All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, January 27, 2017

Transjournalism

Transjournalism: When you take a nature magazine and turn it into Newsweek Jr.

(Click the picture twice to see why.)

13 comments:

  1. That is child abuse.
    Matthew 18:6
    "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
    TG

    ReplyDelete
  2. We've had a subscription to NatGeo for ages, but after we saw this issue we decided we'd had enough. When our current subscription expires, there will be no renewal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've been riding on the "Climate Change Train" for some years, too. I gave up on NG some years back.

      I'm betting no one checks the Funny or Cool boxes.

      Delete
  3. Like moths to a flame the left can't keep their minds out of their pants.

    SC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which would be OK if they at least wore the pants once in a while.

      Delete
  4. There was a guy thirty or forty years ago that had a theory that we mass of the earth was increasing and that the moon and the earth were going to pull into each other because of the increase in gravitational pull. The reason for the increase in mass was because people never threw their National Geographic magazine's away.
    Save the earth. Cancel your subscription and burn all of them you can find.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conservation of mass would suggest that the only way that theory works is if the additional mass of the magazines is sourced outside the Earth-Moon system.

      Say, Planet Shirley Maclaine.

      I stopped my subscriptions to varied science mags ... SciAm, the Brit NewScientist, etc, ... when they abandoned the scientific method (Observation, Classification, Hypothesis, Experiment, repeat), and became the media organ of the Warmist mullahs.

      Delete
  5. I spent a few minutes sometime back looking through the November 2015 (?) issue of National Geographic, and came across an article about energy use here in the United States and how we really, really could abolish the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy if we worked really, really hard at converting everything over to wind and solar power.

    I hold a BS degree (yes, I know: BullShit, More of the Same, Piled higher and Deeper) in mechanical engineering from one of the better engineering schools, but I've been away from that for 30 years, so I've forgotten a LOT. *BUT* I can still run "back of the envelope" calculations, and NatGeo's numbers didn't merely "not add up" -- they were delusional. Not to mention the confusion between megawatts and megawatt-hours (the first is power, the second is energy -- BIG difference!)

    The fact that the writers and the editors of such a big article intended to sway their readership couldn't be bothered to master even the basics of physics tells me that reality is not their forte, and that they don't really care about reality to begin with -- it's all about the "feelz" and "virtue-signaling".

    Hale Adams
    Pikesville, People's still-mostly-Democratic Republic of Maryland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. Those Warmie calculations show they can't do basic probability calculations.

      Say any rocket stage has a ninety percent chance of working. And the rocket had seven stages.

      Who can tell me what is the chance of you reaching your destination without exploding?

      Delete
    2. Hang in there, Hale. I spent 28 years in the People's Republic but made it out alive...

      How about a return to the days when NatGeo had pictures of women's boobs? Those were good days. Not like this crapola...

      Delete
    3. For old and unimproved Dave:
      0.90 to the 7th power, or about 48%.

      Delete
  6. The Progressive Lefties have infiltrated just about every source of information in the country. It is now becoming obvious to the point of asininity. - Elric

    ReplyDelete