From the Seattle Times – the end game of ‘polarbeargate’:
Scientist who saw drowned polar bears reprimanded
An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has been reprimanded for improper release of government documents.
JUNEAU, Alaska —
An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has been reprimanded for improper release of government documents.
An Interior Department official said emails released by Charles Monnett were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management of an oil and gas company’s Arctic exploration plan.
The official, Walter Cruickshank, deputy director of BOEM, said in a memo that an inspector general’s investigation contained findings that Monnett had improperly disclosed internal government documents, which he said were later used against the agency in court. He also said the investigation made other findings in regards to Monnett’s conduct, but he wasn’t taking action on those. He would not specify those findings.
Cruickshank called Monnett’s “misconduct very serious,” and said any future misconduct may lead to more severe discipline, including removal from federal service.
Monnett was briefly suspended last year during an inspector general’s investigation into a polar bear research contract he managed. The inspector general’s report, which was released Friday, said its investigation was set off by a complaint from an unidentified Interior Department employee who alleged that Monnett wrongfully released government records and that he and another scientist, Jeffrey Gleason, intentionally omitted or used false data in an article they wrote on polar bears. During that investigation, authorities also looked into the procurement issue.
full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rob Murphy says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm
“What makes you think you’re going to get away with flat out lying to the readers?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to the inspector general’s report, investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript. However, they found that the article had “little or no impact” on a federal decision to extend special protections to polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, according to the report.
Rob , maybe you should read the full article. “Conflicting statements to investigators” guess that is the polite way of saying LIE and maybe you didn’t get the subtle reference. Use of an incomplete database is at best incompetence, at worst a deliberate attempt to force his beliefs down the worlds throat which I personally would consider criminal. Your undying loyalty to this guy is notable, more notable would be how your loyalty has been misplaced in someone who tried to pull a fast one and was caught by the real whistleblower that turned him in.
I call em like i see em.
“According to the inspector general’s report, investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript.”
According to the transcripts, the issue was the investigator’s inability to grasp 5th grade math.
“Conflicting statements to investigators” guess that is the polite way of saying LIE and maybe you didn’t get the subtle reference.”
They didn’t though. That was the charge but it didn’t stick. The only ones making inconsistent statements were the investigators. It was a complete farce, starting with the incompetent investigator Eric May saying it was an administrative matter but he was a criminal investigator. He had no science background and was incapable of following Monnett’s discussion of his paper.
“Your undying loyalty to this guy is notable, more notable would be how your loyalty has been misplaced in someone who tried to pull a fast one and was caught by the real whistleblower that turned him in.”
He was the real whistleblower. The other guy was some anonymous jerk who was upset that Monnett had exposed the agency had illegally suppressed adverse environmental information. That’s why the whole investigation was started – to get back at Monnett for making BOEM look bad. It had nothing to do with his science, thought they tried very unsuccessfully to attack that. It had nothing to do with his administration of contracts, though they also tried to get him on that too, again unsuccessfully. It was harassment, a sick fishing expedition.
Rob Murphy says:
October 1, 2012 at 2:32 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ok, I get it now, this has been just a total waste of time. No matter what you will defend this guy. I am betting you are also a Peter Gleick supporter as well as MM Hockey-stick advocate. Four Polar Bears drowning in a storm out of a population of 25,000 is no justification for him to do what he did. Seeing that you are in full support of the meme that the ends justify the means then I would expect you to at the earliest possible moment cancel your electric service, sell your car, forget about getting on your bike ( those tires are petroleum based ) and demand that all your closest friends do the same. When you walk to the local internet cafe next week let us know how this is going for you.
Rob said “He had no science background and was incapable of following Monnett’s discussion of his paper. ”
If you have read Monnett’s article (not a paper or study), it is interesting but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called science. Plus, it doesn’t matter why his management went after him. He was pretty much a slacker on the job as revealed in the interviews. For some reason he never had time to do annual reports, but he did have time to go overboard on the phony polar bear thing.
Crap happens, and people like Monnett do not deserve responsible government positions. If your boss wants to get you, a way will be found. They went after because he is a bad employee who continually thumbed his nose at authority. I think it is that simple.
Lazy teenager:
From the write-up:
“In the article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They wrote that while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their findings suggested that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future “if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”
The “presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distance” is nothing more than a SWAG. It is a random thought written up by the writer as if it has some validity. Then they say that if the ice pack changes this “may” increase deaths. If this were honest, it would say the writers are wildly guessing and have no evidence to support the SWAGs. Pretending this is anything other than fiction, short of seeing four dead polar bears in the ocean, is a lie. When you pretend to present some kind of actual theory when you are actually writing science fiction, is a lie. Wild guesses are NOT theories, in spite of the media’s continually claiming this. You must have evidence for a theory and there is NO evidence in any of this.
JeffD said:
“No matter what you will defend this guy.”
Against baseless attacks, sure. He was exonerated of any scientific misconduct. Deal with it, it’s a fact.
“Four Polar Bears drowning in a storm out of a population of 25,000 is no justification for him to do what he did.”
What did he do? He wrote up a paper about the observations. The horror!
“Seeing that you are in full support of the meme that the ends justify the means…”
I am not; you obviously are. He’s been found to have committed no scientific misconduct and you are acting like he was. Your ends don’t justify lying, Jeff.
“I would expect you to at the earliest possible moment cancel your electric service, sell your car, forget about getting on your bike ( those tires are petroleum based ) and demand that all your closest friends do the same.”
Because I defended a guy wrongly being accused of scientific misconduct? You’re just being silly now.
Bob said:
“If you have read Monnett’s article (not a paper or study)”
Yes, a peer-reviewed paper in Polar Biology:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/
You’re starting off wrong from the first sentence.
“it is interesting but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called science.”
Not only can it be called science, it is.
“Plus, it doesn’t matter why his management went after him.”
It sure as hell does. They went after him because he exposed they were not following the law. It had nothing to do with “scientific misconduct” or his work with contracts, though they tried pathetically to find something there.
“He was pretty much a slacker on the job as revealed in the interviews.”
You’re just making things up now.
“Crap happens, and people like Monnett do not deserve responsible government positions.”
He deserves a promotion, and the investigators deserve to be fired for gross incompetence.
“If your boss wants to get you, a way will be found. ”
In this case the “way” was a phony investigation and years of harassment. Glad you approve of that.
“They went after because he is a bad employee who continually thumbed his nose at authority.”
He was a good employee who told them things they didn’t want to know.
Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.
[Carter says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm
So basically the report was correct! And the polar bear did die…]
Let’s see. 2004. 4 dead bears. 8 years ago. Hmmm, that’s 0.5 bears/annum.
Do you think the breeding population of 25,000+ will ever be able to recover from such a devastating loss?
AGW_Skeptic says:
October 1, 2012 at 10:41 am
Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Possibly. Based on his views he would also defend the ” Scientist Dawson ” of the Piltdown Man. I see almost no difference in the science between the two.
“Me thinks Rob Murphy is really William Connelly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Possibly.”
Thanks for the compliment, but this is my real name.
“Based on his views he would also defend the ” Scientist Dawson ” of the Piltdown Man.”
Based on yours, you would condemn anybody whose conclusions you don’t like.
“I see almost no difference in the science between the two.”
I’m sure you don’t. That isn’t saying anything of course.
This is from the investigation a year ago. This is more complex than the article related here would indicate:
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/08/11/global-warming-link-to-drowned-polar-bears-melts-under-searing-fed-probe-2/
In response to question on whether or not there was data to back the statement that dead polar bears were not common, Gleason said no, they had no data.
“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.
“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.
An additional disturbing line: Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.
The fact that something makes it into a “peer reviewed journal” does not make it science, it only makes it published. If you read the article, one gets the idea that Gleason really did not expect people to buy into this in the first place. He seemed surprised no one questioned the data and conclusion. I guess when politics supplants scientific rigor, these things happen. AGW needed a poster child and those fuzzy bears were perfect.
“An additional disturbing line: Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review”
She wasn’t. She looked it over on an informal basis but had nothing to do with the peer review for the journal.
“and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.”
He also had nothing to do with the peer review. He was given a copy informally before Monnett and Gleason sent the paper in to the journal. He was not one of the reviews however. The paper explicitly states their thanks to Derocher and some other people for looking over their work prior to submission:
”This paper benefited greatly from reviews by, and discussions with, Andrew Derocher, Lisa Rotterman, Richard Shideler, Ian Stirling and Cleveland Cowles.”
http://www.peer.org/docs/ak/9_14_11_PEER_rebuttal_to_DOI-OIG.pdf
There’s a lot of misinformation being spread about this case. No reason to keep spreading it.
“Thanks for the compliment, but this is my real name.”
Hey Rob Murphy, I hope you’re not using your computer at North Carolina State University to post here. Probably against the rules?
“Hey Rob Murphy, I hope you’re not using your computer at North Carolina State University to post here. Probably against the rules?”
I haven’t been on the campus in 12 years. That’s where I went to school, not where I am now. Nice to know you are willing to attack people in that way (trying to get them in trouble with who you think they work for) instead of dealing with their arguments.
Al Gore and failure go together like gas and the internal combustion engine.
Ouch!!! What an utter failure. Not surprising when you peddle nonsense. People soon wake up.
AL GORE FAILED.
Okay, I have read the paper. There do not appear to be any valid extrapolations in the entire document. The authors “presume” the bears drown (you know, like if I find a couple of joints on the sidewalk in front of your house, I “presume” you’re a drug addict and call the cops, right?), there was no autopsy to see if the bears did drown. Four bears were found dead and through some very imaginative calculations (and I do mean imaginative) the authors arrive at the conclusion that polar bears are in trouble. At one point, they do state that the storm may have killed the bears (duh….) but then return to fabricating a scenario about more storms and global warming, etc. If I were to use the same rational, I would note that after a really horrible blizzard, hundreds of pronghorn antelope are found dead along fences. The blizzards are very damaging to the population of antelope and the only possible way to save them is for the world to warm up and then the blizzards would not be a problem. So in order to save the polar bears, the world has to stay cold. To save the pronghorns, it has to warm up. Something has to die either way. In all honesty, had I had the audacity to present such a document in a statistics class, I would have been flunked unceremoniously. The fact that such a piece of fantasy without scientific merit shows up in a “peer-reviewed journal” once again shows how very low the standards are for scientific study, assuming there are any standards left.
“after a storm” Likely not the safest time to be on a floe or out swimming. Nothing to do with swimming long distances because ice and/or seals were scarce. That’s the misrepresentation, LT and others. As you perfectly well know. Your cred is zilch.