"The betrayal-of-science establishment has adopted the standards of Dan Rather and Reuters and should be equally trusted."
I gave up on Science the non scientific bs posing as a magazine of science in the 1990's.
Our grand daughter gave my wife a subscription to National Geographic last Christmas, because the gd likes to see pictures of bears and critters.
They were stacked in an unread pile, and this past weekend her father an engineer who hires, fires and manages engineers notice the pile. He asked why we hadn't read them. I told him to look a few of the magazines and scan them.
After about 20 minutes, he had scanned the ytd stack of NG mags. He said that they were so enviral whacko and non science related, he wouldn't allow them in his house anymore.
I remember when Nat Geog added a letters to the editor section -- something that should be dropped by all magazines in this day and age, when that kind of feedback should appear on the mags' website forum. That was the beginning of the end of NG, and while they do have stuff of interest from time to time, most of it just regurgitated PC BS.