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.Raising the issue of why the NSF report on the matter was posted on a web site, and indeed Murry Salby himself had raised the issue parenthetically in his recent self justification about the results of the NSF report
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 except through FOI. Desmog vaguely suggest there “must have been an FOI”, but there are no links to support that. 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.
It’s noteworthy that the NSF report, which was stamped “Confidential”, was developed as an internal document for distribution only to the two parties: Me and CU. Unfit for public release,its disclosure other than by NSF was prohibited (pg6)Eli, innocent bunny that he is, was moved to write to the NSF OIG Office on the matter
Dear Sir,and today received this reply from the NSF OIG FOIA Attorney
I write to you about OIG Case Number, I06090025 Case Closeout, specifically as to why this report is available on the Internet at http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,790.
As you may (or may not) be aware, this Closeout Report has become an issue of some contention following the firing of the subject of the report, Prof. Murry Salby, from Macquarrie University in Australia, under circumstances in which his behavior mirrors parts of what occurred at the University of Colorado and were the subject of the NSF Report.
Prof. Salby has claimed that
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/salby-murry/re_nsf_r.pdf bottom of page 6
It’s noteworthy that the NSF report, which was stamped “Confidential”, was developed as an internal document for distribution only to the two parties: Me and CU. Unfit for public release, its disclosure other than by NSF was prohibited."
Clearly NSF OIG has disclosed this document. I would appreciate hearing from you as to why (for example, is this the normal procedure at the end of an investigation or what).
Thank you for your inquiry.The legend that appears on the cover page of the Report of Investigation is applied when the Report is drafted and initially submitted to the Foundation for its review and action. The intent is to warn those personnel of the Foundation who will have access to the Report during their evaluation that there are limitations on disclosure while the matter remains active.When we close an investigation after NSF takes action, we conduct a FOIA review of certain case documents for public release on our website (www.nsf.gov/oig/closeouts.jsp). Reports of investigation are typically included. In the past we have not redacted the confidentiality warnings, or attempted to annotate them with a “cleared for public release” message, relying instead on the inference that if they are accessible on a public website, the disclosure must have been intentional and authorized by competent authority.In cases where the subject’s identity is not disclosed, the continued presence of the confidentiality warning is generally not noteworthy or ambiguous. In cases where the subject or subjects are identified, there is some potential for confusion.This Report of Investigation was subject to multiple FOIA requests. The subject’s name was disclosed because his debarment was listed on the Excluded Parties List System, and remains so in the Inactive collection of the System for Award Management (www.sam.gov), the system that replaced EPLS. We determined that the subject’s privacy interests were lessened by the EPLS/SAM disclosure, and that FOIA required release of the information.You may interpret the presence of the document on a public NSF OIG website as confirmation that public release in this form has been approved and is consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. This disclosure by OIG is in accordance with those statutes.
Eli hopes this has been of service to Willard Tony, Jo, and Dr. Salby. Readers may now resume normal breathing. John Mashey will be by soon with further details. If Salby were not such a user the bunnies might shed a tear for him.