Re: population growth & physics ed

["Rick & Bea Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

Are you sure about this 'nuclear winter scam'?  Seems to me we've had
ample evidence in the past decade from the Mexican and Philippine
volcanoes that the principle is sound.  The idea itself came out of our
Mars program when one of the probes arrived to find a global Martian
dust storm obscuring the surface but sensors discovered a real decrease
in surface temperature.  Again there are lots of factors to be
considered and the models are equally complex (as with global warming),
but a large scale nuclear war has the potential of depositing LOTS of
smoke, dust, etc. into the stratosphere (the blasts and conditions have
to be right for this) which we know from the volcanoes can lower
surface temperatures.   Some individual work may have been shoddy (even
dishonest), but the concept and danger seem real enough.  

I still think attacking those seriously working to study and educate
about such environmental concerns as global warming on the basis that
they are just out to 'make a buck' IS highly cynical.  Attack the
validity or the methods (Greenpeace style environmental terrorism) but
refrain from attacking the personal integrity of such people without
ample evidence.

Rick Tarara

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics	Free Physics & Energy Instructional 
Software
Saint Mary's College			available at:	
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664				http://estel.uindy.edu/aapt/rickt/software/
rtarara@saintmarys.edu	
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/tarara/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----------
> From: David Dockstader <DRDOCK00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

> It wouldn't be the first time this has been done.
> I guess nuclear winter is a classic example.
> As I understand it some prominent scientists made up some data to
support
> their position, because they thought that's how things should work.
> I guess they thought the end justified the means.
> If being skeptical is "beyond cynical"  what does that make the folks
who
> perpetute false science?