Arctic scientist under investigation for false polar bear claims

Jul 28, 2011 | Posted by: The Truth Matters | Full story: news.yahoo.com

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Comments
1 - 20 of 53 Comments Last updated Oct 4, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1 Jul 28, 2011
The wheels are falling off of the alarmist gravy train, its fire is going out.
Passengers are advised to await the train of reason that will be stopping to pick them up and return them back to the real world.
Big Trouble

United States

#2 Jul 28, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
The wheels are falling off of the alarmist gravy train, its fire is going out.
Passengers are advised to await the train of reason that will be stopping to pick them up and return them back to the real world.
Due (or Dudette) Thanks for the chuckle!
The problem is that the "warmers" aren't equipped to live in the "real" world. A trip to the loonie bin would be more appropriate.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#3 Jul 28, 2011
Charles Monnett... has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work.
No reason to hold off on judgement there eh?

Certainly not for the shrieking and gibbering denialist monkeys on Yahoo!(and here).

Myself, I get the whiff of a political attack, just like those against Mann: a return to the McCarthy era, a witch-hunt where even the accusation is proof of guilt for some.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#4 Jul 28, 2011
Big Trouble wrote:
Dude* Thanks for the chuckle!
The problem is that the "warmers" aren't equipped to live in the "real" world. A trip to the loonie bin would be more appropriate.
A few will be heading there when they realise they've been led up the garden path.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#5 Jul 28, 2011
Another alarmist scientist caught fudging the facts. I just add him to the same list as the IPCC, CRU, Jones, Dr Mann, Dr Hansen. Funny how the alarmist would have a hard time generating a similar list.
Big Trouble

United States

#6 Jul 28, 2011
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No reason to hold off on judgement there eh?
Certainly not for the shrieking and gibbering denialist monkeys on Yahoo!(and here).
Myself, I get the whiff of a political attack, just like those against Mann: a return to the McCarthy era, a witch-hunt where even the accusation is proof of guilt for some.
Well, we can see the lack of judgement from your comments.
You are producing CO2.
Please cease breathing immediately.
In your case, it will only cause a relative increase in intelligence in the local area.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#7 Jul 29, 2011
Here's the extent of his 'research':

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&#8223;re looking down like that. And, uh, sometimes you might see more; sometimes you wouldn&#8223;t. Sometimes you can&#8223;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&#8223;s the same, because these things are pretty, uh, they&#8223;re pretty standardized. They were designed to be standardized, so in each bloc – have you seen the blocs? Have you seen our design? It&#8223;s in here.

The scientific method? NOT! Wild guesswork? Obviously.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#8 Jul 29, 2011
The Truth Matters wrote:
Here's the extent of his 'research':
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.
The scientific method? NOT! Wild guesswork? Obviously.
And all Fair Game could say was, "I get the whiff of a political attack," because he (probably) hadn't seen the evidence.
Monnett has been taking someone's money under false pretences.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#9 Jul 30, 2011
The Truth Matters wrote:
The scientific method? NOT! Wild guesswork? Obviously.
Estimating factors such as how far you can see a polar bear against a white background is hardly 'unscientific'. It is just how they do biological science. And your 'creative writing' with all the 'um's and 'duuuhs' doesn't count much.

But the issue here is his report of four polar bears having drowned and been spotted from his survey. You make NO point about this unless you are claiming it could have been between three and five bears??

Do you have ANY point here?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#10 Jul 31, 2011
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Estimating factors such as how far you can see a polar bear against a white background is hardly 'unscientific'. It is just how they do biological science. And your 'creative writing' with all the 'um's and 'duuuhs' doesn't count much.
But the issue here is his report of four polar bears having drowned and been spotted from his survey. You make NO point about this unless you are claiming it could have been between three and five bears??
Do you have ANY point here?
I gather you haven't read the Inspector General interview transcript excerpts?
http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/charles-...
If you already have, you're an even bigger a fool than I thought, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#11 Jul 31, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I gather you haven't read the Inspector General interview transcript excerpts?
http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/charles-...
http://tinyurl.com/4ysweou
----------
From: Bromwich, Michael R

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:07 AM
To: OMM AK/Staff
Subject:

Dear Colleagues,

I wanted to send you a brief note of explanation and support. I regret very much the negative publicity over the past 24 hours that has resulted from one of your colleagues being placed on administrative leave in connection with an investigation by the Office of Inspector General.

We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated.
----------

"Part of the interrogation focused on how Dr. Monnett could have known that no polar bears had been seen dead during the systematic surveys that had been conducted from 1987-2003 prior to his published observation in 2004 when he reported seeing 4 dead polar bears floating in the ocean. First of all, the survey observers recorded sightings of any marine mammals seen and the lead project manager for that time period informed Dr. Monnett that no one had ever recorded a dead polar bear. Additionally, Dr. Monnett had another line of evidence to support the likelihood that no polar bears had been observed dead in that area – at least in the early years. Ice.“There was a lot of ice out there.” He says,“You know, bears don’t drown when there’s ice all over the place.”"

