In old science fiction movies the mad scientist was a lone genius intent on world domination. He usually had a grudge against his colleagues for ignoring or slighting his obvious intellectual gifts. His scheme to blot out the sun was for revenge on a world that had done him wrong. “Fools!” he would say, “I’ll destroy them all!”
We can only conclude modern scientists took the wrong message from these movies. They saw the raving maniacs as the good guys, and now try to emulate them. They’re well on their way, too.
Our scientists are quite mad, which we’ll see, and which fulfills the first criterion. Sadly, however, genius has eluded them.
What else but madness explains this headline? Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It.
This isn’t the doing of some crank bunch of whitecoats at one of the few remaining based universities. No, sir. This is the work of the high priests themselves. “The National Academies said the United States must study technologies that would artificially cool the planet by reflecting away some sunlight, citing the lack of progress fighting global warming.”
Fighting, they said, proving they, like the mad scientists of old, feel themselves embattled.
Would it do any good to remind them that they only proof of global cooling is models which predict doom? And that all models, including their own, only say what they’re told to say? And that, in times past, it was both hotter and colder than it is now, and that in any case a few tenths of a degree here or there is roughly meaningless, or at least not worrisome?
No, sir. It would not do good. Indeed, it would likely do harm. For it would serve to remind our mad non-geniuses of their sad fate that not every word of theirs is believed. The pain of rejection, of the same kind a doctor feels when called a quack, that led them to this dark place.
The madmen will therefore “spend at least $100 million to research” what blotting out the sun would do.
They can save their money, for I know what it would do. You know, too. Everybody already knows. Either the project would be the equivalent to launching a roll of tinfoil into space, reflecting back between six and eight photons from the sun, and therefore cooling the earth not one whit. Or something would go very, very wrong.
Even if they got their way and blotted the sun, it would be like masks and lockdowns after vaccinations. All the other “solutions” they propose to stop global cooling would still be required. Doubt me? “‘Solar geoengineering is not a substitute for decarbonizing,’ said Chris Field, director of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University and head of the committee that produced the report.”
They’re still going to try to take your cars and electricity, even if the sun goes dark. In their favor, if they succeed, you won’t need your car. There’d be nowhere worth driving to.
They do worry about risks, such as “upsetting regional weather patterns in potentially devastating ways”. Or, my particular favorite, “creating an ‘unacceptable risk of catastrophically rapid warming'”. Sun-blotting is like those drug commercials on TV, where the list of side effects include the same symptom the drug is supposed to cure.
The good news is that sun-blotting “has bipartisan support in Congress”. There’s even a quote from a cuck: “‘America needs to be on the cutting edge of climate research,’ Representative John Curtis, Republican of Utah, said in a statement.”
We need to figure a way to blot out the sun before the Chinese beat us to it.
Or maybe the whole thing, this research agenda, is propaganda. Threaten to blot out the sun so that when they say, “Okay, we won’t take away sunlight, but we’re still taking your car”, we’ll feel grateful.
The New York Times admits as much, saying
rather than causing people to care less about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, he said, a large new federal research program into geoengineering might have the opposite effect: Jolting the public into taking climate change seriously by demonstrating that more extreme and dangerous options may soon be necessary.
“It could be so scary that people will be even more motivated to reduce emissions,” Mr. Gerrard [director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School] said.
Like I always say, propaganda works.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here