*********************************EXCERPT************************************************
polistra says:
The Belgian study last month actually shocked Fred Pearce of New Superstitionist into admitting a bit of truth for once:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21298-trees-do-bear-some-blame-for-acid-rain.html
I seem to recall that the specific acid-rain scare in NE USA was disproved quite a while ago by a study of wind patterns; the forests in question couldn’t have gotten the pollution from the accused power plants.
Now it’s especially good to see the whole theory, not just the specific distribution, disproved twice!
****************************************EXCERPT*************************************
Harry Won A BAgel says:
I too am having trouble understanding the language of these scientists. Shocked? New data observed. Experiment developed to test long standing hypothesis . Hypothesis falsified. Another perfectly reasonable hypothesis developed and is not falsified. Kudos. Where is the shocked bit? It is as if for the reporter finding out humans are not the villains is of itself shocking.