Climate scientist suspended, under investigation for "integrity issues" (ethics, lawyer)
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.
This article really lays it out. If you're going to post on this then study what is happening to this man who has basicly been put on house arrest, but not told what he did. Nor charged with anything.
This article really lays it out. If you're going to post on this then study what is happening to this man who has basicly been put on house arrest, but not told what he did. Nor charged with anything.
So who wins when BOEM, aka MMS gags their scientists and witholds data? I thougt there were a bunch of anti-wackos who want raw data?
Quote:
Even though we did quite a bit of work, MMS has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that we know anything about polar bears. But we have all this data. ... We have the longest-running survey. We're doing a lot of other people's jobs.
We are the ones that are permitting the oil development, and we have an interest in making sure nothing untoward happens.
On Friday, BOEMRE spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz sent an email to Alaska Dispatch saying: Although I cannot speak further regarding the Office of the Inspector General's investigation, I feel it's important to correct the inaccurate narrative that has been given to you (and is reported in your most recent article). This additional piece can only be attributed to a "source familiar with the administrative action," given the nature of the ongoing investigation. I do not anticipate being able to further communicate on this ongoing issue, but will keep your contact info in case anything changes: The agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong.
Yet............
Quote:
Ruch said Schwartz's statement also contradicts written material given to Monnett by investigators, who told him the Interior Department had concerns about his ability to act impartially on a contract involving polar bear research.
Hmm.. You mean that big hot ball in the sky? The hot hot ball in the sky that shines constantly all over the planet? That hot hot ball that goes through cycles and has something call sunspots that permit solar flares that throw out high amounts of radiation toward earth?
Ohhh noo.... Never heard of that.
The sun doesn't produce enough variance in output to cause the level of effects we experience on Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
None of this is going to stop the Left from pursuing its radical environmental agenda. We'll still have laws passed and billions spent trying to stop the "threat" of global warming.
Yes, that radical agenda that will make our water cleaner, our air safe to breath, and put us in clean, alternative renewable energies to power our society well into the future.
OH THE HUMANITY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
A scientist presents his observations and is eventually destroyed for his honesty. I am not at all surprised. I guess it pays to keep your mouth shut if your discover anything that is not economically or politically correct according to the energy companies.
In any case the "GREAT EXPERIMENT" of deliberately increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration continues. I wonder what the actual results are going to be.
I suspect we won't be around long enough to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke
[Lots of great sources]
I just want to point out, I'm not even on page six of the investigation transcript, and the fact that I just read that the two interviewers were criminal investigators and have zero scientific education blows my mind.
Let's see what a real Polar Bear biologist has to say. Canadian Biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor who is an expert on Polar Bears wrote how 11 of the 13 Polar Bear populations in Canada are increasing in population by 25%.
Of course the left ignore real science and support their politicians who know absolutely nothing about science and probably never had to spend an hour in a lab.
Do you have any evidence that fraud was committed during the peer review process or are you just assuming that it was fraud and not, say methodological errors, because you are grossly biased? Or are you suggesting that peer review should be flawless? Because then I've got news for you.
Have you been reading? It doesn't matter if it is fraud, call it incompetence if you like. Look at his method for extrapolating, its nonsense, unsupported by any statistical means and is simply pulling garbage out of thin air. He even admits to such that his work was sloppy and wasn't any real scientific process of evaluation.
My concern has and always will be their application of the science and this shows us that they are not applying science, but fast tracking support for a conclusion.
As for the peer review, think a moment. What is it for? Why does it exist? It is there as a part of the replication and validation phase of the scientific method. His "peers" are supposed to review his work and evaluate the process to which he achieved his results. That means, they start with his hypothesis and work through the tests, replicating if need.
Notice his comment about peer review, that they didn't have a "problem" with his method, they never even brought it up, which means 1) They never even bothered to check him or 2)They were just as incompetent as he is, or 3) They were not concerned about the validity, only the conclusion and its support.
You can paint it anyway you like, but this is absurd, it isn't simply poor work, it is work that would not even be accepted in a high school science project, yet here he is publishing professional research and having it reviewed by a professional journal to which none of these severely poorly applied methods were even noticed?
Fraud? Idiots? It all comes to the same problem, that research was improperly done and then used to promote a major political movement. Some may suggest fraud, but I think it makes no difference as the entire issue is that the science is severely flawed. Once that is noted, everything after is irrelevant.
My opinion is if anyone is going to sound off and say degragatory things about a scientists that the anti-truth/anti-climate change media is going to report then at least go to the source and read for yourself. If you want an unbiased version then read the actual paper and read the complaint filed on Monnett's behave. This is a witch hunt.
First is a link to Mother Jones. Kate Shepphard has several links in the article.
Next is the complaint filed on July 28, 2011 by PEER (Public Employee for Environmental Responsibility) on behalf of Dr. Charles Monnett.
Read it. It's very enlightening how the DOI sent two criminal investigators to investigate Dr. Monnett's math when they had not even in clue as to the basic calculations, and that was what they initially stated was the problem. Just read it.
Next is the actual paper that Dr. Charles Monnett had published in peer-review. This is what caused a man to be criminally investigated, have all his scientific work confiscated, be escorted from his job, and be told he cannot speak to collegues, cannot speak to media. The two criminal investigators who interviewed Dr. Monnett did not even know the difference between an observational note that is published in a peer reviewed journal and a study that is peer reviewed.
It's a damn shame that someone somewhere is trying to ruin lives and turn a scientist into a criminal when they won't even tell him what he did.
Just read. If you're going to blow smoke at the very least go read Monnett and Gleason's paper and please, please read the complaint filed by PEER.
This tabloid news like Fox that ruins innocent lives because oil companies want to bury the truth has to stop.
The methodology is junk. Sorry, but you don't get to extrapolate as they did and be taken seriously. Criminal? Who gives a flying flip as their research might as well be written by a 5 year old counting sheep.
You keep wanting to focus on the irrelevant, that somehow this is all a farce and a criminal hunt. I personally do not care, what we get to see is how terrible this guys research is and how the "peer review" simply passed it right through. That alone shows a problem with the level of research in the field and the lack of ability of the peer review to even function at a basic competent level.
Some can suggest motives, but I don't need anymore than their work being idiotic to pass judgement on the issue. The aren't doing science, period.
This article really lays it out. If you're going to post on this then study what is happening to this man who has basicly been put on house arrest, but not told what he did. Nor charged with anything.
That does not change the fact that his method to extrapolate is garbage.
Do you disagree?
Are you saying that the method he explained and commented on as being "sloppy", "not robust" and the fact that he made MASSIVE assumptions to which he had no support is valuable?
He admits it... what are you trying to argue?
That alone is justification for the investigation.
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.
One scientist was suspended for something that is unknown and they're not clear if it has anything to do with his research. For all you know, he would have had sex with his secretary. Did you have problems with the big words in the article? Tin foil hat on a little too tight today?
Do you have data showing that more people are becoming skeptical of the AGW or did you pull that out of your backside? I take it you didn't exactly get A's in high school did you.
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.
