every home was a solar collector connected to the power grid? What if the very roads on which we drive converted solar energy to electricity, powering our cars?

  It is clear to me that no single source of energy will be our answer. It will require divergent thinking to accomplish this and apply the right solutions to the right problems. However, we need to do this with our hearts and heads free from shouts that the sky is falling.

 

Comments are closed