This is an important article on a most important subject. Mr Poynter has neatly exposed two fundamental problems with Australian academia: (i) the apparent dependence of some of their research institutions on 'tied' funding; and (ii) the blurring of the lines between some of their scientits and political activism. The extention of this flawed process into policy, via an excercise like the Garnaut Report, indicates that we are looking here at a deeply damaging aspect of modern society.

The ANU will no doubt strongly counter-attack on this issue, crying "academic freedom" and "censorship" and lauding the efforts of their scientists to save the planet. This will not save them from the growing perception in many quarters that they have gone too far, and that the scientific credibility of institutions such as the Fenner School has been seriously damaged.

This is a timely and significant article that raises the question, has the Garnaut report been compromised by academic activism?

As Mark points out, in its 4th assessment report, the IPCC concluded that the most effective mitigation strategy for greenhouse gas was sustainable forestry managed for the harvest of timber for solid wood, fibre and energy needs as well as increasing carbon stored.

Yet the Garnaut report appears to go against the world action of valuing native forests for both their production value as well as there ability to capture carbon and store it in its biomass, its soil and in the timber products the world desperately needs.

The Wilderness Society has loudly trumpeted that the Garnaut report “says that Australia’s greenhouse emissions can be reduced significantly if logging of native forests and land-clearing are stopped immediately”

What the Wilderness Society does not tell the average member of the public that this is their interpretation of a table that quotes figures from the analysis in the Mackey et al Green Carbon report, or that they paid the ANU to provide this analysis. Or that the ANU report was released with great media fanfare that they orchestrated.

Was it to get the figures into the Garnaut report that the ANU published the analysis without releasing its data, its calculations or its methodology? This is an action that undermines the credibility of the report, the peer review process and perhaps even the University itself. A technical paper has yet to be published in a scientific journal.

If after the release of the data and the calculations it is found that errors have been made and the findings are not justified the actions of the ANU WildCountry authors and their funders the Wilderness Society may undermine both the Garnaut report and the Rudd Labor government attempt to mitigate Australia’s greenhouse gasses.

Science and politics go hand in hand, because we are "human".

Often, whether or not a person considers a scientific report or study "feasible" depends on the religious, philosophical or political outlook of that person.

For example, if a study shows industrialized mankind has an effect on warming the planet, there's NO WAY AT ALL it will be believed by someone who's convinced climate change is a socialist plot.

Because we are "human", with all our human frailties, science and politics/religion/philosophy will always be mixed together.

Thank you for a clear and concise expose, Mark. It describes an example of a very disturbing trend, which, alongside Ian Castles's recent article on the Drought Exceptional Report, should be being picked up by our journalists, who alas seem to be too busy recrafting NGO press releases themselves.

Same happened back in the late eighties when the various green groups stopped hazard reduction burns by massively increasing the requirements to have impact statements and alike.
Now they claim credit for promoting environmental burns to reduce the risk of high intensity fires on high risk day's.
Only trouble is that now we have public lands (Nation Parks,reserves and unoccupied crown land) that have not had a fire for twenty plus years and are at maximum fuel load.
Try and get them to accept that their actions have caused demonstrable
problems and all you get is a blank look!
I suppose that Dolly did it!

I suppose I should hold an opinion having hung around ANU campus while a Canberra resident and now living near forested areas as a resident of Tasmania. My first conclusion is that carbon accounting is far from settled and I can see omissions in different schools of thought. Here's one from left field and personal observation ..old growth has different local climate effects to regrowth. Or another ..we should graze cattle in forests to reduce fuel accumulation.

Quite apart from carbon accounting I think the author's point is valid. Without being specific I believe ANU has given pseudo-scientific credence to half baked ideas that their own undergraduates should be able to dismiss. It invokes the Canberra Times sarcastic reference to the mythical School of Inconsequential Studies.