Salinger firing upheld
The Herald reports:
A Crown research institute was justified in firing top climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger, the Employment Relations Authority has found. …
However, in his determination, authority member Leon Robinson said the dismissal was warranted because Dr Salinger had been given clear instructions at numerous meetings that others were to be used as spokespeople and he was to step back from that role.
At the end of the day,employees have to follow the legal instructions of their employers. Salinger refused to do so, and suffered the consequences.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: employment law, Jim Salinger
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
I reckon NIWA should fire all of their climate astrologers like Dr Salinger and replace them with real scientists.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
More should be fired there, (NIWA) at the very least for their irresponsible promotion of the rising sea levels myth. Charlatans desperate for continued funding by the taxpayer, and scare mongering as a means to maintain that funding.
No more government funding of NIWA.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 am
I hope in the light of climategate that our Govt is looking at NIWA closely and insiting on the “data” being available for scrutiny.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
“No more government funding of NIWA.”
That would be a great idea. Because then, instead of real weather forecasts, we could just ask a few local farmers to predict whether there’s going to be a storm this weekend or not.
Or maybe we should ask plumbers instead? What do you reckon?
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
NIWA is a company.
It can provide weather reports if there is a market. No need for government funding.
Keep taxpayer’s money away from this shonky outfit.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
RRM weather forecasts come from the New Zealand Meteorological service not NIWA
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
RRM
At least the farmers/plumbers would not be bullshitting
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
This seems to be an example of what Cactus referred to as a circle jerk.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Andrei – you are correct (oops!)
About that “gummint funding” though:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/our-partners-and-funders
In 2007–08, NIWA’s total revenue, including interest income, was $120.7 million.
Our main revenue sources were:
* Contestable public good research funding from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology: 38% ($45.5 million)
* Contestable fisheries research contracts from the Ministry of Fisheries: 13% ($15.1 million)
* Commercial consultancy work: 41% ($50 million)
* Capability funding from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, paid direct to Crown Research Institutes to maintain core science capability: 8% ($10 million)
So Govt funding appears to be about 51% of their revenue, all of which is workthey have to tender for.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
NIWA in my experience were brilliant to work with & had some exceptionally smart people there & I believe it’s important given NZ’s climate to have a research facility like this.
The disfunctional relationship between NIWA & MetService is a whole other issue & whether we are receiving the forecasts that we deserve given the skills of the researchers & the money put into that research is also a completely different story.
Personally I’d spin MetService as a private company with competitively provided funding for it’s public service components, then keep NIWA for it’s research & analysis skill, but the split of who deals with what areas really needs reexamination.
Unfortunately the Salinger saga has impacted on both NIWA & Salinger’s reputations, tricky situation.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
” So Govt funding appears to be about 51% of their revenue,”
So what is your point you uninformed blabber mouth? As usual, you shot your mouth off without having a damn clue. Commies never really know what the score is. Their world view is built on delusion, misinformation and ignorance, and this is so often reflected in their writings here. RRM’s latest bullshit being a good example.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 am
When you say “no more govt funding of NIWA” you are saying “reduce the pool of competent organisations allowed to apply for the funding to do the work, based on airy-fairy political prejudices about that organization, before you’ve even considered their proposals”.
Not very smart if you are the Government and you are interested in making sure you get maximum value from your research spending??? Surely fewer applicants/tenderers = less competition?
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
And don’t talk to me about Misinformation. You trawl a finite list of hard-right websites looking for talking points, and then you regurgitate them here, to the general acclaim of lesser zealots who get off on that sort of stuff but can’t be bothered looking it up themselves. All you add is bluster and a few swear words. Pretty economical form of attention-whoring really.
You’ve never put up an original thought here. I doubt you’ve had one. All you are is a plagiarist of the likes of Wishart and the crusader rabbits – and probably an embarrassment to them at the same time.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
RRM, please save your opinions on Redbaiter for a more appropriate thread. I don’t think anyone is interested, and I know damn well I am not. And your arguments for the continued government funding of NIWA are so logically flawed they’re laughable. Go away you sad desperate floundering buffoon.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
So Salinger wanted 50 grand for humiliation
Funny that he didn’t mind making a right dick of himself fronting as an activist for a Greenpeace stunt
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Andrei said…
I reckon NIWA should fire all of their climate astrologers like Dr Salinger and replace them with real scientists.
I could apply to work for NIWA, since I know Physics (been trained as one) and also a specialist in scientific computing, where writing numerical codes and modeling of complex differential calculus equations are my cup of tea. Perhaps, I can write better and correct models. I am sure that NIWA is using the open-source LAPACK (linear algebra package) or some of its variants (high performance version/s), written in Fortran to run simulations in their recently purchased new super-computer. I use the Java version of this library , ie, JLAPACK, which is quite fast (popular in numeric intensive applications – engineering/scientific). Modelers at CERN use JLAPACK to run their intensive particle physics experiments.
Nah, I wouldn’t want to work at NIWA full-time. Perhaps on a per project contract only, but definitely not a full time role, since I will get bored in working on the same model everyday, which you will eventually get sick of. I like what I am currently doing now, since I get to be all round (ie, implementing many types of models in a varieties of domains).
If NIWA does fire most of its top warmist scientists, then I suggest that their recruiters should make contact with Prof. John Butcher’s (scientific computing) group at University of Auckland, because the individuals that involve in this group are top notch in their own fields (well cited publications – internationally). Most have gone overseas to do post-doc and also to take up teaching positions over there.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
NIWA should reap what they sow… a threatened drought of govt funding might force them to fix their temperature data. They should set an example to the world of climate science by publishing raw data and adjusted data for all stations across all time, with written justification of each “adjustment”.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Does anyone know what Salingers’ PhD was on? I read somewhere “global warming” but that could be anything. Googled w/o any results. I see he was a “lead author” on IPCC panels so he was a big gun……(that got fired) sorry hadn’t planned that.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Salinger, the perennial falsifier of data, can always find a job with the Luddite Green Party, Greenpeace, or Oxfam.
Good riddance, I’d say.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Is this really more to do with NIWA finding out earlier than generally accepted that Salinger has been the principal “scientist” responsible for falsifying New Zealand’s climate figures given to the corrupt UN Climate “experts”
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Good question, Paulus, and I wish it were so. Sadly, NIWA still seem to be singing the same IPCC tune. So I suspect not.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Pehaps CRU will take Salinger back. He’s been ‘trained in the way of the farce‘, and they may have a vacancy shortly
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 am
@redbaiter
What if NIWA accepted funding from The Digital Strategy’s Community Partnership Fund? Would that be alright?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Yeah, let the fishing companies survey the fisheries and set the quotas. That’ll work fine.
Most of the armchair generals on here wouldn’t have a blue clue about science or indeed what NIWA do. Go and have a look at the fishery surveys they do with their in-house acoustics systems. It’s world-class. All the papers are online. That equipment and expertise goes all over the world to do surveys for countries which lack this ability.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
to defund them would be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
We own it don’t we?
To sound like a cracked record, I think all the data should be avail online or by request.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Obtaining Climate Data from NIWA
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Yeah it’s basically a state-owned enterprise. The vast majority of funding comes from contestable public and private consultancy work. They have a very good website and they publish loads of information, papers etc on the work they do.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Wee bit disingenuous there pete. CRU published their data too (well some of it). That WIWA publish data doesn’t mean it’s complete or accurate. If anything, recent events suggest otherwise.
But in their defence, the majority contact I’ve had with NIWA has been very positive. A good friend of mine was a marine biologist there for quite a few years. Their research was, and I’m guessing remains world class.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Who is? Are you trying to say the research of your good friend was world class but the work of some of his colleagues is suspect?
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Pete – MikeNZ asked for all their data to be published. Do you support that suggestion? FWIW I do. Publishing some of their data just raises questions.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
No Pete
He was saying that Based on the evidence so far with some of the climate people – Not all of the data may have been put up for perusal!
That’s what happens when you lose trust by your emails being leaked, no matter how world class you may be.
It takes a life to build trust and a reputation and a moment to lose it. (as different Universities will find from Climategate I hope)
That’s why character counts!
Rightly or wrongly, that’s also why people now suspect all climate people of being in on the loop to fudge both info/data and reports on that info/data.
That it involves 5-6 or 50-60 doesn’t matter everyone gets looked at awry like.