An Enterprise Architecture for a National Climate Response
By Steven Stackle
Climate change is an undeniable fact for people all over the world. Despite clear evidence, and a growing chorus of voices calling for urgent action, governments across the globe are struggling to come up with definitive and viable plans for handing this potential crisis.
In this new paper by University of Denver University College student, Steven Stackle, the practices of Enterprise Architecture are applied to show how the US government might improve their management of climate data, and uplift their efforts to create a coordinated response to these pressing concerns.Download Full Report (PDF)
> Climate change is an undeniable fact for people all over the world.
The climate is always changing — in short, medium, and very long cycles. Man-made climate change? Not only is it not undeniable; it’s not even close. Many reputable climatologists, meteorologists, and statisticians regard man-made climate change (as I do) as the single largest scientific hoax every perpetrated, replete with documented conspiracies among “scientists” to fudge or even fabricate data, hysterical cries of “deniers”, etc. It actually resembles a religious cult much more than any kind of scientific endeavor.
> Despite clear evidence
Again, not even close. Cultists “adjust” data that stubbornly bely their religious dogmas. Politicians coerce scientists by conditioning grants on political correctness. Global warming inconveniently stopped for a decade, while the world’s industry merrily cranked along. Token efforts by cultists amount to nothing more than virtue signaling, with no discernible benefit, while China and India continue spewing out vastly more CO2 than anyone purporting to address the issue.
The paper is a mess. E.g.:
“Extreme weather events are occurring on a regular basis.” Wrong. There is no documented evidence linking such events to an increase in average temperature; they are caused by far more transient weather patterns.
“The President should emphasize to the American people that climate change poses a serious danger to the United States.” You’re recommending that the President effectively lie to the American people by espousing a fraud.
“Those efforts are hampered by programs, research, and data collection fragmented across many federal agencies.” Those efforts are far more hampered by political correctness, which is the enemy of effective EA.
“Wildfires caused $400 billion in damage to California in 2018 alone.” Those wildfires are vastly more destructive than they would be if the environmentalists had allowed responsible logging and forest management, such as clearing underbrush, instead of insisting on the “natural” approach they claim is kinder to Mother Earth.
EA already has far too much of politics in it; injecting cultist political correctness into the mix can do nothing but cause further damage to our pursuit of effective EA. And enlisting the vast power of our Federal government in the perpetration of such an enormous hoax is a terrifying prospect.
One not often mentioned fact is that IT is a major contributor to energy use. Given that discrete logic is extremely inefficient in the real world, we need lots and lots of it (think: digital machine learning). This issue has not been at the forefront. But it should be.
Secondly, I wonder if this is going to attract denialist comments. If it does, the key question is not “is man-made climate change real?” but the key question is “if we do not use science to decide that question, what else will we use?”. Climate change denials are akin to flat earth theories in that they need to do away with the scientific method, which includes how the scientific community works. Science is not infallible, but it is without doubt the best method we have in creating predictions.
Gerben, we did receive denialist comments, including on LinkedIn when this article was promoted on the platform. I do struggle to understand such views, but this is somewhat representative of the situation we find ourselves in currently. Thank you for your comment and for reminding us of the value of the scientific method.
In terms of energy consumption by IT, that’s an interesting topic. Reports vary greatly, so if you have some information to share that you believe is reliable, please do so.
I would say, this article on EAPJ shines light on that situation.