Bob Mannix wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
clumsy ******* wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

New scientist is a very poor magazine for science. Its is, like New
Socialist, essentially run for political purposes.
really.
Yes, really.

e.g.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...eco_economics/

That is a poorly argued case for saying the NS is a poor magazine for
science (your first claim) there is no support or substance in your view
that it is "essentially run for political purposes".

The tenor of the register article is that, because it is *possible* to have
growth without consuming more resources, the NS are stupid for saying the
mantra of "more growth is better" for saying growth consumes resources. In
the real world, the observation that economic growth consumes resources is
clearly true an the register article is disingenuous.

If you wish to assert that the NS is too general and populist to be regarded
as a serious scientific journal, that's fine!



Well I thought that is what i had asserted. Its populist, inaccurate,
not peer reviewed, and politically biased.

In short its a tabloid with an agenda, that restricts itself to the
'science and technology' pages that in a normal tabloid are buried in
the back.

Its target market are people who want to feel they understand science
when they don't. And dislike it and mistrust it because they don't.