David
Realistically, who is going to write an article like this if not someone who disagrees with what these academics and scientists are doing.

But the point is not whether I disagree, but whether they have the knowledge to accurately raise issues which are in most cases not in their field of expertise, and the timing of it four days before an election which makes it overtly political.

Yes they crossed a line. Academics occupy a priveledged position whereby the community affords them great credibility for being thoughtful, objective and apolitical. If they publicly support something which is outside their field of expertise, which is actually wrong because it simply ignores the conduct of a recent Independent Review, and do it in an overtly political way, they don't deserve this credibility.

Mark, that in a nutshell is the argument against the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer etc.

Can you make a comment about what they are doing to the credibility of academia and science?

Where does it say in any university charter that an academic has to be apolitical outside of the classroom?

Where does it say in any university charter that an academic can only comment on matters in their field of expertise - however that is defined.

Disagreeing is one thing but saying that 'they've crossed a line' is nonsense.

@Shadow Minister: that is exactly what the greens are about. No expense is too much to pay for even the tiniest impact on the environment. The AEF would appear to be a reaction to this.

Shadow, it is a pleasure to be in complete agreement with you for a change.

@MWPOYNTER: I am reticent to respond to you as I am acutely aware that drawing attention to the author of an article and his/her associations seems to be a tactic to avoid addressing their arguments.

Mark, I'm flummoxed. You have just posted an article on OLO which spent most of its words attacking the associations of the people who delivered the greens message.

The Independent review of the Commonwealth EPBC act found that it was possible to both protect our native forests and maintain jobs in the timber industry. Their findings that the Regional Forest Agreement balances conservation and timber production should be essential reading for all academics at the University of Tasmania.

Even more academics from the University, this time from the English department, have joined with leading environmental movement anti forestry activists to issue another open letter to the newly elected House of Assembly over the weekend. This open letter again quotes the finding of EMC’s Essential Research opinion poll. To do so it quotes a “forest Governance report commissioned by Environment Tasmania that is based upon the same poll, and a read of that report reveals that the poll was commissioned by Environment Tasmania.

Yet the highest result to any of its questions was an overwhelming 90% agreed with the statement that “I think it’s possible that we can both protect our native forests and maintain jobs in the timber industry and that is the policy I want the next Tasmanian government to implement.”

This is exactly what the Independent Review and the full Federal court found the RFA to be doing.

Support for extending the RFA was a key policy platform by both the Liberals and ALP with candidates acknowledging and committing to its social, economic and environmental benefits. Only the greens had a policy of tearing the RFA up despite the extensive reservation of high conservation value forest listed in Mark’s article.

The has been bipartisan support for the Regional forest Agreement by the two major parties since the 2004 Federal elections so it is a wonder only 45% of respondents to an Essential Research study cited thought that there was “little difference” between the policies of the two major parties on logging.

Bugsy@ "What are the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer doing for the credibility of academia and science?"

Well, particularly Carter and Plimer do cop a lot of criticism for not being climate scientists, although having studied the climate change issues for so long they must hardly be completely ignorant of the arguments.

Marohasy was not being paid as an academic in her particular field of expertise, but as an environmental spokesperson for the IPA so you could expect that she had done a lot of study to be across a broad range of issues.

Similarly, you could expect that career activists for the mainstream environmental groups are paid to develop a grasp of issues outside their area of academic expertise, and so over time must also develop an awareness that deserves some acknowledgement, although they rarely let it get in the way of ideological beliefs.

This is a bit different to those who are being paid to have expertise in one field, suddenly coming out in support of something in another field as most of these academics seem to have done.

rstuart@ "Mark, I'm flummoxed. You have just posted an article on OLO which spent most of its words attacking the associations of the people who delivered the greens message"

I think you should read the article again. It does actually address the arguments that were in their 'open letter'.

Also, the article mainly attacks their judgement in supporting something they are not fully aware of and doing it in such an overtly political way. If I knew whether they were members of the Wilderness Society or the ACF, then I could have attacked their associations.