The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Blurring the lines between science and political activism > Comments

Blurring the lines between science and political activism : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 30/10/2008

Green links and personal agendas are hurting the credibility of ANU research.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
This thread is about how academics or experts are prepared to compromise standards to suit an activist agenda. Dickie has given as a perfect example of this by first attacking my integrity and claiming that I manipulated the published comments of an ‘expert’.

In expressing his regret he blamed the newspaper for misquoting the ‘expert’, the newspaper article also available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/69132/70_R_J_and_P_M_Roberts.pdf . The article has, to my knowledge, never been challenged perhaps Dickie has some evidence, such as a letter to the editor, pointing out these misquotes. [He expects to be spoon fed links to evidence that has been widely available for those seeking to make an informed opinion]

It is for others to judge whether Dickie’s response is immature or even petulant, however his comment that he “don’t give a damn” about the Beca Amec finding in relation to ECF and TCF mills is typical of activists reaction to solid evidence when it is contrary to their own opinion.

Dickie accuses me of being an activist for the pulp mill, in fact, I consider my self an activist for evidence and for sustainable development. A process for ensuring sustainability in terms of social, environmental and economic outcomes, not just ecological.

As the independent evidence about the pulp mill that I have read is that it will have minimal environmental impact (no old growth, no wilderness, strict emission controls and technology), will create jobs and value add a resource currently being exported and provide a tremendous boost to the economy, I believe this is sustainable development. (Dickie appears to hold a different opinion)

Olympus, part of process for the sustainability of our forests the Federal Government has issued the State of the Forest Report http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/publications/sofr2008.html which compares forest management with Criteria and Indicators. Most State Forest managers also have a statement such as the Charter at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2008/10/bright-future-for-forestry Perhaps you could discuss how these could be improved.

Like the United Nations Forum on forests, I would hope that articles like Mark’s would promote informed and civil discussion on the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm no expert on pulp mills but I understand that chlorine is used to bleach wood pulp so that it becomes white and hence usable as paper. Sweden's pulp mills rely almost totally on soft woods which are low in tannins and other dark-coloured chemicals, hence why they can operate chlorine-free pulp mills. The Gunn's proposal is to turn hardwood into paper, thereby necessitating the use of chlorine on what is a heavier and darker wood than anything processed in Sweden.
I also thought that dioxins were chemicals found in nature, although not at the concentrations occurring in pulp mill effluent. So the issue is what happens when the dioxins emitted from the Gunn's pulp mill mix into the receiving marine waters? Will they overwhelm the ability of the marine environment to assimilate them or will the dioxins be at such high concentrations and/or loads that the marine systems will be unable to cope. My understanding is that the regulatory authorities believe there won't be unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:14:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said fungo (Fri 7 Oct)
Posted by addiaction, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of sniping going on between all sides of the debate, which is not achieving anything other than decreasing the credibility of all and indeed 'blurring the lines between science and political activism'.

What I have yet to hear is more about using our resources more wisely and seeking better alternatives to wood pulp for paper in particular. Why we are still pulping old growth forest is simply appalling when the technology exists to use plantation softwoods more effectively and alternatives such as hemp, cotton and bamboo are already available.

>>"Some interesting facts:

* Producing one ton of paper requires 2-3 times its weight in trees. Newly cut trees account for 55 percent of the global paper supply, while 38 percent is from recycled wood-based paper, and the remaining 7 percent comes from non-tree sources.

* The pulp and paper industry is the world's fifth largest industrial consumer of energy and uses more water to produce a ton of product than any other industry>>"

http://www.geca.org.au/gec/Printed_Matters.html

An interesting report on efficient processing and treatment of timber is to be found at:
http://www.forest-network.org/GoodWoodGuide/GWG4.htm

>>"When we think of using wood, we often first think of solid wood. The traditional post and beam method of construction comes to mind. These days, however, if we opt for solid wood, we may find we are selecting a very expensive building product. Indeed, if our solid wood comes from an old growth forest or a rainforest. our choice may be unfavourable on environmental grounds as well.

Recent developments in wood technology are bringing alternative wood products onto the market that manipulate the basic properties of wood to our advantage. 'Engineered Wood" is a generic term used to describe this range of new products. The common characteristic is that they all maximise the utility of wood's basic elements to minimise wood waste. in other words, engineered wood products enable us to do more with less.<<"

Please read the full article for the variety of options now available. It is a terrific source of information
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 11:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Fractelle

You may find the "sniping" tedious, however the main object of my participation was not to debate the sustainability of our forests but to bring posters' attention to the misinformation which is being peddled here.

Therefore, I am obliged to defend those who are being maligned and are not here to defend themselves.

Cinders

Issues from my previous post - where you are unable to provide evidence to support your fallacious claims:

2. How convenient that you fail to acknowledge that the Examinator has plagerised and misquoted Lloyd-Smith's statement in her published brief on Gunns.

3. How convenient that you cannot give us the definition of Lee Bell's "ESD" qualifications

4. How curious that you are unable to support your fallacious claim that Lloyd-Smith stated "all" plants in Sweden are TCF.

5. How curious that you are unable to provide evidence to support your fallacious claim that the RPDC have accredited Gunns with "MACT."

How worrying for you Cinders that all the woodchips in Australia are inadequate to support that Pinocchio nose of yours.

http://www.fotosearch.com/bigcomp.asp?path=IMG/IMG013/125119H.jpg
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have been following with interest this developing debate generated by Mark Poynter’s probing review, but do find it a bit disappointing that ‘dickie’ has reverted to name calling and falling for the old trap of not being fully aware of what he is arguing, for I spent a bit of time last night researching just a few points he was attempting to stand by.

For example links to the Beca Amec report, and the Ensis and World Bank shows that elemental chlorine is no longer used in the bleaching process of modern pulp mills and will not be used in Tasmania, it very clear that both ECF and TCF are considered to be world’s best practice and that the “concentrations of dioxins and furans in the effluents are below the detection limits”. http://www.aet.org/epp/index.html

But perhaps the clanger of all clangers made by “dickie” is his claim that “that the Examinator has plagiarised and misquoted Lloyd-Smith's statement in her published brief on Gunns.”

First up the newspaper in question is the Examiner and the article was published, Thursday, 2 March 2006 and it reported on statements made at a meeting held 1 March 2006 in Hobart. The PDF document that dickie linked to at http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/pulp%20mill%20brief.pdf has in its property section “Created: 14/3/2006 3:49:58 pm” (the old mouse right click button reveals many secrets)

Therefore I would say it is a very desperate act to try and claim plagiarism when in fact the document was not even created at the time of the said offence occurring.

Now back to Mark Poynter’s opening post, looks like his efforts have gained a fair degree of interest as I heard this morning that there has been a call for a Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into the ANU’s Green Carbon report, and all matters relating to it
Posted by Timberjack, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 9:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy