"1] For those of you who don't know, the AEF was formed to protect timber interests"

Strangely enough, sustainable management of forests seems to be one of the few subjects about which they have some expertise. On this subject, it seems to be the greenies who are full of BS.

David

i guess the price of having OLO run by liberals is having to tolerate articles from these laughable corporate hacks.

Interesting post rstuart.

The AEF use the term "evidence based science" as though they developed the concept.

Does AEF really think that science has come to a conclusive agreement on GM crops.

AEF are for the pulp mill, logging of old growth forests, anti-national park (red river gums) and GM crops. These are odd credentials for an environment organisation particularly one that holds such disdain for groups that do not share their "pale green" objectives.

david: no disagreement from me on logging. Looking with mild interest from afar, it seems the safeguards were in place to ensure the Tasmanian logging operation was as low impact as it can be with current technology - and certainly doesn't appear any to have more impact that other land uses. The only disappointing for me was how Gunns manages to short circuit the evaluation process. Its seems to me they would of got the same outcome with a lot less agro if they had just let it run its course.

I actually have some sympathy for Gunns. A whole pile of greenies spewing the same sort of "logic" as the AEF must be as difficult for them as reading this sort of drivel is for me. I presume they decided to fight fire with fire, and thus set up front organisations like the Timber Communities Australia and the AEF to do it. But we do need the greenies. Like any for profit organisation Gunns will do things the cheapest way possible. World class environmental safeguards cost money. They wouldn't be there without the greenies constant agitation.

As for the AEF - they have moved onto other things it seems. Maybe there were not getting enough money from the timber mob. Their expertise they have in a particular area would be relevant if their purpose was to inject that into the debate. It isn't. They are paid talking heads. They are paid to stoop down to same level as the greenies, and they seem to do that enthusiastically.

Which sparks an interesting thought. Surely an journalistic balance for this article for some equivalent claptrap from the greenies? Ahh - but then what I am saying. Am I asking OLO to replace a thoughtful piece by Suzuki with a greenie foaming at the mouth? Surely not. This journalistic business isn't as black and white as it appears, it seems.

Who is on the road of reality and truth? Let us see if members of The Forum can honestly answer, especially Peter Ridd, author of AEF Online opinion "The Great Barrier Reef Swindle". The Ridd opinion seems to be missing any reference to government dumped sewage southern city nutrient pollution transported by northward streaming coastal current into Coral Sea waters where coral bleaching is occurring.

The test of truth is this. For every action there is a reaction, sewage is being dumped, so where do the dissolved and solid nutrients travel to? I ask Peter Ridd, is it possible the eddy postulated by science to exist between Fraser Island and the GBR could be transporting southern city and town sewage nutrient pollution onto the Swain Reefs and therefore into GBR and Coral Sea waters? Further, why is this eddy just postulated to exist and not confirmed or denied by science? Does the eddy exists or does it not? I the eddy a key mechanism?

Geologist Prof Ron Boyd of Newcastle Uni has reference to the Fraser-Swains postulated eddy. My involvement is since 1982, tracking cause of malnutrition amongst seafood dependent poverty stricken Solomon Islands people living in the SW Pacific ocean food web ecosystem. Starvation of marine animals is also clearly apparent.

Long term investigation reveals pilchard, anchovy, herring - baitfish are dependent on seagrass food web nursery being smothered and destroyed by epiphyte and algae growth fed by nutrient pollution. Invasive algae blooms fed by nutrient pollution is smothering coral algae, killing coral and resulting in coral bleaching especially in warm weather when algae thrives. Cause can not be proven due to global warming. Vital and critically urgent debate is now however being kept out of the picture by global warming agenda.

There is a test of truth. Where does the dumped and concentrated sewage nutrient pollution flow to according to science? Is there an eddy dispersal mechanism between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs or is there not? Is southern Australian city sewage nutrient pollution adding to GBR rural catchment nutrient run off or is it not?

Very interesting, JF Aus, care to expand on your knowledge via a full article on OLO?

Not cos the AEF or IPA are likely to answer your challenge in a meaningful way (PR hacks never do), but cos the rest of us are interested. God knows The Australian/NewsCorp/7/9/10 & (since Howards cultural warriors neutered them) ABC/SBS wont tell us.