Talk:Murry Salby

Exclusion to Prevent Correction
Wikipedia’s development of this article is deliberately warped - through omission and misrepresentation. It is perhaps for this reason that the article has previously been nominated for deletion. Details that are now available correct the distorted narrative and bring it up to date with recent treatment of other academics in Australia. Those details were added (20:07 7 March 2018), sourced from news media and government publications - just like the slanted narrative which omits those matters. The corrective detail was promptly removed. WHY??????

The purported explanation for the exclusion was that the additional detail was “unhelpful”. One can only wonder to whom? Legitimate material that informs yet does not support the misleading slant of the current narrative was excluded to protect a predetermined agenda: the party line on climate change. The conduct violates Wikipedia’s own policy, which provides for open contributions, certainly of material that is established in news and government publications. The mischievous conduct by Wikipedia’s volunteer editors is not a unique occurrence:

http://anonhq.com/beware-wikipedia-never-trust/

The excuse given by ‘Everymorning’ for removing the additional detail (20:10 7 March 2018) is rubbish, contradicted by the very narrative to which Everymorning has discriminated the narrative: The added material is sourced almost exclusively from news articles and government publications. Notice: The existing article, which has been discriminated to achieve a predetermined agenda, relies on citation to internet blogs (Crikey, mq.edu) – the very excuse Everymorning provided to justify the exclusion of corrective detail.

Discrimination of material to the existing agenda makes the above article deliberately misleading and defamatory. It reduces Wikipedia to a tabloid, a smear medium rife with fallacy and falsehood. The revision of 20:07 7 March 2018 should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.22.214 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

University of Colorado and National Science Foundation controversy
There are no references in this secion. It should be deleted.Sandvol (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't you look? It was referenced to "Closeout Memorandum" (PDF). Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation. 20 February 2009. A very reputable source. Since the previous link was superseded, I've updated it to . Always glad to assist, . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

These men like Salby who are intellectual giants are often very poor at the mundane things like what the NSF might require in record keeping, etc. If Salby towed the party line with respect to AGW I'm almost certain nothing ever would have been said or done. When I was in graduate school there were several instances of Professors who were targeted for their "record keeping" because they didn't tow the line. I think just about any of these academic types can be attacked because of this. None of this weakens or refutes his work or academic contributions or views. The truth is the truth. Sandvol (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should he tow a line? Sounds like trying to move the goalposts. However, this section is about a controversy investigated by the National Science Foundation. Which investigates any scientist accused of financial wrongdoing – or failing to toe the line of legal requirements. It doesn't affect his commitment to truthiness. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict with Macquarie University
Should Salby`s point of view be included? See: https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f Logies (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I have included the following into the article: "Salby published a counterstatement", plus above reference. Salby himself hinted to this website in the following video (1:16:34): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohF6K2avtY&feature=emb_logo Logies (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)