By: David R. Brown

David R. Brown
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:24:21 +0000

Jeffery - Assuming you aren't just trolling, define "malpractice" in this context. What I see is a summary of one study that, as a result of several possible differences in variables studied, research methods and even starting assumptions regarding land-use following deforestation, yields conclusions that differ from prior research. That's not only not malpractice or an indication of political bias, that's a normal and reasonable contribution to the knowledge-base and debate within academic research. In addition, there is major and ongoing public confusion about how science works as well as an understandable but fraught tendency to assume that differing conclusions between a recent study and prior studies are always an indication the most recent is right and all the prior work somehow got it wrong. I'm not saying that individual scientists can't have biases, don't have egos or can't make mistakes (they're human). But the whole enterprise of science involves practices that more than almost any other body of thought - academic or otherwise - attempt to root out and remove all of those influences on the research. Further, if this article summarized the research paper fully (which it probably didn't), it would appear that Songhen and Mendelsohn made possibly-unreasonable generalizations about land-use by focusing entirely on a specific form of tree plantation monoculture practiced here in the USA while ignoring consequences of deforestation common in the developing world (less sustainable forms of monoculture, slash and burn agriculture, urbanization, desertification, resource extraction, factory construction, etc). All of those outcomes can have a large effect on climate change relative to tree farm monoculture. Heck, it's not even clear from this article whether or not the study's authors are talking about future climate projections in light of their findings or confining their conclusions to a re-analysis of prior climate projections based on changes in forestry management in the last 50 years. Notably, best practices for forestry management in the USA is a matter of debate due to the increasing occurrence of and intensity of wildfire due in part to, you guessed it, climate change - so that may not be the best baseline for forestry going forward. All I'm trying to say is this: consider cutting climate research a little slack before you assume discrepancies among studies are exposing broad biases in the research community or scientific malpractice. Rather, think of it this way: modeling the immense complexity of interactions among all biotic and abiotic factors on Earth and then cogently articulating the results of that research to the public is not easy. Among completely reasonable, well-intentioned people there will new research that challenges aspects of prior research. That dialogue is how science works. And we're the better for it.