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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.