Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
72 64 80 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
58 40 75
All types combined: 70 (likely 62 to 77, high confidence), from 52 claims: 43 factual claims, 9 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Vinod Khosla's claims
“I believe there's been relatively little controversy on cellulosic ethanol.”
Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist, interviewee 28 September 2007 Interviews - Vinod Khosla (Frontline Heat) (PBS Frontline)
Khosla said he believed there had been relatively little controversy over cellulosic ethanol, and that most of the controversy had focused on corn ethanol.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of 2007-09-28 whether, at that time, public, scientific and policy debate over cellulosic ethanol was relatively small compared with debate over corn ethanol, with most criticism aimed at corn ethanol. True: contemporaneous coverage, studies and policy debate (2006–Sept 2007) show criticism of ethanol (food-versus-fuel, net energy, land use, subsidies) was aimed overwhelmingly at corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol drew little criticism or was broadly favoured. Mostly true: the general picture holds, but there was some notable criticism of cellulosic ethanol (e.g. doubts about whether it could be made commercially viable, or a few prominent critical studies such as Pimentel/Patzek) that the claim plays down. Mixed: cellulosic ethanol faced substantial debate, though clearly less than corn. Mostly false: cellulosic ethanol was debated about as much as corn ethanol, or the claim rests on a narrow slice of the debate. False: by that date cellulosic ethanol was clearly as contested as corn ethanol, or more so. Later controversies (e.g. post-2008 indirect land-use change debates) do not count.
Evidence
- Corn biofuel 'dangerously oversold' as green energy | New Scientist New Scientist · 18 July 2007
“The report concludes that the rapidly growing and heavily subsidised corn ethanol industry in the US will cause significant environmental damage without significantly reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels.”
- With cellulosic ethanol, there is no food vs. fuel debate according to MSU scientist Phys.org (citing Michigan State University) · 27 March 2007
“With cellulosic ethanol, the 'food vs. fuel' debate goes away.”
- The drawbacks of corn-based ethanol Greeley Tribune · 24 August 2007
“Researchers say that cellulosic ethanol — an ethanol that can be made from a variety of products other than corn — and biofuels made from algae or switchgrass, are the future.”
- Corn biofuel 'dangerously oversold' as green energy | New Scientist New Scientist · 18 July 2007
“Cellulosic ethanol produces fuel from non-food sources such as prairie grasses and woody plants, but production is still under development.”
Reasoning
Coverage from 2007 aims its criticism at corn ethanol. A July 2007 report found that the subsidised corn ethanol industry would cause significant environmental damage without much cutting fossil-fuel dependence [E1], and an August 2007 article focused on the drawbacks of corn ethanol [E3]. Sources from the period speak well of cellulosic ethanol: an MSU scientist said the food-versus-fuel debate "goes away" with it [E2], and researchers called it "the future" [E3]. E4 notes that cellulosic production was "still under development" at the time. That is why this is mostly true rather than fully true.
Cite this claim
Vinod Khosla, “Khosla said he believed there had been relatively little controversy over cellulosic ethanol, and that most of the controversy had focused on corn ethanol.” (said 28 September 2007). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_91e577c645b0, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_91e577c645b0
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Vinod Khosla? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.