Your letters: Threat to whale feeding grounds

Threat to whales

Recently I had, like most people, assumed the sighting of whales in the South Taranaki Bight meant that they were travelling to and from places far away, to feeding and breeding grounds in the Pacific or Antarctica.

However, mammal scientist Dr Leigh Torres of Oregon University heard there were regular sightings of blue whales in the South Taranaki Bight and decided to investigate.
Her hydrophones found that 50 blue whales were feeding in the area at that time. Further research revealed that the large numbers of whales there are using the bight area to feed on the high amounts of krill found there, and consequently it is a significant feeding and breeding ground for blue whales in NZ waters.

Dr Torres's hydrophones have recorded a high level of blue whale calls all year round, so we know they are protected and doing well.

These whales are the largest animals on the planet. They have the largest calls in the animal kingdom.

Sadly, there is bad news; the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has given mining company Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) permission to suck up to 8000 tonnes of seabed sand per hour every day for 35 years. The sand will be treated and 90 per cent then returned to the sea. The TTR has not carried out the two years monitoring necessary before it commences mining.

The noise and resultant plume will be devastating on all wildlife in the area. There are so many unknowns. EPA's role is really worrying, What on earth were the EPA members alleged to be protecting? The potential environmental damage is enormous.

Dr Torres and her colleagues from Oregon State University's Marine Mammal Institute are about to publish three years of research describing our blue whale pollution for the first time.

We have done enough damage to our land. Please leave our seas at peace.

DARRELL GRACE
Wanganui

Science bashing

Science bashing is a disease that suits populists like Donald Trump.

For him it is just the scientist's word against his when it comes to issues like climate change. Sadly, presidents can have the last word, so for many scientists of integrity that means "You're fired".

Robert Hays' letter (January 1) joining the anti-climate science brigade is also sad and his points need refuting.

He refers to "warmists" but -isms and -ists suggest belief systems and global climatology has moved well past that to a body of evidence that is incontrovertible. Nasa, for example, has masses of data confirming lower atmosphere warming is gathering pace while the outer atmosphere is cooling; exactly as predicted by the greenhouse gas models. That is why the fossil fuel interests who backed Trump are gleeful for his payback of shutting down the critical climate work.

Hays also says science does not work by consensus. Actually it does, but they are consensuses that will shift when evidence requires it.

Individual scientists, usually with non-climatological backgrounds like Hays, are entitled to disagree. What he doesn't provide is any real evidence to support his view. We know that geological time-scale change has been dramatic, but what we are seeing now is rapid warming at a point where models that explain past glacial/ inter-glacial cycles would not predict either what is happening nor the alarming pace at which it is occurring.

Much more could be said, but so many like Dr Hays have decided to ignore the overwhelming evidence and instead choose "alternative facts". Unsurprisingly, there is a well funded industry providing those half-truths and lies, so informed debate can be difficult.

Finally, the rearguard deniers of the scientific consensus on the tobacco-cancer link cost thousands of lives. The cost of not listening to the climate science consensus now would be far higher for all life on this planet.

KEITH BEAUTRAIS
Westmere

Send your letters to: The Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Wanganui 4500; or email editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz