Statistician Adrian Baddeley quit a study on industrial impact on ancient rock art in Western Australia, claiming the government misrepresented findings. His team found rocks closer to industry degraded more. Baddeley alleged a government briefing undermined their results by omitting key data showing risky emission levels. The government denies this. The study was crucial as Federal Minister Watt approved a 40-year extension for Woodside’s gas plant, with emission conditions. Baddeley argues this misrepresentation hinders proper protection of the Murujuga rock carvings. He also claims that there is no evidence that the damage to the rock art has ceased.

Highlights

Here are the bullet point highlights from the article:

• Statistician Quits Rock Art Study: Professor Adrian Baddeley resigned from a study on the impact of industry on ancient rock art on the Burrup Peninsula (Murujuga) in Western Australia, claiming the government misrepresented his team’s findings.
• Key Finding Undermined: The study found rocks closer to polluting industries were more degraded. Baddeley claims a government briefing downplayed this finding.
• Government Rejects Claims: The Western Australian government denies Professor Baddeley’s allegations.
• Woodside Extension Approved: Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt approved a 40-year extension for Woodside’s Karratha Gas Plant, despite advice emissions may be impacting the rock art. The extension includes conditions for lowering emissions.
• Murujuga Significance: Murujuga is a site of over a million ancient rock carvings and also a major industrial hub.
• MRAMP Study: The Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP) was commissioned to investigate the impact of industrial emissions on the rock art.
• Graph Controversy: A graph showing potentially risky emission levels was altered in a government summary of the study by removing one of two lines.
• DWER’s Defense: The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) defended the change, saying the summary was meant to “simplify” the full report.
• Scientists’ Concerns: Emails suggest scientists wanted the line to remain but DWER “insisted” on its removal, putting a “very rosy spin” on the findings.
• Degradation Not Taken Seriously: Professor Baddeley felt the government was dismissive of the findings showing elevated rock degradation near industrial areas.
• Premier’s Statement: WA Premier Roger Cook said the study indicated current industry wasn’t damaging the rock art, attributing the damage to a power generator from the 1970s. Baddeley disputes this.
• No Proof Damage Stopped: Baddeley argues there is no evidence to indicate the damage to the rock art has ceased.
• Importance of Transparency: Baddeley emphasizes the need for independence and transparency in presenting the study results, especially given Woodside’s compliance with any new air quality standards based on the study.
• Integrity Concerns: Baddeley denies political bias and states his primary concern is scientific integrity.
• Aboriginal Corporation Statement: The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation stated they would hold the government accountable if research shows industry impacting the rock art.

The Whispers of Murujuga: Are We Losing Ancient Voices to Industrial Progress?

Imagine standing before art etched into rock tens of thousands of years ago. These aren’t just drawings; they’re stories, histories, and spiritual connections passed down through millennia. This is Murujuga, a place of profound cultural significance in Western Australia. But is this priceless heritage under threat? A disturbing controversy is unfolding, raising critical questions about scientific integrity, government transparency, and the true cost of industrial development.

The Statistician’s Stand: A Scientist’s Integrity Challenged

Professor Adrian Baddeley, a respected statistician, recently resigned from a landmark study investigating the potential damage to Murujuga’s ancient rock art from heavy industry. His reason? He claims the Western Australian government misrepresented his team’s key findings, effectively silencing the scientific truth.

“Misstating the results of an expensive scientific investigation is unacceptable and I think that’s what’s happened,” – Professor Adrian Baddeley

This isn’t just about academic disagreement. It’s about the erosion of trust in scientific research and the potential sacrifice of invaluable cultural heritage for economic gain.

Murujuga: A Convergence of Ancient Art and Modern Industry

Murujuga, also known as the Burrup Peninsula, is home to over a million Indigenous rock carvings, some dating back an estimated 50,000 years. These petroglyphs depict everything from animals and human figures to complex abstract designs, providing a unique window into the lives and beliefs of Australia’s First Peoples.

However, Murujuga is also a major industrial hub, housing gas plants, mining operations, and other heavy industries. This juxtaposition has raised concerns for years about the potential impact of industrial emissions on the delicate rock art.

The Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP): A Search for Answers

In 2020, the WA government initiated the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP), a five-year study co-funded with industry, to assess the potential risks. The goal was clear: to determine whether industrial air emissions were degrading the ancient carvings and, if so, to find ways to mitigate the damage.

The Curtin University Report: A Troubling Discovery

In mid-2024, a team of experts from Curtin University, led by Professor Ben Mullins and including Professor Baddeley, presented their research. The report indicated that rocks located closer to polluting industries exhibited elevated levels of porosity, a sign of degradation. This crucial finding suggested a direct link between industrial activity and the deterioration of the rock art.

The Controversy: When Science Meets Politics

The Curtin University report was carefully reviewed by the federal government, as it considered a 40-year extension for Woodside’s Karratha Gas Plant, a major industrial operation on the Burrup Peninsula.

However, the controversy erupted when an eight-page briefing, prepared by the WA government’s Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) in collaboration with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, summarized the Curtin University findings. Professor Baddeley claims this summary significantly downplayed the team’s most critical discovery: the correlation between proximity to industry and rock degradation.

The Missing Line: A Graph’s Tale of Two Thresholds

One of the most contentious points was the removal of a line from a graph in the summary document. The original graph featured two lines representing different thresholds for potentially risky air emission levels of nitrogen dioxide. Professor Baddeley argues that removing the lower threshold, the “early warning” level, constituted “unacceptable interference” and obscured the potential risks.

DWER defended its decision, stating that the full graph was available in the longer report and that the summary aimed to “simplify” key findings. However, emails obtained under Freedom of Information revealed that Professor Mullins initially wanted the line to remain but claimed DWER “insisted” on its removal. He described DWER’s presentation of the findings as a “very rosy spin.”

Conflicting Perspectives: Scientists at Odds?

While Professor Baddeley is outspoken in his concerns, Professor Mullins maintains that the removal of the line was appropriate for “effective communication,” arguing that the lower threshold was less reliable and that new science emphasizes the importance of sulfur dioxide over nitrogen dioxide.

The Core of the Issue: Scientific Integrity vs. Political Expediency

Professor Baddeley’s primary concern isn’t about specific pollutants or graph lines. It’s about the integrity of scientific research and the potential for political interference to undermine objective findings. He fears that the government’s “rosy spin” may downplay the true extent of the damage and hinder effective conservation efforts.

“Now when I see other reports about an independent scientific review of something, I wonder whether the same thing is happening with them as well,” – Professor Adrian Baddeley

A Statistician’s Resignation: A Loss for Murujuga

Professor Baddeley ultimately resigned from the MRAMP project, feeling that his team’s findings were not being taken seriously. He felt that there was a minimization of any impact and he couldn’t be part of it any longer.

The Government’s Response: Reassurances and Deflections

WA Premier Roger Cook stated that the MRAMP study indicated that current industry on the Burrup had not damaged the rock art, attributing any potential degradation to a power station that operated from 1966 to 2010. He assured the community that the rock art was protected.

However, Professor Baddeley strongly refuted this interpretation, stating that the report only concluded that chronic industrial pollution over 60 years was likely to have caused the damage, but there was no evidence to suggest it had stopped.

The Stakes: More Than Just Rocks

The controversy surrounding the Murujuga rock art highlights a fundamental conflict between industrial development and cultural preservation.

• Cultural Loss: The destruction or degradation of the rock art represents an irreversible loss of Indigenous history, culture, and spiritual connection. These carvings are irreplaceable treasures that deserve protection.
• Environmental Impact: The potential damage to the rock art raises broader concerns about the environmental impact of industrial emissions on the delicate ecosystem of the Burrup Peninsula.
• Transparency and Accountability: The alleged misrepresentation of scientific findings erodes public trust in government and raises questions about accountability for environmental protection.

What Can Be Done?

1. Demand Transparency: Urge the WA government to release all data and reports related to the MRAMP study, ensuring full transparency and public access to information.
2. Support Independent Research: Advocate for independent scientific research, free from political interference, to accurately assess the impact of industrial emissions on the Murujuga rock art.
3. Strengthen Environmental Regulations: Call for stricter environmental regulations for industrial operations on the Burrup Peninsula, with enforceable measures to reduce emissions and protect cultural heritage.
4. Empower Indigenous Voices: Support the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation in their efforts to protect the rock art and ensure that their voices are heard in all decision-making processes.
5. Spread Awareness: Share this story with your friends, family, and social networks to raise awareness about the importance of protecting Murujuga and its ancient rock art.

The Future of Murujuga: A Call to Action

The fate of Murujuga hangs in the balance. Will we prioritize short-term economic gains over the preservation of invaluable cultural heritage? Or will we act now to protect these ancient voices for future generations?

Take Action Now! Contact your local representatives and demand they support the preservation of Murujuga’s rock art. Let them know that you value scientific integrity, environmental protection, and the rich cultural heritage of Australia’s First Peoples.

The whispers of Murujuga are calling. Will you listen?