Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above the norm

Re:Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above ... by biot on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @04:44AM (#12441697)

  > (the Daily Mail? Seriously?)

Reporting quality seems to be good with a lot of images. If the message is good, why criticize the messenger?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above ... by mobiuscog on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @04:57AM (#12441736)

Because it's extremely rare for the reporting quality to be good with the Daily Mail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above ... by biot on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @09:48AM (#12443307)

I can agree with that assessment... they're typically fairly trashy. I've submitted content from them before when it was an AP article (so the text was identical on all sites that carried it) but they had additional relevant, higher resolution images accompanying the text. Got unnecessary flak for it of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above ... by denzil_correa on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @05:40AM (#12441928)

The Signal-Noise Ratio of Daily Mail is six-sigma low.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Permafrost ‘bubbles’ are leaking methane 200 times above ... by jbg_ on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @05:40AM (#12441929)

> Reporting quality seems to be good

What makes you say that? Like much of the Daily Mail, it seems to be sensationalised in a way that makes understanding the (probably important) content rather difficult. The headline is incredibly misleading, to start with.

[ Parent | on HN ]