This is interesting. Given the recent political climate of harassers being forced to step down, I wonder if AGU will retroactively remove any AGU members who have harassed in the past?
Safe AGU: Ethics, Response to Harassment, and Work-Climate Related Events
This year AGU’s Board adopted an updated Ethics Policy. This policy takes a much stronger stance against harassment by including it in the definition of research misconduct and expanding its application to AGU members, staff, volunteers, and non-members participating in AGU-sponsored programs and activities including AGU Honors and Awards, and governance. The purpose of these updates is to address persistent ongoing issues of harassment, discrimination, and bullying within the sciences.
At Fall Meeting, AGU staff who are wearing “Safe AGU” buttons are trained to assist you if you need to report a harassment or other safety/security issue. Source
Then there’s this:
AGU Meetings Code of Conduct
AGU meetings, open to AGU members and those interested in the geosciences, are among the most respected scientific meetings in the Earth and space science community. AGU is committed to providing a safe, productive, and welcoming environment for all meeting participants and AGU staff. All participants, including, but not limited to, attendees, speakers, volunteers, exhibitors, AGU staff, service providers, and others are expected to abide by this AGU Meetings Code of Conduct. This Code of Conduct applies to all AGU meeting-related events, including those sponsored by organizations other than AGU but held in conjunction with AGU events, in public or private facilities.
In addition, AGU members and authors of AGU publications must adhere to the AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy.
Expected Behavior
- All participants, attendees, AGU staff, and vendors are treated with respect and consideration, valuing a diversity of views and opinions.
- Be considerate, respectful, and collaborative.
- Communicate openly with respect for others, critiquing ideas rather than individuals.
- Avoid personal attacks directed toward other attendees, participants, AGU staff, and suppliers/vendors.
- Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants. Alert AGU staff if you notice a dangerous situation or someone in distress.
- Respect the rules and policies of the meeting venue, hotels, AGU contracted facility, or any other venue.
Unacceptable Behavior
- Harassment, intimidation, or discrimination in any form will not be tolerated.
- Physical or verbal abuse of any attendee, speaker, volunteer, exhibitor, AGU staff member, service provider, or other meeting guest.
- Examples of unacceptable behavior include, but are not limited to, verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, national origin, inappropriate use of nudity and/or sexual images in public spaces or in presentations, or threatening or stalking any attendee, speaker, volunteer, exhibitor, AGU staff member, service provider, or other meeting guest.
- Recording or taking photography of another individual’s presentation without the explicit permission of AGU is not allowed.
- Disruption of talks at oral or poster sessions, in the exhibit hall, or at other events organized by AGU at the meeting venue, hotels, or other AGU-contracted facilities.
Consequences
- Anyone requested to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately.
- AGU staff (or their designee) or security may take any action deemed necessary and appropriate, including immediate removal from the meeting without warning or refund.
- AGU reserves the right to prohibit attendance at any future meeting.
- Other consequences as set forth in the AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy, as applicable.
Reporting Unacceptable Behavior
- If you are the subject of unacceptable behavior or have witnessed any such behavior, please immediately notify an AGU staff member or AGU volunteer in a leadership position. AGU staff who are wearing “Safe AGU” buttons are trained to assist you if you need to report a harassment or other safety/security issue.
- Notification should be done by contacting an AGU staff person on site or by emailing your concern to lparr@agu.org.
- Anyone experiencing or witnessing behavior that constitutes an immediate or serious threat to public safety is advised to contact 911 and locate a house phone and ask for security.
Source: https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2017/agu-meetings-code-of-conduct/
I’ve been an AGU member in good standing for several years. I’ve attended both as a presenter, as well as a representative of the media, since I run the most-read website on climate change in the world and also have traditional media ties with our local newspaper, radio, and TV station. I’ve sat in on meetings where I was just feet away from people who have serially denigrated me in public and at AGU meetings as part of their talks:
Yet, I never once said anything derogatory [at the meeting or to attendees while there], or done anything to cause AGU to want to evict me from a meeting or the conference. The worst I can say I’ve done was take photos to share (something you’ll find all over the place on Twitter from AGU attendees) and I was singled out and told not to do it any more, leaving me to photograph and report on the hallways and the beer giveaways and the “big oil funding” for AGU.
I’m not at AGU this year, as I have been in years past, mainly because it is in New Orleans this year while Moscone Center in San Francisco is being renovated. It will return there next year, as will I. I’m probably one of the few people not fond of New Orleans, because I’m just not into the partying-drinking-beading-voodoo scene the city embraces. From my view, it’s a city about as far from science as you could possibly imagine. The choice of city seemed ridiculous to me for a science convention, so I wanted no part of it. It also seemed very expensive compared to previous AGU meetings, so I couldn’t see asking readers for help in sending me there as I’ve done in years past Note: we have no “big oil” or “Koch Brothers budget” as critics love to claim.
On the plus side, as Gavin Schmidt points out, there doesn’t seem to be any climate skeptics presenting this year. So they likely won’t get harassed in person.
Interesting point of reference for the climate "red team". As far as I can tell none of them are giving any presentations at next week's @theAGU – the world's preeminent meeting for climate science (20K+ attendees). Most I can find is one as a co-author.
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 7, 2017
I pointed out to Dr. Schmidt on Twitter that I’ve attended and presented on years past, but chose not to attend this year. No response. It’s a fair point to ask if part of the reason is that “red team” members don’t feel welcome, or perhaps they submitted talks, papers, and posters, but were rejected?
Meanwhile, Dr. Sarah Myhre, who is giving a talk at AGU17 (or as she calls it, a “show”) on has these things to say:
Also @raesanni I wanted you to see this: this is a hit-piece written in response to the podcast from a notorious climate-denialist and troll-barker. This is the garbage that is slung at women scientists.https://t.co/EHuxle7dPV
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) December 9, 2017
I would say that’s “unwelcome and unwanted”, to use AGU’s terms. She’s using labels where I did not in the article I wrote about her saying this about Dr. Judith Curry.
She seemed not to like the factual reporting in that article, probably because she has this viewpoint:
I replied to the tweet where she labeled me with this:
I was immediately rewarded with this:
Sadly, it seems she doesn’t like it when her own issues with labeling and bullying are pointed out in public, but she seems perfectly OK with labeling and bullying others, which suggests to me that she believes she has the moral high-ground.
It will be interesting to see what she says during her AGU “show” and what if anything AGU will do about it if she violates the new “Safe AGU” standards set forth. It almost makes me wish I was there, almost.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is interesting that right next to her tweets is an ad, I presume from Google, for sewage treatment equipment.
http://www.sdbetter.net/Sewage-Treatment-pl83453.html
How appropriate.
Unfortunately if there is no one there to be offended by and complain about her potential bullying/harassing/demeaning/antisocial remarks, then it will never have happened.
The first caveat is that someone there must be offended by the remark before it is an issue.
I’m sure the meeting will go quite smoothly. Just as smoothly as the sessions of any Politburo, elsewhere in the world. (Or the 1938 Reichstag sessions, for that matter.)
Freedom is just too darn messy for these creatures.
Ignore her, and then she might go the same way as the Oozlum bird.
All I see is an ad for the QLav, which I suppose is a form of sewage treatment equipment 🙂
Let me guess, they will define asking for someone’s raw data as being a form of harassment.
+10
I only wish that I was being facetious. However several AGW extremists have already declared that any FOIA request is nothing more than harassment.
the new rule is very explicit:
if it’s unwanted or unwelcome, it’s harassment.
iow, rayciss!
The literal fact is, …… a claim of harassment, …. any form of harassment, …….. has nothing whatsoever to do with “what is said” , ……. but everything to do with “who said it”.
UK Telegraph assessment of the Jone’s refusal to hand-over raw data.
This specific set of scientific breakdown emails from Jones is what lead me to realize how corrupt climate science had become in 2013.
Surely if the raw data is lost then how can one say that any conclusions drawn are valid?
One could say anything and then claim you lost the basic data. Maybe the moon is made from green cheese, but I just lost the samples!
If it can’t be replicated, it didn’t happen.
she has the moral high-ground of a swamp dweller
Rent-seeking meets “woke” feminism.
“Feminist” has morphed into “misandrist,” Joel. I should have said that decades ago. I just chalked it up to “man-hater” at the time.
Syllogism ala Sarah Myhre:
Denialism and mysogyny go together
Judith Curry is absolutely a climate denier
Therefore Judith Curry is a mysogynist.
There. That makes sense, doesn’t it.
Sarah Myhre logics that Judith Curry is biased against herself on account of her own gender.
I wonder what Sarah is going to do when she is finally faced with the fact that her “denialism” is actually the conclusion from physically valid critical reasoning.
For the sake of her own philosophical consistency, she will have to then conclude that mysogyny is logically valid.
Happy trails, Sarah.
According to Myhre, disagreeing with her is the equivalent of attacking all women in science.
She certainly has a high opinion of herself.
Or she just can’t see the fallacy of generalizing her bad experiences to all who disagree with her. Such lack of self-knowledge and self-restraint is tragic because it inhibits growth and gaining wisdom.
Not “… her bad experiences …” It is her politicized, make-believe “experiences.”
On the face of it, her claims of abuse by, presumably male, superiors and colleagues, especially claims of rape, are false. Has anybody asked her for documentation of her outrageous claims?
If she is the face of clisci, they have already lost the argument.
I can almost hear a Darth Vader like voice saying “The D-K is strong in this one” /sarc
Miss Sarah Myhre wrote:
“I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job. That is right. Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence.”
So in that statement she has called all her past male co-workers, male co-PostDocs, and male mentor/professors rapists and abusers. No wonder they must deeply dislike her with intensity. Walking around with a chip on your shoulder, an ideological axe to constantly grind and then, throwing abuser labels on past professional relations is a sure way to get no one to collaborate with you.
As I called her before, “Behind her face is a soul-less, empty shell.” I stand by those words.
Joel O’Bryan, PhD
There are some real jerks out there. That much is true. It also seems to me that some folks think that doing a post graduate degree is some kind of competitive endeavour where they have to shut down others in order to succeed. In any event, I have been hearing stories from my young friends that I never heard (or personally experienced) when I was a pup.
Having acknowledged the above, there is also the issue that normal supervision will cause tears. It often goes something like this:
Normally those words are spoken to someone who is already working their buns off. It’s rough and I suppose that some overly sensitive souls might call it belittling, demeaning, harassment but it isn’t.
The thing that is scary these days for PI’s is if someone like her (Miss Myhre) on their team gets criticized for their work, then all of a sudden that person “remembers” an off-color comment or joke that was made by someone on the team months or years earlier. It may not have even been directed at that now-triggered person. Suddenly that must-get-done grant application or paper for a grant deadline gets shoved to the back burner to deal with a harassment investigation.
And the harassment complaint processes at most universities are now in a shoot first, ask questions later mode.In the past, their were usually quiet, informal queries before anything formal was started. Not today. Not anymore.
And Commie,
Miss Myhre just didn’t say, “harassed, demeaned, and belittled…” and leave it at that. Those I totally get and would not surprise me.
But she starts out with saying, “Assault, rape.” Those are felony crimes in anyone’s jurisdiction. Those aren’t just career-enders, they’re prison-possible allegations.
And to throw them out shotgun-style like that at all your past bosses, professors, and fellow post-docs and grad students??? Who in their right mind, male or female, would ever want to work with her in the future?
Why isn’t she calling those people out on twitter instead of attacking the likes of WUWT and Judith Curry?
I got off Twitter last June. Deleted my account.
Tweeting has become nothing but a flame venue where anonymous and/or unverified twitter accounts with likely fake names can hurl out whatever they want under the near-safety of anonymity.
My account was my name (as it is here at WUWT) and my bio was authentic. I got so many incredulous trolls who couldn’t believe that someone with a real science PhD could actually think that most of Climate Change has become nothing but a hustle for money and reputation, politically and scientifically.
The biggest problem with Twitter is there is little to no accountability from tweets that thousands can see. At least when Trump (or other verified account) sends out a tweet, you know who it is, and you can judge them accordingly. Twitter won’t survive IMO unless it can fix the unverified accounts problem whereby there are likely huge numbers of auto-troll-bot accounts to try to swing opinion.
People like her communicate in a manner that can be interpreted a few different ways. “…and threatened on the job” can be seen as separate from the first five listed offences that my or may not have occurred on the job.
It could also be that all six of the offences occurred during the same incident.
“Every single professional gig that you MIGHT read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence.” Notice the qualifier “might”. (If someone feels a need to exaggerate in order to make their point then they must feel that something is wrong with their point.)
Will she name names?
The whole SJW meme is now that those wronged must speak out. The sisters will stand with you!
Truth is, Judy would iimmediately kill this nonsense.
DonM,
still her broad-brush, “Assault, rape..” and “Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV” is a slander to all those on her CV.
The woman is deranged, unhinged. That’s the only rational conclusion. Anyone who would work with her after that knd of accusation would have to be nuts as well.
>>>>“I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job. That is right. Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence.” <<<<
Dismissing the above as statistically highly improbable, the obvious question is WHY?? Time to look in te mirror Miss Myre.
Its a threat if you’re considering making unfavorable comments about her work. That last idiotic tweet gives it away. You’re counter arguments hold no weight because you’re a white- male denier arguing against a female minority (I’m guessing she identifies as afro-american).
“Why”? Because she has defined every action she disagrees with or disapproves of as hostile, etc, etc. When you define yourself as the only arbitrator of morality, you can call every other person out there evil, accuse them of attacking you, etc. It’s delusional, of course, but quite common in the AGW group.
““I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job. That is right. Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence.””
Now correct me if I’m wrong but Myhre is firmly in the Church of AGW – as such I can’t imagine she has worked with sceptics at all.
So her accusations would seem pointedly addressed at the priests of AGW and her fellow true believers… No?
Maybe we should encourage her to go to the courts and make her accusations formal? It could clear the room of a few of the more egregious priests of AGW. 😀
Ah, good, the AGU is finally taking ethics seriously. I assume that means they will immediately take measures to expel and censure Dr. Peter Glieck for his lack of ethics and criminal conduct when he stole the identity of a Heartland board member, used that stolen identity to steal confidential documents from Heartland and even forged a “strategy memo” to punch up the newsworthiness of the mundane material he stole before sending the entire lot of material to DeSmog blog and other alarmist sites, claiming that now “we” (the “team”, the “cause” the “savers of the planet” now had their very own “deniergate” document dump, as if that was going to magically shut down the real debate over the flawed consensus peddled by the IPCC). And he did all this after he was selected as the chair of the AGU ethics committee, as well as being chosen to direct a non-profit that advises on public policy in K-12 education.
C’mon, AGU, it has been several years, and action against Glieck is long overdue. Kick this loser to the curb. Or, otherwise, just continue acting in the same partisan, leftist, apologist way that you have been for many years on behalf of unscientific climate alarmism, rent-seeking, grant padding, academia funding creation of useless public hysteria.
I, for one, have no doubt about which of these two options you’ll choose to follow. But I make this suggestion in all earnestness in the hopes that one day you will all wake up and begin acting as scientists and not Scientologists.
None of her attackers could be skeptics because she wouldn’t have anything to do with them. She would block them out of her life.
So, it must be the Alarmists who are wreaking havoc in her life.
“A soul-less, empty shell” – I assign this description often to TV-people, mostly women; actually also to Miss Myhre, after reading her statements and seeing her picture.
I would prefer to not talk like that about others, but I have been too long in the “soul-business”.
Al Franken was a retroactive case….and overdue.
The photo of him groping that female reporter while she slept is powerful. More than any thousand words any accuser could say or write, that picture sealed his fate. If not resignation at the next election in mud-slinging campaign ads..
People can and do dismiss spoken and written words. Each of us bring our own bias to what we give credit to, what we dismiss, what we are open to accept. Words are cheap. They are often exaggerated, half-truths with the intent to deceive, and sometimes they are bald-faced lies.
But pictures…
Funny thing, but I looked at it carefully. His left hand isn’t actually touching her. His right hand is less clear, but it looks to me like he was just pretending.
Off colour, but not actual groping.
“The photo of him groping that female reporter while she slept is powerful.”
Not to me it wasn’t. You really imagine that was some kind of serious sexual assault and not just some dumb joker posing for a jackass photo?
Cephus0, it was “… just some dumb joker posing for a jackass photo …”
The problem is that he is a purely nasty gent all the time.
@Hivemind, @cephus0 – so Al should get Whoopi Goldberg as his defense advocate? It wasn’t “grope, grope” your Honor!
For those of you who don’t know, Whoopi said that Bill Clinton didn’t commit “rape rape.”
Yeah, but don’t forget about Photoshop.
Al sent a copy to the lady in question, Frizzy.
JoB, yup. Even if the picture was staged, even if it wasn’t real groping, it was on a USO tour plane provided by USAF and Way out of bounds. If he thought the picture merely SNL funny, that itself is still a firing offense in my world.
Not a reporter but a USO performer. Franken also French kissed her earlier. He went on actually to grab her while she slept, although protected by body armor.
The USI show arrived in Kandahar shortly after I left. Buddies in my unit saw the show.
Franken’s pending resignation is an early Christmas gift.
Note “pending.”
@Dave Fair (and anyone else) – Whoopi actually said that about Roman Polanski.
