• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Climate Expert guilty of fraud, 32 months jail

Kobie said:
The purpose of the thread is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Click to expand...
I guess your three makes it confirmation bias...
 
Buzz said:
If it didn't have anything to do with climate change then why did you post a link to WUWT?

And while I'm sure you will point out that Watts doesn't claim this is evidence that AGW is phony... he sure does insinuate it.

As a matter of fact every single denialist who has joined in this discussion has, in one way or another, insinuated or said that this is evidence against the science of AGW.
Click to expand...

What?

You mean your confirmation bias isn't telling you this time?
 
Deuce said:
Please. You'd never apply this standard to anything that your political bias didn't demand.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your assertion means--if anything. I am in favor of dissolving the EPA entirely, as well as the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy. If your political bias demands that those agencies continue to exist, well and good.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely not.

The EPA has done exceptionally fine work in the past. It and other agencies simply need to be reminded of their purpose, and a massive house cleaning is in order.

Need to completely remove any agenda driven purposes from several cabinet positions, and do real, honest work on behalf of the people.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of dissolving the EPA entirely. It has imposed enormous costs on this country during its sorry existence of four-and-one-half decades, while accomplishing relatively little in return.
 
Jack Hays said:
Those are all fair questions about an individual who is obviously without integrity.
Click to expand...

Except that they're not questions, and they're not just about that individual. Watts uses one man's fraud in an attempt to smear climate science generally, dubbing it "the cause" and repeatedly suggesting that there is an association between that one man's fraud and "massive egos," "irrational excesses of word and deed" and "blindness" in climate science generally.

Interestingly, Beale's position, qualifications and work had almost nothing to do with climate change specifically in the first place. His qualifications were in public administration and law, and outside the attention-grabbing headlines of WUWT and NBC news, the mundane facts are that "He was assigned to the Office of Air and Radiation, a division responsible for the development of national programs, policies and regulations designed to control air pollution and radiation exposure." Watts professes disappointment that to his knowledge no-one had looked into "the quality of his climate work," and yet from that very statement it's blindingly obvious that Watts himself never even bothered opening up Google to see what sort of work Beale was actually doing (or not doing), before making these broad-brushed allegations against "the cause" of climate science.

[Edit: Or even worse, it seems he knew the facts and actually linked to an earlier and less sensationalist Washington Post article which states as much and doesn't use the word 'climate' a single time... but Watts decided to use the incident to attack climate science anway!]

Now, you know as well as I do that the 'guilt by association' approach is a fallacious and dishonest propaganda technique even if Beale actually had been "a leading expert on climate change"... just as it is when a Republican does something bad, or when a Democrat does something bad, or when a Christian does something bad, or a member of any other group which contains fewer than 100% fine upstanding citizens - which is to say, all of them. Everyone knows and fully understands that fact when the naughty person belongs to a group which they happen to like or agree with, but so many seem to decide that it's no longer the case when it's a group they don't like. To your credit, a couple of posts ago you correctly asserted that "Actually, it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with EPA management."

But now suddenly you're deciding that it does have a lot to do with climate change, that Watt's claims to that effect are "fair questions"? Is this just because you're embarrassed about the irrational propaganda you reflexively C&Ped in post #2, and want to pretend that you were right to do so?

Or have you now discovered that suddenly, somehow, there is some logical connection between the financial fraud of a policy advisor to the Office of Air and Radiation, and Watt's allegations about "massive egos involved in some of the more visible climate advocates" and the supposed ""anything for the cause" blindness" he attempts to demonstrate from this incident?
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I am in favor of dissolving the EPA entirely. It has imposed enormous costs on this country during its sorry existence of four-and-one-half decades, while accomplishing relatively little in return.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are too extreme for me. I even doubt many far right conservatives would agree with you.

Anarchists would!
 
Looks like I caught the thread too late.

Mithrae has, once again, dismembered JH, and LoP, once again, continues to embarrass himself.

Deniers pretending they aren't deniers while denying. Hilarious.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Well, I agree that Watts, and I, see this as evidence that there may well be a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc activism and production of propaganda dressed as science in order to keep the easy jobs that give you free 1st class travel when you want it.
Click to expand...

In 2013 a story was apparently broken by the Washington Post (December 10th, six days before the NBC news article) about a senior policy advisor to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation who was discovered from internal investigations to have committed ~$1 million worth of financial fraud against the agency.

Three years later, Tim the Plumber decides that somehow this is "evidence that there may well be a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc" and posts a thread to that effect. He receives much support from other so-called 'sceptics' :doh
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Except that they're not questions, and they're not just about that individual. Watts uses one man's fraud in an attempt to smear climate science generally, dubbing it "the cause" and repeatedly suggesting that there is an association between that one man's fraud and "massive egos," "irrational excesses of word and deed" and "blindness" in climate science generally.

Interestingly, Beale's position, qualifications and work had almost nothing to do with climate change specifically in the first place. His qualifications were in public administration and law, and outside the attention-grabbing headlines of WUWT and NBC news, the mundane facts are that "He was assigned to the Office of Air and Radiation, a division responsible for the development of national programs, policies and regulations designed to control air pollution and radiation exposure." Watts professes disappointment that to his knowledge no-one had looked into "the quality of his climate work," and yet from that very statement it's blindingly obvious that Watts himself never even bothered opening up Google to see what sort of work Beale was actually doing (or not doing), before making these broad-brushed allegations against "the cause" of climate science.

[Edit: Or even worse, it seems he knew the facts and actually linked to an earlier and less sensationalist Washington Post article which states as much and doesn't use the word 'climate' a single time... but Watts decided to use the incident to attack climate science anway!]

Now, you know as well as I do that the 'guilt by association' approach is a fallacious and dishonest propaganda technique even if Beale actually had been "a leading expert on climate change"... just as it is when a Republican does something bad, or when a Democrat does something bad, or when a Christian does something bad, or a member of any other group which contains fewer than 100% fine upstanding citizens - which is to say, all of them. Everyone knows and fully understands that fact when the naughty person belongs to a group which they happen to like or agree with, but so many seem to decide that it's no longer the case when it's a group they don't like. To your credit, a couple of posts ago you correctly asserted that "Actually, it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with EPA management."

But now suddenly you're deciding that it does have a lot to do with climate change, that Watt's claims to that effect are "fair questions"? Is this just because you're embarrassed about the irrational propaganda you reflexively C&Ped in post #2, and want to pretend that you were right to do so?

Or have you now discovered that suddenly, somehow, there is some logical connection between the financial fraud of a policy advisor to the Office of Air and Radiation, and Watt's allegations about "massive egos involved in some of the more visible climate advocates" and the supposed ""anything for the cause" blindness" he attempts to demonstrate from this incident?
Click to expand...

So far as I can see, Watts's questions are about the individual and EPA management, so I don't really think you can stretch it to a broader attack. Nonetheless, in the spirit of the season I'll concede that it would be possible to read too much into this unfortunate case.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
One person committed fraud.

From this, a reasonable person would conclude that as with all groups, slightly fewer than 100% of members of that person's groups (male, white, government employee, climate scientist, over fifty by the looks etc...) are fine upstanding citizens.

In short, we have one person committing fraud.

The so-called 'sceptics' on the other hand - the self-described critical thinkers - are apparently concluding that Trump had an omniscient awareness of the fraud, that the Department of Energy and the Obama administration were in on the scam, that it somehow invalidates climate science, and god only knows what else their fertile imaginations can come up with. Just when I think I have my opinion low enough to match reality :(
Click to expand...

Yes we know, just because one politician gets busted for taking bribes does not mean they are all on the take....... Just because a few cops get caught abusing their power and our trust is does not mean that is the norm.... Just because a few of the main stream media have been busted lying to us does not mean they all lie to us............ but on the other hand........ Perhaps we need to wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Mithrae said:
One person committed fraud.

From this, a reasonable person would conclude that as with all groups, slightly fewer than 100% of members of that person's groups (male, white, government employee, climate scientist, over fifty by the looks etc...) are fine upstanding citizens.

In short, we have one person committing fraud.

The so-called 'sceptics' on the other hand - the self-described critical thinkers - are apparently concluding that Trump had an omniscient awareness of the fraud, that the Department of Energy and the Obama administration were in on the scam, that it somehow invalidates climate science, and god only knows what else their fertile imaginations can come up with. Just when I think I have my opinion low enough to match reality :(
Click to expand...

1) The story is 3 years old. DEC 18 2013, 11:38 AM

2) The guy was a bureaucrat not a scientist or a 'climate change expert'. He got caught taking a lot of time off work and pretending he was with the CIA. What a dirtbag.

3) How desperate is Tim?
 
Quaestio said:
1) The story is 3 years old. DEC 18 2013, 11:38 AM

2) The guy was a bureaucrat not a scientist or a 'climate change expert'. He got caught taking a lot of time off work and pretending he was with the CIA. What a dirtbag.

3) How desperate is Tim?
Click to expand...

What desperation is it to how that fraud occurs?
 
Lord of Planar said:
What desperation is it to how that fraud occurs?
Click to expand...

It is remarkable desperation to claim that the internally-uncovered financial fraud of a law/public admin-trained senior policy advisor to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation constitutes evidence of a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc.
 
Mithrae said:
It is remarkable desperation to claim that the internally-uncovered financial fraud of a law/public admin-trained senior policy advisor to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation constitutes evidence of a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc.
Click to expand...

The long-running (and ridiculously explained) fraud is evidence of incompetent management oversight.
 
Jack Hays said:
The long-running (and ridiculously explained) fraud is evidence of incompetent management oversight.
Click to expand...

Or else they allow it until it gets too much exposure.

I wonder how much punditry the EPA allows?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud, says lying was a '''rush''' - NBC News



And some wonder why there are those pesky skeptics out there.

I wonder if the timing of this news has anything to do with burying it?
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Massive fraud at the EPA from agency’s top paid climate official[/h]This is stunning, yet not surprising. We know people get caught up in “the cause”, and that there are massive egos involved in some of the more visible climate advocates that lead them to irrational excesses of word and deed, but this one takes the cake. This NBC News (coverage of the EPA internal*) investigation…

December 16, 2013 in EPA.
Click to expand...

It's just the
th
because the fraud goes well beyond the EPA.
It's throughout the Government and how, what, why, and on whom it bestows taxpayer money in furtherance of the cause.
 
Mithrae said:
It is remarkable desperation to claim that the internally-uncovered financial fraud of a law/public admin-trained senior policy advisor to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation constitutes evidence of a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc.
Click to expand...

Not when you already have seen other evidence.
Then again you have to have been interested enough to notice.
 
Jack Hays said:
The long-running (and ridiculously explained) fraud is evidence of incompetent management oversight.
Click to expand...

Probably. And obviously that has nothing to do with "a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc." It's got nothing to do with climate change at all; as shown, Beale's degrees were in law and public administration, and his role was as a policy advisor to the Office of Air and Radiation. Trying to generate a narrative of some big corrupt climate change cabal out of it - as Tim the Plumber's posts insinuate - isn't just desperate grasping at straws, it is thoroughly self-delusional.

On this occasion I don't think a criticism of dishonesty could be leveled at the forum members who have tried to spin it into a 'climate hoax' narrative, since they probably hadn't even looked at anything beyond that NBC article which falsely portrays Beale as "a leading climate expert." These people simply haven't bothered to look for any more information, didn't bother to follow what was already a non sequitur to the next obvious step: "This person skived off work, so there might be some agenda behind the work they did" is already irrational enough, but without even bothering to ask what work Beale actually did, we've had more than one member suggesting that this [non-climate science related] fraud is evidence of problems with the utterly unrelated work done by other people, actual scientists.

That really is bottom-of-the-barrel desperation stuff :lol:
 
Mithrae said:
Probably. And obviously that has nothing to do with "a highly corrupt set of individuals in and around the climate change/AGW/IPCC etc." It's got nothing to do with climate change at all; as shown, Beale's degrees were in law and public administration, and his role was as a policy advisor to the Office of Air and Radiation. Trying to generate a narrative of some big corrupt climate change cabal out of it - as Tim the Plumber's posts insinuate - isn't just desperate grasping at straws, it is thoroughly self-delusional.

On this occasion I don't think a criticism of dishonesty could be leveled at the forum members who have tried to spin it into a 'climate hoax' narrative, since they probably hadn't even looked at anything beyond that NBC article which falsely portrays Beale as "a leading climate expert." These people simply haven't bothered to look for any more information, didn't bother to follow what was already a non sequitur to the next obvious step: "This person skived off work, so there might be some agenda behind the work they did" is already irrational enough, but without even bothering to ask what work Beale actually did, we've had more than one member suggesting that this [non-climate science related] fraud is evidence of problems with the utterly unrelated work done by other people, actual scientists.

That really is bottom-of-the-barrel desperation stuff :lol:
Click to expand...

That's just a little too pat. Regardless of whether he was a climate scientist he was involved in climate issues. But the real point is that EPA management is exposed as both credulous and incompetent. And the EPA has been a leading player in a number of climate issues. The question is therefore rightly asked whether similar EPA management incompetence and credulity affected the climate science work.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's just a little too pat. Regardless of whether he was a climate scientist he was involved in climate issues. But the real point is that EPA management is exposed as both credulous and incompetent. And the EPA has been a leading player in a number of climate issues. The question is therefore rightly asked whether similar EPA management incompetence and credulity affected the climate science work.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:thumbs:
 
Jack Hays said:
That's just a little too pat. Regardless of whether he was a climate scientist he was involved in climate issues. But the real point is that EPA management is exposed as both credulous and incompetent. And the EPA has been a leading player in a number of climate issues. The question is therefore rightly asked whether similar EPA management incompetence and credulity affected the climate science work.
Click to expand...

How so? The only possible (tenuous) connection stems from the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that (despite EPA objections) greenhouse gases do fall within the mandate of the Clean Air Act and the May 2007 executive order by President Bush that the EPA and other agencies "protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth." But such regulation did not even start to phase in until 2011, and so far I haven't found any mention of Beale specifically contributing to the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding or the subsequent tailoring rules or anything else. Maybe because he was already well into his skiving fraud period by that stage :lol:

You do understand that merely asserting something is not necessarily the same thing as it being true... don't you?

How exactly was Beale involved in climate issues?

Let's start with the little things here, and maybe then we can work our way up to your allegation that this single albeit major case of a fellow skiving off work is somehow indicative of institutional corruption and climate agenda (despite the evident reluctance of the EPA to regulate GHGs in the first place!).
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
How so? The only possible (tenuous) connection stems from the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that (despite EPA objections) greenhouse gases do fall within the mandate of the Clean Air Act and the May 2007 executive order by President Bush that the EPA and other agencies "protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth." But such regulation did not even start to phase in until 2011, and so far I haven't found any mention of Beale specifically contributing to the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding or the subsequent tailoring rules or anything else. Maybe because he was already well into his skiving fraud period by that stage :lol:

You do understand that merely asserting something is not necessarily the same thing as it being true... don't you?

How exactly was Beale involved in climate issues?

Let's start with the little things here, and maybe then we can work our way up to your allegation that this single albeit major case of a fellow skiving off work is somehow indicative of institutional corruption and climate agenda (despite the evident reluctance of the EPA to regulate GHGs in the first place!).
Click to expand...
The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.
Click to expand...

I don't have any other information on him but the article says he was an expert on climate change. Presumably he was involved at smoe sort of level in the subject.
 
Mithrae said:
How exactly was Beale involved in climate issues?

Let's start with the little things here, and maybe then we can work our way up to your allegation that this single albeit major case of a fellow skiving off work is somehow indicative of institutional corruption and climate agenda (despite the evident reluctance of the EPA to regulate GHGs in the first place!).
Click to expand...

Little things indeed. From Beale's Wikipedia entry:

In 1987, Beale began working as a part-time consultant for the EPA, becoming full-time in 1988.[SUP][4][/SUP] In 1989, Mr. Beale was hired as a full-time EPA employee in the position of Senior Policy Advisor, at a pay grade of GS-15.[SUP][6][/SUP] He was brought on with the EPA primarily through his relationship with Robert Brenner, who was then deputy director of the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA. Brenner and Beale were classmates together at Princeton.[SUP][3][/SUP] Previously, Beale had no experience dealing with environmental issues,[SUP][4][/SUP] but was seen as a good negotiator and had some experience dealing with Congress from his internship during college.[SUP][3][/SUP] He also expressed that he "always had an interest in environmental issues."[SUP][4][/SUP]
Beale worked on amendments to the Clean Air Act,[SUP][7][/SUP] and was widely lauded for his efforts. In 1989, Beale was a member of a 24-person team[SUP][8][/SUP] that was awarded the EPA Gold Medal for Exceptional Service, its highest honor, "In recognition of outstanding contributions to the development of the 1989 Clean Air Act Amendments."[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Twenty-year veteran of the EPA Aron Anthony Golberg noted that Beale was "one of the most capable people whom [he] knew during [his] career".[SUP][3][/SUP] In 1991 and again in 2000,[SUP][6][/SUP] Beale was given a retention bonus, consisting of 25% of his annual salary.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] (Although the retention bonus is an award to be paid out for no more than three years, in Beale's case the awards were paid for a total of 12 years.[SUP][6][/SUP]) In 2005, Mr. Beale also received a Meritorious Executive Rank Award, a category of the Presidential Rank Award, which carried a $28,201 payment.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Prior to his arrest, he was assigned to the Office of Air and Radiation, the division responsible for the development of national programs, policies and regulations designed to control air pollution and radiation exposure.[SUP][2][/SUP]
 
Jack Hays said:
Little things indeed. From Beale's Wikipedia entry:

In 1987, Beale began working as a part-time consultant for the EPA, becoming full-time in 1988.[SUP][4][/SUP] In 1989, Mr. Beale was hired as a full-time EPA employee in the position of Senior Policy Advisor, at a pay grade of GS-15.[SUP][6][/SUP] He was brought on with the EPA primarily through his relationship with Robert Brenner, who was then deputy director of the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA. Brenner and Beale were classmates together at Princeton.[SUP][3][/SUP] Previously, Beale had no experience dealing with environmental issues,[SUP][4][/SUP] but was seen as a good negotiator and had some experience dealing with Congress from his internship during college.[SUP][3][/SUP] He also expressed that he "always had an interest in environmental issues."[SUP][4][/SUP]
Beale worked on amendments to the Clean Air Act,[SUP][7][/SUP] and was widely lauded for his efforts. In 1989, Beale was a member of a 24-person team[SUP][8][/SUP] that was awarded the EPA Gold Medal for Exceptional Service, its highest honor, "In recognition of outstanding contributions to the development of the 1989 Clean Air Act Amendments."[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Twenty-year veteran of the EPA Aron Anthony Golberg noted that Beale was "one of the most capable people whom [he] knew during [his] career".[SUP][3][/SUP] In 1991 and again in 2000,[SUP][6][/SUP] Beale was given a retention bonus, consisting of 25% of his annual salary.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] (Although the retention bonus is an award to be paid out for no more than three years, in Beale's case the awards were paid for a total of 12 years.[SUP][6][/SUP]) In 2005, Mr. Beale also received a Meritorious Executive Rank Award, a category of the Presidential Rank Award, which carried a $28,201 payment.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Prior to his arrest, he was assigned to the Office of Air and Radiation, the division responsible for the development of national programs, policies and regulations designed to control air pollution and radiation exposure.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Nothing about climate. Nothing about science. Nothing about being an expert.

Worked on the clean air act of 1989, which had nothing to do with GHG emissions.

Looks like 'climate expert' was a gross exaggeration....and that's being charitable.

But deniers- have no fear!

The Black Knight will take your pathetic argument from here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom