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
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.
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-c...
"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?