The 12 Stupidest Ideas That Anyone Has Ever Come Up With To Fight Global Warming

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Today, some of the “top scientists in the world” are coming up with some really, really dumb ideas for fighting climate change.  First of all, the theory of man-made global warming is currently falling apart like a 20 dollar suit because it never was backed up by solid scientific evidence, but even if it was true what some of these scientists are proposing to do to stop it is absolutely crazy.  Some of the ideas being proposed are fairly harmless such as putting giant mirrors in space or filling up our oceans with millions of tons of Special K.  However, some of the other ideas being floated by prominent scientists are incredibly frightening.  There are scientists that are now openly proposing strict population control measures and the forced relocation of human populations.  They believe such proposals are necessary “for the good of the planet”, but the truth is that what they are suggesting quickly conjures up images of the worst totalitarian regimes that the earth has ever seen.


But first of all, let’s talk about global warming for a minute.  The reality is that the climate of the earth has always been changing.  In the past it has been both much colder and much warmer than it currently is today.  Scientists also tell us that at some point in the past there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there are today.  Our planet survived then and it would survive very well today even if the amount of carbon dioxide spiked dramatically.

But carbon dioxide is not even causing climate change.  The truth is that carbon dioxide does not make temperatures go up.  Rather, once temperatures go up it causes a “life bloom” and that causes an increase in carbon dioxide levels.  All of the scientific data that has been collected clearly shows that a rise in carbon dioxide levels follows a rise in earth temperatures.

So then what is causing climate change?

It is the sun.

Several years ago, the sun was unusually active and all the planets in our solar system experienced a time of “global warming”.  That is a fact which many global warming alarmists just conveniently ignore.

If man was the primary cause of “global warming” then why were all of the other planets in our solar system experiencing increased temperatures as well?

But even if carbon dioxide was significantly contributing to climate change, there is not a whole lot we could do about it anyway.  Most carbon dioxide is released into our atmosphere by a variety of natural sources.  If all human carbon dioxide emissions were eliminated tomorrow, over 95% of the total carbon dioxide emissions on earth would still occur.

So the notion that we can just cut our carbon emissions and solve “global warming” is a big, fat lie.

But that is not stopping many of our “top scientists” from coming up with some incredibly stupid “solutions” to this non-existent problem.  The following are 12 of the stupidest ideas that anyone has ever come up with to fight global warming….

#12 One “researcher” actually seriously proposed that we should dump millions of tons of Special K into the oceans of the world.  This would supposedly alter the “reflectivity” of the oceans, thus reducing global warming.

#11 The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, says that UN scientists will now be looking into “geoengineering” methods for fighting global warming which include placing mirrors above the planet to reflect the sun’s rays back into space, sprinkling huge amounts of iron filings into our oceans and creating “man-made volcanoes” that would shoot sulfate particles high into our atmosphere.

#10 There are some scientists that are proposing that we should have our cows eat massive amounts of garlic to keep them from farting so much.  It turns out that global warming alarmists are terrified of methane, and new research shows that garlic may help reduce the amount of methane that cows produce.

#9 On a similar note, Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the leading “experts” on climate change in the UK, says that everyone should simply stop eating meat so that we do not need to have as many cows and pigs around.  The idea is that if there are less cows and pigs there will be a whole lot less farting and thus a lot less methane in the atmosphere.

#8 Dr. Jason Box, a scientist from Ohio State University, is actually proposing that we should wrap Greenland in a gigantic blanket.  He believes that the blanket would attract the sun’s heat, and therefore the melting of Greenland’s glaciers would be slowed down.

#7 The U.K.’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers wants to cover our buildings with massive amounts of algae.  Their theory is that the algae would absorb lots of carbon from the atmosphere and therefore help reduce global warming.

#6 James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only “a few people with authority” should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.

#5 Paul J. Crutzen of Germany’s Max Planck Institute says that we should pump massive amounts of smog high into the earth’s atmosphere.  The idea is that the sulfur dioxide in the smog would reflect solar radiation, thus cooling the planet.

#4 The Optimum Population Trust, based in the UK, says that preventing the birth of one child in Africa is enough to “offset” the carbon footprint of one flight from London to Australia.  So they propose providing huge amounts of condoms to the developing world to “help” them have less children.

#3 Professor Kevin Anderson, the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, says that wealthy nations should implement World War 2-style rationing in order to cut carbon emissions to acceptable levels.

#2 Some “climate scientists” are now actually being so bold as to propose the “forced relocation” of entire human populations.  The executive summary of a key report that will be discussed at the upcoming international climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico proposes “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”  Considering what “forced relocations” have looked like throughout history, that statement is more than a little chilling.

#1 For many climate scientists, the number one reason why there are too many carbon emissions is because there are too many humans.  Therefore many involved in the fight against climate change see “population reduction” as the key to humanity’s future.

Sadly, this philosophy is now even showing up in official UN documents.  For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement….

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

It seems like population control is very much on the minds of the folks over at the UN these days.  This was very clearly seen once again when the United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate“.

The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document….

1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

3) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

If no human is “carbon neutral”, that means that each and every one of us is part of the problem.

For many of these global warming alarmists, climate change is the greatest threat that the earth is facing and therefore it is imperative that we get rid of as many humans as possible in order to save the planet.

Sadly, with each passing year the green agenda is becoming increasingly linked to the population control agenda.  Today there are literally millions of people who actually believe that we need to dramatically reduce the number of humans on the planet for the good of the earth.

But as the old saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.  The proposals in the list above are mostly from some of the top “climate change experts” in the world.  But their proposals include suspending democracy, the forced relocation of entire populations and mandatory population reduction.

That sure doesn’t sound like a “green paradise”.  Rather, it sounds like the worst kind of “eco-fascism” imaginable.  If some of the “top scientists” on the globe are proposing that we move in that direction, what does that say about where this world is headed?

  • Gordon

    nice job, its nice to see more truth come out about this subject.
    Its strange how people I talk to about this blindly accept manmade global warming as unquestionable fact, and accuse anyone that questions it of heresy. thats the most powerful way to push an agenda in my opinion, if you can get the public to be self appointed guardians of your ideas you can just sit back and let them be your propaganda pushers.

    Al Gore bought a $9 million beach house. I guess he’s not worried about rising sea levels anymore? Seeing things like that tells you this theory is total bull****.

    • strato man

      So the evidence for human caused global warming is accepted by 99% of scientists but you discount all of that because Al Gore bought an expensive beach house? I don’t know why Al bought an expensive beach house. Perhaps he figures he will be dead before his house is in the ocean, perhaps he has enough money that losing a beach house is an acceptable outcome, perhaps he has good flood insurance, but to discount the combined intellect and data from nearly all the qualified scie fists in the world because Al Gore doesn’t seem to be behaving the way you would if faced with the inevitability of losing a beach house to a flood doesn’t seem rational.

  • zack

    While global warming may indeed be a serious threat to our way of life, it seems that the cure may be more painful than the illness. We must protect our liberty and prosperity first and foremost.

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit for details.

  • Porgy

    Blimey who wrote this garbage? I’ve yet to hear a serious climate campaigner claim that population reduction is the answer. The timescales involved would be far too long – most of the century before any downturn could be achieved. but I hear many sceptics claiming that reducing carbon is a waste of time while the population rises.
    Relocations of populations will need to be implemented in high risk areas or the people will die. These will not be enforced relocations. They will be relocations in order to save people from the disasters that have already begun.
    Most of the “wacky” ideas you’ve listed have come from people or organisations who are unwilling to support carbon reduction or believe it will be too little too late. What you have listed here does not represent the mainstream of climate science. It more likely represents the views of sceptics, corporations and government.
    this article is intended to mislead and give the impression that environmentalists are some form of nazi.

  • Jack Savage

    Think of it as an illustration of what global warming scepticism would look like if it was what most warmist people claimed it was.
    Everything that is claimed in the article is “true” but it is not a balanced view.It is propaganda. But, hey, why should we not use propaganda?
    Always tricky in a campaign that mixes science and politics.
    Personally, I would rather not revert to propaganda unless things got really desperate.

  • Aurelius 7


    Al Gore, is that you?

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    We know more about the moon than we know about the climate of our own planet. How many people out there have had a blown weather forecast over the last year? The Earth will take care of it’s self it’s 4.5 Billion years old it’s hard for a species who has a average life span of maybe 80 years to get their minds around those kind of figures.
    Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is just a convent excuse for a hand full of elites to make a lot of money in Carbon Exchanges. Global Warming is convent excuse for hand full of reds to impose a socialist agenda (That hasn’t worked anywhere on the planet but that doesn’t stop the arrogant bastards from trying).
    It’s a sad comment on us as a species that there isn’t more outrage about this scam, that some many people accept what self appointed “Experts” tell them. What’s sadder is they’re people willing to foist this on other people for there own short term gains.

  • Duncan

    These things you have listed are ‘ideas’. They’re not solutions advocated by the people you list but some of their suggestions to what is possible now, or in the future when needed. Some of them are wacky but I don’t see your ideas here…?

    If you still don’t believe in manmade climate change you’re not a heretic you’re just an idiot. Look at the data yourself.

  • Rod

    Hard to believe these ideas were meant to be taken seriously !

    Anyway, climate change is a solar system wide event and dear old mankind has ZERO capacity to influence the solar system ! The planet is warming and nothing will stop it. The world’s oceans take hundreds of years (literally) to reflect climate change by way of CO2 absorption and temperature changes so even if we stopped all manmade climate affecting operations today the change wouldn’t be reflected 100% for centuries, and mankind CAN’T wait that long without food & energy now can we ?
    No, all the BS talked about climate change is just a government tax grab on the gullible…
    Anthropormorphic climate change has been disproved over and over but there are always the misinformed sheeple who continue to believe and perpetuate the myth.
    Anyway, I though the chemtrail aluminium dispersant program was already happening ?
    Gotta kill of those damn humans now haven’t we…

  • Mr Carpenter

    I was convinced that the global warming scare was absolute tripe when it became clear that the ice on the poles of Mars was melting during the warm time that earth had a decade or so ago.

