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.
[snip – speculation on the state of the witness that is over the top – Anthony]
benfrommo
Transect analysis is only valid for the region sampled – absolutely true. The study was designed for whales – also true.
However, for that sample area there were (a) an anomalous number of swimming bears, and a week later (b) a number of never seen before dead bears in the water.
“And of course the assumption that 4 bears and the 3 are the same…” Monnett did not claim these were the same bears, and in fact stated they were likely not intersecting groups (he had to correct the investigators on that) – but from the sampling you can reasonably make the estimates of 36 swimming and 27 dead (+/-). Did you actually read the transcript?
“They covered 11% over a long time period. Too long for polar bears I am sure.” I have no idea what you are even trying to say here. Random sampling is random sampling – they often flew considerable distances to the next random transect, not a progressive coverage; the statement “We noted X events of Y in the sample area, extrapolating to X * 100 / %coverage +/- in that period” is completely justified.
So there was a big change from previous data, previous years of observation (including direct observation by Monnett), and that was reportable. In a “Note”, as a small bit of science. Monnett did not go out of his way to publicise it, and in fact appeared to have been keeping his head down due to MMS attitudes on the subject. It could well be argued that those convinced of AGW overinterpreted the data, but that’s hardly Monnett’s fault… he was the one calling for better study methods.
Don K
I actually feel that a lot of the objections here are unreasonable. A scientist observing marine mammals saw a change in behaviors, something he had never seen before. The study wasn’t designed for polar bears, but that does not eliminate the fact that a change was seen. He qualified his data extensively, pointed out that more study and in particular study better designed for polar bears would be helpful to see if this was an ongoing issue. Your residence time issue affects the numbers – it doesn’t mean that a change was not seen.
So – residence time, study design, and that for matter whether or not there was a dead bear entry column prior to ’99 when Monnett started observing (he had 4-5 years of his own observations at that time) – none of these refute the fact that Monnett observed a change.
“Your residence time issue affects the numbers – it doesn’t mean that a change was not seen.”
Sure. All I said was that the math seemed deficient to me. I don’t have any problem with the notion that Monnett observed a change. He may have.
But, I’m far from convinced that the data supports the assertion of change with any great confidence.
Don K – “But, I’m far from convinced that the data supports the assertion of change with any great confidence.”
I would agree with that. He spotted a change, and it’s probably worth looking into further to see if it is significant with a study actually designed to look more fully (fluffy?) at polar bears. Some of the more interesting science comes from these “Hey, what’s that” moments when you’re looking at something else entirely. I don’t think that MMS (or it’s descendents, based upon this investigation) are the folks to do it, though, and I don’t know who else would be able to fund such a study.
I want to thank the various skeptical web sites for educating me on these things, but I also want to thank the alarmists for their defense of the “science” behind all this.
Because of their defense and my readings I now know that climatology isn’t as simple as looking at a thermometer and drawing conclusions…no the apparent temperature is merely a single component of a long process, like flour in cookie dough. Sugar is added, white or brown depending on the researcher’s beliefs, nuts or not, choco or butterscotch chips, flavorings or colorings added as desired, then the whole creation is baked to it’s proper conclusion. And this is accepted as proper climatology.
Now I’ve learned from Loyal Defenders of the Faith, that this 3 dead bear model is acceptable for biological studies. 3 bears, allegedly dead, allegedly by drowning, allegedly because of a storm, allegedly having to swim great distances, allegedly because the ice is melting, allegedly caused by global warming, which is allegedly caused by too many SUVs and not enough AlGores. And this is modern science!
I suspect that if a marketing dink somewhere in a small car company, grocery store, bank, etc, proposed a $Millionad campaign based on the 3 dead bears model, he’d soon be marketing for the IRS or EPA, since only the governemnt would hire such a person…and then be unable to fire him.
And isn’t government-funded “science” where most of this research is coming from?
So, these rare and very rare, not ever seen before, events can be extrapolated up as if normal populations? This is what is doing my head in. That anyone can defend such a paper or this method and see nothing wrong, especially to continue to do so when two posters have already shown the absurdity by taking the extrapolations to logical conclusions…
Wow! Reading that transcript, I wonder what Monnett REALLY got into trouble for; I can imagine, given how he got his biologist job with Minerals Management Service in the first place – he’s had a much too cozy relationship with contractors as a govt employee, and a much too cozy relationship with the government as a contractor. As a layman, I can tell you that this is the grossest piece of scientific incompetence I’ve ever seen. As a lawyer, I can hoot because depending upon the issue in dispute here, I could have a real good time cross-examining this guy. As a taxpayer, I am outraged because this is the prime example of “good enough for government work.” And it’s pretty sorry government work these days.
@Larry Cullen in Texas
“Good enough for government work”! Hilarious statement after reading the transcript, even if it is a golden oldie! It bears (couldn’t help it!) keeping in mind, climate science is practically all “government work”!
Actually, he does. It’s tabulated on pages four and five of the study (18 years of observations). You may have been implying this with your following comments, but I thought I’d comment just to make it clear.
Here’s the study. Goes without saying that it’s best to read it before commenting (not saying you haven’t Sean).
http://www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdf
barry Thanks for the link to the actual article.
The bears apparently died during a stretch of bad weather, when a lack of sea ice required long swimming distances – if the weather had been fine, they might have been OK. IMO Monnett’s methodology looks good, and the numbers worth considering. It was a significant change in observations.
Changes in habitat (in this case, ice coverage, sea conditions in part dependent on those, and swimming distances) will drive changes in animal populations dependent on those habitats. Saying that isn’t the case is just silly.
REPLY: YBS 3 bears does not a trend nor paper make. It’s a single data point.
There is NO trend analysis on polar bear mortality in the paper. T18 years of data is not a ‘single data point’. It appears many people do not understand the paper (most seem not to have read it) and hence misrepresent it.
Extrapolation of events to a larger area is common methodology. As long as the calculations are presented as suggestive, rather than conclusive – which is exactly how it is presented in Monnett’s note – no problem. Happens all the time in astronomy.
The language, “if”, “suggest”, “speculate” and the like is all through Monnett’s note. But it is being talked about here as if firm conclusions were made. This is the primary misrepresentation. Nor is the paper trying to ‘prove’ global warming.
barry:
At July 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm you say;
“Extrapolation of events to a larger area is common methodology.”
Your error is that you fail to understand that extrapolation of a SINGLE event to a larger area is NOT ACCEPTABLE methodology in SCIENCE.
Richard
If Monnett had said there were definitely x dead bears based on his calculations then there’d be something to complain about. But he didn’t. The extrapolation is not definitive, and he points that out. It’s obvious anyway.
You are reading too much into the study, like others. It is not a formal analysis of polar bear mortality.
As someone said earlier, the transect method used is a pretty normal thing, especially as it was designed to COUNT WHALES! That’s the problem with Monnett’s crappy paper. He and his organization were hired and funded to COUNT WHALES, not bears.
The thing that elevates Monnett’s actions to the level of a criminal investigation is the use of Government funds to take on projects that are not approved by the custodians of our tax money. No wonder his supervisors were antsy about this idiot paper.
This misuse of Federal funds may called many things, but it is in my opinion a criminal act. It is akin to SEC attorneys looking at porn for eight hours a day when the financial system is being looted by crooks and government bureaucrats.
Suppose they lost some whales while playing poker, surfing porn, or counting dead polar bears. Who answers for that?
“REPLY: YBS 3 bears does not a trend nor paper make. It’s a single data point.”
It’s a change – take a look at the actual paper, and see.The maximum number of swimming bears/survey observed prior to that was 5 in 1995, most years zero, no dead bears recorded at all. In 2004 there were 14 bears swimming (from 3 in 2003), and 4 observed dead (one in transit, off the transects) – a change in observations.
So is it a trend? Perhaps it’s an anomaly? Good question – Monnett suggested additional surveys aimed at answering that question, and consideration of swimming stress as a mortality factor. Is it science? Absolutely – an unexpected change in observations, a paper on those containing some hypotheses as to why that occurred, pointers to future study – that’s how science works. It certainly warrants a paper noting what occurred, and suggests followup work that could confirm or invalidate the data shown here.
—
I’m still waiting to see if the IG actually presses charges, and what those charges might be. The questioning in the transcript is entirely on this paper, after all. But it seems clear to me that if the IG is after him over the paper, it’s simply because somebody found the conclusions upsetting to them. And and not with any scientific backing, or they would have just published a comment or paper showing why they thought Monnett was wrong.
If the IG is after him over this paper, the proper term is “political witchhunt”.
bob – “The thing that elevates Monnett’s actions to the level of a criminal investigation is the use of Government funds to take on projects that are not approved by the custodians of our tax money.”
Oh – I see… Monnett should have steadfastly ignored odd data in his observations, not analyzed data collected in the course of whale studies WRT the bears, not spent any time (a couple of weeks?) writing up a paper and a poster presentation on it. Said paper having been approved by his supervisors at the time, which rather invalidates your claims of unapproved misuse.
I’m curious, “bob” – have you ever been prescribed an antibiotic? Like, for example, penicillin? (http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm) You obviously have no idea how the scientific approach leads to considering your observations, looking at the outliers, to new data, to significant new discoveries, etc. With your approach we would still be in the Stone Age.
polistra says: July 29, 2011 at 10:18 am
“Monnett automatically and leftishly assumed they would behave like air molecules, and couldn’t see the problem with his assumption.”
This is exactly why the transect model fails miserably. Polar bears pick and chose where they jump off from and have at least a feel for where they are going, e.g., their excellent sense of smell indicates upwind seals. Some may have made the trip before and there may even be “established” routes. How arrogant to underestimate the power of evolution.
Indeed, the assumption that they need ice is false as some colonies inhabit rocky shores where walrus haul out. Ice is not a factor. And, it is also known that polar bears can mate with brown bears to produce hybrids, and brown bears DO NOT go out on the ice. Where do they meet? Bears bars?
Exactly. It’s a hypothesis, not a formal study on polar bear mortality, that calls for more research in this area.
But people are erroneously treating it as if it was a definitive study. Like this;
Of course, he didn’t assume any such thing. The closest he gets to a definitive statement is:
Translation: it is almost certain that more than 4 bears were affected. Monnett assumes nothing about the actual number of dead bears, merely makes a tentative and very simple extrapolation to illustrate a potentiality regarding the hypothesis.
It’s not definitive. It doesn’t claim to be, and it should not be cast as such.
Well, I read most of the 96 pages. Light reading.
They should file this under the Lonely Lives of Scientists.
Monnett is a global warmer who works for the Minerals Management Service, not some wildlife service. He does these perfunctory surveys of whales to prove that the drilling up there is not disturbing the traditional native lifestyle. (I think I know where to save money for deficit reduction already.)
One year of record low ice he saw a bunch of polar bears swimming way out from shore to try to get to the ice, and, after a big wind event and high wave event (global warming, like hurricanes he explained.) some obviously drowned (4 in total observed.) Since then, there have been few repeats. He published his one year’s observation as a short note, but obviously couldn’t resist piling on with the warming stuff. Others really ran with it. Can’t blame him for that, can you? Talk about speculation from a small amount of data. For unclear reasons now somebody has sent the IG after him. It is odd, because he claims to be persecuted by the management of MMS and he does nothing anymore to irritate his bosses. They should make him publish his latest data on polar bear drownings, which would show none or very few. He didn’t. He only published his positive findings. They call this science. I think that is misconduct. To only publish findings which support your views.
What a far cry from the the solar physicists who insist their work has nothing to say about climate change. Now, that is a climate of fear.
That’s interesting. Could you link to any post-2004 data on this?
I read an article from 2008, IIRC, where 9 bears had been spotted in the open water in summer. This was quite a lot compared to previous years, but not as much as seen in 2004. I don’t know if the area examined, or the time frame, was anything similar to Monnett’s 2004 overflights.
What ‘piling on’? It’s pretty clear the globe has warmed, and no one doubts (not even Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, and Pielkes Snr and Jr) that it will continue to warm to some degree if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The Arctic had been warming through the study period and before, the ice had retreated, and Monnett refers to expert opinion that it will continue to do so. A hypothesis on bear stress and mortality based on these observations is quite reasonable. Whether or not you agree with any of the above is immaterial. Monnett simply refers to expert opinion on Arctic climate.
Exactly.
Yes, that’s exactly what the note is. That’s why the authors recommended further study – to test the hypothesis.
Monnett participated in the overflights for 2 summers after the 2004 sightings, then took a new position in the company. He published this finding because it was the first recorded observation of the phenomenon. There is already data for the previous 17 years, which shows no dead bears in the water. I don’t think that there is a dedicated flight program like BWASP for polar bears. Do you reckon more funding for such research would be a good idea?
@barry
Oh come on now, if I find three or four dead sparrows in my garden I would hardly make the assumption that this was due to climate change and write a paper calling for further study. Monnett had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why those polar bears were dead, why they had swum so far away from shore or whether they were in any way representative of a larger population. He more or less made it all up on the flimsiest of pretexts. Then a bunch of other jokers blew it up all out of proportion while Monnett sat back and said nothing.
Monnett is a joker and so is Al Gore. I take it your jumping right into bed with them Barry. The credibility of all three of you is in the toilet, however.
@KR
“Some of the more interesting science comes from these “Hey, what’s that” moments when you’re looking at something else entirely.”
Defending the indefensible again KR. Maybe government money could be spent on a study of leprechauns, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Far more observations of these than of dead polar bears so on that basis plenty of government cash should be made available for these studies. But what I really love is the way you have tried to focus attention on exactly what this money grubbing idiot Monnett was saying rather than the pious nonsense that Al Gore was able to spout unchallenged as a result of this tripe. The whole global polar bear drowning meme is based on just three unrecovered corpses. Maybe they just ate a bad seal?
It’s pretty clear that this “witch-hunt” is very well justified, because the flimsiest of pretexts is being used to justify the biggest revolution in global politics since Lenin took power in Russia (and that revolution didn’t end nicely either).
Ryan
“But what I really love is the way you have tried to focus attention on exactly what this money grubbing idiot Monnett was saying rather than the pious nonsense that Al Gore was able to spout unchallenged as a result of this tripe…It’s pretty clear that this “witch-hunt” is very well justified”
Ignoring the ad hominem components of that, I’ll note that exactly what Monnett was saying was quite reasonable, qualified for uncertainty, and presented as a “Note” with suggestions for future study. It was also reviewed and approved by his supervisors at the time. A “witch-hunt” based on that work is nonsense. If you have reasons to disagree with the science, write a comment or a paper on it and put your evidence forward. That’s how scientific disagreements get resolved – not via administrative actions.
Al Gore incorporated some of this into his “Inconvenient Truth” movie – which you seem (ahem) quite upset about. That’s certainly not Monnett’s fault.
No, the “witch-hunt”, if Monnett is being prosecuted for the polar bear paper, is completely unjustified.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Pleased to know you are in line of chemicals. Im Mr. Isaac working for Sunshine CHEMICALS, Which is committed itself to be a reliable chemicals factory manufacturer. 7 more years experienced in chemicals producing with high performance-cost ratio, worthy of trust.
Which chemicals do you urgent in need of now? If you have no certain idea, please find product lists as follows:
Pigment & Dyestuff
Titanium Dioxide
Zinc Oxide
Iron Oxide
Chrome Oxide Green
Water Treatment Chemicals
Aluminium Sulphate
Polyaluminium Chloride (PAC)
Polyacrylamide (PAM)
Caustic Soda Flakes/Pearl/Solid
Sodium Gluconate 98.0%
Basic Chemicals
Ethyl Acetate
Calcium Formate
Calcium Chloride
Sodium Metabisulphite (SMBS)
Phosphoric Acid 85%
If any Items interesting, directly write an Inquiry Email to us pls. SAMPLES FREE to be dispatched to your office for further valuation.
Would you reply me today? Your prompt reply will be high appreciated.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Isaac (Executive Manager
email: gaishiws@gmail.com
Sunshine CHEMICALS.
He made a pretty reasonable assumption. Dead bears in water. The Pistachio family made a hit? Got run over by a truck perhaps? Used for footballs by bow whales? Hmmmmmm. Dead bears. In water. 30 to 100 kms from land. It’s the season when bears swim out to the ice to hunt fish. There was a storm through the area. They’re in the water. Likeliest cause of death?
Let’s see now. Do polar bears swim for some reason? Do they ever swim long distances (yes). Do they swim from land to sea ice to hunt (yes)? Is this the time of year they do it (yes)? Do they swim this far our for any other reason that we know of (no)?
He had the choice of assuming that in the 10% of the storm area they’d observed they’d seen every dead bear in the area, or speculating that there may have been more dead/exhausted bears in the other 90% of the storm area they didn’t observe. The first choice is not supportable.
Don’t tell me you haven’t read the paper either?
How was his study distorted by others, and who were they? Links to examples would be appreciated.