The media is giving a lot of attention to a secretive investigation into wildlife biologist Charles Monnett but nobody seems to be telling the whole story. Monnett is a whale researcher who happened across four polar bear carcasses during his whale research. His paper on the subject has become a touchstone of the global warming debate, for good reason. The little-known publication has been trumpeted by environmentalists, bringing the paper under widespread scrutiny. Al Gore took license with the Monnett's work in his book An Inconvenient Truth, reporting that a new scientific study shows polar bears drowning in significant numbers and implying man-made global warning as the cause. To be fair, Monnett has no control over what others do with his work; He merely published a paper and did not intend for the work to become exploited, nor could he have known how controversial the topic would become in the future. However, scientists must be conscientious in their work so that their findings can't be bastardized and it would seem that Monnett's paper on the polar bear lacks credibility for a number of reasons.
Liberal media outlets are presenting this as a witch-hunt or a complete non-issue. Conservative ones are painting it as proof that man-made global warming is based wholly on junk science. Both are wrong yet neither side seems to realize just how ignorant they appear to be on this subject. Monnett's work was sloppy and undocumented, drew conclusions without evidence and made baseless inferences. It favors a pet theory without any investigation whatsoever and made no effort to suggest other possible explanations. In short, it's a perfect example of junk science. That doesn't make all evidence of MMGW junk, but it is a huge red flag that we've widely embraced a theory that may not be supported by data retrieved with sound scientific methods.
A recent op-ed in the New York Times opines, "A modest scientific observation about a few drowning polar bears has enmeshed a government wildlife biologist in an investigation into whether he is guilty of scientific misconduct." That's akin to calling a Hurricane Katrina a little summer storm. Monnett's paper wasn't a modest observation, it's a 7 page peer-reviewed document which draws conclusions without offering any evidence to support that conclusion.
The fact is that Monnett and his team saw four dead polar bears floating in the water. They made no attempt to reach the bears so no necropsy was performed and the cause of death is unknown. However, Monnett's paper presumed that the bears drowned because of ice shrinkage. The supposition is that the bears had to swim longer distances and it killed them. The paper states that between 1987 and 2003, no dead polar bears were observed in the water so the 4 bears identified by Monnett's team in 2004 were the first observations of dead polar bears in the 17 year span since 1987. However, Monnett later admitted that the study data did not record dead mammals.
How then did Monnett know that no other scientists had come across dead polar bears in the water before? He asked a guy who did a bunch of whale studies in the area. Monnett was confident enough in the memory of a retired team leader to assume that since this one guy had no recollection of ever seeing or hearing about a dead polar bear, these 4 must have been the only polar bears that died in the area. Doesn't seem like much to go on: The whale study didn't allow for researchers to record dead mammals and there was nothing in the protocol framework for making polar bear observations, so it's entirely possible that other researchers had in fact observed dead polar bears without note.
How did Monnett conclude that the bears had drowned? He simply assumed they drowned and did not pose any other possible cause of death for the animals. Since the carcasses were not examined in any way, there's no way to know how they died. Since the cold water might have preserved dead animals and carried them some distance, there is also no way to know where or when they died. However, such absence of data didn't stop Monnett from drawing conslusions wholly without evidence or investigation. He wrote:
Monnett's supporters like claim that he never blames global warming specifically and it's not his fault if zealots twist his words, but they're completely wrong on that count as Monnett wrote:
The whale expert saw some something that he thought were polar bears, was relatively sure they were dead and decided that they died of fatigue due to shrinking ice floats caused by rising global temperatures. He did all of that without verifying that they were in fact polar bears, or that they were in fact dead and without investigating how or where they died. Yet his supporters claim that there is no ecidence of scientific misconduct here. Perhaps there was no scientific misconduct, since the paper did go through peer review prior to publication; But if there's no misconduct than that brings into question the integrity of the peer review process because the paper doesn't utilize data, investigation or anything resembling "science".
We deserve better from the scientific community, including actual investigations and data. We can't change everything about our lives and how we power the world at a cost of billions or trillions of dollars simply because people make assumptions. Give us real data, not fairy tales.
