Reply With Quote
LOL...
Scientific American.
Over the years, they have really become a joke.
LOL...
Scientific American.
Over the years, they have really become a joke.
as predicted, successfully yet again, defrosting tundra is releasing lots of methane, a green house gas much worse than CO2
NASA Finds ‘Amazing’ Levels Of Arctic Methane And CO2, Asks ‘Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?’
A NASA science team has observed “amazing and potentially troubling” levels of methane and CO2 from the rapidly warming Arctic. Given the staggering amount of carbon trapped in the permafrost — and the fact that methane is a very potent heat-trapping gas — the space agency is now asking: “Is a Sleeping Climate Giant Stirring in the Arctic?”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...in-the-arctic/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-17-2013 at 10:52 AM.
Sorry. Just because someone says something you don't like, doesn't make them "a joke".
The fact that people who think that Global Warming is some giant conspiracy start to sound like creationists and twoofers should give you pause.
That is does not seem to, says volumes, and that, sadly, is anything but a joke.
Scientific American IS A JOKE. They have agenda to push.
In what ways is Scientific American a joke? Be specific.
It's getting worse by the second, tbh
the problem that methane poses is massive. the extent to which it would be released would really be what determines just how catastrophic
Like most public magazines, they publish sensational rather than well thought out material. If you can't see it, then you're their target audience. When you choose your material by what sells rather than what is true, that is not science.
I subscribe to scientific american, and to say their articles are only sensational is beyond stupid. Very informative topics, with detailed articles.
lol @ sensational . If you think that, then you're in complete denial.
But they don't say what WC wants them to say. So they're .
LOL, Scientific American is about the most interesting magazine out there that doesn't show boobs.
OK, I stand corrected. Rather than sensational, I should have said that they tailor their storied for their target audience. Their climate change is as bogus as the rest of the AGW crowd.
I used to subscribe to it as well. I dropped my subscription some years ago when I realized they supported popular ideas rather than truth.
God bless everyone. Things happen for a reason. The story is being played out. God bless
You are taking him out of context.
The problem with that is that popular ideas in science tend to be closer to accurately reflecting reality than unpopular ideas, alll things considered.
Why is that? (serious question)
Yeah, popular ideas and the truth aren't mutually exclusive.
Stuff like the concept of gravity is a pretty popular idea in science. It's also the truth believe it or not.
"for their target audience"
exactly, audience of scientifically minded, educated, well-read people, not ignorant, science-denying ideologues like WC,and assorted HS dropout bubbas in the Repug base.
The author likes to write about climate change. Would definitely peg him as a warmista.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=1013
So do most climatologists. Something like 98% of them. He is the energy and climate guy for scientific american. It is what it is.
and that stephen hawking guy sure likes to talk about string theory alot.
jfc
And you have the audacity to accuse others of not contributing anything to the forum. smh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