Although I suppose the statement equally applies to Bill Clinton and the Lolita Express…
Great, Whoopi doesn’t like pedophiles.
Notice how the in-crowder Epstein avoided child rape and prostitution charges?
Sorry, tripped over my keyboard in my haste to post. I guess ignorance is my excuse?
De nada. At my age, I had to double-check my own memory.
My computer has a spell checker. My wife is my memory checker, WO.
Rules of good behaviour seem to be for those who respect academic discussion and real science. Advocates and rent seekers have only one rule “there are no rules in climate fight club”.
They do believe in rules. But these are rules that only the other side has to abide by.
These rules are capricious and arbitrary and subject to change without any notice whatsoever. Even change retro-actively.
I see Dr. M@nn in the picture above. I wonder how long it will be before someone comes along with a complaint about him. He is certainly guilty about a lot of the guidelines above, including shouting Fire in a crowded theatre in his testimony to Congress last spring when he claimed that ‘Cattle are being burned alive’ from attribution related to CAGW. What a Sad joke M@nn has become.
While I am a bit discouraged about the new low quality of complaints designed to destroy some men’s careers such as Charlie Rose (a real hit job), I wouldn’t mind seeing Michael M@nn getting smeared with some of his own medicine. He would be as deserving as any of the real molesters, having smeared so many people himself with apparent impunity. What goes around will come around, and Mickey M@nn will get his reward, and it won’t be a Nobel prize.
AGU Code of Ethics: 34 pages
https://ethics.agu.org/files/2013/03/Scientific-Integrity-and-Professional-Ethics.pdf
AAPG Code of Ethics: 1 page
http://www.aapg.org/about/aapg/overview#2474265-code-of-ethics
Professional ethics aren’t complicated. How in the hell could a code of ethics run 34 pages?
The rules for lawyers in NY state run 74 pages.
That is what happens when those who write the rules and those who enforce them bill by the hour or part thereof.
I don’t see how these “safe spaces” are going to work…
No one has even seen a bigger cat fight than two people…with opposing papers….argue their cases…face to face
It’s simple, really. Your thinking must conform to the orthodoxy.
Climate Alarmist Sarah E. Myhre
Sarah Myhre claims that:
At first I posted:
But now Sarah Myhre appears as thin skinned as Michael Mann. After responding to Judith Curry’s Girl’s Rules, @SarahEMyhre blocked me just as she did Anthony Watts see above. Thus
Ms Myhre is a triggered snowflake getting the attention she apparently craves. People may gather to listen to her talk at AGU17 out of morbid curiosity. But few if any who are aware of what’s she’s said about others she has worked with in the past are going to want to work with her in the future.
No problem, she’ll just label such unwelcome and unwanted ostracism as further harassment. 😐
And when everybody gets sick of listening and starts ignoring her, well that’s harassment, too!
David, thank you, thank you, thank you. I had a picture in my mind of her and other man-haters staring down men on the sidewalk.
But … “MISANDRIST” is earth shattering; I hope it gains wide adoption among the victims of official censure by government and semi-official bodies for normal social interactions.
joelobryan and David Fare Thanks.
I wonder if Ms Myhre would welcome scientific criticism of her work, such as that Robert Hooke wrote against Isaac Newton? Does not the exchanges of Newton and Hook show the foundations of the scientific method? Or do famed climate scientists now get a pass on having to withstand vigorous critique?
climate change science can not with stand vigorous criticism.
– The models are pseudoscience confirmation bias output machines.
– The surface temperature instrumental record sets are riddled with dubious adjustments and infills that in any other field would have been censured and rejected long ago.
Real science can withstand harsh, vigorous criticism. The kind Einstein was subjected to for 30 years until the consensus scientists died off. The kind of withering criticism plate tectonics emerged from. And stomach ulcers as an infectious disease pathology. And many other examples in modern times.
Inability to withstand criticism is why climateers have turned to the consensus logical fallacy in the attempt to shut-down debate on their pseudoscience.
David L. Hagan,
You have read through the Climate Gate emails? (They seem to be slowly disappearing from being findable/searchable on the internet.)
I was mostly disinterested, passive acceptor of the climate change science, until one day a Post-Doc asked me if I’d read or heard about the Climate Gate emails.
I told him I’d heard of them, but never read them.
Not really anything to do with my field, and I was very busy at the time. Well when I did finally get around to read them, I saw they were from the some of the Big Names in climate science field. Eye opening. And they were abhorrent from any ethical scientific standpoint. Then I came to understand what Dr Michael Crichton was warning about 10 years earlier.
The Climate Gate emails made me dig deeper into what the whole Climate Change thing and what the IPCC ARs were all about. I learned the language of the field, read the methods, studied the data sets, did some of my own Excel work. And read a lot of papers in the journals. And I found WUWT around 2013.
So yes, Climate science has become politicized. The Big Name Climate Scientists get a pass because they do Pal reviews and politically like-minded journal editors abet them to get published. The similarly like-minded Liberal media not only gives the climateers a pass, they employ science-journalists to write deceptive stories (Romm Borenstein, etc). And we just finished 8 years of a US President who claimed he could roll back the seas and heal the planet with climate policies which were nothing but a Trojan Horse for socialism and power. Pure junkscience. Pure political power.
This parallels my experiences, Joel.
I don’t like nor put up with scammers.
Not only the pal review, accommodating editors and biased media, Joel. Climate Scientists do not criticize one another, or one another’s work. They are corrupt.
They also invariably, and in a body, vociferously criticize the work of skeptics.
On the other hand, skeptical scientists have professional integrity. They criticize whatever they think is wrong — whether the work of skeptical colleagues or the work of the AGW priesthood.
As a consequence, skeptical scientists are always criticized, and AGW priests rarely.
To an outside observer, most especially to an eager media hypster, the unbalanced criticism makes it look like skeptical scientists produce comparatively bad work. So, they are dismissed, ignored, and generally disrespected.
joelobryan Agree. On Climategate see WUWT’s page with links. https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
David,
Try finding and searching and reading the Climate Gate emails from just a Google search. The Climate Gate emails are slowly being buried from public viewing on the internet.
Maybe it’s a time filter thing in Google searches, or that it is more an intentional effort for the internet to forget things that are inconvenient to the Liberal religion. Unsure.
But somehow, scientists as real skeptics must ensure those climate gate emails remain accessible for the next generation of scientists to read and understand how a few individuals were able to destroy the reputation of science in the early 21st Century.
Phil Jones and his accomplices must bear the weight of history’s judgement for their science crimes.
I have a copy of the “Harry README” file at http://wermenh.com/climate/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Any old guard software engineer will appreciate it. Don’t start reading it close to bedtime. It kept me up to 0300 that first night. Keep in mind this data, ready or not, is now in the HADCrut climate database.
Blocking critics is a sign of a spineless whiner.
Sheri,
No doubt. Even Dr. Gavin Schmidt ( @climateofgavin , NASA/GISS) doesn’t block twitter critics unless they become profane or belligerent. Simply expressing reasoned intellectual criticism (emphasis on “reasoned”) should not get a real scientist to block anyone. He never blocked me when I tweeted back to him reasoned critiques. Gavin does try to reach a broad audience. I give him that. He does not seem to block at the slightest dissent. There is hope for that one. But he still does employ and use the highly altered temperature records to foist the climate hustle on the public.
I think a guy like Gavin and I could be friends if it were just particle physics or condensed matter physics topics. But the politicized nature of climate science means we are separated by deep biases that prevent that. Two white guys divided. And it is even tougher for the women and minorities, unless they conform to the Left’s gender and race identity roles. One day, the Left’s identity politics will be their downfall. But not today. The Left is riding that horse for all they can get.
“From my view, [New Orleans is] a city about as far from science as you could possibly imagine.”
I am not that sure that San Francisco is all that close to science either.
These disgusting people literally give me heart palps. I abhor every molecule of their pathetic beings.
Humanity has always been plagued by those who create such restrictions as this “AGU Code”, but never before have they been so exposed to the general public.
The internet has changed everything, which is why we see the petty tyrants acting up across the cultural spectrum of the free world.
They know that they must fight back and think that they are enlisting cohorts for a final victory, but they are only arming a determined opposition and strengthening their resolve.
Kwalitee laffs there tom :). Don’t hold back now. No need to be shy and just say what you really think.
where is nick stokes and mosheron this?
staying in their safe space eating popcorn. Smart folks know to stay out of the cross-fire when rounds are zinging past willy-nilly.
Why for any reason would you bring them up when they have no part in this discussion (so far)?
Anthony, you and your views are not protected by the AGU. Reread the part about to whom protections apply.
I’m an AGU member, so I believe the protections apply.
But you are not a scientific feminist.
From the information contained in your post, you certainly have grounds to file a complaint based on their policy.
Your comments well describe the harassment directed toward you; was that also filed as an official complaint by an AGU member? (My apologies if you mentioned this in your post and I missed it.)
“But you are not a scientific feminist.”
Ahh, but he could “identify” as one if he wished to.. 😉
What specific protections does the AGU provide you, Anthony?
I did not scour the policy, but I saw nothing about reporting time limits under:
4. Procedure
(a) Reporting an Allegation
Dave Fair, I agree that it’s not clear whom the rules are designed to protect. The specifics talk about gender and sexual preference diversity, saying nothing about those who might disagree with the consensus. All the stuff about about staff members wearing buttons would indicate that the whole idea may be to protect consensus mavens from unpleasant opinions – like the silly stuff you read about safe zones in college where one is protected from unwelcome opinion.
Wasn’t there a recent case where a high profile case of harassment of a climate skeptic was condemned by a scientific association and new policies writt
“Consequences
– Anyone requested to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately.
– AGU staff (or their designee) or security may take any action deemed necessary and appropriate, including immediate removal from the meeting without warning or refund.
– AGU reserves the right to prohibit attendance at any future meeting.”
There is huge latitude in how the above can b interpreted especially if the subject is political or emotive as opposed to scientific, or rather subjective as opposed to objective. I recall this incident:
Labour conference 2005 – Stewards manhandling an elderly man who heckles Jack Straw over Iraq
Dr. Sarah Myhre obviously believes in the 97% consensus, as she apparently has failed to delve into details of the actual science of climate change.
… just a suspicion I have.
Robert Kernodle
I qualify as supporting the facts of the 97% consensus. Richard Tol observes:
Yet Sarah Mhyre blocked me when I challenged her on the scientific issues – as did Michael Mann earlier.
The annual AGU meeting is but one of many science meetings each year that discuss climate issues. This particular venue includes all aspects of member topic areas and has multiple simultaneous sessions. Not attending is not essential, as it is published papers and weblog posts that are much more effective at communicating.
That potential members of the “red team” are not attending is irrelevant.
That’s true, one WUWT post often reaches far more people than attending a session.
True, and many of us thank you for that tireless magnificent effort.
Same with astronomy. There’s a travelling circus of esa astronomers jetting all over the world to present the same old findings from their papers. The presentations are almost always 15 mins i.e. a trans-global flight to disseminate a fraction of what’s in the paper.
She says that “denialism and misogyny go together”. Then she says she’s been severely discriminated against in her field…..one that she would say has very few “deniers”. Evidently, she doesn’t see the contradiction. Too bad we wont get a report on her “climate for SJW’s” presentation at AGU
Yeah, and you had IPCC chair and consensus-builder Pachauri busted for sexual harassment. Where are all of the deniers in trouble?
Her “denialism and misogyny” statement is just another attempt to shutdown debate that her field cannot withstand.
It’s no different than when Obama’s surrogates used the race card in politics to shut down dissent and disagreement on policy grounds.
Wear a Trump hat to one of these meetings and see how long their rules hold up.
Anthony, I ‘aged out’ of the desire to party in N.O. a long time ago, but I still enjoy going there, primarily for the FOOD. Also, you can’t beat the jazz musicians, particularly at Preservation Hall. You are selling the city short. OTOH, I dislike SF with a passion. I don’t like the food, and it has absolutely nothing else going for it.
To each his own, I guess.
Safe AGU? Adults need safety monitors and safe spaces to keep their feelings from being hurt? Do the safe spaces have Care Bears to soothe you? This is a conference for adults?
Seems that expecting educated adults to act in a civilized manner is a bit much.
The red team prb’ly doesn’t suck up, then waste taxpayer money as efficiently as the cultural Marxist-propagandists. Calling Myhre, Schmidt, Mann et al scientists would be a misnomer.
Another really good reason for not having a Twit account, or FaceTube, or MyFace, or any other of the cesspool of “social” media.
And, no, I don’t even have a cell phone. I see way too many people letting some robot do all their thinking for them. It is personal preference to own all of my mistakes.
Regards,
Vlad
Vlad, I recently discovered how vile, evil, disgusting, the cesspool of Twitter is. You are so correct, yet parents are allowing their children access to this sewer. And we also (I am guilty) are guilty of swimming in that sewer. I do not have a Twitter account but will check out someone through linking to their account through the internet.