Liberal media outlets are presenting this as a witch-hunt or a complete non-issue. Conservative ones are painting it as proof that man-made global warming is based wholly on junk science. Both are wrong yet neither side seems to realize just how ignorant they appear to be on this subject. Monnett's work was sloppy and undocumented, drew conclusions without evidence and made baseless inferences. It favors a pet theory without any investigation whatsoever and made no effort to suggest other possible explanations. In short, it's a perfect example of junk science. That doesn't make all evidence of MMGW junk, but it is a huge red flag that we've widely embraced a theory that may not be supported by data retrieved with sound scientific methods.
A recent op-ed in the New York Times opines, "A modest scientific observation about a few drowning polar bears has enmeshed a government wildlife biologist in an investigation into whether he is guilty of scientific misconduct." That's akin to calling a Hurricane Katrina a little summer storm. Monnett's paper wasn't a modest observation, it's a 7 page peer-reviewed document which draws conclusions without offering any evidence to support that conclusion.
The fact is that Monnett and his team saw four dead polar bears floating in the water. They made no attempt to reach the bears so no necropsy was performed and the cause of death is unknown. However, Monnett's paper presumed that the bears drowned because of ice shrinkage. The supposition is that the bears had to swim longer distances and it killed them. The paper states that between 1987 and 2003, no dead polar bears were observed in the water so the 4 bears identified by Monnett's team in 2004 were the first observations of dead polar bears in the 17 year span since 1987. However, Monnett later admitted that the study data did not record dead mammals.
How then did Monnett know that no other scientists had come across dead polar bears in the water before? He asked a guy who did a bunch of whale studies in the area. Monnett was confident enough in the memory of a retired team leader to assume that since this one guy had no recollection of ever seeing or hearing about a dead polar bear, these 4 must have been the only polar bears that died in the area. Doesn't seem like much to go on: The whale study didn't allow for researchers to record dead mammals and there was nothing in the protocol framework for making polar bear observations, so it's entirely possible that other researchers had in fact observed dead polar bears without note.
How did Monnett conclude that the bears had drowned? He simply assumed they drowned and did not pose any other possible cause of death for the animals. Since the carcasses were not examined in any way, there's no way to know how they died. Since the cold water might have preserved dead animals and carried them some distance, there is also no way to know where or when they died. However, such absence of data didn't stop Monnett from drawing conslusions wholly without evidence or investigation. He wrote:
Our count of dead polar bears related to the 2004 windstorm almost certainly represents an underestimate of the actual number of polar bears affected. Swimming and floating polar bears are difficult to see from the survey's standard 457 m altitude even under ideal conditions. Also, some bears that drowned may have sunk or drifted outside the study area.
Other bears may have sublethal effects and later succumbed due to exhaustion or inspiration of sea water as a result of swimming long distances in rough seas.
Monnett's supporters like claim that he never blames global warming specifically and it's not his fault if zealots twist his words, but they're completely wrong on that count as Monnett wrote:
The net effect of global climate change on polar bear populations remains largely unknown but its potential for negative impacts may pose one of the greatest conservation challenges to the management of polar bears.Monnett continues to defend his baseless assumptions and underscore his factually deficient conclusions. In recent testimony to investigators, he insisted that the research study framework on whales doesn't include recorded observations of dead animals because "the reason it's not in the database is because it, it doesn't happen." Is it ever acceptable for scientists to assume that in the absence of a recorded observation, nothing has happened? That sure seems contrary to the most basic tenets of science. Monnett goes on to say, "(T)here was a lot of ice out there and there just weren't opportunities for there to be dead bears. You know, bears don't drown when there's ice all over the place." That's anwful glib answer, especially considering the facts: there is no evidence that the bears drowned, we don't know where the bears died and we don't know if other bears had died in this area.
The whale expert saw some something that he thought were polar bears, was relatively sure they were dead and decided that they died of fatigue due to shrinking ice floats caused by rising global temperatures. He did all of that without verifying that they were in fact polar bears, or that they were in fact dead and without investigating how or where they died. Yet his supporters claim that there is no ecidence of scientific misconduct here. Perhaps there was no scientific misconduct, since the paper did go through peer review prior to publication; But if there's no misconduct than that brings into question the integrity of the peer review process because the paper doesn't utilize data, investigation or anything resembling "science".
We deserve better from the scientific community, including actual investigations and data. We can't change everything about our lives and how we power the world at a cost of billions or trillions of dollars simply because people make assumptions. Give us real data, not fairy tales.
No comments:
Post a Comment