I don't know the amount, tragedy. The IPA is not a particularly open organisation. All I know what is in the sourcewatch page reports Mike Nathan, once Executive Director of the IPA, said the IPA received funding from Gunns in an article in the AFR. Sadly the AFR doesn't have the article on line, so I can't give you a link. But you will find many references to that article on the web.

rstuart, that's not evidence - that's a rumour.

But, to return to my original point, it proves nothing about the content of the IPA's arguments and analyses, even if it were true.

This fallacious method of arguing by association is very effective for the green movement in particular and the pseudo-left in general, and that is why it needs to be identified and opposed.

In the meantime, Max Rheese's perfectly reasonable call for a new paradigm on national parks remains unanswered.

@byork: that's not evidence - that's a rumour.

If an article appearing in a national newspaper and written by the then Executive Director of the organisation saying it gets its funds from Gunns isn't evidence, then I don't know what is.

@byork: But, to return to my original point, it proves nothing about the content of the IPA's arguments and analyses, even if it were true.

You keep repeating this point. Don't you have another one?

@byork: In the meantime, Max Rheese's perfectly reasonable call for a new paradigm on national parks remains unanswered.

Hardly. Others such as @next addressed the article directly.

rstuart, the evidence would be the content of the original article, which we would have to see and then critically assess (rather than rely on your memory and interpretation of it).

You are not out to do a 'public service' by implying a link between Gunns and AEF (via IPA), you are out to stifle and avoid debate - that's why you have been unable/unwilling to challenge Max's piece

@byork: the evidence would be the content of the original article, which we would have to see and then critically assess

You seem to be a avid follow of the church of science, so let me put in those terms for you. I gave you all the information you need to reproduce experiment and its results. To wit: you could toddle along to the AFR's offices, and look up the article in question.

Now as it happens, I am a nice sort of guy and would normally make that drop dead easy for you by supplying a link. But I can't in this case, as it appears the article is hidden behind the AFR's pay wall.

Be that as it may, I have passed the golden test for scientific evidence - I have given you all the information needed to reproduce the results. Indeed it appears others have done just that and reported what they saw on the web. The reports aren't difficult to find, just google the citations given in sourcewatch. Whether you choose to do any of this is up to you, but please don't claim it is somehow my problem if you don't do it. The fact that you haven't done it as yet makes me think you aren't really interested in the answer.

rstuart, that response is, well, er, simply bizarre, and I feel no need to continue with you.