Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.
The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.
1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”. By 2011 we can read “Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.” In October 2007 Mr Justice Burton of the UK High Court ruled, for the purpose of teaching, against unqualified use of this passage summarised from the Gore book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Mr Gore’s assertion was that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus that it cannot be established that the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed.
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19 This estimate was conventional wisdom until the specialist satellite era, when measurement technology improved. As the NOAA figure shows, Jason 1 (data from 2002) and Jason 2 (2009) have complicated the story, with data showing ocean levels falling at times. The Jason instruments were specifically designed for ocean level measurement. More time is needed before the modern estimate of ocean change can be calculated. It is noted that Ocean Heat Content, OHC, a cause of ocean level change, has barely changed since measurements became acceptable through an increase in the number of Argo buoys in year 2002 or so.
Graph is from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
And so it goes, as listed below. The following abbreviated quotes from NatGeo 2004 need examination in the light of accumulated knowledge. Note that peer-review, having been repeatedly found wanting in the years before 2012, is not a requirement for commentary, though it can be desirable. In several important ways, such as immediacy, the modern blog world has adequate accurate commentary, to allow suggested revisions or retractions of the quotes below.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
4. “But the recent rate of global sea level rise has departed from the average rate of the past two to three thousand years and is rising much more rapidly – a continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes…” P.19
5. “Even relatively small storm surges in the past two decades have overwhelmed the system of dikes, levees and pump stations … upgraded in the 1990s to forestall the Gulf of Mexico’s relentless creep.” P.19
6. “Vulnerable to sea-level rise, Tuvalu, a small country in the South Pacific, has already begun formulating evacuation plans.” P.19
7. “The scenarios are disturbing even in wealthy countries like the Netherlands, with nearly half its landmass already at or below sea level.” P.19
8. “The 20th Century has seen the greatest warming in at least a thousand years, and natural forces can’t account for it all.” P.20
9. “Both greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to continue rising.” P.20
10. “Thick smoke towers over a forest near Fairbanks, one more sign that Alaska is getting hotter…. Computer models predict that CO2-induced warming could eventually raise the incidence of fires by more than a half.” P.25
11. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to break up, which scientists consider very unlikely this century, it alone contains enough ice to raise sea level by nearly 20 feet.” P.27
12. “Ocean temperatures are rising in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought (NOAA)” P.27
13. “Oceans are important sinks …. and take up about a third of human-generated CO2.” P.28
14. “ … three greenhouse gases … orchestrating an intricate dance between the radiation of heat from Earth back to space (cooling the planet) and the absorption of radiation in the atmosphere (trapping it near the surface and this warming the planet).” P.29
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
16. “Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now, all these impacts have been documented in Alaska.” P.33
17. “The Fleishmann’s glass frog is barely hanging on …. As Earth’s temperatures rise, scientists are exploring climate’s role in a worldwide amphibian decline.” P.34
18. “Alpine plants are edging uphill and beginning to overrun rare species near mountain summits.” P.41
19. “This is the first instance in which humans appear to be accelerating the change, and warming could take place so quickly that species will not have the time to adapt and avoid extinction.” P.41
20. “At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no more room to run”. P.41
21. “Coral necropolis …. Increasingly the planet’s coral is in hot water, parboiled in periods of calm, sunny weather … In 1998 the world’s coral suffered its worst year on record, which left 16% bleached or dead.” P.41
22. Re: turtle breeding “Storms amplify the trend (to more females) shearing away trees that provide cooling shade to nests on beaches. ‘Severe weather events … really knock the socks off in favour of the females’.” P.47
…………………………………………………….
Fast forward to page 73 because there are enough quotes already, to find –
23. “A warming world will harm some – and benefit others. Home heating costs will likely fall in New England … The prospects are grim for drought-plagued Ethiopian children, who could see rainfall decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Widespread poverty and dependence on subsistence agriculture make Africans the most vulnerable to climate change.” P.73.
There are a couple of boxed headers along the way. Two are
24. “IT’S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM; IT’S AN OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.” P.33.
25. Then “WE’LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE ACTUAL CHANGES IN 30 YEARS. BUT IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
To the Editor of National Geographic, we are a third of that way to that very different world and many can’t pick the difference yet. Given the possibility that NatGeo 2004 was an enthusiastic issue, we think it would be a good idea to bring out a more measured NatGeo 2014.
Our blog readers are a skilled and diverse. They will prepare and distribute the actuality of the NatGeo 2004 claims as understood in 2012. Please feel free to use these in the re-write, a step which would gain you prestige because scientifically, it is the ethical move.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NatGeo has apologised for some past errors. The July 2004 edition had some images of hunters with tusks captioned to be from a dead elephant found in the bush. Trouble was, the tusks had numbers on them showing capture several years before in another country. Earlier, there was the apology and subsequent stronger rules when an altered image of the Pyramids of Egypt was printed on the NatGeo cover of Feb 1982. That lead to a statement of NatGeo rules for altered images.
Finally, on photography, we note the dark photograph, double spread a few pages into the 2004 issue captioned “Heating Up …” It used back lighting and a low sun angle to help give water condensate the appearance of particulate smoke, two vastly different entities, going skyward from what seems to be one chimney of 4, plus some out-of-view cooling towers in Ohio. It fails criterion 2 below.
The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Code of Ethics offers nine ethical standards to member journalists. The basic premises of the NPPA’s nine standards are:
1. Accurately represent subjects
2. Do not be manipulated by staged photos
3. Avoid bias and stereotyping in work; provide complete information and context
4. Show consideration for subjects
5. Avoid influencing the actions of the photographic subject
6. Editing should not give the wrong impression of the subjects in the photograph
7. Do not compensate persons involved in photographs or in getting a photograph
8. Do not accept gifts or other favors from those involved in a photo
9. Do not purposely interfere with the work of other journalists.
MAGNIFICENT !!!
Put this at the top the Climate Fail menu list.
Another one on my list of “Watts’ Best”
I sure hope that no one is holding their breath. I see no conceivable way that a revised issue could be anything but more alarmist. The Cause is the only thing of importance.
When they joined the Progressive “Enlightment” Liberalism movement, read socialist policy based propaganda, I cancelled this crap coming to my house.
After 33 years of subscription I canceled the day i read their climate issue.
That issue of National Geographic is why I cancelled my subscription, which I had maintained since 1962.
Mine went overboard too. Scientific American was becoming thin, but I kept it until it became shrill and thin. Sad. There were old friends I grew up with.
Ditto on both NatGeo and SciAm. I loved those publications. The final straw for me was when the “science is settled” statement became popular and neither publication showed editorial displeasure. That was a clear sign that any scientific integrity they had vis-a-vis climate science is kaput.
I gave up on it circa ’92. I was tired of what I labeled editorializing, ie. making unsubstantiated claims or opinion. Every issue I have stumbled upon in reception rooms over the years confirms my original observation.
File this one under, “Global Warming, we’re all going to die… FAIL”
I would be amazed if the National Geographic did revisit their “Warming Warning” of 10 years ago and corrected the record with current facts. Even with the dishonest “adjustments” to the temperature records we can see now that there has been ZERO warming since they published in September 2004.
It would be refreshing indeed to see some mainstream media outlet actually care about the truth of any story. Especially this one. They could become a trend setter.
Climate and environment are just the means. Progressive “Enlightenment” “Liberalism” main objective is international socialism trough UN(EP) and UNFCCC/IPCC political processes.
Maybe National Gio will be the first in a long line of grovelling apologies from the media that say “we really screwed up with our global warming predictions”.
Let the countdown begin now:
T minus infinity seconds, infinity minus 1, minus 2, minus 3…
But why? Does this have anything to do with this?
With in only two years of banning tree felling. Magic, eh?
Perhaps they did a lot of re-planting with fully grown forests?
About that Kilimanjaro thing.
“None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes”.
That seems a definition for ‘Climate Science’.
😉
Perhaps they were working on the wrong peak of Kilimanjaro, there’s two you know.
Then we had this.
Charles Darwin already told us something like this.
And then there’s the data that speaks for itself: http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70056/IDO70056SLD.shtml
The OLS trend since 2003 is less than a half inch, rising at 4.2 inches per century which I think could put it under water in about 4000 years.
Aren’t the BOM all in the dock for fraud yet? As evidence their data is admissible as fraud, not temperature nor sea level rise.
Well done. A very nice statement. Other magazines need the same treatment. Too bad they ( National Geo. Adventure, National Geo. Green Guide, Newsweek, US News & World Report, others?) have ceased to publish.
But, . . .
You should be writing about Sept. 2015! The current issue is likely delivered. I didn’t renew some time ago, so do not know. Lead time might be 8 to 10 months on an issue.
And almost exactly on 2004 temps trended down.
http://akclimate.org/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
An intriguing idea for a post. It would be good to save this, along with the actual 2014 NatGeo update; note if they ever changed anything; and archive them for 2024. There may be no net global surface mean temperature increase by 2024, according to models and studies performed since 2004.
Nought to do with global warming. Though some later thought it fit to blame global warming anyway. LOL.
No global warming for 17 years and counting.
They will have to adapt to change over as little as 60 years with unprecedented global warming. Check this out.
Here is another.
Let’s look at the Great Barrier Reef. What is the major cause of coral death?
As reported in the news.
Well done! These people should be forced to eat their own words, and back-peddle. They have already backed themselves into such a corner that their posteriors bear a strange resemblance to the corner of a cube, but I say, make them back-peddle further. Like a boxer against the ropes, corner them until they throw in the towel.
If this seems unkind of me, please remember they started it; they were cruel, and even destroyed some people. Before they began back-peddling they were peddling falsehood with a club. Even a kind old fellow like me was accused of hating grandchildren, Mother Nature, and cute baby polar bears, and selling my soul to Big Oil, (even though I heated with wood.) This hurt my feelings tremendously, and if I could afford a good lawyer I probably could get some money for the damage they did to my tender and poetic psyche. Because I cannot afford the nonsense of lawsuits, I simply feel they should be repaid, measure for measure, with what they dealt out.
I did not desire these Climate Wars. I was minding my own business, and the war came to me.
After National Geographic is finished defending their September 2004 article, we should make them start defending the August 2006 article by Bill McKibben, called “A Deeper Shade Of Green,” wherein he promised us all sorts of disaster and ruin, as the 2005 hurricane season was “only the start,” and we’d have hurricanes galore. FAIL. Compared to the last “warm” AMO, the current “warm” AMO has been rather wimpy, in terms of hurricanes.
These people need to be held accountable. They should admit a botched forecast, when it happens. However I doubt Bill McKibben will ever admit he’s made a mistake. Rather than thanking God the east coast has been spared the monster hurricanes of the last “warm” AMO, he is likely on his knees right now, praying, “O Lord please, please, please, PUH-LEEEEZE devastate the east coast with a hurricane like the 1938 monster. Have thousands die!” And why? So he will not have to admit he is wrong.
I could go on about this, but I have already been there and done that, and Anthony was kind enough to publish it. With another hurricane season upon us, it is simply too yawningly dull to deal with tedious bores like McKibben yet again. If interested, people can dust off a post from two years ago, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/21/hurricane-warning-mckibben-alert/
Instead of countering the Alarmism of these people with facts and figures they only ignore, I think it is high time to hold them accountable. Let them face their own facts and figures. Let them eat their own words.
Amen.
The global warming alarmists clamor for “climate justice”. The rest of the world has a case against them for “climate injustice”.
When did Geoff write this? I bet in 2012, as I suspect it’s quite a bit too late to make the Sept. 2014 issue now.
Ric,
It was written about May 2013 over a month of dribs and drabs.
A year later, bloggers here are noting more recent data to question or refute claims.
That was one purpose for posting on WUWT.
For a number of years I payed for 12 subscriptions to National Geographic, one for myself and the rest for family and close friends. Today the number is 0 and it will stay that way. I can to longer trust them to be scientifically honest.
Rex,
My 2004 copy was given to me by a receptionist in a medical waiting room.
Geoff
In 2013? About time they updated the magazines. 🙂
Are fish in a barrel asking to be shot ?
Am I reading the ocean heat content chart correctly: -100 zeta joules to 80 zeta joules. 1 zeta joule is 10^21 so -100 zeta joules is 10^19 and 80 zeta joules is 8X10^22… correct? And does this equate to a 8000 fold increase?
I thought the LA Times had banned sceptical comments. There was plenty of them!
I watched a PBS show the other night about climate change. They still claim the models are correct and the world is still getting warmer. I would like to think that among the many different fields that Nat Geo writes about, this is the one where they failed. I also think that among the scientists that produced the CAWG, Nat Geo may have thought that the article in 2004 was correct. I like having the printed copy. It is easy to delete or change an e-publication. With the printed copy in hand it is a ready source of accurate statements that is hard to dispute. Note the above statements. Without the printed copy it is easy to say, ‘ oh, we didn’t say that’. It gives ample information on the insight of how AGW reached the conclusions, and in the light of new statements that bend to every new condition, how they contradict one another. It is essential that they keep publishing their ideas so that I (we) can either agree or refute it.
The critical difference between CAGW and other fields such as finding 2 million year old human remains will not cause new taxes or an unparalleled decline in the standard of living based on questionable science.
An honorable effort and one of the main reasons, Mr Watts, why I respect you even if I don’t agree with you on many issues.
However, if and when National Geographic revisits the topic, it will only be in angrier, more delusional terms. There is no backing down for the loonies, they have completely lost their way.
We canceled our subscription about the time of that issue as well. When the lady asked for a reason, my better half replied: ” Because you have lost your editorial integrity.” … nothing but silence on the line… I don’t think it even registered with her.
Well, who was the “lady”? She might not even know what editorial integrity means. Most likely, she’s just a grunt filling up a form to submit elsewhere so that it can be appropriately forgotten.
Just off the top of my head, for the 25 things listed above from the 2004 National Geo:
1. Mt Kilimanjaro remains almost always below freezing on top. The depleting rainforests at its base is the reason for less precipitation ie. snow.
2. A recent study shows that Himalayan glaciers have not retreated much at all.
3. Sea level rise has been consistent at about 6-7 inches per century.
4. Sea level rise has been consistent at about 6-7 inches per century.
5. Sea level rise has been consistent at about 6-7 inches per century, even in the gulf of Mexico – plus fewer hurricanes overall.
6. Sea level rise has been consistent at about 6-7 inches per century.
7. The Netherlands haven’t had a problem with sea level rise in the last 10 years.
8. No warming globally for the last 17 years 10 months even with the adjustments in temperature data.
9. CO2 is expected to rise – temperature, not so sure.
10. Forest fires have decreased overall, fire has nothing to do with global warming, but more to do with forest management…
11. If it were to melt, but there are no signs that the east Antarctic ice sheet is about to melt. I think it’s actually growing.
12. No actual data about deep ocean temperature rise.
13. NA
14. Climate sensitivity is not as great as predicted.
15. Ice is changing at Barrow – it is changing everywhere – sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing – ice coverage seems to be balancing out globally.
16. They forgot to mention Hubbard glacier (the largest tidewater glacier in North America) is advancing – increasing. Columbia glacier is small compared to Hubbard.
17. Don’t know about this frog (don’t care, as there are other frogs that are increasing in population I’m sure).
18. Not enough info about tree line changes to make an accurate statement.
19. Species are adapting very well to any changes.
20. There is no temperature rise since 2004, so this statement doesn’t have much meaning.
21. Coral is in peril because of parrot fish, etc. See Willis.
22. Sea turtles are being protected and released in greater numbers to the sea (by humans) than ever before. I personally have seen this here in the Baja…(hundreds maybe thousands that used to get eaten right away by seagulls, etc)
23. Widespread poverty and heating problems are being caused by the artificial & much greater increase in energy cost worldwide.
24. Global warming (climate change) is a belief system, much like a religion.
25. In another 20 years we’ll know if any of these predictions were right – not so good with the predictions for the first 10 years.
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
Words echoed by the captain of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.
This is an excellent idea!
One, it gives all the fine thinkers here a chance to rebut the garbage foisted upon us these days in the name of ‘science’ and ‘saving the planet.’
Two, it provides a “one-stop shop” of what was/is being stated in the mainstream media along with a strong dose of reality. As such, it is an excellent reference and teaching tool.
Three, it allows the perspicacious denizens of WUWT to stand up to this folly!
I’d like to see the end result of this be a post at WUWT. If they are shamed by the truth, too bad.
Reminder: The warmists aren’t wrong because it has failed to warm. After all, they could have guessed right. They are wrong because their premise is wrong, that minute charges in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has detectable climate effects. They are also wrong that moderate warming would be bad, especially since we are still in an ice age and the ice sheets are due back. Lastly, they are negligent in not noticing that CO2 was at depletion levels until man started replenishing it.
So Nat Geo were batting 9 swings for 9 misses on the NPPA’s photographic standards.
A couple of mug galah actors pulled the same stunt on their TV ad using the long retired London power Station at Battersea as a backdrop..
They will not admit their propagandizing or even being wrong. Crow is a very unappetizing dish and difficult for one to consider eating it.
Rich,
In sustainability language, consider that a starving man will eat the last Dodo.
It’s hard to admit when you are wrong. Most people don’t do it but instead they come up with a number of rationalizations. I’ve done it. You’ve done it. Natural geographic will do it. It’s only what we humans do. It’s natural. It is in our DNA. It is fully explainable and fully expected.
Climate science will have to face what rationalizations they choose to use. Maybe it will not be one excuse. Maybe it will be 100 hundred.
But then the world will go on. And some other mistake will have to be explained.
Bill Illis,
Yes, it is hard to admit it when you’re wrong. But that is the only way to maintain credibility. The NatGeo editors don’t understand that.
NatGeo has been wrong in every global warming prediction they have made. In that, they are no different from many others in the climate alarmist camp. But that prompts a question:
When one side is always, 100.0% wrong in their alarming predictions, isn’t it time for rational folks to start seriously questioning their competence? And their understanding of how the real world works? Reasonable people do not listen to someone who is always wrong.
That seems to be happening. I’ve noticed that over the past 2 – 3 years, there are a lot more public comments in the mainstream press ridiculing the global warming scare. People used to be concerned. But no more. Climate alarmists can only cry “Wolf!!” so many times, before they’re ignored.
There is no wolf. The ‘carbon’ scare has run it’s course. Those still promoting it are flogging a dead horse, and it isn’t getting up any more, no matter how hard they beat it.
Which prompts another question: at what point will the average believer in the global warming alarm finally change their mind? When the Northwest Passage permanently freezes over? When global ice cover hits an all-time high? When there is 20+ years with no global warming? Will they ever change their minds?
Or are their minds made up, to the point that nothing can convince them otherwise? That’s what we’re beginning to see in a few of the comments. Not very many. But when confirmation bias overcomes all real world observations, those folks become a part of the dwindling number that have given up all objective science, and have fallen back into the comfort of their unalterable CAGW belief system.
“Reasonable people do not listen to someone who is always wrong.”
Someone who is always wrong is a national treasure. Just like a compass that always points south, there is a value in their dependability.
When alarmists make statements that the Artic will be ice free by 2014 or that some island nation will be underwater in a matter of years, or that we will run out of natural resources by 1990 or that hundreds of millions of people will starve to death by 1980 we can rest assured that such predictions, being based on the need to raise everyone’s taxes and increase government control over everyone else’s life style, are 100 percent wrong and will never occur. Such knowledge is always of value.
I wish publications could be like software. Version 2.0 , 3.0, etc, where the goal is ever searching for the truth. Advertisers and/or sponsers with agendas will always seek deception with half truths.
“I wish publications could be like software. Version 2.0 , 3.0, etc, where the goal is ever searching for the truth”.
A reasonable analogy. However, Microsoft has never ‘admitted’ that certain ‘improvements’ to their software have actually been a retrograde step for the end users. For those (like me) who have used Microsoft Word frequently for almost 20-years (since 1995), we knew every shortcut, where easily accessible writing tools were located – in fact we knew how to fully exploit its full word processing ability. Sadly, many experienced users find the current version of their software condescending, restrictive and tediously time consuming to locate ‘hidden’ tools. At least by 2005 they had got rid of that annoying ‘paper clip’ that popped up saying ‘you appear to be writing a letter’!
From the evidence, CAGW scaremongers have been unable to convince sensible people that their dendo-Chinese-fortune-cookie-crystal-ball-gazing-predictions have ever tried to seek the truth. Conversely, the motor industry does admit their mistakes and recall new models with design faults. Maybe NatGeo and the IPCC need to recruit a few car mechanics. Just a thought.
Wow! So many comments. I gave up on National Geographic years ago when it become obvious it was pushing the “agenda”. Never even a glance at it any more.
ALL THOSE PREDICTED EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED!. To prove the existence of such predictions — is to prove that the predictions were fulfilled!
The only way to prove that the predicted events did not occur is to eliminate the predictions. If no record of the predictions exists than the events could not have occurred.
Or more simply:
Prediction = occurrence
No prediction = no occurrence
This is “1984” thinking — and why warmists never mention the failure of their past predictions. And why National Geographic will never publish the article you suggest. You are never wrong if every mistake you ever make is eliminated from memory.
The science is settled therefore mistakes are never made.
” The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed”
That appears to be an understatement considering Pachy’s blustering “voodoo science” claim.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/ipccs-pachauris-voodo-science-claim-comes-full-circle/
And that Taphonomic is a good example of a Warmist not wanting to admit being wrong. Yet Pachauri was shown to be wrong and had to eat crow. He was actually told about the error by one of their own months before.
Nat Geo is still a good doctor waiting room magazine when you don’t have time or interest to read the words and can just enjoy the pictures.
Thanks Geoff.
I just saw “Lucy” the movie. With 100% of her brain functioning I think she would have all the answers. Just ask Scarlett Johansson (as Lucy)…she knows everything…
Since it was only one year ago when the September of 2013 cover showed the Statue of Liberty being submerged, it is unlikely they would do an about face so quickly. My beloved magazine cares only about theatrical magazine covers to boost newsstand sales these days. http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NatGeo-Submerged.jpg
RE: 3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
Typically, NG fails to own up to its part in the glum predictions – that is, the part its own monthly publication plays. It is known that the cumulative weight of its amassed monthly collections in households across the U.S. are sufficient to displace magma from under the earth’s mantle, causing a net subsidance (at least in North America) of upwards of 100 feet per century. And in particular, NG’s multiple and overlapping gift subscriptions are predicted to cause catastophic sea level incursions along the East Coast, earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, and tremors in the Denver metro area.
For irrefutable proof of these predictins, along with unprecedented calculations, charts and graphs:
Journal of Irreproducible Results
http://www.jir.com/geographic.html
Catastrophic climate change is bad enough; for heaven’s sake, cut back on your National Geographic subscriptions people!
Reblogged this on Combyne's Weblog and commented:
WUWT encouraging National Geographic to correct past inaccuracies.
National Geographic could do a piece on the anthropology of the new climate religion.
So instead of sacrifices to the climate gods, we have taxes to the climate gods, human activities and not the sun at the centre of the universe, and one or another doomsday prediction failing to come to pass like any other doomsday cult, with the dates and manner just shifting to another scenario.
“Despite all those blue coloured Viagra snag-them-in headlines and those easy brain mush articles of kiddie science for the under twelves, Professor X has become Doctor Droopy. The circulation numbers are all still heading south and the readerships, especially the young, are all heading out into those more interesting Mad Max badlands of the science blogosphere.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-decline-of-popular-science-journals/
Pointman
It isn’t just Nat Geo who should be held accountable.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the sceptical movement should bring together all those catastrophic failed predictions into one, definitive index of falsified alarmist claims.
It’s virtually an A-Z because their predictions (or ‘projections’) really have been hopelessly wide of the mark on almost every single indicator.
Currently there is not one single voice for sceptics. Lots of superb individual voices – WUWT, Real Science, Climate Audit, Jo Nova, Tim Ball, No Tricks Zone, Dr Roy Spencer and too many others to list, but from time to time it needs co-ordinating into ONE message.
Something to counter the ‘gold-standard’ IPCC. Put individual differences aside an run one lead story across the ‘net. Kill their argument/s with their own official statistics and data.
Then simultaneously roll it out across the entire sceptical blogosphere, demanding answers and explanations from those responsible for the biggest mis-selling scandal of all time.
There’s easily enough evidence. It’s time.
This is a good idea. A single post on all the big sites, re-blogged on the many small sites, all demanding accountability.
The response would likely be a deafening silence. However the general public would understand what that meant.
I gave upon SCIAM about 8 years ago when they published an article claiming that researchers had detected the “first man made global warming CO2 signature” from 8000 years ago. It was from as small tribe of people who first planted rice in the Mekong delta.
It was so ludicrous that haven’t bought an issue since. I have however been banned from the SCIAM website for pointing out that Michael Mann did not actually get a Nobel Prize.
SCIAM is a reality free zone when it comes to Global Warming.
The lesson provided by ‘chicken little’ has to be learned by every generation. Hysterical inflated rhetoric works only for a short time before everyone starts to ignore you.
This post was wishful thinking: the September 2014 issue of NatGeo is out and it contains nothing about climate change. Emperor Nero was found to be more newsworthy.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/table-of-contents
Updates don’t sell and neither do admissions of broader cyclical truths like AMO and solar.
My Grandfather subscribed to Nat Geo since WWI. I quit the subscription several years ago because of these lies.