Originally posted by pjclarke
View Post
- 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!
Latest Leaked Climate Documents Scandal
Collapse
X
-
I'm alright Jack -
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.My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostWrong in all respects.
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
Have a nice day.
I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostSuggest 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.
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
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
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostOk - 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.
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 JackComment
-
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 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.
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
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment