CNN Calls for the Elimination of the US Nuclear Arsenal, Because Climate Change

Ira Helfand, Co Chair, Nuclear Weapons Abolition Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to CNN, if the USA and other nations do not eliminate their nuclear weapons climate change will trigger a nuclear war.

Climate change isn’t our only existential threat

By Ira Helfand
Updated 1907 GMT (0307 HKT) July 6, 2019

America confronts a long list of critical problems and they all require urgent attention. But among them, two issues stand out: catastrophic climate change and nuclear war are unique in the threat they pose to the very survival of human civilization. The enormity and imminence of these twin existential threats cannot be overstated and how to confront them must be the central issue of any presidential campaign.

Climate change and the danger of nuclear war are closely related. As climate change progresses over the coming decades, large areas of the planet will be unable to support their human population. As a result, there will likely be forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history, and an enormously increased risk of conflict, including nuclear conflict. Nuclear war, should it come, would cause further catastrophic climate disruption and widespread global famine.

The danger today demands a similar response, and this time the effort must focus on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Read more:

The author ignores the benefits of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons dramatically raise the stakes for aggressors, which contributes to world peace.

The alleged connection between climate change and nuclear conflict seems a bit tenuous.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 7, 2019 6:07 pm

Money is also the root of all kinds of evil and climate change is only going to make it worse. Better hand it over as well.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  BallBounces
July 7, 2019 7:26 pm

First Timothy:
6:10For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Not the money, but the love of money.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2019 7:41 pm

Money spurns my love, Greg.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 7, 2019 9:54 pm

Money can’t buy you love, but it can rent it for half an hour

Reply to  Bryan A
July 7, 2019 10:03 pm

How many half-hours did half of Bezos’ billions buy him?

Reply to  Bryan A
July 8, 2019 2:46 am

Well that is why any wise business knows, it’s cheaper to rent that to buy.

Bezos is a Bozos and it cost him dearly. Now he only “120 bn left.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2019 9:11 pm

It’s not ALL evil either; its just “the mishmashed roots of an evil medley of sinful distraction”.

(I like my translation better)

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2019 9:51 pm

I hate money. I make sure I spend it quickly.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2019 9:52 pm

“For the love of money is the root of all evil”

Then why do gullible people keep giving money to those rich televangelists?

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 8, 2019 2:38 am

Exactly – most people get that wrong – much appreciation for the correction. It most definitely is the “love of money” that is the root of all evil. Good catch, Greg.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
July 11, 2019 6:01 pm

And then there’s the

“Parable of the Talents. The “Parable of the Talents”, in Matthew 25:14–30 tells of a master who was leaving his house to travel, and, before leaving, entrusted his property to his servants. … Upon returning home, after a long absence, the master asks his three servants for an account of the talents he entrusted to them.”

July 7, 2019 6:17 pm

What this means is a demand that the US and NATO disarm unilaterally, and trust rather dodgy thugs to follow our “good example”. The number of times zealots and thugs have followed some virtue signaller’s “good example” is about the same as the number of dread climate predictions that have occurred.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 8, 2019 12:00 am

I give you peace in our time.
Neville Chamberlain

Johne Morton
Reply to  DonK31
July 8, 2019 9:42 am

I think he said “I give you Pizza in time”, and Dominoes came up with their thirty minutes or less guarantee…or was that the Minuteman III?

Curious George
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 8, 2019 7:21 am

Is Dr. Helfand trying to earn Putin’s love? Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons, in return for a Russian guarantee of territorial integrity.

Reply to  Curious George
July 8, 2019 8:50 am

Actually, the Ukraine was also guaranteed territorial integrity by the US too. The fools thought we would keep the Russians out.

Reply to  james
July 8, 2019 7:41 pm

They didn’t know Obama would get elected.

Reply to  james
July 8, 2019 7:48 pm

Which goes back to the point the only way to guarantee sovereignty is be able and willing to fight for it … other than that you better start praying your master is kind and cares about you.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 8, 2019 7:45 pm

Exhibit A as to why these people are referred to as the educated stupid.

Tom has it in a nutshell there is zero chance this would ever happen and adding Climate Change is like talking about a splinter with someone who is in for a heart surgery. So to even put the comment out there just highlights how bats@#t crazy these people are.

Imagine a world where Iran and North Korea had nuclear weapons and the rest of the world had unilaterally disarmed … what do these educated geniuses really think would happen?

Michael Jankowski
July 7, 2019 6:41 pm

Climate change can accomplish anything evil it sets its mind to.

July 7, 2019 6:46 pm

“The alleged connection between climate change and nuclear conflict seems a bit tenuous.”
Don’t be so sure. It is probably like the connection between the Bunyip and the Thylacine.
Or the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
For the stupid, the ignorant, and the gullible it is really, really scary shit.

Reply to  Karabar
July 7, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: “The alleged connection between climate change and nuclear conflict seems a bit tenuous.”

Wait a second… …let me put on my global warming science hat… … bzzzzzzt!

IF we get major global cooling, and we want to prevent another Ice Age, maybe the best way to warm the planet is to explode lots of nukes in our oceans to warm them up! And we’ll get rid of the nukes too! First an Allied nuke, then a Russian one, than a Chinese one… Problem solved! Ka-zango!

Honey I’m cold! Will you turn up the heat please? Ka-boom!!!

We may get a few troublesome tsunami’s, some radioactive glow-in-the-dark fish, and other such fallout, but it will be such fun – like a space launch – everyone lined up on the high ground to watch the big bang show!

(Do I have to say sarc/off?) 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
July 8, 2019 1:02 am

While we are at it, I say we ‘speriment with a few down in the Marianas Trench, like, just to see what happens.
Like when a 10 year old puts a firecracker in a fire ant mound and lights it.
You know, for science!
We can drill some deep holes around Yellowstone, ‘splode a few bigguns, to see how hard it is to make a super volcano erupt, and all sorts of such interesting but hitherto risky seeming brands of foolhardiness.
I mean, it will be our only chance, iffen we are getting rid of them anyways.

But I think we oughta use the most of them to send warmistas off planet sine they hate earth and peoples.
They got the plans all worked out.
I say we load ’em up and solve a couple of bid headaches in one fell swoop.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 8, 2019 7:10 am

As long as we start it with “hold my beer and watch this”.

Les Segal
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 8, 2019 9:36 pm

Hi Nicholas. Just reading the comments prior to sleep and I’ll be laughing all night picturing a rocket lifting off for nowhere, filled with these warmistas. What a great solution. They want to depopulate the planet and this would be a perfect way.

Joel O’Bryan
July 7, 2019 6:49 pm

Talk about the western Left IYI’s being the useful idiots for Russia and China… for evidence look no further than Ira Helfand of CNN advocating unilateral military disarmament simultaneous with the West’s economic suicide via energy poverty.

The stupid.. it burns white hot in Ira Helfand. (yes, you Ira)
Ira though is little different from Dean Overpeck calling for fossil fuel elimination by the West, with the obviois result that would bring genocide via starvation on 2-3 billion people.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 7, 2019 8:17 pm

So, we have these great migrations from where to where? And, this triggers nuclear war how?

Presumably, the US is the problem, since our nukes are to be eliminated. I guess his scenario involves massive numbers of climate refugees fleeing from Central and South America to the US, and we get upset and nuke Guatemala? I don’t get it?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2019 10:27 am

Ira is definitely a leader among the useful idiot herd.
AOC might even say, he is at the “tippy top”.

July 7, 2019 7:00 pm

Meh. Just another communist from the Communist News Network.

Danley Wolfe
July 7, 2019 7:15 pm

Embarrasing… the naivete and stupidity of the left never cease to amaze. But maybe its worth a double Nobel Prize for lasting peace and a solution to climate change … if the consenus jumps on board. Quick, someone call Al Gore and Michael Mann.

July 7, 2019 7:19 pm

Well, if you head up a nuclear disarmament organization, any old port in a storm.

July 7, 2019 7:24 pm

People along the edges of large areas may have to move 20-30 km north or south to find the temperatures they are used to.
People living within the tropics won’t have to move. Tropical temperatures are limited by the climate naturally. Since more heat means more water vapor, and more people mean more CO2 the tropics particularly will increase the rate at which they are greening. That alone is likely to mitigate any food production problems.

Reply to  Philo
July 7, 2019 7:39 pm

The “people will starve or migrate when CC wipes out their agriculture” meme is a howler.

How do countries get by when they currently don’t grow enough crops to feed their populaces? They buy food from countries that produce surpluses. Ever heard of world trade? Charity also helps.

Reply to  Dave Fair
July 8, 2019 6:56 am

In many cases charity hurts. Free food flowing into a country depresses farm prices and the few farmers that have managed to survive go bankrupt.

A soft heart is fine, just make sure it isn’t accompanied by a soft head.

Walter Sobchak
July 7, 2019 7:32 pm

Dude is from the “Physicians for Social Responsibility” it is just one of a number of front groups that the old KGB set-up when Russia was called the Soviet Union. The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is another one. The Russians would put up the money and find a couple of useful idiots to rep for them. The real question is whether the Russkies are still fronting the cash. I would guess so. A few of these morons cause more damage than a bomber, and they are pretty cheap.

Robert of Texas
July 7, 2019 7:35 pm

I hereby call on the elimination of the CNN because stupidity, out-right lying, and complete lack of ethical behaviors.

(Just to be clear, not calling on violence, just bankruptcy for a failed news media outlet)

Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 7, 2019 8:34 pm

Considering their ratings and the fact that they are only on in waiting rooms and airports, they are doing a pretty fine job of eliminating themselves. That only leaves ABC/CBS/NBC/PMSNBC/FOX/ and the rest of the LSM to deal with.

Reply to  Bookdoc
July 7, 2019 10:05 pm

Fox beats them all in the ratings.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 8, 2019 4:22 am

Fox was the only channel that carried Trump’s Fourth of July speech live.

If you really want to know what’s going on in the world watch Fox News Channel. The rest of the channels blatantly lie to you about politics.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 8, 2019 7:13 am

And everything is politics at those outlets.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 8, 2019 1:38 pm

Even Fox News has some improvements it could do. Trump just gave a big environmental speech highlighting some of his progress on the environment and saying what he wanted to do in the future, and Fox News cut away from the news conference before it was half over. I hope Fox has some way to tell when I switch channels. If they do they should notice that I immediately switched over to C-Span where the news conference was covered in full. Thanks for nothing, Fox!

Among other things, Trump said he liked Solar energy very much although it still had a ways to go. I thought it was funny/telling Trump didn’t say he liked Wind.

It was also said the U.S. had reduced CO2 emissions more than any signatory to the Paris Climate Agreement. The Fox News commentator, Shepard Smith, became discombobulated at hearing that, and started stuttering and trying to refute the statement by pointing the audience to a couple of pro-CAGW thinktanks. Then the coverage was cut.

Of course, none of the other networks even bothered to cover it. It’s hard for the American people to know what their government is doing if all they get is a news blackout like occurred today.

Izaak Walton
July 7, 2019 7:44 pm

If there are “benefits of nuclear weapons” such as “Nuclear weapons dramatically raise the stakes for aggressors, which contributes to world peace.” Does that mean you are in favour of more countries like
Iran and North Korea possessing them or do the benefits on hold true when the USA and its allies have them?

Arguing in favour of Mutually Assured Destruction was MAD in the 1960s and is MAD now. Why not go the
whole way and give nuclear weapons to every state in the world since then we would see world peace increase dramatically.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 7, 2019 9:23 pm

Yourcomment is so ignorant, it doesn’t need a reply.

I award you one Billy Madison.
May God have mercy on your soul.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 7, 2019 9:56 pm

“May God have mercy on your soul.”

Mp evidence for either.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 7, 2019 10:43 pm

Well it’s precisely why Iran and N. Korea are pursuing them. It greatly ups the anti for any state that should like to invade them. So I’m that sense, yes there will be less war. Why do you think Pakistan and India haven’t gone at it? Greatest of Obamas’ many foreign policy mistakes was supporting opposition to Gaddafi after he had agreed to stop perusing nuclear weapons.

Reply to  Grant
July 8, 2019 8:35 pm

Mistake? Don’t really understand what Obama and his administration were after, do you?

Libya, Egypt, Syria, out of Iraq so ISIS could grow, all that money to Iran just when their economy was about to collapse. What do you think they wanted?

Luckily the Egypt military put an end to the chaos there.

And TRUMP! is attempting to put Iran and North Korea back in their boxes. No one wants to invade Iran or North Korea, we just want them to STOP instigating trouble around the world. And TRUMP! just wants to bring our 30,000 plus troops home.

And when countries are run by family dictators you think they will use any sort of restraint when they already abuse their people? They would not care about the retaliation as long as they could survive. And if they could not survive, they would cause as much pain as possible before they went.

The problem with moral relativism is you think all societies ideas of right and wrong are equal. Sad to say but in general only those countries descendant from the British Empire that adopted British Common Law, and a few outliers of low aggressive nature like the Scandinavian countries, have an inherent VALID sense of moral justice.

Iran throws homosexuals off of roofs to their deaths, China rounds up hundreds of thousands of trouble makers and is attempting to control the entire south China sea by building islands and claiming Philippines and Japanese islands as theirs, Russia usurps lands it promised to protect. Of course they would never attempt that now with TRUMP! as president.

One worlders want to control everything and do not care haw badly citizens are treated as long as they control the levers of power. Free enterprise advocates truly believe that once we get most of the one worlders out of the way personal freedom will begin to saturate the population of our Earth, There will be no war, it will be in no ones interest.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 7, 2019 10:51 pm

Does that mean you are in favour of more countries like Iran and North Korea possessing them or do the benefits on hold true when the USA and its allies have them?

At least from their point of view, it appears the possibility of anybody starting a war is lower when they do have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if North Korea would start a nuclear war, it would loose in a manner that would make a world record. That will chill them.

So I’m not in favour of North Korea’s nuclear material, but certainly it works as a communist dream keeping evil capitalists and fascists away. /s If you want disarmament, you should probably start by thinking how to stop North Korea from having them. Since that definitely is much a harder question than doing disarmament in democracies.

Reply to  Hugs
July 7, 2019 11:26 pm


Bummer. One day I might learn.

Reply to  Hugs
July 8, 2019 7:00 am

Those who want to ignore what you say will just find another excuse.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 8, 2019 6:58 am

So Izaak, in your world, where ever it may be, the best way to restrain aggressors is to give the aggressors lots of weapons?

MAD kept the world safe for 50 years until your beloved Soviet Union finally collapsed.

July 7, 2019 7:46 pm

The next ice age will wipe out most of civilization. I can survive 4 deg C temp rise quite easily, it it actually occurs. I can’t survive under a thousand feet of ice.

Reply to  joe
July 7, 2019 11:05 pm

I’m not exactly concerned about the next ice age, given that the humanity will have to suffer thousands of generations before its time comes. If signs are read well, the warming of two K degrees will last some time, but Milanković cycles will take their toll, eventually.

July 7, 2019 7:53 pm

The No-Nukes club makes a play to get on the Global Warming Gravy Train.
Maybe they will get a seat with the Feminists with their “Feminist Glaciology”.

Wow! Does the lure of money ever draw them out of the woodwork.

R Taylor
July 7, 2019 8:02 pm

But Dr. Strangelove says we needn’t worry as long as we haven’t a Mine Shaft Gap.

Alan Tomalty
July 7, 2019 8:25 pm

CNN is irrelevant. It is a fake news channel now. They used to be good at covering disasters, but now most of the time they don’t send their people in to cover the story any more. They depend on others. It saves them money. They are mostly an oped channel now.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 7, 2019 11:24 pm

The reason why CNN is internationally known, is simply because it covers those disasters and other big events abroad. Fox could easily take this market by increasing coverage instead of concentrating on “Shark Mauls Woman GRAPHIC” type stuff.

The amount of news in the world is horribly big, but just take a look how Alabama shows up in international news (or even US national news). Never anything good, and little alltogether.

As Scott Adams said recently, to paraphrase, we seem to think we read ‘news’, but in fact we see the very few headlines that are selected to the spotlight, and we just think these few spotlighted topics (and angles from which they are represented) are somehow important.

They are not so important – and they are not the only important things. The world is a large place.

Philip Schaeffer
July 7, 2019 9:10 pm

“CNN Calls for the Elimination of the US Nuclear Arsenal, Because Climate Change”

They do?

Don’t you mean that Ira Helfand? It’s an opinion piece.

Does WUWT take responsibility for the claims of opinion writers published here?

“Ira Helfand, a medical doctor, is a member of the international steering group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. He is also co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the founding partner organization of ICAN and itself the recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinions on CNN.”

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
July 8, 2019 11:55 am

I think you’re right.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
July 8, 2019 7:56 pm

He is using his title as such he therefore needs to out the old “Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer” or his employer should sanction him.

The reality is his employer has a whole pile of other educated stupids who nod and agree with him and they give him tacit approval to put this sort of stupid out as sort of an organizational statement.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
July 8, 2019 7:58 pm

Haha they must have coped flack over it and they have added an editors note, to that exact effect.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  LdB
July 8, 2019 10:06 pm

I’m pretty sure that all CNN opinion pieces have a note explaining who the author is, and that the articles are the opinion of the author and not that of CNN.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  LdB
July 8, 2019 10:25 pm

I checked some more CNN opinion articles, and they all have the disclaimer.

This particular article has the disclaimer, and is listed in the opinion section of the CNN site.

July 7, 2019 9:11 pm

(Pls remove LAST COMMENT posted 2x) Watts.

A pity Sellers & Spike are no longer with us, + Cleese is getting old & has decided to leave the island.

J Mac
July 7, 2019 9:26 pm

CNN has become irrelevant. Don’t give them press time, even here at WUWT.
Let them rest in peace….

R.S. Brown
July 7, 2019 9:41 pm

I have to object to raise possible climate change impacts to the level of
global thermonuclear war (whatever scenario the WOPPER projects) in
our future.

Almost nobody got the joke in War Games… if you’re going to tell a tall
tale, tell a WOPPER !

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  R.S. Brown
July 7, 2019 9:58 pm


R.S. Brown
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 7, 2019 10:09 pm


Thanks for catching me listening instead of seeing:

comment image

Reply to  R.S. Brown
July 8, 2019 9:56 am

I remarked at the time that the reason the the Woods & Brodderick characters had to work together to shut it down was “It takes two hams to handle a WOPR”.
(see the Burger King commercials of the era)

July 7, 2019 10:23 pm

“By Ira Helfand
Updated 1907 GMT (0307 HKT) July 6, 2019 (CNN)

Climate change and the danger of nuclear war are closely related. As climate change progresses over the coming decades, large areas of the planet will be unable to support their human population. As a result, there will likely be forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history, and an enormously increased risk of conflict, including nuclear conflict. Nuclear war, should it come, would cause further catastrophic climate disruption and widespread global famine.”

Of course, that means somehow killing all physicists, nuclear technicians and nuclear research facilities; throughout the world.
Sigh; another fake news delusional cnn freeloader.

1) Ignores alarmists utter inability to accurately predict climate change CO₂’s atmospheric effects, anywhere.

2) Expands alarmist predictive inabilities to human psychology and sociology. Yeah, that’s a winner. Not!

3) Assumes wonderkind alarmists are able to force tyrannical and aggressive governments to:
* a) Accept CO₂ caused global warming is real and dangerous.
* b) Discard the weapons that will allow them to conduct war.
* c) Will divulge to the world the status and location of their most valuable nuclear secrets.

Simpletons, scam artists and fake news purveyors; delusional and irrational no less.

July 7, 2019 11:47 pm

I agree with the article, while the West, especially the USA, when Russia
developed the atom bomb, were worried, in retrospect it was a very
good things.

It stopped the usual “”Warmongers” on both sides having the War they always

In 1950 it was obvious that the USSR now recovered from the worst of the
WW2 damage, and developing their military, would bar the Bomb, have
invaded Europe. Look back at history and in most cases that is what

North Korea felt threatened by the West, mainly by the USA. So they wanted to
join the Nuclear Club. No way will they use it, but they now feel a lot safer.

The only problem I see is the likes of countries who truly believe that killing
the Infidel is the way to go to Paradise. I am of course referring to the
likes of Middle Eastern countries. I can only hope that the top brass of their
military are not in the same hurry to go to Paradise as perhaps the Mullahs

In 1962 JFK was correctly worried about the possibility of a accidental
war, as described in Barbara Truckman’s book, “”The Guns of August””
about how WW1 started. He said that he had read it. Its well worth reading

India and Pakistan comes to mind, although with their population a few
million less would still mean that they could survive, but it might drag
Russia and China into it.


Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Michael
July 8, 2019 1:20 am

While Tuchman’s book was a good read she and all the historians who sloppily say that the nations of Europe blundered into war, or even more absurdly that railway timetables dun it, are wrong. Like the overwhelming majority of wars, especially modern ones, WWI started because someone, in this case Berlin, calculated for and deliberately chose war. They forced Austria-Hungary to make the demands on Serbia unacceptable and embarked on a carefully conceived and planned war plan in the belief they could achieve a quick victory.
JFK fortunately proved to be smart and more careful than the German high command in 1914 and took far less for granted.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael
July 8, 2019 4:46 am

“The only problem I see is the likes of countries who truly believe that killing
the Infidel is the way to go to Paradise. I am of course referring to the
likes of Middle Eastern countries. I can only hope that the top brass of their
military are not in the same hurry to go to Paradise as perhaps the Mullahs

The Regular Iranian military is feared by the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Therefore, the Mad Mullahs created their own, personal military, the Revolutionary Guards, who *do* share the deathwish of the Mad Mullahs.

We can’t afford to allow these fanatics to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Look at how they are threatening everyone now, without nuclear weapons. Just think what these maniacs will be threatening if they ever did get nuclear weapons. Trump is correct, the Mad Mullahs should never get nuclear weapons. The U.S. must do everything it can (including war, Tucker) to stop these madmen.

The Regular Iranian military may be the bright spot in the whole situation. They are the ones who can overthrow the Mad Mullahs and Washington DC should give them every encouragement to do so. The Iranian People are primed and ready for change.

July 7, 2019 11:54 pm

Leftards really are very stupid. Time we got as nasty as they are.

Al Miller
July 8, 2019 12:31 am

CNN, wow completely lost. MSM is no longer of any interest to me and no wonder…

Nicholas McGinley
July 8, 2019 12:53 am

Hey, I have an idea: Let’s make it so Pakistan can conquer the US without taking a single casualty!
Just ask CNN…they have it all worked out!

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 8, 2019 2:06 am

Away with us! Nothing less will do.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
July 8, 2019 2:17 am

Does CNN still have an audience? Rhetorical question if they unearth Nuclear Winter and mix it with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

July 8, 2019 3:07 am

Leftists have lost their collective minds…

When the CAGW hypothesis is officially disconfirmed, the blowback against the Left will be profound.

The crazier the Leftist CAGW predictions become, the bigger the repercussions will be against them…

July 8, 2019 3:09 am

Many moons ago my brother aged 6 came back from church and announced that “Mummy was the root of all evil”.
These days he would have been marched off for concentrated counselling.

michael hart
July 8, 2019 3:54 am

Co Chair, Nuclear Weapons Abolition Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Well, his job title says it all. And these days, every man and his dog uses global warming alarmism to promote what ever they were getting alarmed about before global warming came along.

July 8, 2019 4:37 am

Re. mine about the Atom Bomb. My reading of “”The Guns of August”
seemed to me that it was the Austrian Government furious at the death of
the Crown Prince, wanted a war, and even though Serbia surrendered , the
Austrian Government still wanted a War.

Now I agree that a lot of the German Generals who had been junior at the
time of the small Franco-Prussian war long ago, they wanted a war, the
Kaiser a playboy, who while playing at being a warier, was having a
holiday on his boat.

In a act of stupidity he gave what was a blank cheque to the Austrians to
fix up their problems.

Then the ethnic factored came into it , with the Shari of Russia saying
that he could not stand by and see poor Serbia crushed.

So it was a accidental war.

The German plan of mobilisation using the train service timetable was a
long term plan to fight France, just all a theory at that point.. It was worked
out as a War Game, a very detailed one called I think The SCHIEFFER


Tom Johnson
July 8, 2019 5:13 am

It seems to me that the dreaded “Nuclear Winter” would just offset the dreaded “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” that are both so feared by the Warmists. That, along with its associated significant reduction of global population should all be welcomed by these zealots.

July 8, 2019 5:20 am

I had a cousin that once said he didn’t put money in an IRA or 401K, etc., because if the government fell, he would lose his money. I pointed out that is the government fell, his lost IRA was the very least of his problems. The same applies to nuclear war and climate change. If nuclear war breaks out, the climate and how it is the very least of our problems, probably for decades.

Peter Morris
July 8, 2019 5:37 am

I’m sure if we could cram the nuclear genie back into his bottle, we all would in a heartbeat.

Problem is, there’s not one genie but several, and without fission we can’t generate the energy needed for the next step of civilization, if we can ever get past this stupid social justice nonsense.

July 8, 2019 6:00 am

The Russians reveal themselves in CNN messaging.

July 8, 2019 6:25 am

They should be happy. “Nuclear winter” will cancel out AGW, and also eliminate most of the people these misanthropists so obviously hate (the A in AGW), and do so in those evil advanced countries, not the poor ones that aren’t targets. So, a “social justice” approved extinction and no more AGW!!!

July 8, 2019 6:52 am

“The author ignores the benefits of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons dramatically raise the stakes for aggressors”

What makes you think the left is ignoring this?

During the cold war, there were always calls for the US to disarm, however there were never any calls for the Soviets to disarm.

Gunga Din
July 8, 2019 6:55 am

But…but…. Wouldn’t a “nuclear winter” be the most effective geoengineered solution to Global Warming?

July 8, 2019 7:48 am

Telling whoppers to save us from our money.

July 8, 2019 8:19 am

So it starts again. Nuclear holocaust -> ice age (this time we have more oil) -> AGW -> ACC -> Back to start. History repeats…

Last time “they” were worried that Golf-stream would stop. Surprise, that too is again very big worry.

Next, please…

July 8, 2019 8:58 am

War, and even nuclear war, is possible because of “climate change.” If many of the alarmists recommended actions are implemented, a future of starvation and civil disobedience in much of the world will follow. This combination is enough to set off numerous wars and could trigger a nuclear war.

John the Econ
July 8, 2019 10:05 am

Is it me, or is it that “climate change” always seems to be just the latest excuse for policy Progressives have been demanding for decades?

July 8, 2019 10:07 am

Remember Moab

Steve O
July 8, 2019 10:23 am

Interesting. Another way of saying this is:

“Because of Climate Change, the US is going to need its nuclear weapons. “

chris mahoney
July 8, 2019 10:24 am

A Nuclear Winter will solve global warming.

July 8, 2019 11:59 am

Unilaterally eliminating our nuclear arsenal because when a nation can’t retaliate or respond it kind, it makes war less likely?

Talking about ideology over facts. How often does a country go to war with one that can properly defend itself, versus how many times a country goes to war with one that is weak and defenseless.

If you have realized it already, the climate change movement is not about the climate. It’s about advancing the neo-Marxist progressive ideology. Science be damned.

Denis Ables
July 8, 2019 4:04 pm

LOL. The idea of unilaterally disposing of our nuclear weapons could have only been posed by a Russian troll. Russia hackers apparently also spend a lot of time encouraging the greens to do away (here) with fossil fuels too.

Apparently they see the possibility of a soft touch if any of the current crop of democrats take over the presidency. (Apparently even Steyer sees that potential, but somehow cannot manage to rise above the bogus “climate change” alarm.

July 9, 2019 2:43 am

The reasons for going to war vary over time. Way back it was the Vikings approach, hit a soft target like a Monastry in a remote spot, and take the gold and silver that these places seem to need to praise God with.
That developed with the Viking deciding to settle in the target country,
England . The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk are from the Viking
occupation, the North Folk and the South Folk. Folk means people or folk. They finally mixed well with the already Germanic people who had kicked out the original Celts. Those German people came from the parts of Germany,the tribes of the Engles which was corrupted to Anglo, and the Saxons ,hence the UK is kn own as the Anglo Saxon
people , i.e. German.

Then as populations grew it became a question of living space. A good
example way the take over of the “New World”” the Americas. To bad that there were already people there, Australia too, but far less original people

Finally we come to the likes of Hitler with his desire for Leberstrathan
“Living space” Of curse he also wanted the infearer races such as the
Russian Slaves to use as slave labour.. In common with most politicians Hitler was not good at History. What about the Germanic warreners who went into today’s Denmark and Norway. They became the Vikings who as ‘well as raiding, by using the great rivers of Russia finally took it over .

That became ” European Russia,” who turned out to be still very good
warriors. in 1941 against Hitler.

Today of course manpower, sorry ladies, is no longer as important as
economic output. A good example China is now very dependant on exports and with a very undervalued Yen, is killing off many Western countries economies

Such a devalue of a countries currency morns that export are very cheap a nod imports dear, which suits the Chinese, but its unfair to other nations.

Presently the USA cannot compete fairly, hence Pres.Trump is quite right to object to such unfair trading. Australia is a good example, we one made computers and aircraft . Today we export iron ore, coal and natural gas. plus agricultural products…

Today countries seem to need far less living space, see the Third World cities,

We also need far less people re. automation, so why do countries such as Australia still have a large migration programme ? Of course the final problem is what do we do with the no longer required
“Working class”” ?


July 9, 2019 10:34 pm

” The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk are from the Viking
occupation, …They finally mixed well with the already Germanic people who had kicked out the original Celts.”

Your rendering of history and geography is very myopic.

FYI we celts are still here.
The UK has far more places than boring flat East Anglia (where of course Margaret’s climate change conmen are now concentrated), and we certainly don’t think people from “down under” are neccessarily have a valid opinion about the original “muther country” when they can’t even spell Lebensraum, rather than leberschnitzel.

Ie. keep such generalisations short

Johann Wundersamer
July 11, 2019 6:17 pm

“Climate change and the danger of nuclear war are closely related. As climate change progresses over the coming decades, large areas of the planet will be unable to support their human population. As a result, there will likely be forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history, and an enormously increased risk of conflict, including nuclear conflict. Nuclear war, should it come, would cause further catastrophic climate disruption and widespread global famine.”

What’s to come:

large areas of the planet will be unable to transport their human population in times of airport blackouts due to renewable breakdowns production of electricity.

As a result, there will likely be repeated forced migrations on a scale unknown in human history from duty free shops to waiting rooms, to roll ways and back and with buses to other roll ways and back.

… and an enormously increased risk of conflict, and climate scientists will be the first to foresee.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights