april 2009 issue

READERS’ FORUM
Writer Lacks Factual Base To Call Others Misinformed

We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions.
Send them to George Lee, glee@apega.ca. Keep them to 300 words or less — longer letters published at the editor’s discretion. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.

Re: The Climate Debate Continues, by
Barry A. Moore, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, March 2009.

Mr. Moore states that he is “constantly amazed” by opinions published in The PEGG in which the author of the opinion knows “very little about the subject.” Upon rereading, perhaps he will end up amazed by his own letter, given his apparent misunderstanding of these issues.

He says that “in northern latitudes such as ours the useful hours of sunlight are limited, diminishing the potential for solar energy.” Although it does indeed get quite dark here in the winter, it also gets quite light in the summer, meaning that on an annualized basis the amount of radiation incident upon northern latitudes is approximately equal to that of equatorial latitudes.

Our cooler climate arguably gives us more solar energy potential, as we can more readily utilize this energy for space heating (an application much more efficient than electrical generation via photovoltaics). Furthermore, Alberta is particularly well-suited for solar applications because of its relatively low levels of cloud cover.

Mr. Moore also makes the common mistake of conflating Canada’s Kyoto commitments with the more general notion of emissions reduction. There are very few people in this country, on either side of the climate debate, who would say they were satisfied with the federal government’s actions on the climate change file. The government committed to very ambitious targets without consultation, and then did nothing of substance to meet them.

Its performance was indeed reprehensible, but that is an issue separate from emissions reductions generally, which can (and should) be designed with proper consultation to minimize deleterious economic impacts.

Mr. Moore also criticizes writers for assuming that “no one else has any greater knowledge.” He then refers to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “dubious” and to its membership — which is made up of hundreds of climate experts from around the world — as “spin doctors.” Unless Mr. Moore is a climate expert, this seems somewhat contradictory.

Finally, Mr. Moore laments the tendency (in his view) of letter writers to “state strong opinions with no validating data.” Could he possibly provide a source verifying that Pierre Trudeau was a “flower power PM,” or some literature documenting that the “green group is trying to destroy our country’s economy by wrecking the oil industry without a viable alternative”? Could he find evidence to back his contentious claim that Kyoto compliance would result in “tens of billions of dollars worth of negative economic impact”?

In a comparison presented to discredit the IPCC, he mentions a supposed “consensus of economic geniuses”  that “a few months ago” assured us “that we were in fine economic shape.” Could Mr. Moore direct us to this consensus?

I am also in favour of unbiased debate, but this sort of debate only works if people within it are willing to listen to evidence from those on the other side. However, with data verifying the IPCC’s findings and hypotheses accruing on a daily basis, I have to wonder exactly how much evidence Mr. Moore requires.

Josh Kjenner, E.I.T.
Edmonton

A Wrongheaded Use of Our Resources
I concur with Mr. Moore’s letter. By thinking we can alter the climate, human-kind is embarking on what is potentially the biggest waste of resources in Earth’s history.

To put it into perspective, the Alberta Government’s commitment to spend $2 billion on carbon dioxide sequestration alone represents 40 million barrels of oil at today’s prices. Sanity must be introduced as early as possible!

Maybe APEGGA can organize a rally to show the media and public that there are many Earth scientists that don’t agree with the theories spun by the IPCC.

Brad Bakuska, P.Geol.
Calgary

Non-Experts Are Involved In Unproductive Debate
Your Readers’ Forum has presented the longstanding anti-flower power views of some of our members on many issues. I trust in the credibility of these members and in their ability to discuss data and figures. However, these members do not have comparable academic knowledge to those within the global scientific organizations.

I am unsure how data regurgitation will help move policy forward. In a face-to-face encounter, could an advanced mathematical debate occur between our members and Dr. Andrew Weaver, the internationally respected climate change expert from B.C.?

As an electrical engineer, I do not have expert opinion on matters regarding tax law, just as a PhD in geology may not have expert opinion on matters regarding atmospheric sciences. As such, I argue that the majority of APEGGA members do not have expert opinion on theories presented by experts in climatology.

When provincial or international opinions are deemed “expert,” one may be invited to provide analysis for the government, the industrial sector, the Alberta Research Council, NASA, the American Meteorological Society or the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The latter four are non-flower power and non-European groups that calculate our emissions and associated risk. They are also involved in constructive initiatives with governments and industry on providing long-term solutions for greenhouse gas emissions.

I agree there are prominent scientists and organizations who question human-made climate change. This is a beautiful debate that should occur between “meetings of the minds” and not in newspaper letters to influence public opinion.

Entities ranging from EnCana to Exxon Mobile to Suncor are continually a part of the Carbon Disclosure Project, an independent non-profit group with the largest database of corporate climate change information in the world. We may wish to take notice when the forces behind this local economy are partaking in the global conversation on mitigating risk due to climate change.

As Peter Tertzakian, P.Geoph., has advised, the same players in whale oil moved onto rock oil before whale oil was exhausted. In this analogous energy paradigm, the same players are mitigating climate and financial risk for the next economy.

As with any reputable newspaper, The PEGG would be more constructive if it provided a debating framework to help members succeed in the global demand for ingenuity.

Jeff Shewchuk, P.Eng.
Calgary

Debunkers Erode Reputation Of APEGGA
It seems that the public face of APEGGA on the issue of climate change is primarily to be found in the Readers’ Forum of The PEGG and, given the high level of public concern on the issue, suggests a rather unsavory image at that. If this is perceived to be the position of our venerable and highly respected Association on this increasingly critical problem, we will descend into a state of irrelevancy in very short order.

Yes, there are the dwindling few holdouts who will probably go to their graves believing climate change is a vast conspiracy cooked up by communists who hate capitalism and freedom, just as there are those who still think the Earth is flat or that it was created 6,500 years ago. It is true that the climate models have flaws and, like all simulations, probably always will.

The true implications of the uncontrolled experiment that human kind is perpetrating on this planet will only be known a century or so from now, and maybe even later than that. Only one thing is certain: the actual outcome will not be favourable to either human well-being, commerce or conflict resolution. Even under the highly unlikely scenario that climate change theory is flawed and all the changes in atmospheric gases are having zero effect, and that all the changes we are observing today result from some other cause for which there is, thus far, no alternative explanation, the question remains: Do we want the threat on our consciences?

Letter writers expound their pet theories on why it cannot be happening whilst ignoring the front pages of national newspapers and respected journals screaming of desertification, ice sheet melting, droughts, floods and ocean acidification.

There is zero regard, and perhaps less understanding, of the Precautionary Principle. It seems that because the IPCC has given us computer models containing some anomalies and the average temperature seems to be doing the opposite of what it is supposed to, we are to throw the entire hypothesis out the window. Not until a theory is produced that absolutely cannot be refuted will these skeptics be mollified, by which time we will all be dead anyway with none of us around to say “told you so.”

APEGGA members should be reminded that the idea of heat trapping was first expounded back in 1896 by the Swedish scientist Sven Arrhenius — it is not a new idea.

One writer uses cost effectiveness as a reason to continue burning fossil fuels and to (presumably) ignore the implications that ensue. Another invokes, although he may not realize it, the Gaia Hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth is a self-regulating entity and will correct for whatever imposition we impose on it. This is probably true but the self-regulation process itself will devastate vast swaths of life, including, without doubt, homo-sapiens.

Earth has bounced back many, many times throughout its 4.5 billion years, but the process has never been smooth and easy. There have been five massive extinction scenarios since life emerged and by all accounts we are currently experiencing the sixth. Human and geological time scales are vastly different in magnitude and if they begin to overlap, as appears to be happening with climate, the situation can only be regarded as dire.

What we are observing seems to be a replay of the Galileo story when humanity had to confront the reality that we were not the centre of the universe. Or the contempt that was thrown at Darwin, who sat on his revolutionary beliefs for 30 years for fear of the public backlash, coupled with his concern for the feelings of his beloved wife, a devout Christian.

Ideas must change and ways of life must be modified if we hope to continue as a species. There is no such thing as total steady state.

The worldwide economic meltdown has shown more than anything else that economic growth has limitations and that we have been forcing economic expansion for the last several decades. By using false concepts (subprime loans, derivatives, massive unfunded liabilities and the like) and inflating consumerism beyond what can be sustained with the resources available, we created an enormous bubble that had to burst, as it did last year quite spectacularly.

We continue to convince ourselves into believing that ecological and economic collapse are somehow unrelated phenomena. It is truly self delusional to insist that our 21st-century civilization is somehow divorced from the natural forces that have impinged upon us since life emerged.

Yes, there are flaws in the theory and the simulations are lacking. But the underlying thesis is sound. Coupled with that reality are the consequences of runaway, positive feedback mechanisms, which may have already begun.

Surely any sane and rational approach is to err on the side of caution and simply not go there, or to severely mitigate the potential impacts of what we have already caused.

David J. Parker, P.Eng.
Edmonton

Records Show Poor Correlation
Re: One Possible Weakness Does not Negate our Climate Change Duties, by Harvey A. Buckmaster, P.Eng., P.Geoph., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, February 2009.

Contrary to the statements in the referenced letter, the role of human-made CO2, relative to global climate change, is a hotly debated issue. Atmospheric levels of this non-toxic plant food have risen since the Industrial Revolution from natural and anthropogenic sources (mainly from the burning of fossil fuels).

If one is to accept that human-made CO2 has been an important agent in causing global temperatures to rise, then there should be a good correlation between the two. However, the records show that from 1750 to now, we have had both warming and cooling trends while consumption of fossil fuels has steadily and often rapidly increased. The most recent cooling trend is from 2001 until this year.

The data show a poor correlation between anthropogenic CO2 output and temperature. Other forces must be involved.

Eric Loughead, P.Geol.
APEGGA Life Member
Calgary