An alternative to blowing up the sun

 

Mike Nuen had a stand-up comedy routine back in the 70s;  he proposed that in order to solve a few problems, all we had to do was blow up the sun.  Any potential consequences to the Earth’s climate or weather patterns could be easily handled by the Army Corps of Engineers.  He always got good laughs during the routine.

Now some group of demented climate change warriors (billed as the Climate Overshoot Commission) is seriously proposing something pretty similar. Here’s the headline and sub-head from PostMillenial:

Scientists Consider Dimming The Sun To Solve Climate Change

The Thomson Reuters Foundation asked
"Could 'dimming the sun' help turn down global heating?"
and said the answer may be stratospheric aerosol injection

So their deliberations include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere from aircraft -- specifically to interfere with incoming sunlight, and this presumably could “fix” the climate change “problem.”  Read about this insane proposal here.

“Dimming the Sun”?  What are they thinking?

I am not a scientist, just a concerned layperson.  But it would seem to be impossible to overstate how dangerous this idea is, and it is frightening to consider that the group is getting enough attention for the report to be linked on a major aggregator, Rantingly.  As far as I have read, science is nowhere near to understanding how and why the Earth’s climate cycles function as they do.  Scientists know certain contributing factors and variables, such as geothermal activity, the Earth’s axis in relation to the sun, and so on. Anthony Watts has a big page specifying potential variables at his website, WattsUpWithThat; click here.

In the not-too-distant past, Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, conducted experiments at the CERN particle accelerator to attempt to measure the impact of incoming “charged particles from the sun, [how they] interact with cosmic rays as they approach Earth” and how that interaction affects cloud seeding, arguing that “the amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is.”  His hypothesis remains controversial;  many in the science community really did not want to hear about it;  see here.  That should tell anyone who is interested that the field of climate science remains in a state of uncertainty, with competing working hypotheses.  And like most other fields, politics and funding now play large roles in all of this.

As far as I have read, the uncertainties far outweigh any certainties concerning the multiple variables influencing Earth’s climate, it should be obvious that deliberate interference with the sun’s many effects on Earth would be not just foolhardy and reckless, but potentially suicidal. 

Earth’s climate has been variable during its 4+ billion year existence. We still don’t understand how it has taken care of itself.  Nobody seems to know what optimal temperatures are, much less how they might be sustained or reversed.  No idea.  Any deliberate interference surely COULD accelerate the next Ice Age.  Or worse.

# # #

Bill Gates: The Great Reset and The Great Refusal

 

Colin Todhunter specializes in development, food and agriculture and is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal. He takes a deep dive into the world of agriculture that Bill Gates envisions for us “eaters.” It is a monstrous vision.  Here’s a small extract via Off-Guardian (h/t AmericaFirstReport):

. . . The biggest owner of private farmland in the US – Bill Gates – has a vision for farming: a chemical-dependent, corporate-dependent, one-world agriculture (Ag One initiative) to facilitate the global supply chains of conglomerates. This initiative is side-lining indigenous knowledge and practices in favour of corporate knowledge and a further colonisation of global agriculture.

Gates’s corporatisation of smallholder agriculture is packaged in philanthropic terms – ‘helping’ farmers in places like Africa and India. It has not worked out well so far if we turn to the Gates-backed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), established in 2006.

The first major evaluation of AGRA’s efforts to expand high-input agriculture in Africa found that – after 15 years – it had failed. . . .

With lab-based synthetic meat being promoted and attracting huge interest from investors, Gates and the agritech sector also envisage a largely ‘climate-friendly’ animal-free agriculture, which they claim will result in freeing up vast tracts of farmland (we can only speculate for what).

It remains to be seen just how energy-efficient, environment-friendly and health-friendly synthetic meat labs are once scaled up to industrial levels. . . .

And don't forget the bugs!  In the conclusion:

The neoliberal programme that took root in the 1980s has now reached a debt-bloated, inflationary impasse. In response, capitalism has embarked on a ‘great reset’ with transformative technology very much to the fore in the guise of a ‘4th Industrial Revolution’, promising a brave new tomorrow for all.

However, there are deep-seated concerns about how this technology could be used to monitor and control entire populations, especially as we are witnessing a brutal economic restructuring and increasing clampdowns on personal liberties. If neoliberalism promoted individualism, the ‘new normal’ demands strict compliance – individual freedom is said to pose a threat to ‘national security’, ‘public health’ or ‘safety’.

. . .

The controlling nature of technology pervades all aspects of life today. But whether it involves farmers protests in Europe and India, the advancement of a political agroecology, truckers taking to the streets in Canada or ordinary people protesting against a rapidly advancing authoritarianism in Western societies, many people across the world know something is seriously amiss.

. . . we are seeing a ‘great refusal’ – people saying ‘no’ to multiple forms of repression and domination – tentacles of an economic system in crisis.

Read the full report at Off-Guardian here (it’s long). 

# # #

AF Branco: Biden's Recession

Seen at Townhall here:

AF Branco also publishes his wonderful cartoons at Legal Insurrection.

# # #

They Can’t Let Him Back In

 

Michael Anton at CompactMag zeroes in on why we have to endure the January 6 Committee show trials and Liz Cheney’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. For me, Anton points out the obvious when he writes:

Love him or hate him, during Trump’s presidency, the economy was strong, markets were up, inflation was under control, gas prices were low, illegal border crossings were down, crime was lower, trade deals were renegotiated, ISIS was defeated, NATO allies were stepping up, and China was stepping back (a little). Deny all that if you want to. The point here is that something like 100 million Americans believe it, strongly, and are bewildered and angered by elite hatred for the man they think delivered it.

Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe Biden, who is using school-lunch funding to push gender ideology on poor kids, to cite but one example. Trump’s core agenda—border protection, trade balance, foreign restraint—was quite moderate, both intrinsically and in comparison to past Republican and Democratic precedent. And that’s before we even get to the fact that Trump neglected much of his own agenda in favor of the old Chamber of Commerce, fusionist, Reaganite, Conservatism, Inc., agenda. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and bombing Syria: These are all things Trump’s base doesn’t want, but the oligarchs desperately do, which Trump gave them. And still they try to destroy him.

. . .

Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump. The regime can’t allow Trump to be president not because of who he is (although that grates), but because of who his followers are. That class—Angelo Codevilla’s “country class”—must not be allowed representation by candidates who might implement their preferences, which also, and above all, must not be allowed. The rubes have no legitimate standing to affect the outcome of any political process, because of who they are, but mostly because of what they want.

. . .

People I have known for 30 years, many of whom still claim the label “conservative,” will no longer speak to me—because I supported Trump, yes, but also because I disagree on trade, war, and the border. They call not just my positions, but me personally, unadulterated evil. I am not an isolated case. There are, as they say, “many such cases.” How are we supposed to have “democracy” when the policies and candidates my side wants and votes for are anathema and can’t be allowed? How are we supposed to live together with the constant demonization from one side against the other blaring 24/7 from the ruling class’s every propaganda organ? Why would we want to?

. . .

The full article is here.  On a personal note, liberal colleagues of mine bemoan the “divisiveness” in today’s society.  How could it be otherwise?  When liberals want to convert our country to some brand of socialism, how is that compatible with our Founders’ constitutional republic?

# # #

Monkeypox: is it a real threat?

 

Mark A. Hewitt summarizes what is known about the dreaded monkeypox scare:

We live in a time of disinformation conceived and issued by the Democrat party and the media.  The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now want to leverage their latest midterm virus into another round of pandemic fear porn.  Since you cannot trust the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or their spokespeople today, it might be a good time to review what the official research conducted for the military indicated before today’s liars at the CDC and the FDA get crazy again and mandate unwarranted and ineffective masks and lockdowns for monkeypox.

Mr. Hewitt then presents some tables and charts, before concluding:

If today’s reporting is accurate, monkeypox appears to be limited to gay men and those in close contact with gay men.  It is rarely fatal.  It is treatable with monkeypox and smallpox vaccines.  Regardless, Democrats, the media, and blue states will shift into fear porn overdrive.  The rest of America will ignore them.

You can look over the tables and charts here.

# # #

American citizenship: what does it mean

 

American citizenship is Steve McCann’s concern at American Thinker:

From 1860 to 2000, in the largest legal migration in human history, over 61 million immigrants arrived in the United States.  They were not only escaping poverty and oppression, but they were eager to assimilate and attain the most sought-after national status in the world: American citizenship. Today in the 21st century, American citizenship and its one-of-a-kind written contract with the central government, the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, is under relentless assault by the nation’s governing establishment and teetering on the edge of meaninglessness. 

Mr. McCann concludes:

The most meaningful day in my life occurred in 1956 when as a boy of eleven or twelve I became a citizen of the United States.  Little did I know that in my lifetime I would see the descent of American citizenship into near meaninglessness.  A collapse that came about internally and was not directly precipitated by the nation’s foreign adversaries. 

Unfortunately, the bulk of Americans obliviously believe that American citizenship remains what it has always been; in reality, it is rapidly disappearing.

The column is here.   

# # #

America First Policy Institute: Trump Think Tank or Trojan Horse?

 

Peter Navarro is the former Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy and author of Taking Back Trump’s America: Why We Lost the White House and How We’ll Win It Back.  He is sounding an alarm over Donald Trump’s scheduled speech to address the America First Policy Institute in DC [today 7/26].  Mr. Navarro’s article at AmericanGreatness is titled “Trump’s Think Tank Prepares to Betray Him,” and he names names, including Larry Kudlow and Kellyanne Conway.  Mr Navarro begins:

Don’t go, Boss! That’s my strong advice to President Trump as he prepares to deliver a speech in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday at his alleged “think tank,” the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). 

. . .

Arguably, the most dangerous AFPI fifth-columnist is former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. After the Boss left office, Jindal would insist “Trump was undone by his own predatory nature” and attacked the Boss for his “conspiracy theories and extra-constitutional notions.” Today, Jindal is aggressively pushing a “Trumpism without Trump” agenda.

That may well be AFPI’s broader agenda: Hijack the political attractiveness of Trumpism but replace Trump with an AFPI-anointed RINO. Here, it is worth remembering the Michael Dukakis bon mot: “a fish rots from the head up.” 

He concludes:

Memo to the Boss: Instead of legitimizing these grifters, why not demand they stop using the Trump good name to raise money to engineer their “Trumpism without Trump” coup. Alternatively, if this really is your think tank, bring in a John McEntee or Liz Harrington to run the place with the full power to fire and hire. Now that would be a real Trump MAGA policy institute.

Full article is here. 

# # #