Letters to the editor

THE IRONY OF “HARMONY”

In “Harmony or discord” (December 2009),I noted the irony of the two excerpts of music in the illustration. Both are decidedly harmonious. I would have expected one harmonious excerpt and one discordant excerpt. The first excerpt is the open-ing of Saint-Saëns’ Piano Concerto No. 2, whereas the second is the opening of a Chopin nocturne. Perhaps an excerpt from a 20th-century discordant composer such as Arnold Schoenberg would have been more appropriate instead of Chopin, who would no doubt be rolling over in his grave if he knew he had been associated with discordant music.

Jonathan Farrar, CA
Mississauga, Ont.

RESPONDING TO "LOSS"

I feel compelled to respond to a letter (“Loss of credibility,” December). The writer, James Shutiak, advocates that the profession should lead the charge in denouncing the anthropogenic climate change theory. I have only one argument against this position: climate and the environment are not the areas of expertise of CAs and it would be highly inappropriate for our profession to make any claims to the contrary.

This is the realm of scientists, and any attempt for the CA profession to foray into the realm of natural science would be embarrassing to the profession. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, which Shutiak claims ignores science, compiles the work of thousands of leading scientists around the world and concluded in 2007 that there is greater than 95% certainty that climate change is anthropogenic. It is our role as CAs to take the advice of these experts and apply it in our roles as business and tax advisers and as experts in measuring results.

Both features on this topic in the December issue did an excellent job of updating CAs on the risks and opportunities we need to be aware of in a market that will undeniably be affected by climate change. I commend CAmagazine for bringing this important information to CAs.

Neal Jennings, CA
Toronto

Could I suggest that the CICA create a task force to study James Shutiak’s assertion that Jim Carroll and the CA profession are ignoring science in accepting the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The mandate of the task force would be to report to Canadians and to debunk the climate-change debunkers, or not. Neither he nor I should be a member of the task force.

Walter Ross, FCA
Toronto

More evidence is emerging all the time that the data supporting manmade climate change is not all that strong; the authors of “The business of climate change” (December), Julie Desjardins and Alan Willis, note, “There is significant uncertainty or lack of precision in the measurement and reporting of GHG emissions. There is also generally a lack of good in-formation systems, processes and controls to ensure that data collected is reliable.”

So, we don’t know if the data is accurate or reliable, but let’s run with it anyway just to be safe. To those who are more skeptical, the evidence refuting this hysteria has been building. Some are using the word “fraud” to describe the evidence to support global cooling, global warming, climate change or the marketing term of the month.

All along, this has been about control, regulation and taxation. Throughout the articles in the December issue, the mandate being presented to us is to act as paid toadies to support the regulation of all aspects of business and daily life to solve a problem that at best has been overstated, at worst misrepresented.

There are billions of dollars on the table for those who want to get in on the hysteria, virtually nothing for those arguing against it.
Our profession should be leading the fight for true science and skepticism to be brought to bear on this issue. Instead, we are leading by following, and in the process have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

John Annesley, CA
Nanaimo, BC

Letters should be sent to: The Editor, CAmagazine, 277 Wellington Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2 (letters.editor@cica.ca). CAmagazine reserves the right to edit / shorten them for clarity.