Okay, a little belated, but I wrote a post for the Clarion blog about sandstone as a building material, since a commenter had asked about it a while ago: Sandstone: It's a Living.
My next post will be due mid-December... I'm trying to decide what to write about. I'm kind of tempted to talk about undersea hydrothermal systems (black smokers, white smokers, carbonate chimneys) because they're really cool. And it lets me share something I've learned in oceanic geochem this semester.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Republicans Attack the Obama Administration.... on science?
If you haven't read this yet, prepare to have your brain melted.
This letter caused me a lot of incoherent sputtering this morning.
First, I'd like to address the specific claims made by Senators Inhofe and Vitter and Congressman Issa, then I'd like to say a few words about the main premise of the letter itself.
I'll go through this section by section. What I have to say here is the result of me spending some quality time with Dr. Google. My findings are not necessarily definitive, or complete. So if you dredge up any points that I've missed or gotten wrong - or have arcane knowledge that I manifestly do not possess - please let me know and I'll add any new facts to the pile and swiftly correct mistakes.
Inspector General Investigation of the National Academy of Engineers Report
The criticism here is in regards to the report Secretary Salazar used to justify the six month moratorium on deepwater drilling following the blowout at the Macondo well that ultimately spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I do not have a link to the report, but rather the Investigative Report, Federal Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling, US Department of Interior, which responds to criticism of the original report.
The Republican letter implies that there was misconduct in the report, because scientific peer review for findings was claimed where none existed.
From the IG's report:
And:
So basically, the Inspector General's report says that any implication that there was peer review - and it was only an implication, not a stated fact - was a mistake that the preparers of the report freely owned up to and apologized for.
Also from the IG report, in regards to the complaint that information quality assurance was violated:
The Republican letter also alleges blatant political influence. Having read the Inspector General's report, that's a baseless accusation on their part.
I will note that the Inspector General's report was requested by Senator David Vitter (and Congressman Steve Scalise). To be honest, after reading through the entire thing, I wonder if Senator Vitter is just feeling a little aggravated that the Inspector General didn't find the steaming heaps of politicized scientific misconduct he was desperately hoping for. What's in the Republican letter reads like a mountain being made from a mole hill.
National Research Council Review of IRIS Formaldehyde Assessment (EPA)
The NRC's review can be found here if you'd like to read it yourself.
This seems to be the most damning part of the NRC's review:
This one is a little less clear cut, I think. The NRC makes valid points about the EPA overstating the research to pin leukemia on formaldehyde, for example. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde in group 2A, which means "probably carcinogenic to humans." This is generally not the same as "you will get leukemia."
Here's a news article that has the rainbow of reactions in black and white. The Sierra Club is disappointed. Industry groups are happy. And Senator Vitter is quoted as saying:
Personally, I'd rather agencies were too cautious about health risks than not cautious enough. Though that is no excuse for a lack of scientific rigor.
US District Judge Oliver Wanger's Decision Criticizing Agency Scientific Work and Testimony in Federal Court
I find it rather curious that the source cited in regards to lives and local economies being ruined is an opinion piece: California's Man-Made Drought, The green war against San Joaquin Valley Farmers
The snide tone of that particular opinion piece notwithstanding (because hey, I'm not going to begrudge someone a bit of snideness when I revel in it myself!) the job losses seem to be more about drought than pumping restrictions. (Estimated 16,000 jobs lost due to drought, 5,000 due to the restrictions.)
However, the rest of the points in the Republican letter are a bit more difficult to tackle. If you'd like to read the entirety of the judge's opinion here it is, and I'd recommend you put on your asbestos underwear first, because it's a doozy. Judge Wanger has some very nasty things to say about the scientists in this case, the juiciest bits of which are cited in the letter to the Administration.
This is where it gets muddy, I think. Judge Wanger has apparently faced some criticism:
For more information on the issue at hand, I found this post helpful.
GAO Report on Yucca Mountain and IG Investigations into the Actions of DOE Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
In this case, the NRC is the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, NOT the National Research Council.
The GAO report on Yucca Mountain can be found here.
I have little to say about the Yucca Mountain criticism, because FSM help me, I actually kind of agree.
The attack on Chairman Gregory Jaczko has me rather floored, though. Specifically in regard to his recommendations for evacuating Americans in a fifty mile radius around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima is still really an ongoing thing, and will be for years to come. In March, radiation levels at 60km were hitting the threshold for increased cancer risk. The Japanese government has faced very strong criticism for redefining safety levels of radiation in proximity to the plant. In April, high radiation levels were being found outside the 10 km evacuation zone.
What just boggles my mind is that Chairman Jaczko is basically being attacked for taking a "better safe than sorry" approach to a nuclear disaster. One can only wonder what the reaction would have been if he'd just stuck with the evacuation zone that the Japanese government had drawn.
But really, this is all beside the point.
Looking over the list of issues in the Republican letter, one thing struck me the most - scale. They want to talk about public trust in scientific work? I'd be curious to know how many people outside of the San Jaoquin valley - and outside of those that have a serious hate on for the EPA - knew about Judge Wanger and the never-ending delta smelt war? How many people have had their trust of science scarred by the EPA overstepping and placing leukemia risk in a report about formaldehyde instead of just sticking to nasal cancer? How many people had their trust in the government shaken by Chairman Jaczka recommending Americans not remain within 50 miles of the meltdown at Fukushima instead of a more modest 20 miles?
I am not in any way saying that scientific misconduct - whether it involves overstating one's case or acting with too much haste - is acceptable. (Though sometimes in the intersection of science and policy, haste is required and mistakes are made.) But I think I am well within my rights to talk about scale.
What hurts the public trust of science more? The DOI erroneously implying that something had been peer reviewed when it hadn't, or Senator Inhofe calling climate change (and thus the robust science backing it), "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"?
What hurts the public trust of science more? Judge Wanger calling Dr. Jennifer Norris a zealot, or Congressman Issa dogpiling on the Climate-gate-that-wasn't and saying, "It’s very clear that an inconvenient truth has been replaced by a convenient lie – we’d like to get to the bottom of the lie."?
What hurts public trust of science more? The EPA insufficiently documenting its methodology, or Senator Vitter stating, "I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory"? Or perhaps Senator Vitter trying (and thankfully failing) to quietly earmark money for an anti-evolution group?
What hurts public trust of science more?
The hypocrisy fills me with rage.
The shear sack required for these men to continually attack biology and climate science then set themselves up as "defenders" of science to score a few cheap political points, is breathtaking.
With "friends" like these, enemies need not apply.
At Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait has previously had a lot to say about these newly-minted defenders of federal science:
Vitter: Fail
Deniers abuse power to attack climate scientists
A firehose of global warming news, both good and bad
This letter caused me a lot of incoherent sputtering this morning.
First, I'd like to address the specific claims made by Senators Inhofe and Vitter and Congressman Issa, then I'd like to say a few words about the main premise of the letter itself.
I'll go through this section by section. What I have to say here is the result of me spending some quality time with Dr. Google. My findings are not necessarily definitive, or complete. So if you dredge up any points that I've missed or gotten wrong - or have arcane knowledge that I manifestly do not possess - please let me know and I'll add any new facts to the pile and swiftly correct mistakes.
Inspector General Investigation of the National Academy of Engineers Report
The criticism here is in regards to the report Secretary Salazar used to justify the six month moratorium on deepwater drilling following the blowout at the Macondo well that ultimately spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I do not have a link to the report, but rather the Investigative Report, Federal Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling, US Department of Interior, which responds to criticism of the original report.
The Republican letter implies that there was misconduct in the report, because scientific peer review for findings was claimed where none existed.
From the IG's report:
All DOl officials interviewed stated that it was not their intention to imply that the moratorium had been peer reviewed by the experts, and that when the experts' concern was brought to their attention, they promptly issued an apology to the experts via conference call, letter, and personal meeting.
And:
All DOI officials interviewed stated that it was never their intention to imply the moratorium was peer reviewed by the experts, but rather rushed editing of the Executive Summary by DOI and the White House resulted in this implication. After reviewing different drafts of the Executive Summary that were exchanged between DOI and the White House prior to its final issuance, the OIG determined that the White House edit of the original DOI draft Executive Summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed by the experts.
So basically, the Inspector General's report says that any implication that there was peer review - and it was only an implication, not a stated fact - was a mistake that the preparers of the report freely owned up to and apologized for.
Also from the IG report, in regards to the complaint that information quality assurance was violated:
While the 30-Day Report's Executive Summary could have been more clearly worded, the Department has not definitively violated the IQA. For example, the recommendation for a moratorium is not contained in the safety report itself. Furthermore, the Executive Summary does not indicate that the peer reviewers approved any of the Report's recommendations. The Department also appears to have adequately remedied the IQA concerns by communicating directly with the experts, offering a formal apology, and publicly clarifying the nature of the peer review.
The Republican letter also alleges blatant political influence. Having read the Inspector General's report, that's a baseless accusation on their part.
I will note that the Inspector General's report was requested by Senator David Vitter (and Congressman Steve Scalise). To be honest, after reading through the entire thing, I wonder if Senator Vitter is just feeling a little aggravated that the Inspector General didn't find the steaming heaps of politicized scientific misconduct he was desperately hoping for. What's in the Republican letter reads like a mountain being made from a mole hill.
National Research Council Review of IRIS Formaldehyde Assessment (EPA)
The NRC's review can be found here if you'd like to read it yourself.
This seems to be the most damning part of the NRC's review:
The report finds that EPA supports its conclusions that formaldehyde can cause irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat; lesions in the respiratory tract; and genetic mutations at high concentrations. Furthermore, the report finds that the evidence is sufficient for EPA to conclude that formaldehyde exposures are a cause of cancers of the nose, nasal cavity, and upper throat. However, the draft assessment has not adequately supported its conclusions that formaldehyde causes other cancers of the respiratory tract, leukemia, or several other noncancer health outcomes. Also, the assessment should consider additional studies to derive noncancer reference concentrations (RfCs), which are estimates of lifetime concentrations to which someone could be exposed without appreciable risk of particular adverse health effects.
This one is a little less clear cut, I think. The NRC makes valid points about the EPA overstating the research to pin leukemia on formaldehyde, for example. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde in group 2A, which means "probably carcinogenic to humans." This is generally not the same as "you will get leukemia."
Here's a news article that has the rainbow of reactions in black and white. The Sierra Club is disappointed. Industry groups are happy. And Senator Vitter is quoted as saying:
"I'm extremely glad I fought so hard for this review by the National Academy of Sciences, which really is the gold standard in terms of scientific assessment," Vitter said. "It confirms what I feared -- serious shortcomings and bias at the EPA. Louisiana citizens should be able to count on EPA conclusions and advice. This study shows that we can't."Which I think is a very nicely crafted attack, since it implies that the EPA is completely unreliable instead of overcautious, which seems to be the case here.
Personally, I'd rather agencies were too cautious about health risks than not cautious enough. Though that is no excuse for a lack of scientific rigor.
US District Judge Oliver Wanger's Decision Criticizing Agency Scientific Work and Testimony in Federal Court
I find it rather curious that the source cited in regards to lives and local economies being ruined is an opinion piece: California's Man-Made Drought, The green war against San Joaquin Valley Farmers
The snide tone of that particular opinion piece notwithstanding (because hey, I'm not going to begrudge someone a bit of snideness when I revel in it myself!) the job losses seem to be more about drought than pumping restrictions. (Estimated 16,000 jobs lost due to drought, 5,000 due to the restrictions.)
However, the rest of the points in the Republican letter are a bit more difficult to tackle. If you'd like to read the entirety of the judge's opinion here it is, and I'd recommend you put on your asbestos underwear first, because it's a doozy. Judge Wanger has some very nasty things to say about the scientists in this case, the juiciest bits of which are cited in the letter to the Administration.
This is where it gets muddy, I think. Judge Wanger has apparently faced some criticism:
But at times, Poole said, Wanger has gone too far. "We have argued in certain cases … that he has basically made scientific calls when there's a dispute between scientists that are improper for him to make" under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. "He shouldn't be the arbitrator for scientific disputes. Congress has given that role to the expert agencies."I haven't been able to find any detailed information about the testimony given by the two scientists. So at this point, I feel like it devolves into a he-said she-said, where Judge Wanger feels that the witnesses are not credible, and the EPA says it continues to support their findings. I've found several articles that have questioned Judge Wanger's accusations that the scientists are contradictory on the grounds that he has mistaken scientific uncertainty for attempted deceit. I really can't say one way or the other.
For more information on the issue at hand, I found this post helpful.
GAO Report on Yucca Mountain and IG Investigations into the Actions of DOE Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
In this case, the NRC is the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, NOT the National Research Council.
The GAO report on Yucca Mountain can be found here.
I have little to say about the Yucca Mountain criticism, because FSM help me, I actually kind of agree.
The attack on Chairman Gregory Jaczko has me rather floored, though. Specifically in regard to his recommendations for evacuating Americans in a fifty mile radius around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima is still really an ongoing thing, and will be for years to come. In March, radiation levels at 60km were hitting the threshold for increased cancer risk. The Japanese government has faced very strong criticism for redefining safety levels of radiation in proximity to the plant. In April, high radiation levels were being found outside the 10 km evacuation zone.
What just boggles my mind is that Chairman Jaczko is basically being attacked for taking a "better safe than sorry" approach to a nuclear disaster. One can only wonder what the reaction would have been if he'd just stuck with the evacuation zone that the Japanese government had drawn.
But really, this is all beside the point.
Public trust in federal scientific work is waning and the academic community has gone so far as to call the situation a "crisis." Accordingly, we request that you provide us with an accounting of your activities in response to serious questions raised about the quality of science utilized by this Administration.
Looking over the list of issues in the Republican letter, one thing struck me the most - scale. They want to talk about public trust in scientific work? I'd be curious to know how many people outside of the San Jaoquin valley - and outside of those that have a serious hate on for the EPA - knew about Judge Wanger and the never-ending delta smelt war? How many people have had their trust of science scarred by the EPA overstepping and placing leukemia risk in a report about formaldehyde instead of just sticking to nasal cancer? How many people had their trust in the government shaken by Chairman Jaczka recommending Americans not remain within 50 miles of the meltdown at Fukushima instead of a more modest 20 miles?
I am not in any way saying that scientific misconduct - whether it involves overstating one's case or acting with too much haste - is acceptable. (Though sometimes in the intersection of science and policy, haste is required and mistakes are made.) But I think I am well within my rights to talk about scale.
What hurts the public trust of science more? The DOI erroneously implying that something had been peer reviewed when it hadn't, or Senator Inhofe calling climate change (and thus the robust science backing it), "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"?
What hurts the public trust of science more? Judge Wanger calling Dr. Jennifer Norris a zealot, or Congressman Issa dogpiling on the Climate-gate-that-wasn't and saying, "It’s very clear that an inconvenient truth has been replaced by a convenient lie – we’d like to get to the bottom of the lie."?
What hurts public trust of science more? The EPA insufficiently documenting its methodology, or Senator Vitter stating, "I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory"? Or perhaps Senator Vitter trying (and thankfully failing) to quietly earmark money for an anti-evolution group?
What hurts public trust of science more?
The hypocrisy fills me with rage.
The shear sack required for these men to continually attack biology and climate science then set themselves up as "defenders" of science to score a few cheap political points, is breathtaking.
With "friends" like these, enemies need not apply.
At Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait has previously had a lot to say about these newly-minted defenders of federal science:
Vitter: Fail
Deniers abuse power to attack climate scientists
A firehose of global warming news, both good and bad
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Join me in squee.
Because I have nothing of interest to say. So here, the Avengers trailer:
Because Robert Downey Jr + Joss Whedon banter is my new OTP.
Grad school is keeping me very busy. I'm also jut trying to decide what I want to do with this blog, since I mostly just write about more personal stuff on my LJ and I haven't had much interesting to say about geology because it's all class work at the moment. (Though I will note that anyone who doubts or denies carbon-induced climate change should be forced to take a geochemistry course.) Are my non-geology diversions into random nerdery or obsessing about my writing fun? Annoying?
I'd probably be able to blog a bit better if I knew what I wanted this blog to be, really.
Because Robert Downey Jr + Joss Whedon banter is my new OTP.
Grad school is keeping me very busy. I'm also jut trying to decide what I want to do with this blog, since I mostly just write about more personal stuff on my LJ and I haven't had much interesting to say about geology because it's all class work at the moment. (Though I will note that anyone who doubts or denies carbon-induced climate change should be forced to take a geochemistry course.) Are my non-geology diversions into random nerdery or obsessing about my writing fun? Annoying?
I'd probably be able to blog a bit better if I knew what I wanted this blog to be, really.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Two Earth Science Items
Everyone should read this post. It's by Dr. Bailles, one of the co-discoverers of the so-called "diamond planet" that the media was having squee spasms about recently. He pointedly notes that his discovery wouldn't have been at all gleefully received if he was, say, a climate scientist, despite the fact that the scientific process and peer review is the same.
Which I think is a really good point. Everyone loves hearing about awesome astronomy things, and you never see the media seeking "balance." And by "balance," I mean, "finding a dissenting voice on the fringe of the science to provide the illusion of fairness when, in fact, the dissenting voice is the minority and has often failed to address the criticism of his or her peers."
But, you know, "balance" is way easier to type.
And Brian Dunning of Skeptoid just put an episode out about fracking. I did a couple of posts about that myself, almost two years ago. Generally, I think Brian did a good job, and the episode is worth a listen. His ending point is excellent - it's important to separate the science from how much you loathe Halliburton, for example.
The only complaint I've got is for part of the episode he refers to natural gas drilling as "mining" for some reason I can't fathom, and even refers to wells as "mines" in a couple of instances. That started driving me a little crazy after a while. But then he uses "wells" and "drilling" in other parts of the podcast, so I'm not sure what's going on with the vocabulary choice.
Also, I would have liked to hear Brian mention that fracking fluid is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, due to a 2005 amendment. This is something I still personally think needs to be changed due to the possibility of surface contamination. There are sites like FracFocus, which sounds like it's built on voluntary disclosure. As far as I know there's no other federal requirement of disclosure (please, correct me if I'm wrong) though it sounds like a lot of states have laws now. Ultimately, your mileage may vary depending upon how evil you may think the various oil companies are, but I do have my doubts that fluid additives would be disclosed without a legal requirement; if nothing else, a lot of the additives are proprietary.
Anyway, good job, Brian!
Which I think is a really good point. Everyone loves hearing about awesome astronomy things, and you never see the media seeking "balance." And by "balance," I mean, "finding a dissenting voice on the fringe of the science to provide the illusion of fairness when, in fact, the dissenting voice is the minority and has often failed to address the criticism of his or her peers."
But, you know, "balance" is way easier to type.
And Brian Dunning of Skeptoid just put an episode out about fracking. I did a couple of posts about that myself, almost two years ago. Generally, I think Brian did a good job, and the episode is worth a listen. His ending point is excellent - it's important to separate the science from how much you loathe Halliburton, for example.
The only complaint I've got is for part of the episode he refers to natural gas drilling as "mining" for some reason I can't fathom, and even refers to wells as "mines" in a couple of instances. That started driving me a little crazy after a while. But then he uses "wells" and "drilling" in other parts of the podcast, so I'm not sure what's going on with the vocabulary choice.
Also, I would have liked to hear Brian mention that fracking fluid is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, due to a 2005 amendment. This is something I still personally think needs to be changed due to the possibility of surface contamination. There are sites like FracFocus, which sounds like it's built on voluntary disclosure. As far as I know there's no other federal requirement of disclosure (please, correct me if I'm wrong) though it sounds like a lot of states have laws now. Ultimately, your mileage may vary depending upon how evil you may think the various oil companies are, but I do have my doubts that fluid additives would be disclosed without a legal requirement; if nothing else, a lot of the additives are proprietary.
Anyway, good job, Brian!
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Read one of my stories!
Last year Anotherealm bought one of my short stories, and now it's published online and available for reading! Go here!
I was a bad girl and worked on doing some queries and such today instead of doing my geochemistry homework. Geochemistry this semester is looking pretty interesting, though. The class is actually focused on marine geochemistry,where we use chemicals to make rocks yell HOORAH which is pertinent to my own research since the ocean is very involved in the carbon cycle, and climate. And thus, very involved in climate change.
I'm also going to be doing a one hour independent study this semester, as long as the paperwork went through. I need to learn about paleosols in thin section anyway, so that'll be the aim... research micromorphology and then apply what I've learned to thin sections that Mary has from two sites in the Bighorn Basin. I'm pretty excited about that. I just need to get someone to show me how to use the automated stage on the microscope in the sed lab. Or tell me where the left occular for the other microscope's gotten to. Because trying to use a binocular microscope only looking through one eyepiece... it started doing funny things to my vision after a while.
So expect some pretty pictures of paleosol thin sections at some point in the near future! (Near future meaning this semester... as was pointed out to me at Skepticamp, geologists need to qualify what we mean when we say things like "quick" and "soon.")
I was a bad girl and worked on doing some queries and such today instead of doing my geochemistry homework. Geochemistry this semester is looking pretty interesting, though. The class is actually focused on marine geochemistry,
I'm also going to be doing a one hour independent study this semester, as long as the paperwork went through. I need to learn about paleosols in thin section anyway, so that'll be the aim... research micromorphology and then apply what I've learned to thin sections that Mary has from two sites in the Bighorn Basin. I'm pretty excited about that. I just need to get someone to show me how to use the automated stage on the microscope in the sed lab. Or tell me where the left occular for the other microscope's gotten to. Because trying to use a binocular microscope only looking through one eyepiece... it started doing funny things to my vision after a while.
So expect some pretty pictures of paleosol thin sections at some point in the near future! (Near future meaning this semester... as was pointed out to me at Skepticamp, geologists need to qualify what we mean when we say things like "quick" and "soon.")
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Clarion Blog Post Up! And Skepticamp!
New post of mine up over at the Clarion Blog. I talk about my seven days of drilling in the Bighorn Basin, this time from the perspective of what the experience felt like.
Skepticamp Colorado Springs was today, and it was awesome and tons of fun. This one was split into two rooms, which put us all in the unfortunate position of having to choose between speakers - but also meant there was more variety. There were a lot of fun talks. As always, I loved Bryan and Baxter, Karen Stollznow, and Stuart Robbins. John Rising did a great job organizing the event, and also did an interesting talk on the history of ghost photography.
We also had a couple of guys from the Airforce Academy: Dr. Carlos Bertha and Dr. Barry Fagin. Dr. Bertha started the morning with an interesting talk about Fideism, which is basically the position of unreasoning "because I said so" faith. It was enough philosophy to be interesting but not so much it made me want to tear my hair out, and it was generally interesting. And it was a good explanation why sometimes, you just have to give up an argument and agree to disagree, because no amount of logic will really penetrate. Dr. Fagin I had more mixed feelings on. He gave two talks, actually. The first in the morning was basically a libertarian ranty rant about how we should be skeptical about politics, where he said he'd be goring his own ox as well but didn't really. He said some things about economics that I desperately wish Mike had been there for, since I'm pretty sure I've heard Mike say bitchy things about just those things in the past. But Dr. Fagin's second talk was absolutely awesome, about how skepticism brings with it a rich inner life. It was extremely well done and was a nice end cap for the day.
I did a talk as well, about the basics of the Bighorn Basin Coring Project, what we're hoping to find out about the PETM, what the PETM and ELMO are, and why this is an important topic to discuss. I moved my talk so that I could see Stuart's entire topic. This meant that I actually gave mine at the same time our local global climate change denier was giving his. Which I think was probably for the best, or we might well have just been heckling the crap out of each other during our respective talks and never would have gotten anywhere. I feel like my talk went pretty well. I was nervous as hell. I always am about public speaking, and this I was trying to talk about some basic isotope ratio stuff, and I still get so turned around with those at times. But apparently I didn't sound nervous at all, and I was enthused and interesting, so go me! I think that teaching has helped my public speaking, to the point that I at least manage to not throw a lot of garbage "uh" and "you know" in, even if I'm nervous.
Correction from my talk: I got on an excited roll and said something about there being a rainforest of some sort in Antarctica. Let the record show that this was a mistake on my part, where I confused two separate and interesting things in my head. There's evidence of a very high-latitude (80N paleolatitude) seasonal rainforest in Arctic Canada during the middle Eocene1. And there's evidence that during the PETM, Antarctica had a subtropical humid episode - so it got a lot warmer and a lot more humid than today's Antarctica2. So there was season rainforest that moved up into the Arctic, but I have no idea what the vegetation might have been like in Antarctica during the PETM. I tried to do a quick and dirty paper search and didn't come up with anything, so it could be that we just don't know. Antarctica isn't the most hospitable place to go searching for fossilized pollen. But if you don't believe me about the proto-Potomac, read this cool paper.
Boy, is my face red.
Anyway, my parents came to Skepticamp! It was their first one. Though I'm sure it wasn't at all intimidating after going to TAM. But my parents are super awesome.
Afterward, we all went to Jack Quinn's, and I drank two ciders despite the fact that I had no business drinking anything stronger than water after the Evan-induced beer binge last night. (Though I somehow managed to escape my richly-deserved hangover this morning, so who knows.) I had some excellent bangers and mash.
Where will the next Colorado Skepticamp be?
1 - Jahren, A.H., and Sternberg, L.S.L., 2003, Humidity estimate for the middle Eocene Arctic rain forest: Geology, v. 31, p. 463-466.
2- Robert, C., and Kennett, J.P., 1994, Antarctic subtropical humid episode at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary: Clay-mineral evidence: Geology, v. 22, p. 211-214.
Skepticamp Colorado Springs was today, and it was awesome and tons of fun. This one was split into two rooms, which put us all in the unfortunate position of having to choose between speakers - but also meant there was more variety. There were a lot of fun talks. As always, I loved Bryan and Baxter, Karen Stollznow, and Stuart Robbins. John Rising did a great job organizing the event, and also did an interesting talk on the history of ghost photography.
We also had a couple of guys from the Airforce Academy: Dr. Carlos Bertha and Dr. Barry Fagin. Dr. Bertha started the morning with an interesting talk about Fideism, which is basically the position of unreasoning "because I said so" faith. It was enough philosophy to be interesting but not so much it made me want to tear my hair out, and it was generally interesting. And it was a good explanation why sometimes, you just have to give up an argument and agree to disagree, because no amount of logic will really penetrate. Dr. Fagin I had more mixed feelings on. He gave two talks, actually. The first in the morning was basically a libertarian ranty rant about how we should be skeptical about politics, where he said he'd be goring his own ox as well but didn't really. He said some things about economics that I desperately wish Mike had been there for, since I'm pretty sure I've heard Mike say bitchy things about just those things in the past. But Dr. Fagin's second talk was absolutely awesome, about how skepticism brings with it a rich inner life. It was extremely well done and was a nice end cap for the day.
I did a talk as well, about the basics of the Bighorn Basin Coring Project, what we're hoping to find out about the PETM, what the PETM and ELMO are, and why this is an important topic to discuss. I moved my talk so that I could see Stuart's entire topic. This meant that I actually gave mine at the same time our local global climate change denier was giving his. Which I think was probably for the best, or we might well have just been heckling the crap out of each other during our respective talks and never would have gotten anywhere. I feel like my talk went pretty well. I was nervous as hell. I always am about public speaking, and this I was trying to talk about some basic isotope ratio stuff, and I still get so turned around with those at times. But apparently I didn't sound nervous at all, and I was enthused and interesting, so go me! I think that teaching has helped my public speaking, to the point that I at least manage to not throw a lot of garbage "uh" and "you know" in, even if I'm nervous.
Correction from my talk: I got on an excited roll and said something about there being a rainforest of some sort in Antarctica. Let the record show that this was a mistake on my part, where I confused two separate and interesting things in my head. There's evidence of a very high-latitude (80N paleolatitude) seasonal rainforest in Arctic Canada during the middle Eocene1. And there's evidence that during the PETM, Antarctica had a subtropical humid episode - so it got a lot warmer and a lot more humid than today's Antarctica2. So there was season rainforest that moved up into the Arctic, but I have no idea what the vegetation might have been like in Antarctica during the PETM. I tried to do a quick and dirty paper search and didn't come up with anything, so it could be that we just don't know. Antarctica isn't the most hospitable place to go searching for fossilized pollen. But if you don't believe me about the proto-Potomac, read this cool paper.
Boy, is my face red.
Anyway, my parents came to Skepticamp! It was their first one. Though I'm sure it wasn't at all intimidating after going to TAM. But my parents are super awesome.
Afterward, we all went to Jack Quinn's, and I drank two ciders despite the fact that I had no business drinking anything stronger than water after the Evan-induced beer binge last night. (Though I somehow managed to escape my richly-deserved hangover this morning, so who knows.) I had some excellent bangers and mash.
Where will the next Colorado Skepticamp be?
1 - Jahren, A.H., and Sternberg, L.S.L., 2003, Humidity estimate for the middle Eocene Arctic rain forest: Geology, v. 31, p. 463-466.
2- Robert, C., and Kennett, J.P., 1994, Antarctic subtropical humid episode at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary: Clay-mineral evidence: Geology, v. 22, p. 211-214.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Fright Night
I have never actually seen the original Fright Night, but my best friend Kat has, and she seemed to think the remake did just fine. As someone completely new to the franchise, I felt like it was well worth my $8.50 at the local AMC.
I don't think I need to get spoilery, since it's not the sort of movie that I want to dissect when it comes to plot and characterization. It was just fun. The pacing was excellent, the humor and horror were mixed well. Colin Farell was delightfully creepy in both the "holy shit, vampire" and "yucky dude from next door that hits on your mom" kind of way. David Tennant was in leather pants.
Let me repeat that for my fellow Doctor Who fangirls: David Tennant was in leather pants.
There was suspense, and creepiness, and just enough ridiculous gore to remind me that even though I was squirming in my seat at times, the movie was one big nodding, winking joke about vampires. ("Jerry the vampire?") It makes me happy when I see movies where vampires are giant, gross bastards instead of whiny drama queens who want to spend all eternity writing poetry and gazing soulfully at teenaged girls.
And the part I liked the most? The characters weren't dumb. It's so rare to see a horror (even if it should be "horror" here, I suppose) movie where the characters are actually competent. There wasn't really a time in the entire movie where I felt like shouting at the screen, as if that would prevent someone from doing something hideously stupid, and that's rare indeed.
I recommend it, definitely.
I don't think I need to get spoilery, since it's not the sort of movie that I want to dissect when it comes to plot and characterization. It was just fun. The pacing was excellent, the humor and horror were mixed well. Colin Farell was delightfully creepy in both the "holy shit, vampire" and "yucky dude from next door that hits on your mom" kind of way. David Tennant was in leather pants.
Let me repeat that for my fellow Doctor Who fangirls: David Tennant was in leather pants.
There was suspense, and creepiness, and just enough ridiculous gore to remind me that even though I was squirming in my seat at times, the movie was one big nodding, winking joke about vampires. ("Jerry the vampire?") It makes me happy when I see movies where vampires are giant, gross bastards instead of whiny drama queens who want to spend all eternity writing poetry and gazing soulfully at teenaged girls.
And the part I liked the most? The characters weren't dumb. It's so rare to see a horror (even if it should be "horror" here, I suppose) movie where the characters are actually competent. There wasn't really a time in the entire movie where I felt like shouting at the screen, as if that would prevent someone from doing something hideously stupid, and that's rare indeed.
I recommend it, definitely.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Loki's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
The kitties went to the vet today for their annual checkup. Or rather, I took them to the vet, because it's not like they were just going to hop in the car and drive themselves over there.
Tengu has gotten wise to my normal trick of leaving the carriers out and open, then luring the cats inside at the appropriate time. I ended up having to corner him in my bedroom and stuff him into the carrier. However, Tengu also got a Gold Star from the vet for being in a fine example of a cat his age and in perfect health. It was apparently the only gold star the vet had given out all day.
Loki, on the other hand. Loki. There was screaming and growling and hissing and spitting. There were one or two swipes at the vet, though he didn't seem to have his claws out for it. They had to try to wrap him in a blanket, he was being so bad. And there was no way in hell he was going to quietly let the vet look at his ears, which he's still having problems with. So he got a jab in the butt (plus hissing, spitting, and snarling) with some sedatives.
And he fought the sedation the whole time. He's still fighting it now. This cat will not just go to sleep. I always knew Loki was stubborn, but this is a whole new level of Fuck You I Ain't Gonna And You Can't Make Me. At home, Loki is slowly wobbling around like a drunk, and every time he looks like he's going to fall asleep he gets up and wobbles around some more. I was trying to just keep him in my bedroom to start with, but then he just would not stop trying to get up on the windowsill, even after I had to rescue him because he almost fell off. I think I've got him contented with a sunbeam coming through the patio door now. Maybe.
And he keeps glaring at me with this eyes barely open and his nictating membrane at half mast, which is both hilarious and creepy at the same time. It's a look that promises there will be hell to pay, just as soon as there's just one of me instead of seven or eight wobbling around his field of view.
However, all of this did have a good purpose. It turns out the ear problems he's been having for years are because he has ear mites. A weird, asymptomatic case of ear mites. Because the gunk coming out of his ears doesn't look like ear mite gunk, and he's never given them to Tengu despite the fact that they're very contagious and Tengu will not leave his ears alone, yet Loki's ears are just crawling with mites. Bizarre. And the vet also said ear mites tends to be a young cat thing, and a farm cat thing, so maybe Loki got them before I picked him up (since he was born on a farm if memory serves) and has just had them ever since. Either way, I've got a treatment for him, so hopefully that means his ears will clear up and we won't have to go through this drama with him again.
Hopefully. Next time they go to the vet, it's for vaccinations, so there may be more of the good drugs in his future.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Gilmore Hill pictures and videos
Here's my Picasa album of all the pictures I took at Gilmore Hill: Gilmore Hill Drilling
And a few videos:
Core water cannon
Breaking pipes at sunset
Lowering the mast
Moving the rig to the new location
And a few videos:
Core water cannon
Breaking pipes at sunset
Lowering the mast
Moving the rig to the new location
Thursday, August 04, 2011
My BBCP: Nights 6 and 7, That's All Folks
As of right now, drilling is finished! We turned the B-hole (not to be confused with the Gilmore Hill A-hole) over to the day shift with less than fifty feet left to drill, and they got that done in a bit over an hour. So Gilmore Hill is finished, and that was our third and final site! So now it's just about analyzing what little initial data we have, and biding our time until January, when we all get to meet up in Bremen and do another marathon of SCIENCE!
Will ended up deciding to go deep on the first whole, so on night six that's what we did. The returns took a lot longer, and we had a lot of down time during the night shift because the drill bit had been worn almost entirely smooth. That required tripping out of the hole and back in, so that was like two hours gone. After that, we drilled at a reasonable pace, but by the end it was taking 20 minutes per core and there were some really clay-rich intervals that took forever (relatively speaking) to drill through. There was still a hundred and some feet left on the first hole when we handed it over to day shift in the morning, and they finished it up.
However, that night we did have some entertainment. Some of it was not so fun, like the part where I got bitten seven times by various mosquitoes. The most exciting part of the night was when a bat flew through the open door of the RV and couldn't find its way back out. It eventually flew into the cabinets and hid. The poor thing looked so scared. Gabe ended up using a dish towel to grab it, then let the bat go outside. It flew away alright, so hopefully it was fine and caught a lot more bugs that night!
This last shift we started off just waiting for the first hole to get logged, then we moved the rig to the new location, a whole fifteen feet away from the first hole. When we finally did start drilling, it was just gogogo like the first night. Except since we weren't doing sampling on this second core, it felt a lot less hectic because we effectively had at least one extra set of hands at all times. So even though we were getting core every ten minutes, I think poor Gabe was getting a little bored at times. AJ seemed determined to get through all 200 feet on his own - we're not sure if this was because Doug spent like half an hour at the start of the shift telling him it just couldn't be done, or because he and Brandon were just convinced that if they didn't see the thing through to the end themselves, they'd somehow get suckered in to one more night shift. But in the end, we had to call it good at about 150 feet since the rig needed to be refueled.
But it's done for sure now! And day shift has to clean up the drilling site HAHAHA. We went and got breakfast, and now I'm going to try to have a short little sleep and be up by around 1 or so. Our plan is to go hang out in Cody for a couple of hours, and then have a big dinner for all the Gilmore Hill crew. This will hopefully help me get back onto normal hours. And then I'll be heading home early tomorrow morning, so I will be back in Denver before the weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)