Pop-sci tripe

I've just finished yet another popular sience (pop-sci) and I feel nauseauted by how bad it is. As a practising scientist but also an avid reader, I feel obliged to read my fair share of pop-sci. Apart from D'Arcy Thompson's sublime "On Growth And Form", recently, I've read a slew of terribly-written pop-sci books. There was: Robert Laughlin "A Different Universe", Steve Rose "Lifelines", Andrew Parker "In the Blink of an Eye", Martin Brooks "Fly". All horrible. None of these writers can write concisely, stay on topic, structure an argument, or even tell a godamn story. The prose is graceless, studded with prickly pieces of jargon, drier than the Gobi desert, and smeared with a holier-than-thou attitude. But most of all, these writers can't write a decent metaphor even if someone stuck a gun to their head and threatened them with a game of russian roulette. They use half-baked metaphors and wax lyrical without a trace of poetry. Poke my eye out with a stick. Please.