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)
Radical Rodent - apologies. English is not my first language. I speak a variant.
H'mmm
Seems to me that there are a lot more stones to be uncovered here. Prof. Salby appears to have been remarkably supine over a long period if his testimony tells the full story.
Some questions I'd ask.. Why did h e choose to relocate? Why go through all the hassle? Did Salby approach McQuarrie or vice versa? Who (by name) hired him? What were the circumstances? Who from the uni signed his contract of employment? What position? What were the terms? What conversion or rehosting was needed for his programs? What was so non-standard about them that such an exercise was needed at all? What were the excuses.......
and so on.
It may be that Prof. Salby has indeed been badly treated as others here have concluded. But the version of events he has given so far is pretty sparse and lacks a lot of confirmatory detail. It doesn't strike me as the whole story...
Maybe I watch too many real crime shows on telly, but I think I'll withhold judgement quite yet.
GrantB - take no notice. "fine toothcomb" is accepted usage *almost* everywhere.
Paul
Salby's point in the talk was about estimates for absolute amounts of CO2 emissions from natural sources. For eg, do we have absolute numbers on how much CO2 is emitted from the oceans, with error bars?
What he has to say is about 35 min into the Hamburg talk. Poor transcription: "measurements of native surface flux [of CO2], namely the rate at which CO2 is coming into the atmosphere do not exist."
(A) "Prof. Salby appears to have been remarkably supine"
(B) "I think I'll withhold judgement quite yet."
Jul 9, 2013 at 1:56 PM Latimer Alder
So, Latimer, do you stand by your "A" or your "B"?
I was fired--officially, my research associate position was "terminated due to funding cuts"--way back in 1994, for daring to submit articles for peer-review publication over the objections of my boss, a Ph.D. physicist with the National Park Service (cf, Huffman, H.D., "Atmospheric Environment", Vol 30-1, Jan. 1996, pp. 75-99). That ended any hope I had of an academically-sanctioned career, but taught me all I needed to know about the criminal behavior of those in power over those without recourse. Amazingly, on my own I then made, within 3 years, the greatest scientific discovery in history (which even other "independent", alternative researchers have been unwilling or unable to give serious consideration). So my view is that there are higher powers at work than just the petty designs of tyrannous "authoritative" institutions like academia, or again, even the ruling prejudices and beliefs of the majority of people, both learned and unlearned. I have pointed to my present position in the climate wars on several other sites in the last 2 days:
The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics
As I just added at wuwt (wattsupwiththat.com), I rest my case.
My own apologies to you, if you can forgive my chippyness – there are many for whom English is the first – and, therefore, only (to my shame, my hand is up, here) – language, who still make such errors. Like the country itself, the language is under assault from those whom many consider to be its bastions, such as the BBC (much to my irritation), so “outsiders” may easily get confused by its convolutions. Some day, I may make a list of some of the cringeworthy errors that do occur.
Give heed to commenter John Silver: We need names. Who is the Macquarie Chancellor, who the Dean of Students, who is Salby's Department Head? If this is not criminal fraud, a felony misdemeanor under Australian statutes, then what is? Macquarie's excrescent Thought Police get away with this only by scuttering like roaches from any ray of sunlight.
Academia, you call this? Pol Pot would be proud.
Radical Rodent - I was being a prat. (Oz) English is my first and only language. When travelling Europe with my wife I only memorised how to say "two beers please" in a variety of languages. If she was off shopping I had to drink both of them.
Nick Stokes:
"The Sydney institute is a very well connected conservative forum, so that is probably why the rebuttal effort was made."
Not quite true.
The Sydney Institute is, indeed, a very well-connected forum. Its directors, Gerard and Anne Henderson, are conservative, but the forum itself is anything but. One is every bit as likely to hear radical leftists there as anyone else.
But for the sort of people likely to be employed at Macquarie University, eg Flummery and his claque, the connection of the Institute with the Hendersons would alone be sufficient to trigger their immune response causing them to go into extreme damage control mode and, thus, to reject Salby.
Getting back on-topic, Murry Salby may be as ingenuous as I am; he accepted what appeared to be an exciting post, relocating for it, and muddled along in academic naivety until those in whom he might hold too much awe for him to question or hassle provide him the wherewithal to continue. In the process, his science, views or opinions became more obvious to those in charge, and they elected to negate his offerings by reducing his access. When that didn’t work, they sharpened their knives, awaiting the opportunity to plunge them into his back.
Of course, I could be wrong, and he is as duplicitous as those at MU appear to be. I shall leave it to those more able to sift through this plethora of information for a more accurate assessment.
GrantB - Ah! now I know (and thank heavens for "Preview Post").
Paul Dennis:
Looking in section 1.6.2 of Salby's textbook (where he discusses these issues), I can't find any suggestion that accurate estimates for natural C12 and C13 don't exist. Somewhat related, he does suggest that "The dependence of [natural] CO2 emission on temperature is poorly understood." Do you agree with that one?
@big oil
'So, Latimer, do you stand by your "A" or your "B"?'
Both.
Would like to understand *why* he was so supine. Or to find out the bits of the story that haven't been told.
Can thoroughly recommend this:- Prof. Salby's Presentation in Hamburg 18th April 2013 Long, detailed and fascinating.
"Michael hart
I was particularly struck by how accurate estimates for natural sources of C12 and C13 don't exist. Is this true?"
Shub, I am not as persuaded as Paul Dennis. Salby, I recall, described them as not well known/described, and I concur. Whatever the uncertainties in the non-isotopic carbon fluxes (which are significant), isotope-fractionation processes are harder still to accurately measure/predict. There is of course a good theoretical physical grounding of, say, temperature dependent isotopic mass effects in evaporation, but I know from working with chemical separations that unexpected fractionations can occur before they reach the mass-spectrometer.
The biochemical aspects are even less sure. For example isotope fractionation ratios have been found to vary significantly by some. For example: Tortell, Philippe D., Greg H. Rau, François M. M. Morel Limnol. Oceanogr., 45(7), 2000, 1485-1500
http://aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_45/issue_7/1485.html
I don't claim that to be definitive, but I not remotely persuaded by those who claim carbon isotope fraction is definitively explained in the biosphere. There is so much out there. It's a skeptics-thing.
Shub and Philip Richens,
It's true that we don't have the complete picture on fluxes to and from CO2 sinks and sources. In this context anthropogenic emissions are an order of magnitude lower than the natural fluxes between sources and sinks and one might be led to suggest that small fluctuations in the strength of natural emissions, or the size of natural sinks might be the main factor in controlling atmospheric CO2 levels. However there is good evidence to suggest that it is the anthropogenic emissions that are the primary cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Neglecting the isotopic data one could consider the O2/N2 ratio of the atmosphere. This is modified by different processes including combustion, respiration, photosynthesis etc. If one plots the decrease in O2/N2 ratio as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration it is possible to determine the relative contributions of combustion, photosynthesis, dissolution in the ocean etc. Using such an approach one finds that ca 50% of anthropogenic emissions are taken up by (a) terrestrial photosynthesis (so called greening of the planet) and (b) dissolution in the oceans.
I don't want to second guess Murry Salby's hypothesis having not had the time to either listen to his talk, or read the relevant section of his book. He is of course right to suggest that we do need more data on natural variability of CO2 emissions from different biomes etc. and the effect of temperature has on this. However I suspect this will not change our overall understanding of the CO2 cycle, rather it will allow us to fill in a lot more of the detail.
Michael Hart,
I don't think I claimed that isotopic fractionation in systems, especially biologic systems, was definitively explained. i said we had good knowledge of the fractionation factors. For example in the paper you quote Fihure 10 shows a compilation of fractionation factors as a function of pCO2. There is a good agreement between these different studies at low CO2 concentrations and the data are consistent with a diffusive transport model for CO2. At higher concentrations there appears to be a different mechanism operating. Whilst we don't understand the mechanism the apparent fractionation factors are known and have been measured.
It is not definitive but neither is it a stab in the dark.
Also, Shub, you may wish to consider the PTOX pathway in various photosynthetic organisms, where
"The ratio of electron transfer and oxygen production to carbon fixation is flexible, ranging from O2 production to CO2 fixation ratios of ~1 to 1.6 or greater..."
-Photosynthesis in the Open Ocean Jonathan P. Zehr and Raphael M. Kudela Science 13 November 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5955 pp. 945-946
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5955/945.short
Hi Nick Stokes, you said:
"Well, the lecture tour happened to coincide with a misconduct hearing, that he seems to regard as of lower priority."
Where in Salby's statement were you able to conclude that he regarded a misconduct hearing as of lower priority? Do you know something we don't? Or are you just making it up?
Salby states that his lecture schedule was known to the univeristy. I have conducted a similar type of lecture tour (in my case as a Distinguished Lecturer). Once the dates are accepted it is unreasonable to cancel them - many organisations will have reserved a slot on a regular lunchtime or evening lecture occasion, published schedules and so forth. This would have been a high profile lecture, and controversial (and therefore interesting).
Salby states: "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."
If Salby's statement is true, then for the University to undertake misconduct proceedings in absentia is extremely underhand. Unless you, Nick Stokes, have evidence that a date was agreed or proposed and then Salby either decided to ignore it or be a "no show" then your argument is simply an invention. Why am I not surprised?
How disappointing a term...
'llewellin setters' are my favorite breed of dogs by far! Best dogs I've ever owned or met; the person who said "a dog is a man's best friend" must've owned a llewellin setter. IMO
Does llewellyn have a different meaning in Welsh?
Nick Stokes provides no information contrary to the account offered by Salby, yet feels able to assert that Salby casually skipped a misconduct hearing as some kind of a "lower priority."
In fact, Salby's points 14 - 16 indicate that officials at Macquarie scheduled the proceeding while Salby was on the other side of the planet and acted to prevent his timely return. IF this is the case (none of us here "knows" anything more than that Salby has made these assertions) then Nick Stokes has misrepresented the facts.
IF Nick Stokes has some contrary evidence he should provide it now. Otherwise he is smearing Salby without knowledge of the case and without substantiating his (Nick Stokes') assertions.
Macquarie University supplies two of the six members of Australia's egregious "Climate Change Commission" including the Chief Commissioner, Tim Flannery:
Macquarie University profs dominate Australia's national Climate Change Commission
This announcement was from Feb. 10, 2011. One may wonder about politics and pressures both within and without Macquarie University, as alarm about alleged "catastrophic" climate change became the official orthodoxy in recent years. People like Flannery find it unbearable to be questioned or contradicted, and independent minds pursuing robust scientific debate may get crushed underfoot by the herd stampede.
"My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me."
How does that work? I thought Stalin was dead.
I guess Academic Freedom at Macquarie University is a concept that applies only to those who toe the party (in this case AGW) line?
A very sad state of affairs.
Nick "Hit and Run" Stokes strikes again. Nick Stokes once more defending the indefensible. Unsubstantiated
slurcomment on Salby and then disappears. I am starting to think Nick Stokes is not much different to a troll.The end game in Lysenkoism was vicious as those who had obtained their power and position through slavish adherence to the Communist Party line sank their talons into those who posed a threat to their hegemony.
In the UK the retreat from our version of Hansenlkoism is more advanced. This is because there is a core of scientists who have not come under the control of the eco-fascist or like David King, have seen the writing on the wall so have developed a new position. It's only the dim like Beddington who remain true and have been reward by the non - exec posts. I suspect Nurse will go down with the ship because he never allowed the science to mcloud his political judgement!
Salby based his theory that atmospheric CO2 levels were not related to human emissions on the Mauna Loa records and on officially accepted human emissions figures. I have never seen anyone dispute the accuracy of those figures.
Salby has put his whole story in print for all to see, not the action of a man with anything to hide.
The reactions on this blog are totally different to reactions that would follow any opinion/pronouncement from Steve McIntyre (for example). The conclusion is that somehow Salby is not to be trusted.
I watched Salby's podcast and since I am a lot deaf read a transcription and I have been a fan of his ever since.
Until Macquarie post (and substantiate) a credible reply I am 100% behind Salby.
@ Paul Dennis
One of the supports for Salby's grand unifying theory of climate change rests on the explanation of the C13 ratio of atmospheric CO2. Conventional wisdom is that the increased burning of fossil fuels which are demonstrably depleted in C13 is the most likely explanation for increasingly negative delta 13C of atmospheric CO2 (look at around minute 33 in the Salby talk circulating on the internet (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php) Presumably this is what colleagues Colin Prentice and Ann Henderson-Sellers were objecting to in their response – see Alan Kennedy comment at Jul 9, 2013 at 1:00 PM.
Here’s the question to you: as an establishment isotope geochemist, what do you think of Salby’s argument refuting what on the surface appears to be a reasonable explanation for the increasingly negative delta 13C of atmospheric CO2? That is, Salby suggests the uncertainty in the natural fluxes are so much larger than known human emissions and the likelihood that somewhere in these fluxes could be an alternative source of depleted 13C.
nvw
If you really believe that we have anything approaching a complete understanding of sources and sinks of CO2 (of whichever isotope) then you are a dangerously deluded scientist.
nvw, there are several lines of evidence to suggest that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely the result of anthropogenic combustion of fossil fuels. As you indicate he d13C record is consistent with an increased contribution of isotopically depleted CO2 which is consistent with the isotopic composition of fossil fuels which are depleted in 13C. You are also right to point out that there are other possible sources of 13C depleted CO2, for example that derived from plant respiration. This might leave room for the hypothesis that given the order of magnitude difference between the known anthropogenic inventory and the ocean-terrestrial biosphere-atmosphere fluxes then there may be an increased natural flux with an isotopically light composition that could account for the increasing depletion in 13C in atmospheric CO2 that we see. Superficially this might look a reasonable proposition. However we do have a good grasp of the anthropogenic inventory and the depletion in 13C is consistent with this. We don't need to postulate an increased flux from natural sources.
Having said this I don't want to discount the need for more detailed flux measurements so we can better constrain all components in the system.
However, we shouldn't look just at the isotopic evidence, persuasive to me that it is. If we look at how the overall atmospheric composition is changing in terms of O2/N2 ratio and CO2 concentration then we can begin to disentangle some of the effects. Over the past 10 to 15 years we have had access to very high quality O2/N2 ratio measurements that document the small decrease in atmospheric O2 concentration. If we plot this as a function of increased CO2 level in the atmosphere we find a decrease in O2 and an increase in CO2 with time. More importantly we find that the increase in CO2 is about 50% that we would expect from the anthropogenic inventory, also that the decrease in O2 is less than we might expect for stoichiometric combustion. Both the trend and end points can be accounted for by (i) dissolution of CO2 into the ocean, and (ii) increased oceanic and terrestrial photosynthesis.
I don't think it's possible to explain the observed trends using natural respiration fluxes.
I hope this answers your question. I welcome the fact that Murry Salby has taken a look at this problem. It's complex and though I think we have a reasonable overview we certainly don't have all the details to hand. I briefly skimmed through his talk and was intrigued by some of his analysis and impressed by his relationship between CO2 and the integral of the temperature anomaly. I haven't, however, had a chance to think about it more deeply and how it might fit with other data relevant to the CO2 system in the land-ocean-atmosphere system.
@ThinkingScientist
I've noticed Steve Mosher employs similar tactics on WUWT. One or two posts then nothing, perhaps it's a new methodology when the facts don't support your argument?
Jul 9, 2013 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean Houlihane
Unbelievable.
Paul Dennis
You appear to be a great scientist with knowledge not yet available elsewhere in the scientic community. Could I ask you as a fellow BH poster; to contact the Met Office and explain why CO2 levels are rising merrily while temperature is not doing a great deal?
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.
EXACTLY, dcardno - this is how an American would think about it. And Salby is an American.
The tale of Murry Salby has all the hallmarks of a stitch up job by the goons in management at Macquarie who obviously reckon like all the best bureaucrats - that they're untouchable..
Not Macquarie but still in NSW I think it was - a government hydrographic surveyor sacked for volunteering that he hadn't measured any sea level rise at all - nada - zip...
Who's been up to no good?
Well, start I suppose at the Faculty of Science management team... but my bet would go on somebody higher up and politically connected to the Labour Party...
Any Lewpaper fans recognised in there?
They've got an Academic honesty policy that looks like it might need extending / rewriting - but most likely just enforcing :-).
From the "Executives" - it would seem that Kim Sprague has a number of questions to answer about all this since he must have been directly and personally involved in all this dishonest and cowardly backstabbing - and should be the first to go...
Right bunch of charmers eh?
I realise this is a slight digression from the main point and possibly a bit nitpicky, but as a software engineer this caught my eye.
Any idea what this means? Why did the code need converting to run in Australia? Does he actually mean that slightly different algorithms were required to solve a different problem in an Australian context, perhaps?
I'd add that although "several hundred thousand lines" sounds a lot, that's not that large for a software project.
Jul 9, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Latimer Alder
It certainly reads as though Professor Salby has been badly treated but think it wise to be cautious at this stage re the motives and actions of Macquarie University until the full details are known. If the situation is as Professor Salby writes then action via the courts would seem to be appropriate. Professor Salby has experience here with a previous employer:
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Murry+L+Salby
Skiphil,
"In fact, Salby's points 14 - 16 indicate that officials at Macquarie scheduled the proceeding while Salby was on the other side of the planet and acted to prevent his timely return."<?i>
He says:
"11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of "misconduct", cancelling my salary."
and
"12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense."
I think that means that MacQ U had made the charge of "misconduct" before he left, and suspended his status in some way. A proceeding could be expected to be imminent.
Which means they cut off his salary but expected him to be at their beck and call (and managed to get ticked off that he left to fulfill his lecture obligations, which they knew about)
from Stokes:
"Well, the lecture tour happened to coincide with a misconduct hearing, that he seems to regard as of lower priority"
The point of surreptitiously cancelling the return plane ticket was to PREVENT Salby from returning in time for the hearing.
Note also, Nick baby, that Salby's Uni credit card was also surreptitiously cancelled - he was unable to purchase another return flight with it
Sometimes, one tires of Stokes' Quisling, malicious snideness, tediously predictable as it is
Nick Stokes (over many posts) -
That he seems to regard...
He never seems to have found...
Payment was probably approved...
MS may even had...
I assume that...
Why the University might be unhappy...
I think that means...
Suspended his status in some way...
A proceeding could be expected...
That he seems to regard...
Is "Precision" your middle name?
SandyS : "I've noticed Steve Mosher employs similar tactics on WUWT."
Except Mosher seems these days to talk in cryptic riddles, as though he has some secret inside knowledge no-one else is privy too, presented in a way as to make anyone else who doesn;t follow his argument appear thick. Mosher seems to have become pretty condescending and arrogant, too previously I had a lot of time for his comments, but he seems to have become quite closed mind in his thinking. Nick Stokes just seem to have a knee jerk reflex to defend, indirectly, AGW come what may.
I think Salby has an interesting hypothesis, but I don't know whether it will pan out or not. I am a sceptic and would like to think he is right - a lot of what he says makes sense. But I know I have to try and be rational about his ideas, sceptical even. Similarily, I think that the story he tells in the email smells very bad, but we know nothing more at this stage and it is difficult to tell whether there is any spin in there or not. Some of the paragraphs are quite carefully worded and the timeline of events is not entirely clear, so there maybe a spat within a spat. Time will tell.
"Is "Precision" your middle name?"
Who has precise facts here? Do you? But there's plenty of MacQuarie bashing going on, on a very poor factual knowledge basis.
Jul 9, 2013 at 8:49 PM | Paul Dennis
OMG! We're running out of oxygen!
Who has precise facts here? Do you?
My first comment said if true. Your sum total effort is a string of tortuous drivel containing a host of "seems", "probablys", "coulds", "mays", "I thinks", "I assumes" and other inanities.
If it wasn't so puerile it would be hilarious.
Paul Dennis,
Thanks for your considered yet conventional reply, still I note the geologic record is riddled with carbon isotope excursions well before the arrival of humans. That still leaves the O2/N2 combustion argument, but a little removed from isotope geochemistry.
Kudos on your sleuthing of Dr. Salby’s history of suing his employers, without success it seems.
To all,
As Jonathan Jones mentions earlier in the thread “…something happened in 2008” to Salby’s academic career. He has put forward a non-orthodox view of climate change. For which it appears he has been pilloried by his employer and colleagues at Macquarie University. It seems there are two “end-member” possibilities – he is a genius who has single-handedly defanged anthropogenic climate change for which powerful establishment forces have conspired to punish and/or prevent him from publishing his results, or he has gone the scientifically equivalent of barking mad and his employers want to fire him for cause. The truth, as in most cases, likely lies between the extremes.
Why has Salby not produced more scientific publications in these past five years pointing out where he is right and they are wrong. In his line of work publications are the measure of accomplishment, and he must know it.
Then we have the behavior of Macquarie University. Was it really necessary to cancelled a return ticket when the guy was out of the country? It appears that Australian academics are forgetting their own history. In the 1960’s there was a vigorous debate in the geologic community over continental drift. A well-known Australian geoscientist Warren Carey, held the unorthodox view that much of the features being cited by advocates of plate-tectonics could be explained by an expanding earth model. I think it fair to say that most geologists don’t consider an expanding earth model tenable, or to present a paper today advocating Carey’s position would risk being labeled the scientific equivalent of barking mad. But Warren Carey was never fired from his university job or denied the opportunity to make his case to the community.
But then again Salby is not an Australian working as a tenured faculty member. He is the modern equivalent of an indentured servant, not too different from the hordes of Asian post-docs shuffling around American centers of learning. True he had a little more cache but he forgot the lesson you are supposed to learn while standing in the immigration line for non-nationals - you are in our country at our pleasure, do what you are told or its back to where you came from.
But then again, again we have the curious history of Dr. Salby suing his employer. University of Colorado and likely Macquarie. Perhaps this release of information is part of the legal strategy.
Until the results of his scientific work are fully presented and further details on his employment are verified, judgment should be reserved.
Salby does not strike me as being an idiot (unlike some in this thread) he wrote as follows:
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.
I have no idea why lines of a program would need converting but I believe Salby has a document that would explain it.
Paul Dennis,
The problem with the isotopic evidence is that it can only provide estimates of the current flows, it can't tell you anything about the dynamics of how they affect one another, and it is on the latter that the case for an anthropogenic cause lies. While I think an anthropogenic cause is the most likely explanation, I don't think the isotopic evidence is the justification, and I think it's a considerably more difficult question than some people claim.
I'll offer a thought experiment to explain what I mean. Suppose that the CO2 level is subject to a strong damped restoring force that pushes it back to an equilibrium level C, and that C depends on a number of additional factors related to biological factors, ocean chemistry, and ocean currents. We add some CO2, and simultaneously some of those biological factors shift, increasing C. Perhaps an invasive species of algae carried by modern shipping has colonised some new area and affected the balance. So you see CO2 being added, and you see the level of CO2 going up. But if the equilibrium level C had not shifted, the added CO2 would not have had any detectable effect on the level. It would push it off a little, but the strong restoring force would maintain equilibrium. It is only because the equilibrium level itself has shifted that the CO2 level has changed so significantly. The isotopic ratio would shift just the same, but all it tells you is that anthropogenic CO2 is being mixed into the system. It doesn't tell you about the dynamics.
To be able to ascribe a cause to the rise in CO2, you need to model the causal relationships between the various sources, sinks, and reservoirs of CO2. How does the increased CO2 level affect ocean uptake, or photosynthesis, or plankton density/dissolution? Now so far as I know the current best models of the carbon cycle do also posit dynamics in which added anthropogenic CO2 would increase CO2, with no known strong equilibrium control to override it. I have no knowledge of any proposed mechanism or evidence to the contrary, and therefore I don't - currently - believe there is any. I'm using Occam's razor. But it is a weak conviction, that could be easily overturned by new ideas or evidence. The isotopic evidence is certainly not any reason against it.
It's an area worth looking into, and not getting locked into dogma on. I haven't looked into Murry Salby's ideas, I'm not saying he right. But I don't see that there's anything wrong with thinking about it and suggesting alternatives. It's not settled science, and science is all the stronger for being challenged.