Why would I even read a science article from 'The Rolling Stone' and presume there is any validity to it?
That isn't to say it isn't true, it may well be, but seriously, find a better source.
That isn't to say it isn't true, it may well be, but seriously, find a better source.
I mean, they got rid of GEN McChrystal, among other things.
The 2009 "The Great Vampire Squid" was a good article, although it probably went too far. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american...
The Operators was a great book; it grew out of the article in RS, and was excerpted there. http://www.amazon.com/Operators-Terrifying-Americas-Afghanis...
I liked their Billy Corgan article, although that's music.
FWIW, My personal worldview is very much aligned with Taibbi's but I can never get more than a handful of paragraphs into anything he writes because the invective is so overwhelming.
He's very entertaining to read, but not someone I would hold up as a good example of serious journalism.
You can read the article (which you clearly haven't done) and answer this question yourself.
Let's ask Linus Torvalds and me a question about the architecture of git. Whose answer would you trust more?
If you want an example of how intellectual forums die, this thread is it.
The article gives plenty of caveats.
Is there anything factually wrong in the article? Or is it that you disagree with his hypothesis? Or is it simply the lack of cites?
Yes, journalists are in fact allowed to write about science topics and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. No, not everything that’s written about science has to have been published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Good science journalism is awesome and there should be much more of it.
It’s this honestly bizarre cynical and twisted worldview that’s wrong with HN, most certainly not that someone posted this article.
How dare people question media?
How dare people think for themselves instead of accepting what media tells them?
How dare they?
You have vilified everything that goes wrong with a democratic society.
Your mentality is the problem.
No one ever claimed you have to accept what the article says.
You're free to question media. Welcome, in fact. I would love nothing more. But you didn't do it, and to act as though you did when someone calls you out is dishonest.
Care to back that up with some data?
I hope you mean that as directed to both sides of the argument, because it's certainly true.
Despite the alarmist title, I found this a good video on the topic of climate change:
"The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change's Increasingly Wild Weather"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-RDE7z2T0k
I'd recommend the second portion of the video, as it’s a good old fashion, boring, highly scientific and un-emotive description of one particular view of how higher arctic temperatures can affect the climate.
I also found the second portion worked well as a tutorial on the basics of how the world’s climate actually works.
You're clearly concerned with citations, so I'll ask for one: where did anyone here say, even implicitly, that they valued a Rolling Stone article in place of actual scientific research?
Ok, let’s try to apply some intellectual thinking to the article.
Firstly, The Rolling Stone is not a scientific journal, but rather a magazine catering to the general public.
Secondly, I read the article, not as a scientific paper on climate change, but rather an article about a particular climate change scientist, Jason Box.
The article presents Box's opinions on climate change and his latest prediction that black snow could have a big impact on the rate of ice melt.
How is that any different, to say, an article asking Bjarne Stroustrup's his opinions of the C++11 standard?
It's an opinion piece, from someone whose opinion should be worth reading, if only because they have expertise in that field.
Climate change, like much cutting-edge scientific research, rarely gets informed or rational treatment on programmer forums. Just look back through the history of climate change articles on Slashdot, for instance. They are chock full of objections or concerns that would be answered with an hour or two on Wikipedia or the IPCC website.
The reason is that programmers and engineers think that they think like scientists, when the reality is that most think exactly the opposite of scientists. Programmers and engineers seek to use knowledge to eliminate uncertainty; scientists seek uncertainty in the hope of discovering new knowledge.
He wants things handed to him. Rather than follow up via the multiple sources they provided, along with a link to the project itself, he'd prefer we do that work for him.
Which is sad, really. That people don't want to take the time to research things on their own, and simply expect things handed to them.
You are expecting this to be something it is not. And not even trying to be.
Damn right. They do far more for science than people realize. You make science fun and exciting, and it draws people in. Not everyone wants to start with all the technical data.
Hell, the best scientists understand this.
Rolling Stone has for years now been a great source for good journalism. It's not just a music magazine and hasn't been for a long time. They've been doing a lot of good investigative reporting for at least the past ten years that I know of and maybe more.
You may not like what you read but the fact that it came from Rolling Stone is totally irrelevant. You want sources? Read the article. They're in there. You want citations? Read an academic journal. What magazine or newspaper that you know of puts citations for every little thing in their articles? None. Because they're not publishing academic papers. If no source is valid without the citations you require then no magazine is a valid source by your logic - logic that's flawed.
Keep in mind, the best form of censorship is a market based one. When a company does wrong, I'd rather a boycott than have some government do-gooder step in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may...
Find a peer-reviewed science journal that also provides a rich multimedia experience and you can argue that there is a source that is "better" for the purposes recognized here (content and presentation format).