Okay.
On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Conventional = wrong anyway, doesn't it ? > > Don't believe this story is that radical - just hyped-up for > newsworthy effect, like all science media these days. (these days = > forever BTW) > They are clearly talking about some form of nitrogen take-up that is > beyond nutrients being used to build proteins and cellulose (plant > materials generally) etc. I don't believe this changes the microbial > (and other) "fixing" processes. > > Nice that people notice that sedimentary rock is a source of gases - I > guess the surprise is the proportion - but not sure this in itself > changes how the plants take it in and use it. Needs following-up the > actual paper(s). > > Ian > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Of course! Being a negative empiricist and a radical skeptic, I most >> definitely agree. >> >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: >> >>> What was so neat to hear this morning was how happy these scientists >>> were to find out that they were wrong. Being wrong is the most >>> exciting thing to happen to these people in a long time. Compare that >>> to the dogmatism of other sorts of people. >>> >>> The pencil is mightier than the pen! >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> In this case, conventional wisdom is wrong... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140206913/discovery-forces-scientists-to-rethink-nitrogen >>>> (3 min, 46 sec) ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
