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.
Hi Smokey,
Check David Hagen’s article. It appears Monnett is being investigated for how he awarded a (more recent) joint study on polar bears.
Thanks, Barry. As I speculated much earlier in this thread, misappropriation of public funds could well be the issue. Monnett hired his wife – which certainly raised some eyebrows. Really a stupid move on his part, no?
I was formerly the Secretary-Treasurer of a statewide organization, and I was very surprised, and frankly shocked, at the tendency of so many with sticky fingers who had been entrusted with membership funds. Dual signature checks should be required in every government grant, and an outside audit should be an annual requirement. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the IG’s investigation uncovers. I suspect illegal conversion will be charged.
That said, this investigation has publicly exposed more corruption of climate peer review and government grants for all to see. It is grant-gaming with a friendly elbow to the ribs, along with a wink and a nod; everyone’s in on the scam, and the taxpaying public is none the wiser, eh? And Monnett’s peers like Mann and Schmidt are no different — which is why Monnett is being so fiercely defended by their ilk. [IMHO, as always. YMMV.]
Is that so? I thought he only showed his wife an early draft of his work. Did he actually pay her for anything?
I might be old fashioned, but I tend to wait for the trial to conclude before hanging anyone. We only learned today what the allegations are (if that is in fact what they are).
1. Hearsay shouldn’t be used as data.
2. In the absence of adequate data, conclusions shouldn’t be offered regardless of the disclosures used.
Does the paper imply the bears were drowned?
Yes.
Does it imply</em that there are definitely more than 4 dead bears?
Yes.
Does it imply</em that AGW caused the bears to drown?
Yes.
Does it imply</em that the dead bears corroborate that global warming is happening?
Yes.
Does it imply</em there have never been drowned polar bears or dead bears in the sea before?
Yes.
Does a paper like this allow people like Al Gore to make irresponsible inferences?
Yes.
Probably because they had been embarrassed by too many “scientists” making unscientific claims that weren’t supported by sound data collection.
The data was 18 years of direct observations of polar bears,recorded at the time of sighting from research planes. The study period of 1987 to 2004 totaled 370 bear sightings. Monnett was on most of the research flights from 1999 to 2006.
They offer no conclusions. Even the investigating agents pointed out the heavily qualified, inconclusive language.
Read the paper. Don’t rely on hearsay.
REPLY: Oh puhleeze. Unless there were autopsies or direct hands on inspections of the dead bears, its ALL HEARSAY. For all we know, the bears could have been shot and then run to the water, which is their nature. The entire issue is based on an incomplete data point. 3 or 4 dead bears, no established reason why. – Anthony
So they can then comment on LIVE polar bears, not dead ones since no recordings or records were kept. Ergo that is hearsay. Please stick to the facts, and not your opinion or your “feelings’ on the subject.
Except for the fact that it WASN’T recorded. The inclusion of 370 live polar bears doesn’t imply that dead polar bears would have been entered into the record.
They absolutely “offer” conclusions. Learn the difference between arriving at a definitive conclusion and offering conclusions. Conclusions were most certainly offered.
Hearsay is rumour or the reporting of someone’s words by a third party. These were direct recorded observations that included longitude and latitude of the observation, and whether the bears were in the water or on land or sea ice. This is not second-hand verbal testimony, which is the point I was making to wobble, who thinks that the data was acquired entirely by calling other researchers. wobble gets this idea from comments throughout this and the other thread/s, I suppose, where this erroneous impression is given many times. I wish you had made the correction, because the misapprehension would have died more quickly with your imprimatur.
In mounting a hypothesis, it is best to make plausible presumptions. The notion that all four bears were shot is less plausible than that they drowned in the storm. The evidence most strongly points to that conclusion, so it is used as a premise. This is Occam’s razor in action.
Criticism of the kind you and others are making rests on the faulty notion that this is a formal study on bear mortality and cause, instead of a hypothesis based on the information to hand, calling for more investigation so that the hypothesis may be tested. This is normal practise, so what people really have a problem with is the scientific method. Monnett asked experts if his observations and hypotheses were worth publishing, and they encouraged him to do it, and three anonymous reviewers gave his study a tick. So I guess now the complaint will be that there is a conspiracy amongst polar bear researchers to present bad science.
Heh. So funny….
Note that Monnett was on the majority of flights from 1999 to 2006. No dead bears seen except in 2004, when he did his report. Even if he hadn’t checked with previous team leaders, the sudden appearance of four dead bears (3 on transects, hence extrapolable to the full area) is way out of line from previous observations.
Anthony – Occams Razor is against you. 16 bears swimming in ’04, when a max of 5 had been seen at any year before that? And I’ll note, swimming bears were a regular entry. Then a Beaufort Scale 5-6 storm, and a bunch of dead bears in the water? Drowning is the most reasonable explanation, no matter how you try to parse it.
Sure, it might have been hunters killing bears and then dragging the bodies 5-10 km offshore. Or a polar bear Fight Club. A really bad game of Rock Paper Scissors? It might have been lightning, or overly fattening food! But the parsimonious explanation (which Monnett suggested as only the most likely in the paper) is that they drowned.
Monnett is being investigated for this paper, as is apparent from the transcripts of his and Gleasons interviews. This is (IMO) a political witchhunt by someone in or with links to the Department of the Interior, nothing more. Monnett reported his observations as anomalies, with appropriate qualifications – and it upset folks. So sad for them…
—
I have to say, the apparent urge to blame the messenger for bad new is strong here. Tons of posts with ad hominems against a scientist who just reported what he saw, with the most parsimonious hypotheses (yes, hypotheses, with suggestions for how to test them!) possible. Followied by accusations of malfeasance, insults, critiques from people that obviously don’t know statistics from stomach contents… I’m saddened.
Monnett reported what he saw. He extrapolated to the full region using standard techniques, used for biological sampling, cell biology, and estimating how many land mines are left in a particular area. The hypotheses as to why (and suggestions to test those) which include the effects of reduced sea ice, appear to be threatening to those who want to continue with business as usual, who wish to not have their (even theoretic) freedoms constrained by consequences, and hence the witchhunt. This is a massive attempt to blame the messenger. Nothing more.
wobble, the data was recorded in a notebook. There are no records of dead bears in the sea, and other researchers have no memory of having seen one.
Think about the sequence of events. Monnett sees 4 dead bears in the water. He’s never himself seen that before in 6 years of overflights. He checks the written records and sees that there are no other dead bears in the water recorded. Does he assume there have been none? No, he goes another step and checks with other researchers to see if they remember seeing any. This is a reasonable and obvious way to firm up the data.
Monnett doesn’t assume that he has the whole story, but the data that he has strongly suggests a scenario. Look at the language in the intro to the note:
The rest of the note is the argument underpinning the hypothesis. Even the last section is qualified with language like this. And note that the authors speak of ‘natural’ mortality – this is a long way from comments upthread asserting that the note purports to tie the dead bears to global warming.
Wobble, we may have different ideas on what conclusive means. Shortly, this note is self-identified as speculative. There is no ‘conclusions’ section. I can’t see how it could be read as a conclusive study. Perhaps you can provide examples of what you mean.
barry & KR,
barry says: “The notion that all four bears were shot is less plausible than that they drowned in the storm.” KR says something similar. That is simply a baseless opinion.
The fact is that you don’t have sufficient information to make that judgement.
KR adds: “This is (IMO) a political witchhunt…”
You have a right to your opinion. But with the AG – an appointee of the current alarmist-friendly Administration who is conducting this extraordinary investigation – I would not be so hasty as to use the term “witchhunt.” Monnett had his wife in the loop, which indicates questionable judgement. And he was the person with authority over $50 million in public funds. I suspect there is a whistleblower involved, and even though the AG may not want to investigate Monnett, his hand may have been forced.
$50 million is a big motive, no?
And keep in mind that this investigation is not about the polar bear paper, which simply exposed typically atrocious government grant-driven science.
Smokey
I would actually be quite happy if the investigation is about misdirection of funding or nepotism, rather than an investigation intended to suppress reporting scientific anomalies. The more of that stamped out, the better. The interviews of Monnett and Gleason, however, do not reassure me on that point. I await actual charges or the dismissal of the investigation, whichever occurs.
Occam’s Razor is a reasonable rule of thumb – the simplest explanation possible is the most likely. Monnett did not state that for a fact the bears drowned, but simply that drowning was the most likely explanation for the bodies. Far from baseless, given the weather in the previous week, and the ~8.5 km average distance from shore for the bodies. Would you have preferred a hypothesis of simultaneous coronary artery disease, aliens on a hunting expedition, or Gypsy curses?
If the investigation is not about the polar bear papers, why did the investigators return to it over and over again when interviewing both authors?
KR,
With polar bear pelts going for $30,000+, gunshot wounds are every bit as plausible as polar bears drowning from storms.
Much more plausible, in fact. Monnett admits that these are the first dead polar bears reported. But storms occur regularly – without any reports of dead polar bears. Therefore, Occam’s Razor indicates that storms are not the cause of polar bear deaths. QED
This is a hypothesis based on even less data than Monnett’s, and ignores observed factors (lowest observed sea ice coverage coverage for the area, leading to choppier waters in high winds), and is, therefore, less plausible. The storm and low ice coverage was observed. Hunters were not.
You’re suggesting that hunters managed to let $30 000 float away – four times in the one season? You think that is as plausible as Monnett’s hypothesis?
I think there is one hypothesis that is nearly as plausible as Monnett’s – disease. However, disease in polar bears is rare, and there are few (any?) records of bears having died from disease in the wild. My hypothesis relies on accepting more from less than Monnett’s.
The truth is there is little known about polar bear mortality. People here are casting Monnett’s work as concluding something, when he is only suggesting he might have a piece of the puzzle. If criticism were directed towards activist groups’ use of Monnett’s work, I would agree with much of it.
Smokey – Did you actually read the paper? 16 bears swimming, almost no sea ice, completely anomalous conditions – followed by a serious storm with no ice to damp it down? And then bear corpses, previously unseen?
And you postulate hunters? When no dead bears had been observed in the previous years? And more bears in the water earlier by a factor of 3x over any recorded data? Really…
Sorry, Smokey, 4 dead bears averaging 8.5 km offshore does not make hunting a plausible cause. It makes hunting a stretched excuse for data you don’t like…
Now, I will be more than happy to note that storms don’t kill many bears, including since then. But that year, under those conditions, it certainly seems like the most likely explanation. And Monnett was certainly within scientific limits to present a hypothesis that decreased sea ice might be a factor in bear mortality if it continued. Going after him on the basis of the paper (if that’s the reason, as it appears) is completely unjustified.
Data that doesn’t exist can’t be recorded. Or are you suggesting that all the flights since 1987 had specially recorded, “No Dead Polar Bears Seen Today”?
Telephone conversations with previous team leaders is a terrible way to collect data.
Offering conclusions based on this is terrible. And don’t try to tell me that conclusions weren’t offered.
KR says:
“When no dead bears had been
observedreported in the previous years…” See, there’s a difference… a big difference – which Monnett himself acknowledges.Anyway, Monnett isn’t being investigated for his grade school level pesudo-science. He is being investigated for criminal misappropriation of public funds. The polar bear fiasco is just icing on the cake for honest scientific skeptics.
The truth will all come out in the wash.
New Police Chief: There were no occurrences of jay walking between 1987 and 1999.
Investigator: How do you know?
New Police Chief: Because there is no record of jay walking in the past.
Investigator: Were records of jay walking required to be kept in the past?
New Police Chief: No.
Investigator: Then why would there be any record of jay walking in the past?
New Police Chief: I spoke with the old police chiefs and they don’t remember any jay walking.
Investigator: So you’re relying on their memory, and your paper relies on hearsay?
New Police Chief: No. There is no record of jay walking in the past.
Investigator: Were records of jay walking required to be kept in the past?
New Police Chief: No.
Investigator: Then why would there be any record of jay walking in the past?
New Police Chief: I spoke with the old police chiefs and they don’t remember any jay walking.
Investigator: So you’re relying on their memory, and your paper relies on hearsay?
New Police Chief: No. There is no record of jay walking in the past.
Investigator: Were records of jay walking required to be kept in the past?
New Police Chief: No.
Investigator: Then why would there be any record of jay walking in the past?
New Police Chief: I spoke with the old police chiefs and they don’t remember any jay walking.
Investigator: So you’re relying on their memory, and your paper relies on hearsay?
New Police Chief: No. There is no record of jay walking in the past.
Investigator: I think we’re going in circles here.
Monnett’s co-author on the 2005 note, Jeffrey Gleason, was also interviewed, a month before Monnett. Here’s the transcript.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/transcript-jeffrey-gleason
Some things from this are clear. The investigation was definitely about the 2005 note, and whether the calculations were sound. The bulk of the interview (unabridged) is about the 2005 paper. Eric May (investigating agent) states that the paper is having an impact on policy.
Gleason corroborates that they referred to a database for their data – 30 years of observations, according to Gleason.
Gleason is questioned about the assumption that the bears drowned. He gives the same answer I did (my post was not permitted, for some reason, maybe repetitious). They constructed the most parsimonious hypothesis from the data available. This is sound reasoning. Invoking non-existent data (like hunters), is not reasoning, it’s guesswork.
It’s fairly clearly inferred from the sequence of events that the agents were trying to find something wrong with the 2005 note, and when they did not switched tack to a new rationale for investigating Monnett.
Far as I’m concerned this is political interference in science.
We also discover that Charles Monnett thought there could have been a global warming angle to the paper, but it seems that the department didn’t want that in the paper, so no direct link was made.
Side note: people often speculate (well, assert more often than not) that governments are pushing AGW. In fact, the Department of the Interior was trying to muzzle such discussion. There are even Dep Int memos (posted upthread), ordering scientists traveling abroad not to speak about polar bears, Arctic sea ice, or climate change.
I bet there are no entries in the database for sightings of other aircraft. That doesn’t mean that other aircraft were never sighted.
This is a baseless accusation.
This is probably because smart people within the Dept of Int noticed that many of these opinions were based on junk science and were trying to protect the department from international embarrassment.