I had several long conversations with Victoria Hsu, the Executive Director of the Professional Engineer's Licensing Board here in Texas. As a P.E. myself, I was concerned about how my columns might be interpreted. What Ms. Hsu told me could very well change the way the media operates.

Simply put, it is unlawful for anybody, anywhere to misrepresent the facts to the public. The P.E. Board is responsible for enforcing this law (and every state has a similar Board, enforcing similar rules), and violators don't have to be engineers. Anybody who misrepresents the facts to the public is liable, for penalties up to and including hard time.

Consider an example. I had one column on gun control that described how hand guns could be made safe. I literally designed a new handgun using a few paragraphs of carefully chosen words. If anybody other than a P.E. had done this it would be "designing without a license" and punishable as such. In other words, journalists can present facts; but only licensed Professional Engineers can make inferences from those facts.

Consider another example. The FCC shut down a couple of low power radio stations here in Austin last year because they were critical of a big Fortune 500 conference in town. The authorities said they were illegal because they had no license. However, their power was so low that their signal did not go beyond the city limits, and the FCC rules apply only to stations with a signal much stronger than that. The authorities who shut down these stations were misrepresenting the facts, and are technically liable for this to the Texas P.E. Board. From my conversations with Ms. Hsu, I have no doubt the Board would prosecute this case aggressively if one of those radio stations were to present their case to the Board.

A few more examples: The President has implied that Global Warming is not a problem. The Administration, in promoting only drilling in Alaska as a solution to our energy problem, has implied that energy conservation is not a viable technology. Both instances are patently incorrect. The President, as a legal resident of Texas, could be held liable for "designing without a license" and for misrepresenting the facts to the general public.

The President can say whatever he wants about public policy. However, when it comes to engineering and technology, what he says must be factual. It must be clear, unambiguous, and not subject to any interpretation so as to mislead the public. He cannot say one thing, while actually implying something else between the lines - not if what he says is technical.

That goes for everybody else as well - especially politicians.

Editor's Response:

Dear Mr. Clark,

Your editorial implies that the government has the right to infringe on free speech via these P.E boards. I don't think you need government sanction or even an education to make a logical conclusion based on fact.

I may safely say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a statement of fact and have no fear that the assertion I put forward need be qualified by a mathematician - my wife is one and I feel no compunction to consult her in this regard. But should I choose to say that the sum of 2 and 2 happened to be 5, then I should not fear bureaucrats arresting me for my poor judgement.

As a libertarian, I believe that any misrepresentations that I make will be more effectively and fairly dealt with by my peers who will quickly rush to their keyboards to write in opposition to my spurious point.

To put the power of arresting me for such commentary in the hands of the government is the most egregious form of censorship. Censorship in the hands of the government leads, inevitably, to dictatorship and an infringement on other personal liberties. In making this assertion I do not believe that I need consult a political scientist.

As for President Bush's statements regarding Global Warming or ANWR, you should consult your facts. No evidence has been produced that would show that global warming has a human cause, see our unvetted response to a letter at: http://www.conservativemonitor.com/letters/2001004.shtml

As regards the ANWR I encourage you to read the article on the subject in the August 6 issue of National Review by Jonah Goldberg. Bush is correct, by the way, it is impossible that conservation can be a permanent solution to our energy shortage. It would be illogical to state that a restriction of consumption might permanently preserve a fixed supply of oil. (Note, in making this statement, I have not consulted any engineers or experts in logic).

Cordially,

W.J. Rayment

Mr. Clark Makes Counter Points:

Hi Mr. Rayment

I agree with you that the government should not be able to restrict speech in any way. However the fact remains that as a P.E. myself I must comply with the rules of the P.E. Board. Constitutional Rights or not, if the P.E. board prevents me from saying something - and they evidently will not even allow me to present an informed opinion - then I will lose my license if they choose to do so. I can have a lawyer and all that; but they hold all the ropes, and they have no qualms about pulling them. The Board is responsible only to itself, and although I could appeal any decision a higher court would undoubtedly back them up in technical matters because there is no higher authority in technical matters. One person cannot possibly overcome a negative decision by the Board; especially since all decisions are published in the Board newsletter, and you would lose your reputation and clients before a decision could be appealed. Also you would probably lose your business too, not being able to authenticate drawings while the process is going on. So any sane engineer stears way clear of the Board in all matters, especially when it comes to making opinions in public. Have you ever seen an editorial by a P.E.? If you called a dozen P.E.'s to ask for their opinion on some issue, how many would give you permission to quote them?

Yes, you are correct that anybody can say that 2+2 is 4. I was referring to more complex issues, such as energy conservation. Obviously, energy conservation will not solve our problems all by itself; but then neither will the oil in Alaska. My point was that the Administration is wrong to imply that doing a few things to conserve energy cannot make a difference. I have hundreds of simple low cost projects in my textbook from McGraw-Hill, and a free energy conservation program on my website that I can almost guarantee will reduce the energy bills of almost any building by a minimum of 20%. Yet, despite an exhaustive promotion of my book and software, the book is still in the negative column; and I cannot even interest people in the actual source code for my software!

The problem is that saving energy is not politically correct. Nobody is even interested in saving energy; they assume there is no way to do so. That is the kind of misrepresentation of the facts I think is negligible. Likewise with Global Warming. No one can deny that 80% of the coral reefs in the oceans have died in the last few years because of higher ocean temperatures. Another study conducted over several decades shows that lakes in northern latitudes are freezing later and thawing earlier every year, by ten to twenty days on either side. These are hard, irrefutable facts substantiated by scientific studies. To reject them outright and to say Global Warming is not happening is irresponsible.

I think your argument that these things cannot be proven to be attributable to human cases is weak. The ice caps have not changed, the Earth is still the same distance from the sun, the sun is still putting out the same amount of energy, etc.. there are no other possible causes for these increases in the atmospheric temperature other than the products of an industrial society. Quite the contrary. If you were to list all the possible natural causes versus all the possible human causes, the later would far outweight the former and the only reasonable conclusion would be that the cause is related to our industrialization. Either way, I feel modern society is morally obliged to do what is economically feasible to reduce emissions of toxic gasses.

As a practical example, I think you can see that nature is the most efficient way to keep water pure and the air clean. Purifying water and air by technology would cost trillions of dollars. Nature does it all for free. Our leadership is being irresponsible if they do not promote re-forestation where ever possible. A single valley of mature trees can purify more air and water than a small city of machines. Perhaps ratification of the Global Warming Treaty is not totally defensible technically; but doing what it would require is: planting trees, and improving air and water quality.

If I were to take the approach toward your argument that you have taken toward mine, I would stand up and say that humanity is the best thing that ever happened to nature. There are more rain forests than ever before and they are healthier; there are more species than ever before, and they are thriving. The rivers and inland water ways are purer and cleaner than ever before. If you are willing to take this attitude, then by all means do so. I don't think there's a person on this planet who would believe you.

Regards,

Bill Clark

The exchange continues:

Dear Mr. Clark,

Thanks for your response, you are quite spirited in your defense of your position and that is good. I would say that you have mistaken me in some minor regards. First, I don't think conservation is bad, it is certainly a conservative principle, and I practice it at every opportunity. It does contribute to energy savings, a clean environment, etc. Nevertheless, I am glad you pointed out that it is not the only solution to the energy problem. It is well to note that this merely what our President said. Also, I would agree that getting oil from the ANWR is not the only solution either, merely a partial solution (I think the President would agree with you here as well - though I certainly do not speak for him).

As for global warming. I am quite certain you are wrong about the fact that it results from an industrialized society. In fact, I do not deny that the Earth may be warmer than in recent decades. Historical data suggests that this is likely to be the case. However, historical data also shows that it has been much warmer in the recent past and tends to cycle up and down. If you are inclined at all to history and economics, you may see these cycles in action. A good example happened only a few hundred years ago in the 1810's when the climate warmed to such a degree that the whaling by English ships went on deep into the Arctic. When the climate returned to its "normal" state many ships were trapped in the ice for the entire winter with whalers living off their summer catch until spring and then finding out to their horror that the thaw never reached their ships.

If natural events do not have a much more severe effect upon the climate then please explain for me periodic ice ages, the most recent occurring only 10,000 years ago - before industrialization.

We do not have to be nearer or further from the sun to experience climate change due to the heat of the sun. It is well known that the sun goes through cycles (not wholly explained) where it burns hotter for some periods and less so for others.

If you wish to investigate the progress of modern technology, you can see that per gross national product, the US is the cleanest burning country on earth. This is because of high rates of productivity and because of technology's increasing propensity to find more efficient and cleaner ways of doing things. If anything, industrialization will, in the long run, make the world a cleaner place.

As for old growth forests, etc. It is a well established fact that the decay in the forests, actually negates the beneficial effect of the trees themselves. Allowing them to decay actually creates "pollution". Most of the oxygen in the world is produced in the oceans not in the forests. And even if you do not accept the fact that trees are not the panacea for the world then it is well to note that there are more trees on the North American continent now than there were at the time of the landing of the pilgrims. This is because of the vast forests that have sprung up on the once empty prairies and the growth of urban forests, reforestation by the wood manufacturers, etc.

