Climate scientist suspended, under investigation for "integrity issues" (drug, statistics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't forget they also like to say stuff like, this guy isn't a climate scientist when the article says he's a climate scientist working for a fund that manages climate-related Arctic wildlife studies It may work for Democrats but us sensible people can see glaring evidence in front of us and a simple "No it's not related" is not going to convince us
He's a WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST! Good gawd, can anyone read anymore?
It looks like at the time it was the honorable Minerals Management Service and we know how they conducted themselves with the OIL companies down in LA.
You really need to read this: http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Scientific_Misconduct_Complaint.pdf (broken link)
I'm sure this story will continue to develope, and I will do all in my power to learn the truth and defend people like Dr. Charles Monnett who have been targeted by someone or something (OIL companies, perhaps?). Those of you who have so politicized the work of scientists, and stand behind anyone, whether it is the fat slob, rush limpbaugh, Faux news, or even the ever so ethical oil companies that have so much to lose should reevaluate your ethics.
Love how you scapegoat oil companies, when they ALSO fund green energy tech your movement has petro dollars in it, don't deny it. One only has to see the countless commercials sponsored by ExxonMobile and Chevron that talk about alternative energy. How can you say that the anti-AGW proponents are funded by oil companies with a straight face when your side is also funded by them?
I know! That is why Chevron bought the NiMH battery technology (used in GM EV1 and Honda EV-Plus) in late 1990s and killed it.
And yet wind turbines and solar panels are being outfitted everywhere. Yes, they certainly "killed" wind and solar power and we see similar hybrid NiMH batteries being used today
Looks like heads are slowly starting to roll over the whole global warming farce. So let's see, sea level rises were debunked, the Kilimanjaro glacier was debunked, hockey stick was debunked, "hide the decline" was exposed, and now CERN is suppressing evidence that links the sun, not CO2, to be the main driver of climate.
And you wonder why more and more people are growing skeptical of the AGW aka climate change movement.
From your link...
The complaints against the Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) remain unclear, and the connection to his seven-page 2006 peer-reviewed paper on the drownings are unknown, despite a months-long or longer investigation.
PEER charges Monnett's suspension amounts to a witch hunt.
"The quality and continuity of the scientific work he's overseeing is distinctly being jeopardized," Jeff Ruch, PEER's executive director, told FoxNews.com.
His group alleges the Interior Department is violating its own rules and regulations, and that the ongoing investigation seems intended merely to disrupt Monnett's body of scientific work.
Why did you ignore the body of the article just to further your point? Could it be that you are buying into an agenda of an enitity that has a lot to gain by stifling this researcher's work? Are you not aware of the ongoing massive campaign to debunk any science that leads to conclusions that might disrupt massive profits? Maybe you should think about it.
And yet wind turbines and solar panels are being outfitted everywhere. Yes, they certainly "killed" wind and solar power and we see similar hybrid NiMH batteries being used today
But that doesn't explain killing NiMH technology by Chevron, does it? Yes, we've seen "similar" technologies, and development of wind turbines and solar panels, but are you sure the oil interests are loving it? From what I see here, those "green" ads the oil companies run on TV have a magical touch.
This is around the part where he is trying to explain his data and methodology to come to his estimates.
Quote:
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.
And here they are trying to press what the allegations of misconduct are.
Quote:
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.
Interest read, and it sheds some light on some assumptions I have had about some scientists as to whether they are deviant or just plain incompetent.
It doesn't matter if Monnett is found to be guilty of misconduct, the real important issue here is that we see "how" they are coming to their conclusions and the failure in the process.
As you can see, his methods are not simply... well... invalid, they are on the verge of idiocy in their application. I mean honestly, go read the entire discussion of how he comes to his estimates, it is beyond absurd and follows no logical grounds to achieve such.
Not only that, but look what he says about the peer review, that nobody objected to his methods! This is yet another bit of evidence that shows the peer review process was political and a fast track to push through AGW supporting research.
/sigh
This ends badly regardless of the conclusion. Either they are devious in their conduct or they are simply incompetent.
Defend it all you like, but there is no salvaging this one.
This is around the part where he is trying to explain his data and methodology to come to his estimates.
And here they are trying to press what the allegations of misconduct are.
Interest read, and it sheds some light on some assumptions I have had about some scientists as to whether they are deviant or just plain incompetent.
It doesn't matter if Monnett is found to be guilty of misconduct, the real important issue here is that we see "how" they are coming to their conclusions and the failure in the process.
As you can see, his methods are not simply... well... invalid, they are on the verge of idiocy in their application. I mean honestly, go read the entire discussion of how he comes to his estimates, it is beyond absurd and follows no logical grounds to achieve such.
Not only that, but look what he says about the peer review, that nobody objected to his methods! This is yet another bit of evidence that shows the peer review process was political and a fast track to push through AGW supporting research.
/sigh
And to paraphrase Monnett, he said that it's not scientific misconduct about his fudged numbers, it's sloppy. So he admits his numbers have been sloppy yet passed on as fact and he had no problem with it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may work for Democrats but us sensible people can see glaring evidence in front of us and a simple "No it's not related" is not going to convince us
