Can Government Scientists Save the Planet by Nuking Yellowstone National Park to Halt Global Warming

Can Government Scientists Save the Planet by Nuking Yellowstone National Park to Halt Global Warming?

(NaturalNews) Of all the hare-brained ideas about climate change I've heard in the last few years, this one takes the grand prize: John Holdren, the new science advisor to President Obama, is actively considering radical geoengineering ideas in order to halt global warming. One such idea now being discussed with the Obama administration involves -- get this -- launching enormous amounts of pollution particles into Earth's upper atmosphere to block the sun's rays and "chill" the planet.

Why does this idea from
a Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
and
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,

seem to somehow contradict logic?

Yeah, those ''particles,'' will probably be highly radioactive. A ground burst nuke can have devastating radiation effects, I think. Or is that airburst?

LOL

This is the funniest thing I have ever heard of, if they are even being serious to suggest that nuking THE supervolcano can save us?

Please, tell me no one is seriously thinking this...

Both, actually. Nonetheless, it's still a great idea to nuke Yellowstone National Park. I don't know why somebody didn't think of it sooner. We should also detonate a hydrogen bomb at Niagara Falls and fire-bomb Yosemite. That will solve all our problems.

I don't think nuking Yellowstone would help the problem there. I mean, it would cause mass devastation, totally mess up the ecology of central America and possibly through a chain of events the entire world's ecology.

Plus the radiation effects...

Probably would cause more harm than good.

I have often thought of this. Seems the radiation produced would eliminate this as a viable way to cool the planet. I also wondered if we could nuke certain locations around this volcano to relive pressure in a controlled way.

Ideas like this lend credence to the idea that Obama could be the Anti Christ. Imagine if one of these ideas caused the sun to be a black as Sackcloth and the moon to be red like blood...

Revelations 6:12: And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood.

It is very possible for something like this to change the way they Sun and moon look.

"Human beings have proven themselves to be remarkably bad at anticipating the ecological effects of their own actions"

That quote (from the posted article) sums it up right there.

I can't believe some sick f*ck would even consider an otion like this......

Then again...he he...if something like this even became remotely close of an option, it would call for the evacuation of millions and millions of people, to be relocated towards the shores.......(and evacuated area would not be in-habitant, for what 50 yrs-100?)
Where would they put these people? How bout these empty FEMA camps that?
I know this is far fetched......and this is just 4 sh*ts & giggles, but if they wanted to make America "a wildlife" pretty much from coast to coast,
this is a "logical" option. Sick in the head, but "logical."
Dum dee dum.......

My opinion is this (nuking Yellowstone) idea was created, specifically, to see how people would react to it, or 2 scare them. Americans in particualr............I don't think this will elaborate to anything more tho.......

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Can Government Scientists Save the Planet by Nuking Yellowstone National Park to Halt Global Warming


So we are going to geo-engineer on a global scale , ( cringe )

...... picture man's first attempt at dentistry , surgery or archaeology .

This will also be crude .
Nuking Yellowstone is like performing trepanation ..... we need it like a hole in the head .


an interesting alternative.....
James Lovelock's plan to pump ocean water to stop climate change



[edit on 12-4-2009 by UmbraSumus]

Wouldn't nuking a super volcano actually cause it to erupt or worst off would be is it we nuked it, it erupt and then started a ice age. I can see no good outcome of nuking a volcano at all can someone enlighten me on this subject.

Would nuking a volcano stop eruptions, slow the eruption down, speed them up the eruption, make an ice age, create a new problem or give us an all in one effect.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by jatsc]

[edit on 12-4-2009 by jatsc]

That, plus the CFR document here:

www.cfr.org...

really does evoke serious thought.

KNOW YOUR HISTORY - READ: Did you know this is the 4th incarnation of climate doom? Probably not since that is not what the media wants you to know... yes, 1895, 1930's, 1970's, Today... SAME STORIES, SAME DOOM PREDICTIONS - See below.

Are these people freeking crazy?

I mean cmon, this is nuts... the "solutions" are worse than the problem!

These tards have less than a 100 years worth of climate data and they want to go crazy!

You know, we cannot control nature.. .what happens if they do some crazy crap THEN a natural volcano goes off... causing a freeking ICE AGE.

It is crazy.

REMEMBER - THESE SAME NUTJOBS wanted to cover the polar icecaps in black soot to avoid an ice age 30 years ago...to prevent an ICE AGE! Remember that?

World renowned climatologists as recently as the 1970s were convinced that the world was entering a prolonged period of global cooling. Newsweek reported in April of 1975 that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines were sure to result from the global cooling.

Prominent scientists at the time were even making wild propositions about the drastic steps world governments should take to counter the cooling trend. In some of the more extreme cases, there were plans to divert Arctic rivers and to cover the poles with black soot to melt the polar ice caps to stave off the next ice age.

An article titled "Fire and Ice," published by the Business and Media Institute, outlines four major swings in media hysteria concerning global climate change. In the early parts of the 20th century, The New York Times ran several stories about the signs of a new ice age. Then, in the 1930s, there was a series of articles about record-breaking heat waves with no end in site. This panic was followed in the mid 1970s by even bolder assertions of another impending ice age.

media.www.mustangdaily.net...



www.businessandmedia.org...

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”


Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.

Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by infolurker]

reply to post by flightsuit

Screaming
Yeah, love the logic, save humanity by unleashing hell on earth. hey, let's bomb the gulfstream to ed el nino while we are at it....

reply to post by imd12c4funn


I wish there was something they could do to get global warming going. Here it is Easter has come oand gone and I'm freezing and I'm so sick of winter I could cry.

I thought the chicken littles decided they weren't going to call it global warming anymore since the poles froze up tighter than ever and we've had all this cold weather for the past two years. I thought they were going to call it "climate change" now -- sounds better, you know? That way they've got their bases covered no matter what happens.

It wouldn't do to be taxing people to death for global warming when we're all freezing our butts off.

But yeah, go ahead and blow up Yellowstone. There will be so much ash in the sky they can lay off chemtrailing for a whole year, (since Obama is so worried about us getting sunburned and wants to chemtrail to keep the evil sunbeams off our skin.)

Sure, let's drop some nukes. We all have read about how nuclear war will bring on a nuclear winter and cool things off, haven't we? I like the idea of particles in the air. If they reflect the sunlight then I will have pretty colors to look at maybe. Or maybe they will just be as boring as the chemtrails.
Sheesh! Is this report serious? If it is, then some people just have too much money and too much time on their hands.

One thing that seems to make the global warming scenario moot:
It's official: we really have saved the ozone layer

The snapshot from last year already shows a clear divergence between the two models; the ozone hole in our reality is still prominent (once you account for the difference in scale, it matches quite well with the actual one), but far more ozone seems to be being destroyed in the world we avoided. The models therefore suggest that even though the ozone hole hasn't fully healed, cutting back on CFC emissions has clearly limited the extent of the damage.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4e2128987f4.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/808878cf9e3e.jpg[/atsimg]

See link for more

[edit on 13-4-2009 by spearhead]

the endless sarcasm is killing me. it is the lowest form of humour you know.
the caldera beneath yellow stone is absolutely massive.
they do have bunker busting nuclear weapons now. the aerial radiation output is minimized.
then when the caldera falls though all the air and radioactive dust will be sucked instantaniously into the immense ball of molten material that will be launched tens of thousands of feet into the air. that is why they call it a super volcano.
the vast majority of your nation would be dead in weeks.
it would actually do the opposite of global cooling. the heat from the sun is more than capable of penetrating thick cloud. photosynthesis would cease. everything dies. water becomes sulfur dioxide. it will be #ing hot.

this image shows just the ash fall. the smoke would cover half the planet.




[edit on 13-4-2009 by spearhead]

Originally posted by spearhead
the endless sarcasm is killing me. it is the lowest form of humour you know.
the caldera beneath yellow stone is absolutely massive.
they do have bunker busting nuclear weapons now. the aerial radiation output is minimized.
then when the caldera falls though all the air and radioactive dust will be sucked instantaniously into the immense ball of molten material that will be launched tens of thousands of feet into the air. that is why they call it a super volcano.
the vast majority of your nation would be dead in weeks.
it would actually do the opposite of global cooling. the heat from the sun is more than capable of penetrating thick cloud. photosynthesis would cease. everything dies. water becomes sulfur dioxide. it will be #ing hot.

this image shows just the ash fall. the smoke would cover half the planet.




[edit on 13-4-2009 by spearhead]

Yes. This is the biggest threat. And the Luciferians would do something like this. This is probably why they are so arrogant and don't even care that their mask has slipped and we can all see their vampire fangs dripping with blood. I really, really want to get out of this country. Like yesterday. I wish I had NOT bought a house.

Wouldn't all of the ejecta become radioactive? If the nuke triggered the eruption, would that not spread the radiation with the immensely huge ash cloud, then rain down? Really, the people on the farthest edges might have a chance of survival from just a light coat of volcanic ash, but radioactive volcanic ash?

Hmmm, let life evolve and adapt to a changing climate, or kill it off to stop a changing climate. Hey man, I have warm clothes, I can deal with the cold.

Originally posted by Mekanic
Wouldn't all of the ejecta become radioactive? If the nuke triggered the eruption, would that not spread the radiation with the immensely huge ash cloud, then rain down? Really, the people on the farthest edges might have a chance of survival from just a light coat of volcanic ash, but radioactive volcanic ash?

I doubt you would notice the radioactivity. Firstly, I doubt the bombs would irradiate the many cubic kilometres of ash etc very well. Secondly, any radioactivity would be outclassed by the sheer lethality of Volcanic ash, if you breath it in, the fact it becomes like cement in your lungs will take precedence over any potential alpha emitters present.