Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:27 pm

.
My last reply (slightly redacted) carried over from the end of the prior page:

Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 02, 2025 6:26 am wrote:.

...

...the core issue here -- once again -- isn't a challenge of climate/weather patterns changing over time, but WHY such changes occur.

The notion that human activities are the PRIMARY factors for "climate change" (and therefore govt 'interventions'/policies will be required to [ostensibly] reverse such patterns) is absurd. THIS is the key point (or at least my key current position here).

Also, Re: Berkeley Earth, a few breadcrumbs:

See that little dot off the west coast of Africa? That's São Tomé and Príncipe. The GISS station data shows no trend but a huge gap in the data. Berkeley Earth fixed this by infilling the data and adding an upward trend based on their "regional expectation" (a.k.a. model).

Image
Image

Image

Berkeley Earth uses "Regional Expectations" to infill and extrapolate missing data for a continent. "Regional Expectations" based on modeling. It's an industry standard so I would guess NASA does the same.

...
Berkeley Earth uses "regional expectations" (based on models) to infill, extrapolate and generally "correct" surface temp data sets. When the spin cycle is done the models match the measured temps match the models. The others are less open about it.
...
Berkeley Earth appears to create data using "Regional Expectations" based on models in areas with little or no information.
...
In July 1936 a "heat dome" of 40°C weather settled over Central North America for eleven days resulting in the deaths of over 6,000 people. There has not been a similar one since despite your assertion (Re: more recent and unprecedented heat surges).
...
Berkeley Earth adjusts and infills temperature data to match their hypothesis (regional expectation) of what they believe the temperatures should have been. They then use the adjusted/infilled to support their hypothesis. Raw GISS data is better.
...
Berkeley Earth claim they have good coverage throughout Africa in 1900.

On closer examination it appears this coverage includes a lot of infilling with presumed regional trends and wishful thinking.

Source: Select commentary by a user that goes by @JeffNor50595241, who appears to assess info by analyzing raw data instead of accepting reports that rely on models and assumptions.



A couple other data points for added consideration --

@RyanMaue
Meteorologist | Hurricane Season | Forecasts and Maps | Look Up | Meteorology
@FloridaState PhD | Michigan

It's been a few years, but global temperatures have returned to the 30-years normal ... starting July 2025 off rather chilly.

Something weird going on with the global weather circulation ...

Image

...

@PaulRoundy1
Professor of Atmospheric Science. I study climate variability of the tropics, and interactions between the tropics and extratropics. My tweets R my own.

The 30 years normal is the normal 15 years ago. That means we've cooled back the level of around 2010.

5:49 AM · Jul 2, 2025
·


And:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/

Daily global surface temperature anomaly estimates from Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) output based on the Global Forecast System (GFS) initialization measurements four times each day are graphed below. Daily estimates since the beginning of 2017 have been derived directly from output provided by the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and prior to that time were provided by the University of Maine (UM) Climate Change Institute (CCI). The graphs below should be updated on most days by 0300 UTC through the previous UTC calendar day. The first graph displays the daily CFSR estimated global surface temperature anomalies over the last 14 months along with the 365-day running average.
...
Image

Image
...
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Wed Jul 02, 2025 5:22 pm

Just a quick note on this:

In July 1936 a "heat dome" of 40°C weather settled over Central North America for eleven days resulting in the deaths of over 6,000 people. There has not been a similar one since despite your assertion


There is one in Europe right now. The one in 2003 killed an estimated 70K people. I was in Rome at the time, and it was absolute murder. 115F in the middle of the day. I stayed for one day and promptly fucked off to Paris, which was only 100F. That's really bad when no one has AC, like for instance Americans in 1936, or Europeans today.

Also, no one is disputing that the climate changes naturally. Everyone knows that (I hope). The issue is, and always has been, the speed at which it is changing right now. There are no natural causes that can explain it. The various abrupt changes you've posted about before all happened at the tail end of the last ice age, when things were changing drastically because of the massive amounts of ice melting and occasionally releasing mindbogglingly huge floods of freshwater when an ice dam would burst. That kind of thing will fuck with the climate in all sorts of biblical ways (even the Earth itself: the crust is still rising in many places because of the weight of the ice that used to be on top of it), but there's nothing like that going on right now.

What is going on is human industrialized civilization, and the rise of said civilization and its emissions of heat-trapping gases matches perfectly with the observed warming. The connection is glaringly obvious.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 02, 2025 7:11 pm

.
"there are no natural causes that can explain it." -- this may be the dominant/mainstream take but it certainly doesn't make it true. AND: it presumes the -- flawed, minimally -- data/statistics/models are to be taken at face-value, when the reality is that the extent of variance appears to be far less pronounced than advertised, even if there may well be heat swells (or cold swells) in certain regions. There are numerous natural factors involved that may be primary drivers for these variances. A number of those factors have been posited in this thread (and other related threads).

There may be certain "unnatural" factors involved, as well -- various forms of geo-engineering across disparate regions, for whatever reasons; I wouldn't rule out "Fortean" or "woo" factors as part of it as well, but I don't incorporate such ideas into my current thinking of the topic.

But human-based CO2 (or other everyday-human/animal activities) are not notable contributors to 'climate change'. This is my position, shared by others. We may arrive at this position via different means, and certainly, some may subscribe to this view because it currently may align with certain political leanings, but this alone doesn't make it false. It will, however, cause an entire subset to reflexively rebuke such notions. This may well be part of the reason for the current noise on this topic.

Also: perpetuating division, discord, and generalized confusion about a given topic is a very effective means of large-scale operations, for a variety of reasons (or sometimes for very specific reasons). Manipulations occur in each 'camp', of course. Poisoned wells, compromised/captured actors, and various forms of gaslighting and mis/disinfo abound in these times, across topics.

This is not coincidence. At a minimum, it is a time to pause, reflect, and re-assess previously held belief systems.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Thu Jul 03, 2025 5:27 pm

Also: perpetuating division, discord, and generalized confusion about a given topic is a very effective means of large-scale operations, for a variety of reasons (or sometimes for very specific reasons). Manipulations occur in each 'camp', of course. Poisoned wells, compromised/captured actors, and various forms of gaslighting and mis/disinfo abound in these times, across topics.

This is not coincidence. At a minimum, it is a time to pause, reflect, and re-assess previously held belief systems.


Well, duh. This is what the oil companies have been doing for decades, and that's not a theory, that's a documented fact. They knew climate change was real fifty years ago and set about lying their teeth off. They hired the same people the tobacco companies used to spread division, discord and generalized confusion about the topic of climate change, all so the oil companies could continue on with business as usual a little longer. It's not an accident that if you take basically any prominent climate change skeptic and start digging, you eventually arrive at oil money.

I'm constantly re-assessing my beliefs on the topic, because a) I wish to God it wasn't true, and b) I keep having to wade through mountains of skeptic viewpoints being posted all over this place, and I have yet to see anything compelling to counter the mainstream view. Maybe I'm just set in my ways, but I genuinely haven't seen anything here that made me go "huh, that's weird...".

And just to be clear, I agree with you on many of your points on corporate exploitation of the problem, but I vehemently disagree on your claims that there isn't a problem at all, or that if there is, humanity has nothing to do with it. The first is capitalist fuckery that anyone with half a brain can see happening, the second requires you to ignore the laws of physics.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:03 pm

.

@JVinos_Climate
Scientist. Molecular neurobiologist and climate researcher. Science is not personal.

How is the planet cooling by 0.6°C this year? Not ENSO because it is neutral. I'd love to hear an official explanation, but they don't have one because they forgot to include a cooling mechanism in their CO2 theory. The Tonga effect is waning, and more radiation is escaping.

Image

...
@VGrubsky
·
If the warming spike was due to the Tonga eruption, why was it delayed?
...
@JVinos_Climate

Probably for the same reason that the cooling after the 1815 Tambora eruption was delayed for over a year before producing the 1816 year without a summer that nobody doubts was produced by the eruption. Dynamical effects are seasonally linked and delayed.

Image
...
https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1941822268142698994

The "Tonga Effect" refers to the atmospheric and climate impacts resulting from the massive eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano on January 15, 2022. This underwater eruption injected an unprecedented amount of water vapor into the stratosphere, along with some sulfur dioxide. The eruption had a range of effects, including influencing ozone depletion, potentially contributing to unusual weather patterns, and impacting global temperatures.


AND:

@JVinos_Climate

The recent European heatwave had no impact on global temperatures, but a huge one on alarmist news media. The severe cold spell in South America has caused global temperatures to plummet to 0.5°C cooler than in January, though this is not as newsworthy.
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu

Image


AND:

@JVinos_Climate

3 decades after the Kyoto Protocol, the handful of countries attempting to reach net-zero emissions have had no impact on global emissions, CO2 levels or climate change. The billions paid to climate funds have not changed this fact.

https://energyinst.org/statistical-review/
https://nrdc.org/resources/climate-funds-pledge-tracker

Image


AND:

@shellenberger

Climate change caused the Texas floods that killed at least 27 people, say the media. No, it didn't. The lack of a flood warning system did. We've managed floods for millennia, and deaths from them declined 80% in the last 100 years. Climate reporters are trapped in a weird cult.

Image

https://www.public.news/p/climate-journ ... n-the-grip



------------------------------

Another bit of info to consider as well -- natural processes that reduce CO2:

@JVinos_Climate

We didn't know that half of river CO2 emissions are from old carbon.
https://nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09023-w

We didn't know that the vegetation sink removes 31% more CO2 than expected.
Yet we can make carbon predictions for half a million years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 04GC000891
@JVinos_Climate

The vegetation carbon sink removes 31% more CO2 than previously estimated (157 PgC/yr instead of 120). This means that Earth system models and calculations of what happens to our CO2 emissions are seriously wrong. Wrong knowledge leads to wrong decisions


....
@BobPartridge16

Apparently the oceans are absorbing an extra 9% more CO2 than previously 'estimated' as well Javier. Weathering of old rocks also releases 'legacy Carbon'. My suspicions are that these new estimates will increase & our human share of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to reduce.
https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1936334871300882649
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:10 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 06, 2025 6:03 pm wrote:.

@JVinos_Climate
Scientist. Molecular neurobiologist and climate researcher. Science is not personal.

How is the planet cooling by 0.6°C this year? Not ENSO because it is neutral. I'd love to hear an official explanation, but they don't have one because they forgot to include a cooling mechanism in their CO2 theory. The Tonga effect is waning, and more radiation is escaping.

Image


No source for this graph, and it's a small dip, not even remotely enough to draw any kinds of conclusions from. But, we just came out of an El Nino, which could explain the slightly lower temperatures, compared to the record breaking 2023-24. We're still way above pre-industrial levels though.

...
@VGrubsky
·
If the warming spike was due to the Tonga eruption, why was it delayed?
...
@JVinos_Climate

Probably for the same reason that the cooling after the 1815 Tambora eruption was delayed for over a year before producing the 1816 year without a summer that nobody doubts was produced by the eruption. Dynamical effects are seasonally linked and delayed.

Image
...
https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1941822268142698994

The "Tonga Effect" refers to the atmospheric and climate impacts resulting from the massive eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano on January 15, 2022. This underwater eruption injected an unprecedented amount of water vapor into the stratosphere, along with some sulfur dioxide. The eruption had a range of effects, including influencing ozone depletion, potentially contributing to unusual weather patterns, and impacting global temperatures.


AND:

@JVinos_Climate

The recent European heatwave had no impact on global temperatures, but a huge one on alarmist news media. The severe cold spell in South America has caused global temperatures to plummet to 0.5°C cooler than in January, though this is not as newsworthy.
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu


The point is that heatwaves like this one happen more often, not that they show up in the global temperature. Heatwaves kill a lot of people, which I'm sure you'll agree is a bad thing.

Image


AND:

@JVinos_Climate

3 decades after the Kyoto Protocol, the handful of countries attempting to reach net-zero emissions have had no impact on global emissions, CO2 levels or climate change. The billions paid to climate funds have not changed this fact.

https://energyinst.org/statistical-review/
https://nrdc.org/resources/climate-funds-pledge-tracker

Image


AND:

@shellenberger

Climate change caused the Texas floods that killed at least 27 people, say the media. No, it didn't. The lack of a flood warning system did. We've managed floods for millennia, and deaths from them declined 80% in the last 100 years. Climate reporters are trapped in a weird cult.

Image

https://www.public.news/p/climate-journ ... n-the-grip



------------------------------

Another bit of info to consider as well -- natural processes that reduce CO2:

@JVinos_Climate

We didn't know that half of river CO2 emissions are from old carbon.
https://nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09023-w

We didn't know that the vegetation sink removes 31% more CO2 than expected.
Yet we can make carbon predictions for half a million years.


That's not a good thing. That just means we're even more dependent on vegetation sinks than we thought, which is bad considering what we're doing to the Amazon and nature in general.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GC000891
@JVinos_Climate


This study talks about the potential for our emissions to delay the next ice age by tens of thousands of years or more. Great for people 50000 years from now I guess, but not sure what it's supposed to say here.

The vegetation carbon sink removes 31% more CO2 than previously estimated (157 PgC/yr instead of 120). This means that Earth system models and calculations of what happens to our CO2 emissions are seriously wrong. Wrong knowledge leads to wrong decisions


....
@BobPartridge16

Apparently the oceans are absorbing an extra 9% more CO2 than previously 'estimated' as well Javier. Weathering of old rocks also releases 'legacy Carbon'. My suspicions are that these new estimates will increase & our human share of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to reduce.
https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1936334871300882649

Also not a good thing. More ocean acidification, more reductions in the main livelihood and food source for something like 3 billion people.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:33 pm

.
I wouldn’t qualify the prior carbon sink examples as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, necessarily, but rather: data points that indicate there are natural processes for handling carbon.

Broadly, however, my premise remains: whatever climate fluctuations we’re experiencing is not due to anthropogenic factors (at least not as advertised via dominant media), and even if — hypothetically— they were, current ‘solutions’ (net zero et al.) are not only ineffective, but also harmful to the collective; a small subset with power, influence & wealth are profiting immensely while entire populations experience incrementally less agency and autonomy as costs for everyday energy use go up (among other 2nd/3rd order detrimental impacts).


The 'solutions' are not actually intended to benefit the majority (putting aside the percentage of those that may subscribe to these faulty 'solutions' with earnest intent; the primary drivers behind these so-called 'solutions'/policies have other aims in mind).
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jul 09, 2025 10:52 am

.
Broadly related to the topic of this thread (and recent events):

Augustus Doricko
Making it rain @RainmakerCorp. Apply to work as a Forward Deployed Engineer in my profile link!
https://jobs.lever.co/make-rain/abeb7ac ... 4f4448a768
@ADoricko
·
Jul 5
The natural disaster in the Texan Hill Country is a tragedy. My prayers are with Texas.

Rainmaker did not operate in the affected area on the 3rd or 4th or contribute to the floods that occurred over the region.

Rainmaker will always be fully transparent.

Brian Gamble
@briangamble_v1


@RainmakerCorp:

For public accountability:

Can you confirm, with full transparency, whether any cloud seeding or atmospheric modification operations, by your company or affiliates, were conducted in or around Hunt, Texas or the Upper Guadalupe River basin on July 3 or July 4, 2025?

If so,

Please include:

Time and location of any seeding activities;

Type of materials used (e.g., silver iodide, dry ice, etc.);

Whether any contracts, public or private, were active in Kerr County or adjacent counties during this period.

Given the deadly consequences of the July 4 flooding and ongoing speculation about the potential role of weather modification, the public is owed full transparency and factual clarity.

Thank you for your prompt and transparent response.

Image

brainsturbator
@brainsturbator

"Yes, we interfere with complex systems, and no, we don't know what the second order effects are, but yes, we are going to deny any liability"

9:21 AM · Jul 9, 2025
https://x.com/brainsturbator/status/1942937120521482476


AND:

@cordeliers

From 1972 and more relevant than ever. "Weather: Calamities of Nature & Weather Modification as a Weapon of Imperialism"

Image

...
The Pentagon has been working on weather modification for decades.
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.or ... n-and-war/

Image

...
"Weather as a Force Multiplier" -- 1996 Pentagon research predicted that by 2025 US aerospace forces could "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war fighting applications. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA333462.pdf

Image

...
2009 Pentagon paper describes use of Directed Energy Weapons as part of larger weather control strategies. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA539515.pdf

Image

...
Disastrous 1952 flood engineered by British military. Source: James Rodger Fleming, Fixing the Sky, The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control
(Columbia University Press 2012)

Image
https://x.com/cordeliers/status/1703836488683716869
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Elihu » Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:11 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote:Broadly related
intrinsically related.

the cash volcano is the cause of man made climate change. that's rational
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:06 pm

Didn't realize the British military was doing weather modifications all the way back in 1607, or 1796, when similar flash floods also hit Lynmouth. I guess they also whipped up the storm that caused it, days earlier out in the Atlantic.

Cloud seeding isn't exactly new tech. It's been researched and used for almost a century, so there's tons of data on the effectiveness, and so far the best case scenario is that you can maybe squeeze out a few more drops of rain or snow from already existing weather. What it can't do is create flash floods out of nothing.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Jul 17, 2025 10:28 pm

.
[Many embedded links at Source]

https://stylman.substack.com/p/fire-and ... irect=true
Image

Fire and Flood
Weather Modification and the Patterns We Can No Longer Ignore

Joshua Stylman
Jul 17, 2025

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom announced a housing plan for the fire-devastated Palisades. Not housing for the people who just lost their million-dollar homes, but low-income housing to be built on the torched land.

Image

I'm all for affordable housing. But isn't it curious that after one of the most expensive neighborhoods in America burns down, the "recovery" plan immediately transforms it into something completely different? The people who live there are still determining whether they can afford to rebuild, but somehow the state already has comprehensive plans ready for demographic replacement.

We're told it's recovery. But the only thing being recovered is control—by the same forces that always benefit.

It makes you wonder: Is this disaster response, or disaster capitalism?

It's starting to look like a playbook. Across crisis after crisis, we see the same sequence: weaken infrastructure, enable catastrophe, replace the community. Whether this represents coordinated planning or opportunistic exploitation of crisis situations, the outcomes remain similar. It's an environmentally driven regime change by another name.

What if the disasters themselves aren't natural?

The Scale of What's Happening

Extraordinary flooding has been sweeping the nation. In Texas, unprecedented storms triggered catastrophic flooding.

In New Mexico, monsoon rains triggered devastating flash floods.

In Chicago, a single storm dumped over 5 inches of rain in 90 minutes, forcing residents to climb to rooftops as streets became rivers

Image

New Jersey flash floods killed two people and forced water rescues of 40 others in chest-high flooding.

Across the river in New York, subway stations flooded as stormwater rushed onto platforms, stranding thousands of travelers above and below ground.

Florida recorded 25,000 lightning strikes in 24 hours amid unusual atmospheric conditions.

Image

The scale becomes clear when you see the national trend:

Image

While meteorologists point to different causes, the sheer intensity and rapid succession of these 'unprecedented' events in different regions created a model for a nationwide crisis. Which brings me to something documented, not speculated—something that should make every American question what's really happening with our weather.

The Texas Documentation: Weather Modification Goes Public

Days earlier, Augustus Doricko made an admission that confirmed what weather modification researchers have long suspected. The 25-year-old CEO of Rainmaker Corporation, a Thiel Fellow with contracts to manipulate weather systems, posted on X that his company was actively seeding clouds over South Texas on July 2nd.

Image

Forty-eight hours later, the Guadalupe River near Spring Branch rose to a peak of 40 feet, a nearly 28-foot rise in a matter of hours. The storm's toll was catastrophic: according to ABC News, more than 130 people died and more than 160 were still missing as search efforts continued.

Image

Investigative journalist Celia Farber documented Doricko's background and the anomalous precipitation, including reports of 'blue rain' falling across Texas that allegedly caused nausea and hallucinations when ingested. I had archived a few of these blue rain reports in late June as a weather oddity, weeks before the flooding brought them into focus.

But here's what makes this more than a tragic coincidence: Rainmaker Corporation held official contracts with clients like the South Texas Weather Modification Association, part of a state-sanctioned program documented by the Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation. These programs are licensed to conduct dozens of cloud-seeding operations annually, artificially creating millions of acre-feet of water. X researcher @In2ThinAir uncovered the official documentation proving these weather modification operations exist.

Image

This was legal. Sanctioned. Taxpayer-funded weather manipulation.

Doricko's excuse for stopping early? Saturated clouds. They were pumping water into already oversaturated clouds during unstable weather conditions.

What happened next follows the script we've seen across other disasters. Investigation by @MorganC000 documented curious details that make you wonder about the official narrative:

Pre-Disaster Activity: On July 2, 2025—two days before the floods—over 50 US military and NASA aircraft clustered exactly over zones that would flood, including NASA's P-3B Orion and UAVSAR systems capable of advanced atmospheric monitoring. Despite this extensive monitoring presence, no public alerts were issued about the coming floods.

Land Context: Camp Mystic sits on some of the most valuable riverfront land in the Texas Hill Country, with a history of legal battles culminating in a confidential $7.2 million buyout. Questions arise about how disaster-related infrastructure destruction might affect ongoing land-use arrangements.

Rapid Corporate Response: Within days of the disaster, investment analysis positioned the floods as a catalyst for smart resilience markets, with companies like IBM Weather Company positioned for AI-driven flood modeling and surveillance deployment. Organizations like Team Rubicon, which uses Palantir Technologies for disaster relief operations, demonstrate how surveillance systems are integrated into emergency response infrastructure.

Weather Modification Acknowledgment: Rainmaker Corporation emerged claiming cloud seeding operations in the area—confirming weather modification activities while raising eyebrows about the scope of such programs. This follows the limited hangout strategy: when pressure builds, release part of the truth to contain the narrative.

@MorganC000's documentation reveals timing and coordination that challenge assumptions about natural disasters and emergency response. The questions her research raise should make us at least wonder about the narrative we’ve heard.

But we have to consider that Doricko's admission may itself be strategic misdirection. Geoengineering researcher Dane Wigington, speaking on Jimmy Dore's show, argues that Doricko functions as a "red herring" and "mass distraction"—like "what Oswald was to the JFK shooting." Wigington's analysis suggests that Doricko's small operations (5-10 pounds of material at most) couldn't cause Texas flooding. The real mechanism, according to recordings from Hurricane Harvey, involves NEXRAD frequency transmissions that hold moisture stationary over targeted areas by creating "repelling effects against air masses." They knew Harvey's path seven days in advance using this technology.

Last weekend, Texas Senate candidate Joseph Trahan tweeted that cloud seeding oversight in Texas is deliberately captured by unqualified political appointees. The Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation (TDLR), which approves all weather modification, operates through a 5-member Weather Modification Advisory Committee that includes some technical expertise, but ultimate authority rests with political appointees who lack comprehensive meteorological oversight compared to the previous system under the Texas Agriculture Commission.

During the Hill Country flooding, flight logs show three companies operated simultaneously—not just Rainmaker. West Texas Weather Modification LLC and SOAR (Seeding Operations and Atmospheric Research) conducted hundreds of flights, doing "more cloud seeding in the last year than many years combined" according to Trahan. While Rainmaker stopped July 2nd, the other companies continued throughout the flooding.

The critical question Trahan raises: who paid for this unprecedented atmospheric intervention? TDLR oversight was stripped from the Texas Agriculture Commission in 1989, removing qualified meteorologists and farmers who understood weather impacts. Instead, political appointees now approve operations with far less comprehensive meteorological oversight than the previous system provided.

This is where zooming out to examine what else was happening in the municipality becomes crucial.

Just months before the flooding, Kerr County had rejected a lithium battery storage project. Local opposition was fierce. The Kerrville City Council had already approved a $175 million power plant project in early 2024, but community resistance to lithium extraction remained strong. The floods devastated the community that had opposed lithium projects. Questions now linger about how this tragedy might affect future energy development decisions in the area.

Image

Smart city infrastructure planning was already underway in Kerrville before the disaster struck. According to Kerrville's 2050 Comprehensive Plan, published in 2018, the pieces were already in place.

Image

Researchers attempting to analyze the data found that satellite weather data access had been restricted. The timing—restriction announced June 30th, floods beginning July 4th—adds another layer of complexity to understanding these events.

Image

Questions worth asking:

Did you authorize Rainmaker Corporation to manipulate weather above your home?

When did your community consent to weather modification experiments?

Did Congress authorize cloud seeding over flood zones?

Why was satellite weather data access restricted four days before the floods began?

What are the odds lithium extraction becomes viable exactly where flood damage occurred?

The Pattern Recognition Method

This is what pattern recognition looks like: connecting documented capabilities with observable outcomes, then asking why the same corporate players consistently benefit from disasters that follow weather modification activities in the same regions.

And honestly, this stuff is tedious. It's an administrative web that only lunatics like me spend months digging through—cross-referencing corporate filings, government contracts, timeline documentation, and satellite data. Normal people have lives to live. They shouldn't have to become investigative journalists to understand if their weather is being manipulated.

I know this piece is long. Feel free to skim some of the details. But I have to show you the breadth of evidence because the pattern recognition method requires it. A few coincidences could just be chance—in fact, there's a group of 'coincidentalists' who will still make that case even after seeing clear examples. But can you honestly get there after seeing all of this? I can't.

This is what I call the accumulation effect: each individual piece might be dismissible in isolation, but the sheer volume and consistency makes denial increasingly difficult. It's like building a legal case—you need overwhelming evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. One anomalous event? Opportunism. Two? Correlation. But dozens following similar sequences with the same corporate beneficiaries, impossible timing, and systemic failures? That becomes infinitesimally unlikely to explain as random chance.

There's a cognitive threshold where the human brain can no longer process this as mere coincidence. Comprehensive documentation helps readers reach their own conclusions about what they're seeing.

That's why I'm grateful for citizen investigators like MJTruthUltra, Vigilant Fox, JoshWalkos, In2ThinAir and others who compile these types of investigations and make the connections visible.

A few professional journalists like Naomi Wolf have been sounding alarms about weather manipulation and disaster capitalism, but most institutional media remains silent.

Without this network of obsessive documentation—mostly citizen investigators with some (minimal) professional support—most of this evidence would remain buried in corporate press releases and government archives. In an era of captured institutions, citizen journalism may be the only force capable of exposing evidence that threaten democracy itself. When the fourth estate falls, we become the fifth estate—and no one is coming to save us but ourselves.

The Framework: Weather Modification Is Real


After Hurricane Helene's extraordinary behavior in Asheville last September, I published my research on weather modification technology in Is Our Weather Being Manipulated? I had been tracking these capabilities for the last few years, but Asheville's meteorologically anomalous hurricane—maintaining devastating power 300+ miles inland through mountainous terrain—gave me the catalyst to publish what I’d been studying.

The evidence I documented was comprehensive: tons of patents and programs for atmospheric heating and hurricane steering, six states with anti-geoengineering legislation, corporate weather modification contracts operating nationwide, Bill Gates backing sun-dimming projects like SCoPEx, and government acknowledgments of Solar Radiation Management capabilities.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used Operation Popeye (1967-1972) to extend monsoon seasons by cloud seeding, disrupting enemy supply routes. Remember Forrest Gump's description of Vietnam rain? "One day it started raining and it didn't quit for 4 months... rain flew in sideways and sometimes rain even seemed to come straight up from underneath... and then just like that somebody turned off the rain and the sun come out."

That wasn't just Hollywood drama—it was Hollywood disclosure.

Government weather modification reports filed with NOAA—pronounced like the biblical Noah who warned of the coming flood. The irony writes itself. The agency tracking atmospheric manipulation shares a name with the world’s most famous flood survivor.

Just last week, the EPA unveiled a new "transparency portal" on contrails and geoengineering—Administrator Lee Zeldin promising "total transparency." Yet search USAspending.gov for "stratospheric aerosol intervention" and you'll find millions in federal funding flowing to Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research—highlighting the complexity of achieving true transparency across different federal agencies and funding streams.

Zeldin himself acknowledged the reality of these operations: "The enthusiasm for experiments that would pump pollutants into the high atmosphere has set off alarm bells here at the Trump EPA. Prior to now, EPA has never been this proactive to raise awareness about concerns with geoengineering." His admission confirms what pattern recognizers have been documenting—these aren't theoretical programs but active operations that even federal agencies now admit are concerning.

The timing is interesting. As awareness grows about potential links between weather modification and disaster responses, agencies appear to be managing public perception through selective transparency—admitting contrails are "human-made" while avoiding discussion of active programs.

On Tuesday, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced the Clear Skies Act, legislation to ban weather modification and geoengineering. Regardless of one's views on the sponsor, when sitting members of Congress file bills to prohibit atmospheric intervention, the issue has moved beyond theoretical debate into active policy. Whether this represents genuine political momentum or another form of strategic disclosure remains to be seen—but the institutional acknowledgment is significant.

Image

This is now part of the public conversation. Nicole Shanahan recently exposed decades of secret geoengineering projects through whistleblower testimony from someone with "high-level security clearances" who worked with the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NOAA, and the Intelligence Community. The whistleblower revealed that despite President Trump's 2020 directive to halt taxpayer-funded climate change initiatives, federal grants for solar radiation management and stratospheric aerosol injection are still being issued—the programs haven't stopped, they've just been rebranded.

Shanahan documented how UCAR has received over $230 million in direct federal awards, and how a 1979 report revealed "nearly 100 geoengineering projects" including "hurricane manipulation, radioactive and electromagnetically enhanced fog dispersal, microwave chaff deployment, supersonic ice nucleation, and conventional cloud seeding operations."

The capability isn't theoretical. A 1996 U.S. Air Force report titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" predicted that by 2025, U.S. aerospace forces could "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies for war-fighting applications. Welcome to 2025. The timeline isn't coincidental.

...

Multiple officials, multiple years, same casual acknowledgment of weather control while the public remains in the dark. Curious, no?

Whether these represent isolated slips or evidence that weather modification has become routine enough to mention casually is unclear. But admitting capability is different from documenting implementation.

What I couldn't have predicted was how quickly we'd see active deployment. Texas proved these weren't theoretical programs but operational systems with deadly consequences. The question isn't whether weather modification exists—it's whether it's being deliberately used against American communities.

The evidence reveals a blueprint for disaster capitalism:

Image

Half the country thinks extreme weather is climate change. The other half suspects something else but lacks the framework to understand what. Neither side can have an honest discussion about climate without acknowledging weather modification technology.

Texas proved the mechanism exists and is operational. But is it isolated, or systematic?

Asheville: When Hurricanes Do the Impossible
Image

Hurricane Helene did something meteorologically extraordinary in September 2024. It maintained devastating power 300+ miles inland, far beyond typical hurricane behavior in mountainous terrain that usually breaks up hurricane systems. But the real story isn't just about unusual meteorology—it's about lithium, corporate resistance, and the elimination of community opposition through 'natural' disaster

One year before Hurricane Helene struck, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded Albemarle Corporation a $90 million grant to restart their Kings Mountain, North Carolina lithium mine. The official DoD announcement confirmed the September 12, 2023 contract, funded under Defense Production Act authorities using Inflation Reduction Act money, targeted "one of the few known hard rock lithium deposits in the U.S." The mine was expected to support manufacturing of 1.2 million electric vehicles annually—critical infrastructure for Biden's 2021 Executive Order requiring 50% of all vehicles to be electric by 2030. The Inflation Reduction Act had announced to the world that America would not concede lithium dominance to China, setting up an urgent national priority for domestic lithium extraction that made North Carolina's deposits strategically critical.

There was just one problem: the residents.

For years, communities across the lithium-rich region had been battling against reopening the mines. Piedmont Lithium had secured state-approved mining permits in Gaston County months before the hurricane, but local opposition remained fierce. Corporate stakeholders—BlackRock, State Street, Capital Research Finance—had positioned themselves for massive lithium extraction, but community resistance blocked operations.

.....


Continued at link.
https://stylman.substack.com/p/fire-and ... irect=true
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 18, 2025 10:32 am

DrEvil » Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:06 pm wrote:...and so far the best case scenario is that you can maybe squeeze out a few more drops of rain or snow from already existing weather. What it can't do is create flash floods out of nothing.


I can appreciate the appeal of employing such hand-waving rhetoric. It's certainly a more palatable/comfortable position to take.

Such presumptions (and/or casual dismissals) are foolish, however. Particularly in this current era, when many previous notions are being exposed as (egregiously, brazenly, demonstrably) incorrect, or otherwise as forms of blatant Fraud/Crimes against humanity.


Welcome substantive counters to the Substack piece above, if any. While I don't necessarily 'blanket' endorse all the sources referenced, there is ample raw data and facts now available that offers a clear and sober presentation of manipulations (with intent to harm and massively profit) occurring.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 176 guests