Replying to
UPDATE: not Perth, but I found a solid partner in Tartu Estonia to pilot this. We have set up a two-laptop connection and making other arrangements to time shared computing to the sun.
Remote
@nathanpboston
@Nathanpboston@fediscience.org
mastodon 4.6.90 Followers
0 Following
20 Posts
Joined July 02, 2023
Energy Democracy:
NoCoalNoGas.org & ISO-NE Consumer Liaison Group
Mobility:
BikeNewton.org
Strategic Electrification:
Gastransitionallies.org
No 4/1 joke: the FBI is investigating me, I suspect either because I'm helping bankrupt Edolf/Tesla, or because I'm pushing back against disappearing people for exercising freedom of speech. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Glorious day of biking yesterday - to bear witness at ICE Burlington, then see a friend in Somerville.
This is a direct affront to the memory of Dr. Anita Kurmann by @CityOfBoston@mastodon.boston and intentionally puts lives at risk.
With city government failing at its most basic task, public safety, cycle lane users must take it upon ourselves to keep us safe. This means non-violent direct action. There are lots of possibilities. Reply or DM if interested in co-creating actions to combat Boston’s intentional disregard for physical safety.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/07/metro/boston-bike-lanes/
Someone please make a wool sock with a fortified jute heel for toughness. My bad darning job is a cry for help.
Enjoying abundance of wild grapes along the No'to-mom (Maidu-Nisenan)/ Kum Sayo (Nisenan) "roundhouse river," (so-called American River).
Replying to
With high silica content, phragmites doesn’t attract rodents. While it is combustible, so is the wood around it and so are books. That said, precautions can & should be taken. These test area doesn’t include electric wiring, and best fireproofing practice is to plaster the surface with a thin layer of clay. More info: https://youtu.be/W870tsu_L0Y?si=50mX3DxU64Lo9ebE
Replying to
@kevincianfarini I say your instinct is 100% on the spot. It really does suck. My job in this case is to make it known, to prevent it from happening again, because if it gets minimized, it will happen again, and again.
Replying to
Publishing scientists consider a few weeks of delay to be nothing, & I wouldn’t be so cantankerous if it weren’t for all the other BS added to this journal policy:
“After you approve your proofs, your manuscript will be published on the Web in approximately 48 hours. In view of this fast publication time, it is important to review your proofs carefully.”
It’s been 18 days since we authorized the proofs. Is the fossil fuel industry getting another revision opportunity? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Replying to
It’s unheard of (at least to me) to allow edits or additions to correspondence after the page proofs of a rebuttal have been approved. This violates journal/editorial ethical norms.
The remedy will be to give us the opportunity to rebut the “note in proof” they allowed the gas industry to sneak in without our ability to rebut. There are *major* conclusions they ignored.
Replying to
I’m also calling on Gradient Corp authors Long & DesAutels and ES&T to make their original draft public - the manuscript that was rejected and inexplicably reversed. I have a copy. It reveals the underlying motive: to respond to *media coverage* of our peer reviewed study. It was a media commentary from the start, now masquerading as “science”.
It’s what the fossil fuel industry sponsors wanted to really say, so why don’t they publish it now?
Replying to
Look what’s happened now: ES&T journal gave the fossil fuel industry (Gradient Corp, paid by the American Gas Association) the last word, and it’s a misleading last word. This is the most unethical “peer review” process I’ve witnessed in 27 years of science publishing. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c01857
Replying to
The R-value is about half that of fiberglass or rock wool.
This sounds yummy, I think I’ll try it!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/10/03/metro/ri-babas-original-new-york-system-wieners-closing/