Bernie, I'm guessing by the tone, language and level of thinking that dickie is in about Year 8 or 9, so we shouldn't discourage his passion for ridding the world of all poisons, germs, dirt, bacteria, viruses, diseases, evil, impurities, injury, nasty bad things, ugliness, death and sinful productivity, as well as those harmful beasties with jobs and, gasp, affiliations, who cause it all. I hope he uses this passion in some productive way when he enters the real world.

Bernie

Regarding your comment; Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:58:03 PM.

What has Northern Territory Outstations got to do with the article written by Mark Poynter?

Could you please clarify because you follow it up with a reply to Dickie stating you prefer to "focus on the issues"?

Like the Wizard's curtain in OZ, the line between reality and intention, between science and politics is deliberately blurred to protect the riches of the few from the needs of the many.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SCIENTISTS TO JUST ADVISE THE NEW US PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER WORLD LEADER ON SCIENCE, AS A STANDALONE EFFORT!

The human race, never mind the Murdoch media inventioned 'American Feminist Consumer Dream', is doomed unless Government takes over the major oil companies, allowing TWO science revolutions to occur:

1. Real reasearch with real $billions must be spent on developing Kilowatt/Kilogram battery technology. Batteries that last 20 years or more, not the current 6 month battery company profit margin lifetime.
What we have now is pretend research with $billions of pretend dollars-on-a-string aimed at protecting oil company profits

2. Real GEOTHERMAL research. Again oil company and coal company monopolisation of government R&D $pork are killing any chance of GEOTHERMAL ever becoming the saviour of the human race. Why? Because these corporate idiots in the ENERGY sector believe there is more profit in WAR: In democratisation, economic dependacy, overpopulating & ultimately culling the peoples of the world in an insane programmed profit making fiscal-lift-pump instrument that goes under the name of Wall Street.

Science will never be free to achieve the things (outlined in KAEP (Kyoto Alternative Energy policy)) that are necessary to give EVERY human being a shot at the American Dream, while corporate monopolies in the ENERGY sector are allowed to exist. Culling Oil and Coal company monopolies is a more sustainable way to grow a peaceful and decent future for the human race than a Wall street programatised culling of human rights and humans. In fact Culling Oil and Coal company monopolies may be the only way to grow any kind of human future on this planet, as we now lurch from one economic or cultural crisis to the next as the inevitable 2025-2030 PEAKING of OIL beds down.

Well, I congratulate Dickie. He is the first environmentalist in about 30 years to say anything critical about bauxite mininng in the jarrah forest. This compares with an excellent booklet on the subject put out by the Institute of Foresters and a number of public statements by WA foresters, including a very telling post on the Jennifer Marohassy blog by IFA member Roger Underwood a couple of years ago. In that article the point was made that the failure of "conservationists" to oppose bauxite mining in the jarrah forest in the same way that they oppose timber cutting and responsible fire management was one of the great mysteries of Australian environmentalism. Timbr cutting and prescribed burning represent temporary disturbances, from which the forest ecosystem fully and rapidly recovers. Bauxite mining not only removes the entire forest above ground, but also the soil to a depth of several metres, and is being carried out on Perth's water supply catchments at a rate of up to 1000 ha per year. Yet the greens, with the notable exception of young Dickie, are silent, or are too busy trying to shut down the timber industry to be bothered. Mark Poynter's thoughtful and important article is supported by professional foresters whose principal interest is good forest management, irrespective of the purpose of management. This in turn needs to be supported by good science based on good data, not the sort of quasi-religious "take my word for it" stuff emminating from the ANU.

to 'dickie' - some comments and clarifications
Let me get this straight - you are accusing me of conducting a personal vendetta (against Judith Ajani) in a post in which you totally ignore the subject (of my article) and spend almost its entirity in condemning me because I may be linked with a range of evil people and organisations. Hypocrite is a word which comes to mind.

If you had fully read my article you would see it is primarily about other ANU scientists, with Ajani's name only mentioned several times. If you haven't tried, it is very difficult to critically analyse a research paper without mentioning the author's name.

Your comment: "Surely private dialogue and scientific debate would bring about a satisfactory conclusion." What a lovely thought, but you must have been living under a rock not to notice that the environmental movement eschewed this approach 25 years ago in favour of public relations campaigns based on sensational images, misrepresentation of facts, and heartstring tugging. Publicly pointing out the shortcomings of their message is one way of responding to their approach.

Your comment: " ... in conserving forests, why has has your institute been so impotent in this area" This is a reasonable question with a simple answer - the IFA is a professional association, not an activist body fully focussed on stopping something or closing it down a la the environmental movement.

The IFA has been around since 1935. It has 1300 members engaged in all aspects of forestry including native forests, fire, plantations, conservation management, and research (including some ANU scientists). Most are like me, they have to earn a living and can only do things like write articles, in their spare time. Yet we are up against well-paid career activists - so its little wonder we don't have their profile.

In Forests for Life the IUCN and the WWF set a target of 10% of each country's forest to be within protected areas. The latest Government figures show that since the 2003, the area of Australia’s native forest in formal nature conservation reserves has increased by about 1.5 million hectares to 23 million hectares, from 13% to 16%. In Tasmania where forest confrontation is a daily event, the reserves exceed 47% of the forest. More than enough to protect biological diversity, the environment, store carbon and accommodate a tourist industry.

As Yorkie and Bernie Masters correctly point out there is a need for an environmental organization that will focus on the evidence, and not speculate and misinform. No wonder Mark Poynter was invited to the Australian Environment Foundation Conference to outline the facts on forest management, and no wonder this article is republished on the blog of the Environmental advocate Dr Jennifer Marohasy who is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Australian Environment Foundation http://www.aefweb.info/ is providing a real opportunity for detailed discussion on issues, rather than just accepting the sensational claims so often found in the media. I just hope that both Yorkie and Bernie will attend the AEF conference when it is hosted in Perth WA. Their knowledge and expertise would be worth hearing!