GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again?

[Katie Seas]

Today I read a post on geoengineeringwatch.com with the above title.

It stated that the 'weather-makers' are in charge of the hurricane headed towards Texas and the drought in the West. The reason the hurricane is about to strike Texas is two-fold. 1) They have been uncooperative with the government of late and 2) possibly because there's oil sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico which the 'power structure' wants kept secret.

Evidence that this recent hurricane is 'weather warfare' instead of a natural occurrence is that there are 'patents for hurricane suppression' with Bill Gates having been involved in hurricane suppression efforts. Further, 'hurricane formation over the Gulf of Mexico has been nonexistent in recent years in spite of record warm ocean temperatures, why?'

According to the article, the answer is 'those in power are trying desperately to control populations who are rapidly awakening to their tyranny.' This 'weather warfare' is 'business as usual' for our government and ''the US military and many other governments around the globe [who] have long since hijacked the climate systems for their own agenda, and [who] have long since stated their wish to do so.'

Now for the debunking.

There is no evidence showing that the US government-or any other government-can create, control and direct any weather system, much less a hurricane. Yes, cloud-seeding can enhance the chance of rain, but it cannot control the winds or the direction of the storm. If governments could create catastrophic storms, they would use it to disrupt their enemies instead of punishing their own populace.

Patents for hurricane suppression are still theoretical and not effective in shutting down hurricanes. That Bill Gates has invested funds into this research does not mean there's been a discovery on how to stop for hurricanes. There is no hurricane cure, and if there were one, insurance companies would see it was deployed long before it reached land fall.

The paucity of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in the last few years is not an abnormal occurrence. In fact, an evaluation of NOAA records shows that there are periods of many years when hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico are unseen; in some cases, a decade or more will pass without a hurricane. Conversely, there are some periods where several hurricanes occur in a single year.

Finally how secret could the oil sitting at the bottom of the sea be if this theory is on the internet? Even a hurricane can't erase information when it's posted on the web.

 

[deirdre]

i'm not really doing this right, just more a tutorial for ya on 'debunking' Metabunk style- weather stuff doesnt really interest me enough to delve too deep...so i'll leave it to you and the guys to tweak it.

Metabunk is about evidence from both sides. People "saying stuff" isnt really a debunk.

Metabunk in general focuses on specific claims of evidence. And then examines the alleged evidence with evidence.

You always want to provide a link to the "bunk" so we can see for ourselves. and you want to quote the 'bunk' directly so as not to reword it in an unfair way.

For example, the article is not titled "Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas, Again" its titled "
Are The Climate Engineers Waging Weather Warfare Against Texas? Again?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...s-waging-weather-warfare-against-texas-again/

I know the jist of the article is saying "yes, they are" but it's unfair to misquote people.





Then you want to go through individual claims (i'm not doing the whole article) for ex:

CLAIM:

Texas is about to get pounded again with potential record flooding. Why would a cyclonic rotation not develop over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico where conditions are favorable for strengthening, but then strengthen once the low pressure zone is over land? Why would we think such an extreme anomaly is natural

then go and research "brown ocean effect"

Anderson and Shepherd studied tropical storms that survive beyond landfall by analyzing data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center gathered during the past 30 years that had tracked at least 220 miles inland and then compared it to NASA atmospheric and environmental data sets.

Of the 227 inland tropical cyclones that were identified by Shepherd and Anderson, 45 of them maintained or increased strength – exhibiting this "brown ocean" effect. They also found that not all such inland storms fueled by the "brown ocean" effect are the same – other factors come into play as well that increase or diminish the inland storm's effect.

While most inland tropical cyclones occur in the United States and China, Shepherd and Anderson found that hot spots during the 30-year study period turned out to be in Australia. When they investigated the environment and conditions surrounding the "brown ocean" phenomenon in Australia that gave rise to the inland storms, they were able to pin down conditions that drive them. If soils have plenty of moisture or release latent heat, for instance, that can fuel inland storms.

So as the Earth's climate changes – as dry areas get drier and wet areas get wetter – such inland superstorms will only become more likely because of the "brown ocean" effect. And hurricane-watching won't be confined just to communities along the coast. We'll all need to pay attention http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at...hurricanes-even-stronger-when-they-reach-land

and "extratropical cyclones"

Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the destructive power of extratropical cyclones -- a well-studied storm type that undergoes a known physical and thermal transition. These systems begin as warm-core tropical cyclones that derive energy from the ocean. Over land, the storms transition to cold-core extratropical cyclones that derive energy from clashes between different air masses. Of the study's 45 inland storms that maintained or increased strength, 17 belonged to this category. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716173807.htm

etc etc



CLAIM:

Lets take hurricane "Sandy" as an example, how is it possible thatthe "forecasters" (who get their modeling straight from defense contractors like Raytheon that are involved with weather modification) knew 7 days ahead of time that Sandy would make an unprecedented 90 degree westerly turn?

My answer (again not researching thoroughly) is "they didnt". Oct 29th- from geoengineeringwatch's pic- is when Hurricane Sandy hit.

From 1 day before, October 28th almost all models do show it hitting the jersey shore.




But 4 days before it hit, on Oct 25th, they were predicting it might hit NY.
http://nypost.com/2012/10/25/rememb...-ny-landfall-of-frankenstorm-hurricane-sandy/

oct 26th (3 days before) we even have a prediction of it hitting Florida

Hurricane Sandy could land in Florida on Saturday, October 26, 2012.(NOAA) http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/hurricane-sandy-oct-26-2012#slide=2

But in truth all the models (as always happens with weather) were predicting different things.




stuff like that. and Welcome aboard!

 

[MikeG]

i'm not really doing this right, just more a tutorial for ya on 'debunking' Metabunk style- weather stuff doesnt really interest me enough to delve too deep...so i'll leave it to you and the guys to tweak it.

Metabunk is about evidence from both sides. People "saying stuff" isnt really a debunk.

Metabunk in general focuses on specific claims of evidence. And then examines the alleged evidence with evidence.

You always want to provide a link to the "bunk" so we can see for ourselves. and you want to quote the 'bunk' directly so as not to reword it in an unfair way.

For example, the article is not titled "Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas, Again" its titled "
Are The Climate Engineers Waging Weather Warfare Against Texas? Again?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...s-waging-weather-warfare-against-texas-again/

I know the jist of the article is saying "yes, they are" but it's unfair to misquote people.





Then you want to go through individual claims (i'm not doing the whole article) for ex:

CLAIM:

Texas is about to get pounded again with potential record flooding. Why would a cyclonic rotation not develop over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico where conditions are favorable for strengthening, but then strengthen once the low pressure zone is over land? Why would we think such an extreme anomaly is natural

then go and research "brown ocean effect"

Anderson and Shepherd studied tropical storms that survive beyond landfall by analyzing data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center gathered during the past 30 years that had tracked at least 220 miles inland and then compared it to NASA atmospheric and environmental data sets.

Of the 227 inland tropical cyclones that were identified by Shepherd and Anderson, 45 of them maintained or increased strength – exhibiting this "brown ocean" effect. They also found that not all such inland storms fueled by the "brown ocean" effect are the same – other factors come into play as well that increase or diminish the inland storm's effect.

While most inland tropical cyclones occur in the United States and China, Shepherd and Anderson found that hot spots during the 30-year study period turned out to be in Australia. When they investigated the environment and conditions surrounding the "brown ocean" phenomenon in Australia that gave rise to the inland storms, they were able to pin down conditions that drive them. If soils have plenty of moisture or release latent heat, for instance, that can fuel inland storms.

So as the Earth's climate changes – as dry areas get drier and wet areas get wetter – such inland superstorms will only become more likely because of the "brown ocean" effect. And hurricane-watching won't be confined just to communities along the coast. We'll all need to pay attention http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at...hurricanes-even-stronger-when-they-reach-land

and "extratropical cyclones"

Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the destructive power of extratropical cyclones -- a well-studied storm type that undergoes a known physical and thermal transition. These systems begin as warm-core tropical cyclones that derive energy from the ocean. Over land, the storms transition to cold-core extratropical cyclones that derive energy from clashes between different air masses. Of the study's 45 inland storms that maintained or increased strength, 17 belonged to this category. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716173807.htm

etc etc



CLAIM:

Lets take hurricane "Sandy" as an example, how is it possible thatthe "forecasters" (who get their modeling straight from defense contractors like Raytheon that are involved with weather modification) knew 7 days ahead of time that Sandy would make an unprecedented 90 degree westerly turn?
View attachment 13374

My answer (again not researching thoroughly) is "they didnt". Oct 29th- from geoengineeringwatch's pic- is when Hurricane Sandy hit.

From 1 day before, October 28th almost all models do show it hitting the jersey shore.

View attachment 13376


But 4 days before it hit, on Oct 25th, they were predicting it might hit NY.
http://nypost.com/2012/10/25/rememb...-ny-landfall-of-frankenstorm-hurricane-sandy/

oct 26th (3 days before) we even have a prediction of it hitting Florida

Hurricane Sandy could land in Florida on Saturday, October 26, 2012.(NOAA) http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/hurricane-sandy-oct-26-2012#slide=2

But in truth all the models (as always happens with weather) were predicting different things.
View attachment 13375



stuff like that. and Welcome aboard!

It is pretty remarkable that Dane Wigington can get such a basic fact wrong and still maintain traction among his following. This comment might belong in another thread about CT belief, but sometimes the lack of basic due diligence just amazes (and frustrates) me.

 

[deirdre]

It is pretty remarkable that Dane Wigington can get such a basic fact wrong and still maintain traction among his following. This comment might belong in another thread about CT belief, but sometimes the lack of basic due diligence just amazes (and frustrates) me.

i think it's because even though he used his own article (dated Nov 6th 2012-a week after Sandy)as his "source link", he didnt really re-read it.

October 29, 2012 – 11:00 AM

Yesterday the hurricane was following a path away from the US coast but overnight it unnaturally made a 45 degree turn in the cold October North Atlantic water and air
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/obamas-october-surprise-creating-and-steering-hurricane-sandy/

 

[MikeG]

Cri

i think it's because even though he used his own article (dated Nov 6th 2012-a week after Sandy)as his "source link", he didnt really re-read it.

October 29, 2012 – 11:00 AM

Yesterday the hurricane was following a path away from the US coast but overnight it unnaturally made a 45 degree turn in the cold October North Atlantic water and air
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/obamas-october-surprise-creating-and-steering-hurricane-sandy/

All I can say is "cripes." Unless "double cripes" is a real term.

 

[Whitebeard]

Just been reading up on flooding in Texas. If this flooding is weather warfare what about historical events? It appears the lone star state gets this type of events fairly regular.

The famous Texas flood is the 1935 one, the one that inspired the Stevie Ray Vaughan song (and thus a rather sweet sounding welsh rock band)
http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasRivers/Texas-Flood-of-1935.htm

In 1935, while Austin was receiving its deluge, San Antonio was hit even harder with 14.07 inches in May with 8.41 inches the next month. The stores around Alamo Plaza were flooded in late May and tiny D'Hanis, Texas reported a hard-to-believe 20-24 inches of rain in just 2 Hours and 45 Minutes. ..
Early to mid-June rains approached 20 inches in many other smaller communities from Uvalde to Austin. The Llano, Colorado and Pedernales Rivers all reached flood stage, affecting the cities of Junction, Llano, and Fredericksburg. On June 14 and 15 the Colorado River was just 1 foot below the record reached in July of 1869.

In recent years Texas has similar events in 2007, 2001 and 1998, and other major events going back to the 'Racers Storm of 1837' (records prior to 1830 are sketchy so I used that date as a start point) that resulted in heavy and / or widespread flooding in 1842, 1871, 1886, 1900, 1915, 1927, 1935, 1954, 1963, 1967, 1979, 1983, 1994 and 1996 (these are flood related events that caused a high death toll and / or heavy property damage, flooding to a lesser degree and other storm events happen most years) (info from here and other sources)

In fact reading back through the records it appears Texas gets its feet very wet every few years to greater or lesser degree, which fits the observed patterns for Atlantic hurricanes in general which seam to linked to The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is an Ocean current, with different modes on multi-decadal times scales, affecting the North Atlantic Ocean, and in particular sea surface temperature (SST). While there is some support for this mode in models and in historical observations, controversy exists with regard to its amplitude, and in particular, the attribution of sea surface temperature change to natural or anthropogenic causes, especially in tropical Atlantic areas important for hurricane development

So if this years flooding is 'weather warfare' what was causing all the other events going back over 180 odd years? Could it be that these 2015 floods are, like all the others, natural events and nothing to do climate engineering at all? I think so.

 

[Katie Seas]

i'm not really doing this right, just more a tutorial for ya on 'debunking' Metabunk style- weather stuff doesnt really interest me enough to delve too deep...so i'll leave it to you and the guys to tweak it.

Metabunk is about evidence from both sides. People "saying stuff" isnt really a debunk.

Metabunk in general focuses on specific claims of evidence. And then examines the alleged evidence with evidence.

You always want to provide a link to the "bunk" so we can see for ourselves. and you want to quote the 'bunk' directly so as not to reword it in an unfair way.

For example, the article is not titled "Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas, Again" its titled "
Are The Climate Engineers Waging Weather Warfare Against Texas? Again?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...s-waging-weather-warfare-against-texas-again/

I know the jist of the article is saying "yes, they are" but it's unfair to misquote people.





Then you want to go through individual claims (i'm not doing the whole article) for ex:

CLAIM:

Texas is about to get pounded again with potential record flooding. Why would a cyclonic rotation not develop over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico where conditions are favorable for strengthening, but then strengthen once the low pressure zone is over land? Why would we think such an extreme anomaly is natural

then go and research "brown ocean effect"

Anderson and Shepherd studied tropical storms that survive beyond landfall by analyzing data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center gathered during the past 30 years that had tracked at least 220 miles inland and then compared it to NASA atmospheric and environmental data sets.

Of the 227 inland tropical cyclones that were identified by Shepherd and Anderson, 45 of them maintained or increased strength – exhibiting this "brown ocean" effect. They also found that not all such inland storms fueled by the "brown ocean" effect are the same – other factors come into play as well that increase or diminish the inland storm's effect.

While most inland tropical cyclones occur in the United States and China, Shepherd and Anderson found that hot spots during the 30-year study period turned out to be in Australia. When they investigated the environment and conditions surrounding the "brown ocean" phenomenon in Australia that gave rise to the inland storms, they were able to pin down conditions that drive them. If soils have plenty of moisture or release latent heat, for instance, that can fuel inland storms.

So as the Earth's climate changes – as dry areas get drier and wet areas get wetter – such inland superstorms will only become more likely because of the "brown ocean" effect. And hurricane-watching won't be confined just to communities along the coast. We'll all need to pay attention http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at...hurricanes-even-stronger-when-they-reach-land

and "extratropical cyclones"

Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the destructive power of extratropical cyclones -- a well-studied storm type that undergoes a known physical and thermal transition. These systems begin as warm-core tropical cyclones that derive energy from the ocean. Over land, the storms transition to cold-core extratropical cyclones that derive energy from clashes between different air masses. Of the study's 45 inland storms that maintained or increased strength, 17 belonged to this category. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716173807.htm

etc etc



CLAIM:

Lets take hurricane "Sandy" as an example, how is it possible thatthe "forecasters" (who get their modeling straight from defense contractors like Raytheon that are involved with weather modification) knew 7 days ahead of time that Sandy would make an unprecedented 90 degree westerly turn?
View attachment 13374

My answer (again not researching thoroughly) is "they didnt". Oct 29th- from geoengineeringwatch's pic- is when Hurricane Sandy hit.

From 1 day before, October 28th almost all models do show it hitting the jersey shore.

View attachment 13376


But 4 days before it hit, on Oct 25th, they were predicting it might hit NY.
http://nypost.com/2012/10/25/rememb...-ny-landfall-of-frankenstorm-hurricane-sandy/

oct 26th (3 days before) we even have a prediction of it hitting Florida

Hurricane Sandy could land in Florida on Saturday, October 26, 2012.(NOAA) http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/hurricane-sandy-oct-26-2012#slide=2

But in truth all the models (as always happens with weather) were predicting different things.
View attachment 13375



stuff like that. and Welcome aboard!

Thanks! Appreciate the tutorial!

 

[Jeremy]

They don't believe in man-made climate change, yet they believe in this at the same time.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

True. I think it's far easier to believe in this because it would have intent, unlike AGW. It's easier to believe in something that is somebodies fault than something that amounts to one huge unintended consequence.

 

[deirdre]

one huge unintended consequence.

Off topic noise. but..

it wouldnt have mattered. people need energy. people need jobs. economies need to grow. they would have done the same thing whether they knew the consequences or not. They supposedly know the consequences now and look at the pathetic little 'energy saving' bandaids they are putting on it. Voters are all for saving the environment until it effects their pocketbook.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Off topic noise. but..

it wouldnt have mattered. people need energy. people need jobs. economies need to grow. they would have done the same thing whether they knew the consequences or not. They supposedly know the consequences now and look at the pathetic little 'energy saving' bandaids they are putting on it. Voters are all for saving the environment until it effects their pocketbook.

Agreed 100%. But to me this discomfort with lack of agency, of large scale direction of bad events, seems to underlie many conspiracy theories. There's a real human discomfort with things that just happen. We are accustomed to control, and events that are practically or literally uncontrollable are things that should not be. So we invent agency for them. Gods, CTs, etc.

 

[deirdre]

We are accustomed to control, and events that are practically or literally uncontrollable are things that should not be.

i dont think people are "accustomed" to controlling Mother Nature. I mean, its MOTHER NATURE.. she has a pretty solid reputation of doing what she pleases.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Air conditioning, central heat, running water, irrigation, river dams and sea walls, and countless other little things bend Mother Nature to our will. Large scale weather control (or any, really) would only be the latest and largest of our techniques.

That said Texas' current rainy conditions are something that overwhelms our control, that just happens, like the earthquakes and hurricanes some people assign blame for to nefarious, mysterious cabals.

 

[deirdre]

Air conditioning, central heat, running water, irrigation, river dams and sea walls, and countless other little things bend Mother Nature to our will

touche. ok, i guess people dont understand what Mother Nature is.

 

[Katie Seas]

Just been reading up on flooding in Texas. If this flooding is weather warfare what about historical events? It appears the lone star state gets this type of events fairly regular.

The famous Texas flood is the 1935 one, the one that inspired the Stevie Ray Vaughan song (and thus a rather sweet sounding welsh rock band)
http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasRivers/Texas-Flood-of-1935.htm

In 1935, while Austin was receiving its deluge, San Antonio was hit even harder with 14.07 inches in May with 8.41 inches the next month. The stores around Alamo Plaza were flooded in late May and tiny D'Hanis, Texas reported a hard-to-believe 20-24 inches of rain in just 2 Hours and 45 Minutes. ..
Early to mid-June rains approached 20 inches in many other smaller communities from Uvalde to Austin. The Llano, Colorado and Pedernales Rivers all reached flood stage, affecting the cities of Junction, Llano, and Fredericksburg. On June 14 and 15 the Colorado River was just 1 foot below the record reached in July of 1869.

In recent years Texas has similar events in 2007, 2001 and 1998, and other major events going back to the 'Racers Storm of 1837' (records prior to 1830 are sketchy so I used that date as a start point) that resulted in heavy and / or widespread flooding in 1842, 1871, 1886, 1900, 1915, 1927, 1935, 1954, 1963, 1967, 1979, 1983, 1994 and 1996 (these are flood related events that caused a high death toll and / or heavy property damage, flooding to a lesser degree and other storm events happen most years) (info from here and other sources)

In fact reading back through the records it appears Texas gets its feet very wet every few years to greater or lesser degree, which fits the observed patterns for Atlantic hurricanes in general which seam to linked to The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is an Ocean current, with different modes on multi-decadal times scales, affecting the North Atlantic Ocean, and in particular sea surface temperature (SST). While there is some support for this mode in models and in historical observations, controversy exists with regard to its amplitude, and in particular, the attribution of sea surface temperature change to natural or anthropogenic causes, especially in tropical Atlantic areas important for hurricane development

So if this years flooding is 'weather warfare' what was causing all the other events going back over 180 odd years? Could it be that these 2015 floods are, like all the others, natural events and nothing to do climate engineering at all? I think so.

They don't believe in man-made climate change, yet they believe in this at the same time.

They don't believe in man-made climate change, yet they believe in this at the same time.

They don't believe in man-made climate change, yet they believe in this at the same time.[/QUOTE

Yes. Humans can't possibly change the climate, but when they do, they can make it do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Perhaps the difference is that one is an unintentional effect from billions of everyday folk just innocently living their lives, so it is less probable; but the other is an intentional act lead by the corrupt elite who rule the world for their own gain, so that makes it very probable.

Perhaps for some belief in climate change simply comes down to its source and underlying motives. (The innocent couldn't and wouldn't, but the evil would). Perhaps it comes down to how an individual views the world more than how they integrate facts or explain their own inconsistencies.

Nonetheless, chemtrail theory advocates and climate change scientists do agree - the climate is changing. The point of departure is who is responsible, why, and what to do about it.

Hopefully we can find common ground. And hopefully too our common ground is based on science and rational thought.

 

[Jeremy]

True. I think it's far easier to believe in this because it would have intent, unlike AGW. It's easier to believe in something that is somebodies fault than something that amounts to one huge unintended consequence.

There's also the political reasons behind not believing in AGW, but believing in geoengineering.