• 77°

Is it science or politics that drive current theories?

Historically, in nature, the object of mass species’ attention typically follows the direction of necessity, benefit, quantity, accessibility and civil cooperation. Hence the plight of the dodo.

Prospectively, similar criteria and logic promotes our decisive natural course’s focus on developing and utilizing clean fossil fuels.

This conclusion is based primarily on historical observation, the extent of existing infrastructure, and application of continuing advances in science and engineering.

The particular focus of this conclusion addresses the influence of natural forces on civilization and man’s inability to fully understand or alter equitably the course of nature’s insurmountable forces.

Naturally, greater understanding of our existing environment will promote discovery and absolute efficient utilization of bountiful natural resources.

It seems inevitable the primary question destined to linger with humanity will remain. Can and will human cooperative activities advance equitably, civilization’s longevity?

The obvious difference between theory and sound engineering policy is theories can be manipulated to produce preconceived and/or desired results.

For example, consider a scientific evaluation of the current political pet theory: Global warming.

The principle of this theory suggest green house gasses produced by many fuels utilized to generate mechanical and electrical energy have for years created undesirable environmental pollution.

This conclusion promotes the perception pollutants have been and continue trapping the sun’s rays, which is raising the temperature of the earth.

Combined, these conclusions promote the perception that anticipated temperature changes will result in global conditions conducive to catastrophic hazards.

There is no existing documented physical evidence of any previous man-made global environmental influence. There is no existing indisputable physics supported by engineering, mathematical calculations, or tangible test, suggesting any previous man made global environmental influence.

I suppose we might call theory promoting these kind of perceptions, the political, man-made “sky is falling” theory.

Theoretically, by looking back at data produced and collected by national and international regulatory efforts. It should become clear environmental regulations were originally established to reduce toxic carcinogenic pollutants and has evolved into our present metaphorical, Darwin’s global warming green house.

Governing regulatory efforts in those early stages where introduced in gradual graduating increments promoting manageable creative responses and cost effective efforts from industries promoting public prosperity and national interest.

If we follow the gradual reduction of pollution generated by increasingly restrictive regulatory mandates and compare those results to the increase in global climate temperatures perceived melting the earth’s polar caps.

You could theorize the reduction of industrial pollutants caused by the incremental restrictive regulatory increases may be cause of or contributing to the global green house danger.

This would dovetail nicely with the theory promoting dispersing pollutants into the atmosphere to block out the suns rays in order to lower the earth temperature.

Theoretically, utilizing pollutant dispersal, we could cause rejuvenation of glaciers melted by early man’s original rubbing two sticks together to create and control fire 20,000 years ago.

Sound engineering policy urges energy resource prioritization with prudent development and utilization of all available natural resources.

It is my personal conclusion for previously defined reasons we should focus on fossil fuels.

Garland Monceaux, Scottown