Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Climate of smear - Josh 229 | Main | Light blogging »
Tuesday
Jul092013

Climate of fear

I'm still off duty, but this is too important to leave for later. I've been having some correspondence with Murry Salby in recent weeks regarding a BH reader's research. Prof Salby copied me in on this email, which needs to be widely disseminated.

Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php Remarks from several make it clear that Macquarie University is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs, if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it. Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible. In response to queries is the following, a matter of record:

1. In 2008, I was recruited from the US by "Macquarie University", with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia. Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.

2. With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia.   Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why. Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another. Requests to release the committed resources were ignored.

3. Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse, Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed. As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.

4. A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me. Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia. Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not.

5. To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided   in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored. The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal, the government body with regulatory oversight. The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract. Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.

6. During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production of a new book - all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program. The endeavor compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many. http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/speaker/murry-salby/  Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012. Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases. More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, which benefits from such claims.

7. The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases. Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates:     (i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief)         not unprecedented.    (ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane                                  also governs modern changes. These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings, which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/02/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry-salbys-work-finding-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.

9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.  

10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts   to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff - junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.

11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of "misconduct", cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US. My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated - left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.

12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.

13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057  (Open access via Google News) To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim:       “one in two chance that by 2100 there'll be no human beings left on this planet” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/if-you-want-to-know-about-climate-ask-the-right-questions/story-fni0ffxg-1226666505528 Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff. Included is its Chief Commissioner.

14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases,   Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.

15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.

16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.

17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct.

18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal, Macquarie terminated my appointment.

19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.

20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated, that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University's "Climate Experts". http://www.science.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/news/climate_change_commision  

                                                                                                                            Murry Salby

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (221)

I hope that Salby's case will receive a fair hearing from the University, and if not that, from the public. If he has written agreements which were not fulfilled by the University, then he probably has legal recourse to recover damages.

The larger issue is that what Salby has been saying about CO2 (although not through publication) is contrary to even the most basic understanding of the carbon cycle, and contrary as well to a broad range of evidence, ranging from ice core CO2 records to basic physical chemistry. I have no doubt that Salby's public comments on CO2 upset and embarrassed people at the University; I honestly find them almost comical. That the University may not have handled the situation appropriately does not take away from the reality that Salby is almost certainly mistaken about atmospheric CO2.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Fitzpatrick

Having listened to Murry Salby's talk in Germany I am left with the impression that he has overreached himself. Many of his ideas sound plausible but he does not seem to recognize that even if 25% of what he says is true it would still completely undermine the orthodox view of AGW. Even if 25% of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels this casts serious doubt on the outlandish climate sensitivity of 3C for the doubling of atmospheric CO2 -- a view defended by the IPCC for many years.
Macquarie university's handling of the whole affair seems far too cloak and daggerish. After I listened to Salby's talk I wanted to write to him to thank him and make some comments. So I did the obvious thing and went to the MacQ web site and found his email address without any trouble. I then sent off my email but it was returned with a message saying something likforme: address unknown. So I contacted one of the deputy deans at MacQ and she tried to send an email to the same email address with the same result. She then wrote back to explain what had happened -- indicating that she would contact me once she had managed to get to the bottom of what was going on. Shortly thereafter she sent a second email indicating that MS was no longer in the employ of MacQ (no reason given) but did not give me a contact email address -- despite my having asked for it. All very fishy.
If everything is above board why does MacQ not tell us their version of the story.
I must say I find MS's story about the difficulty of getting his code working at MacQ rather strange. I have ported code from university to university many times with nothing more than minor (overcomable) hitches.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterTed Swart

Sounds like a rant from someone who didn't even bother to check that they had legal employment status to me.

Australian immigration procedures being what they are, he would not have received a visa to enter Australia in the first place without legal employment status.

Jul 10, 2013 at 6:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Chappell

Salby's PhD student seems to be this lady:

http://envirogeog.mq.edu.au/about/students/person.htm?id=etitova

Her email address has also been closed down

Jul 10, 2013 at 6:43 AM | Registered Commentermangochutney

There must be a Macquarie side to this case. One would assume that there are instructions from the University to Prof Selby which he has ignored, leading to him being dismissed. We need to see these before jumping to judgement. FOI requests at the ready.

Jul 10, 2013 at 6:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

@dung

You say

'.....but I believe Salby has a document that would explain it.'

Sorry to be cynical, but this just one example of an awful lot of stuff that Salby has not so far explained about this tale. His self-described actions do not strike me as those of a rational cautious man. Nor do his descriptions of McQuarrie's actions ring true.

He was 'given excuses' - .OK - but which excuses? Show them. He went to Europe and his ticket was cancelled. OK - where was he? who paid for it? and who cancelled it? What did he do to get home? What was McQuarrie's reaction? He had a russian student - great. What was her name? Where is her description of the story? and so on and so forth. All the way through there are no checkable details presented.

It may be that Salby is a true prince among scientists and will be revered by future generations as climatology's Einstein. It may be that his theories are the things that bring us from the darkness into light. Or it may not - I make no comment on those things.

But in terms of presenting convincing evidence about his employment history to this observer, he has a lot of catching up to do.

PS Paul Dennis has observed (above) that Salby has already had two failed attempts to sue his previous employer at University of Colorado...at about the time he upped sticks to Oz. I hope I do him no injustice when I say that this is beginning to look like serial behaviour..........

Jul 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

With the best will in the world I always have a problem taking umbrage on someones behalf on hearing a story of grievance from just one side, no matter how convincing.

Although more so in this case I see disturbing patchy instances that would make me want to hear more from a third party. For instance I sense a lot of time and events are missing between:

With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia.

And....

Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable.

Those two sentences are butted together almost implying a breaking of a contract without cause but I suspect it wasn't that simple...

Jul 10, 2013 at 7:58 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

nvw and Nullius in Verba,

of course you are right that there have been carbon isotope excursions in the past, some of which have been very much larger than that which we observe at the present day. These have often been interpreted as major perturbations to the carbon cycle such as increased rates of burial of organic matter and their subsequent removal from the active carbon cycle.

One could postulate that we might be at the start of a modern day perturbation. However, as I've indicated there are other lines of evidence. First we know that we've increased anthropogenic outputs of CO2 since the industrial revolution. Knowing this the expected change in atmospheric d13C is to decrease as observed. This in itself doesn't prove that the rise is a result of anthropogenic outputs. However, add in the 14C data, O2/N2 measurements etc. all of which can also be explained by anthropogenic CO2 then a clearer picture is emerging.

I'd say that applying Occams razor our most parsimonious explanation is that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the modern day rise.

Nullius in Verba, the C cycle is under determined if one wants to use isotopes to constrain sources, sinks, feedbacks etc. That's why it's important to take an overall view of all the data available relating to the signatures of different contributing sources/sinks and measured fluxes where they are available.

Jul 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Dennis

Nullius in Verba,

I agree completely with your philosophy and I think that if you read back on my comments above I explicitly stated that I welcomed Murry Salby's hypothesis. It adds a new dimension to the debate and gives us reason to re-examine the data and how they might be interpreted. It certainly isn't settled science but applying Occam's razor I'd suggest that the most parsimonious and coherent explanation of the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is that we are perturbing the system by adding an anthropogenic component.

Jul 10, 2013 at 8:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Dennis

Stephen Hayward - an environment and American Studies scholar with Washington, DC think tank and now the Professor in conservative political thought at the University of Colorado at Boulder - whose recent writing is linked to by Salby himself, he now reports on the subject of these developments.

Hayward sums up Salby's account (above) with


Macquarie "apparently regretted its hiring of Salby and reneged on its commitment of support for his research, is penalizing one of his graduate students, and has used technicalities to dismiss him."

"It is likely that Tim Flannery, one of the leading climate campaign thugs who is also at Macquarie, is behind this purge."

Genuine dissent is very difficult to have in the PC-science university today. Hayward ways he's "still convinced that I was correct when I said in my post on Salby last month that 'I suspect there are a lot more Salbys out there in the sciences in academia.' But his treatment shows how hazardous it can be to challenge the “consensus” if you aren’t tenured."

Bu not all hires are created equal in the new, PC-university. Even - or possibly especially - in the sciences.

Jul 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterOrson

I'm afraid I have to throw my lot in with the "hold your horses" camp here. We don't know the full story, just because he's anti-IPCC doesn't mean he's one of the good guys.

If he can support his case with documentation then he should take legal recourse. In most countries, undertaking the obligations of a contract is the same thing as accepting its terms, even if it doesn't exist on paper - so he has real legal recourse. Let's see it.

Jul 10, 2013 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

... I think I'll withhold judgement quite yet.
Jul 9, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

...Nor do his descriptions of McQuarrie's actions ring true.
Jul 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

So "quite yet" has time-expired and judgment time has arrived.

Jul 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterBig Oil

Thats a bit unfair Big Oil. What he's saying is that he doesn't have enough info to judge BUT that some of things said don't sound right. Both things can exist simultaneously. Salby might have a legal case at the same time as being mistaken about some of the details.

From the description given it does sound like an innocent being treated shabbily by a powerful institution, but as any policeman or lawyer will tell you, sometimes what's omitted from a description is just as relevant. There's probably a few details which might explain the university's behaviour a bit better, in fact I'd say likely.

We just don't have the full story yet, so although our sympathies go to Salby, if we are skeptical, we must hear both sides.

Jul 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

iirc Steven Hayward is the "token conservative" at Boulder Uni

Jul 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

Despite my reservations expressed in my previous post, I am in agreement with Dung (Jul 10, 2013 at 1:19 AM) and suspect I may have been closer to the truth in my post: Murry Salby appears to be an ingénue, innocently unaware of the political machinations that can exist in large establishments, whatever they may be. It could be that the AGWists became alarmed with his research getting dangerously close to the “tipping point” of their own credibility and took him on with the intention of silencing and, ultimately, discrediting him (one scenario that is plausible with the information given so far.) The lack of response from McQuarrie is prodding our own inherent cynical scepticism into action – “we’re only hearing one side of the argument!” – so the tactic appears to be working.

Steve Fitzpatrick (Jul 10, 2013 at 2:12 AM): Salby does come over as a genuine scientist (they do exist, probably outnumbering the charlatans, despite other human failings) who would admit an error on his part, and could accept proper correction; your comments would be better if you had demonstrated the former and provided the latter. Explain in what way he could be mistaken?

Jul 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

@Big Oil

I don't think you read my comments very carefully. I have not made any judgements on the case overall.

I'm quite happy to reserve that until we have heard the full story from both sides.

So far we have only heard Salby's - and pretty thin fare it is. I have questions about it. No doubt if and when the Uni. repsonds I will have questions about their version of events too.

Being sceptical works both ways and, so far the account given by Salby does not have me leaping to his defence and denouncing McQuarrie. I think that this story has a few miles left in it yet.

Jul 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

While I am also inclined to reserve judgement, universities do have form for treating scientists who do not conform shabbily. It is odd, however, that he apparently went along with breaches of his terms of employment for so many years.

At least one of his points is questionable. He claims that because the university did not register his employment contract, it is deemed to be invalid. This is simply untrue. A contract is a contract - as long as it was duly executed, it is enforceable. It may make it harder to take his dispute to the employment tribunal, but they have in the past ruled that an employer's failure to register a contract is no excuse for not complying with its terms.

Jul 10, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

If even a quarter of what Salby says is true, he's been treated badly - possibly disgracefully. Macquarie is Tim Flannery's university, and I doubt there'd be much argument on here about his status!

Jul 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM | Registered Commenterjamesp

"So far we have only heard Salby's - and pretty thin fare it is. I have questions about it."

Me too LA. What strikes me is that this took place over a five year period, yet not once over that period does Professor Salby mention what was communicated to him by Macquarie University, nor does he say what the misconduct was about. He may well be a victim, but just because he's "on our side" doesn't mean we should accept his word without seeing all the evidence. Nullius in verba.

Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"If even a quarter of what Salby says is true, he's been treated badly - possibly disgracefully. Macquarie is Tim Flannery's university, and I doubt there'd be much argument on here about his status!"

And his previous location at University of Boulder, Colorado is ground-zero for, errrm, Kevin Trenberth. Odd, that.

Jul 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

..or even University of Colorado, Boulder.

Jul 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"And his previous location at University of Boulder, Colorado is ground-zero for, errrm, Kevin Trenberth. Odd, that."
Trenberth works in the same city, but for NCAR.

Jul 10, 2013 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered Commenternick stokes

I was going to add a comment to RR's post when I happened on BigYin's post on the 'Hall of Fame' discussion which makes the point about as succinctly as you can get.
IF what we are getting is right than it looks pretty much as if the Macquarie establishment (ie Flannery) knows or very strongly suspects that it is wrong and Salby is right.
In which case a lot of desperate little people are going to be running round trying to re-arrange the deckchairs. "No, that's not an iceberg. Figment of the imagination, sir. Come and sit down in the comfy chair!"

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

"And his previous location at University of Boulder, Colorado is ground-zero for, errrm, Kevin Trenberth. Odd, that."
Trenberth works in the same city, but for NCAR.

Jul 10, 2013 at 11:30 AM | nick stokes
-----------------------------------
...And The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is a nonprofit consortium of more than 75 universities manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Trenberth is head of NCAR.


Seventy five universities.
No wonder Wolfgang Wagner editor of Remote Sensing resigned after Trenberth phoned him up to complain about him publishing a scientific paper to which Trenberth took exception.

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Jul 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM | Radical Rodent:
There is no need to repeat all the evidence; Paul Dennis Jul 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM, above has summarized the basics. There is more of course, including profiles of CO2 in the ocean, especially in areas of (cold) deep convection, and ice core records showing previous interglacials with warmer temperatures than today yet much lower atmospheric CO2.

But having having already had this discussion more than once, it is plain to me that some will simply not ever accept, in spite of the evidence, that the simplest explanation is adding quite a lot of CO2 to the air ought to raise the concentration, and Salby probably is in that group, as it appears you are. That adding CO2 to the air increases its concentration is about as basic an expectation as adding sand to a bucket will make it heavier, and is the least credible 'skeptical argument'. There actually are very credible arguments that global warming and its consequences have been grossly overstated, and that a reasoned cost/benefit analysis on mitigation efforts needs to be done based on more realistic projections of warming and its consequences. Insisting that rising CO2 concentration in the air is not due to emissions is so obviously mistaken that it discredits good skeptical arguments about the need for more realistic projections and a more prudent and rational course of action... or inaction, if that is the least harmful.

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Fitzpatrick

For instance I sense a lot of time and events are missing between:

With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia.

And....

Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable.

Those two sentences are butted together almost implying a breaking of a contract without cause but I suspect it wasn't that simple...
Jul 10, 2013 at 7:58 AM The Leopard In The Basement

No, there is obviously a lot of history over a period of years that can't be covered in one email so we really have no more than a glimpse of one side of the story.

However, I have observed myself, from the sidelines, that universities (and other organisations) keen to recruit someone are quite free with promises, particularly those not put in writing.

Once the recruit is in the new job, having had the kids change school, sold and bought houses etc etc, the promises are 'clarified' or even forgotten about - "The HR department had no authority to say that - I'll have a word with them"; "Yes, your salary is reviewed each year as we said - but of course you should not expect an increase until you have been in post for at least three years", and so on.

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM | michael hart
"Trenberth is head of NCAR."

Here is the organizational chart of NCAR. If you look under NESL, you can see an entity CGD. Trenberth is in the Climate Analysis section (one of five) of CGD. I think he has been section head, but isn't currently.

And what has this to do with Salby?

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick Stokes

Perhaps some elaboration of the disciplinary complaints about Dr Salby's behaviour might not go amiss in all this - perhaps the publication of a letter or several from the Macquarie University HR department who must have figured extensively in the whole carry-on.

I think it's pretty disingenuous of people here to address Prof Salby's actual work when really what's actually at issue here - is the way he's been treated. There's plenty of differences of opinion out there about lots and lots of academic work - agreeing to differ and carrying on to resolve conflicts seems the reasonable way to go - here we seem to have somebody who's been attacked and done down by the zealots - I didn't realise that the utterly ghastly Flannery was on the staff....

In Oz - from what I've seen - there is clear precedent for the career assassination of purveyors of inconvenient observations in the climate game.


Somebody should put Kim Sprague on the spot - and the sooner the better!

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM | Registered Commentertomo

"not once over that period does Professor Salby mention what was communicated to him by Macquarie University"

Presumably because he was under contract to them then - or so he thought!

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Neither the d13 nor carbon 14 argument make any sense when put into in the context of our CO2 being a mere 3% of natures input/output. Clearly it is clear nonsense to suggest that nature rejects our 3% in favour of it's own. In fact the "overflowing bathtub" analagy of the IPCC even utterly contradicts their own carbon isotope arguments and in any event the error margins totally dwarf any signal in either carbon budget calculations, d13 or carbon14 analyses. The latter two have in any event been well debunked in the literature and the former has the hilarious "missing sink" problem plus a presumed sink (the sea) that should actually be a source in a warming world according to basic chemistry.

Frankly it's quite amazing how so many scientists can see that the manmade warming theory does not stack up in their own field of expertise but somehow all this other "evidence" from other fields nevertheless convinces them of it. The trouble is that every researcher is doing exactly the same. If they'd bother to use their noggiin and a little bit of effort to investigate the circular reasoning, bad methods and sheer innumeracy of the other "evidence" they'd become skeptics too. But then they'd be blackballed too...

And i haven't even mentioned the evidence from plant stomata that says the notion of a pre-industrial CO2 level is just plain wrong. Of course the IPCC didn't bother to mention it either, despite many papers published in prestigious journals by eminent scientists on the subject. We get our idea about pre-industrialised CO2 from Callander throwing away most of the data to present a rising trend - a methodology totally debunked at the time, particularly by Slocum, plus yet another faked-up hockey stick from a single low-res ice-core with a high res CO2 count from an entirely different location tacked onto the end. They didn't even match up until someone invented the idea of the trapped CO2 being of a different age from the ice that surround it; problem dissolved!

Take away all the assumptions, contradictory and circular reasoning, contradictory evidence, bad methodology and sheer innumeracy and you end up with nothing at all.

Jul 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

And what has this to do with Salby?

Jul 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM | Nick Stokes
--------------------------------------------------

It is evidence that he works, or worked, in a field where people can lose their job for publishing scientific papers that ruffle the feathers of other scientists in positions of power and influence.

Jul 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Jul 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM | michael hart
"It is evidence that he works, or worked, in a field where people can lose their job for publishing scientific papers that ruffle the feathers of other scientists in positions of power and influence"

How on earth is the fact that he once worked in the same city as Trenberth evidence of that?

But Salby didn't publish any such papers at MacQuarie. It isn't even clear that he wrote any.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick Stokes

JamesG says it all: "Take away all the assumptions, contradictory and circular reasoning, contradictory evidence, bad methodology and sheer innumeracy and you end up with nothing at all." And James, when you say "And i haven't even mentioned the evidence from plant stomata that says the notion of a pre-industrial CO2 level is just plain wrong" don't forget to mention the work of Beck, that also disputes the CO2 hockey stick...Like Martin A I was very impressed by Salby's lecture - if there is a major flaw in his thesis I have been unable to find it.

But the real question of this thread is what happened to Salby. Like others, I think that there are questions to be answered by both sides, but the horrible suspicion is that he has fallen foul of Mann, Jones, et al, whose climategate memos told of their determination to silence dissenters.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Jul 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM | michael hart
"It is evidence that he works, or worked, in a field where people can lose their job for publishing scientific papers that ruffle the feathers of other scientists in positions of power and influence"

"How on earth is the fact that he once worked in the same city as Trenberth evidence of that?"


