By David Wojick |September 2nd, 2020|
The Institution for Chemical Engineers (IChemE) is a prestigious international group of scientists and professionals with over 35,000 members in about 100 countries. IChemE has been conducting what it calls a consultation on its draft Position Statement on Climate Change. This basically means that the members are invited to submit comments. Given that many engineers are skeptical of the climate scare, it will be interesting to see if all of these comments are made public.
The draft statement itself is pure alarmism. They say the science is settled, per the IPCC, and catastrophe looms. Here is the opening paragraph:
“Climate science is established – global climate change is upon us, exacerbated by human activities. IChemE accepts the veracity of the science and its conclusions published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To avoid irreparable social, economic and environmental damage, it is essential that we accelerate our efforts to decarbonize our economic systems and stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, if we are to have any chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, beyond which catastrophic consequences are more likely. Action needs to be global and fair, recognizing the relative differences between regions, both in terms of historic contributions to emissions and vulnerability to the consequences of a warming planet.
Chemical engineers are uniquely placed to take action in the industries that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions to arrest and reverse the damage we humans are doing to the life support systems of our single, shared planet .” (Emphasis added).
Not only do they simply sing the IPCC song, they even get it wrong. Nowhere does the IPCC suggest that 1.5 degrees of warming (with one degree already on their books) is a threshold to catastrophe. In fact the Paris Accord target is still 2.0 degrees. The last sentence may explain IChemE’s fervent catastrophism. Its members are positioned to make huge sums of money doing the engineering to decarbonize the world. After all, CO2 emissions are typically the product of chemical reactions (including combustion).
In fact most of the four page draft position statement is nothing but a strategic plan for cashing in on the unwarranted fear of human caused catastrophic climate change.
The CLINTEL letter challenges IChemE to actually do the scientific and engineering analysis needed to back up a reasonable climate statement. That this analysis has not done so makes the present draft what CLINTEL calls an embarrassing “me-too” position statement.
Here is how CLINTEL puts it: “With all respect, the Institution’s draft statement on climate change is an unquestioning, me-too, statement, political in character and lacking in scientific argument, justification or rationale. The document is unworthy of your prestigious Institution. Uniformed ‘me-too’ climate statements do not bring us closer to thermodynamic reality.”
According to CLINTEL, the draft needs to be completely rewritten:
“The Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) is an international scientific society representing almost 1000 scientists and engineers in climate and related fields. As CLINTEL’s President, I am writing to you to invite the Institution of Chemical Engineers to seriously consider a redraft in toto of its position statement on climate change.”
Moreover, this rewrite should be based on a careful analysis of climate change science and engineering. To that end CLINTEL provides the following succinct checklist of six analytical considerations, including sorely needed engineering cost-benefit analysis.”
— How much – or how little – global warming does mankind really cause?
— Have the benefits as well as the disbenefits of more CO2 in the air been properly accounted for?
— Why does projected past global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?
— Does the cost and benefit of attempting to abate global warming exceed that of adapting to it?
— What of the millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?
— Has history not shown us over and over again that adaptation to change presents a powerful evolutionary strategy?”
The open letter is signed by Professor Guus Berkhout, CLINTEL President, and their UK Ambassador, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. IChemE is headquartered in the UK. It has been sent to Professor Stephen Richardson, President, Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Clearly this challenge applies to all “me-too” organizations that mislead their members by endorsing the baseless scare of climate catastrophe.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The icheme has been on the wrong track for quite some time now (I am a member as required by my company who pay the fees). Two items highlight this below, but there are more.
1.
In the past, to be chartered you have to show experience and expertise in the core theory (say heat transfer design), application of the theory (plant operation/commissioning) and proof of management of people and safety. Unfortunately over the years, the academic arm of the institute have taken over, and it is a closed group. So, in simple terms, you can be chartered a few years out of university having done no more than run a few experiments in a lab and publish a paper or two. Some of the get chartered applications are really basis and not suitable for C.
2.
The wages of the top eight (I think) positions in the icheme cost approximately 10% of the annual subscriptions, excluding bonuses. So essentially you have 35k members enriching a small few.
For my part I said that an engineering fraternity should be more concerned not necessarily with the initial proposition, but in identifying any issues with any proposed solutions, highlighting better solutions and then from there, challenging the original position if these solutions seem impossible. I.e. the fraternity should be focusing on the do, check act and review the plan of any Pdca(r) process. Engineers apply and test the theories of science
it will be interesting to see if all of these comments are made public.
They won’t, especially for any comments that go against their position statement. They’ll simply claim the results are in line with what they wanted to say all along regardless of what the membership actually had to say on the matter.
[[Why does projected past global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?]]
Because -80C isn’t heat and CO2 can’t melt an ice cube. Do all the 35,000 chemical engineers in this learned society fall for the CO2 warming hoax? Didn’t they learn about Planck’s Radiation Law, the master law governing radiative physics, and its implications?
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
I a chemical engineer and was a member of icheme as a Student. I was a member of ACS and AiChE as well and am a member of Engineers Ireland. The only one neutral on topic is AIChE with the others fully politically warmist.
No Chemical Engineer who paid attention in lectures believes global warming rubbish. We learn so much about heat and mass transfer of systems and unit operations that can be applied to the Earth as a whole and reveal the nonsense of the case.
Clearly the management of IChemE are not actually chemical engineers.
I left the IChemE last year after being a member for over 30 years, having lost confidence in, and respect for, those at the top – I was a signatory to a no confidence motion, which was voted down (interestingly, the votes cast for and against were in similar proportion to the proportion of members who paid their own subscription vs those whose fees were paid for by their employer). Those at the top have been pressing the green agenda for years, as has the institution’s monthly journal. They gave John Beddington (remember him?) a special award on his retirement as government Chief Scientist, and published a fawning interview with Lord Oxburgh (of ClimateGate whitewash ‘fame’). The Director of Communications & Policy at the time had (twice, I think) stood for parliamentary election for the Labour Party. But to be honest, I think pretty much all the engineering and science institutions in the UK are deeply infected with greenery (the one that I now belong to has an entire conference on the challenges of climate change coming up).