Slashdot Mirror
Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science
Layzej writes "Federal biologist Charles Monnett was placed on administrative leave July 18 pending final results of an inspector general's investigation into integrity issues. The investigation originally focused on a 2006 note published in Polar Biology based on a unique observation of four dead polar bears. The investigators acknowledged that they had no formal training in science, but later demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of science, the peer review process, and at times basic math with questions like 'seven of what number is 11 percent?' They also expressed concern over the fact that the note was reviewed by Monnett's wife prior to submitting the paper for peer review. When nothing turned up, the investigation turned towards Monnett's role in administering research contracts. But documents released by PEER, a watchdog and whistle-blower protection group, suggest even that investigation is off base. Monnett has since been reinstated, albeit in a different position. Now the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation following a PEER complaint that the IG is violating new Interior Department scientific integrity rules."
They're a lobbying group for public servants who work in environmental fields, with a very obvious stake in the outcome of this case. It'd be like the American Petroleum Institute complaining about the BP investigation.
What's odd in this case is there there's so little respect for science and the scientists that do it. and the idea that the government should hire its own scientists is just absurd - scientists need to report to an academic institution. the interview demonstrates that the agency involved (and this Eric May character) has a giant axe to grind - a political agenda.
agenda is corrosive to science.
but why do so many people feel that they're being misled by scientists? is it just that they don't want to believe what science says?
it's also kind of appalling that they still do these transects with some guys in a bush plane: no continual video record, no constant gps track, etc.
Physics is not Climatology. And Nobel Laureaute status is nice, but you'd be surprised at how many Nobel Laureates fly off into cloud-cuckoo land. (For example, Roger Penrose has caused biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers to boggle, with his consciousness-by-quantum-nanotube-therefore-free-will spiel he's been pushing. He's great at astrophysics, but this stuff he's been writing lately is weird and wrong on many levels.)
But it doesn't look as incredibly bad as the summary suggests.
Did you stop reading the transcript at some point ?
The investigators were using the Richelieu technique, just trying to get Monnett to say enough so they could find something with which to hang him. I'd really like to know why Monnett didn't tell them to fuck off.
The investagiators clearly had no fucking idea what they were talking about. They spend pages asking him how he knew the polar bears were dead. they spent pages asking him more questions about the dead polar bears. Monnett responded in detail, and in exactly the fashion I would expect an experienced researcher to answer in. Details about how they gather the data, details as to how he came to the conclusions that he did. Deails, not generalizations. All they did was badger and needle him - it's like a 5 year old asking "why ?" all the time.
There's nothing here to suggest any wrong doing on Monnett's part.
So instead of the FBI going after the fucking banksters they're spending time and money going after a guy who made a valid and reasonable claim about the significance of dead polar bears in the artic.
Absolute statements are never true
Did you actually read anything about why he resigned from the APS, or are you just making assumptions?
His big point was their statement that AGW is *incontrovertible*.
He's right. That's not science.
His other opinions on the matter may or may not be valid, and are irrelevant. He's right. Deciding that one sort of conclusion is correct and may not be questioned or investigated is decidedly unscientific. Is the speed of light constant at all places and times? Hey, let's do some math, let's devise some experiments! Awesome! SCIENCE! Are humans causing global warming? YES AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH, ACCEPT THAT IT IS TRUE!
Huh? The fuck?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Physics is not Climatology
But it's apparently ok for the American Physical Society to endorse claims made by "Climatologists"? That appears to be Dr. Giaever's first complaint. His second point is that that 0.8 degrees difference in the average temperature of the average temperature of a planet over 150 years is well within "experimental error". Given the huge number of measurements and cacluations which would be needed even if the measuring devices and methods had not changed at all in that time.
And Nobel Laureaute status is nice, but you'd be surprised at how many Nobel Laureates fly off into cloud-cuckoo land. (For example, Roger Penrose has caused biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers to boggle, with his consciousness-by-quantum-nanotube-therefore-free-will spiel he's been pushing. He's great at astrophysics, but this stuff he's been writing lately is weird and wrong on many levels
But comment on climatologists in similar ways and you tend to get asked what your qualifications you have in "climatology"...
And you are wrong.
The most dedicated and knowledgeable people I have ever worked with are federal employees. The primary difference is that federal employees, and many government employees, get to a point where they are happy with their job and have no desire to move up. The benefit of this is that it helps negate the peter principle, and you end up with incredibly knowledgeable and reliable people.m The down side is in the private sector their is a strong up or out attitude,. So when they see people who have had the same job for 5 years, they perceive 'lazy'.
You need to stop getting your opinions of the real world from movies and sensational headlines.
15 years ago I had the same opinion as you. The I did audit work and was surprised by, overall, how efficient he government actually is compared to the private sector; which is a mess.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So? I work in NYC, and what they said is at least as true of private corporate workers, but without any "serving their country" glory.
--
make install -not war
1. Do you really think that Big Oil influencing government is a bigger threat than Big Green doing the same?
"Big Green?" Seriously?
Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It's likewise also the worst place to work - except for the others.
I note that while government and corporations both suck, no government but yes corporations sucks worse than no corporations but yes government. The Soviet Union sucked, but Somalia sucks worse. What's worst is when the government is just a tool of the corporations: fascism. And that really sucks. Fascist cubicles are the worst cubicles.
--
make install -not war
It's very clear from the interview though, that the paper wasn't meant to be some big significant thing. It was meant to be a report to a nature journal that they saw more polar bears swimming than typical, then, shortly after, they saw more dead, apparently drowned, polar bears than they'd ever seen. That's the sort of thing you write small papers about to journals. He mentions a paper a colleague wrote about seeing mallards eating salmon. This is just reporting on observations they've made tangential to their actual mission, which is observing whale populations (and as he points out during the interview, concluding that they're doing just fine and that human development isn't affecting them is pretty much part of the job even when it isn't really true).