The climate cultists across the pond have come up with a new way to fight Climate Change™. The United Kingdom’s leftist Labor government has given the green light to a plan to dim the sun. That’s right — they want to effectively give planet Earth, or at least the British Isles, a pair of sunshades.

Yep, UK scientists intend to roll out a plan to make clouds brighter and therefore more reflective, as well as make more of them by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. What could go wrong?

This £50 million plan will be “safe,” say UK government officials. According to Mark Symes, the director of the program dubbed Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), “Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research.”

So, what does this “safe” plan entail? It boils down to spewing aerosols into the atmosphere, targeting the upper and lower stratosphere and the troposphere.

And what are these “aerosols”? Well, that’s where the plan really becomes controversial. As Dr. Sebastian Eastham from Imperial College London explained, “Every time you fly, sulphur, which is naturally present in jet fuel, is emitted into the lower most stratosphere causing a small cooling effect.” Aria’s strategy is to inject sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.

Sulfur dioxide is one of the primary components in the toxic stew known as smog, which has plagued cities throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Indeed, smog is the reason cars have catalytic converters.

Smog is actual air pollution. Carbon dioxide, which the climate cultists have targeted as “the problem,” is not an actual pollutant.

But because the warming of the planet is such a “crisis” concern, Aria is looking to actually dirty the skies over Britain in order to cool things off. Time to bring back those glory days of London fog.

However, not all climate scientists support this idea. Raymond Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann call the plan “a barking mad scheme,” likening it to “taking aspirin for cancer.” They see it as little other than a potentially dangerous and disastrous experiment and government boondoggle. So much for “consensus.”

While both Pierrehumbert and Mann are proponents of the net-zero climate cult, they are not wrong to recognize the ridiculous nature of this solar geoengineering plan. What sense does it make to pour pollutants back into the air that one has spent years and billions seeking to clean?

These are the types of ridiculous ideas that come from a belief that humanity does and must control the global climate. While we do have an impact on the climate, especially locally, identifying the scope and degree globally is where the conundrum lies.

The truth is that many of the climate alarmists’ doomsday predictions have repeatedly been proven false as time passes. Sudden ocean rising or spikes in temperatures have not occurred and have failed to appear as predicted. There are still glaciers in Glacier National Park, the Great Barrier Reef is far from dead and gone, and the world’s polar bear population is as healthy as ever.

Rather than spending billions on imposing nonsensical policies that do nothing but empower and line the pockets of politicians, how about admitting the truth? We really don’t know how much humanity is or is not impacting the global climate. Instead of imposing costly and economically crippling policies onto nations, we should take a more humble and observational approach to climate change. As humanity has done throughout history, when the climate changes, communities adapt to those changes. Instead of futilely attempting to control the climate, we should focus on working better in an ever-changing climate.