I would agree that the loss of bio-diversity has been an unfortunate side effect of the expansion of humanity - though I would disagree that this stems from industrialization. It is simply a side-effect of there being more people. The solution is again industrialization. If you look at population growths for every country in the world, you will see that the more advanced technologically a country becomes, the lower the birth rate. In some Northern European countries, there is actually negative population "growth". So that the burden of overpopulation is created by undeveloped countries.

As for the stifling of your free speech by P.E. boards, it seems to me to be a bad thing. It will certainly create repressive effect upon advancement in your field. Had Alfred Wegener been subject to such a board, I doubt we would yet have heard of plate tectonics or if Newton had been subject to it if we would now have even the remotest grasp of physics, optics or calculus. As for saying that your rule should only apply to complex issues, where do you draw the line? Who is to say that your board knows better than a particular individual? Did not the Catholic church believe it knew better than Galileo where the center of the universe happened to be? Their P.E. board seemed to think so.

Cordially,

Bill Rayment

p.s. Humanity is part of Nature.

Mr. Clark continues:

Hi Mr. Rayment,

I think fundamentally my angst over this whole issue is that technology is not being used to do all that it can do. As an example, consider my energy conservation software. It is a very powerful program that does a full annual energy audit on a building. It does not take an engineer to use; any intelligent person can figure it out - and learn a lot while doing so.

A powerful tool like this will expose many businesses that promote expensive products to the general public that do not save energy at all. I believe this has been done on such a wide scale that energy conservation has become a four letter word. The policy of the Administration has only exacerbated the situation. I try to expose this flaw not completely because I am "tree hugger" but also because energy conservation means technology, and the high tech industry is hurting badly now. The most profitable division of Motorola has for many years been their division that manufactures electronic controls. So the Administration is doing a disservice to the economy, in not at least acknowledging the benefits of conservation.

I was not aware that decay of old growth forests was bad; or that there were more trees now than ever before. I still think the more trees the better, because they also help improve the quality of the soil, reduce runoff, and retain water in aquifers for a growing population. Perhaps the idea is to plant the trees where they will do the most benefit in this regard; not just plant them indiscriminately.

As far as the Global Warming Treaty goes, I can't see that emissions from industry is doing the world any good. The green house effect will still occur. I also doubt that the planet has ever increased in temperature so quickly before, because 80% of all the coral reefs are dead. That is irreversible; and I doubt it happened when your whalers had to change their fishing grounds. Since 75% of all oxygen comes from the oceans, this effect upon the coral reefs is extremely serious, is it not? That alone is reason enough to support the treaty, it seems to me.

I would, in the end, even question the President's undying faith that ANWR will solve all our energy problems. I worked as an engineer in exploration drilling for several years in the early 80's. It takes many years, if not decades, to begin production of oil in a new area. It's fallacy to say that only a small area will be affected by our drilling. They will need thousands of miles of major roads with deep foundations into the tundra to move millions of tons of cargo; there will be small cities of workers and support staff and thousands of tons of waste; there will be chemicals and oil spills and every imaginable problem in that cold, inhospitable environment. The only possible way the oil companies will be able to make a decent profit in those conditions is for there to be a wholesale rollback of all the environmental regulations on drilling. These regulations will apply to every part of the nation. The oil companies will be very happy, but our rivers and streams and aquifers will suffer the consequences. I see the ANWR policy not as a simple energy alternative but as the cornerstone of a major incentive by the Administration to wreak havoc on the natural heritage of America.

More and more I think the government is totally out of control. I suppose I lean on this whole P.E. Board issue of technical responsibility, hoping that there will be some way to achieve a sense of balance and future responsibility on public policy. As an example, I believe the entire oil reserve in Alaska should be considered a part of the strategic oil reserve, to only be accessed when full use has been made of all available alternatives - energy conservation, etc... We are so much larger a nation than when the original oil reserve concept was achieved; we need to increase its capacity accordingly, if only to provide enough fuel for the military to do their job over an extended period.

Good grief, if you are correct and the Global Warming Treaty is a farce - then right there, you have the entire world against us. How long will it be before the U.N. initiates a full embargo on the U.S. to force us to comply? They have the votes, and the longer Americans keep spending huge volumes of fuel voraciously, the more fodder there will be for the folks overseas to hate us more and more and more. Making a small effort to promote conservation will take away their advantage and give the U.S. time to marshall public opinion in our own favour.

I fear the Administration is so extremely pro-oil that they will do anything, use any power at their disposal, to promote the well being of that industry. That is very, very wrong and I think not even the industry supports that policy. I know for a fact that Exxon is a multi-faceted company. They have a nuclear power division and do reseach on all kinds of energy sources. Their business is energy and they know better than anyone that eventually oil will become more scarce and they want to continue to meet people's energy needs well into the future. I'm just baffled that we could have such a short term myopia when it comes to energy, and that people could be so totally blase about it all.

Bill Clark