The IPCC: Flawed Methods, Sound Message

Since its creation in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, or The Panel) has been the leading scientific body on climate change. It was created to find just cause for proliferating nuclear energy in the United Kingdom to reduce dependency on oil from the Middle East and coal from fickle coal workers. To do this, it would need to determine the extent that human activity is responsible for global warming.  

This goal is pursued by periodically preparing comprehensive Assessment Reports about climate. The IPCC’s reports, of which there have been four, are the most cited and most influential documents in climatology. Its recommendations to legislators and public officials are behind many policies (e.g., cap-and-trade) and the global climate change political movement.

Many such policies acknowledge that there continues to be significant uncertainty about the exact scope and timing of climate change-related impacts. Despite these uncertainties, they propose moving forward with goals and response actions justified on a set of assumptions taken from IPCC reports. However, such policies unduly take these assumptions to be the scientific consensus.

Members of the scientific community, some of whom contributed to the Panel’s Assessment Reports, continue to refute some of its findings and each of the IPCC’s reports has been met with controversy. Controversies have ranged from scientists claiming that the reports have been tainted by political motivation, to abuse of the peer-review system, and finally, to the use of specious data. All of these things debase the models used by the IPCC and render its recommendations questionable. .   

Rather than making overt affronts on the IPCC, other scientists have simply and astutely pointed out that if the climate’s fundamental dynamics are not completely understood then the models will therefore also be incomplete, possibly inaccurate.    

The Panel’s reports should not be taken as gospel, but rather as evolving works in progress. As such, the findings should be viewed as inconclusive and incomplete. 

Well-informed policies are effective policies and the policies implemented today should not be based on science that will be understood tomorrow. There remain principal gaps and limitations in what is understood and what can be modeled by climatologists. And until these gaps can be filled we should not be precipitous in our actions. For the costs of ill-advised or ill-directed actions may very well outweigh those of inaction.

Three of the principal gaps in climatology today are: (1) Scientific understanding of climate science; (2) Modeling systems are most reliable on large geographic scales and unreliable on smaller scales; and (3) Modeling capabilities are constrained by computing capability. 

 

Gaps in scientific understanding of climate science

There are many interrelated elements that contribute to the Earth’s climate which makes understanding it difficult and complex. Some of these elements include: The occurrence of sun spots, the number of trees, ocean temperature, desertification, cloud cover, the list goes on. The IPCC model attempts to quantify and properly weight the importance of these variables to make its predictions. To illustrate the complexity of the climate system and the difficulty of reducing it to an algorithm consider the following. A “+” signifies a temperature increase and “-” signifies a decrease.

-          An increase in the concentration of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere traps solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into outer space. ( + )

-          As the temperature increases, the rate of evaporation increases which leads to the formation of more clouds. More clouds means more solar radiation get reflected back into space. ( - )

-          However, with more cloud cover comes more rain and more trees. Since trees cannot use all of the water they absorb, more water is returned to the skies and leads to the creation of clouds. ( - ) Also, more trees equates to more CO₂ being absorbed. ( - )

-          But trees have a relatively high Albedo Effect, i.e., they absorb heat.  ( + ).

This example, though crude, illustrates that reliance on one variable is insufficient to make even general statements about the climate’s behavior.  

There are also low-frequency variables purported to be indicative of climate change such as hurricanes and El Niño that are even less understood. This further limits the confidence that can be placed on the ability of climate models to realistically simulate the climate.

Insufficient research has also been conducted to allow climatologists to delineate clearly between the anthropogenic climate-changing variables and those that occur naturally. This brings into question the fundamental assumption of the IPCC: climate is being driven by human activities.

The IPCC has relied heavily upon the graph to the right.[1] The graph illustrates that since circa 1850, the global average temperature has risen to its highest level in a millennium and, that the timing of this increase coincides with industrial expansion, ergo, more GHG emissions.  

This graph, known pejoratively by skeptics as the “hockey stick” graph has been highly scrutinized.

For example, as the graph indicates, the increase in temperatures sharply increased between 1850 and 1940. Though many processes were industrialized, the world economy was not in full swing. In fact, there was a lengthy global recession in the 1930s. But, when widespread economic activity began post-World War II, the temperature dipped for several years before increasing again circa 1975. This is inconsistent with the theory that increased carbon concentration warms the planet.

This has led many in the scientific community to question whether GHGs are in fact drivers of the Earth’s climate. And with many scientists studying possible alternative explanations for the recent temperature increases,[1] it is clear that the IPCC Assessment Reports are far from representing a scientific consensus.

One of the most promising alternatives to the GHG explanation is solar activity. Briefly: solar activity (e.g., solar winds) prevents subatomic particles from entering the Earth’s atmosphere. These particles react with water vapor to form clouds, which shield the Earth from the sun. Fewer particles and therefore fewer clouds equates to more solar radiation being absorbed by the oceans and the Earth’s surface, which could explain the observed temperature increases.

The point of all this is that climatology is a relatively new science. As such, there are many gaps in what is understood about the climate in broad terms. This does not mean that the IPCC should suppress alternative theories or should not incorporate them in to its models so that its general findings remain consistent.[2]

In any event, if the climate’s general dynamics are uncertain then its peculiarities are more unclear.  

Unreliability of modeling at sub-continental scales

Existing climate models used for the IPCC process are comprehensive global models designed for mitigation, on large space and time scales.  The IPCC concentrates on global averages and freely admits that the smallest region for which the models are useful is the continental scale, about 3,000 miles.[3] On smaller scales the models are not useful.

Members of the scientific community contend that a less coarse spatial resolution, e.g., 2 km or even 100 km is integral to modeling changes for municipal leaders, decision makers, and planners who use climate information as it pertains to water supply, infrastructure, inland transportation, etc.

But the IPCC is not entirely to blame for modeling problems. Even if the reports are based on insufficient and spurious data, they cannot account for technical limitations.   

Limitations of computing capability to support modeling

Running a climate simulation model can take days, weeks, even months depending on the number of variables under consideration and the degree of spatial resolution. Further, preparation of the model, i.e., data collection and model construction adds considerably to the time required. But regardless of the credibility of the data and the model’s structure, there appear to be limitations in what computers can generate.

Dr. Alexander MacDonald of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated in an expert witness testimony before the United States Senate that “[m]odels are constrained by available computing.”[4] Dr. James J. Hack of the National Center for Computational Sciences further bolstered this position as well as others held in this essay in his testimony, noting that “[m]eeting future challenges in climate change science will require qualitatively different levels of scientific understanding, modeling capabilities, and computational infrastructure that are currently available to the climate science community.”[5]

With processing capabilities doubling every 18 months or so it may be several years until computational capacity will meet the needs of the climate modelers today. And as the level of complexity tends to rise with the level of understanding, the computing power may continue to lag behind the science.

Moving Forward

With all of these things said it does not mean that policy makers should not move forward with certain actions. For instance, allocation of public funds towards additional research, model development, and education can be easily implemented and do not carry high shadow costs.  

Secondly, while the science may be uncertain and subject to continued debate, efforts undertaken to reduce energy consumption and therefore make our planet cleaner simply make sense and can be easily achieved through education and demand-management, the sciences of which are not as polarizing as the veracity of climate change.

Thirdly, the long-term effects of elevated CO₂ concentrations are also unknown. Currently, the concentration is approximately 380 ppm, 30 ppm higher than the historical equilibrium level. So even if GHGs do not contribute to global warming there may be other undesirable effects from higher concentrations that we have yet to recognize. 

Finally, whether you agree with the IPCC or not, it seems that we all can agree on the following: Reducing energy consumption saves money and puts less of a strain on scarce energy resources that will only become more expensive. For this reason, non-renewable energy sources must be pursued and proliferated. Not because they will save the planet, but because they may very well save us and ensure the continued existence humanity.

We may be able to point out the flaws in the IPCC’s methods and lambast it for being the root of sensationalist propaganda but by focusing too much attention on the Panel’s shortcomings we may not see the forest for the trees. The Panel may very well put us on a path consistent with that sought when it was originally created – to reduce dependence of fossil fuels and to spur the development of more diverse, more ecologically-friendly energy portfolios – something we may one day thank it for.

---

[1] See for example: Usoskin, I. G., M. Schuessler, S. K. Solanki, and K. Mursula (2005), Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A10102, doi:10.1029/2004JA010946.

3 Durkin, Martin. The Great Global Warming Swindle, The Channel Four Television Corporation, 2007.

[3] IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.  Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, et al].  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pg. 183

[4]Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation “Improving the Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling for Decisionmakers and End-users.” (May 8, 2008).  Available electronically at commerce.senate.gov.

[5] Id

---

[1] IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, et al].  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Understanding the Digital Divide

Source: eBiquity Research Group, 2007

The Digital Divide presents a rather puzzling phenomenon. When examined in micro terms, it is nondiscriminatory; it afflicts people regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. However, as the lens is broadened, a very clear duality – the ever-present North-South division – appears. Most argue that the aforementioned traits are contributors to the Digital Divide, but when the issue is distilled to its bare core, it presents itself as just another way in which the  ever-present problem of the “haves” and “have nots” manifests itself. It is a problem that runs deeper than race or wealth. Therefore, to understand it we must understand the roots of inequality. After all, many of the afflicted peoples did not just miss the Digital Revolution; they also missed the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions.

Getting to the Root of the Digital Divide

Jared Diamond, author of the hit book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, argued that the roots of inequality are a function of path dependence. In other words, geography is to blame. The Earth’s natural barriers determined migratory flows, how and with whom information was shared, and how this information snowballed to become knowledge and tool building capability. Along these same lines, we may posit that nowadays, the barriers to growth and the emergence of a more equal human populace are artificial, human-made constructs. Other scholars agree.

In a paper being considered for publication in Econometrica,[1] a Ph.D. candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (henceforth, “MIT”) found that institutions of yore can and appear to have an impact on how well-off people are today. Using regression discontinuity, i.e., designs that evaluate causal effects of interventions, the author found that mita, a practice whereby local Incas were forced by Conquistadors to leave their homes to work in gold and silver mines may explain why people that inhabit this area today are poorer than their neighbors despite being equal by other measures, e.g., natural resource endowment.

The lesson from Diamond and the MIT graduate student is clear: The Digital Divide, like other manifestations of the problem of “haves” and “have nots” is the product of a long chain of choices, activities, interventions, and policies. These things facilitated the formation of the requisite institutions in some places and not others upon which digital technology is based.  Nevertheless, as globalization is now in full-swing we can all benefit from narrowing the Digital Divide. This problem is of importance in the context of this Masters program: Innovation will only continue to occur in the “informationally-blessed” parts of the world. For a concept that is predicated on the idea that more people equates to more ideas, it is important for us help those who are lagging to catch up so that they too may contribute their ideas. But until they have access to basic infrastructure they will only develop that which we already have and the vicious cycle will continue.

This paper will emphasize that the reasons for redress are more economic and less equality-based. Additionally, we will examine the impacts of policies designed to narrow the gap.

What is the Digital Divide?

Typically, the term Digital Divide (henceforth, “the Divide”) describes the disparity of access to digital and information technology. This definition, perhaps only tacitly, suggests that the problem is one of wealth and ethnicity. But this is not entirely true. For those who have access to these technologies, a disparity exists in how much benefit they are able to leverage from it. For instance, mobile phones and the internet are supposed to make our lives easier and to be gateways to an endless stream of information. But for many people, computers remain typewriters with a jack for their headphones and a screen on which to watch movies and television. 

To paint a more complete picture of how the Divide manifests, allow us to make a few, further subdivisions.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008

Part I: The Economic Divide

In the simplest of terms, digital and information technology (henceforth, “DIT”) are inaccessible to many due to cost. True the cost of a personal computer has fallen significantly over the last few decades (see graph) but with a considerable number of people living on less than one dollar per day, the cost remains prohibitive.[1]

As the global economy is increasingly dependent on DIT it is of increasing importance that more people have the opportunity to integrate said technologies into their lives. This is one of the fundamental precepts of a market economy; the greater the number of participants, the greater the social welfare. This division weighs heavily on the afflicted. And anytime people can benefit from having burdens of this ilk lifted, the door is opened for a discussion of shadow cost.

Shadow cost is the value associated with easing a particular constraint. For the world’s destitute, this is immeasurable. The transition to the digital economy was easy because of the gain in utility attainable. Moreover, the sheer amount of time savings associated make life much easier for people. The cost of communication has decreased significantly. And cheaper, easier modes of communication allow people to take on new economic opportunities that otherwise would have been unavailable. And the more expensive information/communication is, the more scarce it is. This is precisely why the relative lack of information is a key element of poverty.

