Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Geographic melting down?
Washington Times ^ | 9/7/04 | Patrick J. Michaels

Posted on 09/07/2004 7:29:53 AM PDT by ZGuy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: stayout
Another one of its misleading tactics was to completely ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas in favor of emphasizing carbon dioxide

Very ironic since the CO2 greenhouse theory depends on the effect of water vapor. CO2 by itself does not trap enough heat to explain any kind of warming. So the theory is that it induces more water to evaporate which is what causes the warming. They assume that this positive feedback increases the CO2 effect by a factor of ten.

The theory doesn't work though. Changes in solar output have been measured directly but the feedback effect on atmospheric temperature is absent.

41 posted on 09/07/2004 8:31:07 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
My favorite NGs are the ones from the late 1950s and early 60s that had a decidely pro-military focus

Just a few months ago (December if I recall), there was a lengthy cover story about the technology and power of the U.S. military jets. I'm sure it had all the lefties bemoaning how pro-war NG has become, proving my point that bias is in the eye of the beholder more than the ink of the page.

42 posted on 09/07/2004 8:34:06 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Liberals distroy everything they get their selfish fingers on.
43 posted on 09/07/2004 8:36:13 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Ditto. That money goes to NewsMax now.


44 posted on 09/07/2004 8:37:08 AM PDT by PfromHoGro (The W knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tdadams

I remember that one. I looked at it and seriously considered buying it, but didn't see anything in the article that was really out of the ordinary relative to what I could find in other military-aviation publications.

There was also a small article a while back about the 40th anniversary of Operation Sea Orbit (USS Enterprise, USS Long Beach, USS Bainbridge nuclear circumnavigation) ...


45 posted on 09/07/2004 8:39:12 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
If you think that National Geogrphic for adults is bad, you ought to read the brainwash material in "National Geographic for Kids".

It presents a constant barrage of liberal tripe -- pro-radical environmentalism, global warming, anti-hunting, etc.

46 posted on 09/07/2004 8:40:00 AM PDT by CWW (John Edwards -- Democrat and Whore Trial Lawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

The editor's letter in the beginning of the magazine states that the articles will probably make people cancel their subscription but, they don't care... It's not my dad's magazine anymore.

I wonder who they'll blame when the North and South poles flip?

A theory of mine, and it's just armchair speculation, is that whenever the poles flip, the magnetosphere is weakened and thus causes a blip in the global environment. It's got to cause some kind of change, and no one (liberal media) seems to even care that some other factor may be involved.

"Global warming" reminds me of the Y2K problem, except compounded by 10000%. All so those "scientists" can get their damn grant to pay for pizzas and beakers outta my tax dollars. Let me decide where it goes, and a cure for cancer would have been made by now. (/Rant)


47 posted on 09/07/2004 8:42:30 AM PDT by InShanghai (I was born on the crest of a wave, and rocked in the cradle of the deep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

Same here Bert - my MIL gives me a subscription to NG for Christmas each year. I finally told her enough. I suggested a different magazine she could give me.

I quit opening them years ago and just tossed them into the trash. At least now I will get a magazine I will actually read.


48 posted on 09/07/2004 8:44:14 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr

You discovered a stack of old Playboy®s in the neighbor's garage, like I did?


49 posted on 09/07/2004 8:45:55 AM PDT by 7.62 x 51mm (• Veni • Vidi • Vino • Visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Me, too!


50 posted on 09/07/2004 8:46:59 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
I quit reading them also, I got tired of NG always pushing "Evolution".... I notice now they sell their magazine on the news stand, I guess they couldn't get enough subscribers!
51 posted on 09/07/2004 8:47:18 AM PDT by Die_Hard Conservative Lady (I have left this blank for a reason....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
The author picks out three anecdotes from the article he wishes to to take issue with, and says these are typical misstatements of the article, but then gives a feeble excuse as to why we should just take his word for it even though he can't expound more (the article's word count limit).

My bet is that you've never had to write to a strict word count. The article here is about 800 words, and if this guy were to go over it, the article would not be usable by the editors -- they budget a certain amount of space for an article, and if the article doesn't fit, it either gets trimmed or tossed. It's the way things are in the writing business. You can only cover so much detail in 800 words -- it's FINITE. To call this a "feeble excuse" for not expounding more is ridiculous.

52 posted on 09/07/2004 8:48:57 AM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, and victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
They should call National Geographic what it really is "International Greenpeace". I quit my subscription years ago.
53 posted on 09/07/2004 8:49:23 AM PDT by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberationIT
"Add Scientific American to the list."

I agree. I cancelled them after they did the 'hit' piece on GWB.

54 posted on 09/07/2004 8:52:26 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: InShanghai

Cancer could probably have been cured with the money spent on anti-smoking ads.


55 posted on 09/07/2004 8:53:00 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (I'm from North Dakota--I'm ALL FOR Global Warming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
I stopped reading National Geographic when I became aware of other magazines that showed pictures of naked or nearly naked women. I guess I really shouldn't use the term 'reading' here, more like perusing.

Then there was that formative period when, comparing NG to the "other magazines", I became convinced that gravity must be a lot stronger in Africa.

56 posted on 09/07/2004 8:54:05 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I do believe global warming is a real phenomenon, but don't think it's either man made

"Global warming" is man-made all right, but not the way greens would have us believe. The effect is local. We place too many of the weather stations near cities and other artifacts of civilization. It's like mounting the thermostat on the furnace.

Balloon and satellite records agree with each other -- there hasn't been much warming in the last fifty years.

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm

57 posted on 09/07/2004 8:56:59 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Seven misleading statements in three pages. There are 28 more. When the truth gets this stretched, that's more than one person's work. Instead, it's a process, where scientists tell editors what they want to hear, editors don't check the facts and, ultimately, we all pay with very bad policies. Unfortunately, it's all predictable.

And not new...

In the early 1990s Lindzen was asked to contribute to the IPCC's 1995 report. At the time, he held (and still does) that untangling human influences from the natural variation of the global climate is next to impossible. When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." "That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning.
If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem." Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement."

In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."

Lindzen is a true scientist who goes where the facts leads him, and was one of the core members of the knowledgeable scientists who contributed to the IPCC's 1995 report, and in his own words, describes how facts were twisted and extrapolated in jr. high school fashion to arrive at the predetermined result.

58 posted on 09/07/2004 8:59:18 AM PDT by Publius6961 (I don't do diplomacy either)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
Actually "peruse" means to read very carefully.

Actually, it can mean both. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: pe·ruse
Pronunciation: p&-'rüz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pe·rused; pe·rus·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to use up, deal with in sequence, from Latin per- thoroughly + Middle English usen to use
1 a : to examine or consider with attention and in detail : STUDY b : to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner
2 : READ; especially : to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner

59 posted on 09/07/2004 8:59:41 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (If you decide to kick the tiger in the ass...you'd better be prepared to deal with the teeth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LiberationIT
Add Scientific American to the list.

Ditto.
I subscribed to and read the Scientific American religiously for over 30 years. When they started emphasizing social manipulation and touchy-feely subjects over science, I regretfully bailed. Never looked back.
I occasionally glance at an issue in the magazine section and sadly put it back on the rack. Science it no longer is...

60 posted on 09/07/2004 9:03:18 AM PDT by Publius6961 (I don't do diplomacy either)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson