SciBlogs

Archive Environment and Ecology

Flu claims Antarctic researcher Peter Griffin Aug 04

No Comments

A lot of people in the scientific community are struggling to come to terms with the death of Antarctic historian and museum curator Natalie Cadenhead, who died at Christchurch Hospital on July 24 of influenza.

Screen Shot 2014-08-04 at 9.49.17 amNatalie was only 47, a fit and healthy tramper as this report from The Press explains.

She didn’t get the flu vaccine, because, her husband George Rogers explained, she had allergies to certain medicines:

“Reflecting now, it probably would have been good to have her immunised, but being healthy and with her allergies, it seemed like the right thing to do.”

I didn’t know Natalie, but plenty of colleagues did. Natalie spent several seasons on the ice at Scott Base. Her research interests included aspects of the heroic era of Antarctic exploration, the TAE/IGY base buildings and Antarctic science. She was also responsible for the Antarctic object based collection at Canterbury Museum and was associate editor of Antarctic, the journal of the New Zealand Antarctic Society.

She was, I’m told, also one of the original members of the Science Communicator’s Association.

In a fitting tribute, friends and colleagues flew the New Zealand flag at Scott Base at half mast.

Natalie’s death is a reminder of the fact that the swine flu virus (H1N1) killed a number of healthy people when the pandemic hit in 2009.

This Science article from 2010 reports on research by paediatrician Fernando Polack of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee that suggests a reason why swine flu hits the young and healthy particularly hard:

After looking at lung samples from 75 young and middle-aged adult victims of the 2009 pandemic, they found an uncanny amount of a protein called C4d, a molecule that normally binds to antibodies to form virus-fighting immune complexes.

When antibodies fight a virus under normal conditions, Polack says, they call in C4d, a compound that can destroy viruses. In the case of flu, most people had antibodies to seasonally circulating influenza strains, but these antibodies were a poor match to the pandemic virus. Although they recognized the virus and latched on to it, they weren’t able to stop it from replicating, says Polack. When the antibodies and the C4d formed the immune complexes, Polack speculates that the system spiraled out of control. Instead of punching holes in the viruses, the immune complexes punched holes in the victims’ veins and flooded their lungs with water and plasma. “The immune system gets fooled into activating this particular immune defense, and it causes harm,” says Niranjan Bhat, an infectious disease physician at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not part of the research.

This was less likely to happen in young children and infants, with few or no antibodies against seasonal flu strains, says Polack. And elderly people had antibodies to the H1N1 strain that circulated in the United States until 1957—a descendant of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918—which are known to be a much better match to the 2009 H1N1 strain; so the flood of C4d generally didn’t occur in them. When the team looked at lung samples from victims of the seasonal flu, they found only trace amounts of C4d, which seemed to confirm their suspicions.

Natalie’s death is a good reminder of the importance of getting vaccinated in time for the flu season each year.

Below is a video that feature’s Natalie and Sir David Attenborough talking about Scott’s Hut at Cape Evans.

YouTube Preview Image

Where should the science funding dollars be going? Peter Griffin Jul 24

1 Comment

A few weeks ago I headed up the hill to Victoria University to hear science and innovation minister Steven Joyce launch a document called the “Draft National Statement of Science Investment 2014 – 2024“.

Screen Shot 2014-07-24 at 9.48.43 amIf you are a scientist in New Zealand, or involved in the science system, this should be very important to you. The document lays out the priorities for funding, as the Government sees them, for the next decade of public investment in science and innovation.

It covers things like the National Science Challenges which are just getting off the ground, Callaghan Innovation, the Primary Growth Partnership, the Marsden Fund, the Centres of Research Excellence and business R&D grants. These are all things the Government is currently doing, and which it will continue to use as tools for investment in the next decade. Some of them are also things I hear a lot of scientists grumbling about for various reasons.

Everyone seems to have a different idea about how best to leverage science dollars for the good of the country. For instance, at the launch event, one scientist told Joyce that if the Government wanted to make a real difference with its science investment it should double the size of the Marsden Fund which is funded to the tune of around $52 million a year. Joyce said that may well be true, but the case would have to be well made because it would require the funding being taken from some other area of science investment.

Well, at the moment we have the chance to make that case or any other case for science investment. The “draft” in the document title means that the strategy for the next decade isn’t yet set in stone and everyone has until August 22 to give feedback on it.

The feedback form is available here - fill it out and get it back to MBIE to have your say.

In addition, next week I’ll be chairing a panel discussion here in Wellington on the future of New Zealand science funding featuring some pretty experienced and opinionated people giving their views on where science funding should be invested.

I’ll be asking them plenty of questions – if you can’t make it along (see details below), leave your questions in the comments below or send them to be privately via the contact form and I’ll make sure to put them to the panel…

Shaping our science system, a SCANZ panel event

Wednesday 30 July | 5.30pm, 6pm start | members $10 non members $20

Royal Society of New Zealand 11 Turnbull Street, Thorndon Wellington
RSVP to 

Does investment in science influence society?  Can we really expect it to meet New Zealand’s economic, social, environmental and cultural needs? Is it the level of investment or the areas in which the investment is made?

On 22 August consultation closes on the government’s draft National Statement of Science Investment, a document that sets the scene for a discussion about New Zealand’s science funding strategy for years to come.  What does this mean for scientists and the average New Zealander?

Join SCANZ for a panel discussion that will examine the issues from a range of viewpoints.

The Government is seeking a wide and open discussion about the shape of New Zealand’s science system, so come along and be part of the conversation.

Panellists 
Professor Adam Jaffe, Director Motu Economic & Public Policy Research  

Wendy McGuinness, Founder & Chief Executive McGuiness Institute 

Dr Ian Ferguson,  Departmental Science Advisor at the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, with a joint appointment with Plant & Food Research. 

Panel chair: Peter Griffin, co-founder of Sciblogs and Science Media Centre manager  

Further details online at www.scanz.co.nz

Want to lower your carbon footprint? Eat less beef Peter Griffin Jul 23

2 Comments

When it comes to industries that are seen as damaging to the environment, the dairy sector is usually the prime target in New Zealand.

Source: PNAS

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the production that powers our largest export industry is having an increasingly apparent impact on the land and our waterways.

The scale of dairying in New Zealand makes the problem blindingly obvious. Less is heard about the smaller New Zealand beef industry, but beef production actually uses more land, water and greenhouse gases than dairy, as a new study in PNAS revealed this week.

The researchers found that producing beef required around 28 times more land than production of eggs, poultry, pork and even dairy, 11 times more water and resulted in five times more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s right, the four categories of production had a similar level of resource use and greenhouse gas production, but beef was way out ahead.

Now, the research relates to the US market where the majority of cattle destined for the burger joints and barbeques of America spend the latter part of their life in feedlots where  they are fed a mix of roughage, grain and supplements. The processing those feedstocks require use up resources. But even cows that are fed completely on open pasture through their lives are more resource-intensive to produce, say the researchers:

Even when focusing only on agricultural land, beef still towers over the other categories. This can be seen by excluding pasture resources and summing only crops and processed roughage (mostly hay and silage, whose production claims prime agricultural land that can be hypothetically diverted to other crops). After this exclusion, 1 Mcal (megacalorie) of beef still requires ≈15 m2 land, about twofold higher than the second least-efficient category.

When you compare beef production to staple crops like rice and wheat that many people depend on for the bulk of their diet in some countries, the picture is more dramatic. Compared to those crops, meat requires 160 times more land and 11 times the water to produce.

Here in New Zealand, we don’t have feedlots, though farmers do supplement their cows feed with things like palm kernel, which is quite resource-intensive to produce.

According to Beef & Lamb New Zealand:

“The total greenhouse gas footprint was calculated at 2.2kg CO2-equivalents for a 100g portion of  beef. Broken into segments, this equates to 90.3% for the on-farm stage, 2.1% for meat processing, 4.2% for transportation, and 3.3% for the consumption phase.”

The carbon footprint of grass-fed beef is generally lower than feedlot beef, but the fact remains that beef production is dirtier than anything else, even dairy production in terms of land and water use and greenhouse gases. Therefore, if you want to help the environment, say the authors, cutting down on your beef consumption is one of the most effective things you can do. Animal products in general are quite wasteful of resources compared to edible crops but again, beef i sway out in front.

According to another study:

“…the loss of 1 kilogram of boneless beef has the same effect as wasting 24 kilograms of wheat due to inefficiencies in converting grain to meat. The authors illustrate how food waste in the U.S., China and India affect available calories, noting that reducing waste in these three countries alone could yield food for more than 400 million people.”

Beef farmers in New Zealand and the US point out that beef yield and efficiency is improving. But beef production will remain more resource-intensive than just about anything else, an issue that will become more important as pressure on land and water increases further.

Some local reaction via Adrien Taylor’s 3 News piece

Analysis of the research from our colleagues at the UK Science Media Centre

 

Tangaroa gets an overhaul Peter Griffin Jul 11

2 Comments

NIWA’s research ship Tangaroa has spent the last few weeks in dry dock at the Devonport Naval Base where it is receiving an overhaul that will set it up well for many more voyages of discovery.

But the inclement weather in Auckland has hampered efforts to get a fresh coat of paint onto Tangaroa’s bottom.

Said NIWA’s operations manager John Hadfield:

“Fortunately the antifouling paint on the under hull (the part that sits under the water) was in very good condition and required minimal preparation before re-coating. However, above the water line, on the topsides, we get marking and minor damage to the coatings from, wharves and scientific gear that is deployed over the side. This requires remedial work to be carried out.

“We are still hopeful that weather conditions will allow us to get a full coat on the blue topsides before Tangaroa departs the dock on the 15th July.

“We have had a paint expert from Altex Coatings calling the shots on when we can paint to ensure it bonds and then lasts. If the wind gets up we can’t spray paint and even on a fine day, if there is high humidity we can’t paint.”

Along with a new paint job and other maintenance, a $1 million sub-bottom profiler is being mounted in a pod on Tangaroa’s hull. The expensive piece of equipment, known as TOPAS PS 18, allows scientists to identify marine sediment layers up to 200 metres below the sea bed.

Tangaroa leaves dry dock on July 15 before heading for the Tasman Sea.

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

tangaroa_drydock_DSC_8178_credit_dave_allen_NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit: Dave Allen, NIWA

credit: Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

 

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

 

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

 

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

 

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

credit Dave Allen, NIWA

 

Giant squid dissection – livestreaming now! Peter Griffin Jun 19

No Comments

This is fascinating… AUT researchers examining a giant squid… live streaming now!

Science communicators are better scientists Peter Griffin Jun 13

3 Comments

A couple of days ago, I received a flurry of LinkedIn messages – people congratulating me on six years managing the New Zealand Science Media Centre. Some automated LinkedIn alert had flagged an anniversary I had overlooked. 

Well, those six years have flown by in what has amounted to the most productive, rewarding and interesting period of my career.

Our three person SMC team in Wellington has worked on all sorts of stories – from the Christchurch earthquakes to the swine flu pandemic, supported hundreds of journalists covering science and even created Sciblogs, which has given science blogging a bit of critical mass in New Zealand.

I’ve learned a lot about the science itself, how to communicate it and watched the bottom fall out of the industry I know and love – the media.

Michelle Dickinson

Michelle Dickinson

The key conclusion I’ve come to after six years in this business is that when it comes to effectively communicating science and improving the public’s understanding of it, the biggest difference can be made by the individual scientist committing to science communication.

As Fiona Fox, the founder of the original and hugely successful Science Media Centre in London has put it: “the media will do science better when science does better media”.

On this I totally agree. There isn’t much we can do about disappearing newspaper advertising or cutbacks in newsrooms – this is bigger than us. There’s little we can do to halt the blurring line between independent editorial and vested interests, or the proliferation of pseudoscience across the internet.

But against all of that, scientists can do one thing – commit to becoming better communicators. By understanding the changing needs of the media, recognising the priorities and preoccupations of society, adopting the tools and techniques that are essential to making sure a message has cut-through and resonance, scientists do themselves, their area of science and society a huge favour.

Which makes it really depressing then to see tweets like this…

I’ve heard variations of this from, generally younger scientists, who are committed to science communication. For those who make it integral to their scientific careers, there is often a lot of pushback and cynicism from other scientists, superiors and their institutions. On one level this is understandable – if a scientist is blogging, touring schoolrooms or making TV shows, they have less time to spend in the lab doing research. But increasingly, progressive institutions and senior scientists are grasping the fact that good communicators make for better scientists.

Doing all of that other stuff, which fundamentally requires you to articulate what your life’s work is all about, enhances how you go about answering the big questions in your research. I’ve seen plenty of examples of this with scientists we have worked with. Their communications work has opened doors to scientific collaboration, allowed them to tackle seemingly insurmountable problems in different ways and allowed them to flesh out their research proposals more convincingly.

The majority of them are as prolific as their colleagues who don’t do much science communication – they publish as many papers, given as many presentations to their peers. That’s because true science communicators build communication into everything they do and the really smart ones know how to re-use and repackage their communication for maximum effect – an abstract becomes a blog post which becomes a media interview which becomes a public talk. There will always be those scientists who are not comfortable communicating – their place is the lab and many of them will only pop up when their research is published and generates a blip of media coverage. But for the average scientist, it doesn’t have to be an either-or scenario and it shouldn’t be because good communicators are better scientists.

So it was nice to see Dr Dickinson, whose Nano Girl blogs are syndicated here on Sciblogs, receive the following reply on Twitter…

Brian Cox

Brian Cox

I bet that made Michelle’s day!

But you don’t have to front a BBC show to make an impact as a science communicator. Most scientists will do numerous small things that collectively boost their confidence and their ability to articulate their science and its relevance to society. It is deciding to do a five minute interview with a small community radio station because it gives you an opportunity to practice explaining your science live on-air. It is composing 500 words and submitting it to the local newspaper op-ed page when your area of science is in the news – and writing it in a way that the comment editor can’t resist running.

Getting Science Media SAVVY

SMS_Logo_B&W1

If you are keen to improve your science communication, particularly for media interaction, check out our two-day intensive Science Media SAVVY courses. We have course coming up in Hamilton and Auckland with new ones being held around the country all the time. New funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has allowed us to lower the price of these courses to $595 + GST per participant which is fantastic value for money. The workshops are restricted to 12 participants so scientists so its an intimate setting with plenty of one-on-one help. The additional funding has also allowed us to offer two scholarships per workshop for post graduate students to attend for free.

We will, in the coming months, also be offering short SAVVY courses on various aspects of science communication.

Register your interest in a SAVVY course in your region or apply for the upcoming workshops. And more importantly, undertake to do whatever you can to communicate your science more effectively, however small that undertaking is.

Is CRI science being twisted to commercial ends? Peter Griffin Jun 12

11 Comments

UPDATED: We all know that our Crown Research Institutes carry out a lot of commercial work for clients, in fact they are encouraged to do so in the interests of returning a dividend to the Crown which funds them.

But are those commercial relationships influencing the scientific advice that scientists give?

Back in April, Massey University freshwater scientist Dr Mike Joy claimed this was exactly what was happening in an explosive Science Express talk at Te Papa. Well, it was explosive because I live-tweeted the talk, including some of Dr Joy’s remarks, which attracted a lot of discussion on Twitter. A few of Dr Joy’s tweets:

This morning Radio New Zealand’s science reporter William Ray had a story about that approach to the Royal Society of New Zealand, which hosts the Science Media Centre which I manage. I’ve had nothing to do with internal discussions of the issue, but the radio report revealed that two letters have been written to the RSNZ by Wendy Pond of the Manu Waiata Trust and Bryce Johnson, chief executive of Fish & Game. The letter from the former apparently claims CRI science has been slanted towards the commercial interests of clients, with NIWA singled out for specific mention. The letter from the latter calls on the Royal Society to take a lead in exploring how conflicts of interest can best be handled in the context of giving expert advice.

UPDATE: See bottom for the letter from Bryce Johnson to the Royal Society of New Zealand, which was obtained under the Official Information Act.

At the heart of the issue, is scientific advice given over the environmental impact of the Ruataniwha Dam, a controversial irrigation project in the Hawkes Bay that is looking shaky after several major backers withdrew their support.

If NIWA or any other CRI is “giving biased evidence to support commercial contracts”, as the Radio NZ piece suggests, that’s a huge scandal. I haven’t seen the letters sent to the Royal Society, so don’t know the details of the allegations. However, NIWA has responded indignantly, with CEO Jon Morgan saying the suggestion was an “insult” to the scientists employed there. Association of Scientists President Dr Nicola Gaston was interviewed and said she had “no evidence” this sort of manipulation of science was going on. But she pointed out that CRI scientists don’t have the same level of academic freedom as university scientists.

So do we have a problem here? Fresh water quality management and monitoring is hugely controversial. Is this simply a case of various groups and parties disagreeing with advice given by CRI scientists on a nuanced and complex issue or is there something more sinister going on?

Scientists as friends of the court

Bryce Johns from Fish & Game raises an interesting question in the Radio New Zealand interview – could we develop a system in New Zealand where independent experts can be called by a court of law to give neutral evidence on matters? He describes this as a “friend-of-the-court” system. This regularly occurs in other parts of the world, but is not without its own problems.

Take this example to do with Obamacare and contraception schemes. The US Supreme Court is looking at whether corporate employers with religious objections must include contraceptive coverage in their employee health plans. Various groups have taken it upon themselves to provide friend-of-the-court expert briefs in an attempt to influence the case. The science, not surprisingly, is interpreted differently. Indeed, the science involved in the specific questions is complex, but the Supreme Court won’t be making a ruling based on an interpretation of the science anyway.

What may work better to avoid duelling experts in the Environment Court and other courts, could be for the court to seek independent expert advice from a neutral body – say the Royal Society or the Association of Scientists. In some European countries, such as Norway, this is often what happens. The Court appoints expert witnesses to give evidence. But this also has its issues, as was discovered with the case of mass murderer Anders Breivik.

In that case appeals against the evidence generated by the court-appointed expert witnesses led to additional expert advice being sought by the court. This piece on The Conversation outlines the differences between the inquisitorial system of seeking expert advice in Norway and the adversarial system used in New Zealand and Australia, where both parties in the case will employ their own experts to give advice that helps their respective cases.

An expert witness is recognised by the court as a person who can give an opinion in a specific area of knowledge that is outside the understanding of an “average person”. Psychiatry and psychology expert witnesses must have relevant qualifications, training and experience to be recognised by the court as having such expertise.

Within Australia’s adversarial legal system, the defence and the prosecution will usually engage their own experts, even though the expert should not be an advocate for either party (defence or prosecution).

Usually, the expert will conduct an independent assessment and provide a report outlining the basis for his or her opinion. The report should state the facts or assumptions on which the opinion is based, and should not omit or fail to consider material facts which may contradict the opinion.

The expert should also make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his or her area of expertise. If the expert also considers there is insufficient data available, this must be stated to indicate that the opinion is no more than provisional.

In Norway, similar principles apply to being an expert witness, except that under their inquisitorial legal system, the court appoints the expert. (In an “inquisitorial” system, the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case, whereas in an “adversarial” system, the court acts an impartial umpire between the prosecution and the defence.)

I don’t see the use of expert advice in legal cases changing any time soon in New Zealand.

And our research institutions will continue to be encouraged to pursue contracts with the private sector – this is not unusual in science anywhere in the world.

But when it comes to CRIs giving advice is there evidence of bias based on them protecting their commercial interests? Do you have examples of where scientific advice has been manipulated or changed to suit the needs of industry?

Fish & Game letter

Good afternoon Di,

Fish and Game New Zealand is a significant participant in various Resource Management Act related statutory procedures, for which we engage a range of ‘expert witnesses’. The recent Board of Inquiry case involving the Ruataniwha irrigation scheme in Hawke’s Bay is a case in point, where Fish & Game engaged many experts and lead their expert evidence before the BOI.

Separately, we are encouraging members of the science community to become more intellectually visible in the public arena, so that the wider public might benefit from their knowledge, become more informed, and generally better appreciate the role of science.

One complication that emerges from this is that a confusion, and even conflict, can develop between the common notions of being an ‘expert’ and being an ‘advocate’, with scientists becoming very edgy about being branded the latter, which I fully understand.

So I am wondering if the Royal Society would serve the science community well by taking the lead and holding a workshop/seminar to discuss how this developing conundrum might best be handled, as I suspect it is escalating across all areas of scientific endeavour and concerning a growing number of ‘experts’.

Such an event could also traverse the situation where scientists become employed by organisations with a particular purpose, and how they might be able to retain their ‘expert’ status given the partiality of their employer. Another is the impartiality of scientists employed by CRIs – ‘Crown Research Institutes’ but increasingly being viewed as ‘Client Research Institutes’.

If you would like to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Bryce

 

Calicivirus and the Great Easter Bunny Hunt Peter Griffin Jun 11

No Comments

Mystery still surrounds exactly how a group of renegade farmers imported the calicivirus into New Zealand in 1997 and spread it around the South Island in a bid to kill the rabbits that were destroying their land.

Screen Shot 2014-06-11 at 12.53.33 PMBut 17 years later, scientists have been able to give some indication of the impact the illicit introduction of the virus had on rabbit populations. They used data gathered over 23 years at Alexandra’s Great Easter Bunny Hunt where the rabbits shot during that day are counted up. It turns out that rabbit kills counted after the hunt fell 60 per cent following the introduction of calicivirus – or Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) as it is now known. Kill rates remained low for several years afterwards before gradually increasing again and then fluctuating year to year.

As the scientists, from Landcare Research, who this week published their findings in Wildlife Research, note:

“The disease initially had a dramatic negative effect on kill rates, but this effect began to wane 4 years later. Similar results based on spotlight counts have been reported from the same area, and from the MacKenzie Basin nearby.”

Counting rabbits killed in the Bunny Hunt could be a good indication of the health of rabbit populations, indeed better than spotlight counts, where rabbits can easily be double-counted. But the researchers point out that not all farms in the region participate in the Bunny Hunt, so it’s not a true random sample. Many farmers down there believe that rabbits are so numerous in the region that the Bunny Hunt barely makes a dent in, or reflects rabbit population numbers.

This table from the researchers’ paper well illustrates the impact RHD had on rabbit populations:

Screen Shot 2014-06-11 at 12.16.17 PM

However, conventional rabbit control in the few years after 1997 were at very low levels in the region, so the scientists are fairly confident the disease was the major influence on rabbit populations during the period.

RHD continues to be active in the rabbit population:

“RHD still appears to be killing rabbits (low rates of increase) but its efficacy as a biological control agent is waning, compared with the first outbreaks of the disease.”

So how many rabbits do they kill at the Great Easter Bunny Hunt? Well between 1991 and 2013 they counted 248,000 dead rabbits. That equates to 35.1 rabbits shot per team member in a 24 hour period.

A scene from the Great Easter Bunny Hunt

A scene from the Great Easter Bunny Hunt

Since the calicivirus controversy of 1997 the government has legalised use of RHD to control rabbit populations, however its effectiveness has decreased as rabbits have developed immunity to it. The main rabbit control measures remain shooting, trapping and poisoning.

This article has some good background on the issue.

A summary of the Wildlife Research paper…

Screen Shot 2014-06-11 at 12.16.42 PM

 

Budget 2014: Live coverage on Sciblogs Peter Griffin May 15

No Comments

News on and reaction to Budget 2014 will be featured here this afternoon, as our Sciblogs and Science Media Centre experts and contributors offer their take on the state of the Government’s finances and its funding priorities. Follow the Storify our feed to get the latest updates in one place…

Live updates on Storify below…

Politicians, climate change and evidence abuse Peter Griffin Apr 17

2 Comments

I’ve recently been re-reading The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters, the book by former Times science editor Mark Henderson, which examines the often flagrant disregard for scientific evidence shown by politicians around the world.

New Zealand politicians of all persuasions are as guilty of evidence abuse as their overseas counterparts. Examples of this abound, most famously, the Prime Minister’s causal dismissal, during a BBC Hardtalk interview, of the claims of Massey University freshwater ecologist Dr Mike Joy about the health of our rivers and streams.

Ralph Sims

Ralph Sims

When asked by host Stephen Sackur how he responded to the serious claims Mike Joy made, the Prime Minister responded, rather tellingly:

“He’s one academic, and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview”.

This week another Massey researcher, Professor Ralph Sims was in the gun, as Tuesday’s Parliament question time was occupied by discussion of climate change and the recent IPCC climate mitigation report of which Professor Sims was one of the New Zealand lead authors.

Responding to questions from the Green Party’s climate change spokesman, Kennedy Graham, who quoted from commentary on the mitigation report from Professor Sims, climate change minister Tim Groser had this to say:

“I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman that he stick to his area of expertise. Because… when we look… at the wild statements that the gentleman made, they are palpably wrong on multiple levels.

“Going around pretending that every country in the world is doing 10, 20, 30 per cent reductions, is complete and utter nonsense… so I think ‘stick to the knitting’ would not be a bad piece of advice.”

“I think the community should listen very carefully to the Professor when he is talking about his specific area of scientific expertise, on which I would have nothing to comment.

“But when he steers across into broader questions of comparability I suggest that actually they would be better listening to the person who represents the Government and has access to a wide range of official advice.”

Palpably wrong on multiple levels? What exactly did Professor Sims say? At the Science Media Centre, we gathered commentary from Professor Sims as well as numerous other scientists from here and around the world on Sunday’s release of the IPCC’s Working Group III report on climate mitigation. Professor Sims was a lead author on the report. This is the statement he gave us and repeated in his Massey University release:

Prof Ralph Sims, Sustainable Energy, School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, lead author of IPCC AR5 WG3 report, comments:

“The argument that New Zealand produces only 0.14% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (1) no longer holds. On average, each New Zealander is responsible for emitting around eight tonnes of carbon dioxide a year (2) and, with all the other greenhouse gases, now produces twice those of the average Chinese person and around eight times those of someone living in india (3). This means we are now the fourth highest emitter (4) per person in the world, behind Australia, the United States, and Canada.

“New Zealand has set a modest target to reduce our total greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent below the 1990 gross emission level in just six years time (5), yet no one knows how we will achieve this. In our Sixth Communication document to the United Nations in December 2013, the Ministry of Environment projected our net greenhouse gas emissions (the total emitted minus the carbon dioxide absorbed by forests planted after 1990) will reach more than 75 million tonnes in 2020 (6) if we continue with business as usual. To reach the five per cent reduction target below our 1990 emissions, we will need to somehow reduce these to 55 million tonnes (7).

“The various means of achieving this are clearly outlined in the IPCC Mitigation report released today. They relate to buildings, transport, industry, energy supplies, food production and processing, and forests, all of which can lead to the better “green economy” recently outlined in a New Zealand Royal Society report. Many of these solutions also provide major  additional benefits such as less air pollution, better health, reduced traffic congestion, more employment and they actually save money.

“In the foreword of New Zealand’s recent Communications document to the United Nations, Minister Groser stated, ‘The emissions reduction opportunities available to other nations through conversion to renewables, mass public transport and energy efficiency in industry have already been done or have far less scope in New Zealand’. The IPCC Mitigation report clearly shows this is far from correct.”

Okay, so lets do a bit of a fact check on Professor Sims. I’ve bolded the factual claims he made in the statement above and numbered them. How do the facts stack up?

(1) The Ministry for the Environment has New Zealand accounting for “approximately 0.15 per cent of total world emissions”. CORRECT

(2) According to the Ministry for the Environment, in 2010 “New Zealand’s emissions per capita are 7.6 tonnes per person for carbon dioxide”. CORRECT

(3) According to Carbon Footprint of Nations this is certainly true for the latest available carbon emissions figures (2010) - I can’t find a direct comparison of the three countries for total GHG emissions overall in the same year CORRECT

(4) According to the Ministry for the Environment and the OECD, “in 2011, New Zealand’s emissions per person were the fifth highest among 40 Annex 1 countries, at 16.6 tonnes CO2-e per person”. A variation of one ranking which may be due to more up to date data being released. CORRECT

(5) New Zealand’s official emissions reduction target according to climate change minister Tim Groser in an official release. CORRECT

(6) These projections are from the Ministry for the Environment’s Sixth National Communication to the UN CORRECT

(7) Confirmed by MfE, 1990 emissions were 59.6 Mt CO2-e so a five per cent reduction on that level would be around 55 million tonnes. CORRECT

Who is talking nonsense exactly?

As you would expect from a professor, Ralph Sims is quoting official figures, not plucking them out of the air.

I can’t find any reference to Professor Sims claiming that, as Groser put it “every country in the world is doing 10, 20, 30 per cent reductions”. He didn’t mention anything of the sort in the SMC commentary or his Massey release. Maybe Groser heard him say something to that effect in the media, but if he did, I can’t find reference to it. Some countries have more ambitious emissions reduction targets than New Zealand, some are more conservative. That is not overly controversial.

The piece that likely raised Groser’s hackles is the claim that there are more “emissions reduction opportunities” than Groser is prepared to acknowledge, compared to other countries. Sure, that is grounds for an intelligent and robust debate – the whole argument hinges on what we could and should do to mitigate emissions relative to other countries. But Professor Sims co-authored the report looking at mitigation options. He knows what he is talking about. Actually, this is his area of expertise – check out his credentials. The fact that a senior scientist who has contributed to a major international scinetific report receives such dismissive contempt from a senior minister, is pretty sad.

For Groser to write off Professor Sims and his “wild statements” appears to be just another example of tired old evidence abuse and expert bashing because the evidence put forward is inconvenient to the Government’s position.

I was planning on sending my dog-eared copy of The Geek Manifesto to Mike Hosking (after his climate sceptic rant about climate change on Seven Sharp a couple of weeks ago). After the way science has been misused in the last week, I’m spoiled for choice as to who else I should consider sending it to…

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer