Quote:
Originally Posted by xnomad
I'd be surprised if the National Academy of Science, which was formed specifically to advice the USA on science, engineering and medicine, would publish their findings if a threat didn't exist.
|
The problem is you are dealing with a middleman broad-based science reporters, who usual aims can sometimes not be necessarily the facts but selling magazines. (sensationalism)
A true classic example appearing from the science media was in "Universe Today" on an article on planetary nebula. What was reported and what the original paper said was two different things. Even the media reporter quoting one of the paper's authors made mistakes - including the author at the press conference, who dumbed it down so the press release mostly avoided what the paper was about! I.e. This really good recent example was in ; 'Universe Today' 12th March 2009 "
Stars at Milky Way Core 'Exhale' Carbon, Oxygen" by Anne Minard
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03...carbon-oxygen/
Read the article and the responses and you'll get the drift. (Another alternative article appear of ScienceDaily, which fixed some of the problems highlight in the Universe Today article "
Galactic Dust Bunnies Found To Contain Carbon After All"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0316143831.htm (It still has some problems, but is much better.)
In the end, don't totally believe the press. Magazines like S&T tend to be more genuine in their views. If it was such a drama, you would be better off to wait and see what this more factual magazine says before losing any sleep at night. Editor Greg Bryant in the Australian Version of S&T, at least in my experience reading it, would never make such grandiose wild claims in his reportage!
Note: You might recognise the respondent S.B. Crumb!