• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

The Atlantic Is Worried That Nuclear War Could ‘Wreck’ The Climate

by Spencer Brown
March 14, 2022, 3:00 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
5

earth end times disaster scorchedIn the latest example of liberal media losing the plot in the middle of a news cycle, The Atlantic has a piece out a warning that, “on top of everything else” a nuclear bomb would do, the “climate problem” caused by a nuke attack and subsequent fossil fuel-driven rebuilding would destroy the livability of Earth’s climate. [bold, links added]

Unfortunately, this isn’t The Onion or The Babylon Bee, though the lines between liberal “news” and straight-up satire continue to blur.

In this instance, The Atlantic is sounding the alarm that not just energy policy, but foreign policy and (presumably) its failure that leads to a nuclear war, is a “domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not.”

Because if, God forbid, a nuclear power such as Russia decides to unleash a nuclear attack, we should apparently be most concerned about its impact on global temperatures, sea levels, etc. than what such a step would mean for the global balance of power and future of peace, not to mention the survivability of subsequent retaliatory strikes.

There are no words. I mean, absolutely none, to describe this: pic.twitter.com/GjyEGkL4Dp

— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) March 13, 2022

It’s a take almost as wild as the U.S. government updating its guidance for surviving a nuke blast to include a recommendation for pandemic protocols to ensure you and your fellow huddled masses in fallout shelters are masked up, social distanced, and staying safe from COVID in the midst of a nuclear attack.

According to The Atlantic, a potential nuclear exchange — likely between Russia and the United States — “would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed. I mean this quite literally,” Robinson Meyer writes.

“If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war,” he argues in the piece.

“That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively ‘minor’ exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planet’s climate in enormous and long-lasting ways.”

Killing tens of millions of people? Collateral damage. Wrecking the planet’s climate? Now that’s alarming, apparently.

After explaining the immediate devastation caused by a one-megaton nuke blast that “would rapidly turn an eight-mile blast radius into a zone of total human misery,” Meyer contends that “only at this moment of the war do the climate consequences truly begin” before forewarning the climate impacts that would follow:

The hot, dry, hurricane-force winds would act like a supercharged version of California’s Santa Ana winds, which have triggered some of the state’s worst wildfires. Even in a small war, that would happen at dozens of places around the planet, igniting urban and wildland forest fires as large as small states. A 2007 study estimated that if 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated, a number equal to only 0.03 percent of the planet’s total arsenal, the number of “direct fatalities due to fire and smoke would be comparable to those worldwide in World War II.” Towering clouds would carry more than five megatons of soot and ash from these fires high into the atmosphere.

All this carbon would transform the climate, shielding it from the sun’s heat. Within months, the planet’s average temperature would fall by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit; some amount of this cooling would persist for more than a decade. But far from reversing climate change, this cooling would be destabilizing. It would reduce global precipitation by about 10 percent, inducing global drought conditions.

…

And even though the world would get cooler, the nuclear winter resulting from a full-blown global conflict (or even “nuclear fall,” as some researchers prefer) would not reverse the effect of what we might morbidly call “traditional” human-caused climate change. In the short term, the effects of ocean acidification would get worse, not better. The layer of smoke in the atmosphere would destroy as much as 75 percent of the ozone layer. That means that more UV radiation would slip through the planet’s atmosphere, causing a pandemic of skin cancer and other medical issues. It would affect not just humans, either—even on the remotest islands, the higher UV rates would imperil plants and animals otherwise untouched by the global carnage.

What’s more, The Atlantic worries, “several years of gasoline- and diesel-fueled conventional military operations” may follow “the global destruction” caused by a nuclear war and would mean that “the permanent consequences for the climate system would be even worse.”

And if rebuilding is possible, The Atlantic frets further that “undertaking a fossil-powered reconstruction” would be the only available option because “renewables, wind turbines, and other decarbonization technology” depend “on everything that peace provides.”

Imagine the horror of a post-nuclear war world in which CO2 emissions are your biggest worry.

The elitist Left has gone truly insane. That’s not hyperbole, it’s an observation. https://t.co/IiSnf1aXHw

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) March 13, 2022

So take note, Americans and global citizens — we must worry about nuclear war not so much because of its destabilizing impact and resulting in the devastating loss of human life, but because a smoldering Europe or North America would mean a destroyed ozone layer and sunburned plants and animals elsewhere around the globe followed by a fossil-fuel driven campaign to rebuild civilization.

Oddly enough, the closing line of The Atlantic’s climate-panic-in-nuclear-war screed makes a half-honest admission: “Solving climate change is a luxury of a planet at peace with itself.”

Indeed, like many of the left’s pet projects, climate change is something that becomes a life-dominating and judgment-clouding endeavor only when life as we know it is so good that there’s little else to worry about.

Read more at Townhall

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    Most of our news we get is fake news with the infamous NYT’s leading the pack

  2. David Lewis says:
    4 years ago

    In an attempt to coerce unilateral disarmament, Carl Sagan advanced the idea of nuclear winter which is part of the consequences predicted in the Atlantic article. Meteorologists of the time ran some calculations and showed that not even a full scale nuclear war would kick up enough debris to cause a nuclear winter. Not to be discouraged, Carl Sagan then said that the war would cause forest fires where the smoke would add to the nuclear debris and be enough to cause nuclear winter. I remember reading the article in Scientific American. However, Meteorologists again ran calculations and they showed not even with the added smoke there would not be enough for a nuclear winter. However, just as is the case with other aspects of climate change, when the liberal latch on to concept that they like, they won’t let it go.

    We assume that Putin is not the sanest man in the world. However, Russia is one nuclear power. NATO has three nuclear powers. We can hope that Putin is sane enough not to start throwing nukes.

  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    Just another liberal rag that should be sold on the same Rack as the Tabloids its all fake news like the rest of the M.S. Media Fake News Reporters

  4. Joseph Repas says:
    4 years ago

    Yes, but look at all the bright light the nuclear explosions would feed into solar panels even miles away…..LOLOLOLOLOLOL

  5. Steve Bunten says:
    4 years ago

    The left have literally lost their collective minds with John Kerry the first to raise the issue that “War will cause people to take their eyes off the climate change ball!”

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • clouds sun earthNew Study Finds Recent Global Warming Mostly Driven By Natural Forces—Not CO2
    Oct 27, 2025
    Recent warming is largely due to natural climate factors, with only one-third linked to rising greenhouse gases, new study shows. […]
  • Poverty in IndiaHow Climate Dogma Is Keeping The World’s Poor In The Dark
    Oct 27, 2025
    Western climate policies keep billions in poverty by denying developing nations access to affordable energy, all in the name of climate change. […]
  • EU's Ursula Von Der Leyen and TrumpUS Pressures Europe To Roll Back Climate Mandates, Targets Net Zero Policies
    Oct 27, 2025
    The Trump administration urges EU to weaken rules on emissions and sustainability, citing risks to trade and energy reliability. […]
  • aoc dollarClimate Tightwads: Most Americans Reject $1 Monthly Carbon Fee, Poll Shows
    Oct 27, 2025
    Most Americans won’t pay $1 a month to fight the so-called threat of human-caused climate change, new AP-NORC/EPIC poll shows. […]
  • Surface miningTrump Moves To Break Communist China’s Grip On Rare Earth Minerals
    Oct 27, 2025
    Trump moves to break Communist China’s control over rare earth minerals critical to U.S. technology and defense. […]
  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky