Summations Only

National Geographic is known more for their photography and popular general stories about exotic people and places; exotic being different than at home. Original research is not reported because it would bore their audience.Interestingly, NG does fund scientific research. I was part of a team that applied for and received a research grant from NG. We received funding from several other sources also. The papers reporting the research that were subsequently printed were not published in National Geographic and all that appeared there was a short paragraph in their news section on one aspect of our observations.Our primary paper was published in the journal Biogeography and included paleo-biogeography, fossil distribution, modern species geographic distribution and molecular analysis (of all the species of one dragonfly family), and plate tectonics. The documentation of the scientific research that supports the assertions fills libraries at universities around the world. Stories in National Geographic are written to appeal to general readers and are not meant to be speculative but rather based on "generally accepted science" that doesn't need to be explained in every story.I remember some stories in the 1960's about medieval Europe and the growth of Christianity that really fascinated me when I was in high school. They inspired me to dig deeper into archaeology. That is what normal people do; they follow up to understand accepted science. If you haven't done the research you don't have a sound basis to criticize the scientific conclusions.

This is exactly right. My dad used to say that "the climate millions of years ago was mild and tropical." I had to keep reminding him that weather is local and global climate cannot be judged from local observations. Individual storms seldom if ever, leave evidence in the geological record and evidence of a warm (mild) climate does not imply that the weather was any less a chaotic system in the past than it is today.

The irony.....it is set in stone. So, YOU are complaining about revelations from heaven? You, who thinks revelations from heaven is the ultimate authority? Of course it does. Every reasonable reader, from 7th graders on, understands that they can research whether what they read in magazines is based on evidence or bullshit. When I was in school there were science books on specific fields with further listed references in the library as well as encyclopedias.Now, they also have the internet, although in your case, the internet is not your friend. Oh, boo hoo, they won't let you research whether it's true or not and they certainly won't let you express your ignorance.You would completely disregard any basic supporting evidence as we see you always do here, so don't expect anyone to respect your point. Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.

And yet, the point went right over your head. Once again, your lack of knowledge is the result of your own rejection of every source of knowledge that has been presented to you here.[sarcasm]Your martyrdom for "the truth" is noted by everone![/sarcasm]Well, we will never know, will we, since you never say anything true.And even when you are completely, amazingly wrong and nasty, rude and arrogant, no one has ever said anything close to "You're so wrong you shouldn't be allowed to breathe."The only participant here who uses that sort of rhetoric is you, toward people who disagree with your political, religious, social, and philosophical views.