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
@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