Murry Salby

Murry Lewis Salby
Alma mater	Georgia Institute of Technology
Known for	Atmospheric research
Scientific career
Fields	Atmospheric science
Institutions	University of Colorado Boulder Macquarie University
Thesis	Planetary waves in the upper atmosphere (1978)

Murry Lewis Salby is an atmospheric physicist whose research focused on a range of topics, including planetary waves, tropical circulations, cloud systems, ozone, and, most recently, carbon dioxide and alleged evidence of climate change. After appointments at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Princeton University, Salby joined the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he was a professor during three decades. There, he formed and served as Director of the Center for Atmospheric Theory and Analysis (CATA), a research collaboration with scientists at NCAR and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Salby authored over a hundred scientific articles and book chapters, presented dozens of invited papers in scientific journals and conferences, and lectured at scientific workshops for NASA and other government agencies. He produced two graduate texts, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (vol 61, International Geophysics Series, Academic Press) and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge University Press). Relied upon as research monographs, those books are highly regarded in the fields of atmospheric physics and climate: "The first edition is a classic."

Education and career

Salby received a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering, with highest honor, from Georgia Tech in 1973, followed there by a PhD in environmental dynamics in 1978, with the Sigma Xi doctoral research award. After appointments at NCAR and Princeton, Salby joined the University of Colorado in 1984 as an Assistant Professor. He was promoted to Associate Professor a year later, awarded tenure in 1987, and was promoted to Professor in 1991. After retiring from the University of Colorado, Salby accepted the chair of climate at Macquarie university in Sydney Australia. Salby held visiting professorships at the University of Stockholm, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of Paris/CNRS, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, and the Center for Ocean Land and Atmosphere in Washington.

Research

Salby's early research focused on planetary normal modes in the atmosphere, global-scale waves that are excited by transience in the lower atmosphere. Among them are the 5-day wave and the 16-day wave, planetary-scale disturbances which repeatedly modulate the circulation in the stratosphere and troposphere, and the 2-day wave, a prevalent feature of the middle and upper atmosphere that amplifies through instability.

In later research, Salby determined the space and time sampling limitations of asynoptic satellite measurements. His analysis revealed a means of transforming asynoptic measurements (different sites observed at different times) into synoptic maps (all sites represented simultaneously). Fast Fourier Synoptic Mapping (referred to as the "Salby Method") is used to map asynoptic measurements of dynamical and chemical structure in the middle and upper atmosphere. The space-time sampling limitations of asynoptic measurements also revealed which features of climate are not resolved by an individual satellite and how unresolved scales alias space and time scales which would otherwise be correctly represented in those data.

Along with co-workers at CATA, Salby produced the first fully-resolved space time imagery of the global cloud field, a continuous stream of global imagery that was synthesized from half a dozen satellites simultaneously orbiting the earth. Similar research with co-worker Harry Hendon documented interactions between the circulation, thermodynamic structure, and cloud systems in the Madden-Julian Oscillation, a planetary-scale disturbance that is prevalent in the tropical troposphere. Its amplification was shown to depend upon the phase difference between oscillations of temperature and convection, the latter in turn being organized by frictional convergence at the earth’s surface.

Salby also studied changes of ozone. He was the first to document the influence of meteorological variability on long-term stratospheric ozone changes. This role of natural variability on stratospheric ozone depletion has inspired related studies and large research projects and has been recognised in several WMO Ozone Depletion Assessments. Salby and a co-worker at NCAR showed that large swings in total ozone are introduced by dynamical mechanisms. Interannual changes of ozone are dominated by random variations from one year to the next. Along with his student Andrew Fusco, Salby showed that such changes are determined almost entirely by interannual changes of momentum that is transmitted upward to the stratosphere by planetary waves. The same analysis revealed that the decadal reduction of ozone over the Northern Hemisphere, which had been speculated to result from chemical depletion by chlorofluorocarbons, was actually accounted for by the same dynamical mechanism.

Changes of planetary wave activity were also shown by Salby and co-workers to account for interannual changes of the ozone hole, which dominate ozone changes over Antarctica. Accurate identification of those changes with changes of dynamical forcing enabled large interannual changes of Antarctic ozone to be removed. Unmasked were systematic changes of Antarctic ozone, which otherwise would not become statistically significant for decades. In the available record, those systematic changes were shown to track the decline of stratospheric chlorine following implementation of the Montreal Protocol.

These observed features were reproduced in a 3D numerical model of the stratospheric circulation, one developed by Salby and co-workers. This 3D model was distinguished by being fully spectral, the only such operating formulation. In addition to reproducing observed changes of ozone, those simulations revealed interactions between the Brewer-Dobson circulation of the stratosphere and the Hadley circulation of the troposphere.

Salby’s research on greenhouse gases and their relationship to changes of global temperature focused on the physical underpinnings of climate change advocacy. The results invalidated key assumptions of the climate change movement, an enterprise legitimized by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Along with his student, Salby showed that opposite changes of carbon 13 and carbon 12, which the IPCC presumed were a unique signature of human emission, were not. Such changes were shown to also be a feature of natural emission of CO₂, a contribution to net emission that vastly overshadows human emission of CO₂.  Salby and his student showed further that observed changes of net emission (natural plus human) are controlled by changes of global temperature – a property of natural emission, but not of human emission. The same dependence was shown to operate for net emission of methane, which likewise tracks changes of temperature.

Salby showed further that proxy data of atmospheric CO₂ inferred from ice cores was unreliable. Dissipative processes, notably associated with the formation of CO₂ clathrate and ensuing losses during the extraction of ice, make ancient CO₂ inferred from ice of limited quantitative value. In light of those limitations, current atmospheric CO₂ is (contrary to environmentalist doctrine) not unprecedented. Moreover, Salby showed that observed changes of CO₂ and temperature are inconsistent with their representation in climate models, yet consistent with the observed dependence on temperature of natural CO₂ emission. This finding was later reproduced by a Swedish scientist.

The demonstrated discrepancy between observed behavior and climate models is pivotal. If climate models cannot predict future CO₂, which they presume is controlled by human emission of CO₂, they can hardly predict changes of global temperature, which they presume is controlled by CO₂. The latter prediction, in turn, is the premise for regulating human emission of CO₂ to control global temperature.

Later, Salby was able to show that fossil fuel emission could account for no more than 30% of the observed increase of CO₂. Eliminating fossil fuel emission would therefore merely slow the eventual increase of CO₂, which would eventually reach the same concentrations as it would in the presence of fossil fuel emission. Salby’s finding was reproduced by Professor Hermann Harde in Hamburg, who showed that fossil fuel emission could, in fact, account for no more than 15% of the observed increase of atmospheric CO₂. Harde showed further that temperature dependence of natural emission could account, not only for the modern increase of CO₂ during the 20^th century, but also for its apparent increase over prehistoric values. Salby later showed that the contribution to increased CO₂ from fossil fuel emission was even smaller. It could account for no more than a couple of percent of the observed increase.

Attack by Environmental Activists

Salby’s research on greenhouse gases and on alleged evidence of climate change undermined the foundation of the climate change movement, an enterprise that thrived on public funds. Salby’s research led to political strife, especially at his Australian university. A concentration of environmental activism, Macquarie university was a vocal advocate of public policy to address climate change. Following an invited presentation of his research at the Sydney Institute, Salby was prohibited from teaching climate by Macquarie, where he was the supposed chair of climate. Eventually, Macquarie confiscated Salby’s research, accused him of misconduct, and terminated his appointment. Macquarie claimed that it terminated Salby because he refused to teach. As developed below, the certified court record shows otherwise. Similar treatment has been experienced by other Australian academics who diverged from the environmentalist party line.

Salby’s findings, which were confirmed by other scientists, invalidated the foundation of the climate change movement. To discredit the research, environmental activists seized on two unrelated matters which, true to tradition, they misrepresented.

   NSF Investigation

Salby retired from the University of Colorado in 2008, after 24 years of service. His departure was an outgrowth of a political struggle with another academic, a decade-long dispute that involved the disappearance of $100,000 of Salby’s research funds. Their disappearance disrupted work of Salby’s research group. It was compounded by chronic neglect of that irregularity by university administration. After years and repeated complaints being ignored, Salby noted the disappearance of research funds in a final report to the funding agency. The National Science Foundation (NSF) promptly opened a criminal investigation of the University of Colorado. Within weeks, the missing research funds were returned to Salby’s group. Their return, however, was attended by a threat of retaliation.

Shortly thereafter, a proposal which Salby had submitted to NSF with colleagues at an applications firm was reviewed. Of 4 reviews, it received the following ratings: 1 Very Good and 3 Excellent. In comments of the reviewers: “Among the top 10% best proposals I have reviewed.” The proposal was not funded – because of a clerical detail. The proposal was amended and resubmitted. To avoid a redundant waste of the scientific community’s time, Salby included the ratings and remarks from the preceding reviews. Instead of funding the proposal on the existing merits, NSF bureaucrats sent the proposal out for another round of reviews. Reviewers, who then had the benefit of the previous reviews, were critical of NSF bureaucrats. They notified NSF bureaucrats that they should not have wasted the scientific community’s time with a redundant review but, instead, should have followed the community’s original recommendation – to fund the proposal. Their criticism was an embarrassment to NSF bureaucrats, who depend upon the cooperation and approval of the scientific community.

Just weeks later, Salby was notified that NSF was opening an “investigation”. The purported excuse for the investigation (a scientific one, unlike the criminal investigation of the University of Colorado) was a complaint from an anonymous academic, one who alleged that Salby’s proposal overlapped with another which had been submitted to a different agency. However, the tenuous nature of the claim, which was never established, suggested that NSF bureaucrats were conducting a fishing expedition. After years of random and unrelated directions, the investigation produced nothing of substance. It became dormant.

Owing to political strife within the University of Colorado, administrative abuse which disrupted research, Salby’s research assistant of two decades resigned. Salby then considered employment elsewhere, offers of which he had previously declined. Salby was offered and accepted the chair of climate at Macquarie university in 2008. Salby’s research files, however, remained on computers at the University of Colorado. Requests for their release met the same fate as Salby’s earlier requests for the return of $100,000 of his research funds. They were ignored. Eventually Salby filed suit to recover his research files. At that time, the NSF investigation had been dormant for nearly 2 years.

Within weeks of Salby’s suit being filed, NSF produced a report which it delivered to Salby. The untimely report was a thinly-veiled disruption of Salby’s legal action to recover his research from the University of Colorado. It made sweeping claims, which were largely speculative and unsupported. The report’s tenuous findings rendered it unfit for public release – It was stamped “Confidential”. Of the numerous claims made by the report, all but one were rejected by the acting NSF administrator, who found the claims to be unsubstantiated:

              “after a careful review of the record, we agreed”.

The one claim which was not rejected was semantic, tantamount to a change of title, which had allegedly not been reported to NSF. The report used that semantic matter to allege that Salby had overcharged grants.  In fact, there had been no change in cost, no change in the work performed, no change in personnel, and no change in facilities.The only addition was a fee of $37.50/month for monthly invoicing - for additional administrative work that had been requested.

It is noteworthy that the funding which Salby received then was not in addition to his university salary, but in replacement of it. Salby was on leave from the university – to complete research which had been promised. Also noteworthy is funding that Salby received from NASA, which operated under identical circumstances as NSF. NASA could not even understand the issue. Because it involved no change in work, cost, personnel, or facilities, NASA regarded the semantic change as inconsequential - a non issue. Even this claim of the NSF report was later shown to be untruthful. The semantic change had, in fact, been reported to NSF quarterly,in budget reports – which NSF had approved. Those circumstances should have been recognized in the NSF report. They were not.

On the grounds of that spurious claim, NSF bureaucrats alleged to bar Salby from receiving its grants for 3 years. The allegation was, like the untimely report: a bureaucratic ruse.  One cannot be barred from grants to which one is ineligible. As a foreign resident on foreign salary, Salby was not eligible for NSF grants. Had he filed a legal action against those responsible for the NSF report, it would have been promptly dismissed – because there was no damage to correct. To the NSF bureaucrats who issued their untimely report, those circumstances would have been obvious

The NSF investigation, which followed criticisms of NSF bureaucrats, had only one substantive consequence. The University of Colorado found it necessary to modify its policies, procedures with which Salby had been compliant. The University of Colorado eventually released Salby’s research files. Salby’s suit was then settled. The University paid legal costs.

   Macquarie university

In 2008, Salby was being considered for several positions. One was offered by Macquarie university in Australia, where Salby held permanent residency. Macquarie was not a highly regarded university, in the bottom 30% of 400 universities considered in the Times Ranking of World Universities. However, Macquarie had proclaimed a new direction: to depart from its historical role and become internationally recognized in research. To achieve this goal, Macquarie offered senior appointments that were to focus on research and research teaching, appointments in its so-called Concentrations of Research Excellence (CORE). The chair of climate which Macquarie offered Salby was a CORE appointment.

Macquarie advised Salby that this appointment would be tenured and would be protected by regulatory oversight of an independent government body. Macquarie advised Salby further that the appointment would not be governed by the collective contract of the teachers’ union (a so-called “Enterprise Agreement”),which excluded him:

“You are not covered by the Enterprise Agreement. The Agreement has an exemption... which obviously includes you.”

Instead, the employment contract Macquarie offered consisted of an individual agreement (a so-called “Australian Workplace Agreement”), one which was tailored to Salby’s appointment and which expressly excluded Enterprise Agreements.

Macquarie offered Salby appointment at the highest academic level, plus 25% salary loading. The latter was to be evaluated according to “agreed performance criteria” through an annual Performance and Development Review (PDR). In addition, Macquarie offered Salby startup resources of $300,000 that Macquarie pledged to provide, to enable Salby to rebuild his research program in Australia. Among the startup resources which Macquarie pledged were two research assistants,to convert Salby’s computer models to operate in Australia, and foreign travel for collaboration and scientific conferences. Salby’s contract also specified that his duties, which were to focus on research and research teaching, were to be “as agreed with your manager”. To achieve Macquarie’s new mission, Salby was, during his recruitment, also offered to develop new graduate coursework that would prepare students for research.

Upon arrival in Australia, Salby sought to acquire the research assistants, technical support which represented most of the startup resources that Macquarie had pledged to provide. It was then disclosed that those resources could not be acquired - because of a hiring freeze that was in place. The untimely disclosure came just two months after Macquarie offered those startup resources to recruit Salby from the US. After five years and dozens of attempts to acquire the pledged resources, the hiring freeze was still in place. Startup resources which Macquarie had pledged were never provided.

Salby found Macquarie’s existing program in climate to be qualitative, devoid of rigor and quantitative skill that underpin modern research. Raising the standard was opposed by Macquarie’s legacy academics, who protected the status quo: educational tourism. To achieve Macquarie’s new mission, Salby organized a national climate research and training program, one supported by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The national program was to utilize new graduate coursework that Salby had been authorized to develop under his CORE appointment.

Macquarie’s legacy academics then notified Salby that such activities would not be recognized as part of his duties. Along with graduate teaching, those activities would have to be performed on Salby’s personal time – even the coursework which, during his recruitment from the US, Salby was offered to develop.

Recruitment material for the national program in climate research and training was developed for distribution nationally. It was destroyed by Macquarie’s legacy academics. Continued obstruction by Macquarie academics forced the national program to eventually be cancelled.

After years, the pledged startup resources required to rebuild Salby’s research program still had not been released. In the annual PDR review, Salby complained over the contractual default, as well as obstructions to his duties. The PDR was required contractually to address such failures. It was never conducted. Instead, Salby’s salary was summarily reduced by 25%, in disregard of the “agreed performance criteria” which were likewise a contractual requirement.

Salby filed a written complaint, pursuant to protections in his employment contract. Salby’s contract required a response within 5 days. A response was not even issued. Salby then filed a complaint with the Fair Work Commission, the regulatory body who Macquarie had advised would oversee Salby’s appointment. The Fair Work Commission subsequently notified Salby that Macquarie had not registered his Australian Workplace Agreement, the foundation of Salby’s employment contract that contained nearly all of its employment protections. Macquarie’s failure to register Salby’s contract circumvented regulatory oversight – a key benefit which, during Salby’s recruitment, Macquarie had advised would protect his employment.

Macquarie later notified Salby that it was not even operating his appointment according to the Australian Workplace Agreement that constituted his contract. Instead, Macquarie was operating his appointment by the Enterprise Agreement – the union contract which Salby’s employment contract excluded. It was the same contract which, during Salby’s recruitment from the US, Macquarie advised would not govern Salby’s appointment. Macquarie demanded further that Salby conform to the Enterprise Agreement, tantamount to rejection of his employment contract.

With his startup resources withheld, Salby undertook the production of a new book – all that was possible under the circumstances. Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate was accepted and published by Cambridge University Press. Its production required a deeper understanding of recent increases of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane. The ensuing analysis revealed that ascribing those increases to human emission was unjustified. Under rigorous scrutiny, the association collapsed.

Tangentially, Salby also debunked incendiary claims of the Australian Climate Commission. The Climate Commission was a body of environmental activism. It was formed by a Labor government to promote an Australian Carbon Tax, a lucrative source of revenue for federal bureaucracy. The Climate Commission was composed of and headed by Macquarie staff, academics who advocated an Australian Carbon Tax. It issued a report which, by misinterpreting local temperature measurements, promoted public hysteria that sustained the climate change movement. Salby’s analysis, published in The Australian newspaper, debunked those claims. A newly-elected government that replaced the Labor government eventually dissolved the Climate Commission, along with the Carbon Tax it promoted.

Salby’s research on greenhouse gases was conducted with his student, who, to join Salby at Macquarie, was required to sacrifice her PhD candidacy at a well-regarded university in Europe. The research was presented at a scientific conference and then at an invited lecture at the Sydney Institute. Both presentations attracted widespread attention, nationally and internationally. As a result, they also attracted the ire of environmental activists. Among them were legacy staff at Macquarie, Australian academics who relied upon political influence for funding. Macquarie was a vocal advocate of public policy to address human-induced climate change:

“The adverse impacts of this changing climate are clear and undeniable.The Australian government’s action on climate change through its carbon tax is to be applauded.” P Beggs

Following the release of Salby’s research, Macquarie academics publically attacked Salby, notably, under the auspices of the climate CORE – the division of which Salby was chair. They then undermined his appointment. Just weeks after his presentation at the Sydney Institute, Salby, who was Macquarie’s supposed chair of climate, was prohibited from teaching climate. Further, his role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant:

“You will be assigned to teaching/tutoring/marking.. in non-climate units.. We will be moving you to a situation where your teaching will be to help others (i.e., general support)” and this will be “your new teaching role”.

Salby notified Macquarie where it could position his new teaching role. With his duties obstructed, his salary and role reduced, and complaints ignored, Salby engaged legal support - to salvage the appointment which Macquarie had offered and which Salby had agreed to assume. Salby’s solicitor made half a dozen attempts to meet with Macquarie management - to resolve the contractual discrepancies, to release the startup resources that Macquarie had pledged to provide, and to establish Salby’s teaching duties pursuant to his employment contract. In light of Salby’s expressed concerns, such discussion was required by law. Every attempt to discuss the issues was rejected, as summarized by Solicitor:

“MQ’s handling of this matter is astounding. I had incorrectly thought that MQ would be willing to work with Professor Salby to resolve his employment concerns.. as the law requires.”

Salby demanded that his teaching duties be arranged pursuant to his contract,which required them to be “as agreed with your manager”. Such discussion was refused.  Instead, the legacy academic manager (P Beggs) ordered Salby to perform hundreds of hours of marking student papers for junior academics (staff who just happened to tow the environmentalist party line). Salby objected, demanding the contractually-required discussion that had been refused. His contract required Macquarie to then undertake discussion. The required discussion continued to be refused. Instead, Salby was accused of misconduct, suspended, and his research, records, and facilities were confiscated. Solicitor summarized the events:

“MQ’s refusal to engage in dialogue has resulted in my client being placed on leave without pay for refusing to perform duties which are contrary to his employment contract and his role of Professor and being investigated for gross misconduct under an enterprise agreement which does not even apply to him.”

The allegation of misconduct – because Salby objected to breach of his contract and reduction of role – was brought by Paul Beggs, a legacy Macquarie academic who was serving as Salby’s manager. Like other legacy academics, Beggs, who was trained in biology, was a party to climate change activism. Macquarie staff deliberately misinformed executive management that Salby had refused to teach. The court record shows that Salby had offered to teach any of half a dozen classes in his subject area, the same classes taught by his peers.

In 2012, Salby had arranged to present new research on climate at a scientific conference and major research centers in Europe. Arranged under the startup resources which Macquarie had pledged and authorized, that travel was scheduled in 2013 during term break. The research travel, which was a principal duty of Salby’s CORE appointment, was obstructed by Beggs. Beggs prohibited Salby from conducting research travel – even when classes are not held. Beggs’ demand subverted Salby’s startup agreement,in which Macquarie had approved such travel. It also violated Macquarie’s own travel policy, which released academics from campus attendance outside of their class commitments.

Beggs’ treatment of Salby’s research travel would have prevented Salby from ever acquiring the startup resources which Macquarie had pledged to provide. When Salby objected and conducted the research travel, to fulfill professional obligations and principal duties of his CORE appointment, Beggs again accused Salby of misconduct: of misusing university resources – the travel funds which Macquarie had pledged to provide and had approved.

Macquarie held its misconduct proceedings against Salby when it knew that Salby would be overseas, to fulfill duties of his appointment by presenting research. Salby’s return to Australia would have caught the tail end of those proceedings.However, when Salby arrived at Paris airport, he was notified that his return ticket had been cancelled. The action stranded Salby in Europe, without arrangements for accomodation or return travel. Undertaken just before Salby’s scheduled return, instructions for cancellation of Salby's ticket were issued by Macquarie - in desperation:                               

“URGENT!!!!!”

The air ticket was non-refundable.

Through such conduct, Macquarie prevented Salby from being heard on the allegations it brought against him. The conduct violated fundamental protections in Salby’s employment contract. With those protections ignored, Salby then sought assistance of the Fair Work Commission, under protections of the national employment system,which had likewise been violated. Macquarie preempted those proceedings as well – by prematurely terminating Salby’s appointment.

In the face of Beggs’ allegations, Salby’s employment contract required that Salby

“be given an opportunity to respond and seek assistance”.

Instead, Macquarie (1) blocked access to Salby’s records, which were required to defend against Beggs' allegations, (2) held its misconduct proceedings when it knew Salby would be overseas, (3) cancelled Salby’s return to Australia, ensuring that he would not be heard, (4) after being notified that, despite Macquarie’s obstruction, Salby had returned to Australia and intended to assemble a detailed response to Beggs' allegations, Macquarie promptly concluded its misconduct proceedings - preempting input from Salby, and (5) when he then sought assistance from the Fair Work Commission, Macquarie preempted those proceedings as well by terminating his appointment.

Salby’s PhD student, who had sacrificed her degree in Europe to work with Salby at Macquarie, was likewise damaged. Macquarie prohibited her from interacting with Salby to publish their research on climate. Her degree was then held hostage – not released for years,until just before legal proceedings. She eventually left science altogether.

Irregularities in Macquarie’s conduct of its affairs, notably, improper discharge of inconvenient staff, have previously come under scrutiny:

“An investigation by the New South Wales Information Commissioner into Macquarie university reveals some extraordinary aspects of its administration…The Commissioner stopped short of finding that employment had been terminated for this reason - probably a criminal offense”.

When Macquarie terminated Salby’s appointment, after years of obstruction by legacy academics, its international stature remained much the same as when Salby joined Macquarie: in the bottom third of 400 universities considered in the Times Ranking of World Universities.

Macquarie’s operation of Salby’s appointment was reviewed by Australian Federal and Circuit Courts. During the proceedings Macquarie repeatedly blocked access to his records, which falsified Macquarie’s representations, records which Macquarie had confiscated. Among the falsifications was Macquarie’s claim that Salby had refused to teach, a claim of which Macquarie staff had deliberately misinformed executive management. The court record shows just the reverse. Further, Salby and Solicitor had repeatedly sought discussion to establish Salby’s teaching duties, discussion which was required by Salby’s employment contract but which was repeatedly refused. Testimony revealed that executive management had been deliberately kept in the dark – oblivious to those efforts.

When the court eventually ordered access to Salby’s records, Macquarie sought and obtained an order for Salby to be granted access on one day – a day when Macquarie knew that Salby would be overseas.

The Australian Circuit Court rubber stamped Macquarie’s representations, in disregard of the record which falsified them. It ruled that Salby had failed to establish any of the elements of his case, dismissing the matter. In addressing the submissions, the court did not even bother to verify that a statute which Macquarie claimed had not become law had, in fact, been enacted by Parliament (also documented in the record). Among the court’s errors, one was conspicuous.The court found that Salby’s appointment was governed by the Enterprise Agreement. The finding was not only incorrect; it was impossible. As Solicitor notified Macquarie:“The MQ Enterprise Agreement does not govern my client’s employment...The fact that the AWA was not registered is irrelevant to the extent that its terms still form part of my client’s employment contract.”

Salby’s employment contract expressly excluded Enterprise Agreements. Moreover, the Enterprise Agreement itself excluded Salby. In fact, Macquarie’s advice during Salby’s recruitment made it clear that even Macquarie understood this:

“You are not covered by the Enterprise Agreement.”

This judicial error, which incorrectly determined Salby’s employment contract, was pivotal. The fundamental error invalidated other findings and the circuit court’s decision at large.

The record contradictions left little latitude for Australian Federal Court, who was then required to review the decision.To protect Macquarie, that court found it necessary to rewrite the court record. It invented new language which removed Salby’s exemption by the Enterprise Agreement. The Australian Federal Court disregarded what was actually written. Instead, it found what “most probably” was intended to be written. Disregarded as well was Macquarie’s own admission that Salby’s appointment was not governed by the Enterprise Agreement.

The court’s treatment violated a basic precept of contract law. Contra Proferentem requires ambiguity in a contract to be remedied in favor of the party who did not introduce the ambiguity. The court’s treatment applied just the reverse: If ambiguity was present in an Australian employment contract, it was remedied in favor of the Australian employer, who introduced the ambiguity. As the court incorrectly determined Salby’s employment contract, this error was likewise pivotal. It too invalidated other findings and the decision at large.

The misrepresentation of these unrelated matters was designed to divert attention from Salby’s research, which invalidated key tenets of the climate change movement. Resorted to by environmental activists, those punitive measures were not unique to Salby – especially in Australia, where academics who diverged from the environmentalist party line have been attacked, smeared, and marginalized.

Bibliography

• Stratospheric Constituent Response to Vertically Propagating Equatorial Waves, Defense Technical Information Center, 1988.
• Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press, 23 May 1996.
• Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, Cambridge University Press, 16 January 2012.