Image from Grok. [Cropped to fit]
The devastating floods in Texas over the July 4th weekend, which claimed 109 lives, including 27 girls at a summer camp, and left 180 people missing (at the time of writing), have once again sparked a heated debate on weather modification. Well-founded questions about cloud seeding causing heavy rainfall that led to the floods are dismissed by the experts featured in mainstream media. They acknowledge that a company performed cloud seeding nearby on July 2, but expect people to accept at face value its CEO’s statement that it did not “contribute to the floods that occurred over the region.”
Answers to those questions are unlikely to come soon (if at all) because the mainstream media is driven by a fanciful narrative written by globalist elites and supported by their leftist woke followers. They want us to believe that climate change is real and that ordinary people must be willing to give up their freedom for the greater good of the earth, while weather modification, which has been practiced for many decades, has no negative effects. There is hope, however, because many scientists are rebutting this insidious lie, and many states are legislating to ban weather modification and punish those who carry out such procedures with imprisonment and heavy fines. But before we get into that, a brief look at the history of weather modification and how it has been weaponized for both war and peace.
Weather modification began with rainmaking. In 1946, two scientists at General Electric Research Laboratories (GE) in upstate New York—Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir and his assistant Vincent Schaefer—discovered the principles of cloud seeding. They found that dropping dry ice into a cloud causes water droplets to turn into ice crystals that grow and induce rainfall. Their first demonstration was striking: Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cloud from a plane at 4,600 meters, resulting in artificial snowfall on Mt. Greylock, the highest point in Massachusetts.
Later, their colleague Bernard Vonnegut developed a method of seeding using silver iodide crystals, for which he received a 1947 patent. Since then, cloud seeding has been used to increase rainfall, reduce hailstone size, disperse fog, and disrupt enemy troops. Results have been mixed—there are no success stories of cloud seeding turning deserts into lush, green fields, though simple, steady drip irrigation has accomplished that. However, the unwarranted enthusiasm for seeding persists.
Peter Kirby, a researcher and author of Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project, says that cloud seeding marked the start of the weaponization of the environment. He claims that over a trillion dollars have been spent, hundreds of papers written, and thousands of studies published on weather modification, and yet the public remains unaware of the harm being done.
Cloud seeding is well known. But newer methods—such as geoengineering, aerosol injection into the stratosphere, management of solar radiation, and chemtrails—are not. Whenever these topics come up, experts tell people that such methods either don’t exist or aren’t being used. Suspicions or questions born out of fear or concern are dismissed as “conspiracy theories” or “bad science” in the mainstream media. Because of this, when ordinary people read about them, they tend not to think much of it. However, Kirby explains these topics in detail, offering plausible techniques and scenarios of CIA-controlled weather weaponization. He claims that such activities have blocked sunlight, reduced food production, and discusses how adding toxic materials to the atmosphere could be used as a military tool.
Dane Wigington, a climate scientist, says climate engineering is a key tool of the military-industrial complex. It has been used for over 70 years, impacting weather patterns, the food supply, biodiversity, and human health. In 1962, at Southwest Texas State University, then Vice President Lyndon Johnson stated that “He who controls the weather controls the world.” He advocated for America to develop a weather satellite to monitor and possibly control the cloud layer and weather itself. Referring to this statement, Wigington notes how Johnson, as president, approved Operation Popeye: the seeding of monsoon clouds in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam to cause landslides, disrupt river crossings, and support U.S. military efforts. He believes that undisclosed and officially denied climate engineering projects are still ongoing in our skies.
Thanks to scientists like Kirby and Wigington, the public is increasingly aware of climate engineering operations, and a movement to ban them has gained momentum. Thirty-one states have introduced or passed legislation to restrict such weather control efforts. These bills cite concerns about federal overreach—primarily exercised through the unelected, left-dominated bureaucracy in various agencies—and advocate for state sovereignty in environmental issues. They draw on the 10th Amendment, which clearly affirms the power of the people and the states.
Tennessee enacted a weather modification bill in 2024. Governor Bill Lee signed SB 2691/HB 2063, which bans the release of chemicals and substances into the atmosphere to influence temperature, weather, or sunlight. Further legislation—SB 1033/HB 1112—was approved this year to clarify and strengthen the ban.
In April, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 56, which bans geoengineering or weather modification. Violating this law is a third-degree felony and can lead to up to five years in prison and fines of $100,000. The law mandates that state environmental officials establish a system for residents to report suspected geoengineering activities and ensure they are investigated. Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who supported the bill, emphasized the health risks: “These planes release aluminum, sulfates, and other compounds with unknown and harmful effects on human health.”
A New Hampshire bill, the Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act (HB 1700 FN), not only bans the release of weather modification chemicals, but also prohibits excessive electromagnetic and microwave radiation. The bill is currently inactive and will need to be reintroduced and undergo the complete legislative process again.
Rhode Island’s Clean Air Preservation Act (SB 2540), introduced in March this year, aims to ban stratospheric aerosol injection, solar radiation modification, and other hazardous weather modification techniques. It proposes fines of at least $500,000, imprisonment for a minimum of five years, or both for violations. A committee has recommended further study before the legislature considers the bill.
Lawmakers in Louisiana have introduced several bills on climate engineering and energy policies. Both SB 46 and HB 608 ban the release of chemicals into the air to modify the weather, including methods like cloud seeding and solar radiation management. While the first was passed in June this year, the second failed (21 yeas, 72 nays) in April.
Last week, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced her plans to introduce legislation based on Florida’s SB 56. She tweeted on X that “no person, company, entity, or government should ever be allowed to modify our weather by any means possible,” and expressed her desire for clean air, clean skies, clean water, and sunshine “just as God created it.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a dedicated environmental lawyer and head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has begun an investigation into climate engineering. He is assembling a team of experts to study and discuss chemtrails, cloud seeding, and stratospheric aerosol injection, as well as what actions should be taken to ban them. As part of his Make America Healthy Again movement, he supports efforts by state governments to ban geoengineering and weather modification and has pledged to do everything in his power to stop them.
The reasoning behind ending these risky practices is solid. You can’t claim both that human and industrial activities are changing the climate dangerously, and that weather modification has no harmful effects. Wigington, in fact, argues that weather modification could have disastrous consequences. What we need now is the political and public will to stop climate engineering. Based on the number of bills being introduced in the states, there is reason for optimism.
@fquigley: I read through your comments below and found it difficult to figure out if you believe the scientists or the conspiracy theorists. I’d like to add my $0.02.
Our weather is a kind of balancing act. While it is winter in the northern hemisphere, it is cold in the southern and visa versa. This is the big balancing act. However, regional weather is similar. The average temperature is the midpoint of the game, and when manipulation is involved, we see unusual weather.
The most often reported weather catastrophes are in the USA. Southern California is used to droughts most of the time. It seems that they suddenly had flooding there earlier this year that was completely out of season and unexpected. At the same time, there were reports of lack of rainfall in Texas and New Mexico although seasonally, rain was expected.
These unusual weather events were the result of manipulations throwing the normal weather out of balance. Another phenomenon in the USA is the recurrence of hurricanes in larger than expected numbers. This comes about when the weather is manipulated west of Africa where hurricanes are born. They the cross the Atlantic and badly beat up the south eastern states.
Looking at this globally highlights the fact that countries, mostly their military units, have learned to influence the weather to the detriment of their opponents. If it is possible to cause heavy rainfall at the front in Ukraine, who cares if southern Europe experiences an unusual heatwave or heavy hail storms? The same kind of thing is going on all over the world and reports from the 3 Gorges Dam in China indicate that they are getting more than their fair share of heavy rainfall.
If we follow these “unusual weather” reports, we can almost always find that where one region is suffering, another is suffering the opposite weather. I can only suggest to watch the global picture rather than the smaller events.
Below is Part 1
Following is Part 2
Part 2
* Weaponization of Weather: While historical examples of weather modification for military purposes (like Operation Popeye) exist, these were limited in scope and effect compared to the vast claims of current “climate engineering” conspiracies. The article conflates historical, limited applications with grand, secret global control.
* “War on Weather Modification” as a Diversion:
* The Claim: Levy focuses on states introducing legislation to ban “weather modification” techniques, citing concerns about “federal overreach” and “state sovereignty.” She presents this legislative activity as a “war” gaining “momentum.”
* The Deception: This “war” serves as a powerful diversion. By creating an enemy (secret weather modifiers) and a battle (state legislation), the article redirects public concern away from the real and well-documented issue of anthropogenic climate change. It allows readers to feel empowered by “fighting” something tangible and nefarious, rather than confronting the complex and inconvenient truths of climate change that require systemic changes. The health risks cited by Surgeon General Ladapo (aluminum, sulfates) align directly with the “chemtrail” conspiracy, which has no scientific basis.
* False Equivalence and Contradiction:
* The Claim: “You can’t claim both that human and industrial activities are changing the climate dangerously, and that weather modification has no harmful effects.”
* The Deception: This is a straw man argument and a false dilemma. Scientists who understand anthropogenic climate change do not claim that “weather modification has no harmful effects.” In fact, legitimate discussions about geoengineering within the scientific community involve extensive consideration of potential risks and unintended consequences. The article uses this fabricated contradiction to undermine the credibility of climate science. It also falsely implies that the scientific community is somehow hiding weather modification effects while simultaneously promoting climate change.
Conclusion: How Deceitful It Is
Janet Levy’s article is profoundly deceitful. It employs several common tactics of climate change denial and misinformation:
* Attribution of extreme events to fringe theories: Blaming floods on unproven “weather modification” instead of considering established climate science.
* Conspiracy theorizing: Framing mainstream climate science as a “fanciful narrative” by “globalist elites” and promoting unsubstantiated claims about secret “chemtrails” and “climate engineering.”
* Misrepresentation of scientific consensus: Ignoring or dismissing the vast body of evidence and centuries of scientific understanding of climate processes.
* False equivalence and straw man arguments: Creating artificial contradictions to undermine legitimate scientific positions.
* Diversion: Shifting focus from human-caused climate change to a manufactured “war” against a shadowy, conspiratorial “weather modification” agenda.
By leveraging fear (of floods, secret operations, health risks) and appealing to anti-establishment sentiments (“federal overreach,” “state sovereignty”), the article seeks to undermine public trust in established science and redirect concerns towards unproven and often conspiratorial explanations. It actively works against the scientific understanding established over 160 years ago by Fourier, Foote, and Tyndall, continuing a long tradition of science denial.
Prompt: This is the full content of Levy article. We need to understand how deceitful it is.
Gemini: Let’s break down Janet Levy’s article in American Thinker, “The War on Weather Modification Gains Momentum,” to understand its deceptive nature, especially in light of established climate science.
Core Argument and Deception:
The central deception of this article lies in its attempt to attribute extreme weather events (like the Texas floods) to “weather modification” techniques (like cloud seeding, geoengineering, chemtrails) while simultaneously dismissing the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. The article uses a classic tactic of misdirection and false equivalence to sow doubt about established climate science.
Key Deceptive Elements and Their Analysis:
* False Link to Texas Floods and Cloud Seeding:
* The Claim: Levy immediately links the Texas floods to “well-founded questions about cloud seeding causing heavy rainfall.” She dismisses “mainstream media” experts who say it didn’t contribute, implying a cover-up.
* The Deception: While cloud seeding exists and is used for localized precipitation enhancement, there is no scientific evidence to suggest it can cause or significantly contribute to devastating, widespread floods of the magnitude seen in Texas. Extreme weather events are complex and are increasingly linked to a warming climate, which provides more energy and moisture for such events. Attributing a massive flood to a localized cloud seeding operation, especially when experts deny the link, is a form of scientific misdirection. It uses a grain of truth (cloud seeding exists) to promote a much larger, unsubstantiated claim (it caused the floods).
* Dismissal of Climate Change as a “Fanciful Narrative”:
* The Claim: Levy states, “mainstream media is driven by a fanciful narrative written by globalist elites and supported by their leftist woke followers. They want us to believe that climate change is real and that ordinary people must be willing to give up their freedom for the greater good of the earth.”
* The Deception (and Denial of Established Science): This is the core of the climate science denial.
* Fourier, Foote, and Tyndall’s Work (1820s-1860s): As you correctly pointed out, the fundamental science behind the greenhouse effect – how certain gases trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet – was established by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, Eunice Foote in 1856 (who specifically identified carbon dioxide’s significant heat-trapping ability), and decisively and irrefutably by John Tyndall in 1860. Tyndall’s experiments proved that gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb infrared radiation, leading to atmospheric warming. This is not a “fanciful narrative” but a well-understood physical process discovered over 160 years ago.
* Anthropogenic Warming: Subsequent research, building on this foundational work, has definitively linked the increase in these heat-trapping gases (primarily carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels) to human industrial activity and the observed warming of the planet.
* “Globalist elites” and “leftist woke followers”: This is conspiratorial language designed to delegitimize scientific consensus by associating it with political agendas rather than empirical evidence. It attempts to frame climate science as a political ideology rather than a scientific understanding of the Earth system.
* Elevation of Fringe Theories and “Experts”:
* The Claim: Levy highlights “scientists like Kirby and Wigington” who promote theories about “geoengineering, aerosol injection into the stratosphere, management of solar radiation, and chemtrails” as secretive, harmful, and military-industrial complex operations. She dismisses counter-arguments as “conspiracy theories” in the mainstream media.
* The Deception:
* Peter Kirby and Dane Wigington: These individuals are prominent figures in the “chemtrails” and “climate engineering conspiracy” communities, not recognized climate scientists whose work is published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals regarding these claims. While geoengineering concepts are discussed in scientific circles as potential future interventions (with significant ethical and practical concerns), the idea of widespread, covert “chemtrail” operations causing harm is a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory.
* Misrepresentation of “Conspiracy Theory”: The article attempts to flip the script, portraying legitimate scientific skepticism of unsubstantiated claims as “dismissing suspicions as ‘conspiracy theories’.” In reality, scientific inquiry demands evidence, and extraordinary claims (like secret, widespread atmospheric poisoning via “chemtrails”) require extraordinary evidence, which is entirely lacking.
Continue later