Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

**Prince** · 08-19-2011, 01:48 PM

Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax
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 scientific observation.

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.

Peer review 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.

Learn more: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

**myCATpowerlifts** · 08-19-2011, 03:38 PM

It's been over 100 degrees here for the last 50 days.

I don't believe it's a hoax. The roles humans play in it may have been an oversight.
But it's def. not getting any colder.

**DOMS** · 08-19-2011, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

It's been over 100 degrees here for the last 50 days.

I don't believe it's a hoax. The roles humans play in it may have been an oversight.
But it's def. not getting any colder.

It's been getting hotter ever since the end of the last ice age.

**LAM** · 08-19-2011, 05:20 PM

Considering what we have done to the oceans and the worlds freshwater supply of which most is un-drinkable at this point one could only logically deduce that our actions have had a negative impact on the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

instead of doing something now we should just wait until it's totally fucked up. I'm sure that's what Einstein would recommend if he were still alive...

**deadlifter405** · 08-19-2011, 06:03 PM

There's a reason Greenland has the name it has and they used to grow wine grapes in England. Hint: It used to warmer than it is now and there were no SUVs or Republicans to be found back in those good old days. Perhaps we should look upwards and observe solar cycle activity?

**LAM** · 08-19-2011, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by deadlifter405

There's a reason Greenland has the name it has and they used to grow wine grapes in England. Hint: It used to warmer than it is now and there were no SUVs or Republicans to be found back in those good old days. Perhaps we should look upwards and observe solar cycle activity?

the sun rose 2 days earlier in Greenland this year so we know the axial tilt of the earth is increasing.

the question remains is this a natural event or due to increasing sea levels from the melting of the polar icecaps caused by global warming or some other phenomenon.

**DOMS** · 08-19-2011, 06:25 PM

Yeah. We should totally make policies on shit that "makes sense" instead of, you know, actual science. Science that isn't tampered with in the name of someone's agenda, that is.

I mean, what sense does it make to actually fix the shit that we know that we've messed up?

No, it's much better to create shit like the Kyoto Protocols. Much better.

**BillHicksFan** · 08-19-2011, 07:45 PM

Its better to start having the upmost respect for the planet and find that it was infact a natural cycle that is warming the climate than allow industry to keep doing what it has been doing until oneday we have destroyed ourselves for the sake of greed.

Either way, the planet will win whether we survive or not. It doesn't need us to regererate itself until the point it will look as though we never even existed.

**Halo** · 08-19-2011, 08:09 PM

That shit is straight snake oil Prince, the spin off bullshit drives me nuts. Such as the fake ass green twisty (POISONOUS/TOXIC) Lightbulbs... Really.... and my other favorite is how we will not build oil refineries in America because of the Green bullshit lobby, we'd rather bankrupt the nation then build some more refineries that the construction of would be employing Americans, that the resulting increase in output would drop the price of oil and subsequently cause goods to drop in price just due to a decrease in transportation costs...

**LAM** · 08-19-2011, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Halo

and my other favorite is how we will not build oil refineries in America because of the Green bullshit lobby, we'd rather bankrupt the nation then build some more refineries that the construction of would be employing Americans, that the resulting increase in output would drop the price of oil and subsequently cause goods to drop in price just due to a decrease in transportation costs...

it has nothing at all to do with green lobbyists. they have next to zero power in DC as compared to big oil, they are gnats in comparison to the influence that big oil has. the refusal by DC to end billion dollar subsidy's while recording record profits is proof-positive of this.

it has everything to do with it being more cost effective to simply retrofit old refinery's then to build new ones. in 1981 the US had 324 oil refineries on-line, today there are only 132, this is from the Oil & Gas journal.

**GearsMcGilf** · 08-20-2011, 09:07 AM

Listening to LAM makes me speechless. Sure, it is clear that environmental special interests have no pull in Washington. That's exactly why cap and tax has made so much traction in recent years (not that is has a prayer of passing at this point, thank god!). The earth could not possibly be going through on of millions of natural climactic cycles, right now, as it has for 4.5B years. It must be industrialization, coupled with that evil profit motive. In fact, there have been studies in the past, that have proven that global warming (or is it climate change now?) actually benefits wealthy countries at the expense of poor countries. Now, how perfect is that?

The solution is simple and has been proven time and time again. Wealthy, developed countries must cap their emissions, aka disarm their ecnomic growth, transfer a significant amount of their money and resources to developing countries (who are exempt from Kyoto), so that they can develop clean, renewable fuel technology, "just like the rest of us have been enjoying for years. lol

Anyone who doesn't see hardcore socialist ideology behind the GW hoax is just not opening their eyes. In the spirit of saving the planet from us humans, since we are superior to mother nature, I am plan to eat out at three fast food restaurants tomorrow. I will leave my engine running the whole time, pull into a parking spot, engine still running until I finish my meals. I want to do my share of offsetting Al Gore's CO2 offsets.

I also implore all of you to eat at least one gaseous meal tomorrow so that you can do your share of destroying the planet with your own flatulance. Afterall, we are all superior to the earth and will eventually destroy it with out plastic bags and oil refineries. No way this planet can make it another billion years now that these evil humans are here with their profit motive.

**ecot3c inside** · 08-20-2011, 09:15 AM

what a debate!

**DOMS** · 08-20-2011, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

The earth could not possibly be going through on of millions of natural climactic cycles, right now, as it has for 4.5B years.

Sorry, man, but I'm going to call bullshit on this. It's a fact that global warming started 18,000 years ago when cavemen started driving SUVs.

You're obvious shilling for oil companies is obvious!

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

transfer a significant amount of their money and resources to developing countries (who are exempt from Kyoto)

Don't forget why Russia backed the Kyoto protocols so strongly. It's because the emission standards are based on 1989. The height of Soviet era production, and pollution. Their pollution has plummeted just like their number of working factories. The Kyoto protocol meant instant money for them in the form of salable emissions credits.

Don't forget Japan, either. Because they live on an overcrowded island, they had already, through necessity, been forced into adopting the measures outlined in the Kyoto protocol. It cost them nothing to sign, but would financial strain all their first-world competitors.

As you said earlier, global warming is not going to be detrimental to everyone. Canada stands to benefit a lot. It will make more of the land arable.

The countries most at risk are the small countries. If you're a large country (USA< China, Russia, etc.) and the farm belt moves up a few hundred miles north, it's no big deal. However, if you're a small country and the farm belt move up and out of your country, you're screwed.

**LAM** · 08-20-2011, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Listening to LAM makes me speechless. Sure, it is clear that environmental special interests have no pull in Washington. That's exactly why cap and tax has made so much traction in recent years (not that is has a prayer of passing at this point, thank god!). The earth could not possibly be going through on of millions of natural climactic cycles, right now, as it has for 4.5B years. It must be industrialization, coupled with that evil profit motive. In fact, there have been studies in the past, that have proven that global warming (or is it climate change now?) actually benefits wealthy countries at the expense of poor countries. Now, how perfect is that?

The solution is simple and has been proven time and time again. Wealthy, developed countries must cap their emissions, aka disarm their ecnomic growth, transfer a significant amount of their money and resources to developing countries (who are exempt from Kyoto), so that they can develop clean, renewable fuel technology, "just like the rest of us have been enjoying for years. lol

Anyone who doesn't see hardcore socialist ideology behind the GW hoax is just not opening their eyes. In the spirit of saving the planet from us humans, since we are superior to mother nature, I am plan to eat out at three fast food restaurants tomorrow. I will leave my engine running the whole time, pull into a parking spot, engine still running until I finish my meals. I want to do my share of offsetting Al Gore's CO2 offsets.

I also implore all of you to eat at least one gaseous meal tomorrow so that you can do your share of destroying the planet with your own flatulance. Afterall, we are all superior to the earth and will eventually destroy it with out plastic bags and oil refineries. No way this planet can make it another billion years now that these evil humans are here with their profit motive.

lol the GOP was FOR cap & trade then they became against it when the Dems were for it..

The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

others things the GOP was FOR then were against:

Cap and trade
Financial disclosure
Immigration
Deficit spending
Bipartisan deficit-reduction commission
Individual insurance mandate
Medicare spending curbs

**maniclion** · 08-20-2011, 04:12 PM

The island of garbage floating in the pacific ocean is no hoax, the smog lingering over so many cities is no hoax. I don't do what I do for the sake of global warming, I do it for global salvation. People 200 years from now deserve to have a clean place to live as much as we do...

**DOMS** · 08-20-2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by maniclion

The island of garbage floating in the pacific ocean is no hoax, the smog lingering over so many cities is no hoax. I don't do what I do for the sake of global warming, I do it for global salvation. People 200 years from now deserve to have a clean place to live as much as we do...

The effort to fix real problems is hampered by the drive to fix agenda-driven "science."

**LAM** · 08-20-2011, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by maniclion

People 200 years from now deserve to have a clean place to live as much as we do...

exactly..

**maniclion** · 08-20-2011, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

The effort to fix real problems is hampered by the drive to fix agenda-driven "science."

It's a waste of funds and resources to prove or disprove man-made causes of accelerated global-warming. There are plenty of excellent reasons for us to make changes; defunding oil Sheiks who support radical Islamists being a damned good one.

I used to think we had a huge set of balls to think our actions could effect the whole planet more than volcanoes and forest fires, and I'm sure our daily contribution has a bit of an effect, but what is the use of arguing on that front when there are so many other reasons to do the better things? One thing we have done that I think was a horrible legacy for future Earthlings was creating that huge ring of debris up in our orbital sphere....

