Here's a Hare-Brained Idea... Save the Planet... Nuke Yellowstone National Park to Stop Global Warming!

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 1:04pm.

Of all the hare-brained ideas about climate change I've heard in the last few years, this one takes the grand prize: John Holdren, the new science advisor to President Obama, is actively considering radical geoengineering ideas in order to halt global warming. ~ Mike Adams 

One such idea now being discussed with the Obama administration involves -- get this -- launching enormous amounts of pollution particles into Earth's upper atmosphere to block the sun's rays and "chill" the planet.

Let me explain why this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. And keep in mind this is not about the debate of whether
global warming is even real or not, since that's a different article altogether. This is about the short-sighted stupidity of even considering polluting the atmosphere in order to protect us from the CO2 pollution we've already dumped into the atmosphere.

First off, there's the whole idea that intentionally launching pollution into the atmosphere is, by any reckoning, a dangerous ecological experiment that potentially puts the entire Earth ecosystem at risk. Let's face it, folks: Human beings have proven themselves to be remarkably bad at anticipating the ecological effects of their own actions. The ramifications of such misguided efforts to fight global warming simply cannot be foreseen by any scientist (or group of scientists).

On top of that, human scientists have demonstrated themselves to be astonishingly arrogant when it comes to dealing with Mother Nature. The idea that we can
save the planet by polluting the atmosphere is reckless at best, and delusional at worst.

Secondly, suppose blocking out one percent (or so) of the sunlight actually does halt global warming... then what? If the scheme somehow works, it will teach human beings that controlling
CO2 emissions isn't necessary at all, because no matter how bad the pollution gets, governments can always launch more particles into the atmosphere to dim the sun and make up for it.

This could result in a vicious cycle of atmospheric dimming, followed by yet more CO2
emissions, followed by yet more dimming, and so on until the whole planet is left suffocating in a literal haze of pollution. The root of the problem, meanwhile, will remain completely ignored: CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

In fact, this whole idea of dimming the sun instead of reducing CO2 emissions is a classic example of the kind of "treat the symptom" stupidity that characterizes western medicine. Instead of showing a cancer patient how to heal their own cancer, western medical doctors poison the patient with chemotherapy. This is essentially what the "global dimming" idea entails: Poisoning the planet with yet more pollution while calling it a "solution."

It's all quite ridiculous. More pollution will not save the planet any better than more poison saves cancer patients.

What about life on our planet?

But there's a third reason why dimming the sun with atmospheric pollution is a really, really bad idea: Virtually every living creature or system on our planet depends on sunlight for its biological energy. This is true even of humans: We're not solar-powered (unless you're a breatharian), but we do depend on foods that are derived from solar-powered plants at the bottom of the food chain.

This is true on land and in the oceans: Sunlight is the primary energy source for virtually ALL life on our planet. So what happens to life on Earth, exactly, when you start dimming out the sun using some hare-brained global pollution initiative?

Mike Adams - April 9, 2009 - source NaturalNews

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 1:04pm.