Well, at least it still exists. For a second there I thought something had happened to make them go bankrupt and disappear.
Just when I noticed they had a new National Geographic magazine out (National Geographic History) which I was thinking about subscribing too (which I don't think will have much to do with the climate and such...I could be surprised I suppose).
My grandparents had an entire wall of National Geographics on their wall from the very first one to when they passed. They also got my father subscriptions every Christmas...so I basically grew up with National Geographic in our Living room.
PS: Looked more into it...it appears that they created a new organization (National Geographic Partners) of which Fox is 73% and Nat Geo society is 27% of it.
However, the National Geo Society remains separate (and the magazine does as well?) (not positive on the magazine part). In that regards The Society will remain a non-profit, and separate from the partnership. The partnership itself will be governed at a 50/50 split between Fox and NGS (I'm not sure how that works with Fox being the majority of the board supposedly at 73% though...I'd imagine that's a lopsided board).
What that means for the magazine...
Well, I imagine at least for the present it will continue as is. I would hope it was bought for financial investments rather than a political platform...and as such they would continue pushing what has been a long tradition already.
What MAY change, or so I expect, will be a greater commercialization of the name and magazine...which could have a much more politicized climate?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the less-despondent side, it was the FOX umbrella as a whole that bought them, NOT FOX News - so it's owned by the same people who own The Simpsons and Family Guy.
The nice thing about grotesquely obese empires is that they're incredibly hard to run from the top.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell that to the New York Post. Or for that matter, Fox News.On the less-despondent side, it was the FOX umbrella as a whole that bought them, NOT FOX News - so it's owned by the same people who own The Simpsons and Family Guy.
The nice thing about grotesquely obese empires is that they're incredibly hard to run from the top.
That would be the other sword-edge of what I'm saying. Matt Groening and Seth McFarlane get to run their shows their way, and so does Roger Ailes. Rupert Murdoch's a slimebag, but Roger Ailes is a MONSTER. Murdoch is afraid of HIM.
Murdoch? Oh sh!# there goes the planet.
Yep, that's the appropriate reaction all right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.
damn. yay for science. ~grumbles~
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.
What do you need? To be hit over the head a few times until you see the evidence? Oh right. Big companies NEVER lie. I guess I will go back to smoking cigarets and working in a coal mine without protection while using leaded gasoline for my car.
Despite the hand-wringing, I wouldn't worry too much. Murdoch is more interested in profit than he is in pushing an anti-science agenda. Lest we forget, Fox produced a new version of Cosmos a couple of years ago, which presented evidence for climate change, etc. Fox the TV station also often presents shows with a liberal slant. Fox news is anti-science, but that is in part because it's target audience is also anti-science. They are not going to run Nat Geo into the ground, alienate existing consumers, and lose money just to serve an agenda
About the only thing I might worry about is on the TV front. There has been an overall trend in dumbing down educational channels in favor of ratings as well as saving money via cheap reality shows. I COULD see that increase with the National Geographic Channel, although I think that process had already started before the merger or whatever.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.
Shockingly illogical.
You might as well argue that since gravity is "still a theory" we don't KNOW what would happen if you jumped off the top of the Sears Tower.
"Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.Shockingly illogical.
You might as well argue that since gravity is "still a theory" we don't KNOW what would happen if you jumped off the top of the Sears Tower.
Hyperbole much?! It is very easy to prove gravity. Toddlers do it every day.
What do you need? To be hit over the head a few times until you see the evidence? Oh right. Big companies NEVER lie. I guess I will go back to smoking cigarets and working in a coal mine without protection while using leaded gasoline for my car."Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.
How about resorting to something other than insults? And you just do that with those cigs and gasoline, if you are so inclined.
Wow, you guys are just overwhelmingly gifted at debates, aren't you? </sarcasm>| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravity?
Surely you mean intelligent falling.
Does that happen without gravity? Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, just tired of the same ignorant talking point arguments.
My point exactly. I am tired of the same old BS. I am 45 and in the past 25 years I have seen that something is wrong. I am tired of the same old "Oh, there is no problem." or "Oh, things will fix themselves."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for climate change. We have to combat the upcoming ice age somehow.
We're actually in an ice age, the same ice age that has been going on for millennia. what we are actually in is an interglacial period. What people think of as "The Ice Age" was actually the last glacial period, which ended about 12,000 years ago. Both these events, the last glacial period and the current interglacial, are two events occurring within the current ice age.
Incidentally, I've seen a theory suggesting that the rise of agriculture may have been responsible for another glacial period not happening within the past 10 or so thousand years, through climate change. But I don't know what the scientific consensus is on that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.
you misunderstand the nature of scientific theory. a scientific theory isn't a hypothesis, nor is it guessing. it is a model for explaining phenomena capable of producing testable predictions, and theories are not static. As new evidence is uncovered, theories are modified and updated over time to reflect the growing body of knowledge, so that for example the theory of evolution today isn't what it was during the time of Darwin, or 60 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
Anthropogenic climate change is a theory intended to explain why the changes in climate observed within the past few decades have little resemblance to changes in climate observed over millennia, and seem to be following out of a pattern or balance. So far the theory has stood up to scrutiny and is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, and is regarded as accurately explaining what it is meant to explain, by scientific consensus. The model of anthropogenic climate change has seen some changes over time to incorporate new observations, data and evidence over time, but the core concept, that the environment is being altered by industry, has remained the same.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will not be the ones paying for the lions share of the trouble that are coming. It will be my nieces and their kids and their grand kids, ect, ect, ect. Look at your kids and ask yourself one question. "What if I am wrong and this is happening and it is serious?" If we are wrong then no major harm is done by making the world a better place. But if we are right... God, if he exists, help us all. The world will survive. Humanity will survive. But I shudder at the price both will pay.
P.S. - I HOPE that I am wrong. Sadly, I am starting to understand how Cassandra must have felt.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're actually in an ice age, the same ice age that has been going on for millennia. what we are actually in is an interglacial period. What people think of as "The Ice Age" was actually the last glacial period, which ended about 12,000 years ago. Both these events, the last glacial period and the current interglacial, are two events occurring within the current ice age.Maybe there will be an ice age ten or twenty thousand years from now. Right now however the much shorter term period of global warming is already starting to have disastrous effects.
The term 'ice age' actually has two meanings. It has become common usage for 'ice age' to mean, 'a period when the polar ice caps are expanding'. In scientific terms that is more accurately described as a glaciation, and 'ice age' is used to refer to a period when polar ice caps EXIST.
Thus, Anius was using the scientific meaning of 'ice age'... we have been in an ice age, a period with polar ice caps, for millions of years now.
That said, the 'ice age' ='glaciation' meaning has become so widespread that you often see scientists using it too... which is why this can quickly get very confusing.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hyperbole much?! It is very easy to prove gravity. Toddlers do it every day.
No hyperbole involved. Gravity is just as much "still a theory" as global warming... indeed, our understanding of how global warming works is vastly greater than our understanding of how gravity works.
As to toddlers 'proving' gravity... what you are really talking about is the observation that objects fall towards the planet's surface, a phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity. Yet the observations of global warming are just as basic and obvious... the observation of global warming is just as "proven" as the observation of gravity. The theory as to WHY each of these things happen is what is not 'proven' (in the scientific sense that no explanation is EVER proven).
That human carbon dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm (aka 'global warming') is just as much 'proven' by observed reality as gravity is 'proven' by toddlers falling down.
Umm..really interesting debate on climate change....buuuut....Isn't it off topic? I would think this should be its own thread.
|
|
Umm..really interesting debate on climate change....buuuut....Isn't it off topic? I would think this should be its own thread.
This is the "Off-Topic Discussions" message board... so 'off topic' is on topic. :]
In any case, the OP was bemoaning that Murdoch had purchased National Geographic specifically BECAUSE he is a climate change denier. Ergo, on topic for both the board and this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I foresee: They will slash staff and salaries, drop photo staff, multiply ads, and you can wave goodbye to protection of editorial content and environmental coverage. There have been rumors of the sale for a few years. Damn.
|
|
What I foresee: They will slash staff and salaries, drop photo staff, multiply ads, and you can wave goodbye to protection of editorial content and environmental coverage. There have been rumors of the sale for a few years. Damn.
I fear that you are correct. A lot of people left the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages once had a wider variety of opinions than is now the case. Will there be a similar flight of talent to other outlets?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I intend to let my current subscription expire. Very little magazine cash actually goes to the grant-writing apparatus and Nat Geo has been essentially a peer-reviewed adventure travel magazine with occasional science and history content for most of the time I've read it, but I did appreciate it for what it was.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, Anius was using the scientific meaning of 'ice age'... we have been in an ice age, a period with polar ice caps, for millions of years now.That's an ostrich in the sand kind of definition.
Unless you are suggesting that climate change deniers used a time machine to go back and create the incredibly illogical term of 'ice age' to describe a geological age with, you know, ice, no it is not "an ostrich in the sand kind of definition". It's the original scientific definition of the term... predating our awareness of global warming's recent impact on the ice caps by around 200 years.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, Anius was using the scientific meaning of 'ice age'... we have been in an ice age, a period with polar ice caps, for millions of years now.That's an ostrich in the sand kind of definition. While technically correct that there is ice in both polar regions, it kind of ignores that the arctic ice pack has dwindled to the point where the Northwest Passage is now open water and that shelf areas previously unaccessible are now open for oil drilling.
It ignores the fact that the Antarctic glaciers are calving city-sized blocks of ice on an all too often basis, that once permanent ice shelves are literally disintegrating before our eyes.
I don't think it ignores anything. It's just how the ice age is defined by people who study paleoclimatology.
The same people, assuming they are scientists of merit, believe in anthropogenic global warming and are aware of the shrinking of the ice caps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it ignores anything. It's just how the ice age is defined by people who study paleoclimatology.
The same people, assuming they are scientists of merit, believe in anthropogenic global warming and are aware of the shrinking of the ice caps.
Indeed. Words don't change their meaning just because circumstances change. The hundreds (thousands?) of scientific papers using the term 'ice age' to refer to the current Pleistocene age (past 2.6 million years) would make no sense if instead taken to be referring to the glaciation prior to the current Holocene interglacial (past 11,700 years).
This is a mirror image of the people who argue that the word 'acidification' should no longer mean 'becoming more acidic' (i.e. decreasing in pH) because they claim, based on nothing, that the term 'ocean acidification' can only be used once the oceans are actually acid (i.e. below pH 7).
The words mean what they mean. Redefining them for political purposes just muddies the waters. That said, I pointed out all along that the 'glaciation' meaning of 'ice age' is ALSO valid/common usage... so I really don't see the problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hyperbole much?! It is very easy to prove gravity. Toddlers do it every day."Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.Shockingly illogical.
You might as well argue that since gravity is "still a theory" we don't KNOW what would happen if you jumped off the top of the Sears Tower.
First off there is a difference between the common usage of the word theory and the scientific term theory. Secondly gravity is actually much more widely debated among scientists than climate change is. 97% of climatologists out there agree that humans are causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. However on the gravity side of things we are still looking for a universal theory of gravitation. Basically gravity seems to work very differently on the really small scale than it does on the really large scale. WE still haven't found out why :)
the theory of gravity according to classical/relative physics is currently supported by scientific consensus (though it is still subject to scrutiny and updates like any other theory, kind of like how the theory of gravity itself was updated by the advent of special relativity, which itself argued that the world does not operate according to newtonian mechanics at cosmological scales as previously believed), but people haven't discovered yet how gravity works in quantum physics. It's actually a pretty big and fundamental question and one I'm excited to hear the answer to.
another fun fact: quantum mechanics and general relativity are very good at explaining how physics works at their respective scales, but they in fact contradict each other. they can't both be completely right. reconciling the two theories is why the pending discovery of the quantum theory of gravity is extremely important.
First off there is a difference between the common usage of the word theory and the scientific term theory. Secondly gravity is actually much more widely debated among scientists than climate change is. 97% of climatologists out there agree that humans are causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. However on the gravity side of things we are still looking for a universal theory of gravitation. Basically gravity seems to work very differently on the really small scale than it does on the really large scale. WE still haven't found out why :)Hyperbole much?! It is very easy to prove gravity. Toddlers do it every day."Climate Denial"? Really? It's still a theory, guys. Sure, things are indeed warming up--that much is TRUE. However, the why and how? Um, not really. That is still theory, not absolute truth.
The Earth has cycles of warm-ups and cool-downs throughout the ages. Again, the how and the why is all still theory.Shockingly illogical.
You might as well argue that since gravity is "still a theory" we don't KNOW what would happen if you jumped off the top of the Sears Tower.
You know, everytime someone tosses around the 97%, it just reminds me how much people are listening to media rather than scientists...
But hey, they believe in Alien UFO's, and Bigfoot too which go hand in hand with that 97% so......
Someday the scientists will be listened too...but right now neither side of people outside the scientific community (well most, at least) are listening to those who are discussing climate change, they'd rather listen to sensationalistic media stories and politicians (who fly in jets and drive suburban fleets of vehicles and think planting trees somehow rectify how much damage they are doing) for their stories and information (but there's another thread for that).
I could have sworn there's a difference between a Law and a theory. For general gravity, I could swear there's something called....
The LAW of Gravity. That's different than a theory.
A theory would be something like the theory of Quantum gravity. In this you still need to use the mathematical formulas in regards to anything progressing along those fields...but it doesn't have enough evidence or proof to be a law.