I stopped reading scientific american a long time ago, as they have 0.0 objectivity in political matters such as climate change. The last issue I read was during the 2004 elections, when they were weighing how awesome john kerry was for the environment, versus how horrible george bush was. In the article the referred to “Senator Kerry” about 20 times, and referred simply to “Bush” about 20 times. The honorific “Senator” was always used for Kerry, but the honorific “President” was not once used for Bush. After that and the endless cheerleading for every terrestial article always having something to do global warming, I simply gave up completely.
No, that wasn't Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her roof.
Fact is, you actually can see a Russian Island in the straits ~ from an Alaska Island located nearby (http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/59/124859-004-904DAF30.jpg).
One of those phenomena of nature ~ stand in one place, see another.
So why should I read statements made by this Krauss guy when it's pretty clear his mind no longer works.
Does he wear a portable urine pouch perhaps?
Should have done so much earlier -- when they dropped the "Amateur Scientist" and "Mathematical Games" columns...
For the last several years, Sci Am has been so devoid of actual scientific content that, if they dropped the multipage "special (advertising) sections" paid for by various third world countries, their covers would rub together...
Good riddance!