This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function.
Salby’s statement is here – Anthony
10 July 2013
Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.
The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.
Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.
The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.
The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.
Media Contact:
p: (02) 9850 1039 e: Joanna.wheatley@mq.edu.au
A copy of this release is available online at www.mq.edu.au/newsroom
===========================================================
The PDF I received from MS Wheatley is here: SalbyStatement_July2013
According to the PDF document properties, the statement appears to be authored by Golda Mitchell who can be seen here: http://marketing.mq.edu.au/media_and_communications/contact_the_media_and_communications_team/
Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony
I’m sure we’ll be hearing more from Prof Salby soon, but I could imagine it’d be difficult to arrive at a class if your ticket home had been cancelled by the university.
He did not teach, because that was not his original contract, and the part about travel and university resources is the part where the university failed to fulfill their own contractual obligations to provide resources for several years and where travel was agreed and then the University changed it’s mind. The university also cancelled a flight back from Europe so that Professor Salby could not return to be part of those two investigations, which tried him in abstensia and refused to grant him right of reply or appeal.
The University stands in breach of contract and in dealing with Professor Salby in a most distasteful, and possibly, unlawful manner.
I would expect that the University should expect to be defending itself from legal proceedings covering several on-going breaches in the law.
It does seem strange that a disciplinary hearing would be held without all parties at the table, especially if one of the parties took steps to make sure the other would not be present.
The university cancelled a non-refundable ticket.
That is pure pettiness. There was nothing for the university to gain, but the punishment of Salby.
I would expect better from grade school children.
I suppose it’s refreshing to see there’s a University that doesn’t embrace the “Publish or perish” doctrine. It seems to me they could have refused international travel to force him to stay near the classroom or hold conference travel as a reward for good behavior.
It seems like a pretty thin case for dismissal at all let alone in such a harsh fashion. Normally there would be a paper trail of warnings and hearings leading to final dismissal and Prof. Salby has made no mention of this. Also natural justice would demand that he be allowed to be present with representation when the disciplinary committee met and he was not there.
For the university to say that it had nothing to do with his “heresy’ , well they would say that wouldn’t they?
I hope Prof. Salby has access to some good money because they have lots of it and when it comes to fighting the establishment it is always a good thing to remember they are spending other peoples money and so feel no pain whatsoever. Their egos are what matters and everything else is secondary.
I’m sure once the university conducts it’s own internal investigation, it will acquit itself of all charges and consider the matter closed!
It’s how they play the game!
This is Australia. Kindergarten, 3 year old tanties! Rudd is famous for these!
The have unleashed the full power of their Kangaroo Court system on him. There’s a simple reason why every thing they say about this sounds ugly. Because it *is* ugly.
Salby said they had reduced his role to that of “grading assistant,” a role usually played by younger graduate students. I wonder if that is the “teaching” that he failed to do. If so then there is no basis for criticizing Salby.
Typical Salem witch hunt, the lack of due process and the BS of failing to allow Dr. Salby to be present at his termination hearing is of course [snip] tactics. Our freedoms continue to be eroded by the Liberal elite intelligensia, in the name of the new One World.
Apparently Lord Monckton has spoken to Salby. Expect things to get more interesting in the next couple of days….
Basically, the university has acted in bad faith from the start. Maybe it’s purpose in offering Salby his position was to thwart his research and make sure his findings were delayed, suppressed and blocked from publication for as long as possible.
That’s all they have – he failed to show up for a class?
If the original contract agreed to had never been registered by the univerisity, and then modefied by Macquarie to reassign his duties to teaching, how is that valid? Salby obviously never agreed to such lowly assignments.
I’m sending a donation for Salby’s law suit agianst the university. Where do I send the money?
Sounds to me like there was a contract clause that required he does some teaching but it was only recently invoked; probably the sort of thing that most teachers would recognise, that there is a clause that they may be required to stand in for others as needed, but it could be used to “punish” someone by forcing them to do this to the detriment of there proper work.
But if there isn’t a contract in place anyway, as previously claimed by the university (via Murry) then it’s all a bit moot anyway.
A disciplinary hearing without the disciplinee surely is illegal – even under Canadian law?
Michael Palmer, if not showing up for class was a justification for termination, I know several tenured faculty at my graduate institution who’d have gotten the sack years, if not decades, ago.
OK, that’s a little bit more information, but still not enough for a solid judgement of who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s still “he said, they said.” Let’s see the contract and documentation of teaching assignments as well as evidence of failure to fulfill obligations on both sides of the argument. Skeptics require evidence, don’t they?
“However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.”
Macquarie University conducted disciplinary hearings in Dr. Salby’s absence and cancelled airline tickets without informing him. Does Macquarie University dispute this? No. They say he was in breach of his employment contract. Do they produce such a document? No.
It appears some of the fellow travellers in the AGW hoax are incapable of working out what losing an information war in the age of the Internet means. This is not like anything that has gone before. Their actions are now a matter of permanent record. Spin will not work in the long term. A few hundred thousand sceptics is not the issue. As the hoax inevitably collapses, billions of individuals with Internet access will be searching for the names of the guilty. Macquarie University have just written themselves into history. On the wrong side.
Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
if they could cancel the ticket it means they paid for it. what could’ve happened between them buying the ticket and cancelling it? that’s what I’d ask a tribunal to explain. otherwise leaving staff abroad after authorizing travel is akin to kidnapping them and should be a criminal matter.
We may be jumping too quickly.
The strangest part is that Dr Salby allowed this to go on for five years. He has a contract and that is basically of the end of the story. One wonders why he has not commented on this and any legal advice sought.
His contract does not need to be registered anywhere. The Courts will invariably give the benefit of the doubt to employees so why the reticence in commenting.
It would be interesting to see the actual contract Prof. Salby signed. Does it specifically state that he isrequired to teach classes? If not then the University is being disingenuous at best or lying outright at worst. I think there are grounds for Breach of Contract proceedings against the University.
This is good for Salby. Macquarie University’s transparent excuse is a now matter of public record and they’re stuck with it. It should be a simple matter of comparing the terms of Salby’s contract to their ‘Statement of Termination’ and award damages accordingly.
I hope Salby’s graduate student sues as well.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:22 am
Salby said they had reduced his role to that of “grading assistant,” a role usually played by younger graduate students. I wonder if that is the “teaching” that he failed to do. If so then there is no basis for criticizing Salby.
Something like that was what it sounded like to me. It would amount to a form of constructive dismissal.
I am most curious to see how other faculty react, as this will set the precedent for how such issues will be handled in the future.
Link to Statement regarding the termination of Professor Murry Salby
Macquarie deleted Murry Salby’s home page. (Normally professors pages are retained with the designation “Emeritus”) Salby’s Macquarie research is still online for now. Wayback captured Salby’s research interests at Macquarie but not his home page.
@ tonyM re “He has a contract”
Should have. Salby detailed:
He did not teach, because that was not his original contract, and the part about travel and university resources is the part where the university failed to fulfill their own contractual obligations…
Ken Hall – is this something you know, or conjecture? It seems plausible, but it would require either another source of information, or further information from Murry Salby
Wow Marxist sure think they know how to spin, butt in this case they are not spinning fast enough to compensate for having dropped a fan, and now we can see things they are trying to keep hidden. They are totally incompetent in all matters including implementing CYA procedures.
Macquarie University’s “response” to the Salby affair brought two thoughts to mind. First, the University took the admittedly unusual step of responding at all because the University felt “…it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.” Nowhere in its response do I see any “corrections to misinformation.” I see additional information and a possible alternate explanation for the University’s actions, but I see no “corrections to misinformation.” Second, I believe the University’s stated reason for responding is phony. If “correcting misinformation ” were the true reason for the response, the response would not be unusual. Surely there exist thousands of examples of “misinformation” to which the University simply remained silent. I believe the reason the University responded is because (a) it felt the pressure of the internet’s response to the affair, and (b) it may already have heard from some of the “powerful backers” alluded to in Lord Monckton’s statement: “This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.” All-in-all, I’m neither impressed by the University’s response nor convinced I was exposed to “misinformation.”
President Obama, ‘If I had a son he’d look just like Macquarie’.
My humble recommendation to Dr. Salby… put the evidence online. All of it. Every bit of documentation that exists between you and the university.
“let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
We need to see the contract. At this point everything else will be he said / she said.
Is anyone aware of any legal impediments to either party releasing the original contract?
I got to admit, this could be the trial of the century for a CAGW run university. Too bad in Galileo’s time he did not have the internet and powerful backers to mount a proper challenge:
“This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.”
Reed Coray says:
“…the University took the admittedly unusual step of responding at all…”
I was thinking that, too. I don’t know about Australia, but in the USA the only thing in any kind of employment dispute response is usually a generic statement that the university is precluded by privacy regulations to responding to the allegations. In this case they make actual contentions. Curiouser and curiouser.
tonyM says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
“The strangest part is that Dr Salby allowed this to go on for five years. He has a contract and that is basically of the end of the story. One wonders why he has not commented on this and any legal advice sought.”
In academic departments, especially graduate departments, there are usually one or more wars among various factions. Salby arrived under the protection of a faction and that faction was overpowered. That is par for the course in academia. Think of the rivers of anger in “Ghostbusters 2.”
Higher administration became involved. The decisions were made there and the responsibility rests there. Ordinary faculty are never trusted by higher administration.
Russ R. says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:33 am
“My humble recommendation to Dr. Salby… put the evidence online. All of it. Every bit of documentation that exists between you and the university.”
That move is for the lawyers not for Salby.
The Macquarie travel policy is here.
I wonder what terms were violated.
One recalls how long it took for the University of Colorado to dismiss Ward Churchill. Churchill had committed “serious research misconduct,” including falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. Yet, that dismissal process dragged on for years.
Failure to meet classes is one of the few things you can lose tenure and be fired for in a university, let alone for a contract employee. The other thing is that the committee included a union representative, and they are not exactly famed for not sticking to the letter of contracts.
Let the dust settle
tallbloke, du you have any indication that Salby was involved in any controversial research in 2008? His publications in 2011/12 seems to be rather uncontroversial stuff about the ozone layer, and he himself stated in his letter that it was lack of resources for other research that made him start his controversial study of the carbon cycle.
Any theory that the university acted in bad faith from the start because of some controversial ideas Salby held has to start by showing that Salby indeed held any such controversial views at the time. In addition, the reasonably response from a university would be to simply not hire someone they didn’t have faith in, not hire him just out of spite. That is far too conspiratorial for my taste.
Macquarie has quite specific formal procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance: see
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/416_unsatisfactory_performance/
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/417_misconduct_and_serious_misconduct/
There are multiple stages leading up to a termination on the grounds cited by the university. If these stages have been complied with, then there will be a substantial file that none of us have seen.
Anthony,
Be fair. The university has laid out credible reasons for the termination. It’s not enough to say it seems “weak” to you. On what basis? You have no idea of the what went on with the graduate student, so not fair to bring her in. Let’s at least wait to hear from the Professor.
We need to be better than the other side. We need to be fair minded and judicious. We have the science and data increasingly on our side. You’re only undermining your own credibility.
REPLY: I’m entitled to state my opinion, and my opinion at this point is that it seems weak. What remains to be seen is if the university constructed the situation by cancelling travel documents while Salby was away from the university. Dr. Salby in his original statement is the one who brought int he mention of the grad student, not I. had he not, there would be no reason to mention her. Note, I have not mentioned her name, only her existence and the fact that her email address at Macquarie seems to have been rescinded. – Anthony
“The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.”
How is it actually pursued if the contracted research resources stay withheld/unavailable for years?
I see huge differences between the Macquarie’s and professor Salby’s versions.
Especially:
“Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
versus:
“Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.”
“In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US. My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation,
research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.”
How this agrees with supporting “academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests”?
Frankly, with my experiences with the university establishment shenanigans the professor Salby version looks to me more plausible and given the content of his presentation lectures and the sweeping nature of his climate modelling critique then especially the part “The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases.“ looks to me as plausible motive for all that.
What the warmistas have at stake are literally billions of dollars (flowing under condition they’re able to keep their “consensus science” up and the critiques out). That are amounts of money many usually don’t hesitate to kill for.
The nature of the academic career and reputation gives prof. Salby not much other choice than sue the Macquarie and I would think the skeptical community should put together lawyers funding if needed and in any case keep up the publicity about the developments.
Lots of interesting questions. I wonder if they followed their own procedures in conducting the misconduct hearing. I read here (http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/417_misconduct_and_serious_misconduct/)
the following:
(emphasis added)
I wonder, did any of this happen?
Monckton’s suggestion that the University has committed “multiple criminal offenses” is absurd and very unhelpful to Salby. The University might well have violated terms of the staff employment agreement or Salby’s contract, but that’s entirely different.
At U.S. public universities, one must be convicted of mass murder or rape to be terminated. Everything else results in paid leave and therapy spanning years of evaluation and hearings. See Ward Churchill if there are any questions.
dirty lying verminous mendacious hypocrites, no surprise with CRL (criminal reactionary left) types
From my understanding of Australian labor laws, your visa needs to match your contract. If his visa did not include teaching, his teaching a course would have been against the law.
The bunny says:
“Failure to meet classes is one of the few things you can lose tenure and be fired for in a university…”
Fine. So long as that Policy is enforced across the board and applies to everyone, no problem.
But based on everything I’ve seen, I would suspect that this is a fabricated excuse to cover their butts. Plenty of staff miss classes on occasion — in every university. Further, at least in the U.S., just cause discipline requires an ascending series of warnings prior to termination.
Also, “.edu” unions in the U.S. are notoriously co-opted by school administrations. It is probably the same in Australia. What union worth it’s dues would cooperate in a disciplinary hearing where the subject was denied attendance by the actions of the school administration?
Well, it’s not like Dr. Salby has done anything like this before, now is it?
Oh wait, my bad;
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2008cv02517/110347/
https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?110347
https://www.cocourts.com/cocourts/secure/Login.xhtml
In my opnion, Salby’s first recourse should be to file a grievance against his termination under macquarie procedures
http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/professional_staff_agreement/4_working_at_macquarie_university/415_grievance_procedures/.
He should do so without much delay as such appeals need to be filed within 3 months of the event (which took place in May.)
He’s much better advised to exhaust the university system before contemplating litigation. His best outcome is to get his job back. That’s far more valuable than any damages that he might obtain. Commenters who are inexperienced with litigation are far too quick to urge it on others.
Mark Bofill,
I agree with your take on the policy as requiring multiple steps. If the University neglected these duties and obligations, it would much improve Salby’s chances in a grievance. He should be parsing these procedures and getting an employment lawyer to help him in the grievance. His efforts to refer these matters to a national tribunal prior to exhausting university procedures seems very misguided to me.
Seems to me like ‘Constructive dismissal’ – which we have in UK, but may not exist in academia.
Eli Rabbit
Let the dust settle
That’s just what Macquarie would be hoping for.
Theo Goodwin says:
> In academic departments, especially graduate departments, there are usually one or more wars among various factions.
I’ve seen that. When I was a 3rd-year grad student, I was suddenly banned from taking finals finals, then expelled. Two weeks later, I was reinstated on the orders of an unknown benefactor “from high above”. In the meantime, I saw the faculty split into two factions openly fighting over my expulsion. Maybe they had been split already over something else, but I could not tell. I never found out what it was about.
what remains unexplained is who would authorize foreign travel and expenses of a person whose contract was in the process of being potentially terminated at extremely short notice
this story makes no sense
Steve McIntyre says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:40 am
——-
I know nothing about the workings of academia, but I’d certainly agree that following the grievance procedure would seem to be the logical place to start.
ICU,
You posted the same thing here. Also, two of your 3 links are worthless without passwords. What are the passwords? Or are you just trying to impress folks with multiple but worthless links?
And is your position that selected citizens should be denied the right to redress of grievances? If so, please explain your reasoning here. Michael Mann has sued Dr Ball [whatever happened to that suit, anyway?]. Is it your position that Mann is entitled, but Salby is not? Please explain.
“Constructive Dismissal”
Constructive dismissal is a situation where an employee is either forced or feels pressure to quit their job due to unjust treatment from their employer. When someone decides to leave their job due to their employer’s behaviour then the situation may qualify as constructive dismissal. If you feel this may pertain to your situation, you will need to prove how your employer behaved inappropriately. For example, if your employer committed a breach of contract that lead to your resignation, assuming you did not accept any part of their behaviour, then you may qualify for constructive dismissal.
http://www.constructivedismissal.org.uk/
Here’s a very dissimilar but related story — Stephen Crothers’ account of his expulsion from UNSW:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
Well, one thing that would be illegal, at least here in the states, is to release information regarding personnel disciplinary issues, such as these.
They better have really solid documentation, or they’ve just engaged in libel.
That they had held disciplinary hearings in his absence after allegedly canceling the plane tickets that would have 1) allowed him to attend the hearing, and 2) allowed him to teach the class he ‘skipped’ would be an absolute exercise of bad faith.
Having said that, it is increasingly difficult to get a court to allow you to successfully sue an academic institution. You may get your day in court, but they won’t consider the evidence or even allow you to mention that there is evidence.
Backstory: Prof Colin Prentice head of the Biosphere and Climate Dynamics Group posted an explicit rebuttal of Salby’s CO2 theory: How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic Macquarie University 15 August 2011
Steve McIntyre [July 10, 2013 at 10:36 am] is exactly right. Prof Salby must file a grievance, pronto. The clock is ticking.
Courts love to dismiss cases. Their workload is already heavy. Ignoring the grievance procedure gives a ready-made excuse for a court to throw out a case based on the facts. One always has the right to dispute the outcome of a grievance [and in fact, I would expect an adverse outcome in this setting. But this is only the first — necessary — step]. If the grievance procedure is bypassed, courts are notorious for dismissing related cases.
Filing a grievance is good advice for Dr. Salby. He can always involve an attorney in the grievance procedure if he wishes. But do not bypass the grievance requirement!
[I know a little bit about grievance procedures, having been involved in hundreds of them as the elected President of my union Local for 4 terms. Actually, I can see a number of grievances that can be filed over the university’s actions. Arbitrators in the U.S. follow this template in disciplinary grievances:
1. NOTICE: Did the Employer give to the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable consequences of the employee’s disciplinary conduct?
2. REASONABLE RULE OR ORDER: Was the Employer’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the Employer’s business, and (b) the performance that the Employer might properly expect of the employee?
3. INVESTIGATION: Did the Employer, before administering the discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order of management?
4. FAIR INVESTIGATION: Was the Employer’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively? The person doing the investigation can not be the person issuing discipline.
5. PROOF: At the investigation, did the “judge” obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged?
6. EQUAL TREATMENT: Has the Employer applied its rules, orders and penalties even-handedly and without discrimination to all employees?
7. PENALTY: Was the degree of discipline administered by the Employer in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense, and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the Employer? ]
A “No” response to any of the above will usually overturn the discipline.
(much more detail here)
Steve McI, good advice, but be aware, reinstatement may result in perpetual isolation given few responsibilities and no opportunities until it becomes unbearable. Given there is no single precipitating event for redress, the reinstated voluntarily relocates. Meanwhile valuable time is lost and emotional damage is permanent. Macquarie is poison. Move on if you can. Best wishes.
Dear Ms. Wheatley:
Is the Australian use of English that divergent from the USA usage, or is this just “poor writing”?
“Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
Do you mean he was scheduled to GIVE the class??? “Take over the teaching of” the class? The matter is not clear at all from the way this is written.
Also, the use of “firstly” is very poor English usage. It should be simply FIRST…please check the standard English usage guides.
I’m sure, seeing as you pride yourself in being an “institution of higher learning” that you would wish to attend to these English usage matters and issue a corrected statement.
Yours,
Max Hugoson, Minneapolis, MN
Eli Rabett says:
“The other thing is that the committee included a union representative…”
Are you certain that a “union nominee” is the same as a union representative?
Perhaps Salby would be justified in treating the demotion (if that’s what it was) as “constructive dismissal”. But he’s been actually dismissed as well, so it’s moot.
He might be better off eating his pride and sucking it up. If Salby had another offer in hand, then sure, he should take it. But it may not be all that easy for him to find another job, let alone another job right away. People need to be realistic. He’s not young anymore.
Steve McIntyre says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:30 am
Perhaps Salby would be justified in treating the demotion (if that’s what it was) as “constructive dismissal”. But he’s been actually dismissed as well, so it’s moot.
He might be better off eating his pride and sucking it up. If Salby had another offer in hand, then sure, he should take it. But it may not be all that easy for him to find another job, let alone another job right away. People need to be realistic. He’s not young anymore.
——————–
Absolutely. I’d pursue this, shooting for reinstatement and I’d redouble my efforts to find another position regardless of what the outcome might be, but all things being equal it’s better to be working than not while looking for another opportunity.
This is a strange situation – and there’s a name for it (age-related amnesia prevents recall) – but I find that if (say) John Cook had been dismissed under similar, dodgy circumstances, I would be as enraged about it as I am with the Salby case. But I fear that the likes of Cook would not share that ideal…
“Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony”
Bureaucracies often delegate to lower to avoid blame and/or create plausible deniabilty. Once everyone has passed the buck the suckee is someone who can’t.
Just had the incompetent Saanich government do that, but the flunkie botched the job (lowest rank may not have the skills to do the job correctly.
The goal was simply to introduce a red herring into the debate. When someone references Salby’s work to refute the claim that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, the response can now be “oh, that guy who got fired from his university position?”
It does not matter what happens from this point going forward. That herring is now part of the arsenal of distraction. Mission accomplished.
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
And, that judgment was for dismissal without regard to merit, based on “sovereign immunity.” Basically, an assertion of droit du seigneur. What does that tell us?
Bart says: July 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm
‘And, that judgment was for dismissal without regard to merit, based on “sovereign immunity.” Basically, an assertion of droit du seigneur. What does that tell us?’
Droit du seigneur? I think it tells us that it’s better to only do it once.
But the judgment makes reference to a state case as well.
” I’m entitled to state my opinion, and my opinion at this point is that it seems weak. What remains to be seen is if the university constructed the situation by cancelling travel documents while Salby was away from the university. Dr. Salby in his original statement is the one who brought int he mention of the grad student, not I. had he not, there would be no reason to mention her. Note, I have not mentioned her name, only her existence and the fact that her email address at Macquarie seems to have been rescinded. – Anthony”
Pretty low bar, Anthony, that you’re entitled to state your opinion, Who indicated otherwise? What separates the wheat from the chaff is how well those opinions are defended. Bah, you know that. And you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me. You brought in the graduate student to buttress you assertion that it “seemed weak,” despite having no important facts at all concerning her situation. I suppose it’s my fault. Sometimes I expect too much from my own side.
REPLY:It does seem weak, why punish the grad student too? We disagree then Al. – Anthony
Keep in mind that laws differ between countries, even between sub-divisions (e.g. Louisiana and Quebec have remnants of French laws/system due to their history as French colonies rather than British as most of Canada and US were).
Nick & dbstealey,
PACER (the 2nd link) has all the documentation (online) in the federal civil suit that Dr. Salby filed against UC Boulder at .$0.10/page (but no charge if you stay below the quarterly page limit). I’ve already downloaded those particular case documents. Bottom line? Dr. Salby dropped the suit in order to refile a civil suit (IMHO, but NAL, Dr. Salby would have lost the federal case) in the state of Colorado district court system (Denver) and I’m in the process of getting a copy of those documents also (hardcopy only as I see no online versions available).
The federal court case is a rather interesting read though, not a mirror image of the current affair by any means, but there are several similarities IMHO, and on the state of Colorado court side, there might be a few other interesting cases of Dr. Salby’s (the last link charges $2.00/name search, I think there were 8-10 cases with names similar to Murry Salby, with a definite hit on the state court case that Dr. Salby filed).
Deja vu? You decide.
” …two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee … ”
But not apparently including the person whose conduct was under investigation? That is a blatant breach of industrial relations law, as well as principles of natural justice.
Did the “committee” comprise people who were parties to the dispute? Eg judge and jury in their own cause? Were audio recordings made of the proceedings?
“Union nominee” in this context means nominated by the person under investigation. Not quite the same as “union representative” which means “accredited” by the union, eg having a role protected under industrial relations legislation.
Well, you really need to see the contract to make a decision. If, as is common in Australian universities, there was provision for a “duty statement” as well as the contract, and if the contract had vague provisions such as, “duties may be varied according to the requirements of the department” or words to that effect, then he could have been asked to teach. Note that the university states that he was given “repeated directions” so it is not just a matter of failing to take a class once. Reading between the lines it sound to me as if a sufficiently bad atmosphere had developed, probably due to conflicts over resources, that when told that that he was scheduled to take classes, he refused. This is speculation on my part – you really need to see the contract, and the duty statement, and the record of alterations, if any, to the duty statement.
As for breaches of travel policies, the most likely is if they decided he was mixing private with official travel i.e getting the university to pay for travel which had not been agreed to be an official trip. However, again that is speculation and you would need to see the official records, which is unlikely short of FOIA requests.
I wonder if oral representations were made to Salby that there’d be no teaching load–but the written contract didn’t say that. Or if there are two ways of reading the written contract.
Steve McIntyre, “He might be better off eating his pride and sucking it up. If Salby had another offer in hand, then sure, he should take it. ”
Salby’s letter won’t make it any easier to find a new job. Troublemakers who go public with long lists of complaints are not what employers look for. At least he has to be quick providing evidence, showing that his complaints are justified and not just a grudge for losing his job. On the other hand, he has been around for a long time so he should have friends at different universities who might vouch for him. For a young scientist a letter like that would be professional suicide.
I do not know what the visa and work-permit position is currently in Australia. But I would think that not having a ‘registered’ contract for an employee and telling the government that you had, or varying that contract to a level that the government would not have supported a work-permit, may well reach the level of criminality. This could apply to both the professor and his PhD student.
“Well, I posted the actual judgment in his Federal case against the University of Colorado. That was apparently a Civil Rights claim – there is reference to a suit under state law.
It does underline Steve McIntyre’s point about avoiding litigation. But the university grievance option would be complicated by his absence from the misconduct hearing.”
“Sovereign immunity” claimed in the judgment is one of the worst dodges governments use – that if a person were to win damages against a state it would come out of the pockets of the taxpayers and that governments only exist for the good of their citizens. As if a lawsuit against a corporation doesn’t come out of the pockets of its innocent customers or possibly result in the firing of innocent employees. When governments are finally made vulnerable to suits, then we’ll know just how crooked they’ve been all these years, including public university faculty.
“Ian W says:
July 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm”
If either party had no “visa” to work, then working would, strictly speaking, be illegal and could result in deportation. They would have needed, at the very least, a 457 visa, or some other visa for academia institutions “allowing” them to work/study. However, depends how big your stick is. Universities, I would imagine have “some influence” over immigration. I know I was working in Australia in 1998 without a work visa, for about 3 months, until the visa was granted. Nudge nudge wink wink kind of thing!
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“Droit du seigneur?”
Yes, basically “we can (redacted) you however we please.”
“Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony”
Sounds to me like they realize the cat is out of the bag and anyone there with any clout is keeping as far from this as they possibly can. No one wants to take responsibility. Has the press got hold of this? This could turn out to be a very important case with regard to CAGW=shenanigans exposure.
The moral is anyone in her/his right mind should stay away from Australia. That’s obviously not an option for Australians though. Their duty at this point is to fight, tooth & nail, for their own freedom. There is no one else in the entire world who’d do that favor to them.
Max Hugoson says:
July 10, 2013 at 11:18 am
Dear Ms. Wheatley:
Is the Australian use of English that divergent from the USA usage, or is this just “poor writing”?
“Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.”
Do you mean he was scheduled to GIVE the class??? “Take over the teaching of” the class? The matter is not clear at all from the way this is written.
Also, the use of “firstly” is very poor English usage. It should be simply FIRST…please check the standard English usage guides.
Not according to Fowler’s Modern English Usage.
dbstealey says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:35 am
It is long established in academia that missing classes is not a firing offense. It might occasionally turn up as a firing excuse.
ICU says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:36 am
Looks like an interesting case dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction without regard to substance. Do you know the complaint details, or you just found the case in the database, deadlinking it to us who don’t have any access to it to find out what was it really all about, maybe just to evoke impression prof. Salby unsucessfully sued University of Colorado staff in civil rights suit and that he is a sort of complainer?
If it is so, I don’t buy this. Bright courageous minds ( I’ve seen the prof. Salby presentations and I seriously think he has it exceptionaly comprehensibly right when it comes to facts and their interpretation) often are oppressed by the herd of ignorance status-quo addicted inepts manipulated by those who profit from this dope dealing – especially in the academic establishments this looks being almost a precept.
I don’t know how many viable ideas were destroyed by this groupthink phenomena in the past just because the incurable mutualised stupidity wasn’t able to grasp on them, but when it comes to the people criticising the CAGW trendy hype (so barely scientifically substantiated that it must circumvent the scientific method using the “scientific consensus” demagoguery which intimately reminds a totalitarianism or religion) there already certainly emerges a pattern when it comes to their academic elimination.
Anyway it very much looks this petty world of the anti-CO2 church of solar powerstations subsidies lovers was now intervened over by their worshiped sun, although perhaps not at all as they would like it to, and I imagine how could the ones – who really know what chiefly drives the surface temperatures and why, just because they’re able to – laugh when they realize what happens next decade and how funny this all yet could be..
Gene Selkov says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:51 am
It seems that you had at least one supporter with serious clout. The facts of your case might have had nothing to do with the fight.
Theo Goodwin says: July 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm
“It is long established in academia that missing classes is not a firing offense.”
But “refusal to undertake his teaching duties” “fter repeated directions to teach” would be a firing offense in any context.
Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony
It is their way of saying “No Comment” to further questions.
Gene Selkov says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:51 am
Just to add a little humor to a grim conversation, I knew a graduate student whose career was terminated in his fourth year. He sued. After reading the complaint, the university counsel told the graduate department that they would reinstate the student and apologize. After all of this was settled, one of the professors who had vigorously pursued the termination remarked that the student had much more substance than they had known.
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm
As noted above, if he had been reduced to a grading assistant, as he says, then the assignment is altogether illegitimate for a professor. Teaching assignments have to reflect ordinary practice in the department.
According to Salby’s account, when trying to enforce his entitlement to resources, etc he discovered that his contract had never been formally registered and was therefore not enforceable.
That cuts both ways.
Surely, if the contract was never established, Macquarie cannot invoke its terms as the basis for expelling him?
Theo Goodwin says: July 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“As noted above, if he had been reduced to a grading assistant, as he says, then the assignment is altogether illegitimate for a professor.”
There may be some exaggeration there. But from Macquarie’s viewpoint, what was the professor doing? He published two papers in five years. He updated his textbook. He took on one PhD student. And he refuses teaching. Can this go on forever?
Funny how things work in academia…
The LSE doesn’t want to withdraw Saif Gaddafi’s PhD thesis – despite the fact that it was a plagiarized hack, which must have been known to the supervisors involved, written on the dictator’s son’s behalf…meanwhile of all the academics at Macquarie, who gets the sack? (Answer: the one who isn’t toeing the party line).
Background on Gaddafi:
http://russian-front.com/2011/02/27/saif-gaddady-ph-d-and-the-london-school-of-economics/
…and Dr. Gaddafi’s professors and examiners were well aware of their protege’s talents: “Mr Christensen recalls: “Saif was not, how to say this politely, the brightest of students. Not only was he totally uninterested in economics, he lacked the intellectual depth to study at that level, and showed no willingness to read let alone do course work.” (see http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/5880/5880).
This is what goes on at the LSE and Macquarie, imagine the situation at the University of East Anglia…
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Theo Goodwin says: July 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“As noted above, if he had been reduced to a grading assistant, as he says, then the assignment is altogether illegitimate for a professor.”
“There may be some exaggeration there. But from Macquarie’s viewpoint, what was the professor doing? He published two papers in five years. He updated his textbook. He took on one PhD student. And he refuses teaching. Can this go on forever?”
Your views on academia are naive. The only carrots-sticks for tenured professors are salary, promotion, and release time. Academia has many tenured professors who have never received promotion or release time and have received only small pay increments. I am acquainted with one who retired as a tenured assistant professor.
Two papers and a book update do not constitute impressive output but neither do they constitute the output of a slug.
If you are thinking of defending Macquarie then be cautious. If any one of Salby’s allegations proves to be true, especially that he was given the assignment of grading, then among academics Macquarie’s stock goes into the mud. In practical terms, that would mean that someone would take a job there only if he had no hope of a job elsewhere.
By the way, your “response” to me isn’t a response because you did not address my claim about teaching. Serving as a grader is not a teaching job for a professor.
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm
…
There may be some exaggeration there. But from Macquarie’s viewpoint, what was the professor doing? He published two papers in five years. He updated his textbook. He took on one PhD student. And he refuses teaching. Can this go on forever?
——————–
Nick,
Can you propose any credible scenario under this interpretation to explain the cancellation of the non-refundable ticket, under the assumption that what Prof. Salby says with respect to this cancellation is so? I’m at a loss to think of one, but possibly I lack the imagination and conviction regarding the University’s propriety that you may have.
Thanks,
Max Hugoson – English English and Australian English are indeed different to US English, and even this sentence would have been different in US English. I would say that both “take” and “firstly” are acceptable as used.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/take_3 (as in : the professor takes (accepts) a class offered by the university).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/firstly?q=firstly
Bear in mind also that English is developed by the uneducated masses (including Americans, FBOW), not by the intelligentsia.
Somebunny at George Mason tells Eli that you don’t want to go too far with the plagiarized thesis line.
From Salby’s book website at Cambridge University Press:
“The first edition is a classic. As a textbook it is unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity. It is the single volume that I recommend to every one of my students in atmospheric science. The new edition improves over the previous edition, if that is possible at all, in three aspects: beautiful illustrations of global processes … from newly available satellite data, new topics of current interest … and a new chapter on the influence of the ocean on the atmosphere. These changes make the book more useful as a starting point for studying climate change.” – Professor Yuk Yung, California Institute of Technology
Folks, give your head a shake. Obviously, Salby focuses on quality, not quantity of printed paper. Old-fashioned concept, I know.
Mark Bofill says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:53 am
Steve McIntyre says:
July 10, 2013 at 10:40 am
——-
I know nothing about the workings of academia, but I’d certainly agree that following the grievance procedure would seem to be the logical place to start.
**************************************************************************************************
In Australia you never ever follow the grievance procedure since it is stacked in the favor of the agrievee not the agriever. Go straight to Fair Work Australia.
Also what about the poor Russian grad student, lured over to the chopping block and did nothing wrong at all. Career ruined from the beginning. Something stinks and it is worse than skunk.
Macquarie, like all Australian Universities, has what is called an Enterprise Agreement. The contracts of all staff will, with no exception, contain a line which states they they are bound by the Enterprise Agreement. Most people, unfortunately, never read all of the EA until it is too late.
Here is Macquarie’s http://staff.mq.edu.au/human_resources/ea/academic_staff_agreement/1_title/
Look under section 4.3 , Academic Workloads.
4.3.20 An annual written workload allocation will be developed by the Head of Department for each Staff Member following Consultation between the Head of Department and the Staff Member. The written allocation will specify the workload that the Staff Member will undertake in the coming academic year.
(and there are at lot more relevant clauses before and after this)
Now if this consultation process was NOT carried out, he has a reasonable case for NOT doing teaching, but if it was, and he then refused, he is on shaky ground. This however cannot be determined without seeing all the records, and these are probably not forthcoming with a FOIA request.
I can imagine such a scenario. I’d like to stress that I know nothing about the actual facts here. However suppose Prof Salby was told that the university would not fund his trip (he states as much) but that he purchased the ticket using university funds against this instruction (clearly they couldn’t cancel a ticket he had bought using his own money so the university must have paid for the ticket). It is possible that the university might feel justified in cancelling his ticket when they found out. It would be a very nasty, pointless and wasteful thing to do, but I can see how it might happen.
I don’t know the facts and neither it seems do you. On the face of it this sounds like Prof Salby has been treated very badly. But before I go to the mat for Dr Salby I’d like to know a little more.
can this thread be moved to the ‘Contractual obligations’ or ‘Academia stinks’ sub fora. Please
He said, she said. Bring out the lawyers.
Nick Stokes says:
“But ‘refusal to undertake his teaching duties’ ‘after repeated directions to teach’ would be a firing offense in any context.”
As stated above, there should have been progressive discipline, and well documented. Summarily firing someone ‘after repeated directions’ does not make it clear what those “directions” were. Could they have been simply verbal warnings? If so, were there witnesses present? Might the ‘directions’ have been understood to be more like suggestions? And so on. There is too much unexplained in this case to make such a definitive judgement at this point. In fact, there are a lot of things in need of more explanation.
tonyM says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:50 am
… One wonders why he has not commented on this and any legal advice sought….
Any lawyer will tell his client to keep the mouth shut. Less risk of foot in mouth disease. For some peculiar reason both Salby and McQuarie are releasing statements. It could be that Salby is rather ignorant of the legal aspects, but the statement by McQuarie is a surprise. It paints them into a corner regarding cause, and, since he had at least one PhD student, that does constitute teaching. Not much maybe. And, as others have pointed out, what ever the hearing was that was held at McQuarie, it can’t really have been a disciplinary hearing when they stranded the subject on the opposite side of the planet.
dbstealey says: July 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“As stated above, there should have been progressive discipline, and well documented. Summarily firing someone ‘after repeated directions’ does not make it clear what those “directions” were. Could they have been simply verbal warnings? If so, were there witnesses present?”
Well, they said:
“The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.”
The processes are set out in the enterprise agreement. They are formal and elaborate (and time-consuming for managers). They are monitored by the HR department.
In addition, Macquarie, like all similar Australian organisations, has an annual cycle performance review process. That is all done in writing.
Duster says: July 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“the statement by McQuarie is a surprise”
No, they are only stating what is already contained in a long paper trail of formal review processes.
Bart says: July 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Nick Stokes says: July 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“Droit du seigneur?”
Yes, basically “we can (redacted) you however we please.”
There was a Charleton Heston movie once on that theme. It didn’t end well for the seigneur.
.
Mike Jonas says: July 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Max Hugoson – English English and Australian English are indeed different to US English, and even this sentence would have been different in US English. I would say that both “take” and “firstly” are acceptable as used.
Bear in mind also that English is developed by the uneducated masses (including Americans, FBOW), not by the intelligentsia.
How fortunate for the language that it has us Americans around to maintain its purity.
I did a Canadian (Montreal) website once, and then an Australian (Melbourne) one. They were both bilingual.
Nick Stokes,
What you write may be entirely factual. However, it does not add one pixel of information to what we already know.
Where is that putative “long paper trail”?
What does it say?
What are the circumstances behind the cancellation of Salby’s airline ticket — after he had arrived at the airport?
And so on.
Since you try to give the impression you know, please fill us in on those details.
Macquarie University, eh?
If this is pronounced as ‘mockery’, it would seem to fit their academic standards quite well.
>Eli Rabett says:
>July 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm
>Somebunny at George Mason tells Eli that you don’t want to go too far with the plagiarized thesis line.
Some plagiarists are more equal than others down on the Animal/Bunny Farm, right?
Yeah, Macquarie isn’t exactly up there with the best – cellar dwellers of universities would best describe it. It is however in a very nice area. You can lose yourself in the bush there.
Steve B says: July 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm
…
Absolutely correct ! What McIntyre and others fail to understand about Australian ‘kangaroo’ justice is that it only ever serves the Master. Having a past industrial relations commissioner and a union nominee conduct disciplinary hearings in Salby’s absence is akin to stacking the deck for a preconceived outcome. It is highly likely that these individuals were selected for their political obedience rather than delivery of justice. This is the way of the socialist regime at all of its levels in Australia. Just like the whitewashing of the Climategate scandals.
This appalling state of affairs should embarrass every other fair minded and reasonable Australian as it does me.
dbstealey says: July 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm
“Where is that putative “long paper trail”?”
Well, there will be a series of PDR forms, signed by MS and manager. They will consist of plans for the year, and a review and appraisal.
These forms are of course confidential, as are the unsatisfactory performance processes. But they are recorded.
As to the ticket cancellation, I can’t add much to what cynical_scientist said. Salby seems, on his own account, to have headed off while suspended, without salary, on travel that he makes clear was not approved by the University and with misconduct proceedings in process. It’s not an arrangement in which he should have expected continuing support.
Nick Stokes says: July 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“[ … ] Macquarie, like all similar Australian organisations, has an annual cycle performance review process. That is all done in writing.”
…
LOL ! Being pretty close to hearth here, I can tell you that poor performing individuals are rarely, if ever, moved on. Outcome recommendations are regularly ignored and individuals continue to do as they basically please.
Cynical, Nick, thanks.
Thanks, Tony. Everything.
Probably already been stated above however the University response was incorrect. They were not correcting misinformation they were actually adding some new information. Its a baffling and quite stupid response for that reason alone.
Does anyone know or have any ideas about what Dr. Salby is referring to here?
I’m somewhat curious as to the identity of these ‘several’.
Beg pardon, I should have said who not what.
James Allison : “They were not correcting misinformation ….”
The university may be thinking that the idea that he was dismissed for his views on AGW constituted misinformation? (I am not saying that I would myself regard that as misinformation)
Streetcred : “Outcome recommendations are regularly ignored and individuals continue to do as they basically please.”
True. Until someone wants an excuse to dismiss you, then all those previously ignored forms reappear.
As for the puzzle about the air fare, I suspect cynical_scientist is on the right track. The sudden cancellation would have occurred if he had put the air fare on a university credit card (as a senior member of staff he would have had one) and the university cancelled the card. That of course is pure speculation, but then so is nearly everything else in this thread. I think this whole thing will have to be left to the lawyers.
Enough of conspiracies! If anyone has any evidence to support their claim then please post it, otherwise cease with the allegations.
I’m not on Macquarie University’s side and I’m not on Salby’s side. I just don’t see enough information from which to draw a conclusion. Macquarie University was under no obligation to provide a point-by-point rebuttal of Salby’s claims and as is normal it is cautious about how it expresses what it does say. Conversely we see allegations but precious little evidence to support Salby’s claims.
Salby alleges that Macquarie University failed to meet his expectations; perhaps he failed to meet Macquaries’ expectations.
Lord Monckton would be foolish to get involved with this matter, and if he attempts to then the university is under no obligation to respond.
The only way that we might reasonably learn more about this matter is if Salby takes legal action against the university. I see no sign of such action having been taken and I ponder whether that’s because Salaby’s case is weak.
The first things that academic liberals liberate themselves from are standards of conduct, ethics, contracts, rules, fairness, codes, and laws. Those, they assume, apply only to everyone else. (Except for the media, of course.)
Prof Salby needs a good Australian employment lawyer, particularly one familiar with local academia. Only Australian law and the facts face to face MacQuarie are relevant. He would be wise not to spend too much and not to let any lawyer fill him with hope and then ultimately empty him with fees, frustration and worry. Sometimes in what could be a legal situation it is best to move on and leave the rotten to fester in their own nests. One can’t exact revenge while seeking justice. The university have made it plain where they stand; the right lawyer may shake out a small settlement with minimal cost but be prepared to write MacQuarie off. Their time will come.
tallbloke says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:27 am
Basically, the university has acted in bad faith from the start. Maybe it’s purpose in offering Salby his position was to thwart his research and make sure his findings were delayed, suppressed and blocked from publication for as long as possible.
My thoughts also tallbloke. That sceptical scientists are to be intimidated and censored within Australian academia goes without saying, but the Machiavellian intent on this occasion seems to go way beyond this.
JohnM says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Enough of conspiracies! If anyone has any evidence to support their claim then please post it, otherwise cease with the allegations.
—————————–
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were indulging in conspiracy ideation. And just look, here I sit me without my tinfoil hat! 🙂
It’s a blog topic, it seems natural enough for people to talk and speculate. I didn’t think anybody thought it was anything more than that. ~shrug~
Maybe they cancelled his ticket, even though they’d get no refund, so they wouldn’t have to buy him another ticket to send him back. Save a thousand here, spend a hundred thousand in legal fees there. This is called “frugality” by some.
However if, by law, they are required to have him attend certain meetings and hearings, and they cancel the ticket so he cannot attend, I imagine it will cost them a few hundred thousand more.
But they did save that first thousand. Give them credit for that.
As an academic I have little time for academics who think teaching is beneath them. Everyone would like to spend more time on their own research, but the hard yards of teaching still must be done. Those who refuse to teach and expect their colleagues to do it all are not the kind of people I would want in my department. The best academics are well rounded; they carry their fair share of the teaching load and also do inspiring research.
Research only positions (apart from post-docs) are not a good idea for an academic department in my opinion. Academic output is variable and it isn’t unusual for someone to be hired to this kind of position right after they have finished doing their best work and are starting to wind down towards the end of their career. Often their output turns out to be no better than that of those who have to teach, which corrodes the collegial spirit that makes for happy and productive academic staff.
Admin people are prone to having strategic brain farts and suggesting that a “high flyer” in a research only position would boost the research profile. A wise department chair will resist this idea. It often ends in tears.
Universities are strapped for cash and modus operandi is for “politicians” to award grants to universities which toe the politically correct line. The appointment of Flannery (who was not a climate scientists but a museum curator) was to curry favour with the ALP Government because of Flannery’s position of influence and ability to attract funding viz a vie the $150m hot rock fiasco etc!
Bob Carter was just recently dismissed from JCU for the same reasons and there have been numerous others from other Australian Universities.
JohnM says:
July 10, 2013 at 6:45 pm
“I’m not on Macquarie University’s side and I’m not on Salby’s side. I just don’t see enough information from which to draw a conclusion.”
And that is how they get away with it.
Nick Stokes says:
July 10, 2013 at 5:36 pm: [ … ]
I have issued no definitive opinion as to who is right or wrong regarding Prof Salby’s predicament. But Dr Salby has made some very serious allegations, which Macquarie U has responded to with almost as little information as Nick Stokes has provided in this thread.
Eventually this will alll come out in the wash. We will see whether Macquarie was vindictive regarding Salby’s airline ticket, or whether there is an acceptable explanation for stranding him the way they did. The contractual issues will eventually be aired, too.
But in the mean time, it’s nice to know that at least Nick Stokes is so certain of himself. However, if Nick is wrong, which he has been often enough in the past, we can expect him to revert to form and never, ever admit it.
The doors and windows were locked and the doorbell disconnected, and he is fired because he failed to show up at the dinner table on time. Nice.
The spin is flat. Interesting that two reasons were given and no probationary period between was mentioned. How surprisingly tolerate they must be to endure for so long then choose termination while in transport. It would have been nice to have given notice of termination so that he got back to Australia. Better yet he should have taken a course so that the university would be concerned for his “education and welfare”, since that is a primary concern.
That will teach him!
Perhaps the minutes of the meetings where he was repeatedly directed could be released too.
I am going to send a link to this thread to John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky. Lots of research material!
iced says: July 10, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Bob Carter was just recently dismissed from JCU for the same reasons…”
Bob Carter retired from JCU in 2002.
“The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.”
Here Down Under, I texted this url to my long time lawyer ‘mate’ (aka buddy). He said “That’s fantastic!”
A mere scientist, I go, duh, why?
He says ” It completely undercuts any recourse by the university to critiques of Salby’s professional academic quality/ability. Presuming he has a good contractual case against the accusation of failure to provide directed or contracted teaching services, he can now ‘do them like a dinner’. A cool five or ten million $$ should help Salby’s wellbeing very nicely. Be thankful they handed this response job to a junior officer. He/she just screwed their employer exquisitely…..”.
Steve Short,
I am not a lawyer but I have to disagree with your buddy on logical grounds. If they had said “We sacked him because of his views”, then he could certainly have sued. Since they said the opposite, it follows that the university must feel they have a strong case on other grounds. Also, you should not assume that because it was a relatively junior employee who posted the statement, that it was the same who composed it. Unless they are total idiots (OK, that is possible…), it would have been verified by their lawyers.
Feel free to disagree – especially if you are a lawyer yourself – rather than say a Greek or a Dalek, ha, ha..As I said I’m just a mere scientist. My mate has done plenty of wrongful dismissal cases. I understand he hasn’t lost any….and is both a ‘solicitor’ and a ‘barrister’ in our Down Under ‘English-type law system’. That’s why I sent him the url. Note he didn’t fall for the line it was the PR lady who drafted the statement.
Steve,
I am simply applying logic here. I have a tendency always to ask what would happen if it were the other way round i.e I am a natural sceptic. Now many people will suspect he was sacked because of his views on climate change, but ask yourself : Could the university ever have admitted that as part of their defence? No, of course they could not have – they would have lost immediately. So they cannot have diminished their defence by saying that in advance. On the other hand would Salby have used “They sacked me because of my views” as part of his case? He probably would have, so they are trying to shift the grounds for combat elsewhere. They won’t claim it was his views, nor his research record. According to the statement it will be failure to teach classes, and ” breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.”
Dr. Salby if you are reading these forums make sure the paper trails are secured and not in your own home. Don’t expect them to play fair.
“If they had said “We sacked him because of his views”, then he could certainly have sued. Since they said the opposite, it follows that the university must feel they have a strong case on other grounds. [Jimmy the Dalek (BTW what is a Dalek?) at 10:41PM 7/10/13]
It does not follow (logically) that the university thinks they have a strong case on other grounds. They may indeed think this, but that is not logically implied from their assertion above. That Mockery U. avoided claiming that they sacked him for his views does NOT mean they know of ANY legally actionable grounds for terminating his employment contract. They may simply be making a fumbling attempt at stonewalling.
From the way the U is handling Dr. Salby’s contract and grievance proceedings so far, it sounds like they haven’t had any legal counsel at all.
Hey, Ox AO, did you get a chance to watch the Salby in Hamburg video? What did you think? Pretty cool, huh?
GO, SALBY!
Yes Janice Moore it was fantastic and thank you. didn’t notice it had to be played on youtube. It was my mistake.
Also, notice this case parallels in my opinion of the case against Galileo? In both cases they couldn’t accuses the defendant of the actual disagreements they had to hit them both on unrelated charges.
It will be interesting if Dr. Salby what kind of paper trail he has by the administration before they changed his job status. Either way he better keep all paper work related to this case secured.
Janice. Daleks are famous for going around saying ‘Exterminate!’ in a loud metallic voice and their fatal species-specific addiction to putting aggressive intent ahead of deep thought. I think they mutated from trolls or something… They live all day inside these funky, little,
retro sci-fi, …. uhhh….. tanks? The claustrophobia keeps them permanently depressed and I don’t think they ever quite got right into the ‘right to bear arms’ thing. They also tend to hang out with chinless old aristocrats. Why ? I wouldn’t have a clue.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/exterminate-prince-charles-tries-out-2021328
Yes, Ox AO, it does parallel Galileo’s case. Sure hope Salby’s health doesn’t parallel Galileo’s, too! He is in my prayers!
And, if there is NO paper trail (where there ought to be one in the ordinary course of business) THAT says a lot, too.
Nice talking with you, Ox AO.
Good night from the U.S.A.
Steve Short — just saw your post — well, for laughing out loud… Thanks for sharing the photo of that hideous couple (not the Daleks) was just the thing before I go to bed — NOT. [%o] Perhaps the Daleks are about to take the Royal Disgrace and The Adultress (I really cannot stand those two) into custody.
Thank you for educating me, though. I’m not very pop-culturally fluent. From your description above, I was thinking along the lines of goblins, heh, heh. Looks like Daleks are a meaner (and, from what you describe, stupider) mutation of the amiable little R2-D2.
