What happens when science meets science? When one scientist says one thing and another says something different? Who do you believe? The chorus or the loner?
We could talk about climate change, but let’s not. That horse has been beaten with extreme heat; dry, droughty years; and several 1,000-year flash flood events in the same month. The climate is changing. It’s here. We’re experiencing it.
But what about fires and forest management?
There’s some disagreement (no surprises there) between the local environmental organizations and the U.S. Forest Service about what’s best: Leave the forest alone or manage it by conducting routine controlled burns, thinning thick stands of trees, and clearing out built-up brush. Who do we believe?
The Forest Service has a shitty track record of not taking care of the land its supposed to protect and manage, so that’s a no-go, you know? And organizations like the Sierra Club and Los Padres ForestWatch might be betting on this sour taste to get you on their side.
I want to believe the organizations like these, which claim to stand up for ecology and environmental preservation. I want to be on their side. But activist, researcher, and environmental “watchdog” Chad Hanson, who spoke to the Sun on behalf of the Sierra Club, has a growing pantheon of detractors. All scientists who more or less agree with the measures that the Forest Service wants to take to mitigate wildfire risk.
“What most of the science is telling us is these giant logging and chaparral-clearing projects are not stopping wildfires. The often make them burn hotter and faster toward towns,” Hanson said. “Thinning is a euphemism for logging.”
Hanson touted his own research showing weather, climate, and climate change impact fire behavior (duh!) and said that the Forest Service is being deceptive by using terms like “fuel reduction” and “fuel breaks.”
OK. Totally believable.
But more than 100 fire scientists pushed back against statements like these in a number of articles published in scientific journals. They call Hanson out by name, say he’s misleading the public, and stalling projects that could protect the public and make forests more resilient.
A wildfire science professor at UC Merced called his views “antiquated and really counterproductive.”
Nine scientists penned an article for The Ecological Society of America, “Agenda-driven science? The case of spotted owls and fire,” questioning Hanson’s research findings and the way he operates as an activist. They said his research group mixes science and litigation without disclosing conflicts of interest, conducts “erroneous analysis” using data that isn’t theirs, pressures scientist who make findings that conflict with theirs not to publish, and selectively uses data to support the activist agenda—among other things.
Whoa. Those are some a-ccu-sa-tions, amirite?
So what happens when “best science” is no longer a factual North Star, instead it’s a supporting player for political agendas? The playing field muddied with hyperbole and rhetoric that bets on the public being uninformed. Eager to believe the organizations they align with.
Sound familiar? But it’s not vaccines. It’s not climate change. It’s not COVID cures.
It’s our forests. Our communities. Our struggle to correct decades of bad forest management and try to protect our future. Instead we are stalled. Sued into inaction and praying for rain.
The canary is flying above the flames. Send matches to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Aug 11-18, 2022.