(NaturalNews) 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. 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.
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?
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?
Well one obvious thing that might interest anyone who eats food is that changes in sunlight density will alter crop yields. It's not just about the total sunlight reaching the crops, either: It's also about the seasonal sensitivity of crops.
Plants are sun worshippers
Given that most of the population on our planet is just a few weeks away from mass starvation, all it takes is one season of crop failures to wipe out as much as 90% of the human population on our planet.
This may be no coincidence, of course. If some evil genius scientist (Dr. Evil?) wanted to destroy 90% of the human population, polluting the atmosphere and dimming the sun for a year or two would be a very effective way to accomplish that.
How do I know it's effective?
Because Mother Nature already demonstrated this nearly two hundred years ago…
1816: The "Year Without A Summer"
That year, a record-keeping meteorologist named Edward Holyoke recorded this entry on June 7 (which should be summer): "…exceeding[ly] cold. Ground frozen hard, and squalls of snow through the day. Icicles 12 inches long in the shade at noon day."
A poem from that year reads,
The trees were all leafless, the mountains were brown
The face of the country was scathed with a frown
And bleak were the hills, and the foliage sere
As had never been seen at that time of the year.
You can read more about the Summer of 1816 at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_W…
Without question, the eruption of Tambora dimmed the sun and chilled the planet. Modern-day scientists concerned about global warming might call this a "success" (if they only look at the symptoms and not the whole patient). But at what cost? How many people, animals and plants died in 1816 as a result of this particulate matter being ejected into the atmosphere? And why on Earth (literally) would modern-day scientists wish to recreate such a catastrophe on purpose?
How to create the next global dimming event
Anyone looking to set off a volcano would be immediately drawn to just one sleeping giant of a volcano… the largest volcano in the world, and one that's already 20,000 years or so behind schedule for a major eruption.
Which volcano am I referring to? Yellowstone National Park, of course.
Huh? I can hear people saying right now: "There's no volcano in Yellowstone National Park!"
Okay, you're right: There's no volcano there. In technical terms, it's a SUPER volcano!
The largest volcano in the world is ready to blow
Learn more about the Yellowstone SUPER volcano here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/…
or watch this shocking YouTube video here: (really shocking, trust me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh9z…
or read this book called SUPER Volcano: The Ticking Time Bomb Beneath Yellowstone National Park: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co…
Now why is all this important?
Pay attention, Earthlings. Here comes the scary part…
Nuking Yellowstone to save the planet
As explained on Wikipedia: "The volcanic eruptions, as well as the continuing geothermal activity, are a result of a large chamber of magma located below the caldera's surface. The magma in this chamber contains gases that are kept dissolved only by the immense pressure that the magma is under. If the pressure is released to a sufficient degree by some geological shift, then some of the gases bubble out and cause the magma to expand. This can cause a runaway reaction. If the expansion results in further relief of pressure, for example, by blowing crust material off the top of the chamber, the result is a very large gas explosion." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow…)
In fact, the term "very large" is an understatement. We're talking about a Biblical event here — something that would cover most of the United States in ash and alter the world climate for years to come.
Here's the scary part: Arrogant scientists could conceivably nuke Yellowstone National Park to blow the lid off the super volcano there, causing a massive eruption that would accomplish their goal of "global dimming" by ejecting many megatons of particular matter into the atmosphere. And God knows far too many modern-day scientists are stupid and arrogant enough to try something like this. One nuke is all it would take, and it's a whole lot cheaper (and faster) than launching matter into the atmosphere the old-fashioned way (with rockets). Why not let Mother Nature do the job for you?
One carefully-placed nuke could set off the Yellowstone super volcano chain reaction of rapid gas expansion, making the entire caldera go ballistic in a gigantic volcanic explosion that the planet hasn't seen for 600,000 years (or so).
The best part of this evil plan, of course, is that the whole thing can be done covertly. Simply bury a nuke in Yellowstone National Park and set it off without any warning whatsoever. If anyone asks, just blame it on Acts of God. With the sun dimmed for an entire growing season, not only will global warming be halted, but a global population reduction of billions of people will also likely be achieved, killing two birds with one stone (from the twisted point of view of mad geoengineering scientists and population reduction schemers).
I mean, come on: It's no longer even a secret that world governments are trying to reduce the world population. It's only a matter of HOW it's going to be done. One Yellowstone eruption takes care of the whole population problem in one growing season. If such an event does occur, by the way, the safest place the live will be near the equator and far from Yellowstone. South America looks really good at the moment…
By the way, I don't have any hard evidence that the U.S. government is looking to nuke Yellowstone in order to accomplish this "global dimming" objective (combined with a population reduction agenda), but the government is talking about radical geoengineering ideas that fit into the same category. Nuking Yellowstone National Park is a cheap, effective way to depopulate the planet and halt global warming while blaming the whole thing on Mother Nature. It's the perfect ecological crime.
If you notice people in radiation suits drilling in Yellowstone this summer, you might want to evacuate the area just in case…