Some pedagogy on weather and climate

The temptation here is to look away, I know. Recent discussions going on here about weather control have left me a little flummoxed, as even as I know such things are possible, I do not imagine that our climate can be controlled. It is simply too big to manage. I am aware of things like cloud seeding, going on for decades, and HAARP, High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a mysterious array of satellite dishes in Alaska. In June of 2021 the city of Seattle experienced incredibly high temperatures, 108 degrees on one day, shattering all records. My eyebrows arched, as Seattle is in the vicinity of HAARP. The array, allegedly funded to study the ionosphere, or outer reaches of our atmosphere, was off-limits to aircraft at the same time that Seattle/Vancouver were frying, leading to suspicion that HAARP was active during that time. I only bring this up because I want to emphasize that I am not a stranger to weather modification. That’s weather, and not “climate.”

The reason I am writing this post and naming it “pedagogy” is that I am left coming out of these discussions about weather suspecting that many people do not know how to read and interpret graphs. I thought, if I could be so bold, that I would describe some graphs in my possession, from the book Extremes and Averages in Contiguous U.S. Climate, by Bob Tisdale. The book is a rich resource of hundreds of graphs. Tisdale has downloaded weather data for the lower 48 states for the period 1918-2018, and organized that data in graph form. That is what the graph above is: Nevada Temperature Indices Data for that time period. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, collects data, and since it is a government agency, that data is available to the public. As Tisdale says on the cover, his book is one that NOAA should have published, but hasn’t. The pressure put forward by the climate fanatics puts as lock on information as contained in the book, information that shoots down any notion of global warming. Tisdale realized that if the data would ever become public, it would only be by his hand.

I chose Nevada because that area of the country is currently experiencing drought. Later I will present drought indexes, and similar graphs for California and Arizona.

Take a look now at the graph above. There are two axes (plural of axis). The bottom, or horizontal, is the timeline, the data plotted on that axis labeled 1910-2030. Within that axis, all of the temperature data gathered by NOAA for the 100 year period 1918-2018 is plotted. The left, or vertical axis, is a range of temperatures recorded in Nevada during the time, from -5 to 95 F°. Because we are dealing with Nevada, we are dealing with high temperatures. The graph for Maine, for example, spans -10 to 85 F°.

In putting together the data in this manner, Tisdale is giving us a visual representation of Nevada temperatures, one that conveys a great deal of information. There are three lines, brown, purple and blue.

  • Brown: A visual presentation of the Highest Monthly Temperature Per Year. For each of the 100 years, Tisdale has taken the month where the highest temperature was recorded. He did this to see if there was a trend, more later.
  • Blue: The lowest monthly temperature within a year recorded. It is the opposite of the brown line.
  • Purple: The average of brown and blue.

The next part is critical to understanding the graph. The black lines within the graphs are the “moving average”, indicative of a trend over the 100 year period. At any point, say 1960 on the brown line (it looks like about 88 F°), the point on the black line represents the average of everything to the left. Note that the brown line trend is slightly upward – temperatures in Nevada have increased over this time period at the rate of 0.143 F° per decade. That, in one of the hottest states in the lower 48, is barely discernible. The same trend is observable in each of the other 47 states, a very modest, even slight rise in temperatures, nothing to be alarmed about, even beneficial. That is what the data says. The IPCC Climate Models, which claim that dangerous warming is going on, are not just wrong, but are deliberate lies behind which a monstrous agenda is hidden.

Note that the blue line, lowest monthly temperature in any given year, is a little steeper, 0.466  F° per decade. This shows that there is a warming trend in nighttime temperatures, more so than daytime. One might conclude that this indicates a warming climate, but if daytime temperatures are barely moving, then nighttime temperatures have to be affected by something other than the daytime warming trend. This has to do with expansion of cities, which are heat sinks, and addition of things like golf courses and pavement on highways, which collect and hold daytime heat into nighttime. This is again true of all of the lower 48 states.

An important concept to grasp: The moving average lines are straight lines, while the data lines are squiggly. The variations in temperature data from the moving average are known as “climate variability.” Because this is Nevada, there is not a lot of that, but enough shown on the blue line to illustrate the point: Extremes can happen anywhere at any time, but are not necessarily indicative of a trend. In the other graphs that will be presented at the end, you will see wild fluctuations in temperature, precipitation and drought. The climate fanatics love to latch onto extremes, such as the Seattle boil-over in June of 2021, as indicating a trend, usually ominous. That’s what they are paid to do – alarm us. All trend data is contained in moving averages. Highs and lows around that line are interesting, but not meaningful in the big picture. .

Finally, and this is critical to understanding these graphs: In assembling data, we cannot just willy nilly throw things together. Data collected must be relatable, that is, temperatures measured against against things related to temperatures, such as crop yields or stroke deaths, for example. We would not have anything useful if we graphed wine sales and apple harvests in, say, Oregon. In addition, the data cannot be random. Back in 1956 a group of mathematicians in a company called Western Energy came up with a series of tests used to judge whether or not data being presented as a moving average on a graph is relatable. These are called the WECO rules, and how they came about is above my pay grade. Rule number one, for instance, states that if any point on an axis is more than three standard deviations from the mean, then the data set is grossly out of control, and a moving average should not be applied.**

There are seven more rules at the link supplied here, very nicely illustrated and easy to understand.

**I wonder if the Seattle 108 degree day in a city that has an annual mean temperature of 52 degrees F° is more than three standard deviations from the mean of Seattle daily temperatures. If so, the temperature that day is such an outlier that in doing any statistical work on its temperature variations, the 108 F° day has to be regarded as grossly out of control. The alternative is to toss the entire Seattle temperature data base.

Moving on, we will deal with the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI).

As long as we are working with Nevada, below is a 100 year graph of the PDSI for that Nevada. It is a little hard to grasp, but as I view it is measuring soil moisture. High numbers are good, lower bad. I’ll explain a little better below the graph.

From the Tisdale book: “If the the PDSI dataset is new to you, The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) at Boulder, Colorado website provides a reasonably easy-to-understand overview of the metric. They begin:”

The Palmer Drought Severity Index uses readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness. It is a standardized index spans -10 (dry) to +10 (wet). It has been reasonably successful at quantifying long-term drought.

NOAA uses a scale of -4 (extreme drought) to +4 (extremely moist). That in mind, it is best to simply view the Tisdale graph and draw conclusions. Keep in mind that top of graph is moisture and bottom is absence of moisture, so that a declining line means a general increase in drought conditions. The high trend (green) line shows that PDSI has been increasing at .046 per decade over the last 100 years. The entirety of the moving average of the green line is contained between -2 and 2. NOAA qualifies that as “mid-range dryness, but not critical. The averages trend (red) line is also contained within that range, while the lows trend crosses into moderate drought.

What to make of it? Nevada is a dry state, but has not appreciably suffered droughts in the last 100 years. However, take a look at the variability – notice that in the 1930s (our hottest decade on record – do not listen to the alarmists), the drought index dropped to seven, extreme drought. Also note that since 1990s it has been dipping in the -4 to -6 range, meaning that drought conditions have been persistent during that time, with years of extreme moisture (green) in between, making the whole situation tolerable. The long term trend, however, is dryer.

Maybe this visual is a little easier to understand that graphic presentations. Dark brown is the worst drought conditions, and white the best. The entire West is a drought-prone region, so I do not know how to evaluate a drought in a drought-prone region. The scuttlebutt I am picking up in the comments is that this is a weather control phenomenon. PDSI for Nevada says otherwise, that we’ve yet to approach what happened in the 1930s. I will also present PDSI charts below for California and Arizona through 2018 below. The “experts” who give us this data claim this drought will last until 2030. They don’t know that.  They cannot know that. It is in the realm of the future. They are just feeding their own confirmation bias, presuming a level of expertise that requires we genuflect before them. I don’t do that with experts, ever, except Chainsaw Bob. They are telling us that that the climate is changing and man, it’s just getting worse all the time. It is not, that is, climate is always changing, but life on our planet, thanks to the CO2 we’ve put in the atmosphere, is getting better.

California was extremely dry in the 1920s, 1970s, 1990s, and in 2014. (California is drought-prone, by the way.) But years of drought are usually followed by moisture aplenty. It would be nicer to live on the moving average lines, but for that state, it is literally feast or famine. Thus has it always been.

Arizona saw extreme drought in the 1930s, 1950s, 1990s and 2000s. Again, observe the green line. Moisture does return.

So here is my question: If you are claiming that we are weather-controlled, please pinpoint on the PDSI graphs those years that were controlled, and those not. What I see is a general long-term trend towards a dryer climate in our Southwest, that trend a hundred years long and starting well before satellites or whatever devices imagined to be used to control weather. I am not buying it.

I am going to toss some more graphs your way, both temperature and precipitation for the three states selected. Nevada temperatures are at the very top of this long post.

California temperatures, highest trend is an increase of 0.115 F° per decade over the last 100 years. That is barely perceptible. Again note a steeper trend in the evenings, and note the reason: Highways, cities, golf courses, aka heat traps.

California precipitation – long term trend shows an increase of .115 inches per decade. Note the wild variability.

Arizona temperatures have increased 0.215 F° per decade over the last 100 years. Again, barely perceptible.

Arizona precipitation is basically a flat line. Again, look at the crazy variability.


What to make of it?

I admit, climate is confusing. To understand it better, we need to look at long-term trends. Temperatures are barely climbing, have been relatively stable for the last 100 years. There is no global warming in our lower 48, probably nowhere else either. Precipitation in most places in the lower 48 is on the rise, and that’s been a long-term trend. Drought, at least in the Southwest, a recurring phenomenon, appears to be intensifying, at least according to PDSI. You might notice then that the Southwest is home to some massive water projects. I flew over Glen Canyon Dam in 2019, and could not believe how immense it is. Of course, it is draining, which is why it is there, to serve us in droughts. If history is any indication, the drought will end in the not-too-distant future, and rains will return in plenitude. Then there will be another drought.

I wanted to dispel the notion of weather control, and especially of climate control. Of course they can do small projects, as with Seattle/Vancouver in June of 2021, probably HAARP-related. But in terms of the climate? In terms of the drought in our Western States? It is beyond human control. We must live with it.

60 thoughts on “Some pedagogy on weather and climate

  1. I used to use the word “control” when talking about the weather.
    As a whole – we do not control, we can however, affect the weather.

    Through Hook Or By Crook
    Weather modification? Sure!
    Control? Nope!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I guess I will have to do a follow-up with the Greenland and Antarctica ice core studies, remarkable projects that I need to understand better, proxy studies on our long-term temperature trends. The general thrust: We are in an interglacial period, and overall, we are cooling. This kind if stuff affects the temperate zones, the tropics still happy and dancing, like always. Overall, most generally speaking, the northern hemisphere suffers during the times outside interglacial periods from cold more so than the southern because there is so much more land mass up here. Oceans tend to be stable. So even now, while in the Northern Hemisphere glaciers are receding (a good thing, by the way), in the south they are not. Avoid all experts, except Chainsaw Bob.


      1. What about the intense lightening and huge hail folks are filming all over the world? What about tornadoes now hitting areas that never got them before, not getting them annually? What about the mass flooding that’s unprecedented with storms parked over major cities for days at a time, again and again? What about the ‘new’ clouds named that didn’t exist before? What about weather warfare, which we know has occurred and was so devastating they ‘banned’ it? What about spreading persistent ‘con’ trails?


        1. I have seen intense lightning and huge hail. I think it was 1957 that my hometown of Billings MT was hit by a tornado that gave us all of that and high wind, doing millions of dollars in improvements. (That’s a joke.) The point is that there is nothing new under the sun, especially in regard to weather. I was going to mention a huge hail storm here in 2012 that cost us a new metal roof, or our insurance company, anyway. Because the storm was widespread, we were declared a disaster area, and all claims inside that area were paid in full less deductibles. I did not mention the 2012 storm as I imagined you might assert that it was human-caused. So I used 1957.


          1. I understand that weather chaos has always happened, I really do. The thing is now the frequency. It’s not just a matter of more media coverage, they really are exacerbated now. Also, the experiments on the weather have been going on for over 70 years. I personally believe the Wizard of Oz tornado scene was meant to normalize what they were already working on and practicing with in limited areas.
            I’ve seen a lightening bolt strike the same place from my front porch 2 dozen times in a row. If this was a normal and regular occurrence, how is it our ancestors did not write about such things? Our area was never known for tornadoes and we have them in our county somewhere every year now. One segment of the media is trying to normalize all this and the other is trying to sensationalize it.


  2. Studying the climate without studying weather modification is like studying war without studying battle. How do you get good modeling I wonder, when you don’t account for weather mod? Garbage in, garbage out. There are companies who could stop the droughts, why don’t they?


    1. I provided the data for a small sector of the US that is experiencing drought and asked you to specify, based in the NOAA data, where exactly weather modification is shown to exist. If you assert it is happening, then you must show how and where. (“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Hitchens Razor))


        1. Thanks. I did a brief spin through. I do distinguish between weather and climate. I will insert one graph here for demonstration purposes only.

          That’s a 100 year record of precipitation in California. Follow the blue line, see how erratic it is. The distance between blue points and the black liine is called climate variability. We do not have to manufacture such volatility. What Tilden has done is to reduce that volatility to one straight black line.

          I think the trouble I have with weather modification is that weather is already seemingly random, so that I do not think that anyone can point to any event and say it is human-caused. I say that with full knowledge that Seattle/Vancouver in June of 2021 is an eye-opener, and I might need to be enlightened.


          1. I experienced that heat spike from Central Washington state which is typically warmer. It reached 114 at least at one point,I was sitting in the shade on my lawn in front of a portable swamp cooler during the peak both days around 3pm and remember watching flies fall out of the air on the sidewalk and die. Was tough on the livestock as well, especially those that were ready to slaughter waiting to be moved and got caught exposed according to some of my aquintinces in the industry. Would never give me an exact answer on deathtoll or which areas specifically.


            1. That is an unexplained anomaly, and, I am suspicious, some malevolent experimentation. But I don’t understand HAARP, so my suspicions are ignorant speculation, nothing more. But thank you for chiming in, some much needed on-the-ground reporting.


      1. Again, please go to those who are doing the actual research, I’ve tried to provide many names over the course of this conversation. Please allow me to repeat where I get my information on these topics, as I am not an expert, do not and never have claimed to be an expert and follow this topic as a layperson and a victim of these experiments. You will need to do your own research and come to your own conclusions from that. Dane Wigington ( Jim Lee ( 1PacificRedwood YT channel. The work of the late Rosalind Peterson who focused on agriculture. NeverLoseTruth is another channel with a lot of compilations on her Weather Mod playlist. Peter Kirby is known for his “The New Manhattan Project” book. There are many more I’m missing, there is so much material out there on this. But that should give you a great start! Happy exploring!


  3. MT,

    I think I am inching closer to the heart of this conundrum (meaning, the disconnect between the execution of geoengineering and the scientific validity of its impact), with this 2008 analysis, “An Overview of Cloud Seeding” . . .

    Despite the evidence that geoengineering has been overtly implemented (notwithstanding classified projects), proof of impact is sorely lacking.

    From the 2008 paper I linked above:

    Efficacy of cloud seeding

    Cloud seeding experiments in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia and overseas have produced mixed and often disputed results. As a consequence, cloud seeding has been and continues to be, a fairly controversial issue.

    It is generally accepted by experts that, under suitable circumstances, cloud seeding can enhance precipitation-forming processes in clouds and result in an increase in precipitation at ground level. The level of success however, is critically dependant on local conditions including the geography, topography, cloud origin and type, wind direction and the nature of background aerosols.

    It is also accepted that it is very difficult to prove results “on the ground”, largely due to the need to detect a change in rainfall due to seeding (known as a seeding signal) against already high level of spatial and temporal variability of rainfall.

    If I may be so bold and controversial, I would like to suggest that it may actually be in the interest of governments and the global military-industrial complex to present geoengineering as inconsequential and non-efficacious, so as to “go dark” with their efforts, and continue them as black projects.

    My sense is that if the central planners wanted us to know that their weather modification projects were efficacious, they would indicate as such. I suggest that they want us to stay “in the dark” when it comes to the potential efficacy of their efforts – including their real motives for implementing them – which may have little to do with controlling weather, and more to do with modifying the earth to alter humanity in body, mind, and spirit – AKA ushering in a post-human society amidst a terraformed earth – influenced primarily by algorithms, coefficients (, nanotechnology (, and electromagnetic skullduggery ( and

    Thus, there will be no proof-of-concept material being handed to us.

    In this case, I can only conclude, MT, that your task is an impossible one; we have no way to prove on-the-ground impact of weather modification – on either the “climate,” nor the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the living beings on this earth. Essentially, it is a trick question, and there can be no winners. We all lose regardless, as it is clear that geoengineering is occurring – even on a small scale (as admitted) – and that is not a win for us, nor Mother Nature. The zealous engineers simply cannot let Nature be. They never will, as they consider her a force to be conquered.

    So, with that said, I want nothing more than to be very, very wrong about weather modification. I will hope that you are very right – that the weather whiplash (and milky white skies, and tic-tac-toe grid lines in the sky) we experience in our neck of the woods is all naturally occurring. Unfortunately, at this time (following a few days of extensively reviewing the literature), I perceive no indisputable way of determining what observable weather is natural, or artificially induced, or otherwise.


    1. We’ve had this discussion privately, so I won’t bore you with repetition. We’ve had two departures now of regular commenters, so married are people to weather modification. If it is there, if it is happening, it will manifest in changes in climate, Climate, and people get angry when I say this, is not changing. Climate variability is the mystifying force that distracts people from that simple fact.

      Please read both BarbM and my response down below for a bigger better answer.


  4. I don’t believe in weather modification. Chemtrails are probably just poison from the chemical industry sprayed on high altitude in order to dilute it and make it less poisonous that way.Every time they collect so called rare earths they have to scrap very small amounts of something which in small amounts is not poisonous but once collected becomes very poisonous. Then it gets used up, which means chemically changed, and even more poisonous and has to be diluted again because you know, the amount makes the poison. They put it in rivers back then for this purpose which killed all the fish and led to things like Ebola. I remember the Rhine and Mine river here to be dirty and stinking and sometime in the early 90-s they stopped to put their sewage in there and it became clear within few years. And now you can even eat the fish from that rivers. As for the weird weather, it is not weird at all. I mentioned it before, it is this constellation of the main planets which draws lots of energy from the Sun letting less energy reach the Earth. That’s why we have cold summers and mild winters and that’s why in Australia there is lots of rain now, if it even is true. It happened before we just don’t remember that anymore. Also the famous Sahara dust, we had recently again. I first thought it is something artificial but the Swiss have records of similar things from the 70-s, also there are reports from past centuries describing red snow falling, which probably had the same reason. We now have cold winds since October here with very few exceptions. The sun is strong and hot but the air still stays cold. The winds and tides come from planets rotation and from astronomical influences. It’s all connected. It is just that nobody looks after it because the official science sticks to the fake climate change dogma.
    What they do is the same thing the priests did in the time of Pharaohs when they calculated the time of eclipse and pretended to be responsible for it.


    1. Thanks, BarbM, I needed a boost. The case for weather modification does not turn up in climate, which is nothing more than weather over an extended period. I certainly understand that people want to try to control weather, but do they succeed? All I asked in the PDSI graphs was to show me where weather is under control, and all I got in return was anecdotes.

      By the way, you make a strong point about the sun and heat, how the planet manages to stay inhabitable even as we are bathed in heat from above. I suspect there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of our solar friend. I’ve read tracts regarding the electric universe, how mainstream physics gets everything wrong. As I’ve seen so much fraud in other areas of “science,” like virology and nutrition and allopathic medicine and its vaccines, it would not surprise me if mainstream physics and astronomy and cosmology are just additional bullshit.

      By the way, the Tisdale graphs: Anthony Watts has done yeoman’s labor in various areas, one of which is to track down every measuring station in the country from which the NOAA temperatures are derived. He claims something like 95% of them are in heat sinks, as on the tarmac of airports or on city cement, which is why nighttime temperatures appear to be accelerating even as daytime temps are stable. What I take from that is that even the very modest temperature trends shown in his upper graphs of hottest days month by month moving averages are exaggerated. We are warming in a barely perceptible manner, and even less so that the NOAA data tells us. We are in the Holocene Interglacial Period, and as Antarctic ESVs remind us, these period of warmth are intermittent, lasting 10-15,000 years. We are currently 11,650 years in, and as Greenland GISP’s indicate, our overall trend is cooler. We’ve had the best of warming now.


      1. well, there still is some science in “science”. I think, “inhabitable” is what comes out of the law of nature. It’s in the way, the nature developed on the Earth. I remember from my biology lessons a certain order, which is independent from the evolution theory which is just a theory and only valid in some short perspective if ever. First there came the single celled organisms, after there’s been enough carbohydrates on Earth for them to feed. They fermented it into carbon dioxide. Fermentation does not leave enough energy for organisms to differentiate. When there was to much of carbon dioxide the nature somehow invented photosynthesis where organisms use solar energy in chlorophyll to produce oxygen out of carbon dioxide. This left much more energy left and plants spread everywhere. But then there was to much oxygen in the air and nature invented mitochondria who can process the oxygen which gives them even more energy than photosynthesis to differentiate and animals came into existence. After there was dead matter form all the dead animals nature invented fungus who can oxidize (win energy from) dead matter. Whenever the conditions change, the life forms change too. When we would get more carbon dioxide, we automatically would have more plants. There is an certain altitude visible on mountains where plants stop to grow due lack of carbon dioxide. Not because of low temperatures. There are regions in the north of very low temperatures the entire year and plants still keep growing there. I remember the potato beetle plague from my youth. It was said the capitalists did that to destroy the communists but it was just due to mono cultures implemented after the war to feed the population. They planted potato on huge areas for years because it is so easy to grow, the nature answered with proper insects. After they started to plant potato alternately with wheat the beetle disappeared. They claim it was due to some pesticide but they used this pesticide before and it did not really help.


    2. Barb,

      Placing aside the validity (or lack thereof) of the impact of weather manipulation on the overall climate (which is, indeed, debatable); we know, by their very own admissions, that weather modification does, in fact, occur.

      From this site:
      “The practice of precipitation enhancement in Santa Barbara County has been used for over 40 years and has proven to be a cost effective and positive addition to our water resources management goals and objectives.” ~ Matthew Scrudato, Senior Hydrologist, SB County

      Again, we can certainly dispute if their “precipitation enhancement” tech has proven to be impactful on the weather over time/en masse, but to claim that their tech is fake or a hoax seems unfounded.

      Here is hydrologist Matthew Scrudato (associated with the Weather Modification Association) explaining ground-based cloud seeding (he begins around 4:50 timestamp):

      Following is a corporate member in Germany (of which there seem to be 24 members globally) of the Weather Modification Association (

      Cloud Seeding Technologies
      Attn: Frank Kasparek
      Burgenstr. 22, 71116 Gaertrinngen, GERMANY
      Ph. +49-7034-2379948
      Malte Neuper


      1. Maybe it was poor wording on my part that led us down this detour. My contention is that climate has not been affected by weather modification. If indeed precipitation has been “enhanced” in Santa Barbara County for forty years, that would be a positive impact on that county’s climate. How do they know, however. They would need a control experiment run along side their enhancements, whatever they may be.


        1. I completely agree that Climate Change is a hoax and a tool used by TPTB to affect change (bad) on our way of life. But weather modification is real and being used extensively in my opinion. I watch the jets crisscross the skies with trails almost everyday here in Central Oregon. They regularly spray ahead of and into storms to reduce the precipitation here and save the moisture for super storms to the east. As OREGONMATT said in a previous post, we almost never get the amount of rain that is forecast anymore. Here is a company in the UAE that sells this as a service.

          I hope not to be divisive, especially since I am new to commenting, but there is a lot of evidence out there that it is possible to do. The “why” has to do with the land grab that is the great reset imo.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The implications of this incredibly disturbing NSF report (from 1965) are astonishing – not only with respect to land grabs, but in terms of eugenics and social engineering (not to mention the overt indications – see p. 11 for one example – that weather engineers be “indemnified” from any harm resulting from their field experimentation (sound familiar? cough, cough, vaccine manufacturers): And I won’t even attempt to address the esoteric implications therein (RE: The brothers Vonnegut/Bergeron – see p. 1).


        2. MT,

          I am on the same page – I do not perceive that weather modification has significantly altered the climate. I do not see enough evidence of climate change (per sé) – whether by natural, or artificial/technological means.

          What I do see evidence of is weather manipulation – resulting in weather whiplash (including both erratic weather, as well as unexplained weather events – being referred to as “natural disasters”). Yes, I do believe these disasters can be planned – even if only steered in certain ways/directions (via exploiting the precise monitoring of the jet stream//precipitation/wind/temperature patterns).

          Receiving more than 10 inches (up to 3 inches per hour) during Hurricane Ida was nothing natural. It was weather warfare, pure and simple. Call it a hunch. I have no hard-core evidence to demonstrate that radar/microwave toys were responsible ( – although it was theorized ( Climate change had nothing to do with it; and I saw no evidence that astronomical (nor astrological) alignment caused it either.

          Weather modification is dual-use. The system only reveals what it considers to be the “positive” applications: and


        3. Man-made clinate change is not only real, it is provable.

          What is the hoax, is man-made global climate change. That is impossible, simply because we are way too small vs GAIA’s System Earth, including the atmosphere (Flat Earthers have a loooot to explain also on this topic….).

          If climates are defined by classifications, such as the widely used Köppen classification, then local climate changes have happened, due to human activity.

          Aridification to the extreme (BS to BW climate), rearrangements of waterways (mostly for hydropower, after fossil fuels the most important energy source atm), urbanization (that my father-in-law experienced here from 500 k to 10 MM in 6 decades) etc. Etc.

          But these have nothing to with CO2 (the psientific psyop), cannot be solved with climate taxes (robbery psyop), climate bonds (money scam psyop) or our collective guilt as normal non-industrial owners or statist mofos (psychological psyop, a tautology but psycho operaration then?).

          Once you see the hinges on which a grand narrative fails and the psyops that make the total, you recognize these patterns in other psyops.

          Hence why Patho Liverani’s staunch beliefs in the moonlanding shows ate so hilariously stupid.

          For those interested in discussing (making value of, instead of these useless tomorrow our of sight blog comments) the Biggest and Badassesed Hoax of all time, and especially the expotential (thank you learnstar) that it gives US, who have a Fair and Fertile Future ahead of us, join the Discord. I am gaining more attention and respect, and that means we have to capiralize on the good paths I and my trusted friends are hacking, so catch on to our successes !

          If you work on that actively that is.


  5. It gets a bit buried, but this is a crucial point and applies with any data and graph interpretation, so the word pedagogy is aptly chosen.

    Finally, and this is critical to understanding these graphs: In assembling data, we cannot just willy nilly throw things together. Data collected must be relatable, that is, temperatures measured against against things related to temperatures, such as crop yields or stroke deaths, for example. We would not have anything useful if we graphed wine sales and apple harvests in, say, Oregon. In addition, the data cannot be random. Back in 1956 a group of mathematicians in a company called Western Energy came up with a series of tests used to judge whether or not data being presented as a moving average on a graph is relatable. These are called the WECO rules, and how they came about is above my pay grade. Rule number one, for instance, states that if any point on an axis is more than three standard deviations from the mean, then the data set is grossly out of control, and a moving average should not be applied.

    There are many possibilities in your own lives to train yourself in statistics, correct data handling, plotting and interpretation.

    As always, start with yourself. It is objectively ridiculous if you know more about the Rothschild/Kardashian families than about your own family.

    Those Clowns should be NPC, your own family history is there to be studied, and offers a perfect opportunity to train in proper data handling.

    This, Mark, is exactly an area where you the expert should teach us, the paidein, children, so more of these important reminders help humanity forward.

    Much more important than conspie theory, why do you guys keep reacting like Pavlov dogs…?


  6. I should amend my stance regarding human effects on climate – of course we affect it. For instance, atop Kilimanjaro the snow is disappearing. The reason is poverty, that is, deforestation down below, and not enough natural moisture from those forests migrating up there. But the temperature up there has remained the same. At this point, I am ready to concede that humans affect weather, both deliberately and incidentally. My wording of the issue, reducing the matter to deliberate attempts to affect weather, successful or not, was ill-chosen.

    Humans could restore the snows of Kilimanjaro by encouraging Africans living below to convert to coal, oil and natural gas, maybe even hydroelectric and nuclear. But international agencies like World Bank won’t lend for those purposes, and instead want them to “leap frog” to solar and wind. Oxymoron, anyone?


    1. Unless one thinks all of this is a hoax, including the 1974 top secret hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, proof of strategic weather modification can be seen in Operation Popeye rolled out in Vietnam under the slogan – make mud, not war. There used to be a State Department document that spoke of its efficacy, but that link seems to have been scrubbed. Nevertheless taken as a whole, the US weather warfare plan seems to have met its goals in 1967.

      Operation Popeye 1967 per State Department Correspondence

      Click to access CHRG-93shrg29544O.pdf

      Weather as Force Multiplier – Air War College 1996

      Click to access ADA333462.pdf

      It’s notable that this history is readily available and yet somehow still seems to be a third rail even as we are onboarding block-chained climate “change” management and water regulation.


      1. One of the links provided above from Alison led me to this Air Force report in 1969, which asserts a significant distinction: From p. 1:

        It is useful to start out by differentiating between climate modification and weather modification. The former concerns changes effective over large areas and long periods of time . . . Weather modification, the subject of this report, refers to the alteration of weather phenomena over a limited area for a limited period of time.

        It seems to me that the two can be mutually exclusive. In that case, I wonder if discussion of climate (or fallacious “climate science”) is obscuring the real story behind weather modification objectives.


  7. Someone mentioned Oregon and troubles with contrail/chemtrails. I wanted to add Oregon to the list of graphs from Tisdale.

    I was initially surprised that Oregon is drought-prone, but then I remember driving there, that the Eastern part of the state is very dry and can be very hot. There was an extended drought in the 1930s, during the Dust Bowl. 1977 was a whopper. The 1990s to present have shown repeated droughts.

    Oregon’s temperature, according to NOAA, has risen at the rate of .254 F° per decade. That means that over the hundred years shown, Oregon would have had increases in average daytime high temperatures of 2.54 F°. That’s minimal and not harmful.

    Oregon’s precipitation is basically flat line these past 100 years. Note the highs and lows of the green lines. That is a visual representation of climate variability.


    1. MT,

      I have admitted to you that I do not like graphs, and I do not grasp their significance.

      Even so . . . Why am I reminded of this when I see all of Tisdale’s graphs?

      Is Tisdale dazzling us with data? What is his real intention? Why is he so closely connected to atmospheric scientist Judith Curry? Why is Judith Curry so enamored with cloud physics and kinetics, ice nucleation, extreme wind dynamics, microwaves, and radiation? She shares much in common with early weather modification predecessors (namely, Irving Langmuir and Bernard Vonnegut Why is her Russian collaborator (, Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov, intimately involved in weather modification?

      My super sniffer detects gatekeepers who are obfuscating – planted to keep our eyes on a silly, polarizing narrative about climate change, while they may potentially go about applying advanced plasma physics (, and implementing their dastardly (and toxic) weather warfare strategies. I have more questions than answers. But Tisdale and Curry seem awfully suspect. What are they omitting from purview, and why?


      1. That’s all a bit disheartening. I see nothing in Tisdale’s work, which only a very few wonk’s like me will ever see or appreciate, that would justify labeling him a “gatekeeper.” I spend days and weeks sifting through data, trying to evaluate who is real, who is fake. What you appear to be saying is that everyone is fake (except those you know personally?). Tisdale’s work agrees with my eyes and ears. As I say repeatedly, all you need to know about Climate Change can be understood by sticking your head out your car window. Nothing has changed, even appreciably.

        Judith Curry has always been a few tads above my pay grade. But I appreciate her work and do not suspect her authenticity. Life is short.

        You and I and tens of thousands of others have known from the outset that Covid was fake, and later I came to understand that the whole of virology is a myth. It is comforting to be among friends in that regard. Of course they can graph a hoax. But visual representations of data are, to me, extremely informative and valuable, if you have eyes for it. I’ve been around such things most of my adult life. If you really want to have some giggles, check out Demetri Martin, who shows us some graphs that are actually quite real, and very funny.


        1. MT,

          Demetri slaying the graph bit is a treat. Thank you for that injection of humor.

          To clarify my position . . .

          1) I am not claiming that Tisdale is lying with his data. His data most likely checks out.
          2) I am not claiming Tisdale is fake; but, implying, rather, that he keeps very curious company (ultra-conservative funders/think tanks and weather modifying engineers); and I notice potential signals/tells of a Cointelpro operation (seems apparent when individuals link back to the Brothers Koch).
          3) I think that the climate debate is a false dichotomy based on a false narrative – an intentionally polarizing psyop designed to create two camps – climate change believers/”realists” vs. climate change skeptics/”deniers”. I avoid all such discussion – including data presented to support either “side.”
          4) I think the climate debate psyop (with strategically placed gatekeepers/controlled opp) was placed in the consciousness to prevent genuine scrutiny of the military-industrial-NGO-think tank complex, and its toxic experimentation on the earth and all of its inhabitants.

          When I see the bark falling off many of our trees, the wild deer full of tumors on their bodies, the birds that seem disoriented (and continually fly into our windows), the local waterways constantly overflowing, and consistent night-time temps hovering at 29 degrees (despite heading into May), I do not think of “climate.” Instead, I consider the permeation of toxic chemicals in the air, in the water, and on the land. It is documented that dangerous nanoparticulates are now showing up in our environment. We are being harmed. We are being experimented on. We are being modified – via injections in our bodies, and injections in our environment. The climate dispute (conjured by the central planners) has no bearing on my position.

          I would hope that there are no POM readers who “believe” in “climate change.” I think it is understood to be a myth.

          However, when I consistently see “climate change deniers” (the ostensible opposition) intimately associated with atmospheric scientists who engage in weather modification, my eyes and ears perk up. Why the close relationship? I think it is a legitimate question.

          Here is only one example:

          The author of Climate Miracle: There is no climate crisis
          Nature controls climate
          is Dr. Edwin Berry.

          From Berry’s bio:

          He was chief scientist for Nevada’s Desert Research Institute airborne research facility. He led pioneering research flights into Alberta hailstorms and Sierra Nevada mountain storms. He designed the first airborne, earth-referenced radar that predated modern GPS instruments.

          He was the only civilian in a Department of Defense top-secret weather modification project in southeast Asia.

          Berry was the National Science Foundation’s Program Manager for Weather Modification, where he managed the Metropolitan Meteorological Experiment (METROMEX), National Hail Research Experiment, and other university research projects.


          1. Returning briefly to willful weather modifier Ed Berry:

            The DoD top-secret weather modification project (weather warfare operation) referenced above was Operation Popeye:

            In 1969, Dr. Pierre St. Amand of the Naval Weapons Center invited Berry to be the only civilian consultant in DOD’s Top-Secret Operation Popeye. Berry and St. Amand taught USAF pilots how to produce rain from tropical clouds near the Philippines. USAF pilots used these methods to wash out the Ho Chi Min trail and other targets in Laos and North Vietnam.


            1. One more tidbit on Ed Berry (from his CV linked above):

              His custom software application, written in Microsoft Visual Basic, modeled human body physiological responses to changing weather and environmental conditions.

              This gets to the heart of my premise: Weather modification/warfare is not about changing “climate”; rather, it is intended to monitor/alter the human being. Our physiology (mind/body – and potentially “spirit”) is inextricably linked to the environment/weather. Change the weather —> change the human body/mind. Weather modification has everything to do with eugenics, and control (not necessarily reduction) of the human race (as well as all of Nature).


            2. I have found that the two organizations that openly dispute climate change are Heartland Institute and Cato (don’t quote me on the latter) lean very much to the right. So Tisdale having those kinds of connections does not surprise me. I am very much enamored of the people I’ve become familiar with via Heartland. I’ve read their books, seen them crucified in public, and enjoy their warmth and humor. I am at heart a “conservative” in the classic sense, thinking change should be slow and cautious, that we should adhere to traditional values like family, even religion, though it is not for me. Where they lose me is their economics. But I’ve a hard time thinking any of them besides Marc Marano (because of the MM) are plants or agents. Maybe they are being used, and if so, use away! If so, it is an intellectual choice.

              Regarding weather manipulation, you won that argument, and kudos on that. It was a leap forward for me, much needed.


                1. I’ve been blogging for a long time and honestly, do not invest enough ego in things I (mistakenly) believe to walk away with hurt feelings when I was merely wrong. Happens, happens often.


              1. Mark-

                You have reinforced the understanding of “climate variability” as a fact of life, past and present, with the material you presented. Good stuff. My position on weather modification/manipulation is not in conflict with that reality. Attempting to exacerbate drought in a drought prone area, for example, does not equate to climate change, and the ripple effects possibly felt elsewhere also do not equate to climate change….but of course, all of those effects will be blamed on “climate change”.

                I enjoyed the graph-reading humor. Here’s my contribution to the injection of humor here, a clever song written by one of the most talented (ever) mandolin players.

                If you want to hear more from this guy, try this collaboration, a song that is being used as my current dance improv/exercise piece.


          2. Thank you for the Conan – I loves me some Conan. Have you every listened to his Podcast, Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend? He’s done a couple of hundred now. The guy is so naturally funny that each one is a treat. If you find them, go back a couple of years to him and Kevin Nealon – I laughed very hard at that one. Nealon is a treat too.


          3. Steph – on the point about “they are harming us,” this goes back to the question MT raised, and others often do, about the indiscriminate, broad spectrum nature of such assaults. It cries out for an answer as to why they would subject themselves and their children to such a thing. I’m not saying it’s dispositive, and multiple scenarios could be imagined to explain it – but they are very speculative as far as my information goes.

            MT – On this point, I was wondering if you could expand on your thoughts about Noam not being vaxxed. How would this work practically speaking? What “class” is he in, per se? My thinking is that master propagandist fronts like himself would be drawn from (maybe) anywhere they could get them – but most likely to come from the upper middle class and upper class. I am not certain that the upper middle class are really exempt from such things as vaxxing, unless they are just personally aware. I could more easily imagine that true hidden wealth would be exempt – but remember not everyone is as talented as Noam, so it needs a large pool to produce one of him. Hence drawing on those lower down – maybe his vax damage is why he’s such a manically driven propagandist even into advanced age…!


