Bishop Hill Climate of fear
Jul 9, 2013 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
Reader Comments (221)
Roger
Again, I agree. My life has been bound up with contracts one way or another and I have been on both sides both as employer and employee.
More than once I have started work with a written contract "to follow". It always has. Twice an employee started work for me without the written contract though we were both fully aware that that contract existed from day one.
On the other hand I have zero experience of how these things would work in the upper echelons of academia. I agree that the contract would exist from the very beginning but would a couple of phone calls and an email or two be enough to get your man to up sticks and travel halfway round the world? I suppose it could depend on how much you (thought you) could trust each other.
Need to see the signed contract otherwise this is all conjecture. Even with the contract in hand need to see/hear the respective parties interpretation of the contract.
Sounds to me like there was a contract clause that required he does some teaching but it was only recently invoked; probably the sort of thing that most teachers would recognise, that there is a clause that they may be required to stand in for others as needed, but it could be used to “punish” someone by forcing them to do this to the detriment of there proper work.
But if there isn’t a contract in place anyway, as previously claimed by the university (via Murry) then it’s all a bit moot anyway.
For once, I must agree with Nick Stokes. Talk about drawing a long bow, this verges on 'conspiracist ideation'.
Jul 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM | johanna
-----------------------------------------
I might have said the same johanna, before I read the "climate-gate" emails. But in this matter, my trust has evaporated.
For once, I must agree with Nick Stokes. Talk about drawing a long bow, this verges on 'conspiracist ideation'.
Except it was brought up to correct a misunderstanding which was somewhat more relevant, that he had worked directly for the institution that employs Trenberth. Nick Stokes, with his usual mastery of (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding, took that correction (which recognized that there was no real professional connection between the two) as an assertion that this negligible connection was part of some master plot (Oh, and look at the silly "deniers" and their paranoia). Nick has missed the plot on this point, and I find it difficult to understand how an obviously intelligent commentator could miss it in this way.
Well, after CG, we are wired to smell wrongdoings in academia, perhaps sometimes where none exists. It might well have been "constructive" but it may well have been for reasons other than ideology, perhaps he was a complete PITA! We don't really know.
I think he should have consulted a contract lawyer before "going to the press" with this.
dcardno - I call things as I see them. If Nick Stokes is right about something, who he is makes no difference to me.
It is true that there is plenty of form about universities making life hard for people who are 'out of step' with the current fashion. The case of Dr Carter, of JCU, was a classic example. However, the facts in this case are murky. Let's hope that we see them soon
From University of Boulder to MacQuarrie University...
I see a pattern.
TBYJ,
"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."
This is rather OT, but I'd be very interested to hear more about this, as my employer (the National Trust) does this all the time. My "Role Profile" changes at a whim. Frequently. I was employed as a labourer. I have never sought promotion, but yet I am now expected to write reports and generally faff about doing the kind of work I was trying to get away from in the first place.
This probably isn't the location for discussion of that - but if anyone has any comments or advice I would be very happy to hear them at - thrib at btinternet dot com
Jul 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM | steveta_uk
"But if there isn’t a contract in place anyway, as previously claimed by the university (via Murry)..."
As Johanna says, that is simply wrong. The University would not have paid his salary without a recognised employment agreement. I'm surprised that individual University contracts were registered with Fairwork (if that is what he is referring to) at all, but a failure here would not affect contract validity.
Completely off-topic;
Mehdi Hasan's interview with Richard Lindzen at the Oxford Union will be broadcast on the 13th:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html
Jo Nova has now heard from Macquarrie Uni.
If that's all they've got to say it's truly staggering !
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-uni-responds-to-murry-salby-what-they-dont-say-speaks-volumes/
If true, that would look very much like an attempt at 'constructive dismissal' in the UK.
Off topic, but I just wanted to say how refershing it is to see most posters here remaining both neutral and level-headed on this subject... you display what I believe to be the true mark of a sceptic and earn both yourselves and this blog a great deal of credit!
I think we can all agree that Maquary's statement brings us to the end of Act One of this saga. And we've had a few tantalising glimpses of how the story may develop.
But what is also clear is that the Fat Lady hasn't even started her pre-concert exercises, let alone given us her big numbers. There is a long way to go and ..like all good whodunnits ..it would be unwise to place one's bets too early.
Personally I think the perp was Mr. Mann in the WonkyStats Department with a Hockey Stick, but that may just be wishful thinking................
According to Salby's account, when trying to enforce his entitlement to resources, etc he discovered that his contract had never been formally registered and was therefore not enforceable (his point #5).
That cuts both ways.
Surely, if the contract was never established, Macquarie cannot invoke its terms as the basis for expelling him?
MikeH
Cuts both ways.
If it was never registered and not enforceable then they can do what they damn well like. Arguably, at least.
Salby's mistake (in my limited opinion) was in leaving Oz on a Macquarie ticket but then it's easy to be wise after the event.
James Evans
Contracts are always agreements, which by definition means two parties. But if A wants to change the contract and B doesn't like the new look and A is in a better position than B then you're back to my comment above "take it or leave (it)".
You can always try an industrial tribunal but I will quote "exigencies of the business" and I will (probably) win.
He has written a textbook and got it published by CUP, which presumably means that he could easily cobble together some very good lecture notes based on the book itself and on all the material he probably had to leave out. The videos show that he is a good speaker. I believe he would enjoy teaching this work. Why should he object?
However, as expressed by MU, he was repeatedly directed to teach, which might be seen as a rather insensitive choice of words to use to a senior professor. What if he was in fact ordered not to explain his own work to students but to present lectures prepared by other members of staff and he found that he could not agree with their technical content? Would he be within his rights to refuse to teach what he considered to be erroneous work?
In point 20 of the email he refers to “Climate Experts”, which might well indicate that there was some disagreement concerning “expertise”.
I call things as I see them. If Nick Stokes is right about something...
Which was my point: Nick is wrong (and you are too). The echange went something like this:
First Comment:
> "Wow - Salby worked for Trenberth at U of Colorado Boulder
Correction:
> "No, Trenberth is at NCAR, which happens to be in Boulder, but there's no connection - they just worked in the same town"
Nick Stokes:
> "What does THAT have to do with anything? You people are so paranoid; how does working in the same town give Trenberth any power over Salby?"
Various comments:
> "who is NCAR, what do they do, is UofC a member, etc"
You (later):
> "I agree with Nick Stokes - this looks like conspiracy ideation."
Which is fine if people had been going on about how Trenberth got Salby fired at Uof C, the Hoceky Team interfered with UofC, etc. But they weren't; the only person who had the idea that Trenberth interfered while Salby was at Uof C was, well, Nick Stokes.
This is at least one of the longest threads I have seen on BH and yet most of the discussion is speculation and at least 50% want us to refrain from expressing an opinion until we know more. In business we all have to make judgements and often we do this with incomplete information. When choosing who to trust you sometimes have to decide based on a single meeting but also sometimes you have a longer relationship upon which to base trust.
I am afraid I am a bit ruthless in as much as someone only has to lie to me once, however trivial the issue and I will never trust them in the future. On the other hand the more times they prove to be genuine, the more likely I am to accept whatever they say.
I have not seen Salby lie about anything relating to science, you may not agree with him but he seems to say what he believes and bases it on the information he has. No Hockeys Sticks from Salby so far ^.^
That is why I believe we should give him qualified trust, believe him until we have evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty even? ^.^
Looking at Macquarie's statement it would be interesting to know what Salby was instructed to teach. If it were the case that Salby was instructed to teach students the opposite of what his research told him then he could be forgiven for not turning up at lectures.
Jul 9, 2013 at 10:32 PM | dcardno
>>Sounds like a rant from someone who didn't even bother to check that they had legal employment status to me.
>Or, perhaps, who didn't know that they had to check - the article describes Salby has having received a contract. Unless I was familiar with Australian requirements, I would assume that to be all the documentation I needed. If told by an apparently-reputable employer that any required registrations had been completed, I would take it on faith that they had done so.
...
Not necessarily, it depends on what labour regime was in force at the time ... enterprise bargaining agreement or an individual contract. There might have been a requirement to 'register' or lodge an individual contract where there was already an EBA in place.
For those not aware, industrial relations legislation in Australia vacillates with the politics of the federal government of the time. If Salby was employed during a period of transition, then an almighty cock-up by the university is not out of the question ... in fact, it is highly likely as the administration is not generally the 'sharpest tool in the shed'.
Streetcred, it matters not whether the contract was "registered". It is still a contract in common law, although there might be some difficulty in fitting it into black-letter law. Salby can go to Equity and demand its enforcement, and if it is a valid contract, duly executed, he will win.
Hey they canceled his ticket and held his hearing while he was absent and confiscated his research. Looks like they conduct human relations in the same manner as they do science. I knew they never shared data with anyone but not even the author?
Throg, the project was to add 'ay, matey' to every comment.
