Okay, that was WAY better than Teso dos Bichos (which reviewers compared it to when it aired). The telenovela vibe elevated that episode, and it would have been much cringier otherwise. #SureFineWhatever
Thanks for joining, everyone! Next week, we've got S4 E12: Leonard Betts. This is a monster-of-the-week episode, but also an important milestone episode, introducing a major plot point. #SureFineWhatever
If there are any women experts on regenerative medicine or cancer biology who might like to join as guest experts, let us know! We love science guests. #SureFineWhatever
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@ClimateBen This is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. Tacking “BREAKING” onto an unattributed statement is bad enough, but you’re also misrepresenting Gavin—he never said that. You need to delete this. What you’re doing is wrong, Ben, and I think you know better.
@ClimateBen To support your first tweet, you link to two papers about impacts to support your statement, and you misrepresent and exaggerate the findings of both (neither of which Gavin was involved in). Most people won’t actually read the articles, let alone the papers you posted.
@ClimateBen The climate crisis needs no exaggeration to drive action. But threads like this make it harder and harder for scientists to debunk doomist narratives, and as a result, we’re getting attacked by people citing our own work on climate change, who accuse us of downplaying the crisis.
This was such a fun conversation, not only because we got to have Eric back on the show (as the founder of Warm Regards). Eric took a break from the podcast to work on The Future Earth, and it was really nice to be able to close the loop with a conversation about his book.
I also got to talk with one of my favorite authors about one of my favorite moments in one of my favorite books, and that's just not something one gets to do very often, if ever.
We hope you enjoy this first episode in our two-part finale, and we'd love to hear what you think.
I’m on the board of a non-profit, and we hired anti-racism consultants to do an assessment of our culture and practices. One thing that came up is this notion of how whiteness, as an identity, is constructed. You can’t “fix” racist structures without doing the “heart work” too.
Meaning, if you pit structural solutions (eg, “hire more Black people”), against a racist culture, the culture will always win out, and you will likely fail in your goals. The heart work — unlearning the deep programming of white supremacy—is not optional.
The kicker is, part of white identity construction involves emphasizing technical (acute) over adaptive (systemic) change. Meaning, how we are trained to approach problems in white culture? Often just exacerbates those problems. And that’s a problem if you actually want change.
Hey, while I have you here, I wanted to share two of my lab's papers that came out right around the election when everyone was a bit distracted.
The first is by my former PhD student, @DulcineaGroff. She found that the establishment of seabird colonies in the Falklands 5000 years ago triggered a big ecosystem change on land. She was able to pick up this shift thanks to (you guessed it) poop! advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/43/e…
Seabirds eat in the ocean, and nest on land, so they're a kind of sentinel of global change. Long-term records like Dr. Groff's can help us protect these birds (and their habitats) as the climate warms in the Southern Ocean.
I keep thinking about something Dr. Sacoby Wilson (@ceejhlab) sad during this episode. He talked about Ernest Boyer's five dimensions of science: discovery, teaching, integration, engagement, application. “If you’re not doing all five dimensions, you’re doing science science.”
"I’m not curious about anything I work on when it comes to environmental justice. Because it’s macabre. “I’m curious about being poisoned,” basically, that is inhumane. Unethical..." 2/n
"So when we do science that only observes an issue or science that extracts from people’s experiences and doesn’t give back, that’s (in my opinion) bad science." 3/n
Please don't use body fat as a climate change metaphor. First, it's a bad metaphor (fat is farm more complex than calories in - calories out). Plus, this basically equates eating food with fossil fuel burning, and reinforces fatness as something to be combatted or ashamed of.
When I say "bad metaphor" I mean it. Most of what you hear about body fat is woefully anti-scientific, as body fat scientists will tell you (and yes, this includes what you hear from doctors): highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/ev…
This also goes for journalists or climate communicators jumping on the opportunity to include obesity as a moral imperative for fighting climate change ("Ride bikes! Go vegan! Fight climate change and the obesity crisis!"). Greenwashing fat-phobia doesn't make it suddenly okay.