On Dec 13, 1:20*pm, Hugh Newbury wrote:
One is on the idea that betting on future wather levels in Australian
dams could predict availability of water more accurately than the best
computer models used by environmental scientists.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...k-market-game-...

Another is about how thunder and lightning may warn of blizzards is in
this week's paper version of NS (p17), but apparently not online.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

What an idiotic article, typical of New Scientist's gaudy
knuckle-headed descent into pop journalism. It's like using people's
pools predictions to influence the composition of the England team. I
notice that the amounts involved are translated into US dollars but
not pounds, or euros, even. Thank you very much. A magazine to
avoid, these days, but it was not always thus.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 13 Dec, 15:22, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* What an idiotic article, typical of New Scientist's gaudy knuckle-headed descent into pop journalism. *

I suggest then that you don't then bother to read any of the NS
articles if you find them so pathetic.

I have been a NS subscriber for more years than I care to remember. A
useful magazine - an easy read.

Jack Harrison B.Sc

On 13 Dec, 17:32, "Jack )"
wrote:
On 13 Dec, 15:22, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* What an idiotic article, typical of New Scientist's gaudy knuckle-headed descent into pop journalism. *

I suggest then that you don't then bother to read any of the NS
articles if you find them so pathetic.

I have been a NS subscriber for more years than I care to remember. *A
useful magazine - an easy read.

Jack Harrison B.Sc

I am also a long-term NS subscriber, and I completely concur with
Jack. There's the occasional lapse in standards of course (including
one recent use of 'difffuse' instead of 'defuse', which gave a
completely different meaning to the paragraph!) but generally I find
the quality of science journalism has been maintained over the years,
in sharp contrast to most of the popular press who now generally have
a truly appalling grasp of the science involved.

Of course, subjects where we know more of the background are often
easier to criticise for lapses into generalisms, and some of the
meteorology/climate change pieces in New Scientist are understandably
aimed at a more general readership, but then I wouldn't expect to keep
up-to-date in the latest in any particular science topic exclusively
through New Scientist. It does provide a wider view of many fields in
which my knowledge is less extensive, and by doing so keeps me abreast
of some of the latest developments outside my core interests, in a
much more readable and digestible form than, say, Nature could do. It
has an enviable circulation for a science magazine - I can only assume
the majority of its readership don't share your views, Tudor!

--
Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:03:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On 13 Dec, 17:32, "Jack )"
wrote:
On 13 Dec, 15:22, Tudor Hughes wrote:

* What an idiotic article, typical of New Scientist's gaudy knuckle-headed descent into pop journalism. *

I suggest then that you don't then bother to read any of the NS
articles if you find them so pathetic.

I have been a NS subscriber for more years than I care to remember. *A
useful magazine - an easy read.

Jack Harrison B.Sc

I am also a long-term NS subscriber, and I completely concur with
Jack. There's the occasional lapse in standards of course (including
one recent use of 'difffuse' instead of 'defuse', which gave a
completely different meaning to the paragraph!) but generally I find
the quality of science journalism has been maintained over the years,
in sharp contrast to most of the popular press who now generally have
a truly appalling grasp of the science involved.

Of course, subjects where we know more of the background are often
easier to criticise for lapses into generalisms, and some of the
meteorology/climate change pieces in New Scientist are understandably
aimed at a more general readership, but then I wouldn't expect to keep
up-to-date in the latest in any particular science topic exclusively
through New Scientist. It does provide a wider view of many fields in
which my knowledge is less extensive, and by doing so keeps me abreast
of some of the latest developments outside my core interests, in a
much more readable and digestible form than, say, Nature could do. It
has an enviable circulation for a science magazine - I can only assume
the majority of its readership don't share your views, Tudor!

I agree that in general the New Scientist articles are of a high standard
although there are inevitably lapses from time to time.

The item in question is just a news report on the launch of an online
market in Australia suggesting that a such a market could forecast water
availability better than computer models.

Given the recent financial market turbulence I would be very surprised if
it proved to be the case but it seems to me to be reasonable for the New
Scientist to report on the subject in an objective way as is clearly the
case from my reading of the item.

Alan