Eric May the BOEMRE IG's so-called special agent is a colosal idiot!!! The guy is unbearably dimwitted. How did he get his job? What are his qualifications? Did he get a diploma from the University of Phoenix with a grade point average of 2.0 or something?

I'm sorry, multiple head vises are simply not enough when reading the full transcript of the IG's interview of Dr. Charles Monnett by Eric May.


OK, first, we already knew from the prior interview that Eric May cannot do simply percentages or ratios.

Now, we can also see that he knows absolutely nothing at all about the standard structure of a published peer-reviewed scientific study.


Seriously!  The guy goes to a dictionary and reads out the definition of an "abstract" to Dr. Monnett!  I'm not kidding!  And May still has no clue what an abstract of a scientific paper is.  


Next, May is hopelessly clueless, and has no idea what the "introduction" section of a scientific paper is for (for those in unfamiliar territory -- the introduction is basically a miniature literature review that goes over what is already known, i.e., already in the peer-reviewed literature, then leads into the reason for the current study or in this case a set of observations and why they are important to add to the already existing literature -- Eric, please read this and try to learn -- I'm just not sure if you are actually educable).

OK, readers, I apologize -- there is no head vise in existence today that will prevent your head from exploding upon reading the following exchange between the amazing BOEMRE idiot Eric May and the scientist Dr. Charles Monnett.  READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!

Eric May: Okay. In the first section of your manuscript is the abstract. Can you define "abstract" for me and what it covers?

Charles Monnett: No. I can't. I haven't looked at that in years.

Eric May: Okay. Well, according to Webster's Dictionary, "abstract" is a quote -- is defined as a, quote, a summary of attached scientific article, document, something that concentrates, in itself, the essential qualities of anything more extensive and/or the overall essence." Would you agree with that definition?

Charles Monnett: I believe you. If you say it, that's it.

Eric May: Okay. Dr. Monnett, here's an email sent to you from Jeffrey Gleason, dated September 28th, 2004, which was written approximately eight days after your observations of the dead polar bears. Can you please read this email out loud, please.

Charles Monnett: "Chuck, just got off the phone with my co-supervisor from my Ph.D. who is an Arctic ecologist and I mentioned the dead polar bears. He thought we might be onto something with a global warming angle. In any case, he recommended we get in touch with Ian Sterling (phonetic) to discuss our observations. "It might be worthwhile to get his views on the topic. Attached are some of his research projects in the north."

Eric May: Can you explain the circumstances surrounding what led up to this email and how you and Dr. Gleason came up with the global warming angle?

Charles Monnett: I don't know -- Jeff sent the email. I didn't send it. So, he apparently felt a need to talk to his old advisor. The global warming angle is obvious. We've played it down completely in the paper, but I think it's widely viewed that the receding sea ice in the Alaskan Arctic and elsewhere, and increases in water temperature are related to changes in air temperature. I think that's pretty well-documented, which -- some people might argue is related to global warming.

Eric May: Okay. Do you recall calling Ian Sterling pertaining to this email and the global warming angle?

Charles Monnett: I think I talked to Ian Sterling. Ian reviewed the first draft of the thing. I think Ian mentioned that it was an important observation.

Eric May: Okay. In my interview with Dr. Gleason, he indicated that you did call Ian Sterling regarding the global warming angle.

Charles Monnett: Well, we called him regarding the observation and sought advice on how to proceed. You've got to have -- when you write a paper, I mean, you've -- you've got to reflect on what's in the literature and what other people are doing and thinking, and it seemed relevant to the situation with polar bears. After all, they were just listed as "threatened."

Eric May: All right. "In order for you and everyone to understand the basis of my questions, let me refresh your memory of our last conversation and provide you with other information that has come to our attention."

Charles Monnett: Yes.

Eric May: In your last interview with me you comment on, quote, "This paper is very narrow in that it only focuses on the swimming and drowning and what we thought was related to it. In other words, a storm." End of quote. Do you recall that statement?

Charles Monnett: No, I don't recall it.

Eric May: You also said, and what -- I'll paraphrase. "The early BWASP data collection system, up until 2006, did not have the ability to document a dead polar bear. You relied on your own methods to document dead polar bears on the BWASP mission and, in an undocumented telephone conversation you asked Dr. Tracy for his dead polar bear data covering the approximately 23 years of research." Again, you said that you didn't know --

Charles Monnett: You know, we didn't -- we didn't ask him ask --

Eric May: Let me finish.

Charles Monnett: We have the data.

Eric May: Let me finish. Again, you said that you have no documentation to support your efforts to collect dead polar bear data from anyone on the early BWASP mission. Do you recall those --

Charles Monnett: I don't recall the details, no, but I do recall telling you that I thought I had asked Steve Tracy about it. I also recall sending you an email about a week after the interview, telling you that my memory was flawed and that --

Eric May: Well, that's why I'm refreshing your memory.

Charles Monnett: Right.

Eric May: I'm basically quoting what you indicated -- what you told me in my last interview, February 23rd, 2011. During our interview of Dr. Gleason he said the following about polar bear observations during the BWASP study. I'll quote. "It's a needle in a haystack, and when you start thinking about seeing a swimming polar bear or a dead polar bear out in the middle of the ocean from an aircraft moving that fast covering the observation transect of maybe a mile, it's staggering what the potential is. I mean, it's really low." Dr. Gleason also speculated on the frequency of polar bears drowning after being caught in a storm. He said, "I think that happens probably more frequently than people recognize, but you just don't see it because there's nobody out there doing these surveys."
In order to define the parameters of your observations in the abstract section of your manuscript you wrote, "No polar bear carcasses were observed." And later on, from 1987 to 2003. Correct?

Charles Monnett: Is that in the abstract?
 
Eric May: That is in the abstract.
 
Charles Monnett: Well, I don't have the abstract, but I trust that it is.
 
Eric May: Well, I have the abstract. My question to you, Dr. Monnett, based on the limitation of the BWASP protocol and the limited number of observation hours of the BWASP study, is it your scientific conclusion in this manuscript that no polar bears drown due to stormy weather between 1987 and 2003?

Charles Monnett: No. We didn't say that. We said that none had been seen in the survey.

Eric May: Do you want to read the abstract out loud?
 
Charles Monnett: No.
 
Eric May: Well, that's what it says. "No polar bear carcasses were observed."
 
Charles Monnett: Well, it says, "During the aerial surveys in September 1987 through 2003," and then it has some totals, and then the next sentence says, "No polar bear carcasses were observed." It's linked to the surveys. I don't know what a --

Eric May: In the last sentence -- well, let me go on. In the last sentence of the abstract of your paper you also wrote, quote, "We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if you observe trends in the regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues," end of quote. Okay. Do you want to go over that? That's in the abstract as well.

Charles Monnett: No, I see it there.

Eric May: Okay.

Charles Monnett: I stand by that.

Eric May: In the introduction section you mentioned the negative impacts to polar bears such as declination rate of sea ice, warming trends, sublethal effects of reduced sea ice on individual polar bears, and the net effect of global climate changes on polar bear populations, but you never mentioned bad weather or the storm is a potential negative or lethal effect.

Charles Monnett: Well, that's because that's a result, and the introduction is reviewing what's already known, so you don't put something you're describing in the paper in an introduction.

Eric May: Although we just previously discussed the abstract as a summary of your findings.

Charles Monnett: It's a summary of the results, not the introduction. The introduction is a review of literature in the state of knowledge, generally.

Eric May: Do you want me to read the definition of  "abstract" again? 
Let me go on. In the study area and methods section of your manuscript you mentioned the ice pack, average multiyear ice, stable, fast ice, decreasing ice concentrations, sea ice type, sea ice coverage and data on sea ice conditions, and only one reference to local weather patterns. 
Dr. Monnett, is this a deliberate attempt to introduce the global warming angle that is reference in this 2004 email?

Charles Monnett: No. There's a figure here that shows the weather, the winds.

Eric May: Let me go on. Did you intentionally omit any reference of the bad weather in the abstract introduction and/or study area and method sections of your manuscript in order to deemphasize the storm and emphasize your global warming angle as referenced in this 2004 email?

Charles Monnett: No.

Eric May: Okay. Did you intentionally underemphasize the potential impact of bad weather on polar bear populations in order to draw attention to the global warming angle to ensure that this paper would get published?

Charles Monnett: Absolutely not.

[Seriously, Eric May cannot read scientific articles.  Oh Lordy, God save us all from imbeciles like this.]

If you still have any brain matter available after your head exploded, you can read more of Eric May's bizarre questioning here (go to p. 78): 
http://peer.org/docs/ak/9_14_11_IG_8-9_transcript.pdf