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

Katie Seas

New Member
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

Senior Member.
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:


then go and research "brown ocean effect"

and "extratropical cyclones"
etc etc



CLAIM:
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.

image.png


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
But in truth all the models (as always happens with weather) were predicting different things.
sandy_models110452-525x400.jpg



stuff like that. and Welcome aboard!
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
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:


then go and research "brown ocean effect"

and "extratropical cyclones"
etc etc



CLAIM:
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
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

Senior Member.
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. :)


 

MikeG

Senior Member.
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. :)


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

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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 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).
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

New Member
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:


then go and research "brown ocean effect"

and "extratropical cyclones"
etc etc



CLAIM:
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
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!
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 

Katie Seas

New Member
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 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).
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

Active Member
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Renowned Physician Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
skephu Errors in the GeoengineeringWatch/LASG Lawsuit Notice of Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Steve Funk Geoengineeringwatch uses photoshopped image Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: Lack of "Cooling Zone" behind plane in Geoengineeringwatch Video. [Perspective] Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Marin B Climate scientist on man-made clouds General Discussion 0
mrfintoil Climate change forum section? Site Feedback & News 27
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
T Explained/Debunked: "Irrefutable Footage of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying" - Explanations? Contrails and Chemtrails 20
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 13
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Belfrey "Climategate" and "Censored" Data General Discussion 4
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Steve Funk Internationally Recognized Theoretical Physicist Acknowledges Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Mick West How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what? Practical Debunking 534
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Spongebob Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money? General Discussion 188
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Steve Funk The Climate Fixers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Contrails in Teacher's Climate and Weather Text Book Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 116
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 32
Mick West What Happened When Engineers Forgot The Earth Was Round Flat Earth 1
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
lee h oswald WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST? 9/11 9
Related Articles

















































Related Articles

Top