March 2008 Issue
READERS’ FORUM
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to PEGG Managing Editor George Lee, glee@apegga.org. Although we will run longer letters at our discretion, please try to keep them under 300 words. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to reject letters. Letters are edited for style, clarity, length, taste and legality
No Such Climate Change Certainty
Re: APEGGA Needs Clear Climate Change Stance, by David J. Parker, P.Eng. Readers’ Forum,
The PEGG, February 2008.
Mr. Parker notes that “openness and freedom of expression must remain sacrosanct,” but then proceeds to state that in the case of global warming and its causes further examination is not required because of a “level of certainty (that) is seldom seen in science.”
This certainty is derived from the efforts of the “Nobel Prize winning group of around 2,000 eminent scientists” who shared the prize with the lawyer and politician Al Gore for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. They did not win it specifically for their science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a UN organization and its membership is approved by the governments of its member countries. Its mandate is politically influenced and the group’s output should not be accepted at face value but must be minutely examined by outside experts for bias and accuracy. The “remainder of the scientific community” does not completely agree with the IPCC report, which was demonstrated by two other letters sharing the February 2008 Readers’ Forum.
Much of the IPCC report is based on complex modelling and simulations that can run today thanks to the recent availability of the requisite computing power. That a model produces a plausible output, however, does not mean that it accurately represents the real world.
A working analogue model of the universe with the Earth at its centre, after all, had been available for 1,500 years, and was accepted and used by politicians and theologians through the centuries to further their agendas
Models must be challenged until every element is shown to accurately represent the real world. Blind acceptance of current atmospheric models is not acceptable.
The global climate is always changing and the current concern of man’s involvement should not be ignored. Neither should the scientific method be cast aside in favour of a modern-day inquisition.
APEGGA must certainly ensure its members abide by applicable legislation resulting from the acceptance of any factor of climate change deemed anthropogenic. APEGGA’s role should also be to continue to promote examination and discussion of the science of climate change, including how to cope with what might be an inevitable warming trend.
Should APEGGA host an open forum on the IPCC findings, complete with the presentation of technical papers both supporting and questioning in their findings, I would certainly attend.
Doug Cavill, P.Eng.
Gabriola Island, B.C.
Editor’s Note: An environmental summit
is one recommendation that comes out of a
recent member consultation on climate change. See pages 6 and 7 of this month’s
PEGG.
-----------------------------------
Scientists Are Supposed
To Challenge Research
There is nothing misguided about a scientist challenging the findings of any
research report. In fact, Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph., is being a scientist,
and Mr. Parker is committing the “appeal to authority” fallacy.
Scientific method is based on four pillars: observation of real world data (not conjecture or guesses), logical reasoning (not ideology or wishful thinking), repeatability (not unconfirmed unique claims) and skepticism (not mindless acceptance of any claim that is proffered, no matter how prestigious the source may or may not be).
It is our duty to try to find fault in a scientific claim by checking the design of the experiment, the data, the handling and archiving of the data, the train of thought and the conclusions.
We show our work and defend it. It is possible for any scientist to make an honest error or conduct inadequate work due to incomplete understanding of the system in question.
It is also possible for a scientist to commit fraud. Only by scrutinizing and replicating the work can the scientific community be confident in any given result.
This is the value of science: it is the only method that consistently separates
what works in the real world from what doesn’t. Theories are only provisionally
accepted on the understanding that new information or new theories may supplant
them. Beware the “science” that refuses to be scrutinized.
It appears Mr. Parker has not done any investigation of the criticisms of the
IPCC and related work. If he had, I doubt he would be so deferential. I refer
him and anyone else to the listed websites (see below).
These sites discuss in detail the problems with climate research, including instrumental temperature data, temperature proxy data, refusal of authors to publish their databases, political corruption, group-think among related researchers, inappropriate use of statistical methods, widespread disagreement with the IPCC and within the IPCC itself, suppression of contrary findings and more.
For those about to note that these aren’t refereed journals, I point out that these websites do cite or link to refereed literature. Some sites belong to researchers who publish in the field.
In any case, I’ve been the referee for more than one journal article and I can assure you that neither authors nor referees possess a magical teacher’s edition to the Book of Life, in which the universal absolute right answer is found in the appendix. The referee process does not guarantee that the work is correct, only that it is a reasonable attempt.
There is a large gap between what Mr. Parker imagines the IPCC to be and the much less impressive reality. In case anyone thinks that the current widespread acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming movement by the general public is proof of its truth, please obtain and study a copy of Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
Bob McAuley, P.Geol.
Calgary
Editor’s Note: Web addresses mentioned in the above letter are
-
www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
-
www.surfacestations.org
-
www.climateaudit.org
-
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming
-
http://climatesci.org.
IPCC Consensus
Is a Consensus Within
Mr. Parker should do some serious, open-minded research from sources other than
the IPCC. The basic IPCC hypothesis, upon which the Kyoto
Accord is based, is not proven beyond any doubt and is unquestionably not agreed
to by the large majority of
climate experts worldwide.
When the IPCC speaks of a “consensus” or “majority,” it refers to its membership only.
For a more comprehensive view of this subject, I suggest the listed websites (see below), particularly the first one. Under news, an article there dated Jan. 1 demonstrates the widespread repudiation of IPCC by the world’s climatologists. In fact a 2007 survey showed less than 10 per cent of the experts in this field strongly agreed with IPCC and over 90 per cent ranged from somewhat agreed to strongly disagreed.
Needless to say, if the only source of information you have is the IPCC, or the news media — infatuated as they are with their deceptive sensationalism — clearly you will never see the real picture. This unfortunately is the situation with most of the non-scientific community, which does not always have the inclination to dig deeper than what’s in the paper or on TV.
Instead of rushing blindly to support IPCC, we need an open symposium to study all facets of the important questions relating to climate change. By the time this article is published, the first truly open conference on this subject will have been held in New York, March 2-4, and I look forward to reading the transcripts.
Anyone truly interested in finding out what the world’s experts think will do the same. I am sure there will not be a consensus, which will make it all the more interesting.
The IPCC, the self-proclaimed voice of a supposed consensus, has some 2,500
members from 160 countries, the majority of which I am sure do not even have
accredited universities. About half of the membership is made up of computer
programmers, who it’s doubtful know much about climatology.
Programmers are given a pile of historical data, a temperature curve and a series
of relationships, then told to develop an algorithm which will replicate the
temperature profile. The rest is just mathematical gymnastics.
In 1997 when Kyoto was first approved by this group, the 18 general circulation models which were developed were given the same test — leave every other parameter as is and increase the carbon dioxide by 300 p.p.m., then bring the model back to equilibrium and see how much the average temperature of the world increased.
The results varied from 3 to 10 C with absolutely no agreement. Ten years have past, allowing us to compare their predictions to actual data. Average temperatures around the world have remained constant, some individual areas have increased a little and some have decreased, but the overall average indicates a small decrease.
This is in stark contrast to the predictions of any of the computer models. So much for the basis of the IPCC case.
Some IPCC members are climatologists. Many more members are people with political
motives — people who hope to get cash infusions for their countries through
the sale of carbon credits.
The hypocrisy of the Kyoto Accord is clearly demonstrated by the fact that India
and China were exempt from the provisions, while Russia was allowed to use 1990
for the emissions baseline. Now, since the Russians have improved their technology
in the last 17 years and their CO2 emissions are lower, so they have $60 billion
in carbon credits to sell.
The Kyoto Accord committee pompously announced that the accord would not become effective until 60 per cent of the world’s CO2 emitters signed up. The three countries mentioned above represent about 50 per cent, so it was not that difficult to reach the target.
If we are faced with such an imminent disaster, why do we hand out two free passes and $60 billion to countries representing half the world’s emissions? When Prime Minister Stephen Harper stuck to this point at Bali and demanded a level playing field for all, he was vilified by the news media and the opposition.
The statement that the world’s level of CO2 had been 280 p.p.m. for the 650,000 years is absolutely not true. The Vostok ice core experiments, which are another cornerstone of the Kyoto Accord, indicate a regular cycle of CO2 from about 200 to 300 p.p.m., and there have been five cycles in the last 430,000 years. The cycle we are in now, in fact, fits the pattern very well.
Authoritative papers note that one data point from the Vostok experiments represents an average of between 100 years to 1,000 years. True to form, the IPCC correlates 500-year average proxy data with daily flask samples and direct measurement using modern accurate scientific equipment.
This is not true science and before we subject ourselves to billions of dollars of negative economic impact, we should examine this matter very carefully and not be carried away by emotional hysteria from a politically motivated single source.
