Sign into an existing account

My bears are all that keeps me interested in this clown world.

I have one of those I grabbed this past summer.

The most 'wacky' of my original conspiracy theories (which I still put some stock in) is that there exists a global initiative to manipulate the atmosphere to cause warming (because the real threat facing us is cold). I do agree that we are heading toward a remarkably cold period, but I believe that this has been taking place for some time now. I noticed - probably five or six years ago - that the sunlight felt different on my skin. Of course my friends and siblings thought I sounded like a lunatic, and I understand why. But I stand by the claim. The sunlight feels different.

The theory would go something like: the powers that be knew a cold period was coming, so they began to seed the atmosphere with particulate matter (metal salts or something) that could possibly cause the atmosphere to both retain heat and affect (correct) the angle of incoming sunlight. This would maximize the efficiency of atmospheric warming per a given unit of solar energy delivered, while also optimizing the angle of incoming light for the sake of food crops. The scale of such a project and the possibilities for application are obviously not something I've considered or speculated about; I try to avoid thinking about these things too much. It's more like fodder for daydreams.

It occurred to me that if solar irradiance of earth had already been in decline, one of the first important signs would be decreased crop yields. The reason for attempting to artificially increase irradiance effects might be to preserve crop yields globally. So the purpose of suspending material in the atmosphere is not only for warming effects, but also to alter the angle of incoming light to optimize the total delivered for any given area of land. I will just note that most 'global warming models' predict huge loss of yield in major food crops, especially corn. It would be interesting to know whether marginal increases in global temperature could even, in principle, cause corn yields to drop 25% - a rate one model suggested as early as 2030. The point is not to take these 'muh science' temperature figures seriously, but to ask whether the true reason that crop yield loss is even being suggested to us might have to do with decline in solar activity (and not global warming).

Global powers would be killing two birds with one stone. The warming effect might be the direct result of our own atmospheric interference (including not only seeding but possibly the use of directed radio waves). Although these warming effects would be the point of the programs, the powers that be will convince you that this desired effect was actually the threat. They will not tell you that cold is the true looming threat (along with famine). Again, it will be the very warming they are creating to save everyone's asses (remember, the elite need you; an economy depends fundamentally on scarcity). Further, they tell you that you are causing global warming as a result of your unabated consumerist habits and your carbon emissions; they proceed to establish some massive overhaul of the tax system to drain you and future generations, all over something they were going to be doing anyway.

If you are going to engage in a highly expensive program that the public doesn't technically need to know about, why not profit from it massively by telling everyone your solution is actually the threat. That same public will then pay you whatever you ask to be saved from the false threat. Put another way, you make your solution their threat. They never know the threat was actually the solution, and so they pay you for a different solution, which in fact never comes because it was never needed.

I realize this sounds schizophrenic; however, the sunlight has felt authentically strange to me for several years now.

Its why they want to kill everyone off. There wont be enough food.

You're right, lazy thinking on my part.

Are you assuming his musical talent? (or lack thereof)