[martin_fierro]

I wonder if November 1976 marked the point at which NG really started to suck.

It has adopted such an increasingly hard-Greenie bias in recent years that I finally canceled my subscription. A shame.

[lawdude]

"I wonder if November 1976 marked the point at which NG really started to suck.

It has adopted such an increasingly hard-Greenie bias in recent years that I finally canceled my subscription. A shame."

Yup, about then. Same with Scientific American. Both became smarmy, unbearable political organs of the tree hugging radical left wing kooks.Neither has published a actual scientific premise since then, Gorebasms only, IMHO!.

[Bernard Marx]

I wonder if November 1976 marked the point at which NG really started to suck.

I can't recall the exact date but the magazine issued a public statement sometime in the 1970s, I think, saying that the Earth's environment would be its only concern from that point on. I knew a writer/photographer on staff and he'd been complaining since the late 1960s about "All the new hires from the Missouri School of Journalism" who were changing the focus and thrust of the magazine.

Infiltrating the media, along with schools and universities, the judiciary and other vital American institutions, has been the long-term project of the Marxist left: its long march through the institutions. It appears the global environment is the Trojan horse they've chosen as the means to achieve global socialism. Lies about "global warming?" Never forget their credo: "By any means necessary."

[Question Liberal Authority]

It has adopted such an increasingly hard-Greenie bias in recent years that I finally canceled my subscription. A shame.

Odd, for a magazine that nobody ever recycles and nobody ever throws away.

National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine

http://www.jir.com/geographic.html