/sci/ - Science & Math

i've thought about this for a while...
and i still have no idea

|bitches and whores

SUCK MY DICK I'M ON MARS

Hi Mom!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6437UHhASf4

"write OLEV on Mars."

If he/she's from the west, will undoubtly repeat Neil Armstrong's words. If Chinese, Russian, or something else, I have no idea "All hail the Evil Cosmic Empire" or something.

probably a comity written 5 minute soliloquy that will promptly be forgotten by the general public.

Today, we become... GODS

Whoever pays him the most will get his or her words.

"This place is a god-forsaken wasteland"

About fucking time we got here. If I had to spend one more day in the same cabin as Fred, I was going to kill him.

"Well, here we are".

HE WILL SAY: I AM THE PERSON POSTING THIS MESSAGE.

BECAUSE I WILL BE THE PERSON WHO GETS TO MARS BROS. FUCK DA HATAS.

Tell me why we're spending billions and billions of dollars to go to a empty desert? There is no point in wasting this money, the US should have cock block this waste of tax funds.

>>2302275
"Hey guys, I wrote 'Jim was here' on the ground, how long do you think it'll stay?"

"That's a negative Housten. Waldo is nowhere to be seen".

"Jesus christ, do I have to piss like a russian racehorse or WHAT?"
or
"whoooaaa I'm gonna puke"

But the words that get written down will be something like "Today, humanity has begun in earnest the journey to take our places amongst the stars"

>>2302334
Um... we're NOT going. We're sending probes.

>>2302334

I'm currently on board with a secret plan to get to Mars first through a subsidiary of Space-X and the first thing I'm gonna do is whip out my dick, lay on my back, and imagine all the ass im gonna get for being the first man on mars, and secondly for my penis being the highest living thing on the planet.

FIRST POST!!!!11!!11!!11!111one

>>2302334
Why do you bother to live?
Serious question.

>>2302304
Whats sad is that this is true :/

"Suck my huge black Earthling cock"

>>2302342
******42
we have a winrar

>>2302339

Why are we wasting money to send probes to a desert? There is nothing there, why don't they just go to our desert instead? I would understand if Mars had something, but they don't have anything.

>>2302342
How do you whip out your dick while wearing a space suit?

>>2302355
>why are we wasting money sending probes to a region we don't understand in our vicinity?
ftfy.

>>2302334
>nofunallowed.jpg

>>2302355
do you in all fact, understand what the term, 'nothing' means?

there's lots of stuff there. There is a lot of stuff that ISN'T there as well. This is also of enormous value.

>>2302355
Mars *might* have something. But even if it doesn't, here's the reason:

We need to ramp up to permanent human colonization of Mars. If you let the space efforts die, it takes decades to get them going again. It's better to keep sending a nominal number of probes and missions, developing tech and skills, and when the time is right you can spread humanity across the solar system. We've had all our eggs in one basket for too long.

It won't build up to colonization for another century, but if you drop the effort entirely you're in trouble.

>>2302355
You sure know a LOT about mars, don't you?

Fucking dipshit.

...and so they kept feeding the troll.

And that was the end of that.

>>2302355
Knowledge.
Living space.
Certain rare elements in greater abundance than on earth.
KNOWLEDGE.

Seriously, the massive number of things we would learn from exploring another planet is PRICELESS, not to mention the technological advances that will come about from research into how to get there and how to live there.

Basically, the most valuable thing mars offers is stimulation. If we stay on earth, we stagnate.

In addition, as long as human population is bound to a single planet, the fate of our species and civilization is bound to that of the planet.
If we colonize another one, then we, as a race, become immune to nuclear war, apocalyptic meteor impacts, disease; every non-solar disaster imaginable.

>tl;dr, you are a myopic idiot.

>>2302374

Why would anyone want to colonize on a empty desert? Look at OP picture http://images.4chan.org/sci/src/1294277963120.jpg

"China, fuck yeah!"

>>2302355
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5sWfhkpE0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5uImXbhQM8&feature=related

>>2302401
Exactly. Going to Mars will offer us a chance for an in-depth comparison of all our terrestrial ideas about biology, geology, meteorology, planet formation, the development of life, practically EVERYTHING.
Martian exploration could revolutionize everything we know about dozens of fields, including one of the most ideologically important in existence: The formation and nature of life.

>>2302405

>>2302405
How big is earth?
How fast is the human race growing in numbers?
how do we make progress is we don't expand?
why do you not kill yourself?

you have not thought enough.

In Nomine Imperator Terra Astra Dominus.

Ewww, dog poop!

>>2302438
The population argument is bullshit. UN projections have human population peaking in the last half of this century and then going into decline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

>>2302425
Holy fuck, that first video you linked is infuriatingly annoying.

>>2302425

Still a waste of money, god we're wasting so much money on trying to send space junk to other deserts while we could use that money to fund the our military.

"Can't wait to change my Twitter status"

>>2302458
YEAH WELL YOU'RE GAY

>>2302456
Even if that's true, and it's probably not, it doesn't matter.

>>2302462
pffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2302462
Okay now I know you're a troll.

I'd say ALLAH AKBAR
then i'd wait for everyone to leave the spaceshuttle and blow it up, make a epic trollface and say that luciferian reptilian jews rule the world into the camera and that you need to overthrow the government. Also i'd try to set a run record on mars while trying to flew from the obviously pissed other astronauts.

>>2302462
...You asshole. You probably aren't even trolling. Go die.

Do you have any idea how much money we already spend on the military? Full-scale martian colonization, put into action this very moment, wouldn't cost even a fucking thousandth of yearly military spending.

>>2302456
...Because we will run out of room
you may or may not have noticed, but earth's population has never declined without some major event, like an ice age, killing off vast numbers of humans. Population will drop because we will run out of space, not because of magical happiness

>How big is earth?
You have no idea how vast it really is, do you?. I can't imagine we overpopulate the world, assuming we find better ways of making food in vats. Lack of space for farming is the only problem and importing spacecorn from Mars is out of the question.

>>2302486
LOL. Poor sad moron.

Many industrial nations are in population decline, with birth rates far below 2 per woman.

>>2302493
so your argument against space exploration is "it is possible to postpone problems for a few decades"?

I don't know why I'm arguing here. You aren't thinking, you're just typing flawed bullshit

>>2302495
Oh, and the rest of the world is become first-world at a record pace. Look up Hans Rosling's TED talks - wonderful presentation of global health statistics.

ITT: People arguing that we're going to run out of room on Earth.

You morons are spewing Malthusian propaganda from the 80s. NO ONE who actually works in studying human population dynamics is worried about running out of room.

Well, at least no more than climatologists who deny global warming.

>>2302495
examples?
the world population's growth is accelerating, not dropping. As less developed nations industrialize their populations explode, with the expansion lasting for more than 50 years. Unless all of africa and southeast asia suddenly become impotent, population will continue to expand.

And we go to the live Mars feed. The Citibank Mars Exploration vehicle's main hatch is opening and we should see the first astronaut on the Google Mars action cam shortly.

(the first astronaut steps onto the surface) That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind... Mars is just spectacular. Standing here there's no atmosphere protecting us from the sun's radiation, but it's pretty comfortable in our Oakley Mars Excursion Suits...

>>2302513
I don't understand what the comparison you're trying to make is

>>2302501
He's clearly utterly shit-brained. Not only is he saying that we shouldn't go to space because we can post-pone our problems for a finite amount of time, but THOSE POPULATION PROBLEMS ARE NOT THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION FOR GOING TO SPACE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>>2302521
Only cranks believe in Malthusian population growth, just like only cranks deny that global warming is happening.

>>2302521
he means overpopulation as in no space left.
i agree with that, the earth is huge, resources are not.
so a overpopulation problem isn't density, more like not enough resources to go around.
of course india and china are way to overpopulated

>>2302517
>the world population's growth is accelerating, not dropping
[citation needed], the UN studies contradict you.
Also, watch this talk. You've been wrong for decades.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

>>2302520
>thinks there's no atmosphere on mars
>thinks normal solar radiation is a major concern
laughinggirls.tiff

>>2302484

You wonder why we spent that amount on the military? Because it gives out results, all the flying space junk we sent into space has given no result at all.

>>2302532
>[Citation needed]

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

what can i say im unoriginal

>>2302531
World population growth is DECELERATING, and is projected to continue declining. Peak population will be in the latter half of this century as the world industrializes.

>>2302526
I don't believe we're on the verge of mass extinction and geocide over water supplies, but I think it's completely insane to assume the earth can continue to support human life indefinitely, or to just assume future generations will explore space instead- After we've used up the uranium, the steel and the fossil fuels.

There is no better time than right now. The cost is barely a drop in the ocean compared to what's spent on war every year, and the benefits are massive

This population argument DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
There are COUNTLESS reasons to go to Mars, and everywhere else, besides "living space".

And even though current projections say that humanity ISN'T going to continue along it's exponential population growth, WE COULD.
Maybe current trends say we won't, but the potential to do so exists, and if we colonized Mars, there would be no reason NOT to increase human population indefinitely.

"I don't see the little green shits anywhere!"

>>2302538
You are fucking ignorant as hell if you believe that.

>>2302540
You got it.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

>>2302538
McFucking kill yourself

>>2302556
Peak population will be at that point if we keep doing what we're doing.
But peak population doesn't HAVE TO BE AT THAT POINT.

If we expand away from the earth, there's no reason for population to not continue growing exponentially.

>>2302560
there's no actual reason you know

>>2302540
Also, watch the talk you're referencing, as though it weren't a source. He's presenting public UN statistics in a TED talk.

>>2302579
What? You're saying there's no reason to do everything we can to encourage stable population growth?

You're a fuckhead. "Grow or die".

And STILL, there are multitudinous reasons to explore and colonize space that have NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULATION.

>>2302570
>http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Thanks,I was still looking

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.php

US census bureau predicts continual population growth beyond 2050 with hardly any signs of slowing

I've already watched the TED talk, I don't recall it saying anything much about population growth, though. Watching again now.

>>2302595
I actualy think a high population is good.
But there's no reason for space colonization, it just seems like some sci-fi bullshit. I've taken in account terraforming and such, and unless we find a way to access good planets/moons (probably like europa or such) then maybe, but right now, mars doesn't seem a good idea.

>>2302601
>US census bureau predicts continual population growth beyond 2050 with hardly any signs of slowing
That's immigration.

>>2302595
trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

Trolling is against the rules outside of /b/. Shut up.

>>2302601
>Watching again now.
The main idea is the correlation between health, income, and low family size (birth rate).
As all the countries industrialize (almost all of them are moving to first world really quickly, and more are first-world than you'd think), families get small and birth rate plummets.

>>2302609
You shut up. No one is trollling; the only person who isn't contributing to discussion is you, so fuck off.

>>2302601
I may have referenced the wrong Hans Rosling talk. If I did, I apologize. When he shows stats including family size, the trend is very clear.

>>2302605
Of course there's reasons for space colonization; let me refer you to >>2302401 and >>2302434

>>2302606
[Citation Needed]
That isn't specified anywhere on the site. Also, if the US is being more densely packed by immigration money is being sent to NICs and space is being created in them, leading to continued population growth. Whichever way you swing it, population growth is predicted to continue- HOLD ON A FUCKING MINUTE


This is on WORLD population. You just made me type that when it was completely irrelevant.

>>2302601
This is a good excerpt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw

>>2302620
YOU brought up US population forecasts (US census bureau). I'm telling you why that isn't a good number to look at.

>>2302619
herpy derpy.
that's stupid.
i'm out of here

>>2302628
Good, leave.

>>2302627
The US doesn't currently have a population of 6 billion.

>>2302601
>hardly any signs of slowing
Can you, or can you not see that large and consistent downward slope in yearly growth?
World population peaks in the last half of this century.

>>2302637
Sorry, when you mentioned a US census bureau report, I thought it was referring to growth projections for US population.

Sorry about that.
But the decelerating growth is clear, and the census bureau projection stops at 2050, before the projected peak and decline. The UN report is pretty good.

Guys, we're fine. EVEN IF some countries outstrip their agricultural capacity before industrializing, the first world will be fine. Besides, the US alone can supply the entire world's food requirements (currently).

>>2302638
Sorry, I read the graph wrongly. I'd assumed it showed acceleration, rather than difference in size.

>>2302641
I'll read through it when I get a free period some time. Looks interesting.
Do you agree that this isn't an argument against continuing space exploration?

>>2302651
I smiled then thought you might actually be serious and stopped.

>>2302651
>US alone can supply entire world's food requirements
I have serious doubts about the veracity of that statement, even ignoring the awful grammar
>US can supply requirements
>supply requirements
Think about the meaning of what you just said.

this sums it up pretty much
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

1) Population is increasing and resources are stretching thin as they are.
2) Climate shifts may reduce Earth's ability to support large human populations.
3) The observed population growth drop off in post-industrial countries may come too late in some nations to avoid population catastrophe and it may never come in other nations.
4) Space colonization will NEVER be a means of relieving population pressure, NEVER! Earth's delta-v is too damn high.

>>2302657
The grammar is unusual but not incorrect. "Requirement" is synonymous with "ration" or "required portion" here. As in, "your daily requirement of water".

I suppose there are better ways to phrase it.

"Floor is lava"

>>2302657
>>2302655
>>2302651
New mini-task /sci/!

What is the projected maximum agricultural capacity of the mainland US?

>>2302680
Fair enough. My apologies, it's late.

>>2302675
Fuck your post, nigger. NEVER SAY NEVER.

>>2302699
It might be easier to just fine estimates of global carrying capacity. But that field is more of a clusterfuck that global warming EVER was. I can't find a reliable source.

This site kinda supports a ~15 billion number without much wishful thinking. This compares well with the projected UN peak population numbers.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/how-much-human-life-can-planet-earth-sustain/

>>2302699

>>2302730
I wish I could find a recent academic study though.

"We're going to Mars, and we're going tomorrow. Or I'll rape everyone in this motherfucking building."

>>2302699
I agree with >>2302721 , There's no way I'm going to be able to make any concrete statement on the matter. All the potential information is a bureaucratic clusterfuck.

>>2302699
Rice supports 770 people per km^2[1], north america has 4,639,660 KM^2[2] of arable land, therefore the continent could support 3,572,538,200 people on bare minimum food supplies. Comfortable resource usage is normally about 20% of maximum capacity, so it can comfortable support about 714 million people. I couldnt' find data on the amount of arable land in the US alone, sorry

[1] http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=939&catid=24&subcatid=159
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

>>2302708
NEVER

>>2302741
I came.

>>2302746
That's assuming that the definition and quantity of arable land doesn't change, and that we'll be growing rice, and that we'll be growing rice in the same way we currently do with the same yields, and...
You get the point.

But thanks for the armchair info and math; it's more than I was willing to do.

>>2302762
you're welcome, and I got my info from wikipedia- I don't want anyone to think it's anything more than a ballpark estimate

>>2302746
Thanks so much, anon!
So I guess it's not true that the US alone can feed the world. But it's not bad at all.

I wonder what China's prospects are once they industrialize instead of just having everyone subsistence-farm (horrible waste of time, lives and space). They're well on their way - the big demographic shift in China is rural subsistence farmers moving to cities. The government is also encouraging it.

>>2302708
DELTA-V! DO YOU SPEAK IT?

>>2302785
Once we've got cheap energy, the delta-v also becomes cheap. But you're right, it's not a solution to population pressures. Good thing it won't be a problem anyway.

>>2302770
think US no longer being number one. China already make the computers, the cars, the toasters and most other things america consumes, and it's loaned trillions of dollars to them also. China has america pinned down industrially and financially, and their technology is on par with ours. The reason nobody does anything about human rights abuse in china is that everyone is terrified of them.

>>2302795
As well they should be.

>>2302785
fuck yea delta-v

>>2302795
>think US no longer being number one.
'bout damn time. And I'm an American. I think it is better for the future of the country. Also, maybe once China is a superpower people will realize what a true authoritarian empire looks like again.

>>2302795
the real fun begins when the massive real state bubble in china pops, they have just kept pushing it forward with their national banks, but between the demographic shifting and the flattening of exports, they wont be able to conceal the huge toxic assets floating around (huge tracks of unused commercial and residential developments), it will be bigger than the US's pop and as much as you all want another bear in an iron curtain, china is more of a cluster of lizards taped together, they are about 4 bad quarters from a civil war. This won't be good for the US though, before breaking down, China will probably dump their currency and debt holdings to postpone the inevitable for a few months, causing inflation and huge interest rates.

no mudkips here

let's go home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoCNOXCBr44

>>2302825
Wait, what? What makes it so toxic? What makes you think Chinese land is overvalued?

>>2302851
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_property_bubble
is a good start.

"Countless minds have dreamed of this irregular red star in the sky, yet it is today that we are finally here, and we are still only beginning our future amidst the stars with this small step to our nearest neighbor."

>>2302867
The bubble isn't a problem if debt is low. The prices fall, but banks don't fail.
>Critics of the bubble theory point to China's relatively conservative mortgage lending standards and trends of increasing urbanization and rising incomes as proof that property prices can remain supported.

>>2302790
Your lifestyle cannot be supported if shared with every person on Earth. There simply aren't enough resources presently. The depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental degradation are likely to reduce resources available from current standards, thus reducing Earth's ability to support large human populations. The population is growing, and conservative estimates for where it will max out are never below 10 billion. Some are much, much higher. If some maintain your standard of living then a major gradient in living standards will be necessitated, which brings greater cultural instability. All of this are simple facts, but real kick in the shins has yet to be mentioned.

The Chinese aren't stupid. They *just* watched the US fuck this up, and they have authoritarian control over the economy, so they both have the knowledge and power to not make the same mistake.

>>2302882
(continued)

Nuclear war is and will remain a real threat to homo sapiens unless total nuclear disarmament is achieved. Given a long enough period of time, nuclear war is inevitable (barring disarmament). Should even a relatively localized nuclear conflict erupt and a mere 100 nuclear warheads be detonated above densely populated cities, civilization as we know it will be doomed. It won't be the hundreds of millions dead within the next week or the radioactive material across the region and in the atmosphere that will be the undoing of humanity's conception of the world. It will be the ash. Volcanic ash is known to reduce global temperatures and as well as the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface for plants. The fireball from nuclear weapons will start massive fires that will envelope the targeted mega-cities of the future. Huge amounts of ash will be pushed into the atmosphere, but unlike clear volcanic ash the ashes of cities is opaque. This means it will block out more sunlight and be heated more by the Sun, thus keeping it high in the atmosphere longer. The resulting low temperatures will reduce the lengths of growing seasons and the reduced sunlight will reduce yield. Species will die off in another mass extinction, likely the finishing blow for many species who have until this point struggled through the human induced Holocene Extinction Event. Earth's human population capacity won't simply be reduced for this period of time, it's environmental legs will be broken. The geopolitical power vacuum left from war, famine, and sudden climatic shift will cause countless brushfire wars that will bush humanity to the brink. Further nuclear exchanges may occur.

Because we need to dream.

>>2302886
(continued)

At this point humanity is doomed. It will endure through this period, but the technological feats it once achieved cannot be reachieved. With the bulk of humanity gone so goes the bulk of its knowledge. Without Earth's environmental bounties and without the now depleted cheaply accessible fossil fuels to push technological development, humanity will diminish with time. Thousands of years later, when humanity has become nothing but warring city-states with legends of past glory, some natural disaster be it comet, disease, or other will finally wipe our species clean from the face of the Earth.

This all seems logical to me. I don't like hope. It dulls the senses to pure logic. That is not to say I do not have ways in mind for humanity to avoid extinction. In fact, it are those plans that often lead me to vote for who I vote for.

>>2302886
Nuclear winter is an overhyped piece of fearmongering.

>>2302884
The fact that China is still heavily autocratic is proof Chinese don't "learn from history".

At least European leaders realized they probably should acquiesce after being overthrown, while 26 dynasties have come and gone in China and the government still believes it will never be overthrown...despite overthrowing the previous government.

ooh its all sticky

>>2302886
>>2302896
I smoked some salvia before reading this, and all I have to say is: Fuck you.

>>2302905
China is relaxing its hold. Just wait. The Chinese people generally are very supportive of the government (at present). At least, all the ones I've talked to.

I would say, "I claim this land for myself". I would then block any communications with earth.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

Try and be a little more present. Good. Now what is it you really want now?

>>2302884
Interesting tidbit of info for you here. I sat in on an informal colloquium a few years back. The physics department invites another professor within the university to talk during lunch in one of the classrooms most Fridays. He was an Chinese economics professor.

He said that the huge increase in oil prices before the global economic meltdown were intentionally caused by the US government. He said that the United States Congress passed measures that pressured US corporations into raising oil prices (as most major sources of oil have US corporate fingers in them). This increase in oil prices was an attempt by the US government to slow China's breakneck economic progress, and it worked. Well before the global financial meltdown the Chinese migrant worker economy had all but collapsed. The US economy could take the high oil prices, the Chinese economy could not. It still maintained positive economic growth, but the Moon colliding with the Earth couldn't stop economic growth in a country with a population of over a billion in the best days of the largest baby boom in human history followed by one of the most draconian population control policies in recent times.

>>2302929
>pressured US corporations into raising oil prices
Stopped reading. Just... just what

>>2302900
Scientific American disagrees with you. And this isn't one of the possibly bias political articles that express little more than opinion, this is a feature article based on the research of the author.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=local-nuclear-war

I'll try and post the full article if I can access it with my student account.

>>2302960
>Scientific American
Yeah.... that's not a peer-reviewed journal. It's a pop-sci magazine, although I prefer it to Popular Science. Nice try.

>>2302960
(continued)
This link may work but it is still loading for me.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf

>>2302960
Oh, I remember that one. It was far better than Sci Am's usual sensationalistic bullshit.
Pretty interesting, even if it didn't entirely convince me.

>>2302973
You aren't even going to google the Author? Look at the data?

"This airtime brought to you by Wal-mart Corporation"

>>2302974
>Some people think that the nuclear winter theory developed in the 1980s was discredited. And they may therefore raise their eyebrows at our new assertion that a regional nuclear war, like one between India and Pakistan, could also devastate agriculture worldwide
Red flags everywhere
>Our current work has appeared
in leading peer-reviewed journals. Still, we seem to be the only ones pursuing research into the global environmental risks of nuclear exchanges.
... and they're on the fringe. Nice.

>>2302978
No, he's not, because he's a close-minding pisshead.

Your link works, btw, thanks.

>>2302977
I'd LIKE it to be false, but I have admitted to myself that it is little more than hope. I have been presented with little reason to doubt the data presented, thus nuclear winter and its devastating effects are likely following a nuclear war.

Do you have information I do not?

>>2302984
ad hominem. Nice.

>>2302978
I looked. I'd want to see the peer-reviewed articles. Their graphs are pretty, but unsupported. And their little disclaimer column about "why believe it" is very disconcerting as far as their reliability.

>>2302989
No. But I'll admit to basing my opinions off of feeling and intuition more than logical examination of data.

The argument they present seems pretty complete, but the fact that it is presented in SA, their tone of writing, and the general attitude towards Nuclear winter makes me a bit dismissive.

>>2302984
Mind putting your post into proper sentences?

>>2302991
It's not ad-hominem. Tell me: just WHY would they feel the need to say those things? Their research is not accepted by peers. Everything they said there points to it.

>>2303011
It was just fine. Here, without the return character error:

>Some people think that the nuclear winter theory developed in the 1980s was discredited. And they may therefore raise their eyebrows at our new assertion that a regional nuclear war, like one between India and Pakistan, could also devastate agriculture worldwide
Red flags everywhere. (They're basically saying "We know you think our work we debunked decades ago, but we're bringing it up again")
>Our current work has appeared in leading peer-reviewed journals. Still, we seem to be the only ones pursuing research into the global environmental risks of nuclear exchanges.
... and they're on the fringe. Nice. (Peers don't support their research. At least they managed to get something published. I wonder what journal.)

To Google Scholar!

>>2303030
*was debunked

Still, their positions are much more encouraging. Maybe I overreacted.
>Alan Robock is professor of climatology at Rutgers University and associate director of the school’s Center for Environmental Prediction, where he studies many aspects of climate change. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Owen Brian Toon is chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a fellow of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics there. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union.

>>2303030
>>Still, we seem to be the only ones pursuing research into the global environmental risks of nuclear exchanges.
>... and they're on the fringe
A lack of people studying the topic doesn't equate to a majority disagreeing with them (that they are on the "fringe"). A lack of research is to be expected given the high importance of the topic during the Cold War and the relative unimportance today (thought it is still a damn important topic IMO).

>>2303040
If this is you too and you are reconsidering the article and its claims then I suppose you can disregard this post.

"My god... it's full of rocks."