Posted by Max Dunn
Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:07:56 GMT | no comments
When trying to discredit a scientist’s work, critics sometimes simply note: “They received funding from XYZZY corporation.” It is interesting that often nothing more is said, as if it is apparent that taking any money from a party with a vested interest will inevitably skew the results. This seems like a pretty harsh position, but there is some basis to this claim.
For instance, new research looked at drug studies and found that while the results of the study were not likely to be biased, the conclusion from those results were. In particular, they found that studies funded by a single drug company have a 55% rate of favorable results that is transformed into a 92% rate for favorable conclusions, representing a 37% gap. The gap shrinks to 21% (57% to 79%) when two or more drug companies provide support. Yet the gap vanishes entirely for studies done by non-profit institutions alone or even in conjunction with drug companies. These findings suggest a disconnect between the data that underlie the results and the interpretation or “spin” of these data that constitutes the conclusions.[1]
So it is apparent that receiving funding from a particular source that has a vested interest in the outcome will likely affect the conclusion of a study.
But are there other biases besides funding sources that can affect the results or conclusions of scientific work? What if a researcher isn’t taking any outside funding but has a passionate belief about what they are researching – will this affect their work as well?
Read more...
Posted in Random Thoughts, Global Warming
Posted by Max Dunn
Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:52:03 GMT | no comments
The global temperature graph that appears in An Inconvenient Truth and also the one that the IPCC uses is usually referred to as the Mann or MBH98 graph.
However, this temperature reconstruction is controversial. One of its problems is that it doesn’t show the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age (LIA).
More recently, Loehle put together another temperature reconstruction
that doesn’t use tree rings and this reconstruction does show the MWP and LIA.
Posted in Global Warming
Posted by Max Dunn
Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:36:22 GMT | no comments
When talking to people about religion, you have to be careful. Many people don’t want to hear facts or ideas that contradict their point of view; they are only interested in hearing things that reinforce what they already believe.
This same phenomenon also happens when talking about global warming – most people have their minds made up on this issue and aren’t willing to consider any evidence that would challenge their beliefs.
Posted in Global Warming, Random Thoughts
Posted by Max Dunn
Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:15:19 GMT | 2 comments
That is the question – whether to buy a low-speed electric vehicle now, or wait for a high-speed electric vehicle later? Here are the factors I am looking at:
- What type of transportation do I need?
- When will high-speed electric vehicles really arrive?
- How much will they actually cost?
- When will the severe oil shortages start?
- Will there be subsidies for electric vehicles?
The short answer is that I am going to buy a low-speed NEV now and wait for later to buy a freeway capable electric car. Here is the long answer:
Read more...
Posted in Electric Vehicles, Global Warming, Peak Oil
Posted by Max Dunn
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:36:04 GMT | 8 comments
There is a growing interest in buying carbon credits to offset our carbon footprints. However, there is evidence of widespread failings in the market for carbon offsets. Some of these failings include:
- Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
- Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
- A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
In addition, many carbon offset projects don’t pay for the whole cost of CO2 removal projects they just kick in a little money and claim all the carbon credit of the project. Is this really going to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Read more...
Posted in Global Warming