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."
thing I ask is, who appointed this IG?
Seven of ~1.571428... percent is 11 percent. What shittily-worded question.
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 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"
So the headline would be "Dead Polar Bears had no formal science training"
We must ensure better education for the bears so they can understand the climate changes and so adapt to the conditions.
This proves it! It's all a lie. Fox news is right! ;)
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
wtf?
7 is the 11% of 64
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. Well, thats a nothing. Um,
23 yeah, 10.8. And then we said, um, four dead – four swimming
24 polar bears were encountered on these transects, in addition
25 to three.
26 ERIC MAY: Three dead polar bears?
1 CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, three dead.
2 ERIC MAY: Right.
3 CHARLES MONNETT: But the four swimming were a week earlier.
4 ERIC MAY: Okay.
5 CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, then we said if they accurately
6 reflect 11 percent of the bears present so, in other words,
7 theyre just distributed randomly, so we looked at 11 percent
8 of the area.
9 ERIC MAY: In that transect?
10 CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
11 ERIC MAY: Right.
12 CHARLES MONNETT: In, in our, in our area there, um –
13 ERIC MAY: Right.
14 CHARLES MONNETT: – and, therefore, we should have seen
15 11 percent of the bears. Then you just invert that, and you
16 come up with, um, nine times as many. So thats where you get
17 the 27, nine times three.
18 ERIC MAY: Where does the nine come from?
19 CHARLES MONNETT: Uh, well 11 percent is one-ninth of
20 100 percent. Nine times 11 is 99 percent. Is that, is that
21 clear?
22 ERIC MAY: Well, now, seven of 11 – seven of what number is
23 11 percent? Shouldnt that be – thats 63, correct?
24 CHARLES MONNETT: What?
25 ERIC MAY: So you said this is –
26 CHARLES MONNETT: Seven/11ths this is –
1 ERIC MAY: No, no, no, no, no. This, this is, this is 11 –
2 seven is what number of 11 percent?
3 CHARLES MONNETT: Seven?
4 ERIC MAY: Yeah.
5 CHARLES MONNETT: Is what number of 11 percent?
6 ERIC MAY: Eleven percent, right.
7 CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I dont know. I dont even know
8 what youre talking about. It makes no sense.
9 LYNN GIBSON: I think what hes saying is since theres four
10 swimming and three dead, that makes –
11 ERIC MAY: And three dead.
12 CHARLES MONNETT: Well, you dont count them all together.
13 That doesnt have anything to do. You cant – that doesnt
14 even –
15 LYNN GIBSON: So youre not saying that the seven represent
16 11 percent of the population.
17 CHARLES MONNETT: Theyre different events.
The confusion here seems to be about what metrics are being used. It looks like the IG people didn't look at things in much detail before the interview which is clearly bad. But if I'm reading this correctly the actual context of the 11 percent line seems to be a unit confusion of an easy form to occur if one isn't that used to handling percentages and isn't actually writing things down. The section does make the IG look pretty bad and like they haven't done their research. But it doesn't look as incredibly bad as the summary suggests.
What does that mean? (Not a native speaker, I honestly don't know. Maybe it's asking for the solution to 7x = 0.11? I read the transcript excerpt, but it's not clear there either.)
"Signore Galilei, you have been accused of publishing your hypotheses despite the prohibition of Mother Church. This Consistory of learned fathers find you guilty. (Unfortunately you have some powerful protectors so we can't cook you.) You are sentenced to house arrest for the rest of your life."
"Signore Monnett, you have been accused of publishing your hypotheses despite the prohibition of Mother Exxon. This committee of lobbyists finds you guilty. Since that wackjob is in the White House we can't have you burned at the stake but we can shut you up."
(Well, the "no formal training in science" bit certainly seems to apply in both cases.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Least we forget the research was shit. The polar bears are doing great... Unless your an al gore minion in which case, reality is subjective
7 of 9 is 100%.
'seven of what number is 11 percent?'
Is that way of asking the question confusing to anyone else? Guaranteed if someone asked me that out loud I would wallow in confusion. It's taken me several times reading it to figure it out even here, I believe they are asking .11 * x = 7, which I would have phrased in words as '7 is 11% of what number?' Maybe in other parts of the country people talk like that, but it sounds very awkward to me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
It does look like the IG investigators were way over their heads. But the point about "seven of what number is 11 percent?" seems to be taken out of context. The full section of the transcript where that occurs
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. Well, thats a nothing. Um,
23 yeah, 10.8. And then we said, um, four dead – four swimming
24 polar bears were encountered on these transects, in addition
25 to three.
26 ERIC MAY: Three dead polar bears?
1 CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, three dead.
2 ERIC MAY: Right.
3 CHARLES MONNETT: But the four swimming were a week earlier.
4 ERIC MAY: Okay.
5 CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, then we said if they accurately
6 reflect 11 percent of the bears present so, in other words,
7 theyre just distributed randomly, so we looked at 11 percent
8 of the area.
9 ERIC MAY: In that transect?
10 CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah.
11 ERIC MAY: Right.
12 CHARLES MONNETT: In, in our, in our area there, um –
13 ERIC MAY: Right.
14 CHARLES MONNETT: – and, therefore, we should have seen
15 11 percent of the bears. Then you just invert that, and you
16 come up with, um, nine times as many. So thats where you get
17 the 27, nine times three.
18 ERIC MAY: Where does the nine come from?
19 CHARLES MONNETT: Uh, well 11 percent is one-ninth of
20 100 percent. Nine times 11 is 99 percent. Is that, is that
21 clear?
22 ERIC MAY: Well, now, seven of 11 – seven of what number is
23 11 percent? Shouldnt that be – thats 63, correct?
24 CHARLES MONNETT: What?
25 ERIC MAY: So you said this is –
26 CHARLES MONNETT: Seven/11ths this is –
1 ERIC MAY: No, no, no, no, no. This, this is, this is 11 –
2 seven is what number of 11 percent?
3 CHARLES MONNETT: Seven?
4 ERIC MAY: Yeah.
5 CHARLES MONNETT: Is what number of 11 percent?
6 ERIC MAY: Eleven percent, right.
7 CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I dont know. I dont even know
8 what youre talking about. It makes no sense.
9 LYNN GIBSON: I think what hes saying is since theres four
10 swimming and three dead, that makes –
11 ERIC MAY: And three dead.
12 CHARLES MONNETT: Well, you dont count them all together.
13 That doesnt have anything to do. You cant – that doesnt
14 even –
15 LYNN GIBSON: So youre not saying that the seven represent
16 11 percent of the population.
17 CHARLES MONNETT: Theyre different events.
The confusion here seems to be about what metrics are being used. It looks like the IG people didn't look at things in much detail before the interview which is clearly bad. But if I'm reading this correctly the actual context of the 11 percent line seems to be a unit confusion of an easy form to occur if one isn't that used to handling percentages and isn't actually writing things down. The section does make the IG look pretty bad and like they haven't done their research. But it doesn't look as incredibly bad as the summary suggests.
It does look like the IG investigators were way over their heads. But the point about "seven of what number is 11 percent?" seems to be taken out of context. The full section of the transcript where that occurs
CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah. Well, thats a nothing. Um,
23 yeah, 10.8. And then we said, um, four dead – four swimming
24 polar bears were encountered on these transects, in addition
25 to three.
