Thursday, 27 November 2014

Killing billions of people might save the planet, say scientists

The BBC, partly funded as it is by the warmist European Union, seems to be taking this argument seriously -

"Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet.....That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.....these projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up carbon dioxide. Ideas include aircraft spraying out sulphur particles at high altitude to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or using artificial 'trees' to absorb CO2."

Never mind the fact that, as the Met Office admits, global warming isn't happening. And never mind the genocide -

"Although all the simulations showed that blocking the Sun's rays - or solar radiation management, as it is called - did reduce the global temperature, the models revealed profound changes to precipitation including disrupting the Indian Monsoon....between 1.2 and 4.1 billion people could be adversely affected by changes in rainfall patterns [such as] the complete drying-out of the Sahel region of Africa.'"

Sorry, but I thought the idea was to prevent the world drying out? Anyway, the BBC article goes on to mention a less brutal "geo-engineering" solution to the non-problem of global warming. We simply make plankton obese by weighing them down with iron. As they sink to the seabed, whales won't be able to reach them and release the CO2 they adsorbed on the surface -

"An Indian-German experiment in 2009....involved dumping six tonnes of an iron solution into the South Atlantic to encourage plankton to bloom - trapping carbon which would then be sent to the seabed when the organisms died. Results showed limited success."


  1. How about burning more fossil fuels to counter the coming ice age?

  2. Or how about burning scientists?


Keep it clean.....