This fellow, Charles Monnett has been suspended pending an investigation into his polar bear research. You may recall that he single-handedly inspired Al Gore (not that it takes much) into producing this piece of science fiction for his even larger fiction, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore cited Monnett’s research.
Only one problem now, his “research” is collapsing, and as you read the transcript, you’ll see why even the simplest of queries get Monnett flustered. Yet this was peer reviewed published science.
Never Yet Melted writes:
The Inspector General interview transcript (excerpts) had me, for instance, in stitches.
Disclosing as it does the level of rigor of methodology being employed:
ERIC MAY: Well, actually, since you‟re bringing that up, 18 and, and I‟m a little confused of how many dead or drowned polar bears you did observe, because in the manuscript, you indicate three, and in the poster presentation –
CHARLES MONNETT: No.
ERIC MAY: – you mentioned four.
CHARLES MONNETT: No, now you‟re confusing the, um, the estimator with the, uh, the sightings. There were four drowned bears seen.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: Three of which were on transects.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: And so for the purpose of that little ratio estimator, we only looked at what we were seeing on transects, because that‟s a – you know, we couldn‟t be very rigorous, but the least we could do is look at the random transects. And so we based, uh, our extrapolation to only bears on transects, because we‟re saying that the transects, the, the swaths we flew, represented I think it was 11 percent of the entire habitat that, you know, that could have had dead polar bears in it.
ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes].
CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, so by limiting it to the transect bears, then, you know, we could do that ratio estimator and say three is to, um, uh, “x” as, uh, 11 is to 100. I mean, it‟s that kind of thing. You, you‟ve, you‟re nodding like you understand.
LYNN GIBSON: Yeah.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, that‟s pretty simple, isn‟t confusing. I mean, it‟s –
ERIC MAY: So, so, so you observed four dead polar bears during MMS –
CHARLES MONNETT: One of which was not on transect.
ERIC MAY: Okay, so that‟s what –
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. …
ERIC MAY: So I highlighted under here, and we‟ve got the four, and that‟s what –
CHARLES MONNETT: Oh, here you go. Yeah. Well, I‟m pretty confident that it was four. I mean, that‟s, um – uh, look, look what is in the paper. I mean, it should have the – probably the same information that, you know –
ERIC MAY: Well, it –
CHARLES MONNETT: There‟s a table in there, but does it – it has the dead ones in it, doesn‟t it?
ERIC MAY: Well, and I think you, you explain, so this is the portion where you‟re talking about the 25 percent survival rate.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: And you‟re talking about four swimming bears and three drowned or dead polar bears.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. Yeah, but that‟s because those are on transects.
ERIC MAY: On part of this 11 percent?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, it says that right in here and, 11 and –
ERIC MAY: Right, right, but that‟s what you‟re talking about. …
How to do things with statistics.
3 CHARLES MONNETT: The paragraph in the left-hand column. Um, God, I‟ve got people here who are second-guessing my calculations. Um, well, um, we flew transects. That was our basic methodology. They were partially randomized. And we, uh, we looked at a, a map. I think we probably used GIS to do it, and we said that our survey area, if you bound it, is so big.
ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes].
CHARLES MONNETT: And then we made some assumptions about our swath width, and I think we assumed we could see a, a bear out to a kilometer with any reliability, which mean you‟re looking down like that. And, uh, sometimes you might see more; sometimes you wouldn‟t. Sometimes you can‟t see a whale out that far, so it depends on the water conditions. And so we just said that, um, if you add up, we had 34 north/south transects provide 11 percent coverage of the 630 kilometer-wide study area, and that was just to get our ratio of coverage. And then the area we really were concerned about was just the area where the bears were, so we could ignore the area at that point and just go with a ratio, because we assume that‟s the same, because these things are pretty, uh, they‟re pretty standardized. They were designed to be standardized, so in each bloc – have you seen the blocs? Have you seen our design? It‟s in here.
ERIC MAY: I took – yeah, in, in your study.
CHARLES MONNETT: It‟s right at the beginning here. Um, every map in here has got it on it. Um, there, those are our blocs. And so, uh, this one would have four pairs. This one would have probably three pairs. I don‟t know, there will be later maps. Um, and there, you can see the flights. Uh, well, yeah, they‟re in here. Um, so we‟re flying these transects, and we‟re assuming we can see a certain percentage or a certain, certain distance. Therefore, we can total up the length and the width and come up with an area. And so we calculated that
our coverage was 11 percent, plus or minus a little bit.
ERIC MAY: Okay. And I believe you rounded up, too. It was 10.8 and you rounded up to 11?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. Well, that‟s a nothing. Um, yeah, 10.8. And then we said, um, four dead – four swimming polar bears were encountered on these transects, in addition to three.
ERIC MAY: Three dead polar bears?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, three dead.
ERIC MAY: Right.
CHARLES MONNETT: But the four swimming were a week earlier.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, then we said if they accurately reflect 11 percent of the bears present so, in other words, they‟re just distributed randomly, so we looked at 11 percent of the area.
ERIC MAY: In that transect?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: Right.
CHARLES MONNETT: In, in our, in our area there, um –
ERIC MAY: Right.
CHARLES MONNETT: – and, therefore, we should have seen 11 percent of the bears. Then you just invert that, and you come up with, um, nine times as many. So that‟s where you get the 27, nine times three.
ERIC MAY: Where does the nine come from?
CHARLES MONNETT: Uh, well 11 percent is one-ninth of 100 percent. Nine times 11 is 99 percent. Is that, is that clear? …
LYNN GIBSON: I think what he‟s saying is since there‟s four swimming and three dead, that makes –
ERIC MAY: And three dead.
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, you don‟t count them all together. That doesn‟t have anything to do. You can‟t – that doesn‟t even –
LYNN GIBSON: So you‟re not saying that the seven represent 16 11 percent of the population.
CHARLES MONNETT: They‟re different events.
ERIC MAY: Well, that‟s what you try – we‟re trying to –
LYNN GIBSON: You‟re talking about they‟re separate?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, they‟re different events.
ERIC MAY: Right, so explain to us how –
CHARLES MONNETT: On one day – well, let me draw. I, I, I don‟t have confidence that you‟re understanding me here, so let me (inaudible/mixed voices). …
CHARLES MONNETT: It makes me feel more professorial if I write it on the blackboard.
LYNN GIBSON: Okay, go ahead.
CHARLES MONNETT: No, that‟s okay.
ERIC MAY: (Inaudible/mixed voices)
CHARLES MONNETT: If you could see it, I wanted you to see it was why I was going to do it there.
ERIC MAY: (Inaudible/mixed voices)
LYNN GIBSON: We‟re your students today.
CHARLES MONNETT: Uh, well, this has transects on it, doesn‟t it, guys?
LYNN GIBSON: Yes, it does.
CHARLES MONNETT: I mean, look right here. So here‟s our coastline right here, this red thing.
ERIC MAY: Okay, yep.
CHARLES MONNETT: And here‟s our, um, our study area. We go out to whatever it was. I don‟t remember, 70, 71 degrees or something like that. And, um, around each of these things, we survey a tenth of the distance between, basically.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: And so if you draw these lines here, and this is – you‟re just going to have to pretend like I did this for all of them. And you calculate the area in here.
LYNN GIBSON: Um-hm [yes].
CHARLES MONNETT: And you total them all, and then you calculate the whole area. This – the area inside here was 11 percent.
LYNN GIBSON: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: Okay? Now what we said is that we saw three, three bears in 11 percent.
ERIC MAY: Three dead bears?
CHARLES MONNETT: Three dead, yeah, dead –
ERIC MAY: Right.
CHARLES MONNETT: – in the 11 percent of the habitat. And so you could set up a, um, a ratio here, three is to “x” 25 equals 11 over 100, right? And so you end up with – you can cross-multiply. You know algebra?
ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes], yeah.
CHARLES MONNETT: You can cross-multiply. Okay, so you end up with 300 equals 11x, and I am sure that that‟s – equals 27, okay?
ERIC MAY: Right, right, got that.
CHARLES MONNETT: And if you stick four in here instead, you end up with –
ERIC MAY: Thirty-six.
CHARLES MONNETT: – whatever that number was, yeah, 36. Now, um, those numbers aren‟t related, except we made the further
assumption, which is implicit to the analysis. Seems obvious to me. We went out there one week, and we saw four swimming on the transect, which we estimated could have been as many as 36.
LYNN GIBSON: Correct.
CHARLES MONNETT: If we correct for the area. And we went out there later, a week to two weeks later, and then we saw the dead ones, the three dead ones in the same area, which could have been 27. And then we said let‟s make the further assumption that – and this, this isn‟t in the paper, but it‟s implicit to this aument –
ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes].
CHARLES MONNETT: – that right after we saw these bears swimming, this storm came in and caught them offshore, all right? And so if, um, if you assume that the, the, the 36 all were exposed to the storm, and then we went back and we saw tentially 27 of them, that gives you your 25 percent survival rate. Now that‟s, um, statistically, um, irrelevant. I mean, it, it‟s not statistical. It‟s just an argument. It‟s for, it‟s for the sake of discussion. See, right here, “Discussion.”
ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes].
CHARLES MONNETT: That‟s what you do in discussions is you throw things out, um, for people to think about. And so what we said is, look, uh, we saw four. We saw a whole bunch swimming, but if you want to compare them, then let‟s do this little ratio estimator and correct for the percentage of the area surveyed. And just doing that, then there might have been as many as 27 bears out there that were dead. There might have been as many as 36, plus or minus. There could have been 50. I don‟t know. But the way we were posing it was that it‟s serious, because it‟s not just four. It‟s probably a lot more. And then we said that with the further assumption, you know, that the bears were exposed or, you know, the ones we‟re measuring later that are carcasses out there, it looks like a lot of them, you know, didn‟t survive, so – but it‟s, it‟s discussion, guys. I mean, it‟s not in the results. …
The reliability of the calculations used and the scrupulous oversight of the peer-review process.
ERIC MAY: So combining the three dead polar bears and the four alive bears is a mistake?
CHARLES MONNETT: No, it‟s not a mistake. It‟s just not a, a, a real, uh, rigorous analysis. And a whole bunch of peer reviewers and a journal, you know –
ERIC MAY: Did they go through – I mean, did they do the calculations as you just did with us?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I assume they did. That‟s their purpose.
ERIC MAY: Okay. Right, and that‟s – again, that‟s why I was asking peer review.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: Did they do that with that particular section of your manuscript?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I don‟t, I don‟t remember anybody doing the calculations but, um, uh, there weren‟t any huge objections. There weren‟t a – let‟s put it this way, there weren‟t sufficient objections for the journal editor to ask us to take it out.
ERIC MAY: Right. Well, let me, let me read you what – the four bears – and representing what we were just talking about, this section.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: So just let me, let me read what I have here, okay?
CHARLES MONNETT: Okay.
ERIC MAY: “If four swimming bears, if four bears represent 11 percent of the population of bears swimming before the storm,” –
CHARLES MONNETT: Um-hm [yes].
ERIC MAY: – okay? “Then 36 bears were likely swimming.”
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, maybe, I mean –
ERIC MAY: Okay, but I mean –
CHARLES MONNETT: No, we didn‟t say “likely.” I think we said “possibly,” or did you say “likely” or –?
ERIC MAY: Well, or this – again, as you just stated earlier, this is Discussion, so –
CHARLES MONNETT: I‟d be surprised if we said “likely,” but mostly we were saying “possibly.”
ERIC MAY: Okay, so let me – let, let me continue, so –
CHARLES MONNETT: Okay.
ERIC MAY: – so you have that. “If three bears represent 11 percent of the population of bears that may have died” –
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: – right?
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: I think those are your words in your manu- – “may have died.”
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: “ – as a result of this storm, then 27 bears were likely drowned.” Okay, so far, so good?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, if I used “likely.” I don‟t know if I did. …
And, then, the interview really gets humorous. “I mean, the storm had nothing to do with it!”
ERIC MAY: Isn‟t that stretching it a bit, though, saying – making that conclusion that no dead polar bears were observed during these years, and then, all of a sudden, 2003, you guys are – you observe dead polar bears?
CHARLES MONNETT: I don‟t think so.
ERIC MAY: Why?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, if you ask me, I would know, I mean, what I saw, I mean, if I saw something weird like that.
ERIC MAY: So as a scientist, if another scientist made these conclusions based on the information, you would be okay with that as a peer reviewer?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, yeah, I would, I mean, if, you know, if they told me that. They keep notes. I mean, they did this – every, everything like we do, so –.
ERIC MAY: And that‟s a, that‟s a – and it‟s a stretch, isn‟t it, though, to make that statement?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, no, I didn‟t think so. I thought that was perfectly reasonable to ask them, since it isn‟t something – remember, the reason it‟s not in the database is because it, it doesn‟t happen. You know, you don‟t see it, so – and there‟s a reason, uh, why it‟s changed, which is in, in, in a lot of the early years, there was a lot of ice out there, and there just weren‟t opportunities for there to be dead bears. You know, bears don‟t drown when there‟s ice all over the place.
ERIC MAY: Well, so let me elaborate what I just asked you. Wouldn‟t you, wouldn‟t you notate that as a – like maybe a – you know, your statement kind of is stretching it, and you would say, “Well, based on my conversations with individuals during these surveys, although they weren‟t supposed to look for dead polar bears, they did not” – I mean, because you‟re making a very broad statement by, by that, saying that no dead polar bears were observed during those years. …
ERIC MAY: Well, and based on, based on what I just said, in terms of the, you know, your statement, would it not make more sense, too, because there was a major windstorm during this period of time, which you do mention, but you didn‟t talk too much about that as in 2004 regarding these dead polar bears.
CHARLES MONNETT: What do you mean (inaudible/mixed voices)?
ERIC MAY: Well, you‟re saying that from 1987 to 2003, there was no dead polar bears.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: Did you discuss the storm conditions during those period, period of years as well? I mean, you‟re extrapolating a lot to make such, you know, scientific findings.
CHARLES MONNETT: You mean, the storms are increasing up there?
ERIC MAY: No, you‟re saying that there was no dead polar bears during those years.
CHARLES MONNETT: Certainly.
ERIC MAY: Yet in 2004, you, you observed four dead polar bears.
CHARLES MONNETT: Right.
ERIC MAY: Yet you didn‟t really elaborate on why you believe those dead polar bears died or drowned.
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, yeah, we did actually. I don‟t know why you‟re saying that. We‟ve got an extensive section in the paper talking about the, uh, you know, the wind speeds and out there, and we looked into that very hard. And, and we, um, we‟re very, very careful in this manuscript to, um, write it so that it, uh, reflects uncertainty, uncertainty about the extent of what happened, the uncertainty of why it happened, the uncertainty of what it meant in a, in a broader context.
We knew three things: That we had seen a bunch of swimming bears and that that was unusual in the context of the whole data stream. We knew we saw some dead bears, which had not been reported before and that we had been assured, you know, was new to the study. And we saw, uh – we experienced, we were there, a, a, uh, high wind event, which was actually not a, a very severe high – and it wasn‟t, you know, one of the really severe high wind events, but it was enough to shut us down, which meant that there were some pretty good waves breaking, you know, out at sea, which, um, is pretty easy to imagine would be, uh, challenging, you know, for a bear swimming. And a good bit of that, there‟s a whole section in the paper that talks about the windstorm.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: Um, right here, there‟s a map, you know, of the wind speeds and all that and, uh, you know, it shows that it just fits right in there. Um –
ERIC MAY: When I was relating to th
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I don‟t know, we, we had complete confidence in it. Um, people worked extensively with, with the database and, and, uh, so we were totally comfortable with the swimming ones, um, which, you know, were rarely seen. And it‟s a small thing I think to assume that a, um – you know, the person managing the survey would know and – ….
And here comes Jeff Ruch of PEER to the rescue.
1 JEFF RUCH: This is Jeff Ruch. We‟ve been at this for an hour and 45 minutes, and I‟m curious, are we going to get to the allegations of scientific misconduct or, uh, have – is that what we‟ve been doing?
LYNN GIBSON: Actually, a lot of the questions that we‟ve been discussing relate to the allegations.
ERIC MAY: Right.
JEFF RUCH: Um, but, uh, Agent May indicated to, um, Paul that he was going to lay out what the allegations are, and we haven‟t heard them yet, or perhaps we don‟t understand them from this line of questioning.
