Read this in light of the fact that the planet has already been cooling for the last 11 years. Apparently the sun has been on its downcycle and is having a bit of a quiet spell. We hear rumors of global cooling and scientists ruined for daring to question the official story as told by Al Gore. I don't know what the truth is or how convenient it may or may not be, but something about Gore hopping on board this global warming crusade just never sat right with me. The environmental movement hasn't been the same since.
WTF do these "geoengineers" think they're doing? They're willing to trade our blue skies for - what exactly? A method of further polluting our air, causing droughts and ocean acidification? Talk about man-made climate change.
Even ignoring the global, potentially devastating effects on the environment - can you imagine the psychological effect on mankind to live under perpetual smog? One can only picture a global epidemic of Seasonal Affective Disorder.
Are they insane?
Notice that this is being presented "as a 'Plan B' in case emissions don't fall". In case they don't fall? Fall how low, and by when? Not only does this sound distinctly like a threat, it also subtley shifts the blame for such a drastic plan onto us consumers and our pesky emissions. It reinforces our instilled sense of guilt for our "carbon footprint" - created by a lifestyle virtually forced upon us if we wish to take any part in modern society - which only makes us all the more willing to agree to things such as carbon taxation.
Beware the noble facade of carbon taxes and reparations . Carbon pollution may be a problem worth fighting, but I'm afraid the motivations behind these initiatives are about as noble as waging endless war in the name of freedom and democracy.
This Associated Press analysis rejects global cooling theories, but makes an interesting connection. Regarding the global cooling theory:
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
Now I don't know who he thinks "concerted" this idea, but his paranoia is understandable because these upcoming Copenhagen talks are definitely important. Up for discussion is a proposed mandate that polluting nations compensate their cleaner neighbors for ruining the planet. The stated ambition here is, and I quote: "The COP15 conference in Copenhagen will result in an ambitious global agreement including all the countries of the world."
A global agreement? Regulated and enforced by whom? Can a nation decline signing the agreement without penalty? What might this mean to nation sovereignty?
And why aren't the people being informed and involved? A global agreement, by its very nature, should be agreed upon by everyone. After all, We the People are the ones who will ultimately bear the cost - you can bet it won't be the multi-nationals.
Could you imagine anyone being allowed to implement the kind of insanity that is the so-called 'Plan B' unless there were some kind of Global Climate Commission to make that call?
I wish it were all about the good of the environment, but a quiet alarm is sounding in my head. The sad reality is that money and power still shape policy, and such policy rarely considers the interests of the people.
We know this. We know our leaders and officials are corrupt, yet we let our disillusionment become apathy. We continue to allow them the power to change the world.
Until corruption and greed is rooted out of the human spirit, no small group of people should ever be trusted enough to decide the fate of the world.
Happy Halloween Eve.
