Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Transition of Geo Times to Earth...opinions?

Jo Schaper · Guest

This is primarily for US geos. The American Geological Institute, a
consortium of geology related member associations, for many years
published Geo Times...a slick magazine which went cross-discipline and
in non-technical language described geology in the news.

A few years ago, (about the time biology was incorporated into the US
Geological Survey) it evolved to include environmental biology,
meteorology, oceanography and public policy as it related to the
geosciences. This left less room for 'real geology'. As some of you
know, they published a book review of mine about a year ago. For about a
year, they did theme issues-- fascinating if you were interested in the
topic, but useless if you were not.

They just recently underwent another 'facelift' to "Earth" -- picking up
the name from the old Kalmbach periodical (which was better written).
Over half of the magazine is now 2-3 paragraph shorts, with even less
actual rock geology or hydrology and more Mars, climate change, polar
bears peak oil and other trendy topics.

I just wondered what you all thought of this. Is there a place between
the often obscure, microscopically-focused topics and poorly written
peer-reviewed scientific journal and the pap-science one gets on You
Tube or the evening news when a volcano goes? I would think there is--
something at the level of Scientific American, rather than USA Today.
For a long time, that was Geo Times. I>ll probably run out my
subscription rather than cancel, but I>m not impressed.

Is there an alternative? I really don>t have any personal or
professional use for the GSA pubs to justify their expense, and they are
not really what I am looking for-- both Geology and the GSA Bulletin
have been known to put me to sleep. We get AAAS Science, and Scientific
American here already.

P.S. I wrote the editor to express my displeasure, and was told to get
with the program, that no one wanted what I did, that they were trying
to survive, etc. As a pub of the AGI, I understand they need to break
even, but as a member of several member orgs, I consider this a service,
sort of like NPR or PBS, rather than a commercial show like
Entertainment Tonight that needs to titillate to keep the eyeballs on it.

Your comments?

don findlay · Guest

Jo Schaper wrote:

[quote]This is primarily for US geos. The American Geological Institute, a
consortium of geology related member associations, for many years
published Geo Times...a slick magazine which went cross-discipline and
in non-technical language described geology in the news.

A few years ago, (about the time biology was incorporated into the US
Geological Survey) it evolved to include environmental biology,
meteorology, oceanography and public policy as it related to the
geosciences. This left less room for 'real geology'. As some of you
know, they published a book review of mine about a year ago. For about a
year, they did theme issues-- fascinating if you were interested in the
topic, but useless if you were not.

They just recently underwent another 'facelift' to "Earth" -- picking up
the name from the old Kalmbach periodical (which was better written).
Over half of the magazine is now 2-3 paragraph shorts, with even less
actual rock geology or hydrology and more Mars, climate change, polar
bears peak oil and other trendy topics.

I just wondered what you all thought of this.
[/quote]
Well, I>ll tell you what I think of it. 'Geology' (sensu stricto) has
become a bore. Plate Tectonics has dumbed the whole thing down. It>s
become a joke. Yes we all know about moving continents and spreading
ridges and subduction zones and cycling mantle overturn and soup - and
Stuart will add in syrup and food colouring and sump oil and grease
and anything else he can get his hands on that exhibits a viscosity
difference. For the professionals it>s a thinly disguised cow that
can be milked for the gift it keeps on giving. But the 'gift' is
poison. Which is the reason why you>re writing this note, ..(and
Barbara prefers sniffing sulphur in heaven). Nobody>s interested in
it any more. The professionals have killed the big picture with their
sterile consensus. That>s the payoff of geophysics, the *Legacy of
Stuart with his ignorance of geology, and his inability to accommodate
geo-logic into his Plate Tectonic framework. Not only can they not
work out that the Earth is getting bigger (which is really quite
simple when you scrape of the overburden of consensus) they cannot
even face the holes in their own model you could drive a bus through.
Don>t even want to admit they>re there.

Plate Tectonics has killed geology, ..not only for students, but for
the general public too. The professionals have an answer that they
say 'fits' for everything, and palm off the glaring contradictions and
inconsistencies as "opportunities for more research". Like Stuart
with his twenty one reasons why subduction is "not entirely
understood". Any one of those reasons kill it stone dead. The only
substance left to it (PT) is the promotional hype. And the Pap as
you call it. 'Milk' for weaners.

The Earth getting bigger? Boring? I don>t think so. Not only does
it cover all the contradiction and bulldust thrown up by Plate
Tectonics, it raises the highest of challenges to geological and
physical understanding. It>s a very timely opportunity to revitalise
the whole thing. But it upsets the applecart, the milk cow, the "gift
that keeps on giving". Is that a bad thing? Well I don>t think
so. The "microscopically focussed topics" you mention have no
relevance without a context. And Plate Tectonics - the BIG WOODEN
SPOON of the Earth Sciences is not it.

Is there a place between
[quote]the often obscure, microscopically-focused topics and poorly written
peer-reviewed scientific journal and the pap-science one gets on You
Tube or the evening news when a volcano goes? I would think there is--
something at the level of Scientific American, rather than USA Today.
For a long time, that was Geo Times. I>ll probably run out my
subscription rather than cancel, but I>m not impressed.

Is there an alternative? I really don>t have any personal or
professional use for the GSA pubs to justify their expense, and they are
not really what I am looking for-- both Geology and the GSA Bulletin
have been known to put me to sleep. We get AAAS Science, and Scientific
American here already.

P.S. I wrote the editor to express my displeasure, and was told to get
with the program, that no one wanted what I did, that they were trying
to survive, etc. As a pub of the AGI, I understand they need to break
even, but as a member of several member orgs, I consider this a service,
sort of like NPR or PBS, rather than a commercial show like
Entertainment Tonight that needs to titillate to keep the eyeballs on it.
[/quote]
Yeah, .. and they "break even" by staying within consensus, believing
people want more of the same that worked last time. Sterile.

[quote]
Your comments?
[/quote]
...And you should be doing something about it - taking the nonsenses of
Plate Tectonics and shoving them up their collective (noses) in your
articles.

don findlay · Guest

Jo Schaper wrote:

[quote]... rather than a commercial show like
Entertainment Tonight that needs to titillate to keep the eyeballs on it.

Your comments?
[/quote]
And that>s precisely the colour and hype they have come to need, to
keep public attention focussed. Every step in the evolution of Plate
Tectonics has been of that ilk. Poor sods though. You have to feel
sorry for them, with only a shaking pen to occupy them and their
incestuous imaginings ('models'). What else are they supposed to
do? Every hole in the sails of their ship, every tear in the
rigging, .. is a geological one. They>re limping along bravely. I
reckon they should get a Great Big Cheer.

.... Come on Folks, ... Let>s hear it for Plate Tectonics.. Hip
Hip....

"Whazzat? My replacement available already? Where, ..where..?"

Mike James · Guest

Agree with you 100% and would push the argument further to say its the
same in "popular" (i.e. non journal) science/technology publishing.

As to specific geology content I>m lucky enough to be in the UK and get
a local publication from the Open University which is part journal/field
reports.
Apart from this one bright spot - nothing at all.
I>ll be as interested as you to see if anyone has any suggestions - but
I very much doubt it.
mikej

Alan Johnson · Guest

Mike James wrote:
[quote]Agree with you 100% and would push the argument further to say its the
same in "popular" (i.e. non journal) science/technology publishing.

As to specific geology content I>m lucky enough to be in the UK and get
a local publication from the Open University which is part journal/field
reports.
Apart from this one bright spot - nothing at all.
I>ll be as interested as you to see if anyone has any suggestions - but
I very much doubt it.
mikej

[/quote]
Hi Mike,

What is that journal? Do you have to be a member of the OUGS? I do get
Geology today, which is of variable interest, but a bit thin for a whole
month.

Regards

--
Alan Johnson, Geotr@ns
www.geotrans-online.de
German-English, Geosciences/Technical
http://geotransblog.blogspot.com/
Terminus Est

Mike James · Guest

Alan Johnson wrote:

[quote]
Hi Mike,

What is that journal? Do you have to be a member of the OUGS? I do get
Geology today, which is of variable interest, but a bit thin for a whole
month.

Regards

Yes indeed it is the OUGS journal and newsletter.[/quote]
Its really good because the newsletter still runs field trip type
reports complete with graphic logs, sketch maps etc... and a lot of
very basic stuff. The Journal is more academic but still not bad.
Not perfect but better than nothing.
mikej

don findlay · Guest

Mike James wrote:

[quote]Alan Johnson wrote:

Hi Mike,

What is that journal? Do you have to be a member of the OUGS? I do get
Geology today, which is of variable interest, but a bit thin for a whole
month.

Regards

Yes indeed it is the OUGS journal and newsletter.
Its really good because the newsletter still runs field trip type
reports complete with graphic logs, sketch maps etc... and a lot of
very basic stuff. The Journal is more academic but still not bad.
Not perfect but better than nothing.
mikej
[/quote]
"Not perfect but better than nothing"? What would you like to see?

don findlay · Guest

Mike James wrote:

[quote]don findlay wrote:

Not perfect but better than nothing.
mikej

"Not perfect but better than nothing"? What would you like to see?

Difficult question - and hence thanks for asking it as if focuses the mind.
In many ways more of the same.
The problem is that as the newsletter doesn>t really get enough
submissions - it doesn>t pay its authors and has a fairly small
circulation and hence small body of potential authors.

On thinking about your question probably just something that could fill
its pages with more of the same and perhaps slightly higher quality more
of the same - but not if increasing the quality damaged the content.

mikej
[/quote]
Tell you what I think is interesting, ..and it>s where geology begins
and ends, as the circle closes - with the study of landforms around
us. It>s where Arthur Holmes - "Principles of Physical
Geology" (and considered by some still the best overall review of
geology) - begins his book, ..with the question, "How come, with
erosion as it is, ..we still have land to be eroded? Why isn>t it all
gone?" Implying, .."Why aren>t we living on a beach?" He goes on
from that to the axiom that everything about the planet must be
interpreted in terms of the primary shape of the planet - hence
gravity and spin. He who gave geology its perspective of geological
time through age dating and a source of heat for the Earth>s interior
(and got prize for it) apparently couldn>t in the end accept
convection as the driver for geological process (though you wouldn>t
think it from reading his book).

I find it interesting because when I was a student it was precisely
the sentiment of our professor, who was a plaeontologist/
stratigrapher, who had himself developed an interest in topography -
because of the erosional profiles in Europe - shortly before his
retirement: - "You graduate to geomorphology", he said.

And now (to my surprise) I find that too. Scorned by geologists as
'soft' - softer than sedimentology ('real men deal with really hard
rocks' ) the questions posed by topography (on a global scale) are
some of the most difficult to answer. I know you think I look at this
through a certain peculiar perspective, but I>ve done the hard yards
through the different disciplines, and thought like everybody else
that topography is for girls, but that>s not the way I see it
now, ..now that I>ve been forced to look at the global scale (and it
is only recently that we>ve had global geological compilations). You
get a hint of the majesty of the geological process that oriel goes on
about, when you stand back like that, rather than having your nose
right up against the glass. Or your awareness right up against your
intellect. Yes, sure, ..it>s one thing to know that the Earth is
round, and when the sun sinks beneath the horizon at sea, it>s because
of the Earth spinning, but it>s quite another to live it in the
context of where all that water came from, and its power of
erosion, ..and the rocks on the beach, ..the corals and other
'things' that grow and raise the land out of the sea, even to the
height of the Himalyas. And geological time..

What>s going on? At any rate, ..everything that did, is carved by
the stabilising force of erosion.

Plate Tectonics is not even close. It purports to be a framework, yet
*nothing* in it stands up. It>s selling us short, hiding behind the
mantra that rightness is not a consideration in science, ..not an
issue, ... just "if it fits".

That>s what I find interesting, ..how you can turn over all the
stones, and see more than just rubble, ..rather have to pontificate
and 'model' (build it up and break it down an build it up again, and
so on). Science - a reflection of what *IS*, rather than an artifact
of our own 'cleverness'.

don findlay · Guest

Mike James wrote:

[quote]don findlay wrote:

edited out to save space.

Strange isn>t it - I can agree with you about geomorphology
but as a physicist plate tectonics seems obvious both in theory and
practice and its small unresolved problems are just that - small and
unresolved.
mikej
[/quote]
(Oh dear !) Then perhaps you>d care to address the small and
unresolved problem I>m asking Stuart (who can>t/ refuses to answer):-
http://tinyurl.com/677kkp
...paying particular attention to the animations cited, and bearing in
mind that these animations are for schoolchildren>s assimilation.

Yes, ..I know it seems obvious in theory and practice - until you
scrape the surface off it, and try to take into account geological
reality.

It>s like the Whore of Babylon!

Mike James · Guest

don findlay wrote:

[quote]Not perfect but better than nothing.
mikej

"Not perfect but better than nothing"? What would you like to see?
[/quote]
Difficult question - and hence thanks for asking it as if focuses the mind.
In many ways more of the same.
The problem is that as the newsletter doesn>t really get enough
submissions - it doesn>t pay its authors and has a fairly small
circulation and hence small body of potential authors.

On thinking about your question probably just something that could fill
its pages with more of the same and perhaps slightly higher quality more
of the same - but not if increasing the quality damaged the content.

mikej

Mike James · Guest

don findlay wrote:
[quote]
edited out to save space.
[/quote]
Strange isn>t it - I can agree with you about geomorphology
but as a physicist plate tectonics seems obvious both in theory and
practice and its small unresolved problems are just that - small and
unresolved.
mikej

don findlay · Guest

....it *IS* the Whore of Babylon - blatantly tarted up to make it
something it is not. How can transform faulting be presented as the
mechanism offsetting the ridges, and yet it be explicitly stated (for
the purposes of illustrating how), that the offsetting happens before
the ocean floors begin to open, and when the process is actually in
motion, that there *IS* no offsetting. A "New Class of Faults"? ..
It>s a blatant contradiction in terms - a nonsense, .. just like all
their other blatant contradictions:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html

This is more than just feeling for explanations. These jokers are
unashamedlay taking us for a ride. And themselves. Like the Whore
with her warpaint on, they actually believe in themselves.

They>re wankers.

Alan Johnson · Guest

Mike James wrote:
[quote]Alan Johnson wrote:

Hi Mike,

What is that journal? Do you have to be a member of the OUGS? I do get
Geology today, which is of variable interest, but a bit thin for a
whole month.

Regards

Yes indeed it is the OUGS journal and newsletter.
Its really good because the newsletter still runs field trip type
reports complete with graphic logs, sketch maps etc... and a lot of
very basic stuff. The Journal is more academic but still not bad.
Not perfect but better than nothing.
mikej
[/quote]
OK, thanks.

Regards

--
Alan Johnson, Geotr@ns
www.geotrans-online.de
German-English, Geosciences/Technical
http://geotransblog.blogspot.com/
Terminus Est

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 17, 4:17 am, Jo Schaper <jo34schape...@s9oc21ket.03net> wrote:
[quote]This is primarily for US geos. The American Geological Institute, a
consortium of geology related member associations, for many years
published Geo Times...a slick magazine which went cross-discipline and
in non-technical language described geology in the news.

A few years ago, (about the time biology was incorporated into the US
Geological Survey) it evolved to include environmental biology,
meteorology, oceanography and public policy as it related to the
geosciences. This left less room for 'real geology'. As some of you
know, they published a book review of mine about a year ago. For about a
year, they did theme issues-- fascinating if you were interested in the
topic, but useless if you were not.

They just recently underwent another 'facelift' to "Earth" -- picking up
the name from the old Kalmbach periodical (which was better written).
Over half of the magazine is now 2-3 paragraph shorts, with even less
actual rock geology or hydrology and more Mars, climate change, polar
bears peak oil and other trendy topics.

I just wondered what you all thought of this. Is there a place between
the often obscure, microscopically-focused topics and poorly written
peer-reviewed scientific journal and the pap-science one gets on You
Tube or the evening news when a volcano goes? I would think there is--
something at the level of Scientific American, rather than USA Today.
For a long time, that was Geo Times. I>ll probably run out my
subscription rather than cancel, but I>m not impressed.

Is there an alternative? I really don>t have any personal or
professional use for the GSA pubs to justify their expense, and they are
not really what I am looking for-- both Geology and the GSA Bulletin
have been known to put me to sleep. We get AAAS Science, and Scientific
American here already.

[/quote]
They should stop killing trees and put that stuff online.

Stuart

Jo Schaper · Guest

What is interesting to me, as a person with degrees in writing AND
geology, is this: I write a fair amount on local geological topics
including a monthly 700 word column called Rock Talk, and occasional
articles up to about 1500 words on nearly anything: I wrote two on the
April 18th Mt. Carmel, IL earthquake, (one of which a mere 20 minutes
after the second major aftershock, which I felt.) Two other publications
publish "geology in the everyday world" sorts of things: for example:
one on "giraffe stone" masonry (an architecture ubiquitous around the
Ozarks-- irregularly shaped flat fieldstone facings for buildings)a
travel article around Missouri where a tourist can visit the entire
stratigraphic column, and the geology revealed by the Taum Sauk
Reservoir collapse, and one featuring a rock dealer, explaining how to
get into rockhounding as a hobby. And yes, they pay me for all this.

The pub which takes the Rock Talk column sends out a "what do you like
to see in our newspaper?" checkbox sheet occasionally, and about 3/4 of
the people checkmark geology. (Not as many as hunting,fishing and local
history, but hey, I>m in good company!) I just did an article about the
beginnings of the lead industry in Missouri, and got a very positive
comment; the editor also gets unsolicited suggestions from readers about
geological topics they>d like me to tackle. I>ve only gotten one
creationist angry that I know of-- they weren>t too happy I was
insistent that some igneous rocks were over 10,000 years old.

This stuff is targeted to outdoors people and a general adult audience
within the region (Missouri/US Midwest) I am most familiar with, for the
most part, neither scientists nor geologists. I take places or things
they know or have heard of, and explain how geology makes them possible,
or what it says about that area.

This is why I think the interest is out there. Missouri isn>t a really
exciting geology area, such as the western US is, and I don>t feed my
readers pablum, but give them some good info. Most journalists can>t
write about geology very well, nor do editors know a lot to fact check.
I>m happy to have my niche, but I don>t understand why we can>t bring
along more non-geologists to see the excitement as we do.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Geology - Earthquakes Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2