Palin's tweet could be dismissed as another religious end-of-days argument, Krauss continues.
I'm trying, but I'm really failing, to see how Mrs. Palin's tweet is an "end-of-days" argument.
In fact, all I'm seeing is a huge non sequitur in Krauss' statement.
Simple.
Man can obviously greatly affect nature, at least if he so desired (ten thousand nuclear warheads would be a start). The author implies from Palin’s statements that she believes this would be impossible for Man to so overpower nature. (The author’s syllogism is correct, but he purposely reads an unintended sense to her statement.) He further extrapolates that Palin must therefore believe God would stop Man.