JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record

Murry Salby

Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie  struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond, which he has at length in a PDF here. The figures listed below refer to that PDF, which encompasses 15 years of events.

I don’t have the resources (unlike the  National Science Foundation, the NSF) to investigate it all, but wanted to give Murry the right of reply. On closer inspection the NSF report used by people to attack Salby does not appear to be the balanced, impartial analysis I would have expected. Indeed the hyperbolic language based on insubstantial evidence is disturbing to say the least. Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.

Remember the NSF report was supposedly an inhouse private document. It was marked “Confidential”, subject to the Privacy Act, with disclosure outside the NSF prohibited.  In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been “leaked” to those in search of a character attack.

My summary of his reply

First and foremost, there is nothing in any of the NSF claims that questions Murry Salby’s scientific research. This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science.

There is another side to the story and a long and complex history regarding Murry Salby’s work at Colorado University (CU). It started way back in 1997 when he noticed funds were going missing from his NSF-funded research group. After requests for their return were ignored, he reported it to the NSF. By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Salby was unable to find out where half those missing funds had been placed during the time they had been missing. Possibly this did not make him friends at CU.

Later after Salby left CU in 2008 to come to Australia, Colorado University withheld his computer files and work. After requests for those were also ignored, he launched a case from Australia, and won access to everything — CU paid legal costs as well. Curiously, soon after Salby launched that case, the NSF revived a dormant scientific investigation against Murry which went on to make some extremely serious claims — claims that Salby completely disputes (see his full letter).

Salby had already moved to Australia when the NSF investigation was revived, so he could not apply for any more NSF grants. He explains that given the expense and distance, there was little point in launching a major legal protest to a debarment from funding that he was no longer eligible for in any case.

Hyperbole and tenuous reasoning?

At a glance, anyone reading the NSF report might come away thinking Salby “fabricated” time-sheets, a rather serious accusation.  Yet on page 30 of the NSF document, even the Acting Deputy Director of the NSF admitted there was “insufficient evidence to support this allegation”.

NSF Report, Deputy Director Cora B. Marrett, p 30

The time and effort reports were a key point, mentioned more than 20 times, and referred to in dramatic language with words like “inaccurate”, “fabricated” and “fraudulent”. The allegation over the time sheets were described as “The most egregious act…” in the report. Other points also hinged on this point for which evidence was “insufficient”.

The report even goes so far as to declare they were “separately created years after the fact”. How did such a serious and unsupported claim become written all through the final report?

For the record, Salby notes that timesheets were filed years earlier by his administrative staff, who kept them on file and later invoiced his hours (see his Fig 2a and Fig 3). Salby wonders why the NSF did not pursue those records more diligently, and if the cumulative hours were so unbelievable why they found no fault when they were originally submitted.

As for evidence, apparently the NSF report authors thought that  Salby’s hours were “highly implausible”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time. This may be true for administrators, but it is not necessarily so for scientists. Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher.

One other major claim by the NSF was that Salby had submitted two proposals that overlapped. Apparently 53% of one proposal was identical to an earlier one (which didn’t get funding, so this was not about “extra income” or double dipping). I wouldn’t have thought it was that out-of-the-ordinary for submissions to reuse the reviews and references in similar research. Salby certainly feels the submissions were very different projects, and explains one concentrated on dynamics in the troposphere with meteorological data whereas the other concentrated on chemistry in the stratosphere with satellite data. Salby’s documentation shows that NSF officials had even been notified of the other proposal, which was to be considered for co-sponsorship (see Fig 1a and Fig 1b) Note in Fig 1a, the reviewers were very impressed with the proposal, which was knocked back on a technicality. Later, when it was resubmitted, the reviewers were critical of the NSF for wasting their time by not approving it the first time around. The NSF investigation began a couple of weeks after those criticisms).

Some of the other claims with drastic terms include allegations of overcharging and compensation in excess of approved amounts. I gather this is because at one point a member of Salby’s team left. When no one else could be found, Salby filled in for the more junior staff member (and at lower pay rates) during leave from his CU employment (Fig 5 shows reduced CU employment during one such year). Salby evidently displeased the NSF by getting onto the job, and not seeking pre-approval. The NSF claim it was a reason for debarring him and say he was obligated to inform them. Salby replies  that this was no different than the re-assignment of duties to other research staff, performed routinely to meet grant obligations. He notes also that NSF had in fact been informed every quarter, in regular expense reports (see Fig 6). Salby notes that the grant charges were unchanged from what had been budgeted. And, curiously, NASA operated under the same arrangements, yet had no such issues.

This is not a bun-fight I want to get into, I’m more interested in the scientific research he is doing. But unskeptical activists are spinning what appears to be an unbalanced, inconsistent report to do what they do — attack the man, to distract us from his research. (If only DeSmog had scientific evidence they wouldn’t need to run the smear campaigns, would they?)

Note that the NSF report, as “authoritative” as it appears on the surface, made a serious allegation that couldn’t even be supported. This was not a criminal investigation. There were no financial repercussions in the sense that there were no repayments involved, no changes to the grants being investigated, and no question that his scientific work did not measure up. Ultimately it boils down to paperwork and bureaucratese. That doesn’t mean Salby was a Saint, but I am surprized at the hyperbole used in the NSF investigation. To make repeated claims without evidence seems most untoward. It would appear that the author(s) were not approaching this calmly and dispassionately.

Now, can we please get back to the science?

———————————————————

UPDATE:  Eli Rabbett tells us the NSF has responded to the question of why the report was on the OIG web site. My response, comment # 2013/08/26 at 6:03 pm.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (137 votes cast)
Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record, 9.2 out of 10 based on 137 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n3tho35

159 comments to Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record

  • #
    crosspatch

    I think I shall go make the Prime Minister a sandwich.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    cohenite

    The NSF report does contradict itself and wants to have a bob each way. It is itself egregious given the stark admission it has no evidence to sustain its hyperbole.

    But then we live in the age of no consequence where those who have crawled through the system can pronounce, lie and declaim.


    Report this

    321

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      If these are true
      ‘They cancelled an air ticket on him leaving him in a foreign city with no accommodation and no warning, or even a courtesy call’. ‘They held a misconduct proceeding which he was unable to attend because of the flight cancellation’.
      then Macquarie administration needs a very big shake-up; starting with the people involved being asked to show cause why they shouldn’t be sacked.


      Report this

      830

      • #
        Peter Lang

        Graeme No.3,

        I’d go further than that. I want to know all the behind the scenes discussions, lobbying and manipulations that were involved in removing and trying to seriously damage the career of a scientist whose research is a potential threat to so many special interests.

        We need a mini ClimateGate to expose what was being done behind the scenes to remove him.


        Report this

        680

        • #
          Dave

          Yes Peter,

          I find it amazing that someone like Tim Flannery who has a 3 day week and pulls in $180,000 per year, plus ALL expenses paid, and the government does nothing about the garbage he tells to all and sundry.

          Because his views agree with the Green Scheme, simple as that.

          Tim Flannery, who contributes nothing apart from a cocktail circuit of appearances, creating climate fear scenarios etc and gets rewarded.

          Murry Salby views disagree and he gets vilified by the institution.

          Have a look at the difference:

          1. Tim Flannery: “that even if it rained again, it wouldn’t fill the dams” Big reward.
          2. Murry Salby: Presents a video slowly dissecting the climate models accepted by and promoted by the IPCC to continue their cause. Sacked.

          I have seen the start of a trend in this area in government departments also (federal, state and local) in regard to termination of employment if skeptical views are aired publicly. It seems to have halted very quickly in Queensland fortunately.


          Report this

          530

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I have seen the start of a trend in this area in government departments also (federal, state and local) in regard to termination of employment if skeptical views are aired publicly.

            Not only that, Dave.

            At the risk of appearing to be a conspiracy theorist, it seems that some Government departments have people “who are encouraged” to promote the warmist message on sceptical blogs.

            Our very own Margot, being one.

            I accused her (him?) of just that, last week, when (s)he used a phrase that was obvious bureaucratese. (S)he was not happy, but did not deny it.


            Report this

            220

      • #
        Jon

        This gives me a dejavu with how they treated Lomborg and his book “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Critique without substance and attack on person. Politics? International Marxism?


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I believe I know who is NSF program officer is, I will try to have a chat with the official about this and report back

    BGV


    Report this

    291

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Good landings.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        My approaches to the NSF were mostly unproductive. The individual who actually managed the NSF award is not at NSF any longer.

        Attempts to clarify Salby’s ban on NSF awards for 3 years were not successful, they referred me to the “final report,” which doesn’t say very much. The ban was instituted not on unproven claims (time sheet falsification), rather on apparently dubious allegations of establishing a fake company that served no other purpose than billing NSF for more hours. Anyway it was pointed out that proven fraud results in a lifetime ban on receiving Government awards, which is true. I have seen this happen on a couple of occasions. Salby himself did not do he could to dispute unproven claims, he was apparently engaged in other matters. The NSF program officer who since left the NSF, is known to me not to have been antagonistic toward AGW sceptics.

        NSF has no relation to Salby and his work in Australia if Salby is not an NSF investigator in Australia. I do believe that Maquarie abandoned Salby because they did not care for the taste of Salby’s message. Other people will have to take up Salby’s cause before some international scientific organization with influence on Maquarie’s administration.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    A colleague of mine had a similar experience as a consultant with the Asian Development Bank. My colleague was on his way from to the airport taxi stand when an ADB staffer who he had met on the flight invited him to ride in a limousine sent by the ADB for the staffer.

    Later, my colleague was reprimanded by the ADB for unauthorized use by a consultant of an ADB vehicle provided for staffers only. The reasoning? The lump sum per diem paid to consultants is intended to cover the cost of taxis.

    Seems like Dr. Salby was the victim of underworked bureaucrats.


    Report this

    301

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    One should not infer evil intent when incompetence provides an adequate explanation. In any case, Dr. Selby would appear to have been shamefully used. I thought in absentia proceedings were no longer acceptable in the West. Obviously, Aussie academia still believes in the Star Chamber approach using the principle of Morton’s Fork.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    “As for evidence, apparently the NSF report authors thought that Salby’s hours were “highly implausible”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time. This may be true for administrators, but it is not necessarily so for scientists. Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher.”

    Those are Ivy League hours, being criticized by state school careerists!


    Report this

    240

    • #
      AndyG55

      Unfortunately. I’m not that dedicated :-)

      .. but I know my boss certainly has put in those sorts of hours on a regular basis, and several other researcher where I work also put those in long hours at various times.

      Once one of these guys gets a bee in his bonnet, they often only stop to go for a rest break and a few hours occasion sleep.


      Report this

      230

    • #
      Joe V.

      That’s the creative process of the inquiring mind at work. Dedicated investigators inquiring into the natural laws will work till they drop, then resume when they wake again as their thoughts become consumed by the problem at hand.

      9-5 administrators just can’t relate to such driven ways of working. Administrators talk of Passion as a ‘value’ on a powerpoint list of bullet points that we should all aspire to, yet they cannt recognise it when they see it for real..


      Report this

      200

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think that actually highlights a very important point.

      I once worked at a University (as a non-academic researcher) for a little under a year. The academic staff I came into contact with, both professionally and socially, were very supportive and helpful. In fact, a number of them volunteered their time to assist me in finding some of the more esoteric information.

      The same could not be said for some of the clerical support staff. They were polite enough, and sometimes overly polite, but I always had the impression that they did not approve of somebody who did not have a PhD, and yet was conducting research.

      Little things happened, that although trivial by themselves, carried a very clear message that I was not one of them, and I certainly was not on a par with the academics.

      For example, I was denied access to the staff tea room, on the basis that I was not a member of staff.

      So I bought a small coffee plunger, and made coffee for myself in my office.

      This apparently severe breach of protocol was escalated up the administrative line, to somewhere with a rarified atmosphere, where it came to the attention of a Deputy Vice Chancellor, whereupon a “please explain” descended to my humble depths. The reason for this serious complaint was that the smell of my coffee was distracting to staff. I promised to keep my door closed, whilst concocting my brew, and the matter was dropped.

      So, from my experience, I can quite understand how Murray Salby might have run foul of the administrative arm of the university, by not abiding by The Rules (capitalisation intentional), especially if those rules were not clearly explained.

      As was explained to me, there is the easy way, and there is the right way. And nobody will tell you which is which.


      Report this

      370

    • #

      At a computer company I worked for, after a particularly grueling week, a friend submitted a time sheet reporting just over 100 hours. This was one of those annoying time accounting things. We were salaried, so basically 60+ hours were going to be unpaid.

      The payroll dept rejected the time card saying their system only had a two digit field. Herb stood his ground pointing out he was required to submit accurate time cards. His manager probably told them something similar but stronger. I don’t know what the resolution was, they may have slid some hours onto the next week or just entered 99 and discarded the extra. After all, it didn’t affect his paycheck.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Excellent and very telling article.


    Report this

    71

  • #

    As most of you know, I (think I) have an area of expertise, and when it comes to Science discussions, I prefer to use those more as an area where I can learn things, rather than comment and show my novice status with respect to Science.

    However, this just looks like flat out injustice to me.

    It seems convenient that in the run up to the federal election year, it’s always best to have yes men at your beck and call, and Prof. Salby was not one of them, and in fact sniped at the preferred yes man of choice Prof Flannery.

    I suppose the powers that be can marginalise Prof. Salby and it seems they were assiduous in doing just that, covering their tracks so it can’t be sheeted back to them, and Macquarie Uni is a big body that will just ignore flak, and hey, they already receive huge grants so you know, favours in return, but hey never let that be mentioned, as this in an August body after all.

    However, when coupled with his article released in April that did to the establishment what Drake did to the Spanish, it just seems umm, coincidental that all of a sudden, all of this happens to him.

    That article was released in The Australian in their National Affairs area and is at this link. Now, note it is hidden behind a paywall, hey how convenient is that. Why I bothered to post the paywall link is this. You can chase it up at other sites and get, well, part of the article, and then it just adds a link back to the paywall for the full article.

    So, you’re actually going to have to do a bit of work here for yourselves, because even though I have the full article here in front of me, when I add that link and post it here, it still takes you to the paywall site.

    So, this is what you need to do. Go to that Paywall link. Cut and paste the whole title into the search engine of your choice, and once that is done, add the following on to the end of the text in your search engine ….. full article. It is the top title on that list. Voila, there it is, the whole article.

    In that article, Professor Salby fires a broadside at the Government’s poster boy Tim Flannery.

    Then, and hey, it’s nothing more than a coincidence and the two matters are not even related, (and do I really need to add /sarc) but all this happens.

    It all just sounds so sus to me.

    Tony.


    Report this

    320

    • #
      Bulldust

      Ahem … how many times have I posted this? Just Google the title and click the obvious link. Google pierces right through the Oz’s ‘paywall.’ :-) Same goes for SMH new 30+ reads paywall.

      Just did it on my tablet of all things.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Turnedoutnice

    This form of witch hunt is to be expected when you have Lysenkoist, State-sponsored science.

    I can reliably inform reader that in the UK there was 20 years’ ago an attempt to set up a Virtual Gulag, private databases seeded with fake information to destroy careers.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    AndyG55

    Notice that there is NO QUESTION about Mr Salby’s actual scientific work.

    He certainly seems to have been held back from his research, (why, we can only guess), and attacked on rather dubious grounds, NONE of which have been proven.

    Murray’s work has actually been replicated (do other climate scientists know what the term even means?) by a Swedish scientist. I’ll see if I can find a suitable link to use.

    Really, his work is so thoroughly researched and so well presented, its no wonder the climate cult wants to shut him down.

    Temperature drive CO2…………….. CO2 DOES NOT drive temperature.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      AndyG55

      Was looking for a pdf of the work that I could actually read. (I don’t do Swedish language)

      But try here.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

      What this essentially shows is that Dr Salby’s SCIENCE and calculations can be replicated.

      His hypothesis also gels with actual real data.

      These two points are basically unheard of in mainstream climate science.


      Report this

      120

      • #

        Sorry to disappoint you, but Salby’s (and other’s) work contains several errors. Not that that should be a reason to fire him. Only a reason to discuss things out. I have discussed that here in the past and I have reacted on WUWT on his speech in Germany, see:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/#comment-1346717 and following.

        Main points:
        - he alludes that there is no way to know if the increase is man-made or from vegetation based on the 13C/12C ratio, but it is, based on oxygen use. As less oxygen is used than can be calculated from fossil fuel burning, it is clear that vegetation is a net sink for CO2 and thus preferentially of 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus not the cause of the decline in 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. See:
        http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
        Neither are the oceans (too high in 13C/12C ratio).
        - he integrates the increase rate in the atmosphere, based on the good correlation between temperature and CO2 increase rate over short time (1-3 years), but the increase in the atmosphere and the variability of the increase are caused by different (and even opposite) processes for the part caused by vegetation, while the bulk of the increase is from human emissions.
        - he calculates that there must be a huge migration of CO2 in ice cores, to fit his hypothesis, but there are no signs of such huge migration at all, to the contrary.


        Report this

        46

        • #
          AndyG55

          Would be good if you and Murray could communicate directly.

          Unlike the AGW bletheren, you both sound like actual scientists who could discuss things rationally.

          Has Murray had a chance to respond to these criticisms?

          Blog writings and ideas very often don’t make it through the noise to their intended recipient.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          cohenite

          HI Ferdinand; you also participated in the discussion following the Gösta Pettersson post.

          The bomb-test analysis dovetails with Salby’s work and shows the IPCC BERN model assumptions about residency and retention distinctions and times are incorrect. This has profound consequences for the source of the 20thC and 21stC increase in CO2.

          For those who are interested the exchanges between Ferdinand and Greg Goodman are particularly interesting.


          Report this

          70

          • #

            Hi Cohenite,

            After the whole discussion, it simply boils down to the question if the fate of the extra 14CO2 from the bomb test spike is at the same speed as any extra 12CO2 injected in the atmosphere (whatever the source). The answer is yes for vegetation and the ocean surface, but it is no for the exchanges with the deep oceans. The problem is that what goes into the deep oceans is today’s composition, while what returns is the composition of ~1000 years ago minus the decay of 14CO2 over that period.
            In 1960, the 14CO2 bomb tests spike was at its maximum (100%) what returns is 45% of the bomb spike, while the return of 12CO2 still is 97% of what goes into the deep oceans. Thus the decay rate of the excess 14CO2 is far more rapidely than of 12CO2. More than three times faster. Thus the interpretation of Pettersson that the 14CO2 decay mimics the total CO2 decay is wrong…


            Report this

            21

            • #
              KuhnKat

              Ferdinand,

              Until you have a time machine and go back and MEASURE what went into the oceans you are speculating!!

              Oh wait, you could measure the CO2 at the upwelling points and also take a dive and measure what is in the deep ocean currents.

              You have links to this data you can share??


              Report this

              10

              • #

                Kuhnkat,

                The 14CO2 bomb spike together with the low-13C human emissions and other recent human stuff like CFC’s are used as tracers in the oceans to see where the main sinks of CO2 are and how the main flows of ocean waters behave. They have not reached (yet) the upwelling places, will take a lot of time.

                But the decay of 14CO2 from the upwelling waters shows a small deficit, compared to pre-bomb levels, which shows that the waters were about 400 years older in average since they did sink into the deep.

                For a nice introduction of the 14C bomb spike fate see:
                http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/isochem/lectures/lecture10_14C.ppt


                Report this

                01

              • #
                KuhnKat

                Uh Ferdinand, don’t you know what DATA is?? It is generally what is used to make those pretty charts.

                Speaking of which, I didn’t do a close read, BUT, I didn’t notice anything about measurements in the deep currents. My quick glance shows that you apparently are using the Argo data which is recent and does NOT go to depth.

                Doesn’t really matter though, it appears the Thermohaline isn’t as segregated as was once thought. A study released a couple years ago showed that tracers released in the Arctic to trace the deep flow ended up in several places in the Atlantic during the study period.

                Oh well, I guess y’all need to collect more DATA until you know what is really happening!!

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


                Report this

                31

            • #
              cohenite

              Geez Ferdinand, that is a big assumption; that is the rate of C14 absorption is different from the other CO2 isotopes.

              And I’m sure Pettersson’s analysis takes into account the differential decay rate produced by the longer stored C14 as compared to the ‘fresher’ C12.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                cohenite

                Hi again Ferdinand, just following on from your point about the differential release of C14 from the oceans due to the longer period it has been there compared with C12.

                If, as you say, the relative rates at which C12 returns from the ocean, compared to the rate of C14 return is three times the ratio of C12/C14 from the atmosphere to the ocean, this is easily tested — for this to be true, the concentration ratios would also have to be three times greater (C12/C14) in the ocean than the atmosphere.

                Do you know if that is the case?


                Report this

                10

              • #

                There are different rates for 14C and 12C uptake by plants if nothing else


                Report this

                00

              • #
                cohenite

                That’s true eli; plants prefer 13C which explains the decline in the 13C/12C ratio which was once claimed as a marker of human emissions of CO2 being the cause of the increase in CO2 levels.

                Anyway going back to the main point. The half life of C14 is 5730 years, which gives a time constant (e-folding time) of 5730/.7 = 8185 years.

                The amount of C14 that would remain in
                1000 years, therefore, is exp(-1000/8185) = 0.885.

                Hence, only 11.5% of the C14 would decay in 1000 years (<9% in 800 years), so the idea that C14 would decay "3 times as fast" as C12 is problematic.

                The part of the decay that can be affected by radioactive decay is only the "long tail" anyway, and the data constrains that to < 3% of the impulse. So, it really doesn't matter if the decay of the last 3% is 5000 years, or 'only' 3000 years, if 97% is permanently removed from the atmosphere in ~20-30 years?


                Report this

                20

              • #

                The same biological mechanism for incorporation for 13C applies to 14C, except a bit more so because the mass is higher. Still, you are using the term decay here is two different ways, first for 14 C there is radioactive decay. That is well known, except amongst creationists. Second for 14C there is the issue of how a concentration pulse in the atmosphere is diluted by exchange of 12, 13 and 14 C from the deep oceans where the concentrations are lower into the atmosphere as well as how quickly the 14C pulse in the atmosphere is incorporated into the oceans and biosphere, which may differ from that of 12C due to the biological isotope effect.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Ferdinand,

          You my remember my strong disagreement with your mathematics in past posts.

          Very simply it went like this:

          You assumed that Natures CO2 output was constant.

          You knew that Human CO2 output was rising; this based on the analysis of total volumes of coal and oil sales per anum.

          You knew that world atmospheric CO2 level were rising from chemical, measurements.

          Putting this all together you “Proved” that CO2 level increases were caused by that ugly beast MAN.

          Trying to camouflage the fact that C12 C13 radio isotope analysis is not the “God Particle” of climate change analysis was, in my

          estimation, your crowning achievement and perhaps deserving of the Mike Mann Medal for the Advancement of Climate Change.

          As I pointed out, there was no way that you can say that natural origin CO2 is a zero sum game.

          Given that human excrescences of CO2 are dwarfed, let me say that again DWARFED, by Natural output of same, it is a mathematical

          ridiculosity to say that human oil/coal usage rates are the major drivers of atmospheric CO2 levels.

          Sorry, we didn’t do it, because we CAN’T.

          KK


          Report this

          51

          • #

            KK,

            The human emissions are ~3% of the natural emissions. Natural sinks are 101.5% of the natural emissions. Thus nature is a net sink of 1.5% extra CO2 emitted in the atmosphere. A net sink over the full 50+ years since Mauna Loa and other stations.

            The year by year variability in sink rate from the CO2 cycle is +/- 1 ppmv or +/- 2 GtC, (far) less than the 2-9 GtC (1-4.5 ppmv) humans emitted over the past 50+ years:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

            Pure theoretically, it is possible that the 3.5 fold increase of human emissions is accompanied with a 3.5 fold increase in natural circulation, but that violates about all known observations, including an observed slightly increasing residence time over the past decades, whil that should be reduced with a factor 3.5 too…


            Report this

            05

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Ferdinand.

              Yes , we have been over this before.

              The idea that only natural CO2 has an available “sink capacity” is scientifically unfounded.

              ALL CO2, regardless of origin, is available for uptake by whatever sinks are there.

              Residual Man Made CO2, such as it is, creates its’ own sink and after 5.4 years, according to the latest estimate, any NEW man made CO2 is gone.

              The natural sequestration that develops as a result of this “forcing” created by the availability of extra Man Made CO2 remains after the original CO2 is gone.

              New grass or new trees, or new soil bio cultures are not going to die and wither at the end of 5.4 years; they remain active and hungry for more CO2.

              The concept that man made CO2 is not subject to sequestration is contrary to basic reaction science.

              In photosynthesis, the availability of extra reagent, CO2, is going to drive the reaction; more green grass is on the way.

              I have indicated new sequestration will be created in plant life and active life in soils but have left the other main item for last.

              The ocean is the great and always available CO2 repository and source and ALL CO2 is welcome home regardless of its’ origin.

              Basic maths trumps complex isotope analysis.

              KK


              Report this

              40

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                And digging up the past:

                Ferdinand,
                nov 2012

                But we have to disagree on the issue of Stable Nature.

                You say that CO2 from nature has been stable and that man made CO2 has been the only recent input.

                In terms of geologic time we can see a clearer picture.

                Up until about twenty thousand years ago the Earth was in a 100,000 year long big freeze.

                In practical terms this means that there is not going to be much natural circulation of CO2 from vegetation, oceans and atmosphere for the very obvious reason that the low temperatures present stopped most actiovity.

                In New York Central Park for example the Ice Field was one and a half kilometers DEEP, not wide , deep!.

                There is not much biological activity in that situation.

                The warming over the last twenty thousand years has liberated a lot of trapped bio material including only recently a Wooly Mammoth together with vegetation in the tundra.

                My continued criticism of your mathematics is based on the 3 factors you are trying to link:

                1. Natural turnover of CO2 which is not estimated, let alone given an accurate measurement.
                It is enormous and that is probably the only quantification that can be given to it.
                ie. This quantity is not known.

                2. Human CO2 input. This is relatively easy to estimate but I’m not sure whether it is a figure that is being misused by others to accentuate human output.
                There is a way that is used that involves estimates of fossil fuel use by detailing coal, oil and gas production.
                That is a good idea but is liable to scientific misuse if the base populations of say India, China and Brazil are not accounted for.
                The reason I say this is that these huge populations do obviously use wood or local coal or even cow dung for cooking but are not included in the Fossil Fuel energy audit.

                This could give seriously skewed impressions of changes in Fossil Fuel use when in many cases peoples CO2 production is actually not increasing but just going from the unaccounted ”village” lifestyle to on the record electric powered cities.

                An appearance of rising human CO2 output which is not actually there can be blamed for increased CO2 in the air.

                3. The measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels is fairly accurate NOW, and IF done correctly.

                Your thesis is that :

                Item 1 plus Item 2 is proportional to Item 3.

                Of those items there is no way that No1 can be used as you do. It is a rising quantity that is unknown.

                Item 2 is OK to a point but as I pointed out there are possible flaws.

                You cannot just arbitrarily delete Item 1 and say that rising human CO2 output is proportional to rising world CO2 levels.

                The major factor has been deliberately left out of the assessment.

                One of your biassed comments :

                “- Humans are responsible for the observed increase of CO2 over the past 160 years (and yes, the CO2 data from Mauna Loa in recent times and from ice cores are reliable and the data collected by the late Ernst Beck are largely unreliable)”.

                Why are Ernst Becks figure wrong?

                Hope people can follow this because I think that science deserves to be checked and there seems to be a problem in this analysis that eliminates natural CO2 production from scrutiny.

                KK :)


                Report this

                40

              • #

                KK,

                Indeed we have been there several times…

                I never said that the natural CO2 cycle is stable. But the variability is quite small over the past 50 years, less than 25% of the human emissions. That is all.
                Over the past 800 kyr we see a temperature – CO2 relationship of about 8 ppmv/K, where CO2 lags temperature. The same for the MWP-LIA transition. Nowadays we see short term relationship of 5 ppmv/K for the global seasonal shift and 4-5 ppmv/K for the interannual variation. How do you think that natural variations can be responsible for 70 ppmv increase over the past 50 years with an increase of a few thenths of a degree over the same period? While humans have emitted twice that much?

                Human CO2 is sequestered in the same way and the same speed as all CO2 released from other sources. The point is that the release of this extra CO2 is faster than what nature can sink over the same time frame. Until the pressure is high enough. But that has nothing to do with the residence time of 5.3 years.

                Then further:
                1. Natural turnover of CO2 which is not estimated, let alone given an accurate measurement.
                Although rough estimates, the turnover is based on seasonal 13C/12C changes (for vegetation), O2 changes (for vegetation) and solubility vs. temperature fluxes for the oceans. The direct result or the estimated 150 GtC in/outflux is shown by the residence time. But that doesn’t matter at all. Even if the turnover was 10 times higher, that doesn’t remove one gram of CO2 at the end of the year, as long as the inflows and outflows are equal.

                Human CO2 input. This is relatively easy to estimate
                The estimates are based on fuel sales (taxes!) in national inventories, in the best case rather accurate, worst case underestimated, but that only adds to the extra CO2 input…

                3. The measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels is fairly accurate NOW, and IF done correctly.
                Your thesis is that :
                Item 1 plus Item 2 is proportional to Item 3.

                Item 1 is not important at all. What is important is item 3 minus item 2, that is the sink rate of all sinks together. And the increase in the atmosphere above the (temperature driven) equilibrium. That is the pressure driving more CO2 into the oceans (and plant alveoles). For the current situation, the sink rate is ~4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year) for an increase of 212 GtC (100 ppmv) above equilibrium. That gives a decay rate of 212/4 = 53 years e-fold time or a half life time of the extra CO2 of ~40 years. Nothing to do with the residence time/turnover…

                Why are Ernst Becks figure wrong?

                Wrong places. Samples taken over land near huge sources and sinks show values between 200 ppmv and 650 ppmv (and more) within a few hours. Completely unreliable for “background” CO2 measurements. Samples taken in deserts, high on mountains and over sea or coastal with wind from the sea are around the ice core values, taken decennia later…


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Backslider

                Samples taken in deserts, high on mountains and over sea or coastal with wind from the sea are around the ice core values

                That is a very interesting assumption, that because these reading agree with an interpretation of ice cores they must be correct. It is just an assumption. You do realize that, do you not?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                KuhnKat

                “3. The measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels is fairly accurate NOW”

                This is hallucinatory. The measurement of CO2 in specially selected areas to find the BACKGROUND level does NOT show the spikes in CO2 levels over SEASONS in areas NOT measured. Your measurements don’t even START to show the actual flux of CO2 on our planet!!!


                Report this

                40

              • #

                Backslider
                August 13, 2013 at 3:17 am

                That is a very interesting assumption, that because these reading agree with an interpretation of ice cores they must be correct. It is just an assumption. You do realize that, do you not?

                From the CO2 measurements of similar places over the past 50 years, it is known that such places have little local disturbance. Thus historical measurements done at such places are probably more representative for the real background CO2 levels in the bulk of the atmosphere of that time than those taken in the middle of Paris…

                That the ice cores confirm the levels – al be it smoothed over about a decade (Law Dome ice cores) – adds to their reliability.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                AndyG55

                What we need is something similar to the UHA satellite atmospheric temperature record.

                But we don’t got it. Not yet anyway. (bad English intentional)


                Report this

                10

              • #

                KuhnKat
                August 13, 2013 at 6:41 am

                This is hallucinatory. The measurement of CO2 in specially selected areas to find the BACKGROUND level does NOT show the spikes in CO2 levels over SEASONS in areas NOT measured. Your measurements don’t even START to show the actual flux of CO2 on our planet!!!

                To know the effect of extra CO2 on temperature (as far as there is an effect) the local, regional and/or seasonal fluxes are of not the slightest interest, neither are the CO2 levels in the lower 1000 meter over land. Even if that was 1000 ppmv, that hardly influences local temperatures.

                To know the decay time of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, the measurements at one suitable station are sufficient to do the calculation. No matter if that is at the South Pole or near the North Pole (Barrow, AK; Alert, Canada). Again local, regional and/or seasonal fluxes are not of the slightest interest.

                Which doesn’t mean that the fluxes are not of interest at all. Many such fluxes are measured via tall towers, here one example:
                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141884/


                Report this

                00

              • #
                KuhnKat

                WATTs has good timing:

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/12/nsf-says-biosphere-is-breathing-in-co2-more-deeply/#more-91524

                http://hippo.ucar.edu/HIPPO/HIPPO_News_Release_f.pdf

                http://hippo.ucar.edu/

                Apparently experts are now telling us what KK has been arguing.
                The flux is increasing the biosphere causing an increase in the delta of CO2 in areas especially the arboreal north over the seasons!!


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Mark D.

                KuhnKat, don’t you like:

                It’s not yet understood, she says, why the increase in seasonal amplitude of carbon dioxide concentration is so large, but it’s a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems.

                It’s not understood yet it is a clear signal?

                Dumbasses run rampant


                Report this

                20

        • #
          KuhnKat

          “- he calculates that there must be a huge migration of CO2 in ice cores, to fit his hypothesis, but there are no signs of such huge migration at all, to the contrary.”|

          Well, the lost squadron managed to migrate across thousands of years in the Greenland Glacier. A little CO2 would be nothing!!!


          Report this

          20

        • #
          newton fawcett

          Englebeen, I assumed when I heard Salby present his diffusion work that he must have reliable values for the diffusion coefficient of CO2 in ice, else how could he achieve a quantitative result. His work with regard to diffusion of CO2 in ice looks correct to me, assuming his coefficients and boundary conditions are correct. In ice, Diffusion would cause higher concentrations to decrease and lower concentrations to increase. It is clear, wouldn’t you agree, that proper correction for diffusion that occurs over these very long time spans is needed to make sense from the ice core data.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        RoHa

        “I don’t do Swedish language”

        I do. Find me the original and I’ll translate it for you.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rafe Champion

    ”, saying that scientists would not work 14 -16 hours stretches for three months at a time…Those hours are unusual, but not implausible for a dedicated researcher.”

    I suspect that serious scientists have always been prepared to work over 12 hours a day on a regular basis and longer than that when they are running hot. Now that practically all scientists are 9-5 public servants (and “normal” scientists as well) the idea of working like serious scientists has gone out the window for the most part. And what would modern university administrators know about serious research and scholarship?

    Peter Medawar told his wife Jean “You have first call on my love but not on my time.”


    Report this

    170

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Excuse me;where is “unthreaded weekend”this weekend?

    ————
    Sorry. Will fix that! – Jo


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Judy Ryan

    Murry Salby presents his evidence clearly and concisely on Youtube. The corruption of the peer review process of barring publication of his work has backfired because his work is viewed by a much larger audience. People outside his discipline can detect the difference between impartially presented evidence and a smear campaign . This is recognised as the strategy of those who have no evidence. The end result is the political suicide of the Australian Labor party in which prominant climate alarmists will be the collateral damage incurred. Roll on Election Day.


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Very well put, Judy.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree.

      When you look at the way that Colorado University behaved by “impounding” equipment, data sets, and findings, and then when you look at the actions of Macquarie University, in their reaction, to what was probably no more than a series of misunderstandings, the more it becomes apparent that there is a fair amount of bureaucratic malice involved in both institutions.

      I always forget which credit card I am supposed to use for what, especially when I am waiting in line with a queue of people behind me. So I pay with the first acceptable one that comes to hand, and then sort it out later with a cheque, or whatever. That is not, and should not be, a dismissible offense unless willful intent to defraud can be proven.

      The fact that these institutions are focussing on administrative matters, including the availability of lecture theatres, etc, hints to me that there are other, deeper issues involved.

      Very often, what is not being discussed is considerably more important than what is openly discussed. I have a distinct whiff of smokescreen from the academic institutes in the way this has been mishandled.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    John Morland

    This is what we can do: First vote for the Liberals (or even Palmer United Party)on September 7, then once the incoming liberal government is sworn in, all of us write to Tony Abbott imploring for a Royal Commission in this AGW scaremongering.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    michael hart

    A common irony of applying for research funding is a requirement to supply preliminary results as proof of concept. Funding agencies are well aware of this chicken and egg situation. How the problem is resolved is frequently dumped in the lap of the researcher.

    It is also common for the institution where the research is to be done to take a hefty chunk out of a grant to pay for overheads. The definition of overheads and the actual amount can come as quite a shock to the individual named on the grant as principal investigator. Unsurprisingly, attitudes to this vary widely and can cause friction.


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I’d say it’s a case of good old Character Assassination at work, as an aside I recalled character assassination is a typical modus operandi of extreme Narcissist’s, something else to think about.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    “it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris”
    Hmmm a mob i annoyed by overacheiving wanted to send me to Pakistan.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Back to Salby’s science:

    I remembered that Ernst-Georg Beck had surveyed the literature on historic CO2 measurements and noted data sets from the 1920′s and 1930′s pertaining to sea surface CO2 levels on Atlantic Oceans.

    After some digging around, I found a PDF in which Beck documents CO2 levels against sea surface temperature as surveyed by Kurt Buch in 1936 (Figure 17) with a strong (logarithmic) correlation between air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The “mising data” (from Beck’s summary) are the sea surface temperatures. The temperature of the air is only loosely coupled to the temperature of the surface of the water.

    Earlier expeditions in the South Atlantic as described by Hermann Wattenberg and others also show a variable distribution of CO2 over the Oceans, with a peak in the tropics. The expedition not only surveyed CO2 levels but also took different chemical samples of a variety of salts while “plumbing” much of the South Atlantic’s sub-surface profile and charting the direction of currents at the surface and below. Alas, the expedition’s CO2 measurements aren’t tabulated by Beck against SST so one has to go to the source documents.

    Expedition reports were widely published but I can’t find a “free” source nearby. All the major scientific libraries and scientific research organizations probably ordered a copy of the scientific reports from one or both expeditions in the 1930′s. e.g. NZ’s NIWA
    has at least one copy
    .

    Aside: I’ll leave it to others to speculate why the 80-year-old research is being left to gather dust by the “researchers” who have free access to materials that clearly demonstrate the behaviour of the system as predicted approximately by some basic physics and physical chemistry. The “new science” gives worse results.

    As the oceans not only present the greatest area but also the lowest albedo subject to insolation, they are substantially responsible for absorbing the energy and heating the air above. The oceans also contain the bulk of available CO2; dissolved within the water and available for release to the atmosphere (Henry’s Law) or to biological processes (e.g. photosynthesis), especially near the surface. Henry’s Law defines the direction of CO2 movement between the oceans’ vast surface and the atmosphere above; dependent upon
    the water’s temperature.


    Report this

    270

    • #

      Bernd, I have had years of discussion with the late Ernst Beck (unfortunately he past away last year).

      Simply said, most of the historical data are completely unreliable. All samples taken over land suffer from a CO2 “heat island” effect which can go up to 600 ppmv (and more) at night under inversion and below 300 ppmv during sunshine hours in forests and agricultural land.

      His 1942 “peak” is mainly based on two long series: Poonah (India) and Giessen (Germany). Poonah measured CO2 levels below, inbetween and over growing crops. Completely worthless for “background” CO2 levels. Giessen was and is semi-rural. Fortunately there is a modern station at Linden/Giessen not far from where the historical measurements were taken. Here a nice graph of the CO2 levels during a few days at Giessen, compared to the “background” stations at Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole. All raw data, including local influences at all stations:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
      The historical data were taken three times a day, where 2 were at the down and upgoing flanks of the daily curve. Standarddeviation of the samples was 132 ppmv (1 sigma), range 240-680 ppmv. Says enough…

      About the ocean data: there are only few taken in the atmosphere over the oceans or coastal with wind from the sea. These show values around the ice core values for the same period. Unfortunately, there are no seaside data around 1942, so no comparison with the “peak is posssible.
      But what is sure, is that he misinterpreted Wattenberg’s data: these show the pCO2 of seawater at the surface (0 meter depth in the tables), not the CO2 levels of the atmosphere at the sea surface…

      All of Beck’s researched data can be found here:
      http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/historical.htm or directly at:
      http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2literature1800-1960.pdf
      Including the Wattenberg expeditions.

      See further my comment on Ernst Beck’s data interpretation at:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html


      Report this

      22

      • #

        Kreutz, did measure CO2 at four different heights three times a day for his long series of 1.5 years. he also collected at the same time considerable other data such as wind velocity and wind direction which allowed calculation of background CO2 levels published in a peer reviewed paper. However, if you read the German paper and report honestly you will find that Kreutz also made measurements over weekly periods where CO2 was measured at each height each hour. The instrument he used was accurate to 0.3% (ie 1ppm) and was capable of making 120 measurements per day.
        You have been twisting and stretching information now for many years. As an engineer who has made CO2 measurements I have no respect for your writings.


        Report this

        30

        • #

          cementafriend,

          I have read Kreutz’ paper in German, no problem. Indeed one can more or less deduce “background” CO2 levels from the noisy historical data, if there are enough data at high wind speed (over 4 m/s). That is not the case for Giessen in the Kreuz paper, there are simply not enough data at high wind speed. The few data over 4 m/s are scattered over near the whole range.

          For those interested, here is the literature list of Ernst Beck including the Kreutz paper:
          http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2literature1800-1960.pdf
          There is an English translation available at:
          http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/kreutz/Kreutz_english.pdf

          If one looks at the hourly samples taken during one week, these are from below 400 ppmv to 700 ppmv. Not quite regular, which makes me wonder about the accuracy of the sampling/reagens/sample treatment/method. But simply compare that to the data from a modern station at Linden/Giessen in the above comment.
          Even the modern station shows a monthly average bias of 40 ppmv above background, with enormous peaks in some months:
          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg

          The method to estimate the historical “background” CO2 levels from scattered data, prepared by Massen and Beck is here:
          http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2_versus_windspeed-review-1-FM.pdf


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Backslider

            Even the modern station shows a monthly average bias of 40 ppmv above background, with enormous peaks in some months

            So you are saying that we cannot have accurate figures on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


            Report this

            10

            • #

              Not at such places over land: too many sinks and sources on short distance. Either go above the vegetation (mountain ranges, airplanes) or measure at sea, in deserts, salt flats,… The measurements in the middel of the Pacific or at the South Pole represent over 95% of the atmospheric mass of CO2.


              Report this

              00

          • #

            Ferdinand, good that you have read Kreutz’ original paper -it gives some more information than the partial translation. Thanks for posting the latter it is also on my website (www.cementafriend.wordpress.com)
            A couple of findings which Kreutz did not mention or pick up, 1/ There is no radiation (top curve in the figures)from the sun at night, pretty obvious but some believers will say that the measurement is wrong because no back-radiation has been measured. 2/ the temperature lags radiation -also obvious to anyone who has watched a sun rise or sunset. 3/ not so clear but CO2 lags the temperature -this occurs on a daily and seasonal basis (and is found in other measurements)
            It would be nice to obtain the actual numerical data but in this there is no evidence that CO2 (even at the high measurements obtained) has any effect on atmospheric temperature. The scale of the humidity is small but it appears that humidity is inversely related to radiation and that this then affects the temperature.
            If climate scientists were real and competent they would be repeating Kreutz’ measurements (plus more such as cloud cover)over longer periods and in different parts of the world but no, they have a theory based on pseudo-science rather than facts.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Sunray

    This should come as no surprise, the techniques have been in action since 1848. In this case, first comes the character assassination, second comes the more sinister activity. The Left have been preparing the battlefield for many decades, with great assistance from the “Education/Indoctrination System, the Schools of Journalism, the Judiciary and Green Totalitarianism/Global Warming, etc etc etc. It appears that they believe that Critical Mass is at hand and no criticism will be tolerated. They even believe that they can understand and handle Islam. This blatant removal of dissenting voices in all areas is for me, frightening, however, I will just weaponise my walking frame.(PS. That is a JOKE), nobody should scream, faint or call ASIO. Sorry, but sometimes crude experience needs to be expressed, thank you.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    MangoChutney

    Evgenia Titova was also removed from her position as a PhD student. To date Macquarie have not confirmed or denied she has been sacked, but her email is unresponsive.

    Anybody know what has happened to her?


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Ian H

      I don’t know what has happened to her. However she is a student not an employee, so sacked is not the right word. If the University was unable to find her another supervisor then at minimum they would need to refund her fees.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        mangochutney

        Aren’t PhD’s funded?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ian H

          PhD students pay fees and are expected to support themselves like every other student.

          They support themselves in various ways. Many have scholarships or obtain some kind of government support. Some simply take out massive loans. A few are supported by their partners or other family members. Most have part time jobs. It isn’t easy being a PhD student so have some sympathy for them. The generally work like dogs and struggle to make ends meet.

          Often PhD students will find part time work with the university doing things like marking and tutoring. These jobs are preferred because they are on campus and related to the student’s studies.

          Funded research projects can include provision to pay the fees of a PhD student to work with the Principal Investigator. If you manage to luck into one of these situations as a PhD student you are very fortunate. But unless Salby has managed to get a research grant of this type recently, his student will not have been funded in that way.

          I really have no idea how Salby’s student has been funding herself. I would hate to be in her situation. I hope the University finds a way to do right by her as none of this is her fault.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MangoChutney

            I really have no idea how Salby’s student has been funding herself. I would hate to be in her situation. I hope the University finds a way to do right by her as none of this is her fault.

            Except her work (or at least her published work) was against the cAGW meme


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Mark D.

      Yes good point Mango, why would Macquarie do that to her?


      Report this

      60

  • #

    @ TonyfromOz
    August 11, 2013 at 5:10 pm #8
    Article is at Rational Trader blogspot

    Last summer was not actually angrier than other summers | The Australian
    see graph at http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/03/1226612/015595-130404-n-temperatures.jpg

    Temperatures
    Source: The Australian

    CLAIMS from the latest report by the Climate Commission, titled The Angry Summer, have been widely circulated through international media. On the basis of a few sporadic episodes, which in any other era would have been regarded as marginal weather (infrequent but perennial), the Climate Commission has proclaimed that such events are now the norm – the signature of climate change come home to roost.
    This report is but the latest in a series of dire proclamations from this panel. It just happens to buttress the government’s controversial carbon tax, a maladroit policy that will be pivotal in the forthcoming federal election.
    The commission’s position, as proclaimed by its chief commissioner, is that “the baseline has shifted” like “an athlete (who) takes steroids”. “The same thing is happening to our climate system . . . We’re getting fewer cold days and cold events and many more record hot events” (The New York Times, March 4).
    The evocative nature of these claims is matched only by the imagination behind them. On a continental scale (the scale relevant to climate), Australian temperature this summer was unremarkable – it was within the range of previous variability.
    The Climate Commission was enshrined as an “independent panel of experts”. It was installed and paid for by the government. The panel is comprised of biologists and ecologists, a materials engineer and members of the business community. It has no demonstrated expertise in the physics or chemistry of climate, or even in meteorology, the scientific underpinnings of its conclusions.
    The Climate Commission bases its claims on a selection of temperatures from the latest reincarnation of the record of surface thermometers, recently regenerated by the government-funded Bureau of Meteorology.
    The surface record has been termed by the bureau as its high-quality data. If it is high quality, it is certainly not robust. The bureau’s record is routinely readjusted, the next high-quality reincarnation rendering its predecessor obsolete. The adjustments performed are discretionary, applied differently to different sites in the surface network. And if the adjustments are understood, it is by few, if any, outside the bureau.
    For this reason, the recent proclamation that this summer was unprecedented arrives with curious timing: it coincides with the onset of campaigning for the next federal election.
    Even exclusive of uncertainties surrounding its adjustment, the surface record suffers from two intrinsic limitations:
    lContamination by urban development. Operational thermometers historically have been installed in association with human settlement. Station measurements are therefore biased through the so-called urban heat island effect.
    Consequently, individual measurements are often representative of localised conditions, but not of the expansive area.
    lNon-uniform sampling of the continent. Owing to Australia’s sparse population, historical records of temperature are concentrated in a small fraction of the continent.
    Exacerbated by their proximity to infrastructure, the irregular sampling by the surface network complicates the evaluation of continental mean temperature.
    One record averts these limitations: satellite measurements from microwave sounding units and advanced microwave sounding units provide continuous coverage of Australia, with uniform sampling of the continent. The satellite record derives from a single instrument family. It follows from a single treatment applied uniformly to all data, yielding a record of continental temperature that is homogenous and stable. Unlike surface measurements, it represents temperature in the lowest couple of kilometres of the atmosphere. However, departures from average temperature in this layer mirror departures from average surface temperature – especially under summertime conditions, when convective overturning exchanges air vertically on time scales of only hours.
    Figure 1 displays the record of Australia mean temperature during January (blue) in its anomalous value (the departure from the long-term average January temperature). Last January was warmer than recent Januaries, but hardly unprecedented. It lies about a standard deviation above the average January temperature. And even during the relatively short satellite era, two Januaries were warmer. Superimposed is anomalous summertime temperature (red). It is even less remarkable. Near the three-decade average, it is no more significant than in preceding years. Neither record evidences a sustained shift in the continental baseline.
    Figure 2 displays the record of anomalous temperature for all months. It places the summer of 2012-13 into perspective. Anomalous temperature (red solid circles) lies well within the envelope of other warm anomalies during the preceding three decades. Cold anomalies are just as numerous. If anything, they are even stronger.
    For many on Australia’s eastern seaboard, this summer was not anomalously hot but, rather, anomalously cool and wet. This is confirmed by the temperature record at Sydney. The central station reported only two marginal days. And during the entire summer maximum temperature reached 32C on only three days.
    In the light of the satellite record, as well as the absence of any systematic change in global temperature for almost two decades, the proclaimed interpretation of this summer should be recognised for what it is: a simplistic explanation of a complex physical system.
    Murry Salby is professor of climate at Macquarie University.
    Posted 3rd April by Ymr


    Report this

    130

  • #

    More corroboration of Salby’s competence at The Hockey Schtick:

    Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years
    A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Right on Bernd.

      Most sensible papers end at a max of 7 years.

      KK


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Oh help! Another confusion which returns every year or so…

      The residence time of ANY CO2 molecule, whatever its origin, indeed is in average 5.3 years, before being exchanged by a CO2 molecule of another reservoir (vegetation, oceans). That is because some 150 GtC goes in and out of the atmosphere (currently at 800 GtC) within a year, partly over the seasons, partly permanent between the equatorial and the polar waters. That gives a residence time of 800/150 = 5.3 years. Everybody, warmers as well as skeptics agree on that.

      That doesn’t change one ppmv in the atmosphere, as long as what goes into the atmosphere also goes out. The only way to get rid of some extra injection of CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever the source) is by a difference between inputs and outputs. That is caused by the increase of CO2 above the (temperature dictated) equilibrium. The difference nowadays is some 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year) more sink than source. The extra pressure is from 100 ppmv above equilibrium, that is 212 GtC. That gives an e-fold decay rate of the extra CO2 of 212/4 = 53 years or a half life time of ~40 years.

      Far longer than the 5.3 year residence time, but much faster than the centuries of the IPCC…


      Report this

      02

      • #

        BTW, see the 1997 page of Peter Dietze at the website of the late John Daly:
        http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
        for the right interpretation of the CO2 decay rate…


        Report this

        01

      • #
        Lars P.

        “The extra pressure is from 100 ppmv above equilibrium, that is 212 GtC. That gives an e-fold decay rate of the extra CO2 of 212/4 = 53 years or a half life time of ~40 years.”

        CO2 is not “injected” in the atmosphere. That is alarmist speak to underline human generated CO2 as being unnatural, same as climate change to define catastrophically from human produced global warming and so on.

        Btw the noble target of reducing the content in CO2 of the atmosphere by 100 ppm would condemn about 1 billion people to die of famine by keeping actual agricultural surface and tools and further reduce the general biosphere.

        To talk about 100 ppm above equilibrium is also wrong. The ocean content in CO2 at surface varies greatly from region to region – look at the scala and the colours:
        http://sciencenordic.com/co2-map-provides-quality-control-climate-research

        Much too much of the “data” otherwise used is only result of models and not based on real measurements. We got to have the measurements correctly in, then we can talk.


        Report this

        30

        • #

          Lars,

          Human emissions are straight into the atmosphere. That is not a natural process. Forest fires do exactly the same, that is a natural process.

          I don’t see any reason to reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere, as I think that the extra CO2 is largely beneficial. But that doesn’t mean that humans are not responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.

          The equilibrium of temperature – CO2 levels is what is seen in ice cores of different resolution over the past 800 kyr and is found on all time scales until some 160 years ago. That are global averaged (and smoothed) CO2 levels. Nothing to do with variable CO2 levels over different regions.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Lars P.

            The ice cores are a 80-100 years smoothened CO2 filter, not a proper snapshot of the composition at the time. And this, if the CO2 captured there and all other gases would remain in the same composition as captured, which has not been proven, but may be. The CO2 ice core are overvaluated and gives a false impression that we have a clear understanding of the natural variability. Not.

            Humans do produce lots of CO2 this is clear and known, not sure what is your point?:
            http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011
            What is not so clear is: how much CO2 is produced through soil destruction, how much from forests destructions, what would have come out if humans would not be here etc.

            Btw ants emissions are also straight into the atmosphere? But I digress.
            As you can see through the high variations in ocean surface CO2 content, some parts of the ocean are emitting CO2 some are absorbing. Natural variation widely oversteps what we yet produce.
            Would be interesting to know where do the high CO2 concentration waters come from? The variability is very high and does not seem to be a slave of the pressure from the atmosphere? I guess we still have much to learn about the carbon cycle.


            Report this

            20

            • #

              The point is, Lars, that we can calculate how much CO2 is being emitted by humans every year, and that amount is *more* than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which means the land and oceans together are a net sink.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                … we can calculate how much CO2 is being emitted by humans every year …

                Really? That is exciting. How is it calculated? Do tell.

                No, hang on, you say, “calculated”, not measured, so it is another case of “the models tell us …”. Boring.

                Are you a modeller, Margo? You use the phrase “we can calculate”. Or are you usurping the royal “We”?

                No, I forgot, you are a press hack, aren’t you, so all you can do is work off the script, and just dream …


                Report this

                00

              • #
                KuhnKat

                Margot,

                let’s play the game the warmers love to play, but, I will make it a simple one.

                Assume that ALL the human generated CO2 is absorbed by the environment relatively close to the point of production. How would this affect the overall levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or out in the middle of the ocean or over the poles??

                It would not. Now, you have to show that the human CO2 is NOT absorbed close to its source to even be able to start stating your case. THEN you have to show that the BSers, er, the IPCC supporting Scientists really do have reasonable figures for the CO2 flux coming out of the earth and oceans and going back in.

                Ya see, the IPCC types are DENIERS of simple physics. The amount of CO2 coming out of the oceans is affected by the pressure and content of CO2 in the atmosphere along with temps of course. If we humans actually create CO2 that is NOT absorbed locally it will increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the water INHIBITING natural release to the extent that we have caused an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere!!!!

                Many of our SMART guys on the blogs can’t seem to get their heads around this very simple FACT!!!

                All else being equal, human production of CO2 will NOT increase the amount in the atmosphere as it inhibits the natural release from the oceans AND grows the bio sinks!!

                Finally, this is why the IPCCers HAD TO fake the 280ppm level pre industrial. Without that huge LIE no one would have fallen for their CO2 mythology!!


                Report this

                00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I have absolutely no problems with anyone doing a mass balance for CO2.

        My problem with this, is that it is not done.

        No mass balance on CO2 has been done.

        They have been half done and maybe even 60% done but not to completion.

        If you don’t even understand ALL of the sources and sinks of CO2 you obviously cant quantify them.

        My problem with Ferdinand Engelbeen is that he misses out on many factors and then blandly assumes, as you say, that the Earth was in perfect equilibrium before modern man came along.

        That is total junk science.

