Religion and Ethics BBS

Religion and Ethics BBS
[ Religion and Ethics BBS ]

Cloud seeding to blame for Texas flood? 81 dead. Some still missing.

Posted by GOG on July 7, 2025, 6:22 am

Of course the seeding company is denying responsibility. There is a weather mod company here in Northern California that is injecting sulphur into the stratosphere. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. Dane Wigington is 100% right.

100% FAKE NEWS

Posted by KR on July 7, 2025, 9:08 am, in reply to "Cloud seeding to blame for Texas flood? 81 dead. Some still missing."

A number of years ago Wigington claimed that the California drought

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 7:00 am, in reply to "Cloud seeding to blame for Texas flood? 81 dead. Some still missing."

was a conspiracy.

Now its flooding.

He should make up his mind.

This is all that climate engineering stuff.

I don't know if he is an attention seeker, a trouble maker, a nut or what. I for one wouldn't pay the slightest attention to him.

"The California drought manipulation conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory that proposes that the 2011–2017 drought was a deliberate, man-made phenomenon, created by weather modification. It is largely promoted by a number of self-proclaimed "independent researchers" and "scientists", and by alternative news outlets.[citation needed] The theory has been dismissed by the scientific community and mainstream media as fringe science or pseudoscience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_drought_manipulation_conspiracy_theory

REDDING (CBS13) — There is a growing, underground movement of people who believe California's drought is part of a government conspiracy instead of a naturally occurring event from a lack of rain during the last four years.

The movement's leader, Dane Wigington, says he's putting his life on the line to reveal a truth that will shake society to its core.

From the outside, it's clear the hundreds showing up beat to a different drum. But stepping inside a packed Redding auditorium is like walking into another world. Outlandish ideas like weather warfare and climate engineering—in other words, weather control—are accepted as basic fact.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/growing-number-believe-californias-drought-is-a-government-conspiracy/

Wigington is a hero.

Posted by GOG on July 7, 2025, 2:16 pm, in reply to "A number of years ago Wigington claimed that the California drought"

Your 'hero' was looking for $75,000.00.

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 6:53 pm, in reply to "Wigington is a hero."

Why would anyone do such a thing? What is the alleged motive?

Posted by Ken C on July 7, 2025, 6:31 am, in reply to "Cloud seeding to blame for Texas flood? 81 dead. Some still missing."

An accident? The seeding likely was meant to increase rain

Posted by GOG on July 7, 2025, 2:22 pm, in reply to "Why would anyone do such a thing? What is the alleged motive?"

for an agricultural purpose. Unfortunately the mass of shite laid down in a tropical disturbance went ‘downstream’ and dumped its rain making magic where not intended. Not the first time. Also, weather warfare experimenting on the American People by the Pentagon is a fact. People are so naive.

IDK what could possibly motivate anyone from doing such a thing but as far as

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 7:15 am, in reply to "Why would anyone do such a thing? What is the alleged motive?"

Wigington goes, he could be simply after money. . . and attention:

Researchers Hit With Lawsuits for Fact-Checking Climate Claims

A loose coalition of conspiracy theorists, libertarians and conservative groups — some with fossil-fuel ties — have gone after those who have provided fact-checks used to counter misleading claims circulating on sites such as Facebook and TikTok.

The climate researchers, who often volunteer their time, have faced lawsuits designed to drain resources and dissuade their work as well as requests seeking voluminous records from the public institutions that employ them, a tool often used by journalists and others to investigative public agencies. The researchers say the public records that are divulged as a result of the requests are sometimes then used to challenge — or smear — their work and are ultimately intended to muzzle them.

https://www.law.com/2022/09/19/researchers-hit-with-lawsuits-for-fact-checking-climate-claims/?slreturn=20250707100237

The suit was dismissed:

California Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Case Against Climate Scientist Fact Checker. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a climate scientist’s motion to dismiss a defamation action brought by a plaintiff who published a documentary on YouTube and Facebook promoting his belief that there “has been an intentional effort to dim direct sunlight through aircraft-dispersed particles.” In a third-party fact checker’s review of the documentary, the defendant climate scientist referred to the documentary’s claims as “pure fantasy.” The court concluded it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who was a senior research associate at Cornell University in New York. The court also granted the defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law and awarded the defendant fees and costs.

https://climatecasechart.com/case/wigington-v-macmartin/

Good. Fact checkers are known liars.

Posted by GOG on July 7, 2025, 2:25 pm, in reply to "IDK what could possibly motivate anyone from doing such a thing but as far as "

Cimate scientist and a senior research associate at Cornell University in New

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 6:57 pm, in reply to "Good. Fact checkers are known liars."

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a climate scientist’s motion to dismiss a defamation action brought by a plaintiff who published a documentary on YouTube and Facebook promoting his belief that there “has been an intentional effort to dim direct sunlight through aircraft-dispersed particles.” In a third-party fact checker’s review of the documentary, the defendant climate scientist referred to the documentary’s claims as “pure fantasy.” The court concluded it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who was a senior research associate at Cornell University in New York. The court also granted the defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law and awarded the defendant fees and costs.

https://climatecasechart.com/case/wigington-v-macmartin/

in New York. (phrase was cut off in subject line)

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 6:58 pm, in reply to "Cimate scientist and a senior research associate at Cornell University in New"

Additional reasons for lawsuit dismissal by the court:

Posted by Dancing Digits on July 7, 2025, 7:27 am, in reply to "IDK what could possibly motivate anyone from doing such a thing but as far as "

A federal court in California recently declined to wade into the merits of a different scientific
controversy in response to a defamation claim against the nonprofit Greenpeace, International. The
court dismissed the defamation claims, holding that “[t]he academy, and not the courthouse, is the
appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements of this kind.” Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v.
Greenpeace Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Greenpeace court continued by
quoting from a Judge Easterbrook opinion: “scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of
science rather than by the methods of litigation.” Id. (quoting Underwager v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730 (7th
Cir. 1994)). The Greenpeace court concluded that, “[f]or that reason, courts have a justifiable
reticence about venturing into the thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context.”
Case 2:21-cv-02355-KJM-DMC Document 7-1 Filed 01/24/22 Page 7 of 25

DEFENDANT DOUGLAS MACMARTIN’s MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE
Id. (quoting Arthur v. Offit, No. 01:09-cv-1398, 2010 WL 883745, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2010)).
The Complaint is dismissible for a host of reasons. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
MacMartin, who is a permanent resident of New York and lacks the exceptional contacts with
California necessary to warrant the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a non-California
domiciliary. Nor can the Court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over MacMartin since he has
not “expressly aimed” his allegedly tortious conduct at California. The fact that the Plaintiff is a
California resident is simply not enough under California law.
Plaintiff’s claims should also be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to plead actionable
defamation. The two statements at issue here are clearly statements of constitutionally-protected
opinion based on MacMartin’s knowledge of the field of geoengineering. The statements are listed
under the heading “feedback,” and are replete with language that makes clear that MacMartin is
expressing his opinion. Further, Plaintiff has failed to plead actual malice, which is a requirement
because Plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure. Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that MacMartin
provided his feedback with knowledge of (or reckless disregard as to) its alleged falsity. Plaintiff’s
interference claims are similarly insufficiently pled and should be dismissed.
Lastly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is a classic SLAPP lawsuit, and for the reasons stated herein,
Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike should be granted.

https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220124_docket-221-cv-02355_motion-to-dismiss.pdf

« Back to index

[ Religion and Ethics BBS ]