Blocking the Sun

The sixth century AD was not a lot of fun for most people, especially in Europe. The Roman Empire had definitely fallen, at least in the West. With that fall came barbarian invasions, endless wars, economic decline, trade collapse, and infrastructure deterioration. The year 536 was the worst year of a bleak century. In fact, the year 536 might well be the worst in recorded history.

A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. “For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year,” wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record “a failure of bread from the years 536–539.” Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse

What happened? The most widely accepted theory is that a volcano erupted in Iceland and emitted ash and dust into the atmosphere. This volcanic debris blocked enough sunlight to cause the Earth to cool as much as 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a decline in temperature caused a devastating decline in agricultural productivity throughout the Northern Hemisphere leading to famine and plague. It took centuries for the population and economies of European and Asian states to recover.

The year 1816 was known as the Year without a Summer.

In the summer of 1816, the Northern Hemisphere was plagued by a weather disruption of seemingly biblical proportions. Following a relatively ordinary early spring, temperatures in the eastern United States plunged back below freezing, and communities from New England to Virginia experienced heavy snowfalls and crop-killing frost during June, July and August. Europe also found itself in the grip of an unseasonable chill. Winter snows refused to melt, and between April and September, some parts of the Continent were drenched by as many as many as 130 days of rain. The unrelenting gloom inspired author Mary Shelley to write her famous novel “Frankenstein,” but it also wreaked havoc on farmers. Crops failed across Europe and China, spawning deadly famines and outbreaks of typhus and other diseases. In India, the disturbances gave rise to a virulent new strain of cholera that eventually killed millions. The suffering in the United States was less pronounced, but many still felt the squeeze of soaring grain prices. Some poorer Americans were even reduced to eating hedgehogs and scrounging for wild turnips.

This time, a volcano erupted in Indonesia. Mount Tambora emitted ash and dust into the atmosphere. The volcanic debris blocked sunlight, causing the Earth to cool by .7 to 1 degree Fahrenheit, again causing a devastating decrease in agricultural productivity. 1816 was not as grim as 536, but the Year Without a Summer was enough to cause food shortages worldwide. The period of global cooling may also have changed American history by encouraging thousands of people to leave New England to settle in the Midwest.

In the twelfth century BC, the longstanding civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Fertile Crescent collapsed rather suddenly. Historians are still not certain what caused the Late Bronze Age Collapse. Many factors contributed to the Collapse, but it is possible that it was triggered by a volcanic eruption that emitted dust and ash into the atmosphere. This volcanic debris blocked sunlight causing the Earth to cool.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? Let’s not forget that the most widely accepted theory for the cause of the extinction of the Dinosaurs is that an asteroid hit the Earth, throwing tons of dust into the atmosphere. This dust blocked sunlight and caused the Earth to cool.

Clearly, any decrease in the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface results in disaster for life and civilization. With that in mind, surely only a madman would suggest we pump aerosols into the atmosphere to block sunlight. This is precisely what some very influential people plan to do to fight climate change.

Bill Gates’s radical plan to “save the planet” from “climate change” by blocking out the Sun has officially launched as scientists began pumping chemicals into the sky this week.

As Slay News has previously reported, Bill Gates has long been advocating for the plan to fight “global warming” using experimental geoengineering to block the Sun.

The idea, promoted by Gates and leftist billionaire George Soros, involves pumping manmade white clouds into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the planet’s surface.

The radical scheme would lower the planet’s temperature and allegedly “combat global warming.”

Soros claims the technology will help to prevent ice sheets from melting.

Ice sheets melting in Greenland in particular, he claimed, could doom human civilization.

“Our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change,” Soros said.

“The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by seven meters.

“That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization,” he alleged.

The method pushed by Bill Gates involves increasing aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth.

The people proposing this plan are either insane or evil. Most likely they are both. They are mad enough to believe they can control the climate. They are evil enough to aspire to become the worst mass murderers in history. If this plan is implemented, we will see a repeat of some of the worst years in history. Millions could die of starvation. We will not have to worry about the imaginary threat of global warming. We will experience the very real threat of global cooling. We will not have to worry about the ice sheets of Greenland melting. We will have to worry about the polar ice caps advancing down North America and Eurasia.

This is a really bad idea

I do not remember ever being asked to vote on this madcap scheme. There has certainly been little public discussion of the concept. Even if the idea of blocking sunlight to fight global warming was sound, I think implementing actions that might drastically alter the Earth’s climate ought to be decided in some form of democratic manner. It definitely ought not to be decided by a handful of powerful oligarchs whose wealth will protect them from the consequences of their folly.

The Gates-Soros plan to bring about a new ice age is as mad as it is evil. It has to be stopped.

 

Stamping Out Freedom of Speech

Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream has a new project he’s been working on. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with ice cream but involves repealing or amending the first amendment to end our free speech protections. This might seem like a stretch and certainly Ben doesn’t believe that he is doing any such thing, but he may not have thought through what his efforts to get the money out of our politics might actually entail.

Hi, fellow MoveOn member!
This is Ben Cohen, the “Ben” of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. For the past few years, I’ve run a national, grassroots campaign to get Big Money out of politics.
It’s called Stamp Stampede. And the way it works is simple: activists around the country stamp—and then spend—dollar bills with a simple message, such as “Amend the Constitution—Stamp Money Out Of Politics.” Want a stamp?

Just click here, donate $10 or more to help MoveOn’s campaigns to stamp money out of politics, and I’ll send you a stamp!

Stamping dollar bills is one of the most fun—and subversive—ways you can demand a revolution in the way we fund campaigns. (And yes, it’s totally legal. Our lawyers have confirmed it.)

It’s also like a petition on steroids. The math is pretty incredible. Here’s how ordinary people can give billionaires a run for their money:

  • Every bill we stamp is seen by over 875 people.1
  • If just 5,000 MoveOn members (out of 8 million of us) get a stamp—and stamp one bill every day for one year—our message will be seen 1.6 billion times.
  • Each dollar bill that’s stamped directs people to a website where they can join the fight to overturn Citizens United.

Together, we can get our message in front of millions of Americans and bring in droves of new money-in-politics activists each year—which is what it’ll take to win this long-term fight.

Click here to get your stamp for a donation of $10 or more—and help build the movement.

Once you start stamping money, you’ll find it’s pretty addictive. You can spend your stamped money with pride. And let people know that this dollar is not to be used for bribing politicians (you’ll be surprised by how many new friends you’ll make!)

Thanks for all you do.

–Ben Cohen, Stamper-In-Chief

What does money have to do with free speech and why would getting the money out of politics threaten it? Well, to start with, it costs money to run for public office. Either an aspiring candidate may spend his own money to fund his campaign or he may solicit others to donate money. There are not many people wealthy enough to spend their own money to fund a political campaign on the national or even the state level and most people would consider a government made up of only the very wealthy to be undesirable, therefore there will always be a need for politicians to request donations from those who for various reasons are willing to give them money. No campaign finance legislation can change that simple reality. In fact, most proposals for getting the money out of politics seem to be aimed at getting the other side’s money out of politics. We are funded by small donations from ordinary people who wanted to make this country a better place. They are funded by millionaires and billionaires who want to protect their own greedy interests. Somehow, for all the fuss the progressives make about the nefarious Koch Brothers, they never seem to be bothered by the money George Soros spends on politics.

o-STAMP-STAMPEDE-facebook

 

The first amendment guarantees our freedom of speech. It does not require anyone to provide us a forum for our speech. If an individual or a group wishes to have some impact on the political process by speaking for or against a given policy, law, or candidate for office, they must spend money to get their message out. They must purchase advertisements in printed periodicals or on broadcast media. They must print pamphlets, create audio visual media, etc. They may have a staff of volunteers, but at some point, they may find it desirable to have people working full time on the cause. These people have to be compensated for their time and efforts. More recently the rise of the Internet and digital broadcasting and published has made the process of getting a message out cheaper and more democratic. You do not need to own a newspaper or television station to influence events anymore. Still, if you want to be really effective, you still need to spend some money.

Free speech is not free.
Yes it is. Free speech is not free.

 

Like the politician seeking office, an individual or group seeking to get a political message out can spend their own money or solicit donations from people who support the individual or group’s goals. If the government can control and limit the funding of any political advocacy organization, it can effectively control and limit its speech. It does little good to guarantee freedom of speech if you prevent people from using that freedom in any sort of really effective manner. Indeed, this is a far more effective method of controlling dissent than the gulag. What good does it do to have the freedom to speak out if the only audience you are permitted to reach is a small circle of acquaintances? A dissident in a gulag may still be somewhat dangerous since he gets some attention and can even be regarded as a hero. A dissident who no one ever hears of is no danger to anyone.

Ben is probably sincere in  his desire to limit the influence in our politics but there will be money in politics as long as their is politics simply because politics requires money. Attempting to control the flow of money in politics will always tend to benefit some factions and parties at the expense of others. Controlling the money used to publish speech can be used to control the speech. This is not to say that we should have no campaign finance laws, but, as in everything else good intentions do not justify bad results and you must be on the lookout for unintended (or intended) consequences. Ben should stick to making ice cream.