Climate of fear

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

Comments

[John in France]

Sorry Mod, just sent this to the wrong thread :
Johanna,
My point is that the "strained relations" followed directly on from the Hamburg lecture in question and led to Salby's return ticket being cancelled and his being stranded in Paris plus all the rest of the hassle.
The content of the lecture (have you watched it?) inclines me, like Dung to trust the Salby version rather than the Macquarie one until further notice and to support those who do.

[johanna]

JiF and Dung,

The "strained relations" have a long history, as Salby himself acknowledges. It is nonsense to suggest that the Hamburg lecture was the sole motive for his sacking.

And, if you believe that a person who is capable of producing an honest presentation of their scientific views is therefore pure as the driven snow in every other aspect of their lives, I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

I am not pre-judging this issue absent the key facts. If Salby has been badly treated because of his views, I will be as indignant as you apparently are. But, it is just silly to automatically support someone because they are perceived to be "on our side". That is precisely what we rightly condemn Mann et al for (eg in as shown in the Climategate emails).

[Martin A]

The content of the lecture (have you watched it?) inclines me, like Dung to trust the Salby version rather than the Macquarie one until further notice and to support those who do.
Jul 12, 2013 at 7:54 AM John in France

Me too.

I've observed in life that people and organisations tend to be consistent. People who are sticklers for accuracy and the truth generally don't suddenly start bullshitting or lying when they suddenly find themselves in a tight spot. They may not be easy people to get on with or to negotiate with but that's an entirely different matter.

And we have seen (Climategate emails) plenty of evidence of people in climate science university departments conspiring to end the careers of those who don't toe the line. We've seen the UEA "enquiries" to show us that the the misdoings of these same people will be covered up and justified by the university management up to VC level. I see no reason to suppose that other universities involved in fomenting the CAGW scam would behave vastly differently from UEA. Macquarie seems at the forefront of putting forward the CAGW message.

So I'll go for the Salby version rather than the Macquarie until anything emerges to change my view.

[John in France]

Johanna, Have you watched it?

[Justin Vertebrate]

@ Johanna
My hooligan sized brain does not stretch as far as football, but it does do rugby, but not as a matter of loyalty - it is a religion! I was lucky enough to see my lionheart Gods at the Suncorp stadium play the Reds just a few weeks ago. Alas, I had to watch the decisive test trouncing back here in blighty.
I wonder that a few people here are unsure whether Salby's research is too off-piste without further examination, and it's this that is preventing them from supporting him. Do you count yourself as amongst them?
If, in the fullness of time, you decide to endorse his research or not, does his treatment become any less disgraceful? Or are you suggesting that a fair workaday scientist, beavering away conscientiously, regardless of his reasearch topic, has a career-stunting, public humiliation coming to them for missing a class and blowing a few dollars on a foreign lecture tour? Isn't that what scientists do ;) ?

[johanna]

Yes, I have watched his presentation, and it is certainly convincing. But, that doesn't say anything about his behaviour as an employee of Macquarie University.

It may be a revelation to some people here, but achievement in one field doesn't necessarily imply high performance in other fields. I don't either believe or disbelieve Dr Salby's account - I just want to see the facts before making a judgement.

[Dung]

Well Johanna I think that you can link behaviour in one field to probable behaviour in another. As an example if there was a story in the Independent that Steve McIntyre had coshed an old lady and run off with her handbag I would not wait for further evidence before slagging off the Independent again ^.^

[Nick Stokes]

Jul 12, 2013 at 9:46 AM | Martin A
"So I'll go for the Salby version rather than the Macquarie until anything emerges to change my view."

See if this does it.

[John in France]

It does. Found this on Jo's site too : http://www.announcements.mq.edu.au/vc/professor_murry_salby_and_his_dismissal_from_macquarie_university

[Foxgoose]

See if this does it.
Jul 13, 2013 at 2:18 AM Nick Stokes

That's a US government report marked "confidential" Nick.

Do you mind telling us where you got it?

[Nick Stokes]

Foxgoose,
I just provide a link. If you check, it's there on the nsf.gov website for everyone to see. Some of the history is in the attached correspondence.

[Foxgoose]

Post deleted

[nick stokes]

Foxgoose,
A long story with a more complete set of links is on John Mashey's post.

[Roger Longstaff]

Salby himself placed these matters in the court of public opinion and he must have known that this evidence would come out. On the face of it the evidence seems damning.

Or the best piece of framing since the Mona Lisa.

[Mike Jackson]

I would have thought the NSF report is the one he needs to explain.
I would take what desmogblog says with more than a just a pinch of salt, even if they said today was Saturday.

[Dung]

As Roger Longstaff says; the report is damning. I have now read the whole thing and there are at least one or two oddities.
Amongst the wrongs attributed to Salby is the accusation that he installed (superior) computer equipment on university premises without their agreement? Sounds like somebody was trawling every possible dirt and technicality they could find.
Also Salby claimed he was having to do extra work because some assistants left his project and that although he did not inform his university surely it was no reason to debar him?. The NSF responded with:

We disagree. In accordance with NSF policy, you were obligated to notify NSF about the
significant change in the extent of your efforts toward the project as soon as you realized that the
positions of research associate and programmer would not be filled for the duration of the grant

The original report accuses Salby of falsifying time sheets to gain money, but if you read the very last letter attached it contains this:

NSF opted to propose your debarment for three years, as opposed to
the five-year debarment period initially recommended by the OIG, because of the concerns you
raised regarding the preliminary finding that you prepared inaccurate and fraudulent time and
effort sheets. You asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support this allegation and,
after a careful review of the evidence in the record, we agreed.

