Reviewing the Review - IPCC Whitewash

When the environment ministers from around the world met earlier this year, they concluded that the IPCC should be reviewed. They based this decision on the evidence of a growing catalogue of demonstrable errors of fact in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) and on the clear evidence that many of the key findings were not based on peer reviewed evidence but on the so called “grey literature” – magazines, pamphlets from environmental lobby groups and other material. They also expressed concern about the way in which the IPCC behaved whenever criticism was made – essentially using a combination of arrogance and abuse against its critics. While some had expressed serious concerns about the credibility of the Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who defended many of the worst examples of error and process failures until his colleagues apologized for them, it was also clear that no immediate effort would be made to either review his role or remove him.

The review body, demanded by the ministers, has now been established. Who appointed the review team? The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri , working in cahoots with Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations. What is the mandate of this review body? It has four key tasks: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data and evaluate the process of quality control; to assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views are managed in fact and to recommend changes; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media. In making the announcement last week, Ban Ki Moon reiterated his view “that the case for man made global warming is sound” and Dr. Pachauri said "We believe the conclusions of the IPCC report are really beyond any reasonable doubt".

The review team will take for granted that the substance of the 2007 report is robust – an idea that many scientists would now like to question. A total of eighteen key areas – the heart of the “warmist” science – are now shown to be problematic, the latest being the claim that the Amazon rain forest is especially vulnerable to very minor changes in temperatures – a claim now known to be based on contaminated data and poor analysis.

Who will conduct the review? The review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Amsterdam, who told reporters that the review would be entirely independent of the United Nations but would be funded by it. The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, almost all of which are committed to the climate change cause. Indeed, Dijkgraaf recently broadcast on Dutch radio a statement about the “consensus” on climate science, suggesting that the science is settled and that there was nothing substantially wrong with the 2007 report.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph this week, Gerald Warner suggests that we know already what this panel will suggest – remove the Chairman, clean up the process but continue to argue that the science is settled. When the panel reports in August 2010 they will likely repeat the Ban Ki Moon line that a few paragraphs in a 3,000 page document which are problematic do not lead to the conclusion that the substance of the 2007 assessment is wrong. Warner suggests that this would be “not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent”.

What many in the science and public policy community are hoping for is for a more open, self reflective and critical review of all aspects of the science of climate change, untainted by the political agenda of those lobbying for green policies and the “green economy”. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, for example, has suggested that the IPCC has had a tendency to politicize climate change science which in turn has also helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of scientific knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive. Suggesting that the IPCC may have run its course, he is recommending a more open approach to the science, which makes extensive use of the tools of social media.

Whatever the panel reports, any attempt to “whitewash” the IPCC will be its death knell. Large numbers of the citizens of the world now see climate science and the politics of climate mitigation as so tainted and corrupted by vested interests that they will have no truck with a set of recommendations that perpetuate current practice with some slight modification.

Rather than review the IPCC processes, the team should have been asked to suggest to the environment ministers how they can get themselves out of the quagmire they have created by their own relentless pursuit of a partial view of science as a basis for their own public policies. Unless a radical rethink of how the analysis of current evidence from all viewpoints becomes the normative practice of these ministers, we will continue to see half-baked policies being pursued through grey literature fed science by ministers unwilling to listen to a range of views which may caution their reformist radicalism.

Is Canada's Budget 2010 Good for Innovation?

The Federal budget is out and the decisions are made and, as expected, no imagination is shown.

Just focusing on the innovation agenda, the Government of Canada announced these decisions:

• $108 million to support young workers through internships and skills development to help them find jobs and to support Aboriginal students.
• Over $600 million to help develop and attract talented people, to strengthen our capacity for world-leading research and development, and to improve the commercialization of research.
• Making Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturers, by eliminating all remaining tariffs on machinery and equipment and goods imported for further manufacturing in Canada.
• Establishing a Red Tape Reduction Commission to reduce paperwork for businesses.
• Measures to support investment in clean energy generation.

The $600 million for innovation looks like it is headed to Universities rather than firms. Let us just document how this money will flow:

• Providing $45 million over five years to establish a post-doctoral fellowship program to help attract the research leaders of tomorrow to Canada.
• Delivering $222 million in funding over five years to strengthen the world-leading research taking place at TRIUMF, Canada’s premier national laboratory for nuclear and particle physics research.
• Increasing the combined annual budgets of Canada’s research granting councils by an additional $32 million per year, plus an additional $8 million per year to the Indirect Costs of Research Program.
• Providing Genome Canada with an additional $75 million for genomics research.
• Doubling the budget of the College and Community Innovation Program with an additional $15 million per year.
• Providing $135 million over two years to the National Research Council Canada’s regional innovation clusters program.
• Providing $48 million over two years for research, development and application of medical isotopes.
• Providing a total of $497 million over five years to develop the RADARSAT Constellation Mission.
• Launching a new Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Innovation Commercialization Program with $40 million over two years.
• Renewing and making ongoing $49 million in annual funding for the regional development agencies to support innovation across Canada.

This is largely cosmetic. They are restoring cut funds to granting councils, propping up agencies they have cut in the past. They are adding capacity to the College and Polytechnic sector, which should now be seen as the engine of applied research and a direct route to real innovation, as well as increasing funding to organizations like Western Economic Diversification and ACOA.

At best, this is a “touch up: job – painting over the cracks in the existing innovation system caused by past decisions. At worst, this budget shows the lack of courage at the national level and will do little to move Canada from 14th place out of 17 countries, according to the Conference Board of Canada.

What should the Government have done? To be bold, eve within the constraint budget of $600 million, they should have allocated half to IRAP and half to the College and Polytechnic sector – organizations closest to firms. This would have signaled to firms that innovation is about firms, not about researchers pursuing their own interests. While university based research is not unimportant, it is not the engine of innovation that Canada needs – at least, not as we are doing this work right now.

The good news here is the action the Government are taking positive action to stimulate productivity. The budget announces that Canada will become a tariff-free zone for manufacturers, by eliminating all remaining tariffs on machinery and equipment and goods imported for further manufacturing in Canada. This enables firms to invest at a lower unit cost in equipment needed to improve productivity and competitiveness and to lower the costs of renewal of business processes requiring technology. This will be helpful.

Also good news is the recognition that we need more and more people with skills inside firms, withv$108 million going to this work. Co-op programs, industrial placements, post-doctoral positions inside firms could all be supported, though these funds are small relative to the challenge and opportunity.

On balance – is this a good budget for innovation? The answer is, a reluctant, possibly. It shows little imagination, no courage and no effective response to Canada’s declining competitive position in the innovation league table. Some of these investments will accelerate commercial activities, but most will not lead to new products and services or accelerated access to new markets. My definition of innovation requires sales of new products and services to occur and new jobs to be created as a result – this budget will have a very modest impact.

The Green Job Myth - Or Is It?

There is a strong claim by politicians in a variety of countries that climate change policies and regulation, coupled with investments in green technologies, will create green jobs. Al Gore suggests that the right kind of strategy could create 1.7 million US jobs. Michael Ignatieff, Canada’s liberal leader, suggests that Canada could create, well a lot of green energy jobs with the right policies – cap and trade, investments in a smart-grid, non fossil fuel power policy and carbon taxes. Gordon Brown, the current British Prime Minister, speaks of 400,000 green jobs in eight years.

These claims are based, in part at least, on the 20087 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report report, especially Chapter 11, which looks at the economic costs and opportunities linked to climate change action. This chapter did not go through the normal double review process the IPCC always says is the hallmark of its quality assurance process. Had it done so, some key problems may have been caught.

The first of these it that there are few peer reviewed papers which support the position taken in the summary of this chapter in the Summary for Policy Makers associated with the IPCC fourth assessment. One of the authors of several IPCC documents and one of the world’s top economists, Richard Tol, has now suggested that the basis for many of the claims are papers in the so-called “grey” literature – magazines, pamphlets and other documents – rather than peer review literature. Despite claims that the processes of the IPCC focus only on peer reviewed cases, this is clearly simply untrue as has been shown in other chapters of this report and is now shown to be untrue here.

The second problem a sceptical and thorough review would have revealed is that the claims made for the economic impacts of carbon mitigation and other measures are based on computer models and simulations, which are in turn based on the assumptions made by the modelers. One of these assumptions is that policies for the environment will always be smart and well designed – something it is difficult to imagine coming out of the US Senate. One peer review study of the EU policies – the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 – shows that it is poorly designed as a strategy and will cost more than twice the amount needed to achieve the outcome, thereby costing jobs.

The third problem is that some of the caveats disappeared between various drafts of this Chapter. For example, a key assumption in some models is that revenues from carbon taxes and emission permit auctions are used to reduce taxes on labour. If this revenue is not dedicated to this, but instead used to invest in technology (which is what Obama plans), then jobs will be lost. Further, there is no positive impact on employment and job creation if emission reductions are achieved by subsidies for renewables or if emission permits are given away for free – both actions being commonplace amongst governments, as we can see in Spain. There every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, according to a study released in 2009.

This Spanish experience is noteworthy. Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, has said the United States should expect results similar to those he found in Spain. "Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.

So we now have an uncertain basis for predictions with respect to green job growth, a string of caveats which, when taken together, suggest a high degree of risk in the predictions and firm evidence from the Spanish experience that the risk associated with a strong push for a green job economy are very serious indeed – especially now that Spain, together with Greece, Ireland and Portugal are on the EU’s “critical list” in terms of economic well being.

Don’t panic, say some politicians, we have another source for our confidence: the Stern Report, released in 2004. This political document – it came from a the UK Finance Ministry – suggests that that tackling climate change will cost 20 times less than doing nothing and thus underpins UK political initiatives, such as emission trading or energy-efficiency actions. It also suggests that such policies will create a green economy, with thousands of new jobs. In a thorough review of this document, Richard Tol suggests that it uses only the most pessimistic impact studies, starts from a too-low discount rate and has no real cost-benefit analysis. Tol therefore called the report "alarmist and incompetent".

His main criticism of the Stern report are these: (a) the Stern Review Team used the scientific literature selectively and the bias systematically favoured the worst case scenario; (b) they made technical errors (counting risks twice over, refusing to take into consideration the considerable attenuation of net damages obtainable via adaptation strategies, forgetting some of the economic costs of prevention policies, discrepancies between the damages as described and economic growth assumptions, in Africa in particular, etc.); and (c) they manipulated the economic concepts and tools, in particular the discount rate, so as to paint the most alarming picture of expected damages if the international community failed to take early energetic action. Tol’s analysis, which is thorough, explores the implications of these problems in detail.

What are we to make of all of this? It is simple – we are being asked to place a bet with a high level of risk that it may have the opposite impact to that intended (see Spain). The bet will involve a massive new tax, cap and trade regime and lifestyle changes in the hope that a large number of new green jobs will be created. Don’t you thin we should demand better evidence that it will work? Don’t you think we should know about the assumptions being made. All of the evidence suggests that it is not a simple equation – green policies don’t equal green jobs. Time for a real debate.

Brown versus Cameron - Game On!

This time last year the Conservative Party in Britain was thirteen points ahead of Labour in the opinion polls. Now it is just six points ahead and falling like a stone. What is going wrong?

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, modelled a lot of his campaign strategy on Obama’s successful bid for the US Presidency. Outlining the need for change, being general about what change meant and decrying the failures of the party in power were, he thought, enough to unseat an unpopular Labour government. What he failed to notice, until recently, was that the disappointment with Obama’s performance and the emptiness of the mantra “yes we can” is palpable. Over a year after starting health reform, Obama is still stuck in the mud. Climate change and energy security has not even started the torturous journey through the Senate. The US economy is still not mending. People demand more than a mantra. They want specifics. Cameron has to start talking action plans and detail.

The second thing that Cameron’s team has failed to do is be consistent and coherent. On the family and the tax benefits he intends to provide for married couples, but not others, he is vague. Different Conservative spokesmen have said different things about where the needed cuts to public spending would come and what the impact would be. Some potential cabinet ministers are briefing against their colleagues as they jockey for position and power.

Some of the policies – on education, for example – are not easily explained. While creating more independence for schools and freeing them of many of the centrally imposed administrative constraints may be helpful, Cameron and his team have said little about what they will do with high stakes testing or what changes they see in the curriculum. Given that the curriculum and testing are the central issues affecting performance, the policy position seems interesting, but hardly relevant.

On the National Health Service (NHS), the worlds third largest employer after the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railway system, Cameron has made clear that they will focus on outsourcing services and improving productivity. Despite a fifty page policy document, most voters don’t see much difference on this crucial policy area between the political parties.

The most critical failure, to date at least, is the apparent inability for Cameron to show a consistent style of leadership which connects to the British people. Like Blair before him, Cameron is a master of rhetoric and the poignant phrase. He is also a chameleon. Lizards don’t do well in appealing to a cynical, disengaged British public who think all politicians are snakes. Still angry at the expenses scandal, which milked millions out of the public purse to support the fancies of elected officials, the public are looking for someone with moral authority who can inspire a generation. So far they are disappointed. Cameron is seen by many as from an elite background, he is a multi millionaire and appears somewhat aloof. He is disconnected from the day to day struggles of the electors and speaks a language which many find “high falutin” – the kind of language one expects from a “toff”.

Gordon Brown, not exactly a poet or sensitive touchy-feely kind of man, is someone Britain knows. He is volatile, relentless and very focused. He and his team have done a lot to position the Conservative party as a reckless, cost cutting bunch of over educated stuffed shirts who, given the chance, will wreck the carefully built social and economic structure of Britain. Despite evidence that none of this is true, the public are beginning to believe it. Brown is painting the Conservatives into a corner. A hung parliament or Brown clinging to power by a small majority looks increasingly likely.

Given what is happening in Europe – the precarious state of the Eurozone, confusion over the future of the European Union’s future, lacklustre economic recovery and strains between the traditional powers of France and Germany versus Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland – the outcome of the British election has broad significance for the EU. Brown will be a supporter of fiscal responsibility in the EU and Cameron is, at best, lukewarm about many aspects of the Union and its policies. The quiet hand of Europe will be rooting for Gordon Brown.

There are just eight and a half weeks to go before the expected poll date in Britain. It will be an interesting period in British political history – well worth keeping an eye on.

Making a Difference - Real Learning

I used to teach learners we then called “special needs”. They were not physically challenged. They were not mentally challenged in the sense of having a disorder within the real of DSM III (as it then was). They were challenged by the education system which did not suite them and, in most cases, by parents who were not always sure they liked them.

There were sixteen of them. They came from what we may call distressed and dysfunctional families, but they called their parents mum and dad and their place “home”. They didn’t take drugs and we didn’t give them drugs – Ritalin was not available when I began teaching, though beer was in widespread use (even in the staff room). I did not hit them, though other teachers routinely did – it was a different time, one where physical punishment was metered out by Assistant Principals, some of whom were bullies.

There was not a national curriculum or key stages which these young people had to pass through. I was simply asked, as a teacher who had a degree in psychology, to work with them “and see where I could take them”. I was expected to enhance their reading, writing, number and social skills, but targets were not set and I was not subject to high stakes testing. I did, however, report on progress to my Principal and all parents every two weeks.

I had few resources. I had a book allowance, a radio and a TV set and I begged, borrowed and occasionally land-leased things I needed. These included a dartboard – if you want to get 15 years olds manipulating numbers fast, play darts; seven sets of domino's, used to teach life skills; packs of playing cards to help them understand the power of memory and learning; literally hundreds of magazines, newspapers, old photographs and like resources we used for building our idea and challenge collages; a reel-to reel tape recorder for our weekly radio broadcast to the whole school and dress up clothes for our fortnightly plays.

We had fun. Laughter was the order of the day. We also did a lot of work. Writing scripts, creating news collages, telling stories of families, learning how the horse racing and betting game really worked (four of the kids in the class had to put their parents bets on the horses at lunch time and over the week-end: a great opportunity to teach about risk, probability and the management of uncertainty).

By the time we finished our year together, each of the young persons in this class had a reading age equal to their actual age – a real achievement. Each of them secured 85% or higher on a “maths you need every day” test we devised. Each of them had made a public presentation, participated in a great deal of team activity and would be assessed by the school psychologist as having a high emotional intelligence quotient, despite their lack of IQ.

When we were leaving the school – me to take up a Research Fellowship and some of them to start their apprenticeships or go into the world of work – we were pleased to have worked together. Several stayed in touch.

Over twenty five years later we had a reunion. All but one showed up – he had died in action in the Falklands war (“he was always a bit of a nutter, that Ken” said his best friend, Angela). All were or had been married and all had daughters or sons, many of whom they brought to meet some of their old teachers. There were four of us they made a b-line for. We had, according to them, given them the spirit and the support to at least try to be something “out there”, they said.
One was now a local Councilor, Chairman of the Public Works Committee. Not a brilliant young man, but street smart and very focused. Two owned pubs and were quite wealthy. Several were self employed and, seemingly doing ok (“but don’t ask too many questions”, said Blethyn-the Blond Bombshell, as she was known in class). All were in cars much better than mine, though it was not always clear whether legal ownership was a matter still in dispute.

What mattered most to them, they said, was that the four of us teachers cared about them as people. They weren’t numbers, not check marks, not accountability statistics – they were Aiden, Angharrad, Blethyn, Mike, Sandy, Glyn, Wyn-Wynne and their friends. We showed respect. We also, they said, made them work hard, even though it didn’t always feel like work.

I had kept some of the tapes of our weekly newscast to the school and played them for them. They fell about laughing at how they sounded and at what they felt was important. They also started correcting each others grammar as we sat with a pint in the room at the back of the Craven Arms.

It was a year in my life. But these young men and women have shaped my life. They showed me that, even amidst hardship and stress, one can learn, be inspired and engage with others in pursuit of a project that matters or an activity where you can feel oneself learning. It also taught me the importance of the nimble professional, able to craft activities appropriate to the moment, the people and the goal. We weren’t told what to teach when, we had to work that out. We earned the respect of the community through our inventiveness, creativity and passion for learning.

I spend some time in schools now. I see many teachers doing remarkable things and young people responding as they have always done to genuineness, warmth and empathy. Our learners constantly surprise us.

But I also find a temerity amongst teachers, a fear of risk. I sometimes find fear of accountability – the stress of Provincial Achievement Tests. I often find a sense of despair that they cant do all that is expected of them by the Provincial curriculum – not quite the bible, but certainly regarded by many as the handbook to the holy land. Some cherish their professionalism, but many feel that it has been lost – certainly in the eyes of the community.

I wrote some time ago that it is time to give schools back to teachers – to trust them again and to give them room in the curriculum at all levels to invent, create, inspire, challenge and take risks with ideas. It is also time to rethink accountability and to focus on the teachers accountability for the work of each student in real time. It is time for real learning. It is time to recognize that, as far as learning outcomes are concerned, less is more. Less curriculum demands and more learning; less standardized testing and more person to person accountability; less fear and more inspiration.

Ironically, we were doing real learning in my class with the sixteen young men and women I taught in 1972-3. It was certainly real and life-long for them when I met them in 1999 in a pub in Cwmbran. They cared about their learning some twenty six years later.

I followed up with ten of my class last year. Two more of the sixteen had died – cancer. Six had the experience of seeing their sons or daughters graduate from university with a degree – the first in their families long history ever to do so. One, a car dealer, was now a multi-millionaire – when I knew him he survived by stealing from his mothers purse. All but one have grandchildren and they spend their grand parent time teaching them to read, write and do math. They know, first hand, the transformative power of learning.

Schools shape generations and can be inspiring places. To inspire learning, we need space and time. Space in the curriculum and time to customize that learning for every child. Now is the time for us to show just what we in Alberta can do when we set our minds to it.

One place we can learn from is from our special needs community and the teachers and staff who serve them. They are and have always been pioneers and I am proud to have once being a part of this cadre of innovators and imagineers.

Innovation Watch

The Government of Canada looks likely to focus a key part of its budget this week on investments related to productivity and innovation. The concern is that Canada has “lost the plot” with innovation – rather than being number one in the world, which was the plan, we are fourteenth amongst seventeen nations as measured by the Conference Board of Canada. What should the budget contain?

What we have done in the past is to invest in university research, development and commercialization activities in the vain hope that this would produce great commercial outcomes. The reality, plain for all to see, is that it has yet to do so. The roughly $14 billion annual investment in R&D at our universities produces but modest returns. In part this is because universities, by and large, are simply not designed to create commercial value from ideas and in part because they lack incentives to do so.

Is the solution to spend even more on our universities to try and fix the path to commercialization? No. The real solution is to focus energy on where innovation really takes place – in firms. Rather than boost spending on R&D, the government should use any new funds to significantly boost IRAP – the Industrial Research Assistance Program – and to create incentives for private and public partnerships. More specifically, it should seek to make focused and strategic investments in key industry sectors we want to grow and minimize investments in dying industry sectors.

A second investment we need to see is a massive boost to funding for post-graduate student places, especially those with a co-op component or post doctoral positions in firms. Increasing the ability of firms to leverage ideas and innovation is key. Those countries ahead of us in the league table have more post-grads in the workforce in real firms than Canada does.

Third, the Government of Canada, working in partnership with the Colleges and Polytechnic institutions, should invest in the applied research they are engaged in. These institutions are close to industry, provide them with skilled people and do critical (and relatively inexpensive) applied work. Their work on the innovation agenda should be recognized and funded accordingly.

Finally, we should address the real lack of tier one venture capital in this country. Whether its Ontario, BC or Alberta, companies need to be “fed” two things – risk capital supported by expert managerial talent and realistic, current market intelligence. Tier one venture firms do this – banks and angel investors do not.

There are some other things that matter. The Federal Government needs to partner closely with the Provinces in developing appropriate local innovation strategies; it needs to simplify the processes it uses for securing IRAP funds; it needs to start pooling its intelligence; it needs to stop believing its own press releases and start getting realistic about the challenges facing Canada over the next twenty five years. Its time for some leadership and courage on the innovation file.


The Government of Canada also needs to stand firm in the interests of Canadian firms and researchers against the persistent demands of the WTO and the US as they relate to intellectual property. The demands from these organization represent an attempt to behave as a colonial power as far as knowledge is concerned. Canada should, in partnership with other countries who are also balking at the hegemony of intellectual property law demands of the US, show what a twenty first century collaborative intellectual property regime could look like.

There is a lot to do. We will see this week whether or not the Government of Canada understands the challenge and has the courage to act. Don’t hold your breath.

Being Fiscally Responsible - A Progressive Alberta Perspective

The term “fiscal responsibility” in Alberta has come to have, within the Progressive Conservative Party, one meaning: debt free. This has always been seen to be a desirable state, but not an essential one in most countries. Yet, in Alberta the idea of being debt free is almost religious. Yet the debt owed to the environment, to those in need of our help and to future generations is not being “accounted” for in the thrust to a debt free Alberta.

There is another approach to fiscal responsibility, one which seeks to balance the obligations for responsible finance with the social and economic obligations of government, acting on behalf of the people. This approach has these requirements:

1. Spend intelligently. Government spending should be focused on securing outcomes linked to a vision and strategy for the Province. This requires the balancing of investment in the future (education and environmental policies, for example) with consumption based spending (a significant proportion of health spending is consumptive). It also requires the government to ensure that it is safeguarding the well-being and interests of the vulnerable, supporting innovation and enabling cultural institutions, which shape our experience of Alberta.

2. Tax appropriately. Alberta has pursued a strategy of being a low tax jurisdiction. That strategy is now failing – at least as far as corporate taxation is concerned. It is also failing in another way. As the public see cuts to education, school closures, non profits who deliver social services being starved of cash and other developments, they know something is out of place. Alberta should tax according to the revenue requirements of the vision and strategy for the Province. It should be committed to accessible and affordable education, for example, and tax appropriately. There is something wrong with a jurisdiction that makes it more difficult for students to study at College or University while at the same time encouraging gambling – gambling and sin taxes produce more revenue for the Government than oil.

3. Borrow responsibility. There is nothing wrong with debt. Almost every Albertan has some. The question is at what risk and at what cost. Imagine if the Province had a debt limit of 10% of the entire revenue from other sources – what could we invest that money in?

4. Be accountable. Show the planned intent of an expenditure, show the outcome and tell us whether the outcome is in line with what was intended when the expenditure was made. There is still too much that is “hidden” and has to be dug for. There is also a need to show the risk associated with an expenditure – for example, what is the risk associated with the significant reduction in funding to Alberta’s post-secondary system announced in the recent budget? Do we know?

5. Be transparent. Accountability and transparency are close cousins, but not the same thing. For example, what is the rationale for the Premiers decision that, while he is Premier, there will be no new taxes and no increases in taxes. Showing us the rationale for this and sharing the debate that must have taken place in Treasury Board would be transparency. Show us the full costs to the environment of the current policy towards oil and gas exploration and mining. Be transparent about intent as well as the actual flow of money.


If these were the foundations of fiscal responsibility for a progressive jurisdiction, then Alberta may become a better place.

A DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OUR SCHOOLS

WHY WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS

Alberta should be proud of its school system. It ranks second in the world behind Finland in terms of educational outcomes. Our schools are also ranked by several studies to be the best in Canada and are strongly supported by local communities. Of course, there are challenges – there always will be. But our students, working with their teachers and supported by parents and the community, are generally doing well and our schools are amongst the best in the world.

The challenge for Alberta is that doing well now may not be good enough for our future. As a small jurisdiction – just 3.5 million people – we face growing competition from others for talent, capital and resources. “Good” may no longer be good enough – we need our schools to be great so that Alberta can build its next generation economy, enhance and develop our communities and sustain our environment.

It is time for change.

Our social and economic well-being requires a different kind of school and learning from that which helped build such a successful Province. Essential skills (literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, digital navigation) remain essential, but so are other skills – social networking and team skills, problem solving, participatory democracy skills, Imagineering and creative skills, design…there are many such lists and different conceptions of what these lists mean. The point is simple: we need to rethink what it is our schools are doing and how they are doing it, building on our success in doing so.

What we have to do as citizens is decide what our schools are for – “what is the purpose of our schools in the 21st century?”. Then we can work out just what schools should work on to continue to be amongst the best in the world.

Schools are the foundation of civil society and they lay the foundation for life long learning. They are the hub of communities. Teachers, as professionals, need to be nimble and adaptive as knowledge and understanding changes so quickly. They also need to be respected as professional. Parents need to be engaged in their child’s learning. Students need to be seen as citizens in their own right and their rights should be respected.

SCHOOLS AND THE NEXT ALBERTA


We are preparing our young people for a world that is different from the one we grew up in, for jobs that don’t yet exist and for the reality of constant and faster change. What is clear, is that the new economy is driven by knowledge and the speed at which people adapt and learn will become critical to both their success and the future of the Province.

Also clear is that an old reliance on basic skills will not be enough to secure the long term well-being of individuals, families or communities. We need to see education is the primary investment we will make in our Province’s future – they are the foundation for lifelong learning.

Education is also the bedrock of democratic society. Education is the great leveller – it allows people to develop to the potential of their intelligence and hard work, and breaks down the cultures of entitlement based on social class, bloodlines, race or religion. Citizens must be literate, have a decent understanding of history, science, politics, math, and be able to apply reason, evidence and critical thinking both to his or her own life and to the broader context of society and the environment. They must be encouraged to use their own minds and conscience to guide their decisions, rather than abdicating this responsibility to authority figures. They should also learn the difference between scepticism and denial of evidence.

Critical thinking should not be confused with criticism of thinking.

An investment in education and learning should be driven by some core principles – principles that commit us to a vision of schooling that focuses on excellence, supports differences and makes sure we do not loose out on the global “war for talent”.

We know that the Government of Alberta intends to introduce a new School Act. This should be an Act that stands the test of time, that helps Alberta build its future and enhance its position in the world.

The Act and the work associated with it needs to be based on some key principles. We should make these principled commitments as a Province so that our schools continue to be amongst the best in the world. You can help by signing up to these principles – we will let you know how to do so shortly, but use this blog to register your interests.


PRINCIPLES FOR ALBERTA’S EDUCATION SYSTEM

Success for all is a corner stone of our shared commitment to provide good schools for all students.

Ability comes in many forms and learners need to be supported to enjoy success no matter where their talents lie – education is not just for and about “academics” – we need to be a Province rich in all the talents.

The educational success of learners should not depend on the background or social status or economic characteristics of learners and their families. Schools, communities and families must work together to close gaps in attainment and give each learner the opportunity to find their talent, nurture that talent and be excellent. Success for all requires a significant investment in early childhood learning - without this, learners and the community spend their resources “catching up” rather than developing the talents of their learners.

Education should engage the learner with exciting, relevant content and opportunities for learning through experience and doing. The curriculum should balance abstract and practical knowledge so that every learner can access high quality knowledge and skills as well as vocational opportunities. Teachers should be able to add adapt and develop curriculum – it should not be “over-prescribed” by the Province.

Education should help learners to understand how to be healthy and happy and support them in their efforts to develop and maintain their emotional, physical and mental well-being. Schools should recognize that learning takes place both in and outside of schools – we need to facilitate, enable and recognize learning from a variety of different settings.

Education must be a partnership.

The education of Albertans should be a partnership of schools, parents and the wider community in a local area. Learners have a valuable role to play in contributing to the design of their own learning, and in shaping the way their learning environment operates.

Every place of learning should be different and innovative and we must find meaningful, yet effective, ways of holding schools to account for their performance that reward rather than stifle innovation and creativity.

Trust in our schools and education professionals must be fostered.

Every teacher should be a creative professional involved in the design of curricula and learning environments, and should be supported and supported in their acquisition of appropriate skills to fulfill that role.

Decisions in education should respect the rights of learners as citizens.
Decisions about and in schools should be driven by evidence and research. Alberta needs to be world-class in educational research if its schools are to the lead the world in performance and success.

Decisions about schools need to be based on the outcomes of participatory democracy – communities should be engaged in the work of their schools.

Making Learning Accessible

Schools need a curriculum that is accessible, authentic and valued by learners. An academic curriculum is valuable to many, but so too is apprenticeship, the creative arts, sports and many other “routes” for the talents of our learners. Learners need choices and resources should be linked to the choices learners make.

Schools, colleges and universities should be accessible, affordable and effective. Making access and affordability for our post-secondary system is a pre-requisite for building Alberta’s competitive advantage and is essential if the links between schools and Alberta’s post-secondary system are to be meaningful.


OUR SCHOOLS HAVE MANY CHALLENGES

We know that our schools, teachers and the students within them face challenges – lack of resources, uneven access to broadband and technology, testing and its impacts on real learning – the list can go on. What we need to do is to go back to first principles, secure agreement that these principles should be driving our thinking about our schools and then use these principles to drive decisions. We can’t deal with all issues in a single document. What we can do is establish the basis for future decisions.

WHAT YOU CAN DO..

Building on our past success, preparing Alberta for the competitive knowledge based economy, ensuring that every talent available to us is found, fostered and nurtured and developed to the fullest potential – this is what we need our schools to do. Our schools also need to lay the foundation for participative democracy, lifelong learning and citizenship.

If we want to move from “good” to “great” and do so in a way that nurtures respect, transparency and effectiveness then we must start from first principles.

If we want to tackle some key problems – high school completion rates are low, not everyone who enters post-secondary completes, many employees do not have the literacy skills required to be highly effective in their work – then we need to refocus and reshape our schools and the linkages between schools, colleges and universities.

If we can agree on these, then we can start working on the things that are getting in the way of moving from good to great. But don’t let these other issues get in the way of alignment on the big picture.Lets focus on what matters most.

If you support this thinking and these principles, then we will soon ask you to sign our Declaration of First Principles for Alberta’s Schools. You can also help improve the declaration by going to our Facebook group http://apps.facebook.com/group.php?gid=316469659964

As the Government develops the School Act, we will draw attention to this work and its support – the more that sign up, the more likely it will be that the School Act will reflect these principles. Sign now and make a difference.

On The Credibility of Climate Research - Judith Curry

Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology writes: I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and the diversity of opinions expressed at the different blogs was quite interesting. Hence I am distributing this essay to a number of different blogs simultaneously with the hope of demonstrating the collective power of the blogosphere to generate ideas and debate them. I look forward to a stimulating discussion on this important topic.

Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust. Finally, we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: “This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” While I applaud loudly Dr. Cicerone’s statement, I wish it had been made earlier and had not been isolated from the public by publishing the statement behind paywall at Science. Unfortunately, the void of substantive statements from our institutions has been filled in ways that have made the situation much worse.

Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations.

The scientists involved in the CRU emails and the IPCC have been defended as scientists with the best of intentions trying to do their work in a very difficult environment. They blame the alleged hacking incident on the “climate denial machine.” They are described as fighting a valiant war to keep misinformation from the public that is being pushed by skeptics with links to the oil industry. They are focused on moving the science forward, rather than the janitorial work of record keeping, data archival, etc. They have had to adopt unconventional strategies to fight off what they thought was malicious interference. They defend their science based upon their years of experience and their expertise.

Scientists are claiming that the scientific content of the IPCC reports is not compromised by climategate. The jury is still out on the specific fallout from climategate in terms of the historical and paleo temperature records. There are larger concerns (raised by glaciergate, etc.) particularly with regards to the IPCC Assessment Report on Impacts (Working Group II): has a combination of groupthink, political advocacy and a noble cause syndrome stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress and corrupted the assessment process? If institutions are doing their jobs, then misconduct by a few individual scientists should be quickly identified, and the impacts of the misconduct should be confined and quickly rectified. Institutions need to look in the mirror and ask the question as to how they enabled this situation and what opportunities they missed to forestall such substantial loss of public trust in climate research and the major assessment reports.

In their misguided war against the skeptics, the CRU emails reveal that core research values became compromised. Much has been said about the role of the highly politicized environment in providing an extremely difficult environment in which to conduct science that produces a lot of stress for the scientists. There is no question that this environment is not conducive to science and scientists need more support from their institutions in dealing with it. However, there is nothing in this crazy environment that is worth sacrificing your personal or professional integrity. And when your science receives this kind of attention, it means that the science is really important to the public. Therefore scientists need to do everything possible to make sure that they effectively communicate uncertainty, risk, probability and complexity, and provide a context that includes alternative and competing scientific viewpoints. This is an important responsibility that individual scientists and particularly the institutions need to take very seriously.

Both individual scientists and the institutions need to look in the mirror and really understand how this happened. Climategate isn’t going to go away until these issues are resolved. Science is ultimately a self-correcting process, but with a major international treaty and far-reaching domestic legislation on the table, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed. In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.

In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.

Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere
Steve McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.

So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.

So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required.

So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.

So how did this group of bloggers succeed in bringing the climate establishment to its knees (whether or not the climate establishment realizes yet that this has happened)? Again, trust plays a big role; it was pretty easy to follow the money trail associated with the “denial machine”. On the other hand, the climate auditors have no apparent political agenda,
are doing this work for free, and have been playing a watchdog role, which has engendered the trust of a large segment of the population.
Towards Rebuilding Trust
Rebuilding trust with the public on the subject of climate research starts with Ralph Cicerone’s statement “Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” Much has been written about the need for greater transparency, reforms to peer review, etc. and I am hopeful that the relevant institutions will respond appropriately. Investigations of misconduct are being conducted at the University of East Anglia and at Penn State. Here I would like to bring up some broader issues that will require substantial reflection by the institutions and also by individual scientists.

Climate research and its institutions have not yet adapted to its high policy relevance. How scientists can most effectively and appropriately engage with the policy process is a topic that has not been adequately discussed (e.g. the “honest broker” challenge discussed by Roger Pielke Jr), and climate researchers are poorly informed in this regard. The result has been reflexive support for the UNFCCC policy agenda (e.g. carbon cap and trade) by many climate researchers that are involved in the public debate (particularly those involved in the IPCC), which they believe follows logically from the findings of the (allegedly policy neutral) IPCC. The often misinformed policy advocacy by this group of climate scientists has played a role in the political polarization of this issue.. The interface between science and policy is a muddy issue, but it is very important that scientists have guidance in navigating the potential pitfalls. Improving this situation could help defuse the hostile environment that scientists involved in the public debate have to deal with, and would also help restore the public trust of climate scientists.

The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney. Efforts are made to “dumb down” the message and to frame the message to respond to issues that are salient to the audience. People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers. At the same time, there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic. But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged. My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.

And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed. Debating science with skeptics should be the spice of academic life, but many climate researchers lost this somehow by mistakenly thinking that skeptical arguments would diminish the public trust in the message coming from the climate research establishment. Such debate is alive and well in the blogosphere, but few mainstream climate researchers participate in the blogospheric debate. The climate researchers at realclimate.org were the pioneers in this, and other academic climate researchers hosting blogs include Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr and Jr, Richard Rood, and Andrew Dessler. The blogs that are most effective are those that allow comments from both sides of the debate (many blogs are heavily moderated). While the blogosphere has a “wild west” aspect to it, I have certainly learned a lot by participating in the blogospheric debate including how to sharpen my thinking and improve the rhetoric of my arguments. Additional scientific voices entering the public debate particularly in the blogosphere would help in the broader communication efforts and in rebuilding trust. And we need to acknowledge the emerging auditing and open source movements in the in the internet-enabled world, and put them to productive use. The openness and democratization of knowledge enabled by the internet can be a tremendous tool for building public understanding of climate science and also trust in climate research.

No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.

And finally, I hope that this blogospheric experiment will demonstrate how the diversity of the different blogs can be used collectively to generate ideas and debate them, towards bringing some sanity to this whole situation surrounding the politicization of climate science and rebuilding trust with the public.

Building the Alberta the World Needs

Alberta is an important place in the world. Our schools are amongst the best in the world according to an analysis of standard test data – we rank second only to Finland. As oil from other sources begins to decline, Alberta oil will be in high demand – whatever Whole Foods wants to think. Our scientists and technologists are in high demand world-wide – they are innovative, creative and successful. Our musicians, ballet dancers, artists and theatre companies are recognized worldwide for their talents – over a billion people watched Alberta Ballet perform at the Olympics. But Alberta is at a tipping point – the smell of real change is in the air.

Politically, a tired and lacklustre conservative government is finding it difficult to capture the hearts and minds of Albertan’s. After thirty nine years in office, the party seems to have run out of ideas and is sticking to its “no new taxes” and spend our way out of trouble when the mood is one which favours austerity and realignment. Two new political parties – The Wild Rose Alliance and the Alberta Party – are hoping to capture the minds of Albertan’s followed by their votes when the election is called for March 2012. Progressives are meeting in various rooms across Alberta in an attempt to Reboot the Province – positioning policy and thinking for a twenty first century Province ready to take its place in the world.

Significant reforms are planned for Alberta’s school system by the widely respected Minister for Education, Dave Hancock. What these reforms will be is not yet clear, but the expectation is for a significant change in terms of curriculum, assessment and the use of technology. Hancock talks frequently about new skills for a new century – a century that is already approaching the end of its first decade. Many within the system are enthusiastic about the potential for change, but fearful that it will not be substantive. They fear a missed opportunity – one that comes only every thirty or forty years.

The Premiers Economic Council, which has members from Alberta, other parts of Canada and elsewhere in the world, is beginning to look at what Alberta could be like in 2040 and what it needs to do now so as to make 2040 a “preferred future” for the Province. It is likely to challenge the Province to see people and skills as its core assets, not oil and gas, and challenge the Province to do more to leverage its natural resources to lead the world in green technologies for agriculture, forestry, oil and gas. It also needs to push the case for Alberta, which after all is a small jurisdiction, to focus its resources and energies on those areas where it can build jurisdictional advantage.

The oil sands companies, not deaf to challenges as to the environmental impact of their work, have been working collaboratively for some time to share environmental solutions and leverage the skills available to them from around the world to solve key problems – water use, air quality, emissions, tailings and wetlands reclamation. Real progress is being made, though few know about the work they are doing.

Alberta’s reputation in key fields of health care – rehabilitation, heart disease, diabetes, head and neck reconstruction – is world class and many other fields, notably nanotechnology and medicine and metabalomics are quickly emerging as areas in which Alberta has an emerging reputation. What is needed here is a strong focus on solving some key public health issues – obesity and the health of our aboriginal peoples being at the forefront – and an effective focus on wellness as the cornerstone of a twenty first century health strategy.

Commercially, we have emerging sectors of the economy which show considerable promise. Alberta’s geometrics sector accounts for almost half of Canada’s GDP revenues from this sector and is the Canadian leader in innovation. New investments mechanisms, innovation vouchers and the role of strategic R&D investments are beginning to pay off.

Alberta is poised to take its deserved place in the world. What is missing is leadership. That is leadership across all sectors, not just political leadership.

Alberta politicians are very inward focused on securing their local mandates and see the status of Alberta in Canada as their prime motivation for looking beyond the next vote. It is short sighted. We should be looking at our place in North America, our partnerships with European nations and our standing in the world as drivers for decisions.

In business, there is a real need for leadership. Where is the Richard Branson of Alberta – the leader who inspires a generation of entrepreneurs, who leads the charge for market share, who champions real innovation, not just in one field? Where are the oil and gas leaders who speak up every week about what they are doing for the environment, what they plan to do and what others can do to help? Where are the champions of the next economy ? Who in business is speaking up about the skills they need to see our schools, colleges and Universities producing?

In education, there is silence from community organizations, industry, non profits and school boards about changes that are needed. While many participated in forums and local conversations managed by the Government, no one is speaking out about the future of our schools and what it is we need them to be.

Without focused, passionate and committed leadership, Alberta may not take its rightful place as a leading jurisdiction in the world. Yet we could. Finland, seen by all observers as the world leader in both innovation and education, did it and continues to do so. Why cant we? What we need are leaders who have a compelling vision which a truly progressive population can rally behind.

The Dreadful Prime Minister

The prospects for a hung British parliament following the May elections throughout the United Kingdom looked strong today. A new poll by ICM, published in The Guardian and The Evening Standard, shows that the Conservative lead over Labour has fallen to just seven points in the last week.

The steady decline in David Cameron’s conservative support comes from his own failure to explain his policies, especially on the economy. In televisions interviews this week he has been unable to explain where and when cuts in public expenditure will be made and what the tax implications of his policies are.

Gordon Brown, under attack in the media for reports of his bullying and boorish behavior aimed at how own staff and colleagues, looks to be improving his performance. His campaign, basically “take a close look at Labour and an even closer one at the Tories” seems to be paying off. His bullying is being “spun” by his handlers and his wife as the behavior of a man determined to ensure that the right policies are in place for the Britain of the future – a man passionate about the work he is doing. So far this spin seems to be working. Indeed, there is now talk of Brown calling a snap election some several weeks sooner than the May 6th vote everyone is expecting.

What is also working is Labour’s claim that the leadership of the Conservative party are upper middle class and “toffs”. In translation, “wealthy, aristocratic smarty pants”. In contrast, the claim is that Labour is still “of the people, for the people”. In fact, both parties are headed by people with a similar educational background and with wealth. While more conservatives inherited wealth, both parties have their fair share of toffs.

The battleground will be the economy and the size of public sector deficits and debts over the coming decade. A former leading conservative, Dominic Lawson, writes in The Independent today that the conservatives may actually be better off losing the coming election. Whoever wins will have to make substantial cuts in public expenditure and raise taxes so as to balance the books and get Britain back within normal ranges of public sector debt. Doing so will be massively unpopular and will likely lead to a single term government.

Even if the conservatives were to be the biggest party in a hung parliament after the coming election, that would not give David Cameron the immediate right to try to form a government. The incumbent Prime Minister is constitutionally entitled to make such an attempt himself. Edward Heath attempted this in February 1974, with his failed effort to persuade the then Liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe, to support a Conservative Party which had fewer Parliamentary seats than Labour. One can imagine Gordon Brown seeking to construct a coalition with the independents, nationalists and others so as to stay in power. The irony would be that doing this and then taking the needed economic steps would confirm his reputation as the “dreadful Prime Minister”.

Homeopathic Nonsense

Medicine is fraught with difficulties. The case, currently before the Alberta courts, of the child on life support whose parents want to sustain but the doctors directly involved see no hope is one example of the ethical and moral hazard of medical practice. The case of Avandia – the diabetes drug now known to have strong side effects, including fatal heart attacks – was approved by a medical panel, indicating how difficult it is to see solid clinical evidence as a basis for decision making, despite randomized control trials and strict standards for drug testing.

But some decisions in medical science are relatively straightforward, especially for those whose task it is to determine which medical procedures get funded and which do not. No one should fund or indeed support homeopathy.

There are many who believe in homeopathy. The fact that there is a belief system and a group of people who are adherents to this belief system does not make homeopathy effective or an appropriate treatment. Indeed, no clinical evidence exists to suggest that homeopathy has any effects whatsoever.

Don’t take my word for it. A thorough review of homeopathy has just been completed by the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons in Britain. Their conclusion: “the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible”. Is that clear. It was clear enough when, following a similar review, public funding for homeopathy was withdrawn in both Germany and Switzerland.

Yet in British Columbia the Green Party has argued that it should be funded, despite the decision of the BC Government not to do so. Jane Sterk, leader of the Greens, has bought into the idea that if people want it they should be able to get it as part of a Provincial health plan, whether or not the treatments work.

We also have a Federal initiative which seems to take homeopathy seriously. The Natural Health Products Research Program (NHPRP) of the Natural Health Products Directorate within Health Canada has been consulting with homeopathic practitioners and developing a research agenda, as if if this branch of pseudo-science was to be taken as seriously as, for example, a pharmaceutical product or new medical practice. Homeopathic products, sold over the counter in drug stores, are regulated by this Federal body. In 2008 the federal government proposed Bill C-51, which contained the potential of restricting the availability of certain natural health products -- including homeopathic medicines -- except by prescription through practitioners who are authorized by their provincial governments. The reality is that many of the “medicines” labeled homeopathic contain no detectable amount of active ingredient, so it is impossible to test whether they contain what their label says. Unlike most potent drugs, they have not been proven effective against disease by double-blind clinical testing. In fact, the vast majority of homeopathic products have never even been tested; proponents simply rely on "provings" to tell them what should work. Its time for the a bill to ban their sale.

In June 2007, Ontario passed the Homeopathy Act, which regulates the practice of this pseudo-medicine. It establishes a College of Homeopaths, regulates entry to the profession and seeks to regulate practice, though not all aspects of the Act are fully in force. The problem here is that this gives credibility to a practice for which there is simply no substantive evidence to support its practice.

It is a sad commentary on our health care system in Canada where evidence and clear thinking give way to populism. Where is the politician demanding the removal of homeopathic remedies from drugstores and who also favours the prosecution of practitioners under fraud laws?

Putting the Lid Back on Nova Scotia's Cookie Jar

(This posting is the 600th Posting on this Blog Site - Many thanks for all your reader comments and support...keep reading!)

What do these things have in common: a generator, a pink iPod Nano, a Memphis loveseat, an electric fireplace and a 50” HDTV? They were all purchased by Nova Scotia taxpayers for MLA’s so as to aid their journey through the difficult and often dangerous world of Provincial politics. In all, MLA’s claimed some $699,023 for items such as these between 2006 and 2009 in Nova Scotia – some $282,000 for technology devices alone.

You may wonder what they are doing with these items. The generator may be useful in an MLA’s search for power, the TV for catching the ego whenever it appears front of camera, the fireplace may be a substitute for the warm glow of success while the loveseat simply provides opportunities for advancement. Whatever the rationale for these taxpayer paid expenses, the tax payers are livid.

So too is the Premier, Darrell Dexter, who incidentlally managed to get through five computers in three years. Feigning outrage and amazement, the Premier has promised to clean up the expense scandal and bring dignity and trust back into Provincial politics. His own expenses in this three year period amounted to $21,931 – putting him in the middle of the pack for the biggest spenders, soon to be renamed the “biggest losers”.

The local economy will suffer as a result. Some stores must have come to rely on their key MLA customers. Take Len Goucher, former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister. In a three year period he purchased five digital cameras, eleven computers, twelve printers and four video recorders. To spruce up his social life, taxpayers were also charged for the Xbox 360 Dance Revolution video game – I assume he is now very fit and easily able to tango around Dartmouth when the tide is out. These purchases, which total close to $44,000, would pay the wages of a technology shop owner for a year.

In comparison to the expense scandal rocking the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the MLA’s from Nova Scotia are rank amateurs. Not one of them charged the taxpayer for a second home and kept the profits from the sale of the house, made shortly after it was purchased for them. Nor has anyone ordered a duck shoot, cleaned out a moat or had their castle refurbished. No one has started to charge for their children driving them to the legislature or for their wife opening their mail. These Nova Scotia MLA’s are low grade expense claimers. They could learn a lot from the now despised British MP’s.
Indeed, the Speaker of the British House of Commons had to leave his post – he was forced to take a seat in the Lords – because of his mishandling of the expense scandal. Over half of the members of the House have had to repay expenses and four face criminal charges. Many are leaving politics after years of service, feeling themselves unable to recover from the public hostility towards them.

So far, there has been just one casualty in the Nova Scotia house – MLA for Yarmouth, Richard Hulbert. In addition to buying a top of the line generator, power hungry Hulbert also bought a $2,500 TV and taxpayers were kind enough to also pay $575 for its installation. In all, Hulbert’s three year expense toll was $33,220. His resignation followed. No sign yet of the resignation of others.

Some MLA’s may face more serious challenges. Some of the expenses submitted by some were duplicate expenses – claiming for the same item twice. While human error may account for some of these, there is the possibility that some of these were deliberate. If so, they would amount to an attempt to defraud the people of Nova Scotia. Can’t have that can we, especially when we’re busy Xbox dancing.

Not all MLA’s boarded the gravy train, which has been running continuously for many years. Some, like Bill Estabrooks of the NDP, have charged as little as $2,043 over three years, with Liberal Leo Glavine MLA being just a tad more expensive to run at $3,591. Some do think before they spend other people’s money.

Now the Premier, still feigning indignation after three weeks of the scandal, is wondering how to deal with it. Rather than make matters worse, which is what the Brit’s have done with their half-hearted reforms, he should tighten the rules considerably and provide an annual allowance rather than an item based expense system and specify what can and cant be done with the allowance. He should ensure that all expenses incurred by MLA’s and all gifts received by them are posted online within fourteen working days of a claim being made or a gift being received. He should ensure that MLA’s maintain a register of members interests, indicating what investments they hold and what boards and organizations they belong to. Members who can be shown to have breeched the rules should be suspended from the House until their case is investigated thoroughly to ensure that there has been no criminal wrong doing. He should, in short, adopt a policy of transparency coupled with zero tolerance for abuse.

He also needs to have a quiet word with the Speaker of the House and indicate that this is not a party issue – all parties are tainted by this scandal – but an issue of trust and the credibility of the political class. If confidence in the work of politicians is to be regained, every action taken has to be squeaky clean.

Dan Leger or the Chronicle Herald in Halifax observed recently that “the cookie jar was open for so long that nobody in politics today can remember who pried off the lid”. When we’ve stopped Xbox dancing, put away the loveseat and taken the TV back, it will be time to put the lid back on that cookie jar.

Psychiatry is in Need of Treatment

Psychiatrists want to add “sex addiction” to the catalogue of psychological disorders that can be reliably diagnosed and treated. The Tiger Woods syndrome will be next in line, along with catastrophic views on the environment, an addiction to Starbucks, liking Barry Manilow and singing the praises of Rush Limbaugh. Soon all of our lives will be illness states, with some of us coping better than others in managing our daily diagnostics and treating ourselves through counselling, psychiatry and self-medication.

The quest to add sex addiction to the catalogue of recognized illness states is just a part of the desire of psychiatrists to identify everything as problematic. The handbook for diagnosis, what is known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known commonly as “the DSM”, now in its 4th edition, is the bible of mental illness. If you want to call in sick, go to the library and find a copy – it’s a treasure trove of sick-day opportunities. A new edition, the fifth, is due in 2013.

The DSM is problematic. Diagnoses like “homosexuality”, once classified as an illness, come and go depending on societal pressures. By no stretch of the imagination is it a scientific, evidence based document. This is not surprising. Freud was not a scientist who used evidence and data for his treatment. Now Freud’s ideas have been largely discounted and his diagnostic category of “neurosis” is no longer used. Indeed, several forms of therapy once popular have, on the basis of evidence been sidelined. What hasn’t been revised is the approach to the definition of mental illness.

There has also been a lot of psychiatric nonsense and billable rubbish, including the recovered memory craze, Satanic abuse confabulations, facilitated communication, multiple personality disorder with up to a hundred or more alternative personalities, including animals. Then there was Harvard psychiatrist John Mack’s gullible speculations about alien abductions – a suitable case for treatment in itself. Some psychiatrists are addicted to revenue and new illness categories “capture” more customers.

Thomas Szasz argued that there was no such thing as mental illness and that psychiatry is largely a fraud. He had many followers. Indeed, fraud and psychiatry sometimes go together. In the 1990’s the medical insurers in the US took Szasz’s claims seriously and started to investigate psychiatric fraud. They looked at 50,000 cases handled by the National Medical Enterprises Corporation’s psychiatric hospitals. What they found was startling: 32.6% contained a fraudulent diagnosis to match insurance coverage, while 43.4% of the cases were billed for services not actually rendered. Is systematic deception to be a new addiction and a new DSM category?

Millions of students are now sent to special education classes or given prescriptions for Ritalin and other powerful, addictive medications for conditions termed “learning disabilities”, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and attention deficit disorder (ADD). Fred Bauman, M.D. , a specialist in child neurology for 35 years, contends that these children are said to have conditions that do not really exist: "I diagnose these children the same way that I diagnose real diseases, such as epilepsy, brain tumours, and so on, and I find that they are normal. I do not find that I can validate the presence of any disease in this population of children”, he said. Some of us went to school before Ritalin was available – when we found ourselves with ADHD we were reassigned to activities which demanded our attention. Now we administer drugs.

Its time to rethink mental illness and to challenge the assumption that everything we do as a form of illness – from eating well (dietary disorder), drinking good wine (alcoholism), needing three cups of coffee to kick start the morning (Starbucks addiction), sex two times a day (sex addiction), telling funny stories (humour addiction), not paying attention when the news is on (attention deficit disorder), having sex while the news is on and drinking wine at the same time (deviancy) and so on. While there are real mental illnesses – depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disease – not everything we do is “on the edge” of madness.

It may actually be the case that psychiatry itself is the new disorder in need of treatment.

Where on Earth is David Suzuki?

Since January there have been revelations one after another about the state of climate science, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inquiries into Climategate, confessions by some climate scientists that they may have both exaggerated some findings and been wrong about others and retractions of significant claims from the IPCC.

What has happened is that the mythical “scientific consensus” has come apart, key figures who have been a part of the process of “settling” climate science are now asking for a new process to replace the IPCC process and many members of power holding political parties are backing off radical policies to “stop” climate change and instead are favouring an adaptation strategy, focused on technology investments and seeking to promote green energy rather than develop systems of “cap and trade” or tax carbon. Between the collapse of Copenhagen, the world of climate change has changed.

In all of this, some key figures have been absent from the debate. Al Gore, normally effervescent and quick to come to the defense of the consensus, has all but deserted the field. In part this is because some of his own claims – about sea level rises, impact of climate change or hurricane frequency, speed of global warming - are simply unproven. Donald Trump, not a fan of global warming, has suggested that the Nobel Prize should ask for Gore and the IPCC’s prize back. A petition has been started asking for exactly this to happen.

David Suzuki, the Canada’s Patron Saint of Climate Change, has also said very little – he is missing in action just when scientists who claimed to know all about the climate need his help. Also missing is Lord Stern, author of the Stern Report which suggested that the world was at a tipping point and unless action was taken “immediately” (this was two years ago), then the world’s economies would be burdened by the impact of climate change for generations to come.

Prince Charles, the Prince of Beffudlement, has been busy promoting his views of architecture and planning, but is quiet about climate change. Days before Copenhagen and at Copenhagen itself, he saw this as the defining issue of our generation and Copenhagen as a “last chance” for humanity to do the right thing. Given that the world’s governments took a pass at Copenhagen, I suspect he is busy installing air conditioning at Buckingham Palace.

One person who has been busy, both writing titillating novels and defending his tattered reputation is the railway engineer who finds himself as Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Accused of conflicts of interest, Dr Pachauri stalwartly defends the IPCC, despite the revelation of a some twenty major problems with the IPCC 2007 influential report and growing evidence of the failure of the peer review and scientific assessment process. Defending the indefensible and accusing others of failing to understand the work of the IPCC are signs of increasing desperation. Calls for his resignation are growing and very few are coming to his defense.

Even Barrack Obama, who saw Climate Change as one of the defining issues for his Presidency a year ago, now refers to the issue in terms of energy, jobs and security. Only Gordon Brown, whose opinions are seen to be less and less relevant as he is facing down the possibility of a humiliating defeat in the May election in Britain, is out championing the pre-Climategate Copenhagen science, egged on by his Climate Change Minister, Ed Milliband. Young Ed has declared war of “climate change skeptics”, which now include several lead IPCC authors.

As the science begins to take its rightful place in public discourse, with scientists seeking to understand the complex evidence and challenge that evidence and the assumed understanding, those who used science to promote their noble (and often financial) causes – Pachauri, Gore, Suzuki Foundation, Stern – are laying low to see where the bombs fall and how they can salvage something from the debacle. There are more bombs to come – hardly a day passes without another serious flaw in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment appearing. Shock and awe at the collapse of an ideologically driven science is apparent.

What will happen now is that we will begin to see new faces and new names. Some of the “deniers” will be rehabilitated and those campaigners who offer an apology for their enthusiasm and commit themselves to a serious, systematic, critical and reflective use of science will be allowed out of purdah and allowed once again to walk amongst us. Meantime, we can all play “Where on Earth is David Suzuki?”

The Science is Back

The man at the centre of the Climategate scandal, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’a Climate Research Unit (CRU), has made clear that there has been no warming since 1995. His admission casts doubts on the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where he was a lead author and largely responsible for the claim that warming was moving apace and represented a major threat to the planet.


In an confessional interview with the BBC, published by The Daily Express in Britain, he also said that he was a good scientist but not at all good at keeping records. He has resisted requests to hand over his raw data for scrutiny under the Freedom of Information legislation in the UK, largely because of how chaotic these records were. The Climategate emails themselves confirm this. In fact, it now appears that crucial data, including that relating to the famous “hockey stick graph” which showed dramatic warming over the last fifty years, has gone missing.


Phil Jones's "confession” also makes clear that he now accepts that the Medieval Warm Period, which affected large tracts of Europe, Greenland and North America, was warmer that the current temperature in these same regions.

Part of the explanation for the apparent rise in temperatures, reported by CRU and used by climate scientists as part of computer models, concerns the location of land stations which measure the earths temperature. Many of these have been incorrectly sited, seriously compromising the data by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from time to time. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous land stations is next to a waste incinerator.

A review of every station that produces data used by climate scientists – and not all of the data produced by land stations is used – suggests that their location presents a warming bias in the data and, when this is taken into account, there has been no statistically significant warming for fifteen years. Professor Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University in England, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, a peer reviewed environmental journal.

These developments – the Jones “confession” and the work by a variety of scientists examining the temperature records – cast doubt on the cornerstone of the theory of man made global warming. But the scientists at the heart of this theory are defending their ground. The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data. Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought,” The Times of London reports.

What is sure is that the tone and texture of the science of climate change is shifting. From there being a consensus and declarations that “the science is settled”, scientists from all sides are now raising questions, offering different or challenging interpretations and offering competing theories.

Climate science is a young science, with many competing views of the dynamics of climate and the ways in which climate can be best understood. What appears to be happening since the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations is that scientists are now concerned with pursuing noble causes and more concerned with the credibility and veracity of their science. This is a welcome development. Science is about systematic work, theory and scepticism. Its good to see that all three are in vogue.

British Election Not Going Well for the Tories

Despite an eleven point lead in the latest opinion polls, the Conservative Party and its leader David Cameron are not doing well in their campaign to become the next ruling party in Britain. A series of missteps, a successful process of making Gordon Brown appear more like a man with emotions and focus and a continuing struggle with the economy are taking their toll on the party which should be winning easily.

Over the last year, the Conservative Party have polled ahead of Labour every week. At one point they were some twenty points ahead. But after six weeks of campaigning in 2010, their lead is narrowing and the party looks “wobbly”. Close to half of those polled see the leaders of the party as aloof and privileged, with many not being able to name some of the front bench leaders of the party. The Conservatives need a fifteen point lead to ensure that they will defeat Labour.

They are not campaigning well. Running a campaign around the theme “Britain is broken”, they have been exaggerating official data to make their point. For example, they inflated the rate of teenage pregnancy by a factor of ten and were called out for doing so by the media. They have made other missteps – their position on the family has changed twice since January and they have sent confusing messages about their strategy for the economy. The Tories also claimed that Labour was going to implement a “death tax” of £20,000 ($40,000), which turned out not to be the case, The image the media is now describing is one of confusion and uncertainty at the centre of the campaign.

There is also a growing fear amongst many electors that the austerity plan at the heart of their approach to the economy will be too aggressive, severe and painful. While many expect Britain to have to increase taxes and cut programs so as to reduce government debt and deficits, they also fear the consequences pg this “slash and burn” strategy. The party has done a poor job to date of being explicit about what this strategy will look like, what it will involve and who will be most affected. Attempts to clarify the party position have, so far, led to more confusion than clarity.

Meanwhile, the rehabilitation of Gordon Brown continues. This last week-end he could be seen describing his own emotional reaction to the death of his first child shortly after birth – weeping as he did so. He has also suddenly developed a sense of humour and his wife, widely seen as very sensible, is out explaining that he is not the temper-tantrum shouting megalomaniac that many have described working with in Downing Street. Picking up on Conservative gaffes, Brown is actually gaining ground. So much so that there has been talk, now silenced, of a snap election in April. The firm date is still May 6th of this year.

The British economy is the real issue in the election. With recovery from recession slow, government indebtedness growing and the fate of the Eurozone in the balance, the fear is that there will be a second recession in Europe, especially if interest rates rise quickly to stave off the debt crisis affecting Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. The challenge for voters is to determine which party is more likely to manage recovery and sustain the economy over the short term. Brown, in a carefully built image, is seen to have a strong set of financial management skills, despite the fact that his actions as Chancellor has made the situation Britain faces one of vulnerability rather than strength. David Cameron’s dithering and apparent fumbling of the economic strategy will hurt him in the election.

The formal election call has not yet been made and the campaign is still unofficial. However, public perceptions are being formed and the Labour Party under Gordon Brown is doing better at this stage than expected. Some journalists are still pitching the idea of a hung parliament, but most are still placing their bets on a Conservative win, albeit with a narrow majority. We will know for sure three months from now.