MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
For many years now, climate opportunists and zealots have used fear mongering to gather support, especially from young people as they continue to say that the earth has an expiration date. Various Global Warming advocates have said that the world has just decades to survive – sometimes we have less and sometimes we have an extension if we just change the way we govern ourselves and if we just vote for a Greener government, there will be a miraculous change in the spike in weather disruptions and earthquakes on the planet.
For many people, it is confusing and so rather than question they tend to adopt a kind of Pascal’s Wager with regard to Climate Change.
Pascal admonished people that they should act as if there is a god whether you believe in one or not. The same can be said about what Climate Change advocates say, even if the climate isn’t changing, we would be better off if we act as though it is or it will eventually.
Well, this can be both good and bad. Science can continue to develop ways to create better resources on the planet and help the environment but mad science and geoengineering the planet can lead to consistent geocausality.
Now, mind you consistent geocauslity is an axiom I made up that describes what happens when we play with Mother Nature. Consistent Geocausailty is the result of terraforming and weather control – it can also be the result of environmental damage caused by advanced electronic weapons that not only affect the weather but quite possibly the effect the entire geosphere.
Natural and human disasters, global acts of political, economic, religious and military terrorism, domestic violence, and the rumors of war are not only triggering post traumatic stress, but it is producing some parapsychological effects – virtually no research has been done in parapsychology on the effects of traumatic experiences on peoples’ lives and how it affects perceptions of religious faith, precognitive dreams of an apocalyptic future, mental manifestations and demonic possession.
People who are actively interested in parapsychology and have had experiences they interpret as paranormal or transcendent report that these experiences have enhanced their spiritual beliefs and well-being.
Some are seeing them as portents, for the possible fulfillment of the apocalypse.
These effects are generally a combined result of more than one anomalous experience and a larger number of experiences are associated with greater effects. Fear apparently is a relatively common initial reaction to paranormal phenomena, but eventually the events become less paranormal and more normal.
This is unprecedented and some say it is an indication that the dispensational end of days are upon us.
I can’t help but wonder if the initial trauma paradigm is the answer to this paranormal or apocalyptic Butterfly Effect because I can’t express enough how things are becoming downright peculiar—more so than it has in the past.
The Butterfly effect has been seen as a way to explain a complex chain of events that effect one another. The Butterfly Effect serves as a metaphor for what in technical language is called ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’ or ‘deterministic chaos’, the fact that small causes can have large effects.
It can be used as a way to indulge in a bit of predictability, where one can postulate the theory of whether or not the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas.
It has been a harsh winter — what President Biden called a Dark Winter which has been extended as we are hearing of continued low pressure systems that are unstable dumping heavy amounts of snow in some states and triggering a massive onslaught of tornadoes in others.
A snowstorm of epic proportions swept across the western United States this past weekend, dropping over 3 feet of snow in many areas and leaving tens of thousands of residents without power under the heavy blanket of record-breaking snow totals.
The storm left historic mounds of snow in its wake, dropping 30.8 inches of snow in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the most snow from a single storm the city had ever seen. The previous record was set in 1979 when the city received 25.2 inches over two days.
This same system would become the fourth-largest snowstorm in Denver history, leaving over 27 inches of powder at Denver International Airport. Throughout Colorado, five locations received at least 3 feet of snow, led by Buckhorn Mountain’s 42 inches recorded over the weekend.
Meanwhile, an unstable violent front has been moving across the United States triggering many tornadoes.
Severe storms are expected and tornadoes are possible in parts of the Southeast and the mid-Atlantic , a day after storms and twisters brought down homes and trees in parts of the Deep South.
An estimated 32 million people will be under at least a marginal threat for severe storms Thursday, from southern Ohio into South Florida, according to the Storm Prediction Center.
In parts of the South, communities are taking stock of damage to homes and businesses across several states from severe storms Wednesday, with the greatest damage reported in Alabama and Mississippi.
At least 24 preliminary reports of tornadoes across five states were tracked Wednesday, according to the National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center.
It can be said that people take weather anomalies in stride– we are used to living on a violent planet where storms are a way of life.
However, it is becoming apparent that we are seeing an uptick in anomalous stormfronts where unstable air masses that form in one part of the country are triggering disastrous weather systems in other parts.
Again, the argument for geoengineering is compelling.
Ultimately, there is near certainty that some consequences of geoengineering methods cannot be anticipated and will remain unseen until full scale deployment. Skeptics have alleged the possibility of an ecological ‘‘butterfly effect,’’ in which the secondary effects of geoengineering are so wildly unforeseen that a large-scale ecological crisis could occur. Some scientists argue that the possibility that such harmful side effects may be larger than the expected benefits should deter consideration of some or all geoengineering proposals.
All of this talk about geoengineering has been in some respects has been leveled to mere conspiracy theory, however, climate tinkering has been going on since the 1990’s and weather modification has been advanced in the United States and China.
Any effective, large-scale modification of the climate will necessarily have global consequences. While the technical aspects of essentially every geoengineering method will require a great deal of additional research and examination, the legal, governmental, socio-political and ethical issues may ultimately be greater challenges to deployment.
There are several fundamental questions on geoengineering governance that would need to be addressed: Who decides what methods are used? What regulatory mechanisms are there, and who establishes them? Who pays for the research, implementation, and surveillance? Who decides our ultimate goals and the pace in which we take toward achieving them? While some international treaties or agreements may be applicable to certain geoengineering applications, there are currently no regulatory frameworks in place aimed at geoengineering specifically.
Furthermore, several proposed geoengineering strategies may directly violate existing treaties. These frameworks may pose an additional challenge for geoengineering implementation, but they may also provide guidance on ways to address the complex issues of jurisdiction and responsibility at the international scale.
One challenge to address is the likelihood of inequitable effects on particular localities. Large-scale efforts conducted in a particular place may produce greater net impact on that region. For example, stratospheric aerosols injections in the Midwest
United States might result in decreased crop outputs in the region. In addition, a weather pattern, ecosystem balance or wildlife population modified as an effect of geoengineering could yield a disproportionate effect somewhere outside the source area. This could, for example, cause erratic precipitation patterns in one place, blizzards in another and massive Tornadoes in another.
If what we are witnessing with the recent weather is geoengineering we are not only seeing a butterfly effect — but something that would be akin to the Mothra Effect.
Ironically, Mothra is a creature from the Godzilla movies that is a giant moth goddess that can absorb energy weapon attacks that set our to thwart the balance of nature.
Our planet’s atmosphere has been taking a beating from energy weapons that are being used for Climate engineering — there are patents and treaties on the books that put simply warn us that terrorist that have access to weather weapons can destroy an area with plausible deniability.
Many believe that heavy Chemtrail spraying and advanced Direct Energy Weapons can steer storms and multiply their ferocity.
There have been a few weather anomalies that can be seen as direct hits – but that is up to you to decide if they are.
The continued force multiplied storm systems aren’t just a complication of the Butterfly Effect but a metaphoric beating that can be called The Mothra Effect.
Cloud seeding technology, or systems that can blasts silver molecules into the sky to prompt condensation and cloud formation, has been around for decades, and China makes frequent use of it. But now, CNN reports that China wants to increase the total size of its weather modification test area to 5.5 million square miles by 2025 — a huge increase, and an area larger than that of the entire country of India, which could affect the environment on an epic scale and even potentially spur conflict with nearby countries.
But does weather warfare conducted by China have a Mothra Effect on weather systems in other locales?
It is hard to say — but what we experience and what is happening is again unprecedented.
In the past, China has used its weather modification tech to seed clouds well in advance of major events like the 2008 Olympics and political meetings so the events themselves happen under clear skies. But this planned expansion of the system means that other countries may be subject to its meteorological whims — seeding international conflict in addition to clouds.
Creating weather warfare which could be more devastating than any bomb.
There are concerns about the lengths to which the Communist government is willing to go to in tampering with the elements. In the 1970s, Chinese generals proposed using nuclear weapons to blast a channel through the Himalayas so that warm humid air from the Indian subcontinent could be diverted to green the deserts of central and northern China. The country is also in the midst of the world’s biggest water diversion scheme, which aims to achieve a similar goal.
This political decision to use weather modification follows a rapid buildup of capacity in recent years that has cost $168m in 2017, with the purchase of 4 new planes, eight upgraded aircraft sprayers , 897 rocket launchers and 1,856 digital control devices to cover 370,000 miles about 10% of China’s territory.
So obviously. China has an advanced weather modification aerosolized spraying program.
The mad schemes of geoengineering are a threat to the planet and it is also evident that so are global warming alarmists, especially alarmists with enough money to carry out experiments that could create an environmental catastrophe such as methane releases into the atmosphere, earthquakes and weather modification.
While most people are acquainted with the Chemtrail energy weapon cloud seeding geoengineering schemes — there are many other ways to create weather and ecological anomalies that don’t get much attention.
Now, Bill Gates and others have invested in Carbon Dioxide removal and Carbon Capture projects.
Carbon Dioxide removal purports to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, either by displacement or by stimulating the pace of naturally occurring carbon-consuming chemical processes. Carbon Dioxide removal strategies have the advantage of lowering the carbon content of the atmosphere. However, several of the options would be slow to implement and may be impossible to reverse. Those strategies involving a release of chemicals could also have a significant effect on vulnerable oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems.
In addition, the chemical strategies would require increased mining efforts and the transportation of needed materials, which would carry its own environmental implications.
Carbon Capture and sequestration are already the subject of several U.S. and international research and development initiatives for electric power plant applications, in this case Carbon Capture and sequestration describes the capture of ambient greenhouse gasses and storage in geologic reservoirs, such as natural cave systems and depleted oil wells. Some geoengineering papers refer to this strategy as Carbon Removal and Storage.
Bill Gates has also invested in Sun Dimming or Solar Radiation Management.
Solar Radiation strategies do not modify CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Instead, they reflect incoming radiation to reduce the atmosphere’s solar energy content and restore its natural energy balance.
Proposed reductions of solar radiation absorption are usually 1–2% 10; around 30% is already reflected naturally by the earth’s surface and atmosphere. The methods are space, land, or ocean-based and involve either introducing new reflective objects within or outside of the atmosphere, or an increase in the reflectivity or albedo 12 of existing structures and landforms.
Solar Radiation strategies could reduce increases in temperature, but it may not address the non-temperature aspects of greenhouse-induced climate changes. Solar Radiation strategies would generally take effect more quickly than Carbon Dioxide removal strategies. However, once started, some would likely require constant maintenance and/or replenishment to avoid sudden and drastic increases in temperature or of course the so-called Mothra Effect that would cause force multiple snows storms tornadoes and hurricanes.
Very little applied research to demonstrate the efficacy and outside consequences of geoengineering proposals has been conducted so far; study has largely been limited to computer simulations. It is possible for a non-governmental group or individual to undertake one of the higher-impact, lower-cost geoengineering initiatives unilaterally, perhaps without scientific support or any risk management strategy– these experiments are reckless and certainly can damage the jet stream and create freak weather patterns.