Robert Onfray

Professor David Lindenmayer’s response fails to engage with the key points I raised. The core argument in my piece is that the peer-reviewed studies claiming logging increases fire severity often rely on unknown or poorly defined methodologies, selective data, weak correlations, or literature reviews rather than empirical fire behaviour analysis.

Professor Lindenmayer responds to Robert Onfray's article, "Debunking false claims about bushfire risk and native logging in Australia" by contending that logging does indeed increase the risk of high severity wildfires, and the evidence for this worrying narrative comes from work by many scientists across Australia and in fact around the world.

Robert Onfray critiques claims that native forest logging in Australia contributes significantly to increased bushfire risk. Some academics championed this idea, purporting to follow the scientific method, but often their work lacks scientific rigour. These claims have misled the public, skewing the debate around forest management, fire prevention, and the ecological role of logging.

A captivating chapter of Tasmania's industrial heritage - a story of history, engineering, and environmental stewardship that celebrates innovation and resilience in Tasmania's wild west ...The story culminates  with the  remarkable Lake Margaret Hydroelectric Power Scheme - a testament to ingenuity and the enduring legacy of wooden pipelines.

Sydney has struggled with water shortages since European settlement, relying on various schemes over the years, including the Tank Stream and Botany Swamps ... Warragamba Dam remains one of the world's largest domestic water supply dams, standing alongside iconic projects like the Opera House and the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Robert Onfray. Over the past two years, I have quietly compiled a significant body of evidence detailing instances of research misconduct and fraud, including data fabrication and manipulation. My story highlights how scientific research and public policies are often swayed by special interest groups and political agendas, leading to manipulation, censorship, and the suppression of data.

Robert Onfray. Any Hollywood film producer needing a blockbuster script should look no further than New South Wales and the aerial culling of brumbies. It is a highly polarised issue and has been for many years. After all, the concern about culling brumbies is not matched by concerns to kill other feral animals or pests, such as deer, pigs, rabbits, foxes and cats. In one corner ... the brumby haters. In the other corner are the brumby lovers ...

Robert Onfray. While researching for my three-part series on the truth behind the rainforest wars in New South Wales, there was a constant theme in the historical account of utilising one species of rainforest timber. While the cutting of hoop pine (Araucaria cunninghamii) was undoubtedly very extensive in New South Wales, the scale of utilisation in Queensland was even more significant, and one of its primary uses was for butter boxes.

When I started as a young forester in the late 1980s, I yearned for the opportunity to work in our native forests. While assessing a coupe to plan for a tree harvesting operation, I knew I was inheriting a forest structure that benefited from silvicultural practices adopted by foresters a few generations before me. Foresters aim to make the forest more productive by applying scientific principles to aid in the regeneration of the next crop of trees and to encourage the best growth of the retained trees. My responsibility was to continue that tradition for foresters a few generations ahead of me.

Is this really how harvested forests are left? Australian Rural & Regional News looks into recent statements that highlight continuing conflicting and confusing information in the public domain about connections between forestry operations and bushfires and whether prescribed burns reduce bushfire risk.