Be afraid – scientists at work

The idea of artificially cooling the planet to blunt climate change — in effect, blocking sunlight before it can warm the atmosphere — got a boost on Thursday when an influential scientific body urged the United States government to spend at least $100 million to research the technology.

That technology, often called solar geoengineering, entails reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space through techniques that include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. In a new report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said that governments urgently need to know whether solar geoengineering could work and what the side effects might be.


What could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out this is the plot line for the Netflix series Snowpiercer (and a movie of the same name – I haven’t seen the movie).  Scientists try to cool the earth by placing aerosols in the atmosphere and end up nearly destroying all life. Just finished watching season 2 – really good.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Libertarians don't live by argument alone. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Be afraid – scientists at work

  1. MPH says:

    Destroying the planet in order to save it. Leftism at work, they inescapably end up causing the exact opposite of their stated goal.

  2. Rex Anger says:

    But they’re in charge at the end of it (or so tbey hope), so it’s all OK!

  3. Dot says:

    We should be geoengineering from now on…because we already are and to stop would reduce us back to living like savages.

    Anything else would mean no forestry, agriculture etc. No cloud seeding, not even reafforestation in general or rehabilitation of mine sites.

  4. NoFixedAddress says:


    It is a completely ‘evil’ notion to throw ‘stuff’ into the atmosphere to ‘protect the planet’ from overheating!

    Notwithstanding their open admission that it is ‘Jolly Ol Sol’ that is pumping the heat at planet Earth they are looking to justify nuclear winters.

    I guess by 2050 it will be acceptable in the latte left.

  5. Entropy says:

    Jennifer Connelly. She needs a good feed.

  6. Mike (MJB Wolf) says:

    Are these the same scientists who also say we will get our electricity from solar power?

  7. Fat Tony says:

    There appears to be two states of equilibrium with the Earth’s climate – current warm state (up to 20,000 years?) & the ice ages (around 100,000 years?).

    Some, as yet, not understood mechanism flicks the Earth from one equilibrium to the other.

    Fooling with the Earth’s albedo like this could lead to a permanent ice age – acceptable to the likes of Bill Gates & his elite mates (cos they will still have the best of everything) but disastrous for the vast bulk of humanity.

    (Gates is one of the driving forces behind this fuckwittery – as well as the COVID “vaccines”).

  8. Michael says:

    Chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons: where are they when you need them?

  9. caveman says:


  10. John Bayley says:

    The original movie was unwatchable; so full of greenwash that as an alternative to smashing the TV, I turned it off half-way.
    You have not missed anything, Sinclair. And I suspect in this day and age, the Netflix version will be even worse.

    Regarding this new ‘scientific’ idea, I think it would be a lot simpler if the taxpayers just handed over the $100M, with no strings attached.

    That’s basically what these ‘scientists’ are after anyway, and it would do a lot less damage than them trying to do utterly stupid stuff like sprinkling sulphuric acid on clouds or similar nonsense.

  11. iggie says:

    An example of unintended consequences.
    In 1970, Earthwatch recommended that pollution, which then was causing the Earth to cool, needed to be cleaned up. One solution was a catalytic converter on cars to change carbon monoxide emissions to – wait for it – carbon dioxide. Mmmm!

  12. DP says:

    Dear Professor Davidson

    So these good folk are going to use anthropogenic climate change to save us from, er, anthropogenic climate change.

    Are they offering a guarantee with that?

    Warm is good: nice weather, lots to eat – CO2 is plant food.

    Cold is bad: we starve, freeze, need more energy to survive, weather is more extreme, because of the temperature gradient between poles and equator.

    Have they thought it through, or just think with their bank accounts?


  13. egg_ says:

    Be afraid – scientists at work

    After various con jobs such as ruinables and the Couf, do they have any cred left?

    Tim Flam, et al?

  14. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    There’s an irony with this.

    It turns out one of the big candidates for geoengineering is to release SO2 into the atmosphere, since that is the main agent that causes global cooling after large volcanic eruptions, like Pinatubo.

    The irony is this: we could easily release SO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow, if we wanted to. Lots of it. All that’s required is to turn off the Flue Gas Desulfurzation (FGD) units on our coal fired power stations. It would not only cost nothing, but would save a lot of money in scrubbing reagents.

    A bit more can be done too: increasing the limit for sulfur in jet fuel and removal of the sulfur limits on bunker fuel used in ships. These two would allow SO2 to be released worldwide at the surface and in the lower stratosphere. Again both would save money, not cost it.

    For some odd reason though the climate activists don’t seem to like these very simple and very inexpensive geoengineering options. I wonder why?

  15. Dot says:

    Maurice Strong.

    It’s a scamola Bruce, but you already know that.

  16. Eyrie says:

    I’m in favour of geo engineering. Let’s start with Australia. Exterminate all gum trees, replace with Euro species.

  17. Dot says:


    Australia could be an agroforestry cornucopia.

  18. win says:

    Why are then scientists getting in on the act when the sun spot activity has decreased over the past couple of years any way.

  19. Fred says:

    When I see Jennifer Connelly I think of three words – ass to ass.

  20. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld says:

    Maybe these eco loonies could study the years without summer after major eruptions like Krakatoa in 1883. The northern hemisphere suffered so badly. Do they also refuse to admit that already the northern hemisphere is more snowy and cooling or is that swept under the mat like every other reality about their fantasy. The little Ice Age was most probably caused by severe volcanic eruptions in the tropics, the volcano on Vanuatu called Kuwae believed to be one of the villains. They need to be very, very careful playing God

  21. Terry says:

    Saw the movie. Very good.

    Haven’t bothered with the series yet (unless it can add something/expand on the idea). I’ll wait for now.

  22. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    Warm is good: nice weather, lots to eat – CO2 is plant food.
    Cold is bad: we starve, freeze, need more energy to survive, weather is more extreme, because of the temperature gradient between poles and equator.

    Yep. The statements above are so bleeding obvious that you can’t help but wonder if Gates et al really aren’t pushing for a very sinister outcome.

  23. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    snowpiercer – both the movie and the series are excruciating unwatchable garbage.

  24. Old School Conservative says:

    So now the sun IS a major factor in our changing climate.
    What an about face from “The Science”.

  25. Tailgunner says:

    excruciating unwatchable garbage.

    Thanks, Spurg, I had thought the premise sounded ridiculous but was almost convinced to have a look by some of the upvotes here.
    Will avoid

  26. Eddystone says:

    Life on earth depends on photosynthesis, which requires both CO2 and sunlight.

    If these muppets get their way, both of those essential ingredients will be reduced.

  27. exsteelworker says:

    MPH, destroying the earth in order to save it….
    Yes, indeed. They don’t realise the damage they’ve already done to the planet. 1000s of new rare earth mines, smelting all those toxic minerals to make their “climate changing” renewables. Bulldozing gravel roads into pristine forests to install wind turbines and 1000s of acres of solar panels. Lithium batteries production into the trillions. And now the gazillion dollar question for the climate scamers, what happens when all this installed renewables needs replacing? Whos going to recycle this toxic garbage? I can see the future now, solar, wind and lithium batteries dumped all over the place. Enjoy your clean energy future kids.

  28. Bad Samaritan says:

    exsteelworker says:
    April 8, 2021 at 9:49 am
    “They don’t realise the damage they’ve already done to the planet.”

    You are far too kind.

  29. Damon says:

    They should also look at technology to stop earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. And while they’re at it, I’d like the continents moved back to their original positions, which would make life much more convenient for everybody.

  30. Gerry says:

    As difficult as it is to engage an alarmist in any sort of conversation, I have found the best approach requires an acceptance to them that their process of cooling, to date, appears a successful output.
    Then diverge, at what point do you think we should turn the cooling down? The weather of 1970s, 1930s, 1890s, little ice age? Who is going to decide the right temperature? I mean there might even still be storms and floods and bush fires and rising sea levels.
    When it gets too cold what process will you put in place to warm it up.
    What OUTCOME measures are in place NOW?
    You can’t fix stupid and you can’t fix ‘stupid science’

  31. Cynic of A says:

    It’s got noting to do with science or climate change.
    Like hundreds of other “scientific studies”, it’s two things:
    Bureaucrats enjoy – above all else – spending someone else’s money;
    Bureaucrats enjoy – second to the above – spending the money on other bureaucrats.
    It’s the knock-on that’s a problem. Hire a “scientist.” (Yeah, I know!)
    Pay “Scientist” a hundred Gs.
    But.. the “Scientist” needs:
    Trips away to conferences;
    Trips away to talk to someone;
    Trips away to do “Scientific Field stuff”;
    Trips home to see the family;
    Superannuation, sick pay, Golf Club fees.
    It all adds up, and all of a sudden they’ve spent 100 Mil, and haven’t done anything yet.
    The next step is, “We’re close to a solution! Need another 50 Mil.”
    Then, it’s “Yes, we’ve spent 150 Mil, and the team can say with absolute certainty, that the proposal will not work. However, the team thinks that another proposal is well worth funds to examine….”

  32. Baa Humbug says:

    What gates wants, Gates gets. An evil man on the same level as Soros.
    $100m is peanuts to these people, yet instead of dipping into their piggy bank they’re asking for government funding.
    If they fund it themselves and it all goes pear shaped, imagine the lawsuits. Better to get a degree of separation by getting ones political minions to fund it.

    The big problem I see isn’t anything that might come of the experiment itself. The big problem is that China is watching.
    Once the West starts experimenting with the atmosphere, China will get a green light to start its own experiments. Wuhan Lab in the sky if you will.

  33. Kneel says:

    ” …techniques that include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere.”

    Yeah – because the “problem” has been caused by us carrying out an uncontrolled experiment of atmospheric content (increase in CO2), so obviously the solution is to carry out another experiment that should cause an equal and opposite affect by doing the same thing, but using a different “injected” compound.

    Don’t stress though – arctic see ice disappeared in 2008 2012 2015 2018 2025, UK kids don’t know what snow is with snow now being a “rare and exciting event”, and it was already too late to do anything about global warming by 1998 2008 2018 2030, when it was already will be too late.

  34. Motelier says:

    There is nothing that lots of taxpayers money can’t fix.

  35. billie says:

    scientists are just other people, with problems, phobias and vices

    they have financial and parenting problems as does anyone else

    I “listen to scientists”, but understand it’s biased truth, depending on funding, personal payscale and promotion opportunities, work environment directives and contractual obligations (James Cook uni style)

    I know someone in the Environmental Studies area, their clients (property developers) ALWAYS get the result they want, of course they do, they are paying for that result

    activist organisations, university researchers or think-tanks, they all achieve what they set out to do – there is never any doubt

    ultimately, motivation comes from different places and scientists are not immune or above influence

    **a common “tell” for scientific BS when questioned, is when they state, “but why would they lie?”, because of the motivation is why

  36. John A says:

    That technology, often called solar geoengineering, entails reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space through techniques that include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere.

    Didn’t we ban some aerosols because of ozone depletion?

    And they expect us to accept that “THIS time it will be different – better”?

  37. Bulldog says:

    Movie is way better than the netflix series.

  38. Louis Litt says:

    This has got legs – greening the interior in Oz

Comments are closed.