As some WUWT readers theorized yesterday, something, perhaps even more egregious is the root of the suspension. The AP obtained an internal memo from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, sent via email circulated to staff.
From the Sacramento Bee:
JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal official says the suspension of Alaska wildlife biologist Charles Monnett is unrelated to a 2006 article Monnett wrote about presumably drowned Arctic polar bears.
Michael Bromwich also says it’s unrelated to Monnett’s scientific work and instead a result of new information on a separate subject recently brought to light.
Related WUWT posts:
Read the investigation transcript:
Announcement of suspension:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/al-gores-drowned-polar-bear-ait-source-under-investigation/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be symptomatic for the whole CAGW mess if the information about this ridiculous polar bear paper came out by accident during the investigation of other mischief.
Am I the only one that thinks that there is something weird going on here? The man has been suspended and not told why.
Polar bears can swim. Don’t believe the hype.
Polar bears have survived an ice free Arctic Ocean. Don’t believe the hype.
it is likely due to how he distributed the $50 mill budget or its accounting
Darn! Looks like some folks gun the gun early.
Jumped the Gun early. Excuse me.
So the science is sound. But the doubt mill got some mileage out of the story and that’s all the oil companies really need.
No, the whole thing is weird. I was wondering what could have triggered the investigation because I didn’t believe for a moment that bad science alone could be the reason.
Wait and see.
Given the recent trend it may be due to compromising photos of underage polar bears on Facebook.
Then why were they grilling him on the polar bears? The plot thickens!
Of course, the paper is still crap, now that we’ve had a chance to read it and to see Monnett’s explanation of his methods.
But if it was unrelated, why were the investigators asking about it? Or did PEER selectively edit the transcript?
Still very odd.
Is it necessary to (re)produce a transcript with so many natural pauses and breathing spaces?
“Yes, uh, we only looked at that superficially, uh, and not in any, uh, great detail.”
The questioner is quoted flawlessly, I note.
So the two issues are completely separate and it was only speculation that he was being suspended because of his work related to the polar bear. Shouldn’t there be a correction to the original posting? It is quite misleading, especially if someone accidentally stumbles upon it while browsing the web.
Rhoda, there has been “weird things going on around here for many years”! I wouldn’t doubt he is trying to figure out which of many things has been discovered. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.
This denial just smells wrong. The IG investigation definitely concerns the 2005 paper describing observations of drowned polar bears. See pages 3-5 of the transcript.
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf
@Rhoda Ramirez July 29, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Monnett reportedly has been told why he has been suspended, but not specific charges.
http://www.adn.com/2011/07/28/1989382/arctic-scientist-under-investigation.html
“The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.”
[…]
“Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.”
This is fairly standard procedure, in both the government and private sector. In fact, prior to investigation, specific charges would be — to put it gently — premature.
Heck, I knew a guy who was suspended, then fired without being told even this much (and in violation of his contract); once into arbitration, the company did give a reason, but proceeded to change its tiny collective mind every day of hearings.
Well, it sounds like someone got to whoever it is who thought Monnet’s piece was crap.
After all, if the quality of the science were at issue James Hansen would have been out on his backside without a pension long ago.
PhilJourdan says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Then why were they grilling him on the polar bears? The plot thickens!
=======================================================
yeah right……
We spent half of our interview on something that didn’t matter………….
Mike says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm
So the science is sound. But the doubt mill got some mileage out of the story and that’s all the oil companies really need. Not sure what angle you’re trying to play here with the oil companies. Did you know that some of the intital funding for the CRU was from “Big Oil”? Did you know they don’t have a problem with taxing carbon–even if they’re the ones producing it? Shucks, no: They figure another tax just binds their relationship with the government that much tighter. Can you say “collusion”?
PS. Find anybody that’s a Skeptic that receives a check from “Big Oil” for their work as a skeptic/critic and I’ll match it.
Yep, nothing to see here… move along folks.
Why did we depose him over the polar bear study?
We were testing the polygraph.
Uh, it’s too many parking tickets. Yeah, that’s it! He had too many parking tickets, violating the division’s moral turpitude standards.
They have to can him on charges unrelated in order to maintain the illusion that his work stands up to real scrutiny. Then they can say.. “Sorry, we can’t comment on that, because he doesn’t work here anymore.”
Dunne at 1:16 p.m.
I agree. Typically it is not necessary for transcripts to include things like “uh”, “um”, etc. These are normal pause sounds in English (other languages have different pause sounds), that are used as the individual searches for a word. It is not necessary to include them in a transcript. Precious few of us would have the ability to respond to a series of questions without including plenty of pause sounds, and it is generally considered unfair to reproduce quotes with lots of pause sounds in order to make the person sound foolish.
The one exception might be if in a proceeding there were a question about whether the responder was trying to avoid questions or whether the very manner in which the responder responded was relevant to the issue at hand. In that case, one might look at the pause sounds and try to draw some kind of conclusion about the responder’s conduct during the interview itself. If we’re just trying to find the underlying facts, however, it is not necessary to include all the pause sounds, and really amounts to a mild form of ad hominem
I guess he has been suspended for another lie, not that one.
Liars must have good memories to keep track of their lies.
“A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.”- William Shenstone
What does this mean?
That same day, July 13, a stop-work order was issued for a polar bear tracking study, entitled “Populations and Sources of Recruitment in Polar Bears.”
I’m probably just ignorant, but how does one recruit a polar bear?
Mike what science that set out observe something else saw some polar bear bodies in the water and then went out on a speculation ‘all you can eat fest ‘.