Jul 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Nick Stokes
-----------------------------------------------------

You are evading the issue which is that he is a controversial scientist in a politicised environment, which necessarily has a geographical aspect to it in terms of locations of individuals and institutions

"But Salby didn't publish any such papers at MacQuarie. It isn't even clear that he wrote any."

He is claiming that his work was impeded.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

And if the Team or anyone else did scupper a dissenting voice, you can be sure we won't ever find evidence of it now, after Climategate. So the only course of action is for Salby to pursue the case through employment courts or take it on the chin.

This isn't really the thread for discussing the actual science (there is already a Salby thread on Discussion)

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Macquarie University have issued a statement:
http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob

So the Uni are claiming he breached the terms of his contract by not teaching (and otehr more minor expenses breaches), and that it has been through two separate disciplinary proceedings with nominated union representation.

This explanation still suffers from the same problems Salby's does - why wait five years?

At the same time, it does sound as if they have a paper trail which might be used in their defence. The union rep present at these committees - if he was independent and nominated - is a definite blow for his case.

It seems to be a bit less one-sided than it appeared at first. As usual when you only hear one side presented by the one who considers themselves the injured party.

Again, if Salby thinks they have acted badly, he has legal recourse. Unless he did breach the contractual terms himself, and then he's on a sticky wicket.

Jul 10, 2013 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Publicly-funded universities are always secretive and hence corrupt - as we saw with Climategate the the coverups that were run.
What needs to happen, is that Freedom of Information legislation needs to be massively strengthened, so that exemptions require vastly higher standards. In this case, for example, a full background with names should be forthcoming from the university - with failure punished with say a fine of £10000 per week, deductable from the salary account.

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTomcat

This seems to be a "killer blow":

"...he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take"

If Salby's contract included teaching duties, which he refused to undertake, it seems the University was justified in sacking him. I wonder if this is accurate?

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Roger,

Although organisations can be underhanded, it would seem rash of a public institution to tell a blatant fib if Salby can contradict it - in court - by showing that his contact did not require him to teach. They would not risk libel unless they had a very firm paper trail to back this up - especially since it's gone so high profile.

If true, it could be that they let it slip a few years, and now he's becoming a nuisance they had it as a get-out clause to bump him. Unfortunately, if they have a paper trail showing the requests for him to teach, then this would mean little scope for him to sue.

Moral of the tale : hold your horses.

All of this is quite separate to the validity (or other) of his theories.

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Is that the contract that wasn't properly registered?

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff - junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.
As soon as I read that I was inclined (no more than that) to believe this was a move by the university to get rid of a nuisance.
Macquarie's press release, which is a classic piece of news management with obfuscation the primary aim, in fact goes some way to support this.
To be sure I would like to see what Salby's contract actually said but placing a senior member of staff into a humiliating position vis-a-vis his colleagues is a ploy so ancient it's got whiskers. The object is to get him to resign hoping that there enough people prepared to lie should it come to an action for constructive dismissal.
Note that there is no mention or any serious attempt to rebut any of the accusations he makes about an ongoing lack of co-operation since the time when he was recruited.
It looks on the face of it as if they engineered his dismissal by giving him work that would just about have fitted a new post-grad.

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike,

I find it very curious that the university can just unilaterally change his contractual duties, my little company deals with contracts all the time, and they universally say that the terms can't be amended without the explicit written agreement of all parties. If some company tries to fob one on me without such a term I always make them add it in, although I think it's implicit in contractual law that the contract itself describes the entire relationship.

The only thing I can take is that he was actually working without contract (as he says), when all bets are off. He should have left or complained at that point instead of accepting reduced terms. Once he did that he was leaving himself open to action if he didn't comply with those terms. Surely by not registering his contract with the authorities they have breached their own contractual terms? Was he not working there illegally?

Unfortunately, it's up to the individual to ensure they are covered under contract.

There's more to this than meets the eye,

Jul 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

BigYin
I agree but there are a large number of contracts where the employee or customer is faced with conditions which are very much 'take it or leave it'. (Or perhaps that should be simply 'take it or leave'!)
Try this (possible) scenario.
Salby is not happy where he is for whatever reason. (There seems to have been some indication that this might be the case.)
Macquarie gets wind of this, likes what they have seen of his work, and recruit him. "Don't worry about a contract; we'll sort all that out when you get here."
Salby arrives in Oz, goes along to Macquarie and starts work as agreed (or so he thinks).
Meanwhile — and I am now definitely in the realms of conjecture — someone mentions casually to a senior member of the university staff (no names but let's call him TF for want of better) that they have recruited Salby.
The reaction is: You've done what!!?? Are you mad?
Write your own ending.
Salby thinks he has a contract — maybe he does; maybe he doesn't.
Macquarie eventually (after trying most other tricks to get him to leave voluntarily) finally "demote" him to scullery maid knowing that he will either (a) leave or (b) refuse to scrub floors in which case they can fire him.
Plausible.

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Yes, plausible indeed. Just goes to show that people working in this sort of environment have to be very careful.

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Also plausible there was an idea of "putting him somewhere he can't do any damage" by offering a tempting deal and then stalling on it for years, wasting a lot of valuable research time during those vital "50 months to save the planet".

Either way he'll never prove it, I'd guess, and it should serve as a lesson to aspiring non-AGW researchers to be very VERY sceptical of offers from certain institutions who may be trying to bury your work by tie-ing you in. Get a contracts lawyer is my advice!

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Now that MacQ has provided their version of the Murry Salby story the only reasonable conclusion is that the truth about his treatment by MacQ lies somewhere between the two stories. If it is true that his contract involved the obligation to teach and he reneged on this obligation then he is to a large extent responsible for his own downfall. Judging from his talk in Germany he seems like someone who could be a good teacher and, if I was in his shoes, I would have grabbed the opportunity to teach with both hands.
The really sad thing is that his ideas cannot simply be rejected outright and probably have enough validity to merit publication after thorough review. But the chance of this happening is close to zero.
Unravelling the secrets of the Earth's climate is a massively complex exercise and our ability to do this -- to the extent that it is possible -- has been substantially slowed down by the vilification of those who have perfectly valid doubts about the hypothesis that the extra human caused CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for a dangerous rise the earth's temperature.

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterTed Swart

Mike, you speculate:

"Salby arrives in Oz, goes along to Macquarie and starts work as agreed (or so he thinks)."

In which case there was a verbal contract, which is legally binding (at least in England, I don't know about Oz). Were teaching duties included? If there was a signed contract (it matters not a jot if it was "registered") the situation would be clear. If it was verbal it could be a matter of dispute.

I can not see Salby moving half way round the world without something in writing, and the paper trail will be important evidence. A written offer of employment could form the basis of the initial contract of employment. If as Salby says, the University tried to change the contract (to include teaching, for example) then the situation becomes more complex...

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

The Mike Jackson scenario seems pretty plausible to me, with one small change: contracts for senior academics are by commercial standards astonishingly vague as to the duties to be undertaken and the nature of "satisfactory performance". When the university is playing nicely this suits everyone; when it is not things get very messy. So I would assume that Salby had a written contract, but one vague enough to be open to reinterpretation.

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM | Registered CommenterJonathan Jones

@ Nick Stokes:

How on earth is the fact that he once worked in the same city as Trenberth evidence of that?
@ Nick Stokes
But Salby didn't publish any such papers at MacQuarie. It isn't even clear that he wrote any.
--------------------------------------------------
For once, I must agree with Nick Stokes. Talk about drawing a long bow, this verges on 'conspiracist ideation'.

In passing, I have never seen so many misspellings of "Macquarie" in so few posts by people pontificating on the issues - which they can't even spell the name of. That includes Nick, who is supposedly is right in tune with tertiary education in Australia - but can't even spell the name of the university under discussion.

I am guessing that Salby was never going to be Employee of the Month, given his record previously. He legally engaged with his previous employer as well.

What matters in the end is his work. I am not competent to comment on it, but it seems to have created a lot of interest in his field.

Jul 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>