Extraordinary Evidence and Inexplicable Ignorance: Bunch (2012) and The Bos (2013)




It is telling to read competing journal articles regarding the Younger Dryas Boundary Event. For example below is the recent paper from The Bos, et al., and below that a publication from the YDB team the year before. (I was added as an author to that one based on some field work I did years before starting this blog).

There are a number of interesting observations that can be made, but let’s make the most obvious: Boslough et al., Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event, does not cite Bunch despite being published seven months later. This pattern will be familiar to readers of an earlier post regarding The Bos’ failure to cite LeCompte’s refutation of Todd Surovell’s totemic work.

In the comments section of the LeCompte post at the Tusk, The Bos himself explains this seemingly willful oversight as simply the result of bureaucratic diktat from AGU:


Dear George Howard,

Perhaps this timeline will help you understand why we didn’t cite LeCompte et al.

April 24, 2012: Boslough et al. submitted final draft to AGU, addressing reviewers’ comments.
May 14, 2012: Boslough et al. accepted by AGU for publication.
May 22, 2012: LeCompte et al. received by PNAS for review.
July 24, 2012: Boslough et al. final corrected proofs returned to AGU.
Aug. 7, 2012; LeCompte et al. approved by PNAS.
Sept. 17, 2012: LeCompte et al. published PNAS.

I’m sorry to keep bringing up those pesky laws of physics. They prohibit information from traveling backwards in time. We were forced to wait until after the LeCompte et al. paper had actually been written before we could read it and respond.

— Mark Boslough on the Cosmic Tusk, February 9, 2013

As I said in my reply to The Bos in the comments, this is nonsense. Having been a co-author of a couple of peer-reviewed articles and spoken with others much better published, it is no secret that it is perfectly acceptable and indeed encouraged to give the editor or publisher a call or drop them a note in order to halt or alter your text if new evidence is published. This is certainly appropriate in this instance given the paper, by their own admission, was designed to be a definitive critique that should halt research into the YDB.

Common courtesy — and scientific method it seems — would demand The Bos take a deep breath in such a circumstance, do the right thing, and address the highly detailed evidence published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shortly after his own submission, to an inferior journal, months before his final publication.

(In fact, with respect to Bunch there was even more time for The Bos to do the right thing. Bunch was published in June 2012, and LeCompte later in September 2012. But in both instances all 15 Boslough authors found it more pressing to hear the snap of the rope than the detail of the appeal.)

Moving on. Take a look at the content and tone of the papers. Bunch et al. dives deep into the nanosphere, produces extraordinary images which demand explanation, meticulously documents the composition of the materials, provides cogent narrative with data to back it up — and cites contrary findings without fear or prejudice.

The Bos takes the low road, rules it all simply impossible, calls into question the provenance of the evidence —  and denies citation to over 60 pages of peer-reviewed journal articles directly relevant to his subject.

The problem as always is getting people to read the primary sources carefully using their critical thinking skills to discern the relative validity between the contributions. Give it a try:

Very High Temperature Melt Products — PNAS-2012-Bunch by George Howard

Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event by George Howard

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve Garcia, E.P. Grondine,

    A proved example of abrupt climate change happening for reasons having nothing to do with humans and everything to do with nature is a “Emperor has no cloths moment” for the AGW crowd with the public.

    No public support = no money from politicians on the make.

    As for spotting the AGW scam, I don’t need WattsUpWithThat.com and ClimateAudit.com, or Climategate.

    Many of the AGW climate scientists spearheading AGW are the same people involved in the “Nuclear Winter” scam that destroyed Carl Sagan’s career as a scientist.

    “Nuclear winter” started as a half-hearted Soviet disinformation campaign. They were surprised at its reception, and it took them some time to get behind the Doomies who took it a lot farther than the KGB ever expected. As well as the extent to which Western scientists comprised themselves on its behalf.

    One of the better books documenting that Soviet “Nulear Winter” scam can be found on local dollar store book racks and is titled: “Comrade J – the Untold Secrets of Russia’s Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War”, by Peter Earley, published by the Penguin Group, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2007 (ISBN-13: 978-0-399-15439-3).

