Thursday, April 09, 2009

Obama Considering Geoengineering the Climate

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Thank you to those who have made a contribution to help as we begin the campaign to defend marriage. Your help is needed at this time. We are making critical decisions as to how we are going to proceed and are making commitments that are costing money now. Click here to make an online, tax-deductible donation to Faith & Freedom.

Obama Considering Geoengineering the Climate

With President Obama's support and knowledge, there are those who are not only proceeding to re-engineer the family, re-define marriage and diminish the sanctity of life, but are now planning to possibly tinker with the Earth's climate.

The President's science advisor, John Holdren, says that global warming is so dire that they are discussing radical technologies to cool the Earth's air---by shooting pollution into the air.

I suppose China would supply the product.

Some of the extreme ideas that are being discussed are not just Holdren's personal ideas, but are being discussed in administration meetings.

The ideas are so extreme that I could hardly believe what I was reading. I found it hard to believe that people with that kind of authority were actually discussing those kinds of things, given the growing body of dissent among scientists who disagree with the global warming alarmists.

Even the CNN weather guy has doubts about global warming.

In light of what the Obama Administration has done with our financial structure and social structure over the past few weeks, perhaps it isn't so far-fetched to think that he would be blasting pollution into the air to cool the Earth one day soon.

Check this out.

One extreme option that the Obama people are considering is shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Holdren said, "It's got to be looked at, we don't have the luxury of taking anything off the table."

He compared global warming, twice in his interview with the AP, to being "In a car with bad brakes, driving toward a cliff, in the fog."

He also said they were considering using so-called "artificial trees" to suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.

He said at first it seemed, "Prohibitively expensive," but a re-examination shows it might be less costly.

Not to worry, Mr. Holdren, you are on the Court in the" Kingdom of Trillion". It doesn't matter what it costs---yes we can.

And some thought Al Gore was off the page.

Interestingly, CNN, not known for their conservative views or clear thinking, are saying they don't think global warming is necessarily man made and their weather guy said, on the air, "You know to think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant." Watch video.

I would agree. There seems to be no shortage of arrogance in this Administration.

We are called to be stewards of God's creation, and we can certainly do better than we have done.

It would seem, however, that tinkering with the idea of re-engineering the world's climate might be a little beyond the concept of stewardship.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. So the idea has been raised, there has been no proposal what so ever, but merely discussing ideas that Gary disapproves of, is now verboten. Who is it that is imposing on the freedom of others.

    As for the alleged growth in scientific global warming denial, it is about as real as that "turning tide" Gary keep assuring folks of last October, you remember the one that was going to "change the state in '08" sweeping Dino Rossi and other conservative republicans into office. Of course now Dino is looking for a real job, but Gary is constantly seeing an illusory "growing chorus" that supports his views, regardless of the issues.

    As for the CNN weatherman, I guess he is unaware of acid rain, and how that was stopped, not to mention the ban on DDT followed by the recovery of countless bird species. I guess there's a reason Chad is filling a position often filled by pretty bimbos in slutty outfits and not working on a research board somewhere.

  2. Oh please! These options have been being discussed everywhere for a number of years, that they are taking them seriously as possibilities is what you WANT in a government.

    And again, what if the global warming isn't all or even any of it done by humanity? Knowing how WE can cool off the planet is still a good thing to know, right? There have been 5 almost total die offs of life on earth in its history, if we could avoid one by preventing the planet from getting too hot who could actually be against that, who wouldn't want to know how to prevent it ahead of time?

    Example: some had speculated that seeding the ocean with iron (the limiting agent in algae growth) would cause algae blooms that would bind carbon and sink to the bottom of the ocean reducing atmospheric. They just tested - the algae doesn't sink, it just rots on top, re-releasing the carbon. So that won't work, but now we know that.

    Having a workable plan to head off a potential disaster is never a bad thing.

  3. "It's got to be looked at, we don't have the luxury of taking anything off the table."

    Ummm, Gary, I kinda like having leaders with open minds who will explore all options.

  4. The way I have seen it, from many (most even?!) scientists believe there IS NOT GLOBAL warming. To use some of the comments made from them--'it's a bunch of hooey!"

  5. Check your history. Around 1978 the know-it-alls were alarmed by the coming Ice Age. We have....let's see now....maybe 50 good years of monitoring climate (say even 150 but the technology was a bit dated then). Those bimbos estimate the age of the planet to be in the billions and they are supposed to be telling us what is happening to the weather.

    An eight year old can tell you there is something wrong with that logic.

  6. I'm afraid you have your history incorrect. The only evidence I've seen of this alleged wide-spread Ice Age scare in the late 1970's is a single cover article in Time. Where are the scientific papers in peer reviewed journals? Where are the conventions agreed to by the vast majority of scientists?

    Isn't it telling that Gary has used his headline to attribute something that has been discussed by members of his administration directly to Obama? The linked article only states that Holdren has mentioned the idea at meetings, no mention if Obama was even present at these meetings, let along what his view of the idea was. Gary takes this and turns it into the dishonest headline "Obama considering Geoengineering the Climate", despite the fact that he has no idea if Obama is considering it or not, all we know is that some in his administration think the idea is worthy of further discussion.

  7. ::eyeroll:: Why do people reveal in their ignorance?


    • We are in a larger 'ice age' that has a oscillating cycle of lesser 'ice ages' in it. The larger age is a relatively recent phenomenon in geological time and has been speculated to be tied to the movement of the antarctic land mass over the south pole interfering with the heat distributing power of the oceans previously. The ice ages in the past oscillated between 40,000 years of cold and about 10,000 of warmer 'interglacial periods' like the one we are in the 10,000 ish years of now.

    • Human society developed in this last 'interglacial' period. According to older theories that period should be coming to an end and that is what they were talking about in 1978. More recent hypothesis say that the end of this age might be atypically long by as much another 10,000 years, the factors that cause the ice seem to be changed for orbital mechanics reasons.

    • As it stands our investigation of planetary temperatures by human records, ice cores, isotope analysis of geological cores indicate that the world is heating up faster than is typical - since the raise dovetails with the industrial revolution and accelerates with time it is a totally reasonable hypothesis that we are having something to do with it. Even if we don't, too warm is bad for humanity.

    • But its true, this could all change tomorrow - when the sun spot 12 year cycle just stopped for over 150 years back in the 15th century the world became almost instantly cooler - its called the 'mini-ice age' when sun spots restarted the world tempurature went back up.

    • Regardless we can't assume this warming trend isn't going to be a problem - we need to get a handle on controlling the world temperature in both directions with the current concern being it will get too hot. But if it starts getting too cold you can bet they will start trying to develop means of heating it back up.

    • Either way that an administration is figuring out what it could do in either of those situations is a good thing - that's what government is for, to do the projects that are too big for individuals to do.

    I mean, if the world cools off we can always just go back to more fossil fuels, right? We can always burn them and they are a limited resource, global warming or not. So developing alternate renewable energy sources is a good thing regardless of global warming - lets us hold fossil fuels in reserve so 1) if they are part of the global warming issue that are removed from play 2) if it turns out they aren't we have them while others may have used theirs up.

    Shoot they are just about ready to test a new fusion reactor prototype that will finally produce more energy than it uses - if we could develop fusion energy production technology we would have enough to last us for longer than we will probably last.

    Chill. ;)

  8. 10:05 Are you suggesting that Obama's people do not reflect his views or are some how detached from him? You and he are not going to get off that easy. I know he is good at throwing people under the bus when they don't work to his benifit, but give me a break. These are his people. How do you think they got their job? I don't think it's Gary who is misleading, I think some of your comments are attempting to mislead.
    Have you considered that if Gary was trying to mislead, he wouldn't allow people like you to post on his site and critize him?

  9. "Those bimbos estimate the age of the planet to be in the billions and they are supposed to be telling us what is happening to the weather."

    I think people from all walks get into this doom and gloom world is ending. And as liberals often do , they like to use an issue, make it a crisis , and govenrment becomes more intrusive and stagnating .

    The one thing about global warming is it never dealt with on an intelligent manner by the liberal elitist in power. . For one thing you have politicians only listening to their own preconveived biases and those in their political beliefs .
    Al Gore documentary should have been attacked by all these experts if science was really what the whole issue was . He got an academy award and a pulitizer . ROFL

    Never the less the population of the world is set to really take off . The main reason it has exploded the past 100 years is because of oil . Oil is the biggest coorrrelation in man's ability to produce the amount of food we do . Thirs world countries , the screams the ignorant folks like us will not be able to hear are the ones who will suffer if the global warming fundamentalists take control of that food source with more regulation and restrictions .

    The answer is where I believe most people who look at the whole issue see , renewable non poluting energy .


  10. We groan and travail in pain waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, and some of it we
    do see. I remember the two men who walked on the way to Emmaus.
    Jesus was walking with them. He entered into their house and ate
    with them, then vanished out of their sight. And I wondered if he
    was still there with them in their
    house or if he left.

  11. Oh,so now its the sun that needs to be blocked to cause global cooling? I thought it was our pollution that was the cause of global warming, and not the sun.
    liberals are just plain MORONS! No matter how intellegent they seem.

  12. You should be careful how you sling the word 'moron', you could hurt yourself.

    There is pollution that acts as a 'greenhouse' and locks incoming-heat in, there is different 'pollution' that acts as mirror that reflects incoming heat.

    More study, less name-calling might be in order.

    (isn't calling someone a 'MORON!' a violation against the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'? I mean, Jesus thought so didn't he?)

  13. 901,

    Actually liberals are quite intelelctually smart from my experience . I often find they lack perspective .

  14. More study! How old is the Earth? Do you honestly think you know all there is to know about our planet?
    I live in a northern state, we still have snow on the ground! This is the third winter in a row with colder temperatures,and more snow remaining like it used to be in 1970's. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this one out. Wait a couple more years if this continues, I'll have to apply for my $750,000 nobel peace prize. We should have been using more efficient forms of energy a long time ago, but then who's been the greedy one? What would happen if several volcano's went off at the same time? Something is coming in 2011 and 12. The Creator is about to get pissed off with his one and only, best creation that wants to do things without Him. Go ahead be liberal, anti god, anti christian, Its coming whether any of us like it or not.

  15. As far as the government getting involved in controlling the weather. Look up H.A.R.P., One mistake during a solar flare and we're cooked!


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.