Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-06-11, 10:31 AM   #101
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This is great.

JULIA GILLARD CLIMATE CHANGE HORROR


The movie clips are from When Worlds Collide.

Starring as themselves are Aussie Labor Party PM Julia(r) Gillard and Green Party head Bob Brown. Appearing in a supporting role is Tanya Plibersek, who is an alleged Australian journalist who is "absolutely sick to her stomach."

Near the beginning Gillard seems to say "assification" rather than "acidification."

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-11, 04:54 PM   #102
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Stark raving mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernot..._b_920314.html

Quote:
Gernot Wagner
Economist, Environmental Defense Fund and author, 'But Will the Planet Notice?'
All Polar Bears Gone, Overnight
Posted: 8/7/11 04:11 PM ET

Temperatures are rising and doing so at increasingly faster rates.

Oceans are acidifying and doing so at increasingly faster rates.

We are literally slowing down the rotation of the globe and doing so at an increasingly faster rate.*

All are clearly linked to global warming, yet none of them are quite strong enough to spur us into action. What will it take to make that happen?

Change observable over years or decades apparently won't do, and (fortunately) the climate isn't changing over days or weeks.

But perhaps a dramatic yet not quite catastrophic event could act as a wake-up call? I'm at a loss to come up with examples that fit into that category.

Hurricanes don't. Katrina was catastrophic but apparently not dramatic enough (and, of course, no single hurricane can be linked to global warming anyway, although it's clear that their intensity goes up on a warming planet). Record droughts, floods and other catastrophes don't seem to convince the unconvinceable either, largely for the same reasons.

Good old competition doesn't. Brussels, Beijing, Brasilia and others are leaving Washington in the dust with little in response.

We have already established that melting poles and glaciers attract little attention. They don't tend to melt overnight. And if they did, we would have much bigger problems than the political stalemate.

One possible candidate: a mass die-off of most polar bears.

Catastrophic? For Arctic fauna, yes; for the planet, debatable. Dramatic? Here's hoping.
------------------------------------------------------

* Think ice skater, whose spinning speed increases as she pulls her arms closer and slows down as she extends her arms. The same happens to the planet: As polar ice melts, water distributes to the equator, expanding the planet's bulge and slowing its rotation -- by fractions of a second, but amazingly it is already measurable. And we know it's happening at an increasing rate.
No comments on the article yet and no comment necessary.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-11, 05:20 PM   #103
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,002
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Stark raving mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernot..._b_920314.html


No comments on the article yet and no comment necessary.
Quote:
* Think ice skater, whose spinning speed increases as she pulls her arms closer and slows down as she extends her arms. The same happens to the planet: As polar ice melts, water distributes to the equator, expanding the planet's bulge and slowing its rotation -- by fractions of a second, but amazingly it is already measurable. And we know it's happening at an increasing rate.
Actually, the dominant cause of slowing of the earth's rotation is tidal friction from the moon, and it has been slowing down for millions of years. We defined the second in terms of the tropical year 1900 (before its current definition at an atomic vibration). The insertion of leap seconds has been the means of correcting. We have actually been inserting fewer than expected or inserted in the 70's and 80's (the present leap second scheme began in 1972) No one understands why, but the earth has sped up very slightly, not slowed down as anticipated. While other things could cause this, the skater analogy would apply to ice thickening at either pole, since it takes water from the equator.

But again, these are only the pertubations, the moon and tides should cause continuous gradual slowing.
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-11, 05:23 PM   #104
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,566
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Yeah, tidal friction has been slowing the planet for millennia. The idea that global warming has a measurable effect on this is pretty silly. That argument also presumes that water is equally distributed across the circumference of the Earth, which we know it isn't, again thanks to tides.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-11, 10:46 PM   #105
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Al Gore ranted a few days ago (It was Thursday August 4). This was at the Aspen Institute. Do not be fooled by the picture from South Park. This is really Al Gore and this is a real recording of his actual words.



