From O’Hare et al., in Biomass and Bioenergy, 35:10 4485-4487:
“Indirect land use change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies” by S. Kim and B. Dale, presents a principal inference not supported by its results, that rests on a fundamental conceptual error, and that has no place in the current discussion of biofuels’ climate effects. The paper takes correlation between two variables in a system with many interacting factors to indicate (or contraindicate) causation, and draws a completely incorrect inference from observed sample statistics and their significance levels.
And yes, I read the whole thing, and yes, as far as I can tell Mike and his colleagues make out their case, leaving a small grease spot where a pair of academic reputations used to be.
(There’s a letter in response, but it’s behind a paywall. I invite Kim and Dale to reprint it in comments, or make any other response that seems right to them.)