June 2006 ISSUE
READERS' FORUM
President Stands up for
High-Profile Member’s Integrity
The House of Commons government operations committee rejected selecting Gwyn Morgan, P.Eng., as chair of a new Public Appointments Commission. Members of APEGGA are apparently split, however, on whether President David Chalcroft, P.Eng., should have voiced an opinion to the Prime Minister on their behalf.
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. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.
Editor’s Note: APEGGA President David Chalcroft, P.Eng., sent the following letter, dated May 23, to Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper. We distributed the letter to members in an e-PEGG Extra. A selection of responses, for and against the letter, appears after the letter.
As of press time, APEGGA had received 48 letters in response to the move. Writers in favour numbered 25 (52 per cent). In the against camp were 18 (37.5 per cent). Another five writers (10.5 per cent) expressed a neutral opinion.
Dear Prime Minister:
The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) is concerned regarding comments by a parliamentary committee in reference to Mr. Gwyn Morgan, P.Eng., a long-standing and well-respected member of the Association.
Mr. Morgan is a highly respected professional engineer with a demonstrated ability to lead and to achieve success. It is within this context that we, his colleagues and associates, find it regrettable and offensive that he has been unfairly characterized as “unsuitable” to chair the proposed Public Appointments Commission.
As a professional engineer, Mr. Morgan is known to be an individual of the greatest integrity whose actions are guided by the highest standards of honourable conduct and informed professionalism. It is sad that Canadians have lost an opportunity to benefit from Mr. Morgan’s selfless desire to contribute by doing something “new and good in government” through working with others to develop a set of standards and guidelines for the transparent appointment of officials in Crown corporations and other government bodies.
Mr. Morgan, like all APEGGA members, is dedicated to providing leadership in the community and to enhancing our society through volunteerism. This past April, Mr. Morgan was honoured by over 1,100 Albertans who attended the prestigious APEGGA Summit Awards Gala in Edmonton where he received the Centennial Leadership Award from his peers recognizing him as an executive of outstanding integrity and enterprise.
APEGGA actively encourages members to be leaders in the community and to volunteer their services. This brings the benefit of their professionalism, knowledge and skills to the public forum. We are concerned that this kind of biased, negative attitude by some parliamentarians towards one of our members will seriously discourage other professionals from entering the public arena to the detriment of us all.
Sincerely,
David B. Chalcroft, P.Eng.
President
APEGGA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on All Points
I congratulate APEGGA for the letter and agree with all the comments made regarding
Mr. Morgan.
I consider this letter as standing up for and supporting APEGGA professional
engineers who have given part of their life to make Canada a better place for
all. To somehow degrade the efforts by Mr. Morgan is unacceptable.
One can really appreciate how much Canadians are respected all over the world when we move away for some period of time.
I speak from experience.
S.D. Borsa, P.Eng.
Taiwan
---------------------------------
Man of Integrity
As a P.Eng. who dealt with Alberta Energy, I can attest to the integrity of Mr.
Morgan’s company and to the man himself, especially since his leadership
was reflected throughout the company. He was always described by his staff in
the most flattering of terms.
The letter describes my feelings exactly.
Roland Mansell, P.Eng.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
Shabby Treatment
Uncalled For
I was very pleased to see the letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding
the shabby treatment Mr. Morgan received at the hands of a parliamentary committee. As
a former MP, I was embarrassed and ashamed of the performance of the majority
of the members of that committee.
Prime Minister Harper had made an extraordinary effort to reform the system
of appointments by selecting a person of unquestionable integrity and ability.
The cheap political machinations at this historical meeting have permanently
damaged our democratic system but leave Mr. Morgan unscathed.
Thanks for responding to this fiasco and for putting the record straight.
Alan A. Johnson, P.Geol.
Former Calgary North MP
---------------------------------
Great Canadian Leader
I was shocked to hear that Mr. Morgan was not accepted to chair the proposed
Public Appointments Commission. While I was wondering how I could express my
concerns, I received the e-PEGG Extra with your letter to Prime Minister Harper.
I attended the recent APEGGA Summit Awards and was very pleased to see Mr. Morgan receive the Centennial Leadership Award. He has done a superb job of leadership with PanCanadian, and through the merger of Alberta Energy Company and PanCanadian to form a $27 billion Canadian energy giant. He has led EnCana with vision and great business genius.
I applaud you and APEGGA for raising this issue with the Prime Minister. Those who have decided Mr. Morgan is not suitable to chair the proposed committee must read your letter.
It irritates me that such a great Canadian leader and professional engineer has been slapped in the face this way. His expertise would have been a valuable asset for that position. Shame on those who deemed him “unsuitable.”
Roly Ferris, P.Eng.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
Members Can Send
Their Own Letters
Although I agree with several of the statements in the letter, I do not agree
with it being sent under an APEGGA letterhead. Let the individuals who support
him send a message on their own accord.
I really can’t say if Mr. Morgan was the best suited individual for this position, since there are many others — engineers and non-engineers — who may be as suited or better suited.
Ultimately, however, it was Mr. Morgan’s own politics and statements regarding immigration and low wage earners that got him into this spot. Unfortunately, politics and democracy are a messy business. All parties, including the Conservatives, are guilty of playing partisan games, and I find it rather convenient that the Conservatives are accusing the opposition of tactics that they have engaged in themselves.
I do have a great deal of respect for Mr. Morgan, even though I may disagree with his position on certain topics. However, my concern is mainly directed at the impression that APEGGA gives by sending the letter.
I would prefer that APEGGA not get involved in political situations of this type. I realize that it can be a challenge to totally avoid these situations, but I believe in this case the Association could and should have done so.
Vince Leonty, E.I.T.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
No Favouritism, Please
I don’t think our president has any business speaking for us in this case.
The parliamentary committee made no comment on Mr. Morgan’s professional
qualifications. Mr. Chalcroft is free to express his own opinion but not to insinuate
that it is mine as a member.
Will the president be writing letters of support for all members who have been judged unsuitable for a job? If not, this is favouritism.
Joseph MacLean, P.Geol.
Calgary
---------------------------------
Public Comments
Bring Political Judgment
I disagree with APEGGA’s statement of support for Mr. Gwyn Morgan as the
head of the Public Appointments Commission. Mr. Morgan’s history and accomplishments
in business and engineering, while commendable in their breadth and duration,
have little to do with his qualifications for a public role.
Mr. Morgan had been asked to take on a role to clean up public appointments and make them less partisan. Yet Mr. Morgan is anything but non-partisan.
In a public speech last December, Mr. Morgan let his strong political opinions
be known. His comments offended many people, and he should not be surprised if
he is now judged in political, rather than business or engineering, terms.
Stewart Midwinter, P.Eng.
Calgary
Letter May Be Damaging
I am troubled by comments in the letter. Mr. Morgan’s leadership abilities
and success in business are beyond question. However, he is a highly partisan
individual who has commented publicly on various issues that have brought his
suitability for this appointment into question.
Our Association, through your office, has taken a highly aggressive position in defense of Mr. Morgan without giving consideration to variables other than his professional qualifications. I think it is inappropriate for you to say that “we, his colleagues and associates, find it … offensive” that Mr. Morgan’s nomination was not accepted. As it is, your letter is unapologetic of Mr. Morgan’s past comments, leaving the impression that APEGGA agrees with and endorses Mr. Morgan’s political and social views.
APEGGA is supposed to be a non-partisan organization. I fear your letter will have negative effects both inside and outside of our Association, effects that may damage rather than promote our profession.
James E. Davis, P.Eng.
Grande Prairie
---------------------------------
Let’s Learn From This
As a long-time APEGGA member, I applaud your letter to the Prime Minister, but
Mr. Morgan did not help himself with his insensitive public opinions on immigrants
and multiculturalism. As professional engineers, we should be asking ourselves:
how can we learn from Mr. Morgan’s experience and become even better leaders
in business, in our community, and in politics? This would be more beneficial
than only pointing the finger at partisan politicians.
Since you sent your letter to all APEGGA members, I urge you to do the same with the above question.
John E. Bringas, P.Eng.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
Put Other Avenues
Ahead Of Aboriginal
Scholarships
Re: Aboriginal Members: Where Are You? The PEGG, March 2006.
I wish Jane Tink, P.Eng., every success as chair of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, but would like to offer a few observations that may help the committee meet its goals.
One statement in this story is that the APEGGA Education Foundation should be encouraged to seek more funding for Aboriginal students. This caused me to recall an initiative brought before the foundation board in its early days.
The initiative proposed that scholarships be created both for Aboriginals and for women, with a view to increasing their presence in APEGGA more in proportion to their numbers in Alberta society. Since the organization was young, we had not yet formed clear policies how to direct our scholarship funding.
The discussion was rather free-wheeling as I remember, with strong views both for and against the proposal.
On the negative side, there was a view that we should not discriminate for
or against any segment of our population; our scholarships should be available
to the best qualified candidates. On the positive, the view was that some groups
needed special consideration because the playing field was not level.
What settled the argument for me was when our secretary did a web search and
showed us a list of four or more pages of scholarships already available to Aboriginals.
I am still of the view that more such scholarships won’t solve the problem
in themselves.
I think the other avenues pointed out in the article should be explored first: find and publicize role models from within the Aboriginal society; and establish a mentoring program to attract and retain gifted Aboriginal students within science and mathematics programs.
Perhaps we could find incentives for top-quality teachers to be available to their schools in these programs. Maybe if we provided prizes to gifted students early in their program, this would help to attract the good students.
I don’t think our professions are alone in this problem of under-representation. Perhaps we should work with lawyers, doctors and accountants, and address the problem together.
And let’s not forget ASET. We should encourage ASET to be on our team — it may in fact be ahead of us in tackling the problem.
Dennis G. Brooks, P.Eng., P.Geoph.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
Circular Argument
Fails Methodology Test
Re: International Panel Report Represents Consensus, J.
Edward Mathison, P.Geol., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, April 2006.
Although the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the work of some 600 named contributors, it does not necessarily represent consensus.
“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact,” says the Third Assessment Report.
A reading of the documents reveals a disconnect between the detailed work contained in the main body of work and the Summary for Policy Makers cover document. The latter document very definitively states: “Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities”; and, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
While many of us can agree that global warming appears to be occurring and can accept qualitatively from a general knowledge of heat transfer engineering principles that increased atmospheric CO2 will result in increased temperatures in the lower atmosphere, the fundamental issue remains: what is the root cause? Where the panel’s assessment reports fail to deliver is in the very science they purport to use.
Consider that the essence of the reports consists of
-
record of temperatures from approximately 1860 to present
-
CO2 data points from 1000 to present, with direct measurements from 1958
-
development of climate models benchmarked by the observed data
-
extrapolation of the climate models to predict further temperature rise
-
attribution of temperature rise to increasing CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels.
The logic of this process is circular and not scientific. Science-based methodology requires
-
collection of observations
-
postulating an hypothesis to explain the observations such as, why parts-per-million-level changes in CO2 substantively affect near surface atmospheric temperatures
-
design and execution of experiments to confirm the theory that, for example, CO2 alters the tropospheric radiative emissivity and absortance properties by a defined amount which accounts for definitive temperature variations
-
confirmation of experimental results by scientific community
-
elimination of competing theories.
The accepted theory would also be able to explain the three-decade cooling period
from about 1945 to 1975, which is not reconciled by the documents of the Intergovern-mental
Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC reports confine discussion to the lowest portion of the atmosphere and
disregard contributions from the upper three layers of atmosphere, which extend
from 50 to 1,000 kilometres around the Earth. One of these layers, the thermosphere,
is characterized by highly variable temperatures ranging from 1,000 C to 1,700
C, due to the solar flux.
