Scientist Tied to Global Warning Being Investigated for ‘Scientific Misconduct’

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

--> (Related: New study of NASA data may debunk global warming predictions) <--

On Thursday, Ruch‘s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett’s computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an “ongoing internal investigation.” Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of 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; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers 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 and “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 something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said. Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn‘t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

Source:  The Blaze  - Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

So… What Else Do They Not Tell Us …Or Lie About?

Phares: Iran's Missiles Will Soon Reach to United States

Global terrorism and Middle Eastern expert Walid Phares tells Newsmax that within the next five years, the radical regime in Iran will have a missile capable of reaching North America.

Phares, who has conducted briefings at the U.S. State Department and the United Nations Security Council, also said Iran is definitely seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and will not hesitate to use them if they do.

Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella asked if Iran’s nuclear program is intended for peaceful energy production as Iran claims.

“Absolutely not,” said Lebanese-born Phares, whose latest book is “The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad"  - The Confrontation

“I wrote a book on the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1987 in which I looked at a projection into the future, and we are now in the future. They always wanted to acquire nuclear power and they wanted to do so so that they can protect the expansion of their interests in the region.

“Acquiring nuclear power for them is first of all to protect the regime from the internal domestic democratic opposition.

“On the other hand, keep in the mind that they are involved in Iraq. They are involved in Lebanon with Hezbollah. They have a strategic alliance with Syria. They have interests in the Gulf with Shiite areas in eastern Arabia and elsewhere. They need the nuclear power to shield anybody who’d like to challenge their [interests].

“The nuclear program they have is going to end up becoming a military one.”

Martella asked if Iran is close to developing an ICBM with a nuclear warhead.

“What is interesting about the Iranian program is that they are developing on two tracks,” observed Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

“One track is the actual nuke technology. They are moving slowly on that one. And the other track is the missile technology. The missile technology they do have, and they have declared they have, includes missiles that can reach not only the eastern Mediterranean — that would cover all of Israel and also Lebanon and Jordan and most of the Arabian peninsula — but also Europe.

“No wonder we have a debate [about whether we] should have a missile shield system in Europe or not. Basically the Iranian regime will be able in the next five years, according to the projections, to reach as far as North America.”

Asked to comment on President Barack Obama’s efforts to reach out to Iran, Phares said:

“When the Obama administration devises a policy that says we need to reach out to the Iranian regime, without putting pressure on that regime by engaging with the actual Iranian opposition, the perception in Tehran is that the Obama administration will not use everything at its disposal to [apply] that pressure.

“Hence last week President Ahmadinejad declared that there is no more pressure to be made on Iran, and when that is the case obviously they are free to develop the weapons they want.”

If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, will the regime actually use them, Martella asked.

“Regimes in the past that are totalitarian, including the neighbor of Iran, Saddam Hussein, have used missiles, have used weapons of mass destruction, have gassed their own population,” Phares declared. “The Iranian regime’s allies in Hezbollah have used missiles in their confrontation with Israel.

“The Iranian regime, which is ideological and radical, will use them when they think they can win the war.”

Martella also asked Phares if Obama’s bow to Saudi King Abdullah last week sends any kind of message.

“The image that we saw indicates that there was a political message of, quote unquote, submission,” Phares said.

“Maybe the president did not want it to be seen like that, but it has been seen by the international community and most importantly by the radicals in the region.

“If the U.S. president will be seen in a picture bowing that much to the head of the Wahabis in the region, then the perception is that America is weak…

“The U.S. president is the president of the most powerful democracy on the face of the earth. Not only should he not bow to any other president … but even in the Arab world we haven’t seen any other Arab king or president or Muslim sultan or head of state bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia or to any other king.”

© 2009 Newsmax

The Confrontation – A Must Read