Fake Banner
Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That

If even a wealthy like Germany has to lie about emissions to placate government-funded environmentalists...

China Sells Western Progressives Solar Panels While Switching To Nuclear Power

China has quietly overtaken France to become the world's second-largest producer of nuclear energy. ...

If You Care About Earth Day, Stop Buying Organic, Fair Trade And Other Junk Stickers On Products

As Lenin's Birthday Earth Day approaches, all of media are pillaged by public relations flaks being...

If A Weedkiller Turned You Gay, We'd Like To Interview You

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a lawyer who leveraged a name that was essentially beatified by Democrats...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Jim Myrespicture for picture for Fred Phillipspicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Hontas Farmer
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
Researchers at Edinburgh Napier’s Biofuel Research Centre have done something unthinkable - they have used Scotch to fuel cars instead of violence-filled weekends.

Well, not Scotch specifically, rather whisky manufacturing waste from Glenkinchie Distillery (The Edinburgh Malt). Whew, the culture dodged a bullet there.     But it's also a good idea.  Scotch is a $5.5 billion industry in Scotland and Edinburgh Napier hit on the idea that whisky by-products could be an excellent resource for developing biobutanol, a next-generation biofuel with 30% more output power than ethanol. 

To understand how it works, you need a quick primer on whisky.
If Big Science complains about U.S. budget skepticism in the future, they are going to have to answer questions about the James Webb telescope.  It is currently 3 years and $1.5 billion over budget with no end in sight.   The latest projection, 2014 and $5 billion, has been greeted with so much derision that even the people behind the project in government have demanded an outside panel to oversee the boondoggle.
The difficult thing about popularizing movements is that, in the beginning, you want recognition but as time goes on the interests of the movement may be divergent from the people involved in it.  

So it goes with the singularity.  In 1993, Vernor Vinge said "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."   But 17 years into that, only the most optimistic thinkers think substantial progress has been made.  Ray Kurzweil thinks so, but he said so in 2005 also, including a whole book called The Singularity is Near
J.L. Vernon echoes many of the points I made in Are Science Blogging Networks Dead? but also focuses on a distinct aspect, writing Just like the NBA, “Science” is a brand.  It's a message that may be lost on some, or they would self-police a little better and certainly ask their commenters for a little more maturity - but it may be that while science is a brand (Science 2.0, Discover, Nature, etc. certainly always want to make sure writers get benefit beyond traffic from being in respective publications) at Scienceblogs, bloggers are themselves the brand.
Colin Schultz, a video journalist in Ontario, has some tips for aspiring science journalists.   Science readership is going up each year but science journalism jobs are decreasing.  How so?   Some of it is that science literacy is increasing(1) so more and more people can read science directly from the sources, like here, but without editors or journalists pitching stories the breadth of coverage is not complete so independent writing did not harm journalism - the market is up regardless of reasons.