HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

Really wish you could upload more your videos are so well done and explained really well 🙂

Amazing

Great VIdeo! One thing that seems to often get missed when discussing COVID statistics is the number of people who have varioius longterm symptoms. Most COVID statistics seem to only consider death as a data point but that seems to be ignoring a large fraction of people who get life altering effects of covid such as asthma (and all the other things I'm sure we will discover over the years). I tend to be on the side that we are spreading too much fear regarding COVID but in the theme of being intellectually honest I figured this point can't be omitted.

Truth above all with so much disinformation we need the truth more now than ever those willing to look upon themselves and check their work to see if it's truly right or wrongly should be done more often, the factual truth is better for humanity so we can understand what we can do about it.

I have never heard of this . If you could tell even a single source I would greatly appreciate it. I love hearing things that confirm my thoughts but then I get skeptical on how much of it is true. If so , thank you in advance.

Yea I guess nobody wants to be the guy that goes " ahhh it's not that bad, it will be fine, really"

@@jimjimmy3131 it's been 4 months not everyone is terminally on line bro💀💀💀💀

​@@mickieg1994 problem was that it becoming a common belief meant that there was massive underinvestment in civil defence measures with the logic that it was pointless. This would have resulted in many millions more unnecessary deaths due to a false belief being pushed by people with an agenda.

​@@mickieg1994 yeah. Gotta go by your emotions instead of being logical bro

Thanks Zig

Actually he's still right, just more right because he can change his opinion with more information

I couldn't agree more, it takes a real man to admit when he is wrong, good on this guy.

Truth is more important than honesty

How tf does that makes sense?

There isn't a channel out there that is unbiased.

Rand Corporation is a big red flag for me too.

This exactly. It's never a good policy to exaggerate even if you think the reasons are justified.

If only republicans treated their own stances with the same scrutiny as they do with people like Neil.

@@hejalll this definitely isn't a republican issue. It's extremely bi partisan. This can be represented by the fact that in the beginning of the COVID pandemic Trump and other Republicans claimed it came from a lab. Democrats were extremely against this narrative and called them all racist for thinking so. As we know today, according to the best leading evidence, it did indeed leak from a lab in Wuhan. Both parties are extremely flawed and flip flop on every issue as long as it supports their own party in the moment.

@@PresAlexWhit There's a lot of issues with this. 1. It is by no means consensus that it was leaked, it is however not ruled out entirely either. What cooporation has deemed it more probable than not, that it was leaked? And don't give me individuals. 2. Even if it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, in 2022, that corona was made in a lab. By no means did they have the necessary information to start spreading such a conspiracy by the beginning of corona.

@@Praise___YaH ok

After the Soviet Union (Nukes), bird flu, swine flu, ebola, aids, overpopulation, the dissapearing ozone layer supposed to burn everyones retinas out, the recent c19 flue...I agree with your grandmother.

​@@Chris-wy2bn Those are all things we did something about though. The nations of the world took the ozone seriously and regulated CFCs. Education and treatment brought AIDS under control. Governments took bird and swine flu seriously and squashed it. This dismissive attitude is what stopped them reacting ro Covid19 until too late, or climate change for that matter.

The humanity won't go extinct from it, not even close. But I am not reassured by it, a very significant part of the population will die and I might be among them. That will never be not terrifying.

@@BigPimp238 Yeah, both overreacting and underreacting serve a purpose as long as the balance ends up doing something about it. Everything is fear mongering until shit gets real, then you're either too late or owe your life to those that did too much just in case.

In such situation I claim that I already live in post-apo world and mention all the prior overhyped threats.

Or maybe it was totally rational to be on alarm mode and that saved us, maybe nuclear winter is overdramatic, but potential 100million dead people is worth being dramatic, isn't it?

Complete psy-op. Keep the people just a little terrified at all times and they will be easier to control.

@krazykarl Ever heard of Nagasaki? Perhaps you have seen how it went wuth the inhabitants of Hiroshima? Chernobil? The people living downwind of tests in the western states of the US and aborigines on the plains of Australia, not to mention the folks in the Pacific islands in the 1950's and how they got cancer, leukemia and birth defects? Pretty terrifying.

​@@SofaKingShitthis dude would probably consider a bullet going through his skull as "psyop"

@@l.3626100 million? 8 billion is a closer answer.

Idk, for me nuclear war seems less like a bad idea now

Exactly. The war drums are certainly being beat by US military industrial "think tanks" like RAND. The only sensible thing is negotiations, everything else is war profiteering. Every single life lost in war matters and we need to stop these conflicts at their root!

@@cowfat8547 That is imposing unfathomable pain onto others...

@@babalonkie for the good of the planet and the human race as a whole

@@cowfat8547 The planet is certain to succumb to space (Death) eventually without human intervention... and full nuclear war would decimate society... killing off the 50% of remaining struggling humans... There is nothing good about Nuclear War...

The title of the video is a question which never was answered in the video. This is quite strange... Half of the video is simply a major deviation from the topic instead at least discussing about the results. Because some scientist used current climate modeling software in the last 10 years. Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic. The result was even worse using the current knowledge. The some RL "validation" example of the video is simply meaningless. Compared to a full scale nuclear war the effect of the oil well fire of Kuwait is meaningless. It would be far better analogy that imagine lots of Pinatubo volcano activity in the same time for weeks. Not a single one.

@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft yes and was down right lie. And Click bait-ite.

@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft "Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic" Sorry, but that's just wrong. The original study talked about a 20K colling of global average temperatures, 70% reduction of solar light and a possible extinction of our species. Modern studies DON'T support those values. The most modern climate projection on the subject find a reduction of 9.5K in global temperatures and 30-40% in solar light reaching the surface in the northern hemisphere [1]. And that's if we accept the premises adopted in the study that, one, the nuclear exchange would occur at the end of summer (maximizing the cooling effect); two, that cities would be specifically targeted; three, that 150 Tg of soot would reach the stratosphere (which is questioned by other recent models [2]). So, again, your statement is just plainly wrong. [1] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD030509 [2] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331

Well said!

@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences" Do you have any question?

The oil fires were smaller BUT Sagan used his nuclear winter model on the oil field fires. If the model didn’t work for that what makes us think it’d work for nukes?

Yeah makes his Lies sound like Fact! See how calmly he tells you Vx die at 48x Unvaccinated??? When in the last 2 years the Majority of deaths have been Vaxed and Boosted! Also Fails to mention the Onslaught of Young Men Dropping dead pf heart attacks on the Putch! Heart attacks are up 200% ages 18-43!!!!! That from England!!! Just imagine the Actual Numbers!! He is Dangerous! And should be held accountable when someone gives that Poi’s to their Child and their Heart explode!!

Nuclear weapons are not nuclear energy, you fool.

How many more 3 Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas would we have? Two evils

@@entrusted2387 I don't think so. Nobody died at 3 mile Island. In fact nobody had died from nuclear energy in the US to date. Very few people died at Fukushima, and most of the deaths were caused by the evacuation. Some people did die at Chernobyl, but it was the absolute worst case of what could happen. Even then, a lot fewer people have died than the number who die from coal pollution every year. People also die every year while installing solar and wind energy modules. When it comes to baseline electricity production, the kind of stable electricity that needs to run 24/7, our options are usually coal or nuclear in most parts of the world. Battery storage costs more than twice as much as nuclear. So if we have to choose betweeen coal and nuclear for baseline electricity in most parts of the world, then lets choose the safer, cleaner option.

I disagree somewhat N power is super dangerous and like with all human bullshit is made more dangerous because of intellectual property rights and MONEY..One of the key issues re climate is countries like India burning loads of Coal because the safest reactor designs are all protected by Intellectual rights and these Co's will NOT share..the same happened in the Pandemic, did the drug Co's Open Source their knowledge to make the best solution or did they all squabble over market share and the same intellectual rights?

@@musicilike69 statistically Nuclear is about as safe as wind and solar. The most dangerous is coal, which kills tens of thousands of people each year through air pollution. Nuclear is the only viable alternative to coal for baseload electricity production at this point.

Haha. Questioning the Science makes you a Nutjob. Even this Pandemic showed the danger of Overstating everything. Lost of precious Trust. Made worst when those in power like Fauci refuse to admit they are wrong and just say the correct data acting like that's what they've been saying all along.

I wrote this to Neil 2 days ago, I'm still waiting for a response: @Neil Halloran Thanks for your thought proving video. However, I have a few concerns and questions. Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites you based you claim that the threat of a nuclear winter is overstated. The reason I ask is that the recent scientific consensus (last 5 years) still appears to conclude that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia ("...involving numbers of weapons allowed under current treaties.") would cause a variety of catastrophic effects - cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler than today), a loss of 65% of the Ozone layer, and a 40% decrease in photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find any scientific studies that support your updated optimistic position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects, that originally claimed in 1983. If it is based on personal research you should make this clear in your video or notes, so people can assess your assertions. I know of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that now claims the climate effects would be relatively minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke they modelled, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper by Robock et al., (2007) that claimed that even a small nuclear war (India V Pakistan) could cause severe global cooling and food shortages. However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account other effects, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone later, coupled with reduced global temperatures: Photosynthesis: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) Ozone: "Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction, even for a scenario where 5 Tg of soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007)." - (Coupe et al., 2019) Ozone: "For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" - (Bardeen et al., 2021) I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages: " We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply." Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012. Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., 2007, claming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.

@@Diamonddavej Interactive comment on “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism” by O. B. Toon et al. M. MacCracken Received and published: 22 January 2007 "All models are wrong, but some are useful" -George Box

The concept of "Nuclear Winter" was a clever disinformation ruse ordered up by Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB. It has fooled the entire world.

@@ogzombieblunt4626 Yes, that paper is out of date, subsequent research denies that small regional nuclear wars e.g. between Pakistan and India (involving 100 x 15 kton atomic bombs) or individual terrorists attacks with a single or few atomic bombs, would have a serious effect on climate. It appears that Neil took this new research, that applies strictly to very small nuclear exchanges, and inappropriately extrapolated it to a global nuclear war, WIII (1000s of warheads up to 1 megaton). I explained this in my previous comment: "However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer."

i dont really care

@@aurrtt7115 so you don't care if you die?

@@nicbarth3838 you got it right broski

@@aurrtt7115 good for you man! I aim to be there one day

ur a bit of a strange guy. alcohol would fix u right up big man@@nicbarth3838

Those who’d survive the longest would be the ones who pressed the button in the first place. They’d be whisked away to their XYZ bunkers to drink champaign and eat like kings while the rest of us die due to their actions.

if such thing happens i would wish to be the in the first group to go, those post apocalyptic movies/books are not a joke, society would collapse in days, or weeks. If life is hard right now imagine how worse it would become to fight for your life every single day, not being able to trust anyone...

Guys, HERE is Our Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

"Would we want to," survive? Same for climate change as it is for nuclear war? Well got news for you the climate has already changed so you should just ask yourself now, do you still want to survive/live? Hopefully the answer is positive but if not at least we won't be troubled by your stupid analogies anymore. By the way approximately 520 nuclear bombs have been set off in the atmosphere since 1945 and we are all mostly fine.

@@theluftwaffle1 for how long? What sort of kings would get rid of their slaves? Without us the foundation they can do none of that, for long. If they ever went through with this I guess it would show how very very stupid we all are. For not changing this world even though nothing was stopping us (even our leaders obviously didn’t care, since they destroyed the very foundation keeping them able to eat and do things like kings) and for electing such stupidity.

If that happens, people would probably just say this it looks too much like clickbait.

It definitely does, and it doesn't need to be clickbaity. I _almost_ didn't click on this video until I checked the channel for a reminder of who this guy was. Once I realized, I clicked immediately of course, but not everyone will do that.

And possibly also need a better and more relevant title…? But don't worry, they will get better in the future

Any ideas for a better thumbnail?

​@@NeilHalloran -Kurzgezagt brachiosaurus with a huge text bubble reading “not really”- Well, the idea first comes to my mind is the dust covered earth model in _The Shadow Peace Pt. 1_ (may some viewers still recognize this?), with large text “Famine? No. I was wrong”. I think simpler would be better, hope my input helps…!

Thanks so much! I agree.

Thank you Neil Halloran and RAND Corporation, its refreshing to realize that the strategic use of nuclear weaponry will not cause the calamitous effects previously claimed. This knowledge could not have come at a more apposite time, especially given Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's aggression towards Ukraine and the rest of the free world. So many political and military options (including pre-emptive first strikes among others) were for so long incorrectly thought of as 'unthinkable' due to unfounded apocalyptic 'consequences'....now we know better an can make better, more informed calculations and decisions. The timing of this study and film and the knowledge conveyed therein could not have come at a better time given our geopolitical stresses and threats....thank you.

Great line at the dinner table

no. its everyone you meet. you will be starving mad and will kill for food at no cost. you think this is just daisy's and gumdrops. its not. its fucking hell; and living through that will make you do things you would never have done in normal society. you ready?

I was just about to post this. The most famous example was the 1815 eruption in Indonesia, which created mass famine across the entire Eurasian Continent. And there are reports of frost and hellish weather event across the entire world. Even in the newly formed United States. It even disrupted the monsoon season in central China, which caused absolutely insane floods. And Europe was absolutely wrecked by it, as it came on top of the Napoleonic Wars.

4:56

here we have a comment written by an angst ridden dweeb who gets high off of their own farts.

yeah true, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p

😂😂😂

Jesus is the light, leading people to heaven! If you are with God, no matter what happens on this Earth you will know that you will be going to be with your Creator for eternity!

What’s worse is when you disengage because you feel the only way to win is by doing something morally wrong like screaming a racial slur and, even when you know it’s wrong, those intrusive thoughts keep going in and for the sake of yourself and others you have to let the other side win.

Equally dislike it when others try to change my mind and can't let me have my own opinion (I don't force my opinion on them)

@@bigbadlara5304 exactly. That’s why I’ve been trying to distance myself from such extremist rhetoric. I used to consider myself a communist, but after interacting with actual communists who called me everything from the F slur to “Hitler’s strongest soldier” I have since distanced myself from them and the idea of communism and stateless society as a whole.

@@bigbadlara5304 This is hilarious, because this is EXACTLY part of the problem of what truth decay is - thinking your opinion holds some inherent value. We are not talking about personal preferences like what sort of pizza toppings you like, something that is 100% subjective and personal. We are talking about the determination of what is true or not. Opinions can straight up be WRONG and when they are, it needs to be called out. If you cant handle this, then you are not ready for actual mature discussion and are a prime example of the worsening problem we're facing where people think what they 'feel' takes priority over what is real.

@@maynardburger no, my opinions have changed tons of times. Above I am talking about people who force their opinion on me. They don't want to change their mind and don't accept that I have a different opinion even though I accept they have a different opinion.

Couldn't agree more, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p

Same as back then, sagan is another golden calf that could be played for any psychosocial narrative, many such figures exist today

​@@Ekstrax It's wild to me how much people still try and blame and bash 'mainstream news' when most of y'all dont actually follow mainstream news at all and get pretty much all your views from social media posts these days.

@@maynardburger lol also true, i for one still follow the mainstream news in my country but thats because its pretty good imo, if you know the preferred biases

mob rule is bairly problem, because we live under minority rule. no backlash will happen to this video mark my words.

Bro how did you learn about nuclear holocaust as a toddler? I amn't saying you didn't, I am just. Wth.

@@picklechin2716 I was born in Sweden in 78 and lived in fear of and was depressed by the prospect of nuclear war all my childhood. But I have to ask, did you listen to what he said?

@@picklechin2716 Oh I got your comment wrong, I was very awake as a toddler to what was going on (and therefore has a lot of memories from that time).

@@picklechin2716 Sry

@@persallnas5408 I would also be scared if I lived in Sweden. 🤢🤮

This reminds me of the whole “Ozone hole” debacle that happened a while ago. If you’ve ever wondered why you don’t hear about it anymore, it’s because we actually took action against it, set policies in order, and the ozone layer is by and large back to normal! Notice there wasnt a lot of reporting about how we actually solved an issue, the reporting was only done when the issue was there and could be made into a world ending disaster.

@@ksmi9109 “It’s like AIDS from the sky.” “It’s going to end live on earth as we know it.” That’s how the OZONE HOLE pseudo-apocalypse was sold to us . Your revisionist history is merely more myth creation . Here is some actual truth : These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon. We are told that the Montreal Protocol saved us from Ozone Depletion ( this is the myth which you are promulgating ) . But in actual truth , China ( which was by far the biggest CFC offender ) actually did very little post-Montreal Protocol . It seems the Ozone Hole magically self-corrected. And whatever happened to Acid Rain? Acid Rain was supposed to kill all the plants and things , and subsequently devastate the food cycle and lead to mass extinction too . Funny how that problem , TOO , just disappeared without anyone noticing 🤷‍♂️

@@ksmi9109 Well, it's not back to normal, but it is unequivocably headed that way. And as someone who was starting as an undergrad at the time and followed the topic, I can say there was lots of coverage of how the Montreal protocol addressed the problem: of the gradual phase out of CFC's in rough order of how bad they were for ozone. We are still in the phase out. The gradual approach angered some environmentalists who didn't think it was fast enough and would still lead to disaster. Predicting doom on the other end were some corporate stakeholders saying that we we would loose food refrigeration leading to d starvation and epidemics of food borne disease.. Some still tried to claim that CFC were not the cause or that the ozone hole was a natural phenomena. Sounds familiar. They had less capacity for people to try to ihave their own facts, and they had Margret Thacher. A chemist by training she understood the reality of the science and brought other conservatives in, including Ronald Reagan along.

Very well said

I whole heartedly agree with every single word and sentence that was said in this comments. Finally someone isn't having such a hopeless misanthropic view like this.

Let’s just hope the nuclear war is quick and swift… and starts in the mid Atlantic, East Coast, US… right at about the border between Virginia and North Carolina.

Guys, HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

Wasatch Wind ("@Wasatch Wind") I've looked at 100 years temperatures data across the U.S. and it shows a definite cooling trend. So be careful of what you wish, earth could turn into an ice ball by reducing CO2 levels.

But if you're honest and say "Nuclear war would really, really suck!" they'll treat it like it's not a threat. We can't sacrifice integrity and exaggerate either... It's a lose lose... They want to hide int heir rooms and tell themselves we're drama-queens and it will never happen. Even if we told them it had a 100% chance of ending humanity, they'd just question our credibility. You can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved.

You get it. You bring up great points on just staying warm. If your home is 32 F/ 0 C that is very frigid

Yea the majority of these comments under this delusional ass video are so far gone from reality it’s fucking hilarious. WW3 is death for 99.9999% of the human race Lmfao.

Agree. Nuclear winter was just one of many horrors facing post-nuclear-war people. Debunking it is useful but doesn’t lessen the terrible consequences of nuclear war.

@@blackmagnetica8714 dumb

It's odd to pit facts vs morals, as if they are opposites. In order to apply morals, facts must be the starting point. In order to interpret facts, morals must be used. They work hand in hand. Facts without morals is a road to dark ideas

I posted this and I hope to hear a response from him. Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers you base this on? The reason I ask this is that the recent peer review papers I could find, all concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic effects e.g. cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of the Ozone, massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find scientific studies that support your updated position regarding global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other effects. If it is based on personal unqualified research you should make this clear in your video, or cite the studies that support your views. I know only of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that claimed that the climate effects would be minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. However, this is updated research does not appear applicable to global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve 1000 or more >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight, that can last a decade or so: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years. "Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Papers that concluded that a small regional nuclear war (e.g. Pakistan and India) involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.

@@Diamonddavej Literally everything you said was discussed already. The studies mentioned, etc. This WAS the RAND corporation whom helped research this video, literally "Research and Development"

@@D-Vinko After 2 days spent looking for this mythical RAND study, I see that the first RAND Coperation study, into nuclear war and climate, was published in 1966 by E. S. Batten. The study was updated a couple of times, last in 1974, as far as I know. Batten concluded that a global nuclear war would cause severe global cooling of 2-3 Celsius: Batten, E.S., 1966. The Effects of Nuclear War on the weather and climate, The RAND Corporation. RM-4989-TAB. Batten, E.S., 1974. The atmospheric response to a stratospheric dust cloud as simulated by a general circulation model. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA. I cannot find a more recent, last few years, updated analysis by the RAND Coperation. The 1974 analysis is extremely out of date. Also, they are a think tank, and if such a study existes, it likely a syntesis of peer reviewed studies, the studies I read, which consistently conclude that a nuclear war between the US and Russia, with current stockpiles, would cause catastrophic climate and other effects. If you know of a more recent RAND Coperation study, let me know. That said, it's unlikely they published the study in peer review literature, I can't find it there. The RAND Coperation, funded by the US government, they developed US policy on nuclear weapons. The RAND Cooperation and their leading expert, Herman Kahn, were the inspiration for the BLAND Coperation and Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. A RAND study on nuclear weapons is a bit like asking a US weapons manufacturer to write an essay on cluster bombs effects on civilians.

@@ThomasBomb45 They are opposites, because morality is rooted in sentimentality & empathy; it states "this must be so, because it *feels* right" and is inherently disconnected from an objective viewpoint, as opposed to empiricism or factuality which states "this must be so, because it *is* so". There are numerous times in which what was factually necessary to achieve a goal was not morally justified, and vice versa. Morals are really just imagined guidelines that most people agreed upon in order to protect themselves in a society, it's not some existential constant and they certainly hold no weight in the face of facts.

Nuclear weapons are fake. Good luck.

Calling this video “honest” is dishonest. He called the Rand corporation “a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization” not “the largest and most influential think tank in the US, and the largest spreader of propaganda” which sets off major alarm bells. Also that trying to disprove nuclear winter is one of the main goals of the RAND corporation And i just really don’t see how someone can compare a nuclear explosion to forest fires; they’re fundamentally different because nuclear fission is incredibly energy dense. In fact, a nuclear explosion would probably cause MORE cooling than a volcano eruption. Sure, overall there is more energy distributed by a volcano eruption, but thats because its spread out over a much larger area

@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well a volcano is underground. Most nuclear blasts will be air bursts that don't generate much fallout or the kind of dust a volcano would.

@@charliedontsurf334 This is true, but certainly a nuclear blast will push what particles it can far higher right? I'm definitely not speaking from any advanced knowledge or expertise, but I don't really see how we can compare the two situations

@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well as a military veteran I was taught how air burst nukes throw up a less more fallout than a ground burst. Underground is the best as it shouldn't kick up any. My comment on a volcano is just a guess based on that. I'm no volcanologist.

"1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." I guess 600 - 800 million will have to do lol

Sagan’s nuclear winter scenarios were primitive and he mainly focused on the atmospheric effects - it was closest to his own scientific discipline. Modern cities contain huge amounts of toxic combustibles that the Iraqi oil fires, volcanoes, and forest fires can’t match. Obviously energy infrastructure will be a prime target so no fuel and no fertilizer. You can add radiation from the deliberate targeting of nuclear plants and nuclear waste repositories, increased UV radiation, which will cause large amounts of flora and fauna death on its own, and ecosystem collapse. There’s easily available information from DoE (and some DoD think tanks) that makes Sagan’s nuclear winter scenario look like the soft option.

Yeah , this is the real problem , we eat natural gas turned into fertiliser .

@@dongately2817 I think that's the problem with your argument, you'd think that the think tanks are the ones who really have all the true information, the thing is, the great part of them are fearmongers, who usually put political pressure, exactly like Sagan did, LOW and many, MANY official documents (Russian and American) state that those structures are civilian, and targeting civilian cities or infrastructure is considered illegal, it's a war against an enemy, not against humanity or the world, this sounds cynical, I know, but there's people who actually work on this stuff, and who make the rules when it comes to nuclear war. You've heard it before and now, it's just fear mongering. Also the UV radiation and depletion of the ozone layer it's bad science, doesn't have supporting arguments.

Actually nuclear weapons produce little long term radiation. Fallout radiation declines 90% every 36 hours. People started to rebuild in Japanese cities hit in a few days.

I do not like "in a nutshell"

@@goyonman9655 elaborate.

@@techypriest7523 usually people call him "kurzgesagt"

@@goyonman9655 I'm commenting here because I want to know why as well.

Thanks Pax!

It’s just that the good journalists are drowned out by the voices of countless political propagandists that call themselves “objective journalists”

How bad that nuclear fallout be? Are we talking about barren inhabitable hostile surface?

I didn't know who he was until he referenced his own video which I watched and loved and then I went Oh my GOD! (as well)

Thanks Drako!

Thanks DT!

A number of flaws in your argument here, I'm not going to point all of them out but here's the two big ones: 1. The extremely high temperatures you refer to reached in a nuclear blast last an extremely brief period of time, it's not going to continuously send particulate in the air the way a fire does. 2. You disregarded the fact most nukes would be air burst detonations. In such cases a lot more of any vaporized ground matter would be directed sideways, not straight into the stratosphere (some will still move up through the mushroom cloud). The amount has always been relatively little compared to the fires it would produce. For these reasons, when calculating nuclear winter scenarios it has always been mostly about the fires afterwards, which as you stated aren't so good at sending stuff high up and keeping it there. Because all the "serious" nuclear winter scenarios have been extremely reliant on the fires afterwards sending particulate high in the atmosphere and it lingering there for substantial periods of time to cause cooling, it is extremely likely that the effects predicted in those models are highly overblown.

@@SuperG4M3R45 Flaws there too. Though those extremely high temperatures are reach for an extremely small period of time, it is still sufficient to melt and boil most substances close to instantly, still making this plasma. Also, heat dissipates over time, so there will still be massive amounts of heat in these melted and boiled materials near the cities CBDs, most likely to be targeted with an air burst, still super-heated within the hours after the attack. The boiled materials made into gases would still rise, and in CBDs, where there are many materials, like plastics, that could boil after the hours of intense heat and the moment of infuriatingly high amounts of heat, would rise into the atmosphere. Also, though directed sideways in your second point, the blast *is* limited, and would most likely be directed sideways only within a radius of the blast that carries a higher air-pressure*, with a 400kt blast being around 9nm as a radius, within minutes of the attack. It would still be very, very hot and the gas would be very hard pressed* to dissipate enough heat to prevent rising very quickly. *hard pressed as in the phrase, not like being made denser. *for ‘higher air-pressure’, I mean higher than 0.5-1PSI

He is sponsored by the psychopaths in the US government who are lobbying for a nuclear war, the prospect is horrifying as they try to spur money on normalizing the end of time. They stopped hiding for awhile now... Its getting harder and harder to end all life as we know it and it make the few in power tremble. History will ask us soon enough why didn't we just take those narcissist out of their castles and end it all when the first fire an nuclear weapon in so called "limited exchange of nuclear warhead".

"We could carry on", sure, from the new stone age.

@@Bee.Holder it's 50/50 some say yes some say no, I like how we live now.

@@Bee.Holder No, nuclear stockpiles have decreased to the point that it’s no longer a threat to global civilization. Too the point some countries and even continents, would be pretty much untouched.

@@Barabel22 Nuclear arsenals are smaller than they were in the time of the Cold War era, but there are still about 13.000 nuclear warheads in the world today. Considering all the possible effects of full scale nuclear war, I personally wouldn't like to survive it though there are some delusional people who think that nuclear war can be won.

Thanks Zeyon!

Yeah I was gonna sub then seen that

Nuclear weapons are fake.

@@disabledchatzen5276 if only...

It's not quite that simple. MAD still comes into play in that any counter value exchange where adversaries target each other's population centers (or in counter force strategies where certain cities include targets of strategic value). So no, there might not be a massive nuclear winter. However, the economic and social impacts on both sides is likely to be sufficiently disastrous to act as an effective deterrent. It is also likely that the rest of the world will not be hurrying to the aid of the aggressor in such a situation. Any country involved in an exchange of sufficient size (which will likely be smaller than you think) would likely reduce a first world power to second world status for decades, and would likely ensure that country's economy would ever catch back up to it's competitors However, it is my understanding as a layperson with an interest in such things, that opinions are somewhat divided. Although the models from the 1990s that simplied that even a moderately small exchange could lead to global dimming and a major famine, more recent models implied that the impact on climate might be, as OP indicates but does not detail, less of a big deal. However, it is my understanding that climatologists where awaiting the next generation of numerical models before this question could be answered more definitively. I haven't seen any recently published papers to make me think otherwise. Is my thinking out of date?

Also, MAD was never supposed to mean "the end of humanity" but to the effectively guaranteed total destruction of your opponent in the event they decided to strike against you first. The concept of a global post war disaster may likely have had an additionally chilling (sorry) effect on planning around strategic nuclear war fighting, but it has never really slowed planning down. The only thing to (maybe) do that was the peace dividend for about nine years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then it was back to business as usual.

Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites changed you opinions? The reason I ask is that the recent peer review papers (last 5 years) concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic cooling and other catastrophic effects (modelled using current nuclear stockpiles). I cannot find any new research that provokes optimism. The current scientific consensus indicates a cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of over half the Ozone layer, and massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find any scientific studies that supports an updated position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects than previously assessed. Rather, II see that the experts are all in agreement. A large scale Nuclear war would be catastrophic. That said, see there is some new research into small regional nuclear conflicts, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt each between India and Pakistan, that claims climate effects would be rather minimal, as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke lofted by smaller nuclear weapons would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper that claimed that a small nuclear war would cause severe global cooling and a global famine (Robock et al., 2007). However, this updated research does not appear to be applicable to large scale global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve >1,000 >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think the video alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot can loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account other effects, asside from a decrease in temperature, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone Layer:L "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years. "Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" I think over I think Neil's assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused only on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages: " We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply." Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012. Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., (2007), claiming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.

Gotta love chomsky the genocide denier

@@ogzombieblunt4626 hate chomsky all you want, but intellectually its cowardly to avoid engaging with an idea and rather attack the character of the person making it. Whatever moral failings chomsky has doesn't make his idea of manufacturing consent any less true.

@@randommodnar7141 Manufacturing consent is a obvious idea that doesn't take a genius to invent, it takes a linguist. He isn't a genius, just a good orrator.

@@randommodnar7141 I find it ironic that you call me out for being cowardly but you're just calling RAND puppets and don't provide evidence to disprove the video.

@@ogzombieblunt4626 he literally reinvented linguistics but okay im sure you could do that