Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
Nightwings
Forum ProPosts: 10,333
Like?
Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
9 months ago

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

57even
Senior MemberPosts: 4,921Gear list
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

So you don't like science when it conflicts with YOUR political views?

That means you are politicising science, not scientists.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mamallama
Forum ProPosts: 28,507Gear list
Like?
The right is just nonscientific
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Religion is based on myths and not science.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Don_D
Forum ProPosts: 11,569Gear list
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

The article said only that CC is a major contributing factor.  Yours is a simplistic view...and you are wrong imho.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

-- hide signature --

www.pbase.com/dond
Don

 Don_D's gear list:Don_D's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian D. Schneider
Forum ProPosts: 15,063
Like?
I'm not surprised you think that since..
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

You're an ignorant anti-science a-hole.

Edit, "omission" seems to be Fox, because they only list legitimate news outlets.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,769Gear list
Like?
Batty ALSO slandered the Magazine
In reply to Brian D. Schneider, 9 months ago

Brian D. Schneider wrote:

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

You're an ignorant anti-science a-hole.

Edit, "omission" seems to be Fox, because they only list legitimate news outlets.

He actually claims that they derived their research from Media Matters. That's a lie. What they DID get from Media Matters, an organization which tracks the media, was the NUMBER of times each outlet reported on global warming and these fires.

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,710
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

Myself, I don't know if it's a BS claim, or not.  However, from what you wrote, the article is not necessarily incorrect.

For example, if global warming has resulted in less precipitation in the area than use to be the case, enough that there were more dead trees around that could easily catch fire when struck with lightening, then global warming would be an indirect cause for the fire.

Like I said, I don't know one way or another.  The article might be total BS, but the fact that lightening sparked the fire does not mean that global warming did not contribute to the conditions that made the chance of a fire much more likely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christoph Stephan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,586Gear list
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

Welcome to reality! Just look up the websites of all major science institutions which even remotely have to do with climate change, ecoysystems research etc. .. you will find that climate change is an established reality, not a division between "left" and "right".

Only in the US there is this discussion - in the political and mainstream US, not in U.S. science - their insitutions have acknowledged climate change, may even lead the research on it.

See here a peer reviewed journal completely dedicated to the issue of climate change - with an impact factor of 6.91 - the highest you can can in plant pathology is around 2.5

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 42,769Gear list
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Great Bustard, 9 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Nightwings wrote:

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

Myself, I don't know if it's a BS claim, or not. However, from what you wrote, the article is not necessarily incorrect.

For example, if global warming has resulted in less precipitation in the area than use to be the case, enough that there were more dead trees around that could easily catch fire when struck with lightening, then global warming would be an indirect cause for the fire.

Like I said, I don't know one way or another. The article might be total BS, but the fact that lightening sparked the fire does not mean that global warming did not contribute to the conditions that made the chance of a fire much more likely.

You know, these fires have been raging for well over a month now...

Kinda unprecedented....

But what is typical of posts like this, is that there is "Communist Science" and "Conservative Science."

A heartwarming return to the good old Soviet Union, where there WAS "Communist Science" and "Capitalist Science." 

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Walking Dead
Senior MemberPosts: 6,130Gear list
Like?
For once I agree with my buddy
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nitedings you're right!!! We all know the wildfires in Arizona is God's punishment for all the conservative crap that their state legislature has been passing.

-- hide signature --

Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way

 Walking Dead's gear list:Walking Dead's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anepo
Regular MemberPosts: 154
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Sorry but left just tensd to be more intelligent thus they know more than you and fyi: the reason the right do not mention it as much is that the oil industry usually owns them and furthetmore if you only look at one incident to deny climate change you are a fool. If you read reports you would see a gigantic increase in fires over the last ten years and not related to lighting or man made, also again: hotter planet = far more tornados, hurricanes lightnings and such.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian D. Schneider
Forum ProPosts: 15,063
Like?
You seem to be new here...
In reply to Anepo, 9 months ago

Anepo wrote:

Sorry but left just tensd to be more intelligent thus they know more than you and fyi: the reason the right do not mention it as much is that the oil industry usually owns them and furthetmore if you only look at one incident to deny climate change you are a fool. If you read reports you would see a gigantic increase in fires over the last ten years and not related to lighting or man made, also again: hotter planet = far more tornados, hurricanes lightnings and such.

But you're going to fit in just fine

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
95_9C1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,429
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

I'm sorry, nightwings, but the cause of everything wrong is climate change

we must do something about it

-- hide signature --

nothing to see here, folks, keep movin' ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Summer School
Regular MemberPosts: 179
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

I doubt what you say matters at all today, given old media companies are rapidly dying. People don't read, or refer to old media any longer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigrgib
Senior MemberPosts: 1,018
Like?
Sorry,
In reply to Christoph Stephan, 9 months ago

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Nightwings wrote:

While I go to Popular Science's website a lot to read the latest innovations on science and technology - I was quite taken aback recently to witness the obvious sharp left turn it took regarding certain issues. I think they should tick to cold hard science and leave political ideologies / political agendas out of it. imho.

Here, in this article, they appear to accuse the media for not doing enough to stated that the wildfires are directly related to climate change. A lot of their (cough) research was provided by MEDIA MATTERS...... which of course is as biased as the day is long.

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

BTW, if their clear cut BIAS in this matter is not apparent in the core text of the article, take a look at one of their posted charts of media outlets. Let's see if you can pick up a glaring omission.

Sorry popsci, from now on, if I can't verify any of your articles..... including science and technology related with an alternate source, I'll just have to dismiss anything you say as complete and utter BS.

Even their own readers comments are calling them out for the BS'ers they are imo.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

Welcome to reality! Just look up the websites of all major science institutions which even remotely have to do with climate change, ecoysystems research etc. .. you will find that climate change is an established reality, not a division between "left" and "right".

Only in the US there is this discussion - in the political and mainstream US, not in U.S. science - their insitutions have acknowledged climate change, may even lead the research on it.

See here a peer reviewed journal completely dedicated to the issue of climate change - with an impact factor of 6.91 - the highest you can can in plant pathology is around 2.5

I see a journal devoted to "[...] promote understanding of[...]current environmental change"

More:

Global Change Biology defines global change as any consistent trend in the environment - past, present or projected - that affects a substantial part of the globe. Examples include:

So saying that it is "completely dedicated to the issue of climate change" is a bit of a stretch, innit?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigrgib
Senior MemberPosts: 1,018
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Great Bustard, 9 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Nightwings wrote:

Source Article

A direct quote from the author of the PopSci article:

"Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?"

ROFLMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What complete and utter BULLSH**!!!!! The fact that the affected areas of that wild fire had NOT BURNED IN 40 YEARS..... and got sparked by lightning WAS the cause of that fire, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

I can not believe the utter dishonesty that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting public.

Myself, I don't know if it's a BS claim, or not. However, from what you wrote, the article is not necessarily incorrect.

For example, if global warming has resulted in less precipitation in the area than use to be the case, enough that there were more dead trees around that could easily catch fire when struck with lightening, then global warming would be an indirect cause for the fire.

Like I said, I don't know one way or another. The article might be total BS, but the fact that lightening sparked the fire does not mean that global warming did not contribute to the conditions that made the chance of a fire much more likely.

That's true but the point he's trying to make, I think, is that there have been droughts and hot weather, and hence wildfire prone conditions, way before AGW is supposed to have kicked in.

The BS would be assuming, without further proof, that present conditions are caused by AGW.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sdribetahi
Contributing MemberPosts: 819
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to Anepo, 9 months ago

Anepo wrote:

Sorry but left just tensd to be more intelligent thus they know more than you and fyi: the reason the right do not mention it as much is that the oil industry usually owns them and furthetmore if you only look at one incident to deny climate change you are a fool. If you read reports you would see a gigantic increase in fires over the last ten years and not related to lighting or man made, also again: hotter planet = far more tornados, hurricanes lightnings and such.

LOL.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christoph Stephan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,586Gear list
Like?
Re: Sorry,
In reply to bigrgib, 9 months ago

bigrgib wrote:

Welcome to reality! Just look up the websites of all major science institutions which even remotely have to do with climate change, ecoysystems research etc. .. you will find that climate change is an established reality, not a division between "left" and "right".

Only in the US there is this discussion - in the political and mainstream US, not in U.S. science - their insitutions have acknowledged climate change, may even lead the research on it.

See here a peer reviewed journal completely dedicated to the issue of climate change - with an impact factor of 6.91 - the highest you can can in plant pathology is around 2.5

I see a journal devoted to "[...] promote understanding of[...]current environmental change"

More:

Global Change Biology defines global change as any consistent trend in the environment - past, present or projected - that affects a substantial part of the globe. Examples include:

So saying that it is "completely dedicated to the issue of climate change" is a bit of a stretch, innit?

It is by no means such a stretch than the post of the OP Looking at the list, you see that topic 1, 3, (4), 8, 9 are deovted to climate change and atmposheric changes i.e. climate change is, if not the sole, but a prevailing topic of the journal. Looking at the website

A look at the current articles show that global warming, CO2, ocean acidification (due to CO2) other climate relevant gases (N2O) are topics, here a few examples:

Climate change exposes polar bears to more pollutants

Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence'

The article: Natural variation and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

CO2 emissions from land-use change affected more by nitrogen cycle, than by the choice of land-cover data

: Rapid climate driven shifts in wintering distributions of three common waterbird species

Vulnerability of terrestrial island vertebrates to projected sea level rise

Increasing ocean temperatures allow tropical fishes to survive overwinter in temperate waters'

'Global warming threatens the persistence of Mediterranean brown trout'

According to the OP this list alone makes this peer reviewed  "a rag of the left"

Quite ridiculous, and unique to U.S. politics (not U.S. science!) where accetance of climate change as a fact appears to be a left- vers right wing issue. And this was my main point.

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nightwings
Forum ProPosts: 10,333
Like?
Christoph a bit of Clarification....
In reply to Christoph Stephan, 9 months ago

Christoph Stephan wrote:

According to the OP this list alone makes this peer reviewed "a rag of the left"

Quite ridiculous, and unique to U.S. politics (not U.S. science!) where accetance of climate change as a fact appears to be a left- vers right wing issue. And this was my main point.

What raised my eyebrows when reading the source article was the complete exclusion of FOX News as a news source. Media Matters' (The source Popsci used) hatred bias against FOX News is LEGENDARY.

Thus, Popsci's seemingly endorsement of Media Matters as a source, in my opinion, makes me question whether Popsci is leaning / becoming a left wing rag. Not so ridiculous now that it's in context... is it?

I also believe it absurd to attribute climate change to a wild fire in an area that hasn't seen a natural wild fire in 40 years. In an area of the US that is HOT and DRY at the best of times no less! In a state that is ranked 47th DRIEST out of 50!! Just the fact that this particular area had not seen a natural burn in over 40 years, is pushing the odds beyond the limit of normal reason.

No offense, but I think y'all should pause and give your head a collective shake. imho.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian D. Schneider
Forum ProPosts: 15,063
Like?
Re: Christoph a bit of Clarification....
In reply to Nightwings, 9 months ago

Nightwings wrote:

Christoph Stephan wrote:

According to the OP this list alone makes this peer reviewed "a rag of the left"

Quite ridiculous, and unique to U.S. politics (not U.S. science!) where accetance of climate change as a fact appears to be a left- vers right wing issue. And this was my main point.

What raised my eyebrows when reading the source article was the complete exclusion of FOX News as a news source. Media Matters' (The source Popsci used) hatred bias against FOX News is LEGENDARY.

Thus, Popsci's seemingly endorsement of Media Matters as a source, in my opinion, makes me question whether Popsci is leaning / becoming a left wing rag. Not so ridiculous now that it's in context... is it?

I also believe it absurd to attribute climate change to a wild fire in an area that hasn't seen a natural wild fire in 40 years. In an area of the US that is HOT and DRY at the best of times no less! In a state that is ranked 47th DRIEST out of 50!! Just the fact that this particular area had not seen a natural burn in over 40 years, is pushing the odds beyond the limit of normal reason.

No offense, but I think y'all should pause and give your head a collective shake. imho.

-- hide signature --

Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill

Dave explained it to you in language even you should have understood.

Your reading skill must be less than 3rd grade level.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51756238

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads