Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mimsy.UUCP!flink
From: flink@mimsy.UUCP.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
Message-ID: <12272333925.35.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20-Jan-87 00:43:41 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12272333925.35.MCGREW
Posted: Tue Jan 20 00:43:41 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 22:21:59 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mimsy!flink
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu writes:
>(...from what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and
>consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter").

Then you haven't read the *Science* article on the subject.  Many
assumptions were made in a manner that would tend to *underestimate*
the "nuclear winter" effect.  (I think the article I have in mind
came out in the summer of 1984.)

> [...] this entire "group denunciation"
>and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics --
>not science.

So what did you expect in political debate?!  Or do you think that
scientists have no right to participate in politics??!

--love and kisses,
Paul Torek                      flink@mimsy (soon to be torek@umich)
-------