Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

ETHICAL BREACH CLAIM IS GROUNDLESS

Re: APEGGA Ignores its Duty Over Climate Change Misinformation, by Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph., Readers’ Forum, The PEG, June 2011.

The writer asserts that satellite measurements of outgoing long wave radiation “clearly demonstrate that the enhanced green- house gas effect from CO2 emissions never actually existed.”

That drew my attention. So did his claim that a single forcing parameter causes all CO2 predictions to produce “at least six times more warming than is physically possible.” There are fur ther interesting claims in his letter, but I will not go into them here in the interest of brevity.

These are news to me, and I would ask Mr. Kalmanovitch to share his sources so that I can review the data myself and see if I come to a similar conclusion, and to also see if this one measure-ment or parameter trumps all others in the effort to quantify any potential greenhouse effect

I am honestly interested in finding the truth, as Mr. Kalmanovitch is very correct in that billions of dollars hang in the balance if he is right, or catastrophic global damage if he is not.

However, I strenuously object to his claim that any APEGGA professional member who supported anti-global warming initia-tives over the past nine years is in breach of professional practice and ethics, and perhaps should be the subject of discipline. To honestly and earnestly attempt to safeguard the welfare of society by using the best science available to you is not a contravention of ethics.

Mr. Kalmanovitch made some interesting claims and asked some important questions that should be answered. He should not have lowered the discourse with sensational accusations against peers.

I have gone back to graduate school in mid-career to try to find many of the same answers Mr. Kalmanovitch seeks. What I have found suggests to me that there is enough evidence that the potential greenhouse effect is at least a real-enough business risk that I owe my employer and the general public a care of duty to address it in my professional practice.

We disagree — that is fine. In fact it is only through disagree- ment that the best solutions are found. Perhaps his claims are true and I look forward to reading his references, but the science of (potential?) climate change is far too broad for him to claim that he has “proven” something in the contents of a letter. Certainly, he has not come anywhere close to proving unpro- fessional conduct on the behalf of his peers.

DAN BURT,
P.ENG. Calgary