Al Gore’s ‘polarbeargate’ scientist forced to retire

WUWT readers may recall our coverage of Charles Monnett, whose antics with polar bear sitings and attribution led Al Gore to put this famous animated video clip into An Inconvenient Truth and make wild claims about polar bears drowning for lack of sea ice:

Monnett’s legal case is over, and he has been forced to resign:

Scientist settles legal case over study of polar bear drownings

Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press / 37 min ago

JUNEAU, Alaska  — An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has retired as part of a settlement with a federal agency. Charles Monnett was briefly suspended in 2011 from his work with the U.S.

Under the settlement, signed in October but released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Wednesday, Monnett will receive $100,000 but cannot seek Interior Department work for five years. His retirement was effective Nov. 15, at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientist-settles-legal-case-over-study-polar-bear-drownings-2D11691760

So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it. No word yet on whether he’ll get to keep the cushy retirement package that Federal Employees get.

Looking further, it appears that he’ll be able to keep it.

According to the PEER Union, they claim “vindication”:

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/12/04/vindicated-arctic-scientist-retires-with-cash-settlement/

Read the settlement agreement

Revisit three-year IG investigation

See the Monnett whistleblower complaint

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

115 Responses to Al Gore’s ‘polarbeargate’ scientist forced to retire

  1. brians356 says:

    The story I just read on Anchorage Daily News says he gets $100,000 plus his fully-vested federal retirement. He cannot seek Interior Department work for five years.

    http://www.adn.com/2013/12/04/3212138/scientist-reprimanded-over-emails.html#storylink=cpy

    “Frankie, when they give you the money, it means you won.”

  2. Bob Greene says:

    He is fully vested, so it appears he gets a check and his pension. It sounds as though the settlement had one of those “I didn’t do it and promise do it again” statements.

  3. Cam_S says:

    As far as I can remember, it seems there is no accountability for federal public servants.
    So, Monnett will get to keep his “cushy retirement package”.

  4. NevenA says:

    Either this, or it was a failed witch hunt. Google is your friend.

  5. pokerguy says:

    So, it seems that the two iconic images that most “galvanized the global warming movement” have been shown to be outright frauds. One the stranded polar bear, and the other Mann’s hockey stick.

    Where are the enterprising young mainstream journalists eager to make a name for themselves? This story, and many like it, are low handing fruit. All one of them has to do is reach out and pick it.

  6. ConfusedPhoton says:

    Not only in the US, remember Prof Phil Jones. One day he will get his gold-plated pension!

  7. Auto says:

    As Boris would say – “Cripes!”
    And how to we inculcate into the young [scientists or not] the policy of Honesty??
    From here – not easily, I fear.

    Auto

  8. Auto says:

    I miss the review function.

    How DO we inculcate ….. . . . . . . .

  9. Nick Stokes says:

    “So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.”
    AFAICS from reading the reports, the settlement was over a BOEM letter of reprimand for the alleged improper release of emails (critical of BOEM; I thought we liked that sort of thing?). The OiG investigation of the polar bear study seems to have gone nowhere, and was not an issue in the settlement.

  10. A.D. Everard says:

    “…at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project.”

    *

    These people are crazy. Out of their minds bonkers. This idiotic “science” set the world on a course with billions wasted, already hundreds of thousands of lives lost, the environment the world over vandalized, freedom and democracy in danger, technology threatened and civilization on the brink of collapse – in part caused by such fumbling calculations as his – and he’s given $100,000 and allowed to retire peacefully???

  11. Comrade, you have served the Warmunist Party well and shall receive political rehabilitation. Take a five year vacation – here’s $100k spending money.

  12. Steve from Rockwood says:

    That’s as close to a win as you’re ever going to see.

  13. Betapug says:

    I guess he could live on his wife (and “pal” reviewer of his paper) Lisa Rotterman’s NOAA Fisheries salary. Since she lists 350.0rg, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters and Union of Concerned Scientists as the “Likes” on her Facebook page (with the link to the PEER announcement of the $100,000 prize) I assume they will both forgo the Alaska Dividend paid to all Alaska residents from each years oil royalties.

  14. Mac the Knife says:

    [snip a bit over the top - mod]

  15. wobble says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    The OiG investigation of the polar bear study seems to have gone nowhere

    Nick, do you approve of the process he used to justify the conclusions he reached?

  16. wobble says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    The OiG investigation of the polar bear study seems to have gone nowhere

    Btw, if you didn’t read the transcript of his testimony, then you should. It’s incredible that the polar bear was made the poster child of CAGW based on his shoddy approach.

  17. GeoLurking says:

    So, he will be appointed Interior Secretary in Obama’s 3rd term….

  18. Latest scary creepy man-made global warming alarmist story is hilarious. CNN’s Jeanne Moss just did a mocking story on the Santa Greenpeace threat video saying Santa should be celebrating the increase in Arctic ice this year. I thought her bosses would cut her piece midway, but miraculously they didn’t. Hopefully the CNN piece will be available soon.

    Must see video, this one may even top the bloody polar bears falling from the skies, and exploding children videos.

    Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
    An urgent message from Santa

  19. Nick Stokes says:

    wobble says: December 4, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    “Nick, do you approve of the process he used to justify the conclusions he reached?”

    I’ve never been much interested in methods of counting polar bears. But the OiG investigation was very shonky. I see he gets a certificate for his work – I never got one of those.

  20. ossqss says:

    I just read the IG transcript again and I just want to barf, just like the first time.

    We live in amazing times of scientific falsehood.

    For those who missed the link above,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/

  21. John M says:

    “I see he gets a certificate for his work – I never got one of those.”

    Didn’t the Wizard of Oz give the Scarecrow something like that?

  22. Peter Miller says:

    As this proves and we all know, when it comes to anything esoteric and intangible, nobody can waste money like governments can.

    So along came supposed global warming and the B2 and C3 scientists were falling over each other to get into the troughs of overflowing research funds. As there was almost nothing real in the global warming scare, stuff had to be made up, or there was a threat the troughs might dry up.

    And so the scare stories started: polar bears dying out, surging sea levels, polar ice disappearing and ocean acidification to name but a few. Each, on a local basis, may contain a small whisper of truth, but on a global basis they are a grand distortion and a distortion that appeals to the weepy side of far too many, otherwise reasonable people. As for the politicians, they are only interested in new tax raising gimmicks, so they can be seen to be ‘saving the works’.

  23. Athelstan. says:

    Serve the party tovarich and the state will look after you, tell it like it isn’t and even if you are caught at it – your reward stipend is guaranteed in perpetuity.

  24. RockyRoad says:

    And the least knowledgeable yet most maligned were the polar bears.

    Just shows how much this realy impacted them–

    not one bit!

  25. Tom says:

    Nick you do understand that his method of counting drown polar bears was to count a single “drown polar bear” survey an area of S size of a total area T find no more than conclude that the the number of “drown polar bears” was T/S one one polar bear per unit area he survived.

    Of course there is still the problem that he never actually confirmed that what he saw was a polar bear or that it drowned.

    That would of course be step 1.

  26. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Michaelwiseguy, a big thankyou for posting that video.

    Do you get the feeling that there is something “wrong” with the people at Greenpeace?

    In the mentally ill a general feeling of paranoia is shaped by the associative environment into specific paranoid concerns. At Greenpeace it seems the whole group is reinforcing each others paranoia about global warming. Call it paranoid group think.

    Studies have been done that investigate how such paranoid groups grow and overwhelm their individual members. The classic example is Jim Jones.

    At Greenpeace they drink the kool-aid 24/7.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  27. Dave in Canmore says:

    What’s another 100,000 dollars when you owe tens of trillions?!!!

    no wonder America is bankrupt!

  28. wobble says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    the OiG investigation was very shonky. I see he gets a certificate for his work – I never got one of those.

    The OiG investigation was much more scientific than the method Monnett used to reach his conclusion.

    I’ve never been much interested in methods of counting polar bears.

    Is that the best you have? Pretend that you’re not interested enough to see how bad Monnett was?

    You don’t need to be interested in the methods to see how terrible Monnett’s conclusion was. And Monnett wasn’t even tasked with counting polar bears. He decided to conclude that polar bears were dying from CAGW simply because he happened to notice a few dead polar bears after a storm – and his predecessor couldn’t remember ever seeing that before.

    Great job, Nick.

  29. daviditron says:

    (Monnett) He said he could not, in good conscience, “work for an agency that promotes dishonesty, punishes those who actually stand up for scientific integrity, and that cannot tolerate scientific work not pre-shaped to serve its agenda.”

    He doesn’t seem to mind taking 100,000 dollars from them though. What planet do these people come from? Why taxpayers aren’t out in the streets burning things down on a dialy basis is absolutely beyond me!

    What kind of society allows their wealth to be taken from them and squandered on such waste and nonsense while real problemare everywhere? Arrrrrg!!!

  30. I’m uneasy at the tone of some of the comments here. The Monnett & Gleason paper described its methods with respectable precision, and made it very clear where it was reporting results, where it was extrapolating from those results, and where it was speculating. One might regard the extrapolations as being insufficiently justifiable in statistical terms, and the speculations as rather far-fetched (though they were actually quite cautiously expressed).

    I can’t see anything that could possibly constitute serious enough scientific misconduct to justify three years’ hounding of Dr. Monnett by the Inspectorate-General. Two things stand out from the transcript: first, that Dr. Monnett had not been clearly told at the outset exactly what scientific misconduct he was being accused of, contrary to the audiatur et altera pars principle of natural justice; and that he was exhausted and terrified.

    He has really been made to carry the can for the fact that Al Gore flagrantly misrepresented his paper in his sci-fi comedy horror movie. It is Gore that should have been put on trial for outright scientific fraud, not least in his misrepresentation of Monnett’s paper.

    Above all, I don’t think it is right for us to subject Monnett to the same treatment that so many of us have had to endure at the hands of the climate extremists. Frankly, it ought not to have taken the investigators three years to sort this matter out, leaving Monnett wondering from day to day what his future might be. We may disagree with his environmentalist views and still more with those of his wife, but we should not condone the unreasonable way he has been treated.

    Read his paper. It’s honest about what was done and how it was done. Sloppy methodology, too much extrapolation and some unjustifiable speculation, yes. Scientific misconduct, no. Give him a break. Because Al Gore misrepresented his conclusions, he’s had his career shattered by what looks to me like a kangaroo court. Give him a break.

  31. brians356 says:

    John M, The Cowardly Lion got a medal for courage. The Tin Man got a heart on a chain like a pocket watch, and the Scarecrow a diploma.

  32. KenB says:

    I guess that settlement and pension money/entitlements gives him the means to be sued by anyone who considers the harm created by that misrepresentation………… If I was him, I’d be divesting myself of those assets ASAP!

  33. jim Steele says:

    Derocher helped him write the paper to make it appear like a unprecedented climate catastrophe and Derocher has clearly aligned himself with Mann, Gavin and their ilk. Derocher should share the blame.

  34. Layman says:

    With ice sheet coverage increasing and thickening Polar bears would be hard pressed to survive this winter. Come next melt we might see a new height in body count and then talented scientists could claim evidence of unprecedented drowning …from empty bellies……
    My question is that polar bears are mortal too so when one sees a dead bear in the water in summer how could we tell which is fresh and which is freshly defrosted? And which was drowned through hunger and exhaustion?

  35. Louis says:

    If global warming can cause spring to come a bit early and cause shoddy climate scientists to retire a bit early, I’m not sure those are bad things.

  36. John M says:

    brian356

    “and the Scarecrow a diploma.”

    Yes, it was to make up for not having a brain. :)

  37. Anthony,

    You and your group need to be on high alert. Pres. Obama and his crew now seem to be betting their farm on the EPA/Climate Change re-distribution of wealth.
    As you can see he is not handleing this fail of the Obama Care re-dristribution operation.
    All of you have been in the real world enough to see how poorly some handle not being able to do the job and or being caught in real bad lies on the job. Take attorneys who get disbarred, or real estate title officers who go south with the loan funds in escrow. When confronted they throw things, cuss, rant, even worse. You stand in his way, you block his access to power. He will not take it lightly that your correct, he will not go easy into the night. You will be a target.
    Be Prepared.

    REPLY: I doubt Obama even knows my name – Anthony

  38. OssQss says:

    Has anyone else read the settlement agreement?

    Enlightening to say the least.

    I think there may be some misunderstanding as to why this whole thing extended beyond a brief suspension in 2011.

  39. RobRoy says:

    Federal Court, Federal employee. that’s the fox watching the henhouse.
    The feds are a bloc. They watch out for each other.
    For the Fed’s it’s “Us” (the Feds) and “them” (the rest of us).
    .Think about the recent government shutdown and the arrogance of the TSA
    There’s no question why he was paid for mis-behavior.
    He’s one of them.

  40. philjourdan says:

    He must be a democrat. They reward failure.

  41. eyesonu says:

    His ass should hang in the balance. 12″ above finish floor.

  42. Tom J says:

    michaelwiseguy
    December 4, 2013 at 3:18
    ‘Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
    An urgent message from Santa’

    Well now we know. CAGW is just as real as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Way to go Greenpeace!

    Oh, and it’s nice to know that those thoroughly enlightened souls at Greenpeace consider it valuable to terrorize young children as a way to effect political change. Way to go Greenpeace!

  43. dalyplanet says:

    While Monnett’s poster and follow up paper were of rather dubious quality it was not he that was promoting this polar bear study. It was former Mr. Vice President Al Gore and his minions that turned bad science into the face of global warming. It is Gore that should have paid the price and is deserving of scorn for this and many even more egregious examples of using dubious science to support his agenda.

  44. RoHa says:

    “So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.”

    I can do that. When do I get my $100,000?

  45. Craig Moore says:

    At this hour it’s -14F at Cut Bank Montana. I hope ManBearPig has a low carbon solution for this event.

  46. Craig Moore says:

    At this hour it’s -14F at Cut Bank Montana. I hope ManBearPig has a low carbon solution for this event.

  47. TheLastDemocrat@usa.net says:

    Al Dork did not produce Inconvenient Truth as a government employee. So, while he is the guilty party, this government jurisdiction process does not apply.

    His government job was to reduce paperwork (paperwork reduction act – hence, now every government form tells you how long it will take to complete).

    Inconvenient Truth was a marketing device for his main business: Generation Investment Management, Ltd.: managing “green” investments for very large investors (such as government pension funds). His salary cannot be suspended and his retirement cannot be threatened because he is the boss.

  48. dborth says:

    Re: Monckton of Brenchley on December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Thank you for your post Lord Monckton

    I’m a very strong supporter of this site, but this post is off base.

    After reading the post and the ruling, my conclusion is the same as yours. I question the intent of the post; it seems Dr. Monnett has in fact been vindicated relative to some very questionable and shoddy work by the IG. Despite his deficiencies, he has clearly “won.” The means to the end clearly count and we need to remember that these people aren’t evil, just wrong, and wronging them is not acceptable.

  49. lorne50 says:

    That tact didn’t work out to well for Dr.Fruitfly last year ether . It just made my kids mad that dave would use Santa to try to money out of them “ME”.

  50. orion says:

    “……So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it……”
    It’s a lesson you have appeared to have learned well Anthony.

  51. David Rodale says:

    Anthony,
    It’s doubtful Obama knows the names of all his political “enemies” spied on or otherwise unconstitutionally targeted by the IRS, EPA et al. His henchmen do the dirty work for him. It’s called “Progress”.

    Why won’t Obama ever be impeached? N….S….A

    Plausible dependability isn’t just a slogan.

  52. So why was Monnett “disciplined” and not Al Gore?
    Where is his punishment for putting out false information etc.?

  53. u.k.(us) says:

    ….”REPLY: I doubt Obama even knows my name – Anthony”
    ===========
    Does he know his own name ??

  54. Chad Wozniak says:

    At least he didn’t get the $100 MILLION der Fuehrer got for his vacation.

  55. pat says:

    anthony,

    here’s another CAGW exaggerator whose retirement i would welcome:

    remember Christopher Field, the subject in August 2012 of –

    WUWT: Pielke Jr. demolishes IPCC Lead Author Senate EPW testimony

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/

    well, he’s talking rot on Australian ABC, & appearing at the Sydney Law School today:
    5 Dec: ABC Breakfast: Invest early in climate change adaptation: expert
    Fran Kelly with Professor Chris Field, founding Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science; co-chair, Working Group 2, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    Superstorm Sandy, and more recently, Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, have put the spotlight on extreme weather events.
    The impacts of climate change and our ability to adapt that will be the focus of the next major report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be delivered in March next year.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/invest-early-in-climate-change-adaptation-expert/5135758

    5 Dec: Sydney Uni Law School: Distinguished Speakers Program: Christopher Field
    Climate Change: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters

    http://sydney.edu.au/news/law/457.html?eventcategoryid=164&eventid=10344

  56. kuhnkat says:

    Neven, when the only evidence he can show for drowning polar bears is a couple of photoshopped pictures that are so poor you really don’t know what is in the water AND all the other photos he took that day are crystal clear AND the shopped photos originals are missing, the Agenda Driven types and Union might have saved their LIAR, BUT, he is STILL A LIAR!!!

  57. Martin says:

    “This agency attempted to silence me, discredit me and our work and send a chilling message to other scientists at a key time when permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic were being considered. They failed on the first two goals, but I believe that what they did to me did make others afraid to speak up, even internally.

    Following over two years of hell for me and my family, my name has been cleared and the accusations against the scientific findings in our paper have been shown to be groundless” Monnett said. “However, I can no longer in good conscience work for an agency that promotes dishonesty, punishes those who actually stand up for scientific integrity, and that cannot tolerate scientific work not pre-shaped to serve its agenda.”

    A huge Congrats to Monnett for standing up for what is right.

    A huge raspberry to Watt’s for his silly little article.

  58. Brian H says:

    Amazing. “Firing” a government worker is nearly impossible. You have to be a poster boy of incompetence.

  59. Glad to see many here found the Bad Greenpeace Santa video amusing. You’re welcome. I can’t believe the global warmists are whoring out Santa Clause for their propaganda. How pathetic. Hope it makes it to front page of WUWT.
    Check out the CNN Jeanne Moos piece mocking it.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/12/04/tsr-dnt-moos-santa-threatens-to-cancel-christmas.cnn.html

  60. Greg Goodman says:

    C of B :
    I can’t see anything that could possibly constitute serious enough scientific misconduct to justify three years’ hounding of Dr. Monnett by the Inspectorate-General. Two things stand out from the transcript: first, that Dr. Monnett had not been clearly told at the outset exactly what scientific misconduct he was being accused of, contrary to the audiatur et altera pars principle of natural justice; and that he was exhausted and terrified.

    He has really been made to carry the can for the fact that Al Gore flagrantly misrepresented his paper in his sci-fi comedy horror movie. It is Gore that should have been put on trial for outright scientific fraud, not least in his misrepresentation of Monnett’s paper.
    ====

    Thanks for bringing some objectivity.

    Many (most?) commenters here are just as biased and partisan as those they rail against.

  61. DirkH says:

    Oh look at the troll population. “He got money! That means he’s right!”
    In other words, because Al Gore is stinking rich, the Earth is really millions of degrees hot.

  62. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Monckton makes some (likely) valid observations. I say likely, as I haven’t read the paper but would tend to trust Moncktons general interpretation. But I have seen the susbequent use of his work!
    Look, if the guy has not undertaken obvious scientific misconduct or misrepresentation (think Lew and Cook here!) then the way in which his work was taken and (mis)used by Gore and his miscreants is hardly his fault? This happens many times in science and public media, with gross over reporting, exaggeration, etc.
    It is true that the poster child aspect of Polar Bears (and hence Monnett’s work) has been rammed down our throats via the MSM and warmista (though in truth, I have noted how the Polar bear usage has dropped off considerably over the last few years?) but again, that is not Monnett’s fault.
    It would be nice to think that perhaps Monnett could use his ‘windfall’ (in both time and money?) to revisit his work and republish with corrections/ammendments/revisions as appropriate. Certainly were I at the centre of such a level of misrepresentation, as a scientist, I would prefer to put the record straight rather than leave a false impression (I am given him the benefit of the doubt) on the record, for eternity!

  63. Brian Johnson UK says:

    I think Groanpiece shot the Futile Christmas video far below stairs at Downton Abbey?

  64. Matt says:

    So he drowned together with his bears… how ironic.

  65. David Jones says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    December 4, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    “I’ve never been much interested in methods of counting polar bears. But the OiG investigation was very shonky. I see he gets a certificate for his work – I never got one of those.”

    Does that count as going green?

  66. David A says:

    Monckton’s defense of Monnett is intriguing and would require more careful study to form an opinion. How his work was used is deeply wrong and fraudulent. So another way to consider Monnett’s responsibility is how did he respond to the CAGW proponents abuse of his work. In my view, Monnett had a strong moral obligation to publicly and repeatedly condemn the CAGW alarmist miss-representation of his work. Did he????.

  67. david@cagedm.freeserve.co.uk says:

    What is worse than Jones getting his pension package is that there are government employees who have proof he has cheated who would lose theirs and go to prison for up to thirty years under the official secrets act if they revealed this proof.

  68. Peter Miller says:

    I am now a little uneasy as a result of some of the comments here. Especially, Monckton’s one on Dr Monnett’s paper: “Sloppy methodology, too much extrapolation and some unjustifiable speculation, yes. Scientific misconduct, No.”

    If, at the end of the day, Monnett was chosen to be the scapegoat for Gore’s deliberately fraudulent depiction of polar bears, then I guess he does deserve some sympathy. Not a lot, but some.

    As for Gore, he is far too sleek and slippery to let anything stick to him.

    If, however, this ‘retirement’ helps in the Herculean task of keeping climate scientists honest, it cannot be such a bad thing.

  69. David A says:

    Monnett had a strong moral obligation to publicly and repeatedly condemn the CAGW alarmist miss-representation of his work. So far I can find no evidence of him doing so. The below linked 2011 interview was bizarre humorous, but nothing condemning how his work was used so far. I am looking to support Monnett, but so far he has zip, zero, nada.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/

  70. Bertram Felden says:

    Thank you Lord Monckton for adding some much needed rational thinking. I am in complete agreement with your statement on this. Name calling and unjustifiable slurs have no place in a debate, scientific or otherwise, and there is no doubt that Monnett has suffered unfairly and unreasonably over this.

  71. Kev-in-Uk says:

    David A says:
    December 5, 2013 at 12:55 am

    thanks for that link – I must have missed that story, but it sure makes Monnett look at the very least somewhat clumsy and unprofessional! Nevertheless, if there is no obvious deliberate misconduct on display he should not be pilloried so much. I still think his best option, if he is a true scientist, would be to revisit his work and review its usage…..

  72. James Allison says:

    Sorry Anthony but this is one of a very few posts I have read at WUWT (since you started your blog) that is completely off colour. Monnett’s paper may have been sloppy but he did no other wrong. Unless you count releasing 5 emails. As Monckton said he was hounded. And the hounding was done indirectly by powerful organisations who wanted to drill for oil in the Arctic region – no?

  73. GeeJam says:

    michaelwiseguy
    December 4, 2013 at 3:18
    ‘Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
    An urgent message from Santa’

    It is blindingly obvious that Santa Claus is blaming the melting ice as an excuse to cancel Christmas. It’s a cover up. The real reason: As anyone knows, piloting a gift laden sleigh pulled by a herd of reindeer at low altitudes past the prolification of rotating wind turbines, then attempting to land on anyone’s solar panel clad roof is nigh on impossible these days. And as for squeezing down all those narrow wood burning flues, it’s a nightmare for the poor sod.

  74. Oldseadog says:

    I agree with Lord Monckton on this one.

  75. Stephen Richards says:

    ConfusedPhoton says:

    December 4, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    It looks like the UK Met off could be up for sale to pay for some nuclear power station in wales, road in east anglia and high speed rail. If it happens at least the met off will have been put to some useful work.

  76. Steven R Vada says:

    The things you described are the textbook definitions of scientific misconduct. When he connects ‘Dr.’ to his name he’s making claims he doesn’t practice “Sloppy methodology,” “too much extrapolation” and some “unjustifiable speculation, yes,”
    and he hasn’t “had his career shattered.”
    He’s been given full retirement wages, a tenth of a million dollars, and told wait three years to return.

    If you’re so concerned about how we discuss our employees –
    you can pay his wages and $100,000.

    ===
    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    “Sloppy methodology, ”
    “too much extrapolation”
    and some
    “unjustifiable speculation, yes.”
    “Scientific misconduct, no.”
    “Give him a break.”
    “Because ….he’s had his career shattered…”
    “Give him a break.”

  77. Steven R Vada says:

    *Five years
    above

  78. bobl says:

    Reading the material Anthony I think Monnett has been wronged, he was clearly deliberately targetted for whistleblowing. We really can’t be duplicitous here, if you boss was to break the law, let’s say by embezzling, and you blew the whistle on it, would you expect to be protected? Would you expect to be refused a transfer out from under the perpetrator, you just exposed?

    Frankly I think the government got out of it cheaply.

    No matter what you think of Monnetts work, he does not deserve to be targetted for whistleblowing as he apparently has.

  79. Steven R Vada says:

    The arrogant tone of people who are found believing in one of the greatest scientific scams in history’s foundational tenets –
    “a sphere, heated in vacuum, with sensors distributed on it’s surface,
    suddenly showed dramatic temperature rise – that’s as in ‘it got hotter’
    when said sphere was immersed in a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath diffracting 20% of original energy in from sensors altogether,”

    is stunning.

    Do people actually believe, temperatures on the globe shot up because a reflective cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, was provided as environment instead of vacuum?

    Monckton I’m an Electronic Engineer whose money’s made keeping the radiation communications space age buzzing around us intact and up to date.

    I know what shoddy science is when I see it, my profession is the one which designed most of what has those rovers bouncing around on distant planets, and has the satellite communications age sporting that saucy attitude like it’s kind of neat having it about.

    My electronic radiation communications age works fine.

    But I notice in your field you’re having a hard time of it so I ask climate people some basic questions, so I can see if they’re actually in contact with what a real scientific concept is.

    I have three questions I currently use:

    (1) Do you believe it possible to suspend spinning in vacuum a sphere, with energy sensors distributed on it’s surface, to be illuminated until temperature stabilizes at temp T,
    and then immerse the sphere in a frigid, reflective nitrogen/oxygen bath,
    and have sensors on that sphere show more energy arriving on them,
    than when the sphere was in vacuum?

    The answer Monckton had better be no or there’s going to be a real explanation coming.

    (2)Do you believe diffractive media in suspension around a sphere with sensors on it
    blocking 20% energy from ever arriving on those sensors
    can make those sensors show more energy arriving, than when 20% more actually was?

    Again Monckton if the answer is no you had better have one very good explanation why.

    (3) Do you believe if diffractive media in suspension are increased in volume until they are blocking 21% of energy to target sensors, this can make the sensors register even more energy arriving?

    If you have answered “yes” to even one of these – your comprehension of a hot rock in cold water is immediately shown in dire jeopardy.

    In order to believe in Green House Gas Effect you have to answer “You betcha I believe in that! That’s real science to me!”

    to all three.

    You’ve declared you do believe in Greenhouse Gas Effect,
    therefore you affirm you also
    believe all three.

    That means you’ve got quite a long way to go before you’re qualified to scold anyone in the U.S.
    on what we consider scientifically unacceptable.

    We can check the Electronic Communications field’s performance easily.
    We can also check the Greenhouse Gas Effect field’s performance easily.

    I’m completely comfortable with my grasp of the physics associated with a reflective, frigid fluid bath related to an object immersed in it.

    I’m also completely comfortable with my forefathers’ decision to not ask British Lords what they think about quite a wide variety of subjects.

  80. Eric H. says:

    Why would Monnett publish an extrapolation of such a small sample when he knew it was dubious to begin with if he wasn’t trying to push his own environmental agenda? I am not saying that the IG was justified in their actions but Monnett, and the environmental groups that he associates with, have an ideological bent on stopping Shell. Monnett and PEER won and the way that the IG handled this just gives the green movement ammunition to support their war against big oil.

  81. Snotrocket says:

    “Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
    An urgent message from Santa”

    What a pathetically disgusting video with an awfully tedious message. While many of us would imagine (the imaginary) Santa Claus as being a rather benign, jovial and convivial fellow, Greenpiss gets off showing him to be an old, odoriferous wino relieving himself in a public place. As an adult I can see through it and find it ridiculous, but a child seeing it might be otherwise effected. The sub-title for the video should be: ‘Dirty Old Man Scares Children’

    (BTW: In passing, I figure I can now spot the comments on here that are sent from Tablets. I have difficulty myself with the auto-spell-check on my own tablet and the intermittency of the ‘keyboard’ so I find I have to reread many of my comments to make sure they still make sense – or at least, scan.)

  82. Steven R Vada says:

    That’s “if the answer *isn’t no”
    above

  83. Geoff Connolly says:

    michaelwiseguy says:
    December 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Latest scary creepy man-made global warming alarmist story is hilarious.
    [...]
    Must see video, this one may even top the bloody polar bears falling from the skies, and exploding children videos.

    Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
    An urgent message from Santa

    =============================

    The key take-home message of the video is Greenpeace’s illustration of how they view their followers: Belief in catastrophic global warming is entirely consistent with the belief that Santa Claus lives in a cave in the North Pole.

    But nobody should doubt that Greenpeace knows their fact-averse, reality-proofed audience very well. One only has to read the comments under the video to appreciate how compelling they find images of water dripping from the ceiling of a soggy Santa, in his dark cave, as he condemns various politicians to – the naughty list.

    Greenpeace know the belief of their followers is based on a contrived narrative – like drowning polar bears. Accordingly, even the best science, or contrary data cannot reach these people if they continue to speak to them about climate catastrophe in the form of emotive metaphors and euphemisms.

  84. Allan MacRae says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Good comments Sir.

    We have already witnessed too many witch hunts in this fractious global warming debate, typically directed at climate skeptics.

    Some climate skeptics have lost their academic positions. Some have received death threats. Some been the victims of actual violence.

    We should not stoop to the base tactics of the global warming extremists.

    We should focus on the issues:

    There is no global warming crisis.

    Green energy schemes such as wind and solar power, corn ethanol and palm oil biodiesel are costly blunders that make no energy sense and harm the environment.

    The energy systems of several large political entities have been seriously compromised by global warming hysteria. This warmist energy nonsense puts populations at risk.

    If there is any problem, it is probable imminent global cooling.

    Is imminent global cooling to be or not to be – that is the question.

  85. R. de Haan says:

    Now in Moscow: WWF Meeting “Saving the Polar Bear”. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/year_of_the_polar_bear/

    Heartbreaking video’s of in television showing polar bears exhausted from looking for food in their melting environment. Idiots.

  86. Thomas says:

    It’s interesting to compare how WUWT writes about this case compared to the one with Murry Salby who was fired for what appears to be considerably more serious infractions, but then I guess only the true believers take WUWT seriously any more.

  87. MarkB says:

    So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.

    “The agency, BOEM, ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct but reprimanded Monnett for improper release of emails that an Interior Department official said were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate agency approval of an oil and gas company’s Arctic exploration plan.”

    “make stuff up” is at best a misleading characterization of this episode.

  88. Claude Harvey says:

    A hundred-thousand-dollar gold watch and a fat retirement reminds me of a “briar patch” story I once heard.

  89. Rattus Norvegicus says:

    Hate to point this out, but Monett basically won this one. Yes, he is retiring (at age 65, fully vested pension) but BOEM is paying him 100K and removing the reprimand from his record.

  90. John Endicott says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    I’ve never been much interested in methods of counting polar bears.

    ===================================

    clearly, based on his methods, neither was Monett

  91. David A says:

    Kevin says…I still think his best option, if he is a true scientist, would be to revisit his work and review its usage…..
    ——————————————-
    Yes, and that of course is my take away message. Apparently he has made no effort to stop the abuse of his “Sloppy methodology, ” “too much extrapolation” “unjustifiable speculation”. So the question is why? Was he simply profiting from the CAGW alarmist funding desires? If he has refused to correct the misuse of his work by Al Gore, and others, then I think his shoddy work crosses the line to scientific misconduct, even if his shoddy work was not.

  92. Tim Clark says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Well stated.

    I have read the paper.
    The methods used in calculations are shoddy at best, and there are several important gaps in reported observations. The peer review process, so brazenly exalted by the warmers, failed again.

    Let him live with his conscience regarding falsified data, if any.

  93. philjourdan says:

    @Brian H – actually being a poster boy of incompetence will not get you fired either. However, committing a felony will. If the former were true, 60% of the employees would be gone.

  94. Jeremy says:

    So, for all those who are upset that he gets to keep his pension plus some bonus cash… just remember… You don’t pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to leave. Similar situation here.

  95. Les Johnson says:

    As stated by the Viscount, the reason for Monnett’s release was NOT because of his paper. His paper does probably carry some extrapolations too far, and the peer review was suspect. It was reviewed by his wife and Derocher. Derocher was the recipient of a 1.3 million dollar grant doled out by a committee that Monnett was chairman of.

    But, despite the above problems, there was no scientific problems with the paper per se. It was investigated solely because of the connection between Monnett, Derocher and the grant.

    The problem with the grant was that Monnett privately reviewed Derochers’ application. After helping Derocher with the application, Derocher then submitted it to the committee chaired by Monnett, which then approved the application. The value of the grant was 1.3 million dollars.

    This was an obvious conflict of interest, in spite of the spin used by the union and Monnett.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714742/fresh-allegations-leveled-against-polar-bear-scientist

  96. Michael Moon says:

    M of B,

    This “Scientist” was flying over the Beaufort Sea looking for bowhead whales. He saw four polar bears, which would almost surely have had to have been a mother and three cubs, apparently drowned after a storm. He writes a completely ridiculous paper which is seized upon by Gore, and trumpeted by media types flogging the “Polar Bear Extinction” meme. What did he think was going to happen?

    Abused his office and his so-called status as a “Scientist,” and revealed himself to be nothing more than another activist collecting rent, how could you defend him? Don’t become another Muller, appearing to play both sides…

  97. DesertYote says:

    Oldseadog says:
    December 5, 2013 at 1:39 am

    I agree with Lord Monckton on this one.
    ####

    I am the first to blast away with both barrels at political activist posing as scientists, and some times I shoot first and ask questions later. But I agree with Lord Monckton also. Shoddy science done to support a political agenda is not fraud. The fraudsters are the ones who know something is false, yet still sell it as the truth. If we call everyone a fraudster, what do we call the real fraudsters?

    If one uses the weapons of the devil to defeat the devil, one will become the devil.

  98. wobble says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    He has really been made to carry the can for the fact that Al Gore flagrantly misrepresented his paper in his sci-fi comedy horror movie.

    Yes, if you don’t want to take responsibility for statistically unsupportable conclusions, then don’t make statistically unsupportable conclusions.

    The Monnett & Gleason paper described its methods with respectable precision, and made it very clear where it was reporting results, where it was extrapolating from those results, and where it was speculating.

    No, read the OIG transcript. Monnett wasn’t respectably precise about his haphazard methods.

  99. mbur says:

    From article:
    “whose antics with polar bear sitings and attribution led Al Gore to put this famous animated video clip into An Inconvenient Truth and make wild claims about polar bears drowning for lack of sea ice”

    Gives a new meaning to the ‘paws’ in global warming.
    -thanks

  100. Sean.fr says:

    The guy published a paper with written authorisation from his employer. His employer called in federal investigators years later. .
    “Let him live with his conscience regarding falsified data, if any.”
    Thats the point. None. No falsifed data. Just a difference about what you can infer from the agreed facts.
    He was later attacked for a conflict of interest on a grant. To make that charge stick you have show there were guidelines, they were not repected, and the guidelines were common enforced.
    It is not acceptable for an employer to selectivily applied.rules when it suits him to punish folks.
    This not the reason the feds were called in. Check the transcipts and see what they talked about.

    In this case the reason the his employer seems to have been out to get him was that he supplied emails which were used as evidence against his employer. I
    I have real trouble with idea this could be wrong when the emails could have been supplied by FOI. Would it have been better if he FOI himself? The emails should have been released under discovery, and he was just preventing his employer hiding the emails. On this blog we normal hate folks hiding emails. I like folks who release emails.
    You should defend other folks right to say stuff you do not agree with. Otherwise when you are the victim no-one will defend you.
    Shame on you applying double standards..

  101. wobble says:

    David A says:

    Monnett had a strong moral obligation to publicly and repeatedly condemn the CAGW alarmist miss-representation of his work.

    It’s quote obvious that Monnett didn’t think that his work was being misrepresented.

  102. wobble says:

    Far too many people on here are defending Monnett simply because they don’t think that his actions rise to threshold of fraud.

    Regardless, since when does fraud need to be proven in order to fire a scientist for being a shoddy scientist? A shoddy engineer working for the government should be fired even if the engineer doesn’t commit fraud. A shoddy engineer working for the government should be fired even if the engineer’s work includes disclosures that it might be wrong.

    The damage caused by Monnett’s shoddy work can most certainly be put on par with a collapsed bridge.

  103. marlolewisjr says:

    I wrote a column about the Department of Interior IG’s investigation of Monnett in August 2011, a month after BOEMRE suspended the polar bear biologist. Although I blasted Al Gore for hyping Monnett’s study in An Inconvenient Truth, I did not find the study itself to be junk science and did not come away with a very favorable opinion of the IG investigator. Some WUWT readers may not like my column, but I post it here in case anyone is interested: http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/08/11/is-boemre-harrassing-polar-bear-biologist-charles-monnett/

  104. Jenn Oates says:

    I want a five year vacation, a hundred grand, and a cushy retirement. Where do I sign up?

  105. bobl says:

    Wobble,
    They didn’t, from the settlement we can infer that Monnett having become a whistleblower, was subsequently targetted by his [employer] for it, quite illegally. Rather than go to court, a settlement was reached that allowed Monnett to retire early. I would have done the same thing. Just because the I don’t like the outcome of his whistleblowing doesn’t mean he wasn’t 100% right in doing it. He did the right thing in exposing the withholding of evidence, if he had exposed withheld smoking-gun emails exposing CAGW as a fraud would you judge the same way?

  106. Lois Lerner is still a government employee, Monnett is not. Which speaks more to the putrefaction of government bureaucracy than the quality (or lack thereof) of the work.

  107. Barbee says:

    Now he’s freed up to run for President. Has both qualifications:
    1) Has political connections
    2) Is a professional liar
    Note: If you get PAID for lying-that makes you a professional liar.

  108. claimsguy says:

    Anthony, I’d like to be clear about what you mean. When you accuse Monnett of “making stuff up” are you accusing him of fraud? If not, what do you mean?

  109. G. Karst says:

    Barbee says:
    December 6, 2013 at 7:08 am

    Note: If you get PAID for lying-that makes you a professional liar.

    .
    That may be true, but we call such people “lobbyists” today, to be politically correct. It is what a many “climate scientists” have become. Run of the mill lobbyists for the CAGW religion’s cause… is all. GK

  110. Mark says:

    “So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.”
    That’s the message of the entire great global warming scam.

  111. Bruce says:

    Monnet’s NOT the problem; it’s the halfascist hierarchy. For an equivalent example, OUR country’s waters were all supposed to be pure* A Quarter CENTURY Ago! ( And Poppy Bush claimed in 1988 that “every wetland, NO MATTER HOW SMALL should Be PRESERVED”!). And the same deseption and intentional dereliction is at work throughout Club FED:
    * FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
    (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
    AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
    DECLARATION OF GOALS AND POLICY
    SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act— (1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.

  112. papiertigre says:

    You ever see “Lonesome Dove”? One of the principle characters is an affable type with an “as long as I get mine, right n wrong don’t enter into it much” philosophy of life.

    It allowed him to bully then abandon his common law wife, and although one is left with the impression Jake would never lead a gang into horse thievery and murder, this moral ambiguity allowed him to join one.

    No foul! Standing on the sideline keeping mum while the gang plunders the innocent because it’s easier, and if there is the slightest chance some of the violence of that gang he joined might spill over onto him, why not go with the flow?

    Lord Monckton, in the case of Monnett, calls this virtue, or at least no crime.

    I tend toward Captains Call and McCray’s judgement on the matter.

    Monnett was more then a little slow taking his leave, and has yet to denounce “the gang” he fell in with actively sought to join up with.

  113. wobble says:

    bobl says:

    They didn’t, from the settlement we can infer that Monnett having become a whistleblower, was subsequently targetted by his [employer] for it, quite illegally.

    The reason for the investigation doesn’t excuse the activist claims he made in the name of science.

    Would Michael Mann’s shoddy work be any less shoddy if Penn State had had a difference reason for conducting it’s investigation?

  114. wobble says:

    marlolewisjr says:

    I wrote a column about the Department of Interior IG’s investigation of Monnett

    Your column omits quite a few pertinent details.

Comments are closed.