October 2008 issue
|
Readers’ Forum
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to George Lee, glee@apegga.org. 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.
PEGG Criticized for Story
On Al Gore Training
Re: Member Trains with Al Gore for
Climate Change Message, The PEGG,
September 2008.
I wish to protest in the strongest terms the publication of this article about the activities of APEGGA member Kae Shummoogum, P.Eng. After training from Al Gore, an individual of no apparent academic standing in the chosen subject now proposes to pass on the results of such training to members of the general public.
Mr. Shummoogum is, of course, quite free to indulge himself for his own edification, in the material put forth and the actions advocated by Mr. Gore. But the article published in The PEGG can not help but give an imprimatur of authority to the teaching of information that has been found wanting in British courts of law.
It would be unfortunate indeed if at some future date the Association should be found to have put itself in an embarrassing position if Mr. Shummoogum pursues the course of political advocacy quoted in the article. I suggest a specific disclaimer to this regrettable piece be issued as soon as possible.
J.P. Leeson, P.Geol.
APEGGA Life Member
Calgary
* * *
It borders on the incredible to see the monthly newsletter of our professional organization nod approvingly at the efforts of one member who enlists and trains to undertake the spreading of pseudo-scientific material for political purposes.
The right to put this label on Gore’s proselytizing efforts is borne out by the October 2007 decision of the High Court of London that condemned the showing of Al Gore’s video in British schools because of its bias. The scary Gore projections of worldwide calamities exceed even those predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The judge ordered that offsetting alternative views be made available as the Inconvenient Truth story contained nine major errors of fact. Other less restrained observers, independent scientists outside government, counted as many as 35 distortions, exaggerations and untruths in the Gore presentation.
Visit www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, where the 35 errors are detailed.
The hypothesis of the carbon dioxide-global warming link as a causal one has been falsified in scientific terms, if only because of the current 10-year absence of global warming and an even longer period of actual cooling in the southern hemisphere — all while CO2 emissions are still increasing. It has been convincingly shown that natural forces dominate climate and its changes on Earth and other planets as well.
It appears to me that there is an obligation on the part of The PEGG editors to promote the integrity of the scientific process and ethics, and not its destruction by politically motivated individuals.
You may not have endorsed the Gore project in your article and I agree that — as the story states — the recent APEGGA poll indicates that members wish to have more information on the subject. But this Gore project is not one of scientific argument or persuasion. It is a continent-wide propaganda campaign. Several quotes come to mind.
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who produced the IPCC’s first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001, said in his book, Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Dr. Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University environmentalist and an early Kyoto supporter, said that “environmentalism equals lies ‘if necessary.’ ”
He also said: “We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment,” and that he and other environmentalists needed to “reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
So Schneider et al. need “loads of media coverage” for their propaganda machine. Why does a professional organization like APEGGA feel the need to comply?
Albert F. Jacobs, P.Geol.
APEGGA Life Member
Calgary
* * *
I am dismayed that the official organ for APEGGA should see fit to publish this self-promoting piece of irrelevant and misleading journalism.
That the climate is changing and has been changing throughout human history is an indisputable fact, as witnessed by historical records dating back more than 1,000 years. Computer modellers would like to change and modify recorded history and deny the Little Ice Age, during which for several years in succession the Thames froze over, as well as the medieval warm period, during which the Vikings colonized Greenland.
The falsehood promoted by Al Gore and cohorts in stating that human- generated CO2 is responsible for the climate changes we are experiencing is easily refuted. During a period when CO2 has been rising, the temperature has actually been falling and no temperature increases have taken place since 2001.
Our whole civilization and prosperity are founded on access to cheap energy, and short-sighted policies aimed at taxing this source of revenue can only result in impoverishing us all — except those who stand in line to benefit from this new tax.
Jens O. Bagh, P.Eng.
APEGGA Life Member
Calgary
Editor’s Note: The PEGG publishes commentary and news stories that reflect all points of view on climate change, particularly when they involve members. The article mentioned was not an endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of Mr. Gore’s presentation.
Course Accepts
IPCC Assumptions
I have read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report and attended a university course described in a PEGG story. Unfortunately, the course title was somewhat vague, listed as Global Warming and Climate Change. Therefore, I expected it to be an assessment of the basic science encompassing the full spectrum of scientific opinion — this was not the case.
The title should have been An Overview and Introduction to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. The objective of the course was to introduce management-calibre people and other interested parties to IPCC terminology and background, and the rationale behind its recommendations. The course was well constructed and delivered, but it assumed from the outset that the basic hypothesis of the IPCC is valid.
This IPCC hypothesis is that an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures around the world in an almost linear relationship and that human-made emissions since the industrial revolution are to blame for virtually all the increase. I have been researching this subject for over 10 years and am of the opinion that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to substantiate the IPCC hypothesis.
This opinion comes from the basic laws of physics, which have gone unchallenged for almost 100 years. They state that the energy radiated from a body varies as the fourth power of its temperature. Clearly the IPCC has chosen to rewrite the textbooks with no justification.
In addition it has also never understood the term “residence time.” The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is four years or less. Since the human-made emissions are eight gigatonnes of carbon per year, this means the atmosphere contains 32 Gt of human-made carbon or 14.35 p.p.m. out of 385 — a far cry from the IPCC claims.
Taking the mentioned course was my first opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion with an expert regarding my conclusions and questions. Since most of my questions were of a technical nature, they were not appropriate in the forum presented.
However, I did get the opportunity to discuss some of my thoughts and pose a few of my questions during breaks with the course lecturer, who was a multi-disciplined PhD.
My reactions were quite mixed. The lecturer was very courteous and seemed interested in the research and documentation I presented. However, I received absolutely no explanations and very little discussion regarding any of the questions I raised.
This indicated to me that the expert lecturer had never considered or been asked these types of question before. Thus, on one hand I was frustrated at not being able to have a meaningful dialogue to expand my understanding of this very diverse and complex subject. On the other hand, I was very satisfied that there were no simple answers to any of my questions — in fact, there were no answers!
Since there was absolutely no rebuttal from an expert, my opinions regarding the IPCC hypothesis have been reinforced.
It is a fundamental principle in all scientific research that correlation does not prove causation and any hypothesis must be proven by the laws of science and strict mathematical proof. In the entire presentation, 100 per cent of the “scientific proof” was correlation of empirical data — much of which was proxy data and highly suspect with regards to its accuracy.
When challenged to produce mathematical proof, the course lecturer came up totally empty. The entire IPCC report of some 1,000 pages does not contain the fundamental basic relationship between CO2 and an increase in global temperature in the form of a simple graph of CO2-versus-temperature. The reason for this omission, I believe, is that if the IPCC ever put its reputation on the line and produced such a relationship, it would be destroyed by virtually every physicist with an expertise in infrared radiation.
Thorough reading of the IPCC report shows a multitude of contradictions and gross errors. Example: try performing a mass balance on the anthropogenic versus natural carbon fluxes on its carbon cycle (Chapter 7, page 515).
I was particularly disturbed by the automatic assumption that if you questioned the validity of the IPCC hypothesis, you were totally against all forms of efficiency of energy utilization and environmental protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is a propaganda technique that is prevalent among the IPCC faithful.
All rational people understand that nothing is certain, so to proceed with extensive research programs to mitigate against the harmful effects of global warming (should it occur and whatever the cause) is a prudent course of action. However, transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to Third World countries, so that corrupt dictators can fatten their Swiss bank accounts, will do absolutely nothing to solve any problems that possible global warming may create.
Barry A. Moore, P.Eng.
Calgary
Teacher Thrilled
With APEGGA Award
Now that school is back in, I would like to thank you for the APEGGA Teacher Award that was presented to me at the Cardston High School graduation. I must say I was totally blindsided and had no clue it was coming.
Though I feel many others could have been given the award, I thank you that I was included in the group of teachers who I think fit the qualifications of an APEGGA award winner. Your kindness of including the letters that were submitted was definitely a tender addition and satisfying to read. I really enjoyed them.
I pondered about how to use the $2,000 that was given to the school and after some consideration I knew exactly what to do. We used the money (plus a small amount from the physics budget) to buy a class set of Garmin eTrex Vista handheld GPS units. We had been trying to develop a couple of GPS activities using borrowed handheld units and now see how much easier it will be to introduce the GPS technology when each team of students has a unit in hand.
Thank you for your generous contribution. It will be appreciated for years to come.
What a great gift you give to the community by presenting these awards. I guess we all enjoy feeling appreciated in our work. It came just as I was retiring after 38 years in the physics classroom. Thank you.
Joe Paulson
Cardston High School
Editor’s Note: The writer is one of 14 teachers from around the province to receive APEGGA Teacher Awards in 2008. A complete story appeared in the July PEGG and can be found in the PEGG Online at www.apegga.org.
International Projects
Sometimes Controversial
Re: Global Engineering — the Profession’s Next New Discipline? The PEGG, September 2008.
-
When did Kofi Annan, ex UN secretary-general, become a “she”?
-
The relationship between Engineers Without Borders and Wardrop Engineering “in dollars and cents is worth at least $60,000 a year.”
To whom? -
Why would global engineering be considered a new discipline?
Surely engineers who participate in initiatives like those described in the article would continue to practice their existing disciplines in a global context, as many do already.
The concept of leadership in global development as set out in the article seems to embody two ideas that are not necessarily compatible. One refers to social justice and making the world a better place. The other refers to integrating the needs, cultures and challenges of clients and stakeholders.
Whether satisfying such needs etc. will achieve social justice and make the world a better place depends importantly on who are the clients and which groups are included as stakeholders. Although provision of clean water supplies as illustrated in the photo is fairly non-controversial, other types of project — for example, dams and mines — tend to put engineers in the middle of inter-group conflicts that may never be resolved.
It is always comforting for engineers engaged in overseas projects to believe they are contributing to a better world, but it is difficult to justify this belief if the project involves resource exploitation primarily for the benefit of already highly developed countries.
I am sure that the Engineers Without Borders organization has the best of intentions and is modelled to some extent after Doctors Without Borders, and no doubt it needs financial assistance from business.
But it may have to guard against too close an association with certain types of project.
Charles R. Neill, P.Eng.
Edmonton
|