• 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.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Mon, May 10, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

Latest Leaked Climate Documents Scandal

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

  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    There is a well known problem in the way the human brain works. Once a hard-won lesson is etched into the head, things that support it are skimmed uncritically and things that oppose it it are held up to the most critical examination, contempt and ridicule.

    It's a very useful trait, in evolutionary terms. If you know that there will be berries on that tree, or water in that stream, you dont want a big argument everytime you have to feed your people.

    Of course in the modern world, sometimes its even more valuable to suspend disbelief and to examine things critically, even your most cherished beliefs.

    Some people are totally unable to do this, there is no help for them. They suffer from Confirmation bias.

    So pj, I might trust you with a spear and a bowl for your berries, but I would never let you near a microscope or a debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    It was a politically-motivated (and hilariously clumsy - read the interview transcript in the link below) witch-hunt against Monnett from Day 1. Having failed to find evidence of scientific malpractice, the IG went trawling for adminstrative malpractice. They tried to make a stink about some contractural irregularities - but their timelines turned out to be all wrong.

    PEER:
    Last edited by pjclarke; 21 February 2012, 13:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    There were no charges to drop. Please stop making stuff up.
    Perhaps I should have said investigation. I do apologise.

    Is he still under suspicion of fraud, given the fact that his employer doesn't rule out taking further administrative action?

    But you are right it is wrong to make stuff up such as distributing fake documents.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 21 February 2012, 13:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    So have the charges been dropped then?
    There were no charges to drop. Please stop making stuff up.
    Last edited by pjclarke; 21 February 2012, 12:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    It sure makes you wonder, if people are prepared to support faked documents and support them so strongly because it's all in a just cause what other falsehoods are they liable to spout ?

    the end justifes the means eh pj?
    No smoke wthout fire eh EO? I have not. I do not. The ends do not justify the dishonest means. Let me repeat quite clearly that I regard Gleick's actions to obtain the genuine documents as criminal and idiotic.

    But I also endorse this

    Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace USA, said it would be unfortunate if the row over Gleick and his methods to obtain the documents distracted from Heartland's work to block climate action.

    "There are a lot of people involved with Heartland's multimillion dollar climate denial machine who want to change the subject to anything else."

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    I'll just interpret that for EO's benefit:

    "no"



    It sure makes you wonder, if people are prepared to support faked documents and support them so strongly because it's all in a just cause
    what other falsehoods are they liable to spout ?

    the end justifes the means eh pj? reminds me of
    'we had to destroy the village in order to save it' or
    Gott mitt uns

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    FTFY.

    The polar bear expert Charles Monnett returned to work without any charges being made. The 'investigation' was a farce - he was never informed of any charges - and is itself the subject of a complaint.

    PEER:

    Not doing so well with the evidence to back up the smear are we?
    So have the charges been dropped then?

    ww.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/charles-monnett-polar-bear-researcher-under-scrutiny-returns-to-work/2011/08/26/gIQAMCdsgJ_story.html

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz wrote in an e-mail that Monnett “was informed that he will have no role in developing or managing contracts of any kind, and will instead be in our environmental assessment division.” She added, “The return of an employee to work does not suggest that future administrative actions cannot/will not be taken.”
    Doesn't look like it.

    If he's innocent, why has been stripped of his responsibilities for developing and managing contracts?

    Lets wait and see shall we.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    I would really like this whole thread to now be about climate scientists, fictional criminal investigations and their misdemeanors. Cos that conveniently distracts from my lack of anything resembling a scientific argument.
    FTFY.

    The polar bear expert Charles Monnett returned to work without any charges being made. The 'investigation' was a farce - he was never informed of any charges - and is itself the subject of a complaint.

    PEER:

    Not doing so well with the evidence to back up the smear are we?

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    I would not have quoted the now allegedly faked memo, however as factual content of the memo has been shown to be true I think the story is still worthy of note.
    I'll just interpret that for EO's benefit:

    "no"

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    If you knew then what you know now, would you have created this thread ?
    I would not have quoted the now allegedly faked memo, however as factual content of the memo has been shown to be true I think the story is still worthy of note.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X