[defrost]

I'm fond of science, I did a few decades of exploration geophysics.

The Carl Sagan era Nuclear Winter discussions was almost entirely pop science.

The soundest papers of the time were dressed up back of the envelope Fermi estimations with the thumb heavily on the total devestation of the planet side of the scale.

It suited the pacificists, Sagan, Russell, et al to highlight nuclear danger, It suited diplomats wanting a MAD path to equilibrium standoff backed by the threat of total nuclear destruction.

> He is taking the existence of such bad pop science and smearing an entire field as being completely unscientific.

Rather he took the existence of a bad pop science field (Nuclear Winter papers of the Sagan era) and used that to smear another domain (atmospheric carbon models of 1967 onwards).