The non-stop carping in every article preaching the climate change cult is pretty bad. The "gender" issue was pretty silly, but at least it could be considered a "cultural" study. But I don't think I can renew again after the September issue on addiction.

First page-"Addiction is a disease, not a moral failing...." While it talks about the scientific basis for addiction, it doesn't mention that many with the predilection do not become addicted.

Next page Obama's surgeon general Vivek Murphy, commending him as he "extended his office's public health advocacy to matters such as reliable transportation, safe neighborhoods (forgot to send that message to Holder in Chicago), and affordable housing...."

Next page a picture of a bunch of dead monarch butterflies, "...died after an unusally intense spring storm--possibly due to climate change..."

Two pages later they decry eating red meat and cheese and "...sponsored studies can shade the science, says Roizen. The National Dairy Council, for instance, "has a huge marketing arm.""

Their editor, Susan Goldberg, has forgotten about science and destroyed the magazine, turning it into a leftist propaganda rag. The only time lately I have seen them not stand lock step with politically correct stances is when they questioned the opposition to GMOs.

Someone needs a safe space.

(01-15-2018 11:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Someone needs a safe space.

I just expect a science magazine to be that, not a political magazine and not a propaganda rag. That's not too much to ask. But unless it changes I won't renew and I've been a subscriber for over 30 years.

If you're expecting a science magazine to ignore the very real threat of climate change, you have issues.

Now if they're continually asserting it's 100% man's fault, then you have a legitimate beef.

I had a collection of nearly every NG edition back to 1914 and a several earlier than that. It’s interesting to see the relatively recent change in what they cover and how they cover it.

I stopped adding to that collection several years ago. 10 years ago it merged with 21st Century Fox and it became a joke. The fox folks changed it to more of an issue advocacy magazine cloaked as a scientific journal but marketed to liberals. It’s garbage now. Every story has a leftist political bent.

I read, more like scanned a Time magazine last week and wow, no news, just commentary disguised as a news story. That's the reason I dropped my local rag, it resembled the Demoncratic Party Digest with a different title above its stories.

Do they still show boobs?

(01-15-2018 02:13 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Do they still show boobs?

LOL

(01-15-2018 02:13 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Do they still show boobs?

Don't know for sure since I don't subscribe but I did see a picture of Obama in an edition while in the Dr's office waiting room.

(01-15-2018 11:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Someone needs a safe space.

you know what's ironic......you changed your avatar to reflect line 1b) in my sig w/o solicitation.....

who'd a thunk it.....

we've already 'scopped' the misguided.....it's simply a matter of who the leftovers become.....

it's easily gaining on 'who fights' who'......how it happens is the next question in sequencing.....

(01-15-2018 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you're expecting a science magazine to ignore the very real threat of climate change, you have issues.

Now if they're continually asserting it's 100% man's fault, then you have a legitimate beef.

Well they are and they put it in every article. Article on a trek across Africa and they blame the drought on global warming. Article on Syrian war and they blame the war on global warming....

(01-15-2018 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you're expecting a science magazine to ignore the very real threat of climate change, you have issues.

Now if they're continually asserting it's 100% man's fault, then you have a legitimate beef.

name one con that has argued "man" is the reason......name one......

name a tard that has has argued "man" is the reason......that one's easy....

define fact as we know it today.....

#enjoythatfonzies

(01-15-2018 02:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you're expecting a science magazine to ignore the very real threat of climate change, you have issues.

Now if they're continually asserting it's 100% man's fault, then you have a legitimate beef.

Well they are and they put it in every article. Article on a trek across Africa and they blame the drought on global warming. Article on Syrian war and they blame the war on global warming....

It’s honestly almost as bad as Rolling Stone now. Used to be you’d get a ton of music and maybe some PJ O’Rourke and now it’s all settled science leftist hit pieces and what music feature there actually are spend most of the interview crying about Trump and Republicans. There is a reason it’s sales have gone in the gutter and it’s being sold.

Global Warming IS settled science. What isn't is whether man is the definitive cause.

(01-15-2018 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Global Warming IS settled science. What isn't is whether man is the definitive cause.

Then actually, according to you it sounds like its not settled science at all.

(01-15-2018 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Global Warming IS settled science. What isn't is whether man is the definitive cause.

What isn't science at all is blaming every weather pattern on climate change. We have had droughts and floods before.

And I wouldn't say Global Warming is "settled." We clearly have been on a general warming trend the last 150 years. That is settled. Our understanding of long term climate patterns is so limited that it will never be "settled" where we are going the next 150 years.

(01-15-2018 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Global Warming IS settled science. What isn't is whether man is the definitive cause.

Climate change is settled science. We know the earth's climate has undergone major changes as long as the earth has existed. I will agree that we don't know if man is the definitive cause.

(01-15-2018 03:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Global Warming IS settled science. What isn't is whether man is the definitive cause.

Then actually, according to you it sounds like its not settled science at all.

You clearly don't understand the topic at hand. The globe is warming. That is settled. Is man the direct cause? That's the unsettled part. It's not really that hard of a concept to understand.

The globe has been warming and cooling since microbes first started flagellating. Agreed.

I wish the globe was warming. This season sucks.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk