Geoengineering: Tennessee votes for blue skies

HB2063/SB2691 states, “Environmental Preservation – As enacted, prohibits the intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight. – Amends TCA Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 39; Title 42; Title 43; Title 44; Title 55; Title 58; Title 59; Title 60; Title 65; Title 68 and Title 69.” …..

The White House document titled Congressionally Mandated Research Plan and Initial Research Governance Framework Related to Solar Radiation Modification was pointed to as the cause of a sense of urgency to enter legislation establishing a governance framework for geoengineering and forms of weather modification like SRM (solar radiation modification), SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection) and other aerosol injection practices in Tennessee as well as in seven other states.

Those states include Kentucky, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Illinois, South Dakota, Minnesota and Connecticut.

The Tennessee Conservative, 16 April 2024 ( )

Climate Change? Former IPCC scientists recant

“All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Dr Roger Pielke, one of 46 former IPCC contributors quoted in, 28 May 2024 (Warmth Is Good; + 46 ‘Climate Change Denying’ Statements Made By Former IPCC Scientists – Electroverse )

If ever there was a government policy area that cried out for truth, it is the claim of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

On that basis I encourage you to read the other 45 comments.

Taken collectively, they reflect three things:

  • that the modelling relied upon by IPCC is flawed
  • that the policy position held by IPCC is not supported by the scientific evidence

  • that the official narrative is impervious to honest scientific enquiry.

The article finishes with a quote. The quote reflects that truth is of no concern here:

Geoengineering:  ‘Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025’

‘In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined.  In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.   “The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”  in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.”

A study produced in the Department of Defence by Col TJ House and team in response to a directive from the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force and presented in June 1996


I am persuaded, long since.  The evidence is writ large across our skies.

I am not trying to persuade anybody else.  Do your own research. 

To get you started, some references may help.  Here are a couple:

The Dimming, documentary from  (1h57m viewing)

Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying ( , 7 years ago, 2 mins )

Harvard University’s Geoengineering Program

Global cooling??

The statement

“If CO2 is warming the atmosphere since 1900, can someone explain why all raw data (worldwide) show cooling?  It’s cooling in Australia.  And the US too!  If there is warming, why is it that the area of snow cover is stagnant?”

The source

Kevin Loughrey, Independent candidate for Ballina in the NSW State Election on 25 March 2023, in a pre-election advertisement in the Byron Shire Echo (of which Hans Lovejoy, see item above, is Editor).

My take on it

These contra-narrative data won’t be popular amongst the mainstream information peddlars, challenging as they do, one of the primary assumptions on which climate change alarmism and CO2 demonisation are based.

Come to think of it, I was just reading over the weekend about polar bears being on the increase too.

Yes, freedom of belief is one of the primary freedoms.    And when the data don’t all align, it comes back to what you believe, which generally is about whom you believe.