Changes in the thermosphere could plausibly have impact on the lower atmosphere to the extent that CO2 is actually being released naturally from ocean and land carbon sinks.
Although it can be agreed that global warming is occurring, and that energy conservation and effective consumption are inherently good, are we satisfied that some of the “go forward” priorities have value? Does purchase of “emissions credits” have more value than improving fuel efficiency or developing carbon-neutral fuels? Should economic growth be diverted from the developed world while less developed countries “catch up” to western levels of energy consumption?
If global warming is inevitable because of natural processes, should we not be identifying meaningful mitigation strategies that may be needed to save people along threatened coastlines?
The IPCC documents represent a reasonable start, but let’s see the rest of the science.
John Aumuller, P.Eng.
Edmonton
---------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide Plays Minor Role at Most
Mr. Mathison provided much unsubstantiated opinion and also misstated the position of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. APEGGA members are urged to review the following statements and supporting data, then draw their own conclusions about the alleged global warming crisis.
1.Climate has always changed, long before man could have had any impact on it. For example, contrary to Mann’s hockey stick, the Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than the present
2. Much of the recent alleged surface warming actually occurred from about 1850 to about 1935, before the huge increase in the use of fossil fuels.
3.In spite of the huge increase in fossil fuel use, global average temperatures actually cooled from about 1935 to 1975.
4. Some surface warming has occurred from about 1975 to 2005, but it has been difficult to separate the urban heat island component from true surface warming. The surface temperature data set appears to be rather compromised in much of the world.
5. The data set of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. — likely the very best data set of its kind in the world — actually shows slight summer and fall cooling from 1930 to 2005, and about 0.5 C warming only in winter and spring seasons. Visit www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
6. Satellite and weather balloon data show no net warming in the lower troposphere from about 1975 to 2000. The satellite data set provides far better coverage of the planet than the surface data set. Visit http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2.
7. There is a possible small increase ( about 0.2 C) in global average lower troposphere temperature from about 2000 to 2005, but this change is within the margin of uncertainty.
8. The theoretical relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 and warming is logarithmic, not linear or exponential. As CO2 levels rise, they are less and less effective at causing warming.
To project equal warming increments per decade requires that carbon dioxide increase from two to four units in the first time period, then four to eight in the next, then eight to 16, etc. Quoting linear rates of warming implies a doubling and redoubling of atmospheric CO2 levels over time, which is extremely unlikely.
9. At the current 30 per cent increase in CO2 above pre-industrial levels, Earth has already experienced more than 50 per cent of the warming effect that it would experience from a hypothetical doubling of CO2. The Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change models produce higher results by assuming additional positive feedbacks, for which there is no evidence.
10. From 1961-2000, both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. The year 2005 remains an anomaly and we need more years of data to draw any different conclusions. Visit www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf.
Based on the data, one would conservatively conclude that increased atmospheric CO2 is at most a minor driver of warming. Closed-form solutions suggest an upper limit of less than 1 C warming from a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2.
The surface warming is largely natural and may now be driving a slight warming response in the lower troposphere. Since any possible lower troposphere warming is lagging rather than leading the alleged surface warming, it is very difficult to conclude that the alleged surface warming is primarily caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seasonal and annual data from 1930 to 2005, one calculates 0.3 C additional warming from today for a hypothetical doubling of CO2. This is based on 0.38 F (0.21 C) warming in the period when large human-made CO2 emissions occurred. Note that all of this warming occurred in winter and spring, and slight cooling occurred in summer and fall.
Obviously, this analysis makes certain unconservative assumptions about the relationship of atmospheric temperature and CO2 (by ascribing all warming and cooling to atmospheric CO2) — and still there is no projected warming crisis.
Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Calgary