• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Have we done the incipient mini ice age?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    You seem to think that the mere fact of an investigation implies guilt. Certainly not in Monnet's case.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Monnett

    Perhaps best to check the outcome of an investigation before posting about it?
    Yes because all investigations are soundly based and their conclusions beyond reproach. Especially those conducted by or on behalf of the UK or US Governments.

    Comment


      #42
      Jeez. He was 65 years of age. He took his settlement and retired on a full pension, saying he could not, in good conscience, "work for an agency that promotes dishonesty, punishes those who actually stand up for scientific integrity, and that cannot tolerate scientific work not pre-shaped to serve its agenda."

      The investigation, apart form being comically inept, was probably political, his employer was involved in a court battle with Shell to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; his removal coincided with the granting of those permits. He was not told what the allegations against him were nor who was making them, however his computers and notes were confiscated and he was placed on administrative leave. When the sometimes farcical enquiry after 27 months, cleared him of misconduct, he was reinstated but constructively demoted, moved away from his important research to a different division. Of course he retired.

      But is his science sound?
      Yes. He was cleared of any scientific misconduct.

      http://www.peer.org/news/news-releas...sh-settlement/
      Last edited by pjclarke; 25 June 2015, 16:47. Reason: Response to an edit upthread.
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by tractor View Post
        Yes because all investigations are soundly based and their conclusions beyond reproach. Especially those conducted by or on behalf of the UK or US Governments.
        Blogger Eli Rabett covered the affair well. It was an overtly hostile investigation: if they had anything that would stand up in court they'd have used it.

        Scientist Cleared In Polar Bear Controversy : NPR
        http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...l/476016a.html
        http://www.nature.com/news/polar-bea...iative-1.11157
        Last edited by pjclarke; 25 June 2015, 16:32. Reason: More links! More links!
        My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

        Comment


          #44
          My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

          Comment


            #45
            Climate Policy Expert goes to jail
            I'm alright Jack

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
              Old news and so what? Ever heard of climate sceptic Dr Oliver Manuel?
              My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
                Old news and so what? Ever heard of climate sceptic Dr Oliver Manuel?
                That's interesting does seem to be somewhat unhinged.

                What about this guy:

                IPCC Chief Resigns after Sexual Harassment Accusations - Scientific American

                Strikes me as being somewhat unhinged, or has he also been exonerated?
                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                  That's interesting does seem to be somewhat unhinged.
                  That's one word for it.

                  A more paranoid person than I might speculate that once smearing Pachuri financially blew up in their faces, his enemies went trawling his private life for dirt. A sad end to a career but the effect on the work of the IPCC is minor as his tenure was almost over anyway. The point is, this guilt by association is not particularly valid, relevant or substantive. Indeed, from your link

                  There will no doubt be some climate change 'sceptics' who seek to use Dr Pachauri's resignation as an opportunity to attack the IPCC. Such efforts should be recognised as the act of desperate people who have simply lost the argument over whether human activities are primarily driving climate change, and who cannot face up to the truth.
                  My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
                    That's one word for it.

                    A more paranoid person than I might speculate that once smearing Pachuri financially blew up in their faces, his enemies went trawling his private life for dirt. A sad end to a career but the effect on the work of the IPCC is minor as his tenure was almost over anyway. The point is, this guilt by association is not particularly valid, relevant or substantive. Indeed, from your link
                    Yes a sad end. It looks like he's been indicted for sexual harassment.

                    Ex-IPCC Chair Indicted for Sexual Harassment
                    I'm alright Jack

                    Comment


                      #50


                      Where's the May 15 peak gone?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X