[dead]

I'm still trying to stick with Scientific American, but it's getting tough.

The astronomy and physics stuff is still great, but after the relentless global warming and stupid sociology articles, their tribute to the bravery of Henry Waxman and his crusade against Bush's "religious assault on science" may have been the last straw.

[skip_intro]

I'm still trying to stick with Scientific American, but it's getting tough

I hadn't read SA for years and recently picked up a copy. It wasn't even remotely like the magazine I remembered.

Was there really a time when you could pick a science or history magazine and not be pummeled with leftist dogma, or was I just so naive back then that I didn't notice it?

[Rebel_Ace]

"I'm still trying to stick with Scientific American, but it's getting tough. The astronomy and physics stuff is still great, but after the relentless global warming and stupid sociology articles, their tribute to the bravery of Henry Waxman and his crusade against Bush's "religious assault on science" may have been the last straw."

Yeah, I keep getting Scientific American for the "hard" science articles, physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry and the fun mental puzzles that are frequently published. I have learned to "disregard" articles with heavy editorializing, usually written in the "soft" sciences (sociology, psychology and the like). If you could look at the course of its publishing history, I am sure you could find swings in the manner of editorial content. I'm just riding out this particular "lefty" slant for now...

[Dont Mention the War]

I'm still trying to stick with Scientific American, but it's getting tough. The astronomy and physics stuff is still great, but after the relentless global warming and stupid sociology articles, their tribute to the bravery of Henry Waxman and his crusade against Bush's "religious assault on science" may have been the last straw.

How did you manage to make it this far? After their brazen, overtly political attack on Bjorn Lomborg a year or so ago, that was the last straw for me.

Their severe dumbing down of the contents didn't help either. It used to be too technical to be mainstream, but now it's so low-rent it makes Discover look like the Journal of Applied Physics.

[Prospero]

I've been a SciAm fan, or should say "was" a fan for decades.

The Waxman stuff was precisely what destroyed what tolerance I had left for their relentless and unscientific liberal agenda.

Find an old copy and compare where they were and where they are. I used to love it for the same reasons you mention, but no more.

They can peddle that 'Trans-National Progressive' BS someplace else.

[Joe Brower]

I shitcanned my subscription to SciAm almost two years ago for the same reasons.