    Those darned martians and their SUV’s not doubt! NOT!

    Watched a show from 15 years ago that I used to enjoy, called “Sliders” on hulu last night.

    Guess what the “climate related meme and theme” that was put into the script was? GLOBAL COOLING. If you are “unyoung” enough to have lived as an adult in the 1970’s and 1980’s, you’ll recall the same hysteria about the coming new ice age.

    It’s all bunk. IT IS THE SUN! Additional CO2 only means more food for plants, which make oxygen! Hellooooooo – that’s something I learned in 7th grade science at age 12. How about you?

    In the meanwhile we have these “scientists” in Cancun now saying that MASS SUICIDE is the way for humanity to go in order to have a few of us survive.

    But of course, naturally, not one of “them” nor the powerful elite are willing to step up to the hangman’s noose first….

  • missy

    The real focus should be pollution control, not global warming. We are destroying our world with our insane reliance on plastics, our hand-offs approach to big business’s criminals, and our desire for cheap, mass-produced products. Tourism companies in Florida may not wish to admit this, but the BP spill has killed the Gulf. I for one won’t be swimming in it again. And do we force the UN to clean up that floating junkyard in our oceans? India got barely nothing out of that Union Carbide gas “leak” and what about that nightmarish recent toxic sludge spill in Hungary? WE need to stop buying plastics and stop navel-focussing on global warming. It’s global pollution that is the real threat to our existence and our way of life (in my area, they are promoting the use of human waste as fertilizer! So much for reducing antibiotic use if it’s going to be on my veggies anyway!). The global warming debate is simply a red herring to keep our minds and actions off the greater issue of environmental pollution.

  • enderten

    for those claiming this propaganda, it’s deliberately points out the 12 dumbest ideas. It’s in the title.

  • Jo fuller

    Some of you had great comments on the outsourcing/Black Friday article, but I see here you are a bunch of hypocrites who cannot connect the dots. Still, it’s interesting to see what you sheep believe (save for the astute observations of Missy). There is FAR MORE profit to be made (i.e., continued profit by oil co’s, automakers, manufacturing, airlines, etc) by denying global warming, than by acknowledging the facts. The carbon exchange system is financially dwarfed by the good-old-boy gravy train of fossil fuel futures and profits! Simply look at the real stakeholders to navigate the truth on this subject — for those w/ ADD and selective memory, no need to read the science on it!

  • Look to the operations of The Club of Rome for the fixation on population control. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood? My daughter has just narrowly escaped death from a pulmonary embolism brought on by the latest contraceptive device. Can’t say they didn’t warn her it was all in the small print accompanying the product. (Nuva Ring).
    Doesn’t anyone ever worry about the nuclear threat anymore? Missy also points out the other elephant in the room, pollution. all those horrible plastic bags. We survived alright without them before, and we can again.
    I do remember the 70’s and the threat of global cooling. Glad people are cottoning on to the distraction factor .

  • Carbonicus

    Porgy, get out of the cave of denial you’ve been living in. The number of “serious climate campaigners” advocating population control is too numerous to list, starting with Gore, Hansen, Holdren, Romm, the UN and dozens of others.

    And you’re further wrong when you state that “Most of the “wacky” ideas you’ve listed have come from people or organisations who are unwilling to support carbon reduction or believe it will be too little too late. What you have listed here does not represent the mainstream of climate science”. Sorry, most of the wacky ideas here are from people are adamantly in favor of carbon reduction. NONE of the ideas here come from “skeptics”. Skeptics know that humans don’t cause material climate change and therefore DO NOT support ANY of these stupid, costly, and environmentally inconsequential ideas.

    You are typical of those in the developed world who believe in the AGW hypothesis: misinformed and blinded by the kool aid you’ve been fed by a complicit media and scientists with an agenda.

    No worries. We’ve tossed the AGW theory to the curb here in the US, and eliminated the threat of CO2 legislation in our country. If you folks in the UK want to continue to face soaring energy costs that are increasing solely due to your government’s energy policies (get away from oil, coal, and gas, avoid nucelar, and build windmills and solar arrays) and cause your citizens to suffer, be my guest. But if you think that you watermelons (green on the outside and socialist red on the inside) are going to force feed your energy policies to a sophomoric US, better start making alternative plans. We won’t play the EU game.

    Good luck with that.

  • Guest

    I just wanted to point out that I looked for the idea to fill the ocean with “millions of tons of special K” and couldn’t find it anywhere in the link provided. I thought I was in for a good laugh, but I guess that isn’t the case. I apologize if I lost interest in the article after the first sited claim turned out to not be supported. Climate change is an uncomfortable topic no matter what side of it you are on, and just because ‘temperatures have been higher or lower’ doesn’t mean it is necessarily a normal thing. I don’t think it is a bad idea to determine the effects we have/can have on climate change if for no other reason we might just need it some day. Either way, if your going to make a point and provide evidence supporting said point, please make sure it actually supports it. (ie if you say something about filling the oceans with special k as an idea in an article, it should at least mention cereal somewhere)