Finally (so far) there is a section of the report entitled "Subject's Response to draft Report of Investigation " However that is not what it contains, what is given is the NSF's view of Salby's response.

[osseo]

Audi alteram partem.

Evidence of previous bad behaviour doesn't prove he hasn't been mistreated on this occasion. Nor does it prove he's wrong about the science. But on both issues it does damage his credit.

[Foxgoose]

Well, a lot of work has clearly been done very quickly, by the likes of Nick Stokes, Graham Redfearn, John Mashey and the Desmog PR professionals, to try and destroy Salby's credibility and get Macquarie off the hook.

I can't think when we've seen the private life of any individual, including messy divorce proceedings and relationships with estranged wife & kids, picked over in the public blogs so blatantly.

Presumably consensus scientists lead lives of complete domestic and financial rectitude and have nothing to fear.

It may well be that Salby's three year suspension was justified - although clearly no criminal charges were brought. One thing puzzles me though. I was once involved in a business supplying research equipment to universities in the UK and Europe and the nature of the technology often resulted in my company carrying out joint research projects with them. When I became quite deeply involved in the financing and management of such projects, I never failed to be amazed by the casual and lax attitude that most senior academics and their employers took to things like time management, expense controls, property ownership, separation of academic and personal business interests etc etc etc.

I have a strong feeling that the NSF charges against Salby, for the way ran his projects, could be proved against large numbers of senior academics all over the world - if anyone bothered to launch investigations.

Something else caught my eye while browsing the NSF bulletin covering the Salby case - I read this, pertaining to another case of academic misconduct:-

A Massachusetts university took a novel approach to resolve a research
misconduct allegation against one of its faculty members.

It was alleged that conclusions in two papers, written by the subject, were not substantiated by the
data. Specifically, the subject was alleged to have not done enough to account for instrument artifacts that could account for the claimed results, and therefore the results were intentionally misreported.

The university’s investigation committee found two significant problems with the conclusions reported in the papers. The papers failed to disclose the extent to which instrument artifacts can resemble valid research results. The papers’ conclusions were not supported by sufficient statistical proof that the claimed results were not in fact the result of instrument artifacts.

The committee asked a consultant in statistical methodologies to review the subject’s approach, data,
and conclusions.

The consultant concluded the subject’s design and analysis of his experiment were not well developed from a statistical point of view, and thus, the subject’s results should be considered preliminary and exploratory in nature. The committee determined that the consultant’s findings raised doubts about the
subject’s conclusions.

The committee concluded that a preponderance of evidence showed there was insufficient statistical basis for the subject’s conclusions in his papers, but the subject did not commit research misconduct because he did not recklessly or knowingly publish flawed results. It expressed concern that the two papers remain in the literature without any indication of the problems with the findings.

It recommended that the subject develop a rigorous methodology for statistical reexamination of the data, consistent with the recommendations of the consultant. If the reexamination demonstrates one or both of the papers need supplementation, correction, or retraction, the subject should act accordingly.

The committee concluded that if the subject fails to do so, he would at that point have committed an act of research misconduct under NSF policy, because he would then know his results are flawed, and therefore he would then have a culpable level of intent.

Who could have guessed the NSF can launch investigations against academics for "insufficient statistical rigour" - I bet Steve McIntyre could point them in a few interesting directions.

[Eli Rabett]

To better understand what happened to Salby @ Colorado a bunny needs to know about the most complicated thing in science, the Institutional Base Salary. Briefly put this is the salary a university swears to the granting agencies that it will pay a faculty member each year, whether that faculty member gets grants or not. For tenure track faculty this is a nine month salary, for research faculty it is a twelve month salary. A grant or contract cannot provide more than the IBS rate (in the case of TT faculty, they can pay summer salary in addition).

Further, faculty can consult (usually on a 1 day a week basis), or be paid any amount by a non-federal source (Howard Hughes Medical Institution for example) which is not bound by the IBS.

Salby put himself on both sides of the transaction in order to exceed his IBS. First he was PI for the NSF/NASA grants and directed that the money be sent to his company, ASA which he controlled, to pay him salary above his IBS rate. Second, he was owner/creator of ASA which accepted the subcontract from Colorado, and paid him. Worse, when that got too hot he created a third company which subed to ASA and paid him the money. As the final straw, ASA charged it's full overhead rate on the sub to the third company, which defrauded (yes, a strong word) the government which limits overhead on subcontracts to the rate on the first $25K (to cover accounting costs).

[Eli Rabett]

An additional hanging thread. One of Prof. Salby's claims is that MacQuarie did not provide the necessary assistance to translate his code so that it could work. However, in dissolution, his company, ASA noted that it had donated a Dell Power Edge Server to UCAR (see for 990). If this was the "computer facility" on which Salby's code ran, Eli leaves it to everybunny;s imagination about the claim, it's validity, and the flow of resources.

[Martin A]

ASA noted that it had donated a Dell Power Edge Server to UCAR (see for 990). If this was the "computer facility" on which Salby's code ran, Eli leaves it to everybunny;s imagination about the claim, it's validity, and the flow of resources.
Jul 19, 2013 at 11:28 PM Eli Rabett

I'm not sure my imagination is up to the task.

What is the point you are making, Eli? That a Dell Server is a generic computer that normally runs a Microsoft operating system (or Linux etc) and therefore Salby's software would not have required any significant translation?

If you want to say something about Salby, please say it directly rather than "Eli leaves it to everybunny;s imagination"

To me it seems a huge jump to say:

1. Salby's company donated a generic computer to his old employer.
2. Therefore the software he took to Australia would not have required translation, so Salby's statement is untrue.