Calorie availability and extent of food shortages for each nation are estimated following regional or global nuclear war, including impacts on major crops, livestock and fishery production.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
No, I’m saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you’re claiming that I’m the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
Sure, yet there’s no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there’s a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
Nope, I don’t think that at all. That’s just a straw man you’re building here.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It’s interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
No, I’m saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you’re claiming that I’m the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don’t want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Sure, yet there’s no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there’s a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.
Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.
Nope, I don’t think that at all. That’s just a straw man you’re building here.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It’s interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.