Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

worldwide drugstorepremarin with worldwide shipping valtrex canadaand Im buy in online pharmacy and bactrim generic and clomid new zealand no rx.viagra australia without prescription. And you can order propecia best of medications arimidex
Richard Rider

An incredibly inexpensive solution to global warming

I’m not convinced that global warming is real, is man-made and is harmful. I think the jury is still out on all three issues.  But that’s not important.

“Climate change” skeptics have lost the debate — it’s “settled science” (not really, of course) that we have to do something to solve the problem NOW.  A clear majority of the voters have bought into that urgent need.  Faced with that political reality, here’s an idea worth considering.

There’s an incredibly inexpensive way to reverse global warming — an option that you probably have never heard of via the MSM. Scientists at MIT, Harvard and other places have cautiously suggested that this strategy should be seriously considered.

In essence, the idea is to inject particles into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere — not our breathing air in the lower atmosphere).  This injection would mimic the effect of a major volcanic eruption — occurrences that have reduced global temperatures for years.  Water vapor forms crystals when attracted to these particles in the stratosphere, reflecting solar rays back into space.  The particles don’t stay there forever — but the effect is for several years.  If needed, the particles can be sowed periodically in the stratosphere by conventional jet planes.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/scientist-geoengineering-global-warming/
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/atmospheric-limestone-dust-injection-could-halt-global-warming/2500141.article

The idea — called Solar Radiation Management (SRM) — has been around since the 1970’s, but has been getting more serious consideration by some scientists in the last few years.  All these scientists are sensibly cautious about this option — calling for more research into SRM and its effects — good and bad.

Estimates of the cost vary, but have been projected to be roughly two billion dollars annually.  I SAY AGAIN:  Two billion dollars to stop and reverse GLOBAL warming.  Compare this pittance with the trillions of dollars of annual spending (and the resulting reduction in the world’s standard of living) proposed by the “watermelon” environmentalists.

You know the type — green on the outside, collectivist red on the inside.  These advocates love global warming concerns because it’s the back door through which they seek to impose their government central planning Juggernaut — controlling every aspect of our lives and wellbeing.  No matter how poor people would get and how much we all would suffer — “it would save the planet.”

Needless to say, almost all watermelon global warming activists are appalled at even considering such a low cost, highly effective option.   Not only would it kill off their mandates for collectivization of the economies, it would also stick a knife in the heart of their benevolent Frankenstein monster — One World Government.  SRM would not require the worldwide agreement of all governments to fight global warming — something that’s not going to happen anyway, but is the pipe dream worshiped by the elitists seeking to run our lives.

SRM may or may NOT be the sensible way to counter global warming (assuming that global warming is real, is man-made — and is a bad thing).  My point is that this low cost, easily implemented alternative solution is seldom if ever mentioned by the apocalyptic MSM and wildly gesticulating enviro-whackos.  SRM is an idea that merits much more serious consideration and research.

Here’s an excellent non-technical article broaching this option — and why it’s not being considered:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-there-a-green-rational-deal-11552688345