Dear Editor,
One could debate your correspondent Linda Chapman’s spelling of “wholistic” [Beagle W/W Vol 162 P 18] without any definitive scientific outcome. I doubt that would be the same outcome of a fact-check on her assertion regarding hazard reduction burning that “the science does not support this”. Of course, just like Trumpian “alternative facts” there could be “alternative science” that I have not yet encountered. I am sure our RFS volunteers who give up their precious family time to undertake those hazard reduction activities would be delighted to hear that the national scientific community had determined that this was no longer warranted. Somehow I remain dubious. Members of the Climate Change Action Group such as the Reverend Chapman are perfectly entitled to hold their extreme views: they are not equally entitled to spread disinformation.
Sincerely,
Jim Gault
Sunshine Bay