26 ERIC MAY: Three dead polar bears?
1 CHARLES MONNETT: Yeah, three dead.
2 ERIC MAY: Right.
3 CHARLES MONNETT: But the four swimming were a week earlier.
4 ERIC MAY: Okay.
5 CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, then we said if they accurately
6 reflect 11 percent of the bears present so, in other words,
7
If you click through the links in the Summit County Voice articles that have been covering this story, you get to
"Feds may be muzzling scientist over Arctic research":
It's obvious what's going on here. The Interior Department, which under Bush/Cheney took cocaine and hookers from drilling, other oil and other energy corps who are supposed to pay (minimal) royalties to the Department, is totally corrupt. That is the agency that pretended to regulate BP and other drillers, allowing the Mocambo blowout to poison the Gulf last year (and generally, in less reported ongoing operations). Obama hasn't worked hard enough to replace the crooks running that department. But it's much harder when the Senate's Republican minority abuses the filibuster to block any useful replacement of the crooks, installed by Bush/Cheney when Republicans had the monopoly over all 3 branches. Specifically here Republican senator James Inhofe, paramount climate change denier, is wrangling the scientist witchhunt to protect the oil corps. Not to mention the lockstep loyalty Republicans practice in opposition to anything Obama does. Especially when it might interfere with oil corps' vast, subsidized profits protected from the consequences of their epic destruction.
I don't know why we even have to ask "who's responsible?" Of course it's the oil corps and their wholly owned assets in the government. The government should run real investigations, try and convict the people making and executing these plans. Then anyone asking the question will have to be an obvious employee of the oil corps, making their living by trying to make it somehow questionable who's doing this to us.
--
make install -not war
The Auditor General of Victoria Australia just released a paper showing that the local traffic cameras are working as desired and there is absolutely no question of their accuracy at all. I found 17 technical errors on 7 pages that I can cite counter evidence from their own sources and I expect there are hundreds of errors in the document. They are supposed to be auditors yet their statement about the money seems to indicate they forgot who gets lots of the cash.
Billige Nike Sko,Billige Nike Shox,Billige Nike Air Max,Billige Nike Air Jordan(www.dunkskobillige.com)
Billige Nike Sko,Billige Nike Shox,Billige Nike Air Max,Billige Nike Air Jordan(www.dunkskobillige.com)
...These go to eleven.
if one isn't that used to handling percentages
Sorry but percentages are primary school maths. We are exposed to them frequently in the news, with interest rates etc. I'm sure the investigators in this case are well equipped to handle the average idiot criminal but if you are going to investigate a science-based case you should send someone with at least a basic grasp maths and some clue as to how science works if for no other reason that you have no context in which to evaluate the statements made by the person being investigated. It is not a proper investigation if you cannot evaluate whether the actions taken are reasonable or whether the statements being made are correct. He could probably have just sat there and told them that 11% was a calibration constant based on the aircraft they were using and they would not have had a clue.
However, the person you are thinking of is the "modern Major-General". Interestingly, Gilbert got it utterly wrong. It was a satire on the ridiculous (to Gilbert) idea that trainee Army officers needed an education. Yet he mentions mathematics as one of the (to him) useless things now to be learnt, and doesn't realise that gunnery depends heavily on mathematics - which brings me back to Galileo, who of course was investigating dynamics with a view to improving the use of artillery.
Gilbert was amusing, but history has shown that most of his prejudices were quite, quite wrong.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I estimated 63 (7 multiplied by 9) because 11 percent is about one ninth
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
7 of 9 is 100%.
No, 7 of 9 is a 10 - that makes her 1000%.
#DeleteChrome
ERIC MAY: Well, now, seven of 11 – seven of what number is 11 percent? Shouldnt that be – thats 63, correct?
Yes, in fact 7/63 = 1/9 ~= 11%. If you're gonna blame him for poor math skills, pick a place where he actually failed. If you're gonna blame him for poor English/communication skills, this is fine for that.
I'm probably stupid, but what I get from this is that the guy called Charles has claimed that 3 dead bears in 11% of the area roughly equates to 27 dead bears in 100% of the area, while the guy called Eric vehemently tries to claim that 7 bears in 11% of the area roughly equates to 63 bears, not 27. Eric is misunderstanding the math, Charles fails to see immediately where Eric is missing the boat. And that's about it.
This is a terrible submission. There is a link to a 96 page transcript. I'm guessing it's a deposition, as there is allusion to consequential perjury charges if the interviewees are found to be lying. No summary of the bulk of its contents is given. It is being used as material evidence for some lame jokes at the expense of the Interior Department.
It's a classic fishing expedition. But it clearly demonstrates that Monnett's counsel willingly let them go on that fishing expedition, and I'm left wondering why. One of the lawyers present on this transcript says this on p. 83:
We've been at this for an 1 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?
He's on Monnett's side, supposedly. The Agents clearly identified themselves as criminal investigators. That strikes me as a good deal worse than asking (rephrased) "11% of what number is 7" without a calculator on hand. 63.63 repeating doesn't exactly leap to the brain. It's like he wanted this to be a fiasco, and he let it happen.
And then guess who the source is that claims that "the IG is being investigated?" Same guy that complained at 1:45. Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER. The only source claiming an "investigation" is PEER. For all we know, the investigation ended 15 minutes after PEER made a complaint to the proper office. There is no mention if this is an ongoing investigation.
Point of fact: All that is present in TFA is an unconfirmed allegation of an investigation. The only person claiming any "muzzling" is PEER, who represents the person being "muzzled." Any journalist worth a damn would investigate that allegation further before proudly proclaiming "Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science."
Sure. By whom? Which Inspector General, the current (acting) one, Mary L. Kendall? Is the investigation current? Is it backed by any sort of suit, law, evidence, or legal authority? Near as this summary and the links show, none of those facts are present. Fox News does better hit jobs.
And to be completely fair to the IG, Monnett did actually lose his position over this. That's what "BOEM immediately issued a stop-work order for the study and put Dr. Monnett on administrative leave" means. He was reinstated, but not in his original position. So he lost his job. It's not just IG monkey business, if there is any at all, it's Monnett's own administration at BOEM "muzzling" him, and his own attorneys who let "criminal investigators" go on a fishing expedition for nearly 2 hours before demanding the charges. Effectively providing fodder for years of investigation of, and vulnerability to, perjury charges.
None of this is the IG's problem. An investigation, especially one as unfocused as the transcript implies, doesn't have to mean forcibly interrupting the study and switching the good doctor to a new position after a period mandatory leave. It just does at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The combination of sheepish counsel and cowardly administration is what brought this man down.
Point of fact 2: The links aren't as advertised. The first purports to be "documents released by PEER" but instead links to a PEER press release, a press release is not documentation of this purported investigation. The second purports to show that "the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation " but that's only a claim by Jeff Ruch, in paraphrase, in the summation paragraph of an article about the investigation of Monnett. It does not link to an article that has any facts to support the link text.
Yikes. If you take up the methods of your enemy, you become the enemy, guys. This is a sleazy, bad submission.
At least change in a positive direction. The only change I have noticed in the past few years is in a "worse than Bush" direction.
wouldn't it have been easier to have the scientist arrested and deported or something like everyone else does? i mean, its not like that inspector is the only one...
1. They aren't like christians being caught with hookers and blow. If you believe that carbon is killing the planet, you make your mansion accord to the lowest carbon footprint, install renewable sources on the site and invest in renewable technology. However, denialists like yourself complain of that last bit as being "proof" that they're just trying to make money from their investments.
2. Nuclear is even more fossil a fuel than coal and oil. It's expensive, dangerous, takes too long and isn't needed. Also many people complain of renewables for reasons other than nature. E.g. Monckton's refusal to have a power station built next to his land.
3. It only seems circular because you don't, can't or won't look at the evidence. In fact it's denialism like yours that is circular: AGW is a scam because the data is faked. The data is faked because it's a scam. "but to be accepted as a scientist you need to believe in AGW" False. Roy Spencer is still considered a scientist. But you have to be an idealogue to ignore all the evidence that points to AGW being correct. And there's nothing that precludes scientists (especially idealogically driven ones) becoming idealogues.
4. See what I mean about your circular reasoning. You've ASSUMED that you're only allowed to be a scientist if you believe in AGW, therefore it's a scam. Why's it a scam? Because you're only allowed to be a scientist if you believe in AGW. See also the "getting rich off AGW" as predicted in point #1.
Personally, you are in denial.
Eric May, the IG Inspector has a track record of messing up environmental cases through ignorance.