Reversing global warming with a nuclear winter

National Geographic reports on a NASA study of the climate effect of a “regional” nuclear war:

The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn’t be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but “the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change,” research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.

At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said.

After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.

via Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years?.

These computer models, though, were based on 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear bombs going off.  That doesn’t strike me as a small war!  What 100 cities would be vaporized, and what effect would that have on the world?

As Joe Carter notes (HT be to him), no one is actually proposing this as a solution to global warming, at least not yet.  But this environmentalist thinks it’s pretty much too late to reverse climate change, so he is heading for the hills, stocking up on survivalist supplies and buying guns.  So maybe there will be a movement to set off some nukes.  A commenter suggests just setting off some in a desert.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Jonathan

    Yes, and it snowed in far-southern California last week.

  • Jonathan

    Yes, and it snowed in far-southern California last week.

  • http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/images/davycrockett/W54davy1.jpg Carl Vehse

    “But this environmentalist thinks it’s pretty much too late to reverse climate change, so he is heading for the hills, stocking up on survivalist supplies and buying guns.”

    The environmentalist link is to an article by Mike Tidwell, founder and director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. However, rather than “heading for the hills,” Mike’s article indicates he lives in Takoma Park, MD (elevation: 300 feet). Also, due to repeated neighborhood power failures, Mike said he spent $1,000 he would have put in his 13-year-old son’s college fund to buy a Honda GX390 generator he keeps in the garage. (BTW, the Honda GX390 is not a generator model but rather the model of a Honda engine that is used in various portable generators.) Tidwell didn’t explain where he was going to get the gasoline to run his generator once, in his words, “climate chaos goes to the max.

    As for survivalist supplies, Mike notes with pride that last week he “bought a starter kit to raise tomatoes and lettuce behind barred basement windows.” And Mike, while admitting to being “fundamentally a pacifist,” took his first-ever lesson in firearms use (skeet-shooting) in December; but he has yet to purchase any guns. Before he does, Mike might check the firepower inventory of an ordained Lutheran.

  • http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/images/davycrockett/W54davy1.jpg Carl Vehse

    “But this environmentalist thinks it’s pretty much too late to reverse climate change, so he is heading for the hills, stocking up on survivalist supplies and buying guns.”

    The environmentalist link is to an article by Mike Tidwell, founder and director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. However, rather than “heading for the hills,” Mike’s article indicates he lives in Takoma Park, MD (elevation: 300 feet). Also, due to repeated neighborhood power failures, Mike said he spent $1,000 he would have put in his 13-year-old son’s college fund to buy a Honda GX390 generator he keeps in the garage. (BTW, the Honda GX390 is not a generator model but rather the model of a Honda engine that is used in various portable generators.) Tidwell didn’t explain where he was going to get the gasoline to run his generator once, in his words, “climate chaos goes to the max.

    As for survivalist supplies, Mike notes with pride that last week he “bought a starter kit to raise tomatoes and lettuce behind barred basement windows.” And Mike, while admitting to being “fundamentally a pacifist,” took his first-ever lesson in firearms use (skeet-shooting) in December; but he has yet to purchase any guns. Before he does, Mike might check the firepower inventory of an ordained Lutheran.

  • Carl Vehse

    A commenter suggests just setting off some in a desert.

    There are certainly a lot of desert locations, especially in the Mideast, that would be ideal candidates.

  • Carl Vehse

    A commenter suggests just setting off some in a desert.

    There are certainly a lot of desert locations, especially in the Mideast, that would be ideal candidates.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Well now Carl, the Mideast is a fine candidate, for sure. But consider this, China holds our debt. See if we go to war with them, than we essentially wipe out our debt….
    No, I don’t really think that is a good idea folks. Just saying.
    Seriously, I live in Utah, in a country known for nuclear waste disposal. And honestly I spent a lot of time out in the “west Desert” love it there, but practically speaking it is good for two things, bombing ranges, and nuclear waste storage/disposal.
    However, we are also home to the “Down Winders” as they call them, people who grew up within eyesight of the testing done at Nellis AFB, etc. I think most of us have learned that nuclear bombs tend to create more problems than they solve.
    It also makes me wonder, I mean, has anyone checked to see or done studies to see how and if those bomb’s checked “Global Warming?” was that why people were afraid of Global Cooling in the Seventies?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Well now Carl, the Mideast is a fine candidate, for sure. But consider this, China holds our debt. See if we go to war with them, than we essentially wipe out our debt….
    No, I don’t really think that is a good idea folks. Just saying.
    Seriously, I live in Utah, in a country known for nuclear waste disposal. And honestly I spent a lot of time out in the “west Desert” love it there, but practically speaking it is good for two things, bombing ranges, and nuclear waste storage/disposal.
    However, we are also home to the “Down Winders” as they call them, people who grew up within eyesight of the testing done at Nellis AFB, etc. I think most of us have learned that nuclear bombs tend to create more problems than they solve.
    It also makes me wonder, I mean, has anyone checked to see or done studies to see how and if those bomb’s checked “Global Warming?” was that why people were afraid of Global Cooling in the Seventies?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    It’s worth remembering that some environmentalists have voiced tacit approval of plans to reduce world population to three billion people, which would seem to require some of these radical changes.

    That said, I’m not exactly sure what being armed will do to help you when it’s 120 in the shade, but whatever. I’m all for being armed, but please….

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    It’s worth remembering that some environmentalists have voiced tacit approval of plans to reduce world population to three billion people, which would seem to require some of these radical changes.

    That said, I’m not exactly sure what being armed will do to help you when it’s 120 in the shade, but whatever. I’m all for being armed, but please….

  • DonS

    Jonathan @ 1: It snows in far southern CA every year — it’s a matter of altitude.

  • DonS

    Jonathan @ 1: It snows in far southern CA every year — it’s a matter of altitude.

  • DonS

    Has anyone bothered to inquire as to why NASA did this study and how much it cost?

    The Democrats insist that cutting $61 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget for the remainder of this year, a cut of less than 2 %, is “draconian”. So, one would think every dollar spent is a matter of urgent importance. Hmmm.

  • DonS

    Has anyone bothered to inquire as to why NASA did this study and how much it cost?

    The Democrats insist that cutting $61 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget for the remainder of this year, a cut of less than 2 %, is “draconian”. So, one would think every dollar spent is a matter of urgent importance. Hmmm.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba said (@5), “It’s worth remembering that some environmentalists have voiced tacit approval of plans to reduce world population to three billion people.”

    Yes, it’s very important … to bolster one’s straw-man argument. It would seem. Honestly, people!

    “Some” environmentalists? Who? Are they popular? Do they carry a lot of weight? Have a lot of followers?

    And how do you “voice tacit approval”, exactly? When did they supposedly do this? Whose plans are these?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba said (@5), “It’s worth remembering that some environmentalists have voiced tacit approval of plans to reduce world population to three billion people.”

    Yes, it’s very important … to bolster one’s straw-man argument. It would seem. Honestly, people!

    “Some” environmentalists? Who? Are they popular? Do they carry a lot of weight? Have a lot of followers?

    And how do you “voice tacit approval”, exactly? When did they supposedly do this? Whose plans are these?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@7), that is a remarkable series of non-sequiturs!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@7), that is a remarkable series of non-sequiturs!

  • Tom Hering

    When I was a kid, we were all “down winders.” I remember the local TV station announcing the danger of radioactive fallout from bomb tests, and telling us to stay indoors, and school being closed, and the Civil Defense siren going off. Ah, the good old days.

    As for surviving if things really go to hell, people are better off forming small communities than trying to go it alone; buying a plow instead of a second rifle; living close to a source of water for crop irrigation.

  • Tom Hering

    When I was a kid, we were all “down winders.” I remember the local TV station announcing the danger of radioactive fallout from bomb tests, and telling us to stay indoors, and school being closed, and the Civil Defense siren going off. Ah, the good old days.

    As for surviving if things really go to hell, people are better off forming small communities than trying to go it alone; buying a plow instead of a second rifle; living close to a source of water for crop irrigation.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 9: I’m not following you. I do not see the point in NASA wasting valuable funding conducting this ridiculous study. One of many stupid things government spends our hard earned money on. And this is why it is remarkable to me that cutting government spending less than 2% is so wrenching, such that the Democrats would threaten to shut down government over it. Especially after it went up some 20% in the past two years.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 9: I’m not following you. I do not see the point in NASA wasting valuable funding conducting this ridiculous study. One of many stupid things government spends our hard earned money on. And this is why it is remarkable to me that cutting government spending less than 2% is so wrenching, such that the Democrats would threaten to shut down government over it. Especially after it went up some 20% in the past two years.

  • SKPeterson

    I suppose we could just pray that the volcanoes in Iceland go off, or St. Helen’s bursts again. If we get a nice uptick in volcanic activity (wonder how much those warmish geothermal convections underlying volcano zones contribute to upticks in climate sensors). A few good volcanic outbursts would do just as good as a nuclear war, with less unpalatable fallout.

  • SKPeterson

    I suppose we could just pray that the volcanoes in Iceland go off, or St. Helen’s bursts again. If we get a nice uptick in volcanic activity (wonder how much those warmish geothermal convections underlying volcano zones contribute to upticks in climate sensors). A few good volcanic outbursts would do just as good as a nuclear war, with less unpalatable fallout.

  • Austin

    It still does not address all the past atmospheric nuclear tests over the years. I’m curious, do they think those tests postponed climate change? Sure the tests did not necessarily create the carbon they estimate would come from a torched city, but how could they even guess what that amount would be?
    I recall seeing an interesting video timeline of global nuclear testing, the US (of course) had a staggering number.

  • Austin

    It still does not address all the past atmospheric nuclear tests over the years. I’m curious, do they think those tests postponed climate change? Sure the tests did not necessarily create the carbon they estimate would come from a torched city, but how could they even guess what that amount would be?
    I recall seeing an interesting video timeline of global nuclear testing, the US (of course) had a staggering number.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@11) said, “I do not see the point in NASA wasting valuable funding conducting this ridiculous study.” That’s fine. But you have made a remarkable series of logical leaps (@7) in connecting this particular NASA study to the Democrats’ current stance in the budget debate.

    Questions to consider:
    How much did the study actually cost?

    If this study had not been done, how much of the budget would have been saved? Is it something close to the 2% you refer to?

    Was this particular NASA study explicitly approved by Congress in legislation?

    For that matter, when was this study approved, and what federal budget can it be tied to, if any? How did the two parties vote on that budget bill?

    Assuming that it wasn’t, should it have been? Are earmarks and congressional micro-management the solution here?

    If not, then the “why” of this study has more to do with NASA’s direction than Congress’s.

    Assuming that’s the case, what should NASA’s budget actually be? How would the present or future Congresses ensure that NASA only spend its allotted budget on “good” things, not “bad” ones like this?

    How does support for NASA’s funding break down along party lines? Is it something that only Democrats support? Or have Republicans generally been in favor of NASA, as well? If so, why are Democrats the only party being singled out by you?

    And, for that matter, what exactly makes this study “ridiculous”? Are you sure you’ve understood what question the study was answering? Do you know what groups might be interested in the results of this study?

    I could go on, but my point is that there were quite a few leaps in your comment (@7).

    I get that you, personally, think this study was “stupid”, but I’m wondering if your personal opinion should guide all such government spending.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@11) said, “I do not see the point in NASA wasting valuable funding conducting this ridiculous study.” That’s fine. But you have made a remarkable series of logical leaps (@7) in connecting this particular NASA study to the Democrats’ current stance in the budget debate.

    Questions to consider:
    How much did the study actually cost?

    If this study had not been done, how much of the budget would have been saved? Is it something close to the 2% you refer to?

    Was this particular NASA study explicitly approved by Congress in legislation?

    For that matter, when was this study approved, and what federal budget can it be tied to, if any? How did the two parties vote on that budget bill?

    Assuming that it wasn’t, should it have been? Are earmarks and congressional micro-management the solution here?

    If not, then the “why” of this study has more to do with NASA’s direction than Congress’s.

    Assuming that’s the case, what should NASA’s budget actually be? How would the present or future Congresses ensure that NASA only spend its allotted budget on “good” things, not “bad” ones like this?

    How does support for NASA’s funding break down along party lines? Is it something that only Democrats support? Or have Republicans generally been in favor of NASA, as well? If so, why are Democrats the only party being singled out by you?

    And, for that matter, what exactly makes this study “ridiculous”? Are you sure you’ve understood what question the study was answering? Do you know what groups might be interested in the results of this study?

    I could go on, but my point is that there were quite a few leaps in your comment (@7).

    I get that you, personally, think this study was “stupid”, but I’m wondering if your personal opinion should guide all such government spending.

  • DonS

    tODD, my comment was general in nature. I wasn’t making any judgment as to which party authorized this study (if either), and I certainly wasn’t making a judgment about the larger question concerning funding for NASA.

    Here’s my point, simplified. We are currently running a $1.6 trillion deficit, and our public debt is approximately the entire annual GDP of our nation, and exploding. We are having a great deal of trouble finding $61 billion in cuts between now and October 1 — this represents less than 2% of our budgetary spending. Yet, we apparently think we have sufficient funding to spend millions studying what will be the effects on the climate if nuclear explosions equal to 100 Hiroshima events occurred. I think that is absolutely absurd.

    The bottom line is that I think we could easily apply 10% across the board cuts to every department of government, including Defense and the “untouchable” old-age entitlements, and we would be a far stronger country for it. That would just be a starting point. As an example, NASA, were it to receive 90% of its current funding, might actually focus on space exploration, rather than speculating about nuclear warfare.

    We have conditioned ourselves to be incredibly poor stewards of the hard-earned taxpayer dollar. Those dollars will be much better spent by those who earned them.

  • DonS

    tODD, my comment was general in nature. I wasn’t making any judgment as to which party authorized this study (if either), and I certainly wasn’t making a judgment about the larger question concerning funding for NASA.

    Here’s my point, simplified. We are currently running a $1.6 trillion deficit, and our public debt is approximately the entire annual GDP of our nation, and exploding. We are having a great deal of trouble finding $61 billion in cuts between now and October 1 — this represents less than 2% of our budgetary spending. Yet, we apparently think we have sufficient funding to spend millions studying what will be the effects on the climate if nuclear explosions equal to 100 Hiroshima events occurred. I think that is absolutely absurd.

    The bottom line is that I think we could easily apply 10% across the board cuts to every department of government, including Defense and the “untouchable” old-age entitlements, and we would be a far stronger country for it. That would just be a starting point. As an example, NASA, were it to receive 90% of its current funding, might actually focus on space exploration, rather than speculating about nuclear warfare.

    We have conditioned ourselves to be incredibly poor stewards of the hard-earned taxpayer dollar. Those dollars will be much better spent by those who earned them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@15) said, “Yet, we apparently think we have sufficient funding to spend millions studying what will be the effects on the climate if nuclear explosions equal to 100 Hiroshima events occurred.”

    Again, Don, I think that’s a specious way of framing it. Unless you have information to the contrary (if so, please share), it’s not clear under what budget this study was funded. You are making it seem like this study was done in light of today’s budget climate, when it almost certainly wasn’t.

    In other words, “we” didn’t decide to fund this this study in light of a $1.6 trillion deficit. Instead, our duly-elected representatives, at some point in the past — quite possibly when said representatives were not Democrat-dominated, when Republicans had no problem running up the federal debt — decided to fund NASA at some level. And NASA decided that, among the things it should fund with that money, was this study.

    And when did you find out that this study cost “millions”, given that you didn’t know how much it cost a few hours ago(@7)? Do you have information you’d like to share? Do computer simulations typically run in the “millions” of dollars these days? Was the study jointly funded by any other entities, possibly not federally funded?

    “I think we could easily apply 10% across the board cuts to every department of government.” That’s fine. What makes you think a 10% cut to NASA would have precluded this study from being funded and/or run?

    “NASA, were it to receive 90% of its current funding, might actually focus on space exploration, rather than speculating about nuclear warfare.” So is it your opinion that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has no interest in studying our own planet’s atmosphere (even, say, if it is studied via satellites in space)? Is this based on anything? Other than your disdain for modern climate science, I mean?

    If we are to be good stewards of taxpayer money, should NASA even be focused on space exploration, as you imply? Which is a bigger waste of money, studying the planet we live on, or trying to get people and robots onto far-flung planets and planetoids?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@15) said, “Yet, we apparently think we have sufficient funding to spend millions studying what will be the effects on the climate if nuclear explosions equal to 100 Hiroshima events occurred.”

    Again, Don, I think that’s a specious way of framing it. Unless you have information to the contrary (if so, please share), it’s not clear under what budget this study was funded. You are making it seem like this study was done in light of today’s budget climate, when it almost certainly wasn’t.

    In other words, “we” didn’t decide to fund this this study in light of a $1.6 trillion deficit. Instead, our duly-elected representatives, at some point in the past — quite possibly when said representatives were not Democrat-dominated, when Republicans had no problem running up the federal debt — decided to fund NASA at some level. And NASA decided that, among the things it should fund with that money, was this study.

    And when did you find out that this study cost “millions”, given that you didn’t know how much it cost a few hours ago(@7)? Do you have information you’d like to share? Do computer simulations typically run in the “millions” of dollars these days? Was the study jointly funded by any other entities, possibly not federally funded?

    “I think we could easily apply 10% across the board cuts to every department of government.” That’s fine. What makes you think a 10% cut to NASA would have precluded this study from being funded and/or run?

    “NASA, were it to receive 90% of its current funding, might actually focus on space exploration, rather than speculating about nuclear warfare.” So is it your opinion that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has no interest in studying our own planet’s atmosphere (even, say, if it is studied via satellites in space)? Is this based on anything? Other than your disdain for modern climate science, I mean?

    If we are to be good stewards of taxpayer money, should NASA even be focused on space exploration, as you imply? Which is a bigger waste of money, studying the planet we live on, or trying to get people and robots onto far-flung planets and planetoids?

  • DonS

    tODD: Again, my only point is that we as a government spend a lot of money on things that I don’t think anyone would view as essential or even, frankly, important. And yet, when our government is urged to cut a mere 2% of its budget, we hear that the sky is falling and shutdowns are threatened, though most families and businesses have been forced to cut their budgets 10-20% or more. Why is that?

    The study at issue was just reported in February. So, clearly, it was done relatively recently. I’m not sure of its length, and I didn’t find any information regarding funding, though these types of studies, peer reviewed and reported at symposiums, are not inexpensive. Our budget problems are longstanding, so it’s not as if only recently should we have been concerned about spending taxpayer dollars on determining the climatic effects of major thermonuclear war. And again, this study is only a proxy for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that is wasted each year, in one way or another.

    I have no problem with climate research. But this particular study does not seem like a priority to me, nor do I suspect that very many people believe that the direction of climatic temperatures will be the most pressing concern should such a cataclysm actually occur. As for future funding of NASA, I don’t know. That particular agency is going to have to take a haircut like everyone else. Everything will have to be on the table if we are going to avoid handing our children an utter economic disaster.

  • DonS

    tODD: Again, my only point is that we as a government spend a lot of money on things that I don’t think anyone would view as essential or even, frankly, important. And yet, when our government is urged to cut a mere 2% of its budget, we hear that the sky is falling and shutdowns are threatened, though most families and businesses have been forced to cut their budgets 10-20% or more. Why is that?

    The study at issue was just reported in February. So, clearly, it was done relatively recently. I’m not sure of its length, and I didn’t find any information regarding funding, though these types of studies, peer reviewed and reported at symposiums, are not inexpensive. Our budget problems are longstanding, so it’s not as if only recently should we have been concerned about spending taxpayer dollars on determining the climatic effects of major thermonuclear war. And again, this study is only a proxy for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that is wasted each year, in one way or another.

    I have no problem with climate research. But this particular study does not seem like a priority to me, nor do I suspect that very many people believe that the direction of climatic temperatures will be the most pressing concern should such a cataclysm actually occur. As for future funding of NASA, I don’t know. That particular agency is going to have to take a haircut like everyone else. Everything will have to be on the table if we are going to avoid handing our children an utter economic disaster.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, I believe my source is a UN report, so it’s a lot more significant than Ingrid Newkirk of PETA saying “a pig is a dog is a rat is a boy” or whatever.

    Not that, given pretty good membership, the nonsense from PETA is a little thing, either.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, I believe my source is a UN report, so it’s a lot more significant than Ingrid Newkirk of PETA saying “a pig is a dog is a rat is a boy” or whatever.

    Not that, given pretty good membership, the nonsense from PETA is a little thing, either.

  • WebMonk

    If it helps at all, I’ve seen studies like this happen at different organizations and even worked on the same style of study myself. My guess on the cost of this study (based on similar sorts of studies at different organizations I’ve been at) is between $20K and $100K. I was on a $550K similar project that had five people funded for a year. A one-person project isn’t going to take a year and will probably fall in the $20K to $50K range. Maybe NASA has higher overhead costs, so I put it up to $100K, as a bit of guesstimation buffer.

    The biggest clue is that the only person listed on the paper is Luke Oman. If it were a bigger study than that, it would most certainly have more than one author. (Unless, Luke Oman is really obnoxious and they gave him his own multi-year project to make him go away. I’ve seen it happen.)

    I don’t know exactly how long it takes for the funding cycle to run at NASA, but it is highly unlikely to be less than two years, very probably more like three-plus years from when the study is proposed to being approved to being done to being published.

    As it was published at a conference in Feb 2011, it was probably done in the first half of 2010 which is still in the 2009 funding cycle, funding authorization probably happened in 2008 or early 2009.

  • WebMonk

    If it helps at all, I’ve seen studies like this happen at different organizations and even worked on the same style of study myself. My guess on the cost of this study (based on similar sorts of studies at different organizations I’ve been at) is between $20K and $100K. I was on a $550K similar project that had five people funded for a year. A one-person project isn’t going to take a year and will probably fall in the $20K to $50K range. Maybe NASA has higher overhead costs, so I put it up to $100K, as a bit of guesstimation buffer.

    The biggest clue is that the only person listed on the paper is Luke Oman. If it were a bigger study than that, it would most certainly have more than one author. (Unless, Luke Oman is really obnoxious and they gave him his own multi-year project to make him go away. I’ve seen it happen.)

    I don’t know exactly how long it takes for the funding cycle to run at NASA, but it is highly unlikely to be less than two years, very probably more like three-plus years from when the study is proposed to being approved to being done to being published.

    As it was published at a conference in Feb 2011, it was probably done in the first half of 2010 which is still in the 2009 funding cycle, funding authorization probably happened in 2008 or early 2009.

  • DonS

    Thanks, Webmonk.

    My original comment was really sort of an off-hand one, because the subject matter of the study just struck me as ludicrous, at least if it involves my tax dollars. If someone wants to study these sorts of things using private funding, have at it! :-)

    Bottom line — I believe the budget can be cut significantly without causing Armageddon.

  • DonS

    Thanks, Webmonk.

    My original comment was really sort of an off-hand one, because the subject matter of the study just struck me as ludicrous, at least if it involves my tax dollars. If someone wants to study these sorts of things using private funding, have at it! :-)

    Bottom line — I believe the budget can be cut significantly without causing Armageddon.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@18), are you kidding me? “I believe my source is a UN report”? Do you “believe” or you know? If you know, can you point me to it?

    I’m still interested in seeing how “some environmentalists” can “voice tacit approval”.

    As for Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, she’s relevant to this discussion … how? Am I supposed to be distracted by that remark so that I forget your so-far utterly baseless claim?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@18), are you kidding me? “I believe my source is a UN report”? Do you “believe” or you know? If you know, can you point me to it?

    I’m still interested in seeing how “some environmentalists” can “voice tacit approval”.

    As for Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, she’s relevant to this discussion … how? Am I supposed to be distracted by that remark so that I forget your so-far utterly baseless claim?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X