Rupert Murdoch Buys National Geographic Magazine 286
dywolf writes: In a move that has inspired "dread" among the publication's journalists, as well as long time readers, Rupert Murdoch has just bought a controlling interest in all of National Geographic's media properties. The move turns the long time non-profit into a for-profit media corporation in the process. Some commenters have pointed to Murdoch's previous collaboration with the National Geographic Society, the NatGeo TV channel, as well other once respected publications he has bought such as the Wall Street Journal, as an example of what to expect, and to explain their apprehension at the deal.
This raises a question for reader KatchooNJ: As many of you likely know, Rupert Murdoch has famously not been quiet about his denial of climate change. National Geographic gives grants to scientists... so, is anything going to now change with the focus of National Geographic's organization?
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
"In a move that has inspired "dread" among the publication's journalists, as well as long time readers, Rupert Murdoch has just bought a controlling interest in all of National Geographic's media properties."
Read this portion and knew that I had read all I needed to. A shame as I have subscribed to the magazine for quite some time.
I also subscribe (Score:3)
I also subscribe to the magazine, and have enjoyed it for decades. Definitely not happy with this news. :-(
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I also subscribe (Score:5, Funny)
Not voting for them is kind of the point of royalty...
Re:I also subscribe (Score:4, Funny)
Unless you're in Star Wars or high school.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because some watery tart threw a sword at you doesn't mean you should get checks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get democracy checks instead, since I'm American.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace prize. For his work in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:3)
And Obama won a Nobel Prize. For getting elected.
To be fair the Noble Prize was a pre-emptive strike. Basically they were following the Bush doctrine, but for peace prizes. And about as good of an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of one made-up arbitrary prize, it's a different made-up arbitrary prize with the same name?
Re: (Score:2)
Then let's hope he buys Dice.
Re:welcome to being "part of the problem" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes actively filtering information to determine what is true and what is not is a valuable skill on the internet and one that I use regularly, but that is only useful when you are trying to evaluate opinions on complex issues.
I will gladly sift through competing opinions to formulate my own opinion, but what I will not do is sift through bald faced lies to determine what is true and what is not just to get to the point of being able to form my own opinion. That is a waste of my time.
The many into the few... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Real journalism is almost dead in the 21st century anyway.
Define "Real journalism," because I don't think it's dead, just changed. And maybe somewhat more rare and difficult to discern.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't tell that it's believable, does it count as "real journalism"? Perhaps is does if a historian will someday be able to validate it. Perhaps not.
It's my opinion that "real journalism" requires trustworthy sources of information available to the reader, not only to the investigative reporter. And trust is subject to being lost when unethical activities are detected. (Also, unfortunately, when they are fabricated, if the fabrications can't be detected as such.) For news organization the prime
Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the continued and extended monopolization and control of media? I find that much more disturbing, and would ask that the people petition the government to break up the monopolies.
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't democracy a type of government... and more government is never the solution so... we need less democracy and this is clearly the step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they say "more government", that doesn't mean that it actually employs more people. they are talking about more power/authority to the government.
I have no idea why they are selling, but imagine this. What if the controlling entity of Nat Geo wants to sell meaning it is not a hostile takeover, but the government says sorry, no deal (for whatever reason). Imagine if you owned a business and wanted to sell to the highest bidder, but the government steps in and says sorry, you have to sell to the lowest bidder because "we" think it is better. Do you really want that? Does that not open the door to abuse? I think it does.
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slice it however you like, it's still a cake. More specifically, in either case the claim is incorrect. The Government already has the power to break up monopolies, and has already done so several times. The Sherman Act and Clayton Act ensured that the power was clearly defined.
Going a bit further, I am extremely Libertarian minded. One of the few powers I believe the Government should have it to protect the public from monopolies and predatory behaviors money can bring about. You won't get me to rally for Government action on most issues.
Your second paragraph would simply take too long to debate, but I completely disagree. In simple terms, the Press (Media) has a specific purpose which is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Monopolization prevents Media/Press from doing it's job and working _for_ the citizens.
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if your neighbour opens a toxic dump on his yard, but the government steps in and says sorry, you have to follow zoning laws because "we" think it is better. Do you really want that?
You aren't the sole inhabitant of this world. Your actions affect other people, just like their actions affect you. And that means they will hold some say over them, either in the relatively benevolent form of a modern democratic government or in the time-tested form of assassination. Dislike it all that you want, just remember it's this same government enforcing claims of ownerships that lets you have something to sell in the first place, or a monetary system to receive the payment with for that matter.
None of this means that the government should block the sale of National Geographic (nor that it shouldn't - it would take an impartial expert to investigate the likely effects to decide), just that "the owner wouldn't like the sale being blocked" is an irrelevant argument.
Re: (Score:3)
That will never happen for us moron.
First, nice to see you can state your case without a personal attack. Second, have you ever been exposed to the government procurement system?
The argument is philosophical in nature. You might be surprised that many people just aren't comfortable giving any government such power in what is a civil matter.As you think I am ludicrous to not give the government such control, I am on the other side and think it is ludicrous to think the government will NEVER abuse such authority.
Re: (Score:2)
I am on the other side and think it is ludicrous to think the government will NEVER abuse such authority.
when government abuses its authority there is at least a theoretical ability to push back
when corporations abuse their authority there is NO WAY to push back
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
More government is never the solution.
Never covers a lot of ground. Sometimes government is the solution, and I say that as a registered Libertarian. Anyone who believes what you do is an anarchist, and likely a fool. Now, as to whether more government is the right solution in this situation, well that's a longer, more complicated conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had less government, Grandma can come and live with you, yes?
Re: (Score:3)
More government is never the solution. Government is out there to screw the population and protect its own interests.
This attitude is the ultimate self fulfilling prophecy. Transparency in government is the answer. Public participation is the answer. Defanging government just gives more power to interests that the population has no hope of influencing. The current anti-government supposedly Libertarian movement is the largest boost to the oligarchy in US history.
Re:Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what regulations are causing the consolidation of media brands, exactly?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
So what regulations are causing the consolidation of media brands, exactly?
=Smidge=
Really? You really don't understand this? There may not be a regulation that says "you are not allowed to drive the wrong way down Walnut St" but there is a regulation that says "you can't drive the wrong way down a street that has one-way street signs on it" and you are the person who says "yes but where does the law mention Walnut St"
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know, just say so.
Re: (Score:3)
According to this article, it's the relaxation of regulations that is permitting media conglomerates.
That's the exact opposite of the claim being made, and OP's proposal to remove existing regulations will only make it worse.
=Smidge=
Re: Grants? That is your worry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the tax laws that make it cheaper for corporations to allow themselves to be bought out
Re: Grants? That is your worry? (Score:5, Informative)
That rollback occurred during the Gringrich congress which had a veto proof Republican majority. I'm not sure on this particular bill but if it's like the others Clinton didn't have any say in the bill as the Vote was veto proof.
C'mon Mods.. (Score:2)
This one may generate some good discussion, even though it's either misguided or incorrectly/confusingly stating issues. I don't agree that it's a "Troll" and will point out that a different opinion does not make it a troll. I do hope someone with Mod points corrects the rating.
Does Government want the monopolization? Absolutely, it's so much easier to control fewer media companies and this is about control.
Has deregulation caused the problems? Sure, but those go back quite a ways. The debates allowing
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, it's so much easier to control fewer media companies and this is about control.
correction, it's easier for a media entity to control the government as it gets bigger and bigger
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile back in reality, Donald Trump, with no political experience but a vast media presence on television for decades, is the leading presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
> Sorry to break it to you, but it's government that drives the consolidation. If you want to see a bunch of independent media outlets again, then fight for massive rollbacks in regulations.
Uhh... it's due to deregulation actually.
Why the hate? (Score:3, Interesting)
>> once respected publications he has bought such as the Wall Street Journal
AFAIK, WSJ is still a top-tier newspaper in the same class as the NYT or Washington Post. (And its circulation is still strong.)
>>"dread" among the publication's journalists
From what I've seen in print media over the past 15 years, any journalists left are lucky to have their jobs. Fortunately, NG is as much a photography magazine as anything else (if you don't believe me, look at who advertises in it) so I don't see that changing, even if the print staff decides to take their ball and go...well, where?
Re:Why the hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the WSJ was sold the bias of the paper shifted not-so-subtly to the right. It may be a top-tier newspaper, but its bias clearly indicates it is a tool of the Murdoch empire.
Comparing the WSJ to the Washington Post probably is appropriate since the Washington Post shares the right wing bias.
The bottom line is that he owns way too many media outlets which tends to drown out other voices. The argument that any of his media outlets are truly independent is really a joke. They publish what he wants them to publish through direct, indirect, or implied influence. That is why the hate.
Re: (Score:3)
The WSJ editorial pages have always been right-wing, even kind of angry cultural right-wing (not business-conservative, as you might expect from the title). But the news pages used to be strongly firewalled from the editorial, which I think is the main thing that's changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yeah I forgot about the open-borders part, which clearly doesn't fit mainstream conservatism. I don't think they support that one for leftist reasons, though, more for the usual reasons that businesspeople support it: cheap labor, dislike of mandatory systems like E-Verify, etc. They're on board with the lobbying for more H1Bs, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yeah I forgot about the open-borders part, which clearly doesn't fit mainstream conservatism.
I didn't realize the EU was "mainstream conservative", given their fairly strong reticence viz. Syrian and Libyan refugees ... Oh, wait, you meant *here*, in North America, where the US is the only nation that actually allows immigration without the immigrant being massively wealthy (or have a job waiting, or be married to a native) first.
Careful where you throw that rock, big guy. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, while you might think the editorial pages are right-wing, their rabid support for amnesty for illegals + open borders is very much a leftist position.
tell that to the all those rural republican farmers who use illegal aliens to pick their crops
Re: (Score:2)
Clue: migrant workers are not illegal aliens; there's actually a class of guest worker visa for the purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
migrant workers are not illegal aliens
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/
"The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year. "
then why are there labor shortages when the law is enforced? not enough illegal aliens!
Re: (Score:2)
When the WSJ was sold the bias of the paper shifted not-so-subtly to the right.
You faithfully read it 'before' and 'after' to state that definitely? Or are you just repeating something you heard from a college professor?
Re: (Score:3)
I have read the WSJ since about 1960. And no, I didn't hear it from a college Professor. I'm offering my opinion, which is a little different than "stating that definitely". Determining bias is always a little subjective, but I suspect your college professors would agree.
How about you? Have you read it?
Re: (Score:2)
WSJ is still a top-tier newspaper in the same class as the NYT or Washington Post.
Absolutely! As political rags they certainly are in the same class...
National Geographic magazine lost all credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Mourn for National Geographic magazine, ladies and gents, because it just died and the corpse will now be reanimated.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the organization has been increasingly revenue-focused lately, which explains how this could happen. The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit, so Murdoch can't force them to sell. It's not near bankruptcy, either, so this isn't a distressed forced sale. Why would they sell a 127-year-old magazine with a respected brand, when their charitable mission is to promote the progress of science and inform the public? It seems the answer is that the current board of the National Geographic Society isn't
Re:National Geographic magazine lost all credibili (Score:5, Interesting)
As I'm seeing discussion of this across the web, I'm starting to wonder how many people commenting have actually read National Geographic Magazine anytime in the last three decades. The level of science there has been steadily decreasing for a very long time - replaced slowly by adventure reporting not entirely unbiased "issue" reporting. On the other hand, the bias matches that of liberal/libertarian demographic that makes up a good part of the /. demographic, so it's probably been invisible to them. Which also explains why so many are mourning a mistaken image, rather than seeing it for the drek it has become. The science based National Geographic was bedridden by the 80's, comatose by the 90's, and has been on life support machines since the 00's.
Just like Discover, Scientific American, and Omni before it.
Why? Because real science is fucking boring, so boring that even those supposedly interested in it failed to notice it slipping away. It's no surprise to me that same demographic worships at the faux science altars of Mythbusters, Alton Brown, Bill Nye, and Niel DeGrasse Tyson - they want science, but only if it's tarted up, made entertaining, and reduced to sound bites they can pass around like cargo cultists. On Slashdot there's a constant refrain about the slipping position of science in American culture, and while it's often blamed on the conservatives and the Religious Right... Look to your mirrors and consider carefully the glass house in which you dwell.
And, as usual, the truth will be modded down - because it hurts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:National Geographic magazine lost all credibili (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no surprise to me that same demographic worships at the faux science altars of Mythbusters, Alton Brown, Bill Nye, and Niel DeGrasse Tyson - they want science, but only if it's tarted up, made entertaining, and reduced to sound bites they can pass around like cargo cultists.
I hate this being paroted around like it makes any point at all. It doesn't. You know who like to read science articles? Scientists. And just because a scientist knows physics does not mean they can understand all the jargon of biology, it NEEDS to be explained in a way that by-passes that specialized knowledge. And guess what? Some of us LIKE well written/explained concepts of complex topics, which is something most scientists lack the ability to do well. Most scientists don't take any writing classes and it shows, so if a well written article takes their ideas and explains it better than they can, I will prefer to read that, especially if it's in a field that I don't know well. Saying you don't like NDT or Bill Nye does NOT make you special, it makes you an elitist who doesn't understand that communication skills are an important part of the scientific process. Science does NOT exist in a vacuum, it is entwined in everything; politics, daily life, love, etc. Communicating that part of the world is important, and frankly we need more people that can explain scientific ideas to everyone--yes, other scientists as well--to make a better world.
Sorry if that was not your intended point, but I hear this thing constantly and it really gets under my skin. I study physics but my understanding of biology is, frankly, atrocious; so I rely upon communicators to get a basic understanding of DNA processes. Shows like Quirks and Quarks make up a lot of my understanding of the current work in a lot of fields, hell, even a lot of the complexities of physics I need describes in a way that most scientists can't do.
end rant.
Just the media part? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?
Same place they did before - donors.
Re: (Score:3)
That raises the question - what percentage of those donations were received from people who specifically liked the membership perk of receiving a nice colorful monthly magazine details some of the more interesting results?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for the moment that you are correct, where does the research non-profit get its funding from if the media portion has been sold to hostile interests?
Same place they did before - donors.
donors who like what they read in the magazine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the arrangement will give them a share of the revenue. So they've basically licensed the magazine "brand" in return for a cut of the profits.
I don't think this is really good stewardship of the organization, personally. They're a non-profit that is supposed to serve the public interest, and maintaining a non-profit magazine to inform the public is an important part of that. But if their goal is just to maximize money they have for grants, sure, it'll probably do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a punch to the gut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like a punch to the gut (Score:4, Funny)
Who are you kidding? You were looking for the native's titties.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Murdoch will resurrect those kinds of articles in an effort to increase readership. Maybe that is what he thinks his followers like. He might be right.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the store shelves get stripped bare whenever there's a storm. And why so many idiots cry about "price gouging". If they had simply spent some of their beer/weed money on basic supplies, they wouldn't have to worry about price gouging.
Re: (Score:2)
Way too far the other way, guy. One should always keep enough storage of Non-perishable Food Rations and Water to last at least a week. By all means have a shelter capable of withstanding and protecting occupants from the regional probable disasters (flooding, landslides, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires..what have you). If it's evident before hand that the disaster will likely keep you a prisoner inside your bunker for more than a week or two (at the very most), it's probably better to get out of dodge.
Re: (Score:2)
One should always keep enough storage of Non-perishable Food Rations and Water to last at least a week.
There's no such thing as "non-perishable", if you keep special food for such an occasion it will invariably be spoiled and inedible when you most need it
What you need to do is keep larger rotating stocks of the food that you do actually eat, so that you can rotate through your stocks of food before they go stale. When the bad days arrive you will have plenty of the same food you've been eating all along.
Re: (Score:2)
How many preppers live in gated communities, much less mansions? How many live out of the cities and suburbs, where they can actually live how they want?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Gazelles, harbingers of homosexual war on christmas"
I'd be more worried about the dik-diks [wikipedia.org] doing that.
New Editorial Policy... (Score:2)
Global Warming doesn't exist, The Earth was created in Six Days, Woman evolved from Adam's Rib, and liberal policies are destroying the planet.
Re:New Editorial Policy...FTFY (Score:2)
Woman was created from Adam's Rib
liberal policies are destroying moral values witch are in turn destroying the planet
Re: (Score:2)
Woman was created from Adam's Rib
liberal policies are destroying moral values witch are in turn destroying the planet
the planet really doesn't care about morals, your body decomposes the same either way
So... (Score:4, Funny)
...will all the topless native women be on page 3 now?
Ye gods! (Score:2)
The National Geographic Society president and CEO, Gary Knell, will serve as the board's first chairman.
The new joint venture will give the National Geographic Society the "scale and reach to continue to fulfill our mission long into the future", Knell said in a statement. The transaction is expected to close later this year. "As media organizations work to meet the increasing demand for high-quality storytelling across multiple platforms, it's clear that the opportunity to grow by more closely aligning ou
WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The linked article is unfortunately abbreviated and incomplete, and as a result, the conclusions being drawn are wrong.
First off, the Society itself is still an independent non-profit. It just no longer has 100% ownership of the magazine. The effect on the Society is that it will have more money to give to scientists (while 21st Century Fox will have no say in how that money is handed out).
Second, they did not sell a controlling interest; the Society explicitly retains 50% of the Board of Directors for the magazine. The "73%" is Fox's share of profits, not control.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, they did not sell a controlling interest;
You can still "control" and threaten to cripple an organization if you pull your funding, even if it's not "controlling".
He's a lukewarmist, not a denier (Score:3)
How can anybody call him a "denier" when he acknowledged global warming in the first twenty seconds of the cited video?
He is more of a lukewarmist, meaning that he agrees that the climate is changing, is not certain that's a bad thing, and reserves judgment on controlling emissions until there is more data to confirm the models' predictions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can that drivel be modded up?
Who gave mod points to Murdoch?
Re:Why is National Geographic giving grants? (Score:4, Informative)
Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?
Because governments won't fund much science any more, and neither will for-profit corporations unless that science helps grow their profit in 1-2 years max, and neither will most people directly because they are too preoccupied with shiny, but people are willing to buy a shiny, intelligent magazine, and that magazine's (former) owners believed for more than 100 years that they should use those profits to fund science, so they did?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you overrate the "disposable income" available to "most people". If you don't have much spare cash, you spend it on things that provide immediate gratification, because things that are long term are out of reach.
When I was growing up, I strongly believed in saving. And when, as an adult, I saved I noticed the money that I had saved evaporating into inflation higher than interest rates. Now that inflation is relatively low, interest rates are a joke. It's enough to make me understand the "gold bu
Re:Science is so closed minded (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah no kidding. People who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side 6000 years ago have been cast out of the archaeology community too, as have people who believe the earth is flat from the geography community and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community. Where did open-mindedness go?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1) Show me a competent CLIMATE scientist that is arguing against anthropogenic climate change.
No, not biologists, economists, doctors, chemists, etc. PhDs are notorious for being utterly convinced of their own competence on things far outside their actual field of expertise. I want someone who has actually spent decades studying the intricacies of climate science.
Step 2) Get them to explain how steadily increasing the amount of infrared-scattering CO2 gas in the atmosphere, acting in a frequency ban
Re:Points of discussion-things are not bleak (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, thank you for presenting a decent argument requiring me to bruch up on my understanding of some details. Now let me address at least some of your points.
-The bands get saturated...
Okay, that's true if you're trying to see images through the atmosphere at that wavelength, but is not really relevant to energy transfer. The IR in the relevant band is absorbed by the atmosphere BUT it's also immediately radiated in a random direction (half of it downwards) at the same frequency, aka scattering. 100% of the heat will eventually escape the atmosphere, it has to or the Earth would have been burnt to a cinder billions of years ago from trapped heat. The question is only how long it takes to do that. For simplicity think of the atmosphere as a bunch of layers of heavily frosted glass or semi-silvered mirrors reflecting heat, with every layer represents the thickness of atmosphere required to reflect 50% of the IR passing through it back at its source. And the Earth is at the bottom immediately re-radiating every photon that gets bounced back at it. Every photon that leaves the Earth will eventually escape the stack of mirrors, but essentially none of them will do so in a nice straight line (the straight path is saturated). Instead each one is going to bounce back and forth between mirrors at random until eventually it gets lucky and manages to make it through the topmost mirror. And the thing is, it doesn't matter how many layers there are, adding another one will always increase the total number of bounces required for a photon to escape (half the photons that would have escaped get bounced back downwards to wander randomly through the layers until they make it to the top again). And that's essentially what we're doing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere - we reduce the thickness of atmosphere required to reflect 50% of the heat, so that there's more atmosphere left over to act as a final mirror at the top of the stack (it probably won't be a full 50%, but the point is it will stop some of the photons from escaping immediately, increasing the average number of bounces required). And the whole time it's bouncing around it's contributing its energy to the atmosphere. Make it so that the photons take an average of 10% longer to escape to space, and you've increased their contribution to atmospheric temperature by a similar amount.
-CO2 is not only from humans.
You neatly ignore my point: measured atmospheric CO2 is increasing at *less than* the rates at which it is emitted by humans - logically if we stopped emitting fossil CO2 we could reasonably expect atmospheric CO2 levels to begin dropping.
As for alternate CO2 sources, that is true, however there are two distinct carbon cycles to consider. There's the short-term ecological carbon cycle that involves plants, animals, oceans, and the atmosphere. It shifts carbon around into some sort of equillibrium, but can fluctuate quite a bit - and our emissions are admittedly tiny on that scale, only a few percent of the total carbon being moved around. But the carbon we're emitting wasn't part of that cycle! It was part of the geologic carbon cycle, a MUCH slower cycle by which carbon is trapped as rocks at a fairly constant (and very sow) rate, and released by weathering - and we are responsible for releasing geological carbon into the ecological cycle MUCH faster than naturally occurs. Weathering, global volcanic activity, etc - it all pales to nothing compared to us. And the result is that we're "filling up" the ecological carbon cycle - there's no mechanism to significantly increase the rate at which carbon is stored in rock, so instead it builds up as CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. It could theoretically also be stored as biomass, but available evidence suggests that global biomass is actually shrinking rather than growing, so that's no help.
As for your heating and whether claims, I'm sorry to say they are simply false. There's plenty of specific regions that aren't experiencing warming, but that is to be e
Re: (Score:3)
Carbonic acid is dissolved CO2. That the ocean is acidifying is well known, and should nicely account for the discrepancy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he is proof that the the dinosaurs walk among us [dailysquib.co.uk]...
This is a sad moment for Nat Geo. Maybe the association can divest itself of him and take their money elsewhere.
Re:Rupert Murdoch (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, well Nat. Geo. TV is no gem. These are the same bozos who gave us Extreme Worm Wrangling (watch life and death struggles between he-boys and earth worms), Dangerous Minnow Fishing (he-boys bait and hook deathly minnows while they aren't looking), NASA: The Unexplained Files (UFOs are everywhere, Aliens buzz the Earth, no actual film of aliens, they are shy little devils...but we'll breathlessly tell what they COULD do were they to take out your brain for foosball practice), etc.
Murdoch and Nat. Geo. TV is a match made in Heaven.
Re:Rupert Murdoch (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That was Moses, Ezekiel whizzed around the sky on a hover board. Jesus spent his time denying gays the right to marriage.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that when Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, he dragged it far back towards the center from the extreme right-wing rag it had become at the time. He's good at assessing what political slant for a given property will sell the most, and so I really doubt he'll change the left-wing slant of NatGeo very much.
Re: Rupert Murdoch (Score:3)
Sound science is a "left wing slant" now ? Actually I wish I was surprized.
Re: (Score:2)
I do note the editorial pages of WSJ have taken a pre-historic turn, but the rest of the rag is still the business mouthpiece it has always been interspersed with actual news articles that would never have passed Murdoch's ok if he were censuring the rag.