R.I.P. National Geographic

[j654dgj7]

I think that it's about time for a science magazine to take a brave stance. A big FU to the liberal media! It's time for National Geographic to start writing articles about how Hummers are part of God's plan to separate the dead from the strong, how global warming doesn't exist, and even if it did - hello! Warm days at the beach?!!

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think that it's about time for a science magazine to take a brave stance. A big FU to the liberal media! It's time for National Geographic to start writing articles about how Hummers are part of God's plan to separate the dead from the strong, how global warming doesn't exist, and even if it did - hello! Warm days at the beach?!!

Thats funny. Republicans were talking about climate change back when Al Gore was screaming about a coming Ice Age. They were concerned the effect it would have on the global economies. No one took notice, no one cared. Until liberals got a hold of the idea and began pushing an agenda related to environmental protection. Conservatives acknowledged global warming long before Democrats ever even cared about it.
What has been disputed and rightfully so is if humans have any effect on the earths climate.

 

[Eventhorizon]

As a boy I loved Nat Geo. After Nat Geo started leaning due to political reasons it became just another tabloid liberal cry fest. Yes occasionally you could get an interesting not politically biased story so it still has some worth.
Now that Murdoch has a hold of it we should absolutely see stories that use real facts and truth. It should be come a respected magazine once again. No doubt why all those people were let go. Cleaning house to get rid of liars and rifraft.

Hardly a rip scenario, exactly the opposite.

 

[Clayd]

I'm actually looking forward to Nat Geo becoming a profit based organisation, I think there would clearly be more incentive for them to be more productive and improve the quality of programmes aired.
I don't think that the purchase by the majority owner 21 century fox affects the real objectives of the company which is; to teach, inspire and illuminate.
Only down side is the massive cuts in jobs that have resulted tho IMO we can't stay feeling nostalgic about the history of Nat Geo, I think it's jus part of growth.

 

[Skarekrow]

Foxnews uses the most truth and fact in its reporting compared to any other news station. I used to sit in a room for 6 years and watched msnbc cnn and foxnews side by side. Foxnews always had facts that could be checked and verified, the others were conjectu specula and opinion. Their facts never checked out.
I am a highly intelligent human and know what I am talking about. So as liberals cry about what foxnews says, it doesn't make it any less true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims PunditFact has rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.
That means about 60 percent of the claims checked have been rated Mostly False or worse. Here’s how it breaks down (as of Jan. 27, 2015):

At MSNBC and NBC, 44 percent of claims have received a rating of Mostly False or worse. The full breakdown:

And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims rated are Half True or better.

 

[the]

I no longer need to use nat geo to see naked African breasts. I'm surprised it lasted this long.

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

I'm actually looking forward to Nat Geo becoming a profit based organisation, I think there would clearly be more incentive for them to be more productive and improve the quality of programmes aired.
I don't think that the purchase by the majority owner 21 century fox affects the real objectives of the company which is; to teach, inspire and illuminate.
Only down side is the massive cuts in jobs that have resulted tho IMO we can't stay feeling nostalgic about the history of Nat Geo, I think it's jus part of growth.

A lot of economic talk is just psychopathic babble dressed up as "economic efficiency". When they are talking about "making money", "creating economic growth", "creating jobs", etc, they usually engage in industries where it is difficult for outsiders to monitor what they are doing.

One good example is the financial markets. From the early 80's until the financial crash of 2008, investors claimed that they were investing money in firms that would make big profits and increase economic growth.

Anyone who has reads Nassim Taleb should understand that the risk-based modeling of financial assets was just a chimera. After the 2008 crash, that no longer make such claims in the financial markets. Instead, they move one and repeat the same type of behavior in other markets.

It is just fancy thinking dressed up as intellectual rigor. They were only creating a big mess and they are financial and intellectual fraudsters.

What we consumers should aim for is proper cause and effect of financial assets. If you cause a mess, then you clean it up. But somehow the bankers managed to pass on to everyone else the bill for their fraudulent behavior.

If you ever read a book on psychopathy and then compare the described behaviors of psychopaths to the rhetoric and behaviors of industry titans, "growth creators", "job creators", etc, you will see that they match up pretty well.

Thats funny. Republicans were talking about climate change back when Al Gore was screaming about a coming Ice Age. They were concerned the effect it would have on the global economies. No one took notice, no one cared. Until liberals got a hold of the idea and began pushing an agenda related to environmental protection. Conservatives acknowledged global warming long before Democrats ever even cared about it.
What has been disputed and rightfully so is if humans have any effect on the earths climate.

First, global warming deniers argue that CO2 does not cause global warming.

When that argument fails, they argue that global warming has got a natural cause.

Thirdly, when that fails, they argue that global warming will have negligible consequences.

It reminds of the old claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

I do not want short-term financially fraudulent behavior to disturb long-term health of our planet or its long-term economic potential.

 

[Clayd]

It reminds of the old claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

On that note, camel cigarettes for example were actually advertised as a healthy option to reduce stress and were recommended by Dr's.

The clips on YouTube.

 

[Eventhorizon]

A lot of economic talk is just psychopathic babble dressed up as "economic efficiency". When they are talking about "making money", "creating economic growth", "creating jobs", etc, they usually engage in industries where it is difficult for outsiders to monitor what they are doing.

One good example is the financial markets. From the early 80's until the financial crash of 2008, investors claimed that they were investing money in firms that would make big profits and increase economic growth.

Anyone who has reads Nassim Taleb should understand that the risk-based modeling of financial assets was just a chimera. After the 2008 crash, that no longer make such claims in the financial markets. Instead, they move one and repeat the same type of behavior in other markets.

It is just fancy thinking dressed up as intellectual rigor. They were only creating a big mess and they are financial and intellectual fraudsters.

What we consumers should aim for is proper cause and effect of financial assets. If you cause a mess, then you clean it up. But somehow the bankers managed to pass on to everyone else the bill for their fraudulent behavior.

If you ever read a book on psychopathy and then compare the described behaviors of psychopaths to the rhetoric and behaviors of industry titans, "growth creators", "job creators", etc, you will see that they match up pretty well.



First, global warming deniers argue that CO2 does not cause global warming.

When that argument fails, they argue that global warming has got a natural cause.

Thirdly, when that fails, they argue that global warming will have negligible consequences.

It reminds of the old claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

I do not want short-term financially fraudulent behavior to disturb long-term health of our planet or its long-term economic potential.

You keep saying "when that fails". The first thing you said is the only thing that could be looked upon as a little off. " CO2 does not cause global warming". CO2 CAN cause warming. So anyone who says it cant is an idiot. However from there we have to ask, in our situation is it. Currently there is simply no proof that it is in the amount its being put into the atmosphere. Yes in a lab under controlled conditions with the intent to make CO2 have an effect they have had some sucess at affecting temperature change. It simply doesnt translate to our atmosphere though in way thats comparable in the real world. The Weather Channels President said it best a few years ago. Humanities effect on the earths atmosphere is like someone farting in a hurricane.

The other "when that fails" you mention dont fail. They are vaild points that need to be studied and it is only uninformed people with no understanding of earth science who dont understand that.

 

[Eventhorizon]

On that note, camel cigarettes for example were actually advertised as a healthy option to reduce stress and were recommended by Dr's.

The clips on YouTube.

In the middle ages people drank remedies with mercury in them. Remarkably this actual cured the individuals of the life illness.

 

[Clayd]

In the middle ages people drank remedies with mercury in them. Remarkably this actual cured the individuals of the life illness.

The dynamics of that spectrum are inevitably deficient in how much we can gain from them.

What I mean by that, is if you were to travel down that road for long enough you'll hit a few bumps for sure. Better to appreciate what we have than go running heedlessly just to be contained by the information that follows systematically.

It may sound absurd in some sense, but such talk is consequently labeled conspiracy and I know many people on here like to share there views regardless how it may be perceived and that's part of the joy in taking part in this forum. But, for me, if a matter, case, cannot be settled in real terms then it is unavoidably debunked and leads to nowhere.

Wither we are referring to examples such those we previously used of mercury and cigarettes being good for you or not, is not necessarily the question.
Tho identifying with our truths and having a sense of belonging is.
Which is why I choose not to disagree with everything people have to say even if I don't agree with it because at thw end of day we are all seeking our own understanding in one form or another. I don't expect people to come out and shout LIAR nor do I push for such agendas that are along the same lines.

I don't want to drag this on further as I'm sure you have your own opinions on such matter wither its governments putting stuff in our water or other themes like fluoride which is used in many dental products actually being bad for our teeth and bones.

I believe when you push an idea for long enough it becomes a part of your reality. And such notions tho may come from a reliable source are still a deficit to growth for a person.

Thoughts for food.

 

[Lerxst]

Conservative idiocy aside... remember the movie "Fierce Creatures" back in 1997?

[video]https://youtu.be/fU9zV8gdEUw[/video]