The AGU Completes Its Transformation Into A Fully Political Organization

The AGU Completes Its Transformation Into A Fully Political Organization

There is nothing special about the AGU, readers will understand. All Science, and even math, as we saw, is heading down the road most political.

Headline: How Will We Address the Lack of Gender Diversity in AGU Medals, Awards and Prizes?

Earlier this week, we proudly announced the recipients of the 2018 Union Medals, Awards and Prizes. These distinguished individuals are recognized for the excellence and impact of their work, and for exemplifying AGU’s mission to promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity. However, a demographic analysis of AGU’s most prestigious honorees reveals that women are under-represented when controlling for career stage and other factors.

Over the past few years, volunteers who lead our Honors & Recognition efforts have endeavored to move the needle…Strides have also been made to improve recognition of our international colleagues. But inequity in honors remains…

For context, 20% of PhDs in Earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences in the U.S. in 1995 (which we use as a tentative benchmark for the cohort now being recognized with honors) went to women. More research on this topic is needed. [Because counting is difficult?]

AGU = American Geophysical Union. Judging by the rhetoric (more is to come below), they are a political organization devoted to pushing the soul- and civilization-destroying Equality Ideology. They do this by means of extracting money from government, and then using a portion of these proceeds to hector its members into giving gifts to women (and surely soon other non-white-Christian-men).

Some of the money is also used to promulgate and push the government’s theories of Science, theories which, for some reason, always require greater government size and control to manage. There is a therefore a tremendous conflict of interest of people who use the AGU to prise money loose from the government. Like the man said, all scientists believe in confirmation bias, they just believe it always happens to the other guy.

People who belong to the AGU obviously embrace these ideologies—Equality and Placating Government—and support them. If they did not support and embrace these ideologies, they would not be members of this voluntary association. Right?

Women are not being nominated in sufficient numbers across most award categories. The Council Leadership Team noted in a recent review of honors that women were particularly underrepresented in the medal category; six of the 13 medals in 2018 did not receive a single female nominee.

The ordinary person reading this would conclude men outperform women at the top of geophysics. Why men (at the top) do this could be related to their demonstrably better spatial and quantitative reasoning, perhaps. Why geophysics is interesting and worthy of honoring with awards is another question. Maybe there are better things on which to spend one’s time? Maybe not.

While there was a paucity of nominations of women this year for Union medals, many factors are influencing the results, including implicit bias throughout the process and undue reliance on existing networks…And yet, recent data from our own publications shows that papers submitted to AGU journals with a woman as first author have a higher acceptance rate. Our community is not properly recognizing the great work women do in the same way that we notice the great work of men.

Or, again, it could be that there more men than women at the top of geophysics.

So, what can we do?

I won’t hold you in suspense. The answer is quotas. The answer is always mandated, monitored, and enforced quotas.

* Expand the pool of nominations:… This approach has already been used successfully by several Sections for their Fellows nominations and for their Section awards, with clear results of increasing nominations of women.

* Address implicit bias in the process: In 2019 implicit bias training will become part of the selection committee process…

As your president and president-elect, we are committed to addressing and overcoming the underlying causes of gender inequity in honors and recognition…

One step many of us can take for the next honors cycle is to nominate a woman you admire…

Line up, fellas. Get ready for your reeducation. But do not despair! Memorizing and regurgitating ideology is far, far, far easier than thinking about geophysics.


  1. That 6 of the 13 categories received no women nominees indicates (but does not prove) that the other 7 categories are unscientific in nature, like “-Studies” degree programs.

  2. Sheri

    People completely lack contact with reality. Here it is:

    IF WOMEN WANTED TO DO MATH AND SCIENCE, THEY WOULD. It’s that simple. Lying to them and telling them they are good at it when they are not is cruel and evil. If women think men are cruel, the lie of equality pushed by women is far more cruel than anything men ever did. It goes against reality and makes all women incompetent until proven otherwise, viewed as a quota fill, not a “real” scientist or mathematician. Every woman is now looked as a undeserving, space-filling taker that does not deserve the degree or the medal (at least by the few rational people left). And women thought “barefoot and pregnant” was bad. Women can be total idiots. They really can.

    Expect buildings to collapse, drugs to kill, medicine to become like a trip to a witch doctor, etc, as the lie of equality fills fields with women who cannot do the job, but their gender gave them the job. It’s going to be a nightmare, but as I often say, I really don’t think people care about the future, their children or much of anything. They are lazy and just let all of this happen knowing but not caring about the hell their children will go through. I truly believe making America great will be impossible in another generation, if we are not there by now.

  3. c matt

    six of the 13 medals in 2018 did not receive a single female nominee.

    Nominate a token transgender. Problem solved.

  4. Joy

    Sheri, I detect a heafty load of snark in your remark. Someone who thinks barefoot in the kitchen is cruel is correct. Mel Gibson would be a good example.
    It is not either or. Both are wrong.

    Yes there are cruel men. There are cruel women.
    Being wrong isn’t being cruel. Misguided, perhaps.
    Sadism is the worst form of cruelty. Torture is based upon it.
    God will judge those people.

  5. Ray

    It’s even worse than you think. Women are not only underrepresented in institutions of higher learning but also in the penal and mental institutions. Men are 90% of the of the population in the penal institutions. If you believe that women aren’t just as criminal and crazy as the men, you are obviously a sexist pig. We should have quotas until women are equally represented in these institutions.

  6. Spetzer86

    Why not just randomly select women from the group’s membership and give them the specified number of awards? Can’t argue it wouldn’t be fair. Meaningful would be another discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *