Mike O’Hare nails it. The target paper “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.”
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.)
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
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…
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.
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.