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: