Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 764, March 30, 2014

Civilization is not inherited; it has to be
learned and earned by each generation anew;
if the transmission should be interrupted
for one century, civilization would die,
and we should be savages again.
—Will and Ariel Durant

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Some Thoughts on Climate Change and Solar Activity
by Abigail (''Abby'') Martha Mason

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

My brother T.J. recently sent me a link to this article, which I perused at length and found quite interesting: [Link] A bit of online research confirms that the information in the article is substantiable.

I thought to myself, "This makes no sense. The solar astronomical data is all pointing toward a decided cooling trend, and this cooling would be on the same order as the much-hyped warming purported from anthropogenic global climate change. If warming up by a couple of degrees would be so catastrophic, wouldn't cooling down by the same amount be just as bad? Why aren't they taking the solar variability into account?"

And then it hit me.

You see, the more extreme Malthusian/Darwinian ecological perspectives would have us believe that the planet is much better off with a much smaller, or even nonexistent, human population. If we combine the sunspot article with this one, we get a truly chilling (pardon the pun) picture. [Link]

From the first referenced article, "Both the UN and the IPCC know that there is going to be a massive human die off should prolonged cooling take place." And from the second, "Regardless of the methods used to control population and whether they are imposed or self-imposed, strict secrecy and deception have been necessary to prevent the masses from discovering the bitter truth that for the past 68 years they have been the object of a silent and global offensive, a campaign of attrition that has turned the basic elements of life into weapons of mass infertility and selective death."

Of course.

It would implement a semi-artificial Malthusian check. Of mammoth proportions. (Given that another name for "Malthusian check" is "Malthusian catastrophe.")

Which is what these particular leaders want. They are so sure that "the planet would be better off without people" that they are orchestrating the whole global warming fiasco in the face of impending deep freeze to accomplish it. If our whole infrastructure is orchestrated to support cooling the climate, at the same time that our sun goes into an extended cool cycle, the global results would be catastrophic. Untold millions could—and probably would—die, infrastructures could collapse, and the worldwide population might well be reduced to subsistence living, "hand to mouth" survival.

Infrastructures are like elephants: hard to get moving, and just as hard to stop. When once our infrastructures are hardwired to "prevent global warming," it will be next to impossible to change directions once it becomes obvious we are headed into global cooling.

And the population as a whole will be doomed.

Except for those few in the catbird seat, those in control, who—like the Soviet leaders before them—live palatially at the expense of everyone else.

"Nero" and his cohorts will fiddle while Rome...freezes.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press