This one is not as good a recording but has a little more at the beginning and less at the end:

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-09-11 at 06:38 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 07:49 AM   #106
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 19,225
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

For those without YouTube access...
Quote:
Al Gore Lets Loose In Aspen Institute Speech About Bull**** Anti Global-Warming Pseudo-Science


First Posted: 8/8/11 08:56 PM ET Updated: 8/9/11 01:26 AM ET

Speaking in Aspen last Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore warned of the impacts of global warming. In sharp contrast to previous appearances, however, Gore may have frothed at the mouth a bit when he told the Aspen Institute's 'Networks and Citizenship' panel not to believe those that dismiss global warming.

In a passionate rant, Gore says his opponents are a group of people, "washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. There's no longer a shared reality ... It's no longer acceptable in mixed company -- meaning bipartisan company -- to use the goddamn word 'climate.'"

Gore continues,
Quote:
And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_921721.html

Al knows bullshit.
__________________
"Wishbone is spelled with an E not a 3..... *Be gone*" - Minor Threat
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 12:22 PM   #107
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by wishbone View Post
For those without YouTube access...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_921721.html

Al knows bullshit.
Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 02:51 PM   #108
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...
Actually, virtually all skeptics agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. But much smaller than the alarmists think.

Volcanoes have very little, if anything, to do with skeptics' claims about what causes warming. "Sunspots" if by which he means total solar irradiation and its effects upon ocean circulation cycles and cosmic rays (which may amplify the tiny changes in the sun) may very well have a lot to do with things.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 03:12 PM   #109
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,087
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...
What is bullshit are the straw man arguments the alarmists keep throwing out there like these. Seriously, people need to start actually reading what the skeptical scientists are saying and researching...not what alarmists scientists and scientist wannabes like Gore and his ilk say they are claiming...it gets tiresome, it really does.
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 05:01 PM   #110
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Actually, virtually all skeptics agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. But much smaller than the alarmists think.

Volcanoes have very little, if anything, to do with skeptics' claims about what causes warming. "Sunspots" if by which he means total solar irradiation and its effects upon ocean circulation cycles and cosmic rays (which may amplify the tiny changes in the sun) may very well have a lot to do with things.
Marcel Leroux & Jean Moulin (who you should recognize) are the two big pushers of the volcano & sun theory. Pilmer's stuff on volcanoes is pretty popular (but pretty weak IMHO) Dunno if Deniers have since rejected them... Are they passe now? Either way... not looking good for that claim.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The solar radiation theory is a good one at face value, but there is a lot of research questioning that claim.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/...Nature2005.pdf

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

This article is a nice read on both sides using the same data on the sun's influence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-to-blame.html

As for cosmic rays... they don't do much better seeing as the correlation drops off at 1970 and the connection breaks apart.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...olanki/r47.pdf

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

And yes, I like to cite my sources for people who who care about the science as opposed to ideology or politics.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 05:07 PM   #111
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
What is bullshit are the straw man arguments the alarmists keep throwing out there like these. Seriously, people need to start actually reading what the skeptical scientists are saying and researching...not what alarmists scientists and scientist wannabes like Gore and his ilk say they are claiming...it gets tiresome, it really does.
Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan

Last edited by Navinabob; 08-09-11 at 05:16 PM. Reason: Added a quote... everyone loves quotes!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 05:51 PM   #112
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,087
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”
That is inded an awesome quote. It seems to describe quite a bit of what is happening very accurately. The Gores of the world will continue to do this. I can live with that, because they are buffoons with less than a high school science education. It makes me sad when I see once reputable scientific leaders and organizations doing this same schtick (mosty coming from one side of the debate)...
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 06:13 PM   #113
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Marcel Leroux & Jean Moulin (who you should recognize) are the two big pushers of the volcano & sun theory. Pilmer's stuff on volcanoes is pretty popular (but pretty weak IMHO) Dunno if Deniers have since rejected them... Are they passe now? Either way... not looking good for that claim.
No, actually, I don't know the first two (I may have heard their names at one time). I'm talking more about Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer for cosmic rays and Lindzen/Spencer (ooh, there's that name again) and lots of others for the ocean circulations. As far as Plimer (not Pilmer), I read his book and he makes a lot of good points but he overreaches a lot and I think his volcano stuff is mostly bunk. Which is why I tend to stay away from him. Not all skeptics are consistently thorough (which doesn't mean perfect). Not many, if any, skeptical scientists buy his arguments on that. I never have and I've never pushed it.

Quote:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The solar radiation theory is a good one at face value, but there is a lot of research questioning that claim.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/...Nature2005.pdf

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

This article is a nice read on both sides using the same data on the sun's influence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-to-blame.html

As for cosmic rays... they don't do much better seeing as the correlation drops off at 1970 and the connection breaks apart.
That's the RealClimate crowd and they may have a point but because there are so many factors, if one real good one isn't close for a little while it's pretty meaningless. Look at long term graphs and there are many periods where correlations aren't close for each and every factor. But you have to look at which ones hold best in the long run. It's not proof but it can be persuasive. The correlation is still far better than CO2 and over a much longer time period. See Shaviv and Veizer for the long haul. And the experiments verifying that cosmic rays do increase low level clouds are piling up. The big one we are all waiting for is CERN which should have its first results published soon. You really should read Svensmark's and Calder's The Chilling Stars.

Svensmark and Shaviv have done very good jobs showing how their supposed debunking of the cosmic ray theory are very poor.

Quote:
And yes, I like to cite my sources for people who who care about the science as opposed to ideology or politics.
I've cited so many sources in these threads it gets a little difficult to go back and repeat them endlessly for those who haven't followed closely (I'm not saying you haven't, but if you have you've read everything I'm referring to here).

Some of the quotes and responses may not be entirely in the right places. I'm writing this on the fly as I have to spend some time with my wife tonight.

I can see that we don't disagree nearly as much as it may seem on the surface. And I cannot ignore that the alarmists have a history of hiding their work, not responding to requests and have been shown to try to keep skeptical studies out of journals. Again I ask you to find examples of skeptics doing these things. To a layperson such as myself it seems quite suspicious. I've read a lot of the alarmist stuff and also a lot of the skeptical stuff. I'm far more impressed and persuaded by the skeptical side (not that I think they are perfect). I'm not sure that you've given the skeptics a fair hearing in your own mind.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-09-11 at 06:22 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 06:15 PM   #114
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”
It is quite arguable that Gore and the alarmist scientists do this more than the skeptics. I see alarmists misrepresenting skeptics very often. Again, I think they do it much more than skeptics do.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 06:27 PM   #115
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
That is inded an awesome quote. It seems to describe quite a bit of what is happening very accurately. The Gores of the world will continue to do this. I can live with that, because they are buffoons with less than a high school science education. It makes me sad when I see once reputable scientific leaders and organizations doing this same schtick (mosty coming from one side of the debate)...
Gore is a buffoon. The nonscientist on the skeptical side that alarmists like to call a buffoon is Monckton. I don't cite him much because I know he overreaches and can say some rather unscientific things. But compared to Gore, he's Einstein. It amazes me that the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU crowd still supports Gore.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-09-11 at 07:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 06:34 PM   #116
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm pretty new to the thread and still catching up. I appreciate all the time you take with this (and with me). I mostly stick to traditional skeptic circles (meetings, websites, podcasts) where climate skepticism is sort of a bastard off-shoot. While there is a vocal minority of gw skeptics, I don't hear too much from them as many skeptics would rather not be associated with them. That's why I decided to jump in here as another side of the story is always good to look at.

And I wasn't implying that you, personally, are more ideology and less science based, but that is usually the voice I hear shouting loudest. Much like not all "alarmists" are Green Peace nut-jobs that are more about fighting "big corporations" and less about the environment, but that is usually the guy interviewed on the news.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 07:10 PM   #117
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I'm pretty new to the thread and still catching up. I appreciate all the time you take with this (and with me). I mostly stick to traditional skeptic circles (meetings, websites, podcasts) where climate skepticism is sort of a bastard off-shoot. While there is a vocal minority of gw skeptics, I don't hear too much from them as many skeptics would rather not be associated with them. That's why I decided to jump in here as another side of the story is always good to look at.

And I wasn't implying that you, personally, are more ideology and less science based, but that is usually the voice I hear shouting loudest. Much like not all "alarmists" are Green Peace nut-jobs that are more about fighting "big corporations" and less about the environment, but that is usually the guy interviewed on the news.
Fair enough. And you've made many good points, some of which I agree with and some I don't.

