symbol of the warming alarmist movement
Watts Up With That reports
how Charles Muttonhead has been suspended. He was responsible for the Polar Bears Face Extinction Due to Global Warming fraud which was used by Al Gore in his fil among many other stories. Watts has published the transcript of the interview on this and the whole thing is nonsense albeit well rewarded nonsense. Muttonhead's is so far out of his depth that it would be hilarious if it were not tragic how much damage is being done by the eco-fascist fraud.
He admits gross incompetence as the only option other than outright fraud but I do not see them as incompatible
Wrong numbers and calculations?
ERIC MAY: Well, what we‟ve been discussing for the last hour.
JEFF RUCH: So this is it?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, that‟s not scientific misconduct anyway. If anything, it‟s sloppy. I mean, that‟s not – I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it.
It turns out that the entire case was that he saw 4 polar bears and a week later saw 4 drowned ones, 3 of them tagged. He therefore ASSUMED they were 3 of the original 4, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED there had been 36 bears in the area, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED 27 of them must have died. He then ASSUMED the storm that killed them was caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED the same applied to all polar bear populations, though there was no evidence for it.
Thereby "proving" that polar bears face extinction because of global warming.
I think this proves 2 things.
1) The Quality of the Expert "Peers" Within Climate"Science"
This fraud was published by a respected journal
after being passed by "peer review". Now "peer" review is a 2 way street. It officially exists to prevent low quality papers being published by people who are not the "peers" of the experts in the field. Thus Nature repeatedly refused to publish Stephen McIntyre's paper proving the Hockey Stick wrong because they decided that he was not the "peer" of Nature or its reviewers. Indeed he isn't. If McIntyre's paper, which has since been proven correct was not of the same quality Nature and the climate "science" community aspire to but this ridiculous fraud was, as they accepted it was, then, by definition the entire climate "science" peer group, must be assumed frauds until proven otherwise.
"Peer review" is as much a test of the integrity and competence of the members of the discipline as it is of the paper being reviewed. This paper has been proven obviously nonsense,from the start and the entire climate "science" movement as either incompetent or fraudulent, or both.
2) That It Is Being Recognised That The Game Is Up
Why did his bosses suddenly decide to jump on him when he made this "discovery" in 2007. This was my answer on Delingpole
One cynical possibility that fits the facts is that BOEMRE have sensitive political antennae. They recognise the warming fraud is on its last legs, as is Obama and wish to be able to say they recognised Monnett's dishonesty (omitting any mention of how long it took them) and got rid of him.If so the story is even more important than it seems because it means the warming fraud is so obviously dead that government bureaucrats are willing to act, ahead of the curve, to abandon the sinking ship (ok I know that mixes metaphors).
which was answered by Suffolkboy
neilcraig Possibly spot on. I have met "scapegoating", whitewashing, blame-shifting, terms-of-reference restriction and all manner of devious scheming to achieve higher management's aims or prevent a perceived "adversary" prevailing. The techniques are honed to their highest level in government. The symptom is that a seemingly minor or irrelevant misdemeanour acquires the role of a weapon or "key trump card" or blackmail that can be rolled out at strategic moments.