• 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.

Latest Leaked Climate Documents Scandal

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

    #61
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    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:
    So basically he's still under suspicion of fraud and he's been moved on to other duties because his employer still doesn't trust him to manage new contracts.
    I'm alright Jack

    Comment


      #62
      So basically he's still under suspicion of fraud and he's been moved on to other duties because his employer still doesn't trust him to manage new contracts.
      Wrong in all respects.
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
        Wrong in all respects.
        Suggest you read this. The affair is by no means over.

        Charles Monnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) so far takes a neutral stand on the issue. "We won't know, until the inspector general is done, exactly what the charges are and exactly what they are finding," says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
        The hole is quite deep now, if I were you I'd stop digging. All you do is keep a thread up that's basically focused on known or alleged misconduct of climate scientists.

        Have a nice day.

        I'm alright Jack

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
          Suggest you read this. The affair is by no means over.

          Charles Monnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



          The hole is quite deep now, if I were you I'd stop digging. All you do is keep a thread up that's basically focused on known or alleged misconduct of climate scientists.

          Have a nice day.

          I will try not to post any more 'confirmation bias' thoughts, just in case pj thinks I am bumping this thread to make him squirm
          (\__/)
          (>'.'<)
          ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

          Comment


            #65
            Ok - untrue in all significant respects.

            That wiki quote is over 6 months old. Monnet was placed on, then recalled from, 6 weeks adminstrative leave, that being the total of his 'punishment' after an 18 month enquiry. He has now resumed his scientific post. Hardly likely if he was 'under suspicion of fraud'. True he no longer handles contracts but that was never a major part of the role - and not why he was originally investigated.

            You remember he was 'yet another climate scientist in front of the public prosecutor'. So far we've had evidence of zero valid examples to support that smear.
            My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
              Ok - untrue in all significant respects.

              That wiki quote is over 6 months old. Monnet was placed on, then recalled from, 6 weeks adminstrative leave, that being the total of his 'punishment' after an 18 month enquiry. He has now resumed his scientific post. Hardly likely if he was 'under suspicion of fraud'. True he no longer handles contracts but that was never a major part of the role - and not why he was originally investigated.

              You remember he was 'yet another climate scientist in front of the public prosecutor'. So far we've had evidence of zero valid examples to support that smear.
              I will reserve my judgment until after the Federal investigators have finished their investigation.

              The Federal investigators stated as late as September last year that they were continuing with their investigations.

              Lets wait until then shall we.
              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #67
                So, scientist is suspended and told

                'You will remain on administrative leave pending the final results of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation into integrity issues'
                = scientist is guilty.
                Scientist cleared of scientific malpractice = scientist must be guilty of something else.
                Scientist is reinstated = scientist is guilty.
                A year after he was first interviewed and after no charges or developments for 6 months = scientist is still guilty.

                Damn you're harsh. Perhaps you should join the dots ...
                Late last year, the government protected 187,000 square miles of "critical habitat" for the polar bear. That designation didn't sit well with the oil industry and the state of Alaska, both of which are pushing hard to drill for oil in the same Arctic habitat that the polar bear relies upon.

                Just a few months later, on Feb. 23, 2011, criminal investigators came calling to Dr. Monnett. [...] His computer and notes were seized and, on July 18, he was put on administrative leave by his employer, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the Interior Department agency in charge of approving oil development in Alaska. [ ...] On Aug. 4, while Dr. Monnett remained locked out of his office, the Interior Department approved Shell Oil's plans to drill in the heart of polar bear habitat in Alaska's Beaufort Sea.
                Kassie Siegel: Putting an Arctic Scientist on Ice

                Still no sign of a Public Prosecutor ....
                Last edited by pjclarke; 21 February 2012, 21:30.
                My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                Comment

                Working...
                X