"Nuclear War survival skills is an interesting read you are correct but it is not scientific information from what is known as juried academic publications . The juried part is important since that is where scientists discuss findings ... I can publish anything I want either for financial gain or for whatever. I recognize Mr.Kearny's book is available for free and is uncopyrighted. Nevertheless, it does not carry the same scientific weight as juried journals where authors present research findings and are not financially compensated for their work but it does add to scientific debate and canon. It is important with all material to be able to critically assess it. Especially on the net is that people can write anything they want a (one of the net's joys but also problematics). I would like to see what he has published in termsl scientific or engineering juried publications or what grants he personally received again looking at it critically: who funded and for what purpose
A basic web search Kearny revealed the book and also that he did sign an anti-global warming document hmmm ... I did an academic search on him a short one admittedly there was one article I found critiquing his radiation meter I quote from the Journal of Health Physics 1984 volume 87 pgs 552-57
Under current circumstances, the use of the KFM as a radiation dose rate meter is possible, however not recommended. The original plans for its use in a total nuclear war intended that the whole nation would be enveloped in a crisis. However, the incapacitation of a large area of the nation is unlikely. Communication with the area, with the arrival of radiation detector-equipped first responders, is likely to be established long before the KFM can prove its usefulness. If the KFM was suggested for use by the average American family, it can possibly cause more alarm and concern by generating unforeseen errors in construction and an inability to charge in a humid environment.
continued"

"Finally, the evidence is in on Global Warming. It is real, and humans are (at least in significant part) causing it. The last three studies, released not long ago, ended any real doubts. "

"First of all there was a new groundbreaking understanding in the 1970's of scomething known as the Milankovitch cycles,which are astronomical cycles. These cycles somehow appear to combine to create the coming and going of ice ages. Nevertheless, the next ice age back in the 1970's was predicted in 10,000 years, Not immediately.New evidence (sincethe tools available have undergone a tremendous change) suggests the predicition of 10,000 years might be off. Well, in the 1970's magazines picked up on this and of course so did other popular media ... it was never something generally accepted in the scientific community
Newsweel wrote a retraction to what they said (in the same veing as Time mag of 1975) writing
he point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/page/2/

... If you go to the newsweek article about the subject they explain how they became far too histrionic
During the same time (the 1970's) there was beginning to be some discussion on global warming . Suffice to say now ideologues Sen. James Inhofe have used this to attempt to discredit global warming. Global warming or perhaps better said global climate change is now something globally accepted as real --- there is no longer a debate surrounding it.
Global warming brings about heavier storms ... and that includes snow storms in the north ...vaporation increases when the surface temperature of the ocean rises and warmer air can hold more moisture. When this soggier-than-normal air moves over land, it results in storms wetter and more intense than those experienced in the past. Continued next post "

"Often science has become something highly politicized, especially when it is translated into policy. I recall that the 1999 biography of Carl Sagan (Wiley) did discuss his confrontation with Teller etc ... but I am not sure I recall Sagan refuting his comments on nuclear winter can you lead me to material in which he does comment on the topic?
I did a library search and have not found anything) that refutes nuclear winter as theory/hypothesis (although I did find some information surrounding ultraviolet springs which may follow and articles surrounding the persistant radioactive levels in the deer population in and around Chernobyl ( Find More Like ThisChernobyl radioactivity persists in reindeer.Authors:Skuterud, Lavrans
Gaare, Eldar
Eikelmann, Inger Margrethe
Hove, Knut3
Steinnes, Eiliv4
Source: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity; Jul2005, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p231-252)
I also found several articles discussing the ideological impact of nuclear winter on policy (especially during the reagan administration) and a more popular sort of article from Discover in 2005 on a comet causing nuclear winter on the earth 65 million yhears ago) ... Please please post the articles and citations for me to understand that this is not a factor ... the only thing that I could find was something from way back in 1985 in Scientific American saying it was impossible to predict the effects of global thermonuclear war ... help ...
"

"from another scientist



I agree that "nuclear winter" was an invention by those who sought to rid the world of nuclear weapons.



I somewhat disagree about "global warming". Although the weather may be warming now, there is good evidence that this is just another cyclical weather pattern that will be offset by "global cooling" afterwards. We may see warming for 30-100 years, then leveling for 30-100 years, then cooling for 30-100 years. It is called weather."