Al Gore’s ‘drowning polar bear’ source reprimanded

From the Seattle Times – the end game of ‘polarbeargate':

Scientist who saw drowned polar bears reprimanded

An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has been reprimanded for improper release of government documents.

JUNEAU, Alaska —

An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has been reprimanded for improper release of government documents. 

An Interior Department official said emails released by Charles Monnett were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management of an oil and gas company’s Arctic exploration plan.

The official, Walter Cruickshank, deputy director of BOEM, said in a memo that an inspector general’s investigation contained findings that Monnett had improperly disclosed internal government documents, which he said were later used against the agency in court. He also said the investigation made other findings in regards to Monnett’s conduct, but he wasn’t taking action on those. He would not specify those findings.

Cruickshank called Monnett’s “misconduct very serious,” and said any future misconduct may lead to more severe discipline, including removal from federal service.

Monnett was briefly suspended last year during an inspector general’s investigation into a polar bear research contract he managed. The inspector general’s report, which was released Friday, said its investigation was set off by a complaint from an unidentified Interior Department employee who alleged that Monnett wrongfully released government records and that he and another scientist, Jeffrey Gleason, intentionally omitted or used false data in an article they wrote on polar bears. During that investigation, authorities also looked into the procurement issue.

full story here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Polarbeargate and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Al Gore’s ‘drowning polar bear’ source reprimanded

  1. _Jim says:

    From balance of article on ST webpage:

    … investigators had said that Monnett helped a polar bear researcher prepare a proposal even though he was the government official who determined whether the proposal met minimum qualifications. …

    Hmmm … confliect of interest.

    The article was based on observations that Monnett and Gleason made in 2004 while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales. They saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.

    In the article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They wrote that while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

    Hmmm …. no autopsy; jump to conclusion.

    Nothing to see here, move along (/sarc) …

    .

  2. Neo says:

    In the private sector, this chap would have seen the pavement faster than you can say “Bob’s your uncle” but government employees pretty much have to commit the wrong kind of treason to get fired.

  3. Mike McMillan says:

    Suggest he be reassigned to the Post Office in Nome, where he can get up close and personal with the polar bears.

  4. pat says:

    Gee. A money grab by a ‘researcher’ of money grabs. What a surprise. Meet modern American science.

  5. Gunga Din says:

    Something Al Gore said was based on a lie!?!?
    So are we or aren’t we all doomed?

  6. LazyTeenager says:

    Gunga Din on September 29, 2012 at 12:06 am
    Something Al Gore said was based on a lie!?!?
    So are we or aren’t we all doomed?
    ———–
    Since the polar bear reports were not based on a lie and since you are are insisting there was without any evidence what does that make you?

  7. GeoLurking says:

    So, he gets a slap on the wrist…

    As noted, in the real world he would have been canned in short order.

  8. stacyglen says:

    This guy HAD approval to publish from his local office. Now they are going after him years later as the balance of power in his head office has changed.. He reported what he saw. It may not have been great science but it was honnest. The fact it was used for a political agenda does not mean it is acceptable to go after the scientists Only go after the science. We can not complain about luke warmers being punished for thier work or views if you are silent when it happens in the other direction. Some papers will be plain wrong. Some of the observations will be misinterpreted. Mistakes and debate are part of the process. That means giving lots of room to the scientists to work – away from political pressure to get the “RIGHT” answer. .

  9. Disko Troop says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:43 am

    Speaking of Al Gore…..

    he has lost a mint in “green” investments:
    ———————————————————————-

    Al Gore: “The Profit of Doom.”

  10. Pointman says:

    “As for them drowning, they can easily swim nonstop for hundreds of kilometers in Arctic-cold seas, their natural habitat, so it takes some pretty extreme weather to drown them. It’s not for nothing that their official name is Ursus Maritimus or sea bear; they actually spend most of their waking time in the sea rather than on ice or land. In an article published in this year’s January edition of Polar Biology, the U.S. Geological Survey gave the details of a bear they’d tagged that had swam for nine days continuously and covered a total distance of 687 kilometers.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/

    The bear in question was a female; the males, being a lot bigger, can swim a lot further.

    Pointman

  11. Ursus Oceanus is a remarkable swimmer but shit happens so some must perish at sea. Their numbers are 20-25K so not endangered at all.

  12. D. Patterson says:

    stacyglen says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:51 am
    This guy HAD approval to publish from his local office. Now they are going after him years later as the balance of power in his head office has changed.. He reported what he saw. It may not have been great science but it was honnest.

    Monnett reported what he wished to see and not what he actually did see. Being in an overflying aircraft, he was in no position to definitively prove the polar bears were killed by drowning due to loss of ice floes, killed by drowning, or perhaps killed at all in all four examples or any examples. Even if all four polar bears were actually killed, and were killed by drowning, Monnett had no evidence whatsoever to conclude they were killed by loss of ice rather than natural causes due to age and/or other natural causes. Even if the polar bears drowned, were drowned due to loss of ice, and were not disadvantaged bby natural age; there is no evidence humans had any significant influence upon the natural variations in Arctic ice extent. In other words, Monnett was being dishonest about his observations and interpretations of his observations in an ill considered decision to give unscientific and untrue testimony in support of the political cause he adopted.

    In other words, it not only was not “great science”, it was not science at all. Instead, it was a betrayal and perversion of the science, truth, and political trustworthiness.

    The fact it was used for a political agenda does not mean it is acceptable to go after the scientists Only go after the science. We can not complain about luke warmers being punished for thier work or views if you are silent when it happens in the other direction. Some papers will be plain wrong. Some of the observations will be misinterpreted. Mistakes and debate are part of the process. That means giving lots of room to the scientists to work – away from political pressure to get the “RIGHT” answer. .

  13. beesaman says:

    What is really interesting is the fact that his research was academical poor in quality, but then this seems to a growing trend in academics more interested in advocacy than academic rigour.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/20/opinion/la-oe-ellis-uc-bias-20120520

    Aided by less than neutral gatekeepers

    http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/119745/

  14. AGW_Skeptic says:

    ‘An Interior Department official said emails released by Charles Monnett were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management of an oil and gas company’s Arctic exploration plan.”

    He “released” emails (without years of FOIA requests and stalling) that resulted in an oil and gas company being denied a previously approved arctic exploration plan.

    This is the REAL story.

  15. Olaf Koenders [AU] says:

    “An Interior Department official said..”

    Shouldn’t that be “Inferior Department”? Note that it takes just one of his pals to crash his party, but the entire Climate Realist blogosphere complaining about it for years with evidence didn’t make so much of a ripple. Some results are worth waiting for :)

  16. Richard Day says:

    I await the warmists claims that he was a whistleblower. In the meantime they can go to Churchill Falls, Manitoba to hand feed the few remaining starving polar bears. I suggest bacon.

  17. Rob Murphy says:

    The investigation was a farce, and it ending up showing that the entire thing was conducted because he demonstrated that the BOEM suppressed information. They found no scientific misconduct. The issue with the contract was Monnett being asked by a researcher what the BOEM was looking for in a proposal. As it turns out, he was not at the time in charge of approving contracts yet anyway; he started that after the incident in question.

    How this can be spun as a win for the BOEM escapes me. The science he conducted was untouched in the final report and his work with contracts was not found to be faulty. The only thing they “got” him with was whistle-blowing, which was the real reason he was attacked in the first place. The BOEM looks vindictive and petty here, while Monnett has been exonerated.

  18. Mark Smith says:

    The government isn’t the least concerned with the scientific misconduct such as this ” investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript” . Just shows what sort of government it is.

  19. For Lazy Teenager and any others questioning this, as D. Patterson pointed out and I will repeat, the writer did not report factually. Factually, he found four dead polar bears floating in the ocean after a storm. That’s all. Anything beyond that is just speculation unless the guy has photos of the bears swimming for days and days and actually drowning plus footage of their prior activity to put the swimming in context. He would also need many more examples of polar bears actually drowning, plus a count of floating polar bears from the early 1900’s to show warming in increasing drowning bear numbers.
    When one presents wild speculation as fact, as was done here, that is called a lie. So anyone using this story to push global warming lied. Straight up, they lied.

  20. polistra says:

    Semi-related: BBC’s “More or Less” program has an excellent debunk of another media extinction story. The UK Telegraph had stated that North Sea Cod were basically extinct, with only 100 left. Terrible! Horrible! We’re killing them all!

    The debunk began with a phone call from an actual fisherman who said this number was bizarre; that the cod catch this year was the best in living memory, and keeps increasing. They tracked down the 100 number as follows: The Sunday Times had used a UK government database of cod population estimates. The database tried to account for cod of all ages, up to the age of 13 which is the oldest age ever recorded. By normal curves, the database guessed there might be 100 of those cod codgers still around. Sunday Times, seeing only extinction, took this number to be the count of “adult cod”. When the Telegraph picked up the story, they dropped “adult”, leaving 100 as the total count of all cod in the North Sea.

    How many cod are actually in the North Sea? “More or Less” used the same government database CORRECTLY and came up with 460 million, which is just slightly more than 100.

    Nobody ever bothered to check with a fisherman, or a fish wholesaler, or anyone who might have direct knowledge of actual fish. It was all statistics and wishful thinking.

  21. Resourceguy says:

    Was he in the anti-Islam production as well?

  22. Jack Simmons says:

    _Jim says:
    September 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    The article was based on observations that Monnett and Gleason made in 2004 while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales. They saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.

    Maybe the bears died on the ice from natural causes and were subsequently washed into the ocean by the storm.

  23. Sam Glasser says:

    The entire transcript of the investigation can be read at: http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf

  24. Latest Fish and Wildlife population count has polar bears at an all time high of 25 to 30,000, up from 5 – 10,000 during the 1950’s and 60’s. We’re up to our ears in polar bears. And those who claim absence of sea ice during the summers (if it ever happens) will doom the bears is obviously not aware that the bears have lived thru ice-free Arctic seas in the past. The fact that a simple
    observation of some bears drowned in a storm has grown into a preposterous sequence of lies
    and misinformation says a lot about the inability of our media to handle science news. They
    do far more thorough vetting of philandering husband stories (unless they’re a political friend).. Scare stories about dying polar bears sell newspapers and air time, while stories that say everything is normal do not. Guess which story they’ll going to go with? It’s called Yellow Journalism, environmental style. Thank God for the Internet, flawed though it may be.

  25. Craig Moore says:

    If one relied on NPR, they would not know of the reprimand: http://www.npr.org/2012/09/28/161987243/scientist-cleared-in-polar-bear-controversy

  26. Rob Murphy says:

    Craig Moore said:
    “If one relied on NPR, they would not know of the reprimand”

    One would if they read the article:
    “…except for an official reprimand for an unrelated matter, the improper release of internal government documents back in 2007 and 2008.”

  27. Gunga Din says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:42 am
    Gunga Din on September 29, 2012 at 12:06 am
    Something Al Gore said was based on a lie!?!?
    So are we or aren’t we all doomed?
    ———–
    Since the polar bear reports were not based on a lie and since you are are insisting there was without any evidence what does that make you?

    ======================================================================
    I stand corrected. It’s what he did with the reports that was the lie. Evidence of that lie? I would have thought you’d have “An Inconvienent Truth” memorized.

  28. J Bowers says:

    “I await the warmists claims that he was a whistleblower.”

    If MMS hadn’t been riddled with corruption then this alarmist wouldn’t be thinking of Monnett as a whistleblower. Renaming MMS to BOEM was hardly a whimsical decision, more a purge and an attempt at a fresh start.

  29. Tim Walker says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:42 am
    Gunga Din on September 29, 2012 at 12:06 am
    Something Al Gore said was based on a lie!?!?
    So are we or aren’t we all doomed?
    ———–
    Since the polar bear reports were not based on a lie and since you are are insisting there was without any evidence what does that make you?

    Tim says:

    Sometimes it’s all in the name. Eh, Lazy.

    Some people look beyond the apocalyptic news stories to find the truth. Polar bear populations increasing. Polar bears survived a time of much higher temperatures in the past.

    I hope the fact you posted on here means you are considering not being lazy. Maybe you will look at the facts. I hope so.

  30. Grizzled Bear says:

    Lack of understanding about polar bear physiology seems to constantly lead people to inaccurate anthropomorphic conclusions (remember the pathetically uninformed but trying-to-prove-a-point inventors of the life jacket for polar bears? – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/14/network-poles). Polar bears, like ducks, witches, and very small rocks, float in water with no effort expended. The Seattle Times quoting the report: “while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather” is the conclusion one might be expected to make if you have a lack of knowledge of basic polar bear biology. A truer conclusion might have been “while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, trying to maintain buoyancy while trapped in open water during an Arctic storm may exceed their abilities”. The only energy a polar bear has to expend when it’s in the water is to propel itself forward. If they stop swimming, they stop moving. But they don’t sink. How much energy do you expend sitting in a floating lounger in your swimming pool? Now let’s strap a life vest on you and set you adrift in open water during an Arctic storm. Even with the life vest, do you think you’ll survive (ignore the hypothermia aspect)? I think there’s a good chance you wouldn’t survive and that the cause of your death would be drowning. It seems that the 4 unfortunate bears cited were destined to give their lives so that a couple of pseudo-scientists could use their deaths as part of a political statement.

  31. Go Home says:

    Amino,
    That is a great read on Gore losing mucho money investing in green energy. Just hope alot of it was his, not just all the unions that invested with him. Just hope Al does not find out where Hoffa was buried.

    Might make a great post here at WUWT.

  32. stacyglen says:

    Jack Simmons: I believe:the dead bodies were seen after a storm. He was flying over the area regularly for other research and saw some dead bears. He had not see dead bears on earlier flights. He asked around and no-one else could remember seeing dead polar bears. He got permission in writing from his local office to published this very minor factoid. On this slim basis a myth was born.

    If you are reprimanded in 2012 for something in 2007 and 2008 or 2004, you have to ask why was there was no reprimand in 2009, or 2010. What has changed if it is not office politics.

  33. bikedude says:

    Pointman, any references?

    I found this: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/polar-bears-long-distance-swimming-and-the-changing-arctic/

    90 miles is still impressive, but quite a bit short of your claim of 687 km?

  34. Steve R says:

    So just to be clear…….there was no rainforest found in the Mojave?

  35. john robertson says:

    Did he actually see 4 bears same day? Or one bear 4 flights?

  36. Grizzled Bear says:

    bikedude says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    Pointman, any references?
    I found this: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/polar-bears-long-distance-swimming-and-the-changing-arctic/
    90 miles is still impressive, but quite a bit short of your claim of 687 km?

    Reported by the pro-AGW BBC no less:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9369000/9369317.stm
    “This bear swam continuously for 232 hours and 687 km and through waters that were 2-6 degrees C,” says research zoologist George M. Durner.

  37. Jimbo says:

    bikedude says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Pointman, any references?

    I found this: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/polar-bears-long-distance-swimming-and-the-changing-arctic/

    90 miles is still impressive, but quite a bit short of your claim of 687 km?

    Here you go.

    I even recall a peer reviewed paper about polar cubs riding on its mother’s back in the sea. I’ll see if I can find that too.

    Abstract
    “….Between an initial capture in late August and a recapture in late October 2008, a radio-collared adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km. Measures of movement rate, hourly activity, and subcutaneous and external temperature revealed distinct profiles of swimming and walking…….”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/032201r34q534455/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110720-polar-bears-global-warming-sea-ice-science-environment/

  38. Jimbo says:

    bikedude says:
    September 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Pointman, any references?

    Further to my last reference here is the polar cub on mother’s back. Shall I go on? ;-)

    Abstract
    The principal habitat of polar bears Ursus maritimus is sea ice where they hunt seals. Much of the sea ice habitat is scattered or with leads of open water. Adults are good swimmers. They are well adapted to cold water, while small cubs do not yet have fat layer sufficient to avoid chilling if swimming in icy water for any prolonged period of time. An important question is thus how female mothers and their cubs may behave to avoid that cubs get chilled, but at the same time making it possible for the families to hunt is those areas. We describe an observation of a polar bear cub on its mother’s back while the mother was swimming among ice floes in Svalbard, Norwegian Arctic. Similar observations are to our knowledge not earlier described in the scientific literature. We point out that this behaviour minimize exposure to cold water and hence significantly may reduce chilling of the cub. It may also be a way for the mother to transfer cubs not yet able or willing to swim. The behaviour may be necessary to allow the families to get around in areas of sea ice with many open leads.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/8051204vu73l320w/

  39. Jimbo says:

    Polar bears are survivors. Don’t believe anyone who says otherwise. Check it for yourself.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

  40. Jimbo says:

    Al Gore is just trying to scare the children. I don’t believe anything these nutty scaremongers have to say. I check it out myself.

    “Observations of a wild polar bear (Ursus maritimus) successfully fishing Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and Fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis)”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2740177qk8425851/

    “The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/5g5756162w677hl4/

    I feel sorry for human survival not Polar Bears. They are survivors. As for Al Gore he just can’t help telling fairy tales to the children.

  41. bikedude says:

    Cheers guys, I’ll put those bookmarks to good use.

  42. Keith W. says:

    “stacyglen says:
    September 29, 2012 at 9:53 am
    Jack Simmons: I believe:the dead bodies were seen after a storm. He was flying over the area regularly for other research and saw some dead bears. He had not see dead bears on earlier flights. He asked around and no-one else could remember seeing dead polar bears. He got permission in writing from his local office to published this very minor factoid. On this slim basis a myth was born.

    If you are reprimanded in 2012 for something in 2007 and 2008 or 2004, you have to ask why was there was no reprimand in 2009, or 2010. What has changed if it is not office politics.”

    Stacy, you didn’t read the report accurately. The reprimand has nothing to do with the polar bear report. The reprimand was for releasing government documents without authorization. That can be a serious offense. Attention was drawn to the polar bear report in connection to this because the observation flights where he saw polar bear bodies were connected to generating the documents that he released without authorization. The flights had a different purpose than looking for polar bears, an environmental impact study that dealt with oil exploration. Monett released the reports of that study to the exploration opponents without receiving permission first. That was what was investigated and what he was reprimanded for.

  43. In the last 8 years the agw crowd has nothing to show but these same old four polar bears that died in the Beauifort Sea after a storm.

    By now these bears must stink to high heaven.

    Don’t they have any bears that died more recently? Is there a dead polar bear shortage?

    /sarc

  44. Carter says:

    So basically the report was correct! And the polar bear did die, but because he released the truth he was found guilty. Hmm, it would seem to me that under different circumstances AGW sceptics would be crying, ‘cover up’. if the truth had not come out. Come on you guys, play fair!

    REPLY: The issue is mostly with Gore’s ridiculous claims, AGW had noting to do with the dead polar bear and a dead polar bear does not a trend make. Monnet didn’t speak out when Gore took his observation and turned into into a bogus sympathy pitch -Anthony

  45. joel says:

    Our govt is just all screwed up. He was flying a regular route counting whales to satisfy some reg to keep the Eskimos happy about the number of whales in the area. Imagine the money wasted for years doing this sort of nonsense whale counting, and then he saw some dead bears one day, hooked up with a climate alarmist, and the rest is history. He published his dead bear observation knowing full well how it would be spun by the alarmists. He is guilty of being party to a scientific fraud.

    BTW, the best explanation is that the bears drowned during a storm. The interface between the ocean and the air in a storm is extremely foamy and not breathable. BTW, the number of dead bears seen that one year was never equalled, AFAIK.

  46. clipe says:

    For some reason I can’t connect to the internet unless via expat shield.

    I’m stuck with UK TV.

    BBC 4

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzIOEP4fsmZ8d2J6Z3dDX3l6YUE

  47. D. Patterson says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    September 29, 2012 at 6:22 am
    [....]Monnett has been exonerated.

    “Exonerated”? Monnett flat out lied. He made statements which any person acting as a genuine scientist had no basis other than wild speculations contrary to well established scientific observations. Monnett and his collaborators went forward with their false fabrications in a deliberate attempt to prevent oil drilling and production in the Arctic. When it appeared their falsified reports were not going to be used by the government agency as a basis for stopping the oil production, they proceeded to violate the law and regulatory proceddures by leeking their falsified report/s to people who would act to stop the oil production. That kind of misconduct by Monnett and others is a condemnation and not an exoneration, regardless of anyone’s false pronouncements to the contrary.

    If you are going to defend Monnett and his indefensible behavior, you can begin by finding and presenting some scientific evidence demonstrating: 1. Monnett saw four polar bears; 2. the polar bears he saw were actually dead, and not just lounging after a good meal and enjoying a good sunbath while floating; 3. the four allegedly dead polar bears died by drowning at sea, and not by any other causes, natural or unnatural like lead poisoning; 4. why four dead polar bears in the same location and at the same time is anything more than what may sometimes be found under entirely natural circumstances and without any human influences whatsoever. Thousands of polar bear adults, sub-adults, and cubs must die each and every year, otherwise the birth of about two cubs to each female would result in the polar bear population nearly doubling each breeding season. Polar bears who survive into adulthood have relatively short life spans. With so many thousands of natural polar deaths each year, Monnett and his defenders need to demonstrate why Monnett failed to see only four allegedly dead polar bears and not forty-four deadd polar bears.

  48. Gunga Din says:

    Jimbo says:
    September 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    Al Gore is just trying to scare the children. I don’t believe anything these nutty scaremongers have to say. I check it out myself.

    “Observations of a wild polar bear (Ursus maritimus) successfully fishing Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and Fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis)”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2740177qk8425851/
    =============================================================
    Wonder why he doesn’t show polar bear eating a baby seal?

  49. D. Patterson says:
    September 29, 2012 at 3:35 am

    “Monnett reported what he wished to see and not what he actually did see. Being in an overflying aircraft, he was in no position to definitively prove the polar bears were killed by drowning due to loss of ice floes, killed by drowning, or perhaps killed at all in all four examples or any examples. Even if all four polar bears were actually killed, and were killed by drowning, Monnett had no evidence whatsoever to conclude they were killed by loss of ice rather than natural causes due to age and/or other natural causes.”
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    That they drowned is far fetched, but they all coincidentally died of old age is reasonable?

  50. pinetree3 says:

    John Marshall says:
    September 29, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Ursus Oceanus is a remarkable swimmer but shit happens so some must perish at sea. Their numbers are 20-25K so not endangered at all.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    20-25k is not a large population. Would you consider a human population of 20-25k large?

  51. KR says:

    “”We have confirmed that the [inspector general's] findings do not support a conclusion that the individual scientists involved engaged in scientific misconduct,” BOEM press secretary Theresa Eisenman said in a written statement. (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2012/09/29/polar-bear-scientist-reprimanded-for-releasing-government-documents/)

    The minor reprimand is on a different matter entirely – no polar bears – regarding Monnett disclosing what turned out to be agency suppression of information. In other words, whistle-blowing. The investigation was just an internal witch-hunt.

    Now – back to the science, please?

  52. LazyTeenager says:

    Reality check says
    Factually, he found four dead polar bears floating in the ocean after a storm. That’s all. Anything beyond that is just speculation unless the guy has photos of the bears swimming for days and days and actually drowning plus footage of their prior activity to put the swimming in context
    ———–
    Sure that’s correct. But I am going to make a wild guess and suggest that in the original report that the interpretation was underlined as speculation. In other words no lies were told.

    Given that more than one dead floating bear seen on a very brief overflight and it’s was considered unusual by a seasoned researcher the speculation seems reasonable.

    Considering that we have direct satelite observations of reduced arctic sea ice and some knowledge that bears can’t swim forever it also seems a reasonable speculation.

  53. LazyTeenager says:

    Reality check says
    When one presents wild speculation as fact, as was done here, that is called a lie. So anyone using this story to push global warming lied. Straight up, they lied.
    ———
    Don’t wiildly speculate. Show us the section in the report that presents speculation as proven fact.

  54. Downtown Denizen says:

    pinetree3 writes: “20-25k is not a large population. Would you consider a human population of 20-25k large?”

    See above: “Latest Fish and Wildlife population count has polar bears at an all time high of 25 to 30,000, up from 5 – 10,000 during the 1950′s and 60′s. We’re up to our ears in polar bears.”

    So yes, relatively speaking polar bears have made a big comeback, and are still growing in number. Let’s ask the question in a slightly different fashion: Would you consider a Giant Panda population of 20-25k large?

  55. Jeff D says:

    pinetree3 says:
    September 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    20-25k is not a large population. Would you consider a human population of 20-25k large?
    —————————–
    Seeing that the the Polar Bear is an Apex predator Yeah, I consider that population to be very large. Food has been proven over and over again to be main population growth limiting factor for a given species. There are many other Apex predators that deserve our attention due to real extinction populations levels. The polar bear is not and was chosen as a poster child for a political position. If the population gets much larger you will start seeing all the cute little baby bears being eaten by hungry daddy bears. That will not make such a pretty poster.

  56. KR says:

    My apologies – in my previous comment the quote should have been (to be exact):

    “A BOEM spokeswoman, Theresa Eisenman, said the findings in the report do not support a conclusion that the scientists involved engaged in “scientific misconduct.” (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2012/09/29/polar-bear-scientist-reprimanded-for-releasing-government-documents/)

    I accidentally linked to a different source that quoted the same press release, with slightly varying surrounding text.

  57. D. Patterson says:

    Richard Carlson says:
    September 29, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    [....] That they drowned is far fetched, but they all coincidentally died of old age is reasonable?

    Drowning polar bears are not so “farfetched” when you consider the fact that they spend almost all of their time at sea and on the ice edge, except for females in gestation. Polar bears who are too old, injured, and/or ill to catch sufficient prey end up becoming too weak to survive periods of severe weather and sea conditions. This raises the question of why anyone would be surprised or alarmed by the discovery of multiple polar bears showing up dead at sea after a severe Arctic storm. When they die, the sea and edge of the sea ice is where they spend the vast majority of their tim; so their bodies should be found at sea until scavengers have disposed of the corpses. Since polar bears are not necessarily solitary at all times, it should also be no surprise to find several polar bears have met their natural demise at the same place and same time. But all of that is premature. It remains to be seen what evidence their is of a scientific nature to support Monnetts claim their were four polar bears, and the four polar bears were actually dead and not just restin’. Once that hurdle is cleared, Monnett and his defenders need to preseent scientific evidence the polar bears drowned and were not shot to death by hunters, poisoned by debris in the ocean, or mortally wounded in fights with otther polar bears and/or walruses. There are innumerable natural circumstances which will result in the coincidental death of multiple polar bears at the same place and time.

  58. Rob Murphy says:

    ““Exonerated”? Monnett flat out lied.”

    Yes, exonerated. The report said,
    “We have confirmed that the [inspector general's] findings do not support a conclusion that the individual scientists involved engaged in scientific misconduct,” BOEM press secretary Theresa Eisenman said in a written statement.”

    The investigation never was about his scientific work; it was initiated by his whistle-blowing of the illegal procedures of BOEM. BOEM is the loser in this thing, not Monnett.

  59. D. Patterson says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    September 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    [...] Given that more than one dead floating bear seen on a very brief overflight and it’s was considered unusual by a seasoned researcher the speculation seems reasonable.

    Considering that we have direct satelite observations of reduced arctic sea ice and some knowledge that bears can’t swim forever it also seems a reasonable speculation.

    On the contrary, there is nothing reasonable about it whatsoever. You might just as well run around in circles and tear your hair out with loud wailing about the deaths of four white-tail deer attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) along a thirty mile stretch of Interstate highway in Illinois, Kentucky, or Tennessee. The end result is the same with people with the practical experience to know better laughing at your outrageous foolishness.

    If you and Monnett want to propagate lies and misinformation, the least you could do is make them at least believable enough to be more entertaining than this utter nonsense. Where in the world do you think polar bears die and leave their carcasses, the Brooklyn zoo? Or, perhaps you think the polar bears take solitary journeys to Superman’s Fortress of Solitude before they deposit their Earthly remains in a hidden Polar Bear Burial Ground? If not, perhaps you can explain where all of the last 10,000 polar bear carcasses ended up in the last year or two without being observed at sea. Nah, you’re the Lazy Teenager, which means you cannot be bothered to actually producee the evidence of these particular four polar bear deaths. Of course not, because Monnett et al made no effort to collect any such valid and meaningful scientific observations. Instead, they read the minds of the gestalt Polar Bear conciousness to produce the right conclusions, but the right conclusions for whom?

    Yeah, we can see it now. Those four pitiable polar bears were just the tip of the all but hidden Polar Bear Berg which the dirty and evil scheming oil companies are trying to hide but for the plucky whistleblowing of Monnett and his eagle eyes.Monnett, Lazy Teenager, et al…reasonable? Perhaps they can survey the stinky skunk roadkill problem and diving Global Warming in that study as well?

  60. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    @bikedude

    >Pointman, any references?

    >I found this: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/polar-bears-long-distance-swimming-and-the-changing-arctic/

    >90 miles is still impressive, but quite a bit short of your claim of 687 km?

    +++++++++++

    Polar Bears have been spotted swimming in the open ocean more than 300 miles from land.

    This whole drowning bear thing is stupid.

    Sun+no ice = >plankton >fish >seals >polar bears

    Unmelting ice = dead polar bears

    Doh!

  61. RichieP says:

    pinetree3 says:
    September 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    ’20-25k is not a large population. Would you consider a human population of 20-25k large?’

    Looks a pretty good size when compared with the other, more prolific, apex predator in the areas they inhabit:
    “In 2006, almost 4% of people who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person – 50,485 – reported that they were Inuit.”

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008002/article/10712-eng.htm

  62. kim says:

    Pinin’ for the Bergs.
    ===============

  63. Jimbo says:

    Is Ursus maritimus (Polar bear) an exclusive carnivore? The answer seems to be no.

    References:
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40511413?uid=3738096&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101264796907
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/Z08-137
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2740177qk8425851/
    http://www.asmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-103R2.1

    So now we have it. Polar bears can swim long distances, eat vegetation, survive an ice-free Arctic ocean during the Holocene, eat fish, goose eggs, seaweed, garbage, ride on mother’s back, increase their numbers from 5,000 in the late 1950s to around 20,000 / 25,000 today. Yet they are dooooooomed I tells ya! Ditto penguins in Antarctica who saw their number double magically this year after scientists realised they could not count the first time round. This is truly a calamity.

  64. Jimbo says:

    Correction:
    Not any old penguin but the Emperor penguin.

  65. Rob Murphy says:

    Jimbo,
    “Is Ursus maritimus (Polar bear) an exclusive carnivore? The answer seems to be no.”

    One of your sources says that the berries that polar bears eat are an insignificant source of energy:

    “…If correct, our results suggests that the bears which had fed on berries while fasting on land received an insignificant amount of energetic benefit.”
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/Z08-137

    Another is about polar bears eating arctic charr, a fish.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2740177qk8425851/?MUD=MP

    Another said it was mathematically possible for polar bears to maintain body mass by eating arctic charr and seal blubber. The number of bears that would actually do this was open to further study:
    http://www.asmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-103R2.1

    The last concluded,
    “The incidence of feeding on berries varied annually from 2 to 41%. We were not able to determine the energetic importance of terrestrial foraging, but the intake may reduce the rate of weight loss of bears on land, particularly in years when berries are abundant”

    Hardly an optimistic overview of future polar bear population.

  66. D. Patterson says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 2:26 am
    [....]
    The investigation never was about his scientific work; it was initiated by his whistle-blowing of the illegal procedures of BOEM. BOEM is the loser in this thing, not Monnett.

    Given how the Inspector General’s investigators stated in plain language how the administrative investigation was initiated in response to a complaint alleging Monnett and Gleason engaged in “scientific misconduct,” your comment that “never was about his scientific work”is an apparent lie. Using such a lie to spin the events to misprtray Monnett as some kind of heroic whistleblower fails as propaganda. Monnett made it very clear that he considered his Climate Change beliefs were more important than any agency regulations and rules, and he arrogated to himself the authority to decide what is and is not proper government policy and science. Monnett is fortunate to have political allies to shield him from the consequences of his actions.

  67. Rob Murphy says:

    “Given how the Inspector General’s investigators stated in plain language how the administrative investigation was initiated in response to a complaint alleging Monnett and Gleason engaged in “scientific misconduct,””

    That’s a lie. They never said that. They said explicitly that it was *not* about scientific misconduct. And the final report found no scientific misconduct. That’s why it was an administrative instigation and not a scientific one. Stick to the facts and stop making things up.

  68. Jeff D says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    That’s a lie. They never said that. They said explicitly that it was *not* about scientific misconduct. And the final report found no scientific misconduct. That’s why it was an administrative instigation and not a scientific one. Stick to the facts and stop making things up.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Then lets talk about character. Do we trust the data provided by someone who has clearly lied and been spanked in public? I think not. It would be my guess that the only reason he got a pass on the research was there was no way for the investigators to prove the data one way or another. Again with that in mind do we blindly trust? I think not.

    To me that would be akin to trusting someone with my child who had been convicted of animal molestation. Again, I think not!

  69. Rob Murphy says:

    “Do we trust the data provided by someone who has clearly lied and been spanked in public? I think not.”

    He hasn’t lied. He was exonerated of any scientific misconduct. Why are you pretending otherwise?

    “To me that would be akin to trusting someone with my child who had been convicted of animal molestation.”

    And I should care what it would mean to you, why?

  70. D. Patterson says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm
    “Given how the Inspector General’s investigators stated in plain language how the administrative investigation was initiated in response to a complaint alleging Monnett and Gleason engaged in “scientific misconduct,””

    That’s a lie. They never said that. They said explicitly that it was *not* about scientific misconduct. And the final report found no scientific misconduct. That’s why it was an administrative instigation and not a scientific one. Stick to the facts and stop making things up.

    As the following excerpts from the transcript of the Inspector General’s interview of Monnett demonstrate, the investigator’s stated the interview was about allegations of Monnett’s scientific misconduct and Monnetts spoken acknowledgement that the interview was about the alleged scientific misconduct.

    OI-CA-10-0361-I

    Interview of Charles Monnett

    February 23, 2011

    ERIC MAY: Recording, um, it is February 23, 2011. My name is Special Agent Eric May with the Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General. I‟m with, uh, Special Agent Lynn Gibson with the Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General, and we‟re accompanied by Mr. Monnett, can you – {….]

    [….]

    ERIC MAY: Okay, and part of the process of the Inspector General‟s Office is that we receive allegations, and we go out and investigate those allegations. And the reason we are here today is that received, our office received some allegations pertaining to scientif- – potential scientific misconduct perpetrated by you and your, uh, coworker, Mr. Gleason, okay? So that‟s what the scope of this interview is going to be is your participation in the bowhead – the BWASP program?

    CHARLES MONNETT: Um-hm [yes].

    [….]

    CHARLES MONNETT: Right, and you‟re going to, you‟re going to investigate, uh, the details of our science and you (inaudible/mixed voices) –

    ERIC MAY: Based on the allegations that we received. That‟s correct.

    What makes you think you’re going to get away with flat out lying to the readers? Did you think the tape recorded transcript of their statements at the interview would never catch up with you and your false propaganda on behalf of your corrupt political cause?

  71. Rob Murphy says:

    “What makes you think you’re going to get away with flat out lying to the readers?”

    They had said explicitly that the investigation was not about the science, thought they claimed it was administrative at first. Not criminal, thought they people they sent to investigate were criminal investigators. A Marx Brothers investigation.
    “CHARLES MONNETT: Well, how does that, um – you say this is basically “scientific misconduct,” and how does that jive then with this being administrative in nature? What‟s that mean, just that it‟s not criminal or something?
    ERIC MAY: That‟s correct.
    CHARLES MONNETT: Okay.
    ERIC MAY: Right, this is an administrative matter under the conditions of Kalkines, so –
    CHARLES MONNETT: I see.
    ERIC MAY: Okay? And the only – and we explained before, the only reason it would be – reach the level of criminal is if we find that you‟re lying to us.
    CHARLES MONNETT: Right, and you‟re going to, you‟re going to investigate, uh, the details of our science and you (inaudible/mixed voices) –
    ERIC MAY: Based on the allegations that we received. That‟s correct.
    CHARLES MONNETT: Okay, and, and just so I know how to put my answers, do you have scientific credentials of any sort? Uh, what, what, what level of scientist am I speaking with here that‟s going to be evaluating my science?
    ERIC MAY: No, we‟re criminal investigators.
    CHARLES MONNETT: Criminal investigators.”

    “Did you think the tape recorded transcript of their statements at the interview would never catch up with you and your false propaganda on behalf of your corrupt political cause?”

    I thought the transcript would have made anybody predisposed to defending the investigation to take pause and realize that the investigators had no scientific background and barely understood 5th grade math. Since the final report found no scientific misconduct, pretending that there was any is a lie. The only reason there was an investigation was because Monnett had exposed the fact that BOEM had not act legally in considering environmental impacts. He was a whistle-blower, and the agency tried to attack him any way they could. The report found no fault with his science.

  72. Jeff D says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    “What makes you think you’re going to get away with flat out lying to the readers?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    According to the inspector general’s report, investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript. However, they found that the article had “little or no impact” on a federal decision to extend special protections to polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, according to the report.

    Rob , maybe you should read the full article. “Conflicting statements to investigators” guess that is the polite way of saying LIE and maybe you didn’t get the subtle reference. Use of an incomplete database is at best incompetence, at worst a deliberate attempt to force his beliefs down the worlds throat which I personally would consider criminal. Your undying loyalty to this guy is notable, more notable would be how your loyalty has been misplaced in someone who tried to pull a fast one and was caught by the real whistleblower that turned him in.

    I call em like i see em.

  73. Rob Murphy says:

    “According to the inspector general’s report, investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript.”

    According to the transcripts, the issue was the investigator’s inability to grasp 5th grade math.

    “Conflicting statements to investigators” guess that is the polite way of saying LIE and maybe you didn’t get the subtle reference.”

    They didn’t though. That was the charge but it didn’t stick. The only ones making inconsistent statements were the investigators. It was a complete farce, starting with the incompetent investigator Eric May saying it was an administrative matter but he was a criminal investigator. He had no science background and was incapable of following Monnett’s discussion of his paper.

    “Your undying loyalty to this guy is notable, more notable would be how your loyalty has been misplaced in someone who tried to pull a fast one and was caught by the real whistleblower that turned him in.”

    He was the real whistleblower. The other guy was some anonymous jerk who was upset that Monnett had exposed the agency had illegally suppressed adverse environmental information. That’s why the whole investigation was started – to get back at Monnett for making BOEM look bad. It had nothing to do with his science, thought they tried very unsuccessfully to attack that. It had nothing to do with his administration of contracts, though they also tried to get him on that too, again unsuccessfully. It was harassment, a sick fishing expedition.

  74. Jeff D says:

    Rob Murphy says:
    October 1, 2012 at 2:32 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ok, I get it now, this has been just a total waste of time. No matter what you will defend this guy. I am betting you are also a Peter Gleick supporter as well as MM Hockey-stick advocate. Four Polar Bears drowning in a storm out of a population of 25,000 is no justification for him to do what he did. Seeing that you are in full support of the meme that the ends justify the means then I would expect you to at the earliest possible moment cancel your electric service, sell your car, forget about getting on your bike ( those tires are petroleum based ) and demand that all your closest friends do the same. When you walk to the local internet cafe next week let us know how this is going for you.

  75. Bob says:

    Rob said “He had no science background and was incapable of following Monnett’s discussion of his paper. ”

    If you have read Monnett’s article (not a paper or study), it is interesting but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called science. Plus, it doesn’t matter why his management went after him. He was pretty much a slacker on the job as revealed in the interviews. For some reason he never had time to do annual reports, but he did have time to go overboard on the phony polar bear thing.

    Crap happens, and people like Monnett do not deserve responsible government positions. If your boss wants to get you, a way will be found. They went after because he is a bad employee who continually thumbed his nose at authority. I think it is that simple.

  76. Lazy teenager:
    From the write-up:
    “In the article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They wrote that while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

    They said their findings suggested that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future “if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

    The “presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distance” is nothing more than a SWAG. It is a random thought written up by the writer as if it has some validity. Then they say that if the ice pack changes this “may” increase deaths. If this were honest, it would say the writers are wildly guessing and have no evidence to support the SWAGs. Pretending this is anything other than fiction, short of seeing four dead polar bears in the ocean, is a lie. When you pretend to present some kind of actual theory when you are actually writing science fiction, is a lie. Wild guesses are NOT theories, in spite of the media’s continually claiming this. You must have evidence for a theory and there is NO evidence in any of this.

  77. Rob Murphy says:

    JeffD said:
    “No matter what you will defend this guy.”

    Against baseless attacks, sure. He was exonerated of any scientific misconduct. Deal with it, it’s a fact.

    “Four Polar Bears drowning in a storm out of a population of 25,000 is no justification for him to do what he did.”

    What did he do? He wrote up a paper about the observations. The horror!

    “Seeing that you are in full support of the meme that the ends justify the means…”

    I am not; you obviously are. He’s been found to have committed no scientific misconduct and you are acting like he was. Your ends don’t justify lying, Jeff.

    “I would expect you to at the earliest possible moment cancel your electric service, sell your car, forget about getting on your bike ( those tires are petroleum based ) and demand that all your closest friends do the same.”

    Because I defended a guy wrongly being accused of scientific misconduct? You’re just being silly now.

    Bob said:
    “If you have read Monnett’s article (not a paper or study)”

    Yes, a peer-reviewed paper in Polar Biology:
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/
    You’re starting off wrong from the first sentence.

    “it is interesting but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called science.”

    Not only can it be called science, it is.

    “Plus, it doesn’t matter why his management went after him.”

    It sure as hell does. They went after him because he exposed they were not following the law. It had nothing to do with “scientific misconduct” or his work with contracts, though they tried pathetically to find something there.

    “He was pretty much a slacker on the job as revealed in the interviews.”

    You’re just making things up now.

    “Crap happens, and people like Monnett do not deserve responsible government positions.”

    He deserves a promotion, and the investigators deserve to be fired for gross incompetence.

    “If your boss wants to get you, a way will be found. ”

    In this case the “way” was a phony investigation and years of harassment. Glad you approve of that.

    “They went after because he is a bad employee who continually thumbed his nose at authority.”

    He was a good employee who told them things they didn’t want to know.

  78. AGW_Skeptic says:

    Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.

  79. Tim Clark says:

    [Carter says:
    September 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    So basically the report was correct! And the polar bear did die...]

    Let’s see. 2004. 4 dead bears. 8 years ago. Hmmm, that’s 0.5 bears/annum.

    Do you think the breeding population of 25,000+ will ever be able to recover from such a devastating loss?

  80. Jeff D says:

    AGW_Skeptic says:
    October 1, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Possibly. Based on his views he would also defend the ” Scientist Dawson ” of the Piltdown Man. I see almost no difference in the science between the two.

  81. Rob Murphy says:

    “Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Possibly.”

    Thanks for the compliment, but this is my real name.

    “Based on his views he would also defend the ” Scientist Dawson ” of the Piltdown Man.”

    Based on yours, you would condemn anybody whose conclusions you don’t like.

    “I see almost no difference in the science between the two.”

    I’m sure you don’t. That isn’t saying anything of course.

  82. This is from the investigation a year ago. This is more complex than the article related here would indicate:

    http://www.humanevents.com/2011/08/11/global-warming-link-to-drowned-polar-bears-melts-under-searing-fed-probe-2/

    In response to question on whether or not there was data to back the statement that dead polar bears were not common, Gleason said no, they had no data.
    “So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.
    “Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.

    An additional disturbing line: Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

    The fact that something makes it into a “peer reviewed journal” does not make it science, it only makes it published. If you read the article, one gets the idea that Gleason really did not expect people to buy into this in the first place. He seemed surprised no one questioned the data and conclusion. I guess when politics supplants scientific rigor, these things happen. AGW needed a poster child and those fuzzy bears were perfect.

  83. Rob Murphy says:

    “An additional disturbing line: Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review”
    She wasn’t. She looked it over on an informal basis but had nothing to do with the peer review for the journal.

    “and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.”

    He also had nothing to do with the peer review. He was given a copy informally before Monnett and Gleason sent the paper in to the journal. He was not one of the reviews however. The paper explicitly states their thanks to Derocher and some other people for looking over their work prior to submission:

    ”This paper benefited greatly from reviews by, and discussions with, Andrew Derocher, Lisa Rotterman, Richard Shideler, Ian Stirling and Cleveland Cowles.”
    http://www.peer.org/docs/ak/9_14_11_PEER_rebuttal_to_DOI-OIG.pdf

    There’s a lot of misinformation being spread about this case. No reason to keep spreading it.

  84. AGW_Skeptic says:

    “Thanks for the compliment, but this is my real name.”

    Hey Rob Murphy, I hope you’re not using your computer at North Carolina State University to post here. Probably against the rules?

  85. Rob Murphy says:

    “Hey Rob Murphy, I hope you’re not using your computer at North Carolina State University to post here. Probably against the rules?”

    I haven’t been on the campus in 12 years. That’s where I went to school, not where I am now. Nice to know you are willing to attack people in that way (trying to get them in trouble with who you think they work for) instead of dealing with their arguments.

  86. Jimbo says:

    Al Gore and failure go together like gas and the internal combustion engine.

    Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy. Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next. The most recent, failed global climate meeting passed almost unnoticed last week in Bonn; the world has turned its eyes away from the expiring anguish of the Copenhagen agenda……………………………………………….

    The plunge from the brink of victory to the pit of defeat must be as unpleasant as it is familiar to the winner of the 2000 popular vote; in his latest essay in Rolling Stone he gives his own best analysis of why he keeps losing.
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/

    Ouch!!! What an utter failure. Not surprising when you peddle nonsense. People soon wake up.

    AL GORE FAILED.

  87. Okay, I have read the paper. There do not appear to be any valid extrapolations in the entire document. The authors “presume” the bears drown (you know, like if I find a couple of joints on the sidewalk in front of your house, I “presume” you’re a drug addict and call the cops, right?), there was no autopsy to see if the bears did drown. Four bears were found dead and through some very imaginative calculations (and I do mean imaginative) the authors arrive at the conclusion that polar bears are in trouble. At one point, they do state that the storm may have killed the bears (duh….) but then return to fabricating a scenario about more storms and global warming, etc. If I were to use the same rational, I would note that after a really horrible blizzard, hundreds of pronghorn antelope are found dead along fences. The blizzards are very damaging to the population of antelope and the only possible way to save them is for the world to warm up and then the blizzards would not be a problem. So in order to save the polar bears, the world has to stay cold. To save the pronghorns, it has to warm up. Something has to die either way. In all honesty, had I had the audacity to present such a document in a statistics class, I would have been flunked unceremoniously. The fact that such a piece of fantasy without scientific merit shows up in a “peer-reviewed journal” once again shows how very low the standards are for scientific study, assuming there are any standards left.

  88. Brian H says:

    “after a storm” Likely not the safest time to be on a floe or out swimming. Nothing to do with swimming long distances because ice and/or seals were scarce. That’s the misrepresentation, LT and others. As you perfectly well know. Your cred is zilch.

Comments are closed.