Green Weenie Award: Nuclear War Will Save Us!

Powerlineline’s Green Weenie of the Week Award has now raised the bar against which all green weenies will now be measured. ~ctm

From Powerline.

Posted on January 4, 2019 by Steven Hayward in Climate, Green Weenie Award

Green-Weenie-Mug-copyAs I suggested in my latest Loose Ends post earlier today, our standards for giving out one of our highly coveted Green Weenie Awards have been significantly raised. You can’t get one any more just for proposing a Green New Deal or something economically illiterate. You have to do a lot better than that.

Like Samuel Miller-McDonald, who writes at The Trouble today that perhaps the only hope for avoiding catastrophic global warming is for a nuclear war to reduce human population and consumption. You need to read the whole thing to appreciate its full dementia, but here is the climax of the argument:

One wrench that could slow climate disruption may be a large-scale conflict that halts the global economy, destroys fossil fuel infrastructure, and throws particulates in the air. At this point, with insane people like Trump, Putin, Xi, May, and Macron leading the world’s biggest nuclear powers, large-scale conflagration between them would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. . .

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science.

Um, isn’t the idea of nuclear winter based on the same climate science that is settled at the 97 percent confidence level? Oh never mind. To continue:

An [nuclear] exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive. . .

Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is. . .

It is a stark reflection of how homicidal our economy is—and our collective adherence to its whims—that nuclear war could be a rational course of action.

Now, I’m so old I remember when the most socially conscious people regarded the prospect of nuclear war with dread rather than hope. And perhaps we should be grateful for Mr. Miller-McDonald in making explicit what I put in boldface above—that the climatistas want to “shut down the global economy.” This is another good sign of how climate change has completely deranged some people.

And if this doesn’t merit a Green Weenie Award, I don’t know what would any more.

Read the original post here.

 

Advertisements

125 thoughts on “Green Weenie Award: Nuclear War Will Save Us!

  1. “Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science.”

    This sentence is rubbish, makes no sense. It’s the ash from the mushroom clouds, not ground level firestorms, that would cause global cooling that is termed nuclear winter.

    • Correct, but that scenario is also rubbish, to use the polite term.

      Many of the same Leftist ideological purveyors of “nuclear winter” later jumped on the “global warming” band wagon.

      • Although burning cities do loom large in nuclear winter gibberish, so firestorms are involved.

        Particulates are the alleged doomsday carriers, whether lofted upwards by firestorms or groundburst (or low airburst) detonations directly.

        Steven Schneider privately admitted that the NW Team might have the particulate physics wrong.

        • What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is

          The world and its species have survived far more than 6deg of warming, butthere hasn’t been a nuclear exchange to test your hypothesys…do you REALLY want one???

          And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

          If YOU “Don’t Know” the outcome of what you propose and there is a likelihood of your worst case scenereo, Don”t be so asinine as to propose it as a solution in the first place…

          It is a stark reflection of how homicidal our economy is—and our collective adherence to its whims—that nuclear war could be a rational course of action

          Far better stated…
          It is a stark reflection of how homicidal our journalists are—and their collective adherence to their AGW beliefs—that nuclear war could be considered a rational course of action
          Nuclear War is an irrational course of action proposed by irrational journalists

        • Samuel Miller McDonald …

          is a geography PhD student at University of Oxford studying the intersection of grassroots movements and energy transition. He is managing editor at ActivistLab.org and a writer. His work can be found here; he tweets @sjmmcd.

          https://www.the-trouble.com/who-we-are/

          Their [hair-raising, skin-crawling] manifesto …

          “Humans experience climate change in radically different ways. These varying experiences are not randomly determined—they are the direct result of our political realities. Those who have fought to retrench the present carbonized economy—corporations, states, and many ordinary people—do so because they are enriched and empowered by fossil energy, and bear few of its costs. Conversely, poor people, people of color, and subjects of gender oppression are most vulnerable to climate disaster precisely because they lack the capital and political sway to insulate themselves from peril.”

          https://www.the-trouble.com/manifesto/

          • Conversely, poor people, people of color, and subjects of gender oppression are most vulnerable to climate disaster precisely because they lack the capital and political sway to insulate themselves from peril

            B O Y
            If that isn’t a Racist, Sexist, Classist statement then I don’t know what one is
            Is he really playing the
            Race Card
            Sex Card
            and
            Class Card
            all in one sentence??

          • studying the intersection of grassroots movements and energy transition.

            In other words, he’s a Climate Communicator who specializes in Astroturfing for Renewables.

            ~¿~

  2. What a solution – kill off most of humanity to avoid the possibilty of global warming killing off most of humanity.

    • The scary take home message is actually that the extreme greenie is as dangerous as any radicalized group. They are now even starting to share the same sorts of extreme solutions in the name of their belief.

      • The scary take home message is actually that the extreme greenie is as dangerous as any radicalized group. They are now even starting to share the same sorts of extreme solutions in the name of their belief.

        “Starting”? How about for at least the last 30+ years? I did a research paper in `95 where I discovered that they wanted to eliminate 95% of the human race (“the optimum population of the human race is 200,000,00). My professor was quite surprised at what I found out.

        • I think they need to be classified as a terrorist group. Unless they immediately practice what they preach, and choose 95% of their deluded followers to make the “appropriate” sacrifice.

    • This nihilism has been a mainstay of the green hysterics for decades.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/04/al-gore-predicts-2020-political-climate-change-tipping-point/#comment-2577337

      Read these extreme-left screeds and many more, at:
      http://www.green-agenda.com/

      It is truly amazing that these people actually believe they are ethical, and of above-average intelligence.

      Regards, Allan
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
      industrialized civilizations collapse?
      Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
      – Maurice Strong,
      founder of the UN Environment Programme
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
      United States. De-development means bringing our
      economic system into line with the realities of
      ecology and the world resource situation.”
      – Paul Ehrlich,
      Professor of Population Studies
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “One America burdens the earth much more than
      twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
      In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
      350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
      but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
      – Jacques Cousteau,
      UNESCO Courier
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
      as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
      – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
      patron of the World Wildlife Fund
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
      It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
      – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “The extinction of the human species may not
      only be inevitable but a good thing.”
      – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
      for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
      Phasing out the human race will solve every
      problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
      – Ingrid Newkirk,
      former President of PETA
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
      society, unless the parents hold a government license.
      All potential parents should be required to use
      contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
      antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
      – David Brower,
      first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

      • Ah, yes. Prevent mass death by pre-emptive extermination. Ya gotta love the logic of these people. Oh, and their optimism, and love of humanity.

      • This theme was explored by Tom Clancey in 1999 in his book Rainbow Six though they wanted to use biological warfare to destroy the human race instead of nuclear warfare.

    • The basic idea is consistent with the movie Inferno; only the vehicle for change is different.

  3. I sincerely hope that the media pick this story up! The Green blob are their own worst enemies and in their desperation to “prove” themselves continually shoot them selves in the foot. I truly enjoy reading brain dead post such as this. It proves that to a Mann the warmists are Goretastic fools. Has anyone seen any snow lately? Haha.

  4. “Death cult zealots”? Looks a great deal like projection.
    If anything, nuclear winter with the TTAPS study was the first apocalyptic climate model, so a zealot denouncing it as bad science is precious.

  5. The elephant in the room that the CO2 (NOT carbon) doomsdayers refuse to acknowledge is that for most of the Earth’s history the global mean temperature was at **least** 20 deg C warmer than now and life thrived!!! That little fact from geology puts a stake through the heart of all their doomsday scenarios.

    • As if Holocaust denier, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un are the picture of mental health.

      Far from the author’s perfervid fantasies, global nuclear war wouldn’t kill enough people to end imaginary man-made “climate change” (which is not a problem), stop reliance on fossil fuels or instigate one world socialist government. It would just mean that many people died pointlessly, while setting back planetary economic development for maybe a decade.

      The consequences of a now near-maximal, 1000 megaton exchange (down from 5000 in extreme nuclear winter scenarios) would be surprisingly disappointing for Green Meanies hating on humanity.

    • Silly is not the word that comes to mind. They are genocidal monsters who never include themselves in their murderous plots. They consider themselves as the cream of civilization and worthy to be above all rules. Algore has 4 children, beachfront mansions and private planes. I call on him to set the example for his policies.

  6. If you really wanted to reduce global populations without any damage like a nuclear war, Education is the key. We all know this to be true, because here in the West, as education levels went up, birth rates went down. This is the most sensible way of not only stabilizing global populations, but also increasing everyone’s share of the loot. Plus Women are much better off, as well as children, especially children as their pre-mature death rates diminish as their standard of living increases. Education has the best return on investment there is, as we have seen in the last few hundred years in civilized countries.

    Having said this, we still have brain dead teachers unions here that promote all kinds of nonsense, along with a corrupt academic environment that promotes such unscientific notions as doomsday from some small benificial warming and blames it on an invisible, harmless, colorous, tasteless, odorless trace gas in such small concentrations to the atmosphere as be considered near extinction level just 18,000 years ago.

    So while education isn’t a guarantee that we will get everything right, it is step in the right direction that improves our lot in life.

  7. I suppose that the silver lining to the post at “The Trouble” is that at 25 comments, the unanimous opinion is that Miller-McDonald is a complete nutter.

    • Yes the commenters think there is something wrong with the author but it was published by the website and the author is a contributing editor.

      Want to see their true colors go their site and click on about. Read “Who we are” and their “Manifesto” (yes they have a manifesto). That site is what the new left is all about.

      • Chilling, isn’t it?

        We mock them .. but these people are deadly serious, and much like AOC, many take them seriously.

        Our side needs to figure out what these people are about, and figure out a way to combat/defeat them .. or we are screwed. While we laugh and point at them, they are gaining a foothold in the government .. much like AOC herself.

  8. What’s ludicrously fascinating about this article is that the remnants of Humanity will be unable to create the “green” energy solutions of Solar Panels, Solar Furnaces, and Windmill Generators! This event would throw humanity back to Fossil fuels and Wood to stay alive! So much for a “Green” Post-Apocalyptic Future!

    • That’s just it, this champagne socialist who dreams of a ‘jobless economy’ were he can sit around sipping organic chai lattes all day while collecting his government mandated ‘not a welfare check’ free income thinks it’s the Fossil Fuel industry that won’t survive without all the subsides and tax breaks.

      The basic problem is that after awhile the Climate Faithful believe all their own ridiculous propaganda, like that X-treme Weather is already worse then ever.

      It’s the Big Lie.

      ~¿~

  9. I’m surprised a brainwashed warmer hasn’t engineered a virus to kill off part of humanity. You know they’ll try.

    • That was part of the plot to Tom Clancy’s 1998 novel “Rainbow Six”. Very rich greenies end up with an appropriate punishment.

  10. I don’t know who this guy is, but he cares so much for the natural world that he suggests incinerating millions upon millions of animals and innumerable plants in order to save the natural world. Remember the good old days when people like this were locked up for the sake and safety of the rest of us?

      • Charles, please be a moderator, or be a commenter, but don’t be both because doing so degrades this site. (AKA David Steeley)

        [another mod held this, but I see no reason to. ~ctm]

        • Richard’s opinion seems to be: block moderators lest others be blocked.

          Question: Would blocking a moderator from commenting on a disingenuous comment make that moderator less likely to delete that comment?

          It seems to me a rebuttal to an idea is more effective than blocking an idea.

          SR

          • I meant to conclude…rebutting an idea one disagrees with is more effective than blocking that idea. So, let moderators also comment.

            This it what happens when I get called to eat – my brain goes slack.

            SR

  11. No wonder we see such a narrative with the kind of immoral environmental damages occurring. The despair that hits our minds is the same as the one we can suffer from the thoughts of WW3, a common statement in the news these days. These issues have been on my mind and have been aired through various comments. In fact the extermination of human civilization is so traumatizing a thought that I am comforted with my two books the first of which “In search of consciousness and the theory of everything” will soon be followed this year by The Theory of Everything and the Origin of the Universe, Consciousness. They are very relevant to the issue of world calamities. The thought arises from my books that it is our ignorance of supernatural truth or realities that upsets the human beings to the extent they are morally and psychologically permanently traumatized, not knowing their ultimate identity and reality. My theory of everything will show how scientifically and philosophically the universe and humanity originated. Having the scientific proof we are of supernatural origin is critical for our collective security as a planet with intelligent beings. My appointment as member of the Lifeboard Foundation boards for cosmology, philosophy and spirituality is significant. With the other members including very distinguished scientists, intellectuals, Fellows of the most prestigious academies, top academic institutions, including several Nobel laureates, the ultimate objective is to debate how to protect humanity and the world from global threats. So congratulations on this article which shows a bit of the dangers facing us.

    • Abed Peerally January 7, 2019 at 7:06 pm

      ………“In search of consciousness and the theory of everything” will soon be followed this year by The Theory of Everything and the Origin of the Universe, Consciousness….and….”My theory of everything will show how scientifically and philosophically the universe and humanity originated.

      WOW! And I thought I had to die and go to Heaven to know all the answers!? Silly me!
      Cheers
      Mike

  12. “An [nuclear] exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within.”

    The irony here is hard to miss. If we don’t make any green changes and continue to pump out CO2 and assuming the models are correct (which they aren’t), then the predicted loss of life from more CO2 is a much better hand brake than any nuclear war scenario. Under the green’s own BAU alarmist scenario, billions of people perish by slowly rising seas, because for some unknown reason they will become unable to move to higher ground in time. Also, their crops become too woody and worthless in a rich CO2 world despite their food being produced in greenhouses today. You would think that the best silver lining outcome would be to sit at the waters edge for your 80 years of life, enjoying the beach views and sea breeze in nice warm weather, whilst waiting to be drowned by the modelled isostatic rebound, whilst eating your woody vegan food that isn’t woody, but alas ….

    I also wonder why the Greens don’t advocate mass suicide as an alternate solution to their planet salvation strategy. I’m sure if every last Green climate alarmist ended thir life tomorrow to help save the planet, it would actually make a really big and positive difference.

    • Remember, Jonestown was built to be a environmental Communist Utopia. Apparently dieing was easier then admitting they were wrong.

      Maybe if we can get them all to leave western society for North Korea or Argentina, they’ll take care of the problem themselves. They just need the right incentive, like four more years of Trump. Nothing offends a Communist like Capitalists winning.

      ~¿~

      • Argentina elected a conservative president, but he’s up against apparently insurmountable odds.

  13. The upside is that climatists mostly live in big cities. So, there would be fewer of them.

    atomic bombs are usually sent at big cities. If anyone wondered.

    /Sarc.

  14. Admins: Just FYI, someone needs to separate the commentary from the quoted material in the last block quote.

    (Edited, thank you) MOD

  15. Maybe Mr. Miller-McDonald could volunteer to go down with the first bomb, like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

  16. Is it possible that the original article was intended as satire? A common rhetorical technique is to present an outrageous premise in order to make the alternative that you are actually promoting seem more attractive.

    The last line of the original article (which was not included in the Powerline posting, but, in fairness, should have been) was:

    “Or, ya know, we could just stop using fossil fuels.”

  17. This guy undoubtedly suffers from what I call the Zombie Apocalypse mindset.

    So this deranged idiot writer also probably would rather see a Zombie Apocalypse descend on humanity as opposed to a nuclear war which would also destroy natural ecosystems with intense blast heat and fallout radiation. But keep in mind the typical Zombie Apocalypse scenario is one where 95% of the population has either been outright killed or turned into the undead, flesh eating Zombie by some engineered virus. The Zombies then terrorize the remaining 1 out 20 uninfected survivors (and keep the show running for many seasons long past any originality in plot device).

    So being a Liberal Arts major, one has little appreciation of statistics of a Zombie world. If 19 out of every 20 people are either outright dead or Zombies, what are your chances that you are the “lucky” 1 out of 20?

    The Liberal Arts majors undoubtedly see themselves as near-100% likely to be in the 5% of survivors, valiantly struggling against former Trump-loving Zombies.

    But I see it this way:
    the Zombie Apocalypse survivors are more likely to be, or have at least a background in:
    1. military weapons and combat survival training, and/or
    2. boy scouts or girl scouts with survival skills taught through some basic camping experience, and/or
    3. law enforcement trained to use weapons, and/or
    4. rural folks accustomed to using guns, living off the land, and growing their own food.

    The hairdresser from SoHo or writer from the The Trouble is quite unlikely to have done any of 1. thru 4. above. So logically it just doesn’t strike me that the climate-whining Lefty type will survive any apocalypse scenario, whether it be post global nuclear war, Zombie apocalypse, or any other similar end of modern humanity scenario.

    [one gratuitous and unneeded adjective removed. MOD]

  18. It always disturbs me when incomplete work with inadequate citations is offered for serious consideration. Miller-MacDonald has failed to comprehensively consider alternatives and is hereby referred to the following prior work for additional means/methods to address the manifest deficiencies in the proposal:

    R. Fleischer, H. Harrison, Soylent Green, 1973: Reduced collateral damage compared to thermonuclear sterilization and a copious (and renewable!) supply of nutrient provisions with impressive shelf life. Combining population control with recycle/reuse should result in handsome reductions in carbon emissions.

    B. Sagal, R. Matheson, The Omega Man, 1971: Maximizes usable investments in existing infrastructure and supplies to minimize the carbon footprint of the scant survivors for decades to come. The zombie by-product is perhaps a bit torpid but should prove efficacious to suppress bipedal re-infestation. If a non-virulent infection or a more aggressive zombie side-effect is desired, consider G-23 Paxilon Hydorchlorate (J. Whedon, Serenity, 2005).

    If the Kubrick Doctrine (1964) is the preferred method for population reduction, then more details on the post-cull organization would be appropriate. Attention is directed to the work of Anderson, Nolan and Johnson (Logan’s Run, 1976). Additional to the spiffy tights and a living environment recalling a shopping mall, the method to minimize population regrowth should be highly effective. Although, it may prove of limited interest to those of us already on the far side of Last Day.

    It is remarkable how just few citations to the prior art can round-out a new proposal. All that is now needed is a script and a movie deal. Surely, this nincompoop wasn’t serious?

  19. Barfable quote #1

    a nuclear exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries

    So, let me paraphrase: a nuclear war would allow us to force our socialist ideals upon you ignorant masses. Hmmmm….. I guess it would, yes, but to want a nuclear war to justify your obviously minority views? That seems rather sociopathic and psychopathic to me.

    #2

    What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change.

    So, a couple of degrees of warming, no more had been really predicted if you read the proper (ie sort of science based) IPCC reports (not policymakers made up summaries nor scaremongering political reports), is worse and less survivable than a nuclear war?

    I would happily contribute to fund the writer’s actual test of this, somewhere nowhere near me, though, maybe Mars.

    If that’s not possible, this person needs to be incarcerated for their own and other’s safety. Perhaps mental therapy may help in time.

    • Ok, let’s see if i understand this correctly,
      Apparently humans can not survive a 6 degree C temperature rise, right?

      How then is it possible that people (like myself) live in Thailand? Average july temperature 31 C.
      And humans live in canada, average july temperature 21 C.
      Thats a 10 degree C difference in the hottest month of the year!

      i wonder if these greenies ever get out of their city and travel around a bit?
      For now i’ll have cold one, it’s a very pleasant evening with 29 C at the moment and the tropical storm we had last week thankfully caused minimum damage on the island.
      Cheers!
      WWW

      • How then is it possible that people (like myself) live in Thailand? Average july temperature 31 C.
        And humans live in canada, average july temperature 21 C.
        Thats a 10 degree C difference in the hottest month of the year!

        Obviously people from Canada are incapable of surviving Thailand’s climate and conversely people from Thailand are incapable of surviving Canada’s climate. So you never see anyone from the one place visit the other…. Eh? people do travel between the two? “inconceivable!” says Vizzini.

  20. Of course, he, his family, his property, his wealth and assets won’t affected by a war, nuclear or otherwise? Everyone else can have this war to “save us”.

    He sounds like someone who’s life is so comfortable and stress free, largely due to hydrocarbon fuels, that he has, literally, too much free time on his hand to worry or think about anything else. Just think if these resources and thoughts could be used for something useful, we may actually have fusion power!

  21. “What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is. . .”

    I don’t understand how 6 degrees of warming, mostly at night and mostly at high latitudes, forces the human race to extinction. What do we die from? Nice weather?

    • Yeah, if we have too much nice weather, we’ll surely die en masse, kind of like when the first Matrix was too perfect and ideal, and the “hive” of human “batteries” rejected it. It was then replaced with the more realistic end-of-20th-century model complete with strife and suffering, and then all was well. We couldn’t possibly survive without the ability to complain about the weather, I mean come on!

  22. To the greens supporting this idea I would like to say: Please go first. Leave the planet if you think that’s best.

  23. a: “…humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one.”
    b: “Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change.”

    Statement (b) doesn’t track from statement (a). The traditional nuclear winter theory is that the Earth would be cooled to the point that agriculture can’t feed the population. Climate change would increase the productivity of agriculture and feed many more people.

  24. So to “cure” the disease we must kill the patient sounds like a good idea to me?
    In those famous words “what could possibly go wrong?”
    I suppose that when you’re used to working with weird science the more batty ideas start to sound quite sane and reasonable.

    HO HUM

    James Bull

  25. He has the gall to describe people like “Trump, Putin, Xi, May, and Macron” as insane. Saying outrageous things gives one credibility in “Left-wing” circles, but fantasizing over how to out-do Mao, Stalin, & Pol Pot in the murder of innocents?

    I wonder if the people who funded his PhD (by employing him) feel they got good value for money?

  26. What ever you do, don’t call him a Nazi. The lunacy of the left Greens never ceases to plumb new depths. Here in the UK, we now have politicians, a very outspoken politician demanding the police bring criminal actions against anyone who accuses her of being a Nazi. With this politician’s past activities and track record, being called a Nazi is a mild reflection of what the public actually think of her.
    Regarding the choice between our current comfortable warm world, and the preferred nuclear winter option favoured by the Greens, put me into the warm world option.

    • “a very outspoken politician demanding the police bring criminal actions against anyone who accuses her of being a Nazi.”

      Sounds like she earned the NAZI moniker.

      SR

  27. Someone else already mentioned it but this article by this idiot marks the evolution of the Left into a death cult.

  28. Fortunately both Jolly Joe and Edward Teller are dead.
    Both were ready to do it.
    There’s nothing new under the sun, APART FROM both Stalin and Teller had actually SEEN what a 400kT warhead can do.

    I don’t see much more criminally insane than the USA and the USSR of the 50s and 60s polluting the entire earth with atmospheric testing fallout inc plenty of plut.

    It was the biggest caesium 137 trace visible before our friends in Ukraine blotted it out, so much so, the wine trade use the presence or absence of proper “man made” radioisotopes for detecting fake wines claimed to be from before 1945-8.

  29. John Tillman:

    “Many of the same Leftist ideological purveyors of “nuclear winter” later jumped on the “global warming” band wagon…

    Steven Schneider privately admitted that the NW Team might have the particulate physics wrong.”

    This is utter nonsense. The Soviet point man seconding Carl Sagan’s hypothesis was Academcain Yuri Izrael, who authored a propaganda book based on the TTAPS paper entitled “Nuclear Night : Scientists’s Warning” He may be better known to Watts , who also was there as a lead speaker at the first Heartland conference, where he sang the praises of CO2 on behalf of his new employer Lukhoil.

    Steve Schneider coauthored “Nuclear Winter Reappraised” the first serious policy journal takedown of TTAPS.

    I’m hardly surprised by Tillman & CTM’s failure & CTM to mention any of the primary sources that laid out the scientific indictment leading to the nuclear winter crackup.Why read Nature, Foreign Affairs, Naturwissenschaften, The New Republic and the Journal of Geophysical Research when The Dailly Caller, The American Thinker, and The Telegraph will gladly not read them for you, sparing WUWt readers the effort of getting things dead wrong for themselves.

    • It takes an idiot to raze a village to save it

      (corollary to “It takes a village to raise an eejit”)

  30. Take the bag houses off the coal burners and let the ash filter out the sun if he thinks it’s too hot now….turn off the FGD’s one at a time until just the right temperature is achieved.

  31. It is a thought experiment, not unlike the infamous 10-10 video. They mistakenly believe that that absolves them. What it does though is once again expose the prolific and vile amount of hatred in the CAGW movement towards western countries, towards a free market economy, towards democracy, and essentially, towards humanity. In human history, I doubt we have seen the amount of evil and ill-will towards humanity, and all life as we have with the CAGW ideology.

  32. “with insane people like … leading the world’s biggest nuclear powers,”

    Says the person hoping for nuclear war.

  33. I think the world would be far better off if we gathered all such people who think like this… and nuked it.

  34. An argument could be made that the Green New Deal would be more effective at destroying our infrastructure than a nuclear war.

  35. This has always been the bit about greenie weines that I have never understood… Why do they believe that they would ever survive some ‘post apocalyptic’ world?

    Donald is more likely to be easy food in his desired future. Idiot.

  36. Tisk, Tisk. The author has no conception of the ecological harm a nuclear exchange would cause. Besides, we’ve already got a system that has been shown to reduce populations by massive amounts. It’s called Communism. It caused the slaughter of over 100 million people and reduced the living standards of the rest. Just look at Venezuela. I’m sure the populations carbon footprint has been significantly reduced. Implement world wide and problem solved.

  37. What a bloody moron. If you want to destroy humanity to save the planet nuclear war is a really bad choice. What would be far better would be EM bombs that only destroy our electronics. Pop a dozen of two of those around the world and we will descend into an apocalyptic world where 90% of humanity would be gone within months.

    This idiot can’t even save the world by destroying humanity efficiently so why would I think he is right?

  38. I’d like someone from the alarmist camp to reconcile the positions that things are so bad that nuclear war might be a positive thing, with the position that things aren’t so bad such that we can afford to give money to poor countries in hot climates — who can be expected to spend their reparation money on air-conditioning.
    If things are really THAT bad, then we certainly cannot doom our species based on a desire to be “fair.” Why do such people never speak out against proposed wealth transfers?

    And are the CO2 emissions savings we get from building windmills even as much as the CO2 emissions increases we can expect from such wealth transfers? Why not do neither and be just as far ahead?

  39. You know you are part of a cultish religion when….you prefer nuclear war, mass death and destruction over building more nuclear power plants.

  40. So, the alternative to CO2’s slowly frying the planet is nuclear war’s evaporating large portions of the planet.

    The only important thing is climate, right ? — climate for climate’s sake ? — never mind those pesky, cancerous humans living in the climate, right ?

    I would give a ROASTED green weenie award here. Oh, and make sure the weenie is NON-meat, NON-gmo, NON-chemically preserved, NON-fat, NON-salt, NON-gluten, NON-soy. So what’s left? — water, I guess, … in the form of a weenie ice cube, … BUT it has to be spring water, purified with reverse osmosis and/or steam distillation, harvested from natural mountain streams, and blessed by the Pope, prior to weenie-shape freezing. What to use as green coloring, however, poses a huge problem.

  41. What sick pathetic anti-scientific apocalyptic claptrap.
    End the funding and limit across that these dangerous parasites have.

  42. Somebody sits around reaming this stuff up. Perhaps they could do something useful. I think the AGW people who are calling for claims of crimes against humanity should pluck the log out of their own eye first. That is sick.

    ” Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science ”

    What shaky science is that? Where forests don’t burn? Where material that normally doesn’t burn in most fires, does in a nuclear event?

  43. Someone’s imaginary opinion screed based upon:

    “One wrench that could slow climate disruption may be a large-scale conflict that halts the global economy”

    Uh, no!

    Wars do not halt economies!
    Wars send economies into hyperdrive mode.

    * Every factory is active making war goods. Fossil fuel generated electricity required for the CNC machines, robots, technical centers, mines, smelters, refiners and manufacturers!

    * Every form of vehicle that aids the military is manufactured at record pace. All fossil fueled.

    * Every military expands to the maximum, consuming fossil fuels at record pace.

    * Every division of the military goes on highest alert!

    * Every form of transport operates at maximum speeds.

    etc., etc., etc.

    Whomever this loon is, they clearly have never studied wartime economies; and it’s very unlikely they’ve studied regular economies, plagues, disasters, weather, climate or atmosphere.

    Exactly the kind of person who shouldn’t be publishing these kinds of screeds.

    • Uh, no!

      Wars do not halt economies!

      conventional wars do not (unless it’s such a lop-sided conflict that the war ends almost as soon as it begins. a War between the US and Tuvalu, for example would not last more than a day and that day would pretty much be the end of Tuvalu’s economy along side it’s existence assuming the US used it’s full force in wiping out the island nation of 11,000 or so). But he’s not talking about a conventional war. He’s talking about a nuclear war, where entire nations can be effectively wiped out at the push of a button (Destroy all the major cities, utilities, refineries, factories, and other major parts of the infrastructure of a country, even a large country like the US of A, simultaneously with some well aimed nukes, and there won’t be much economic activity that can be accomplished by the few survivors who weren’t in those cities or working in those utilities, refineries, factories and other parts of the infrastructure at the time of the nuking).

      * Every factory is active making war goods.

      Not when all the factories are melted heaps of slag.

      Fossil fuel generated electricity required for the…

      unavailable when the utilities and refineries are melted heaps of slag

      Every form of vehicle that aids the military is manufactured at record pace.

      see above about the factories being melted heaps of slag. The record pace of a melted heap of slag is ZERO.

      Every military expands to the maximum, consuming fossil fuels at record pace.

      Consuming requires something to consume, that something to consume requires an infrastructure. When the infrastructure is destroyed, it’s literally impossible for the consumption to expand as resources to expand with are no longer are available. consuming at a record pace would then just exhaust what little bit of resources were left over after the nuking.

      Every division of the military goes on highest alert

      which would be something, if the military wasn’t one of the main targets of the nukes. Do you really think a country would launch an all-out nuclear barrage and not include all the enemies military bases in the primary targets list? if so, then it is you have “never studied war”. What ever parts of the military that were off-base at the time of the attack can be on high-alert all it wants for all the good it will do them – too little too late.

      Every form of transport operates at maximum speeds.

      Until their fuel runs out, which will be very quick at “maximum speeds” due to the above about utilities and refineries being melted heaps of slag.

      Whomever this loon is

      While I agree the guy is a loon, it’s not because any of the stuff you posted. It’s because he’s advocating nuclear war as a good thing.

      • That is a TV fantasy.

        A one day war is called “a battle”.

        Armies, governments, leaders are very anxious to minimize civilian damage, and especially to not irretrievably destroy factories, hardware and basic utilities. Nor to leave a contaminated sterile landscape.

        Leaving nuclear bomb capabilities in the “what if deterrence” level and books about terrorist plots.

        Repeat: Wars historically send economies into overdrive. Every able bodied person working or in service to the military.
        Nuclear bombed and devastated countries is fear mongering. Even in WWII when the USA bombed Japan to force an end to the war, they did not obliterate Tokyo.
        The bombings were a warning. That the USA would destroy parts of Japan instead of losing the lives of men in service.

  44. We are back to the Population Bomb. Bomb the population this time. It’s the only Final Solution. SARC.

Comments are closed.