Doctor Who Weekly issue 1, cover dated 17 October 1979 Editor Marcus Hearn Categories Frequency Monthly 36,151 (ABC figure as of 14 February 2014) First issue 11 October 1979 ( 1979-October-11) (519 issues as of 16 November 2017) Company Country United Kingdom Language English Website Doctor Who Magazine (abbreviated as DWM) is a magazine devoted to the long-running British series. Its current editor is, who took over from the magazine's longest-serving editor,, in July 2017. It is currently recognised by as the longest running TV tie-in magazine. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • History [ ] Officially licensed by the, the magazine began life as Doctor Who Weekly in 1979, published by the of. The first issue was released on Thursday 11 October with a cover date of 17 October and priced 12p.

Magazine to offer a look at, character theme d d4 wiki fandom powered by wikia - character theme edit classic editor history talk 0 this theme is focused. Pdf 4 29 mb dragon magazine dragon magazine issues 364 430 magnet link added 4 29 mb dragon 390 pdf 4 23 mb dragon. 391 pdf 4 18 mb, dragon. Mar 10, 2017. Dragon Magazine 390 Pdf Editor. Classic editor; History; Talk 0 Share. Wolfgang Baur (born 1968) is an. Baur's print and PDF RPG magazine. Dragon Magazine 390 Pdf Editor. List of Doctor Who Magazine comic strips. Add New Page Edit Classic editor; History; Talk 0 Share Contents. Gnome is a player.

The magazine moved from weekly to monthly publication with issue 44 in September 1980, becoming Doctor Who Monthly with a cover price of 30p. Arkaos Media Master Keygen Download Free. Styled on the cover as 'Doctor Who – A Marvel Monthly' the tagline was not part of the name, but simply a descriptor which appeared on many of Marvel UK's monthly titles at that point.

The copyright notice continued describing the publication as 'Doctor Who Weekly' until issue 48. The cover title changed to Doctor Who Monthly with issue 61. The title changed to The Official Doctor Who Magazine with issue 85 in February 1984. It became The Doctor Who Magazine with issue 99 in April 1985, and simply Doctor Who Magazine with issue 107 in December 1985. The magazine has remained under that title ever since, although an exception was made for issue 397 in June 2008 when the cover only featured the words Bad Wolf following transmission of the Doctor Who episode ' on Saturday 21 June.

In 1990 the magazine started appearing once every four weeks (13 times a year). Despite the BBC discontinuing production of Doctor Who in 1989, the magazine continued to be published, providing new adventures in the form of comics. The television programme was revived in 2005, providing a new generation of fans which the magazine was seeking to attract. Doctor Who Magazine Issue 469 (February 2014) Originally geared towards children, DWM has grown into a more mature magazine exploring the behind-the-scenes aspects of the series.

Due to its longevity, it is seen as a source of 'official' and exclusive information, sharing a close relationship with the television production team and the BBC. In 2006, however, it lost its exclusivity when launched its own comic,, aimed at a younger audience. DWM is now published by, which purchased the title along with the rest of the Marvel UK catalogue in 1995. Panini has begun to digitally restore and reprint older DWM comics in format. Twenty-five volumes have been printed so far: two featuring the comics adventures of the, one with the adventures of the, two featuring the, five with the adventures of the, four focusing on the, one with the adventures of the, three featuring the, four collecting the adventures of the and three with the adventures of the. Panini also published a one-shot magazine-format reprinting of the complete strips in 2006 and most of the and strips in 2008.

DWM issue 426 reported that the series had been postponed; it eventually resumed with the publication of 'The Crimson Hand' in May 2012. DWM's 400th issue was published in September 2008, and the publication celebrated its 30th anniversary in October 2009. In April 2010, it was confirmed in issue 420 that Doctor Who Magazine now holds the for 'Longest Running Magazine Based on a Television Series.' The magazine reached its 500th issue in May 2016. In April 2011, Panini Comics released a new monthly magazine titled Doctor Who Insider; although it was made in Britain the magazine was published for. It was announced on 27 January 2012 that Doctor Who Insider had ceased publication after nine issues. Doctor Who Insider returned for a special edition issue in 1 November 2012.

Content [ ] DWM features an ongoing comic starring the current incarnation of, though for a period between 1989 and 1996, when the series was off the air, it featured previous Doctors. Notable writers and artists who have worked on the comic include,,,,,, and. Selected stories from the comic were also reprinted in North America by Marvel Comics. Supporting characters that have crossed over from the comic to other spin-off media include, the shape-changing companion of the and Doctors;, the Killer; the, who would later appear in Marvel's; and the villainous.

The magazine has also featured other comics over the years, most notably 'Doctor Who?' , a humorous look at the series by Tim Quinn and Dicky Howett.

This was principally a three-panel, though occasionally page-long parodies were featured. S spiritual successor, was a single-panel strip 'Doctor Whoah!'

, by 'Baxter'. Embedded into the Galaxy Forum letters page, it lampooned a recent episode, DVD release of stories or other such event by showing alternative, exaggerated and expanded versions of Doctor Who scenes. For example, after the broadcast of ', the strip portrayed the Doctor's arrival on the 'Planet of the Hats', referred to in the episode. The strip was known for its characters who are depicted as having no pupils in their eyes. Since 2014, 'Doctor Whoah!' Has been replaced by 'The Daft Dimension', a similarly sized strip in three panels. Between 1989 and 92 'The Comic Assassins' was a series of parody strips by Steve Noble and.

In the 1990s a secondary serious comic was featured on the inside cover; for many issues this was 'The Cybermen', a series of tales set on prior to the events of, explaining the back-history of the. The comic 'The Daleks' was also resurrected, continuing the story from where it had left off by showing the attacking Earth; it was drawn in the same style as the 1960s original. Other regular features of the magazine include the news section 'Gallifrey Guardian', which has run since nearly the beginning of the magazine; the letters page 'Galaxy Forum' which – as well as containing the 'Daft Dimension' strip – features other small sub-sections, such as 'Ask DWM!'

(where readers' questions about the show are answered), 'On This Month' (which looks at an old issue on the anniversary of its publication) and 'WhoTube' (which highlights 'Doctor Who'-themed videos which can be viewed online); reviews of television episodes and merchandise (in 'The DWM Review', known for a time as 'After Image', 'Off the Shelf', and 'Shelf Life'); the 'Time Team', which involves four fans watching every Doctor Who story in order from the beginning; and, since production restarted on the series in 2004, a regular column 'Production Notes' by the show's executive producer. From 2004 to 2009 the column was written by, and from January 2010 to July 2017, took over the page, although other writers and production staff have from time-to-time written the column. Also, on the final page of magazine, there is a section called 'Wotcha!' (compiled by 'The Watcher'), a comedy page with such recurring features as, 'A History of Doctor Who in 100 Objects', 'Supporting Artist of the Month', a spoof 'Top Ten', the 'Stockbridge English Dictionary' (a variation on a game from ) and a true or false quiz 'The Six Faces of Delusion'. Prior to this, the slot was taken up by a page called 'Who on Earth is.' , featuring a short interview with someone previously (or currently) involved in Doctor Who (say, a member of the cast).

A single-page 'opinion' column has often been part of the magazine's mix – past columns have included 'Fluid Links' by, 'The Life and Times of Jackie Jenkins' by 'Jackie Jenkins', 'It's the End. But' by 'The Watcher', 'You Are Not Alone' by (as 'Neil Harris') and 'Relative Dimensions' by author (and former 'Time Team' member). Sync N Link For Fcp Serial. The format has changed over the years, but the news, letters, reviews, and comic strip have all been present consistently since the early 1980s. The magazine also features interviews with the cast and crew of the television show (including the old episodes), and reports from the set of the current series, written. The behind-the-scenes stories of all of the 1963–1989 episodes have been documented in Andrew Pixley's 'DWM Archive', and detailed analysis of certain significant serials are covered in 'The Fact of Fiction', usually written by former DWM editor, or David Bailey. 'The DWM Review' is currently written predominantly by, former editor Gary Gillatt, Paul Kirkley, Martin Ruddock and Matt Michael.

Previous reviewers include, (died in 2016), and, who subsequently became the magazine's editor. In 2004 Russell T Davies offered to let the magazine write and publish the official regeneration scene from the to the as part of its ongoing comic strip prior to the relaunch of the TV series. Although work was done on this storyline, then editor and writer eventually turned down the offer as they felt they couldn’t do such an important event justice under the constraints imposed by the TV series' continuity.

Retrieved 1 July 2017. • Morris, Jonathan (May 2016).

'The TARDIS Log!' Doctor Who Magazine. • John, Andrew (2 April 2010)...

Retrieved 3 April 2010. • Spilsbury, Tom (May 2016). 'Letter from the Editor'. Doctor Who Magazine. Retrieved 1 July 2017. Complete eighth Doctor comic strips.

The Doctor Who Site. 13 March 2013. • Doctor Who Magazine, No.489. Retrieved 25 August 2015.

3 November 2007. [ ] • Terror, Jude (2017-10-23)... Retrieved 2017-11-01. • Marcus (2017-11-01)... Retrieved 2017-11-01.

• External links [ ] • • • • •.

This is a guest post by David Kirtley. David originally posted this as a Google Doc, and I’m reproducing his work here with his permission. Just the other day I was speaking to a climate change skeptic who made mention of an old Time or Newsweek (he was not sure) article that talked about fears of a coming ice age. There were in fact a number of articles back in the 1970s that discussed the whole Ice Age problem, and I’m not sure what my friend was referring to. But here, David Kirtley places a recent meme that seems to be an attempt to diffuse concern about global warming because we used to be worried about global cooling. The meme, however, is not what it seems to be. And, David places the argument that Ice Age Fears were important and somehow obviate the science in context.

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley A few days ago a facebook friend of mine posted the following image: From the 1977 cover we can see that apparently a new ice age was supposed to arrive. Only 30 years later, according to the 2006 cover, global warming is supposed to be the problem. But the cover on the left isn’t from 1977.

It actually is: As you can see, the cover title has nothing to do with an imminent ice age, it’s about global warming, as we might expect from a 2007 Time magazine. The faked image illustrates one of the fake-skeptics’ favorite myths:.

It goes something like this: • In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age. • The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news. • The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.

• Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?) The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming. But why fake the 1977 cover? Since, according to the fake-skeptics, there was so much news coverage of the imminent ice age why not just use a real 1970s cover? I searched around on and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”?

Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather.

How about, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis. Check out: ___________________ Now, there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age.

Time had a piece called in 1974. Time’s competition, Newsweek, joined in with in 1975. People have collected and of “Coming Ice Age” stories from newspapers, magazines, books, tv shows, etc. Throughout the 1970s. But if it was such a big news story why did it never make the cover of America’s flagship news magazine like the faked image implies? Perhaps there is more to the story.

In the 1970s there were a few developments in climate science: • Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit. • Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s. • Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere.

• Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm. The realization that very long cycles in earth’s orbit could cause the waxing and waning of ice ages, coupled with the fact that our soot and aerosols were already causing cooling, led some scientists to conclude that we may be headed for another ice age. Exactly when was still a little unclear.

However, the warming effects of CO2 had been known for over a century, and new research in the 1970s was showing that CO2 warming would more than compensate for the cooling caused by aerosols, resulting in net warming. Check out: ________________________________ This, in a very brief nutshell, was the state of climate science in the 1970s. And so the media of the time published many stories about a coming ice age, which made for timely reading during some very cold winters. But many news stories also mentioned that other important detail about CO2: that our climate might soon change due to global warming.

In 1976 Time published which is a very good summary of the then current scientific thinking: some scientists emphasized aerosols and cooling, some scientists emphasized CO2 and warming. There was no consensus either way. Many other 1970s articles which mention a Coming Ice Age also mention the possibility of increased warming due to CO2. For instance,, and. Fake-skeptics read these stories and only focus on the Coming Ice Age angle, and they enlarge the importance of those scientists who focused on that angle. They totally ignore the rest of the picture of 1970s climate science: that increasing CO2 would cause global warming. The purpose of the image of the two Time magazine covers, and of the Coming Ice Age Myth, is not to show the real history of climate science, but to obscure that history and to cause confusion.

It seems to be working. Because today, when there really is a consensus about climate science and 97% of climatologists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is leading to climate change, know about that consensus. The other 55% must think we’re still in the 1970s when scientists were still debating the issue. Seems newsworthy to me, maybe Time will run another cover story on it. To learn more see: •, Spencer R. The author has an of this book.

•, John Imbrie and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. • “,” Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck, 2008: Bull. Soc., 89, 1325–1337. It is just the same with mobile phones and cancer. In this country, one textbook (“Approved” by the examining board) uses this as an example of “Controversy in Science”.

It gives the case for phones causing cancer completely unjustified prominence. Now this is a recent phenomenon. Research into the origins of the “scare” is easy. First look for references to the original paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, journal that started it (even Wakefield had that). A search of the Internet shows nothing. Maybe there was some anecdotal evidence, maybe the trends in cancer cases showed something. Again nothing.

What you find is an endless circle of references citing newspaper reports or just people citing each other. Researching something that did not happen in the 1970’s is much more difficult. Too recent to be history and too old to be current affairs. Sufficently long ago not to be able to remember not hearing about it.

I had some insight into scientific consensus back then. That was back when I thought I was going to be a planetary scientist, and was studying a fair amount of atmospheric physics and chemistry at Caltech. As I remember it (it’s been a while),there was a lot of uncertainty about what clouds and particulates would do, because clouds are hard to model, and particulants are hard to measure globally. We did have nice, smooth CO2 from Mauna Loa, and had a pretty good idea where that was headed. We were also well aware that we were in the middle of an interglacial, and that all else being equal, we were due for another glaciation soon.

(Well, “soon” in a geological sense.) putting all of this together, I would say that most people I knew back then thought the atmosphere would most likely heat up in the near term. If I had had to make a guess, it would not have been too far off from what has been observed since. (Meaning like within a factor of two or something.).

Time magazine 1974- Another Ice Age? Monday, June 24, 1974 In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs.

A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since..

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Not that long ago, we were very rightly concerned about polluting our environment, filling the air and the water and the soil with toxic by-products of our industrial activities. It was very easy to say when any of these natural resources was contaminated, and almost as easy to determine exactly where the source of contamination was occurring. Somehow, in the early 1990s, those who contaminate our planet for their own greedy means commandeered the discussion about pollution and changed the focus to climate change. I realize that one of the outcomes of pollution is climate change, and it is a hugely destructive and apocalyptic outcome, but it also a longer term outcome, more difficult to prove on a case by case basis, and fraught with many challenges to accurately document so that the general public can easily comprehend the immediate problem.

Added to that, the naysayers do have, in their favor, several millions of years of natural climate change data they use to undermine public confidence in current scientific predictions. Climate change is an issue because we pollute the environment. We can easily prove that industry practices pollutes the environment. Why have we allowed the argument of contaminating this planet to be hijacked by the monsters who are ruining our air and water and soil? By focussing on climate change, vast amounts of scientific energy and goodwill is expended on proving and ‘reproving’ the value of the date and the models, meanwhile, the pollution of the planet continues essentially unchanged. There was a time when activists confronted individual polluters at individual sites and got action. Now, with the attention on climate change and not on specific rivers, or landfills or air sheds, the targets are amorphous, the cause and effect not so clear..

It makes one wonder who exactly is benefitting from all the climate change summits, the earth or the polluters? I’d like to add to this the little point that I first heard about the threat of global warming when the science around it was used in a sci-fi story about a future earth, a major part of the history of which was the catastrophe that befell the earth in the 21st century due to warming from pollutants. I don’t think that story was unique either. That would have been about 1975. I told my mother about it, and that she shouldn’t buy aerosols or use her car so much, and she told me I was being silly. And I do remember some articles and things speculating about if an ice age might come again soon, but they were always very speculative, and not a part of the news, or any serious focus of concern, and existed alongside other such stuff,as we still, quite reasonably, have today, such as whether we could become capable of intergalactic travel.

An important thing to bear in mind here too, is how younger people of course don’t remember times before they were born, and actually can end up believing that things were very different to what they were, thus making them open to this kind of disinformation. Thanks for the comments.

I second Greg’s comment to Peter: What? Daughter # 3 and Simon: I noticed how the fake-skeptic cover used the design of the real cover. They kept the same “cancer” headline but changed the woman in the photo. (I’m not sure who these two women are. Cancer survivors?) The middle headline about Baghdad got changed to one about detente with the Soviets. And the last one about the tv show The Sopranos was changed to M.A.S.H. Pretty clever, but Daughter # 3 is right, that isn’t the design used in the 1970s.

I was curious about what date is on the fake cover. I think it says April but the resolution isn’t too good and I can’t read it. (Anyone know how to clean it up??) I wonder if the fake-skeptics just kept the date that was on the real 2007 cover (April 9) or if they changed it to an accurate date of a real 1977 cover (which would have been April 4,11,18, or 25). Jim: sorry about Weart’s name. I fixed it in my original google doc.

Maybe Greg can fix it here. It isn’t really the case that concern over global cooling was a myth. There was concern. The part about it being a myth is that this concern has been reconstructed as equally valid in comparison to understanding of climate science 40 or so years later, that mention of ice ages 50 years ago means that climate science has always been confused, and as is documented in this excellent bit of research (blog post above) 1970s cooling is mythologized further by fabricating phony evidence making it look like a bigger deal than it was. But yes, I think the nuclear winter fed into this idea then, and conservative hatred and fear of science had fed into it in more recent decades as a valid point of concern has been turned into a Fox News style lie. Green Eagle, Bryan Walsh at TIME mag traced the cover back to April 2012 at this site: which is an Intelligent Design site (!) They acknowledge that the cover is a fake, and in the comments it seems like the cover appeared in a previous post which was then deleted. You’ll notice that on the image there is a web-address: ExtraordinaryIntelligence.com.

I looked around on this weird, new-age site run by someone named Natalina and found this from May 2011: It’s about crazy weather. Anyway, at the bottom of the piece is this note: “****This article previously contained an image of a Time magazine cover predicting a coming Ice Age. It was brought to our attention that the image was photoshopped so we’ve removed it.” In the comments section we learn that in June 2012 a reader (Will S,) showed Natalina that the image was a fake. Said, “But faked covers like the one on the left don’t do our side, i.e. The side of skeptics of CAGW (‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’) any favours; we should instead point to actual words, properly sourced and documented, and show when and where they actually promoted the opposite hysteria, to that which they promote today.” I don’t know where the faked image goes from there. I guess I could contact Natalina and the Intelligent Design site but this is about as far down the rabbit hole I want to go.

I took courses in meterology and climatology around 1956-57. Because we know so little then, compared to what is known now, I am very careful not to present my self as any sort of expert on the matter. I’ve seen some comments on the short doubling times of scientific knowledge. From 1957 to 2013 is some 55 years.

If doubling time for climate knowledge has been a leisurely five years, that is is 11 doublings. No doubt the increase in climate knowledge over 55 years has been a lot, whatever the real number is. It’s a shame that the US Academy of Science’s 1975 report “Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action” is yet to make it into digital format and made available online. Commissioned in response to the media fuss about ‘imminent global cooling, it made clear that understanding of climate was insufficient to make any such predictions – from it’s foreword – “we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate“. The NAS – and every leading science body – failed to confirm global cooling as a danger that requires urgent and global action, but what it did do was set in train some focused scientific efforts to build that foundation of understanding of how the climate system. When that was built the results have been considered more than solid enough that the NAS – and every peak science body – does urge global action.