” Although it wasn't clear what the exact allegations were, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2006 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention.Poor, Poooor Al. Was nothing in his award winning film true?
The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on Mr Monnett's behalf with the agency, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
BOEMRE told Mr Monnett on July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending an investigation into "integrity issues."
(…)
“Mr Monnett, who has coordinated much of BOEMRE's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint. According to documents provided by Ruch's group, which sat in on investigators interviews with Mr Monnett, the questioning focused on observations that he and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004.
At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology.
In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water.
Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement. Former vice president and climate change activist Al Gore mentioned the animal in his Oscar-winning global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Friday, July 29, 2011
The Science is Settled On Polar Bears too.
The scientist in charge of Northern whatever is having his ethics scrutinized. All he did was extrapolate four (4) dead polar bears into an AGW fairy tale. The fairy tale was so lovely that the polar bear became the pitied symbol of the AGW activist movement. Well, how could it not? Polar Bears are soooo adorably cute.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
On this blog, you are constantly saying the experts are wrong and you are right.
You think more than 99 per cent of philosophers are wrong (1). You think scientists are wrong (2). Everyone's wrong unless they agree with your anti-atheist anti-science agenda.
It's like you are on the soccer field and you are constantly kicking the ball into your own goal and bragging about how you are better at soccer than the players who know the rules of the game.
------------------
1-About everything from negation to the burden of proof
2-Biologists, climate scientists, etc.
---Said,
”On this blog, you are constantly saying the experts are wrong and you are right.”
Actually I say that anyone who thinks that science is ever settled and that the experts know everything there is to know, has no clue about science, its activities, its people, its theoretical limitations, and its contingency. There certainly is valid science being done and lots of it, but it is being done outside the purview of evolutionary theory and outside the modeling of climate. Take a look into the category marked “stem cell”, at the side of the blog.
I am critical of “experts” who engage in personal denigrations rather than data analysis. I am critical of “experts” who try to subvert the peer review process, fudge data, and “lose” their data. I am critical of “experts” who claim that their science cannot be criticized. I fully support the science of those who behave as objective observers looking for answers rather than social activists looking for funding. Believe it or not, science requires ethics and intellectual honesty, and ethical, intellectually honest scientists welcome criticism.
Now if this goes against your grain, I can’t help it.
”You think more than 99 per cent of philosophers are wrong (1). You think scientists are wrong (2). Everyone's wrong unless they agree with your anti-atheist anti-science agenda.”
That’s a hoot! Even 100% of philosophers think that 99% of philosophers are wrong! Har. And calling me anti-science is a very poorly formed judgment on your part. As for anti-Atheism, yes, Atheism is contrary to logic, its logic is relative and not objective, and its drive for supremacy in society and government is a drive for illogic in those arenas.
”It's like you are on the soccer field and you are constantly kicking the ball into your own goal and bragging about how you are better at soccer than the players who know the rules of the game.”
I don’t remember much bragging but I do hassle people who come to this blog with their Atheist know-it-all-because-I-reject-gods-and-deny-it attitudes, you know, the ones where the supposed theist has to cough up material evidence for his position but the Atheist doesn’t feel the need to cough up material evidence for his position. You know, the boasting Category Error generators with the superior attitudes.
(Continued)
(Continued from above)
As for the rules of the game, Atheists are not in charge of the rules merely because they deny the existence of god(s). That simple denial does not impute any intellectual superiority or extra knowledge or wisdom, and certainly not logical analytical ability. The Atheists seem to think that it does, though, and they appear to presume that because they make that one denial, all of a sudden they are towering intellectuals whose every thought is rational wisdom not needing any foundational support or testing. But what really happens is that they pass judgment without disciplined analysis on any contrary data or argument, primarily because they cannot refute with their own designated evidence type: material evidence. And when pressed, they change their definitions, so as to try to avoid having to support for their position, support which they cannot provide. No, Atheists are not in charge of the rules, because rules might be considered absolutes. Atheists function with transient opinions which they like to serve up as being rules.
The actual point of logic is that it is based on foundational principles which are absolutes, yes I said the word, absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then logic has no claim to valid conclusions. Many Atheists are firm in their conclusion that there are no absolutes…. Period. So their logic is set free, to wander in whatever direction seems fit for the current situation. This makes their claim to rational thought false, and thus an irrational claim.
Same goes for Atheist morality, and for the same reason. There are no Absolutes in the line of sight of the Atheist, so morals are a variable convenience, not a requirement. If it is convenient to swap out one moral set for another, bingo, it’s done. Today I am a Consequentialist; yesterday I was a Virtue Ethicist, but that was tiresome. And the huge advantage to the Atheist is that he is always “moral” because he selects his morality du jour to fit his behavior proclivities; hence his behaviors fit his current moral code, so he is moral, very very moral. In fact, Atheists claiming to be moral are making no claim at all, because “Atheist morality” has no meaning.
But I’d better stop kicking this ball now and stop to check which goal the Atheists have changed to theirs…
"Even 100% of philosophers think that 99% of philosophers are wrong!"
He means wrong about the rules of logic since you've invented your own logic.
"Actually I say that anyone who thinks that science is ever settled and that the experts know everything there is to know, has no clue about science, its activities, its people, its theoretical limitations, and its contingency."
Noone said the experts know all there is to know. Stop lying.
I am critical of “experts” who engage in personal denigrations rather than data analysis.
They analysised the data. Stop lying.
. I am critical of “experts” who claim that their science cannot be criticized.
Noone made this claim. Stop lying.
but the Atheist doesn’t feel the need to cough up material evidence for his position.
LEARN ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF and you will stop saying stupid things like this.
For the love of all that is good, at least learn about logic before you start pontificating.
Anonymous,
Three things:
First, choose a moniker so I know which anonymous I'm talking to.
Second, rather than telling me that I don't know logic, show an actual error that I have made. Your accusations of Lying ring hollow, since I have posted examples of each of the "scientific" failures I listed. Calling me a liar is merely juvenile petulance.
Third, your idea that my logic is my own invention is proof that you are not aware in the least of the discipline of logic: get a logic book from a college bookstore, then try to align your concept of logic with the actual discipline. That's what I did, and the result is that I found Atheism and Progressivism to fail the process of logical analysis, as performed under the actual discipline. I now own every logic book of which I am aware, and I refer to them constantly. I recommend that you learn logic rather than assume that you have innately.
Post a Comment