Global Warming Lie
Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax
Friday, August 19, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Images of periled polar bears sinking into arctic seas because of
melting polar ice caps have become an iconic symbol of the devastating
consequences of so-called global warming. But a new government investigation
into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has
revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax propagated
by faulty math and perfunctory observations.
According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from
the US government's Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific
paper published in a 2006
issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions
about four specific polar bear
deaths -- and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight
against global warming.
But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and
everything to do with a simple windstorm.
It all stems from an unusual air observation of what appeared to be four dead
polar bears floating in the sea. From 1,500 feet (457 meters) in the air,
observers reported to study author and biologist Charles Monnett, as well as
contributor Jeffrey Gleason, that dead polar bears had been observed, which the
duo later used to make various statements, including 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."
According to investigators, Monnett's calculations concerning polar bears' rate
of survival, however, are flawed because he not only failed to verify that the
four dead polar bears he witnessed were the same ones that he saw a week prior,
but he also allegedly used faulty percentages in the process. As a result, polar
bears ended up getting listed as a protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, even though they are likely not endangered, and are not dying at
the rates to which Monnett had implied.
Worse, the observed polar bear carcasses were never actually recovered and
properly examined to determine their cause of
death. So paper statements
implying that ice caps were to blame are grounded in baseless assumption, not
Gleason denies that his and Monnett's paper intended to link the deaths to
global warming, having told investigators that they were likely caused by a
simple windstorm rather. However, Eric May, an ID investigator, responded by
saying that the link to global warming was "inferred" in the paper, which tends
to make logical sense in light of the paper's strong verbiage concerning ice
packs and complete lack of reference to a potential windstorm.
process for polar bear paper may have been skewed; study data was not even aimed
at polar bears
Monnett, who currently works as a wildlife biologist for ID's Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, and who also manages 50 million
in research studies
there, is currently the primary target of the investigation. Disclosure of
Monnett's "personal relationships and preparation of scope of work," is also of
primary concern because the peer review process used in publishing his landmark
polar bear study appears to have been fraudulent as well.
According to Human Events, Monnett's wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as
lead researcher of another questionable polar bear study, Andrew Derocher from
the University of Alberta in Canada, both peer reviewed Monnett's polar bear
study. Having one's wife review a study is, of course, an obvious conflict of
interest. And Derocher, whose own polar bear study is currently under review,
also happens to have been acquired by Monnett, which calls into question the
integrity of his review as well.
After vehemently defending his work, Monnett eventually admitted that
miscalculations and other errors were likely made in his paper, but he referred
to such controversy as "sloppy" rather than "scientific misconduct." He also
admitted that he and Gleason did not have any proper documentation to back up
claims made about observed polar bear trends -- instead, they simply made the
"best case" they could with the data they had obtained.
Another important fact is that the duo assembled their paper using data acquired
for the purpose of bowhead whale observation and study, not for polar bears.
Consequently, the quality of such data for polar bear research is cursory at
best, and careless pseudoscience at worst.
"The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar
bears, when it was not. They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned --
they assumed that they had drowned," said Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who
specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science
International, Inc., to Human Events. "There were no statistical tests,
just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error."
Besides achieving for Monnett and his research endeavors a significant gain in
"power, money, authority and recognition," according to Ramey, the acceptance of
Monnett's paper and subsequent listing of polar bears as an endangered species
due to global warming has, at least until now, represented a foundational pillar
of so-called evidence in
global warming hysterics. The crumbling of this scientific facade, though, just
might spur the much-needed shift in climate change
science towards actual
evidence-based based research rather than mere scientific semblance.
Sources for this story include: