The massive M 8.8 earthquake in Chile resulted in a tragic loss of life which, as of 2010-03-01, numbered more than 700. We won’t know the full extent of the damage inflicted on Chile or the interesting geological information we can gather from this event for a while yet. What we have been able to determine, or at least what we’ve been reminded in the 24-48 hours following the earthquake and the Pacific-wide tsunami alert, however, is that the Main Stream Media, as a whole, is absolutely clueless when it comes to geology or science in general.

Perhaps enamored by such “scientific” “triumphs” as The Core and 2012, the main stream media decided to employ superlatives, overtly panicky headlines and outright lies to gain hits and advertising dollars. Had they simply asked a geologist what to expect, perhaps this page wouldn’t have been necessary. The time for giving a pass for scientific ignorance and lying is over. If your organisation appears in the list below, which has been amassed by a massive range of geologists and other scientists online, you should be absolutely ashamed.

Reuters – Tsunami brings flooding to Australia (as it appeared on stuff.co.nz) – If you read the article, it says nothing of the sort. (via @Yorrike / www.goodschist.com)

Garry at Geotripper bemoans the expectation of the MSM with What? You Were Expecting This? (via Geotripper)

Erik at Eruptions posts Chilean earthquake fallout: MSNBC implies nature is “out of control” – which is an astonishing headline for MSNBC to post. Astonishing in it’s stupidity (via Eruptions).

Lockwood posted this staggering video of CNN reporter Rick Sanchez asking “9 Meters In English Is What?” It’s 9 meters you twit. Or for a rough calculation in feet times it by 3 (via Outside the Interzone). There’s a takedown of Sanchez at Phreatic: Anchorperson Science Stupidity Award.

Reuters (again) – reports that Japan nuclear plants continue ops after tsunami. The height of the Tsunami waves that his Japan? 0.6 metres (22 inches in English). What a pointless article. A more interesting article would have been along the lines of “Japan shuts down nuclear plants in preparation for tsunami,” but then again, that’d be a worthwhile thing to read about.

The Mirror is so blasé about the whole topic, it’s reports on the Millions in fear of tsunami that never came following Chile quake. Yeah. All of us who live around the Pacific look pretty stupid being prepared for a natural disaster.  Here’s a quote for that article:

They battened down the hatches or simply prayed after one of the planet’s most powerful earthquakes struck South America.

But experts’ predictions of huge waves sweeping across the Pacific and smashing 53 countries proved to be a false alarm last night.

[...]

California, Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand there were small waves and flooding with little damage. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology cancelled its tsunami warning last night.

Really? Experts predicted that? I have to be honest, I have serious doubts you actually listened to an expert on the topic. And a false alarm? “There’s a possibility of large, damage-causing event happening in the coming hours” is a false alarm now? It’s not a real alarm unless it happens? It’s not a false alarm, it’s a triumph of scientific intrigue, investigation and monitoring which could have resulted in saving millions (MILLIONS!) of lives. And the last quoted line there – I live in New Zealand, there was NO flooding and NO damage, liars.

The Associated Press notes that it’s now necessary that Scientists defend warning after tsunami nonevent. Again, it was a warning and something that’s only been possible in the last 50 years. You’d prefer nothing? This story does have a good point at the end, though:

But Okamoto said his family understands the tsunami threat better than most because some of his relatives lived through the tidal surge in 1960. They remember how the water was sucked down the beach moments before the wave hit.

“My uncle was on the top floor when all the water washed away and all the kids ran out to grab the fish and before they could get back, the wave came. He was way up top, he saw all his friends get washed away and none of them were found, ever,” Okamoto said, as he sat with his father in a hotel lobby. “They did the right thing.”

And that’s the only conclusion you can reach on this story. There was a warning, luckily it wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but had it been the worst case scenario, you’d be thankful there was a warning at all. Perhaps the article should have been titled “Scientists pleased with warning system and response, urge countries at risk not to become complacent”.

Have you seen any other panic-inducing anti-scientific howlers like those above? Post a link int he comments section here, or Tweet it with the hashtag #tsunamistupid

2010-02-28 | by Chris | Comments (5)

2009-10-04 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (1)

From the Stuff.co.nz article “Wellington still prone to quakes” comes this little gem of stupidity:

Bart Hanson (09:08 pm Sep 18 2009) This article epitomizes my disgust for experts who cannot tell us when the next huge natural disaster will hit and merely being in a particular place at that moment will decide who lives and who dies, but still we are being told not to be complacent? Like hell, get stuffed I’ve got better things to worry about.

You are beyond ignorant if you think the experts can even start to accurately predict earthquakes or many other major natural disasters. Even having a basic grasp of geology of seismology will tell you that these things are not predictable to within a useful accuracy or precision. We had a discussion about the dangers, and inadequacies, of earthquake prediction in Episode 11 of the podClast.

Other things science can’t do: accurately predict when the next killer asteroid will strike the Earth. The reasons are the same, there’s not enough data on either scenario in order to make an accurate, down to the minute-, hour-, month-, year- or decade-accurate forecast or as to exactly where either event will exactly occur.

The best geologists can do is look to the past, i.e, the old geology phrase “The past is the key to the future.” If a fault has ruptured roughly once every 100 years (and you’d be able to see this in the geological record), you should expect it to do so again in 100 years since the previous event. Or 150 years. Or 80 years. Earthquakes don’t run on a precision clock, and thus are never “early” or “overdue”. They occur when they occur.

If you’re caught out by having “better things to worry about”, Mr Bart Hanson, don’t go crying to others for food, shelter or clean water when you are caught in a natural disaster. Obviously the tiny amount of effort it takes to store some water, canned food and other supplies somewhere (details here at the USGS) is far outweighed by your necessity to spend time complaining on the internet.

Being prepared for natural disasters is important. Like not paying tax, not taking medication or indulging in smoking, you may think you’re getting away with it, but after a while, it could catch up with you, and the results could, literally, be deadly.

If you live in an earthquake zone, like I and many others do, the seriousness of being prepared cannot be overstated. Again, a list of the things you need can be found at the USGS. It’s not difficult and it could well save your life.

2009-09-21 | by Chris | Comments (6)

2009-05-21 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (3)

2009-05-07 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (6)

2009-04-20 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (5)

2009-04-09 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (1)

As many of you may know, I’ve been in the UK for a couple of months, and I’ve got a couple more to go before jetting off to Europe in June and California in July.

On the first weekend of May I’ll be stomping around the mighty city of London and in between catching up with the 7 million kiwis who live there, I’d like to initiate the first Geobloggers in the Pub (calling it “Geologists in the Pub” would have set off my redundancy meter – but either will do). Before announcing official times and a location, I’d like to just get a show of hands from geologists or geo-interested persons who’d be willing to sit around a table in the mid afternoon in a pub in central-ish London on Saturday, May the 2nd.

Since it’ll be a podclasting weekend, I’m intending on doing a recording with whoevers there too, getting opinions on whatever geonews is around for 20-40 minutes. That’ll make it the first “live” podclast.

So, who’s up for drinks and some light conversation?

2009-03-25 | by Chris | Comments (7)

2009-03-23 | by Chris | Full Article | Comments (6)

The geoblogosphere is fantastic. We tweet (a lot now), we have carnivals and we even podcast once a fortnight. One thing we don’t do, though, is pool our combined centuries worth of geological knowledge in unified, constructive ways. At least not all that often.

I would like to make this post a call to arms of sorts to all geobloggers and internet-savvy geologists out there to help with something. This particular page, Wikipedia’s entry on the mantle, is an absolute shambles. Not only are things like the Mohorovičić discontinuity only mentioned in passing without much description:

The top of the mantle is defined by a sudden increase in seismic velocity, which was first noted by Andrija Mohorovičić in 1909; this boundary is now referred to as the “Moho.”

(The page on the Moho is equally as vauge), but the figures, links and some of the references and suggestions in this page are simply stupid. Look at this bit of the extremely brief section on temperature:

Modern observations suggest that the mantle is cold.[15][16][17][18][19]
The mantle of Mars is also cold.[20]
This has very serious implications for those who believe the mantle is convecting hot fluid.

That has a very serious whiff of the EEdiots about it. Especially considering that every single reference given about the “cold mantle” is either in regards to an underlying section of the equatorial Atlantic MOR being colder than expected, or other areas of other MORs or spreading regions being cooler than expected (for the record, references 16 and 17 are the same). Not a single one of those references suggests the mantle is cold. The reason being that the mantle isn’t “cold” (whatever that means anyway, cold compared to what? Very unscientific). Any layperson reading this page would, however, be left with the impression that there’s serious debate regarding whether the mantle can flow at all.

I hereby kindly request that anyone out there with sufficient expertise in the mantle or associated sciences to please help in righting this travesty. I’m not asking for this to be done today, but over the next year we should endevour to pretty much rewrite this entire Wikipedia entry (lest the EEdiots take it upon themselves to do it for us and misinform the public even further). Wikipedia is fickle, however, and the formatting can be difficult to master, so getting a grasp on it now would be advantageous if you intend to contribute.

I’ll be doing some of my own research and clean-ups, but it’d be great if other concerned parties could help out too. After all, we blog about our science because we want to inform the layperson about how cool it is and to advance public awareness. Ensuring the go-to website for basic scientific facts is accurate can only help our cause.

2009-03-20 | by Chris | Comments (9)