2002
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083458
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sorry, Wrong Number: The Use and Misuse of Numerical Facts in Analysis and Media Reporting of Energy Issues

Abstract: ▪ Abstract  Students of public policy sometimes envision an idealized policy process where competent data collection and incisive analysis on both sides of a debate lead to reasoned judgments and sound decisions. Unfortunately, numbers that prove decisive in policy debates are not always carefully developed, credibly documented, or correct. This paper presents four widely cited examples of numbers in the energy field that are either misleading or wrong. It explores the origins of these numbers, how they missed… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(8 reference statements)
0
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Wilson (46) and other researchers have recognized the key role that television weathercasters play in the communication of a range of science and environment issues. Other examples include agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified food (47)(48)(49), climate change (50-54), earthquakes (55), energy (56), hazardous waste (57), nanotechnology (58)(59), nuclear power (60-61), environment and public health (e.g., global bird flu) (62), the autism vaccines controversy (63), natural hazards and disasters (35,64), and stratospheric ozone depletion (65). The majority of these studies examined print media coverage, whereas others sought to examine television news (64,(66)(67)(68)(69) and radio news coverage (70).…”
Section: A Brief Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Wilson (46) and other researchers have recognized the key role that television weathercasters play in the communication of a range of science and environment issues. Other examples include agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified food (47)(48)(49), climate change (50-54), earthquakes (55), energy (56), hazardous waste (57), nanotechnology (58)(59), nuclear power (60-61), environment and public health (e.g., global bird flu) (62), the autism vaccines controversy (63), natural hazards and disasters (35,64), and stratospheric ozone depletion (65). The majority of these studies examined print media coverage, whereas others sought to examine television news (64,(66)(67)(68)(69) and radio news coverage (70).…”
Section: A Brief Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some may object: should academics seek this sort of influence? There is, and perhaps always will be, debate about the appropriate role for academics in the public sphere (see, e.g., Jordan 2007; Koomey et al. 2002, 151‐2; Reid 2001; Rowe 2005).…”
Section: Why Are Op‐eds Important?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data such as environmental impact analysis or carbon footprints include many assumptions and modeled data, it has uncertainties and it may not be relevant for the specific case at hand. This is challenging to present and the quantitative data may lead to a false sense of exactness, as it is argued by Koomey et al [38]. These uncertainties are not a specific problem of ICT4S, but a general problem in environmental system analysis such as LCAs, related to poor data quality, use of aggregated data and wrong assumptions [39].…”
Section: B Trusting Too Much On Datamentioning
confidence: 99%