Jimmi-the-Dalek — I am NOT saying YOU are mean or stupid.
And NOW, I really must (yawn) shut ‘er down for the night.
Have a lovely Thursday!
I love Watts Up With That. The comments above reveal genuine expertise and experience across a range of subjects relevant to the matter of Salby Vs. Macquarie: legal, academic and ethical.
However, given the limited access to evidence, much of the discussion above has been speculative.
At this juncture I point out one or two unassailable facts which should help everyone keep a sense of perspective on the matter.
Murray Salby, a published, peer reviewed, climate scientist has openly questioned the effectiveness and predictive ability of computer climate models. This task was made simple by our ability to compare present conditions with multiple predictions made some time ago. Even that well known, politically incorrect Australian “Blind Freddie” can see that the models have failed.
Another member of staff at Macquarie University is one Tim Flannery; a political creature of the Green Labor Party and a man famous for making doom laden predictions about the effects of ‘Climate Change’, most famously that Perth would soon be the world’s first ‘ghost metropolis’ and that Australia’s ‘rivers and dams would never be full again’!
Once again the perspicacious “Blind Freddie” could tell you that Mr Flannery was very wrong in his predictions and that he is at best a clown and at worst a scaremongering, fraudster of the highest order.
Given that these two individuals both worked for Macquarie University, and given that one was clearly correct in his assertions whilst the other was clearly wrong in his….which one would we expect to receive the University’s full support and backing?
The ins and outs of this case will continue to be argued for some time but the big, glaring, obvious truth will not go away. This is 21st Century Lysenkoism and its practitioners are just as doomed as their Soviet era forebears.
Steve B says:
July 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“Yeah, Macquarie isn’t exactly up there with the best – cellar dwellers of universities would best describe it. It is however in a very nice area. You can lose yourself in the bush there.”
When my family came to Australia in the late 1950s, we lived in a tiny residence that the market-gardener Italians who owned the land had carved out of a hayshed. That land is now part of Macquarie University. There was a large chicken farm over the road, and we were surrounded by fields of lettuce and tomatoes, and fig trees.
It was much more productive in those days.
I fail to see how the university can claim that Salby was contractually obliged to undertake specific duties (eg teaching) when they claim the the contract was not registered and thus did not oblige them to supply the resources which originally lured him to the position in the first place.
Mark Bofill says: “Can you propose any credible scenario under this interpretation to explain the cancellation of the non-refundable ticket, under the assumption that what Prof. Salby says with respect to this cancellation is so? I’m at a loss to think of one, but possibly I lack the imagination and conviction regarding the University’s propriety that you may have.”
I’m struggling to see how Salby’s account makes sense here. He says (point 12) “Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.” – so before he went the Uni had already withdrawn financial support from the trip. Further this had occurred (point 11) after the uni had blocked his salary “Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.” – so when had the Uni paid for this plane ticket? The story doesn’t add and no sane person would expect a Uni in that circumstance to be STILL paying for a flight on a trip it didn’t approve to a person whose salary they weren’t paying.
I can endorse those sentiments. The best local science institution in the 1960s was the Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory of CSIRO (merino fleece perfection etc.) It’s been all downhill since then.
.
Salby had a contract with Maquarie as stated by both Salby and Maquarie, therefore Salby may have a claim under unfair dismissal law in Australia.
Australia also has FOI laws, so no reason why Salby cannot request information concerning his dismissal and that of
As can Evgenia Titova
? I tried to send a Email to Joanna Wheatley no luck has anybody have another address to stir them up
Salby’s talk in Hamburg – make it viral
I received a reply from Joanna (Wheatley?) enclosing the news release. In my email I asked if Titova had also been dismissed – no response. I’ve asked again if Titova has been dismissed and I’m waiting for a response.
If I don’t receive a response, I think we can assume Titova has been dismissed as well
So far, with have Prof. Salbys list of facts with his interpretation of his facts.
We do not have the Unis version of the facts with their interpretation of the facts.
“My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers
for other staff – junior staff.”
The instruction for the above to happen could be worded/interpreted in many different ways.
Could it be a miss-communication?
I have found over the years that people in opposing camps tend to have trouble understanding each other.
This effect appears to increase with the intelligence of the people involved.
With respect to the misconduct proceedings:
these are always (in the UK) conducted WITHOUT the accused party. The accused party is usually given leave (gardening leave in the UK) so that the team of managers inquiring into the alleged offence have unrestricted access to staff for witness interviews. The final part of the process (UK) is the final meeting when the accused meets the inquiry panel to hear the results of the inquiry, put their side, then the panel gives its decision. You can deliberately refuse to attend the final meeting but after 2 or 3 ‘re-invites’ the meeting would go ahead without you. I suspect if you traveled abroad, whilst the ‘process’ was running (one to two weeks max) without permission, then you probably would be found to have deliberately refused to attend the final meeting.
Dates and times of each communication would be extremely important in this case.
I do hope this is resolved satisfactorily soon.
steverichards1984 says: July 11, 2013 at 3:42 am
“these are always (in the UK) conducted WITHOUT the accused party”.
It’s different here. It looks like they convened a Misconduct Investigation Committee. Scroll down to 4.12.18. The later stages at least make lots of provision for the investigatee to be present and speak.
Before picking a position bunnies should remember that Salby has serious form as shown by his time at Colorado.
So not surprised. This is a very toxic mix. Herein this establishment lie some long and expert records of ‘doing knife jobs’ on rivals and colleagues in a number of, shall we say, ‘academic contexts’ and ‘international forums’ stretching back over many years. Many good bodies lying along the wayside, most with more cuts than a butchers shop.
Fact. There are those amongst us who are just so very well cut out to show us all how nasty the ‘human pecking order’ can get. They are usually politicians or academics. What is it about universities that attracts so many sociopaths to ‘high office’ therein?
BTW, little chuckles yet again watching Nick indulging his little ol’ penchant for knowing disingenuity.
MangoChutney says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:57 am
I received a reply from Joanna (Wheatley?) enclosing the news release. In my email I asked if Titova had also been dismissed – no response. I’ve asked again if Titova has been dismissed and I’m waiting for a response.
If I don’t receive a response, I think we can assume Titova has been dismissed as well
It’s not that simple with grad students, usually they’re paid from a research grant held by the advisor, once the advisor is gone you need to find another advisor with support. I had dealings with a similar situation over thirty years ago and the student was in limbo for about 6 months until we could arrange support for her. In the case of Macquarie the academic term recently ended and it is possible that the normal appointment period is for the academic terms?
some unsubstantiated conjecture
suppose someone wanted to get Murray Salby out of the way, and stop or hinder his work
from US Maquarie might seem a distant backwater
Murray has said many times there were long delays with the provision of resources
this also fits in with hindering idea.
The plan backfired
Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think
and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012
then in Hamburg 2013
Why act now?
a) it took people this long to realise what he was saying
b) the results presented in Hamburg were a significant advance on what had gone before
c) something else
In the 2013 Hamburg presentation I was struck by Murray Salby
obtaining 2 equations (for 2 different processes)
providing closed form solutions to each of these equations
the close agreement between graphs of observed data and these closed form solutions
In addition Monckton has said Murray Salby has 4 blockbuster papers in progress
It strikes me as bizarre for people to say Murray Salby has not done much in the last 5 years,
it seems to me he has done a great deal
can you suggest anyone who has done as much?
Yes. The simplest explanation I’ve been able to think of to explain all of the details is that Dr. Salby booked his flight using his University credit card without obtaining approval from one of the authorities specified in the travel policy document. The University took advantage of this opportunity to cancel his return or a leg of his return to prevent him from participating in whatever ways he had planned in the misconduct proceedings. Alternately, it is possible that Dr. Salby obtained approval that was subsequently withdrawn, although I find this supposition less plausible for various reasons.
You use the term ‘sane person’ and I’m not sure you’ve thought this through, do put yourself in Salby’s shoes for a moment. He had apparently made arrangements to present material. This is his professional reputation on the line, not some weekend getaway vacation. What would any sane person have done? I’D have tried my darndest to figure out how to present anyway.
That “take,” in context, is perfectly legitimate in American English, as in “take a job” or “take an assignment” or “take orders.” It is not even unclear, since the sentence is about his refusal to teach. If it meant “take” in the sense of a student’s taking the class, it should not be in the same sentence.
Mark Bofill: “The simplest explanation I’ve been able to think of to explain all of the details is that Dr. Salby booked his flight using his University credit card without obtaining approval from one of the authorities specified in the travel policy document.”
That fits the narrative but if he did use University funds to buy a ticket which wasn’t approved no further explanation is needed as to why the university would cancel the ticket. Of course they cancelled the ticket. I don’t think that scenario cast Murry Salby in a good light.
“What would any sane person have done? I’D have tried my darndest to figure out how to present anyway.”
Perhaps but you would also consider the consequences. In this case 1. using a plane ticket paid for by the Uni (apparently) for travel the Uni hadn’t approved and 2. take yourself abroad while the uni was engaged in misconduct proceedings. He may of quite rationally decided that the benefit outweighed the cost – but that doesn’t put him in much of a position to complain about the immediate consequences of his decisions. Note that this independent of the overall rights and wrongs of the issue – the uni may well have treated him badly prior to this and he may have some moral feeling of entitled to that plane ticket.
Imagine you were a confidante of Professor Salby and he had asked your advice prior. He really wants to go and present in Europe but he is currently (apparently) suspended without pay from the university. Would you advise that he should go? Perhaps. Would you advise that he use a plane ticket paid for by the uni for travel that the uni clearly hasn’t approved? Surely not.
Jeremy Shiers says: “The plan backfired Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012 then in Hamburg 2013”
I don’t think that narrative helps Professor Salby – under that timeline Salby’s revelations occur as his relationship with the university (and possibly with his colleagues) is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. As the situation becomes worse his criticism of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis becomes more overt. People on the the three threads about the sacking are suggesting a causal link between his position and his sacking but your scenario would suggest that the causal link flows in a different direction: he was speaking out because of the workplace issues rather than vice-versa.
Nyq Only says:
July 11, 2013 at 12:20 pm
…
That fits the narrative but if he did use University funds to buy a ticket which wasn’t approved no further explanation is needed as to why the university would cancel the ticket. Of course they cancelled the ticket. I don’t think that scenario cast Murry Salby in a good light.
—————
🙂 I wasn’t trying to cast anybody in a certain light, just trying to get a feel for what’s plausible.
Nyq – Oh, I understand now. Looking back at what I asked, yes, my original question doesn’t make sense anymore. I’d had time to think it through is why.
“What is it about universities that attracts so many sociopaths to ‘high office’ therein?” [Steve Short at 5:04AM 7/11/13]
Ease of entry and subsequent lack of accountability.
********************************************
“Murray Salby has also said many times that the delays provided him with time to think
and this is when he came up with the ideas he presented first at Sydney in 2011 and 2012
then in Hamburg 2013.” [Jeremy Shiers at 5:48AM 7/11/13]
Thanks for your thoughtful post bringing us back to the essentials of the matter.
The words in bold above riveted my attention, jumping off the screen, shouting, “That’s how the only ones who escaped from the Jim Jones cult in Guyana got out alive.” In an attempt to make clear to those who from their blasé comments above apparently do not comprehend the significance of what has happened here, in 2013, I’d like to tell you the story (as best as I can recall it from a lecture I attended in 1983) of what happened to a few brave souls in November, 1979.
Like Murry Salby, James Brown [I’ve forgotten his real name] was a believer. He would not have followed the cult to the jungle of Guyana if he were not. He questioned why such a move was necessary, but, he went. Upon arriving at the compound in Guyana, the cult leaders demanded that he hand over his wallet? “Why do you need my wallet?” he said, frowning as he slowly handed it to them.
“And all your credit cards.” Brown stared. He really had no choice, so, he handed them over. Day after hot, steamy, day, the loudspeaker blared. Week after oppressive week, Jones’s voice endlessly shouted the propaganda by which he controlled his cowed followers. Brown grew to hate that voice. When they called for volunteers to widen the path through the jungle, he waved his hand. Anything to get away from that frenzied, maniacal, voice. It was hard work, their tools were crude, and Brown got mighty tired from his labor. But, out in that jungle, with only bird calls to break the silence, Brown started to think. And he realized that this camp in the jungle was not going to be a new beginning; it was going to be the end; and he was running out of time.
So, on an all-camp rest day, Brown got permission to go on a little picnic to his crew’s worksite in the jungle. He and the few people he was allowed to bring with him walked along through the jungle to the end of the newly cut way. His companions were cheerfully chatting, rejoicing in the unaccustomed free time. They were starting to unpack their picnic things when Brown said quietly but firmly, “No. Don’t unpack.” The sharpness of his voice made them all stop and look at him in silence. “We are not going back. Jones is going to kill us all. If not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then, soon. We’ll never have another chance like this again. We’re getting out.” Eyebrows raised, voices started to protest.
