Climate Engineering to Fight Global Warming? What Could Go Wrong!

Labor's Bill Shorten and Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro Mike Kelly visit the Royalla Solar Farm in Canberra, Australia, on June 28, 2016. (Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images)

Commentary

Two years ago, a documentary, “The Dimming: Exposing The Global Climate Engineering Cover-Up,” was released by Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch. The documentary claimed that climate engineering had been going on for decades, and there had been a massive cover-up.

In fact, Yahoo Finance reported in 2019 that “Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun.”

Note that the UK already has a feasibility study project of its own about a decade before this called SPICE, or Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering. It states on its website that it is “investigating the feasibility of putting particles into the stratosphere in order to affect global temperatures.”

On June 30, the White House published a report about research into a possible plan to artificially block sunlight to prevent the warming of the Earth.

What could go wrong with that? Besides, it is a solution looking for a problem.

Climate changes! It is driven by the sun, not human activity. And even if you believed humans, with their cattle grazing and farming practices, make a contribution, it is infinitesimal compared to the effects of the sun on climate.

Global Warming? Cooling?

According to David Archibald, a Perth-based climate scientist, the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on world temperatures is minuscule, and what has caused the slight warming of the temperature in the last decade of the 20th century was the sun.

In the previous century, the sun was more active than at any time since the “Medieval Warm Period.”

“The existence of the Medieval Warm Period is corroborated by the Greenland borehole temperature data, which shows that Greenland was 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer 1,000 ago than it is today ... The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost,” Mr. Archibald wrote in his 2010 book, “The Past and Future of Climate.”

The peak of the Medieval Warm Period was at least two degrees Celsius warmer than today, and the warming over the 20th century is only 0.7 degrees warmer by comparison to the “Little Ice Age,” when average global temperatures dropped by as much as two degrees Celsius.

We have just recovered from that period. However, according to Mr. Archibald, what is happening now is the start of another solar cycle that may result in a dramatic drop in average global temperatures.

Visitors on a sightseeing vessel watch icebergs floating in Disko Bay, Ilulissat, western Greenland, on June 28, 2022. (Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images)

Consider the Jakobshavn glacier in West Greenland. It is arguably the most important glacier because it discharges the most ice in the northern hemisphere.

Eight years ago, it had retreated 2.9 kilometres (1.8 miles) and was losing 70 metres (230 feet) annually. But for the last few years, it has been growing at the same rate, which means it is already back to its original size.

In other words, the Earth is getting cooler, and this cooling will accelerate. The role of the sun in changing climate is, therefore, a very strong prediction of continuing cooling.

The U.N./IPCC should be looking at sunspots. There is a strong correlation between the cycles of sunspot number and total solar irradiance, as well as the sun’s internal activity, like coronal mass ejections, which definitely affect global heating and cooling of the weather.

No wonder the environmentalist movement had to change the name from “global warming” to “climate change.”

When the temperature rises, we hear, “Wow, that’s clear evidence of climate change.” But when climate takes a rapid cooling turn, we hear, “Wow, that’s more proof of climate change.”

According to Jonah Goldberg, the founding editor of National Review Online, “The beauty about global warming is that it touches everything we do—what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Our ‘carbon footprint’ is the measure of man.”

In other words, the idea of “climate change” is essentially irrefutable because, somewhere, in some way, the climate is always changing. And any theory that is not refutable is not scientific; it is religion.

Government Presents Itself As Hero Against Climate Crisis

Former U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once contended that humans in an age of scarcity will find themselves pressed by something he called “necessity.” Life requires the satisfaction of necessities like food, clothes, and shelter.

Hence, Mr. Roosevelt insisted that “necessitous men are not free men” and that the state should be able to make people “free from fear.”

Of course, the global oligarchs may attempt to fabricate a “climate crisis” to sell their solution—namely, big government.

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees C—as called for in the Paris Agreement—the Australian government has committed itself to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and to reduce carbon emissions by 43 percent below 2005 levels in the next seven years.

Each Australian state has also set interim emissions reduction targets by 2030. For example, Western Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 2020 levels.

The fact is that carbon dioxide appears to have a minuscule warming effect on the atmosphere, although an increased atmospheric carbon dioxide could have positive effects on agricultural productivity.

Professor David Bellamy OBE, one of the most eminent botanists and conservationists in the UK, explains that “far from being a pollutant, carbon dioxide is the most important airborne fertiliser in the world.”

Ironically, in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2021, three scientists taught a machine-learning algorithm how to recognize underlying patterns and cycles in the past 320-year sunspot record.

The algorithm predicted the sunspots from 2021 to 2100. It suggested that the current low solar activity is likely to continue until 2050.

The sun sinks behind a smoky sky and burned forest at the Oak Fire on near Mariposa, Calif., on July 24, 2022. (David McNew/AFP via Getty Images)

Cost of Meddling With Nature

Previous solar minima/mini ice ages have brought in wars, social upheaval, and regime changes. Many have died in these changes. But also freezing temperatures reduce crop yields, and millions die from starvation and cold.

Be as that may, the global oligarchs believe, or they claim to believe, that “anthropogenic global warming” is real and that carbon emissions are causing this phenomenon.

So, the purpose of dimming the sun is to control alleged “anthropogenic global warming.” But at what cost?

The consequences could be devastating if you change the soils by spraying the upper atmosphere because chemical spraying reduces the moisture content, poisons the trees so they dry more than usual, and as a result, burn at much higher temperatures.

Because of this, the forests would become drier and drier. This means when the fires burn, they are more intense than before.

Could these potential projects of spewing chemical agents into the earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight—including heavy metals like aluminium, barium, strontium, and others—cause a dimming of the sun’s energy reaching the surface of the planet? That could cause something like a “nuclear winter.”

Massive amounts of dust suspended in the upper atmosphere dim the sun but also cause a perpetual winter, where crops fail to grow, and millions or billions starve to death.

Atmospheric and climate manipulation was once considered a conspiracy theory along with “chemtrails.”

We personally did not believe that chemtrails could be real because we could not understand why a government or group would wilfully risk poisoning the planet, which they themselves must also live on.

But having experienced all the obfuscation and cover-ups of the COVID era, now anything seems possible.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.