People send me stuff.
Just last week we heard that Dr. Robert Carter had been blackballed at his own university where he served as department chair, and now we have this from Dr. Murray Salby, sent via email.
Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to think Australia is ground zero for AGW crackpottery.
This email’s accusations (if true I have independent confirmation now, title changed to reflect this – Anthony) is quite something, it illustrates the disturbing lengths a university will go to suppress ideas they don’t agree with. So much for academic freedom at Macquarie University.
From: [redacted]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 2:25 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: From Murry Salby
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.
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”
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
Macquarie responds, ‘had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views.’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/10/update-murry-salby-and-macquarie-university-university-replies/
Looks like Macquarie has a statement up:
http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/#ixzz2YeI60VXN
Gist of it is they claim:
1. Termination had nothing to do with Climate Science views
2. Termination was because Prof. Salby did not fulfil obligation to teach (refused to show up to teach a class he was scheduled to teach)
3. Termination was because Prof. Salby breached policy with respect to travel and use of University resources.
~shrug~ Make of it what you will.
“Mark Bofill says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:50 am
2. Termination was because Prof. Salby did not fulfil obligation to teach (refused to show up to teach a class he was scheduled to teach)”
I have not worked in the Australian academic space, but in the private sector. If he was under as much pressure (To conform) as I was just in the number of hours alone, then I would imagine we both felt similarly. I (we?) dreaded going to work! I don’t know of anyone working 110rs in a week and being paid only for 37.5. I resigned too!
They are attempting smear!
Ferdinand Engelbeen (July 10, 2013 at 3:39 am) tells me that some of my assumptions about Henry’s law are “not completely correct” . I am at a loss though to understand why he thinks so.
He says:
“The 50:1 is correct in quantity, but Henry’s Law is about (partial) pressure difference of CO2 between air and seawater at the surface, no matter how much CO2 is in the oceans.”
I know. The 50:1 partitioning ratio applies at the ocean surface where the global mean temperature is slightly less than 15°C. If you take the cooler deep oceans into account as well the partitioning ratio rises to over 60:1. So the 50:1 ratio that I stated is conservative.
“Any increase in temperature of the surface will increase the outgassing from and decrease the uptake by the oceans.”
Again, I already knew this. However it is only the net balance of outgassing versus uptake that decreases with an increase of water temperature and the decrease in that balance is small for a small increase in ocean temperature. Consequently the partitioning ratio will remain greater than 50:1 so long as the mean ocean surface temperature does not exceed about 17°C.
“ There is a ~0.8°C increase in temperature since the LIA. Good for ~12 ppmv increase in CO2 in the atosphere. The observed one is over 100 ppmv…”
I can concur with this, although I think it is making a different point to the one that I was making. My point was that over 98% of human CO2 emissions must be going into the oceans because of Henry’s inexorable law. Ferdinand’s point seems to be that ocean outgassing is not sufficient by itself to account for the estimated rise in atmospheric CO2 since the LIA. There is no conflict between these two different points that I can see.
Patrick,
My suspicion certainly runs that way as well. I’m still quite interested to hear the explanation regarding the canceled non-refundable ticket. It’s hard to imagine a plausible justification for that, if the claim is true. Unlike some GISS climate scientists, I prefer to take people at their word unless there is some specific reason to doubt them.
Magic Turtle says:
July 10, 2013 at 7:03 am
The conflict is here:
we can answer with a high degree of confidence that effectively at least 98% of it has gone into the oceans, leaving less than 2% behind in the atmosphere.
You didn’t take into account the time frame: the deep oceans – atmosphere exchanges are limited in quantity which makes that only a small part of the excess CO2 is removed out of the atmosphere. The same applies to the more permanent storage of carbon in vegetation.
That makes that only about 4 GtC/year of the extra 210 GtC (100 ppmv) in the atmosphere is removed into the deep and vegetation. That is about 50% of the human emissions (again in quantity) not 98%… The relaxation time of this removal is over 50 years, the half life time a little less than 40 years.
Ultimately the extra CO2 will be redistributed over the other reservoirs, leading to about 1% overall increase, but that will need several hundred years of time…
I’ve been around academia for a long time, and Macquarie’s statement sounds pretty fishy to me. The key sentence is this: “After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his [Salby’s] refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
What does this mean? He canceled a few classes? He “failed to arrive” at *one* class? Who scheduled him to “take” (strange choice of words) this class? Macquarie could easily have been more specific, but for some reason they’ve chosen to be ambiguous.
