I was a subscriber to Scientific American for 45 years (yes, since I was a teenager). Martin Gardner's columns were the single most important influence in my life on my choice of a career.

Unfortunately, in the 1990's SA got taken over by a politically correct green gang. It was never the same again. About a year ago I got fed up and cancelled my subscription. Just by chance I glanced at the November issue on the newsstand and was intrigued by the possibility that SA editors might actually give equal time to the scientists on the other side of the manmade global warming issue. So I bought and read the issue. I was underwhelmed with their supposed conversion to real scientific discourse. The articles in question are like throwing a bone to the other side, while never actually admitting that the greenies might be wrong. Kind of like have Alan Coombs be the face of the liberals on Fox News - a token of no significance.

I've been a fan of Scientific American for 24 years, and once appreciated its value as a scientific journal for "the layman".  The last decade or so, however, have seen that value decline to the point that, although I still find SciAm occasionally interesting, I am more often disturbed by the groupthink mentality that has overtaken it.