It seems Glenn Fox is up to his tricks again. He has co-authored a report claiming that green energy is too expensive for Ontario. I saw this report mentioned on TV today.
I have written two other blogs in relation to Glenn Fox. One about a different University of Guelph's economics professor and his political one sidedness when it comes to Green Energy.
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2011/03/university-of-guelph-economics.html
The next was about a lecture I attended by Glenn Fox titled "It's not easy being green"
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2011/02/glenn-fox-phd-lectures-seniors-on.html
This previous blog attracted a few comments that were debated at length. And unlike the usual web comments section (for example the CTV article linked at the top of this blog), the debate on my blog was civil, and ranged from scientific to philosophical.
At the end of the debate I admitted that while I could give my opinion that lecture I attended was one-sided, I probably should not judge the rest of Glen Fox's life work as being equally biased against environmentalism and alternate energy.
Now Energy Minister Duguid of Ontario Government is saying that this new report is one-sided and flawed, and that one of the authors is known to be anti-alternate energy. I wonder if that biased person could be Glen Fox?
The Toronto Star reported on this yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIn their opinion piece in the National Post, Fox and his coauthor, Parker Gallant (by his own admission, with 'no direct expertise in the electrical sector') make much of their peer-reviewed article in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.
The article is not freely available (and I am not about to waste $25 for a one-day look at the blessed thing, not being funded, as Fox is, by the taxpayers) so I cannot comment on it and will have to assume that Brad Duguid's not stretching the truth too much.
But, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at the contention : by 2015, Fox is calling for an average annual bill of $2,800, Duguid is projecting $2,500 ... a 12% variance. Big deal! We're basically talking about 'guestimates' here, folks.
With respect to those projections out to 2030, well ... a lot is going to happen over the next twenty years (and hopefully not the 500 ppm that Fox & Co. would have us in for).
And - as far as that 'peer-reviewed' journal - do I detect a little bias in the articles selected for the August issue (see link above)?
When Glenn says "Peer Reviewed", he does not exactly say that their article was peer reviewed. Not all articles in a peer reviewed journal have to actually get a real peer review. Also there is nothing to prevent another biased "scientist" from reviewing the article and reinforcing the bias. Peer review is voluntary, not mandatory.
ReplyDeleteThe implication, of course is that their article was actually "peer reviewed" and therefore is factual an unbiased. But I doubt it.