For roughly one decade, India has become the poster child of the “emerging” economies. And the rapid proliferation of cellular phones, i.e., the cheapening of information, among its people is a big reason why. For fishermen in the country, for instance, they can begin negotiating with local mongers long before they return to port. Whereas in the past, said mongers could take advantage of informational asymmetries, today the fishermen can shop, so to speak, for the best price with a few clicks of a button. [2] And in addition to economic benefits, reducing the cost of information can also be beneficial for public health.

The use of mobile technology among doctors in the developed world will only provide marginal benefits to patients. We are talking about seconds and minutes saved. But In poorer economies, the benefits will be substantial as they will not only save time, but will help doctors deliver basic health services to the populace. Cell phone use has risen over 500% in Africa since 2004.^[3] Today, approximately 350 million Africans have subscriptions with perhaps millions more using rechargeable credit services.^[4] On March 21^st, Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, delivered on his promise to provide community health workers with 2,500 mobile phones.^[5] Subsequently, the speed with which doctors communicate with patients, other doctors, and medical service providers, e.g., EMTs can decrease considerably. As a practical example, the sooner a doctor knows that that an ambulance is on the way, the sooner they can move on to other patients. This means that each patient is less burdensome to the next and to the doctor.

For the Rwandan doctors, less time spent caring for a particular patient means that they can see more patients during the day, i.e., alleviation of the shadow cost. Due to the time saving associated with mobile telephony, doctors can increase their coverage areas. More patients tended to means greater overall health. And healthy people are more productive. As you can see the benefits of mHealth to Third World countries are immense.

Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed a cheap laptop to be distributed to children in the developing world. The computer was sold at a cost of $100 (roughly one-third what I paid for my low-end netbook) through the One Laptop per Child program.[6] Sounds just dandy doesn’t it? The problem with this project, according to usability guru, Jakob Nielsen[7] was that Negroponte did not adequately study the needs of the target group; there was no user testing.

But having access does not necessarily equate to efficacious use. If everyone could afford a computer, would they leverage the maximum benefit possible?  

Part II: The Usability Divide

 In the summer of 1999, the United States witnessed the household ownership rate of personal computers climb above 50%.[8] This figure says nothing about purpose, whether it is exclusively or primarily for game playing, “chatting” with friends, or more serious activities. Nor does it speak about time and quality of use. Because of this we don’t tend to think of the “rich” as being afflicted by the Divide.

A 2002 study by the Nielsen Norman Group, a company that helps corporations to extend products via the web by improving website usability, found that the internet was twice as hard for seniors to use as compared to their younger counterparts.[9] For a group that did not grow up using a computer in schools or households, dedicating more time to deciphering the web is quite cumbersome and not a realistic option. A 2005 report published by the Kaiser Family foundation corroborates this. The report relied upon a random, digitized survey with 1,450 respondents aged fifty and older.  According to the survey, less than one-third of Americans ages sixty-five and older have ever used the internet.[10]

People use DIT for myriad purposes: Communication, work, entertainment, shopping, and etcetera. The possibilities are virtually endless. Yet very few of us actually optimize the way in which we use these technologies. From where I’m sitting in the library, I can see the computer screens of over a dozen fellow students and nearly all of them are on Facebook. If they are not on Facebook, they are on YouTube. Which begs the question:  Even if everyone had access to easy-to-use technologies, would we make the most out of this access?

Part III: The Empowerment Divide

In researching how people use search engines for the Nielsen Norman group has found that many users don't know how to use search to truly master the Web. People don't understand advanced search features; they rarely employ query reformulation; and many uncritically select the first search results. Also, many users don't understand how search engines prioritize their listings, and some users don't even know that the euphemistic label "sponsored links" refers to paid advertisements.[11]

Because they lack the initiative and skill to take matters into their own hands, some users remain at the mercy of other people's decisions. For example, people sometimes accept the default home page chosen by their computer vendor or ISP rather than select one that's better suited to their needs. Again, this means that the user's attention can be sold off like a sheep to slaughter, as indicated by deals where search engines pay computer vendors millions of dollars to be the default setting on shipping PCs.[12]

Similarly, some users limit themselves to "free" Web applications that display ads. What such users don't realize is that better, i.e., more appropriate, powerful, and liberating applications are available at a cost that's far less than the value of the time they waste trying not to look at the ads.[13]

The story here is very much the same as in the preceding section: The acquisition of information is empowering and has economic benefits. Indeed, narrowing the knowledge gap is very much at the heart of this issue. Unfortunately, there are quite a few practical, logistical matters that make this quite a difficult task.

Increased Bandwidth and other Infrastructure Requirements

In computer networking and computer science, bandwidth is a measure of consumed data communication resources expressed in bits. It goes then that the more users, the greater the bandwidth requirements. On the internet-superhighway, information travels as light through fiber-optic cables. Each fiber carries with it a stream of information “coded” as a color. The more information that needs to be transmitted, the more colors are required. And the more users, means more cables. Therefore, in order to properly combat the Divide, the necessary infrastructure must be in place.

With the large-scale outsourcing that has occurred, groups such as India’s Tata Group has launched a multi-terabit cable connecting eastern India to Singapore where it can connect to other cables that traverse the Pacific Ocean to the United States. Other cables are being planned along the same route as well as towards the Middle East and Europe.[14]

In practical terms, a typical multi-terabit, transoceanic submarine cable system – such as the Unity Cable Google is building along with 5 other members of the consortium, the likes of which have become the industry norm – costs several hundred million dollars to construct.[15] Projects of this ilk aren’t usually preëmptive; they usually represent a supply shift in response to increasing demand. For instance, trans-Pacific internet traffic rose 41 percent between mid-2006 and mid-2007.[16] The industry has learned to be responsive to avoid supply gluts that led to the bursting of the “Broadband Bubble” in 2000. It is unclear whether current bandwidth installations would be able to handle a hypothetical situation, such as a rate of computer ownership in Africa of 50 percent.

Source: International Telecommunications Union, 2008

Increased connectivity has implications in other sectors as well; notably, telecommunications where the construction of new towers in sparsely-populated areas and perhaps pico grids in more densely-populated urban zones could appear. Already, the ceiling is being approached on cell phone use in the developed world and the rate of penetration is rising quickly in developing countries (see graph). Furthermore, as the internet and cellular phones are increasingly used for data-intensive media applications, bandwidth, tower construction, and cell shrinking will become of greater importance to keep information flowing and cheap.

Liberalization of the Telecommunication Industry

In general, liberalization is the act of relaxing certain government restrictions, usually state-held monopolies. By design, liberalization increases the number of competitors in the market, which drives prices and profits down and consumer surplus up. Lower costs, increased teledensity, innovation, greater availability of services, and foreign investments are among the benefits associated with open and competitive telecommunications markets.   

The World Trade Organization (henceforth, “WTO”) has held member states to a higher standard when it comes to telecomm liberalization. It seems to be working – fixed line penetration is markëdly higher (almost four times) among, for example, low-income countries in Southeast Asia that have implemented WTO liberalization standards versus those that have not.[1] More specifically, the rate of penetration in India rose by a factor of eight between 1996 and 2004 after liberalizing its telecommunications sector.[2] Over that same period, India’s gross domestic product, in terms of purchasing power parity, rose from $1.41 to $3.56 trillion.[3]

Among economists, when liberalization is being discussed, the conversation often involves the occurrence of externalities, or “spillovers.” The concept is simple: Markets operate under the precept that transactions will only occur if both parties, i.e., buyer and seller, can benefit from said transactions. However, these exchanges can positively or negatively affect third parties. These effects can either diminish or contribute to social welfare. In the case of positive externalities, third parties benefit at no additional explicit cost. Because this demand cannot be monetized, too little of the good will be produced and vice versa. In the realm of telecommunications the occurrence of “network” externalities is well-documented.[4]

Consumers joining a network obtain benefit from making and receiving calls, emails, text messages, and etcetera. 

Effect on equilibrium condition associated
with a positive spillover.
Available under GNU Free Documentation

They therefore have a private valuation of being part of the communications network. This value derives from being able to communicate with other people. It therefore increases with the number of people connected to the network: the bigger the network, the more valuable it is to both existing and potential members. This effect is known as a “network externality.” Thus is manifested the paradox that exists in telecommunications: Liberalization (read here as, deregulation) of telecom markets is necessary to reduce the price of information but some form of regulation, in the form of price floors or production subsidies are needed so that the full-economic benefit derived from access is captured in the price.

In the context of combating the Digital Divide, it is important that more people gain access to information pathways. Similarly, it is important that purveyors of access to information networks are able charge the appropriate, socially-optimal price. Yet they must also keep in mind that the more people in the service area, the cheaper it becomes due to economies of scale. Indeed the relationship is mutually beneficial.

Concluding Remarks

In the context of this Masters program, closing the information and knowledge gaps are an integral part of maintaining the innovative process. We have seen some present initiatives that are designed to close these gaps. Philanthropic efforts such as One Laptop per Child as well as WTO-backed liberalization initiatives have been positive contributors to the cause.

To emphasize the need for a pragmatic rather than an idealistic approach, we discussed some of the infrastructure requirements and strayed from the typical analysis of the various, often homogeneous program. These are rather basic in the developing world, e.g., electricity and cellular towers, and likely to change in rapidly developing, urban areas.

Regrettably, there wasn’t much room for a discussion on the issue of Standardization. It was not due to lack of importance but rather it was an unfortunate omission that was necessary in order to incorporate the various economic themes. After all this is a school of economics. We will say this, on the matter, as information technologies become more pervasive in the developing world, it is important that cultural identities are not forced by the wayside. This is by no means an easy task, as many languages, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa only exist in oral forms.

Finally, in acknowledgement that many other initiatives designed to combat the Divide went unmentioned, we will provide a list of further readings to show that we were aware that these initiatives existed. Once again, the economic issues presented in this paper are very much at the heart of these initiatives.

---

[1] “Making the Most Out of the Doha Opportunity: Benefits from Services Liberalization.” Coalition of Service Industries, 2006. Available electronically at:

[2] Ibid

[3] “The World Factbook.” The United States Central Intelligence Agency, 1996 & 2010. Available electronically at:

[4] For instance see: “Network Externalities in Telecommunications: Theory and Application.” Frontier Economics, 29 June 2005. Available electronically at:

---

[1] I could not find a reliable source to support this. Nevertheless, conceptually is rather well-known.

[2] Sullivan, Kevin. “For India’s Traditional Fishermen, Cell Phones Deliver a Sea of Change.” The Washington Post 15 October 2006. Available electronically at:                                                                          

[3] Smith, David. “Africa calling: mobile phone usage sees record rise after huge investment.” The Guardian 22 October 2009. Available electronically at:                                                                                                                   < http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/22/africa-mobile-phones-usage-rise>

[4] Ibid

[5] Nambi, Irene V. “Community Health Workers Get Cell Phones.” The New Times 22 March 2010. Available electronically at:

[6] Ledell, Joshua. “The $100 Laptop and the Usability Divide.” Compete on Usability. Joshualedell.typepad.com, 20 March 2007. Web. 28 April 2010

[7] Jakob Nielsen holds a Ph.D. in Computer-human Interaction from the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen.

[8] Bowie, Nolan A. “The Digital Divide: Making Knowledge Available in a Global Context.” Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide. Paris: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000. 37-40

[9] Nielsen, J. and Pernice K. “Web Usability for Senior Citizens: 46 Design Guidelines Based on Usability Studies with People Age 65 and Older.” San Carlos, California: The Nielsen Norman Group, 2002. Available electronically at: <http://www.nngroup.com/reports/seniors/>

[10]“ e-Health and the Elderly: How Seniors Use the Internet for Health – Survey.” The Kaiser Family Foundation January 2005. Available electronically at: <http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/e-Health-and-the-Elderly-How-Seniors-Use-the-Internet-for-Health-Information-Key-Findings-From-a-National-Survey-of-Older-Americans-Survey-Report.pdf>

[11] Marable, Leslie. “False Oracles: Consumer Reaction to Learning the Truth About How Search Engines Work: Results of an Ethnographic Study.” Context-Based Research Group 30 June 2006. Available electronically at:< http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/pdfs/false-oracles.pdf>

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] Lynch, Grahame. “The New Bandwidth Bubble? Foreign Barons Corner the Market, Much to the U.S. Government’s Dismay.” America’s Network. FindArticles.com, 15 November 2004. Web. 29 April 2010

[15] Gardiner, Bryan. “Google’s Submarine Cable Plans Get Official.” Wired  25 February 2008

[16] Ibid

---

[1] Dell, Melissa. “The Persistent Effects of Peru’s Mining Mita.” Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010). Available electronically at: