[MD] Conventional wisdom?

[MarshaV]

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 <valkyr at att.net> 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 <valkyr at att.net> 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)


 
___