Is Our Weather Being Manipulated?

An Examination of Geoengineering, Weather Control, and the Weaponization of Climate Change

The Reality of Geoengineering
Geoengineering and weather control are no longer speculative—they are real, with decades of development behind them. As Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1962, “He who controls the weather controls the world.” This statement is especially relevant today as we navigate an era in which the manipulation of weather has become a national and global strategy. Yet, the public remains largely unaware of the full extent of these technologies or the consequences they carry for our environment and civil liberties.

Historical Context: Weather Control in Action
The pursuit of weather control is not new. In the early 1900s, Charles Hatfield conducted rainmaking experiments using cloud seeding, causing a catastrophic flood. This early example demonstrated both the potential and dangers of manipulating the weather.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used Operation Popeye (1967-1972) to extend monsoon seasons by cloud seeding, a tactic aimed at disrupting enemy supply routes. Similarly, Project Cirrus and Project Stormfury sought to control hurricanes, highlighting that weather manipulation was not only feasible but also actively pursued for strategic purposes.

In 1996, the U.S. military released a report titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025." This document underscored the military’s ambition to control weather for tactical and strategic advantage, making it clear that weather control is as much a tool of geopolitics as environmental policy. Despite treaties like the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), signed in 1978 to prevent the hostile use of weather modification, questions persist about the current use of these technologies.

While these historical examples demonstrate the long-standing interest in weather modification, today's efforts are increasingly tied to global climate initiatives. International organizations and corporate entities are now deeply involved in shaping climate policy, often with little public oversight. This global involvement may, in fact, set the stage for the advanced technologies and secretive programs we see today.

Examples of Active Projects and Discussions
Bill Gates has been influential in shaping various climate-related initiatives, from promoting synthetic beef to backing controversial geoengineering projects. His advocacy for synthetic meat as a solution to reduce livestock-related emissions is just one example of how unelected individuals are proposing dramatic changes to how billions of people live and eat.

More significantly, Gates has backed controversial sun-dimming projects aimed at blocking out the sun to mitigate climate change, such as the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). Gates’ involvement illustrates the extent to which elites are willing to pursue experimental geoengineering solutions despite the risks involved. While these technologies might offer potential solutions to climate issues, the lack of public involvement in their development is deeply concerning. Moreover, the outsized influence of unelected technocrats like Gates over global policy decisions that affect billions of people raises serious questions about democratic accountability and the concentration of power in the hands of a wealthy few.

In 2016, John Brennan, then the Director of the CIA, acknowledged geoengineering as a tool for climate control, specifically mentioning Solar Radiation Management (SRM). He described SRM as a technique that could be used to reflect sunlight back into space by spraying particles into the stratosphere, revealing the deep governmental and intelligence community ties to these technologies.

New technologies like cloud brightening, which aim to increase the reflectivity of clouds, are also being developed. Again, while these may have potential benefits, they are being deployed without the knowledge or consent of the overwhelming majority of the public, raising significant concerns about transparency and unforeseen environmental consequences.

In fairness, there has been some discussion of solar geoengineering in outlets like the NBC clip referenced above or in this recent article in The New York Times. However, such reports often gloss over the broader implications and present these programs as though they are being deployed matter-of-factly. Who voted for this? It begs the question of how such powerful interventions are being rolled out with so little public debate or understanding.

The Technology Behind Geoengineering: Key Patents
A review of key geoengineering patents reveals the depth of possible technological advancements in weather control. While the existence of a patent doesn’t necessarily mean the technology is being deployed, we know that some weather manipulation programs are already operational. These patents demonstrate that weather manipulation is not merely theoretical—it has the potential for widespread implementation. But is it being deployed now? If so, where? Our politicians and media rarely discuss this in public forums or widely accessible spaces. Instead, it’s addressed in limited venues, such as John Brennan’s presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations, cited earlier.

- US4686605A: Weather Modification by Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating, a patent that outlines methods to modify atmospheric conditions to control the weather.

- US5104069A: Apparatus and Method for Ejecting Matter from an Aircraft, which demonstrates how chemicals and gases can be dispersed into the atmosphere to impact weather systems.

- US4412754A: Laminar Microjet Atomizer for Aerial Spraying, a technology designed for large-scale aerial spraying that can affect weather patterns and the environment.

- US7413145B2: Aerial Fire Suppression System, which shows how aircraft can be used for large-scale atmospheric modification in fire-prone areas.

- US7819362B2: Enhanced Aerial Delivery System, a patent that builds on existing aerial technologies to deliver chemicals that may affect weather and environmental conditions.

- US20130175352: Method for Influencing the Path of Hurricanes, a patent suggesting that we have the ability to steer hurricanes, raising concerns about whether recent natural disasters are being influenced by human intervention.

- US10337841B2: Directed Energy Weapons, a patent linked to energy-based technologies like DEWs, which have been suspected in several recent disasters.

These patents, and the technologies they represent, are not merely speculative. While we know some are being deployed, we don’t know which ones, where, or how they are impacting the world. The public remains largely unaware of the full extent of these technologies. Here’s a rundown of all weather modification patents since 1891, raising the question: are these technologies being deployed globally?

HAARP and the Military's Role in Geoengineering
One of the most controversial programs associated with weather control is HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), which many believe is used to manipulate weather patterns. Patents like US4686605A, which focus on atmospheric heating, are linked directly to HAARP technologies, highlighting the connection between geoengineering and military applications. For those curious to dig deeper, two well-sourced books, Angels Don’t Play This HAARP by Jeane Manning and Nick Begich, and HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy by Jerry E. Smith, offer well sourced and thorough examinations of this astonishingly powerful technology. While a curious-minded individual can uncover extensive information through independent research, it’s revealing that HAARP and similar programs remain largely absent from mainstream dialogue, raising questions about the transparency of such discussions in the public sphere.

The Blurring Line Between Natural and Engineered Disasters
In recent years, several natural disasters have sparked theories and speculation about potential links to corporate interests. The Maui fires, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and incidents in Asheville have all become subjects of such theories. Some individuals have speculated about connections to the Department of Defense, lithium mining, Smart Cities initiatives. These speculations have led some to question whether these events were truly natural or, as the theories suggest, engineered for profit or political gain. Additionally, claims about the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in the Maui fires and other events have gained traction in certain online communities. It's important to note that these are unproven theories and do not represent verified facts or mainstream scientific consensus (though history reminds us that consensus isn't always infallible). Instead, they reflect a growing tendency among some groups to view disasters through a lens of suspicion and skepticism, further blurring the line in public discourse between established facts about natural disasters and speculative claims of human manipulation

In Dubai, weather manipulation is already a common practice. The city uses cloud seeding to create artificial rain and combat extreme heat. If Dubai can openly implement such technology, one has to wonder what other capabilities exist globally and why these technologies are not at the forefront of public conversation. This raises questions about the extent of weather modification techniques being developed or used in other parts of the world, and the reasons behind the apparent lack of open discussion on these potentially transformative technologies.

Global Overreach: The UN, World Economic Forum, and Corporate Influence
While geoengineering and climate control technologies remain largely hidden from public view, global institutions are pushing for increased government intervention in the name of combating climate change. This raises provocative questions: Are climate policies being used as a smokescreen for more controversial weather modification efforts? The UN Secretary-General has hinted at expanding government control, including mechanisms for greater oversight of personal behavior for environmental protection. Simultaneously, the World Economic Forum (WEF) promotes initiatives like 'My Carbon,' aimed at regulating individual actions in urban environments to create 'inclusive and sustainable cities.' This push for behavior regulation becomes even more concerning when juxtaposed with the lack of transparency surrounding weather modification technologies. How much of climate policy is genuinely about reducing emissions, and how much might be about normalizing control mechanisms that could support covert geoengineering? The rapid reordering of society based on the existential threat of climate change underscores how deeply intertwined global governance has become with environmental agendas, blurring the lines between overt policy and potential hidden technological interventions.

Furthermore, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s shareholder letter exemplifies the troubling extent of corporate influence on environmental policy. Dimon suggested that governments may need to 'evoke eminent domain—we simply are not getting the adequate investments fast enough for grid, solar, wind, and pipeline initiatives,' underscoring how corporate agendas are increasingly influencing policies designed to achieve net-zero targets. This raises serious concerns about overreach and the erosion of individual rights under the guise of environmentalism.

The New "Crisis": Weaponizing Climate Change
For quite some time, I’ve warned friends that climate change would be declared the next “crisis,” forcing us to change how we eat, travel, and communicate. This approach weaponizes our empathy—after all, who doesn’t want to leave a better world for future generations? However, what is often missing from the discussion is a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of how this societal reordering is being implemented. The public is rarely asked to assess the strategies and implementation of these policies, and those who question the narrative are sidelined.

Many of us have grown mistrusting of our institutions for a reason. Without knowing their full capabilities and without public discussion about how these technologies are being deployed, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between natural disasters and engineered events. We are left to wonder whether the climate crises we are experiencing are genuinely natural or the result of human intervention.

The Erosion of Civil Liberties: A Pattern
If anyone has studied history, they know that when governments gain power, they always expand it, and they never give it up. We’ve seen this pattern play out with the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on COVID. Now, the War on Climate is following the same script. These "wars" are built on invisible boogeymen—climate change, terrorism, disease—designed to instill fear and justify policies that steadily chip away at our civil liberties. 

The Same Players, Same Agenda
As my friend Josh Walkos points out here, "the people who are the most responsible for destroying the environment are now lecturing the world on how it’s going to end unless we comply with their tyrannical plans." The same institutions that led the response to COVID are now driving climate policy, pushing their agendas while consolidating their control over global decisions.

It's not just the tactics that are familiar; it's also the exact people behind them. Take ex-New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, for example. Despite her misguided COVID policies, she has recently secured two influential roles: heading a charity fighting “online extremism” and now serving as a climate change envoy for the Prince of Wales. This career trajectory is particularly galling to those who view her pandemic leadership as deeply flawed, if not outright tyrannical. That someone whose COVID policies were so controversial and, indisputably, detrimental can now position herself as an arbiter of online discourse and climate policy exemplifies how tightly elites control the narrative. It raises unsettling questions about accountability and the recycling of political figures regardless of their track record. This consolidation of power and influence among a select group, even in the face of significant policy failures, demonstrates the often impenetrable nature of elite circles and their grip on the levers of change.

This consolidation of power extends beyond Ardern, of course. Another familiar pattern has emerged in the narrative around geoengineering. The media, which once dismissed weather modification technologies as conspiracy theories, now claims these technologies are necessary to combat climate change. This shift—from denial to endorsement—raises questions about why the public is only now being told about these programs. Figures like Bill Gates, who have significant financial influence over global narratives, are deeply involved in geoengineering efforts. Gates’ funding of the BBC, as documented in this Philanthropy News Digest report, raises legitimate concerns about motivations.

This situation bears a striking resemblance to Gates' role during the COVID-19 pandemic, where he simultaneously held financial interests in vaccine development while using his influence to strongly advocate for global vaccination programs. If Gates is both funding geoengineering projects and potentially influencing media narratives around them, just as he did with vaccines, how can we trust that the information being disseminated is objective?

It’s also worth highlighting that the media is now presenting geoengineering as not just feasible but urgent, as seen in the BBC’s coverage of sun-dimming technologies. This raises an important question: if these technologies were being explored in secret for years, why are we only hearing about them now when they are being framed as necessary solutions? The same players who pushed authoritarian measures during COVID are now involved in shaping the climate change narrative, suggesting an agenda driven by control rather than genuine public interest.

This pattern of financial involvement coupled with narrative control across multiple global issues—from vaccines to diet to geoengineering—should prompt critical examination of the motivations behind these efforts and the integrity of public information.

Absurdity of Elites’ Lectures
It’s tiresome to be lectured by the rich and famous about meat consumption, gas ovens, or plastic straws while they jet from their private planes to their yachts. Their hypocrisy undermines public trust in the climate change narrative and reflects the vast chasm between their rhetoric and lifestyle. This disconnect is particularly glaring when considering events like the World Economic Forum in Davos, where global elites congregate to discuss reshaping society and reducing carbon emissions, all while arriving in private jets and luxury vehicles, collectively generating a carbon footprint that dwarfs the lifetime emissions of the average citizen they claim to represent. The stark contrast between their words and actions not only erodes credibility but also raises questions about the true motivations behind their proposed societal changes.

Open Discussion and the Dangers of Censorship
The need for open debate on geoengineering is more critical than ever. The experience of COVID-19 censorship has shown us just how dangerous it is when dissenting voices are silenced. During the pandemic, anyone questioning the official narrative faced censorship and suppression, as seen in numerous cases. Dr. Naomi Wolf, who I’ve personally discussed these topics with, was one of the voices silenced, even though her reporting was an order of magnitude more accurate than what was presented by the legacy media. In fact, her analysis, particularly on COVID-related policies, proved to be far more prescient and aligned with the emerging data than the mainstream coverage at the time.

As we now turn to global issues like geoengineering, perhaps it's time we hear more from voices like hers—those with a stronger track record for accuracy and transparency, and who are also willing to admit when they make mistakes. This openness is vital to restoring public trust, as it contrasts sharply with the rigidity of institutions that refuse to reconsider their positions. Naomi’s insights on geoengineering, biofuels, and the dramatic changes in our skies are invaluable, yet her voice, like so many others, has been marginalized in mainstream discourse. You can explore her perspective in more detail here.

This hubris of controlling the narrative extends beyond COVID. In a recent interview, the UN's Melissa Fleming openly stated that “we own the science” when it comes to global narratives. This claim exemplifies the extraordinary hubris of believing any institution or group can "own" scientific discourse, which is supposed to be based on open inquiry and debate.

Such arrogance can be profoundly dangerous to both policy-making and public trust. The idea that any group can claim ownership over science is fundamentally flawed and harmful. When authorities attempt to control scientific narratives, they stifle genuine debate, potentially leading to flawed policies based on incomplete or biased information. This erosion of trust in scientific institutions and official narratives drives people to seek alternative explanations, even those that might seem outlandish to others, breeding unconventional narratives and further polarizing public discourse.

This dangerous trend extends beyond COVID and climate change to geoengineering, where discussions are tightly controlled and dissent is marginalized. Reasonable people should be able to debate the means and methods for solving complex public problems. However, these crucial conversations are impossible when programs like geoengineering and weather modification operate in secrecy.

Transparency is Essential
There can be no genuine conversation about climate change without acknowledging the role of geoengineering and HAARP. These technologies have significant environmental impacts, yet remain largely absent from public discourse. The fact that six U.S. states—Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Arizona, and California—have enacted or proposed legislation to regulate or ban geoengineering activities strongly suggests that these technologies are not merely speculative. Clearly, something is happening that has prompted multiple states to take legal action. These regulations acknowledge the growing concern over the lack of transparency and public involvement in decisions that could have far-reaching consequences for both the environment and civil liberties.

When open debate is suppressed, we lose our ability to hold those in power accountable. Consequently, decisions that affect everyone are made behind closed doors, undermining the principles of transparency and democratic participation in shaping our collective future.

We are at a critical juncture where the actions of governments and global elites could fundamentally reshape society in the name of addressing climate change. But without transparency about the technologies being used it's impossible to have a fully informed debate. Public accountability and open discussions are essential if we are to address these challenges in a way that respects civil liberties and ensures that solutions are being deployed responsibly. Otherwise, we risk losing more than just our trust in institutions—we risk losing our freedoms. To achieve this transparency, I believe we must:

• Demand public hearings on geoengineering projects

• Advocate for increased civilian oversight of weather modification programs

• Encourage independent scientific review of proposed technologies

• Promote media literacy to help people critically evaluate climate change narratives

Only through these steps can we ensure that the development and potential deployment of geoengineering technologies align with public interest and democratic principles. Without such measures, we risk not only losing trust in our institutions but also our fundamental freedoms. The stakes are too high to allow decisions that could reshape our world to be made in secret, without public scrutiny or consent.