Yes, and this is just more proof that in this one area -for some reason - piehole is very intellectually dishonest.
Good question. I think jem/"justice" has locked himself into permanent defense lawyer position. He gets a kick out being the devil's advocate. And if the Koch bros are not paying him, they should. And/or, he is just insane.
Wow what an impressive way to state that 20% of TV weathermen (all Republicans) do not fully believe in man made global warming! You made that sound very important!!! You are good.
My own view is that this AMS statement is likely wrong in several respects. It is most vulnerable on the issue of the dependent variable. It seems to me that much of the more recent research is coming down on the side of temperature being the independent variable, not CO2. CO2 and Temperature would remain highly correlated in either case. We also know now that the half life of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a few ten of years, i.e., the turnover rate is almost two orders greater than the 1980s investigators had assumed. These early investigators, and 100% of all those still trying to address the question using models, are most vulnerable on the requirement that all models must assume the overall feedback to atmospheric perturbations is positive, otherwise the affect of rising CO2 on temperature is too small. There are Miscolski's papers in which he concluded that the feedback must be negative, and there are other arguments that I find absolutely convincing that the feedback must be negative rather than positive. We shall see eventually. Sadly, I think I'll be dead before any of these questions can be answered definitively. In the meantime I find it impossible to ignore the criticisms of Nir Shaviv , Murry Salby, and Richard Linzen, and quite a few others. These are some awfully bright folks and I am inclined to listen to what they have to say. I recently dropped Miscolski's paper on the desk of a Physicist friend. He is a Cambridge trained modeler of molecular dynamics, so this isn't his area of expertise but his training will allow him to understand Miscolski's paper. I'll be having lunch with him before long, if we are not dead from heat stroke first, and I'll let you know his opinion. I think you will find this interesting from Shaviv's blog a year ago: (his blog, http://www.sciencebits.com/blog/1 , is really interesting. I think he is headed for a Nobel Prize in a few years. ) Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic By shaviv 0 Comments Blog topic: general science, global warming, politics, weather & climate Last week I participated in an interesting debate that was held at the Cambridge Union, the oldest debating club in the world (dating back to 1815. The invite was to be on the side opposing the proposition “This house would rather cool the planet than warm the economy”. Although I think the phrasing of the question is problematic to begin with, since it assumes that “warming the economy” necessary would cool the climate, I should applaud the Cambridge Union for supporting free speech and allowing people on both side to voice their arguments, especially given how many on the alarmist side refuse to do so, claiming that there is nothing to debate anymore. I should also add that I was quite shocked to see how the audience was so one sided (though far less than the ridiculous 97:3 ratio we hear about!) and unwilling to listen to scientific arguments. I am actually quite lucky to be living in Israel where free speech and free thought are really more than lip service. Having honest debates in Israeli academia or in the media is actually the norm. Below you will find the summary I wrote myself before the debate. Since it is rather concise I thought it would be a good idea to bring it here as well. Have fun — Nir Let me begin by asking you a question. What is the evidence that people, like the proponents here, use to prove that we humans are responsible for global warming and that future warming will be catastrophic if we don’t get our act together? The fact is that this idea is a misconception and the so called evidence we constantly hear is simply based on fallacious arguments. To begin with, any one who appeals to authority or to a majority to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing. Science is not a democracy and the fact that many believe one thing does not make them right. If people have good arguments to convince you, let them use the scientific arguments, not logical fallacies. Repeating it ad nauseam does not make it right! Other irrelevant arguments may appear scientific, but they are not. Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming byhumans. Seeing a poor polar bear floating on an iceberg does not mean that humans caused warming. (Actually, the bear population is now probably at its highest in modern times!). The same goes to receding glaciers. Sure, there was warming and glaciers are receding, but the logical leap that this warming is because of humans is simply an unsubstantiated claim, even more so when considering that you can find Roman remains under receded glaciers in the Alps or Viking graves in thawed permafrost in Greenland. Other fallacious arguments include using qualitative arguments and the appeal to gut feelings. The fact that humanity is approaching 10 billion people does not prove that we caused a 0.8°C temperature increase. We could have just as much caused an 8°C increase or an 0.08°C. If all of humanity spits into the ocean, will sea level rise appreciably? In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. You may say, “just a second, we saw Al Gore’s movie, in which he presented a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature from Antarctic ice cores”. Well, what he didn’t tell you is that one generally sees in the ice cores that CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years, not vice versa! The simple truth is that Al Gore simply showed us how the amount of CO2 dissolved as carbonic acid in the oceans changes with temperature. As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations. When you throw away the chaff of all the fallacious arguments and try to distill the climate science advocated by the IPCC and alike, you find that there are actually two arguments which appear as legitimate scientific arguments, but unfortunately don’t hold water. Actually, fortunately! The first is that the warming over the 20th century is unprecedented, and if so, it must be human. This is the whole point of the hockey so extensively featured in the third assessment report of the IPCC in 2001. However if you would google “climategate” you would find that this is a result of shady scientific analysis - the tree ring data showing that there was little temperature variation over the past millennium showed a decline after 1960, so, they cut it off and stitched thermometer data. The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century. You can even see it directly with temperature measurements in boreholes. The second argument is that there is nothing else to explain the warming, and if there is nothing else it must be the only thing that can, which is the anthropogenic contribution. However, as I mention below, there is something as clear as daylight… and that is the sun. Before explaining why the sun completely overturns the way we should see global warming and climate change in general. It is worth while to say a few words on climate sensitivity and why it is impossible to predict ab initio the anthropogenic contribution. The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white. So, the main conclusion is that climate is not sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing. This means that we are not required to “cool the economy” in order to cool earth. In Paris and Copenhagen the leaders of the world said that we should make sure that the total global warming will be less than 2°C. It will be less than 2°C even if we do nothing. There are several red flags that people do their best to ignore. The lack of warming in the past 2 decades is a clear sign that sensitivity is low, but people ignore it. Last point. People say that we should at least curb the emissions as a precautionary step. However, resources are not infinite. Most people in developed nations can pay twice for their energy, but for third world nations? It would mean more expensive food, hunger and poverty, and many in the developed world actually freezing in winter. So in fact, taking unnecessary precautionary steps when we know they are unnecessary is immoral. It is even committing statistical murder. Now the really last point, I am also optimist that humanity will switch to alternative energy sources in less than 2-3 decades just because they will become cheap enough, and just for the reason that people want to save money. Just like the price of computers has plummeted exponentially (Moore’s law— number of transistors doubles every 18 months) so does the cost of energy from photovoltaic cells (cost halves every 10 years). Once they will be really cost effective, without subsidies, suddenly we won’t be burning fossil fuels because it would be the expensive thing to do! Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.
Oh wow..... Nir Shaviv , Murry Salby, and Richard Linzen are the experts (not) that you are hanging your hat on. LOL.. An astrophysicist, a fraud and a crank. Just lol. - and none of them actually deny man made global warming. But the list is like a who's who of AGW misinformers. "We shall see eventually. Sadly, I think I'll be dead before any of these questions can be answered definitively. In the meantime I find it impossible to ignore the criticisms of Nir Shaviv , Murry Salby, and Richard Linzen, and quite a few others. " Well you may find it impossible but any fair minded person who knows anything about this issue and the industry whores listed above certainly do ignore them, for good reason Like I said before, the sooner that the industry liars and whores like you die off, the better the earth will be. Hurry up.
Nir Shaviv spoke at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2). Shaviv's speech was titled “New Solar-Climate Link and Implications for Our Understanding of Climate Change.” [9], [18] DeSmog researched the funding behind Heartland's Second International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC2) and found sponsor organizations had received over $47 million in funding from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from Scaife Family foundations. [19] https://www.desmogblog.com/nir-shaviv Denial For Hire: Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Willie Soon in Wall Street Journal Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor and longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims that deny the growing and now unequivocal evidence of climate change, all in defense of a fellow “skeptic” whose ties to fossil fuels have called into question the impartiality of his science. Lindzen's arguments are a greatest-hits of climate denial, repeatedly and effectively disproved for years. He uses these easily dismissed arguments to defend what's left of the academic integrity of Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon against questions raised by members of Congress, who heard testimony from Soon without disclosure that he was being paid by fossil-fuel interests. Lindzen's writing contained multiple errors or omissions. He: • Ignored the accuracy of climate models over the long term • Confused the impact of the sun on observed warming, long studied and long ago disregarded • Dismissed multiple lines of evidence by claiming clouds would offset warming • Glossed over the egregious breach of ethics in Soon's lack of disclosure of over $1 million in funding from fossil fuel interests • Mischaracterized as threatening an attempt to identify improper industry influence on studies and Congressional testimony Mainstream models have been accurate, Lindzen hasn't. Lindzen makes the tired and debunked claim that predictions of warming haven't been accurate. This is absurd on its face, as 2014 was the hottest year on record, with an unprecedented spike in ocean temperatures. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that model criticisms are totally “unfounded” and that models incorporating the newest information (mainly ocean heat content) are very accurate. Interestingly, comparisons have been made between Lindzen's 1989 predictions and those made in 1988 by James Hansen, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The results are clear that mainstream scientists have gotten it right while Lindzen underestimated warming. (Graphic courtesy of Skeptical Science) Solar output has decreased as temperatures rise Lindzen vaguely refers to studies on the role of the sun in driving climate, which is exactly the subject that fossil fuel interests paid Soon to pursue. This is another absurdity, because the amount of energy the sun has sent our way in recent years has actually decreased as temperatures have increased. (Image from the National Climate Assessment) More clouds won't offset warming Lindzen also refers (without citation) to his hypothesis that clouds will cancel out warming. What he doesn't note is that this “Iris hypothesis” has been debunked numerous times, and while cloud behavior is an ongoing area of study when it comes to climate models, clouds may actually increase warming, not offset it as he claims. $1.2 million is no “small measure” of funding Soon took over a million dollars from fossil fuel interests in exchange for studies which cast doubt on the CO2-climate change connection in both academic papers and congressional testimony. Soon's contracts went so far as to give funders early access to papers and an explicit agreement to keep the funding relationship secret. Soon told his funders that these activities were “deliverables” yet he failed to disclose this critical fact in the papers. This is as serious as it comes in terms of breaching academic ethics, and has also triggered an internal investigation at Soon's employer. Congress should know who's sponsoring testimony Lindzen attempts to redirect attention away from the clear wrongdoing of Soon to the actions of Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, who sent letters to seven universities inquiring as to the funding of other witnesses used by the GOP to argue against climate action. As Grijalva states in his letters, this information is vital to disclose because Congress “cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.” This is not an isolated incident, so Rep. Grijalva has reason to be concerned. As outlined in multiple books (and now a documentary film) the tobacco industry pioneered a method for disputing scientific reality for the purpose of preventing regulation, and the fossil fuel industry has been following this playbook since the 1990s. This strategy involves paying scientists to produce studies contrary to the consensus, testify to Congress disputing the established body of science, and otherwise introduce doubt into the public consciousness where none exists in the scientific literature. This is exactly the behavior of which Soon is guilty, so Rep. Grijalva was right to be concerned about a more widespread coordination of pseudoscientific lobbying against regulations. Lindzen also writes that he finds it strange that others sent letters to think tanks that promote climate denial, as though he's unaware of the bombshell 2013 study that shed light on the $120 million given to anti-climate groups between 2002 and 2010. Finally, Lindzen ends with one of the newest fossil fuel talking points, which claims that reducing emissions will somehow hurt the poor. This too is clearly contradicted by the fact that the poorest are least capable of adapting to a changing climate, and those who are actually bringing power to the impoverished are doing so with renewables, not fossil fuels. For example, India's Prime Minister has a goal to bring electricity to all of India using renewables, not fossil fuels. https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/...cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj
And now the other of three "experts" that piehole is so enamored of........ Murry Salby: Galileo? Bozo? Or P.T.Barnum? Read time: 14 mins By John Mashey • Friday, July 12, 2013 - 11:44 Share UPDATE 03/09/16 Salby sued Macquarie U, judge ruled against him on every complaint, similar pattern. “They laughed at Galileo … but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown” might be appled to Murry Salby, who until May was a Professor of Environmental Science at Australia's Macquarie University (MU). P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA. Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few. Bozo? SkS lists “Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and thisearlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write “How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”, but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions. Fired in May, emailed ~July 8: Salby emailed a few bloggers laying out many complaints against MU, quickly published by JoNova (“Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?”), Watts (“Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia”, reblogged by Tallbloke), Montford (“Climate of Fear”), Powerline (Steven Hayward, “The Climate Mafia Strikes Again…”). An article in The Australian was reblogged as Climate Chairman Left High And Dry By University by GWPF (of FOIA Facts 5) and Morano, who also wrote “the same.” If a legal strategy, it seemed odd. MU replied July 10, Statement regarding the termination of Professor Murry Salby. Unlike bloggers, schools follow legal rules, so it was short, including: 'The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests. 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.' On July 12, MU gave more information to deny allegations in The Australian. Although some blog commenters counseled caution, many instantly accepted without question Salby's allegations and that this was an attack on Salby's academic freedom, done only because Salby disagreed with mainstream climate science. Anti-Macquarie cartoons appeared at WUWT (“Josh on the Salby - Macquarie affair”) and Bishop Hill (“Climate of smear - Josh 229”). P.T. Barnum? Many bloggers took Salby's complaints on faith as credible. They should not have, but might have wondered about past history as I did. Salby had been since 1988 a tenured Professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU), a fine school. He was a board member of Denver “501(c)(3) tax-exempt” company ASA, headed by a person with whom he often coauthored papers. He had another company and other ties to the area, but then he seemed to disappear. ASA tax filings from 09/30/07 listed his location as “unknown” or equivalent. Why did he leave for Australia? He was forced to resign 01/31/08 in 2007 and by 2009 had been debarred by the National Science Foundation (NSF) from Federal funding until 08/13/12. By 2008, he was at MU, which seems unlikely to have known of the confidential investigations under way in the USA. While at MU, Salby sued CU twice, 11/19/08-03/18/09 in Federal court, and then 04/14/09-02/01/10 in Colorado, with little result but making Federal court records easily available. MU and CU problems with Salby seem akin, as do Salby's behavior and complaints against both schools and NSF. At least for CU and NSF, extensive documentation is available from the NSF and Federal court records. Salby's email and blogospheric propagation led directly to the information revealed here. The NSF publishes semiannual reports, although identities are obscured, but in this case are clear from later reports, which make even stronger complaints. NSF OIG March 2009 p.34 'Former Professor’s Involvement in Outside Companies Questioned: An OIG investigation into an allegation that a former professor (Salby) at a Colorado university submitted a proposal to NSF that overlapped with an undisclosed proposal from an external non-profit research company (ASA) founded by the subject, resulted in a recommendation of debarment. The university and our office both conducted investigations into improper award management and conflicts of interests. NSF had concurrent awards to the subject at the university and the first company, but more recently only to the company. Our investigation revealed that the subject, consistently and over a period of many years, violated or disregarded various federal and NSF award administration requirements, violated university policies related to conflicts and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both NSF and the university as to material facts about his outside companies and other matters relating to NSF awards. After many years of operation of the first company, the subject created a second, for-profit company (ASMP) that acted as a subcontractor to the first company. The subject was the sole owner and employee of the second company, which existed solely to receive grant funds from the first company and pay them to the subject as salary. The subject failed to notify NSF of the subcontracting relationship with the second company, and improperly failed to limit indirect charges for the subcontract costs to the first $25,000 as required. The university repeatedly asked the subject to disclose all outside financial interests, and he repeatedly withheld information about the funds he re-ceived from his companies; when the university learned the truth, it severely restricted his access to its research facilities. The professor then resigned from his tenured faculty position. When we asked him to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project. We recommended that NSF debar the subject for five years, and NSF’s decision is pending.' NSF OIG March 2010 p.27 'NSF Acts on Debarment Recommendations. … NSF debarred each of the following individuals for three years: … A former professor who violated or disregarded various federal award administration requirements, violated university policies regarding conflicts of interests and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both NSF and university investigations into the matter.9 (9 March 2009 Semiannual Report, p. 34.)' The 31-page NSF final report 02/20/09* is far more explicit about the financial maneuvers and deception, with details far beyond these examples: p.4 'The Subject's fifteen-year-long pattern of deceptive statements to his University and to NSF disguised his participation in entities and activities that existed for the purpose of maximizing his personal financial compensation and shielding the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.' p.18 'The most egregious act of misconduct is the deficient and likely fraudulent** preparation of the Subject's time and effort reports for Company 2. However, the Subject's actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies.' p.21 'the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281.' p.23 'The Subject's focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues….(fn99) [Redacted] stated in an interview in April 2008 that the Subject blames him for the University and Federal investigation, even though the Subject directed all actions of Company 1 and Company 2, and received the financial benefits of the malfeasance.' From IRS Form 990s, [Redacted] must be Patrick F. Callaghan, Salby's long-time co-author and colleague. Fortunately for Salby, he left the USA by 2008, else both NSF and the IRS may have wished to have further words with him. Court Cases Federal court documentation offers useful insight into Salby's behavior. Federal Lawsuit, 1:08-cv-02517-RPM Salby v. University of Colorado et al 11/19/08 Cover Sheet Murry Salby (no county of residence) vs CU and Provost Phil DeStefano, under US Civil Statute 42 USC, Sec 1983, “Retaliation for exercise of First Amendment Rights.” i.e., freedom of speech. 11/19/08 Main Complaint, 8 pages. 'Plaintiff Salby was a resident of Adams County, Colorado, who now resides in Australia. He had been a tenured professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences with defendant University of Colorado since 1997 and a tenured professor in predecessor departments since 1988. … This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because plaintiff Salby claims that he was forced to resign in retaliation for the exercise of his first amendment rights (free speech) and that the University violated his fourth amendment rights…. (unreasonable search and seizure) Between 1997 and 2000, Professor Salby brought grievances involving the departmental chair, Peter Webster. (Now Georgia Tech, Judith Curry's husband) … 8. From December, 2006, through August, 2007, Professor Salby was on a second sabbatical leave outside the United States. … Address of Plaintiff Salby: 20 22 Abbott St Sandringham, Vic 3191 AUSTRALIA' Salby then lodged against CU many complaints, which might be compared to those against MU, and also to NSF's detailed report. 01/15/09 UC Moves to Dismiss, 8 pages (of legalese.) 01/16/09 UC and Provost DiStefano Answer the complaint, 5 pages. They esentially deny all the relevant allegations. 02/25/09 Affidavit of Philip DiStefano, 6 pages. 02/25/09 Affidavit of Russell Moore,Assoc. Vice-Chancellor, Research, 18 pages. This detailed CU's long struggle with Salby, warnings, etc. CU clearly understood its responsibilities for Federal funds, perhaps in contrast to George Mason. 02/25/09 Affidavit of Frank W. Bruno, Vice Chancellor Administration, 2 pages. Salby does not own his CU lab space. 02/25/09 DiStefano motion for summary judgment, 19 pages. p.14 'Attempts to communicate with Salby were impossible, and he often failed to attend his scheduled classes.' Salby's teaching ratings were usually in bottom 15-20% for ATO 1050 (introductory course), but Fall 2007 was ATOC 3180, usually better, but unsurprisingly, not this time. Accessiblity was rated low. 03/09/09 Salby moves to dismiss Federal claims, refile in state court, 2 pages. 03/18/09 Salby moves to avoid summary judgement, refile, 2 pages. 'Given the discovery produced by Mr. DiStefano in his summary judgment brief, Professor Salby will file a slightly different complaint in state court and the matter can be reasserted there under the new allegations.' 03/19/09 Case dismissed without prejudice, 1 page. UPDATE 08/23/13: Salby tried in Colorado state court, whose 195-page record is now available, attached here with consistent pagination and some highlighting. 04/14/09 pp.186-192 Salby filed against CU, DiStefano, John Does, including demands for costs, attorney's fees, punitive damages, etc. 05/13/09 pp.173-176 DiStefano rejected allegations. 05/26/09 pp.165-169 CU rejected allegations. 06/15/09 pp.156-157 CU 10/01/07 to Salby: COI form or else action. 06/15/09 p.133 Salby 01/29/08 to CU: retire 01/31/08, claims constructive discharge, give him property and all data or federal agencies will be notified. 06/15/09 pp.103-121 DiStefano moves for summary judgement/dismissal. 06/09/09 pp.72-77 Stalby 09/28/08 letter to DiStefano, “preposterous” etc 07/09/09 pp.63-70 Salby moves to deny DiStefano motion to dismiss 07/23/09 pp.55-57 Kelly Duong describes Salby's lack of cooperation. pp.44-48 Brian Toon (Dept Chair) explains procedures, Salby to be given unsupervised acess to sort things out. CU and Salby's story differ. 07/23/09 pp.32-41 DiStefano repiles in support of dismissal 10/28/09 pp.27-31 Court: summary judgment for DiStefano, dismissed 11/09/09 pp.18-26 Salby moves to reconsider dismissal 11/19/09 pp.13-16 DiStefano responds in opposition to reconsider 12/10/09 pp.7-10 Salby moves to reconsider, court DENIED. 01/12/10 p.6 Court says show cause why case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to file pleadings, else case will be dismissed without prejudice and costs awarded by C.R.S. 12-16-113(1), Salby would pay defendant costs. 02/01/10 p.2 Case Closed, with no Judgment. Given the NSF report, it seems unlikely this case produced anything to Salby's liking either. After all the fuss: 'The University and Plaintiff have resolved and settled all issues between them and as part of their agreement stipulate that this lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees, costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this action and all claims herein be dismissed with prejudice.' Readers can form own opinions, but mine is: Salby wasted much time and money of CU and DiStefano. Judges simply did not buy his complaints. Finally, Salby was told he would pay defendants' costs if he didn't start doing something more useful, and settlement happened very quickly. This may be compared with Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record: '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.' Salby had had been given unsupervised access to his lab in 2007, and CU did not pay his costs, just theirs, and he could not sue them again on this issue. Salby was earlier involved in complex divorce proceedings, relevant here only because there seemed to be financial issues and possibly attempts to hide money, consistent with NSF findings: '…for purposes that may have included concealing outside compensation from his University, or concealing income from a state court,21 or both. (fn21) [Redacted]. See [redacted]. The court reviewed Subject's income for 1999-2002. Charges accrued by Company 2 for Subject's efforts in 2001 and 2002 were not billed to Company I until 2003.' That case was: 10/06/05 Colorado Court of Appeals, Shoshana (Eva) A. Salby vs Murry L. Salby. 'Temporary orders were entered in November 2001 under which the parties’child was to reside primarily with mother, and father was ordered to pay family supportof $2000 per month. …In August 2002, the court entered permanent orders regarding parenting time and the allocation of parental responsibility. It designated mother as the primary residential parent, awarded father parenting time, and directed that the parties share decision-making responsibility. The marriage was dissolved in November 2002. In January 2003, mother moved for the forthwith entry of an order continuing family support, alleging that father had stopped paying support after the decree of dissolution entered. The trial court ordered that the temporary orders be continued until entry of written permanent orders and denied father’s later motion for reconsideration. In April 2003, the court entered permanent orders on the division of marital property and all other remaining issues. Father appeals the temporary and permanent orders entered by the court. … The court found that there had not been full disclosure by either party, and that based on the totality of the evidence regarding the value of the property, enforcement of the agreement would result in mother receiving assets valued at $123,000, while father retained over $1 million in total property, including $700,000 in marital property. The court refused to enforce the agreement, finding that father’s actions were inconsistent with his obligation to deal fairly with mother, and that enforcement of the agreement would not result in a fair, just, or reasonable division of property between the parties.' (much detaill, but later rulings (as on financial settlments) are not public) Salby apparently rejected this result, as he later sued the state of Colorado: Federal Lawsuit, 1:07-cv-00225-LTB-MJW Salby v. State of Colorado 01/03/07 Cover sheet, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments, Denial of Plaintiff's Consitutional Rights, $275K damages sought 01/03/07 Complaint, by Murry Salby, 10698 Hobbit Lane,Westminster, CO, 11 pages. Salby made many statements and complaints about the Mother, expressed concerns for the child. 05/01/07 Judge recommends dismissal, 5 pages, mostly comments like: 'Nevertheless, the plaintiff failed to appear, did not move for a continuanceof the conference, and did not even telephone the court at the time set for the conference.' 05/29/07 Case dismissed, some administrivia continued through 01/22/08. 01/10/11 Federal Lawsuit, 1:11-cv-00068 Alon Salby v. State of Colorado Conclusion According to Salby, Colorado, CU, NSF, MU and various other individuals have treated him unfairly and illegaly, were wrong to do so, so he sued often, but lost. People might compare the NSF OIG report on Salby to other OIG examples and decide whether or not he got off lightly, compared to USA residents. Galileo: NO. Salby is not Galileo. Bozo: NO. Salby is a climate scientist, has written a textbook thought reasonable. P.T.Barnum: YES. Salby has a well-documented history of financial chicanery, deception and unwillingness to listen to warnings. If he was increasingly unable to produce much good science, perhaps he moved to anti-science to retain attention, get (paid?) speaking engagements at thinktanks, as per FIN3, PSY3 in reasons. Bozo: YES, many. Some people apparently accept anything that agrees with their views, without ever bothering to do even minimal credibilty checks. * H/T to Graham Readfearn for finding the NSF Final Report, which must have been FOIAed sometime before, as such are not otherwise made public. See also Graham's story. H/T to Paul W for fetching the 195-pager from Denver. ** Fraudulent is not a word used lightly. People can be required to restore money, with penalties, or go to jail. Of course, Salby was in Australia, and did not seem to return to the USA even to appear in court cases. https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum
Yeah, so anyhow, the above are the "highly qualified experts" that piehole hangs his putrid hat on. Clearly he is not interested in the truth or intellectual integrity. As we would expect a think tank whore to operate.