"Much of the rest of the interrogation centered around whether Dr. Monnett and his colleagues had observed 3 or 4 dead bears. Seriously. This took about an entire hour of a two hour interrogation. Dr. Monnett explained in every way he could possibly think of to the Inspector General that they had observed 4 dead bears, but that only 3 of those bears were in their study area. That’s why there is mention of 4 bears, but when he does the calculations in the paper he uses the number 3. Did you get that? Me too. But it took the IG and his assistant an entire hour to comprehend that information."
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you already have, you're an even bigger a fool than I thought, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
Thank you. Coming from an ignorant and uneducated fool like you I take that as a compliment. And watching the extremes to which you spin a non-story is very entertaining.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#12 Jul 31, 2011
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&#8223;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&#8223;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."
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&#8223;s that kind of thing. You, you&#8223;ve, you're nodding like you understand."
CHARLES MONNETT: "Oh, here you go. Yeah. Well, I&#8223;m pretty confident that it was four. I mean, that&#8223;s, um – uh, look, look what is in the paper. I mean, it should have the – probably the same information that, you know –"
CHARLES MONNETT: "There&#8223;s a table in there, but does it – it has the dead ones in it, doesn't it?"
CHARLES MONNETT: "The paragraph in the left-hand column. Um, God, I&#8223;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."

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#13 Jul 31, 2011
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&#8223;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."

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#14 Jul 31, 2011
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&#8223;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."

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#15 Jul 31, 2011
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.
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."
CHARLES MONNETT: "Uh, well 11 percent is one-ninth of 100 percent. Nine times 11 is 99 percent. Is that, is that clear?..."
CHARLES MONNETT: "Well, you don't count them all together. That doesn't have anything to do. You can't – that doesn't even –"

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#16 Jul 31, 2011
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."
CHARLES MONNETT: "And so if you draw these lines here, and this is – you&#8223;re just going to have to pretend like I did this for all of them. And you calculate the area in here."
-
The whole thing is reminiscent of a Monty Python sketch.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#17 Jul 31, 2011
By fragmenting the interview and adding a bunch of pauses (i.e. uhhmmm, duuuhhhh, etc) Mr Dirtling thinks he can convert the science into 'schoolboy taunting'.

But there are no FACTS to be debated here. Mr. Monnett saw four dead bears. Three of those bears were in the study area and so were included in his paper. No other observer had seen dead polar bears on their surveys.

The real problem here is a scientist trying to explain science to a group of compeletely clueless 'investigators' who could not grasp even the more obvious points.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#18 Jul 31, 2011
NoFactNoHope wrote:
By fragmenting the interview and adding a bunch of pauses (i.e. uhhmmm, duuuhhhh, etc) Mr Dirtling thinks he can convert the science into 'schoolboy taunting'.
But there are no FACTS to be debated here. Mr. Monnett saw four dead bears. Three of those bears were in the study area and so were included in his paper. No other observer had seen dead polar bears on their surveys.
The real problem here is a scientist trying to explain science to a group of compeletely clueless 'investigators' who could not grasp even the more obvious points.
How typical of you to rush to someone's aid without knowing the full story, I suggest you bring yourself up to date:
Why is a scientist at an offshore oil agency under investigation?
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/node/104141/can...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#19 Jul 31, 2011
Warmist Scientist Investigated Over Gore’s Polar Bear Scare
-
We all know now that early warmist claims that polar bears were severely endangered by global warming were severely exaggerated. So this is interesting:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/war...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#20 Aug 1, 2011
Drowning Polar Bears And the Return Of Ursus Bogus
Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science got into a bit of a pinch when its flagship magazine, Science, was caught in the photoshop with a faked image of a lone polar bear on a tiny ice floe. Tim Blair, in the Australian Daily Telegraph coined it “Ursus bogus”.

Ursus bogus may be back, but with a very odd twist. This time, the Obama administration appears to be after a prominent Interior Department scientist who moved the policy world with news of drowning polar bears. AP reports:
http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wildlife Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Man and daughter wrangle gator in TexasMan and ... Aug 24 Rick Perry s Closet 1
Alabama hunters haul in 1,000-pound gator Aug 19 Aspirin Between M... 1
Ohio Faces Wild Pig Problem Aug 6 ohio wrangler 1
Alien species are affecting Halton's biodiversity Aug 2 Acton is alien sp... 1
Pa. push on to legalize semiautomatic rifles fo... Jun '14 Rockchucker44 1
Biologists Warn Against Touching Baby Moose Jun '14 Naughtyrobot 9
State officials remove moose from Boise Jun '14 NOM s Waffle House 5
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wildlife People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••