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.
The problems come when the evidence is so complicated that it requires years of specialist education to become fully informed. In that situation, the scientist with a mountain of studies to back him will lose public debate to the charismatic speaker with a few catchy soundbytes. That's the problem here: The public is stupid, always has been, and always will be. Because each individual is highly knowledgeable only in their own small field, which means that the majority is ignorant of every field. This combines with the natural tendency of humans to vastly overestimate their own knowledge. I recall there was a survey that circulated in the news a few years ago for finding that somewhere more than ninety percent of drivers thought they were a better driver than most.
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
Sometimes the truth is just so inconvenient, people choose subconsciously to reject it. Climate change is a very good example of this. If the claims of scientists are true, then something has to be done - and whatever the something is will be horribly expensive, economically disadvantagious, personally inconvenient for millions of people and politically difficult in a time when any form of regulation meets with popular resistance. Far easier simply to deny anything is wrong, and thus remove the need to do anything. It isn't even something people realise they are doing.
Nonesense on every count. Scientists have largely supported trusting institutions that support science, and institutions that make conclusions that are based on scientific skepticism.
Nobody IS saying that "replace coal now or millions will die" is a scientific conclusion. It is a policy conclusion based on a scientific conclusion. What they do say is that carbon increases heat absorption, we're increasing carbon output, and the temperature and weather is measurably changing. But policy is never a conclusion of the scientific method. Policy is the logical conclusion that rational people make in the face of scientific evidence and in light of facts revealed by the scientific method. The very idea that there should be evidence to support a policy conclusion, as opposed to the fact conclusions upon which the policy conclusion is based, indicates that you basically have no understanding of either science or policy.
I don't know, likewise, any scientist who has ever used any evidence derived from the scientific method to conclude that in a scientific sense that "god doesn't exist." What scientists typically and rightly say is that we don't need god to explain the evidence, that god is not a testable hypothesis, and that god is basically irrelevant to our theories and ideas. Only in the fevered imaginings of fundamentalists are scientists drawing the conclusion from scientific evidence and methods that god doesn't exist. They just don't do that, because by and large they know that this would be absurd.
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.
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).