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
[perhaps you could expand this comment to show why research you disagree with would be considered risible. . . mod]
It’s not “research I disagree with”. It’s research that the greater atmospheric community thinks is a joke. Not a threat like most of the comments here suggest, but an utter and complete joke.
The first part of my undergrad in bio was from a university where creationism was taught in genbio. There’s a stigma attached to activities like that, and it taints the whole university and all of its science grads to potential employers. A professor that tries to deny the anthropogenic origin of the rise in CO2 is no different. It doesn’t matter what I think or what you guys think. That’s what the scientific community thinks.
The university is acting in its own best interests.
mod replied to me in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359126
It’s not my tasks to disprove anything what Salby claims in his email without any evidence. It’s just his words. My question is why should I just believe anything what Salby claims at face value? I don’t. Obviously, unlike most of the commenters of the “skeptic” crowd here. The burden of proof is on the ones who make assertions and state accusations against others regarding the alleged misconduct, i.e., on Salby, and on everyone who claims his assertions and accusations were true. That’s how it works in my world, at least.
REPLY: I have independent confirmation now. The story checks out. You see, your AGW friends really ARE that nasty. I’ve experienced that nastiness firsthand myself on many occasions. You should be denouncing this behavior against Salby and Carter. Will you? Or is AGW too important to you that crushing people and ideas is worth “the cause”?
We all await your position on the matter Mr. Perlwitz – Anthony
Nick Stokes says:
“Murry Salby was apparently professor for five years. Does anyone know of any scientific papers that he wrote (published or not) in that time?”
Yes.
Did you try doing a Google Scholar search on Salby before you ask?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=salby&hl=en&as_sdt=0,29
One of the most common themes, I hear from people these days, is how “educating” the world’s masses will save us all. This seems to be a reasonable premise until one realizes just how corrupt our education systems are and how covert agendas, bias, and political correctness, has made such fine ideas improbable. Education systems are undermined and corrupted and cannot provide the required relief. Education is just another vehicle for propaganda. It is very discouraging. How can it ever be realistically cleaned up, when funding is political? It all seems too entangled in the “condition of man” for solution. /whine off – GK
“Ryan says:
July 9, 2013 at 7:47 am
A professor that tries to deny the anthropogenic origin of the rise in CO2 is no different.”
No he does not!
Mr. Watts replied to me in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359284
My position is that a claim by you that you had “independent confirmation”, according to which things were true in the way as presented by Salby is also just a claim. Am I supposed to just believe you now at face value, Mr. Watts, instead of just believing Salby? For what reason should I, or anyone else, do this?
REPLY: Well that’s just the response I expect from you. Note that I mentioned Bob Carter whose story is confirmed by a news organization. You simply are unable to believe that your friends in the AGW movement are capable of being that nasty. You suffer from the same sort of confirmation bias in politics as you do in science it seems.
We’ll put you down as saying that Bob Carter’s situation is OK with you then? Shall we also put you down as Salby’s situation is OK with you since you refuse to believe it? I just need to know for the next essay.
Your people wailed over Jim Hansen’s being on a bit of a speaking leash during Bush years, but I expect nary a peep over destroying careers like this of people you disagree with. – Anthony
For Jan P
It’s a claim made by a former defence force chief (idiot) er admiral.He quotes from a book by some fellow called Martin.You would think that the clown sitting next to him would correct him.He didn’t.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/fossil-fuel-reserves-must-stay-in-ground-report/4757448
Richard Verney said: “The problem with legal proceedings is that they are beyond the pocket of ordinary people.”
I entirely agree – and it’s actually worse than that. This is Australia whose laws are based on those of the UK (not those of the Land of the Free, having freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment).
Particularly, Australian law follows the same principles as UK law as to litigation costs: that the losing party to litigation, as well as those knowingly providing funding which allowed the losing party to continue the (unsuccessful) litigation, are liable to repay the litigation costs of the successful party. This has an incredibly “damping” effect, especially against defendants with essentially unlimited resources, such as publicly funded bodies following the political consensus du jour.
And watch out all those advocating some legal fund for Dr Salby – do it covertly (such as by buying his book) else you might become liable for costs too …
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Personal experience coupled with the Climategate e-mails and then you have THIS
For professor Salby to openly make these statements sets him up for a suit by the Univ. if true. I doubt very much he would be that stupid.
It’s time to play hardball Anthony, bare knuckles and all that. How about those Climategate 3 emails? Set them free.
Oh by the way, Jan Perlwitz ( Jan P Perlwitz says: July 9, 2013 at 6:56 am) is a James Hansen clone; him being Jan’s former boss. Pay no attention to the [self-snip]. And Jan complains about ethics? LMAO. Climategate?!
Anthony, you really hit a nerve with this, drawing all the AGW nutcases out of the woodwork. What does one do with the playground bully? Someone needs to knock them on their a**. You have the tools at your disposal.
I suppose I’m not the only one who finds this way too similar to Germany in the 30’s blackballing (or worse) those scientists who believed in “Jewish Physics” who didn’t toe the Nazi party line. God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.
Taphonomic says:
July 9, 2013 at 7:58 am
Nick Stokes says:
“Murry Salby was apparently professor for five years. Does anyone know of any scientific papers that he wrote (published or not) in that time?”
Yes.
Did you try doing a Google Scholar search on Salby before you ask?
The link you gave pulls up all papers which include the word ‘salby’ anywhere in the paper, that produces a very large number of hits but doesn’t give a count of his publications. If you limit the search to Salby as an author you get a reasonable list (with some duplications) which matches the Macquarie online source.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=salby&hl=en&as_sdt=0,29
The non academic staff in Universities in Australia can be absolutely lethal – they can’t be fired, they are all at their peak in Peter;’s Law (incompetent) and the don’t really give a (Snip) about anyone. I’ve dealt with them and can imagine all the trauma Salby has been through. Unfortunately they all know the rules backwards and all the loopholes (because they created them) and will back each other up to the hilt.
I beleive that a scientist who treats the data as science rather than as a believer or non-believer should always be supported.
Maybe this is where he’s created a problem.
and here’s part 2
“Allencic says:
July 9, 2013 at 8:39 am”
We’re not far off that in Aus IMO. Given it was a Polish female Jew who proved Einstein (E=MC(squared)) correct, just before WW2.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
July 9, 2013 at 7:53 am
“It’s not my tasks to disprove anything what Salby claims in his email without any evidence. It’s just his words. My question is why should I just believe anything what Salby claims at face value? I don’t.”
Perlwitz, does that mean that you don’t believe that skeptics are a well organized sinister force paid by Big Oil?
Careful, don’t let your bosses hear that.
Australia truly has become ground zero for AGW crackpottery. The proof is their carbon pricing scheme has set carbon at $23 per ton when carbon is priced around $3 in the rest of the world. With their population at only 23 million, they actually think they can save the world. What conceit.
And they seem to be such nice people when you meet them.
Mr. Watts replied to me in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359298
Thank you for already expecting from me higher standards beforehand than you apparently apply yourself.
What news organization is supposed to have confirmed the story as presented by Carter? How can a news organization even confirm the truth of these kind of accusations as made by Carter? Are you referring to the reporting that was linked in your article above? This one?
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2013/06/28/384514_news.html
There, the claims by Carter are presented. It is also shortly reported that the university denies that the assertions by Carter were true.
Is this supposed to be the alleged confirmation by a news organization? The fact that they are reporting about Carter’s claims? By what logic follows from this that the claims by Carter were true? Because when something is said in the news it must be true?
“Your people”? Who is this supposed to be? Either you reference something what I said, or you don’t have anything. What you do here is applying the logical fallacy of guilt by association to make an argument against me.
So far I still have only the word by Salby about the alleged misconduct against him. Or by Carter. And your claim there was “independent confirmation”, which is also nothing more than a claim at this point.
REPLY: Of course the university is going to deny it. I’ve spent 25+ years in TV and radio news, this is just standard boilerplate response. I’ve seen the same sort of response from our own university here in similar situations that later turned out to be true. Its an institutional thing.
“your people” means your people at GISS, in the building you work at, the place you have previously refused to acknowledge you work for, even though you are listed in the GISS directory, have a GISS phone number, and have a NASA GISS email address.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html
Your denial is epic. – Anthony
It could be that it ran on an oddball OS, one from a mini computer company no longer in business or that never sold to Australia. Or they could have been written in an obscure computer language. or both.
Things aren’t much better in Canada here, when it comes to nasty academic in-fighting. Even when the so-called impartial courts are involved:
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/1562/scc-denies-former-ottawa-u-profs-judicial-bias-appeal.html
Gail Combs wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359311
Thank you for openly admitting your own confirmations bias, whatever rationalization for it you apply for yourself. I appreciate the honesty.
REPLY: Mr. Perlwitz himself puts his own confirmation bias and willingness to publish unsubstantiated facts on display at his own blog. he claims he is banned here. I pointed out to him that I, as the owner, and not the moderation team is the only one who issues bans for bad behavior. Obviously by his dialog here today, he isn’t. Yet he leaves in place this statement:
Clearly he’s OK with putting up unsubstantiated information on his own blog when he believes it, while demanding more than my own word of independent substantiation here. The confirmation bias is climate science in a nutshell. – Anthony
PS: Or maybe Salby’s programs were customized to run on a mainframe and there wasn’t one at his Uni, so he wanted them converted to run on a micro.
“klem says:
July 9, 2013 at 9:03 am”
It’s now AU$24.15, as of July 1st 2013. The most costly “proice ohn cahbon” that has sent industry (Without subsidy) offshore!