RE: Geoengineering In The Wake Of The Storm
This is one of the best posts I've yet seen about weather modification and geoengineering. I knew of some of these declassified programs, but not all of them. What I think is important to stress is that correlation is not causation. When we see something strange we can't explain, our primitive minds really enjoy jumping to conclusions, creating stories, and (in some cases) inventing a cause even if we don't have enough information to reliably do so.
It's unfortunate how many people enjoy a good conspiracy theory at the expense of reality. They promote claims which can sometimes be provably shown as false or at least logically inconsistent. That's what I appreciate so much about this post. You took an often misunderstood and miscommunicated (IMO) topic and used historical evidence and reliable sources to explain it.
That said, proof that weather modification programs have happened in the past does not automatically prove the weird things we see in the sky are, in fact, the same thing (or some future version of it). This is where things get tricky. I've yet to meet someone who believes strongly in widespread chemtrail programs who can reliably tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails. For example, when we see patterns in the sky similar to your image, is the assumption that, during that window, every single commercial airliner in that space at that time is participating in the spraying? I've seen some planes without a trail while those patterns were visible, but those planes were clearly at a much different altitude and from what I've researched, contrails form based on atmospheric conditions which can vary widely based on things like altitude.
I don't intend to debunk what you've posted here because, again, I respect the approach you've taken to be factual and keep your assumptions to a minimum. I just hope we can be careful about jumping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. As an example, I still occasionally see people talking about how HAARP is causing all this, without realizing it has been shut down for years. Epistemology is key. We have to have good mechanisms for understanding what real knowledge is and too often people who get stuck in rabbit holes of unproven claims fall into the trap of confirmation bias towards their already assumed position (including me!).
I hope more information becomes available on what is really going on so we can separate the facts from the fiction. Thanks again for writing such a great post on the topic.
If you have time Luke I recommend you watch the interview at the top of the linked page. I've been looking into geoengineering for years & the time I've spent looking into things that cannot be proven are ridiculous. The guy in the video appears to have found a very simple answer to what is happening using methods that we can check for ourselves. He breaks things down in very simple terms without the need to refer to chem bombs or HAARP for which there is no evidence (HAARP exists but no evidence it is being used to modify the weather). Unfortunately, the conclusions he reaches have mind blowing (for me) implications.
http://weatherwar101.com
Thank you Luke. I'm really glad you enjoyed this post.
I really did and I try to keep my assumptions to a minimum plus I try to always be careful to separate the facts speculation.
One thing maybe I should have mentioned is that no matter what geoengineering is going on or not going on, the Sun's is always the main input in the climate energy balance by many magnitude.
Geoengineering can only try to indirectly increase or decrease the influence the Sun has.
As advocate for decentralization I think we both can agree it would be preferable if the decision to use those kind of large geoengineering programs could be taken in a more decentralized and public way and would be more honestly and thoroughly discussed that it usually is.
Yes, but there are also some misconceptions about the sun's role (it's number two on this list of top climate change myths, for example). I've spent many hours on that site and suggest anyone else who wants to be taken seriously in the climate change debate do the same. It's well researched information.
And yes, I completely agree these things should be discussed honestly and openly. The assumption that people are too stupid to understand so we have to grow them like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them shit) is really frustrating.
Climate science is so complex.
Very well said.
Indeed it is. So is computer science, ecommerce, and cyber security. Funny enough, very few people offer up their opinions to me on what I know about my field of expertise for the last two decades.
And yet... when it comes to climate science, so many people have a strong opinion. Isn't that odd? Shouldn't the experts be given some benefit of the doubt, especially with light of what Exxon Mobile has been exposed with communicating internally verses what they communicated publicly regarding the climate science they funded?
Any way, not to derail the discussion too much... more accurate information is the key. Shine the light on reality and avoid false narratives. So important.
Thanks for being part of the solution instead of the problem. :)
it's like when people show analysis of rain water full of aluminium, barium, strontium and other heavy metals as proof for chemtrails. It's absolutely true that such technique exists (geoengineering) on a military scale but there's no proof that all commercial planes spray everyday everywhere. If the air is polluted, then the cause must be investigated, but until then we cannot conclude it is because of chemtrails. Maybe there are military planes flying everyday with this purpose but I think it is very unlikely that commercial flights do this. A commercial pilot explained when asked about chemtrails, that when they fly over a big ocean like pacific, they carry extra fuel as safety in case they need to change route. Before they land, they usually discard the fuel over the sea because they need to have a certain weight which is exactly calculated for the landing maneuver. Imagine if they had tons of chemicals on board, they would notice it and could not land with an exactly calculated weight.
Now I don't know the truth but I think we have to use logic and don't jump to early conclusion otherwise no one is going to take us seriously because maybe 1 in 100 conspiracy is actually true but then nobody is believing you.
Another interesting thing, I've observed those "chemtrail" are visible most of the time when the weather conditions are changing (ie. rain clouds nearing), but when the weather is stable like in summer there are no trails for weeks.
I too think it's unrealistic that any commercial flight could be part of geoengineering programs for many reasons.
This video with empirical evidence makes the most sense. Yes, indeed, our weather is being created by the controllers. This interview with Weatherwar101 explains what no other person, including Dane Wigington, can properly explaining: