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.
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
Not exactly a shining example of using the "scientific method" is he? I think they should dig a little deeper and see if there was a profit motive. I actually know of people who traveled to the arctic circle to hurry up and "see the polar bears" before they were destroyed by "global warming". This so called "science" birthed fradulent ecotourism.
Actually, he's a biologist and good man who reported what he saw.
Somebody, or something does not want the world to know the effects of the melting ice. Hmmmmmmm. Who the F could that be? O I L companies?????
If you're going to post at least get your scientists right.
Yeah, they let him report all his findings and then waited 5 years to suspend him. That's about as smart as claiming that Michael Jackson was killed by a fan upset about him leaving the Jackson 5.
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.
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.
He didn't apply any science, he creatively used statistics to get the estimates he liked. This while may not be an intended misconduct is a severe violation of the principals and duties of a scientist.
Now you can certainly take the position that he is incompetent and due to his methods, not qualified to make such evaluations. Having good intentions is not a reasonable defense, it is an excuse to evade the responsibilities for such ineptitude.
Not to mention, as I said in a previous post, it also shows the incompetence of the peer review system.
Have you not many times thrown out a snap rebuttal about "peer review", about how we are not qualified to question a given scientists expertise, and how all of their work is "peer reviewed" and shown to be rigorous and robust?
Yet here we have a case, where the application of science was thrown out the window, the concepts of mathematical evaluation urinated on through extremely poor manipulation, and a peer review process of a bunch of boggle heads passing through this shoddy work.
If anything, the public and those in the scientific community who have applied proper scientific evaluation and adherence to due diligence should be outraged by the mockery they have made of scientific fields.
As I said, there is no wiggling out of this one. There is no spin, there is simply eating crow. It can be done with dignity or it can be done like a child being drug kicking and screaming out of a store for misbehaving. Choosing the latter will guarantee a complete destruction of the reputation of that person as well as tarnishing the entire field as well.
As for the last mention, start a thread on it and we can singularly discuss that issue without constant topic direction changes.
ERIC MAY: Well, you‟re saying that from 1987 to 2003, there was no dead polar bears.
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
ERIC MAY: Did you discuss the storm conditions during those period, period of years as well? I mean, you‟re extrapolating a lot to make such, you know, scientific findings.
CHARLES MONNETT: You mean, the storms are increasing up there?
ERIC MAY: No, you‟re saying that there was no dead polar bears during those years.
CHARLES MONNETT: Certainly.
My friend always jokes about society becoming that of the movie Idiocracy. This incident makes me think he is on to something.
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.
I've never heard of eccentricity, axial tilt, or precession with respect to the Earth's orbit either. Good thing that doesn't exist.
i just read a partial transcript of one of the related hearings.
it is mind blowing that what the guy did has been considered "science".
And to think the work in question is the bases for the current panic over Polar Bear survial in a "Warming World".
Largely on this insane excuse of a "scientific study" Polar Bears were placed on the Endangered Species list.
The guy doesnt just need to be fired. He needs to be tared and featherd.
Yeah, I would BS with my friends about how some of this stuff is even possibly considered as science. We tended to lean toward it being political and actually devious in intention. At least, if that were the case, you could accept it, that these people were actually smart people, but let their emotions drive them to a cause and so were devious in their motives.
This is worse though, much worse as it suggests that our high level institutions are truly churning out idiots. I know, I know, we have all the common jokes about such, but I don't think any of us really believed it was the case.
Honestly, I would prefer it all being because they are devious and intended such. That type of thing while bad, has less repercussions than the other.
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.
LMAO. 5 years later, his employer that didn't quash his findings in the first place, suspends him....and it's because of "the oil companies".
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.
No matter how much you wingnuts try and dispel science by attacking the credibility of researchers, science is still science, and it's not going away, nor is it going to magically turn upside down and the use of fossil fuels will have no consequence. All of your "proof" is so pathetically hollow and contrived that anyone with any knowledge of science merely shakes their head.
Climate change skeptics with no financial interests involved (correct me if I'm wrong, because I believe in science) are motivated to attack the credibility of science for two reasons:
Ignorance and paranoia.
The reason I say that (no disrespect intended, as it seems to be the genuine root cause of their campaign to attack science and those who practice it) stems from their inability to understand science, as well as their fears/paranoia being stoked by those in media who have a financial interest in attacking science. Their efforts give them a choir who believes in their reporting, even though they have no scientific background themselves.
Look at your source, for example. FOX News. Media Matters researched their reporting on climate change and over 80% of the pundits they had on to discuss this were there to express skepticism.
It doesn't take long to understand that if you repeat this message to someone uninformed and paranoid you can convince them in a myriad of ways to not believe in science, and those practicing it.
Over 80%.
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.
That's about as smart as claiming that Michael Jackson was killed by a fan upset about him leaving the Jackson 5.
