quote "Apparently, real world scientific data and observations do not seem to matter anymore. This is very clearly a concerning predetermined conclusion at play here when Rodda/Reed would suggest using only 10 parameters based on the guidance of a computer model, rather than 60 real world parameters as used in the Pyron study to determine the Burmese python distribution.

"endquote



Actually, this is exactly what I expected to come from Rodda et al.. and unfortunately this is playing out exactly as should be expected.



Rodda's original paper wasn't subjected the normal peer reviewed process and was not challenged before publication because of this loophole. Subsequent responses and studies have poked holes into the premise by Rodda et al. Rodda et al are responding with what they consider flaws in the studies that cast doubt on thier results... and are using that to support thier original premise. The next round will be responses back against this response by Rodda etal to thier results. As facts are defended or refuted, there will be accumulating evidence which will eventually completely reject Rodda etal's premise on the threat posed by the snakes. If all that is needed to refute this response by Rodda is to rerun the model using only the conditions for bivitattus then that is going to be a simple refute to Rodda et al.

Where it is a problem is that Rodda et al can use USGS to release the results without going through the peer reviewed process where the researchers outside of USGS have to go throgh the process which can be significant period of time.



As a very very extreme example of the time line it can take to fully refute bad research, look at how long it took to show that the original study on autism and vaccinations to be totally refuted and how many people refuse to accept the results...



Ed

[ Show Entire Thread ]