tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5283176282293831344..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Inspector Clouseau and the Pink Polar BearEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16322328389581761632011-08-22T15:03:28.191-04:002011-08-22T15:03:28.191-04:00Enquiring bunnies want to know about "Special...<i><br />Enquiring bunnies want to know about "Special" agent May's background. As we all know he can count to 3 but not to 4. Perhaps he was a chainsaw juggler before his gumshoe gig.<br /></i><br /><br />Actually, I have it on good authority that he can easily count to 10. 20 if he's wearing sandals (no socks), and 21 if his fly is also open...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26432688992651974752011-08-22T05:18:31.764-04:002011-08-22T05:18:31.764-04:00Scrooge, the IG's take their jobs seriously. I...Scrooge, the IG's take their jobs seriously. I would give then the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were being thorough (of course, I might be wrong). Part of their job is finding out whether an organization is working according to the rules and regulations, so if "everyone's doing it" they can "suggest" changes.Deech56noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14947906218238229062011-08-22T01:45:34.743-04:002011-08-22T01:45:34.743-04:00To Rattus: Gleason had no way of knowing who revi...To Rattus: Gleason had no way of knowing who reviewed the paper because the journal's peer reviews were anonymous. Derocher was acknowledged for a review in the paper and reviewers that are acknowledged usually are not selected for further peer review. Here is an excerpt from a message from the Editor of Polar Biology. He is referring to Ralph Gradinger, the Editor at the time the paper was published.<br /><br />"According to Rolf's information, the review process went as usual. The ms was evaluated by three peer reviewers. All of these are internationally acknowledged polar bear researchers from both North America and Europe, all with a proven record of scientific expertise and experience in evaluating manuscripts for Polar Biology. The referees unanimously recommended publication of the ms after revision. Based on the reviews at hand and the response of the authors to the reviewers' comments, there was, to my opinion, no other reasonable decision than to accept the revised and resubmitted ms for publication."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39599114237739629062011-08-21T23:36:54.531-04:002011-08-21T23:36:54.531-04:00Thank you "Deep Polar Bear" whoever you ...Thank you "Deep Polar Bear" whoever you may be. <br /><br />This answers a lot of the questions I had about the RFP (is the the correct TLA?). I'd still like to see the RFP (or is it the SOW) but it would seem that nothing awful happened -- crikey this is scientific research not a kickback laden DOD contract!<br /><br />One thing. We know that Derocher was asked to review the Polar Biology paper prior to submission (which is fine) but Gleason seems to think that Derocher was one of the reviewers for Polar Biology also. Nothing wrong here (Gleason may be wrong) but it might raise the antenna of the IG. Still they don't got nothin'.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52510492436051180212011-08-21T20:12:08.127-04:002011-08-21T20:12:08.127-04:00Deech56. Of course you are right. What confuses me...Deech56. Of course you are right. What confuses me though is why does the IG seem so gung ho. Of course we don't know everything going on and there is no reason we should. The IG should never be used just for politics. I try to give the IG the benefit of doubt. But when a poster with the name gavin posts something like above it gets my interest. Of course I don't know which gavin it is.Scroogenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81867388812681177262011-08-21T19:31:20.103-04:002011-08-21T19:31:20.103-04:00Scrooge wrote, "If someone in congress is pre...Scrooge wrote, "If someone in congress is pressuring the IG we are supposed to have safeguards in place to prevent such harassment."<br /><br />Requests from Congress do happen and at least some response is required. Congress does have the right to make sure that agencies are spending taxpayer funds wisely.Deech56noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74671627839024850782011-08-21T17:46:58.852-04:002011-08-21T17:46:58.852-04:00Kafka's The Castle comes to mind...Kafka's <i>The Castle</i> comes to mind...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77173984830612163612011-08-21T17:26:45.697-04:002011-08-21T17:26:45.697-04:00Here's a question. Is the IG report classified...Here's a question. Is the IG report classified.Scroogenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-403890087856731182011-08-21T16:44:22.502-04:002011-08-21T16:44:22.502-04:00Sorry about the spelling and punctuation, but it i...Sorry about the spelling and punctuation, but it is so hard to comment that I let it go. When I try ro correct, my post is erased.rumleyfipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03346146988416679423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53662625480270744672011-08-21T16:42:27.949-04:002011-08-21T16:42:27.949-04:00The IG may have something! Give me a break: why wi...The IG may have something! Give me a break: why will they not tell Monnett what's he's accused off.<br /><br />Kafkaeske, yes but it took a while to recognise the voice in my head. It was Joe McCarthy channelled through Arthur Miller. The oily malice combuned with the evil of deliberate misunderstanding is so 50#s Republican.rumleyfipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03346146988416679423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84909176137964350062011-08-21T16:16:42.952-04:002011-08-21T16:16:42.952-04:00OK from this the IG may have found a minor discrep...OK from this the IG may have found a minor discrepancy in the paperwork. No big deal if you dig deep enough you can find errors made by anyone. If you can't then the person being investigated needs more work. So the question is who's behind the complaint? If someone in congress is pressuring the IG we are supposed to have safeguards in place to prevent such harassment. I have trouble trying to blame the IG. They are hopefully just doing their job. If it is a witch hunt then someone is putting pressure on the IG. If that is the case let's hope someone in the IG has the balls to stand up to it.Scroogenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90602266663871706772011-08-21T15:12:28.785-04:002011-08-21T15:12:28.785-04:00Correction to posting by Anonymous - The paragraph...Correction to posting by Anonymous - The paragraph in the middle of the post that starts "A sole-source justification was drafted in late-December, 2003." should read "December, 2004". The error does not change conclusions because that date is still at the beginning of the procurement process. Between December 2003 and December 2004 the study was reviewed and approved by MMS, reviewed and recommended for funding by the MMS OCS Scientific Committee, funding was approved, and a full statement of work was developed.<br /><br />Sorry for the error. I caught it right after the posting last night and attempted to replace the post with the error corrected. I had difficulty because the posting kept disappearing, due to the spam filtering mentioned at the beginning by Eli. That's the problem with doing this sort of thing at 2AM. <br /><br /><br />The CO's, that are based in Virginia, were certainly involved (or absent), but it is hard to say what they will recall from actions taken 6-8 years ago. One has retired and the other has moved to a different agency. <br /><br />One problem with the way the IG has managed this investigation stems from the fact that they are criminal investigators, apparently hell-bent on a conviction. The science would have been better served by an investigation managed by scientists that are familiar with scientific methodology and protocols for publication. When the approach is to use entrapment, by interrogating people that have not thought about an analysis and procurement for 6-8 years and to not give them any hint of what is coming, don't be surprised if memory is not perfect and the person being interviewed does not always recall details sufficiently to give satisfying responses. Monnett, with help from PEER, has protested the IG investigation and called for an investigation using more appropriate methods, as well as an investigation of the investigators for scientific misconduct. <br /><br />For more discussion see this recent "Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists":<br /> <br />http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/media/0629board_statement.pdf<br /><br />The AAAS BOD is concerned about the big picture, which is not what is happening to Monnett, but is an intensifying attack by politicians and certain resource managers on the foundations of scientific method and peer review. Scientists and all thinking people should be concerned by this. And of course, it now looks like this may become an issue in the presidential campaign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5156847926480734862011-08-21T13:47:36.742-04:002011-08-21T13:47:36.742-04:00Aha! Great posts, which include some critical info...Aha! Great posts, which include some critical information, which does change things. There should be no problem - the input into the Statement of Work was done <i>before</i> the solicitation came out. This would be considered market research. It looks like the COs were involved after all. <br /><br />Communicating that the proposal generally looks OK and they will get back with specifics and that he will make sure that the proposal does not get lost in the system is not the worst thing in the world.Deech56noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73774958291800910542011-08-21T13:25:43.926-04:002011-08-21T13:25:43.926-04:00Just a tad more information and context; the plann...Just a tad more information and context; the planning for the original study took place while Canada had a Liberal government. The evil scumbags now misruling my country were first elected as a minority government in January 2006. They cut back the Canadian Wildlife Service in 2007; http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/09/18/enviro-canada-cuts.html<br /><br />and they have cut research in the Arctic and are now cutting Environment Canada much more.<br /><br />Strangely enough, Harper is showing much interest in the Arctic, in a rapacious let's strip it of resources and leave a poisoned wasteland kind of way.<br /><br />The point being that if the Harper government has any involvement in what is happening to Dr. Monnett (I don't know if it does), it would be to do whatever they could to help the forces of evil.<br /><br />There were articles stating that the University of Alberta was distancing itself from Monnett, though the headline seems more sensationalistic than the rest of the article. I would point out that the university could well be subject to pressure from the evil scumbags misruling my province who control education funding.<br /><br />http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110803/university-of-alberta-distances-polar-bear-researcher-charles-monnett-110803/Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60337714441408902032011-08-21T13:13:02.706-04:002011-08-21T13:13:02.706-04:00It is becoming clearer and clearer that this is si...It is becoming clearer and clearer that this is simply harassment by the OIG. It clearly started off with a letter of complaint related to the 2006 paper - regardless of what BOERME management are saying. This is obvious from the idiotic questioning related to the '7' bears started by May in the first Gleason and Monnett transcripts.<br /><br />But, has anyone outside the OIG office seen the original letter that started this off? Is it FOIA-able? (It might be exempt under the exception for 'personnel' matters though this isn't obvious). <br /><br />The oddity that scientific results were being challenged without any public disclosure of the scientific case being put forward is ridiculous. And of course, now that the scientific stuff has proved unfruitful, we have the OIG manufacturing Conflicts of Interest out of the whole cloth to try and justify the whole ill-conceived enterprise. <br /><br />Aren't there any grown-ups in charge there?Gavinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59662196628884574432011-08-21T12:35:01.042-04:002011-08-21T12:35:01.042-04:00Enquiring bunnies want to know about "Special...Enquiring bunnies want to know about "Special" agent May's background. As we all know he can count to 3 but not to 4. Perhaps he was a chainsaw juggler before his gumshoe gig.<br /><br />RumleyfipsRumleyfipsnoreply@blogger.com