Science reporting isn't only poor in mainstream media, it's also poor in Scientific American, according to Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and many of his discriminating readers. They make the points that (1) SciAm reports technology or social issues relating to technology far more often than actual science, (2) SciAm is now authored almost exclusively by journalists rather than scientists, and (3) it has a rather extreme green political bias. Although I don't subscribe to SciAm, the few issues I've seen in the last decade support the Instapundit critique, and their reaction to Lomborg's book definitely does.