rstuart, you still need to be able to argue against the content and logic of Max Rheese's article. The reason the fallacy of arguing by association is so common is probably because those who use it are incapable of evidence-based logical argument. This may or may not apply to you - but you certainly have not demonstrated any argument against his actual case.

Oh yes, and you are taking a position that reflects the status quo, the Establishment viewpoint, so perhaps there's also the arrogance of those who feel no need to argue.

I was a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation for about ten years. I prefer the Australian Environment Foundation, though, because it is less ideological, not quasi-religious and evidence-based in its approach to environmental issues

@byork: you still need to be able to argue against the content and logic of Max Rheese's article.

I wasn't arguing the points Max raised at all, beyond mentioning that our appalling extinction rate won't be helped by having less National Parks. I don't presume to have the expertise. I simply pointed out which side Max speaks for. This is not unreasonable, given the name of the AEF might lead you to think he is batting for the other side.

You try to shield behind the AEF being a "fact based organisation". That is just spin. Like all good spin, it is in some sense true. I am certain the individuals within the AEF, with the possible exception of Max, do present their actual beliefs and they are fact based as much as anyone's opinion can be. That is not where the bias lies.

The AEF's mode of operation seems to be to find individuals with suitable scientific credentials whose outlook matches their own, and provide a soapbox for them to stand on. Just what those views are is pretty clear from the headlines on their front page http://aefweb.info/ :

- Environmentalists have crossed the Rubicon
- Dump Emissions Trading Scheme Now
- Do-gooders hop on kangaroo-cull bandwagon
- Aboriginal people in Cape York threatened by "Wild Rivers"
- Scientists 'crying wolf' over coral

It is pretty damming. All these "fact based conclusions" from the AEF all point in the one direction, and it ain't "spend money on the Environment".

It is pretty obvious what is going on here. The AEF's corporate masters want to push scientific viewpoints that match their profit motive. So they find people with those viewpoints, and give them bigger megaphones than scientists with opposing views. The finishing touch is to give the megaphone a very misleading name.

The only surprising thing about any of this is the scientists they recruit seem to be completely taken in by all this. They believe they are hired to hand out the unbiased truth, and insist they are doing just that.

rstuart, "corporate masters" can be found on the greenie side, too. The green outlook is dominant, mainstream, largely (but not entirely) supported by the Establishment and Big Business. 'Big Green' is itself a multi-billion dollar international phenomenon - but I think its arguments still have to be addressed regardless of that.

You need to claim that it's all on one side precisely because, as you have admitted, you cannot argue against the content of Max's argument (you lack the expertise which he clearly has).

Would it make you any less alarmed about global warming, for example, to find that the nuclear industry has a strong vested interest (corporate profit) in the dissemination of the notion that increased fossil fuel emissions will result in catastrophe? That the greenies are nuclear's best hope?

If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop taking a reactionary line that is clearly formulistic (ie, allows you to avoid the need to think critically). You can only appeal to the like-minded - though hopefully they too will be fed up by now with the puerile argument-by-association technique.

Rstuart and byork - this is an interesting discussion. I have long been appalled by the tendency of environmental activists and those who support their campaigns, to attack those with opposing views via their identity rather than their arguments.

This is a disturbing phenomena because it is basically an attempt to invalidate the viewpoints of those who actually know the most about particular topics through working within them on a daily basis. Surely those who work in resource use industries should have a voice in debates that concern their future, and particularly when the public attacks made against them are irrational or inaccurate, as they so often are.

One of the problems is that most of those with a 'green' bent don't question the views coming from their own side of the debate. If they cared to do some basic research - particularly of government websites which contain a huge array of environmental information - they could form their own opinions. If they did, those with an open mind would generally be appalled at the level of misrepresentation of these issues that occurs under the guise of mainstream environmental activism. This is largely why there is a need for groups like the AEF to put some balance into the public debate.

There is also incredible hypocrisy in attacking the modus-operandi of groups like the AEF, which is little different to those of opposing groups. Rstuart criticises the AEF because it "finds individuals with suitable scientific credentials whose outlook matches their own" but how does this differ from The Wilderness Society forming a union with part of the ANU and using the percieved credibility of 'green academics' to push its views?

But of course, I would express such sentiments because I'm also listed on SourceWatch, a site which I believe has a credibility problem by largely listing individuals from only one side of the environmental debate, and choosing not to mention the critically important tertiary qualifications and work experience of spokespersons, in favour of trying to establish evil economic links.

@byork: If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop taking a reactionary line

Excellent. It seems we agree on my characterisation of the AEF.

As for the greenies being supported by the Establishment and Big Business, it sounds like you are clutching at straws to me. Unlike the AEF, the greenies rely on hordes of motivated, unpaid volunteers. I doubt Big Business pay for a tiny fraction of their man power. And there is no Establishment in the sense you are using it. There are only people and organisations espousing the established view. There is by definition more of them then those espousing the non-established view. It is not unfair, as you seem to imply. It is just how it must be, by definition.

@byork: Would it make you any less alarmed about global warming, for example, to find that the nuclear industry has a strong vested interest

If I evaluated AGW based on news reports, yes it would, particuarly if I found what I assumed to be an unbiased article was funded by the Nuclear Industry. As it happens, unlike the River Red Gums being discussed here, I take a personal interest in AGW and made the time to understand the claims. Flak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak such as that generated by the AEF is no longer a concern when you do that.

@byork: stop taking a reactionary line that is clearly formulistic

The only statement I have made about the issue was to point out reducing land area devoted to National Parks can only worsen the primary driver for our extinction rate - habitat destruction. It is a statement of the obvious, and as such could hardly be called "reactionary" or "formulistic".

And yet, you seem so touchy.

@byork: If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop ...

Yes Sir! So do you get to determine what comments are appropriate for all threads, or just this one?

But as a point of order, I don't consider expanding on the biography of the articles author as off-topic. I am surprised you do.

rstuart, stop pretending to be part of some battling under-dog group. The princes and popes are on your side, as are the capitalist media (with a few exceptions). One can hardly watch CNN, MTV, etc. without being exposed to the green message. The World Bank and IMF, not to mention many of the biggest corporations, embrace the reactionary green 'sustainability' agenda and employ green advisers - why not? It really doesn't threaten capitalism, as the emerging green bourgeoisie shows. The Establishment? You have all the state governors and the Governor-General on your side, plus the opinion-making superstructure of capitalism. Is there a pulpit anywhere in Australia where humans are not admonished for their 'sin' of progress through mastery of Nature?

In the absence of student rebelliousness in our universities, the university authorities teach highly one-sided alarmist courses inculcating conservative green ideology (sustainability). The multi-millionaire movie producers in Hollywood make vast sums out of the doomsaying green message and the capitalist Fairfax media makes money out of the alarmist headlines.

Arraigned against you are scientists who dare to dissent against Official Science (and who are vilified for daring to rebel), and, most importantly, the working-class people whose jobs are unnecessarily threatened (but who rarely get a chance in the media, as their talking is done by the union bosses - what Marx called the 'labour aristocrats'). Oh yes, and you ae opposed by Marxist-influenced left-wingers who oppose both capitalism and the green quasi-religion because both hold back the productive forces.

If you can't see how mainstream green ideology has become in capitalist society, then you're deluding yourself. It's significant, though ,that you need to see yourself in that way.