University administrations (and individual academic departments) can make life pretty rough for instructors by screwing with their teaching assignments in weird ways: inconvenient classroom locations, classrooms inappropriate to the class size and/or the subject being taught, sudden changes in class schedules, demands that someone teach new classes every semester, refusal to provide TAs for excessively large classes…. The list is endless, and this sort of petty harassment is not that uncommon.
this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties
I read their whole statement which actually fails to address a single substantive issue raised in Salby’s email. One of the issues he raised was being assigned drudge work like marking papers for junior assistants, and if true, small wonder that he resisted. That and other complaints amount to constructive dismissal, and they refuted none of them. Nor did they deny cancelling his return ticket, an action that stands alone as an atrocious way to treat any human being, an accusation that they failed to deny.
The whole thing stinks and macquarie is doing little or nothing to wash the stench from themselves.
Anthony,
I wasn’t going to comment further, but since you mention it, Jan fascinates me because he’s such a caricature of someone’s who’s completely lost touch with objectivity and is oblivious to it, and he’s such an unusually venomous commentator. In a perverse and childish way I will miss Jan around here, obstructive and spiteful as he was. I’d have been happier if he’d actually care to argue substance once in a while instead of derailing tactics. ~shrug~
Professional scientist? If somebody had just described Jan Perlwitz to me without my having read it for myself, I wouldn’t have believed it in a million years. 🙂
Unfortunately, the answer is evidently ‘yes’.
Attacking Rob Phelan arouses the most primitive instincts in me. Advice to Mr Perlwitz – you are not fit to scrub the mud off his shoes.
A – you know who I mean – any chance of establishing a scholarship in his name?
I am too disgusted with the misuse of Universities in Australia by left wing activists of the Fabian variety, and Mr Knit one Perl one of GISS has convinced me it is time I reached into my pocket and used my funds (not the taxpayers funds that have been so grossly wasted!!) in the defence of scientists and the truth of science in this country I love.
I am happy to pledge these funds to finance a legal challenge by Murry Salby scientist and I encourage other true dedicated Australians to give generously as we always do to right wrongs. If Jo or Anthony want to set up a funding account I will be happy to assist.
WE need to show idiots like Perlwitz that enough is enough, the world is NOT their playground to plunder. Climategate was revealing enough, we need to show other scientists that they cannot and will not stand alone when attempts are made to intimidate and bully them in crass attempts to silence or suppress truth.
Mann up folks and contribute!!
I believe your problem was caused by Ann Henderson-Sellers, who is a powerful climate extremist at Macquarie and in the Oz government. Murry, why don’t you name names?
Would the “missed” class be a result of his return ticket being pulled…? GK
Mike McMillan says:
July 9, 2013 at 10:33 pm
“I believe Prof Salby made that claim, not Perlwitz. Agriculture might be termed an anthro sink and thus not negligible, but that’s stretching it.”
Nooooo… This is very simple, really.
The sinks we are concerned with, the most significant ones, are natural sinks.
But, that does not mean that they only react to natural sources.
Let me say that again.
But, that does not mean that they only react to natural sources.
The sinks are dynamic, not static. They expand in response to increased forcing. They contract in response to decreased forcing. Any forcing, natural or otherwise.
You can only assign in the “natural” column those portions of the natural sinks which are responding to natural forcing.
Those portions of the natural sinks which respond to anthropogenic forcing represent artificial sinks.
That capacity is induced, created, maintained, sustained, indeed exists because of anthropogenic forcing. It is artificial sink capacity.
This is how dynamic systems work. Static analysis applied to a dynamic system gives the wrong answers.
The “mass balance” argument is flawed because it assigns all natural sink activity to the “natural” column. But, not all the natural sink activity is there because of natural forcing.
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen (July 10, 2013 at 7:36 am)
You say:
“The conflict is here:
we can answer with a high degree of confidence that effectively at least 98% of it has gone into the oceans, leaving less than 2% behind in the atmosphere.
You didn’t take into account the time frame: the deep oceans – atmosphere exchanges are limited in quantity which makes that only a small part of the excess CO2 is removed out of the atmosphere. The same applies to the more permanent storage of carbon in vegetation.”
I didn’t take the time-frame of the exchanges between the atmosphere and the deep oceans into account because I was not talking about the exchanges between atmosphere and the deep oceans. The 50:1 partitioning ratio and the 98+% of human CO2 emissions that Henry’s law deems must go into the oceans are conservative estimates that just apply to the exchanges between the atmosphere and the surface waters. If you take the deep oceans into account as well then both figures become bigger – much bigger.
“That makes that only about 4 GtC/year of the extra 210 GtC (100 ppmv) in the atmosphere is removed into the deep and vegetation. That is about 50% of the human emissions (again in quantity) not 98%…”
We appear to be talking about two different things. You appear to be talking about the amount of CO2 that has gone from the atmosphere into the deep oceans since the Little Ice Age. But I am talking about the amount of human CO2 emissions that are ultimately destined to go into the surface waters of the oceans when equilibrium is reached irrespective of time-frames. That is what Henry’s law defines under specific conditions of water-temperature.
Are you denying that Henry’s law applies to this case? If so, why?
Magic Turtle says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:10 am
The 50:1 partitioning ratio and the 98+% of human CO2 emissions that Henry’s law deems must go into the oceans are conservative estimates that just apply to the exchanges between the atmosphere and the surface waters.
The oceans surface contains about 1000 GtC, somewhat more than the atmosphere, currently around 800 GtC. Thus far from the 50:1 ratio, which is mainly for the deep oceans:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Moreover, a 100% change in the atmosphere is followed bya 100% change of free CO2 in the ocean surfaces (Henry’s Law at work), but only a 10% change in total carbon (CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate), as the buffer factor (the Revelle factor) comes in, which influences the equilibrium reactions of CO2 in seawater.
Thus the 30% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere did result in a 3% increase of total inorganic carbon (DIC) in the ocean surface layer, a (observed) change of 10:1, far from the 1:50 you expected.
dbstealey says: July 10, 2013 at 10:54 am to ICU
“Also, two of your 3 links are worthless without passwords.”
Well, I posted the actual judgment in his Federal case against the University of Colorado. That was apparently a Civil Rights claim – there is reference to a suit under state law.
It does underline Steve McIntyre’s point about avoiding litigation. But the university grievance option would be complicated by his absence from the misconduct hearing.
Nick Stokes’ link gives no information Salby’s actual claim. it shows that the University of Colorado asserted “sovereign immunity” as a defence – something that says nothing about the merit or lack of merit of Salby’s case. It’s hard for me to understand why a university should be entitled to sovereign immunity, but that’s another story. However, if universities are entitled to claim sovereign immunity in what was presumably an employment-related incident, then that is one more reason why grievance procedures should be pursued.
Stokes observed that Salby’s apparent non-attendance at a misconduct hearing would be weighed against him in a grievance. Perhaps. We dont know anything about the notice provided to Salby. But that would not necessarily excuse university failures to carefully observe their own procedures. That’s what Salby should be focussing on.
He should also put all AGW issues out of his head pending a grievance hearing, as should commenters here. Of course his opponents will be delighted if Salby doesnt meticulously comply with procedures. So Salby’s job 1 should have been to avoid handing his opponents such opportunities. And in the present situation where he’s already behind, he should be working hard to do the best with the procedures that he still has left.
Anybody working for a university should have his or her computer work continuously backed up at home. Same as you would with paper work such as letters and contracts. Universities are great institutions, but they are also extremely vigorous and effective at asserting their rights in cases of conflicts. At least if you have everything backed up at home you can review the whole history and see whether/when you misstepped, and whether/when the University made what seemed like a promise but have been contingent. Despite their pretensions to the contrary, universities are not different from private companies in the matter of hiring double-talk and then acting in pure self-interest.
As to the case of Murray Salby, I only know what I have read here. But people should not leave themselves open to attack from universities. In this case, the university surely feels that it is the wronged party, and surely feels morally impelled to take the course that it is taking.
[snip – off topic, crazy rant -mod]
Michael Palmer: Did you read the assertions made by Salby? Did you notice his painstakingly accurate language, sticking strictly to factual, provable assertions and abstaining from any hyperbole, insults and allegations of crime?
It is still possible that he is wrong. He may have omitted reference to repeated reminders or reprimands from the university administration, for example, and he may have omitted reference to the fact that some of the “promises” were contingent on this or that. I have been on both sides of a few of these disputes (none so important as this dispute!) and I am confident that no one should be believed before publication of all relevant documents.
This is a professional tragedy for sure, but I am not confident that we have sufficient evidence to call ourselves a jury.
Hi, Julian Bre,
It was my pleasure. You summed up your point quite nicely. That woman mischaracterized your post. Whether it was because she was blinded by her visceral reaction to a perceived promoting of “religion,” or intentional, I do not know. I DO know that she attacked you unfairly and in a such a fierce manner that I felt compelled to jump to your defense (you didn’t really need me, though).
I know how it feels to be attacked like that and to have no one stand up, walk over, put his or her arm across your shoulder, and say on your behalf, “That was out of line.” GLAD to do that for you.
Take care,
Janice
“Blagula Flaggan says [some goblin gibberish]: July 10, 2013 at 1:23 pm
[snip – off topic, crazy rant -mod]”
LOL, that person’s NAME is a crazy rant.
HURRAH FOR OUR MO–DE–RA–TORS!
Reading all that FILTH, so we don’t have to, they are deserving of our heartfelt gratitude.
Peter F Kemmis says:
“Murry Salby’s Hamburg address last April is well worth the hour’s listening and watching. ”
The Youtube video is off line. Any suggestions where we can watch it?
Thank you