I've been at this for years. That's obvious, this being thread #11 (and I was doing it before I started the one and only threads). I admit I have a bias toward the skeptical side. But that is far more because of the science than my ideology (which would make me favor skepticism - see, I'm not afraid to say it). But if the science were overwhelming or even persuasive on the alarmist side I would accept it or be less of a skeptic. As an atheist I prefer (religiously/ideologically) the oscillating universe to the ever expanding universe. That doesn't stop me from accepting the latter as the evidence favors it fairly overwhelmingly at present.

And when I see the alarmists conducting studies to "get rid of the medieval warm period" or to counter that most of Antarctica has been cooling for decades or "finding" the missing hotspot (that all the climate models say should be there) by measuring winds instead of temperatures, I get suspicious. And then, the studies are almost invariably shown to be shoddy. There was no evidence to overturn these very well established things (I'm not saying they are sure things but they had been accepted for a long time because there was a lot of evidence in support). It seems they target their embarrassments and somehow, some way they find "evidence" to overturn them.

Then there are some things that just keep on being confirmed. Like corals are not in trouble because of oceans being slightly warmer or a tiny bit more "acidic." There's the fact that experiments have shown that corals simply change their algal symbiotes when temperatures change. There are experiments that show water with a little more CO2 and/or that are a little more acidic do not have problems growing their exoskeletons as alleged. There are hundreds of millions of years of history that show corals have survived far worse than anything we have now. Yes, there are bleaching (there always have been) but they also almost invariably recover. And yet, one of the most persistent memes is that coral reefs will be wiped out by global warming. I have never seen the alarmists address the many, many studies which say they are not threatened. That is just one example (although one of the best) of what appears to be a lack of honesty.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 07:31 PM   #118
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

It was dead last year but now it will soon be officially "really and sincerely" dead.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/0...mate-exchange/

Quote:
Death of a carbon salesman: Chicago Climate Exchange
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

It was essentially dead when we announced on WUWT Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX) was halting carbon futures trading last year. Note the flatlined final price of 5 cents per ton:



My only question now is “what took them so long”?

-----------------------------------------------------

From the Wall Street Journal:

ICE to Close Chicago Climate Futures Exchange

CHICAGO—IntercontinentalExchange Inc. told traders Friday that it would shut down its U.S. emissions derivatives platform, a year after acquiring its parent only to suffer sparse trading as the prospects of a federal carbon-reduction plan remain dim.

The money-losing Chicago Climate Futures Exchange venture will continue operating through the first quarter of 2012 before closing, exchange officials said in a notice. ICE will then list over-the-counter emissions contracts mirroring products listed on the platform.



“The U.S. has not enacted carbon cap-and-trade legislation and changes to the EPA acid rain program have reduced trading activity,” ICE said in the notice. “Accordingly, Chicago Climate Futures Exchange volumes are down substantially and the exchange is operating at a loss.”

===============================================================

Makes you wonder what the bloviator in chief at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols is going to do with their much ballyhooed (but delayed) idea of carbon trading in California?
ICE bought the actually (but not really and sincerely) dead CCX for $600 million last year. Good investment, guys. It looks like ICE is trying another zombie ploy but I wouldn't expect that to work either.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-11, 07:49 PM   #119
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, US of A
Posts: 11,019
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Gore is a buffoon. The nonscientist on the skeptical side that alarmists like to call a buffoon is Monckton. I don't cite him much because I know he overreaches and can say some rather unscientific things. But compared to Gore, he's Einstein. It amazes me that the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU crowd still supports Gore.
As long as he still has some ability to separate fools from their money they will tolerate him.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-11, 07:07 AM   #120
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Suspended polar bear scientist grilled another three hours on his research.

http://classic.cnbc.com/id/44082434

Quote:
Watchdog says merit of polar bear paper questioned
Published: Tuesday, 9 Aug 2011 | 10:31 PM ET

JUNEAU, Alaska - The federal investigation into suspended wildlife biologist Charles Monnett has focused on the scientific merit of a 2006 article in which he and a colleague recorded their observations of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said Monnett was interviewed by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement's inspector general's office on Tuesday.

Monnett was suspended last month by the bureau pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." The agency indicated that the suspension, which came amid an ongoing, months-long investigation, was related to how a polar bear research project was awarded and managed.

The article, published in 2006 in the journal Polar Biology, is based on observations that Monnett and fellow scientist 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. In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances.

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 related presentations helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement.

Separately Tuesday, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote the acting director of the Interior Department's inspector general's office, seeking clarification on the purpose of the investigation into Monnett.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said Monnett's work has been cited by witnesses before his committee and provided "the foundation" for the government's decision in 2008 to list the bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

"As a result, critical habitat for the polar bear was designated, which added additional layers of onerous regulations to oil and gas development in 187,000 square miles of land in Alaska," he said, adding that accusations against Monnett's work "could be serious and have far reaching consequences."

PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said that Tuesday's nearly three-hour long interview revolved around the article and the project, including Monnett's role during procurement.

Ruch, who monitored the interview via teleconference, said Monnett was also asked about any connections he had to non-governmental organizations and fundraising for environmental groups.

He said the suggestion was raised that Monnett was somehow involved in a covert campaign to promote the issue of climate change. Ruch said it could be several weeks before a transcript is available.

A bureau spokeswoman declined comment. Ruch said he is "mystified" that the inspector general's office "doesn't have better things to do."

Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said it's "absurd" to suggest that anything that's been said about the 2006 paper would have any bearing on the listing.

"That paper was one of literally hundreds of scientific articles cited in the listing," she said, adding that there was "nothing wrong" with the paper and that support for the protection of the polar bear in the scientific literature is "extraordinarily broad."

The center, which supported the listing, has joined Greenpeace in writing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the president's chief science adviser, John Holdren, seeking an inquiry into Monnett's suspension.
Monnett clearly has ties to environmental groups and is pushing an agenda. What's remarkable is that it seems for once the overseers are interested in that little tidbit which happens all the time.

And one of hundreds of articles supporting the nonsense that the polar bears are in danger? Please. I notice they say "articles" and not "peer reviewed papers." So they were cited in the listing. So what? The listers were biased toward listing the bears. And hundreds of junky "articles" are still junk. Yeah, I guess you could find hundreds of such articles, maybe thousands, in Greenpeace, WWF and other envirogarbage advocacy pieces. Real impressive. Never mind that polar bear numbers have increased 3-5 times since the fifties and survived a hundred thousand years, many times under far worse conditions than now.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-11, 08:23 AM   #121
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

In getting scientific studies published peer review is a required and good system. But to make sure they're published, pal review (as in the Hockey Team pals reviewing each others papers and giving them an automatic pass) is better. Better still: here's a million dollar grant, now review my paper review. And perhaps the ultimate: spouse review.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...er-review.html

Quote:
A Window on Climate Peer Review
August 11, 2011, 5:26 pm
Warren Meyer

I have written before that peer review is not a guarantee of correctness. Most academics would laugh at that portrayal, yet that is exactly how climate peer review is treated in the media.

A number of years ago, Charles Monnett, flying over the Arctic to do some sort of whale study, saw 3-4 polar bears floating dead in the water. Without either a) retrieving the bear carcasses or b) even getting a picture of them, he wrote up a paper that discussed the siting and hypothesized the bears drowned in a storm and further that more bears would likely drown in the future if global warming melts more Arctic ice in the summer. The findings were the basis for a lot of worry about polar bears, and played a key role in Al Gore’s movie. Panic over the dead bears and Monnett’s wild hypotheses about them helped fuel calls for declaring the bears endangered, despite all evidence that their populations have actually been increasing over the last few years. Monnett did quite well from the work, parlaying his fame into management of a $50 million study budget, the dream of all academics.

Monnett’s study has come back into the news because there has been some kind of investigation of him and his work by the Feds. There has been a lot of speculation among skeptics that the investigation focuses on academic fraud, but I thought that a stretch. As I wrote here
If you read between the lines in the news articles, we really have no idea what is going on. The guy could have falsified his travel expense reports.

The likelihood that an Obama Administration agency would be trying to root out academic fraud at all, or that if they did so they would start here, seems absurd to me.

There is no room for fraud because the study was, on its face, facile and useless. The authors basically extrapolated from a single data point. As I tell folks all the time, if you have only one data point, you can draw virtually any trend line you want through it. They had no evidence of what caused the bear deaths or if they were in any way typical or part of a trend — it was all pure speculation and crazy extrapolation. How could there be fraud when there was not any data here in the first place? The fraud was in the media, Al Gore, and ultimately the EPA treating this with any sort of gravitas.
Seriously, you see four floating bear bodies from 1500 feet, once. You don’t have any facts about how they died. You only have one data point in time. Where is there room for fraud? It’s one freaking useless data point. Here is just a taste of what a joke this study was:
The actual survey Monnett was conducting when he observed the dead bears in 2004 was the migration of bowhead whales. Investigators questioned how he later obtained data for a table listing live and dead polar bear sightings from 1987 to 2004.

“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.

“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.
They only mystery is how this unbelievably trivial piece of work was published.

Well, now we have a better idea. The reviewers for the article were Lisa Rotterman and Andrew Derocher. Incredibly, it turns out Ms. Rotterman is his wife – yes, some people are more peers than others – and Derocher was awarded a large research contract by Monnett [reported to be $1.1 million - m] just before he reviewed the article. Wow.

By the way, I think I will be both right and wrong. I was pretty sure any government investigation would be about misuse of funds, and that does seem to be the main thrust here, though I was wrong in that it does seem to touch on academic fraud as well, in particular the idea of giving out grant money as a quid pro quo for a positive review (a practice that skeptics have long suspected in the climate community).

By the way, both Monnett and his partner Gleason now are claiming that everyone blew their study out of proportion and it wasn’t really about global warming. If this is true, they were sure silent about this when they were basking in all kinds of attention and press and grant money. Either of them could have stepped forward and stopped the momentum that built from this article and they did not.

By the way, for those who still want to believe that the EPA is driven by science,
Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.
One sighting in history of four floating dead polar bears and suddenly our whole fossil fuel economy has to be shut down.
Furthermore, Derocher is known for making sure polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor was kept away from a polar bear conference in 2009 because Taylor does not agree with the Derocher/Monnett crowd on CAGW. He claimed it had nothing to do with Taylor's work on polar bears. Yeah, right.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exi...non-believers/
Excerpt: Derocher's letter to Taylor:

Quote:
Hi Mitch,

The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.

I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.

I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.

Best regards,

Andy (Derocher)
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-13-11 at 09:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-11, 03:16 PM   #122
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 07:58 AM   #123
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Climate models get El Niños wrong: new peer reviewed paper.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...-changing.html

Quote:
Sunday, August 14, 2011
New paper finds El Niño is changing opposite to predictions of climate models

A paper published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds that changes in the character of El Ninos over the past 31 years are the opposite of the predictions of climate models from greenhouse gases. The paper concludes "A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally" rather than being forced by increased greenhouse gases. Another alarmist prediction by climate modelers crumbles in the face of real-world data.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L15709, 4 PP., 2011

El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean
Key Points:
The character of El Nino is changing in ways not expected from climate models

Changes in El Nino are projecting onto background conditions
The changes probably result from natural variations rather than GHG forcing
M. J. McPhaden et al

This paper addresses the question of whether the increased occurrence of central Pacific (CP) versus Eastern Pacific (EP) El Niños is consistent with greenhouse gas forced changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific as inferred from global climate change models. Our analysis uses high-quality satellite and in situ ocean data combined with wind data from atmospheric reanalyses for the past 31 years (1980–2010). We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally and that these variations projected onto changes in the background state because of the asymmetric spatial structures of CP and EP El Niños.
One has to wonder how long "the consensus" will keep relying on the very flawed models. Given that they still defend the Hockey Stick and An Inconvenient Truth I wouldn't hold my breath.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 09:00 PM   #124
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Sea urchins, like corals, are resilient.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N32/B1.php

Quote:
Sea Urchin Larvae Living in Periodically Low-pH Seawater Reference
Yu, P.C., Matson, P.G., Martz, T.R. and Hofmann, G.E. 2011. The ocean acidification seascape and its relationship to the performance of calcifying marine invertebrates: Laboratory experiments on the development of urchin larvae framed by environmentally-relevant pCO2/pH. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 288-295.

Background

The authors write that "variation in ocean pH is a dynamic process occurring naturally in the upwelling zone of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem," where "the near-shore carbonate chemistry is under-characterized and the physiology of local organisms may be under constant challenge from cyclical changes in pH and carbonate ion concentration of unexpectedly high magnitude."

What was done

To explore both aspects of this situation, i.e., to determine (1) the temporal variability of near-shore seawater pH and (2) its effects on calcifying marine invertebrates, Yu et al. did two things. First, they deployed a SeaFET pH sensor (Martz et al., 2010) from 22 July to 17 August 2010 at 8 meters depth at Mohawk Reef, Santa Barbara, California, USA (34°23.66'N, 119°43.80'W) on sandy substrata about 50 meters seaward of that location's kelp forest, which device recorded seawater pH and temperature over a period of 30 seconds every 10 minutes. Second, they raised larvae of the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) in seawater maintained at pCO2 levels ranging from ambient to 1000 and 1450 ppm CO2 (pH 7.7 and 7.5, respectively), while measuring, after three and six days development, "total larval length (from the spicule tip of the postoral arm to the spicule tip of the aboral point) along the spicules, to assess effects of low pH upwelling water on morphology."

What was learned

The four U.S. researchers observed changes of up to 0.32 pH unit over 24-hour periods, and a maximum change between the high and low points of the measurement period of 0.67 pH unit, with a time-averaged value of 7.933 for the entire period, indicating that marine organisms at Mohawk Reef are currently experiencing "low pH and high pCO2 values that are not expected for the open ocean for another ~100 years." As for sea urchin larval development, they report that "even at the highest pCO2 treatments, larval development was normal in terms of timing and morphological appearance," although at both day 3 and 6 larvae in the 1450-ppm CO2 treatment were 7-13% smaller than control larvae.

What it means

Yu et al. state that "the observed developmental progression and survival of cultures was within the norm typically observed for this species at this temperature range." In addition, they indicate that "a lack of developmental deformities at early stages for pCO2 ~1000 ppm has been previously reported for this species (Todgham and Hofmann, 2009), and another local species, Lytechinus pictus, with a similar overlapping portion of its range in southern California (O'Donnell et al., 2010)." And they say "there are even reports that survival is increased in this species and its congener S. droebachiensis under some low pH conditions (Dupont and Thorndyke, 2008)." Hence, it would appear, as Yu et al. conclude, that "the effects of small magnitude in these urchin larvae are indicative of a potential resilience to near-future levels of ocean acidification."
There has been study after study that shows corals and many other marine invertebrates are resilient and adaptive. They survive changes in temperature and pH that alarmists claim will wipe them out. They have been surviving much worse extremes than anything we have going on now and have for hundreds of millions of years.

But I have yet to see any alarmist or anyone in the MSM acknowledge any of these studies. I haven't seen any refutations. All I see is ignoring. And then they go right on repeating the nonsense that higher temperatures or lower pH will kill all these animals. If the alarmists had any integrity they would at least admit this truth. But I guess the truth is too inconvenient for them.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-11, 05:12 PM   #125
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Polar bear "scientist" Charles Monnett "even worse than was thought"?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714...bear-scientist

Quote:
New Allegations Leveled Against Polar Bear Scientist
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
August 17, 2011

The polar bear researcher who was suspended from his government job last month has received a new letter from investigators that lays out actions he took that are described as being "highly inappropriate" under the rules that apply to managing federal contracts.

According to the letter, wildlife biologist Charles Monnett told investigators that he assisted a scientist in preparing that scientist's proposal for a government contract. Monnett then served as chairman of a committee that reviewed that proposal.

A lawyer with a group that is assisting Monnett says that what he did was standard practice at Monnett's office, that no other groups were competing for that sole-source contract, and that this letter "confirms our view that they are really on a witch hunt, trying to get Dr. Monnett."

Monnett works for an agency of the Department of the Interior and, in 2006, published his observations of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic. The dead polar bears became a powerful symbol of the danger of climate change and melting ice, and were featured in Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Monnett has been under an official investigation for months, and his legal team says investigators have repeatedly asked him about his observations of dead polar bears and the reports he wrote describing them. His supporters say he is being targeted because of the political implications of his work for regulating greenhouse gases and Arctic oil drilling.

A spokesperson for the agency that employs Monnett, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has previously said in a statement that "the agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong."

The new letter, which was written by a special agent of the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Interior and dated Aug. 15, told Monnett that essentially, "you admitted that you reviewed a Proposal ... that you helped draft."

"I'd say 'helped draft' is quite an exaggeration," said Paula Dinerstein, senior counsel at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, which is providing legal assistance to Monnett and made the letter available to NPR.

The Contract In Question

The $1.3 million contract in question funds a polar bear tracking study led by University of Alberta scientist Andrew Derocher. Dinerstein said Monnett merely looked over the scientist's proposal and let the scientist know if it met the basic requirements for what a proposal should be.

Plus, Dinerstein said, "the decision had been made long before all this happened that this was going to be a sole-source contract with this Canadian university."

She said no other group was competing for this sole-source contract, "so the kind of inappropriateness that they are talking about simply doesn't apply here." She says the contract was for work that piggybacked on polar bear research that the university was already doing.

A spokesperson for the University of Alberta, Brian Murphy, said Wednesday that Derocher was not available to talk about the latest allegations and that "the university and Dr. Derocher cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."

Monnett's legal team has said that in past interviews, investigators have seemed to ask whether the contract was inappropriately steered to the University of Alberta scientist by Monnett in exchange for the scientist offering a peer review of Monnett's soon-to-be-famous dead polar bear paper.

During an Aug. 9 interview, Monnett's lawyers have said Inspector General investigators asked questions about the fact that, as the contract was being finalized, Monnett asked Derocher for his thoughts on the unpublished report on dead polar bears. But Monnett's lawyers say the contract had been negotiated for months before that and that Monnett's request for an informal peer review was unrelated.

Dinerstein said Monnett's actions with regard to looking over the scientist's proposal for the contract before its review was the "standard practice" at his office. "Everything that Dr. Monnett did in this situation, and in other situations where there were sole-source contracts, was known by his management and the contracting officers," she said.

But in the latest letter to Monnett, the Inspector General's special agent writes that the contracting officer in this case told investigators that she did not know of Monnett's actions: "The CO told the OIG that you never informed her you had taken such actions, and if you had told her she would have warned you that such actions would be highly inappropriate under procurement integrity policies and procedures."

The letter asks Monnett to inform investigators of any other contract holders that he assisted in this way.

Dinerstein said it appears as though the special agents are trying to broaden their investigation "when, in fact, everything that he did was approved by his management, was standard practice, was following the lead of the people who were supposedly in charge of complying with the federal contracting regulations. He was the scientist."

Her group has filed a complaint of scientific and scholarly misconduct against officials at Monnett's agency about how he has been treated. In a letter to PEER dated Aug. 8, the scientific integrity officer at the Department of Interior stated that an inquiry is being conducted into those allegations.
At the very least it appears that Monnett gave the appearance of having awarded a contract in exchange for a favorable peer (or pal) review of his ridiculous dead polar bear paper. And the charge that Monnett "assisted a scientist in preparing that scientist's proposal for a government contract [and] then served as chairman of a committee that reviewed that proposal" seems quite serious. Of course Monnett's attorneys and the PEER group defending him are trying to spin it but that seems ever more futile as more comes to light.

It should not be forgotten that Monnett's polar bear study is simply ridiculous. He claimed there were three (or four, it's still not clear) dead polar bears in the water. There are not even pictures (who takes an aerial survey and doesn't take pictures of such a sight, even the purpose of the survey was originally about whales and not bears?). There is no proof of how these alleged bears died. And then, projecting these "results" over the whole Arctic Ocean or whatever the much larger area was) is ludicrous. But that study was highly relied on (and used as propaganda) in finding the polar bears threatened. (Excuse me for being cynical but I think the officials very much wanted to list the bears and would latch onto anything that would facilitate that. Monnett's study was just what they needed.)

Maybe it's true that Monnett's study is not actually what the investigators are after but that it's just about lousy and corrupt management. Still, the awfulness of that study that would have gotten a fourth grader a D- and the use that was made of the study is by far the bigger scandal.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0