Barry A. Moore, P.Eng.
Calgary
Editor’s Note: Web addresses mentioned in the above letter are
• http://globalwarming.org/
• www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
• www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv
• www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/
carbontracker/maps.php?type=us&
prod=columns.
-----------------------------------------
Too Much Faith
In Credentials Is Naive
The noted letter is a typical writing of a proponent of anthropogenic climate
change paradigm, full of scattered facts taken out of context, attacks against
their opponents who are allegedly careless about the future of the planet, and
references to the IPCC panel reports devoid of credit by all non-member scientists,
regardless of how many Nobel Prizes the members of this panel have awarded to
one another.
Our naiveté in believing opinions and credentials is amazing. Anybody who has any knowledge of the climate science will tell you that it is anything but certain.
How does Mr. Parker expect this “clear climate change stance” by
APEGGA to emerge? The climate change debate in The PEGG has been going on for
years and we are nowhere close to a consensus.
The very idea of the public good, which is fundamental to our profession, is
taken very differently by different correspondents.
I detest speechifying about saving the planet and tend to take a pragmatic stance. The findings of IPCC panel are based on scientific evidence so flawed and ambiguous it wouldn’t be accepted in any other field of human activity.
Ruining all pseudo-scientific constructs of these experts are two factors: the very basic common knowledge about the massive warming of the climate in the ninth and 10th centuries when Greenland was actually green, and the subsequent Little Ice Age that extended through to the middle of the 19th century. These tell us that we are on an upward trend of a natural, long-term climatic cycle, to which our industrial activities are purely coincidental.
The entire climate change issue is purely political and should be viewed as such. The countries deprived of oil deposits are trying to get even with the countries that have them. They are using junk science to create public pressure to curb our economic development.
I can’t see why we should be making their job easier. Those other countries may have other useful resources, such as warm climates, coastline, tourist landmarks, you name it. For Alberta, oil is the main resource God has blessed us with.
Do you see any replacement to it? There is not one practical device in the world today that can produce motion in appreciable quantities and doesn’t use fossil fuels. Devise it, create an alternative, and then we will discuss your arguments for curtailing the use of oil.
I appreciate your concerns about the generations of tomorrow, but if we shoot our economy in the foot today, the talks about tomorrow will be redundant. By reducing common pollutants, reclaiming lands after industrial development and recycling waste, we can do a lot more for the benefit of tomorrow than by chasing elusive “greenhouse gases.” And we won’t have to ruin our economic development, either.
There is no merit for a professional association to act as a sounding board for Dr. David Suzuki. The only common ground I could agree on is the need for further research and development of a responsible, sustainable policy for tomorrow, before embarking on any fast-tracked, self-destroying action.
Konstantin Ashkinadze, P.Eng.
Edmonto
-----------------------------------------
Add My Voice
To Those Who
Urge APEGGA Stand
The ongoing debate on the pages of The PEGG about the anthropogenic role in climate
change should be conducted in an objective, scientific and professional manner.
Instead it has deteriorated into an exchange of biased, misinformed and emotional
opinions.
This Association owes it to itself and to a public that relies on professional advice to declare its position. I therefore add my voice to those members who have already called for APEGGA to take a stand, which could be similar to that of the American Geophysical Union and other scientific organizations.
Because neither engineers nor industrial geologists and geophysicists are
sufficiently aware of what they are talking about, our position should be worked
out in conjunction with bona fide climatologists.
This is not an appeal to get on a bandwagon. This is a request to recognize an
ecological paradigm shift and to act accordingly.
Fred DeWiel, P.Geol.
Calgary
-----------------------------------------
Including Technologists
Denigrates APEGGA’s Value
Now that it appears that APEGGA and ASET have merged, is it possible that APEGGA
Council can be made up in whole or in part of technologists and not professional
engineers, geologists or geophysicists? Can APEGGA be run by engineering technologists?
Does APEGGA know of any other statutory self-regulating professional organization that has amalgamated (or is contemplating using the APEGGA/ASET model) in the same manner as APEGGA/ASET have done; e.g. physicians and registered nurses, lawyers and paralegals, architects and building design or drafting personnel, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, dentists and dental hygienists?
Is APEGGA unique in this regard? Are we the only organization to see the “light”?
It is my assessment that APEGGA has denigrated its value and hence its membership. I am not proud to be a member, but due to my work I have to retain membership.
Horace R. Gopeesingh, P.Eng.
Calgary
Editor’s Note: ASET and APEGGA are not merging. ASET is being brought under the EGGP Act but as a separate body. APEGGA will still be governed by professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists, although the government has approved that registered professional technologists (to be renamed professional licensees) may vote and run for Council. Currently there are about 180 R.P.T.s in APEGGA.
ASET will regulate technologists. APEGGA will regulate engineers, geologists
and geophysicists. ASET and APEGGA will jointly regulate the new category of
Professional Technologist (P.Tech.), within which each individual will have the
freedom of independent practice within the routine application of accepted codes
and standards, specified for that individual.
-----------------------------------------
November Was
An Amazing Month
For The PEGG
I have just caught up on my reading after the Christmas season the first item
that caught my eye was the November issue of The PEGG. What an amazing issue!
The lead article on mentoring was a great tribute to the Minerva Mentoring Award, the Mentor of the Month and Mentor of the Millennium — and on the first page of The PEGG! It was like a brief overview of bios of Alberta Women’s Science Network mentors.
Julie Aitken, P.Geoph., was one of the first and long-time mentors of Operation Minerva in Calgary. Mary Ann Byrd, P.Eng., is a long-time mentor of Operation Minerva in Medicine Hat.
Dr. George Jergeas, P.Eng., has been a Mentor of the Millennium, as has Dr.
Francis Hartman, P.Eng.
Dr. Helen Madill’s incisive comments on good mentoring are invaluable — comments
we hope to incorporate in our Operation Minerva Mentor Workshop and Handbook.
I’ll also make a link to your article for our Guidelines for Mentors webpage.
Stepping Stones to Science Success is another great article to link to from our website. What an excellent tribute to an AWSN associate organization, to the Women in Scholarship, Engineering, Science and Technology Summer Research Program, and to WISEST support for UA-WiSE. Funds from AWSN help support both programs.
Thanks for being such a great supporter of AWSN and AWSN programs and projects. And thanks for such excellent articles.
Congratulations, too, on the success of the APEGGA National Mentoring Conference. It sounds like it was a huge success! I wish I had been able to attend. I won’t miss it next year.
I was very impressed by Arlene Lack’s article on the challenges Aboriginals face. She wrote, “Aboriginal students do better with hands-on learning than with the dominantly lecture format of the educational system.”
My experience as a junior high science teacher taught me that an emphasis as much as possible on hands-on teaching of science is the best approach for all students. As a teacher, I preferred it, too, because it makes science fun, and shows how exciting and rewarding it is to be a scientist.
My fellow scientist and science teacher colleagues on the Operation Minerva Committee feel the same way, which is probably what led us to creating a job shadowing experience for Grade 8 students with female professionals in science and engineering.
And finally, Robert Laboucane’s articles on Aboriginal issues are always excellent and motivating, and they keep me looking for ways to make a difference.
Joyce Luethy
Executive Director
Alberta Women’s Science Network
-----------------------------------------
This M.I.T.
Says No to Vote
As an engineer-in-training with a year and a half left before I can apply for
professional membership, I am opposed to granting M.I.T.s any kind of voting
privileges. This would be one more step in the continual watering down of our
professions by Council, which seems intent on opening the professions to outside
influence.
First there was allowing technologists to enter the ranks of professionals,
a move that I believe will endanger the public. Now there is the possibility
of expanding the number of voters by 22 per cent.
Those 7,925 M.I.T.s could become a voting block that is easily swayed by self-interest
(as I expect the technologists will be), leading to divisive, cheapened, and
unreliable electoral and referendum campaigns.
Will Milburn, E.I.T.
Edmonton
Editor’s Note: Council received a full range of opinions on the M.I.T. issue, which it used in devising ballot questions. In fact, unlike the writer, most respondents were in favour of at least some level of electoral rights for M.I.T.s
Where the concept goes from here, however, will be a decision of the ballot box. Three questions — two concerning the M.I.T. issue — are on the ballot in conjunction with APEGGA’s first-ever electronic election.
For related information in This PEGG see
-
Click Marks the Ballot, page 1
-
Notice of Ballot Questions, page 2
-
Notice of Electronic Voting, page 2
-
Nominees for Council, page 3
-
Your Electronic Voting FAQ List, page 8
-
Council Briefs, page 19.