http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/01/26/3931768.htm

Its time to stand up for science and rally against the denialists and their political masters.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:43pm:


Labor science? Ha, ha, ha!

olde.sault wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:59pm:


Whats funny? And where is labour mentioned? Its about science . . . .

SOB

28 January 2014, 11.18am AEST

Reviving Wind Turbine Syndrome is just what you’d expect from a PM without a Science Minister

So it appears we are to be treated to another pointless examination of a manufactured controversy in the name of health science. One can only guess at the motivations for the Federal Government announcing a NHMRC-led review of the science around the purported health effects of wind farms, but you can be sure it’s not being driven by scientific curiosity.

In fact this review is probably the most futile bit of spending yet announced in the term of the Abbott administration and is exactly the sort of tomfoolery you might expect of a cabinet which has no room for science. Why? Because there is no controversy about the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome. It doesn’t exist as a thing. It has not, as the philosophers might say, been reified.

Wind turbines have no health effects on the surrounding populations. That’s not just my personal opinion. It’s the overwhelming scientific consensus. The book is closed, the story is written, the circus has folded its tents and moved on.

It would, however, potentially suit the Abbott Government politically to keep this manufactroversy going. The conservative side of politics in this country has a well-documented preference for fossil fuel production, largely based on economic arguments and the hope of carbon capture technology to reduce carbon emissions from current coal-fired power stations. Using fringe science to advance political ends is nothing new, but this is not a political comment column so I don’t propose to stray too far from discussing that science.

The proverbial musty tomes of medical history are full of such exotic diagnoses as Railway Spine or the Vapours) not to mention Fan Death in South Korea. Why not investigate those as well? After all, it has been a long time since the NHMRC had a look at them as well.

This facetious rhetorical question has a serious answer. Why does it seem ridiculous to have a Government enquiry into Fan Death, which is after all reported as the 5th most common cause of serious injury during summer in Korea, according to the Korean Consumer Protection Board?

I submit that there is no scientific justification for any further investigation of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ just as there is no reason to investigate Fan Death or Railway Spine, because they are not real diagnoses. They are cultural responses to new or unfamiliar technology. I would support an academic investigation into the sociological aspects of the phenomenon as it may help us understand how to prevent useful and essential renewable energy technology from being hindered by groups of sincerely deluded activists. But a scientific investigation? A complete and utter waste of my tax dollars, as it will not alter either the scientific consensus or the tiny, one-track minds of the denialists.

And as for the Chief Scientist’s report on assessing the ‘evidence’ supporting homeopathy and other implausible treatments, don’t get me started. The UK parliament produced the defintive smackdown on homeopathy in 2010, but for some reason the Government is stalling the report which many (including myself) hope will stop these treatment being paid for with funds from the 30% Private Health Rebate (ie tax dollars). The delay in implementation is meant to allow for more ‘consultation with industry’. Again, it’s certainly not to allow for any more scientific input, as the supporting evidence consisted of tumbleweeds 2 years ago when it started, and it’s tumbleweeds all the way down still.

The most unsavoury aspect of this announcement is more subtle. The younger Bush administration in the USA became notorious for its disregard for the scientific process. They forced policy to drive evidence, rather than the other way around. They purportedly dictated the preferred outcomes of major environmental studies using funding threats to hold the scientists hostage. They cut funding from scientific programs that seemed ‘pointless’ to scientifically illiterate pollies and bureaucrats. The ideologically-driven ban on stem-cell research by the Bush administration set the USA back a decade in major biotech research, which also meant that the industry created by this innovation left their shores.

[continued ...]

It just keeps getting better. 

Is Tony Abbott about to appoint IPA to renewables review?

By Giles Parkinson on 28 January 2014

The renewable energy industry in Australia might be tempted to pack their bags and find another country to conduct their business if the latest talk in Canberra is true: sources say that the Abbott government will name Alan Moran, an anti-renewable zealot from the Institute of Public Affairs, to a new panel that will review the Renewable Energy Target.

According to sources, Moran will be one of three or four business people appointed to an “independent” panel that will get secretarial support from the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – rather than the department of Environment, or the department of Industry, which includes Energy.

If true, that will ensure that the panel is closely monitored by Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s inner core, who include the climate change contrarion and anti-wind advocate Maurice Newman – his chief business advisor – and others from the conservative hard right who neither accept the science of climate change, nor the attraction of renewable energy.

And if true, it will shape up as a disaster for the renewable energy industry in Australia, which has already ground to a halt because of policy uncertainty, and which could face not just the possibility of the RET being diluted, but removed altogether. The Abbott government is insisting on another review of the supposed health impacts of wind farms, despite not releasing a report from its main medical body, and there is also talk that the government support for rooftop solar will also be removed.

Moran has famously hard-nosed views about renewables, and wind and solar in particular. In a panel discussion at Clean Energy Week in 2012, even former Senator Nick Minchin, the man who orchestrated Abbott’s rise to power and the scrapping of bipartisan climate policy, said Moran made him like a pinko”.

Moran, like others from the IPA, including former head and now WA Energy Minister Mike Nahan, believe wind and solar don’t work, don’t cause abatement, and need like-for-like fossil fuel backup and constant spinning reserve, a myth that is repeated ad nauseum by conservative commentators.

When asked, at Clean Energy Week in 2012, of his vision of the future, Moran’ response was to look 50 years into the past. “We had communism then, we got the Greens now,” he grumbled. He said the energy profile in the 1960s was not much different from today, and “I expect that continue into the future.”

Moran’s appointment would be consistent with recent appointments made by the Abbott government. Another prominent IPA policy analyst, Tim Wilson, was appointed late last year to be a commissioner with the Human Rights Commission, a body he had argued should not exist.

Moran, who is the head of the IPA’s deregulation unit, last year was one of the main speakers at a poorly-attended anti-wind rally in Canberra, which described the RET as a fraud.

He described wind and solar as costly and “low quality”, said their costs were amplified by the need for back up in terms of fast-start conventional businesses, an were “imposing a huge burden on consumers and businesses.”

Abbott has been adopting many of these lines in his recent talking points. As has Newman.

Last week, Moran wrote an opinion piece in the AFR, which was titled “renewable energy sources are just a power failure.” You can find it on the IPA web-site.

He said the support of renewables entails “crippling subsidies paid by consumers and businesses.” He accused the RET of playing a role in the foreshadowed plant closures of Holden, Electrolux and the aluminium smelters at Kurri Kurri and Point Henry.

“Because of our readily available coal and gas Australian electricity costs are intrinsically among the lowest in the world. This was formerly crucial to attracting highly competitive energy-intensive industries like smelting. Australia could once again benefit from low-cost electricity if deregulation freed energy supply from its renewable obligations.”

RenewEconomy sought comment from the government, but was told only that the RET review details would be announced soon. The government was committed to lowering the cost of electricity, a spokesman said.

[continued ...]

And back we go in time, down we go in international competitiveness etc.

Government by children and idiots, working to a madman’s agenda.

The rabid right howls about "waste" whenever Labor spends a cent, yet this waste raises no protest from them. Remarkable, isn't it?

Abbott’s wind energy review a waste of taxpayer money

By Leigh Ewbank on 28 January 2014

The Abbott government has ignored all previous evidence on the matter to announce yet another review of wind energy and human health.

According to The Canberra Times, the Abbott government will pursue an ‘independent program’ investigating wind energy and health, even though a report by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)  has been completed and is awaiting ministerial sign off.

Is another review needed? Here are a few points to consider…

1. Independent studies already conclude wind energy is clean, safe

There’s already a wealth of independent knowledge on wind energy and health. There are now 19 reviews by credible health bodies which show wind farms are clean and safe.

In 2010, Australia’s authority on medical health research, the NHMRC, published a rapid review of wind energy and health. It concluded:
Quote:


In May 2013, the Victorian Department of Health released a review on the subject, concluding:
Quote:


(Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine’s decision to chip in $100,000 to fund the Abbott review suggests he doesn’t have confidence in the Victorian Department of Health.)

State planning bodies have joined these public health authorities with the assessment that wind energy is clean and safe. In 2013, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed wind energy/health scare claims when they approved the Bodangora and Cherry Tree Range wind farms.

Decisions in the real world are being made on the back of existing research. Planning bodies wouldn’t approve wind farms, nor would developers  build them if there was a risk to the public.

2. The NHMRC has a new report ready to go

The NHMRC has completed a review of wind energy and health. The review is reportedly sitting on the desks of Environment Minister Greg Hunt, and Energy Minister Ian MacFarlane.

Announcing a new review while keeping the NHMRC’s findings secret looks suspicious. The government will have to make the report public or it will once again face charges of secrecy and cover up. These charges have plagued Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ since taking office in September 2013. And they could spread to the energy and environment portfolios.

If the Abbott government sweeps the NHMRC report under the carpet, it’ll be on its way to a trend of secrecy—which is obviously a disadvantageous reputation for any government.

3. Abbott’s posturing on wind/health – favours for friends?

The Abbott government’s announcement satisfies the wishes of the anti-wind farm Liberals who are ideologically opposed to renewable energy.

The Prime Minister’s hand-picked business advisor Maurice Newman is staunchly opposed to wind energy. Mr Newman has threatened to take legal action against farmers who install wind turbines near his rural property in Crookwell, NSW. Newman will well-known for tirades against wind farms; the popular Howard government policy, the Renewable Energy Target; and denying the science of climate change.

[continued ...]

What does the Governments Science Minister have to say about this?

uh oh