Another take on the insulation debacle

After watching the savaging of Peter Garrett over the home insulation program I was pleased to see Kevin Rudd taking responsibility for part of the problem. We all knew the program had been rushed ahead with several other stimulus packages to cope with the GFC.
I was starting to get confused with all the attacks into thinking the points made by Garrett in his defense were perhaps overstated. However, in todays Financial Review (AFR- page 3) paper I have found a well reasoned article "Insulation fears: more hype than actual fires" by Geoff Winestock which has restored (somewhat) my faith in the ability of media to actually discuss facts rather than emotional hysteria as well as restored some trust in the Minister.

I would be the first to admit that if I had lost a son in an industrial accident, I would be extremely emotional, even hysterical.

However, the AFR article points out "based on data from fire brigades for NSW, Queensland, South Australia and metropolitan Melbourne...has found there were 115 house fires in 2009 attributed to faulty insulation. ...It was only slightly higher than the 75 house fires caused by faulty insulation in 2007... In the meantime about 1.15 million houses have been fitted with insulation, ..compared with an average of about 60,000 installations in 2007" So in terms of fires per installation the risk has fallen dramatically.

It would be extremely interesting to see if the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) or some other proper statistical agency, can confirm these numbers as it does back up Peter Garrett's claim to have introduced training and standards into the industry.
The Financial Review had a number of excellent articles - on page 30 "Flawed model, muddled message" by John Breusch on the problems with selling the Emissions Trading Scheme, and page 21 "Safe as houses" by Andrew Cornell which details why I would not be able to keep up with the housing market on a librarians salary!

So thanks AFR for an informative lunchtime read.

Climate science - vicious attacks and deniers

 I have just finished reading an interesting article by Clive Hamilton on "Bullying , lies and the rise of right wing climate denial" I find it quite interesting when journalists start writing a series of moderately in depth stories such as this. I too have noticed a considerable increase in the stridency and aggressiveness of tactics from climate change deniers. Having attended lectures with David Karoly and other climate change activists I'm not surprised they are receiving vicious emails etc. I too feel that the debate has degenerated into attacking the person and climate change scientists are also able on this regard. However, so far as I have heard, their attacks have been in the nature of semi-humourous pokes at the deniers and often include rebuttal to the science of the anti-climate change deniers.
I will be reading Clive Hamilton's next piece on who is behind the attacks with interest. As a librarian I know that even public places such as library computers are monitored by a variety of mechanisms. So although these vicious, swearing and orchestrated attacks will be difficult to trace, I hope the culprits are caught and prosecuted. Such type of debate is not needed in our society.
Overwhelming internet facilities with avalanches of attacks is not new in Cyberspace as Google recently found out in China. Even innocuous sites such as libraries can succumb to such disgusting tactics. 
I wonder whether politicians will have to develop stronger measures to fight mass email and other lobbying tactics (vicious or not) to find the true feelings and values of a population.