9 ms·

The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist", please show the geophysics research they've published. I can't find any,

The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist", please show the geophysics research they've published. I can't find any, instead they seem extremely dedicated to writing questionable articles on any topic imaginable, from vaccines to Amazonian ecology. A lot of the titles of his articles are phrased as questions: "Do back-to-back disasters show first climate tipping point is upon us?" "Did monkeys really sail the oceans on floating rafts of vegetation?" "Can any idiot publish articles with NewScientist?" The main problem is you'd have to wait until the end of 2026 to find out it never happened as predicted, but by that time you'll already have forgotten about it. The average attention span isn't that long and like I mentioned most people do not save these articles and blacklist publications with a bad track record. There are thousands of nonsense articles from mainstream news orgs like the BBC as well as pop-science magazines that promised all sorts of nonsense to happen by year x, which unsurprisingly didn't end up happening. At what point would it be fair to say they're publishing misinformation?

hutzlibu 3y ago
"The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist"" Are you intentionally missreading me? I never claimed that the author of the article is a scientist. I said the article is quite ok compared to the average pop science article, which is indeed often clickbait. But here there were no promises, just the very correct claim, that there is great potential. And the scientist the article is talking about, John Eichelberger, for sure has publications: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ So, I am asking again, can you point out one single lie or exaggeration in this concrete article? Because I cannot find one, but like I said, I am not an expert. So if you know more, please share that knowledge.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Someone accidentally drilling into a dyke does not mean they'll be able to bore into a magma chamber within the next 2 years. Those are completely different ballparks, there's a reason the latter has never happened, because the high temperatures make it very difficult on a technical level. I mentioned Mars because it's a similar claim we've heard in the media and from various projects for years now. Of course it's possible, anything's possible. Now show me how concretely it will be done, it's on those making the claim to provide the evidence and I'm not sure if you noticed but the article contains no technical details. After reading it, can you explain how they will drill into the chamber? We can't be sure if Eichelberger has actually said everything implied in the article or if he's quoted out of context, but the “no geophysical technique has been shown to satisfactorily locate magma reservoirs” quote for example is misleading. Of course nothing gives us 100% certainty, they're educated guesses based on seismic data and such. But if they couldn't find giant liquid chambers in relatively shallow depths, the entire field of geophysics would be rather useless. Obviously that isn't true. If there's one thing they can locate, it's magma chambers, conventional oil reservoirs, and such. Otherwise they'd just randomly drill all over the place. Which the accidental dyke drilling shows they do when it comes to higher resolution details. Btw Eichelberger is both the founder as well as a board member of the project looking to drill and currently seeking millions of dollars of funding for it. Such an unbiased source and what a coincidence that just as they need money, Mr. Lawton comes out with an article hyping up the idea. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-cluster-seeks-79m-funding-round-to-drill-magma-energy-boreholes-08-01-2024/ https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-c...

hutzlibu 3y ago

"The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist"" Are you intentionally missreading me? I never claimed that the author of the article is a scientist. I said the article is quite ok compared to the average pop science article, which is indeed often clickbait. But here there were no promises, just the very correct claim, that there is great potential. And the scientist the article is talking about, John Eichelberger, for sure has publications: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ So, I am asking again, can you point out one single lie or exaggeration in this concrete article? Because I cannot find one, but like I said, I am not an expert. So if you know more, please share that knowledge.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Someone accidentally drilling into a dyke does not mean they'll be able to bore into a magma chamber within the next 2 years. Those are completely different ballparks, there's a reason the latter has never happened, because the high temperatures make it very difficult on a technical level. I mentioned Mars because it's a similar claim we've heard in the media and from various projects for years now. Of course it's possible, anything's possible. Now show me how concretely it will be done, it's on those making the claim to provide the evidence and I'm not sure if you noticed but the article contains no technical details. After reading it, can you explain how they will drill into the chamber? We can't be sure if Eichelberger has actually said everything implied in the article or if he's quoted out of context, but the “no geophysical technique has been shown to satisfactorily locate magma reservoirs” quote for example is misleading. Of course nothing gives us 100% certainty, they're educated guesses based on seismic data and such. But if they couldn't find giant liquid chambers in relatively shallow depths, the entire field of geophysics would be rather useless. Obviously that isn't true. If there's one thing they can locate, it's magma chambers, conventional oil reservoirs, and such. Otherwise they'd just randomly drill all over the place. Which the accidental dyke drilling shows they do when it comes to higher resolution details. Btw Eichelberger is both the founder as well as a board member of the project looking to drill and currently seeking millions of dollars of funding for it. Such an unbiased source and what a coincidence that just as they need money, Mr. Lawton comes out with an article hyping up the idea. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-cluster-seeks-79m-funding-round-to-drill-magma-energy-boreholes-08-01-2024/ https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-c...