Details at The New York Times, Bad Astronomer and The Loom.

In this conversation with host Chris Mooney, Revkin discusses the uncertain future of his field, the perils of the science blogosphere, his battles with climate blogger Joe Romm, and what it’s like (no joke) to have Rush Limbaugh suggest that you kill yourself. Moving on to the topics he’s covered for over a decade, Revkin also addresses the problem of population growth, the long-range risks that our minds just aren’t trained to think about, and the likely worsening of earthquake and other catastrophes as more people pack into in vulnerable places.

I will have much more to say about the show soon enough–I’m proud of this one–but for now, listen and download here.

Fuck them [my co-blogger, our commenters, and I] all sideways with a rusty fucking knife.

Later:

The commenters are basically wetting themselves hoping Kirshenbaum comes down hard because people are saying she should be raped with a rusty knife, and Myers “likes it that way”.

I am a big proponent of free speech, however, this thread crosses the line by advocating sexual and physical violence. I have become accustomed to ignoring much of the ridicule I receive online, but keeping silent on this particular issue, is, in my mind, acceptance. Those who contacted me do not have a platform to publicly express their disgust, but I can. Rape is not a joke or game and the fact that these remarks were not removed perpetuates the notion that they’re okay.

Adam Bly and I shared a panel in 2008 at the AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy where he discussed the values of Seed Media Group. Further, as a former Seed blogger with many friends still on the network, I’m quite familiar with their stated mission:

Seed Media Group is committed to strengthening public interest in science and improving public understanding of science around the world.

I cannot see how the tone of commentary contributes to this goal. However, given the volume of emails I’ve already received, I’m certain it reflects poorly on Seed, science blogging, and science broadly.

Stuart is one of the most incredible individuals I’ve had the pleasure of working with. It has been an honor and privilege to reside in The Pimm Group and I’ll miss him most of all from Texas. He has been a mentor, a source of endless encouragement, and most of all, a friend during my time with The Family. Stuart’s research, intense curiosity, and passion to make a difference takes him from the field to the classroom and onto Capitol Hill and the big screen, yet somehow, he’s managed to maintain a terrific sense of humor along the way.

Earth is truly a better place because of scientists like Stuart Pimm and we are all lucky to have him fighting hard everyday to save the planet’s biodiversity.

From the Press Release:

Stuart Pimm has a long career in conservation research, teaching and public policy, and when Pimm’s colleagues refer to his work, they frequently cite its influence as well as its substance.  His Tyler Prize award is made in recognition of his work to delineate the structures of ecological food webs, to understand the expected lifetimes of plant and animal populations, and to determine the populations that are most vulnerable to risks of extinction and those that have the capacity to recover most rapidly from disturbances.  In his letter of nomination for the Tyler Prize, Edward O. Wilson, an emeritus Harvard University professor and himself a Tyler Laureate, said Pimm’s achievements “serve as an environmental conservation template.”

Pimm has studied the structure of ecological communities and the consequences of diminished species diversity across the trophic levels of ecological communities.  In addition, Pimm has developed theory and empirical analysis to address the conservation of endangered species in terms of their communities and populations. Pimm has contributed to more than 200 journal articles, many of them as the lead author or sole author, has managed research projects around the world and has worked as a university-level professor for 36 years.

Pimm is well known for working beyond the scientific community as a policy advisor and source for media interviews.  One of his colleagues, in a letter of support for his nomination for the Tyler Prize, said Pimm’s contributions to conservation science are notable because he cares enough to “find a way to make a difference.”

I’m delighted with this morning’s wonderful news! Stuart shares the 2010 Tyler prize with Laurie Marker, co-founder and executive director of the Cheetah Conservation Fund in Otjiwarongo, Namibia. Congratulations to both!

Wind?
Solar?
Hydrogen Fuel Cells?
Cellulosic Biofuels?
Nuclear?
Oil?
Algae?
Tidal Power?
Corn Ethanol?
Coal?
Fossil Fuels?
Natural Gas?
Offshore Drilling?
The relationship to climate change?
The economy?
Jobs?
Water?

The list could go on and on, so let’s start a thread of your questions and get the ball rolling… Which technologies do you think hold the most promise?

Submit your photograph or artwork for consideration and remember to include relevant links.

Revkin has covered a multitude of science-related topics during his career, ranging from climate change and energy to politics and science in the Bush administration. But he has also traveled the globe covering numerous natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, and beyond. At a time when we’ve seen two devastating earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, one thing I want to discuss with Revkin is why human societies, and even wealthy countries, seem to have such a hard time preparing for and protecting against these types of extreme risks. We’ll also inquire about which kinds of natural disasters most threaten the U.S., and why we’re not doing much of anything to increase our resiliency to them.

You might think of the intended show as a kind of real life version of the movie 2012.

But the conversation will be much more wide ranging, and I’d be very interested to hear what else you folks think I ought to be asking of Andy Revkin….so please, head over to the forums and pose any questions in the next two days, so that I can read them before the interview is recorded on Sunday. And thanks!

Foremost, blogging should not be a daily requirement. For me, it began in 2006 when I lost a bet with students–as Cornelia Dean explained in her terrific book. I found I enjoyed the interactive exchange and the way it helped me to make sense of all of the endless ideas spinning around in my head everyday. But a good blog post is the result of inspiration, and over time it started to feel like homework. I’d work a full day at Duke, or edit my book for hours, and scramble for something to get on the blog as an afterthought. Blogging stopped feeling cathartic and became more burdensome while juggling work, travel, talks, some semblance of a social life, and wedding planning. So I’ve decided it’s time to change the way I contribute. From now on, I’ll write only when inspired. This may happen a few times a week or a few times a day. We’ll see how it goes.

And more importantly, I’m busier than usual this month because David and I are headed to Austin, Texas! I’ll be very sad to leave the incredible Pimm Group at Duke, but I’m also so excited about what’s coming next! While I’ll always stay connected to the marine realm, there’s another crucial area I’ve been growing more and more interested to pursue and there’s no better place to do so than Texas. So here’s the big–related–announcement:

The Intersection is about to become an energy blog. I’ll have more to say on that soon so keep watching… you ain’t seen nothing yet!

I don’t want to write a post all about climate change on Chris and Sheril’s blog because my fire-retardant suit is at the cleaners. So I won’t. But I will write about what marine scientists can learn from what climate scientists are doing (no “Oceangate” jokes, please).

Each week, I write in this space about a different threat that will inevitably doom our oceans if we fail to act. But which threat is the most critical? At least climate scientists have agreed on a general consensus: most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations as a result of human activities. UC San Diego’s own Naomi Oreskes, in a 2004 Science essay, analyzed nearly a thousand abstracts published in the ISI database between 1993 and 2003 that contained the keywords “climate change.” Three-quarters of them accepted the consensus view and not a single one challenged it. This means climate scientists know the problem (greenhouse gas emissions) and how to address it (reduce emissions). Of course, it’s not that simple, but it’s a basic cause and effect that advocates can rally behind.

It’s not quite so straightforward for marine scientists. Ask one why the oceans are in danger and he’ll say it’s because of overfishing. Ask another and she’ll say it’s because of pollution. Ask a third and the reason will be coastal development. We know we have problems, but we struggle to agree on the most pressing. Marine scientists also don’t have something like the Keeling Curve to present as a simple, obvious symbol of human impacts on the oceans. Most importantly, the world lacks something like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess ocean health and inform policy decisions. As a result, the marine conservation movement often feels as unorganized and unfocused as a third grade recess.

Dr. Jackson and Dr. Jacquet have challenged us to brainstorm creative solutions for marine management. The student presenters in this week’s class offered some thought-provoking ideas. They cooked up the “Intergovernmental Panel on the Degradation of the Marine Environment,” though Dr. Jacquet suggested substituting “Ocean” for “Marine Environment” to create the snazzy acronym IPDO. Like IPCC does for climate change, IPDO would evaluate the state of the marine environment as a basis for informed policy action. IPDO would also consolidate marine management into a single group, as opposed to the current bewildering myriad of agencies with jurisdiction. The students gave IPDO the hypothetical power to sanction or fine countries for violating certain standards of marine ecosystem health. IPDO would also maintain a points system to evaluate countries based on their protection (or abuse) of the oceans. Every five years or so, IPDO would publish a report on the state of our oceans, much like the IPCC’s Synthesis Report, and reveal which nations were champions of ocean conservation and which were the culprits for ocean degradation. Could the public, international shame of such a ranking motivate the offending countries to change their ways?

At one point, it was suggested that the IPDO could even collaborate with the International Olympic Committee to ban countries from the Games for particularly brazen acts of ocean destruction. Can you imagine if China had been barred from the Vancouver Games for its taste for shark fin soup, or Iceland for its high seas bottom trawling? It’s a crazy idea, but it’s going to take a lot of crazy ideas to thwart the barrage of threats to our oceans.