So, now the plan is to brighten cloud cover to reflect sunlight—all done in the name of saving you from global warming.
But what if you want the warmth? What if you favor summer over winter? Hot over cold?
Too bad, “scientists” are already planning to brighten the clouds, cool the ocean with Tums, and save the planet. Now what could possibly go wrong? They’re “scientists,” aren’t they. They know stuff. They want to do what every massive volcanic eruption does, that is, lower world temperatures, the examples par excellence being the ancient (74,000 years ago) eruption of Toba and the more recent (1815) eruption of Mount Tambora, that latter volcanic blast responsible for “The Year without a Summer” and accompanying famine.
Altering the Longshore Transport: When Humans Play God
Would you stand in front of a moving car, put your hands up, brace yourself, and attempt to stop its movement?
If you stand on the shore of the East Coast (USA) for a year, some 250,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of sand will wend their way past you in the longshore currents. This longshore transport system has been active for thousands of years from New York to Florida. It makes beaches moving collections of rock and mineral fragments (and, in our modern world, fragments of artificial substances). At some coastal locations, humans have altered this flow of sands by constructing rigid concrete and rock groynes and jetties that collect the sands on the upstream side of the longshore currents and also redirect the longshore transport of those sands. The construction effects two changes: It temporarily halts the flow of sands until those sands reach the seaward end of the structures, and it robs the down current areas of sands they would naturally receive in the more or less continuous transport system. In other words, when humans attempt to control nature to solve one problem, they often cause a different problem. In making a beach up current, humans destroy another beach down current. **
What’s the story here? Certainly it’s not about beach sands. No, This centers on atmospheric temperature. Awhile back, I mentioned the Biden Administration’s toying with the idea of injecting dust into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. I noted that if such a process could be carried out efficiently, it might coincide with a random eruption, exacerbating the effect of cooling by volcanic ash and sulfur compounds, possibly even causing a “manmade” Year without a Summer, such as the one that caused famine in the early nineteenth century.
Now, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal online a startup firm called Stardust Solutions has been testing a process of “solar radiation management it intends to use off Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution intends to spill 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean south of Martha’s Vineyard, essentially, dropping a bunch of Tums into the sea. *
What could possibly go wrong? They’re scientists, aren’t they? Surely, they’ll fix the problem they intend to fix without causing any other problem. Haven’t such scientists redirected beach sands with predictable outcomes beneficial to all? Surely, one can’t cite the beach control problems as an analog of atmospheric tampering.
Actually, one can.
You Don’t Get a Say
Just as you had no say in the spending of American money at the Wuhan Laboratory, the suspected development site of the SARS-COVID pandemic, so you have no say in what individuals sold on “climate change" are doing “in your name” or “for your benefit,” as the money for such projects comes from wealthy climate alarmists and government officials who use taxes as they please on any project they please without accountability and because “they know better than you.” And now, it’s cloud brightening.
But what if you want a slightly warmer world? What if you want slightly longer growing seasons? What if you know that droughts and floods and atmospheric rivers and Arctic bombs occur for both known and unknown reasons and at times often unpredictable? What if you reason that natural climate controls might cycle as they have always cycled and that tampering will only create an unpredictable new problem?
Late Winter Flowers
Recently, I visited family in North Carolina. That meant leaving in February my relatively cold Pennsylvania home, where my spouse and I won’t plant flowers until late May. Upon our arrival in North Carolina, we noticed blooming flowers. Would a little warmth hurt us back in Pennsylvania? Would some extra growing season be bad? Would I shun some warmth and relish the cold spring that often extends into June? I’ve shivered watching spring baseball games. I’d rather sweat.
$64.55 Million
If I had known how lucrative climate research would become, I might not have retired. Sure, I made money off global warming research for the US EPA and PA’s similar agency, but my largest grant supported by the Feds and the Commonwealth of PA was a pittance compared to the $64.55 million from which the cloud brighteners will fund their experiment. That money comes from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program funded by the partnership between the Australian government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and by conservation organizations and several academic institutions. There’s big money behind “climate science.” Climate change is big business. Academicians fly to conferences like COP28 on someone else’s dime to “discuss their findings,” not one of which is a “solution: to the problem of global change—if such a change is, in fact, a problem in search of a solution and not a solution in search of a problem.
The money, I suggest, is more important than the science it supports. Academics the world over are thriving off the global warming teat. Each year the udder gets larger, and more milkmaids go to work. The nourishment flows profusely.
Think about $64.55 Million
Given carte blanche to run experiments on Earth’s systems with little to no accountability, the “scientists” will do what they want; they’ll run experiments on the planet “in hopes that” their work will lead to predictable results or in hopes that another grant, and another, and another will become available in “the system.”
But Earth is a complex planet; it’s changing and cycling as I write this. It reacts to orbital changes, to tectonic changes, to precessional tilt, and to volcanism at varying rates and in varying durations. Epochs butt up against epochs; ages against ages, periods against periods, and eras against eras. Changes often occur over periods that cover many human generations; some changes will occur over periods that exceed the rise and extinction of species. “Scientists” know this. But grant money is more transitory—as are research careers. So, “Heck, let’s try this. It might work. Besides, we have the grant.”
Say it slowly: s-i-x-t-y-f-o-u-r m-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars, dollars that might or might not make a desired change and that potentially might make an undesirable change like robbing the sands of one beach to make another. We have allocated the funds. “Go run the experiment.” No questions asked because we are locked into a self-perpetuating system. In the meantime, Earth, totally indifferent to the whims of special interest groups like climate alarmists, will continue to warm or to cool, to cast ash and sulfur into the stratosphere, and to go into disequilibrium and then into temporary equilibrium.
$64.55 million. $64,550,000. And they don’t care what you want.
But what if you want the warmth? What if you favor summer over winter? Hot over cold?
Too bad, “scientists” are already planning to brighten the clouds, cool the ocean with Tums, and save the planet. Now what could possibly go wrong? They’re “scientists,” aren’t they. They know stuff. They want to do what every massive volcanic eruption does, that is, lower world temperatures, the examples par excellence being the ancient (74,000 years ago) eruption of Toba and the more recent (1815) eruption of Mount Tambora, that latter volcanic blast responsible for “The Year without a Summer” and accompanying famine.
Altering the Longshore Transport: When Humans Play God
Would you stand in front of a moving car, put your hands up, brace yourself, and attempt to stop its movement?
If you stand on the shore of the East Coast (USA) for a year, some 250,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of sand will wend their way past you in the longshore currents. This longshore transport system has been active for thousands of years from New York to Florida. It makes beaches moving collections of rock and mineral fragments (and, in our modern world, fragments of artificial substances). At some coastal locations, humans have altered this flow of sands by constructing rigid concrete and rock groynes and jetties that collect the sands on the upstream side of the longshore currents and also redirect the longshore transport of those sands. The construction effects two changes: It temporarily halts the flow of sands until those sands reach the seaward end of the structures, and it robs the down current areas of sands they would naturally receive in the more or less continuous transport system. In other words, when humans attempt to control nature to solve one problem, they often cause a different problem. In making a beach up current, humans destroy another beach down current. **
What’s the story here? Certainly it’s not about beach sands. No, This centers on atmospheric temperature. Awhile back, I mentioned the Biden Administration’s toying with the idea of injecting dust into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. I noted that if such a process could be carried out efficiently, it might coincide with a random eruption, exacerbating the effect of cooling by volcanic ash and sulfur compounds, possibly even causing a “manmade” Year without a Summer, such as the one that caused famine in the early nineteenth century.
Now, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal online a startup firm called Stardust Solutions has been testing a process of “solar radiation management it intends to use off Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution intends to spill 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean south of Martha’s Vineyard, essentially, dropping a bunch of Tums into the sea. *
What could possibly go wrong? They’re scientists, aren’t they? Surely, they’ll fix the problem they intend to fix without causing any other problem. Haven’t such scientists redirected beach sands with predictable outcomes beneficial to all? Surely, one can’t cite the beach control problems as an analog of atmospheric tampering.
Actually, one can.
You Don’t Get a Say
Just as you had no say in the spending of American money at the Wuhan Laboratory, the suspected development site of the SARS-COVID pandemic, so you have no say in what individuals sold on “climate change" are doing “in your name” or “for your benefit,” as the money for such projects comes from wealthy climate alarmists and government officials who use taxes as they please on any project they please without accountability and because “they know better than you.” And now, it’s cloud brightening.
But what if you want a slightly warmer world? What if you want slightly longer growing seasons? What if you know that droughts and floods and atmospheric rivers and Arctic bombs occur for both known and unknown reasons and at times often unpredictable? What if you reason that natural climate controls might cycle as they have always cycled and that tampering will only create an unpredictable new problem?
Late Winter Flowers
Recently, I visited family in North Carolina. That meant leaving in February my relatively cold Pennsylvania home, where my spouse and I won’t plant flowers until late May. Upon our arrival in North Carolina, we noticed blooming flowers. Would a little warmth hurt us back in Pennsylvania? Would some extra growing season be bad? Would I shun some warmth and relish the cold spring that often extends into June? I’ve shivered watching spring baseball games. I’d rather sweat.
$64.55 Million
If I had known how lucrative climate research would become, I might not have retired. Sure, I made money off global warming research for the US EPA and PA’s similar agency, but my largest grant supported by the Feds and the Commonwealth of PA was a pittance compared to the $64.55 million from which the cloud brighteners will fund their experiment. That money comes from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program funded by the partnership between the Australian government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and by conservation organizations and several academic institutions. There’s big money behind “climate science.” Climate change is big business. Academicians fly to conferences like COP28 on someone else’s dime to “discuss their findings,” not one of which is a “solution: to the problem of global change—if such a change is, in fact, a problem in search of a solution and not a solution in search of a problem.
The money, I suggest, is more important than the science it supports. Academics the world over are thriving off the global warming teat. Each year the udder gets larger, and more milkmaids go to work. The nourishment flows profusely.
Think about $64.55 Million
Given carte blanche to run experiments on Earth’s systems with little to no accountability, the “scientists” will do what they want; they’ll run experiments on the planet “in hopes that” their work will lead to predictable results or in hopes that another grant, and another, and another will become available in “the system.”
But Earth is a complex planet; it’s changing and cycling as I write this. It reacts to orbital changes, to tectonic changes, to precessional tilt, and to volcanism at varying rates and in varying durations. Epochs butt up against epochs; ages against ages, periods against periods, and eras against eras. Changes often occur over periods that cover many human generations; some changes will occur over periods that exceed the rise and extinction of species. “Scientists” know this. But grant money is more transitory—as are research careers. So, “Heck, let’s try this. It might work. Besides, we have the grant.”
Say it slowly: s-i-x-t-y-f-o-u-r m-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars, dollars that might or might not make a desired change and that potentially might make an undesirable change like robbing the sands of one beach to make another. We have allocated the funds. “Go run the experiment.” No questions asked because we are locked into a self-perpetuating system. In the meantime, Earth, totally indifferent to the whims of special interest groups like climate alarmists, will continue to warm or to cool, to cast ash and sulfur into the stratosphere, and to go into disequilibrium and then into temporary equilibrium.
$64.55 million. $64,550,000. And they don’t care what you want.
- Found under the headline: Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet
RSS Feed