From O’Hare et al., in Biomass and Bioenergy, 35:10 4485-4487:
“Indirect land use change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies” by S. Kim and B. Dale, presents a principal inference not supported by its results, that rests on a fundamental conceptual error, and that has no place in the current discussion of biofuels’ climate effects. The paper takes correlation between two variables in a system with many interacting factors to indicate (or contraindicate) causation, and draws a completely incorrect inference from observed sample statistics and their significance levels.
And yes, I read the whole thing, and yes, as far as I can tell Mike and his colleagues make out their case, leaving a small grease spot where a pair of academic reputations used to be.
(There’s a letter in response, but it’s behind a paywall. I invite Kim and Dale to reprint it in comments, or make any other response that seems right to them.)
KLG says
Thanks. I needed a chuckle tonight. Sometimes the direct approach is the only one that works. One thing is certain. The peer review system failed spectacularly at Biomass and Bioenergy. But that has been known to happen from time to time. Did anyone hear the one about the relatively common species of bacterium in Mono Lake that substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its DNA? It’s in Science when you are ready…
SamChevre says
Let me guess, having read neither paper.
Kim and Dale’s paper finds that the indirect effect of bio-fuels is too small for O’Hare’s preferred solution to be necessary.
Jmg says
I attended an energy conference in Michigan where Dr. Dale was shucking and jiving for his masters in the corn lobby. Having been a sailor, I have seen unashamed whoring around, but never by a middle aged white guy who goes by Dr. He actually tried to sell the “ethanol is more efficient than petroleum” to the assembled crowd.