Here is the latest idiocy to come out of people without a brain:
By Dan Mitchel
Published: July 22, 2006
"KARL T. ULRICH, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has put forth a provocative theory. Traveling by bicycle, he argued in a recent paper, may cause more environmental harm than driving around in pollution-spewing, fossil-fuel-swallowing cars and sport utility vehicles.
How can this be? Bicyclists are healthier, he wrote, so they live longer. Over their life lifetimes, they consume more energy than they save."
(This is a quote from a friend and student that works here concerning this article): "Just because you have a brain and it comes to conclusions, doesn't mean that they are worth repeating or that you are intelligent. I apologize for spreading such idiocy, but I was so shocked at this article that I thought I would post it for that shock-value.
2 comments:
The Wharton School at Penn is supposedly one of the best business schools in the nation. I guess ol' Karl buddy slipped under the radar somehow. This is the type of study done by either someone with tenure or someone who thinks the risk of associating such a ridiculous study with his school will get him tenure. I really hope he didn't come to this conclusion using federal grant money. It is kind of like the guy at Idaho State who is a trained primate morphologist but is wasting his time trying to prove that Bigfoot exists. I am not sure if he knows it or not, but Bro. Meldrum is not doing much to build ISU's reputation.
The real problem with his conclusion could be that he only measured one environmental impact. People who ride bikes might also more likely to recycle, purchase less stuff, and other enironmentally friendly things - making their impact actually less than SUV owners, etc. That could have been tested to control the study better. However, his conslusion (if I am guessing right) was probably taken out of context by just about everyone.
Energy studies are becomming big right now in terms of examining the flow of energy in local economies and such. I was involved in similar types of studies with the Center for Economic Self-Reliance.
These studies usually isolate one type of energy intake and output. They are compared to similar ones and must be taken in context of the purpose of the study.
His conlcusion was probably the result of good research and data, but the purpose and context was lost by the media. Now, who knows, maybe the context wasn't misplaced by the media and then my first paragraph becomes relevant. Anyway, don't take the media's interpretation of context as a valid interpretation always. I have found that they get it wrong more than most.
Adam
Post a Comment