            1. I am obviously not in his head, and operate on the assumption that vaccination is a class weapon aimed at us, but not at insiders, like Noam. It might be part of their remarkable longevity, David Rockefeller living to 101, Noam currently 93, though not looking that great. But I have no insider knowledge. I am all assumption, no fact.

              Noam’s been on the front lines in gatekeeping on every major event-of my life, Covid just one more.


              1. After the revelations of the methods he made in the 1990s with a.o. Manufacturing Consent, has ol’ linguistic Noam produced anything of value?

                How can it be that I as an enthusiastic amateur linguist, have come up with so much Newspeak, while the silence from the kosher Chomsky home is as deafening as any anarchism that should come from him…

                So again my question, Mark, but anyone still doing this; WHY? Why do you keep wasting your valuable clowns staring at and chatting about these clowns?

                It’s like you guys are stuck in discussing the family relations of a long gone soap series and still find that important.

                While life is all about not making that bantertainment important.

                Noam is dead. Even if he’s alive, his character has 0 influence over me. I wish more of you could say the same.

                More and more people are recognizing this around me, those who stay behind do not halt the progress of those who can think.

                prosperity theory vs conspiracy theory
                social profit vs antisocial discredit

                Your Future is in your own hands.
                Use them.


                1. Your tone needs work, but never mind that. Noam has published a lot over the years, but did not sit down and write books, so far as I know. A fellow named David Barsamian kind of became Noam’s Minime during that time, publishing countless interviews with him.

                  A man we both know wrote Miles Mathis a letter to supplement his post on Chomsky, and I am betting you’ll find it interesting. Mathis’s piece is titled Noam is and always has been a spook, something like that. Here’s the letter our mutual acquaintance wrote to follow up. Enjoy. You like reading long tracts, no?

                  Dear Mr. Mathis,
                  I appreciate your many instructive essays, but none more so than the recent one about Noam Chomsky. I had an association in years past with Course 24, the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Your analysis suggested answers to many questions I had from the start of my time there.
                  The following things long puzzled me:
                  1. Why did Chomsky, having begun his research program with a study of modern Hebrew, never make much use of Hebrew in his later writings on syntax? He would thereafter draw his data almost exclusively from English, except for some scattered points made about Italian or French or Basque or whatever data his foreign students provided him. Hebrew is syntactically interesting, but apparently not to Chomsky since the 1950s. One might think that a scholar of Universal Grammar who had facility in a language so different from English might buttress his arguments by an appeal to Hebrew. But that’s not what we find.
                  2. Why did Chomsky—having had two well-received publications in (morpho)phonology (his thesis on modern Hebrew and Sound Patterns of English, co-written with Morris Halle)—-thereafter never return to that subfeld again? With the exception of a couple of short, early, co-written articles, phonology seemed no longer to interest him at all, despite the many insights it might offer on the interface between deep structure and surface structure (per the earlier theories of Generative Grammar). See and
                  3. Why does his writing style vary so greatly across his career? His political writings have a measure of directness that his later syntactic publications never come close to. His very early syntax works (The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Syntactic Structures, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax), while not eloquent, have a workmanlike prose that can at least be followed; his later works (Lectures on Government and Binding, Concepts and Consequences , etc.) approach impenetrability. None of these seem to be written by the same person who reviewed Skinner’s Verbal Behavior with a surgical precision.
                  4. Why was Howard Lasnik (first of UConn-Storrs, now of Maryland) so tight with the MIT Linguistics Department? He was there all the time, despite it being an hour-and-a-half drive from one campus to the other (in good traffic). Lasnik was far more visible in the halls and get-togethers than Chomsky, and somehow found his way, officially or unofficial, on the dissertation committee of everyone writing in the field of syntax. When I attended a course by Chomsky, Lasnik sat in on every lecture.
                  On the occasions when Chomsky had to miss class for some other engagement, Lasnik stepped in and lectured on the topic at hand. How does that work in a graduate-level class in “cutting-edge” linguistic theory? Did Chomsky leave his lesson plan in the office for the substitute teacher to work from? But of all people … why Lasnik? There were other highly-regarded syntacticians available, either in the department or at closer schools in the Boston area.
                  To some of us, Lasnik seemed like something of a clown. He was the king of co-authorship, seeming to need a second or third collaborator just to compose a shopping list; and so much of his writing had to do with curiosities and trivialities—not the Big Picture stuff that Chomsky was advancing, and not the Big Picture stuff that Lasnik’s own earliest work was about. Except … in the end, Lasnik was generally the one appointed to write the “standard primer” on the newest form of the theory that Chomsky had been articulating, whether it be Government and Binding or Minimalism.
                  5. For that matter, why did the Institute tolerate Chomsky’s almost complete detachment from the Linguistics Department? If you were a grad student in the program and taking his class for credit, you got one 20-minute appointment with him in mid-semester to talk about your proposal for a term paper, and you might be allowed a second short appointment towards semester’s end for a follow-up. When people ask me about Chomsky was as a teacher, I tell them that he is like two different people: the Chomsky who speaks on politics is enthusiastic and compelling, while the one who lectures on linguistics checked out long ago and is just marking time in front of a chalkboard, bored and irritable. I honestly thought at one time that Chomsky would never publish again in linguistics; but somehow he overcomes his boredom and keeps churning out new theories and new books. I can’t figure how such a manifestly uninterested person manages this feat.
                  Well, your article suggests the answer to these puzzles … If Chomsky is a creation of Intelligence, then his linguistic successes were supplied for him from the labors of others. Like you, I found it strange that his landmark thesis on Hebrew morphophonemics covered a subject matter similar to his father’s work. Most sons, especially brilliant ones, want to establish themselves as independent thinkers, not a chip off the old block.
                  Certainly, Chomsky’s personality does not exude the filial piety that would be expected of someone who made his thesis just like daddy’s. This would indicate that the different writing styles may reflect different hands of authorship.
                  Actually, I always thought that Sound Pattern of English was Morris Halle’s voice through and through. Just take a stroll through Halle’s earlier work, Sound Pattern of Russian ( id=jkTVyZw6TtAC&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=the+sound+pattern+of+russian&source=bl&ots=h6W20T Merp&sig=ZDsmz9cSoevNUqdyUlGF9l8Sc7k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcjeGomZPKAhUM6yY
                  KHWLIAtUQ6AEIVTAO): the manner of exposition is identical.
                  I could never fathom what what Chomsky had contributed to SPE … and such as to get frst billing, too! The way that ideas and arguments are laid out in SPE is Halle, not Chomsky. I used to think that Chomsky’s name got tacked on to generate sales; but after your article, I suspect that the intent was to raise Chomsky’s scholarly cred.
                  I wonder if, for the later syntax work, Chomsky’s ghostwriter was not in fact Howard Lasnik. Or, maybe Lasnik came up with fresh ideas, ran them by Chomsky, and then Chomsky wrote them up in his own irksome prose. I often thought that the Chomsky’s exposition was similar to that of a frst-year grad student who could toss around the right buzzwords but didn’t really get the inner logic of the system. He circles around the point at length like an airplane trying to fnd a runway in a hurricane. The binding on my copy of LGB is compromised from being thrown across the room several times in absolute frustration with the poorly developed explanations. I am not saying, of course, that Chomsky didn’t write some of his linguistics stuff; just that he didn’t write all of it. I sensed this while at MIT, but your article gave me the courage to articulate the idea for myself.
                  Lasnik’s public persona as a dilettante might also have been misdirection. If you don’t quite take him seriously, you won’t suspect that he is the mind at the cutting edge of the feld, supplying new ideas to the Great Man. And maybe Lasnik was at all the lectures just to be the safety net; in case Chomsky had to field a difficult question, Lasnik was right there to pipe in and save face for the star of the show. And by getting his name on the papers of others, Lasnik would still appear to be somewhat productive in the feld and thus not call into question his day job at Storrs.
                  This arrangement would also explain why Lasnik remained so long in a nowhere linguistics department like UConn, when as an anointed Chomskyite, he could have gotten a post at UCLA or Stanford or UMass-Amherst or any of the other leading programs at the time. Storrs was close enough for Lasnik to carry Chomsky’s water administratively and auctorially, but far enough so as not to raise suspicions that this was the case.
                  Lasnik, by the way, used to be pretty much an English-data guy, just like Chomsky. I think he studied Japanese and appeals to it sometimes … in about the same measure as Chomsky’s writings do … And like Chomsky, he doesn’t have much to say about Hebrew.
                  I don’t know if these notes are useful to you, but they may provide some corroborating evidence for your thesis. I offer them as a way of saying thank you for opening my eyes on this matter and many others.


                  1. My tone is mine, but your response is exactly what I seek; personal first hand experiences.

                    These are insights, not the words by Chomsky/Lasnik/whatever clown. And honest and good questions, indicating various behaviorial traits and revelations on how the abracademic System works… excellent! No idea who this one is you talk about, but that is the beauty of objectivism; individuals don’t matter and therefore do not need unnecessary exposure. Ir is their thoughts that matter. And they count, thank you for sharing this.

                    By unmarking yourself from the Beast,
                    You see the Beast
                    And see you have nothing to fear
                    It is an illusionary Beast.

                    It’s its non-illusionary Building most of you have to learn to leave…


                    1. You brought up the name of our mutual acquaintance, not me. I don’t want a message from him asking me to delete any references. His privacy is important.


                2. GAIA, I’d like to think that my “Small contribution” was enough to piss you off.. “Just a little,”.. just enough to help lure you back ? Welcome Back.


                  1. That wasn’t meant as an insult to you, Gaia. it was meant as whatever things you’ve been reading here that has drawn you back, whatever it is… Welcome back.


                  2. Maybe with time you can help change all of that. instead of us all being part of the problem (whatever that problem might be) We can become part of the solution.


            2. TimR,

              With respect to your inquiry (something that I think we all have wondered), I, too, can only speculate . . . I do not know how to reconcile this conundrum, except to suggest that perhaps, in some way (unknown to us), inner-circle elites (in the know) have means of being “immune” to such assaults (?).

              If I knew the answer – particularly, if there was a specific form of “protection” – I would be the first to share it. Given that I am not an insider, I can only share with others what I think is harming us, and thus, speculate as to how we can protect ourselves (or heal from any insults/assaults).

              As a dedicated holistic healer, this has been a central objective of mine. My mode(s) of healing changes as I receive information – based on both personal experience and reviewing research/literature. At this point in time, I am recommending a homeopathic version of graphene oxide (This is the one I have: But it took several months to receive from Australia. There is another option – from the U.S. – offered here: Personally (yet subjectively/anecdotally), I have experienced success – mainly in regaining some mental clarity, which I suspected had been adversely affected (mostly in terms of short-term memory loss) by invasive nanotechnology being distributed through various means (not just via COVID/flu injections) over the past two years. Another chronic symptom I experienced over the past two years was inner ear discomfort/clogged sensation in my ears – which also seems to have dissipated significantly since starting homeopathic graphene oxide. To reiterate, this is only anecdotal.


              1. Perhaps the elites, scholars/spooks are getting saline in their jabs. Perhaps there has always been different levels of toxicity in different jab batches, back to the first vaccination experiments & rollouts?


  8. FWIW, I’m very persuaded by your argument and those graphs are a great find. I leave open the door to other possibilities of course, and who knows what bizarre black budget programs may be ongoing – but from the evidence available I lean toward overall climate stability, with an “x” factor as to how much “they” can control micro weather effects.

    In other news, there seems to be a little bit of a shift in the Overton window on the vax. Or rather, signs that we may be moving towards an inflection point at which the window will shift rapidly. This is a good wrap up Ab Irato of Fakeologist posted:

    I don’t (obviously) entirely trust Mr ex-BlackRock, or famous Naomi Wolf (or Steve Kirsch for that matter, who’s pushed hard against the vax and has odd ties to AI or surveillance tech companies.) More to say but that would clutter up this thread – if it interests you, maybe you or another writer could comment on it in a new post?

    I always wondered if they might flip that entire narrative, and freak Joe Public out about having been vaxxed. It seems more and more possible.


  9. The lack of Food & the implosion of Wall St. this year. Right now Beijing is goin under lockdown as well. It’s game over when they go after the pure blood unvaxed here.


  10. TIMR
    There have been signs of flipping the narrative in the UK around February which had since gone quiet – Prince Harry was quoted as suggesting everyone got tested for HIV. He was interviewed with a well known gay Welsh rugby player with that overall message. The interpretation then (from telegram sources) was that AIDS was going to be brought out & dusted off as a smokescreen for immune dysfunction potentially caused by jabs. Maybe that was also smoke and mirrors, maybe just a bit of subliminal up-front messaging. Then last week in the same vein BBC brought out ‘Freddy Mercury the Final Act’
    which I believe was first aired in November 2021. Strange to be repeated now, perhaps. I know this diverges from weather & climate but in response to your speculation Tim


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s