In our book Unscientific America, we devoted an entire chapter to discussing the merits and limitations of science blogging. Here’s an excerpt:

The single-biggest blogging negative, however, is the grouping together of people who already agree about everything, and who then proceed to square and cube their agreements, becoming increasingly self-assured and intolerant of other viewpoints. Thus, blogging about science has brought out, in some cases, the loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-strewing minority of the science world that denounces the rest of America for its ignorance and superstition. This ideological content, which inflames audiences, is often the most likely to draw attention outside of the science-centric blogosphere—meaning that out of the many contributions made by science blogging, the posts that non-scientists (or people who don’t follow science regularly) will probably come across are those skewering religion.

Needless to say, while I was not surprised at the response to Chris’ announcement, I am extremely dismayed. Discussion of each post is anticipated, but baseless personal attacks demonstrate the trouble with blogging.

Chris has been blogging for nine years and I began in 2006. The blogosphere is changing, growing, and evolving. In just the past few years, we’ve watched the number of science bloggers swell, while the tone of much of the commentary changed. Most disheartening, the relationships between bloggers fractured across once cohesive networks as small friendly communities chose sides in a growing culture war. (Those involved understand what I mean).

Science blogs themselves continue to afford a wonderful medium for scientists and science writers to reach broad audiences, but they also tend to result in groupthink and often deconstructive or off-topic, rather than constructive discussions. Recently, several science blogs and popular discussion forums such as RichardDawkins.net have been grappling with how to go forward. Multiple science bloggers I admire have retired their sites after frustration with the status quo. So I’ve been pondering the value of science blogging itself.

Much of the time, the blogs have become sport and spectacle. The highest traffic ensues when shots are fired between folks who like to spat angrily across their sites from behind the safety of their desktop. The funny thing is, we assuredly agree on far more than whatever we’re at odds over on any given day. So in the big picture, I often wonder if all the in-fighting does science a great disservice.

What do readers think? Do the positives outweigh the negatives?

There are two skeptical events coming up you should know about:

1) The first Skepchicamp, a skepticamp thrown by the Skepchicks, will be held on Saturday, March 6 in Chicago. You can get more details here. Skepticamps are audience-participation events, where everyone can help in some way. They’re fun, so if you’re in Chicago then, give it a shot.

2) GenCon is a gaming convention held in Indianapolis, and this year there will be a skeptic track. That’s from August 5-8.

I’m glad to see more grassroots skeptical events getting put together. They’re great ways to meet like-minded folks, to learn new things, and to have a lot of fun.

Tom and I have been posting a riddle every Saturday since early November, and it’s been a lot of fun for us.  The “prize” has always been to pick a research topic for the following Monday’s post, and we’ve sure had some interesting subjects come up.  We decided to add something extra to the whole riddle concept, so we’re introducing a “Bonus Riddle”.  Everybody who has solved a previous riddle will be eligible to participate in the bonus riddle.

The Universe - Season 4 DVD Collection

The prize for solving the bonus riddle will be the season 4 complete DVD set of “The Universe”.  This is a special edition, 4-DVD set containing 12 episodes (plus never-aired segments) from A&E Home Video.  This video collection was only released 02/23/10, is over 10 hours total running time, and includes features on comets and meteors.

I bet I got your attention with that, didn’t I!

Okay, here’s how it’ll work:

• Tom and I will post the Bonus Riddle at noon CDT, March 15th.  That’s Monday…  the Ides of March (sounds ominous, doesn’t it?). You’ll have two more chances to solve a riddle to become eligible to participate; the one on March 6th, and the one on March 13th.  Good luck on those.

• Guesses will be by email to Tom or Marian.
• You will have 24 hours to submit your guesses; from noon CDT March 15th until noon CDT March 16th.
• You get three guesses.
• Comments will be closed on the Bonus Riddle until after the submission deadline.
• The winner will be the first person to submit the correct answer.  If nobody solves the riddle by noon CDT March 16th, it will be opened for everybody to give it a shot.
• Tom will have the final say in any controversy.

This is going to be SO much fun!  We’ll be reminding you of the Bonus Riddle as the date approaches, so nobody gets bushwhacked.  Also, Tom and I both will be contributing clues to this riddle.  We’re planning on making the Bonus Riddle a regular event, and hopefully we’ll always be able to offer a prize as nice as this one.

There were many quotable moments in my Point of Inquiry interview with Michael Mann. I’ll be posting those, and further reflections on the interview, throughout the coming week. But I’ll start with a particularly memorable exchange that occurs around minute 34:

Mooney: Can the scientific community fight harder, or must it draw the line somewhere? You’ve got someone out there like Marc Morano, who is incredibly effective at doing what he does, his website is ClimateDepot, it is very high traffic….the scientific community does not have its equivalent. And the question is, should it, or is that crossing some sort of line?

Mann: Well, it’s the old line about getting into a fight with a pig: “you’ll get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.” There’s some truth to that.

Listen to more of the interview–and subscribe–here….also, the CFI forums are getting pretty active now in discussing the interview.

The web is abuzz about an interview antivax activist and public health threat Jenny McCarthy did with Time magazine. A lot of folks seem to think that McCarthy is backtracking on her claims that vaccines cause autism.

Let me be very clear: that simply isn’t true. McCarthy is still making the same debunked, discredited, and dangerous claims:

Each of these theories [proposed by antivaxxers] has been thoroughly discredited by scientific research, but that has done nothing to silence McCarthy and her Generation Rescue colleagues. "Come and see our kids," says McCarthy. "Why won’t the CDC come and talk to the mothers, talk to the families? Then tell us there isn’t a link."

Sounds to me like she’s up to the same old health-hazard hijinks. So why are so many people saying she’s changed her mind? In some of the emails I’ve received and on a few websites, they’re claiming that McCarthy has admitted that her son never was autistic, and instead had Landau-Kleffner syndrome, a neurological disorder. But that’s wrong; she never admits that in the article — the author suggests that Evan’s symptoms are similar to Landau-Kleffner, but that’s it.

As recently as three weeks ago, McCarthy and her equally deluded boyfriend Jim Carrey both publicly defended Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor credited for starting the modern movement claiming vaccines cause autism. You can find that statement on the Natural News website, run by the equally wrong Mike Adams, who couldn’t find reality with three sherpas and a GPS.

So why is this misinformation that McCarthy has changed her mind being spread so much? Part of the problem is an article in Hollywood Life, which obviously mischaracterizes the Time interview, saying:

And she is also reversing her initial position that the MMR shots caused Evan’s autism.

Nowhere in the Time interview does she reverse her position! Hollywood Life is wrong, plain and simple. In fact, the Time article author says plainly:

…[McCarthy] blames the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine for giving her son autism.

I don’t see how this could be any more clear.

[Note: the URL for the Hollywood life article is even a misstatement: "http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/02/26/jenny-mccarthy-says-her-son-evan-never-had-autism/"; McCarthy said no such thing in the interview.]

So she is still standing by her earlier claims. Mind you, she still says she "cured" her son of his disorder by putting him on a gluten-free diet, which, to be clear, is nonsense. In fact, a lot of people have wondered if her son was ever autistic, and is now simply doing better as he ages; many disorders mitigate with time.

Also, this is a person who claims we are injecting our kids with too many vaccines, but has no issue injecting herself with the most dangerous protein known to humanity, so clearly her viewpoint is somewhat skewed from reality.

I urge people to read the article from Time magazine in its entirety; the author is clear he thinks McCarthy is wrong, that all of science and reality are stacked against her, and he even states simply that she is "dangerous".

I agree. She is a terrible influence on people; her science is wrong, her medical advice is dangerous, and she gives people false hope.

There is hope for parents with autistic children, but that hope comes through understanding the situation, using real evidence and data, and in knowing that thousands upon thousands of doctors are trying to understand autism as well. If there’s hope, it’s through science.

I know that McCarthy loves her son, and I do think she’s trying to help. But I also know that her claims about vaccines and autism are completely wrong, and instead of helping she’s making things far worse — not just for kids with autism and their parents, but for the population as a whole because vaccinations rates have dropped and we’re seeing a resurgence of preventable diseases.

This misinformation being spread about her isn’t helping. Her stance has not changed, and she is still a force for antireality. People listening to her are not helping their own children, and if they don’t vaccinate their kids they are putting everyone else in danger as well.

[Update: Surly Amy at Skepchick has similar thoughts on this.]

UPDATE:  SOLVED at 1:37 CDT

I have some exciting news about the weekly riddles, and I’ll be getting that out either later this evening or tomorrow.  In the interim, here’s one to make you think a little.

Today’s riddle answer is an object.

It is thought of as one “thing”, although it is composed of many.

It was known to ancient man.

Beham, (Hans) Sebald (1500-1550) Hercules Slaying the Hydra 1545

It is well represented in literature.

We associate this object with the summer months.

Not generally considered an important “player” to the Greeks, this object has gained interest in modern times.

Of its type, this object is the “dimmest”.

What do you think?  Ready to tackle the riddle?  I’m in the comment section, so give it a go.

Sorry, Trudy!

So, yes, since everybody seems to want to know: I am a Templeton Cambridge journalism fellow for 2010, and details on the program are here. I didn’t know when the new fellowship recipients’ names were going to be announced, but I guess the answer is yesterday.

The fellowship is basically two months long, with three weeks in Cambridge and two at “home” (wherever that is, in my case), during which one reads and studies up on the subject of science and religion.

Past fellows include Sandra Blakeslee, Juliet Eilperin, Marc Kaufman, Rob Stein, William Saletan, John Horgan, George Johnson, Shankar Vedantam, and many other top science journalists. I’m honored to join their number, and am looking forward to seeing the new crew–which includes folks like Ron Rosenbaum from Slate and Peter Scoblic from The New Republic–alongside the river Cam.

And thanks, everyone, for the congrats that have come in so far.

Last night at 06:34 UTC, a huge earthquake struck on the coast of Chile, with a reported magnitude of a numbing 8.8 — making it one of the largest earthquakes recorded on Earth since 1900.

A tsunami warning has been issued for the entire Pacific ocean. This is no joke; the tsunami gauges in the deep ocean have registered a wave spreading from the quake. I don’t know how big the amplitude is, but there have been confirmed reports of waves a meter high in Chile. That may not sound like much, but water weighs a ton per cubic meter/yard, so a wave that high has a lot of destructive power.

The tsunami should hit Hawaii around 11:05 local time, and it’s not clear at all how big it will be. In 1960, a larger earthquake happened off Chile and a tsunami hit Hilo, Hawaii causing quite a bit of damage. If you live anywhere near a Pacific coast, please check the local news and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Also, a live stream of news from Hawaii is on HawaiiTsunami.com. I’ve been listening and the coverage is pretty good.

If you live in Hawaii, now might be a good time to check out that higher ground you hear so much about. At the very least, stay away from the beaches! People are already starting to evacuate the coasts, so if you choose to get out, the earlier you get moving, the better. Traffic is bound to get snarled. Please please please don’t panic. Stay calm, and keep focused.

It’s unclear if this will be a big wave or not. But if you’re in Hawaii you should consider moving to higher ground.

Here is a map by the NOAA of the modeled energy wave expected from the earthquake:

It’s unclear to me just how big a wave this means in terms of real height (it’s a model, not an actual measurement), but it should bring home that you should take this seriously.

I’ll note that the magnitude scale doesn’t translate perfectly to energy released, but roughly speaking an 8.8 quake releases the energy equivalent of 20 billion tons of TNT, or 400 time the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated (Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton test done by the USSR in 1961). If the measurement hold up, this will be the fifth or sixth strongest earthquake recorded since 1900. The strongest ever recorded, in 1977 1960, was magnitude 9.5, also in Chile — the one that caused the tsunami in Hilo.

Thanks to Sean Carroll for the link to the energy map. Note also, in this post I referred to the Richter scale, which is no longer used. I corrected that.

Before another person emails me this article, yes I’ve seen it.

(CNN) — Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Anyone who follows the blog should already know I’m highly skeptical about such stories and their purported findings (although I am confident they result in lots of traffic online at the url). I have not seen the primary source, but want to respond to the emails I’m receiving.

In short, the reason this troubles me very much is because–regardless of what the actual study says–the way it’s been written up as a ‘news‘ item is misleading (especially for those who don’t read past the headline). Of course many of the factors considered will show interesting correlations in a sample, but correlation does not equal causation. Each is extremely dependent on social mores, cultural norms, hormones, relationships, socieoeconomic status, and much, much, more. Still, I would be interested to see the data and read the methodology.

That said, I can’t help but wonder if this is a classic example of ‘The Science News Cycle‘.

My dog can fly.

Can yours?

Yeah, I know it’s Caturday, but every dog has her weekend, right? Photo by Chris Setter.

The last test of the FSM-17

ATK Launch Systems conducted the last test of the FSM-17.  The FSM-17 is the flight support motor for the space shuttle.

This, the 52nd test conducted for NASA by ATK was the last test of the motor that has seen 129 shuttle flights.  The tests report data over 258 channels looking at 43 design parameters.

Four more shuttle flights to go.

Meanwhile:  Space X has a Falcon 9 rocket with a Dragon qualification spacecraft sitting on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral in preparation for static firing to collect data from sensors on and around the vehicle prior to an actual launch.

I don’t want to give anybody the wrong impression so I am going to state right up front I am a fan of and wholeheartedly support private space flight and private space flight initiatives.

My whole issue goes to where this whole country is heading.  The leaders are making everything a “crises” when it really isn’t, just to bully their own objectives though, no matter how poorly thought out.  As far as human space flight goes, oh give it to the private industry.  Give what to them?  Sure the private space industry IS going to get there and I am glad of it, but at the moment they are no where near the level that NASA has achieved and I’m sorry, they are going to be a while getting there.  Shutting down human spaceflight in the meantime is just plain nonsense.  Come on people, sure WHEN the private industry is able then YES by all means do it, but not before.

The same sort of thing is going on in this state:  OMG, we got to get rid of a nuclear power plant.  Fine what are you going to replace it with?  Nothing that’s what, some pipe dream of renewable energy is the mantra.  Sure we can do it but we aren’t ready to do it yet.  When we are, fine shut the plant, but not until.  Keep in mind the very ones that are screaming for renewable energy sing a different tune when the windmills go up, oh yeah, NIMBY.  So they talk the talk and play the bully card but when push comes to shove things are different story.

Yep, instead of thinking things through let’s throw the baby out with the bath water and then try and blame somebody else when things don’t go well.  Common sense seems to be dead in American politics, no I mean pretty much completely.   Pity.

Swinging high and low: Why do the testes hang at
different levels? A theory on surface area and
thermoregulation.

“Anatomically, one or the other half of the scrotal sac hangs at a lower level than the other. The testes, housed within the sacs are also situated, suspended, one slightly lower than its other counterpart. While many theories on why and how of the testicular levels have been proposed, including those engendered by vascular, functional, embryological or evolutionary influences, none of the proposed scientific reasons are totally convincing. In our view, one additional, yet overlooked cause for the naturally displaced level could be, simply, to expose more surface area of the active organ to cooler environs. While it is an accepted fact that suspension of the scrotum outside the abdominal cavity is paramount to the functional efficiency of testes in a preferred lower temperature – it still does not address the question – why hang at different levels?… In effect, just by suspension at two levels, nearly one entire extra surface is available for thermoregulation and cooling. That is, the surface area available now becomes two lateral, plus two halves of the two medial. This extra area available to the testes, probably is, yet another a significant but overlooked embryonic factor that dictates differential rates of descent and displacement of anatomical levels of twin reproductive male organs.”

Thanks to Eric for today’s ROFL!

Photo: flickr/brownpau

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: penis friday.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: The case of the haunted scrotum.

It’s walking cats that is truly problematic.

Feel free to construct your own similes. (Via Cynical-C.)

Yelp, the popular website that offers reviews of local businesses, has just been bitten by Cats and Dogs, a veterinary hospital that is accusing the site of extortion. In a class-action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles this week, the Long Beach pet hospital claims that Yelp tried to get it to cough up $300 a month for a 12-month advertising commitment in exchange for tweaking possible bad reviews of the clinic.

In its complaint, Cats and Dogs alleges that Yelp carried a negative review of the hospital written by a certain “Chris R” that the hospital’s owner, Gregory Perrault, viewed as false and defamatory. He asked Yelp to remove it because the review was based on an office visit that occurred 18 months before the post was written, and Yelp’s guidelines mandate that reviews must be posted within 12 months of an experience. The site took down Chris R’s review.

However another bad review, this time by “Kay K,” popped up five days later. According to Wired, Kay K wrote:

Dr. Perrault is the rudest vet I’ve ever been to . . . probably one of the rudest people I’ve had the displeasure of meeting. I agree with the previous reviews about making you feel like an unfit mom. My pup had been sick and I had a theory on what the problem may have been and he wouldn’t even entertain the idea, but instead, made me feel bad because my dog got sick. And, my poor dog was terrified of him! He made me feel like I was 2 inches tall and repeatedly looked down his nose at me. Oh, and OVER PRICED! OMG! Who does he think he is??? I did not feel welcomed by him nor his staff. I paid you for a service! No need to treat me so bad!

This is when Perrault alleges Yelp started pestering him; he says sales staff called and pressured him to consider an advertising package that would delete negative reviews, and would keep bad reviews from appearing in Google searches. Wired reports that when the doctor refused to bite, Chris R’s review reappeared on the site, along with a new one from Kay K that read in part:

I ran in to him in a neighborhood store right after he saw my poor sick dog at his clinic and he looked right at me, recognized me, rolled his eyes and looked away!!!! Seriously, someone needs to knock this guy down to the size he really is. He needs to drop his Napolean complex and be a professional. After my horrible experience with him, I took my sick dog to Bixby Animal Clinic and I have never had a more pleasant vet experience! Go there instead! My dog loved everyone there!

On being asked to remove this posting, Yelp declined, stating that they were not in a position to verify if all the reviews had been written by the same person. It added that the reviews reflected the personal opinion of the reviewers and that Yelp, adhering to its review guidelines, couldn’t do anything about them. Perrault’s lawyer called this tactic “high-tech extortion.”

This is not the first time Yelp has found itself in hot water. Last year, the Oakland-based East Bay Express found six business owners who had received calls from Yelp sales reps promising to move or remove negative reviews in exchange for an advertising package.

The report said:

In another six instances, positive reviews disappeared — or negative ones appeared — after owners declined to advertise.

A former Yelp employee reportedly confirmed to the paper that several sales reps promised local businesses that bad reviews would be purged in exchange for advertising on the site. While this is legal, the report pointed out that it raised ethical questions about a site that prides itself on “Real People. Real Reviews.”

The San Francisco-based Web site had more than 26 million visitors in December 2009 and has published more than 9 million reviews.

Related Content:
80beats: Some M.D.s Try to Amputate Online Reviews
80beats: Should Advertisers Be Allowed to Track Your Bedroom Habits?
80beats: How Did “Soupnazi” Allegedly Steal 130 Million Credit Card Numbers?
80beats: Researchers Guess Social Security Numbers From Public Data

Image: Yelp

There was no “Shamu Show” at SeaWorld today as people at the park mourned the death of Dawn Brancheau, the 40-year-old trainer apparently pulled to her death by Tilikum, one of the multiple killer whales the park uses under the name Shamu. As details continue to surface, park owners must decide what to do with the 12,000-pound aquatic animal.

First off, the public should keep in mind that this incident is highly unusual, says Wayne Perryman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He studies orcas (another name for killer whales) in the wild and says that they’ve never been known to attack a person as Tilikum has done, pulling Brancheau under water until she drowned. Perryman points out that other captive animals are known to snap and turn on their trainers—not just killer whales. “I think this isn’t really a killer whale issue,” he said. “It’s when you’re dealing with large mammals in a captive situation’” [National Geographic].

Nancy Black of California’s Monterey Bay Whale Watch notes that Tilikum had a more aggressive track record than other orcas, perhaps because of his history. He was captured near Iceland in November 1983, according to Discovery News, and kept in small tanks for most of his life. “I’m sure it was a high stress situation,” says Ms. Black. “Being kept in a small tank like that, especially because he was originally from the wild” [Christian Science Monitor]. And this is the third human death with which the killer whale has been linked. The first was in 1991, when a trainer at Sealand of the Pacific fell into the tank with Tilikum and two other orcas. In 1999, a homeless man sneaked into the whale tank at Sea World in Orlando after hours. The man died of hypothermia, although bruises and bite marks suggest that the orca may have had a role in his death [Christian Science Monitor]. This time, though, a crowd of people was on hand for the tragedy.

SeaWorld has said it will evaluate the orca, but added that it has no plans to euthanize the animal. And Brancheau’s friends say that though they miss her, she knew the danger of her job. Earlier today, Jack Hanna, a well-known animal expert with ties to Central Florida, spoke on national television about the tragedy, saying animal experts such as Brancheau are aware of the risks, as well as the benefits, of working with live animals [Orlando Sentinel].

Related Content:
80beats: West Coast Killer Whales Are Poisoned By Pollution-Tainted Killer Salmon
DISCOVER: Sea Sick, why are killer whales near Seattle dying?
DISCOVER: Wild Ones, some killer whales have switched to eating seals and otters

Image: iStockphoto

It’s a robot that could change the way scientists gather data from underwater sources. Researchers from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California have developed a new autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), and like other AUVs this sophisticated robot can slip under the waves, sweep the ocean floor, collect data, and perform programmed tasks. But the “Gulper” goes one step further–it doesn’t just follow its program, it can also make decisions on its own, and can plan its own route, avoiding hazardous currents and obstacles [BBC].

Explaining how the robot functions, Kim Fulton-Bennett from MBARI said: “We tell it, ‘here’s the range of tasks that we want you to perform’, and it goes off and assesses what is happening in the ocean, making decisions about how much of the range it will cover to get back the data we want” [BBC]. The ocean-going bot has also been described as “a microbiology laboratory in a can,” because it can analyze some samples in situ. The ‘ecogenomic sensor’, which is packed into a roughly 1-metre-long canister, can test for proteins released by microorganisms and even run DNA tests match DNA to determine which species are present [Nature News]. Findings can instantly be relayed to the shore, saving scientists the cumbersome task of transferring samples from site to lab.

Describing the ocean robot at the Ocean Sciences meeting in Portland, the research team explained that the AUV’s software is similar to that used on NASA’s Mars rovers. The software, called “T rex,” allows the machine to detect and avoid obstacles in its path. However, the scientists noted that unlike the Mars Rovers, the AUV has to function at great depths and in total darkness, so it relies less on visual cues. The researchers also modified the software for maximum flexibility so that the robot could decide how to get the best samples. So if a scientist wanted to study the microorganisms living on each side of a temperature gradient, the AUV would find the boundary, follow it, and pick the best spot to take samples [Nature News].

For now, the scientists hope to use the AUV to detect harmful algal blooms which can shut down beaches and cause a downward spike in seaside businesses. They expect to soon find many more applications for the AUV in deep-ocean research.

Related Content:
DISCOVER: A Thousand Diving Robots
DISCOVER: Oceanography
DISCOVER: Sweeping The Ocean Floor
DISCOVER: 20,000 PROBES UNDER THE SEA

Image:MBARI

“Sexual selection via male mate choice has often been implicated in the evolution of permanently enlarged breasts in women. While questionnaire studies have shown that men find female breasts visually attractive, there is very little information about how they make such visual judgments. In this study, we used eye-tracking technology to test two hypotheses: (1) that larger breasts should receive the greatest number of visual fixations and longest dwell times, as well as being rated as most attractive; (2) that lightly pigmented areolae, indicative of youth and nubility, should receive most visual attention and be rated as most attractive. Results showed that men rated images with medium-sized or large breasts as significantly more attractive than small breasts. Images with dark and medium areolar pigmentation were rated as more attractive than images with light areolae. However, variations in breast size had no significant effect on eye-tracking measures (initial visual fixations, number of fixations, and dwell times). The majority of initial fixations during eye-tracking tests were on the areolae. However, areolar pigmentation did not affect measures of visual attention. While these results demonstrate that cues indicative of female sexual maturity (large breasts and dark areolae) are more attractive to men, patterns of eye movements did not differ based on breast size or areolar pigmentation. We conclude that areolar pigmentation, as well as breast size, plays a significant role in men’s judgments of female attractiveness. However, fine-grained measures of men’s visual attention to these morphological traits do not correlate, in a simplistic way, with their attractiveness judgments.”

Photo: flickr/stevendepolo

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Bust size and hitchhiking: a field study.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Perceptions of body hair on white women: effects of labeling.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: scientist…or perv?

It’s live here, and here’s part of the show description:

For the scientists who study global warming, now is the winter of their despair.

In the news, it has been climate scandal after alleged climate scandal. First came “ClimateGate,” then “GlacierGate,” “Amazon Gate,” and so on. In public opinion polls, meanwhile, Americans’ acceptance of the science of global warming appears to be declining. Even a freak snowstorm now seems to sow added doubt about this rigorous body of research.

In response to growing public skepticism—and a wave of dramatic attacks on individual researchers—the scientific community is now bucking up to more strongly defend its knowledge. Leading the charge is one of the most frequently attacked researchers of them all—Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann.

In this interview with host Chris Mooney, Mann pulls no punches. He defends the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, and explains why those who attack it consistently miss the target. He also answers critics of his “hockey stick” study, and explains why the charges that have arisen in “ClimateGate” seem much more smoke than fire.

Once again, the show is here, and you can subscribe on iTunes for further episodes…

Update: The show airs just in time, apparently; Joe Romm documents yet another unfair and bogus attack on Mann, this time from the Wall Street Journal….

Hide and Seek with Janus. Click for larger. Image Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

The folks at Cassini almost got me – almost. I saw this image as a thumbnail and was thinking “gee that’s Janus, seems awful big?”. A second look and the little moon stood out pretty easily against the larger moon Rhea and behind the rings.

I especially like this particular look at the rings.  You need to see the image larger to appreciate it fully, give the image above a click.

You can see the image and caption in their original context at the NASA page and here’s some excerpts:

The small moon Janus is almost hidden between the planet’s rings and the larger moon Rhea.
The northern part of Janus can be seen peeking above the rings in this image of a “mutual event” in which Janus (179 kilometers, or 111 miles across) moved past Rhea (1,528 kilometers, or 949 miles across). Mutual event observations such as this one, in which one moon passes close to or in front of another, help scientists refine their understanding of the orbits of Saturn’s moons.
The view was acquired at a distance of approximately 2.7 million kilometers (1.7 million miles) from Janus and about 3.1 million kilometers (1.9 million miles) from Rhea. Rhea is a slightly overexposed in this image.
This view looks toward the northern, sunlit side of the rings from just above the ringplane.

It sounded like a good idea at the time: You’d had one too many at the pub, one thing led to another, and you ended with someone’s name tattooed on your back. When you rushed out as soon as possible for laser removal of the unfortunate ink, the practitioners were actually using the same techniques that some art restorers employ to remove dirt and grime from masterpieces. And according to a new study in the journal of the American Chemical Society, Accounts of Chemical Research, laser ablation is getting better and more widespread in the art world.

Salvatore Siano at the Applied Physics Institute-CNR in Florence, Italy, tried out the method on a few classic works of art to record the results scientifically. He cleaned parts of a wall painting from a church in Siena, Italy, and also worked on Lorenzo Ghiberti’s gilded bronze panels Porta del Paradiso, or Gate of Paradise, and Donatello’s Renaissance bronze statue of David [BBC News]. While others have experimented like this over the last decade, he says, the Gates of Paradise was the first widely recognized masterwork to receive the treatment. He also notes that treating paintings poses the greatest challenge, but says that the laser cleaning showed great results–in the image above, the angel on the right was cleaned with laser ablation, while the two angels on the left received traditional cleaning.

Art restoration has always been tricky, as conservationists try to remove buildup without damaging original material; it can be tough to separate the original layers from the gunk with a scalpel. Laser ablation, in which dirt and other materials crusting the surface are heated with the laser and vaporized, may avoid some of the problems associated with chemical treatments or other traditional restoration techniques. But Siano notes that a laser in unskilled hands is a dangerous thing. “The pulse duration is really crucial because it determines the time for the localised heating. Sometimes a long heating is harmful and sometimes a short heating is harmful,” explained Dr Siano [BBC News].

While he and his colleagues practice their skills and consider ways to use this method on the delicate pigments of easel paintings, they have stumbled upon an interesting way to clean metals: putting them underwater. “In water you can increase the effect of the laser; it’s a kind of underwater micro-explosion or micro-fragmentation” [BBC News].

Related Content:
80beats: New Imaging Technique Shows Parthenon Was Once Brightly Painted
80beats: Beauty and the Brain: Men And Women Process Art in Different Ways
DISCOVER: The Natural History of Art explores the field of “evolutionary aesthetics”
DISCOVER: The First Masterpieces wonders why our ancestors started painting their caves
DISCOVER: Secret Science in Art finds physics at work in masterpieces
The Loom: Science Tattoo Emporium, the ever growing collection of nerdy ink

Image: Salvatore Siano