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

That is _exactly_ the same tactic a mob who Mark is/was associated with, the AEF, uses. You have seen it yourself in the stream the articles here signed Peter Ridd / Bob Carter / Jennifer Marohasy, all duely noted as "a member of the AEF".

Where this all gets a bit hypocritical is Mark Poynter vigorously defends the AEF employing these tactics, but attacks the greenies for doing the same thing. Push him on it, and he will say the AEF's academic's are real experts, but the greenies academics don't have a clue or something. I confess I have trouble seeing the difference between the two groups myself.

You can see an example of it here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10214#166466

In fact, this article appears to be an expansion of the posts on that thread. Personally I don't see how getting knowledgeable academics from either side engaged in the debate could possibly be a bad thing.

I do have an issue with the AEF (Australian Environmental Foundation) AEF, which is an organisation representing and funded by industry choosing a name conspicuously like the ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), and then going on to claim, as Mark did in that other thread, that the AEF are the real champions for the environment and imply the ACF / Wilderness Society or whatever are just a bunch of crackpots who are not truly concerned for the environment, or something. Again, the argument made no sense to me so I probably have it wrong.

That is just out and out deceptive behaviour, unlike the actions of the greenies that Mark is complaining about here.

Pelican@ "How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?"

The community expects academics to be even-handed and objective and attributes a high level of credibility to what they say. If what they are saying is wrong or skewed, then their credibility is misleading the community.

In this case, they were wrong to lobby for changing forestry regulations on the basis that they don't meet the requirements of the EPBC Act when an Independent Review last year said otherwise.

It is difficult to believe that most of this group of academics weren't aware of the findings of that Independent Review, yet they went ahead with their 'open letter' anyway - isn't that being a little deceptive?

Granted, some of the group from other unrelated disciplines may not have known of last year's Independent Review - if so, they have simply been naive to support something that they didn't know enough about.

Pelican@ "Whoever said scientists and academics cannot be political ..."

There's no law against it, but they then create a problem regarding their own credibility. If they come to be known for supporting a particular political cause, their impartiality becomes questionable, and as Lomborg said, when we can't even trust our academics and scientists to be a voice of reason, society has a problem.

Pelican@ "Academic economists .... are constantly sharing their opinions in the media and on forums like this".

Are they sticking to their area of expertise? Are they doing it four-days prior to an election in a daily newspaper in a format addressed to political leaders?

Would you respect the views of a group of earth science academics lobbying to reform the health industry? If not, how can you respect the views of academics from unrelated disciplines lobbying against forestry?

rstuart,
Yes, these academics have been pretty open, but (as above) this create problems for how the community regards both them and their educational institutions.

Front groups - perhaps you should do a bit of research. Check out the Wilderness Society and its Wild Country Science Council. How does this differ from the AEF, etc.?

If these dons are so smart, why do they need to cite a public opinion poll? Public opinions changes daily, and your average pleb has more to worry about (including jobs provided by forestry) than ‘green’ issues.

If we are going to rely on polls, university activists and their opinions are superfluous; especially as these supposedly ‘eminent’ academics use the things themselves. And, these same doyens, seem to be more put out by the industry closeness to politicians; jealousy, perhaps?

The ‘Mercury’ does what media does and prints rubbish about ‘fear’ preventing people from speaking out about forest issues. Fear! Bob Brown and his stooges are always screaming about the evils of Gunns. No fear there.

Mark’s “Given the inherent credibility afforded to Australian academia” could be replaced with blind faith in Australian academia; faith that people who are called Professor must know something about everything. If the public would use its common sense – something the highly ‘educated’ are not known for – they would realise that these people are not all-knowing and all-seeing. Even a look of the list of windbags shows that most of them are not even formally qualified in the area they are assuming knowledge of.

Further along in is article, Mark demolishes the poll. So, what’s left. A list of stirrers who, like most employed people, probably know they day jobs back to front, but are no more qualified to give any more than their personal opinions – just like the rest of us.

Rstuart,

You may be right, but as I have never heard of the AEF before, I cannot really comment. From what I see of the AEF they are a small (lobby) group, but I cannot find any similar example (possibly through insufficient looking)

If in your words "That is _exactly_ the same tactic" then the greens which are a large organisation with a political front are alse guilty of deceptive behaviour.

Crossing the line---interesting choice of words.

Who gets to define the line?

The commissars of the communist party in the former Soviet "Union"?
The thought police in any and every totalitarian state, including the one described in Orwells 1984.

We have ways of dealing with people like you (who cross the line)

Meanwhile how many academics within the university system in the USA for instance, do research work for the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex altogether.

Doing research on how to kill both people and the natural world altogether, in supposedly ever more efficient ways. Industrial-scale mega-death.

Which line have such people crossed?

Some such people are/were treated as cultural heroes. They are of course all well-respected and wear their suits with collar and tie to work. They might even be "scholars" at the American Enterprise Institute---the USA equivalent of our OZ IPA.

Robert Oppenheimer (the "father" of the A-bomb) was made "father" of the year by the American family association. Edward Teller was awarded the "freedom" medal! (for services to the death/terror machine)

The weapons scientist comes home---Im home honey, how are you and the kids.

By the way we have just completed our research on the new weapons system (for which I get a huge bonus for coming in on time and budget). A system which can kill all biological life in a several square mile circle.

Has this dreadfully sane person crossed any line?

Mark and Ben
I understand what you are getting at but the open letter, in your own words, calls for "for reform of the governance of Tasmania’s forest industry."

Governance is not a science. Opinions are based on critical analysis and research and you don't necessarily have to be a forestry scientist to come to a conclusion about issues of governance, corruption, influence, commercial and environmental accountability.

Skullduggery is not a science and free speech is not limited to non-academics. We expect robust debate and discourse from academics surely.