Is Startup Doing Harm by Trying to Fool Mother Nature?

A small startup announced over the holidays that it "may have" engaged in the highly controversial practice of solar geoengineering — the release of microparticles into Earth’s stratosphere with the goal of reflecting the Sun’s radiation back into space and reduce global warming.

Hadn’t they heard? "It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature."

The company, called Make Sunsets, announced that it had, in fact, released a weather balloon from a site somewhere in Mexico, from which it "may have" released reflective sulfur particles, according to MIT Technology Review.

Despite its name, there’s nothing particularly high-tech about geoengineering, and In theory, spraying sulfur or similar reflective particles in sufficient quantities into the atmosphere could potentially ease global warming.

Luke Iseman, the cofounder and CEO of Make Sunsets, admitted that the project is part enterprise and part activism.

He hopes that his efforts will promote public and scientific debate in a field that has faced intense criticism in the past.

"We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult," he said.

But assuming it works — that he can lower Earth’s temperature — what would be the cost?

Research has shown that we derive health benefits from exposure to the Sun over and above the vitamin D it provides, including lowering the risk of colorectal and breast cancer.

And of particular concern during the last few years, other studies suggest that vitamin D could have prevented up to 90% of coronavirus deaths.

Not to mention the fact that sunlight just plain raises our spirits.

Have they consulted with any medical experts, or did they just listen to Al Gore?

And what about crop production?

Plant life requires water, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and sunlight for growth.

So-called "experts" and government leaders have been predicting global famine for decades. Could partially blotting out the Sun be the event that fulfills that prediction?

So did anyone think of talking to an agricultural expert?

A farmer?

No?

Just Greta Thunberg?

Finally, climate change is natural. The climate has been bouncing between ice ages and tropical periods from Day-1. Is it wise, or even right, for us to try to interrupt that cycle? What would be the end result if we did?

This process was first suggested two years ago by Bill Gates and researchers at Harvard University, who eventually wanted to release tons of reflective particles into the stratosphere hoping to reduce global warming.

Three years ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) collected headlines from major publications going back 50 years. In each instance high-ranking government officials and respected scientists predicted doom and gloom.

Examples include:

• 1969: "Everyone Will Disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam by 1989"
• 1970: "Ice Age by 2000"
• 1970: "America Subject to Water Rationing by 1974 and Food Rationing by 1980"
• 1974: "Ozone Depletion a 'Great Peril to Life'"
• 1978: "'No End in Sight' to 30-Year Cooling Trend"
• 1980: "Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes"
• 1989: "Rising Seas to 'Obliterate' Nations by 2000"
• 1989: "New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019"
• 2000: "Children Won’t Know What Snow Is."
• 2002: "Famine in 10 years"
• 2008: "Arctic Will be Ice-Free by 2018"

None of the predictions came to pass, illustrating that end-of-days prophecies make for great headlines and help sell newspapers, but do little else.

It’s right for us to be good stewards of the Earth during our brief time here, but it can be accomplished without going overboard, or worse, by possibly creating more harm than that which we’re trying to mitigate.

And that should be of particular concern given that today’s doomsday predictions may be totally illusory — just as they have been throughout the last half-century.

In Act 1, Scene 5 of "Hamlet," Shakespeare had the title character explain to his friend that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

And 400 years after the Bard wrote those words, there are still "more things in heaven and earth" than we could ever dream of.

But one thing still remains: "It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature."

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.