Newsweek wasted column space treating a claim that nuclear war could “solve” climate change as serious enough to warrant a fact-check, and ended up legitimizing the idea to an extent. Yes, really.
The insane article, headlined “Fact Check: Would Nuclear War 'Solve' Climate Change,” said that while it was “false” to say that a nuclear war would “solve” the climate crisis, “it is true that even a small nuclear war could have a global cooling effect.”
The fact-check continued: “There is ample evidence to suggest that a nuclear war would have a temporary global cooling effect (at least on land), but this is not the same as solving either global warming or the climate crisis more widely."
This is like trying to seriously fact-check whether Thanos erasing half the universe’s population would actually heal it or whether the Death Star nuking Alderaan would reduce intergalactic congestion. Neither of those fact-checks need to be done. The Newsweek one also didn’t need to be done.
Newsweek admitted a nuclear winter “would be a climate crisis in and of itself, causing global food shortages and potentially billions of deaths.” No kidding, Sherlock!
Liberal outlet HuffPost tried propagating this same nonsense 11 years ago in a story headlined: “Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?” The first two sentences of HuffPost’s piece read like satire from The Onion: “Nuclear war is a bad thing. Right?” It continued: “The cons seem to outweigh the pros in the event of global cooling caused by even a small nuclear war.” Sure, nuclear war is catastrophic, but at least there’s some perks, per HuffPost’s and Newsweek’s logic. Did Newsweek really think it was really a good idea to rehash this same nuttiness?
“Indeed, when looked at in the wider context of climate change, a nuclear war would actually make things much worse by causing a whole new climate crisis,” Newsweek stated.
Thanks for that information Captain Obvious!
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Newsweek and demand it stop pushing climate propaganda.