WUWT readers may recall our coverage of Charles Monnett, whose antics with polar bear sitings and attribution led Al Gore to put this famous animated video clip into An Inconvenient Truth and make wild claims about polar bears drowning for lack of sea ice:
Monnett’s legal case is over, and he has been forced to resign:
Scientist settles legal case over study of polar bear drownings
Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press / 37 min agoJUNEAU, Alaska — An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has retired as part of a settlement with a federal agency. Charles Monnett was briefly suspended in 2011 from his work with the U.S.
…
Under the settlement, signed in October but released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Wednesday, Monnett will receive $100,000 but cannot seek Interior Department work for five years. His retirement was effective Nov. 15, at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project.
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientist-settles-legal-case-over-study-polar-bear-drownings-2D11691760
So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it. No word yet on whether he’ll get to keep the cushy retirement package that Federal Employees get.
Looking further, it appears that he’ll be able to keep it.
According to the PEER Union, they claim “vindication”:
http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/12/04/vindicated-arctic-scientist-retires-with-cash-settlement/
Revisit three-year IG investigation
See the Monnett whistleblower complaint
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ConfusedPhoton says:
December 4, 2013 at 2:07 pm
It looks like the UK Met off could be up for sale to pay for some nuclear power station in wales, road in east anglia and high speed rail. If it happens at least the met off will have been put to some useful work.
The things you described are the textbook definitions of scientific misconduct. When he connects ‘Dr.’ to his name he’s making claims he doesn’t practice “Sloppy methodology,” “too much extrapolation” and some “unjustifiable speculation, yes,”
and he hasn’t “had his career shattered.”
He’s been given full retirement wages, a tenth of a million dollars, and told wait three years to return.
If you’re so concerned about how we discuss our employees –
you can pay his wages and $100,000.
===
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“Sloppy methodology, ”
“too much extrapolation”
and some
“unjustifiable speculation, yes.”
“Scientific misconduct, no.”
“Give him a break.”
“Because ….he’s had his career shattered…”
“Give him a break.”
*Five years
above
Reading the material Anthony I think Monnett has been wronged, he was clearly deliberately targetted for whistleblowing. We really can’t be duplicitous here, if you boss was to break the law, let’s say by embezzling, and you blew the whistle on it, would you expect to be protected? Would you expect to be refused a transfer out from under the perpetrator, you just exposed?
Frankly I think the government got out of it cheaply.
No matter what you think of Monnetts work, he does not deserve to be targetted for whistleblowing as he apparently has.
The arrogant tone of people who are found believing in one of the greatest scientific scams in history’s foundational tenets –
“a sphere, heated in vacuum, with sensors distributed on it’s surface,
suddenly showed dramatic temperature rise – that’s as in ‘it got hotter’
when said sphere was immersed in a cold nitrogen/oxygen bath diffracting 20% of original energy in from sensors altogether,”
is stunning.
Do people actually believe, temperatures on the globe shot up because a reflective cold nitrogen/oxygen bath, was provided as environment instead of vacuum?
Monckton I’m an Electronic Engineer whose money’s made keeping the radiation communications space age buzzing around us intact and up to date.
I know what shoddy science is when I see it, my profession is the one which designed most of what has those rovers bouncing around on distant planets, and has the satellite communications age sporting that saucy attitude like it’s kind of neat having it about.
My electronic radiation communications age works fine.
But I notice in your field you’re having a hard time of it so I ask climate people some basic questions, so I can see if they’re actually in contact with what a real scientific concept is.
I have three questions I currently use:
(1) Do you believe it possible to suspend spinning in vacuum a sphere, with energy sensors distributed on it’s surface, to be illuminated until temperature stabilizes at temp T,
and then immerse the sphere in a frigid, reflective nitrogen/oxygen bath,
and have sensors on that sphere show more energy arriving on them,
than when the sphere was in vacuum?
The answer Monckton had better be no or there’s going to be a real explanation coming.
(2)Do you believe diffractive media in suspension around a sphere with sensors on it
blocking 20% energy from ever arriving on those sensors
can make those sensors show more energy arriving, than when 20% more actually was?
Again Monckton if the answer is no you had better have one very good explanation why.
(3) Do you believe if diffractive media in suspension are increased in volume until they are blocking 21% of energy to target sensors, this can make the sensors register even more energy arriving?
If you have answered “yes” to even one of these – your comprehension of a hot rock in cold water is immediately shown in dire jeopardy.
In order to believe in Green House Gas Effect you have to answer “You betcha I believe in that! That’s real science to me!”
to all three.
You’ve declared you do believe in Greenhouse Gas Effect,
therefore you affirm you also
believe all three.
That means you’ve got quite a long way to go before you’re qualified to scold anyone in the U.S.
on what we consider scientifically unacceptable.
We can check the Electronic Communications field’s performance easily.
We can also check the Greenhouse Gas Effect field’s performance easily.
I’m completely comfortable with my grasp of the physics associated with a reflective, frigid fluid bath related to an object immersed in it.
I’m also completely comfortable with my forefathers’ decision to not ask British Lords what they think about quite a wide variety of subjects.
Why would Monnett publish an extrapolation of such a small sample when he knew it was dubious to begin with if he wasn’t trying to push his own environmental agenda? I am not saying that the IG was justified in their actions but Monnett, and the environmental groups that he associates with, have an ideological bent on stopping Shell. Monnett and PEER won and the way that the IG handled this just gives the green movement ammunition to support their war against big oil.
What a pathetically disgusting video with an awfully tedious message. While many of us would imagine (the imaginary) Santa Claus as being a rather benign, jovial and convivial fellow, Greenpiss gets off showing him to be an old, odoriferous wino relieving himself in a public place. As an adult I can see through it and find it ridiculous, but a child seeing it might be otherwise effected. The sub-title for the video should be: ‘Dirty Old Man Scares Children’
(BTW: In passing, I figure I can now spot the comments on here that are sent from Tablets. I have difficulty myself with the auto-spell-check on my own tablet and the intermittency of the ‘keyboard’ so I find I have to reread many of my comments to make sure they still make sense – or at least, scan.)
That’s “if the answer *isn’t no”
above
michaelwiseguy says:
December 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Latest scary creepy man-made global warming alarmist story is hilarious.
[…]
Must see video, this one may even top the bloody polar bears falling from the skies, and exploding children videos.
Santa Delivers a Chilling Christmas Message From Greenpeace
An urgent message from Santa
=============================
The key take-home message of the video is Greenpeace’s illustration of how they view their followers: Belief in catastrophic global warming is entirely consistent with the belief that Santa Claus lives in a cave in the North Pole.
But nobody should doubt that Greenpeace knows their fact-averse, reality-proofed audience very well. One only has to read the comments under the video to appreciate how compelling they find images of water dripping from the ceiling of a soggy Santa, in his dark cave, as he condemns various politicians to – the naughty list.
Greenpeace know the belief of their followers is based on a contrived narrative – like drowning polar bears. Accordingly, even the best science, or contrary data cannot reach these people if they continue to speak to them about climate catastrophe in the form of emotive metaphors and euphemisms.
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Good comments Sir.
We have already witnessed too many witch hunts in this fractious global warming debate, typically directed at climate skeptics.
Some climate skeptics have lost their academic positions. Some have received death threats. Some been the victims of actual violence.
We should not stoop to the base tactics of the global warming extremists.
We should focus on the issues:
There is no global warming crisis.
Green energy schemes such as wind and solar power, corn ethanol and palm oil biodiesel are costly blunders that make no energy sense and harm the environment.
The energy systems of several large political entities have been seriously compromised by global warming hysteria. This warmist energy nonsense puts populations at risk.
If there is any problem, it is probable imminent global cooling.
Is imminent global cooling to be or not to be – that is the question.
Now in Moscow: WWF Meeting “Saving the Polar Bear”. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/year_of_the_polar_bear/
Heartbreaking video’s of in television showing polar bears exhausted from looking for food in their melting environment. Idiots.
It’s interesting to compare how WUWT writes about this case compared to the one with Murry Salby who was fired for what appears to be considerably more serious infractions, but then I guess only the true believers take WUWT seriously any more.
So the message is: be a dimwit, make stuff up, and get paid for it.
“The agency, BOEM, ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct but reprimanded Monnett for improper release of emails that an Interior Department official said were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate agency approval of an oil and gas company’s Arctic exploration plan.”
“make stuff up” is at best a misleading characterization of this episode.
A hundred-thousand-dollar gold watch and a fat retirement reminds me of a “briar patch” story I once heard.
Hate to point this out, but Monett basically won this one. Yes, he is retiring (at age 65, fully vested pension) but BOEM is paying him 100K and removing the reprimand from his record.
Nick Stokes says:
I’ve never been much interested in methods of counting polar bears.
===================================
clearly, based on his methods, neither was Monett
Kevin says…I still think his best option, if he is a true scientist, would be to revisit his work and review its usage…..
——————————————-
Yes, and that of course is my take away message. Apparently he has made no effort to stop the abuse of his “Sloppy methodology, ” “too much extrapolation” “unjustifiable speculation”. So the question is why? Was he simply profiting from the CAGW alarmist funding desires? If he has refused to correct the misuse of his work by Al Gore, and others, then I think his shoddy work crosses the line to scientific misconduct, even if his shoddy work was not.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Well stated.
I have read the paper.
The methods used in calculations are shoddy at best, and there are several important gaps in reported observations. The peer review process, so brazenly exalted by the warmers, failed again.
Let him live with his conscience regarding falsified data, if any.
So, for all those who are upset that he gets to keep his pension plus some bonus cash… just remember… You don’t pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to leave. Similar situation here.
As stated by the Viscount, the reason for Monnett’s release was NOT because of his paper. His paper does probably carry some extrapolations too far, and the peer review was suspect. It was reviewed by his wife and Derocher. Derocher was the recipient of a 1.3 million dollar grant doled out by a committee that Monnett was chairman of.
But, despite the above problems, there was no scientific problems with the paper per se. It was investigated solely because of the connection between Monnett, Derocher and the grant.
The problem with the grant was that Monnett privately reviewed Derochers’ application. After helping Derocher with the application, Derocher then submitted it to the committee chaired by Monnett, which then approved the application. The value of the grant was 1.3 million dollars.
This was an obvious conflict of interest, in spite of the spin used by the union and Monnett.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714742/fresh-allegations-leveled-against-polar-bear-scientist
M of B,
This “Scientist” was flying over the Beaufort Sea looking for bowhead whales. He saw four polar bears, which would almost surely have had to have been a mother and three cubs, apparently drowned after a storm. He writes a completely ridiculous paper which is seized upon by Gore, and trumpeted by media types flogging the “Polar Bear Extinction” meme. What did he think was going to happen?
Abused his office and his so-called status as a “Scientist,” and revealed himself to be nothing more than another activist collecting rent, how could you defend him? Don’t become another Muller, appearing to play both sides…
Oldseadog says:
December 5, 2013 at 1:39 am
I agree with Lord Monckton on this one.
####
I am the first to blast away with both barrels at political activist posing as scientists, and some times I shoot first and ask questions later. But I agree with Lord Monckton also. Shoddy science done to support a political agenda is not fraud. The fraudsters are the ones who know something is false, yet still sell it as the truth. If we call everyone a fraudster, what do we call the real fraudsters?
If one uses the weapons of the devil to defeat the devil, one will become the devil.
Yes, if you don’t want to take responsibility for statistically unsupportable conclusions, then don’t make statistically unsupportable conclusions.
No, read the OIG transcript. Monnett wasn’t respectably precise about his haphazard methods.
From article:
“whose antics with polar bear sitings and attribution led Al Gore to put this famous animated video clip into An Inconvenient Truth and make wild claims about polar bears drowning for lack of sea ice”
Gives a new meaning to the ‘paws’ in global warming.
-thanks
The guy published a paper with written authorisation from his employer. His employer called in federal investigators years later. .
“Let him live with his conscience regarding falsified data, if any.”
Thats the point. None. No falsifed data. Just a difference about what you can infer from the agreed facts.
He was later attacked for a conflict of interest on a grant. To make that charge stick you have show there were guidelines, they were not repected, and the guidelines were common enforced.
It is not acceptable for an employer to selectivily applied.rules when it suits him to punish folks.
This not the reason the feds were called in. Check the transcipts and see what they talked about.
In this case the reason the his employer seems to have been out to get him was that he supplied emails which were used as evidence against his employer. I
I have real trouble with idea this could be wrong when the emails could have been supplied by FOI. Would it have been better if he FOI himself? The emails should have been released under discovery, and he was just preventing his employer hiding the emails. On this blog we normal hate folks hiding emails. I like folks who release emails.
You should defend other folks right to say stuff you do not agree with. Otherwise when you are the victim no-one will defend you.
Shame on you applying double standards..