Nuclear war isn’t all bad

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Art Stone

National Geographic reports that “A Small Nuclear war could Reverse Global Warming for years”

Wasn’t their magazine more fun when it was just legal porn?

About Art Stone

I'm the guy who used to run StreamingRadioGuide.com (and FindAnISP.com).
This entry was posted in American Politics, Death of Old Media, Energy, Global Finance, Obama Nation, State of Fear-mongering. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Nuclear war isn’t all bad

  1. Hesperus says:
    March 1, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    It’s still legal porn, only a different kind.

  2. briand75 says:
    March 2, 2011 at 7:55 am

    More junk science.

    • Art Stone says:
      March 2, 2011 at 5:03 pm

      I think it’s quite a bit more than that. It’s advocating a small scale nuclear war to “reduce the excess population”. Think through the list of countries that have or will soon have nuclear weapons….

      • ICCDude says:
        March 2, 2011 at 7:26 pm

        Aw, cmon Art.
        Just think of it as a “Global Climate Reboot”.
        Too hot? Hurl one into North Korea and pull down the temp 2-3 degrees. Perfect! 2 birds with 1 stone.
        Think of it like our own nuclear thermostat.

      • briand75 says:
        March 3, 2011 at 7:42 am

        It’s junk. My field of specialty and I can tell you the “models” are as full of holes as global warming (think “hockey stick”). The outcome of nuclear war has little or nothing to do with climate and everything to do with toxic chemicals, heavy metals and and radiation contamination.

        What they have done to NatGeo is a shame.

  3. prboylan says:
    March 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    From the article-
    “Even a regional nuclear war could spark ‘unprecedented’ global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.
    Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.
    …After a regional nuclear war, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war”

    The above sounds pretty uncomfortable. Anyone have Al Gore’s home phone number? I need him to explain again why we’re trying to hard to get the earth to cool down back to where it was during the mini-ice age of the 1600s-1800s. Who decided that was the ideal climate period anyway? I suspect the period between 800-1200 AD when Greenland was actually green was far more pleasant for most of humanity.

    • prboylan says:
      March 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

      What I am worried about? This is from the same government that can’t even accurately predict what the stock market will do tomorrow.

Comments are closed.