        I take this seriously too because I don’t like being lied to by anybody but especially politicians.

        Especially don’t like to see my taxes used by politicians to cement their future with some voters.
        Some will give their vote to the pollie with the biggest social security package and that’s not working here or in Greece.

        This Carbon Dioxide tax collection by fraud is just a modern form of slavery and that was supposed to have been outlawed 200 years ago.


        Report this

        81

  • #
    Craig King

    Thanks Bernd, I have been thrashing about trying to find that connection having seen it a few weeks ago.

    No doubt the devout believers will ignore the 5.4 years and Salby’s stuff but it does make the point clearly and succinctly.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    mememine69

    This costly debate to save our planet will end when science their vey own crisis will happen, not just “might” happen and “could” happen. The scientists can say comet hits are real but the world of science won’t say their own comet hit of a climate crisis is as real as they love to say comet hits are as in “eventual”. Science has agreed for 28 years now that it “could” happen and have never said anything beyond “maybe”. Help my planet is on fire maybe?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Lars P.

    “Now, can we please get back to the science?”

    Nice try Jo.
    Why warmista will not talk about science and try to discuss Salby’s work the same way skeptics do with Gergis, Lew & co?
    I fear skeptics will further focus on the science and get the warmista attack dogs bitting whenever they find a weakness or the situation allows them to invent anything.
    The reason is simple, their “science” is not something that can be understood using the scientific method.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … their “science” is not something that can be understood using the scientific method.

      Thank you for putting the word “science” in quotes.

      If it cannot be understood using the scientific method, then it might be religion, or fairy tales, but it is certainly not science.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RCS

    Contrast the way that Prof Salby has been treated with how the University(?) of East Anglia rallied around Jones after Climategate.

    The trouble with bureaucrats is that they think they done frightfully well when they behave like this but they haven’t the insight to realise the damage thay do their institution’s reputation.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Greg Goodman

    Jo says: “This is not a bun-fight I want to get into, I’m more interested in the scientific research he is doing. ”
     

    Indeed. The best way to hit back would be to publish the work they are apparently trying to suppress.
     

    Your article from Aug 2011 said his “blockbuster” paper had already passed peer review and would be published in about six weeks.
     

    That was two years ago.
     

    His Hamburg letcure looked interesting. So now, where’s the beef?


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Greg, all good points. Both David and I have asked Salby about those publications, and my impression is that the gatekeeper-role of peer reviewed journals is working perfectly. I won’t give details, as I think Salby prefers to keep a low profile. But at least one of the reasons for delay was bizarre.

      I think the point is coming where real scientists need to give up on the peer-reviewed subscription journal model. Real science is being slowed.


      Report this

      120

  • #

    These peer reviewed papers show that CO2 residence times are between 5 and 10 years:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Smokey, different processes at work. Residence time and decay rate of an excess amount of CO2 have little to nothing to do with each other.

      That doesn’t mean that the IPCC Bern model is right, but that is a complete different discussion.


      Report this

      14

      • #
        Richard S Courtney

        Friends:

        Many will know that Ferdinand and I have severe disagreements about the carbon cycle, the ‘mass balance argument’, and etc..

        But Ferdinand is completely right about this. Residence time of atmospheric CO2 is NOT indicative of the decay rate of atmospheric residence time.

        Please return to the important issues of
        (a) Salby’s work
        and
        (b) the political actions being undertaken to discredit Salby and, thus, acceptance of his work.

        Richard


        Report this

        40

  • #
    KuhnKat

    Seems the powers that be are AFRAID of Dr. Salby’s work!!!


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Find out exactly who’s boat he rocked and those will be the people responsible for the problem. And it may not be the people who’re actually doing the hatchet job.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Gary Pearse

    Hmm… Do you think that an angry head at Colorado U had a friend inside NSF – retaliation for their gloming his computer and data and losing the court case to keep them. These are very very ugly people.At least he won’t end up on the asterisked PhD list.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Patsi baker

    Hmmm.

    Macquarie University is ADAMANT that Salby was NOT sacked for his science, but because he wasn’t doing his job, ie teaching.

    See this statement from Macquarie:

    “Professor Salby’s employment was not terminated in any way related to his views on climate science, but rather due to misconduct in two areas. The first was his repeated refusal to teach, over a sustained period of time, in contravention of his contract of employment.

    “The second reason was inappropriate use of University resources. Professor Salby travelled to Europe during a time when he was obliged to be at the University against direct, written instruction. Furthermore he used a University credit card to pay for the flights through an unapproved agency. This is against University policy.”

    and their second statement:

    “Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”

    So. He was travelling to Europe, using the University credit card without permission, when he when he should have been back at Macquarie, teaching his students. NONE of this had ANYTHING to do with his views on climate science.

    Mind you, seems the students were probably better off without him. Check out this student rating of him at UC:

    “Worst class I’ve taken at CU. Very unaproachable, rude, didn’t explain diagrams he drew, uninteresting. If you’re going to take this class, make sure you get the other teacher.”

    and
    “One of the worst professors I’ve encountered. The class could have been interesting and clear but he made it complicated and completely unclear. Terrible instructor.”

    and

    “Lectures very boring and dull…notes taken right out of the textbook so why bother going?

    There isn’t a shred of substantiated evidence, anywhere, that he was sacked from Macquarie for his views on climate science. Yet you continue to claim this, time after time. Give me some evidence, by all means, please!


    Report this

    014

    • #

      And if MQ sacked him because they didn’t like the results of his research, they are hardly going to tell us that are they?

      Those teaching duties were not part of the contract Salby signed, MQ added them in, Salby never agreed to the changed conditions. MQ were adding in so many onerous hours of teaching, marking and what-not that Salby would have been unable to do much research.

      Not a shred of evidence? MQ don’t disagree that they sacked him, nor that they abandoned him in Paris without even a phone call, nor that they canceled his non-refundable ticket and held a meeting to discuss his work in his absence. That’s evidence of petty spite and denial of natural justice, as well as plain bad unprofessional manners. Find me an example of where they have done this for alarmist scientists? There are plenty who work at MQ.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        AndyG55

        “that they cancelled his non-refundable ticket and held a meeting to discuss his work in his absence”

        This I think is the clincher.. says it all.

        He was deliberately prevented from have a say at his trial.. The right of reply was refused to him.

        If the ticket was wrongly purchased, they should have insisted he pay back the money, but to cancel it and leave him stranded overseas so that he could not attend.. that is a despicable and unconscionable act!


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Backslider

        The very fact that MQ was able to cancel the ticket indicates that Professor Salby was not the person who purchased it, since if he was he would be the only person who could cancel it.

        The ticket was purchased by MQ. Let them explain that simple fact.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Chris

        If this action was due to his skeptic beliefs, why would MU hire him in the first place? You say teaching duties were not part of his responsibilities. If his role was to be research only, and they had an issue with his skeptical beliefs, why would they have hired him in the first place? His skeptical views were known prior to their hiring decision.

        This recent article from the Australian, which as I understand it is typically conservative, does not paint Salby in a positive light:
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/physicist-marie-lise-chanin-changes-her-mind-on-murry-salby-support/story-e6frgcjx-1226696589221


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Patsi baker

    given I cannot answer you on my blogpost, I’ll keep posting them – you can delete them but I can’t respond to you in any other way.

    You asked me for substantiation, and I gave you all the links. I corrected one link, and you asked me to substantiate Macquarie statement, so I did, with links. You’re happy to post any old shit that Salby says, none of which is substantiated, but you won’t post my comment, which is backed up by statements from Macquarie itself.


    Report this

    04

    • #

      Patsi, just because MQ says something doesn’t make it true. The same applies to Prof Salby. But when he said they cancelled a non-refundable ticket and stranded him in Paris, they responded and they didn’t deny it, nor did they deny holding a misconduct meeting in his absence. If he was making it up, they’ve had every chance to set the record straight. I emailed and phoned MQ to confirm. I posted the entire reply that MQ sent me.

      And I have seen legal documents substantiating Salby’s claims, but I am not at liberty to post them. I did post your comment with links to MQ statements.

      Methinks you doth protest too much.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Patsi baker

    “And if MQ sacked him because they didn’t like the results of his research, they are hardly going to tell us that are they?”

    so where is your evidence that they did? There’s nothing in any document nor letter to Salby nor anything else, apart from all of you lot saying that’s why.

    Where is your substantiation of your allegation they sacked him for his climate views. Give me ONE PIECE of evidence.


    Report this

    214

    • #
      Streetcred

      “Patsi” for MQ ?

      Where’ve you been sleeping all of this time ? The evidence is there … you need to open it.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Duster

      The question is, why did they sack him? Indeed, why did they hold an “inquiry” which they insured he could not attend by stranding him in Germany? It might not be his science, or his paperwork, but if not, then what was he rocking if it wasn’t a scientific boat?


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Backslider

      Give me ONE PIECE of evidence

      The evidence is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence alone has put people away for life, or even death. It only takes an open mind to see it, something which clearly you lack Patsi.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Patsi,

      Why don’t you make yourself a nice cup of herbal tea, and then have a little lie down?

      Once you are rested, I am sure you will feel a lot better.


      Report this

      10

    • #

      And the number of alarmist scientists you’ve been able to name that they sacked under similar bizarre conditions is … zero.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Greg Goodman

    Joanne Nova
    August 12, 2013 at 11:45 am · Reply

    Greg, all good points. Both David and I have asked Salby about those publications, and my impression is that the gatekeeper-role of peer reviewed journals is working perfectly. I won’t give details, as I think Salby prefers to keep a low profile. But at least one of the reasons for delay was bizarre.

    I think the point is coming where real scientists need to give up on the peer-reviewed subscription journal model. Real science is being slowed.
     

    Thanks for the reply Jo.
     

    Journals no longer have the monopoly on information that they once had. If they continue to allow editorial bias, gatekeeping games and act like newspapers rather than scientific respositories they will become less and less relevant.
     

    If Murray Salby has been thwarted for over two years he should simply publish on line, in some russian or hungarian journal or arxiv.org like most physics and maths researchers do. There are far more competent people out here that could peer-review his work than the 3 or 4 possibly hostile reviewers any journal will pick.
     

    If there is some petty politics going on to suppress his work, the best retaliation is to ensure it gets seen widely and publicly.
     

    I’ve done some work on this out-gassing question myself and am very interested in what he has to say.
     

    But further delay at this stage starts to look like his ideas do not stand up to close scrutiny. At some stage wailing about gate-keeping is just going to start looking like an excuse.


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Richard S Courtney

      Greg Goodman:

      You assert

      But further delay at this stage starts to look like his ideas do not stand up to close scrutiny. At some stage wailing about gate-keeping is just going to start looking like an excuse.

      Sorry, but NO!
      Salby’s paper passed peer review but has not been published.
      There can be no excuse for failure to publish it so it can become part of the scientific literature to be refuted or accepted.

      Delay of its publication AFTER peer review reflects on those inhibiting its publication and NOT on its contents.

      I know from personal experience how papers can be prevented from publication by nefarious method; see
      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

      Richard


      Report this

      121

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Thank you for that precis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Davet916

    Joanne,

    When I first came upon Prof Salby’s situation and read the whole story, the thing that I was left wondering about was the ‘contract’. If there was a contract, present it. It would end all the he said/she said and show exactly who did or didn’t do as promised. If MQ stated in the contract that they would provide all that Prof Salby claims, end of story. If not, well . . . .

    I didn’t read all the comments above so if this was already covered, bad on me.

    Dave T


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Backslider

    My gut feeling on the whole Salby affair is that he was seen as highly dangerous to the warmist meme a long time ago and was lured to Macquarie U, home of such warmist luminaries as Tim Flannery and John Cook, to set him up and dispense with him for good.

    One only needs to look at how impossible it was made for him to carry out his ongoing research. That did not stop him however, thus the killer blow had to be swift and sure.


    Report this

    70

    • #

      If you can find any Salby climate-related work that is sympathetic to the “sceptical” position and that appears *prior* to his move to Macquarie in 2009, then you will have demonstrated that you have a point.

      Can you, though, Backslider, or is this just more of your fantastical opinionating?


      Report this

      02

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    “Now, can we please get back to the science?”

    Science has passed on, sad to say. It is no more, has ceased to be, expired. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It’s off the twig, has kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, rung down the curtain, and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Anton

    I hope he sues the living daylights out of MacQuarie and wins copious compensation and a grovelling apology.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Macquarie University Insider

    Joanna wrote: “Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence.” “They cancelled an air ticket on him leaving him in a foreign city with no accommodation and no warning, or even a courtesy call’. ‘They held a misconduct proceeding which he was unable to attend because of the flight cancellation”.

    Sacking Murry Salby was operated by Michael Egan (former Bob Carr’s Treasurer). Macquarie university struggled to explain because Human Resources (Tim Sprague – Director) did a “doggy” job (with evil tactics).

    With the Communist Party of China’s sponsorship (using a range of top-down and bottom-up global tactics) via the Labor Party and a number of affiliate networks, they can influence Government administrations and public services (including Australian universities). Even Australian unions (e.g. deals & donation) and CPA (e.g. immigration visa factory from Mainland China) have also taken huge benefits from the Communist Party.

    Do you know agent Penny Wong, Leader of the Government in the Senate? Do you think Rudd can get back his job on 26 June without the sponsorship? Do you think Bob Carr can come back as a senior politician without the sponsorship?

    Will soft-political policies (e.g. environment, education, multiculturalism and poverty) change future Australia? Will Australians want to give everything away or live in the same standard as third world? Lets see what Australians really want..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Some very curious things in that statement by Prof. Salby:
    ——————–
    The proposal was declined – over a technicality.

    To avert wasting more of the scientific community’s time, the revised proposal included a
    description of the original proposal’s reviews, along with why it had been declined. NSF then required the reviewers to repeat the process. Reviewers, after having instructed NSF to fund the work, were then critical of NSF officials, over their handling of the proposal. Despite the vulnerability of their own support, they questioned why the original proposal had not been funded and why, instead, NSF officials had needlessly wasted the scientific community’s time and resources.
    ———————

    First, reviewers do NOT instruct NSF or any other agency to fund any proposal. They rank proposals and provide reasons for that ranking. One may find strong statements such as “NSF should… or even NSF must…”, but NSF, NASA, NOAA, etc. don’t have to, that is the decision of the program manager and everyone, including Prof. Salby knows that.

    Second, resubmissions are always re-reviewed because they are competing with a different group of proposals from others. Something that reviewed well in one group but was not funded may run into a bunch of really great proposals later on and fall down relatively in the rankings. If Salby got the same reviewers the program manager was being nice to him. There is nothing so calming as being whipsawed by two different panels of reviewers and Prof. Salby must know that.

    Third, well yeah, you don’t meet the requirements of the call for proposals and you don’t get funded. Eli has seen proposals (including one of his own) tossed out because magic words required by the program were missing. Others have gone over page limits or used too small type, etc. and lost. The budgets and budget justifications have places where tigers lurk if you are not careful. The moral is read the damn instructions.

    So some, not Eli to be sure, wonder about the impression Prof. Salby is trying to convey.


    Report this

    03

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Eli baby, welcome to the real world. Proposal choices are the sole discretion of the source selection official.

      I never filled that role. If I did, I would be the unique Source Selection Official and absolute denialist in the Federal Government.

      There won’t be one of those for 30 years.

      Wanna bet? (A common interjection of yours, I am simply mimicking your approach to life)

      On the other hand, neither you nor I will be around to collect on the bet.


      Report this

      10

      • #

        Brian baby, you appear to have missed the sentences:

        ———-
        First, reviewers do NOT instruct NSF or any other agency to fund any proposal. They rank proposals and provide reasons for that ranking. One may find strong statements such as “NSF should… or even NSF must…”, but NSF, NASA, NOAA, etc. don’t have to, that is the decision of the program manager and everyone, including Prof. Salby knows that.
        ———-

        So we furiously agree. Wanna bet on that?:)

        However there is a caveat, at least wrt NSF,

        ———–
        After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award.

        http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3.jsp#IIIE
        ———–

        So there, strictly speaking it is the Division Director’s call, although AFAEK, they very seldom differ.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          KuhnKat

          Hey, Brer Rabbet,

          that is a really nice explanation of how things are SUPPOSED to work. Doesn’t really fit the kinds of activities that were exposed in Climategate.

          Thanks for wasting our time with your lame excuses.


          Report this

          11

    • #

      Is there another person called Eli you are talking to? It is not a common name.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    robert

    thank you for that post richard s courtney.i live in the uk and was aware that the select committee enquiry into climategate was a bit of a sham.
    your above post beggars belief at what has gone on in the uk since.
    we are about to see a huge publicly funded proliferation of useless wind farms in the north sea off the back of what you have shown to be very dubious evidence.none of which will achieve the projected lifespan of 25 years.the north sea has a habit of destroying even the toughest structures man places in it.
    we can be sure that the companies installing these heavily subsidised wind farms will all be out of business by the time decommissioning comes around,leaving the uk taxpayers to subsidise that as well.
    all while our peak power usage periods are supplied by diesel generators.sadly this symptomatic of the lack of cohesive thought in uk politics today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] of answers to this question but two stand out as the most likely reasons.  1.   Professor Murray Salby was fired by Macquarie University  for providing scientific proof demolishing the CO2 Catastrophic Climate Change Theory [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    NSF has responded to the question of why the report was on the OIG web site


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Nice work Eli – good to see scepticism paying off.

      ——————-
      Oh yes – skepticism about someone’s biography. Has Eli discussed the science? I couldn’t find it? _ Jo


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Since the NSF report contains so-called “findings” that even the NSF admits are not backed by evidence, questions of defamation stand untouched. Frankly the document shows how sloppy the NSF is.

      And now the NSF author admits that it is confusing to label it “confidential” when supposedly it isn’t really? Another detail the NSF managed incompetently? Their publication standards are low aren’t they?

      And perhaps it was released under FOI, but the NSF is strangely vague on that. Who requested it, and who decided that the release of such an unbalanced article, with specious unbacked claims was “in the public interest?”.

      It’ll kill you if his scientific work turns out to be right won’t it? You will have been one of the petty ad hom attackers trying to do character assassination instead of getting the science right.

      So Eli, have you any thoughts on his equation about how Temp and CO2 are related?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Much of the discussion has centered around what was promised to Dr. Salby by Macquarie and what was in his contract, insofar as there is a contract that extends beyond the standard university conditions of employment stated in a faculty handbook of a general academic staff agreement. By experience the usual thing is that in the offer letter a series of undertakings are made by the University, but only exceptionally is a separate contract differing from the academic staff agreement made.

    Now some, not Eli to be sure, might believe that if they exist Dr. Salby has copies of relevant documents which he might share or provide links to same.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The question, of course, is does Murry Salby, and can he produce one that matches his claims.


    Report this

    00