‘Safe AGU’ plan adopted for #AGU17 meeting or The sad case of Dr. Sarah Myhre, part 2

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:

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.