ERIC MAY: Well, the scientif- – well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations, uh –
JEFF RUCH: Wrong numbers and calculations?
ERIC MAY: Well, what we‟ve been discussing for the last hour.
JEFF RUCH: So this is it?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, that‟s not scientific misconduct anyway. If anything, it‟s sloppy. I mean, that‟s not – I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don‟t see any indication of that in what you‟re asking me about.
=============================================================
Never Yet Melted continues:
What is downright scary is the way these bozos think that dressing up wildly extravagant theories resting on baseless extrapolations of insignificant anecdotal-level observations with jargon and a few formulae in order to reach preconceived and intensely desired conclusions is perfectly legitimate scientific activity.
If anybody wonders how junk science can become established science and the accepted basis for fabulously costly governmental programs and polices, just look at the work of Dr. Charles Monnett and at PEER.
This is a joke right? C’mon… where is the real transcript?
If this is what passes as science then we’re in big trouble.
Asking the big questions..
Three dead bears..
WHERE WAS GOLDILOCKS??
JC
How did they resuscitate the drowned polar bear researcher? By now I’ll bet he wishes the post headline was true. Its kind of hard to live down science that bad.
Now that we know it was his old study being investigated, I’m curious what brought it up now.
mwhite says:
“The polar bear is the only bear considered to be a marine mammal. Why?”
The one thing missing from your list, in MHO the most important thing, is the fact that the guard hairs on polar bears have a hollow core. A wonderful adaptation to living in a frigid arctic environment, the dead-air spaces within each hair act the same as dressing in layers when you go out on a cold winter day. The extra added benefit is that each hollow hair traps a small amount of air that acts like a life preserver for when the bears enter the water. What makes a cork float? The same thing that makes a polar bear float… trapped air. The reason polar bears can swim hundreds of miles in open water is that they’re not just buoyant due to their blubber. They’re buoyant due to their fur coats (remember the ridiculous notion a few years ago that some well-meaning but otherwise completely uninformed environmentalist came up with to propose life preservers for polar bears? Staggers the imagination!). Polar bears don’t actually have to expend any energy to stay afloat. All their energy can go into moving through the water. When they dive, they actually have to pull themselves down under the surface. If they stop swimming, they’ll eventually come to the surface all on their own. It might be slow, due to their mass, but they’ll eventually come back up. The idea that polar bears would drown because they got tired and couldn’t keep themselves from going under is pure unadulterated bull-pucky.
BTW, completely off topic of AGW, but a couple of little factoids that I always found fascinating about polar bears: Their fur is actually pigment free, and their skin is black. The reason they appear white is due to the way light refracts off of each hollow hair shaft (like the way snow appears white due to light refraction). For a time, biologists hypothesized that the hollow guard hairs acted like fibre-optics, transmitting the sun’s energy to the “black body” of the polar bear’s skin. Unfortunately (it would have been such a cool adaptation), the hypothesis has been since rejected by later studies.
It was this point, in “An Inconvenient Truth” that I had my eureka moment about AGW. Up until that point, I was (head bowed in shame) a believer. But, when I realized that Gore was not telling the truth about polar bears, I started to look at the subject more closely. THEN I realized all the other “creatively licensed” facts that also didn’t hold up to scrutiny. I truly feel fortunate that I had the specialized education in the physiology of polar bears to recognize the truthfulness of Gore’s statements. If I catch you lying to me once, I will have a hard time believing anything you say, ever again.
One of my all time favorites seem appropriate here –
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Billy Madison: Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.
Well, that science looks pretty settled !
I think the real problem here for all concerned is the way the story was so widely publicised worldwide and came to be an emotional triggerpoint for the adverse environmental effects of warming in the Arctic regions.
For the story now to turn out to have been utter rubbish based upon sheer incompetence scientifically is so very damaging that heads must roll.
So many schoolchildren heard that story and it fed their immature minds with fevered imaginings causing unwarranted fearfulness for the future of themselves the planet and humanity at large. It amounts to child abuse of an entire generation.
Taken with the other irresponsible and now discredited reports along the same lines the damage to science will be immeasurable as it sinks in more widely over time.
