While we could applaud the effort to stave off climate change, there might be some issues with applying this solution.

As we are perpetually hammered with promises of doom and global calamity by our world’s elites, we thankfully have solutions offered up for our assured survival – just give more of our money and liberty away to these same Chicken Little leaders, and they will save us. Well, we now have news arriving of other potential solutions to the promises of extreme weather disasters, and we know it must be true because it appears in the New York Times, and they would never lie to us! (I’ll pause here to allow you to compose yourself.)

The news is that researchers at Purdue University have been working on a new product that could conceivably lead to pulling mankind back from the precipice of our self-created demise. Now, arguably, this is a theorized solution and one that would entail significant application, but it holds promise. Of course, if this is successful, but later, we see the science shift on us, there could be a calamitous result. Recall, it was some 50 years ago we were lectured to take steps to avoid the coming of a mankind-killing ice age.

Worrying about the climate is all the rage these days. Joe Biden has been pushing his environmental narratives, and Ilhan Omar just declared that the Earth had its hottest day ever. Or, at least, in the past 120,000 years, or something. That’s right, the very same people who told us not to focus on deep freeze conditions six months ago — because those are anecdotal data points — are today using peak summer conditions as “proof” our planet is dying. You cannot see the eye-rolling taking place behind my 100SPF-lensed Maui Jim eyewear, but they are a-rolling.

I am, by way of admission, what many a devout environmentalist would call a “climate denier,” a label I find ever so mirthful. I cannot recall ever once proclaiming we are a planet devoid of a climate, but here we are. In truth, and for accuracy’s sake, I am someone willing to ask about certain proclamations and point out past failed predictions. I say it is entirely possible that the planet might be warming. I do doubt, however, that man is capable of having shifted things. That is to say: I have questions.

How is it that science tells us thousands of years ago, the Arctic ice sheet stretched to the Northern half of the United States? What led to the warming that caused things to recede to current-day levels, long before we industrialized…anything? I have questioned things when I read a New York Times piece long ago that detailed all of the “poisonous” greenhouse gases humans were producing in a given year. Then, months later, I read in National Geographic that scientists were studying an active volcano on the island of Montserrat.

These scientists were able to measure the elements shooting out from that lava factory, and there I was, reading how this volcano was not just producing many of the same toxic gases we had been told are killing the planet, but in one blast, it was delivering skyward amounts that approached mankind’s annual output. Not just this lone volcano – that from this one particular eruption. Now look globally and you will find at any given time, there are just under 100 active volcanos, as well as countless geothermal vents underwater, and then consider for how many millennia this has been taking place. Yeah, sorry — I become dubious about how driving a pickup and my gas stove are the causes of the claimed poisoning taking place.

Though the number floats, based on sourcing, this study from NASA pegs mankind’s annual greenhouse output to be 35 billion metric tons. A measure of just 33 volcanos — roughly a third of those active globally — shows those delivering 65 billion tons a year. Of course, once people began bringing up this volcano paradox, we saw a shift in thinking. Those were naturally-occurring gases, we were told, and our manmade gaseous output was different, we were told. Desperate revisionist “science” is what I heard.

So yes, when I began reading that Purdue University may have hit upon a solution, I was dubious. The premise revolves around the researchers coming up with…a paint. You read that correctly; we will save the world…with paint. The Purdue researchers have formulated what is claimed to be the whitest paint on Earth. It is so pure in hue that it is measured to reflect 98 percent of light. It is said that buildings using this paint would keep the edifice cooler and reduce the amount of air conditioning needed.

But more than practical applications, this paint can have a greater impact; it could reflect enough sunlight to modulate global warming. Hey, don’t make that face at me; this is science.

If a material like Purdue’s paint covered 1-2% of the Earth’s surface, the amount of light being bounced back into space would reduce the amount of heat being absorbed by the planet enough to stabilize global temperatures. In other words, it could do a lot to solve climate change. 

Oh, only one-two percent??? That should be no problem. Except…there’s that whole ocean conundrum. Since 70 percent of the planet is water, that reduces things down to terrestrial application. So, how much property is needed to reach that one-two percent of the Earth’s coverage? You would be looking at two million to four million square miles. The United States, for comparison, constitutes 3.5 million miles.

Well, at least we have a ballpark estimate of how much we need to coat. So, when it comes to placing that order, what is the volume we will be putting in for? We can expect just about 140 million gallons will be needed. Unless we get to needing closer to two percent of global coverage – then double that order.