Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science 276
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."
PEER is not a "watchdog group" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
why is science so mistrusted? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Global warming is a lie! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.)
Re:why is science so mistrusted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Context is nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:why is science so mistrusted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is science so mistrusted? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Global warming is a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Global warming is a lie! (Score:2, Insightful)
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"...
Re:The Oil Corps (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Oil Corps (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Oil Corps (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Do you really think that Big Oil influencing government is a bigger threat than Big Green doing the same?
"Big Green?" Seriously?
Re:The Oil Corps (Score:5, Insightful)
Winston Churchill [stanford.edu]: 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.
Re:Context is nice (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:why is science so mistrusted? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
There are several reasons that people are skeptical of global warming:
1. The current global warming evangelists are the equivalent of a Christian televangelist who gets caught with hookers and blow. If you believe that carbon is killing the planet, then don't buy giant mansions and yachts and have Global Warming conferences in Cancun. Live in modest houses and teleconference.
2. Environmentalists should go out of their way in supporting every alternate energy source, including nuclear. However, instead of working on answers they are always presenting roadblocks--even in technologies like wind and solar. http://solarpowernews.org/environmentalists-mojave-desert/ [solarpowernews.org] If you are serious about global warming, you will take some risks on desert animals to save all the rest of them.
3. Climate science seems like a bit circular---All scientists believe in AGW, but to be accepted as a scientist you need to believe in AGW. And it isn't a "hard" science in that you can experiment and see the results because, well, if AGW is occurring you can't wait till everyone is dead. On the other hand, we are aware of significant climate change in relatively recent human history (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc) that are not related to humans. And AGW isn't a new idea--Edward Gibbon blamed deforestation for Germany's warming in HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
Personally, when I hear the science is settled, everyone agrees 100%, and if you don't believe you are like a holocaust denier I get quite skeptical because NOTHING in science is that clear cut. It feels like all this pressure to agree and submit is because someone is hiding something.
4. Based on above, AGW seems to many like a profit scam and a means to control people. It is a little too convenient that some of the evangelists are getting very rich off of AGW and also a convenient way of keeping people "in their place". Gore and Bono can fly private jets, because they are important. I can't, because I'm not. The lesser classes can't have too much or otherwise the planet with burst into flames. The rich, however, never need to change--they just way their indulgences and go on their merry way.
I personally actually *believe* that we need to be carbon neutral, and am angry that the very people who should be moving society in that direction are some of the biggest obstacles to change. If environmentalists can't tell a bunch of obscenely rich and powerful people in Nantucket to suck it up and allow a wind farm to be built to help save the planet, how can you ask millions to reduce their entire standard of living to do the same?