6 ms·

I provided a link from the NYTimes with the scientists from the original 1983 Nuclear Winter paper retracting their original prediction as well. Well done, HN.

• pjc50 9y ago
  I suspect its your use of the phrase "social agenda", as if nuclear war might be a thing that it was unreasonable to be against.
  • ghostcluster 9y ago
    It is unreasonable to make up fake models and rhetoric, and then push it in the media under the auspices of science. How can you be trusted in the future?
  • eadmund 9y ago
    > … as if nuclear war might be a thing that it was unreasonable to be against. When a nuclear war is less bad than the alternatives, then it is unreasonable to be against it. A lot of Western anti-nuclear sentiment was simply manufactured by KGB manipulation of useful idiots. It's sad: if not for fifty years of anti-nuclear propaganda, we might be off of coal and safely generating energy for the next couple of centuries while we work on environmentally-friendly ways to produce solar cells. Instead, we're belching forth pollution — to include radioactive pollution — at an unprecedented rate, decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, whose security the anti-nuclear propaganda was intended to ensure.