[–] Crashmarik 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
I know many people love Sagan, but to me he will forever be the guy who legitimized bending science to a political agenda. His work on nuclear winter was done to further his position on disarmament. The results of which were all called into question over time.You can argue he was good intentioned as much as you like but the successful resolution of the cold war shows this was not the way to go.
Edit: Seeing as it was brought to my attention that not everyone is aware of the history and may very well have a religious devotion to the late Doctor Sagan.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all
SINCE 1983, scientists have been bitterly divided over whether a nuclear war is likely to result in a catastrophic global chilling. But the five scientists who introduced the term ''nuclear winter'' now acknowledge that they overestimated its severity, and their concession appears to have moderated the longstanding debate.
[–] 9-11 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
nuclear winter isnt something imaginary, it's more or less what happens when you kick any particulate into the air. it can be modeled with relative accuracy. The iceland volcano eruption kicked up about 0.5 teragrams of black carbon, climate models were spot on.
what would happen when a small nuclear volley of 100 nukes (say between india/pakistan) kicks up 5-10 Tg of black carbon? besides the immediate loss of all rice fields in india and SE asia, climate models tell us.... shorter growing seasons. bread baskets of the world lose months of growing time, snow on the ground in russian urals/americas great plains except June through August, this continues for 10 years.
[–] Crashmarik 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
nuclear winter isnt something imaginary,
That's nice, it also isn't anything anyone said.
[–] rhy 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Because his current-age counterparts are corporate shills, frauds, and liars?