In future years this climate science imbroglio may well become a textbook illustration of the corruption of the scientific method by politics and money aided by the weakmindedness of those engaged in publicly funded science.
Tip of the rotten ‘Conservation Biology’ iceberg. It is not a real science. It is advocacy masquerading as science, and the graduates pumped out are indoctrinated missionaries. Their junk science is not limited to polar bears. They learned many of their tricks for them by sharpening their Big Lie skills on grizzly bears. Etc.
Eh eh. Official science in the making. Lovely.
Glad to see an exerpt from ‘Who’s on First’ as that’s what i kept thinking of too.
Honestly, you couldn’t script a scene for a movie better. Anyone who doesn’t ‘get’ what the problem is with the 3 or 4 bears is either not used to scientific rigour (and perhaps could be forgiven) or is so intoxicated with belief in climate change that it has permanently affected their ability to think objectively.
I note Gavin commenting at WS Briggs site is definately in the latter category. Usefully though, he links to the actual paper in question: http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Polar_Bear_paper.pdf
The openning of is abstract reads: “Abstract During aerial surveys in September 1987–2003,
a total of 315 live polar bears were observed with 12
(3.8%) animals in open water, defined for purposes of
this analysis as marine waters >2 km north of the
Alaska Beaufort Sea coastline or associated barrier islands.
No polar bear carcasses were observed.”
BUT they did not tract bear carcasses from 1987-2003! He just made it up!!!
ERIC MAY: All right, um, in your manuscript, we‟ll stick to the manuscript a little bit.
CHARLES MONNETT: Sure.
ERIC MAY: Um, and I‟ll, I‟ll quote to make this – you indicate that “No polar” – and I‟ll quote, “No polar bear carcasses, carcasses were observed, and no dead and floating polar bears were observed during aerial surveys conducted in September 1987 through 2003.”
CHARLES MONNETT: That‟s what the database told us, yeah.
ERIC MAY: Okay. What database are you talking about?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, the BWASP database.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: The, the big one that, that, um, did not have a way to record the dead ones in it, but we checked with, um, (inaudible/mixed voices).
ERIC MAY: Okay, because in, in, uh, referencing the BWASP studies –
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: – in the studies that we reviewed, I‟ll quote, um, “1987 to 2003, BWASP aerial survey reports state, „Sightings of dead marine mammals were not included in summary analysis or maps.‟”
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. ERIC MAY: So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed during 1987 to 2- –
CHARLES MONNETT: Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears.
ERIC MAY: So you talked to each individual from ‟87 to –
CHARLES MONNETT: No, no, we talked to the team leaders. We talked to Steve Treacy and, and –
ERIC MAY: All the way back to 1987?……..
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf
political correctness gone insane. Continual droughts and extreme poverty in Africa still not resolved and all the the middle class liberal greenies have to worry about is 4 dead f**ing polar bears…sorry 3.
Pamela Grey, I agree with the following, “Apply the same discrimination here. Sloppy research at the professional level is damaging. Minimally, fines and possibly loss of license are in order.”
Passing this hopeless bunch of assumptions off as science is not just misconduct, I believe it to be completely fraudulent. There was nothing scientific about it. Was he paid for this crap?
I would not have even got away with something so shoddy as this at school. It is certainly not science. I cannot believe that this was peer reviewed.
I guess if this team has not seen any dead polar bears since, then that would mean that either polar bears have become immortal, or they have become extinct!
Ok, ready for the science? Here it is, condensed down:
1) Fly over 11% of an area of study and count 4 swimming polar bears
2) Repeat flyover a week later and count 3 dead polar bears
3) Perform 3rd grade ratio mathematics and determine that in week one there were 36 swimming bears and in week two there were 27 dead bears…. ta da! 75% fatality rate!
4) Assume that the 75% fatality rate was due to a strong storm that ran through between the two observations.
5) Assume that the storm and ice melt were caused by global warming
6) Therefor, in a completely serious manor, predict that 75% of swimming bears die per year due to global warming.
7) Profit
All this from three dead bears and one storm.
Is this misconduct or malpractice? It certainly isn’t science.
3th? Error changing from 4th to 3rd. I meant 3rd. I forgot my 9 year old daughter was fluent with percentages in 3rd grade. 🙂
Professor Phil Jones will soon be on the blower:-
“hullo Charles, sorry about all this palaver – there’ll be an inquiry but don’t worry Al [Gore] will get you a good brief [ legal representation] and we’ll parachute in some alarmist ‘experts’ [no bias then] – well send over Oxburgh…….. he’s alright!”
And; “when you have to leave for ‘personal reasons’ – you’re just the type of chap we need at CRU!”
Gavin can’t really be defending this paper. I thought he was smart. I refuse to believe this. I guess I better read the whole paper because I HAVE to have missed something.
That doesn’t seem all that bad.
I do wonder how someone in a plane actually differentiates a “drowned” bear from one that is merely napping, or perhaps just lazy.
The most interesting thing is that no “drowned” bears were seen for 16 years. That suggests this was either an error or a one-off.
Mike says:
July 29, 2011 at 11:25 am
Newer work seems to be confirming Monnett’s concerns.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/19/polar-bear-cubs-drowning-ice
Eleven bear sampling size. Authors admit storms may be involved. Authors unaware that polar bears don’t have to “hold their noses”.
Nice try Mike.
Sheeesh,
where’s R Gates when you need him?
The following excerpt really caught my attention:
“It was over a – it was about a week later, over that period, um, and, again, you know, we had no, uh, notion that it would be a important observation. And it was sometime later I think that we started to realize that it was probably something that was worthy of, of writing a note, you know, for a journal. And we were looking for quick, clean products, um, because that‟s how we, uh, justify our work, our study, you know.”
So right from the start this was never about actual scientific data. It was all about something that could be sensationalized to try to “justify our work” and get more study funding. Yes, that’s scientific misconduct when you suddenly start going outside the boundaries of the study to sensationalize an abnormal one-time observation to “justify” your otherwise boring -but designed to be scientifically rigorous- study. Real science is boring, and accurate results are usually only exciting to other scientists. If you find something sensational that will “justify our work” in the 24/7 news cycle, it’s not likely to be very scientifically rigorous data.
Was that discussion taking place in a mental institution?
Well that’s all that cleared up then.
ERIC MAY: So you just made all this $hit up then?
CHARLES MONNETT: Look, I, er never saw a dead bear before and neither have my friends so like er there must be something like er going on.
And quality assurance at its best. “It’s not already in the database so it must be new” (possibly hockey stick shaped event)
I found two dead bumble bees in my yard….
….they were 12 inches apart
I deduce that bumble bees are extinct
Peer review only works if the peers agree with you………..
I had extensive dealings with with the US Forest Service and US Department of Fish and Wildlife concerning their listing of the listing of the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. This included both administrative and judicial proceedings involving the listed and subsequent selection and designation of critical habitats.
Peer review as used in federal agencies for internal research papers is a far cry from the peer review applied in scientific journals. Monnett’s peer review likely to come from other biologists, perhaps a statistician, and supervisors within his bureau. Like minded people working for the same employer collaborate to achieve specific objectives.
Monnett’s work was also published in the Journal of Polar Biology. It is unclear to me whether or not papers submitted to this journal are peer reviewed prior to acceptance. My point is that “peer review” can be an elusive term when used in federal agencies.
I suspect, base upon my experience that Charles Monnett is a designated hit man in the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. His job is to establish barriers to limit or prevent exploration and development of oil and gas deposits in Alaska and its adjacent waters. He currently manages $50 million worth of federal research grants. You can bet with confidence that the research concerns fish, sea mammals and wildlife that maybe potential proxies to prevent discovery and extraction of oil and natural gas. That is the case with polar bears and ongoing studies of Alaskan walruses.
Chances are that Monnett’s polar bear study may not be the only target of the investigation. His administration of $50 million in grants may also be in question. Time will tell.
Several here have questioned the ‘peer review’ of the discussed paper. This probably arises from the involvement of ‘PEER’ in the interrogation.
However, it is clear that the paper was subjected to ‘pal review’ (n.b. NOT peer review).
And climategate proved ‘pal review’ is normal for papers pertaining to ‘climate science’.
sarc on / So, what is the problem? sarc off/
Richard