Land use change? Science is lacking

An analysis of the Searchinger et al. paper on indirect land use has found the "science" used by the paper's author fell far short of acceptable standards.

For information on the analysis, see this news release. The researchers aren't the only ones that question the validity of the whole land use discussion, models and theories. (More here.)

In this case, John Mathews and Dr. Hao Tan, researchers from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, performed the analysis of Searchinger et al.

The analysis revealed the framework used was inappropriate in that it started with assumptions as to diversion of grain to ethanol production in the U.S. but then extrapolated these to parts of the world, such as sugarcane growing in Brazil.

Mathews and Tan's analysis concluded that Searchinger et al. failed sound scientific standards on many fronts and that government agencies relying on Searchinger et al. findings for evaluating biofuels would be better served by utilizing other controls.

From the release:

"Indirect land use change effects are too diffuse and subject to too many arbitrary assumptions to be useful for rule-making," stated Professor Mathews. "The use of direct and controllable measures such as building statements of origin or biofuels into the contracts that regulate the sale of such commodities would secure better results."

The two found six main problems with the Searchinger work (see the news release for details).

As noted in the news release:

"These six shortcomings, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science," added John Mathews. "A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."


As Mark Lambert over at Corn Commentary said, the analysis shows that the Searchinger piece is "nothing more than ideology draped in a lab coat to disguise it as science."

Well put.

And, of course, Searchinger was one of the reviewers on EPA's indirect land use change model. (See here.)