It is a sad day for science - Climate change denier Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic, which gives grants to scientists

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Sep 10, 2015 12:22 AM GMT
    Climate change denier Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic, which gives grants to scientists


    http://boingboing.net/2015/09/09/rupert-murdoch-just-bought-nat.html
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Sep 10, 2015 1:05 AM GMT


    Metta, you need to clean up your game, man. LOL!
    It's only been four months since you posted a thread with proof that global warming is nothing but a conspiracy theory. http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4057738

    Just this weekend in NYT there was an article about the very Alaskan glacier Obama pointed out as evidence of this relatively recent trend of global warming having been receding since before 1820, and having slowed down in the past decade.

    Do a search for the NBC television special from 2005 and review it. EVERY prediction that was made by scientists have been proven wrong.

    Go back and rewatch Al Gore's 2006 "Inconvenient Truth" and make note of the predictions he made that was supposed to be true by now. None have.

    Better yet, try listening to economist Bjorn Lomborg tell the truth about it and all things related to it. He doesn't deny global warming. He puts it in perspective.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F02w4J8c5Yo


  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Sep 10, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    That previous post had nothing to do with 'global warming', as you put it.

    Chemtrails do not equal climate change.

    Chemtrails = condensation
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 1:38 PM GMT
    I'm confused. You are arguing with yourself?
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Sep 10, 2015 3:39 PM GMT
    ^
    What makes you think that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 4:08 PM GMT
    "global warming, as you put it"

    Nobody else commented (unless they deleted it) so I wasn't' sure who "you" was. icon_confused.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Sep 10, 2015 4:36 PM GMT
    Oh, you must have Bob3 blocked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 4:56 PM GMT
    Oh, maybe. I saw some people insulting each other and was like "yeah, no thanks." Didn't pay attention to names.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 10, 2015 5:49 PM GMT
    ShiftyJK08 saidOh, maybe. I saw some people insulting each other and was like "yeah, no thanks." Didn't pay attention to names.

    That's the trouble with blocking people. You just end up alone in the dark.... Though it might be more peaceful in the dark.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 5:52 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    ShiftyJK08 saidOh, maybe. I saw some people insulting each other and was like "yeah, no thanks." Didn't pay attention to names.

    That's the trouble with blocking people. You just end up alone in the dark.... Though it might be more peaceful in the dark.icon_rolleyes.gif


    It's a price I can live with. Deal with enough fighting IRL, don't need it online.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2015 9:38 PM GMT
    Hands Up, Don't Shoot. It's a sad day for the truth or lack thereof in this case. Silly Liberals once again providing mis-information to stir up their base.

    The National Geographic Society sold its media assets to Murdoch.

    It's the Society that provides the grants to scientists. Now the Society has more funds in its endowment to finance more scientists.

    My Aunt was a Society member until recently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2015 3:25 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidHands Up, Don't Shoot. It's a sad day for the truth or lack thereof in this case. Silly Liberals once again providing mis-information to stir up their base.

    The National Geographic Society sold its media assets to Murdoch.

    It's the Society that provides the grants to scientists. Now the Society has more funds in its endowment to finance more scientists.

    My Aunt was a Society member until recently.


    According to New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/national-geographic-is-going-for-profit.html#), Murdoch will own 75% of the NG Magazine.

    Although the magazine has some of the best photography in the world, I let my subscription lapse because of their leftish editorial biases. If they become more balanced, I'll reconsider.

    I subscribe to the WSJ -- also part of Murdoch's empire. The editorial page is mostly conservative. The news department is less so.

    I expect that the left/liberal slant will continue at NGM, but won't be as overbearing.
  • transient

    Posts: 211

    Sep 11, 2015 4:09 PM GMT
    Scientists will prove or disprove whatever they are being paid to dis/prove.

    I dont believe that climate change is the monster touted by the carboncredit machine and proven by the scientists they own and pay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2015 4:35 PM GMT
    Well, the National Geographic Society doesn't actually fund science. It has been some years, but some colleagues and I did look into this once. They fund (or partially fund) expeditions. Eco- Ego-Adventurers and the like. But only if some nice photographs are likely to come from it. There might be some weak token data collection going on, but rarely to any real purpose. Usually it's just an excuse for spoiled trust-fund babies to go play somewhere. At best, they might pay to send a photo crew along with a real scientific project. One of my colleagues who sometimes collects samples from remote cave systems did get some travel funds from them, for a couple of years, but it wasn't a really significant fraction of the cost of the research.

    There are also a couple of small cruise ships painted up with "National Geographic Society" colors and emblems. Sometimes they come here, after the season ends in Alaska. As near as I can discern, it's mostly a licensing deal with a third-party cruise company. They've got about a zillion kayaks stacked up on the boat deck. Looks like more fun than the average cruise vacation. Not science though.

    As far as Murdoch's intentions, his past actions are probably the best guide. We can expect to see fewer Trustafarians climbing around on glaciers and more rednecks welding on junk cars, shooting guns, and fighting.

    It won't make any difference to science. It will just make the world a bit more stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2015 3:27 AM GMT
    912tgb.jpg
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Sep 17, 2015 6:40 AM GMT
    1255cbCOMIC-national-geografox.jpg


    http://boingboing.net/2015/09/16/tom-the-dancing-bug-national.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Nov 04, 2015 7:20 AM GMT
    Rupert Murdoch marks first day of National Geographic ownership by firing 200 employees


    http://deadstate.org/rupert-murdoch-marks-first-day-of-national-geographic-ownership-by-firing-200-employees/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2015 4:41 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Horrible but that's been happening industry-wide, a reduction of editorial but an increase of sales and technical.

    The last position in publishing that I declined was to find ways of getting rid of people in editorial positions around the country by automating their jobs. I did work a prototype position of that while the world was switching to electronic gathering and distribution which was fun and I was real good at it but I couldn't see myself doing a job of making other lives miserable when they thought to institute that companywide so I just left.

    The sad part aside of course from so many losing their livelihoods is that quality declines precipitously. I used to be so proud of the company I once worked for, happy to be there. Got more awards than anyone in my division. Then I watched it turned to crap and left. What a drag, but interesting for me to have experienced that drastic change.

    In one of our boats the ol'man had this plaque, still funny, still true:

    41PRz88jq5L.jpg
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Nov 05, 2015 9:33 PM GMT
    Wigga, please. Murdoch wont change anything at NatGeo. He bought WSJ and changed nothing. He is smart - if something makes money, he wont mess with it.
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Nov 06, 2015 9:42 AM GMT
    Is Rupert Murdoch a republican??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2015 3:02 PM GMT
    venue35 saidIs Rupert Murdoch a republican??



    Does Dolly Pardon sleep on her back?
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Nov 06, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    JackNNJ saidWigga, please. Murdoch wont change anything at NatGeo. He bought WSJ and changed nothing. He is smart - if something makes money, he wont mess with it.


    WSJ did change after he bought it. I used to be able to trust the WSJ as being pretty reliable before he bought it. Now I just see it as another tool for him to play with.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Nov 06, 2015 11:48 PM GMT
    metta said
    JackNNJ saidWigga, please. Murdoch wont change anything at NatGeo. He bought WSJ and changed nothing. He is smart - if something makes money, he wont mess with it.


    WSJ did change after he bought it. I used to be able to trust the WSJ as being pretty reliable before he bought it. Now I just see it as another tool for him to play with.


    You don't know what you're talking about. WSJ has not changed one bit since RM took over. Editorial page still conservative(ish), news division still liberal(ish).

  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Nov 07, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    Radd said
    venue35 saidIs Rupert Murdoch a republican??



    Does Dolly Pardon sleep on her back?
    lol
  • ChicagoSteve

    Posts: 1277

    Nov 07, 2015 11:17 PM GMT
    metta saidClimate change denier Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic, which gives grants to scientists


    http://boingboing.net/2015/09/09/rupert-murdoch-just-bought-nat.html


    What I want to know, after reading, mostly right wing responses on this topic is, all of you who think all of this global warming is just BS, what scientific degrees do you hold? Are you more qualified than scientists to determine if there is global warming or not? I still have never received a satisfactory response to that question.