Blind Freddy can see there is an improper relationship between the Tasmanian government and the forestry industry. The evidence is in giving pulp mill advocates multiple free kicks instead of due process, in supporting prosecutions which could bankrupt opponents (a form of judicial intimidation) and opening up untouched old growth areas in the guise of tourism promotion. A perceptive person might think this view was reflected in the high Green vote in the recent State election.

As for some technical claims it is hard to be definitive. I suggest if some think temperate forests are better carbon sinks than tropical while other disagree then the jury is out. I do know that if you found a cluster of 400 year old trees in Europe they would be instantly protected. In Tasmania they are doomed and will never grow back the same if climate forecasts are right. It seems to me that logging interests had all of the 20th century to get plantation timber up to speed and to find chlorine free ways of pulp bleaching. How much longer do they want? They don't seem to get that a modern state that still has extensive pristine forest is a jewel in the world crown.

Pelican@ "The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors ... "

The term 'eminent' was used by The Mercury to describe the group.

Pelican@ "dengirating anything 'Green' is not going to change the fact that there are real concerns about sustainable forestry in Tasmania"

I don't believe the article denigrates 'greens'. Yes, there are many Tasmanians with concerns about the regulation of forestry - this article is (amongst other things) questioning the veracity of these concerns given that an independent review last year showed them to be largely unfounded.

Pelican@ "Do you really believe that the forestry industry would respect matters of sustainability or old growth forests without regulation?"

The timber industry has never been unregulated in native forests. The regulation on public land where most timber harvesting occurs is done by government agencies. They are staffed by forest scientists - do you really believe they would want our forests to be totally destroyed?

Pelican@ "why is it that those who wish to protect forests or seek restraint from the forestry industry are labelled as activists"

The semantics of what constitutes a forest activist is not really the point. The question that the article poses is - is it a good thing when academics and scientists who are valued by society for being thoughtful, objective, and apolitical, trade on their credibility to try to influence an election? This cuts across all political issues not just forestry, and raises real concerns about the integrity of our educational institutions.

I suspect MWPOYNTER already knows what my response will be.

The political activitism is no different to the what the fronts industry, the AEF, IPA, Forestry Associations engage in. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

It is just politics, people saying what they believe in on a soap box. Unlike the industry organisations, they are being pretty honest about what they stand for. There is no astroturfing or anything of that kind. In fact, I can't see a single thing wrong with it - except perhaps I don't always agree with them.

I suspect that is Mark Poynter's problem with them too.

Mark
How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?

If these professions had come out in favour of the forest industry they would suddenly revert to being credible.

There is nothing wrong with either of these professions having an opinion and voicing it - we need more of it. Academia is not a national security agency - opinions and objections can be aired debated and discussed even with a political agenda.

Whoever said scientists and academics cannot be politial particularly if your own studies and research point to very real problems that affect the quality of life for us all.

Academic economists whether they be Keynsian, Monetarists (or indeed Third Way) are constantly sharing their opinions in the media and on forums like this.

As long as academics and scientists are transparent I cannot see a problem. It is when agendas are hidden that we should be concerned.

Acedemics like everyone else have the right to free speech.

However a tactic that the greens often do is create these open letters and get a few famous "acedemics" to sign on to it.

Another typical example is the nobel prize winner and other acedemics that signed onto an open letter condemning the olympic dam expansion. None of these "acedemics" had any mining or geological expertise or had been anywhere near the area, and had the technical relevance of Tiger Woods or maybe even Paris Hilton.

This is for three reasons:
1 They are running an emotional campaign not one on facts,
2 Anyone with the relevant expertise would tell them to PO.
3 Acedemics come cheap.

The acedemics get free advertising, and because the "letter" is a feel good political fluff piece that has nothing to do with their field of expertise, the drivel can't reflect badly on their actual field of study.

pelican "How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?"

They may well be Professors or Doctors in their chosen fields but in relation to forestry issues these academics have NO STANDING!

To my mind, if they are to sign such a party political statement, they must do so without trading on their academic credentials. It isn't enough to just have an intellectual or emotional connection to trees, they need to be across the many and complex issues associated with Tasmanian foresty. They risk showing themselves to be ill-informed green activists, not measured thoughtful educators of the next generation. Of all people in society, they should be counted amongst those that form an opinion based upon the careful examination of ALL the facts. Sadly, I seriously doubt if any of them have slightest understanding of the controls and regulations that already exist in field of native forest harvesting.