Either that, or they had to adjust for the reverse of water rotation.
Jul 11, 2013 at 6:06 AM | johanna
...
Yes, I am aware of that. I was pointing out the existence of the transition between the industrial relations systems circa that time and offering a reason for the confusion that appears to be in so many minds as to why Salby says one thing and the university appears to be acting unilaterally based on something else.
The "Contract" does not even need to be "duly executed" ... all that he would have to show is that that was the document that he relied upon in the absence of any further amending documents agreed to by both sides. However, the greatest problem in Contract is that despite the written word, it is interpreted differently by different people, leading to dispute. I've just finished putting the finishing touches to a fundamental contractual claim where I'm convinced that the other side is reading a different document and in a different language.
I would also be interested to see what documents that the university assembled for Professor Salby's visa requirements ... his employment contract would surely form part of the application.
Exploring my earlier comments, it might also be possible that the department engaged him on a particular contract and that the administration being unaware of its existence have relied upon the standard employment contract ... and the department has conveniently "lost" the documents ... we know in Australia of the strange and sudden disappearance of incriminating documents from legal archives concerning high profile politicians, is want to happen.
Somebody earlier mentioned the competing factions within departments having power and this would seem to support the assertion that power was ceded to a hostile faction. Maybe, maybe not.
On WUWT David L Hagen put up Colin Prentice's rebuttal of Salby. It's here:
Prentice rebuttal
I believe that this is something Paul Dennis and Steve Fitzpatrick have referenced or spoken about.
They make a good case until point 4. The estimate is 10 ppm change in Co2 concentration for 1 degree C. The Frank et all paper that is referenced shows ice core Co2 concentration against temperature reconstructions which confirms this.
Now without getting into temperature reconstruction reliability (something many here are familiar with) modern Co2 concentrations (approximately 80 ppm from 1960 to now) don't seem to match this relationship. And that is fairly obvious.
Yes I do think that fossil fuel burning is a likely cause of increased Co2 in the atmosphere but I am open to hearing alternatives. However the 10 ppm Co2 equates to 1 degrees C is wrong. The evidence doesn't support it. Equally the idea that Co2 causes heating of the Earth's surface is still a theory. The basic interactions of IR radiation with a surface in the presence of an atmosphere haven't been characterised (something I tend to bang on about). We don't know if there is any effect at all i.e. is there a threshold W/m2 to overcome thermodynamic loss.
So to see this added as a fact in Prentice's argument is a little disappointing. They should know better unless of course they are already married to the AGW idea.
I suspect that Salby took issue with this.
As Dung says, "no hockey sticks from Salby so far".
That's enough for me too. And far from the "level headedness", lauded by Dave Salt, I'm appalled by the general spinelessness displayed on this thread.
@ John in France
"I'm appalled by the general spinelessness displayed on this thread."
Hey, invertebrates are people too! :)
Seriously, what specifically are you referring to?
@john in france
'I'm appalled by the general spinelessness displayed on this thread'
No spinelessness here.
This is a dispute between two parties about the terms of an employment contract none of us have been privy to.
And whether we feel that one of the parties is the Devil Incarnate and the other the Resurrected Messiah (adjust for your personal preferred imagery) is pretty immaterial. Trying to extrapolate this dispute into an allegory/parable of a wider truth, before the full facts are known is foolish IMO.
The time to bash the baddies and applaud the goodies will be later - if at all.
But nobody ever got much satisfaction from premature ejaculation.
"But nobody ever got much satisfaction from premature ejaculation."
Latimer, you were going great until then. But that is a very debatable statement.
Speaking as a womyn, or wimmin, or whatever it is this week, I must disagree, based on empirical evidence which I do not propose to present.
I now demand a Chair of Gender Studies based on my research.
"The time to bash the baddies and applaud the goodies will be later - if at all. But nobody ever got much satisfaction from premature ejaculation."
Or even bash the Bishop?
Spineless?
For refusing to jump to a conclusion based no inadequate facts because it fits with our ideological prejudice?
Every time. It's called scepticism.
Name calling people who disagree with you is spineless, and it's one of their tactics, not ours.
Right!
That's enough!!
This is getting silly!!!
Or, as Andrew would probably say, "raise the tone, please." :-)
More seriously, Dung made a good point earlier. This thread is extremely long — probably because we haven't anything else to discuss in our host's absence — and we're madly speculating on something we have pretty close to damn all hard data on.
Now some people may make data up as they go along but we're above that sort of thing, aren't we?
There are bad employers and bad employees, until we know more we do not know which we are looking at and even if both were bad.
Yours spinlessly ;) but who has dealt with both in real life.
BOFA
How long before we begin to see a pattern here - the pro CAGW side get funding, support, plaudits and any protection they require whereas the non-pro CAGW side gets the exact opposite. I think we owe those who are brave enough to break rank and spill the beans our full support.
Murry Salby has gone into great detail which would be easy for the university to disprove if it was untrue. Instead they have muttered about disinformation but not contradicted any of his statements.
Who should we trust - well I know who I do, particularly after the very shoddy treatment of Professor Bob Carter.
Meanwhile the legislation required to bring economies to the brink goes relentlessly onwards. We really have run out of time for a wait and see approach.
johanna:
"Hey, invertebrates are people too! :)"
You know, I get to like you by the day. Do you have a boyfriend?
What are the rules for making FOI requests in Australia? Is there a website that explains it?
Well I'm getting the impression that Macquarie Univerity's maladroitness is pervasive. I looked for their FOI page and it said:
So, three years later, it is still on their FOI officer's to-do list.
sHx - thanks for making my day.
However, until I get my generously funded Chair of Gender Studies, I will not answer any further questions about my research and related issues. :)
Dear invertebrates,
Here is a comment from Jo Nova's blog in reply to one of her resident trolls :
Just lucky he has a man like Monckton on his side (and Josh, it would seem).
I'm with John in France... But not in France, in England.
I will not be joining anyone in a lazy nod of approval as Salby is publicly skewered in yet another kangaroo court of hot air, for "failing to take a class". The anatomy of a serious shafting is what we are seeing, and I'm surprised there aren't more who are prepared to call the crock of [snip] that MU have served up for what it is: a public hatchet job.
Ert
John and Justin:
While your declaration of support for your footy team, or your country "right or wrong" is undoubtedly sincere, that is not what we are discussing.
John, as I asked way above, what specifically are your concerns, other than a generalised dislike of anyone who does not agree with you about everything?
Don't quite know what you're getting at, Johanna. All I've done is watch in detail both of Salby's lectures on Youtube, one delivered at Macquarie, I believe in 2011 (atrocious sound quality) and in Hamburg in 2013. Very pertinent observations regarding the incompleteness of the available data : "Only one component known with any certainty: human emissions implicit from human extraction, only 4% of total ; other 96% from native sources remains obscure". "We have continuous records from only a handful of sites because global observations of surface flux namely the rate at which CO2 is coming into the atmosphere do not exist". Over 100 years timescale the models have no predictive skill.
Pretty powerful stuff. What has all that got to do with footy or my country right or wrong?
JiF
Perhaps I am missing something here. This thread is about Salby's strained relations with Macquarie University. What is your point?
Nematodes everywhere want to know.
johanna
I apologised to you on another thread when I realised that my comments were so ill informed as to be totally worthless. Here however we have Salby who has his research into atmospheric CO2 recorded on video. Please let me know which parts of his "presentations" led you to believe that he was the kind of person who could not be trusted.
Salby has earned my trust and so I support him UNTIL I see evidence that proves me wrong.
There are many people on this blog who would get my support automatically based on their track record of being totally honest and reliable and I am not ashamed of saying that.
You of all people johanna know that our legal system is still based on "innocent until proven guilty" what did Salby do to make you believe he was in some way "guilty".
Paul, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the depleted 13CO2 arises due to the biological isotope effect; presumably due mostly to photosynthesis and perhaps corals and calcareous plankton.
We now know from the Ibuki satellite (see also chiefio's amusing commentary here, that both North America and Western Europe are CO2 neutral, mostly because of the carbon fixation of intense agriculture.
This state of affairs probably extends well back into the 20th century, as agriculture increased and CO2 fixation kept pace with industrial development and combustion CO2.
The Ibuki showed that major CO2 sources are South America, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.
My question, then, is, would it not be possible to explain the depleted atmospheric 13CO2 as due to the rise of third-world population? The accompanying increase in slash-and-burn agriculture and deforestation for fuel might then be the cause of the 20th century rise in CO2, with an analogous depletion of 13 CO2. That is, the same biogenic isotope effect should be in play in the CO2 liberated from wood burning.
This alternative scenario seems consistent with the Ibuki result regarding the source of CO2 plumes and their concomitant lack from the industrialized areas.
Spot on Dung, there are certain people whom I trust based on past behaviour and track record of honesty and certain people like Nick Stokes who I totally distrust to consistent dishonesty displayed.