Geoengineering and dimming the sun experiments strike to the core of the cognitive dissonance underpinning climate change ideology.
JUPPLANDIA
There is a central contradiction at the very core of modern Green Politics. It’s one of the most spectacular examples of cognitive dissonance, of believing two mutually exclusive things simultaneously, in modern politics, perhaps only exceeded in sheer lunacy by the ‘anti-racist’ obsession with hating white people.
If we boil Green Politics, the entire Climate Change, Net Zero, Carbon Reduction, Greenhouse Gases, End of the World Planetary Apocalypse bullshit in all its multiple variations and absurdities down to just two central ideas, they are these:
- Western science, technology, innovation and development was fatal to the planet. Western Man is reckless, stupid, greedy, ecologically unaware, reckless, uncaring, untrustworthy, and all his advances and developments were profit driven and are killing the planet and have been disastrous in every way. Mankind, but Western Mankind in particular, has been a terrible custodian of the planet and can’t be trusted with anything.
- We need to let science, technology, innovation and development enact vast experiments and radical global changes affecting the entire planet and can absolutely trust that none of the tech billionaires, Green Corporations, and vested interests involved are anything but altruistic, kind, decent, responsible, caring, trustworthy people motivated by the purest non profit motives and 100% sure to deliver safe, effective, sane radical new technologies with no unintended consequences whatsoever because they are innately wise custodians of the planet.
These two totally contradictory ideas essentially underpin all Climate Change fanaticism, Green politics and all allegedly Green agendas such as Net Zero. We are to simultaneously assume that Man had less wisdom than a swarm of locusts in creating the Coming Climate Apocalypse, but has more wisdom than Nature or God in deciding how to solve the Coming Climate Apocalypse.
We are supposed to simultaneously distrust and fear all prior technology, and at the same time completely and unquestioningly accept radical new technologies.
We are supposed to consider all old energy companies innately evil, destructive and damaging to the environment because they are motivated purely by greed, but regard all new energy companies as innately good, constructive and environmentally beneficial because they are motivated purely by altruism, without the slightest profit motive at all. The transfer to new forms of energy supposedly exists solely to Save the Planet….and the concentration of control of the energy supply, the food supply, and the levers of economic power it also entails is purely innocent and coincidental.
Essentially the contradiction between the two formative attitudes of modern Climate Orthodoxy is not resolvable logically, but is resolved by moral and emotional assumption instead.
As with any fanatical movement, depth of belief substitutes for proof of belief, and passionate intensity replaces the need for coherent argument. This aspect of modern Green Politics has been most obviously expressed in the spittle flecked hysterical screeching of Greta Thunberg, but is common to all Climate Change activism. When Greta was invited to address the UN, and when serving government ministers across the world treated an angry autistic Swedish teenager as the moral voice of a generation to be treated with respectful deference and invited to policy discussions, the western political and media Establishment signalled their total capture by the forces of religious zealotry on the topic of climate change. The important realisation here is that the acceptance of Thunberg as a serious figure marked an inflection point where pure emotion and wild passion would now be taken as being a form of proof to which policy must bow, with those in authority both legitimising and deferring to impassioned gibberish from borderline certifiable sources.
Here for example from a few years ago we see British political leaders of both main parties, including current UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband, deferring worshipfully to the Heavenwards gaze of young Greta:
Whilst quite obviously Thunberg was a cynically created figurehead put forward by those positioned to profit from the policy changes she championed (Thunberg’s parents were established climate activists who just happened to be friends with the Soros family, and there was absolutely no valid reason for even Swedish newspapers to pay attention to her, let alone the entire global media) it’s likely that the fanatical zeal she represents was and is perfectly sincere on her part. As the Virgin Mary of the Climate Change faith system, her Immaculate Creation by the Soros aligned media normalised an attitude of hysterical denunciation and moral hectoring almost required for a movement as basically irrational as one founded in the belief in an imminent apocalypse caused by the combination of the Industrial Revolution and cow farts, whose only ‘scientific’ evidential basis still consists primarily of speculative and predictive computer modelling.
In the Virgin Thunberg, we would get the Climate Aware political and media class telling us, without really meaning to, that the supposed scientific consensus on climate change was actually subordinate to an ideological and emotional new form of religious faith, rather as the findings of Copernicus were subject to the approval and disapproval of the Catholic Church.
And as with any faith system, what joins pure subjective emotion as the substitute of rational proof is the ability to morally condemn non-believers, to hector, silence, belittle and mock those who do not conform, a power essentially dependent on being in alliance with existing authorities who have (cynically or sincerely) decided that your faith will be the settled faith of the polity they control. For all the claims that anthropogenic climate change is a confirmed fact and that radical alterations of the entire basis of development, industry, energy supply, transport and economics must be reconfigured because ‘the Science’ says so, just as with novel pandemic responses all of this is much more based in faith than it is in evidence.
What science is deployed in this, either as new technological research or as claimed proof, is subordinate to a pre-existing faith in Climate Change as a kind of religious substitute, replete with all the language of moral guilt and punishment, now applied to humanity as a whole for the societal ‘sin’ of the Industrial Revolution and the individual sin of wanting modern standards of living, warm homes, and electricity we can afford. This should be remembered when we see such absurdities as weather report maps of absolutely normal summer temperatures backed by burning red graphics as if we are getting a glimpse of Hell itself.
It’s not just cynical Climate Change propaganda. It’s Climate Change faith.
Things which cannot be resolved, which are mutually exclusive logically or rationally, can be resolved if the underlying attitude is one of faith. Faith can work positive wonders when resolving the contradiction between our finite and struggling mortality and our aspirations towards the solace of true meaning, providing an answer to the existential ache in any spirit bound in flesh, but in its negative aspects of course it is faith as fanaticism which works best to justify evil in the hearts of those doing it and the minds of those following and supporting that evil.
Science and Faith are both themselves neutral forces, dependent for whether they are good or evil on the purposes to which they are put and the particularity of the ideology they serve. Both a gun and a sermon can be held in good hands and bad ones with equal ease. What’s more likely to be evil though is a broad base of faith artificially created by a small group of manipulators, especially if it works by assumptions while telling you they are facts, especially if it serves selfish interests while claiming to be philanthropy or necessity, and especially if it is fundamentally a religion while telling you it is all scientific.
And this is what we have with the Cult of Climate Change and its trinity division of technology into Old Technology that is evil (like an earlier pantheon being replaced), Current Technology that must be abandoned (like a purely material impediment to true ascension) and Future Technology that must be funded, subsidised, worshipped and never questioned like the final apotheosis of the True Faith.
The above should make it clear to some extent how easily the apocalyptic Green Cult merges with the developing Technocratic Cult, each serving the purposes of the other. The Green true believer gets to see government and corporations pandering to his doom laden prophecies and misanthropic attitudes towards humanity as a polluting cancer on the Earth, and the corporations and bureaucrats get a moral crusade that concentrates the most important industries and decisions in their sole keeping, allowing things like the supply of energy to move from being an expected convenience of modernity to being a moral commentary on the individual citizen, a constant reckoning of their virtue and obedience that works like a Chinese social credit system (with basic rights of travel, freedom of movement, access to heat, light, cars, holidays, independent living and basic freedoms of inheritance and choice all becoming things that can be offered or withheld nominally in the name of the moral crusade to Save the Planet but really just as an exercise in normalised tyranny).
All this is the context within which to understand truly insane and bizarre projects such as those now bring advanced as geoengineering research in the name of getting to grips with climate change. Large scale technological projects of extremely dubious and unproven necessity and worth, encompassing huge expenditures of effort and spending and even greater degrees of risk, come into existence when a supposedly scientific theory is treated as an object of faith. The climate change narrative is now set and as immune to challenge as the most dogmatic religious we have ever possessed. Man’s wickedness towards the planet was launched by the Original Sin of the Industrial Revolution, when the Serpent of Capitalism whispered in Mankind’s ear and made him pursue base material needs, shattering the Eden like paradise which came before that moment. Only a total economic revolution, abandoning all the Sinful Energy Sources and favouring ‘Green’ ones instead, will restore the Garden of Paradise on Earth, which is an environment acting as if Man does not even exist.
Of course few of its advocates express it this way, but this is really how it works. The UN based IPCC is the Papacy of this faith, climate activists are the zealous mob of worshippers, climate scientists are the priestly caste, and Green investors and billionaires the heads of corporate sects or bureaucratic departments of the faith, the cardinals and bishops of the new religion, and Greta is the High Priestess/Sacred Virgin Mother of the whole thing.
When we look at geoengineering projects in response to alleged man made climate change properly and rationally, they are innately ridiculous projects. They are the fantasies and grandiose technological interventions of a Bond villain. To geoengineer the planet you are actually living on is like conducting experiments on electricity while sitting in the comfort of your water filled bath. It’s the environment you are in and which surrounds you, and it’s an environment which your life depends on. To recklessly and totally reshape it is to risk your own demise, or some spectacular run away disaster, far more than saying damn the climate agenda and do nothing would. The reality is that present ‘fossil fuel’ and ‘greenhouse gas’ technology is more trustworthy, reliable and cheap than all current ‘sustainable’, ’Green’ and ‘alternative’ energy is, and has ALREADY undergone decades of improvement to be more ecologically sound too. Geoengineering by definition though enacts vast change at global scale, much of which can be proven to be ecologically and environmentally damaging.
Ideas like blocking out the sun by releasing enormous quantities of particles into the atmosphere that will lessen the amount of light and temperature reaching the Earth embody that religious belief in climate change.
Because no such project could ever be backed rationally.
How do you rationally at one and the same time want to cover every field in solar panels and block out the sun, retaining the false beliefs that the first is good for the countryside and the second is good for the planet, without noticing that your solar panel will be even less efficient when you’ve blocked the rays of the sun?
These kind of contradictions riddle the Climate Cult ideology all the way through. A coal mine is evil, but a lithium mine is good. Trying to discover a way to reduce global temperature and then going with that when we still don’t have the faintest clue how many variables affect temperature and the potential risks are at the scale of existential threats, is not how sane and sound policy decisions are. None of this is safe, sane or sound.
Anyone looking at these things from outside the parameters of the Cult is astonished at how obviously insane climate change solutions are. How is it possible that millions of people who believe in this stuff don’t ever question it? How is it possible that computer modelled predictions dependent on junk and faulty data inputs are treated as established facts? How is it that talking about the end of the world and sharing apocalyptic sagas lost its stigma and association with hysteria? How is it that sober, professional, academic experts in related professions get to play Bond villain cackling schemers without noticing that they are working on replicating the effects of a nuclear winter? How can it not be immediately understood that maybe deliberately changing the nature of the sky is a project of scientific hubris so glaring and profound that only the most abjectly retarded individuals would contemplate it?
The risk isn’t difficult to perceive here. It’s on a global scale, which means the entire atmosphere and the entire population of the planet would be at risk. The urgency of ‘needing to do something’ is extremely debatable (interestingly Elon Musk doesn’t dispute climate change, but thinks we have a timeframe of centuries atill by which to adapt). The potential consequences are subject to a whole host of variables as well, and it’s impossible to predict whether huge negative consequences would follow or on what exact scale they would come. It’s not that big a leap to suggest that unquantifiable risks (that could include any degree of suffering) are unacceptable risks.
All this remember based on earlier experience that is treated as very important information right up to the point that it tells you that geoengineering your own planet is the height of folly.
One must hold the idea in one’s head that the End Times are coming because we pumped chemicals into the atmosphere not knowing their effects, and that the solution to this is to pump chemicals into the atmosphere not knowing their effects.
I discussed much of this in my second book Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates is the Most Dangerous Man in the World. At that stage Gates was funding small scale test experiments into sun blocking geoengineering projects in the US. But the story has resurfaced now that the British government have announced the commencement of larger scale test of concept experiments on the same topic. In his typical fashion, Gates has picked a Third World struggling nation with lax ethical codes as his giant laboratory, in this case a laboratoey called Great Britain. The technology is moving from very early demonstration of principle experiments to full scale proof of concept and study of effects experiments which will be putting much more pollution into the atmosphere than the stage one testing did. Search engines provide the following AI summation:
“The UK government is set to approve experiments aimed at blocking sunlight as a measure to combat climate change. These experiments, which will be conducted by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), include methods such as stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. Stratospheric aerosol injection involves releasing large amounts of particles, like sulfur dioxide, into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. Marine cloud brightening proposes spraying sea salt aerosols into clouds to make them denser and more reflective of sunlight.
The experiments are part of a £50 million project and are expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Professor Mark Symes, the program director for ARIA, emphasized the importance of gathering real-world data to better understand the potential impacts of these techniques.
Despite the potential benefits, these methods also carry significant risks and uncertainties. Some concerns include the potential for unintended environmental consequences and the possibility that these techniques might detract from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Mainstream media of course are couching all their articles to be generally supportive of geoengineering, carefully mentioning the terrible climate doom the experiments seek to prevent and mentioning public fears specifically to describe how they are unwarranted responses.
Professor Symes of course takes an equally positive approach to his research but there is a sense thar wider distrust is grudgingly recognised as something that has to be mitigated. Symes therefore insists thar the materials involved are non toxic and that safety is a key consideration. But the issue is not so much small scale tests as the large scale actions that will follow if the tests are considered successful. Both the earlier US based researchers and the UK ones are dedicated to the broad religious belief in the ‘urgent need to tackle climate change’, and this combined with the lure of income streams blinds them totally to the fundamentally reckless and absurd nature of what they are doing. If the actual project goes ahead, it will the biggest experiment in human history, with billions of unwilling participants and with even greater potential risks than the similarly Gates backed novel technology of injecting half of humanity with mRNA experiments had.
In a rational world people would universally object to geoengineering projects on the basis of very obvious risk assessment. In a traditionally religious context they would object to it all as Man meddling in Nature and hubristically assuming the powers of God. On traditional democratic grounds they would object to this being a billionaires project secure£ through unaccountable networks of power.
The only basis on which the kind of impacts and kind of projects Gates back become acceptable is if you have cast aside traditional religion and replaced it with the new Climate Cult, or if you are thoroughly corrupt and see nothing wrong in Gates treating the planet as his personal toy.
This article (Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
Geoengineers Want Boeing 777s to Dump Sulfur Into the Sky, Risking Acid Rain Catastrophe: Journal ‘Earth’s Future’
Plan “would strongly increase side‐effects such as acid rain,” study authors admit
JON FLEETWOOD
Scientists are proposing to modify Boeing 777 aircraft to spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in an attempt to cool the Earth in the name of debunked, so-called “climate change”—despite fully acknowledging the serious risk of acid rain and other environmental disasters.
A new study published today in Earth’s Future openly admits that this method, called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), would sharply increase dangerous side effects like acid rain because it requires “three times more” aerosol to achieve the same cooling effect compared to previous high-altitude schemes.
“However, this low‐altitude strategy requires three times more injection than high‐altitude SAI, and so would strongly increase side‐effects such as acid rain,” the study’s authors warn.
Rather than developing new, specially-designed aircraft to reach the ideal 65,000 feet altitude, researchers from University College London and Yale now propose dumping sulfur at just 42,000 feet—within the existing capabilities of modified 777s.
The ironic catch?
At lower altitudes, sulfur particles would rain out of the sky much faster—meaning a massive increase in the amount of pollutant dumped into the atmosphere.
Instead of solving anything, their plan could flood the atmosphere with even more toxic material, accelerating the very environmental destruction they claim to be fighting.
The study projects injecting 12 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide per year—comparable to the volume released by the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which famously cooled the planet temporarily but also triggered severe acid rain.
In fact, the researchers admit outright that this new strategy would mean “a proportionate increase in the side-effects of SAI per unit cooling, such as human exposure to descending particulate matter.”
The new proposal to retrofit Boeing 777s to spray sulfur mirrors the large-scale atmospheric modification that anti-geoengineering expert Jim Lee shows is already being carried out daily through commercial aviation’s sulfur-doped emissions.
A Blueprint for Accelerated Environmental Collapse?
Billed as a “shortcut” because it could use existing jets instead of waiting a decade for new aircraft, the UCL-Yale plan effectively opens the floodgates for rapid, poorly regulated deployment.
The study concedes this alarming possibility, saying:
“This could imply an increase in the number of actors able to deploy SAI, an earlier potential start date, and perhaps a greater risk of unilateral deployment.”
Translation: Anyone with a modified fleet of cargo planes could start spraying the skies without global oversight.
This echoes warnings from our past reporting: geoengineering is being normalized as an “emergency solution”—without serious consideration of the unintended, irreversible damage it could unleash on ecosystems, agriculture, and human health.
Acid rain, after all, devastates forests, poisons waterways, and corrodes infrastructure.
Even the authors admit that injecting sulfur at lower altitudes would be “a sub-optimal SAI deployment, with strongly increased side-effects, reduced cooling efficiency, and a more polar cooling profile.”
Yet despite these known dangers, the plan is moving forward—with government agencies like Britain’s Aria already preparing field experiments.
Global Weather Control by Cargo Plane
This is the continuation of a pattern we’ve exposed before: global elites quietly pushing militarized weather control schemes under the cover of “climate crisis” narratives.
First it was experiments on cloud seeding, now it’s mass-scale sulfur dumping using commercial airliners.
“Our results suggest that a deployment of low‐altitude, high‐latitude SAI could halt the increase in global mean temperature under current warming rates by redirecting a small fraction of the production of existing large jets (~2 new jets per year),” the researchers wrote.
In other words, they are planning for a future where the skies are permanently hazed with chemical aerosols, maintained by a growing fleet of retrofitted jets.
Once this kind of geoengineering begins, it can’t be easily stopped.
The sudden cessation of sulfur injection could trigger abrupt, catastrophic warming—known in scientific literature as the “termination shock.”
This isn’t a solution.
It’s engineering dependence on a dangerous, destructive atmospheric intervention.
The Bottom Line
Geoengineers are openly admitting that they want to retrofit Boeing 777s to spew toxic sulfur dioxide into the sky, risk widespread acid rain, and destabilize the global climate—all to patch over the failures of industrial policy.
If the public doesn’t push back, the same establishment that wrecked the environment with reckless industrialization will now finish the job under the guise of “saving” it.
This article (Geoengineers Want Boeing 777s to Dump Sulfur Into the Sky, Risking Acid Rain Catastrophe: Journal ‘Earth’s Future’) was created and published by Jon Fleetwood and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply