Mark Hopwood
@markinchina.bsky.social
Scientist living in Shenzhen, China. Associate Professor in Marine Biogeochemistry at SUSTech, Associate Editor at JGR:Oceans. Father to a baby dragon.
外冷内热, he/him 🌊 🐻❄️ 🐧
外冷内热, he/him 🌊 🐻❄️ 🐧
That is interesting, because there was a weird exchange about this online. The original authors claimed TMC sponsored the work but then tried to stop publication, TMC claimed they were trying to stop misreporting of data. Not really clear what's going on, but scientifically the criticism is robust.
December 1, 2025 at 3:37 PM
That is interesting, because there was a weird exchange about this online. The original authors claimed TMC sponsored the work but then tried to stop publication, TMC claimed they were trying to stop misreporting of data. Not really clear what's going on, but scientifically the criticism is robust.
Quite... I don't usually read Frontiers/MDPI at all, just noticed this opinion online and thought it was noteworthy how it developed.
Some journals won't accept any comments on papers in other journals, so the authors may not have had much choice if [I guess] NGeoscience declined to consider a reply
Some journals won't accept any comments on papers in other journals, so the authors may not have had much choice if [I guess] NGeoscience declined to consider a reply
December 1, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Quite... I don't usually read Frontiers/MDPI at all, just noticed this opinion online and thought it was noteworthy how it developed.
Some journals won't accept any comments on papers in other journals, so the authors may not have had much choice if [I guess] NGeoscience declined to consider a reply
Some journals won't accept any comments on papers in other journals, so the authors may not have had much choice if [I guess] NGeoscience declined to consider a reply
These editorial decisions are always difficult, but it's bizarre that uncontroversial corrections to this argument have to be published in an opinion article in another journal...
As per the opinion piece, high-profile low-credibility science can be extremely damaging and needs correcting 🌊
As per the opinion piece, high-profile low-credibility science can be extremely damaging and needs correcting 🌊
December 1, 2025 at 8:03 AM
These editorial decisions are always difficult, but it's bizarre that uncontroversial corrections to this argument have to be published in an opinion article in another journal...
As per the opinion piece, high-profile low-credibility science can be extremely damaging and needs correcting 🌊
As per the opinion piece, high-profile low-credibility science can be extremely damaging and needs correcting 🌊
Most of these problems are likely from poor quality analytical work, but then there are more concerning and difficult questions about whether the authors properly represented their data... In any case, Nature Geoscience hasn't accepted any comment on the paper, and doesn't (ever?) retract papers...
December 1, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Most of these problems are likely from poor quality analytical work, but then there are more concerning and difficult questions about whether the authors properly represented their data... In any case, Nature Geoscience hasn't accepted any comment on the paper, and doesn't (ever?) retract papers...
Yes. We certainly need that, and it can be done, but many of the barriers to decarbonization are not technological. We have the technology to almost completely decarbonize transport and power generation, and it some places this is being rolled out fast, but elsewhere nowhere near fast enough...
November 24, 2025 at 12:35 AM
Yes. We certainly need that, and it can be done, but many of the barriers to decarbonization are not technological. We have the technology to almost completely decarbonize transport and power generation, and it some places this is being rolled out fast, but elsewhere nowhere near fast enough...