I seem to recall bushbasher that the minister gave this particular little snippet of research way too much importance. It agreed with his personal preference (locals might vote for someone else if it went ahead) & had nil to do with practicality (saving $ in the long term).

Science is only reliable when it has no agenda. When most in a particular field agree on something it doesn't mean they have one. If climatologists said for example CO2 was good for the environment how many here would be crying "it's a fix"?

hi bennie, i think we're agreeing. but i wouldn't phrase it that the parrot-farm science was unreliable (or at least i can't see anybody arguing that). it was the use of this science to add window-dressing to a decision which was made for non-scientific reasons.

again, if this is wrong, i'd like to know where. or, if it is right, what is kellow's purpose in referring to it?

The author's argument is a little more nuanced than at first glance. Presumptions included in this parrot modelling weren't apparent to either the public or parhaps even to the minister. Unfortunately it's becoming more of an issue - from trifles such as orange bellied parrots to the more serious issue of AGW - and in the case of environmental science becomes problematic.

Scientific findings can be massaged depending on the ideology of the 'programmer'; never mind that all the assumptions can be justified. For everyone else to have faith in them they need to believe your assumptions are correct. A never-ending circle. Eternal room for debate. Infinite opportunity to muddy the waters for anyone who disagrees with your results or your ideology or your methodology or because they enjoy the limelight or because they're contrarian or like a little polemics.

Of course, you and I bushbasher are discerning readers able to cut through the chaff. Not so our fellow readers who disagree with us!

hi bennie, i'm sorry but i'm going to have to agree with you again!

i agree that kellow is expressing a suspicion of modeling. and i'm not totally unsympathetic to these suspicions, for the tweaking reasons you discuss. i have more faith than kellow in the integrity of scientists, and the robustness of the scientific method, but i appreciate the issue.

but i still fail to see, at least from what kellow says, how the parrot is an example. his expression is "Modeling for the Bald Hills wind farm on the Orange-bellied Parrot embodied very conservative assumptions to err on the side of caution."

i'm not sure if this is meant to mean what he actually says. that is, was it

1) "worst case" assumptions were built into the model

2) parrot-friendly restrictions were to be applied once the model churned out the answer.

you and kellow seem to be saying 1), and i'll take your word for it.

but, in any case, the model concluded that there was a snowflake's chance in hell that a parrot was going to get whacked. and so it was a tenuous and dishonest version of 2) which seems to be the issue.

so, i'm not disagreeing (here) with kellow's concern. but the parrot doesn't seem to indicate the dangers of arbitrary modeling, just the dangers of boneheaded politicians.

Yeah I'm flogging a dead parrot here a bit.

The concept of "virtual science" hasn't helped the author's argument. From what I gather the methodology used in the windfarm research wasn't tangible enough to give realistic results. "Value-laden assumptions" led to the decision against it, and this caused a stink. The same kind of assumptions used in studying GW don't get the recognition they deserve.

Which is all a subtle encouragement to think twice about the current wisdom surrounding GW. Personally I'm not inclined to "celebrate sceptical dissent and reject any call to bow to a consensus" when such consensus is so widespread.

I wonder whether the IPA would support this argument wnen it comes to genetically engineered foods...If you want an area where corruption of science has occurred in the most profound and despicable of ways - look no further. Money pours into academia and organisations such as CSIRO from biotech corporations - they fund buildings, chairs, research - and inevitably results...Results that are then fed into regulators who look no further and give it the quick political tick. Corruption of science isn't occurring in the public interest (ie with climate change) - it is occuring in the private interest and the problems of private funding of public interest universities and public good issues has never been so bad.