True there may be more to the issue than has been revealed by the media. Nevertheless, this bungle by management has fortuitously exposed the significance of free speech by informed people. Crown Research Institute scientists are not allowed to talk in the public square without approval. It is in the interests of a civil open and free society that scientists are encouraged to speak out and argue the toss in public. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Jim Salinger’s comments about the climate is essentially irrelevant. We need our politicians to remove the restrictions on scientists speaking in public. The removal of current restrictions can improve the quality and breadth of public discourse on a myriad of issues that affect us all.

If Jim Salinger feels his dismissal was unfair, he has every right to take his grievance through the courts. He has been a good spokesman whether official or unofficial for many years and deserves better from the organisation he has worked for for many years.

Sounds to me like a lot of bureaucratic bungling on the part of NIWA to me.

When you are self employed you can act and speak as you please. But Salinger was just an employee and should have been complying with the instructions of his employer. I find it absolutely reprehensible that he is now trying to sue what is effectively the tax payer purse.