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
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.