Brown had to used every ounce of his strength of persuasion to cajole, and plead, and literally push those people down the narrow jungle path, away from their certain death. They walked and walked and walked. They walked all night. And, thanks to a strong-minded man who “started to think,” they got out of the cult. They were among the only ones who made up the pitiful handful of those who got out alive.
The time for questioning Dr. Salby on the details is later. The time to help him is now.
MB: “I wasn’t trying to cast anybody in a certain light, just trying to get a feel for what’s plausible.”
Likewise – and it all depends on what the exact sequence of events was. On first reading an academic is in Europe presenting at a conference (which is what we expect academics to do) – turns up at the airport and finds his ticket has been cancelled by his employers and that he can’t get home to a disciplinary hearing. It is a story of an employer being nasty (and sadly nasty employers are not a rarity).
Read Salby’s account in more detail and he not only is already under investigation for misconduct but also the uni has declined support for his trip. In this story how the ticket came into being becomes a tad mysterious but its cancellation doesn’t.
The other thing I still don’t get is: “Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.” I wonder what sort of conversion that would be? The only think that seems to make sense would be if the programs used non-metric units but even in the US it would be hard to imagine climate scientists working inches etc.
Those trying to escape from the Cult of Climatology need our HELP not our standing aloof, coolly conjecturing about the circumstances of their getting away.
For some of us Down Under who inhabit academic and scientific circles of relevance to Murray Salby’s dismissal i.e. Sydney, the speculation here is rather amusing. There are no prizes at all for guessing which senior academics at Macquarie have most probably carried-out this knife job on Murray and why. There have been many lead ins. To use horse racing jargon they have lots of ‘form’ so to speak in the age old craft of professional aggression. One such even spent time ‘managing’ part of a Federal Government institution and what a sociopathic disaster that turned out to be, with numerous staff fleeing in horror elsewhere (or getting counselling, or psychiatric help or just taking retirement) over quite a number of years! Needless to say that person was NOT dismissed (but should have been). Of course not! Sociopathic behaviour is usually tolerated in such environments either because the next person up the hierarchy is also a crazy egomaniac but more often just plain frightened. We have to abandon this naive myth that academia is somehow a gentle and civilized environment. Often a fowl yard, sometimes even a steaming jungle, with screams in the night and blood all over the foliage next morning, and the morning after that…. These people are invariably fearsome, may form cabals and have years of experience in the fine arts of institutional exploitation.
My advice to Murray is:
(1) Get the very best of LOCAL legal advice. If you can possibly sue Macquarie Uni for big damages then do so and sue them very, hard hard. After all, a number of respected American and British academics have got multimillion $ settlements out of Sydney Uni in recent years (after they ran afoul of a local sociopathic cabal in the staff). THEIR lawyers are the ones to consult!
(2) Then get the hell out back to North America or Europe or ….. anywhere its a normal working environment – and where you can truly relax on the beach with a lager etc. Sure, we have lots of cuddly animals down here. Its a very beautiful country, but it is also hokey and Antipodean and some of the local animals have very poisonous fangs. And the very nastiest are not out in the bush.
[snip off topic snark -mod]
If you could provide a few names, then Salby could track down their cases on the Internet, which might mention their lawyers, or give other helpful details.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/walker-launches-legal-proceedings-20111202-1obgk.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/academics-silence-stalls-university-of-sydney-lawsuit/story-e6frgcjx-1225993898375
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1847798.htm
@Steve McIntyre
Monktons suggestion is reasonable, of the face of it, Macquarie misrepresented it’s offer upon hiring Salby (fraud), has placed Salby at risk by stranding him overseas (A criminal violation of the commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act) and has deprived him of his prior intellectual property (also a criminal matter). They also may have improperly terminated him (A violation of the fair work act). In addition there are grounds under which Salby can claim personal losses incurred by the actions of another which may leave Macquarie with a civil liability in addition to the criminal ones. There also would appear to be significant evidence of a serious ethics violation by the University. The Chancellor can be hauled up in front of the senate ethics committee of NSW and be asked some serious questions which can result in dismissal.
He, he. Scratch a sociopath and you’ll often find a poor little paranoid underneath. Its how they compensate….
“STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY”
That sounds a bit harsh. Don’t they just mean his contract of employment..?
Janice Moore says: “The time for questioning Dr. Salby on the details is later. The time to help him is now.”
Seriously? Your take-away message from the horrors of the Jim Jones cult is that you should give unquestioning support to a person you don’t really know and avoid all questioning of his story? Luckily I doubt any of the players in this story are murderous cult leader.
As she is tasked with fielding media requests, she is the obvious go-to contact following a public statement by the university.
Yes, Nyq, even you, who mischaracterized what I said (I never said that “all” questioning should be avoided — merely postponed), if I heard a knock on my door in the middle of the night, saw you on my front porch clutching your small suitcase, saw the frightened look on your face, and saw the angry gang of thugs with their skull and bones crests on their hats rounding the corner, running after you, even you I would help without questioning.
Janice Moore: “if I heard a knock on my door in the middle of the night, saw you on my front porch clutching your small suitcase, saw the frightened look on your face, and saw the angry gang of thugs with their skull and bones crests on their hats rounding the corner, running after you, even you I would help without questioning”
But you don’t have any of those things. You have a guy who is in a dispute with his employer. That isn’t going to be a nice circumstance but lots and lots of people right now are in some dispute with their employers. Of those some are in the right and some are in the wrong but in many cases it is just a big mess.
Worse what kind of support should you give Salby? If he isn’t actually in the right then supporting him taking action of some kind against the uni is BAD advice. The people here saying he should take legal action are only correct *IF* he stands some reasonable chance of winning such action.
As Eli said, the guy has form. Turns out he was double dipping at Colorado and the NSF banned him for three years
————————-
The Subject has received federal award funds from NSF and other agencies at his University for
the last 15-20 years. In 1994, the Subject created an outside, non-profit company (Company 1) with his [redacted], to receive federal funds from NSF and other agencies for research that paralleled his research at the University. The Subject received compensation through this company for his effort on its awards, and may have received other payments through this company derived from its collection of substantial indirect costs on the awards. The Subject never fully disclosed to either NSF or his University his association with Company 1, his dominant role in its activities and operations, or the extent of outside compensation received through it, instead minimizing his relationship with the company.
In late 2001 and early 2002, the Subject stopped charging effort directly on Company 1 awards, and instead accrued these charges as services of another company (Company 2) he created in 2003 and put into place as a subcontractor to Company 1, without telling NSF or other grantor agencies. The Subject received payments in 2003 and subsequent years for effort through Company 2 substantially in excess of amounts that had been approved for his services in the awards to Company 1, with no accountability as to the preparation and accuracy of his time and effort reports at Company 2. The Subject’s use of Company 2 and his initiation of a subcontracting relationship shielded the Subject’s compensation from accountability and discovery. Furthermore, because Company 1 did not limit its recovery of indirect costs on its charges to NSF and other agencies for the costs of this subcontract, Company 1 received a windfall in indirect cost recoveries.
{indirect costs on subcontracts are limited to being charged on the first $25K of a sub-ER}
The Subject’s fifteen-year-long pattern of deceptive statements to his University and to NSF disguised his participation in entities and activities that existed for the purpose of maximizing his personal financial compensation and shielding the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.
So now the question is did Murry disclose any of this to Macquarrie.
Since Wednesday 10 June, here in Australia, the issue of Murry Salby’s dismissal appeared in one only national daily (The Murdoch press’ The Australian’) yesterday Friday 12 June and no other national daily and none of the State dailies in Australia’s 7 States. Today Saturday 13th it appears in no newspapers, State or national. My interpretation is that no one, Salby included, are yet making any statements to the media about this issue. This indicates to me that Macquarie University is in a media lock down (proving they are receiving strong legal counsel) and that Salby is considering his position. I sincerely hope that he is talking to legal counsel right now as he has presumably had since May to seek such advice.
Personally, I found his Hamburg talk very interesting (despite the poor YouTube video quality). As a piece of work centred exclusively around the natural (native) CO2, CH4, and delta 13C cycles as found in the contemporary and ice core records and wholly reliant on an apparently sophisticated use of signal deconvolution techniques (FFT analysis etc.) it needs to appear in the peer-reviewed literure asap as it raise some very important issues about global biogeochemistry. Given that one of Salby’s Macquarie University contemporaries (‘peers’?) is both the founder of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena AND the IPCC lead author on the (biogeochemical) carbon cycle we should not underestimate the size of the toes Murry is treading on (nor indeed the piece of steaming jungle he is currently embedded-in).
Furthermore, given that most of the AGW community (with the exception of solar scientists) have a record of abysmally poor backgrounding in the relatively arcane field of signal deconvolution (viz: Mann et al. etc.), I anticipate some significant difficulties with the publication of Salby’s deconvolutions, although to me as a neophyte (and only a geochemist) they seem plausible. It has always appeared a delicious irony to me that we (AGW scientists included) are all running around using cell phones reliant upon (in their networks) probably the most famous modern FFT invented by the ageing but erudite Dr. Jeff Glassman of the (humble) Rocket Science blog, a post-war ‘god’ in the field of signal processing and that; signal deconvolution has such a critical role to play in understanding the global temperature milieu (Milankovich included). Jeff is of course a climate sceptic….
Steve Short says: July 12, 2013 at 5:40 pm
“Personally, I found his Hamburg talk very interesting (despite the poor YouTube video quality).”
Poor video… two years ago we were su[[osed to work it out from a podcast. Why can’t he just write it down?
Macquarie has added more detail.
Nyq Only says:
“Of course they canceled his ticket.”
But Macquarie admits:
“This was done in error and the University is reviewing relevant processes… At all times, due process has been followed in these matters…”
Well, it seems that due process has not been followed, since they admit to an “error”.
In any case, as stated previously this will all come out in the wash. But it is pretty clear from the above comment that the university was out to ‘get’ Dr Salby, by whatever means was at their disposal. They have now admitted to doing that (stupidly, IMHO). Next step: blame it on an underling.
The question remains: why target only Dr. Salby? Mann and Jones were certainly guilty of worse, IMHO, but they were treated to several whitewashes each, and both now preposterously claim to be “exonerated”.
The events exposed so far lead only to the conclusion that Prof Salby did not support the catastrophic AGW agenda. Given the disparate treatment between Jones and Mann, and Dr. Salby, the only discernable difference is Salby’s lack of support for the manmade global warming hoax.
Maybe there’s a bunny around who can explain any other reason for singling out one over the others. In the mean time, I note that Dr. Salby is still not permitted to answer his accusers in a setting allowing cross-examination. Maybe somebunny can explain that to us.
dbstealey says: July 12, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“In the mean time, I note that Dr. Salby is still not permitted to answer his accusers in a setting allowing cross-examination. Maybe somebunny can explain that to us.”
There was ample opportunity to answer accusers, quiz witnesses etc in the MIC procedure. Check out 4.12.21 (d-f). But Dr Salby chose to go to Europe instead, in breach of explicit denial of approval from MU, on a ticket irregularly purchased with a University credit card.
So he did purchase that ticket with a university credit card. That was a mistake, and a serious one, as it was a sacking offence right there. That is unfortunate as now the University will not have to defend the charge that he was sacked because of his research or his views on climate. That means that the merits, or otherwise, of his views will now never be tested via proper scientific debate through publications.
Nick Stokes,
As I have written several times now, the truth will all come out in the wash. If Dr. Salby is guilty of wrongdoing, he is toast. Skeptics will not support someone who has done wrong. But at this point, the only ones who have admitted wrongdoing are university employees.
Contrast your condemnation of Salby with your imitation of crickets chirping regarding the Gleick affair. Gleick has admitted to wire fraud and theft, while Salby has accused Macquarie of wrongdoing — which Macquarie has since acknowledged is true, in writing.
At this point I’m interested in seeing where the chips fall. But I should point out that, once again, you have been shown to be in error — this time by contrasting your support of Gleick with your premature condemnation of Salby, before there is any kind of hearing — and once again you tuck tail and hide out, never admitting you were wrong about Gleick.
Being wrong and never admitting it is a pattern with you, and not one to be admired.
===============================
jimmi_the_dalek,
The university has already admitted that it was wrong to cancel Salby’s airline ticket. They would be in a much stronger position if they had allowed him to use it. And there is still the unanswered question of holding a hearing when it was not possible for Salby to attend.
Maybe Dr. Salby gave the go-ahead, but at this point it does not look good for Macquarie, and they have not denied Salby’s charge.
At the very least, the university has handled this entire episode incompetently. That is what happens when dissenting views are not tolerated. So far they do not look like an innocent party.
Nick, I agree this is self-destructive and self-centred behaviour. It would have been in Dr. Salby’s interests to stay here in Sydney and use the MIC procedure. What is yet another conference in the scheme of things when (I opine) it is the science which is the priority – in a scientist’s life. Of course beer is pretty cool too – noting it was in Hamburg…(;-) But in the light of the NSF review showing his relatively crass manipulation of the NSF and NASA grant funding regime while at Colorado (and for sums which a relatively small!), which Dr. Halpern has kindly drawn to our attention, I agree it is not looking good at Macquarie Uni. for Murry Salby. Scientifically, I would also like to have seen a polite response to Prof. Colin Prentice’s internal critique of his (Salby’s) views back in 2011 if he was truly still then developing his understanding Salby’s new interpretation of the ice core signal maximum amplitude continually ‘back damping’ in the firn layer is particularly intriguing. Where is the published evidence for that? This is beginning to feel like Miskolczi redux, only weirder.
dbstealey says: July 12, 2013 at 8:08 pm
“But I should point out that, once again, you have been shown to be in error — this time by contrasting your support of Gleick with your premature condemnation of Salby, before there is any kind of hearing — and once again you tuck tail and hide out, never admitting you were wrong about Gleick.”
OK, so I was wrong again, and dbstealy was right all along. It’s clearly proved. Yet another failure by me to concede error.
But what did I say that was wrong about Gleick?
I note that as more details have appeared WUWT has not added new posts on this. Does Anthony Watts regard the more recent university statement as “pretty weak”? http://www.announcements.mq.edu.au/vc/professor_murry_salby_and_his_dismissal_from_macquarie_university
[Reply: That notice has already been posted on WUWT. — mod.]
dbs: “The university has already admitted that it was wrong to cancel Salby’s airline ticket. ”
Yes, but they have not said why they think it was a mistake. I would guess (and yes that is speculation like virtually everything on this thread) that when informed that Prof Salby was in Europe putting unauthorised expenditure on a university credit card, then the university finance office simply cancelled the card to prevent further expenditure. Perhaps they now reckon it would have been better to let him come back and demand repayment as they may now have difficulty recovering the money.
Whatever the reason, it looks like Salby has blown it, and let the sceptic community down. If he had gone at his own expense entirely he might have got away with a rap over the knuckles for neglecting his teaching duties, but unauthorised use of a credit card is in another category all together, if proven.
jimmi,
I am only going by the facts in evidence: the university admitted that it cancelled the ticket, and it admitted that was wrong. But it said nothing about canceling a credit card, so far as I am aware. I am not defending Salby. I am not defending the university. The truth will come out.
And thanks to Nick Stokes for obliquely admitting that he never attacked Gleick — who admittedly committed fraud — like he attacks Salby. Gleick is a proven liar, and a fraud by his own admission. Salby may have done wrong. But the jury is still out, no? Who do you think he is? Zimmerman?
The irony of Dr. Salby’s situation and most of the “sue MU in court” comments in this (and the previous thread) is simply causing me to LMAO.
The most ironic being “Dr. Salby’s dog (e. g. MU) ate his research” so that he can no longer publish his utterly absurd CO2 claims in the peer reviewed literature. Or so Dr. Salby would appear to be claiming at the present moment.
IMHO, Dr. Salby did so on purpose, knowing full well that all he was doing was trash talking from the get go, and that purposely violating his MU contract would provide convenient cover of said trash talking.
Since UC Boulder put all his stuff in lock down the 1st time for somewhat similar contract violations, Dr. Salby knew full well that if he were to violate his current contract, the same thing would happen again. In other words, Dr. Salby has already been there, done that.
I’d suggest that WUWT, Jo Nova, et. al. set up a plaintiff fund for Dr. Salby.
Because I just love reading the failed court documents of Dr. Salby.
Maybe we’ll see Dr. Salby in the future working for the GWPF, or some such. 😉
Well, not really …
The MacqUniv-accusations need to be read carefully, and are actually not over unauthorized expenses. It is over non-approved absence from ordered teaching duties (and that may very well be correct).
The other complaint wrt the expenditures is that he used an ‘unapproved’ (travel-) agent for booking his flight, in preach of Univ-policy! That indeed sounds ‘heavy’ (nt)
And I agree, it sure looks like someone there was very eager and heappy to ‘get rid’ of Salby. And we don’t need to look hard for other such sentiments, attempts, and pressure to that effect directed at ‘non-complying’ scientists around climate change. The written orders to teach imply a longer history than just the recent trip. And may be just what those who wanted to get rid of him needed, or even facillitated to create.
But I disagree, wewill probably never get to know the real reasons for why this conflict occured, how it happened and escalated. It sure doesn’t lookl like one the university tried to resolve …
ICU
Regarding your ‘LYAO’, I think that that’s 100% true. That you are very happy that Salby got into this kind of trouble. But I suspect that you alleged happiness is all for the wrong reasons.
And you give some of them yourself: “his utterly absurd CO2 claims …” and “Dr. Salby did so on purpose, knowing full well that all he was doing was trash talking from the get go ..”
I wouldn’t expect you to form any intelligent opinion about what Salby argues wrt observations. But possibly repeating phrases you’ve picked up on them heavily censored pro-(C)AGW-sites who, no doubt, are equally happy …
ICU says:
July 12, 2013 at 10:05 pm (Edit)
————————————————–
I have watched the video of Prof Salby’s presentation twice now
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php
and I have to say that I could see no obvious mistakes or contradictions in it. You, obviously, have far more knowledge and understanding of this matter and so I would ask you, respectfully, to point out the errors in Prof Salby’s thinking regarding Man Made CO2 and it’s role in our climate. I am certain that all of us here would benefit from your insights.
Regarding the professor’s activities at the University or anywhere else unrelated to his theories on CO2 I must say that it all smacks of university politics, which have always been quite disgusting, but even if there are some facts in there I fail to see what import they have on the CO2 theory.
Warm Regards
This story becomes more intriguing by the day.
With reference to the credit card, in the UK, the provider of debt MU has a duty to limit the increase of a debt.
Lets say you rent a DVD from a store, it costs 2 per night, and you have it booked for 3 nights.
If you did not take it back until 6 months later, the rental shop would not be allowed to charge you 2 x 7 x 6 = 84, a UK judge ruled that the store had a duty to try ‘as early as possible’ to correct the situation and not wait for a big bill to mount up. The judge ruled the 84 unfair and substituted a lower fee.
In this case you have a rogue member of staff on unauthorised overseas travel buying air tickets, hotel bills, taxies etc. If the company took this person to court in the UK, the judge would say “Why did you not cancel the card to minimise the debt increase”.
I suspect Australia has a similar law.
Jonas N says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:42 am
Well, not really …
The MacqUniv-accusations need to be read carefully, and are actually not over unauthorized expenses. It is over non-approved absence from ordered teaching duties (and that may very well be correct).
The other complaint wrt the expenditures is that he used an ‘unapproved’ (travel-) agent for booking his flight, in preach of Univ-policy! That indeed sounds ‘heavy’ (nt)
Actually it is, there are usually laid down procedures to ensure that only approved expenditures are incurred on university accounts. Given Salby’s background of failure to follow established procedures in his previous position and being found guilty of deception in his dealings with the university and NSF it certainly gives the impression that this may have been done to avoid scrutiny! I know nothing about Salby other than what’s been posted here but I’m not inclined to accept his account without corroboration given the NSF report.
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf
Phil.
I would expect both parties to try painstakingly to adhere to statements and claims that are not obviously untrue (and could be proven so).
MacqUniv’s claims here are to ‘unapproved agent’ wrt to his ticket purchase. The other words about ‘expenditures’ are just blustering, no substantive accusations. Salby claims that his travel and arrangements where known, approved, and adjusted towards their requirements.
And I don’t expect you to accept anyone’s account. But encourage you to read what the actual accusations made actually do say .. (and what they don’t say)
Jonas N says:
July 13, 2013 at 8:02 am
Phil.
I would expect both parties to try painstakingly to adhere to statements and claims that are not obviously untrue (and could be proven so).
MacqUniv’s claims here are to ‘unapproved agent’ wrt to his ticket purchase. The other words about ‘expenditures’ are just blustering, no substantive accusations. Salby claims that his travel and arrangements were known, approved, and adjusted towards their requirements.
And I don’t expect you to accept anyone’s account. But encourage you to read what the actual accusations made actually do say .. (and what they don’t say)
I have, Salby claimed that the university had declined his expenses for the european trip and that they “had to be fulfilled at personal expense”. It’s the inconsistencies in the statements that concern me. If the travel arrangements had been approved surely the tickets would have been purchased via the proper channels?
Jona N:
The did not follow the rules on three occasions:
1)
his repeated refusal to teach, over a sustained period of time, in contravention of his contract of employment.
2)
The second reason was inappropriate use of University resources. Professor Salby travelled to Europe during a time when he was obliged to be at the University against DIRECT, WRITTEN INSTRUCTION.
3)
Furthermore he used a University credit card to pay for the flights through an unapproved agency. This is AGAINST University policy.
If they don’t like you for whatever reason, any of the 3 above will do you down.
If they like you and you were delivering whatever you were expected to deliver, they would turn a blind eye.
Normal behaviour I am afraid…
Its now a bit late, but for others, if you wished to operate in a slightly maverick manner (ie go against the flow of your paymaster) then make sure that you are perfect with all of the bureaucratic rules they impose, and turn it into a long waiting game.
steverichards1984, on your second point, note how Salby writes “While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia.”
So first he goes to Europe against written instructions (presumably because the university wanted him available for the proceedings), and then he uses his absence as an accusation against the university. That’s some chutzpah!
Jonas N says: “MacqUniv’s claims here are to ‘unapproved agent’ wrt to his ticket purchase. The other words about ‘expenditures’ are just blustering, no substantive accusations. Salby claims that his travel and arrangements where known, approved, and adjusted towards their requirements.”
Sorry but no. Prof Salby’s statement contradicts what you are saying. “9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.” and “12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged),had to be fulfilled at personal expense.”
Even prior to the university’s second statement it was clear that Prof Salby’s story was somewaht inconsistent regarding this plane ticket – i.e. he had overtly said that the university had not approved the travel and that he had to bear the costs. Even if we just go on Prof Salby’s account alone there is something odd about the plane ticket cancellation as he implies that 1. the university declined to fund the travel and 2. he had a return plane ticket for the travel paid for by the university.
Re: http://www.announcements.mq.edu.au/vc/professor_murry_salby_and_his_dismissal_from_macquarie_university [Reply: That notice has already been posted on WUWT. — mod.]
Thanks moderator – I know Eli Rabbet posted it on comments on this thread but what I was wondering was whether Anthony Watts was going to post a message about it – in particular whether he thought it was “pretty weak” like the last university communication. Also he said about the first university press release “Given the furor this has generated, it seems odd they’d leave this to the lowest person on the organizational ladder. -Anthony” – whereas this second one was from the vice-chancellor.
Lots of people are naturally concerned about what may happen to Prof Salby and I’m surprised the only new top level post on the topic was a cartoon.
Nyq Only
;y reading of this is that first things were approved, or already agreed upon and arranged, and that they were subsequently changed, and even possibly revoked. Or that he was thereafter ‘ordered’ to do something colliding with already made (and possibly approved) plans. And that such changes forced him pay for altered plans.
If, and I say if these alterations and even revocations had the (main) purpose of preventing him to present his new findings, then this would be yet another big scandal from the same ‘team’ where wev’e gotten used to such by now.
But anyhow, several things about this story stink badly of nasty university politics already. And as somebody mentioned, this has happened to him before.
Thomas (a well known Swedish activist) finds nothing peculiar with an order to not go to an already agreed and arranged conference, neither with the herrassment of his gradstudent. He writes:
“presumably because the university wanted him available for the proceedings”
Yes, presumably ‘the University’, or rather those pulling the strings had nothing but the best intentions in mind for Salby, and just happened to ‘order him’ to be where he had planned not to be at exactly that time.
And BTW .. I lost count on how many ‘independent investigations’ exhonerated Mann and Jones etc of any wrongdoing. I think even the Attorney General of Viginia could not find one thing wrong with anything of Mann’s doings while there. And you can’t blame the guy for lack of trying, can you?
/sarc off
Jonas says:
“…several things about this story stink badly of nasty university politics already.”
Isn’t that the truth!
I would like to see all the commenters here who are happy to see Dr Salby under fire, link to their previous comments — if any — that criticized Peter Gleick for his self-admitted fraud. Which is, to my mind, certainly worse than what we have read up to now regarding Dr. Salby.
There is also no doubt in my mind that if Salby was on board with the manmade global warming narrative, this would never have been an issue. No one would have ever known about it — is there any doubt about that? But of course, Ceasar’s wife must be above reproach, and Salby should have known, following his global warming apostasy, that his every action would be closely scrutinized by people with the long knives. Anyone who believes that universities are not ruled by water cooler politics is simply naive. Maybe Salby’s mortal sin was being naive.
It might be that neither side is blameless. But I note that the university has already confessed to wrongdoing; Dr. Salby has not.
No doubt the truth will eventually come out. But I would like to point out that “ICU” has apparently decided that the mere accusations of guilt are enough to negate Dr. Salby’s scientific work. Perhaps ICU can explain for us how that works.
Jonas N says: ” reading of this is that first things were approved, or already agreed upon and arranged, and that they were subsequently changed, and even possibly revoked.”
Well that isn’t the account Prof. Salby gives. He says he was blocked when he submitted forms “9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description
of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie.” Now he does also that he had already made some arrangements. He says this was “8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.” But this was already well into a protracted dispute between him and the uni in terms of what he thought they had agreed to and what they thought he had agreed to.
Jonas N “If, and I say if these alterations and even revocations had the (main) purpose of preventing him to present his new findings, then this would be yet another big scandal from the same ‘team’ where wev’e gotten used to such by now.”
Huh? What ‘team’ are you referring to? And the last time I checked 1. it is the 21st century 2. physically traveling to Europe isn’t the only way of communicating important research findings and 3. Prof Salby has been communicating his findings in all sorts of ways. The primary communication issue on his findings hasn’t been obstruction from the uni but Prof Salby not providing further details about his conclusions. All he needs is a working internet connection. And none of that explains why he would buy a plane ticket using university funds if he knew he didn’t have approval from the uni.
And STILL nobody has explained what the conversion of his computer program was supposed to be. Why would a computer program need to be converted to work in Australia?
Nyq Only
Somehow I get the impression that you are quite happy with all the mudslinging that is and has been going on. While telling me that you are completely unaware of what previous instances I was referring to.
You even seem to question that (at least part of) the controversy was about going to that conference and other presentations: ‘All he needs in the 21th century is a internet connection … ‘ Yeah right!
Well, I don’t think I need to argue further, neither do I think you really are interested in finding out or getting to the bottom of this. I even think your ‘arguments’ glaringly contradict themselves. But, maybe that’s just me, or you trying to interpret and fit this onto some strange narrative.
As I said: I don’t know the details either. But the notion that all this commotion (and worse) is completely unrelated to his views and findings regarding climate and CO2-levels … is more than just a bit hard to digest.
Sorry to hear that you seemingly have no knowledge of any ‘team’ or its previous tactics and scandals. But it’s good you checked (once more) that it is indeed the 21th century. That spared me the trouble …
😉
Jonas N says: “Somehow I get the impression that you are quite happy with all the mudslinging that is and has been going on. While telling me that you are completely unaware of what previous instances I was referring to.”
Not at all – I think the mudslinging at the university has been poorly substantiated. As for previous instances I took it to mean you meant from this particular university – if so you should outline them.
“I even think your ‘arguments’ glaringly contradict themselves.” – OK so can you show which arguments contradict themselves? No?
“But the notion that all this commotion (and worse) is completely unrelated to his views and findings regarding climate and CO2-levels … is more than just a bit hard to digest.”
Well we can check empirically, can’t we? Salby shot to prominence in ‘skeptic’ circles in 2011. Prior to that he wasn’t known as having controversial views on the issue. According to his own account by 2011 he was already in a protracted dispute with the university. Also his problems with the NSF predate that by several years. More relevantly Prof. Salby himself says that it was the dispute over resources with the uni that gave him the time to think about the CO2 issue.
So what is the causal connection here? Did the dispute with the uni arise because of his public comments about CO2? No. We know that it isn’t the case from Salby’s own account. Yet you say that it is implausible that there isn’t a connection. If you are correct then the CONNECTION MUST BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. i.e. his public comments challenging the role of CO2 in climate science were motivated by his dispute with the university rather than vice-versa. Is that REALLY what you would like us to take away from this situation?
A lot of conjecture there …
And yes the university has been criticized, not defunded, left hanging with a cancelled ticket abroad, its material seized, or its co-workers forbidden to contact it …
As for ‘team tactics’, I don’t even have to outline what I am referring to. Even if you (pretend to) not know.
But let me ask you this for clarification: Are you suggesting that we can positively exclude that his treatment in no way is related to his views and that he was on his way to present it at a major conference and some other invited lecures too?
I of course would have a very hard time proving the positive here. And if true, it would be denied vehemently. But are you asserting the negative instead? That this has nothing to do with it?
As for the ‘checking empirically’. No, you have no clue when his views (or criticisms) started to evolve, and how he expressed them and who objected. And no, Salby was quite clear about this: The recent conflict (r)evovled around his going on a tour presenting his findings.
Your last paragraph’s logic is so poor, I won’t even comment. And it just reinforces my impression that your ‘interest’ in the matter is motivated by something very different than finding out ..
Heck, this is the 21th century, where everybody has an internet connection. What do we even need the IPCC for, or the many COP meetings?
😉
And no, I didn’t bother to poin out all the glaring contradictions in your descriptions. As I said, it is very hard not to get the impression that you are perfectly happy (and mainly motivated) by any mudslinging towards Salby … and I can assure you, lots on your side are presently. DeSmogBlog is probably the right hang-out for you …
Now that we have damning evidence from the NSF regarding Salby’s less than squeaky clean behaviour with research grant funds, unearthed by the no less that the Master Rodent himself, am I to be the first to point out that we now seem to have another Shakespearian tragedy in the making along the lines of the previous Miskolczian debacle?
And yet, and yet, ….how are we to reconcile such appearances with this sweet piece of cutting edge science?
http://www.dhushara.com/Biocrisis/11/jun/ozone_recover.pdf
Endorsed by Prof. David Karoly himself too, gadzooks!
Is nothing sacred?
Jonas N says: July 15, 2013 at 12:47 am
“defunded, left hanging with a cancelled ticket abroad, its material seized, or its co-workers forbidden to contact it”
“Are you suggesting that we can positively exclude that his treatment in no way is related to his views”
Dr Salby made rather similar allegations against his previous University. He had no reputation as a skeptic then.
One thing I always liked about Shakespeare and his tragedies. He always knew exactly what features made for a superb tragedy and rightly pumped them up super hard with it. This is why they work so well in an academic (and science) milieu and Brer Rabbett can’t tear himself away.
Fear and loathing.
Jonas N says: “A lot of conjecture there …” – and yet much less than in the multiple accusations made against the university…
“As for ‘team tactics’, I don’t even have to outline what I am referring to.” – clearly you don’t want to. Why suddenly so coy? Ploughing through the many comments about this affair I see lots of vague insinuation. Let us stick to critically examining facts and making rational, defensible conclusions. Hand waving at some shadowy cabals is the opposite of skepticism.
“But let me ask you this for clarification: Are you suggesting that we can positively exclude that his treatment in no way is related to his views and that he was on his way to present it at a major conference and some other invited lecures too?” – No we can’t. Indeed in my last post I pointed out that if there is a causal relation that it could well be the opposite of what people have suggested.
“No, you have no clue when his views (or criticisms) started to evolve” – Well I have SOME clue. We have Prof Salby’s own account and we can look at his published work and hi published comments etc. Of course Prof Salby could be lying but that would be a very strange argument for you to make.
“Your last paragraph’s logic is so poor, I won’t even comment.” – gosh something else you won’t comment on. You wrote an amazingly long reply to declare how intent you are on not saying anything.
“And no, I didn’t bother to poin out all the glaring contradictions in your descriptions.” – Of course you didn’t. I’m assuming that you didn’t because you can’t but that is just a conjecture…
“As I said, it is very hard not to get the impression that you are perfectly happy (and mainly motivated) by any mudslinging towards Salby” – I haven’t slung any mud at Salby. It is you who is insisting that there is a connection between his conflicts with the university (which began in 2008 according to Prof Salby) and his sceptical views about the role of CO2 ( which formed sometime after according to Prof Salby).
“DeSmogBlog is probably the right hang-out for you …” Why do you want me to read DeSmogBlog? Odd recommendation from a supposed supporter of Prof Salby. I wonder if it is true that Green false flag trolls post comments here to make WUWT commentators look silly?
Nyq Only
This may come as a shock. But it is not uncommon for employers to unfairly dismiss employees for a collateral purpose. Unfair employers can whistle and tie shoelaces at the same time. Salby’s contractual dispute may have started before he publicly proclaimed his heresy but that chronology in no way of itself eliminates Salby’s heresy being a substantial reason for his dismissal. Is this too hard for you? Or are you just a snivelling apologist for a ruthless and unfair employer? Or is it both?
Connolly: “This may come as a shock. But it is not uncommon for employers to unfairly dismiss employees for a collateral purpose.”
That certainly doesn’t come as a shock and those purposes can be quite obscure (e.g. they want to make cuts in a particular section but don’t want the additional expense of redundancies). It also isn’t uncommon for employers to want to sack employees because they aren’t very good at their jobs.
“Salby’s contractual dispute may have started before he publicly proclaimed his heresy but that chronology in no way of itself eliminates Salby’s heresy being a substantial reason for his dismissal.”
Perhaps but it 1. throws some doubt on the possibility (we now have to multiply causes) and 2. the various claims above where that the university had been motivated throughout by a desire to act against Prof Salby’s skepticism. We have had some people claim that Prof Salby was even employed by the uni in the first place as some kind of pre-emptive strike against his research.
The contributor “Jonas” referred me to DeSmog Blog’s post on the matter and as others have pointed out Prof Salby has had protracted a litigious disputes with his previous employers with similar claims (by him) of being deprived resources etc. This was all well before Prof Salby was notable for having “skeptical” views on climate. Indeed much of the power of his talks since 2011was that Prof Salby was, apparently, coming from mainstream climate science academia.
Of course in the meantime we’ve had the quiet dumping of Prof Salby. This blog for examples was initially posting multiple threads on his dismissal. Now the issue seems to have been rapidly dropped. Why do you think that is?
Personally I have a lot of sympathy for Prof Salby. Regardless of how he got into the situation and regardless of how much malice came from the uni, it isn’t a nice circumstance to be in. He tried to make a new life in Australia and things went bad. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
Culture – dictatorial and barbaric (possibly also can be classified as criminal and corruption).
The Macquarie university’s response is lie. Many ‘professional Liars’ are working at the university. These are standard formula and evil tactics that they use all the time. The corruption and abuse of power are common in many Australian universities. Michael Egan, Macquarie’s Chachanceller (former Labor party politician and union official) should be very familiar with these practices at Macquarie university, even in the local state government.
Many “doggy’ people have been filled in universities. Some are from overseas dictatorial and corrupted countries. Many have “criminal” mindset and “rat” or “sickness” behaviour. I am not surprised about the Prof Salby’s case and his student’s situations at all. I know many people who have same treatments in the university. What he is telling to us is true. Prof Salby is not only the one. Other incident such as Professor Kim Walker, from University of Sydney. http://www.smh.com.au/national/postgraduate-education/uni-made-me-unemployable-says-exdean-20130213-2eddd.html. Many of cases are not in the newspapers.
Just looking at the Macquarie university, a number of incidents have been occurred (for an example, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/ex-minister-peter-anderson-bullied-staff-hired-mates-ran-fiefdom-icac/story-e6frgcjx-1226018048276). Some of the thought leaders who have strong track records that you might like know: Michael Egan (Chancellor), Judyth Sachs (Provost), Tim Flannery, Philomena Leung (Head, Accounting Dept), Peter Anderson (Policing Research Centre). There are quite a few more… . They like to hire people’s characteristics that similar to them.
Macquarie University’s organisational culture is managed by Human Resources Director and psychologist, Tim Sprague. Some of collaboration administration units include IT dept and NTEU (eg. Marc Bailey (CIO)). Don’t be surprised that NTEU is not in your side. Look up local criminal network history.
In practice, Human Resources focus on ‘abuse’ staff with ‘doggy’ psychological tactics. They have expertise to create false documents and training up liars. The IT dept removes all electronic and communication evidences. They also like to hire ‘rat behaviour’ academics. They set-up fault cases against decent people. Therefore, university can remove all fault and criminal evidences that victims could be used in future. The goal is to damage victims’ reputations and their credibilities. They also don’t want the victims keep any evidences and records. This type of “organised crime” issue is very common and serious problems in Australian universities, not just at Macquarie University. You would not want to believe it that we would have such low standard.
Can we call this “science”? Do universities conduct ‘science research’ anymore? What do you think the university’s reputation and the quality of graduates.
There is an express immigration for skilled labour (However, you should call this ‘people smuggling business model’. Note that tertiary education is the 3rd largest (cash-cow) industry in Australian economy) Some of other incidents in New Zealand: see here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-11/an-nz-china-visa-scam/4124848.
If you look up history about local government politics, Labor and union movements, and ‘local crime network’, you may have better ideas.
Faceless man poticitics or dirty business? “Rat” or ‘Academic Science’ awards?
What’s now?
Is this a really real issue of asylum boats? Why they always use the same tactics on election? Who are the players in ‘people smuggling business’? Was it “faceless-man” or sponsor of ‘faceless-man’? or sponsor of local criminal network?
Insider deals are never ending. Check out who receive awards and free stuffs? Who pay for university? You – Australian taxpayers’ money.
News update:
“Macquarie University has today awarded a doctor of letters honoris causa to both the Foreign Affairs Ministers of Australia and Indonesia; Senator the Honorable Bob Carr and His Excellency Dr Marty Natalegawa.”
Photos: Vice-Chancellor Professor S. Bruce Dowton joins honorary doctorate recipients Senator the Honorable Bob Carr and His Excellency Dr Marty Natalegawa, with Chancellor The Hon Michael Egan and Deputy Chancellor, Elizabeth Crouch
Read more: http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/16/foreign-affairs-ministers-awarded-honorary-doctorates/#ixzz2ZMUovZOd“