Pulp modelling: rubbish in, rubbish out

Super Model

It is however interesting how scientific modelling is increasingly being used as a political tool in Tasmania. All physical models are only as good as their inputs (variables) and reaction series. Hence it is possible to get any desired answer from kinetic models as long as you tweak the inputs sufficiently – garbage in equals garbage out. Its then a matter of fobbing it of to the unknowing public as “proven science”. This was well demonstrated in a recent PhD thesis where the variables used for river modelling used to sure-up the Basslink proposal were found to be absolute rubbish.

Another interesting example is the air-quality modelling in the Pulp Mill IIS. The perception generated in the pamphlet is that this was done by the CSIRO, when in fact the modelling software can be purchased from CSIRO for $3500 and tweaked by anyone. Regardless of who did the modelling, this type of modelling should only be done as a gap filler to account for the absence of actual data (air quality stations). The Tamar Valley only has one air quality station at Ti Tree Bend, yet its equivalent valley (Fraser Valley, also with pulp mills) in Vancouver has 35 air quality stations! If you dont measure it – it clearly doesnt exist!

Read and comment on this comment: Here