Polarbeargate – Now Its All Al Gore’s Fault

Polar bears barbecuing a penguin, makes about as much sense as the Church of Climatology

One of the most amusing things about any repressive ideology in decline, be it communism, Nazism or in this case the Church of Climatology, is the guaranteed way that as the whole house church of cards comes tumbling down the followers will inevitably turn on each other.

Polarbeargate is proving to be another major embarrassment for the warming alarmist believers, there are a number of different stories as to why Charles Monnet has been suspended, though the revelation  that Monnets wife peer reviewed his 2006 paper on Polar Bears drowning follows the usual farcical pattern of Climate Religion science,  is hardly breaking news.

Now warming alarmist Ian Stirling feels that Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth Powerpoint presentation overinterpreted Monnett’s observations:

But whether the 2006 paper is even involved in the suspension remains unclear. BOEMRE spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz says that the proceedings have nothing to do with “scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged” and regard an unrelated matter.

Other scientists, impressed with Monnett’s work, are also unsure where any allegations of a lack of scientific integrity could have arisen. In an e-mail to ScienceInsider, Ian Stirling, a polar bear researcher at the University of Alberta in Canada, calls the 2006 paper a “very valuable observation … properly written up and published in a respected peer reviewed journal”. Monnett and Gleason had observed four dead bears floating in open water in 2004, a phenomenon never before seen despite 16 years of observations, and concluded that they had drowned. Melting sea ice and windstorms that increased swim distance, they suggested in the paper, might be a cause.

Al Gore’s movie, Stirling feels, overinterpreted Monnet’s observations. “I still think it is a good piece of work, puts a limited number of observations in a solid context, does not overinterpret, and does not say this was caused by climate change.”

Peer reviewed by Monnet’s wife is hardly a good piece of work, at best it is a conflict of interest.

If Stirling was so worried about Al Gore overstating Monnet’s case, then Stirling could have said something at the time, but Stirling, like Gore and all the other snake oil salesmen believed they had convinced people with their Climate of Fear campaign and any lie, no matter how ludicrous would be  swallowed whole by a populace paralysed by fear of an inert trace gas.