Rupert Murdoch Turns National Geographic Into Fox News, Lays Off Fact-Checkers

In September, Rupert Murdoch purchased the majority shares in National Geographic, making the legendary publication a new “sister” (perhaps step-sister) to Murdoch’s beloved Fox News. Obviously, with such a major change in ownership, and the history of lies that IS Fox News journalism – fans of the scientific magazine feared the fate of the legendary publication.

Unfortunately, we now know what some of the award-winning staff received from such a deal – pink slips.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

It is reported that the layoff cut 180 of the 2,000 associates – a nine percent reduction in staff, which is the largest to ever hit the 127-year-old organization. Washington Post reports that layoffs hit nearly every department within the society which includes the print publication and television channel. So, this comes as little surprise:

Several people in the channel’s fact-checking department, for example, were terminated on Tuesday, employees said.

Yeah, that’s not so shocking. We know how valued fact-checkers are at Fox News and how much credence they place on things like “science” and “knowledge.”

What IS shocking though is the manner in which the employees were notified of these major life changes. In an email sent to all employees, CEO Gary Knell wrote:

To all NGS Staff:

After very careful and serious consideration, we are ready to communicate how our restructuring and transformation will affect each employee at National Geographic. To that end, please make every effort to be available tomorrow, November 3rd, either in your regular work location, and/or by phone.

If you are traveling for business, on vacation or plan to be out for any other reason, please notify Tia Freeman-Evans or Yvonne Perry in HR immediately, so we can make alternative plans to get in touch with you. If you know that someone on your staff will be out of the office on November 3rd, please let Tia or Yvonne know by 3 p.m. (Eastern) today, as well.

Please watch your inbox for important information about your employment status tomorrow. [Emphasis added]

I cannot thank you enough for your patience and hard work over the last few months. I am proud of how our teams and our organization have approached and responded to this transitional period. Looking ahead, I am confident National Geographic’s mission will be fulfilled in powerful, new and impactful ways, as we continue to change the world through science, exploration, education and storytelling.


Because that’s how it is done now? Watch your inbox? I realize it’s business and it’s “not personal” but isn’t it quite personal for the nearly 200 people who were losing their jobs that day? Hell, this manner of communicating such a life change is only a nose ahead of posting it on the bulletin board in the break room or just locking employees out of the building.

However, they may actually be the lucky ones. Layoffs are just the beginning of the changes for associates at the National Geographic Society. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post concludes his article:

In addition to the layoffs and buyouts, the National Geographic Society said it would freeze its pension plan for eligible employees, eliminate medical coverage for future retirees and change its contributions to an employee 401(k) plan so that all employees receive the same percentage contribution.

Yep. Another company that went to the douchebags. So long, National Geographic. It was absolutely wonderful while it lasted. We will miss you.

Featured image via and Tombstone Generator

Terms of Service


  • Old Top Kick says:

    It will collapse completely within 2 years. The ones being let go now are actually the lucky ones.

    • Heather_7 says:

      Oh, but sadly you don’t realize that the same women who would vote for Donald Trump will subscribe to the new magazine that will possibly, like Ben Carson said, claim that the pyramids are actually grain stores and not really tombs for the ancient Egyptian dead. You underestimate the power of “stupid” and “devoted” among the modern Republican army.

      • tomjohnson says:

        Hear, hear. I’m so tired of people laughing at the Far Right. Yes, they’re insane, but so are serial killers, and there’s nothing funny about them.

        • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

          indeed. nothing funny at all. gotta take them seriously because they might just win in 2016 if the left doesnt present a winnable ticket

        • Stephen Huczek says:

          But it’s all quite laughable. Not to say it can’t be harmful, but once you allow them to be taken seriously, you’re giving them more power than they should ever have. And once one of them takes office, any sane American needs to jump ship. If the voting public becomes that dense there is no hope. It’s either laugh or cry. Taking them seriously will lead to serious heart conditions. These people have more power than we’d ever care to know as is.

        • Christopher says:

          Serial killers are more trustworthy. At least you know where you stand with them.

      • DesertSun59 says:

        I totally agree with you. Murdoch will be successful in getting new subscribers who are not at all familiar with history, science or facts. I assume they’ll forego all maps, too. Who needs to identify where your ‘enemy nations’ are located.

        • Love the last line, they do not need to locate their “enemy nations” as every other country in the world and every person who does not agree or think just like them, is the enemy.

        • Heather_7 says:

          I can see the headlines now… “Look at these Native women in head-dress who aren’t wearing any shirts… Stare at their saggy breasts and realize the horror that goes against the O.T. in the bible! Stare at them harder and lust, but then get angry at them because you are lustful! Now bomb them because they are naked and not covering themselves uppeth!” Reads the new cover of National Idiotgraphic! Nevermind the native culture’s ties to the land, or their history, or their religion etc… Gone are the days of real science and anthropology! (You know somewhere in here there’s a good Monty Python skit for where this is all headed…facepalm.)

          • Steve Brickman says:

            Hey, back off! Those African breast pics were my introduction to puberty, before I could steal a Playboy.

        • josephlogston says:

          The GOP’s like the burning, and changing history of books as Hitler + Church did, The fascist are moving forward in the white pillaged of a slaved uneducated world of steeple fools!!

          • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

            I am afraid that “political correctness” is partly to blame. Our citizens are learning “revisionists” history.

      • AirFrank says:

        Actual the king of low intelligence voters belong to the Democrats. They voted for the id10t in the WH twice.

        • tim4change says:

          Yes because being head of the Harvard Law Review is something dummies get to do every day, while going AWOL from the National Guard and getting “C’s” at Yale is what nets you the title “King of the really smart people” right?

          • AirFrank says:

            BO may have been head of the Harvard Law Review but at no time did he ever publish any reviews. Hmm. The AWOL was discredited 15 years ago.

            Funny that you should bring up W’s C GPA. John Kerry criticized it right up until it was shown that W had a higher GPA than John.

            Liberalism is a mental disorder.

          • tim4change says:

            Discredited by people like you who have to change the subject to try to win a point? And no, the AWOL story was not discredited, it was buried by the Bush crime family. Are you one of them?

          • maam2u says:

            ok but either extreme is disordered imo.

          • Michael Lindholm says:

            They are. Extremists are co-dependent and will jealously defend their beliefs, no matter if they’re factually incorrect.

          • SidSeven says:

            You know the internet was created through socialism right?

          • Purple-Stater says:

            That’s a denial-issue with his ilk. Civilization in itself is a socialist undertaking, without which capitalism wouldn’t exist in the first place.

          • Chollie52 says:

            Care to match up Kerry’s IQ with Bush’s?

          • Michael Lindholm says:

            Not according to the DSM-V it isn’t, bub. You just peddled the lines of Hitler and Goebbels with that “mental disorder” spiel.

            Never peddle that nonsense and expect to get away with it. You are no better than the two evil men who started that mental disorder nonsense 80 years ago, because they considered liberals to be a threat to the Aryan model and the Nazis.

          • Catherine Edmends says:

            really – having an open mind and caring what happens to your most vulnerable is a disorder? addressing inequality and violence/bigotry? – you should be so disordered

          • Purple-Stater says:

            Socialism, and the commensurate care and concern for fellow members of society, is the founding bedrock of human civilization. Capitalism, and specifically Corporate Capitalism, that sheds itself of all societal concerns, and actually emphasizes greed and selfishness regardless of harm done to society at large, is a cancer; or as you like to put it, a mental disorder. It is an aberration to the needs and function of civilization.

          • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

            “Head of the Law Review” is not earned as it once was.

          • tim4change says:

            nor is deserter?

          • Tracy W Congdon says:

            So they would probably just give it to you if you knew the right people right disqus. LMAO

          • maam2u says:

            ever hear of Affirmative Action?

          • CleverBev says:

            I have heard of Affirmative Action. It was and IS what is tacitly given by one privileged group to another, because of their belief that no one is as “qualified” as they are. It is also known as “Wow, my father knows his father!”

          • maam2u says:

            i doubt anyone here was enamored of a bush or whomever you are talking about.

        • sofarsogood says:

          your answer to our national and international problems, then I guess is Trump and/or Carson? Troll on McDuff.

          • AirFrank says:

            Well, given what a piss pour job Hillary did as SOS I certainly don’t want her as POTUS.

          • maam2u says:

            agreed. hey airfrank, why is this site giving you and me both the same avatar??? wierrrrd…. or is it disqus doing it????

          • Michael Lindholm says:

            Why would anyone want an unapologetic narcissist for president? Or a pathological liar who pulled his West Point scholarship out of his nether regions? or one who, when hit with an honest question, starts whining about a “liberal media” that doesn’t exist?

            Your side’s the one harboring the blithering idiots and the pathological liars.

          • JeanieB says:

            Ive always wondered when I read “piss pour” how would one actually go about pouring piss? that is if one were so inclined to do so.

          • Jim says:

            You don’t… The phrase is actually “piss POOR”..

          • JeanieB says:

            Jim thank you so much for clearing that up.. lol its amazing how just a little change gives it a whole new meaning..

          • Catherine Edmends says:

            it’s piss POOR – you’re verifying a stereotype here you know – best keep silent

        • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

          For sure and our country is now in turmoil.

        • Purple-Stater says:

          So give us a few economic pointers on how that turned out to be a bad thing. Please.

        • Martin Dragon Jonsson says:

          So how do you explain that Republicans are strongest in the states where they have the lowest education level?

          • Chris19741949 says:

            Because uneducated people–the red states–listen to the drivel the republicans blather and babble about, and believe it. Besides, the republicans have claimed the magic words for the unintelligent, non-thinking population: god, guns, abortion, taxes, and the best ones, Obama bad.

        • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

          you’re the idiot dude. get a brain transplant with a gorilla and then maybe you can do some simple addition sums on your fingers 🙂

        • SidSeven says:

          Well, you must have an IQ to match your age.

        • Purple-Stater says:

          Damn those idiot voters!

      • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

        Not only Republican. It is across the board.

    • Nahh, it’ll just get a new base of readership from the thousands of Faux Newz fans who will justify subscribing by saying “I’ll buy it now that it ain’t no librul’ rag no more.” Murdoch is likely going to turn it into a blatant political propaganda tabloid.

      • But those who are Faux News viewers, for the most part are ignorant, illiterate and can’t possibly understand what they read.

        • Diane Keller says:

          Exactly the kind of readership Murdock drools for…..

        • That’s why the magazine will be dumbed down to their level and turned into a tabloid.

        • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

          Maybe and maybe not.

        • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

          I wonder what you have learned that would give you the insight into the intelligence of “ALL” those other people besides liberal Democrats.

          • well how about years of viewing the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Hannity and other Fox News when I was doing home care in the 80’s 90’s and my patients usually had on these shows and my parents used to be viewers of the same shows. then the people who continued to view these shows started to become as crazy as Glenn Beck. Then the hatred and out and out lies from these same news sources and the fact Fox News is truthful 18% of the time or less and the people defending the “conservative” side of things have no comprehension to the reality of what is actually happening around them and in the world. it is like they are in their own private bubble. at one time I was 100% Republican, then I started to look at what the GOP politicians were really about and I know that almost all politicians lie, some much more than others, so I chose the open minded side.

          • maam2u says:

            that’s wierd. most conservatives i’ve known gave been high income people , top achievers, family folks, but a bit fascist (especially about welfare). They seem to know the difference between fact and fantasy, unlike people on this page who are making wild speculations about what will happen next, without benefit of very many facts at all.

          • YeahOkFerShure says:

            Those type of conservatives were the “old guard”. The new conservatism appealing to the most ignorant of the masses started back in the Reagan years, with the “Moral Majority” and all that hogwash.

          • maam2u says:

            always consider the source… in other words, the ignorant will not know anything real about other people’s intelligence, but will always poke fun at those who are superior. Because it all flies miles over their tiny little pointed heads.

      • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

        the people who work there will gradually drift away and one of them will start a replacement eventually. as for rupert murdoch, isnt he getting old? perhaps we dont have to worry about him for too much longer – what an absolutely dreadful human being he is. no conscience, no empathy, no scruples – there isnt anything good about him. i am not a religious soul but if I was superstitious, i would say that there is not a special place reserved in heaven for the likes of Mr Murdoch

    • John Abreau says:

      That’s precisely the point. Murdoch didn’t buy it to make it better, he bought it to silence their pro-science bias, particularly their penchant to report the truth about climate change. The buyout was nothing more than a heavy-handed act of censorship. For Murdoch’s purposes, destruction of the magazine accomplishes his mission.

      • It is called a “hostile takeover.”

      • Otto Greif says:

        Only four people at the magazine are losing jobs, the layoffs involve staff in legal, accounting, admin and IT.

        • Betty J Rousey says:

          Look, it is now owned by R. Murdoch, the guy responsible for any fantasy lands he wishes to create, and never one based upon reality. Nat Geo was not just incredibly interesting — it was ALWAYS completely credible — without a doubt. Nobody had to ask “Is this true? Do others say this as well?” Because it was National Geographic. It’s premise was science before all else. Nobody will ever be able to say that again about it, even if he doesn’t change one damned thing (something I HIGHLY doubt).

          • Darrell Sutherland says:

            Murdoch is just a bigot who cares not for you small people of the world. It’s always a shame that people like him don’t come to grisly deaths!

          • Joshua Marner says:

            Their unquestioned status is a PROBLEM, not a good thing for society.

          • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

            which society? yours? or everyone else’s? mNatGEO is probably one of the last purely reporting only non-biased organizations left in the US

          • perse1010 says:

            Agreed. Having a credible source for information, particularly scientific information, that is unquestioned is incredibly important to our society. Especially when it something that is accessible as National Geographic (as opposed to less accessible academic journals, that the public is less likely to read on a regular basis and whose articles aren’t written for the general public.) This is a huge and terrible loss of accessible evidence-based scientific reporting that was widely read and enjoyed by a diverse audience, young and old.

          • Joshua Marner says:

            Any organization who has “unquestioned status” on anything will attract the very individuals who make us question authority because of their untrustworthiness. It is better for the organization to consistently stand to questioning, not be completely unquestioned by reputation. Surely anyone can see why this would be better.

          • maam2u says:

            speak for yourself.

        • feloneouscat says:

          So people who work in legal, accounting, admin and IT are not technically people?

          You can not turn 180 layoffs into four layoffs. National Geographic even said it was “unprecedented” – what four layoffs are now unprecedented?

          • Otto Greif says:

            Getting rid of them won’t affect what’s published in the magazine, which is what all of the hysteria is about.

          • wiseoldsnail says:

            so now protesting the unnecessary layoffs and the inevitable wrecking of an excellent and dependable resource is ‘hysteria’ ?

          • Otto Greif says:

            The layoffs weren’t unnecessary and the magazine hasn’t been wrecked.

          • wiseoldsnail says:

            by definition, anything taken over by murdoch is wrecked

            you’re a very weak troll . they should hire someone with a brain

          • maam2u says:

            oh so stating facts calmly makes him a troll?: or do you mean, setting you straight makes him a troll? which is it?

          • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

            that’s where they fall short. stupid people do dumb stuff. smart people are hard to find unless they’re like Ben Carson and part of their brain is washed with some kind of weird joo-joo juice

          • Otto Greif says:

            The layoffs were necessary, nothing has been wrecked, and you people keep ignoring the facts.

          • Elfwitch says:

            Sir you are wrong. Award wining photo journalists have been laid off as well as copy editors. But thanks for playing.

          • Clarisse73 says:

            Why are you ignoring that the very fact that Murdoch has taken over Nat’l G is a harbinger of things to come?

          • NunnaYa Bizniss says:

            people dont trust murdoch because of the Fox makes up silly vapid empty headed dopey idiot news 24*7. to most people who dont watch fox it looks like NatGEO is being censored, which is undemocratic and unAmerican

          • John W Sansone Jr says:

            However any changes to the Benefits will make everyone else leave, thus saving them severance packages

          • Chris19741949 says:

            Want to bet, Otto? I will be most interested in seeing the first edition published by Murdoch’s group.

      • Catherine Edmends says:

        pro science bias? = you really mean educated science based facts, don’t you

    • I give them less than a year.

    • Buge Halls says:

      Kind of like how Fox News is the lowest rated cable news channel and on the verge of going out of business. Oh, wait that’s MSNBC and CNN!

      • Old Top Kick says:

        Yeah, Faux Spews is the top rated news outlet like McDonald’s is the top rated burger outlet. High ratings =/= quality. I consume neither Faux nor McDonald’s for the same reason that I don’t eat out of the toilet.

  • Betty J Rousey says:

    Maybe the fact checkers, photographers, and scientists can start up their old publication with a new name… there will be plenty leaving Nat Geo now…. the ones who read it WERE the ones who believe in science. We don’t want any of their “storytelling.” We want factual stories with a scientific background. Maybe they can even get some of those not fired, but who can start their own 401K all by themselves…. I’d support it!

  • Chaz says:

    The job creator destroyed jobs and helped finance his BS by seizing retirement accounts. What a lovely human being

    • Otto Greif says:

      Murdoch doesn’t control the National Geographic Society.

      • David González says:

        Considering that you said in another comment that people don’t read the article to which they link, one might ask if you read the article on which you comment. In the very first sentence, the article reads, “In September, Rupert Murdoch purchased the majority shares in National Geographic Society…”. Granted that it is the very first sentence, it might be a stretch to remember that far back. But when someone purchases the majority of shares in a company/society/etc., one may conclude that said purchaser controls the company/society/etc.

        • Otto Greif says:

          That sentence is wrong. The National Geographic Society sold Murdoch the National Geographic magazine and an interest in the National Geographic television channel. The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit, you can’t buy shares in it.

          • Frank Lazar says:

            And of course all those layoffs, especially the ones in fact-checking, are conincidence. Murdoch now owns the magazine, the web presence, and the media channels, as well as the departments that send out all those people. What else is left of the NGS for him not to own?

          • Otto Greif says:

            According to the National Geographic Society the layoffs are not because of the deal with Murdoch, which hasn’t been closed yet, try reading the linked article.

          • Frank Lazar says:

            As if Murdoch was actually going to come out and say that he’s converting one of the great institutions of science into his own sounding board against climate change?

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s not Murdoch who said that, it was the NGS, and Murdoch does not control anything yet. The layoffs are not because of an anti-climate change conspiracy, they are the result of long decline in popularity of the magazine.

          • feloneouscat says:

            It’s not Murdoch who said that, it was the NGS, and Murdoch does not control anything yet.

            Technically not true at all. It all depends on the conditions of the sale, the covenants, etc. which, typically, are kept secret.

            So, no, this is pure and utter tripe. Unless Otto Greif is privy to all of the above, he’s just waving it in the wind hoping you will buy his line of tripe.

            But it is nothing more than that.

            So, yes, you can buy a company ON THE CONDITION that 10% of the staff goes bye-bye before closing.

            So, please Otto, unless you have something more than just gaseous noise, put a stopper in it.

          • Tell us Otto, how long have you worked for Murdoch’s PR machine?

          • Damien1983 says:

            C’mon dude, Otto is presenting FACTS, FACTS that can be verified easily and you resort to ad hominon attacks?

          • Otto is presenting SPIN, SPIN that is complete Murdoch-suckling BS. So yes, I do resort to ad hominem attacks, because such savagery is the only thing a neocon shill truly understands. Why? You want a piece of this too?

          • feloneouscat says:

            Otto is presenting FACTS, FACTS that can be verified easily and you resort to ad homing attacks?

            Okay, I did some attempts to verify what he said. He fails miserably. Here is what National Geographic said:

            “The National Geographic Society and the National Geographic Channels are in the process of reorganizing in order to move forward strategically following the closing [of] the National Geographic Partners deal, which is expected to occur in mid-November,” a spokesperson for National Geographic Society said in an emailed statement.

            So what Otto said and what the WaPo said is blatantly not true. The layoffs were part of the condition of the sale.

            These are facts.

          • maam2u says:

            which you erroneously misinterpreted and then called THAT fact.

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s funny none of you are capable of reading the linked article.

          • feloneouscat says:

            I read it. What part of it validates anything you are saying?

          • Otto Greif says:

            If you read it then you know what I’ve said is true.

          • feloneouscat says:

            I’ve read all the linked articles. What you are using is what the Washington Post told you:

            A spokeswoman for National Geographic said the decision to undertake the layoffs was not part of the September deal with Murdoch. – Washington Post

            Except that is not true.

            I went to the Guardian which actually had the statement:

            “The National Geographic Society and the National Geographic Channels are in the process of reorganizing in order to move forward strategically following the closing [of] the National Geographic Partners deal, which is expected to occur in mid-November,” a spokesperson for National Geographic Society said in an emailed statement.

            They even state that the restructuring was because of the deal.

            So, no, what you said isn’t even vaguely true.

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s really funny how you refuse to recognize reality because you hate Rupert Murdoch.

          • feloneouscat says:

            No, I posted a fact and you refuse to acknowledge it, instead believing the WaPo which has gone on to argue that 180 people losing their jobs is really just 4 people.

            The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the NGP said that the layoffs were part of closing the deal is your inability to acknowledge reality.

          • Otto Greif says:

            The WAPO isn’t arguing anything, it’s reporting facts.

          • jerseygurl says:

            Maybe they were all Pygmy’s and thus–very SMALL 176 people?

          • maam2u says:

            no,you posted an ambiguous statement that was in the Guardian, which doesn’t have better credibility than the Washington Post does. Since the two statements seem to contradict each other,. adhere to the most pointed and matter-of-fact one: a direct quote about that layoff issue from the primary source. Rather than an indirect and unrelated statement which you then enhance and misinterpret.

          • Brandon Crow says:

            Why do they hate hate Rupert Murdoch?

          • Otto Greif says:

            Ask them.

          • Brandon Crow says:

            You said they hate Rupert Murdoch, I just want to know why you think they hate him.

          • Otto Greif says:

            He’s one of their devils, like the Koch Brothers and Antonin Scalia.

          • Chris19741949 says:

            Darlin, if you don’t know by now, then it is too late to explain it all to you.

          • feloneouscat says:

            It’s funny how you will not even acknowledge what the Nation Geographic Partners said.

            You live in your own little bubble.

          • CJJAZZ says:

            Any print magazine that wants to survive will have to reorganize. That’s what the Guardian reported. Seems logical to me. It’s not a Murdoch issue.

          • Chris19741949 says:

            Well, that depends on how he reorganizes it. And please don’t tell me that Murdoch won’t change anything–we all know that he wouldn’t be so altruistic as to leave the magazine or the documentaries alone, without his “special” touch.

          • Oh I read it just fine, and having done so makes it blatantly obvious that you are just trying to spin the facts to take some of the heat off of your Corporate Overlord. I’m sure Mr. Murdoch appreciates your efforts, but you need to realize that no matter what you do, he’s never, ever going to let you sleep with him. Just let it go, man. He’s just not that into you.

          • Billy W says:

            Also, no matter how many facts you read you will still be clueless.

          • CJJAZZ says:

            Otto, the comments are not about the magazine, they are about their bitterness towards people who don’t think like them. You are talking common sense, they don’t want to hear common sense. The reality is printed magazines are dying.

          • Pete Hutchinson says:

            Why are you rationalizing a travesty of such epic proportions? Murdoch’s reputation alone makes the magazine irrelevant and suspect in it’s future integrity. The magazine is doomed.

          • Otto Greif says:

            I’m stating facts.

          • Avery says:

            You must be one of those people who just cannot admit being wrong.

          • Clarisse73 says:

            Being wrong about what? It’s a good bet that the quality and accuracy of Nat’l Geographic will take a decided downturn. Only time will tell exactly how the change will manifest itself.

          • Billy W says:

            Climate change or man made climate change, there is a HUGE difference.

          • feloneouscat says:

            The layoffs may have been part of the condition of the sale. That has not been denied. Because the sale has not been closed only means that conditions had to be met first (like the layoffs).

            Seriously, maybe you ought to learn about business before you comment about business.

          • Otto Greif says:

            The layoffs were inevitable because the magazine is in decline so the NGS decided to do it before Murdoch took control so it could control the terms. Since you know a lot about business, you surely realize there would be even more layoffs if they hadn’t sold to Murdoch.

          • feloneouscat says:

            Since you know a lot about business, you surely realize there would be even more layoffs if they hadn’t sold to Murdoch.

            All hypothetical.

            Nor were layoffs inevitable – you, as many of your ilk, think inside a very small and tiny box.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Read the linked article, the layoffs were a long time coming. They sold to Murdoch because he gave them most money, if they had gotten a worse deal there almost certainly would be even more layoffs, I’m surprised a business expert like yourself couldn’t figure that out.

          • feloneouscat says:

            Read the linked article, the layoffs were a long time coming.

            No, you are interpreting this sentence to mean something that it does not:

            The deal, which will close in mid-November, precipitated concerns about layoffs at the organization, which has generally avoided wide layoffs despite the long decline of its flagship magazine. – Washington Post

            No where does anyone in any linked article say that layoffs were a long time coming.

            The point of the layoffs were to make this a profitable venture instead of a non-profit. That is said in the linked articles.

            Nor will this be the only round of layoffs. 9% is generally too small. There will be a secondary and perhaps tertiary round after the deal is closed.

          • maam2u says:

            TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE, IN OTHER WORDS, TO allow it to survive. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WOULD BE MORE LAYOFFS if it did not survive (everyone would lose their job) numbskull.
            nonprofit? ru nutz? haha, you think a for-profit will then magically become a “nonprofit” if it makes no profit? lollllllllllll right.

          • maam2u says:


          • tim4change says:

            This from the linked article:
            “The National Geographic Society of Washington will lay off about 180 of its 2,000 employees in a cost-cutting move that follows the sale of its famous magazine and other assets to a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch.”
            Note the “follows the sale” verbiage.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Why did NGS sell assets again?

          • tim4change says:

            Your words:
            “According to the National Geographic Society the layoffs are not because of the deal with Murdoch, which hasn’t been closed yet”

            I’m just pointing out that you were incorrect. If you want discuss another subject fine. But you could have the decency to first respond to the above which refutes your earlier comment.

          • Otto Greif says:

            I’m not incorrect.

          • maam2u says:

            perhaps that is WHY they are selling- they can’t afford to keep their employees and aren’t making enough money?

          • Otto Greif says:

            That is why.

          • Chris19741949 says:

            Why are you acting as the chief apologist and defender of Murdoch?

          • Otto Greif says:

            Why can’t you people read news articles.

          • Billy W says:

            Again, you are confusing these liberals with facts

          • Otto Greif says:

            They think the WAPO is part of a Murdoch conspiracy to bring down the National Geographic magazine.

          • Billy W says:

            What is funny is that because of Murdoch’s infusion of 100’s of millions of dollars the society and magazine may actually survive. If anything he is rescuing an American institution instead of letting it just disappear on its own because no liberal broadcaster can afford to save it.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Exactly. Logically, the NGS sold to Murdoch because that was what was best for the NGS.

          • Otto Greif says:

            What’s left of the NGS? It does lots of things besides put out a magazine – education, conservation, exploration – go read its website.

          • Frank Lazar says:

            And the material for that web site, that magazine, that conservation and exploration work? it’s comes from the same people that are being laid off.

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s 180 of its 2,000 employees.

          • G in BC says:

            education in climate change denial should be one of the things we’ll have to look forward to…..

          • Well Rupert cannot own the prior reputation of Nat. Geo., but he will own the new one and I do not see anything good about it at all.

          • Carolyn Stine says:

            And why would the NG Society do that?

          • Billy W says:

            Business reasons.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Financial reasons.

          • Billy W says:

            Stop giving them facts, they cannot handle facts.

      • feloneouscat says:

        Otto, prior to buying a business you can make a condition that purchase is dependent on firing 10% of the staff.

        So, yes, a buyer CAN control the actions prior to closing.

      • Swami22 says:

        Lol! Yeah! Go with that!

      • maam2u says:

        yeah, it’s interesting how they are assigning these actions to one person. Does he really have that kind of full ownership and make all decisions about that? .

  • Otto Greif says:

    The layoffs have nothing to do with the deal with Murdoch.

    • Blondmyk says:

      I ask this because I don’t know…How do you know this? I’m not finding a whole lot out there to back up it not being Murdoch and Co’s restructuring? Not a troll, just trying to figure out where to look to learn what you have learned.

    • feloneouscat says:

      Please prove that wasn’t part of the condition of the sale?

      Unless you can do so, you are making an argument based on nothing.

      • Otto Greif says:

        Please provide evidence the NGS is lying.

        • feloneouscat says:

          Looks like it was the WaPo that was not telling the truth.

          From The Guardian:

          “The National Geographic Society and the National Geographic Channels are in the process of reorganizing in order to move forward strategically following the closing [of] the National Geographic Partners deal, which is expected to occur in mid-November,” a spokesperson for National Geographic Society said in an emailed statement.

          Again, looks like I was correct. The layoffs were part of the condition in order to close the deal.

          • Otto Greif says:

            They knew layoffs were inevitable so they did it before closing to give people better severances.

          • feloneouscat says:

            No, only the WaPo is in error.

            As I pointed out, the NGS says that the reorganization was done in order to move to closing the deal. I even gave you text.

            They knew layoffs were inevitable so they did it before closing to give people better severances.

            Now you are just making things up.

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s funny you think the WAPO and the NGS are lying.

          • feloneouscat says:

            It’s funny you think the WAPO and the NGS are lying.

            No, just the WaPo.

            National Geographic said, as I pointed out above, that the layoffs were part of the condition of the close.

            Which part of this is giving you trouble?

          • Otto Greif says:

            The NGS has stated they weren’t forced to make they layoffs.

  • Otto Greif says:

    You people don’t even read articles you link to.

  • David Gilbert says:

    Dear Nat Geo, please cancel my subscription that I have had for 40 years. It now sounds like you will have all the credibility of “The Limbaugh Letter”.

    • Michael Peterson says:

      EVERYONE should do as you have David!

    • SayWhat says:

      Dear David…consider it done. Now GFY you liberal POS.

    • SidSeven says:

      My formerly Republican mom cancelled her subscription…after some 60 years at least.

    • Bobbette Funk says:

      I’m very disappointed. Goodbye Nat Geo for kids and my Nat Geo

    • I was going to renew until I heard Fox bought them. Wait for the incoming “Global Warming Isn’t Real” documentary.

      • ShroomKeppie says:

        The Earth is warming slightly. It’s just not due to increased CO2. And it hasn’t warmed significantly since 1998, the last time there was a big El Nino.

        Warming and increased CO2 is good, anyway. Plants grow better with more “air” to breathe, and the mild warming means that central Canada and Asia can be farmed much more efficaciously, which means more food for everyone. What’s bad about that?

        • 2patricius2 says:

          Tell that to Miami and Bangladesh and the other cities and lands and islands that will be under the sea.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            Those places are not under the sea. Odd

          • Rippgutt says:

            What about “that will be” do you confuse as a present tense statement? Odd.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            We’ll see if that actually happens. In the 1970s they said NYC will be under ice. Its easy to say something will happen and then forget that it doesn’t, sort of the way the polar ice was supposed to be gone in 2012… I’m sure it “will be” gone in 2020 though.

          • M J says:

            No, they did not say “NYC will be under ice”.

          • Dustwitch says:

            yes, they did.

          • sarahm59 says:

            No “they” didn’t unless by “they” you mean a few reporters.

          • ConcernedCitizen15 says:

            Who is “they”? I would guess you are a Fox News fan. I do remember that the Eastern coast was severely flooded in a 100 yr hurricane (Sandy) not that long ago. In fact, there seems to be a huge increase in “100 year” events over the past decade (that’s 10 years for you Fox people).

          • Marty Bundy says:

            Exactly what do you mean by a huge increase in 100 year events and where are you getting your information? Best of my knowledge that is complete bunk let alone any connection to climate change.

          • sarahm59 says:

            No “they” didn’t say that. It was bantered about a little by a few scientists and the news ran with it. There was no agreement and nothing close to consensus. it’s a meme made up by climate change deniers.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            “It was bantered about a little by a few scientists and the news ran with it” — so essentially that was the same as global warming today. No matter how many times you claim it or how much the “news” runs with it, there is nothing close to consensus about AGW, just simply ask a scientist who is not funded by the government and most will end up being the “deniers” you claim don’t exist. Or you can look at the factual satellite data, you’ll find the data is a “denier” … strange isn’t it?

          • M J says:

            No, that is not even close to “essentially the same as global warming today”. The degree of confidence in global warming is quite high, despite the many dishonest attempts do deny it.

            Dr. Hansen even went so far as to say we are more sure of AGW than of Newton’s Third Law of Motion. That is saying a lot.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            ‘Dr. Hansen’ hahah no duh he said that. That isn’t saying a lot.

            That’s literally like a priest saying the world is 6000 years old because the bible says so.

          • M J says:

            Actually, it is saying a lot. Even that you have to sink to such an obvious ad hominem says a lot. Dr. Hansen is a real scientist, and thousands of real scientists agree with him on this.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            Pointing out someone’s bias is not ad hominem.

            I also don’t care how many “scientists” agree with him, Hansen has been wrong since 1988 when he predicted that we’d be 2 degrees warmer presently than we actually are.

          • Shhelb says:

            I give it 10 years and both California and Florida will be under water.

          • lydia says:

            Not yet, but Kiribati partially is.

          • Marty Bundy says:

            Do you really think Al Gore would have bought a 9 million dollar ocean view villa and continued with huge carbon footprint if he thought the world was going to boil over and the sea rise up to claim him?

          • 2patricius2 says:

            From what I have seen, Montecito is 180 feet above sea level. There are no predictions I have heard of that indicate the oceans are about to rise that high even if all the ice packs melt.

          • ChelynCS says:

            Nevertheless, his carbon footprint is huge & not indicative of anyone concerned about this planet

        • CleverBev says:

          That nice rise in tropical diseases should be a big hit as well. Can’t wait.

        • Dean Kuhner says:

          Whoa!! Be careful there those facts, logic and science may be intruding on the safe space of the so enlightened and scientific readers of this site

          • YeahOkFerShure says:

            Thinking that a warmer climate means you can grow food further north is not logic. It’s fantasy.

          • Dean Kuhner says:

            You are joking right??

            Last time I checked frost kills crops. Are you suggesting that if there were less days of frost, the growing season wouldn’t be longer??

            This is exactly why everyone outside of your safe space laughs their a $ s es off at you people.

        • Bananatwix says:

          lmao did Fox news tell you that? xD

        • YeahOkFerShure says:

          Your grasp of farming is about as clear as your grasp of the idea of climate change. There is a lot more to it than just having a warmer climate. Ever heard of the “Canadian Shield”, or the muskeg? Try farming on solid rock or in a bog, you’ll catch on quick.

        • David Cohen says:

          California is the biggest agricultural producer in the USA. It has been under conditions of drought since, well ,slightly after 1998.

          Pardon me if I don’t share your optimism

        • M J says:

          Sigh! The same disinformation and misinformation over and over again! Who has time to refute it all? Not me. SO I will concentrate on just a few: 1) it has indeed warmed significantly since 1998. But measuring a slow steady rise amidst all the noise is hard, and whatever sources you are relying on for your claim did not do their homework 2) even the worst predictions of global warming forgot about CO2 absorption in the oceans. That is doing damage too, but in a different way from expected, only temporarily taking the pressure off warming for a short while 3) Plants do not unconditionally “grow better with more CO2”. There is a limit, past which it does them no good. And they need moisture in the air too, which they are losing already thanks to global warming drying out the air in certain regions, such as Texas. 3) How do you get “more food for everyone” out of your imaginary scenario? Did you really forget to account for how much farm land we lose when central Canada and Siberia gain? Did you really forget to account for the unusable land due to rotting matter that has been accumulating for millions of years?

          • ShroomKeppie says:

            The sources I depend on are the HadCRUT, GISTemp, UAH and RSS data sets. I do believe they have done their homework.

            What is the point beyond which more CO2 does them no good? We know from plants grew voraciously when atmospheric CO2 was around 2000 ppm, which would be about 2.5 more doublings of the 400 ppm we are at today.

            The GCM temperature curves do not come close to matching the observed temperatures, and did not predict the hiatus that we have observed over the past decade and a half. The exact same amount of warming occurred between 1910 and 1940 as did between 1970 and 2000, long before humans were producing enough CO2 to possibly make a difference. What caused that warming then?

            Explain how warming temperatures can dry out the air when they would certainly cause more evaporation from the oceans.

            Exactly how much more land would we lose than gain by two degrees more of warming? Could Iowa not grow corn with a longer growing season perhaps a bit warmer? How much farmland is in the tropics that would be lost?

            The reason CO2 was picked as the bad guy is that climate scientists don’t take a long view of Earth’s history, and see 200 year trends as “normal.” Geologists know that the American Southwest has suffered megadroughts of over a hundred years (that’s why the Cliff Dweller Indians moved out) that make the recent droughts in California look like a rainy season. Plus, being Greenies, making CO2 — a byproduct of modern, “unsustainable” civilization — a “pollutant” fits right into their agenda.

          • M J says:

            HadCRUT etc.? So you say. But many other people looked at the same data and came to a very different conclusion. Namely, that we still have a severe energy imbalance, and when you do the signal processing correctly on those raw data sets, you do come to the conclusion that global average surface temperature is still rising.

            When you show you understand that point, then I can answer your other questions.

          • ShroomKeppie says:

            Well, yes, when you torture the data, it will confess.

            In point of fact, the vast majority of people looked at the data and said, “Where did this ‘pause’ come from?”, and many papers were written to explain The Pause: the heat was hiding in the deep oceans, having gotten there without warming anything in between, apparently; aerosols were simultaneously cooling the planet as CO2 warmed it, thus “blocking” the “warming signal.”

            I do notice you chose not to ponder the warming trend from 1910 to 1940, which was just as steep as the most recent from 1970 to 2000, but with nary a bit of excess CO2 to help it along. If one can’t account for that, one has no business concluding that the most recent warming was due to CO2.

            If you have ever looked at the “severe energy imbalance,” you would notice immediately that the error bars for that calculation in Allen et al 2014 are +/- 0.43 W/m-2 for a calculation of 0.62 W/m-2. When one has error bars that are 69% of the result, one should understand the imprecision of the calculation .

            The HADCrut, GISTemp, and other data sets are presented after the signal processing has been applied — it’s been other, controversial, processing that has “revealed” the lack of a warming hiatus. The current El Nino is as big as the 1998 version, and so the hiatus might disappear for a while. But El Ninos are not CO2-driven, and so can’t be claimed as “climate change” in any sense.

          • M J says:

            Data Science is one of the not new fields in software these days. Once you learn a little about the science, you see that no, it is not ‘torturing’ the data: it is, as I said, signal processing, the particular kind of processing needed to sift out a rise in average global surface temperature from the noise of many other cyclic processes, such as El Nino.

            And, as you admit, the ocean has been heating too. And no, it is not ” without warming anything in between”. That is just a ludicrous objection. We do not have the sensors in between to cover how it got there. But we know that it did.

        • ConcernedCitizen15 says:

          Forest fires, extreme drought, increased and more intense hurricanes, extreme flooding, extinction of many more animals, for a start. The Earth has NOT stopped warming – it’s actually increasing. Tons of glacial ice is melting and falling into the ocean every day, raising the height of the ocean and setting up a situation that leads to land loss. Try turning off Faux news and learning some facts for a change.

          • ConcernedCitizen15 says:

            Extreme drought, flooding and fires lead to LESS food. The price of everything went up this year – corn died in a drought, animal feed (corn) was way more expensive, and thus meat increased in price, as did everything else related to corn and other failed crops.

          • ShroomKeppie says:

            Jeez, I could say the same for you and wherever you get your bad information. See, I actually do follow the data and articles from NOAA and such, where they say things like “No category 3 or above hurricanes making US landfall in nine years — and that’s a record,” (The Weather Channel), and “USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases
            or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from
            USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no
            regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the
            streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through
            time” (Dr. Robert Holmes, the USGS National Flood Hazard Coordinator), and also “Annual snow accumulation on West Antarctica’s coastal ice sheet increased dramatically during the 20th century, according to a new study” (published in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters).

            Things like that, which are actual data and not alarmist tripe from Greenpeace and their ilk.

          • ShroomKeppie says:

            You don’t consider NOAA to be a good source? Or the Palmer Drought Severity Index? How about the tide gauge in NYC at the Battery, which shows zero rate of increase in sea level rise in over 100 years? Satellite measurements that cover 90% of the Earth’s surface?

            One of us is indeed ignoring the facts, but it’s not me.

        • jebuff says:

          So you know better than scientists at NASA, indeed 99%of the world’s scientific community? Mind if I ask for your credentials? PS being a Fox News watcher isn’t going to cut much credibility.

        • HonestMike says:

          Wow, that descended into laughable, disproven nonsense quickly…!

    • L. E. Alba says:


    • Billy W says:

      How many Limbaugh Letters have you read? My guess is zero. My guess is also you have never listened once to Rush’s radio program and that all of your negative opinions come from others who tell you how you are supposed to feel. Stop being a sheep.

      • SMB1128 says:

        Anyone who listens to Rush is a complete moron. Your opinion matters to no one. Go graze sheep.

        • Billy W says:

          Why are Rush listeners complete morons? Do you have something to back this up? He is the most listened to radio station in the country so you are calling a lot of people morons.

          While it is fine for you to just cast out insults I am asking for your proof. While am I moron for listening to Rush Limbaugh ever?

      • David Gilbert says:

        I have friends who used to get this rag, and I would read them and we would discuss what he had to say. I have also, in the past, watched his show on late night tv around here, but he has gone so far off the rails that anyone with an ounce of critical thought recognizes that he is only interest in big profits by passing of his sensational BS on the mis-informed FOX NEWS watchers. He repeats FOX NEWS lies and when confronted about it he just doubles down.

        • Billy W says:

          Um what? You used to watch Rush Limbaugh TV show back in 1992 at 2:00AM and this is what you are basing your opinion of the man and the people who listen to him on? If you ever listened to the man you would know that he is often at odds with Fox News and is critical of their coverage at times.

          Where has he gone off the rails? I hear these things all the time from the left when they try to marginalize someone and knock them down, but they never give examples. So where is he “off the rails?”

  • William Aldridge says:

    If Hitler was alive today, that’s how he would handle it. Murdoch = scum.

  • NoSpin1600 says:

    Yes because all other media outlets are unbiased and completely check every story?Fox news is no better or worse than other media outlets. Those who choose to be a lemming and believe a single source don’t deserve to vote.

    • Frank Lazar says:

      It’s pretty much a given that Fox viewers are the least aware and the most likely to get basic geographic and political facts wrong. So… no, you can’t compare Fox News with say, PBS. When a fake news show gets more things right than a real news show, what you have isn’t funny, it’s tragic.

    • James Hayes-Bohanan says:

      I agree with you halfway — Fox is no better than any other outlet. But it is far worse than most because it does not even have news as its purpose.

  • Otto Greif says:

    Please correct the factual errors in this story.

    • grumpydog says:

      you sound like you are hustling a job with murdochs public relations department.

    • ricpantale says:

      Say goodbye to another Liberal rag…….Good riddance

      • Timon Davis says:

        It’s… uhhh… it’s a roughly 125 year old publication devoted to scientific, geographical and cultural discovery. Liberal Rag!? I suppose if an organization isn’t willing to compare the standing US president to a fascist dictator at every opportunity, they simply aren’t up to the task of disseminating information without a liberal slant, eh? Liberal Rag. Geez Louise.

      • jerseygurl says:

        Another troll? I never heard of such a thing!!!!!

  • Luanne Taylor says:

    how many people will really trust this new Nat’l Geographic? I don’t know that I will.

    • Chris19741949 says:

      Even if Murdoch’s company were to continue the magazine exactly as it is, retaining all the scientists, writers, etc., there are a great many people that would not trust it any more, simply because it is associated with Murdoch.

  • Always Right says:

    lol, Liberals have to be the dumbest people on this planet.

  • Always Right says:

    Liberals sure do obsess over Fox News.
    Get a new talking point, idiots.

    • smitisan says:

      FOX sure does obsess over liberals.

    • crashgirl42 says:

      ever think some of us are conservatives that are sick of the way things are going?

      • G in BC says:

        didn’t show much in the last election..did it?

        • crashgirl42 says:

          actually it did in the main election, because Obama won, as for the local elections, I live in Delaware, mainly Democrat state, hasn’t changed in years but the gerymandering etc didnt help either

      • jerseygurl says:

        What are YOU doing about it then?????? And the fake cries of “We are so sads” over ReThuglican politics and decisions rings a little false here–20 comments? Did you do all of that TODAY?

        You must be exhausted.

    • Bill says:

      Right after you douche nozzle.

    • Michael Peterson says:

      News is THE last thing they are

    • yikesmcgee says:

      Fox “news” is not a talking point, it’s a continuous burden on our democracy. And it creates idiots.

      • Always Right says:

        How many Conservative talk show hosts do CNN/MSNBC have?

        I can name Liberal Fox News hosts and I don’t even watch that channel?

        If you think that the highly liberal CNN/NBC/CBS are an accurate news source you are highly misinformed…like most of their viewers.

        • Sean Grim says:

          Don’t look at my FOX news…Pay attention to this over here…

          • Always Right says:

            I don’t watch Fox News, but you obviously do. Keep obsessing over something that is not important, it takes away the constant failures of your president and political party.

        • feloneouscat says:

          If you think that the highly liberal CNN/NBC/CBS are an accurate news source you are highly misinformed.

          You are sadly misinformed if you think the above are news sources, much less “highly liberal”.

          News is neither conservative or liberal. Opinion is.

          You have confused opinion with news.

      • jerseygurl says:

        I dunno that it CREATES idiots so much as it ATTRACTS idiots–much like noise draws Walkers on.

        • Chris19741949 says:

          It also creates angry people who are afraid of anything that smacks of change, moving forward, the future…especially among the elderly.

    • Desiree McCrorey says:

      You name-calling individuals seem to clog the comments with your Faux News quality gibberish while missing the entire point. The discussion was about NatGeo and Rupert’s tendency to destroy quality. Like Faux News, you add nothing to the discussion while throwing your juvenile tantrums.

      But if you want to change topics, Faux News is actually a “Jerry Springer” delivery format for showing vapid perspectives.

      • benC says:

        Actually Fox news is to cons what Pravda was to the communists.They also use the same tactics

      • Always Right says:

        Don’t you have a welfare check to cash?

        • YeahOkFerShure says:

          I’ll see your stereotypical right-wing ad hominem attack and raise you one more: Your mom is yelling for you to get off the damn internet and clean up your basement bedroom, and get outside because your pasty skin could use some daylight.

    • jerseygurl says:

      How much is Faux Noose paying you to comment here?

      • Always Right says:

        Faux Noose? My aren’t you the little independent thinker. Please tell me how you because so original and creative.

        • YeahOkFerShure says:

          I hope someone tells you how to proofread your comments before posting. Or even afterward, and shows you how the “edit” option works.

  • Heather_7 says:

    I want the 187 employees that were laid off to come together and create their own magazine based on real facts and real science. I knew this was coming and cancelled my subscription to National Geographic the minute I heard Murdoch had taken over. Can we fund a new magazine to be created by real editors and real writers and real photographers and fact checkers? I would gladly subscribe, and give $ to a new and real scientific magazine, as opposed to what Ntl Geographic is going to become in the hands of Murdoch.

  • Cheryl McDonald says:

    This is a tragic end to a gloriously cultural and scientific magazine that’s knowledge transcended social boundries.

  • Denise Wilson says:

    Mine too Nat Geo, Cancel it…

  • Ray Reinhard says:

    I want to know the identity(ies) of the geniuses who sold Murdoch enough shares in Natl Geo to give him a controlling interest.

  • Keith Cameron says:

    I loved NatGeo until they became a political rag for Global warming. I looked forward to every year getting my ‘gift’ renewal from my parents as a birthday gift. It truly was a great magazine. Then it turned to crap and it was a dark day when I told the folks that after 30+ years I no longer wanted to receive that subscription for my birthday. hopefully, they’ll return to their former greatness under new leadership.

    • ricpantale says:

      National Geo TV had the worst fact filled Mini Series…….Their Historical sense was an abomination…..

    • Timon Davis says:

      And you had this reaction because they supported the overwhelmingly acknowledged data that humans are having an effect on the rising temperature of the planet, it that it?

      First off, Nat Geo is a scientific journal. If the data (which is largely what science is all about ) supports a plausible theory, they’re pretty much bound to acknowledge that theory unless a better model is proposed or the theory is proven wrong. You don’t overlook data because you don’t like it.

      Second, even if Global Warming is _not_ man made, aren’t you the least bit interested in finding solutions to the problems that rising global temperatures are currently bringing, not to mention the bigger problems that are forecast for us over the next few decades?

      You’re utilizing a network scientific miracles (the internet and personal computing devices, for example) to share your opinion, after all, so why is the idea of working toward greater scientific progress where Earth Science is concerned so vexing?

    • NatGeo wasn’t intended for science-deniers like you, Keith.

  • Trip Gallaxi says:

    My grandfather collected issues of National Geographic from around 1922 onward. He was the first college educated farmer in the county (U.G.A. Agriculture). He taught us the value of knowledge and the wonder of nature. Through this magazine, he showed us people and places across the globe that we would never have known, and showed how everyone is different.

    So, it’s a terrible thing to see this venerable magazine and the values it promoted being dismantled and, probably, its contents replaced with actual false information.

    Beware of the insidious fog of the Un-Enlightenment!

  • Nick Moore says:

    Show of hands if you’d be thrown in a psych ward or at least run out of town by Help Me Howard if you tried to pull this stunt with local businesses. *raises hand*

  • mikeb112 says:

    LOL.LOL.LOL.LOL. You all need to take courses in READING COMPREHENSION.
    boo hoo, boo hoo….

  • Dadzcad says:

    Phooey….I guess all those marvelous African pictorals I grew up enjoying will now be credited to Norway. Who needs facts anyway?

    R.I.P., NatGeo…..and thanks for the memories.

  • Possible cover of the new NatGeo tabloid…

  • Byronator says:

    Looked what has happened to the “Discovery” channel — religious and speculative claptrap with very little science (this is Murdoch’s “fair and balanced” approach, a la Fox News). This idiot moneybags from down under has earned the title of Alien in the worst sense of the word.

    • Desiree McCrorey says:

      Is that what happened to that channel? I used to love it. Then one day I noticed skipping more and more of its shows until I there was nothing interesting to watch.

    • actually several years back the religious BS started to creep into the Discovery channel and even their commercials had religious overtones in them towards Christianity, I went to their online site and contacted them with my disapproval of their now religious leanings and hoped they would not let it take over scientific facts and programming. I never heard back, but that is big businesses today, they don’t give a hoot about the buying public. Just feed them “brain mush” and keep them ignorant.

  • pwlsax says:

    Perhaps we are seeing a sea change here in the minds of powerful opinionmakers like News Corp. Up to now they’ve tried to ignore the authority of science, and make appeals to propaganda to distract the public from it.

    Now they may be starting to learn from politicians, who have lately switched strategies from merely trying to discredit scientists on issues like climate change, to passing legislation to outlaw scientific disclosure that might hamper business activities like fracking.

    A logical move for Murdoch’s empire, then – their business is information of many kinds, tailored to profit various stakeholders and advertisers. By taking control over a respected voice in lay science journalism, they can make sure it doesn’t get in the way of anyone’s potential profits. Level up!

  • Mike Atencio says:

    So much for Nat Geo as a trustworthy source of information. After 50 years, Murdock has ruined its reputation. I’m out. No more money until he’s forced out.

  • kathy hammond says:

    What a bullshit article this is. So quick to write off the hard working people who are still employed there and the legacy that is still alive even as your hate for Murdoch is clouding your judgement. Gossip and shit-stirrer, you will hasten to shove what is a great magazine to an early grave. Too bad.

    • Desiree McCrorey says:

      Disgust of murdoch and concerns about what had been a decent magazine is wholly justified. Research his string of business failures and the current quality of the businesses he owns.

    • jerseygurl says:

      Back under the bridge troll! Be Gone!

    • Chris19741949 says:

      Because Murdoch and his company have a history of taking decent publications and turning them into something else that has usually turned out to be nothing more than gossip and sensational rags that simply make him money…I would point you to the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, as two examples.

  • kathy hammond says:

    Oh, and so much for “fact checking” as well. Hypocrite.

  • Michael Arnold says:

    As bad as the way people were fired, they were not fired at that point via a simple email. They were asked to be available in case they were on the list. Something understandable.

    I find it just as bad to take one thing out of the mess and try to turn this into a political point. The writer should be ashamed. 9% of the people lose their jobs and they choose to twist things for political ends? How can you fire 9% and NOT fire some in the fact checking department?

    This says just as much about the author and his willful twisting of facts or just plain ignorance as it does anything else. My company is about to have staff reductions of 10%. I could be one of them. We will know soon. So I sympathize with the employees. Best wishes to them all.

  • Carolyn Stine says:

    I am seriously worried that the GOP is turning this country into a whole bunch of lies and propaganda. This is the next step.

  • Billy W says:

    You people are funny. Maybe MSNBC could of bought them if only they had an audience

  • Winifred says:

    Got the first of their Christmas catalogues in the mail – went straight into the recycling dumpster. I’m going to miss NGS

  • USMC03 says:

    Barrack Obama laid off more 15 times more Army personnel and the most likely cheered hopefully the byproduct will be more science and less political science. He is not a prediction though.

  • Michael Styles says:

    Dear NatGeo, how did this ever happen? You must understand I can no longer continue my 42 year subscription, now that the fetid stench of fox noise is all over you, I have no choice in this matter. I’d Rather cancel my subscription now, and not ever get a star Magazine like NG mag in the mail. This is a substantial loss to America and Americans.

  • hungrywoolf says:

    First cover story: Geologists discover that fracking is actually beneficial to the Earth’s crust. Next month: The global warming hoax unmasked.

    No, nothing about this is funny. I will be re-reading my back issues in mourning.

  • RegEx says:

    You geniuses apparently don’t understand this money thing. It works like this. If you can’t pay your employees they are laid off. Murdoch didn’t do this. It was done by the old management because they had no money.

    Murdoch is pumping 3/4 Billion of HIS MONEY into the organization. It would be utterly stupid, which Murdoch is not, to put that kind of money into a broke business without making changes.
    You bums ought to be appreciative of the fact he is saving it all.

    • feloneouscat says:

      A condition for the sale may have been to cut 10% of the people loose. So, yeah, a good, solid, case can be made for Murdoch being the bad guy.

      Nor was National Geographic a “broke” business or Murdoch would not have bought it (your logic is virtually nil on all counts).

      Perhaps, just perhaps you should understand business before you start criticizing people who know business?

  • Roger Hansen says:

    Cancelled my digital subscription on my iPad today after reading this.

  • deeceevoice says:

    After its infamous cover featuring a near-white, hazel-eyed King Tutankhamun a few years back, I didn’t think Nat Geo could plummet any lower.

    I have a sinking feeling I was wrong…

  • Norman Evans says:

    lets face it no matter the reason why he bought it people lost their job doesnt matter if they are republican or democrat the united nations said the economy around the world were going to good they wanted to stop it isnt the other half owner the saudi prince look what disney did to their employes untill we all stick together and boycott these places it will not stop

  • Melinda Killie says:

    Dear Net Geo, How sad that Murdoch took such a timely and truthful publication and turn it into one of his “muck racking,” “self absorbed” publications for “fax noise.’ Terminate my subscription IMMEDIATELY! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  • well there went my renewal after almost 40 years.

  • Sane says:

    Liberals are so funny. Thanks for making me want to subscribe to NatGeo now!

    • feloneouscat says:

      But you won’t subscribe because it costs money. And might expose you to things that you disagree with.

      Conservatives are so funny.

      • JAFO4today says:

        It would appear from all your comments that if you are a current subscriber that you intend to discontinue your subscription for the very same reason you infer as a weakness on Sane. Very telling…

  • John Anderson says:

    What a non-story. A print and television media company buys an ailing print and television media company. Due to duplication of jobs within the company, a small number of employees are laid off. So shocking. How will earth continue to survive?

    • jerseygurl says:

      IT’s not the fact that the company was SOLD; it’s the fact of who the company was sold TO. The person in the world MOST diametrically opposed to the mission Nat Geo espoused for 100 years and more.


  • DesertSun59 says:

    Yep. This is the beginning of the end of that venerable magazine. The sole purpose of his acquisition was to siphon off value from it and put it into an offshore personal account.

  • Allan says:

    My great-great grandfather, John Bartlett, Sr., was one of the 27 founders
    of the National Geographic Society. Along with the likes of Alexander
    Graham Bell, those 27 believed that the privileged class owed the world a
    glimpse into the world that most could never afford to see in person. It was a philanthropic organization in origin, one that would educate and enlighten the
    millions who could never travel the world as the leisure class could. I
    believe ALL of the founders of the National Geographic Society are
    turning in their graves at the news that this greedy, capitalistic,
    ideologue has now taken over their creation of good in order to change
    its purpose and make it another engine for profit, serving one who needs
    it the least. I am truly saddened by this event.

  • Allan says:

    bad. There were 33 founders. Compare this brief history to the future
    of the society under Murdock. What a decline in civilization Murdock
    promises with his “for-profit” organization. What a shame: The National
    Geographic Society was founded in 1888
    “to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge.” The Society believes in
    the power of science, exploration and storytelling to change the world,
    and its purpose is to inspire, illuminate and teach. National
    Geographic is governed by a board of trustees, whose 21 members include
    distinguished educators, business executives, former government
    officials and conservationists.

    organization sponsors and funds scientific research and exploration.
    The Society publishes a journal, National Geographic, in English and
    nearly 40 local-language editions. It also publishes other magazines,
    books, school products, maps, and Web and film products in numerous
    languages and countries. Its Education Foundation gives grants to
    education organizations and individuals to improve geography
    education.[2] Its Committee for Research and Exploration has awarded
    more than 11,000 grants for scientific research and exploration.

    Geographic’s various media properties reach more than 700 million
    people monthly.[3] National Geographic maintains a museum for the public
    in its Washington, D.C., headquarters. It has helped to sponsor popular
    traveling exhibits, such as an early 2010s King Tut exhibit featuring
    magnificent artifacts from the tomb of the young Egyptian Pharaoh; The
    Cultural Treasures of Afghanistan which opened in May 2008 and traveled
    to other cities for 18 months; and an exhibition of China’s Terracotta
    Warriors in its Washington headquarters in 2009–10.

    Geographic has retail stores in Washington, D.C., London, Sydney, and
    Panama. The locations outside of the United States are operated by
    Worldwide Retail Store S.L., a Spanish holding company.
    diploma presented to Italian Admiral Ernesto Burzagli when he was
    awarded membership in the National Geographic Society in 1928.

    National Geographic Society began as a club for an elite group of
    academics and wealthy patrons interested in travel.[4] On January 13,
    1888, 33 explorers and scientists gathered at the Cosmos Club, a private
    club then located on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., to organize
    “a society for the increase and diffusion of geographical knowledge.”
    After preparing a constitution and a plan of organization, the National
    Geographic Society was incorporated two weeks later on January 27.
    Gardiner Greene Hubbard became its first president and his son-in-law,
    Alexander Graham Bell, succeeded him in 1897. In 1899, Bell’s son-in-law
    Gilbert Hovey Grosvenor was named the first full-time editor of
    National Geographic magazine and served the organization for fifty-five
    years (until 1954), and members of the Grosvenor family have played
    important roles in the organization since.

    and Gilbert Hovey Grosvenor devised the successful marketing notion of
    Society membership and the first major use of photographs to tell
    stories in magazines. The current National Geographic Society president
    and CEO is Gary E. Knell. The chairman of the board of trustees is John
    Fahey. The editor in chief of National Geographic magazine is Susan
    Goldberg. Gilbert Melville Grosvenor, a former chairman of the Society
    board of trustees received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005 for
    his leadership in geography education. In 2004, the National Geographic
    Society headquarters in Washington, D.C., was one of the first
    buildings to receive a “Green” certification[5] from Global Green
    USA.[6] The National Geographic received the prestigious Prince of
    Asturias Award for Communication and Humanities in October 2006 in
    Oviedo, Spain.

    September 9, 2015, the Society announced that it would re-organize its
    media properties and publications into a new company known as National
    Geographic Partners, which will be majority-owned by 21st Century Fox
    with a 73% stake. This new, for-profit corporation, will own the
    National Geographic magazine, as well as its affiliated television
    networks—most of which were already owned in joint ventures with Fox.[7]

    There were 33 founders.[8]

    Cleveland Abbe
    Frank Baker
    Marcus Baker
    John Russell Bartlett
    Alexander Graham Bell
    Charles J. Bell
    Rogers Birnie
    William Dall
    Arthur Powell Davis
    Clarence Dutton
    Henry Gannett
    Samuel Gannett
    Grove Karl Gilbert
    George Brown Goode
    James Howard Gore
    Adolphus Washington Greely
    Edward Everett Hayden
    Henry Wetherbee Henshaw
    Gardiner Greene Hubbard
    Willard Drake Johnson
    George Kennan
    George Wallace Melville
    Clinton Hart Merriam
    Henry Mitchell
    Robert Muldrow II
    Herbert Gouverneur Ogden
    John Wesley Powell
    William Bramwell Powell
    Israel Russell
    Winfield Scott Schley
    Almon Harris Thompson
    Gilbert Thompson
    Otto Hilgard Tittmann
    James Clarke Welling

  • Robert Scrimpsher says:

    You people amaze me for years the big 3 have been slanting the news with no safeguard because they all feed at the liberal trough. But fox come along and shows both sides and because you have been indoctrinated to the others fox appears to your liberally slanted minds as the bad guy

  • Keith Cameron says:

    I loved NatGeo until they became a political rag for Global warming. I looked forward to every year getting my ‘gift’ renewal from my parents as a birthday gift. It truly was a great magazine. Then it turned to crap and it was a dark day when I told the folks that after 30+ years I no longer wanted to receive that subscription for my birthday. hopefully, they’ll return to their former greatness under new leadership.

  • onederlnd says:

    Hopefully the people being let go decide to form their own magazine, keeping the idea and beliefs of the great NATGEO alive.

  • Laffin'atcha says:

    The fact checkers at Fox are better than the fact checkers at ANY other network. Have you even seen CNN lately, it’s more like the National Enquirer…

  • KLZ says:

    “impactful” Lovely, useless, illiterate word. Yes, I know it has been accepted, but it shows the level of the writer’s skill.

  • Monte says:

    So… Anyone got any recommendations for alternatives to National Geographic?

  • Dan Greenie says:

    NatGeo has become a cesspool of leftist and Warmist nonsense. It is time to pull the agenda out of such politics and get back to the core values which established its credibility. If that offends you, too bad. The truth hurts.

    • feloneouscat says:

      NG was science which really doesn’t have anything to do with opinion.

      The fact that you disagree with science is your problem. Not a problem with science.

  • Swami22 says:

    Another stalwart of my life has been compromised by greed.
    A great source of information and science now has the credibility that only Fox gnus WILL eat up.
    Worse, Where will children go to see boobies?

  • Jaq says:

    Wonder how they are going to bury all the work on climate change NatGeo’s done…

  • Otto Greif says:

    We have an update from the WAPO:

    “Only four employees will lose their jobs at National Geographic magazine and its digital newsroom, said Declan Moore, a veteran National Geographic Society executive who will become chief executive of the Fox partnership, known as National Geographic Partners. But dozens more will be laid off in departments and services that Fox will provide to the partnership: legal, accounting, personnel and technology, among others.”

    “A day after dismissing about 180 employees and instituting other cuts, chief executive Gary Knell said the Washington-based organization decided to act now before Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox had to decide who would be dismissed when Fox completes a $725 million deal to expand a partnership with the society on Nov. 16. “I think we were able to offer a very generous severance package,” he said.”

    “After a strong 2013, the society began to hit some financial turbulence last year. Its revenue declined about 5 percent, to $500 million, and its operations swung from a surplus of $25.5 million to a $20 million loss. Net assets declined by $90 million, to $805.5 million, compared with a year earlier.

    In addition to uncertainty over the media business, the society was facing growing debt payments and pension obligations (it said Tuesday it would freeze its pension plan for eligible employees). It was also facing tax obligations in 2017 with the exhaustion of various tax credits, Moore said.”

  • feloneouscat says:

    Just to clarify because, apparently, the Washington Post wasn’t completely honest, the layoffs were in accordance to the deal with Murdoch per the following email from a National Geographic spokesperson:

    “The National Geographic Society and the National Geographic Channels are in the process of reorganizing in order to move forward strategically following the closing [of] the National Geographic Partners deal, which is expected to occur in mid-November,” a spokesperson for National Geographic Society said in an emailed statement. – The Guardian

    Nor were there just four employees that lost their jobs: 9% of the 2000 people that worked for National Geographic lost their jobs. Even National Geographic admits that “widespread layoffs were not originally part of the deal”.

    So, Otto, explain to me how four people (according to WaPo) are “widespread layoffs” according to National Geographic? Who do I believe? The WaPo or my lying eyes?

  • CJJAZZ says:

    Magazine subscriptions are down. People are not buying print products as in the past. Layoffs were coming regardless of who owned the magazine. If you are against the layoffs, put away your smartphones, tablets and computers and start buying things in print. You, the consumer, did this the National Geographic, not Murdock. You make your comments seem this is a Republican/Democrat debate. Let’s deal with reality here folks.

    • feloneouscat says:

      Okay, the reality is that part of the deal was that there be layoffs:

      “The National Geographic Society and the National Geographic Channels are in the process of reorganizing in order to move forward strategically following the closing [of] the National Geographic Partners deal, which is expected to occur in mid-November,” a spokesperson for National Geographic Society said in an emailed statement. – The Guardian

      Other statements by National Geographic have been that they have typically had very small layoffs in the past and that this was totally unprecedented.

      Lastly, more facts, Murdoch wants to turn this from a non-profit to a profit-making product. That means that this is only the first round of layoffs.

      180 people isn’t going to turn this into a profit making venture – or at least not the kind of profit that Murdoch likes.

    • Chris19741949 says:

      I do..and I’m not that old, thank you. Both my spouse and I like have a real magazine in our hands, and that we can pick up and read when we want, instead of sitting in front of our computers, or trying to read it on our ipads. I both subscribe to a lot of magazines and I also buy some each month…and so do a lot of other people. As for our NG subscription, I will give the “new” owners one chance to prove that they have not changed NG, dumbed down the science, or done anything else to further damage the reputation and truthfulness of the magazine…one chance.

  • Scott Francis says:

    Nat Geo fell to greed. An organization that has taught millions of people about the world for more than a century, an organization that has expressed the concerns of those less fortunate in the world and for nature’s revival has turned to greed. They would rather sell out to the greediest bidder that has no intentions of preserving the legacy of the employees or it core values. Why couldn’t someone like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates buy them out? At least their intentions are more humane and they share the same goals as Nat Geo.

    • wiseoldsnail says:

      no, their intentions are the same . zuckerberg deletes people’s accounts for being ‘not real names’ while operating in collusion with government spying on the people … allowing police to have fake accounts for the sake of spying on social justice activists

      and gates has been undermining the public education system for decades … with huge investments to private ‘charter’ schools which operate outside the regulations set for public schools, while somehow still being called ‘public schools’

  • Mike Smither says:

    we can change our past.

  • Herman Allmaras says:

    No more Nat Geo for me. Yuck.

  • Moraliae says:

    I wish I had the capital, I’d start my own news/educational organization. I’d know where to start in staffing…

  • AirFrank says:

    Ignorance is bliss and this author is all kinds of blissful

  • tim4change says:

    It breaks my heart to say that I cancelled my subscription, and will stop paying for the Kids NatGeo subscriptions I’ve sent to various family members thru the years. But I will not put a penny in the facist’s pockets if I can avoid it.

  • Steve Temple says:

    lol…. waahhhaahhh Fox News is crushing the competition in ratings, now the same thing will happen with Nat Geo watch as the magazine and or the TV channel regain lost credibility

  • jboozer says:

    Why did they sell anyway? If they needed money, they could have fundraised on Kickstarter. Serious misjudgement. Hard to understand.

  • ModerndayAppleseed says:

    I called them and told them why I was canceling (FOX)

  • Matt says:

    I think that all the employees should start leaving until they are all gone. There will be new hires, undoubtedly at lower pay but they probably won’t be as good as the company veterans were.

  • OhGetReal says:

    Would any of you care for some cheese with your whine??

  • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

    Was National Geographic in trouble financially? Not many things stat static.

  • disqus_XC2bqon5pt says:

    Our citizenry buys fewer magazines each year. Only “old” people continue to like printed copy in their hand.

  • Gary Stefancik says:

    That is better than going in the trash heap of history. So how do you propose Nat Geo stop the money hemorrhaging? Would you rather they started putting naked female models in a center fold foldout?

  • mstngs351 says:

    lol ifyouonlynews. Twisting stuff as usual.

    The same source that they cite also stated “National Geographic Society’s chief executive said Wednesday that the organization decided to enact a broad cost-cutting and layoff plan rather than wait until a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch took over…”

  • Joshua Marner says:

    Huh. I think I want to subscribe now.

  • Daniel Ruben says:

    Hey it’s all about efficiency and productivity! It’s just sooooooooo much cheaper and less emotionally challenging for a senior party to send an email instead of meeting individuals to communicate their employment status. Come on guys, as if we actually need to “engage” with “people” – does that generate profits? Jeez, this isn’t communist Russia after all!!

  • Maani says:

    I’m waiting for the first depiction of humans and dinosaurs living together… 🙁

  • Gosh! I wonder what pension and retirement benefits they get at Huffington Post.

    Medical coverage for retirees? Isn’t that what caused GM to turn over its majority shares to the UAW, Chrysler to become an Italian company, Kodak, milkmen, and apparel workers to disappear?

    Oh well, it’s like Col. Sanders sings: “Imagine there’s no possessions. Everyone can share the world.” Was that from John Lennon, or Vlad Lenin, I forget.

  • SidSeven says:

    When Roger Ailes dies, I’m gonna buy a bottle of champagne…& When Rupert Murdoch dies I’m gonna drink it & then piss on both their graves.

  • Peter Combs says:

    the place was going under….the only part doing well was the TV program that was already a partnership with FOX , didn’t hear anyone complain about that.

  • Joe Langella says:

    Yes glad to see the left get a good dose of their own medicine.
    Politico has been exposed for the fraud it always has been camouflaging as a fact checker but is really just a left wing propaganda machine.
    So now maybe you will see that having a ideology based on lies and pushing a false narrative that has basically been unchecked is going to be called out on their lies.
    Today you picked the wrong person to try and demonize when polictico got caught lying about dr.Carson and having to retract the lie.
    Before you had a monopoly in the media where it was unchecked but now with the expansion of other outlets in the media it’s going to be difficult to sell those lies.
    When you lie it always comes back and bites you.
    And it’s time for revenge.

  • Deborah8050 says:

    In the free marketplace of ideas, lies and biases and prejudices do not sell, most people are smart enough to not buy them, which explains why it is in fact liberal outlets that are going down the tubes. I appreciate the fact that Rupert Murdoch has invested $725 million and provided a new endowment of $1 billion to keep National Geographic alive, to resuscitate it, and restructure the organization so that it can once more be a profitable organization that educates, informs, and delights generations to come.

    Yes, the restructuring process is painful, and for some it is life-altering, but if it’s not done the entire 127-year old organization will go under, and will be forced to close it’s doors and EVERYONE will lose their jobs! That is the alternative.

    Of the 2000 employees, 1820 still remain at the organization and retain control of content. However, the marketplace is competitive and unless and until the organization takes a more fair and balanced approach to the issues and regains the trust of the majority of the people, the decline in interest and readership will continue and it will eventually be forced to close it’s doors.

  • harrydevlin says:

    Nat Geo becomes a publication for the RWNJs, the same people that voted for W., twice, and that are now supporting Trump, Carson, and Cruz.

    Sad to see the lack of critical thinking skills in our nation.

    The Republican party has become the mental disorder party.

  • Elizabeth R. Lewis says:

    I have the solution. It’s actually very simple. Everyone from the top down quits and starts their own magazine that did exactly what NG did exactly it conveys the truth and doesn’t resemble the Faux “news” channel.

  • Ryan England says:

    This is tragic and shameful.

  • leslie green says:

    Another American magazine treasure gone, well , might just as well be gone.

  • Barbara Mathews says:

    I have been a “member” since 1972.

  • Marina Phillips says:

    I unsubscribed from Nat Geo as soon as this deal took place simply on the grounds that I WILL NOT support Rupert Murdoch in any way, shape or form. Really, I didn’t want to stick around to watch the slow, painful death Nat Geo was about to suffer (I actually said those words). I hoped I was wrong, but I wasn’t – people of Murdoch’s ilk turn everything they touch into sh*t – and that’s the sad truth. 🙁

  • Chris says:

    I’ve bben been getting emails from National Geographic to subscribe; I’d considered it until now, as I don’t think I really need a tabloid version of Nat Geo adorning my coffee table. RIP, National Geographic.

  • Fed Up says:

    Welcome to the vulture culture. Survival of the richest. Rupert Murdoch is now an even bigger king of a dying, hard print jungle that just became less civilized. Make no mistake about it. In order to take over National Geographic, Murdock needed partners in the form of major stockholders willing to sell out. Murdock got the deal he wanted and stockholders got out before Nat Geo sank like the Titanic. The once elegant National Geographic magazine will now be refitted to become just another Rupert Murdoch garbage barge….R.I.P National Geographic.

  • Glenn Briden says:

    I find it interesting how so few are holding the person responsible for this to task.

    It is totally clear to me RUPERT MURDOCH is a Scum bag how can this piece of Crap be held so highly by so many.

    I feel deeply sorry for all the Loyal readers that have been basically Screwed by this guy all in the name of GREED !!!!!

  • Rob Tillitz says:

    While I am a moderate politically albeit moderately right, I rarely watch Fox News because they defend Republicans that are clearly out of their minds. This news that Murdoch is taking over is disturbing, because I am (for many decades) a Nat Geo lover and buy seasons of various shows for streaming. My thing is photography and while I learn a lot in school, I think I learn more watching the photography specials made my National Geographic. If it’s got the Nat Geo logo on it, I want it.

    To the point, I’ll use a photography analogy: When one edits an image in Photoshop, the standing rule is you do not want viewers to realize the photo has been shopped. In other words use a light touch and try to make your image look like real life. Elizabeth Preston, the self-described fierce liberal who wrote this article, obviously does not comprehend that by making this a political issue, suggesting Nat Geo is going to turn into a sort of global Fox News, should use the Photoshop rule in her journalism.

    When the sky is falling Elizabeth, report that. Don’t make you and yours look stupid by writing biased crap. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to subscribe to the magazine. Rupert Murdoch is an extremely successful mogul in the entertainment industry, I wouldn’t be surprised if the product was improved.

  • Holly Hayes says:

    I think we all saw this coming.

  • Buge Halls says:

    Just because Fox News tells stories that you don’t like doesn’t mean they are lies. MSNBC and NBC have routinely edited video and told lies about it.

    Please write us another hit piece and list all the lies from Fox News – we’d be interested to read about them. While you’re at it, write about the public lies from the MSM and and Obama administration (e.g., “you can keep your doctor”, Benghazi was because of a video, Hillery didn’t have any classified e-mails on her server, etc.).

  • 2patricius2 says:

    Can’t pay employees for all those pensions and health care now cause Murdoch needs the money.

  • R DeMichiei says:

    you know somethings should never be allowed to happen….like this !!!!!!!

  • rachel mascaro says:

    will be canceling mine and my 7 year old’s subscriptions on Monday. Sucks!

  • ChelynCS says:

    Sorry about that people but it is not just Fox. The mainstream media outlets all have agendas from the top down. ABC, CBS, & NBC are not trustworthy sources either. Try reading independent papers and listening to foreign news outlets, then one can discern some truth.

  • Darwin Frick says:

    I never really looked at National Geographic as a Liberal Magazine, but I guess since I dropped it years ago it has become one according to the comments here …. The Photography has always been good in spite of that … Maybe now, Finally they will concentrate on REAL facts to go along with the pictures ….!!!

    • Monte says:

      No its not; those calling it a liberal rag are fox news viewers, the kind of people who deny just about anything a credible scientist has to say on just about anything. A magazine that focuses on science is bound to be considered “liberal” by those who do not actually believe in science.

  • Dave says:

    Kinda happy to see it go away. Alexander G. Bell was a thief of inventions, and oppressor of the Deaf, as well as proud eugencist. He was the 2nd president, and wrote several articles on that last topic in this publication.

  • Minyassa says:

    What a revolting creature Murdoch is. I hope the putrid pocket of pus that comprises his heart crawls up his neck and eats away the rest of his brain.

  • With a new owner, a climate realist, we might get real science again and not the global warming swindle propaganda we had to tolerate for so long. Perhaps we again can enjoy real science on the screen 🙂

    • Icarus62 says:

      When are you going to explain, in your own words, how “gravity/mass/pressure” and not greenhouse gases are responsible for sustaining Earth’s surface temperature? We’re still waiting.

      Face it: You have zero credibility regarding ‘real science’.

      • Are you talking about this one?;

        “Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect withoutradiative forcing from greenhouse gases

        We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.

        Note, this physical derivation is absolutely not suggesting the ~33C greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. On the contrary, the physical derivation and observations demonstrate the 33C greenhouse effect does exist, but is explained by a different mechanism not dependent on radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Also note, it is impossible for both explanations of the greenhouse effect to be true, since the global temperature would have to increase by an additional 33C (at least) above the present. You cannot have it both ways. We will show how the mass/gravity/pressure theory causes the temperature gradient and that the emission spectra of greenhouse gases seen from space are a consequence rather than the cause of that temperature gradient.

        This derivation uses very well-known physical principles and barometric formulae possibly first described by the great physicist Maxwell in 1872, who demonstrated that the atmospheric temperature gradient and greenhouse effect are due to pressure from Earth’s gravitational field, not radiative forcing. Maxwell makes no mention of any influence of radiation as the cause of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, but rather relates temperature at a given height to pressure. He discusses the convective (dominated) equilibrium of the atmosphere in his book Theory of Heat, pp. 330-331:

        “…In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29…”Twenty four years later, Arrhenius devised his radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect, which unfortunately makes a huge false assumption that convection doesn’t dominate over radiative-convective equilibrium in the lower atmosphere, and thus Arrhenius completely ignored the dominant negative-feedback of convection over radiative forcing in his temperature derivations. Johns Hopkins physicist RW Wood completely demolished Arrhennius’ theory in 1909, as did other published papers in 1963, 1966, 1973, (and others below), but it still refuses to die given its convenience to climate alarm.

        We now know from Robinson & Catling’s paper in Nature 2014 (and others) that radiative-convective equilibrium on all planets with thick atmospheres in our solar system (including Earth of course) is dominated by convection/pressure/lapse rate in the troposphere up to where the tropopause begins at pressure = 0.1bar. When P < 0.1 bar, the atmosphere is too thin to sustain convection and radiation from greenhouse gases takes over to cause cooling of the stratosphere and above.

        Since Maxwell's book was published in 1872, many others have confirmed that the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, including Hans Jelbring, Connolly & Connolly, Nikolov & Zeller, Mario Berberan-Santos et al, Claes Johnson and here, Velasco et al, Giovanni Vladilo et al, Heinz Thieme, Jacques Henry, Stephen Wilde, Alberto Miatello, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Verity Jones, William C. Gilbert & here, Richard C. Tolman, Lorenz & McKay, Peter Morecombe, Robinson and Catling, and many others, so this concept is not new and preceded the Arrhenius theory.

        Step 1: Derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and ideal gas law:

        First, the basic assumption can be adopted that the atmosphere, in hydrostatic terms, is a self-gravitating system in constant hydrostatic equilibrium due to the balance of the two opposing forces of gravity and the atmospheric pressure gradient, according to the equation:

        dP/dz = – ρ × g (1)

        where ρ is the density (mass per volume) and g the acceleration due to gravity. This equation, from a mathematical point of view, can be derived by considering the hydrostatic equilibrium function as a system of partial derivatives depending on P and ρ and considering all three spatial dimensions:

        ∂P/∂x = ρ × X, ∂P/∂y = ρ × Y, ∂P/∂z = ρ × Z (2)

        As, within a fluid mass in equilibrium, pressure and density does not vary along the horizontal axes (X and Y), the related partial derivatives equal zero. But, in the remaining vertical dimension, the partial derivative is non-zero, with density and pressure varying inversely as a function of fluid height (density and pressure decrease with increasing height relative to the bottom) and, considering gravitational force as a constant connected to the measure of density, thus equation (2) can be derived.

        For a precise calculation involving the valid parameters, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics can be used:

        Δ U = Q – W (3)

        where U is the total internal energy of the system, Q its heat energy, and W the mechanical work the system is undergoing. Applying this relationship to Earth's atmosphere, yields:

        U = C(p)T + gh (4)

        where U is the total energy of atmospheric system in hydrostatic equilibrium and equal to the sum of the thermal energy (kinetic plus dissipative and vibro-rotational), the specific heat C(p) multiplied by the temperature T plus the gravitational potential energy, with gravitational force g at height h of the gas. In this case, because the force of gravity has a negative sign as the system is undergoing work, the potential energy ( -g × h) can be equated to the mechanical work (-W) that the system undergoes in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

        Based on this equation, the atmosphere's "average" temperature change can be found for any point with the system in equilibrium; for now and for simplicity, weather phenomena and disturbances at specific locations are not considered because, with the system in overall hydrostatic and macroscopic equilibrium, any local internal, microclimatic perturbation by definition triggers a rebalancing reaction. In fact, to calculate the energy change of the system in equilibrium (here U is constant) as a function of temperature and height change, differentiation yields:

        dU = 0 = C(p)dT + gdh,

        which becomes:

        dT/dh = -g/C(p), or dT = (-g/C(p))dh. [Dry adiabatic lapse rate equation]

        This is a splendid equation, describing precisely the temperatures’ distribution of a gas (as the air of Earth’s atmosphere) in hydrostatic equilibrium between the 2 forces of the lapse-rate (preventing the collapse of the atmosphere at the Earth’s surface) and gravity (preventing the escape of the atmosphere in the void of space).

        In other words, temperature variation (dT) is a function of altitude variation (dh), whose solution at any point of height (h°) and for any temperature (T°), can be found by integrating as follows:

        ∫dT = -g/C(p) × ∫dh (5)

        and whose solution is:

        T – T° = -g/C(p) × (h – h°) (6)


        T – T° = ∆ T (or dT) = Interval of temperatures

        g = Gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 m/s^2

        h – h° = ∆ h (or dh) = Space interval (vertical) in the atmosphere

        Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

        Step 2: Determine the height at the center of mass of the atmosphere

        We are determining the temperature gradient within the mass of the atmosphere using a linear function of atmospheric mass (the lapse rate), therefore the equilibrium temperature is located at the center of mass. The "effective radiating level" or ERL of planetary atmospheres is located at the approximate center of mass of the atmosphere where the temperature is equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. The equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun is commonly assumed to be 255K or -18C as calculated here. As a rough approximation, this height is where the pressure is ~50% of the surface pressure. It is also located at the approximate half-point of the troposphere temperature profile set by the linear adiabatic lapse rate, since to conserve energy in the troposphere, the increase in temperature from the ERL to the surface is offset by the temperature decrease from the ERL to the tropopause."

        • Step 3: Determine the surface temperature

          “For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5C/km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor.

          Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives

          T = -18 – (6.5 × (h – 5))

          Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as

          Ts = -18 – (6.5 × (0 – 5))

          Ts = -18 + 32.5

          Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K

          which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.

          Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

          The greenhouse gas water vapor does have a very large negative-feedback cooling effect on the surface and atmospheric temperature by reducing the lapse rate by half from the 10C/km dry rate to the 5C/km wet rate. Increased water vapor increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cp, which is inversely related to temperature by the lapse rate equation above:

          dT/dh = -g/Cp

          Plugging these lapse rates into our formula for Ts above:

          Ts = -18 – (10 × (0 – 5)) = 32C using dry adiabatic lapse rate

          Ts = -18 – (5 × (0 – 5)) = 7C using wet adiabatic lapse rate [fully saturated]

          showing a cooling effect of up to 25C just from changes in the lapse rate from water vapor. Water vapor also cools the planet via evaporation and clouds, and which is confirmed by observations. Water vapor is thus proven by observations and theory to be a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, not a positive-feedback warming agent as assumed by the overheated climate models to amplify warming projections by a factor of 3-5 times.

          What about CO2? At only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass and only slightly increases the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, which as we have shown above, is inversely related to temperature. CO2 would thus act as a cooling agent by slightly increasing troposphere heat capacity. Increased CO2 also increases the radiative surface area of the atmosphere to enhance outgoing radiation to space, analogous to putting a larger heat sink on your microprocessor which increases radiative surface area and convection to cause cooling.

          It is well-known that CO2 and ozone are the primary cooling agents of the stratosphere up to the thermosphere, but even the warmist proponents are unable to agree on a coherent explanation why CO2 would assume the opposite role of a warming agent in the troposphere. As the mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory shows, and just like water vapor, CO2 also acts to cool the troposphere, and the rest of the atmosphere by increasing radiative surface loss and outgoing radiation to space.

          Millions of weather balloon observations confirm that there is no greenhouse gas-induced “hot spot” in the mid-upper troposphere, which is the alleged “fingerprint of AGW.” The 2nd law of thermodynamics principle of maximum entropy production also explains why such a “hot spot” will not form. However, observations do show a cooling of the stratosphere over the satellite era, which would be consistent with increased CO2 increasing outgoing radiation to space. Observations also show an increase of outgoing longwave radiation to space over the past 62 years, which is entirely consistent with increased outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases and a decrease of “heat trapping”, the opposite of AGW theory.

          In essence, the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect confuses cause and effect. As we have shown, temperature is a function of pressure, and absorption/emission of IR from greenhouse gases is a function of temperature. The radiative theory tries to turn that around to claim IR emission from greenhouse gases controls the temperature and thus pressure and heat capacity of the atmosphere, which is absurd and clearly disproven by basic thermodynamics and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter, disproven by Pictet’s experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck’s law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics. There is one and only one greenhouse effect theory compatible with all of these basic physical laws and millions of observations. Can you guess which one it is?

          Update: The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar.

          Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan’s atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.”

      • M J says:

        ‘Zero credibility’? How could you say such a thing. Roald clearly deserves credit for exploring measuring credibility with negative numbers, illustrating the utility and consistency of the measure with his own example;)

  • Steve Shay says:

    The NY Times eliminated 1,800 jobs in the last two years. Many publications have had to trim their staffs. The National Geographic brand has less value as fewer people are intrigued with maps inside magazines thanks to GPS, and there are dozens of travel-oriented adventure shows now on cable TV.

  • FishsticksForMe says:

    Those topless native women helped me through puberty.

    • ARES says:

      you are the stupidest person alive [also, anyone can see you are a jealous girl…no…not are a 12 year old girl with a keyboard..who happens to be going on 46]

  • nancy harris says:

    Since Elizabeth Preston is a contract writer, she has no idea how to manage 2000 employees. Can not in her itty bitty laptop writing mind fathom the financial downturn of the magazine, I assume the government should bail it out and taxpayers should foot the bill.. but she can surely write like she knows how HR works..several people in the fact checker department released, does that mean 3? Pitiful biased article. Get a real job Elizabeth.

  • CLASYS says:

    I guess all you libtards better leave now. The National Geographic channel has turned into an arm of the Communist News Network effectively in the last 10 or so years. Game over, dudes.

    Go take your global warming stupidity elsewhere, your little playground of hate and deceit has closed. Go whine about your profound weapons-grade stupidity elsewhere.

    I see what you morons post here; what asswipes! Challenge me on global warming, please, you have nothing but jabber to talk about; communist drivel and claims from IPCC liars who aren’t even scientists, and the ones that get paid to lie.

    1) The Earth has been cooling for nearly two decades. Your wonderful “scientific experts” were caught lying in e-mails talking about “damage control” because reality differs from the narrative. NOAA has been systematically inserting lying “projections” instead of actual available readings to create a false trail to “prove” the lie. And you suckers came to NatGeo to fall for it even further.

    2) I’m sure all of you nutjobs saw Algore’s movie where he “proves” thar your noise is “real”. One problem: He commits scientific fraud right before your eyes. The scientific method is you postulate a theory. If observed data differs from the theory, you change the theory. Algore “Let’s move the data around; doesn’t that look better?” committed SCIENTIFIC FRAUD by changing the data to match the theory.

    That’s not science, it is charlatanism. But you all believe the lies anyway, like good little sheep. You are all too familiar to me [oh, for the record, I am a man of actual science, I have a degree in engineering and have worked in the research field for two decades; I had to get out among other reasons because of the fraud. Today, you have to lie about global warming to get funded, thus a lot of good research unrelated goes unfunded. It is likely the cure for cancer has been set back many years because liars want to repeatedly fund “proof studies” about AGW instead of actual research. It has turned into a growth industry for the liars and perverted real research funding.

    I’m sure you hate me and my post. I’ve done my job. I hope you remember me when one day, you look in the mirror, when the fraud is obvious to even the likes of you, and say to yourself “How could I have been so stupid to sign onto those lies?”. I wish you a lifetime of cognitive dissonance when it hits.

  • Shafiq Rahman says:

    Nat. Geo. a wealth of knowledge of science and discoveries. Has shown different religions and cultures. Has brought us landscapes and wildlife for 125 years. I hope it will continue to do so. Have been a Nat. Geo reader and recent subscriber. I pray this great institution remains as a leader in bringing knowledge and intelligence to the world.

  • glashoppah says:

    I canceled my 30-year subscription last year – couldn’t stomach another “climate change” screed. Maybe now they’ll get back to geography and shitcan the Liberal horseshit.

  • harrydevlin says:

    Call 1-800-274-7300 to cancel your subscription. You’ll get a pro-rated refund. They are swamped with cancellations right now so you’ll be on hold for a while.

  • Bo Lasquis says:

    Subscription cancelled.

  • zak44 says:

    Not renewing. After 30+ years.

  • redragdolly says:

    I have had a subscription since 1980…. what an absolute shame! it has to come to this.. Murdoch you are a moron! (of the highest degree)

  • KarenMichelle says:

    The National Geographic has been headed downhill for years with biased reporting being only one of it’s newest sins. R.I.P. old but senile friend. I canceled my subscription several years ago when this trend started…choosing only to purchase selected editions that had something of interest to me. Pushing political agendas instead of reporting them and letting real situational pictures aid in the discussion was lost by NG a long time ago.

  • M J says:

    Which is quite different from “NYC would be under ice”. So no support for that sensationalist claim.

    • Dean Kuhner says:

      During the last ice age NYC was under ice so no they are basically the same claim. But no, you can resort to splitting hairs after losing the argument.

      • M J says:

        It does not follow that they would be “basically the same”, which is why I am neither “splitting hairs” nor “losing the argument”.

  • Crystal says:

    Only a liberal would rather have a business go freaking down the tubes and CLOSE than try to restructure and get financially responsible. Morons.

  • John says:

    Elizabeth, all you do is hate and bash, hate and bash, you really are an ignorant jerk. You give anyone who supports the democrats a bad name, and they don’t need any help with that. Try taking a neutral stance, bash the left when they do wrong which is as often, if not more than, the republicans. When the republicans do something good, write an article on that, promote positive things, don’t just tell like a lunatic because you’re so far left its stupid.

  • Little Wing says:

    I turned my back on NG as soon as this sale took place. Disgusting, unconscionable deal and whoever negotiated it should be strung up.

  • Cambel says:

    And let me guess, National Geographic is now working on multiple stories trying to claim that pollution is good for Asthma, Oil Spills help marine life, there is no such thing as climate change, and caring about the environment causes cancer.

  • David Marley says:

    Sad news, everything Rupert gets his claws into turns to dross. The comments on global warming led me to think, “funny how many global warming sceptics seem to be geologists”, but then they get paid by the very mining companies that are trashing the planet. One thing that worries me is the methane sink under the permafrost, likely to turn the planet into a mild (but deadly) version of Venus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *