Robert Le Page

You ask: What part of "the clear felling of old growth forest is detrimental to the soil, water supply, to population due to chemical spray, burn offs, decimation of wildlife, reduction of CO2 sinks, decreases in rainfall, erosion of land." do you not understand?

This litany of claims only further exemplifies the article's central premise that such misinformation has entered the public conscious despite being wrong or highly exaggerated and therefore makes any chance of getting a 'social licence' impossible. Ditto for your suggested referendum (even though most Tasmanians would probably support the forest industry). Those opposing it would be doing so largely on the basis of wrong information.

By the way - what part of "the Gunns pulp mill was only going to use plantation wood" do you not understand?

David Leigh

You say: "Gunns however, did not have public opinion on their side ..."

As above, if public opinion is overtly influenced by misinformation, the whole notion of 'social licence' becomes meaningless. I'm sure Gunns did try to put their side of the story of the proposed pulp mill. Why is this seen as a bad thing when it is a perfectly natural response to the public being bombarded with misinformation.

I'm sorry but Peter Cundall deserves absolutely zero credibility in this discussion - he was simply a celebratory activist pushing one view, but he did presumably influence others to join the cause.

I admire your incessant efforts to promote your film, I guess the substantial government grant that you received to make it has to be justified.

I'm sorry I have only watched the first 5 or so minutes and found (from memory) around 10 errors or highly contentious presumptions presented as though they were undeniable fact. That was enough for me.