Reviewing the Reviewers

A long while is shorter than it seems.

I have been kindly provided (thank you CV) with copies of the reviews mentioned in The least Fortunate Island, one of which was cited by George Monbiot in his “I’m shocked, shocked, I tells ‘e” article published globally to the delight and disdain of many depending on prior convictions.

This post provides a summary of two reviews, one used by George Monbiot in his public tiff. George bends it a bit.

My take on this issue. I think about it this way:

Just as no individual cancer can be easily attributed to Chernobyl, no individual weather event can be easily attributed to climate change.

Does this mean we ignore the cumulative effects of an increase in temperature? No. So how about those of radiation?

[edited]
One of the reasons for the adoption of the (conservative) Linear No Threshold model is that the consequences of making a Type II statistical error (i.e. failing to detect an effect when there is one) are so serious (i.e. cancer).

Pro Nuclear advocates of a self proclaimed green persuasion (Nuclear Greens) should remember that taking action against climate change started well before all the evidence was in for the same reason.

This is the precautionary principle.

Read the rest if you need some sleep material…

Peek under the tree

The US National Academies of Sciences has many interesting reports and books (many free for download) on a variety Energy and Sustainability topics. Here are some examples;

           

         

          

The journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences¹ also provides a section on Sustainability Science with some freely available content, for example;

Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings
Abstract
In a national online survey, 505 participants reported their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation, and recycling activities. When asked for the most effective strategy they could implement to conserve energy, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., turning off lights, driving less) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., installing more efficient light bulbs and appliances), in contrast to experts’ recommendations. For a sample of 15 activities, participants underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities. Additional estimation and ranking tasks also yielded relatively flat functions for perceived energy use and savings. Across several tasks, participants with higher numeracy scores and stronger proenvironmental attitudes had more accurate perceptions. The serious deficiencies highlighted by these results suggest that well-designed efforts to improve the public's understanding of energy use and savings could pay large dividends.

I wanted to find a rich vein of information like this with more local content, but hey... Merry Xmas.

1. There have been some questions about the article submission and reviewing procedures of this journal. Members can sometimes get a "free kick".