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
Can anyone turn out a DVD of Professor Salby’s video?
I’d happily put up a tenner for a copy. Might help his funds.
Andrew says:
July 9, 2013 at 2:38 am
….. How many years of Flanneryism (and in fact the creation of an entire govt department of Flanneryism, with Flannery as the Flannery-in-chief) was it going to take before you’re sure that we’re ground zero?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I always thought it was the BP and Shell funded Climate Research Unit of East Anglia.
Can’t really blame them. Who wants to be recorded in history as the Univeristy where research attempting to show the source of CO2 rise was natural? It would make them a joke.
[perhaps you could expand this comment to show why research you disagree with would be considered risible. . . mod]
I wouldn’t advise wasting any time on administrative battles.
This sort of thing is not uncommon in the university system. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose some of the things I’ve seen, so let me just put it like this:
Institutional inertia sometimes overwhelms individuals:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lac-megantic-before-after
I wish strength & courage to those who have to rebuild.
Big History is committed to a convergence of the natural sciences and the humanities into a single conceptual framework. Which means so is Macquarie since they have been the sponsor of this effort for many years.
There’s no room for objective science or an independent, rational human being in that framework of man the species. No wonder Salby ran into trouble.
Salby claims:
This is the pdf-file of the report “The Angry Summer”:
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/130408-Angry-Summer-report.pdf
This is the pdf-file of the report “The Critical Decade 2013”:
http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013_Website.pdf
None of the reports contains any statements whatsoever that says anything like “one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet”. And the reference, provided by Salby is not a reference to any original source for such a statement. It’s an article by someone who makes claims about it and who is obviously biased. It’s biased hearsay.
Salby claims:
Contrary to whose popular belief? And how is this something new? It is well known in climate science that greenhouse gas mixing ratios are not “unprecedented”, and at times in the geological past, greenhouse gas mixing ratios were at the same levels, or even multiple times higher than today. Who is supposed to have said differently? Apparently, Salby does not present here correctly what is said in scientific studies about this topic.
Salby claims:
These “findings” could only be valid, if basic physical principles like mass conservation did not apply to carbon dioxide. Currently, about 32 Gt carbon dioxide are emitted by human activities every year. This would cause an increase in the atmospheric mixing ratio of carbon dioxide of about 4 ppm every year, if none of this carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere. However, the actual increase is about 2 ppm per year, currently. Since there are no substantial anthropogenic sinks of carbon dioxide, it follows from mass conservation and basic mathematical logic that Nature can’t be a net source in the carbon dioxide cycle of the planet under the present day conditions. It must be a net sink, where the difference in the mass equivalent to an increase of the other 2 ppm per year is sequestered. (1. It’s actually about 60% of the CO2 from human activities that is being sequestered in natural sinks. 2. That the efficiency of the natural sources and sinks of the carbon dioxide cycle also varies with atmospheric conditions, e.g. with the annual cycle, and with the climate state, and that there are feedbacks possible due to this, is another matter.) Otherwise, if Nature was a net source for the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, where did all the human carbon dioxide go then? Does carbon dioxide mass from human activities just mysteriously vanish?
And I suspect, that the failure to even account for the basic physical principle of mass conservation is one of the reasons why we are still waiting for the long-time ago announced publication of Salby’s spectacular “findings” in one of the peer-reviewed specialist journals of the field.
If Salby has to rely on this kind of references to claim that his views were supported by other scientists ….
mogamboguru says: @ur momisugly July 9, 2013 at 4:11 am
What kept him there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He had a job, it is tough for an academic to just switch employers. Heck I am a lowly chemist and it has normally taken 6 months to a couple of years to switch employers and I do not have to worry as much about gossip among a very closed world wide clique.
If Salby’s research was taking him in a direction the Clique did not like, getting him out of his US job (Without a contract) may not have been innocent. I had this type of thing happen twice. The first time I took the bait and the second time I did not. It would have stranded me in Long Island after ~ 3 months despite being labeled “Permanent” employment.
Wall Street Journal Editorial —
Stephens: Can Environmentalists Think? Think of the Keystone XL pipeline as an IQ test for greens.
The lede:
Unfortunately, this article is pay-walled. However, here are a few choice quotes:
I would not be surprised if this were true. Nothing is more illebral than “liberal”.
Georgia Institute of Technology might be a good place for him.
Sue the bastards, Murry, for all they are worth. A modern witch hunt should not be allowed.
Harry
The problem with legal proceedings is that they are beyond the pocket of ordinary people. This allows state, quasi state, governmental. quasi governmental departments and large companies to get away with many a practice that would be regarded as unlawful, illegitimate and/or uncontractual if properly and adequately scrutinised. Most ordinary people do not have the financial wherewithal to obtain redress. Add to that the delays which often go hand in hand with legal proceedings and it is easy to see why so many are critical of the ‘system’ and why some feel that not everyone is equal before the law.
Ceetee says:
July 9, 2013 at 2:52 am
@alex at 11.37pm. Vee haff vays und means of keeping you shtum ja?. Plonker!
————–
Well, actually, my comment on Salby was rather sarcastic. Certainly, I did not support what Macquarie’s were doing with him.
But when I am reading the comments…
Absolutely shocking. Whether his theory of the CO2-temperature relationship is right or wrong, Salby is clearly a profoundly original thinker and an outstanding scientist. Here is hoping that he will find a position commensurate with his level of achievement, in a partially sane environment, if these even still exist.
I like the idea of setting up a support fund for him – maybe Anthony or Joanne could do it, since they reach a large audience?
It is interesting to watch how almost all of the “skeptic” crowd here just accept all those claims by Salby he makes in this email as true at face value w/o being a bit skeptical. Why is that?
REPLY: probably because climate science has a history of intimidation like this. – Anthony
Note that the reaction of the academics who hang out here has generally been a raised eyebrow, especially at the rather excessively nasty business with the plane ticket, but no real surprise. This kind of stuff happens. We all know that it happens. We mostly hope that it doesn’t happen anywhere near us. I expect this sorry saga will now end up in court.
Academic life isn’t all peaches and cream. You survive on your reputation and live or die based on the respect of your peers. Lose that respect for whatever reason and they can give you a very brutal ride to the exit indeed. After this rather pointed reminder of the harsher realities of academic life, I think I’ll pull my horns in for a while and go back to using a pseudonym.
Shockingbut nothing surprises me with warm-monger.
Gandhi’s quote is often posted here: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
I think they are at the fighting stage now. And they are getting worried: not for the planet but for their wealth, fame and prestige.
My newspaper headlines said this morning, and I quote, “THE KILLER HEATWAVE Boy 17 drowns and girl, 14, missing as UK swelters in 30C sunshine.” The problem is, yesterdays maximum temperature in London, the hottest part of the UK was only 27C. It was only 18.6 where I live.
We are all being brainwashed by these people and if you disagree you are shut out.
Anthony Watts writes:
Now, this is something I really like.
Mr. Watts ones again outs the IP network from where a commenter writes for an unliked comment. I suspect the purpose is to intimidate the commenter.
Mr. Watts also insinuates the commenter has broken the law with this comment, even though Mr. Watts doesn’t have any evidence for such an accusation against the commenter.
I don’t think any of this is very ethical.
REPLY: And I don’t think it is ethical to use taxpayer funded resources to taunt people, but it apparently doesn’t bother you in your “anything goes” world of publicly funded hate of skeptics. But see here’s the thing Mr. Perlwitz, I don’t care what you think. Read the policy page. – Anthony
“I’m beginning to think Australia is ground zero for AGW crackpottery.”
Unfortunately in Australia we have a taxpayer funded, public service type university sector and you know how Eisenhower warned us about that. Back in the 1970s it was the Whitlam Labor Govt that flung open the doors of our sandstones to all and sundry and thus began the long march of leftists through our higher institutions, their job made much easier by the weak minds with which they had to work and here we all are. Our Macquaries are no different to the East Anglias in that regard, but the ordinary bloke has given up listening to their doomsday drivel which is of course driving the Flannerys, Cooks and Lewandowskys increasingly lunar in their attempts to convince said ignorant masses that they are the light and the way.
Despite what you may hear to the contrary, PM Gillard was just knifed by her own Labor Party after catastrophic poll numbers, principally stemming from her promise not to introduce a carbon tax last election and then doing a complete about face deal with Greens. She never recovered from that and when she began to go loopy like Cook, Lew, Flan to try and land a blow on the Opposition she was rolled to be replaced by the previous dweeb. Kevin Rudd is despised by his own colleagues, which is why they sacked him for Gillard but he is a media savvy empty suit in the Obama mould. Basically a clever campaigner with appeal to the Twitterverse and the attention deficit crowd but you work out fairly quickly he’s all talk and no outcomes. Like most Western countries nowadays you don’t judge a people by their covers, particularly when they’ve got recent letters after their names.
Alex – do you think for yourself or care more about what others think ..? …investigate the matter and then make an opinion ….at present you are lazy and copping out …
From a UK lawyer’s perspective I find that legal process is being made more complex by new systems that on the face of it were supposed to make it simpler and moreover the risk involved for all, including the lawyer, is being steadily magnified over time.
The net result is to increasingly put legal process beyond the reach of more and more of the population.
People blame lawyers as a group but those responsible are entirely in the public sector bureaucracy as it increasingly builds unsustainable empires from within our political system.
With sympathy for Salvo, this is all very good news as it exposes in true living color the scurrilous ethics and outrageous behavior of academia .
This will get much more attention, be distributed worldwide, lead to court action and mushroom into what may be a catastrophe for those involved and the AGW movement at a large.
This wildly brazen treatment of Salvo reaches a level of recklessness produced by desperation and panic.
It’s like a desperate and out of work transient who’s hit bottom, resorted to robbery to feed his drug habit and is about to be arrested and imprisoned.
When a person or institution hits bottom things happen to them.
Let’s hope there is much pain inflicted upon Macquarie’s hierarchy..
Larry Huldén says:
July 9, 2013 at 1:10 am
It looks to me that the University is deliberately cutting off Salby’s publication list.
Their research online page shows 6 papers and one book, with two papers as recently as last year so apparently not. Only those last two appear to be about work at Macquarie, apparently with the russian grad student. That’s rather disastrous output for an academic if correct! I assume that he’s a US citizen so will be able to return to the US but it will be difficult to find a position. The grad student I hope will be taken care of, I recall having to deal with a similar situation many years ago where a grad student was left in the middle of her studies by her advisor, several of us were able help her find a new advisor but she was in limbo for about six months (also far from home).
http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au
Jan P Perlwitz says:July 9, 2013 at 6:37 am
“It is interesting to watch how almost all of the “skeptic” crowd here just accept all those claims by Salby he makes in this email as true at face value w/o being a bit skeptical. Why is that?”
You’re imagining things. People are responding to what is indicated while awaiting more information from inquiries being made.
The enormous difference between skeptics and the other camp is the skeptics want to get to the bottom of the issues through whatever means are necessary.
In stark contrast this Salvo incident demonstrates yet again how alarmist academia obstructs efforts to discover a better understanding.
Consistent with their dubious approach you have invented what you assert.
The “crowd’ has not “just accepted all those claims on face value”.
Concern, curiosity, suspicion, questions and inquiry abound.
Would you, Jan, prefer that everyone just shut their pie hole?
That Watts should mind his own business?