Read on Twitter
Science. What even is it? And why do even the moustachioed bad guys try and claim its authority?
A thread.
A thread.
Essentially, science is a way of shortcutting a debate. Look, here is some objective reality supporting our case! So shut up.
VicForests, the moustachioed bad guy of this thread, will often cite science in its arguments.
But almost always they are studies by scientists in the industry itself, or to whom VicForests gives money. As recently as May, @CeoForests was tweeting this out on repeat:
But almost always they are studies by scientists in the industry itself, or to whom VicForests gives money. As recently as May, @CeoForests was tweeting this out on repeat:
This paper above, from 2013, was refuted the following year by two people whose work was cited in the original piece.
But you won't hear about that from @CeoForests
But you won't hear about that from @CeoForests
And even now, VicForests still promotes scientific reports written by those to whom it pays money.
I say 'even now', because the judgement handed down in the Friends of Leadbeaters Possum vs VicForests case changed everything.
A dispassionate third party looked at all the evidence - including THE SCIENCE - and made findings wholly opposed to VicForests' spin below.
A dispassionate third party looked at all the evidence - including THE SCIENCE - and made findings wholly opposed to VicForests' spin below.
In court, both sides used independent experts to argue their case. However, the presiding judge gave greater credence to the witnesses put forward by the FLP.
She was *somewhat* sceptical of the independence of a Melbourne Uni professor, who testified on behalf of Vic Forests.
She was *somewhat* sceptical of the independence of a Melbourne Uni professor, who testified on behalf of Vic Forests.
On the topic of scientific knowledge, Justice Mortimer also noted how VicForests have no formalised forest management planning role for their own biodiversity conservation experts
This is true even for the agency's Manager of Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tim McBride.
This is true even for the agency's Manager of Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tim McBride.
McBride WAS involved in this bonkers scientific experiment in 2018. To assess the effect of different logging regimes on the survival of the threatened Greater Glider, VicForests decided to cut down its habitat, and see what survived.
Picture: ABC News
Picture: ABC News
A 'true experimental science project', he called it.
The Goongerah Environment Centre had a close look at this *cough* experiment, and noted that in Quick Step they surveyed for Gliders in a forested area that was NEVER to be logged.
Making this whole exercise pointless.
The Goongerah Environment Centre had a close look at this *cough* experiment, and noted that in Quick Step they surveyed for Gliders in a forested area that was NEVER to be logged.
Making this whole exercise pointless.
As a measure of VicForests' mendacity, look how they tried to implicate the Arthur Rylah Institute in the study design.
And the Institute pushed back at the idea they were involved in any depth.
And the Institute pushed back at the idea they were involved in any depth.
At this midway point in the thread, let me pose a puzzle for you.
Spot the contradiction in these two statements about pre-harvest surveys for Greater Gliders.
Spot the contradiction in these two statements about pre-harvest surveys for Greater Gliders.
A charitable interpretation of this - and @CeoForests has left some ambiguity in her tweet - is that VicForests do general surveys, whereas the judge is talking about surveys for Greater Gliders specifically.
So let's focus on this lovely creature: the Greater Glider (ABC News)
So let's focus on this lovely creature: the Greater Glider (ABC News)
Until now, VicForests believed it was under no obligation under any management guidelines to look for, or protect, Gliders in scheduled coupes in the Central Highlands.
The judge disagreed.
The judge disagreed.
Citizen scientists had to do surveys instead, often after logging had started.
One surveyor submitted many reports to DEWLP, for which he received a polite thank you - and no further correspondence.
Did ANY of these reports lead to a pre-harvest survey by VicForests? Well...
One surveyor submitted many reports to DEWLP, for which he received a polite thank you - and no further correspondence.
Did ANY of these reports lead to a pre-harvest survey by VicForests? Well...
As well as VicForests, DEWLP is itself expected to do surveys of these coupes, under a new program (since July 2018) called The Forest Protection Survey Program.
But VicForests' determination to log is such that even DEWLP is not given enough time to investigate.
But VicForests' determination to log is such that even DEWLP is not given enough time to investigate.
You hate to see colleagues - VicForests and DEWLP- fall out like this.
Essentially, VicForests is a logging agency, and it cannot cope with the need to simultaneously protect threatened species. Yet it must.
The extract below sums it up well.
The extract below sums it up well.
A summary:
Organisationally, VicForests does not incorporate scientists in its management planning.
It promotes scientific reports supporting logging (almost invariably funded by it) and ignores the preponderance of studies which see logging as damaging to the environment
Organisationally, VicForests does not incorporate scientists in its management planning.
It promotes scientific reports supporting logging (almost invariably funded by it) and ignores the preponderance of studies which see logging as damaging to the environment
At times, this can spill over into personal attacks on the scientist involved, notably Professor David Lindenmayer of ANU.
This week, these personal attacks appeared in that bastion of objectivity, the Weekly Times.
Playing the man, since they keep fumbling the ball.
This week, these personal attacks appeared in that bastion of objectivity, the Weekly Times.
Playing the man, since they keep fumbling the ball.
What 'scientific studies' VicForests does undertake seem jaw droppingly unethical: logging forest in different ways and seeing how many gliders die.
Even the research institute attached to DEWLP disassociated itself from this 'experiment'.
Even the research institute attached to DEWLP disassociated itself from this 'experiment'.
Finally, with a commercial imperative to log, VicForests has no motivation to look for threatened species within Central Highland coupes. So it doesn't.
Last word goes to Justice Mortimer.
Last word goes to Justice Mortimer.
Goodbye, VicForests! And don't let the door hit you etc ...
