by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
I don’t know what they’re putting into the water supply in the United Kingdumb (with thanks to member K.B. for that epithet), but I suspect that whatever it is, it may be manufactured in Nuttyfornia, because the results appear to be that the country’s entire political and leadership class is, to paraphrase the saying, bat-guano crazy, just like that in Nuttyfornia. According to this article shared by W.G., scientismists in the United Kingdumb have taken a page out of Baal Gates’ and other American technocrats’ book to dim the sun, and are now apparently ready to begin actual experiments in how to dim that pesky yellow ball up there from raining all that radiation down here:
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Experiments to dim the Sun will be approved within weeks
Now, if you’re like me, you enjoy reading articles like this for the sheer insanity and hubris that they inevitably contain, and if there is any group on the planet that is both insane and possessed of bat-guano crazy hubris, it is the technocrats of “climate change”. Get this:
Experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming will be given the green light by the Government within weeks.
Outdoor field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine, are being considered by scientists as a way to prevent runaway climate change.
And that’s just the opening two paragraphs. Notice that injecting aerosols into the atmosphere is being touted as a forthcoming experimental means of “dimming” the sun, when a glance upward at the skies in the last few years would convince anyone of intelligence – which ipso facto excludes the scientismists – that the aerosolization has been under way for some time. And I like others strongly suspect this campaign has been designed with a multitude of objectives in veiw, which includes (but is not limited to) (1) the introduction of materials into the general population that said population otherwise would not allow if given a choice, such materials possibly including experimental aerosolized “quackcines”, (2) attempts to introduce aerosolized heavy metals to increase the conductivity of the atmosphere for “star wars” type black projects, (3) the same possibly to increase the magnetic capacity and resonance of the planet, and so on and so on, &c. &c.
What always gets me about such articles though is that last phrase in the last sentence above: “such and such methods are being considered by scientists (sic) as a way to prevent runaway climate change.”
Oh really? It seems to me that one thing that might actually start or hasten “runaway climate change” is precisely things like tinkering with the reflectivity of high altitude clouds. And cooling the planet? What if doing so sets or starts a chain of events leading to turning the planet into a frozen ball of ice?
But wait, there’s more. Consider this whopper doozie plopped down in the middle of the article:
“One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much.
“Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research.
“We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won’t be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.”
Oh I feel just all warm and reassured! Admitting that one of the “missing pieces in this debate,” which is presumably the “climate change” debate, is “physical data from the real world,” meaning, they don’t have real physical data from the real world about the effects of their experiments, we are then assured that, in the absence of such data, that “everything” they will do is “going to be safe by design” and that any such experiments and their bad results will have “strong requirements” for their “reversibility” and – oh by the way – nothing toxic will be introduced into the environment. If you believe that, then I have some unused quackcines for sale, cheap.
Then we finally come to the admission:
Geoengineering projects which seek to artificially alter the climate have proven controversial, with critics arguing they could bring damaging knock-on effects, as well as being an unhelpful distraction from lowering emissions.
No! Really!?!? “Knock on effects?” You mean, you might start a process that can’t be reversed, and bring about that which you claim to be against?
Then we’re “informed” about those nasty carbon dioxide levels (never mentioning, of course, that carbon dioxide is what plants breathe, exhaling their “waste gas” (oxygen, which is what we and other animals breathe)):
