An on-point book that misses the point

I normally do not do “recommended” reading, but will do so in this case with a large caveat: If you are interested in climate change, and if you can handle some technical detail and are proficient at interpretation of graphs, AND if you think critically AND want a one-stop place for a narrative that is well written and succinct, while at the same time maintaining a high level of skepticism, then give this book a chance.

I cite the following as an example:

The Missing Null Hypothesis

Although IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports are voluminous and their arguments impressively persistent, it is legitimate to ask whether that makes them good science. In order to conduct an investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

In considering any such hypothesis, an alternative and the null hypothesis must be entertained, which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices in the physical environment are the result of natural variability. To invalidate this null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct.

In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that it’s only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. One probable reason for this behavior is that the United Nations protocol under which IPCC operates defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere in which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2). Not surprisingly, directing attention to only be effects of human greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in IPCC failing to provide a thorough analysis of climate change. (Pages 55-56)

In fact, IPCC’s work can be characterized as sloppy and uninformed. For example, IPCC will cite evidence to favor its hypothesis and then characterize that evidence as having low confidence, medium confidence, or high confidence. Such terms are non-quantifiable and non-reproducible. They leave a vague judgment meant to satisfy media pundits, school teachers, and anyone else incapable of working within the scientific method. In other words, it is propaganda. True science would cite confidence intervals based on statistical analysis. IPCC  does not, will not, or cannot do that.


I titled this post a book ” … that misses the point.” I do not imagine that I am necessarily right about that, and so restate the matter: This is a book that is on-point and that maintains a level of decorum in order to avoid characterizing the work of IPCC and climate alarmists as dishonest and misleading. I once watched Craig Idso, one of the authors of this book, in a debate (which by audience poll he won). He had to maintain decorum, and abide by the rules, speaking only in turn. He was out of time, and could speak no more, and his opponent then stood and uttered a boldfaced lie about something or another. I don’t remember the details, but do recall Idso sitting, fists clenched, face tight, enduring the slings and arrows so often encountered in climate debate, that of lying liars. I would not have maintained decorum. I might have lost my cool, and lost the debate.

But let’s get down to reality, the quality of the public mind, that of teachers at all levels, and of the news media and government officials.

  • The “mind” of the American public is a vast wasteland of mindless entertainment, sports, with only an upper quartile or quintile actually watching news, and that not mattering, as news is controlled propaganda. Very few read books and fewer are capable of reading and interpreting long tracts and skeptically analyzing them.
  • I’ve suffered teachers at all levels through a BS degree, and indeed remember a few good ones. I’ve forgotten most. We probably all know on some level that most lower-level teachers are not too bright anyway, having attained perhaps a Masters in Education, one of the most useless and easily attained degrees around. Beyond qualifications, teachers are peer-reviewed and reviewed by administrators, sometimes parents, and must toe a line. Even if bright enough to see through the Climate Change hoax, they cannot give voice to doubts without losing job or having to be retrained. It is easier just to go along with it all than be in a constant state of tension … living a lie.
  • The news media, as often stated here, is wall-to-wall propaganda. All news outlets deliver the same message, but package it differently to appeal to different audiences. NPR and PBS followers, for instance, are sure they are getting better news than followers of Fox News, and visa versa. Each group collectively imagines itself smarter than the other.
  • Government officials, those visible anyway, are of low quality. They too will toe the line. Even if they speak up and speak truthfully, there will be a price.

So my judgment is that this is a very good book, a valuable resource to have on hand, and that the authors are wiser than me. They know to keep it civil and at the same time to be forceful in their writing. With the exception of Marita Noon, who says in her Foreword that the global warming movement is “the most extensive and expensive public relations campaign in the history of the world***, her use of the words “public relations” instead of “propaganda” somewhat mutes her message. But it has to be so. That’s why I was not asked to be part of the book … you know … as if.


***I do beg to differ, and I think the Cold War trumps global warming by a large margin in terms of extent and expense.

24 thoughts on “An on-point book that misses the point

  1. Any discussion of weather, climate, or space cannot discount the possibility that it is already, or can be in the future, modified by man.

    “See complete reports
    commissioned by the US Air Force
    ….From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1. (emphasis added)”

    I cannot possibly determine is any of this is happening, but I do know that the skies in Montana have changed, and ahead of every front moving in is high-altitude aircraft spraying something that makes strange (man-made) clouds that turn the blue, Big Sky state into a blue-gray soup. I can see that much, and do not like what I see.

    Like the Covid drill, I suspect Climate nonsense to be a distraction from the real risk of the collapse of the global, digital-financial system. Zero interest, or negative rates, will not work, have not worked to reverse the trend.

    “The situation in which the digital-financial complex finds itself is between the alternatives of on one side, the final collapse, and on the other side, hyperinflation. So that means the total loss of the value of money. That means historically, we have arrived at the point in which the digital-financial complex, in the framework of the existing system still has the choice between the two various forms of collapse.”

    “By constantly driving new wedges between people, all of this leads us purposely in one single direction—social unrest to the point of a civil war, and indeed worldwide. This is what the elites want to see. We are experiencing today maximum social chaos, and then at the high point of this chaos, they bring in the universal basic income to affect change—from maximum chaos to maximum control.”

    Whether the diversionary tactic is narrated in terms of climate or pandemic, or some new divisive form of evildoing, the underlying situation is highly dangerous, the outcome equally uncertain and unprecedented. The combination of over confidence and ignorance cannot be surpassed as a mode of generating fear, evil and hate in, and among, the general population.


      1. Is it possible that whatever comes out (sprayed or exhaust) of the tiny (actually multiple, large military? planes) can be a catalyst for a much larger change in weather events? I believe that is possible. Climate? I do not know what that means, exactly.


        1. Generally they use a rule of thumb … “climate” is any given thirty year period. Within that arbitrarily selected period is contained natural variability. I suggest you get hold of Bob Tisdale’s Extremes and Averages in Contiguous US Climate, which graphically demonstrates (using NOAA data) a 100 year record of temperatures, precipitation and drought for each of the lower 48 states, 1918 to 2018. Amazon has it for $57.21, and of course advertises another book saying that averages do not matter, complete bullshit, but the way things are done during a propaganda barrage. Colorado’s highest monthly high temperature per year in that time frame has increased .156 degree Fahrenheit per decade, or 1.56 degrees Fahrenheit over 100 years, virtually nothing.

          There is no crisis, and the modestly rising temperatures are well within natural increases that have gone steadily since the bottom of the Little Ice Age, say 1680 or so. One of the hardest selling points is that within short periods are contained sometimes wild fluctuations in temperature and moisture. The news media and alarmists make everything out to be unprecedented and dangerous. They are selling the Chicken Little scenario. It is a propaganda campaign.


          1. I’m not disagreeing.

            I only know that the skies are being messed with at high altitude, and there is no transparency, so we are left to speculate. I also know, or am instinctively aware of engineering, and the seemingly endless array of engineering projects influencing nature and human lives, in particular. If geo-engineering was not happening, it might be considered an anomale, no?


            1. This guy is the best I’ve seen for explaining how this all works and how they are manipulating the climate. Toward the end he shows how the commercial airlines are able to do it without all of the tanks in the fuselage.


              1. Thank you, Darin B. Some forms of evil are too powerful for many to investigate. Land destruction, water pollution and mind control are somehow less frightening than messing (weaponizing, controlling, engineering) with the skies. Too close to “heaven,” perhaps for the highly-conditioned, modern (Compartmentalized/Christianized/Rationalized) mind. All done unconsciously, of course.


  2. Hi Mark,
    you mentioned that recently yourself. They always serve both sides, making for instance Corona believers fearing Corona and the others fearing the measures. Same applies for climate change. The believers fear that we have only one planet and we humans are just destroying it and the nonbelievers fear that the measures will destroy humanity. Nothing of it is true of course. As a passionate star watcher I must say, that for two years now the sky never was really clear. Even without clouds the air is constantly dusty. I tried to watch the recently launched Starlink satellites and I couldn’t get any sharp picture of the moon on a supposedly cloudless sky. As for Starlink, there were two of them on time but not on line. Being already on different trajectories. German press mentioned that launch several times but couldn’t provide any picture with a few satellites in a row. Which I saw a few years back, when they launched the first batches. Obviously they had problems with that launch. Also on other days I also only saw one or two satellites no longer flying on the same trajectory. The given times were right though. I use As for chemtrails I don’t think that this few tons of something they can spray out of an airplane can influence anything. The reason must be something else. Maybe just getting rid of some poison which no longer can be put into rivers.
    Don’t forget the Great Reset we still are witnessing. This people work in log time periods. I recently talked to an IT expert who did not really understood how assembler languages work. If you stop teaching children how the things work, they become grownups no longer understanding the technology they use. Then you can replace the technology with something else and nobody will take a note. The education programs in schools change constantly from deep understanding the basics to just basic knowledge.


    1. I would like to see something more scientific than personal observations. Saying for two years now the sky was never really clear has little meaning in the bigger picture. How do you measure “was never really clear” and what is your historical basis for comparison? Remember 1816? Me neither, but it is called the year without a summer, probably due to volcanic ash from Mount Tambora (1815). There could be similar factors in play now, but again, your personal observations are unscientific.

      A friend who lives in San Jose CA told me that the temperature at her mountain cabin was in the high 80s Fahrenheit, and that this as NEVER happened before. Her memory is highly unreliable, as she has kept no personal record. Further, she watches news, and power of suggestion with the Climate Change propaganda barrage is influencing her, but don’t tell her that. She’ll get pissed.


      1. personal observations are the most reliable things if interpreted correctly. I’m watching stars at the same place for many years and can tell when the visibility is good. There always is light pollution of course since I live at the suburbs of a city but still I for instance could see the Ursa Major very clear many times, all the stars and now I can’t just make out the less bright stars there. Can’t see the details. My eyes can’t get that worse and anyway, If I make a picture I can compare it with my older pictures and the last ones aren’t any good. There’s been some nights when the sky was clear but just between the clouds. It was always after good raining and I assume the rain cleaned the dust for a while. Still I don’t think it comes from chemtrails and such. I stick with my theory that it is the constellation of the planets which makes the changes. Together with the sun activity. I can’t tell when all the 4 planets were on the other side of the Sun in summer for the last time. but it probably doesn’t happens more than once in a life time. A few weeks ago I could watch the Mercury, Venus, Mars Jupiter and Saturn in a row in the early morning all together. I don’t remember such thing from the past and I’m into astronomy since my childhood.
        The memory from your friend may not be reliable if she’s not into such things as I am. We also have a weather station on our roof which collects data since 2012. I remember from 2008 temperatures in January in the range of -27°C in the night and about -17°C in the day. There’s been huge ice blocks in the Main river back then. And in 2012 we had lots of snow for weeks in February and March.
        That’s reliable memories since we have lots of pictures from that time.
        A also can say that I haven’t seen any figs in the last years here. I plant some peppers every year and the last year they just didn’t fruit. This year they just started to blossom. I have pictures of red peppers at the end of July from some years ago. That’s how I come to my conclusions.


        1. It is still anecdotal, I am afraid. I have temperature records here for 100 years, 1918-2018, and there is little in the way of warming, and much variability. Hottest decade on record here in the lower 48 states of the US, the 1930s. Has not changed, and they (the scientists) don’t know why it got so hot. One (angry) climate alarmist, Dessler I think is his name, was shown a graphical representation of heat waves in the US, showing the 1930s were the worst by far, and he said “That just doesn’t seem right.” End of his investigation. He probably doesn’t understand how to read graphical information.

          There are other factors that affect visibility, such as pollution (think Beijing) and dust blown off the Sahara, which happens for more than I ever knew about and affects Europe more than North America. and things like volcanoes. The Teal volcano in the Philippines erupted in January of 2020 and sent ash almost nine miles into the atmosphere. That affects visibility and weather (not climate).


  3. Here is a very short paper you might find interesting. And, a few questions. Questions first: How would you know if the 12 inch rain that flooded your property was natural, man-made, or a combination? How would you know if a drought, any drought, was caused deliberately? The tornado that went over our property several years ago is not recorded anywhere I can find. Is someone actually tracking these disasters if they don’t happen in a densely populated area? If someone is tracking it, who is it and why can’t the public access this information?

    “Abstract: Climate engineering program refers to large-scale manipulation of Earth’s climate intended to counteract human- caused climate change, also describes a diverse of modern technologies for intentionally manipulating the global climate, in order to moderate or forestall the effects of climate change. As we know, climate engineering programs have the ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather. Hence, the productions of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of environmental-military high technologies. Today’s news show that discussions of climate engineering has grown considerably amongst scientists specially in engineering physics and environmental engineering groups who engaged in addressing climate change. In this article author tries to introduce readers with hi-tech climate engineering methods and equipment, which could be useful in managing climate change crisis, and could go one step further in attempting to reduce drought and flood seasons, decrease pollution and dust crisis in big cities, increase precipitation and rainfall in arid and semi-arid areas in the World.
    Keywords: Climate Engineering, Engineering Physics, Weather Modification”

    Click to access 10.11648.j.ijepp.20170505.11.pdf


    1. Right now my Internet is downloading at 4.3 kb per sec, so it will be well into next week before I can download this article. A new modem supposed to arrive today.

      I do not imagine we have the machines or technology to do much to affect something so massive and complex as the troposphere. All of our massive burning of fossil fuels puts but a trickle of CO2 out there, We do not understand the effect of that, by the way. IPCC says “climate sensitivity”, or the increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is 3-6°C, way off the mark, the actual effect more like 1°C. That much warming is harmless, easily adapted to, even beneficial.

      I do imagine they can affect small areas for brief periods of time. If they really wanted ti do something about drought, which is a Western US phenomenon mostly (the reason for so many dams), they could build a pipeline and pump water from the Eastern USA, which has abundant water, to out west. We have the resources.


        1. The real “Corona Virus”? A worldwide rollout of this tech?

          “Field trials were carried out by Meteo Systems AG, Switzerland, in the United Arab Emirates (in the year 2006), and later in Australia (in 2007 and 2008) under the scientific-assessment program of the University of Queensland, Australia. During 4 months of operations, a number of major rain-enhancement events were observed and quantitatively evaluated. Performance analyses based on measurements of ionic current and the assessment of aerosol-charging efficiency were carried out for different configurations of the corona installation deployed in field tests, which was based on the pyramidal design of Rostopchin et al. (2001). The major achievement of Meteo System’s research team was discovering the basic principles of weather modification by unipolar aerosol charging with ground-based systems. This opened the way for Meteo Systems to engineer a number of high-performance installations of the next generation, which are optimized for particular weather-modification applications. This would have been impossible without understanding the physical processes upon which the technology is based.”


          1. I have no doubt that technology exists that can enhance rain. I do not think that you grasp the vastness of our planet and the troposphere. Such technology would have not just limited application, but in fact, unlimited insignificant application.


          2. Kensho,

            On electric corona discharge/aerosol particles and weather modification . . . That certainly invokes someone whom I have previously discussed here in comments threads – Bernard Vonnegut (brother of Kurt Vonnegut), who was prolific in the area of weather modification strategies (even prior to 1950):



            Atmospheric space charge modification (Filed April 5, 1954)
            (1962-02-06 Application granted)

            This invention relates to method and means for modifying the existing space charge of the atmosphere over the earths surface or over selected areas thereof. In particular, this invention is concerned primarily with the minimization or elimination of severe or catastrophic electrical disturbances in the atmosphere, more specifically thunderstorms or tornadoes, and also with the production or the intensification of such disturbances.

            In 1920, C. T. R. Wilson, the inventor of the cloud chamber, suggested the mechanism by which the earths charge is constantly replenished. He postulated that the thunderstorms which are scattered over the earth at any one time form a sort of battery of cells in parallel, supplying negative charges to the earth from their bottom regions (as ‘by lightning), and positive charges to the ionosphere from their tops, which extend upward into the ionosphere region. carried out by C. H. Gish 1 and C. R. Wait of the Carnegie Institution have shown that the average current above each active thunderstorm region is approximately onehalf ampere. Since this current eventually serves to neutralize the 1800 ampere charge leaking from the earth, referred to above, there should be something in the order of 3600 (i.e. 1800 divided by /2) active thunderstorm regions scattered over the earths surface at any given time. Estimates indicate that this is actually so.

            As already stated, the electrification of thunderstorms and associated phenomena such as tornadoes is initiated by the small positive space charge normally present in the lower atmosphere, as indicated by the numeral 19 in FIG. 1. By controlling this space charge, I propose to control the electrification of such storms. This can be accomplished in various ways, all of which, broadly speaking, involve introducing into the atmosphere charged particles of one sign or the other, at selected areas and in amounts required to accomplish the desired purposes.

            There are a number of methods that can be used, in accordance with the present invention, to introduce space charge into the lower atmosphere for the purpose of modifying the electrical properties of storms. Typical of such methods are the following:

            (1) Charge naturally existing aerosol particles in the atmosphere, such as dust, Aitken nuclei, or cloud particles’, by corona discharge. The high voltage necessary for producing corona discharge can be derived either from conventional high voltage sources or from the natural gradient existing in the atmosphere. A simple way of employing this technique is to string wires, maintained at a high voltage, above the ground. The natural movement of the air beneath the wires will bring in a constant supply of the particles to be charged.

            (2) Produce fine aerosol particles artificially and then charge them by corona discharge. Suitable aerosol particles can be produced by spraying, by condensing a liquid from the vapor phase, or by the chemical reaction of two or more gaseous components to yield a non-volatile prod uct. The aerosol particles produced by furnaces or internal combustion engines can be used as the carriers of charge.

            (3) Instead of using corona as the source of fast ions for charging aerosol particles, it is possible to use other sources. For example, a radioactive source, a flame, or a heated filament can be used as a substitute for a corona producing wire or point.

            (4) Aerosol particles comprising a space charge can be electrically charged by other methods than using a charging element of fast ions. For example, the particles can be charged by electrostatic induction or by frictional efiects. If aerosol particles are caused to come into mementary contact with a conducting surface in the presence of an electric field, they can be charged inductively. Or, the particles can be frictionally charged by moving them rapidly over a suitable surface.

            Relatedly, this may be of interest to you (RE: The UAE):
            At the 1:18:18 timestamp: In 2021, the United Arab Emirates announced the continuation of the Rain Enhancement Program. So far over 600 institutions from 68 countries have been involved.”
            For greater context:

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Aye Caramba! We were in Alaska recently, and the landscapes are vast. We could see mountains miles away in every direction, and I thought about that and the troposphere. They can control that? They are that good? Next you will produce a list of those 600 companies, expecting me to read their annual reports. Everything pales in significance against nature. I have on hand a 100-year record of precipitation for the lower 48. There is a slight uptick, not significant but an uptick. Elsewhere I see that hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, forest fires are lessening in severity and number, ever so slightly. But I am not so foolish as to imagine that it is the hand of humans. It could be increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but that is an unintended side benefit of industrial societies, and “they” are hard at work to eliminate that mild benefit. In the meantime, areas like the western US, drought prone, are still drought prone. “Weather”, as opposed to climate, is still wildly variable and unpredictable. If they can control rainfall as you suggest, please get in touch with them, ask them to end drought in drought prone regions. Just as a favor, you see.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Here in the foothills above Denver, we are having a wet summer, with afternoon rain maybe five of seven days a week. It is delightful. Yesterday we had a gullywasher, a huge storm with hail and rain that produced rivers in the side streets, and our driveway too. We sat on our upper deck (sheltered) and watched in awe, wondering how squirrels and birds survive. Afterward we put out feeders for hummingbirds … they were extremely hungry and fought for spaces. I put out food for regular birds too, having hid away for an hour or more during the deluge. It was impressive. You might ask how they survive such weather events. Often enough, they do not.

                We sat on the deck this evening, and before our eyes a chipmunk was on the run and there was a black flash and a scream … probably a sharp shinned hawk having dinner. It is not an easy life out there.

                Last year, we could not buy an afternoon rainstorm. It was hot for most of the summer. We were so worried about wildfires that we had boxes packed, ready to evacuate. However, I think it was 2012 that we had those daily rain storms, and it was so heavy then that it produced floods, bridges washed out (just like Montana this year), and towns isolated due to that.

                That’s weather. Humans are not in charge. We merely survive it, and even as this year, enjoy it.


              2. MT,

                I suggest the best way to envision the layers of the Earth’s atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, ionosphere and beyond) is through the (very oversimplified) framework of a giant radio station. Accordingly – instead of considering the distance, size, density, temperature, moisture, and chemistry of the space (all of which are distractions) – it may be much more helpful and informative to think in terms of plasma physics, electromagnetism, and frequency.

                Hence, some of the following terms may be more applicable to grasping precision surveillance and control of such space – conduction, positive/negative charge, circuits, convection, oscillations, watts, voltage, amps, polarized fields, pulses, radio, radar, satellites, Alfvén waves, Whistler waves, Birkeland currents, ELF, VLF, ULF, transmission, protons, electrons, neutrons, vortex filament dynamics, Fourier transforms, and terrestrial magnetism. Think projects like Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Think electrojet currents flowing. Think electrically charged interplanetary gas and dust.

                Therefore (theoretically), if the atmosphere is an electromagnetically charged space, it is the ideal vehicle for radio wave propagation. When radio waves are propagated on convection currents and Birkeland currents, atmospheric electricity becomes nearly instantaneous all across the globe. In this sense, the world becomes super small, and everything on its surface incredibly interconnected (and hence, controllable).

                Arthur Firstenberg in his The Invisible Rainbow (which both you and I have read), greatly informs us in this regard. Firstenberg explains (p. 128) that this electric atmospheric envelope (global nervous system) allows for a signal to be broadcast (in waves) at one end of the globe, triggering new emissions from particles in the upper atmospheric layers, which get amplified and then returned to the earth’s surface in an entirely opposite part of the globe. It takes very little broadcast power to enable this phenomenon. Further, on its journey, the frequency/wave can be altered, thereby influencing the Earth’s power grid.

                We are electromagnetic beings (just as the Earth is) responding to the frequencies, waves, and circuits circulating and flowing throughout the atmosphere (not to mention the geomagnetic Ley lines that course through the planet’s surface). Thus, these perturbations/alterations have a direct effect on our body, mind, and spirit.

                Here are some relevant links to explore:


                With all that said, it is highly ironic that the one atmospheric physicist who could potentially offer us many hints was (he reportedly passed away in April 2020) co-author of the book you are promoting in this very post: S. Fred Singer (AKA Siegfried Singer). See this link here where I discuss Singer (scroll down to where I provide links to his work): I have referenced him previously here at POM in comments, as you may recall. Notably, in the 1950s, Singer pioneered satellite remote sensing of the stratosphere, paving the way for monitoring atmospheric parameters:

                My point being, the atmospheric physicists (along with plasma physicists and electrical engineers) have been at this (monitoring/altering the atmosphere) for 75 years – at the very least (records do go back to the 1920s).

                Since I already referenced Bernard Vonnegut and his work in weather engineering . . . Perhaps, the most notable Bernard – when it comes to weather engineering objectives – is Bernard Eastlund:

                In 2003, Eastlund was awarded a U.S. House of Representatives Certificate of Recognition for contributions to homeland security technology.

                Eastlund was in favor of funding research into weather modification and control that could reduce the impact of severe weather. He envisioned “concepts for electromagnetic wave interactions with the atmosphere that, among a range of jobs, could be applied to weather modification research” and that such research could mature to a new science in 10 or 20 years.

                Eastlund authored 53 peer reviewed scientific papers and 23 US patents for applications such as well-drilling, sterilization of medical devices, high intensity lighting, and atmospheric plasma heating.

                One of Eastlund’s patents (US4686605 A) described an adaptation of concepts first proposed by Nikola Tesla. Eastlund’s “Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere”, described as “grandiose”, proposed a 40-mile square, HAARP-like radio transmitter that used Alaskan natural gas to generate current to create electromagnetic radiation that would excite a section of the ionosphere. Eastlund’s patent speculated on “possible ramifications and potential future developments” including magnetotelluric surveys, local weather modification, and missile defense.

                Singer, himself, had ties to one other relevant Bernard – radio astronomer Bernard Lovell:

                In the course of his experiments, he was able to show that radar echoes could be obtained from daytime meteor showers as they entered the Earth’s atmosphere and ionised the surrounding air. He was later able to determine the orbits of meteors in annual meteor showers to show they were in solar orbit and not of interstellar origin. With university funding, he constructed the then-largest steerable radio telescope in the world, which now bears his name: the Lovell Telescope. Over 50 years later, it remains a productive radio telescope, now operated mostly as part of the MERLIN and European VLBI Network interferometric arrays of radio telescopes.

                Lastly, I have surmised – from the in-depth research that I have encountered/explored over the past 10 years – that the monitoring and manipulation of the Earth’s atmosphere is not necessarily for weather manipulation/warfare, nor even to combat climate change (cover story, cough, cough). Rather, the end goal is terraforming the earth’s surface to enable synthetic biology aims. This would take longer to elaborate, and would necessitate leaning into the work of Elana Freeland (and the work of Sofia Smallstorm, which arguably preceded Elana’s).

                Liked by 2 people

                1. I have on my shelf here The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill (perhaps the boringest speaker ever to take a podium) and David Talbott. I got interested in this subject after the 2016 Mathis conference. MM, of course, claims to have pioneered the subject and dislikes that Wal and Dave do not credit him.

                  So it is not new to me. The fact that things happen quickly in an EU does not mean that it is under human control.

                  What troubles me is the presumption that what “can” be done is being done, and in secret by closeted masters. You must be right that they are not using the knowledge to affect our weather or weaponize it, as I do not see the weather (or climate) changing. Weather is as variable as ever, climate steady as hell. So when you approach me with the latest threat to our existence, be it 5G or nano-poles or magenta, I take it with a grain of salt. Perhaps you give too much credit, or place to much stock in evil?

                  Liked by 1 person

    2. OK, had a chance to look it over [The Science Direct paper posted by Kensho].Imagine this: We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars on wind and solar, boondoggle devices to solve a nonexistent problem. That’s what I am reading in the paper, development of new technology to counter “…climate warming, increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, pollution, dust, acidification of ocean …” in other words, if you liked wind and solar, massively expensive failed technologies to solve nonexistent problems, we’ve got even more in store, new technologies that will cost billions, fail, and not even solve the nonexistent problems.

      If it were just the boondoggle aspect, the pocket lining, we could survive the nonsense. But Europe right now is in an energy crisis due to wind and solar and net zero. I tend to think that these are deliberate policies to lower living standards and cause depopulation, working hand in hand with Covid and the vaccines. But that is just me. We are next in line, and don’t even talk about Africa and the racist aspects of this misanthropy.


      1. I agree with all of that. Imagine this: Folks dealing with the ramifications of weather modification completely fall for the climate change scam (I personally know many of them) and embrace every change the New Normal proposes, as they have already proven to do. They never lose faith in the system, no matter what is proposed. They LOVE geoengineering, it will save everything, they clamor for it. And there it is, out of the blue like the Patriot Act, here to solve all our crises. Technology to the rescue, as usual. Cause it’s working so good so far, implant that shit, why not?! Be the good citizen and be a happy guinea pig. 🙃


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