**GearsMcGilf** · 08-21-2011, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by maniclion

The island of garbage floating in the pacific ocean is no hoax, the smog lingering over so many cities is no hoax. I don't do what I do for the sake of global warming, I do it for global salvation. People 200 years from now deserve to have a clean place to live as much as we do...

Pollution and climate change/man-made gw are two different things. Pollution is something humans can and should control. I don't want to see individuals or corps dumping toxic rubbish into rivers or polluting the air or soil anymore than anyone else/ But, the idea that we're destroying the planet with our SUVs and coal burning plants is a theory that has not been and will likely never be proven nor disporven.

**MDR** · 08-21-2011, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by LAM

Considering what we have done to the oceans and the worlds freshwater supply of which most is un-drinkable at this point one could only logically deduce that our actions have had a negative impact on the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

instead of doing something now we should just wait until it's totally fucked up. I'm sure that's what Einstein would recommend if he were still alive...

^This.

Seems to me that people are just looking for excuses to continue with the status quo because it might take a little effort to do something different. The fact is we need to make changes now before it is too late.

**SilentBob187** · 08-21-2011, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Pollution and climate change/man-made gw are two different things. Pollution is something humans can and should control. I don't want to see individuals or corps dumping toxic rubbish into rivers or polluting the air or soil anymore than anyone else/ But, the idea that we're destroying the planet with our SUVs and coal burning plants is a theory that has not been and will likely never be proven nor disporven.

And with that, I say that we agree to disagree on GW. Give a hoot, don't pollute.

GO PLANET!

**DOMS** · 08-21-2011, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by SilentBob187

And with that, I say that we agree to disagree on GW. Give a hoot, don't pollute.

GO PLANET!

**horstwessel** · 08-22-2011, 03:57 PM

Global warming as per the leftist propaganda is a big scam to rob us even more with green taxes.

**maniclion** · 08-22-2011, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Pollution and climate change/man-made gw are two different things. Pollution is something humans can and should control. I don't want to see individuals or corps dumping toxic rubbish into rivers or polluting the air or soil anymore than anyone else/ But, the idea that we're destroying the planet with our SUVs and coal burning plants is a theory that has not been and will likely never be proven nor disporven.

SUVs and coal burning plants certainly aren't helping our planet. Plus they both depend on fast depleting resources.... In the town I was born in houses are sinking into pits forming due to old mine shafts giving out, the whole underbelly of many towns in the mineral area are honeycombed beyond repair and have several man made mountains called "chat dumps" where they dumped the dugout dirt from the mines....

**sofargone561** · 08-22-2011, 04:36 PM

glodabl warming is bullshit and made up so they can pass more laws to create more taxes its part of the new world order agenda. and as someone stated above the planet have been getting warmer and warmer sense the last ice age its a cycle and where in the middle of it, granted were not helping the cycle much with our emissions and shit but still global warming is about as real as my 2 foot penis

**AdmiralRichard** · 08-22-2011, 05:59 PM

**heavyiron** · 08-22-2011, 09:39 PM

Turn up the AC...

**LAM** · 08-23-2011, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by sofargone561

global warming is bullshit and made up so they can pass more laws to create more taxes its part of the new world order agenda

that makes no sense at all. higher taxes increase government revenues, the neo-liberal agenda is to reduce taxes thus starving government forcing it to shrink giving more power to capital, corporations, etc. repressing labor even further.

**GearsMcGilf** · 08-23-2011, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by maniclion

SUVs and coal burning plants certainly aren't helping our planet. Plus they both depend on fast depleting resources.... In the town I was born in houses are sinking into pits forming due to old mine shafts giving out, the whole underbelly of many towns in the mineral area are honeycombed beyond repair and have several man made mountains called "chat dumps" where they dumped the dugout dirt from the mines....

I've seen this before. One of my old customers in the banking days built a factory and several warehouses in a semi rural about 30-40m outside of Bham, AL. After about three years in that spot, the floors in his factory and a couple of his warehouses had huge cracks. Apparently, there were a shitload of sinkholes right under his property, due to mining.

But, until clean & renewable energy is online and affordable for middle class households, I don't understand why there is even an argument about it. The radical environmentalists have an argument against every form of energy, from windfarms, to fossil fuels, to nuclear. It seems that, as long as they can continue to pump petrol into their Volvos and their power bill doesn't rise, the rest of us are supposed to return to hunting and gathering for a living.

**Big Pimpin** · 08-23-2011, 07:01 AM

Global warming must be true because nearly every day here it starts out cool then gets warmer as the day progresses.

Thread: Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Thread Tools

Display

Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax

Similar Threads

Knut, the celebrity polar bear, has died

This is probably worst than global warming

Global Warming

The Global Warming thread

What about this Global Warming!?!?

Posting Permissions