On the rare occasions that I look at the modern Scientific American, I note that it devotes something on the order of at least 10-15% of every issue to climate change, global warming, sea-level rise, greenhouse gases, and the like. That’s in an issue that doesn’t include a full-length article on the subject.
They also employ editorial writers who insert climate change material in articles and topics where it really doesn’t belong, and often include snarky comments impugning the intelligence and motives of anyone who doesn’t buy into the received wisdom 100%.
One would be justified in concluding that the publisher of Scientific American sees its main function as to serve as a conveyor belt for the man-made climate change story. The coverage of general topics in scientific progress seems to be an incidental, secondary goal that is necessary to keep people from canceling their subscriptions.
That is such a shame about Scientific American. When I was in school long ago, I used to sit in the library and read it every time I had the opportunity. It had great articles that were so informative.
Then again, Time and Newsweek used to be about news.
Same thing with Smithsonian and National Geographic.
I used to enjoy Sunset Magazine, unfortunately they’re getting infected by this crap too.
“On the rare occasions that I look at the modern Scientific American,”
If I were you I would make those “rare occasions,” never. These scientific rags have come to exist on money from looney vested interests in “Climate Change!”