Scientific American returned to form–but I don’t know what will happen next.

Last month I wrote the following post. I scheduled it for November, but then some Scientific American-related news arose, so I’m bumping it up in the schedule. First, here’s my post from May: I’m not saying this is the same Scientific American as old. Martin Gardner is long gone, and in the age of social media the articles are shorter. That’s the way of the world. But it’s got serious, interesting articles, a mix of pure science, applied science, policy, and service journalism. The latest in science without the boosterism of so much of science and technology reporting. Last year, though, the magazine was much more political: A bit of policy is fine, and there’s a lot of science to global warming, for sure. I wouldn’t want Scientific American to “bothsides” the issue. I’m not saying they need entirely to stick to sports, as it were. But the politicking was getting out of control. I’m glad they’ve returned to their lane. Then the other day this happened: Scientific American has been…