Interestingly my latest Discover Magazine had an article that actually showed the other side of the global warming issue. I was stunned.
susie
Even more from Ace of Spades:
Even More: Commenters assure me this explanation of how this all unfolded is crazy-delicious. I haven’t had the time to read it yet; I’m throwing it up as fast as possible.
Cuffy Meiggs, who I often think of as “Drew,” says “dig deeper” into that Tech blog site TigerHawk links. Here’s the thing: James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming science, is responsible for the bugged algorithms that produced the erroneous figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that they could be checked. The bug was discovered by someone who took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen’s flawed algorithm, and then, having accurately done so, proved NASA’s numbers were wrong. Thus causing the revision.
So James Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms themselves.
Fire him. Immediately.
Oops, sorry, I guess it wasn’t the most recent (I have been catching up on them so I can ship them off to my son). But here is the article on their website anyway.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/?searchterm=global%20warming%20sun
susie
Let's get something straight, Denier. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THE DEBATE.
;-)
“Interestingly my latest Discover Magazine had an article that actually showed the other side of the global warming issue. I was stunned.”
I had to cancel Scientific American because it had become too biased. They have gone after Lomborg viciously (in between their relentless hyping of stem cells, bashing of creationists, and occasional flaking out, like when they did a puff piece on Rep Waxman).
Now, I’ve noticed that National Geographic is mired in bias as well, with a recent propaganda piece about greenland ice melting that was so hyperbolic I had to explain to the kids how that wan’t really scientifically accurate fear. Some time ago they did one on running out of oil (no we’re not, but fearmongering sells).
If Discover avoids the bias that the other mags have, they are the one to buy.