The 12 Stupidest Ideas That Anyone Has Ever Come Up With To Fight Global Warmingby Michael Snyder
End of the American Dream
Dec. 01, 2010
Trump Was Right: Jewish Teen Arrested For Bomb Threats To Jewish Centers
NSA Whistleblower Says NSA Spied On Congress, The Supreme Court And Trump
Al Jazeera Viewers 'Reacted To London Terror Attack With Joy'
Carlson: "U.S. Has Imported A Foreign Criminal Class That Operates A Multi-Billion Dollar Drug Trade"
'These People Are Waging War On Us!' Tommy Robinson Schools Reporter At Scene Of London Terror Attack
Today, some of the "top scientists in the world" are coming up with some really, really dumb ideas for fighting climate change. First of all, the theory of man-made global warming is currently falling apart like a 20 dollar suit because it never was backed up by solid scientific evidence, but even if it was true what some of these scientists are proposing to do to stop it is absolutely crazy. Some of the ideas being proposed are fairly harmless such as putting giant mirrors in space or filling up our oceans with millions of tons of Special K. However, some of the other ideas being floated by prominent scientists are incredibly frightening. There are scientists that are now openly proposing strict population control measures and the forced relocation of human populations. They believe such proposals are necessary "for the good of the planet", but the truth is that what they are suggesting quickly conjures up images of the worst totalitarian regimes that the earth has ever seen.
But first of all, let's talk about global warming for a minute. The reality is that the climate of the earth has always been changing. In the past it has been both much colder and much warmer than it currently is today. Scientists also tell us that at some point in the past there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there are today. Our planet survived then and it would survive very well today even if the amount of carbon dioxide spiked dramatically.
But carbon dioxide is not even causing climate change. The truth is that carbon dioxide does not make temperatures go up. Rather, once temperatures go up it causes a "life bloom" and that causes an increase in carbon dioxide levels. All of the scientific data that has been collected clearly shows that a rise in carbon dioxide levels follows a rise in earth temperatures.
So then what is causing climate change?
It is the sun.
Several years ago, the sun was unusually active and all the planets in our solar system experienced a time of "global warming". That is a fact which many global warming alarmists just conveniently ignore.
If man was the primary cause of "global warming" then why were all of the other planets in our solar system experiencing increased temperatures as well?
But even if carbon dioxide was significantly contributing to climate change, there is not a whole lot we could do about it anyway. Most carbon dioxide is released into our atmosphere by a variety of natural sources. If all human carbon dioxide emissions were eliminated tomorrow, over 95% of the total carbon dioxide emissions on earth would still occur.
So the notion that we can just cut our carbon emissions and solve "global warming" is a big, fat lie.
But that is not stopping many of our "top scientists" from coming up with some incredibly stupid "solutions" to this non-existent problem. The following are 12 of the stupidest ideas that anyone has ever come up with to fight global warming....
#12 One "researcher" actually seriously proposed that we should dump millions of tons of Special K into the oceans of the world. This would supposedly alter the "reflectivity" of the oceans, thus reducing global warming.
#11 The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, says that UN scientists will now be looking into "geoengineering" methods for fighting global warming which include placing mirrors above the planet to reflect the sun's rays back into space, sprinkling huge amounts of iron filings into our oceans and creating "man-made volcanoes" that would shoot sulfate particles high into our atmosphere.
#10 There are some scientists that are proposing that we should have our cows eat massive amounts of garlic to keep them from farting so much. It turns out that global warming alarmists are terrified of methane, and new research shows that garlic may help reduce the amount of methane that cows produce.
#9 On a similar note, Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the leading "experts" on climate change in the UK, says that everyone should simply stop eating meat so that we do not need to have as many cows and pigs around. The idea is that if there are less cows and pigs there will be a whole lot less farting and thus a lot less methane in the atmosphere.
#8 Dr. Jason Box, a scientist from Ohio State University, is actually proposing that we should wrap Greenland in a gigantic blanket. He believes that the blanket would attract the sun's heat, and therefore the melting of Greenland's glaciers would be slowed down.
#7 The U.K.'s Institute of Mechanical Engineers wants to cover our buildings with massive amounts of algae. Their theory is that the algae would absorb lots of carbon from the atmosphere and therefore help reduce global warming.
#6 James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that "democracy must be put on hold" if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only "a few people with authority" should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.
#5 Paul J. Crutzen of Germany's Max Planck Institute says that we should pump massive amounts of smog high into the earth's atmosphere. The idea is that the sulfur dioxide in the smog would reflect solar radiation, thus cooling the planet.
#4 The Optimum Population Trust, based in the UK, says that preventing the birth of one child in Africa is enough to "offset" the carbon footprint of one flight from London to Australia. So they propose providing huge amounts of condoms to the developing world to "help" them have less children.
#3 Professor Kevin Anderson, the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, says that wealthy nations should implement World War 2-style rationing in order to cut carbon emissions to acceptable levels.
#2 Some "climate scientists" are now actually being so bold as to propose the "forced relocation" of entire human populations. The executive summary of a key report that will be discussed at the upcoming international climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico proposes "the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas." Considering what "forced relocations" have looked like throughout history, that statement is more than a little chilling.
#1 For many climate scientists, the number one reason why there are too many carbon emissions is because there are too many humans. Therefore many involved in the fight against climate change see "population reduction" as the key to humanity's future.
Sadly, this philosophy is now even showing up in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement....
What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?It seems like population control is very much on the minds of the folks over at the UN these days. This was very clearly seen once again when the United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".
The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document....
1) "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
2) "No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
3) "Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."
If no human is "carbon neutral", that means that each and every one of us is part of the problem.
For many of these global warming alarmists, climate change is the greatest threat that the earth is facing and therefore it is imperative that we get rid of as many humans as possible in order to save the planet.
Sadly, with each passing year the green agenda is becoming increasingly linked to the population control agenda. Today there are literally millions of people who actually believe that we need to dramatically reduce the number of humans on the planet for the good of the earth.
But as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". The proposals in the list above are mostly from some of the top "climate change experts" in the world. But their proposals include suspending democracy, the forced relocation of entire populations and mandatory population reduction.
That sure doesn't sound like a "green paradise". Rather, it sounds like the worst kind of "eco-fascism" imaginable. If some of the "top scientists" on the globe are proposing that we move in that direction, what does that say about where this world is headed?