Mark’s article is clearly attacking the ideas put forward by these two papers and the process of peer review; to me it is not a personal attack. His article exposes the fact that data has not been put ‘on the table’ by the Mackey Wild Country team, yet this paper without the data has then been used by another academic at the same University.

My reading is that Mark's article also questions the statement in relation to the 20% emission figure by showing it is in error when compared to data published by the Federal Government as part of the National Carbon Accounting system.

Data for the NCAS has already been published along with its methodology by first the AGO and now the Department of Climate Change. Ajani herself seeks the credibility of the AGO data, as she claims erroneously that figures are based on AGO figures, when in fact they are from the Wilderness Society.

Instead of defending her claims from Mark’s valid criticisms, she chooses to attack both Mark and the IFA and in the ultimate paradox, challenges him to put data ‘on the table’. If she had read Mark’s article, she instead should have challenged Mackey and the ANU peer reviewers to put their data ‘on the table’ before she included their conclusions within her own paper.

The tobacco industry didn't like the bad news about cancer either. The oil, coal and aluminium industries still don't like bad climate news.
I'm afraid the native forestry sector is in the same boat.

You can deny, point to holes in this emerging scientific field, attack the messenger and rant about conspiracies as much as you like, but the weight of evidence will build and policy will (eventually) have to reflect the reality of the sector's carbon emissions.

The costs are adding up and the era of industrial scale logging of native forests in Australia is coming to an end.

Start negotiating that exit plan guys and girls.

steve_ious

See the whole of the following article at http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh70408.html

Out with the Outstations?
Sara Hudson

The NT government admits policy failure on outstations writes Sara Hudson in the Sunday Territorian, 19 October 08

After thirty years, it finally seems the Northern Territory government is acknowledging the failures of the outstation movement. Last Monday, the Northern Territory government released a discussion paper seeking input on proposed reforms to outstation policy.

Despite spending millions or even billions of dollars, successive governments have failed to provide appropriate standards of housing, education, and essential services in these Indigenous communities. The catalyst for the government’s change in policy is the crisis in Indigenous education, which has occurred because of separatist educational policies.

In these outstations, Aboriginal schools known as ‘learning centres’ do not have the same standards of classrooms, teaching aids, and materials as regular primary schools. They have a separate ’Indigenous‘ curriculum, and largely rely on fly-in-fly-out teachers who do not meet the normal requirements of the Northern Territory’s Teacher Registration Board. Finally, Marion Scrymgour, the NT’s Indigenous Policy Minister, has admitted that the cultural benefits of these outstations have come at the expense of children’s education.

The discussion paper argues that the NT government’s priority is to give children access to adequate services, especially education. People who are uneducated do not have true freedom, because they lack the capabilities to make real choices about their lives. At last, the NT government has recognised that ‘children must have access to education so that when they are adults they have the capacity and options in life to make a considered decision on the path they wish to take.’

Mark Poynter is well known for whacking environmentalists or those he perceives as having a green link.

While he prefaces this article with a caption: “Green links and personal agendas are hurting the credibility of ANU research” I would suggest that he should also disclose his “links” with the pro-industry IPA and the AEF.

His articles are published on Jennifer Marohasy’s website. He has written a paper with Max Rheese, executive director of AEF and spoken at AEF’s functions alongside such notables as Bob Carter, Max Rheese and Don Burke, whom I believe was Chairman of the IPA between July 2005 and September 2008.

In October 2008, the Tasmanian company Gunns announced that Don Burke had been appointed as "Environmental Adviser" to the company board.

This article has been published on Jennifer Marohasy’s web, titled: "National University fosters Forest Activism based on Ignorance: A Note from Mark Poynter."

I would prefer that he ceases his public vendetta against Dr Judith Ajani and the Mackey Wild Country team (unknown to me.) Surely private dialogue and scientific debate would bring about a satisfactory conclusion? On the other hand perhaps they have good reason for not putting Mark Poynter out of his misery?

If Mark is so interested in “conserving” our forests, why has his institute remained so impotent in this area? Why doesn’t he inform OLO posters of the catastrophic impacts on the jarrah forests in WA by Alcoa, in its pursuit of bauxite mining where the jarrah forests are pillaged with impunity?

Or would that hurt the credibility of the right-wing, pro-industry think tanks to whom he is affiliated?

http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=3185&language=en

“Thousands of hectares of jarrah forest are cut down to access soil, which is blasted at extreme temperatures with a caustic solution to extract alumina-producing bauxite.”

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24586309-5017007,00.html

Normally, I prefer not to attack the person but instead focus on the issues. Sadly, in dickie's case, I make an exception. He believes the world is almost totally devastated already and he sees nothing good in anything human beings do. There's really no point in trying to argue rationally with him: he has his bleak view of the world and no amount of truth is going to make him think differently.

Ah hello there Bernie Masters.

Since you were S/Environment Minister for the Liberal Government in WA and the member for Vasse, before you were disendorsed, could you direct me to the Hansard archives where you have expressed concern for the jarrah forests in the southwest please?

After all, the southwest is your place of residence and Alcoa's doing a good job of digging it up!

Or will you continue with your Argumentum ad Hominem as a means of converting fact into fallacy, thus corrupting this thread?

Poor old Bernie - such a bad loser when publicly declaring of his parliamentary successor - the Liberal member for Vasse:

"Frankly, Vasse deserves better than an MP who occasionally visits the people who put him into office.”

Tut tut - bad boy Bernie and a traitor to his cause - he should stick to cracking rocks!