• 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.

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Latest Leaked Climate Documents Scandal"

Collapse

  • pjclarke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Another symptom is the constant need to revise previous strong assertions. The temptation for those suffering confirmation bias to rush in with the scoop without checking the facts, or apply 'the sense check' is so overpowering that it's irresistible.

    If I had a pound for every thread that you have modified I would be as rich as Al Gore.

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    but I would never let you near a microscope or a debate.
    Says the guy who posted the embarrassing and long-debunked falsehood about DDT being banned and costing milions of lives .......

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    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.
    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing " is a phrase that could have been invented with you in mind.
    HTH BIKIW

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:

Working...
X