    This work of alleged non-fiction covers the recollections of Sergei O. Tretyakov, a KGB/SVR officer who defected while working as station chief in Manhattan. The author (a former reporter for the Washington Post) states that he was contacted by Tretyakov (with the cooperation of the FBI and CIA) after he published a book about Aldrich Ames, which apparently caught Tretyakov’s eye.

    The actual book, which by necessity is based almost entirely on the undocumented recollections of Tretyakov, has some interesting things to tell about modern day Russia (grossly corrupt) and their intentions towards us (unchanged, it appears). Reading it is kind of like listening to your grandfather walking down memory lane (probably why it was only a buck), but worth the slog.

    Tretyakov describes how the SVR inserted agents into former Soviet Republics and the UN in violation of international agreements, and managed US assets (apparently, traitors like Ames are rare and most US assets are either blackmailed or unsuspecting fools like Trent Lott).

    Tretyakov also described how the UN Oil for Food program was used as a cash register by the Russians all the way up till the invasion in 2003 and how they baited Carl Sagan with manufactured data to support his nuclear winter theories (successfully, it appears. Sagan was the only one believing them in the end).

    It also helps that a friend of mine who read both Carl Sagan’s article on Nuclear Winter and the December 1983 TTAPS “nuclear winter” article in Science spotted a huge flaw in Sagan’s piece and passed it to American atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer — author of the book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years” which I own.

    Sagan said in his October 1983 Parade article that his colleagues (Turco, Toon, Ackerman & Pollack) supported his opinions there. They didn’t as Sagan’s (fallout) radiological model, which was based on a Lawrence Livermore Laboratories study which assumed that ALL the nuclear reactor fuel rods in the entire world, including all the spent rods awaiting reprocessing, were irradiated and vaporized as if they were the U-238 casings on “hydrogen” bombs (really fission-fusion-fission devices).

    [See Lawrence Livermore study by Joseph Knox described on page 4 at footnote 4 of the December 1983 TTAPS “nuclear winter” article in Science, specifically pages 14-15 of Knox’s scenario]

    The above Knox scenario is physically impossible.

    Since my friend was a FEMA volunteer Nuclear Civil Defense coordinator at the time, he spotted the flaw when Sagan’s Parade article came out in Oct 1983. As he told me later:

    “Nuclear power plants tend to be so spread out that missle warheads just can’t do it. What is required are multiple simultaneous detonations by really big terminally guided warheads (at least 5 meg – preferably 20+ meg) delivered either by suicide bomber aircraft, or physical takeover of the sites and use of multiple simultaneous truck-delivered weapons with smaller yields.”

    The other TTAPS authors had specifically told Sagan that they disagreed with that Knox model, and not to use it. But Sagan did, and claimed that they agreed with him.

    So, to protect their own professional reputations, they inserted a footnote in the formal December 1983 TTAPS “nuclear winter” article in Science which specifically denounced the Lawrence Livermore study Sagan had said they agreed with.

    Armed with that data, my friend sent S. Fred Singer all of the above and Singer put the word out quietly in the science community of what Sagan did. The comminity then dropped “Nuclear Winter” like a hot rock to avoid a messy public scandal involving their credibility with both the public and Reagan era US Government grant award decision makers.

    This resulted in Sagan losing all further science grant money and turning into a fair-to-good science fiction writer.

    So Science data manipilation is pare for the course with the Doomies — which the AGW crowd is — and Sagan was both a Soviet tool as well as a Doomie fool.

  • Trent Telenko

    Sigh –> “Nulear Winter” Poor spelling will be the death of me.

    E.P. Grondine,

    Regards your earlier question, see this link on an ancient Greenland Impact crater:


    Only around 180 impact craters have ever been discovered on Earth and around 30% of them contain important natural resources of minerals or oil and gas. The largest and oldest known crater prior to this study, the 300 kilometre wide Vredefort crater in South Africa, is 2 billion years in age and heavily eroded.

    Dr McDonald added that “It has taken us nearly three years to convince our peers in the scientific community of this but the mining industry was far more receptive. A Canadian exploration company has been using the impact model to explore for deposits of nickel and platinum metals at Maniitsoq since the autumn of 2011.”

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi TT –

    [For what it is worth, an increase in typos may be a sign of an approaching stroke. My typos are very bad permanently now; you have to learn to forgive yourself and be thankful for what you have.]

    It is very interesting that the Carlsberg Foundation financed that work in Greenland. From what I can make out of it, geological work on impacts in Canada is far more open than that in the US – the recent work on the large buried ancient impact there being a recent example.

    I do not think that demonstrating the climatic effects of the HSIE will have any effect on the AGW “debate”.

    While that Peguin book you mention sounds like a very interesting read, that is not the way I remember the effects of the Nuclear Winter hypothesis, nor the way it propagated.

    As I remember it from the time, the volcanologists supported it immediately, as the necssary dust loads for climate collapse were well established by them to a first order.

    Thus once proposed, Nucl;ear Winter met with instant acceptance; it was simply that no one had thought of it. The observation helped to lead to a backing away from Mutually Assurd Destruction.

    With the research on impact events, it is likely that we will get firmer estimates of the necessary dust loads for global climate collapse. This has important consequences for understanding the effects of any limited conflict, such as an Israeli-Palestinian (Moslem) conflict with WMD systems. Also with the newly arming nations, there is the very pressing problem of accidental launch due to impact to deal with.

    Since my stroke I try to avoid any and all discussion of any and all defense systems.

    PS – Trent Lott being duped does not sound right to me.

  • Trent Telenko

    E.P. Grondine

    >>Trent Lott being duped does not sound right to me.

    I live in the US Defense Procurment bureaucracy.

    Senator’s Lott and D’Amato were both notorious for a great deal of stupid stuff in the pursuit of campaign contribution bucks that marked them as dupes of _many_ interests. Their votes may not have been “for sale,” but they sure as heck were being rented cheap.

    As for the TTAPS study, and your memory of events, there were more problems with the TTAPS study than Sagan’s radiology.

    This is from the letter that my friend sent Professor S. Fred Singer —

    …Many of the TTAPS sources, for both articles, are taken out of context or used as the basis for simplistic and misleading generalizations. Several even contain uncited matter tending to refute TTAPS’ allegations. This is especially true of J.Appl.Meteorol., 15, 355, 1976, cited in TTAPS Science, reference 77, which seems to show that the soot all by itself would cause a significant greenhouse effect, exactly the opposite of what TTAPS claims. A copy is enclosed.


    It appears that the key assumptions of TTAPS are:

    1) A 5,000+ megaton nuclear war would put sufficient dust into the stratosphere from ground burst detonations to decrease continental interior surface temperatures by 14EC.

    2) A 1,000+ megaton nuclear war would put sufficient soot into the stratosphere from urban firestorms to decrease continental interior temperatures by about 23EC.

    3) The dust and soot in the stratosphere would remain there for about a year.

    4) A 5,000+ megaton nuclear war would put enough soot into the troposphere to reduce continental interior temperatures by approximately 3EC. This condition would last for 2_3 months.

    5) The usual mechanisms of heat transfer from the ocean to continental interiors would not operate and nothing would replace them.

    6) Radiation exposures from fallout would be much higher than expected due to middle duration “tropospheric” fallout.

    I question each of these, as follows.


    TTAPS assumes that a 5,000+ megaton nuclear war would put sufficient dust into the stratosphere from ground burst detonations to decrease continental interior surface temperatures by 14EC.

    I believe that TTAPS overestimates the amount of dust which would be raised into the stratosphere, and the reflective properties of said dust, while ignoring offsetting absorption of reflected light by soot at the same altitude.

    First, TTAPS directly disagrees with the 1975 National Academy of Sciences study (Long_Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear_Weapons Detonations) concerning the amount of dust raised. The NAS estimated that a 10,000 megaton nuclear war would raise 10 x 107 _ 10 x 108 tons of dust into the stratosphere (pp. 54_60). TTAPS Geophys. alleges that a 5000 megaton nuclear war would raise 1.5 x 109 tons (p.8, table 4a) and TTAPS Science alleges that it would be 7.7 x 108 tons (table 2a). These are significant differences _ more than an order of magnitude between the NAS and TTAPS Science, with the latter postulating half the megatonnage of the former. TTAPS mentions the NAS study but does not state why they disagree with it by so large a margin. In view of the avowed political goals of the TTAPS authors (promote a nuclear freeze), this sharp and unexplained difference with the NAS study is suspicious.

    Furthermore, the amount of dust raised into the stratosphere by ground bursts should have declined in the nine years since the NAS study as the average size of warheads has decreased. I read somewhere that the environmental effects of nuclear detonations, in terms of dust and nitrous oxide depletion of ozone, have decreased sharply with the deployment of smaller, more accurate warheads, both MIRV’s for ICBM’s/SSBM’s and SRAM/cruise missiles for bombers, because warhead yields under one megaton cannot penetrate the stratosphere. TTAPS Geophys. says that detonations of 100+ kilotons do so. FEMA is checking into this for me.

    Second, most studies, not just TTAPS, over_estimate the volume of dust from a groundburst because they assume that groundbursts detonate at exactly ground level, when this is not the case due to fusing problems. TTAPS even assumes subsurface bursts due to “earth_penetrator” warheads, which I am informed are not even under development. TTAPS’ use of subsurface detonations, when such warheads do not exist, is suspicious in view of their other dubious practices. Air Force Magazine reports recent studies showing that ground burst craters are smaller than previously computed, possibly because of the fusing problem, and I will ask editor Edgar Ulsamer for information on these points.

    Missile warheads have a high terminal velocity due to an exceptionally streamlined shape, which is intended to minimize horizontal wind vectors. Nuclear weapons usually have three fuses, a radar altimeter/proximity fuse, a barometric altimeter which often sets off a timer, and an impact fuse. Radar altimeters/proximity fuses are exceptionally vulnerable to EMP. Impact fuses for nuclear weapons are quite unreliable because, according to a former B_52 pilot I know, the deceleration of impact will marginally but effectively deform the shock wave lenses from the high explosives of a nuclear weapon’s trigger, thereby causing the fissile material to shoot out to one side rather than imploding into a critical mass. Only if a warhead is lowered by parachute will an impact fuse work reliably.

    This means that the only reliable fuse is the barometric altimeter, which is not as accurate as the other two. According to my source, most nuclear weapons fused for ground bursts are intended to detonate 100 _ 300 feet above the ground. My source also has a low opinion of ICBM accuracy and reliability, and believes it likely that many of them will impact so far from their targets that a substantial proportion of those fused for groundbursts will impact before their trigger operates, and dud.

    Third, TTAPS may have overestimated the effects of dust in the stratosphere,for two reasons: the size_dependent nature of the reflective properties of dust particles,and a possible unused variable in TTAPS’ baseline comparisons with volcanic dust. TTAPS correctly notes that the 1975 National Academy of Sciences study of this subject erred in simply comparing dust raised by nuclear ground bursts with volcanic dust without evaluating potential differences in particle composition. Nuclear detonations are much more violent than volcanic eruptions and tend to produce smaller particles. Fred Hoyle’s Ice: The Ultimate Human Catastrophe, states that dust particles under one micrometer in size are not effective light reflectors, though smaller, more powdery particles up to that point are better light reflectors. Dust particles from nuclear detonations which reach the stratosphere would tend to be the smallest and least massive, and might contain such a high proportion under one micrometer in size as to render TTAPS’ calculations on this point unreliable.

    TTAPS’ baseline for evaluating the effects of volcanic dust on the earth’s albedo consisted of the Mount Agung and El Chichon volcanic eruptions. The latter was highly sulfuric in nature, and the sulphur which reached the stratosphere formed minute droplets of sulfuric acid which reflected sunlight. TTAPS Geophys. mentions this problem but I do not believe it actually takes it into account in its computations. This is something I must ask for your help on.

    Sagan said in his Parade article that they had compared the TTAPS model for “nuclear” dust effects with a volcanic dust model to establish the former’s accuracy. One would think that Messrs. Turco and Toon would have informed the geophysics profession at once if they had developed an accurate model for determining the relative effects of dust and sulfuric emissions for volcanic eruptions.

    Another question I have about dust in the stratosphere concerns its relationship with soot allegedly raised there by “firestorms” (about 1.125 x 107 tons). I suspect that the soot would absorb much of the light reflected by the dust.


    TTAPS assumes that a 1,000+ megaton nuclear war would put sufficient soot into the stratosphere from urban firestorms to decrease continental interior surface temperatures by @ 23EC.

    I am suspicious of TTAPS’ allegation that environmentally significant amounts of soot would reach the stratosphere in view of several deceptive points in their analysis. I directly dispute the effects that TTAPS says the soot would have.

    TTAPS Science does not indicate at all that most of the environmental effects they allege are due to the only 5% of total smoke emissions which reach the stratosphere, all of it derived from “firestorms”. This could be deceptive. Furthermore, “firestorm” is an inflammatory term, almost a buzzword. Only the cores of a few older cities have the density of combustible material to create or support a firestorm in the commonly accepted sense of the word. TTAPS Geophys. notes this and defines their use of the term as meaning any urban fire of sufficient intensity to raise soot into the stratosphere, which is a circular definition. In addition, it also continues to use the term in its generally accepted sense, which is a deceptive practice. TTAPS Science does not state that its definition of firestorm differs from the commonly accepted one, which is clearly deceptive.

    TTAPS Geophys. does note, and incorporate to an undetermined extent, countervailing factors such as prompt washout of soot particles from intense fires. I lack the technical background to evaluate the manner in which their model incorporates these factors. It appears that TTAPS Science does not incorporate these factors in its calculations, and it was published while the Geophys. article has not been.

    TTAPS Science says that firestorms would produce 7% of total smoke emissions, and that 5% of total smoke emissions (all of it from firestorms) would enter the stratosphere. This is a decrease of only 2/7, while TTAPS Geophys. assumes a 50% prompt washout rate. It does seem that TTAPS Science is less accurate than TTAPS Geophys. on this point. The uncharitable might suggest that it is not possible to get enough soot into the stratosphere to reduce surface temperatures by the desired levels unless realistic levels of prompt washout are ignored.

    Furthermore, both articles note that soot from wildfires is relatively uniform in size and thereby less effective as cloud condensation nuclei, and then imply that this also applies to soot from urban fires, which is anything but uniform. This is a simplistic generalization taken out of context. I wouldn’t be surprised if their model actually incorporates this mistake but cannot determine this myself.

    I also question the size of the burned out urban areas TTAPS assumes. They include southern hemisphere cities. I am thoroughly informed on military matters and I have never heard of any targeting plan for either the United States or the USSR which includes attacks on those. There are some military targets down there, chiefly communication facilities and an occasional bomber base, but not cities. TTAPS seems to be going out of its way to maximize environmental consequences no matter how militarily implausible the required targeting plan is.

    What seems to be the biggest error in TTAPS on the effects of soot in the stratosphere concerns the long_wave radiative properties of the soot particles which reach the stratosphere. The second source in TTAPS Science reference 77 (J. Appl.Meteorol. 15,355, 1976, by Gray, et al.), states of carbon black:

    “This finding agrees well with the results of a thermodynamic heat transfer analysis of the carbon particles by the authors in which it was found that about 95% of the absorbed solar energy is conducted to the surrounding air while about 5% is emitted as long_wave radiation.”

    Those soot particles which particularly intense urban fires might carry into the stratosphere would be the smaller, least dense and most hydrophobic and non_reflective ones, i.e., contain the greatest proportion of small particles with the highest proportion of carbon black. These would therefore tend to retain heat rather than radiate it into space. It seems to me that the 1.125 x 107 tons of soot which TTAPS Science alleges would reach the stratosphere (p.12) might be capable of creating a substantial greenhouse effect all by itself, precisely the opposite of what they claim. Gray’s article also seems to state that soot in troposphere would increase precipitation, not decrease it.

    A Russian study of the original Crutzen _ Birks article in Ambio, Twilight at Noon _ The Atmosphere After A Nuclear War, seems to agree with the greenhouse effect of soot. This Russian study, On the Modelling of the Climatic Consequences of of Nuclear War, is enclosed. Civil defense writer Bruce Clayton sent it to me. It states that the surface would get colder while the upper atmosphere gets so much hotter that it eventually reverses the surface cooling trend and actually increases surface temperatures to 20_40EC above normal.

    TTAPS Geophys. specifically states that the stratosphere as we know it would cease to exist, but does not say what would replace it. Is it possible that some consequent structural change would introduce hitherto unknown countervailing factors? If so, what?

    There are more points regards the flawed TTAPS study, but I won’t waste the bandwidth here. Short form — Doomies always manipulate science data. The TTAPS study was no different then Climategate, the Climate Scamers just got caught a lot earlier in their scam.

    I can e-mail the letter — minus my friends personal information — if you wish to see it.

  • Dear all, Trent

    Considering that senary a global war I think the model of urban fires is necessary to consider the amount of fuel (in vehicles) circulating (and fuel tanks) in cities, ports, industry etc, which is much larger than a few decades ago.

    I believe in the resilience of the atmospheric system under punctual extreme events. Apparently, since there were at least two large cosmic impacts (Permian-Triassic extinction event, 240 Ma; Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, 65 Ma) modifying the atmosphere, in several of its levels. After the crisis, the ecosystem entered in relative equilibrium and evolution turned its course.

    I believe, this is my impression, the stratosphere should return to balance through natural mechanisms that gives stability (current).

    Ok, maybe a little different, but substantially the same (in a decade, a century, a millennium?)

    Or something like atmospheric discontinuity between the Holocene and Pleistocene?


  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi TT –

    I may comment some more on your note later, or maybe not. What I gave you was the working perspective as I saw it.

    When you get down to freezing temperatures, frozen is frozen, and then its kind of counting icicles on the end of a stalk. Either estimate was sufficient discouragement.

    We could go into the different types of dust and their effects on suspension times (briefly mentioned in Man and Impact in the Americas – hope you have your copy alreaady.)

    To return to the topic at hand, small impacts throw a lot of light on what kind of dust load is necessary to cause temperature and food collapse. It looks to me to be much smaller than earlier thought, and this is important in view of religiond as social processes and modern nuclear technologies, i.l. local wars or NGO acts.

    But the study of recent impacts has been starved for funds, due to a really bizarre intersection of co-incidences.

    As I’ve mantioned before, I’ve had a stroke. Writing these few words is very difficult for me, and the only reason I can do it is because I thought these things through well before I got had mine. I do not like to talk about defense matters now, and particularly publicly.

    Impact doesn’t care, and has generated catastrophes regardless of political and religious systems. It has been handled here now in the US on a bi-partisan basis. So I’ll pass on commenting on Trent Lott, other than to state that I do not think this is the place to do that, and to ask that you stop doing it here.

  • E.P. Grondine

    sorry for the typos

  • E.P. Grondine


    Not only would I appreciate it if you left political pecadillos off this bbs, I would also appreciate it if you left AGW off it.

    Omce again, they are issues entirely separate from impact science. There are places that are appropriate for them, but it would be nice if you did not try try to tie up this bbs with that discussion.

    Once again, the proper term is Holocene Start Impact Event, not Younger Dryas Boundary event.
    The dates are different.

  • E.P. Grondine

    TT –

    Took a look –


    I do not care what you know about nuclear winter studies, nor what your friend told you.

    As far as “Doomies” go, yes, cult leders engage in that. But no impact scientists who I know or associate with.

    And now for a briefer musical interlude:

  • I’d like to see one single piece of peer reviewed literature that refers to the “Holocene start Impact Event”. I question why it is that we only see the term used in Mr Grondine’s own self published book, and blog posts, and only insisted on being used by him.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    I was trying to cut myself short so as to not hijack this thread, but I see that effort failed miserably.

    One thing you said: “Short form — Doomies always manipulate science data.” I thought this is funny, because to a high degree CosmicTusk is a doomie blog in itself.

    I know who you meant, though, and I agree.

    I am amazed you didn’t bring in Sagan and the runaway greenhouse that he argued – that similar to Venus, the Earth’s atmosphere is capable of going greenhouse and not being bike to stop. When Venus’ atmosphere is 96% CO2 – vs the Earth’s now 0.04% – there is no equivalence possible. That claim in itself is at the heart of the CAGW doomsaying, with the doomies arguing all sorts of positive feedbacks, all of which are input into the climate models incorrectly. The reality curve on the feedbacks is negative (as temps go up, more cooling effects occur), but the modelers don’t bother with reality on this point.

    Sagan was not exactly the first to propose the runaway greenhouse effect, but he was the one who resurrected it from its grave and popularized it and gave it its present place on the altar of doom.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    BTW, I think Sagan was an earlier version of Boslough – someone who became the darling of the media. I thought he was a nearly complete boob – and boring as the day is long in June. His “Cosmos” should have been marketed for putting people to sleep.

    That will be my last O/T comment here. I agree with Ed that this discussion doesn’t belong here.