My resolution for 2018:
Spend even more time calling out imbalance and extremism in the traditional and social media, on both sides of the debates. Support balanced media and cancel the rest.
December 28, 2017
National Geographic Magazine, Circulation Department
Since I was a child, I’ve have been a reader of National Geographic Magazine. And since our children became adults and moved away from home about 30 years ago, we’ve subscribed for them each Christmas.
But over the last number of years, the National Geographic has become more of an activist magazine, and much less a science publication. Particularly as regards global warming – a term now apparently dropped in favor of the catch-all term, “climate change”, your coverage has been almost consistently one-sided; increased CO2 is destroying the planet. Although I must say that in, I believe it was your April 2007 issue, you had a foldout that showed that increased CO2 is significantly increasing plant growth across the southern Sahara, as it is around the world.
The fact is that climate change has been a natural feature of our planet for hundreds of millions of years. And in the recent past – the last million years or so – it has been both warmer and colder than at present, several times in fact. How about an issue dedicated to that?
There is no consensus as to the significance of human contributions to global warming, or to climate change And many prominent scientists like Judith Curry are now admitting that they were duped by their colleagues. Where’s the outrage, or even the coverage? The 97% scientific consensus on climate change was manufactured; the very concept of consensus on such a complex issue is itself, unscientific.
Nothing predicted by climate change’s Huckster in Chief, Al Gore, has come true. He predicted that by 2016, the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in summer. This past year’s Arctic ice minimum extent was 4,640,000 km², (1.79 million square miles), an area half the size of the United States! Polar bear numbers have increased significantly over the last 30 years; another prediction gone backwards.
Michael Mann manufactured a famous, and regrettably, very influential, hockey stick shaped, 1000 year temperature graph, that completely erased the Little Ice Age from history. That’s not science, it’s deception. Surely, frost in July and the Thames freezing regularly in the 1700s, and into the 1800s, are newsworthy climate stories from history. And surely those stories are germane to the present debate.
Antarctica – except for a relatively tiny peninsula that juts into the currents between the South Atlantic and South Pacific – is setting record cold temperatures, and is gaining trillions of tons of ice. Where’s the feature article on that fact?
James Hansen was one of the most prominent and often quoted, climate alarmists on the planet, until nearly 50 of his colleagues, and his supervisor at NASA called him an alarmist, and an embarrassment to NASA. Where was the coverage of that?
I could go on, but it appears that National Geographic, like William Randolph Hearst, Scientific American, Time magazine, and even The Economist, has discovered that alarmism sells, and has decided that: “If it bleeds, it leads.” I’m not interested, and our children and grandchildren have said the same; therefore we are not renewing our subscriptions.
Dave Reesor, Calgary Alberta Canada.
P.S. Kudos for a well-balanced article on the life of Jesus in your December issue. Bring that same approach to the climate change issue, and we may re-subscribe.