THE BREAKING OF THE GREAT ARTIFICIAL DROUGHT
The Great Artificial Drought has been broken by the slow, steady, widespread and ever-increasing distribution of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices in the vicinity of the weather warfare infrastructure that many still mistakenly presume only carries cell phone traffic and weather radar data.
Curtin Springs, Australia had its highest September daily rainfall on record on October 2, 2017.
In December 2017, Australia’s “Sky News” spoke of “Flooding across Vic after record rainfall”.
Where, under the false guise of familiarity, they abbreviated “Victoria” to make the subject drastically less searchable. The article continues the tale of woe:
“Victoria is on high alert as rain eases, however the risk of flooding remains across parts of the state.”
Tale of woe, continued: “Rains are expected to ease in Victoria after a summer's worth of rain fell in 24 hours, causing flash floods and forcing people from their homes.”
Life-giving, historically-unprecedented rain is painted as a destroyer. The author uses the general “summer’s worth of rain”, and withholds any specific information – what the amount was, how much higher than the old record it was, when the old record was set, et al.
The author makes no mention of what drove Victoria’s highest rains in history.
"Sky News" gets its name from the variously-named Sky gods that the folks in charge have worshipped in various guises, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.
The Ottawa, Canada all time daily snowfall record, from February 6, 2017, was 51.2 cm, 23% higher than the previous record of 40.6cm set in 1947. The record stood for seventy years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.
Ottawa, Canada’s current daily snowfall record for February 12, from 2017 is 28cm, 15% higher than the previous 24.4cm record from 1988. The record stood for almost 30 years, and then was suddenly broken by a large margin. The author used the neutral “breaking the record” to describe a 15% increase.
Toronto, Canada’s new snowfall record for January 29, from 2019, is 97% higher than the previous record from 2009. The record stood for a decade, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, historically-unprecedented margin.
In January 2017, phys.org said “ ‘Scientists’ find ‘culprits’ for ‘extreme’ rainfall ‘over’ Yangtze River in May”.
Where Mouthpiece of the State “phys.org” states that bountiful rainfall is a crime. The word “extreme” is used to trigger the “extreme weather” meme that is generally used to put a recovering climate into a negative light.
“Over” Yangtze River is a hedge against saying “on Yangtze River”. The article continues:
“In May 2016, an extreme rainfall occurred in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River Valley. The area averaged anomaly of total precipitation over the region (117°-121°E, 26°-34°N) was the third ‘wettest’ on record since 1961.”
‘Wet’ is used ubiquitously in the controlled press in place of rain’, whenever possible. The other night, while watching the Golf channel, the announcer said “we’ve had a ‘weather’ delay, because he’s forbidden from saying ‘rain’. P.S. Hail or snow was not involved in the delay.
In February 2017, Reykjavik, Iceland saw it’s biggest snowfall for 80 years. The author notes that 51cm of snow fell, but omits any mention of the previous record, only that the new record is “the most ever.”
In November 2017, weather.com said that early November snow cover in North America was the Highest “in Over a Decade”.
Where “in over a decade” is a general hedge, put forward against the actual number, “15 years”, and, even moreso, to avoid saying “since record keeping began fifteen years ago.”
In the article NOAA said that “Over one-quarter” of the area of the Lower 48 had snow on the ground on Nov. 8, 2017, the “largest” areal coverage of snow on that date. Where both “over one-quarter” and “largest” are both general, put forward as hedges against far more impactful statistics.
“This is the largest areal coverage of snow on that date in at least 14 years, according to NOAA data.”
Where “in at least 14 years” is general, put forward as a hedge against the far more impactful statistic, which I was forced to do the math to learn. The author included the old and new records, but hedged again by carefully omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. That’s a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.
Since they’ve used the general “over one quarter”, I’m going with 26% for the new record. With that, we’ve learned that snow cover increased 5% in the U.S. to it highest level ever recorded. The author hedges again by making no mention of when the previous record was set, doing everything they can to blunt and minimize awareness into the phenomenon. Remember, this is an at-least 5% increase in snow coverage. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
The author said it was the “most expansive” Nov. 8 snow cover in the Lower 48 in NOHRSC's 15-year analysis, “topping” Nov. 8, 2011's 21-percent coverage. Where “most expansive” and “topping” are both general hedges, put forward to keep you from getting a more specific idea of the scope and magnitude of the positive change we’re discussing here.
Where “topping” falsely infers that the new record was just above the old, when in fact the record was broken by a very large margin.
They author went on to say that it was a “sharp” contrast to one year ago, which was “one of the warmest Novembers on record”.
Where “sharp”, while lurid, is, once again, general. They’ve broken out the “Global Warming” meme. 2017 was officially stated to be the 2nd hottest year on record, a year in which the area covered by snow at one time increased 5% above the previous record.
In January 2018, accuweather.com said “ ‘Reports’: Record-‘setting’ blizzard buries New England in ‘over’ a foot of snow, brings travel to a halt”.
Where the headline begins with “reports” so that your subconscious can reject anything uncomfortable that follows with “oh, that’s just a ‘report’ “, or “that was ‘reported’ incorrectly.”
Record ‘setting’ only tersely notes that the record was set, but hedges by omitting any information as to how much. “Over” a foot of snow generalizes, so you can’t get an accurate picture of what’s going on.
“Brings travel to a halt” sets the negative tone. What else could there be to read, here? 60 to 70 percent of readers only read headlines.
In October 2017, webcenterfairbanks.com tersely said “Tuesday's deluge ‘set’ precipitation record in Fairbanks”. Where the hedging generality “set” was used to blunt any insight into the margin between the old record and the new. The article continues:
“Tuesday was the rainiest 24 hours for an October day in Fairbanks recorded weather history, according to a tweet from the National Weather Service. Fairbanks broke the October 24-hour precipitation record of 1.17 inches at noon, ‘with half the day remaining’.” As of 4 p.m., 1.34 inches of precipitation had fallen and it was still raining.
This is a tirelessly-used technique, in which, under the false guise of “rushing to press”, it will be announced that the record has been broken, but with a number far less than the total at the end of the storm. Even with this, the new record is 15% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. The author hedged again by omitting mention of when the previous record was set.
An honest news organization would have refused to publish the article, but rather waited a day until the data was accurate.
In December 2017, watchers.news said “Alaska ‘records’ ‘one of’ the most ‘extreme’ snowfall rates on record
Where the word “extreme” is used to conjure the “extreme weather” meme that’s been used for the last few years to try to luridly but generally explain away the great transformation in the natural environment that’s taken place.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. Two of those variants are “astonishing” and “extraordinary“.
That’s why the article says “An ‘astonishing’ 25.4 cm (10 inches) of snow per hour was reported at Thompson Pass near Valdez, Alaska on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. This is ‘extraordinary’ even by Valdez standards, the snowiest town in the United States.”
Where “astonishing” and “extraordinary”, while lurid, are general. The author lies bald-facedly and says it was only “one of” the most “extreme” snowfall rates on record. We know they’re lying because there’s no mention in the article as to what the previous record was, or when it was set.
That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.
The new daily snowfall record for Flagstaff, Arizona for December 24, from 2016, was 10.1 inches. The author said “The 10.1 inches of snow that fell at the Flagstaff Airport broke the daily record for Dec 24”, and that the new record broke the previous record from 1916 “by 6 inches”. The author used the hedging generalities “broke” and “by 6 inches” to avoid printing the far more impactful percentage, which I was forced to do the math to learn. The record stood for a hundred years, and then was suddenly broken by 146%.
In June 2016, a record number of rattlesnakes were said to be making their way into yards in California “Due To Drought.”
In January 2017 it was said that “Climate Alarmists Will Miss California's Drought”.
In January 2017, the pervertedly named “newsdeeply.com” pervertedly said “ ‘Why’ Record Precipitation ‘May Not Be a Cure-All for California’ “
In February 2017, as snowpack piled up, “experts” said California’s drought was not over.
In February 2017, abc.com said “California's ‘wet’ weather has some ‘believing’ the drought is over”.
Where the author has used the standard meme “wet” that’s the standard in the international news blackout on the subject, in place of the word “rain” wherever and whenever it might appear.
The drought is over, but the generational Satanist author at Mouthpiece of the State “ABC” puts forward the Big Lie that it’s not, and does so with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In March 2017 California had record precipitation and snowpack.
In April 2017 Governor Jerry Brown declared California’s drought emergency over “for now”.
An article from April 2017 said that, while the California drought was “officially” over, the next “could be 'around the corner’.”
An article from April 2017 said that California’s drought was over, “but the Rest of the World's Water Problems are Just Beginning.”
An article from April 2017 said that “California's drought and floods are over and just beginning”
In April 2017, Wired said that California “Overcame 1/100 Odds to Beat Its Epic Drought.”
In April 2017, the controlled-opposition mouthpiece ‘wattsupwiththat’ asked “What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California”.
The author is pretending to be on your side, but in fact has slipped in the use of the trigger meme ‘permanent drought’. It’s almost the first thing that you read. Boom! Endorphin rush. Programming triggered.
An article from May 2017 said “California's drought is all but over, but some wells are still dry.”
An article from July 2017 said “The California Drought Isn't Over, It Just Went Underground.”
In December 2017, The ‘Mercury’ News asked “ ‘Is’ California heading back into a drought’?’ “.
They’re fighting a tired rearguard action against rainfall levels exponentially above anything seen in recorded history. The name of their newspaper references one of their dark gods, Mercurius, whom they’ve worshipped under various guises, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before.
The snow total at the Squaw Valley Ski Area in California for 2018 and 2019 was twice that seen in 2012 and 2013.
Winter rainfall in Los Angeles increased 603% from 2018 to 2019, and was 55% above average.
Colorado Springs, Colorado set a rainfall record in July 2017 of 6.56 inches, 25% more than the previous record of 5.27 inches set in 1968. The record stood for almost fifty years, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin.
In March 2017, the Idaho Statesman said “Boise's ‘winter weather’ breaks ‘some’ records, ‘falls short on others’.”
Where “winter weather” is used as a more-general hedge against the specific use of the word “snow”. It’s a standard tactic in the international news blackout that’s in place on the subject. The headline quibbles that only “some” records were broken, while others “fell short”. In yet another hedge, they said the new record “handily surpassed” carefully hedged again by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 17% above the old. After standing for almost 40 years, the record was suddenly broken by a huge margin.
The current snowfall record for Chicago, IL for Halloween, set in 2019, is 3.4 inches, which is 3,300% larger than the previous record of .1 inch, set in 2014.
The record stood for half a decade, and then was suddenly broken by a quantum, historically-unprecedented margin.
The new rainfall record for Tampa Bay, Florida, from January 28, 2018, was 3.31 inches, and was 117% higher than the previous record of 1.52 inches, set in 1900. The record stood for over a hundred years, and then was broken by an exponential, historically-unprecedented margin.
The new January record for snowfall in Caribou, Maine, from 2019, is 34% above the previous record, set in 1991. The record stood for almost thirty years, and then was broken by a huge margin.
In March 2017, MPR News tersely said “Minnesota Annual Precipitation Record ‘Broken’
They used the terse, general “broken” to obscure any insight into the magnitude between the old record and the new. The article continues:
“Waseca, in south central Minnesota, ‘set’ the official state annual precipitation record, coming in with the ‘highest’ annual precipitation total for a National Weather Service Cooperative Observation site.
The author used the terse, general “set” and “highest” to obscure any insight into the margins between the records. The article continues:
“Waseca finished 2016 with a total of 56.24 inches, 63% of which fell between July and September, punctuated by over 10 inches of rain in two days near the end of that period. The old statewide annual record was 53.52 inches of precipitation at St. Francis in Anoka County in 1991.”
The author provided the numbers of the old and new records, but carefully hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 5% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
In January 9, 2019, MPR News said “Minnesota ‘smashes’ all-time state precipitation record in 2018”.
Where the lurid but general “smashed” is put forward to hedge against a far more impactful percentage, which has been withheld in an attempt to blunt and defray awareness of the phenomenon I’m documenting here.
“Move over Waseca. ‘It appears’ Harmony, Minn., set a brand new all-time state of Minnesota precipitation record in 2018.
Where “it appears” allows your subconscious to call it into question, believe that it didn’t even happen.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “astounding”.
That’s why the article goes on to say that “The National Weather Service cooperative weather observer in Harmony recorded an ‘astounding’ 60.21 inches of precipitation last year.”
While the author widened their eyes to simulate honesty and professed to be “astounded”, there’s no mention in the article as to what could be driving such an increase. The hedging continues:
“That 60.21-inch total ‘smashes’ the previous all-time state record of 56.24 inches set in Waseca in 2016. While the data is still preliminary and will be verified, it's very likely accurate.”
Where the lurid but general “smashed” is again put forward to hedge against a far more impactful percentage, which has been withheld in an attempt to blunt and defray awareness of the phenomenon I’m documenting here.
The author goes on to describe the margin as merely “Significant”, and a “4-inch margin above the previous record”.
So, I had to do the math. The new record is 7% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
In December 2016, Montana’s Billings Gazette said “Billings ‘breaks’ 61-year-old snowfall record for December
Where the author used the terse, general “breaks” as hedge in place of a far more impactful statistic. The article continues:
“ ‘More than 3 inches’ of snow on Friday pushed the city of Billings over a December snowfall record set in 1955 and put totals for the month ‘hovering below’ 30 inches, according to the National Weather Service in Billings. As of 4 p.m., snowfall for Friday measured 3.3 inches at the airport and put the total for December at 29.8 inches, said Julie Arthur, an NWS meteorologist in Billings.”
Where, in each case, a hedging generality is put forward prior to the delivery of the statistics. The story continues:
“Arthur said NWS records for Billings date back to 1934. "It's ‘pretty’ big," she said, of breaking the 1955 record of 28.8 inches. Snowfall for December 2016 surpassed totals for the entirety of the previous winter when Billings experienced a combined 28.1 inches of snow, Arthur said.”
Where the Illuminist talking-head shill quoted in the mainstream news article by calling the snowiest winter in history only “pretty” big. The author provided the old and new records, but hedged again by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. It’s 3.5% above the previous record.
Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by a large margin.
In October 2017, a record-breaking 14.8 inches of snow fell in Montana, the heaviest October snow in the state since 8.6 inches fell 1914.
The author provided the old and new records, but carefully hedged by omitting the percentage increase between them. It’s 72% above the previous record, set over a hundred years previously. The record stood for a century, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, historically-unprecedented margin.
In January 2018, weather.gov said “A total of 5.03 inches of precipitation was recorded for season, which was 2.05 inches above the normal of 2.98 inches. This made it the 13th wettest winter season on record for Duluth, Montana. 50.9 inches of snow fell through the season, which was 1.4 inches above the normal of 49.5 inches.
The author said it was “above normal” to avoid saying anything about the previous record. They also took care to withhold the percentage that precipitation was above normal, so, I had to do the math. It’s 69% above average. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
The snow total follows the same formula. It’s a statistically very significant 3% above normal. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
In December 2018, Montana’s Great Falls Tribune said “It was a ‘record’ day ‘for’ snow in Billings on Friday with 8.9 inches, breaking the mark set for December 29 in 2010.”
Where the terse, general “breaking the mark”, and offers no further information on the previous record beyond the date it was set. That’s so you’d have research another story to learn that the previous record was . That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.
In April 2018. climatesignals.org said “ ‘Double’ the ‘average’: Snowiest winter on record in ‘Billings’ ”.
Where, under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits the name of the state, to make the subject drastically less searchable.
The article says “The winter of 2017/18 will ‘go down in the record books as’ the snowiest on record in Billings, Montana's largest city.” Where the out has been provided for your subconscious to believe that it was merely recorded incorrectly.
After an additional 6.6 cm (2.6 inches) of snow on April 23, Billings officially reached its snowiest winter on record, with 269.5 cm (106.1 inches) of snow so far this winter through the afternoon of April 23. The previous record for Billings took place in 2013-14 when 262.9 cm (103.5 inches) of snow fell. In an average winter, Billings sees only 140 cm (55.1 inches) of snow, making this winter’s total ‘nearly double’ the seasonal average.”
The headline said “double”, while the body text says, correctly, “nearly double”. That’s a propaganda technique known as “walking it back”.
The author provided the numbers for the old and new records, but quickly shifted the conversation to “the average”, which tack they’d set off on up in the headline. That’s to blunt and defray the impact that the margin between the records has on the readers understanding of the phenomenon I’m documenting here. And, in any case, I was forced to do the math. The new record is 2.5% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
I’d note that the previous record was set in 2013 and 2014, which is during the time period comprised by the great positive changes that began in earnest in 2011 and 2012.
2017/2018’s all time high snowfall in Billings, Montana was 92% above average.
From October 2016 to February 2017, the increase in the water level of Lake Tahoe was “greater” than the same time period in the previous nine years.
Lake Tahoe was within 3 feet of the legal limit in February 2017.
In December 2017, Syracuse.com said “Syracuse ‘breaks’ snowfall record - and it wasn't ‘even’ the snowiest spot in ‘CNY’ ”.
Where “and it wasn’t even the snowiest spot in CNY” is a quibble, a hedge - something to downgrade the impact of the most snow ever in history in Syracuse. They used the false guise of familiarity to say “CNY”, so that the far more searchable “New York” could be omitted.
The subhead reads “Wednesday's snowfall in Central New York was ‘record-breaking’.” Where “record-breaking”, while factual, is general.
At Hancock International Airport, the official measuring station for Syracuse, 8.9 inches of snow fell. The old record for Dec. 13 was 5.9 inches, set in 1951.
The author provides the old and new records, but carefully hedges by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. It’s 51% above the previous record, set over 60 years previously. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins.
Here, the record stood for over sixty years and then was suddenly broken by a gigantic, historically unprecedented margin.
In January 2017, North Dakota’s Bismarck Tribune said “Bismarck snow ‘beats’ records”. Where “beats” is terse, and general, and implies the new records just surpassed the old. They wrote the article on the second of January, and the accurately document the breaking of the record. However, later, there will be no followup article on the massive margin between the old record and the new, because “we already did a story on that.”
“The total accumulation of snow ‘so far’ this season — or Jan. 2 — is 53.1 inches. That is the most snowfall ever accumulated to date, according to Michael Mathews, a meteorologist at National Weather Service in Bismarck.”
Getting all this material into a tagged database will later allow the easy production of an article where dozens of examples of the same tactic can be lined up for review with one another. It’s part of the process that’s going to be required to deprogram the multitude of Coincidence Theorists who have collectively locked all of us in the prison camp that is humanity.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants includes “mind-boggling”.
That’s why a story below from the Washington Post from April 2017 says “After 63 feet of snow, Northern California mountains break record for ‘wettest’ water year – a ‘mind-boggling’ 751 inches of snow have pummeled the Sugar Bowl ski area near Lake Tahoe this winter.”
Where the term “mind-boggling”, while lurid, is general. And there’s no specific mention in the article as to what the previous Sugar Bowl snow record was, at all - and certainly not of the percentage increase between the two.
In October 2017, Deseret.com said “Montana just ‘experienced’ a record-breaking ‘blizzard’. ‘Here’ are the photos”.
Where “experienced” hedges it back a step. The word “blizzard” hedges again, gymnastically avoiding saying the word “snow”, a standard tactic in the international news blackout that’s in place on this subject.
“Havre, Montana, reportedly received 14.8 inches of snow Monday night — setting a new record for highest snow total in October for the area, which had hovered ‘around’ 8.6 inches.”
It’s deviant and bizarre to publish a story on snowfall records and say that one of them “hovered around” 8.6 inches. It allows the subconscious of the reader to call the whole thing into question as unscientific.
They provided the old and new records, but carefully hedged again by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between them. So, I had to do the math. The new record is 72% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. This is heading toward a doubling over the old record.
We don’t know when the previous record was set, as the author has hedged yet again by omitting it.
In 2017, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma set a new daily rainfall record for October 4 with 2.79 inches of rain, 27% more than the previous record of 2.22 inches set in 1955.
In March 2017, generational Satanists at Climate Central covered for fellow generational-Satanist conspirators setting wildfires in Oklahoma with a storm headlined “Drought, Weather Fuel Record Oklahoma Wildfires”. P.S. I knew that before I checked the fact that 2017 was Tulsa, Oklahoma 26th-wettest year in 132 years.
In March 2017, generational Satanist “secret agents” were setting wildfires in Oklahoma, as evidenced by a USA Today story from April 2017, which reads “U.S. drought reaches record low as rain reigns”.
The article goes on: “ ’Poof!’ Drought, which covered almost one-third of the nation at the beginning of winter, has all but ‘vanished’. Where “poof!” And “vanished” are put forward for those not smarter than fifth graders, to make the sudden climactic transformation seem, well, magical.
“ ‘Abundant’ winter and spring rains have ‘decimated’ large regions of drought that afflicted the nation. On Thursday, the federal government’s U.S. Drought Monitor declared that only 6 percent of nation was affected by drought conditions, ‘the lowest percentage since it began its assessments in 2000’.”
Where “decimated” is highly negative, and upsetting to read. They’re the kind of slick little touches that really “punch up” a “hit-piece”.
A non-blood-drinking writer would have said “relieved large regions of drought.”
In 2017, Portland, Oregon set a rain record for October 21, with 1.62 inches, 47% more than the previous record of 1.1 inches set in 1966.
In December 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s inquirer.com said “‘Weather delay’: Snow arrives ‘late’, sets record … ‘and stays late’”. It’s a witchy piece of Black magic, in which “Weather delay” is what hooks your subconscious as you begin to read, while “sets record” is shoved in the middle, with “and stays late” tacked on the end so it’s even money you’ve spaced out on “sets record”.
“Philadelphia ‘reported’ an official 3.3 inches at 7 p.m., ‘besting’ the previous record of 2.9 for a Dec. 9, set 75 years ago.
“Reported” holds the straw out for your subconscious that “someone reported it incorrectly”, and “bested” implies that the new record only just broke the old.
Since the author hedged by omitting the far more impactful percentage increase between the records, I was forced to do the math. It’s 14% above the previous record.
The snowfall record stood for going on a Century, and then was suddenly broken by a huge margin. Such records are usually broken by a tiny margins.
The current daily rainfall record for July 11 in Allentown, Pennsylvania, set in 2019, is 135% above the previous record, which was set in 1982
The new snowfall record for Yankton, South Dakota, from January 21, 2018, was 14.2 inches, and was 89% above the previous record of 7.5 inches, set in 1982.
The 18-month period from March 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016, was the rainiest 18-month period on record for the city of Houston, Texas, with 106.68 inches, 12.2% more than the previous record.
In 2017, Amarillo, Texas set a rainfall record for August 9 of 2.41 inches, 43% more than the previous record of 1.69 inches set in 1939.
In December 2017, fox59.com said “It’s snowing in South Texas. Yes, you read that right.”
They wrote it that way to avoid saying “Houston breaks all time snow record with earliest seasonal snowfall on record”.
Where “It’s snowing in South Texas” completely generalizes the facts of the situation, to their most neutral level possible.
The article begins: “Big and fluffy snowflakes fell across parts of south Texas on Thursday, including San Antonio and Austin.”
Where “Big and fluffy snowflakes fell” while accurate, is obviously a blatant general hedge against “Houston breaks all time snow record with earliest seasonal snowfall on record”. They threw in “parts of” South Texas to minimize it even further.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “unusual”.
That’s why the article goes on to say that, while snow is common in “parts of” north Texas, it's “unusual” for this region to see snowfall. And, once again, they said that it was only “parts of” South Texas”, to minimize it even further.
The author said “This rare snow event isn't over yet. It's moving farther south to cities like Corpus Christi and Brownsville. They are expected to get snow throughout the night with 2-3 inches possible around Corpus Christi.”
Under the false guise of “rushing to press”, they’ve published the story prior to the breaking of the record, so that a very embarrassing headline doesn’t have to be written.
Snow records are being broken in South Texas, in what is purported to be the second hottest year in history.
In August 2017, the Washington Post said “Rainless in Seattle: ‘City has longest streak on record without rain’ - Seattle, the city known for its gray, rainy skies, hasn't seen a drop in 51 days.
The story, while factual, is a quote taken violently out of context, as you can see from a Curbed Seattle story from just five months later, in Januar 2018: “Seattle just finished its ‘wettest’ four years on record”. The meme ‘wet’ is used in the controlled press whenever possible to avoid using the term “rain”.
In December 2017, spokesman.com said “Friday’s snowfall breaks daily record ‘at airport’; ‘streets remain icy as full-city plow continues’
Under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits any mention of where this record took place. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”. It makes the subject almost completely unsearchable. For the record, it’s Spokane, Washington.
Where “breaks daily record ‘at airport’ ” is a hedge, implying that it only snowed heavily right at the airport, vs. across the region.
“Streets remain icy” closes the thought, and pulls the mind of the mouth-breaking headline reader off onto bitching about the weather, away from the historically unprecedented snowfall.
“On Friday, 7.1 inches fell, as measured at Spokane International Airport, crushing the record of 4.8 inches set on the same date in 1963.”
Where the author uses the lurid but general “crushing” the record to avoid at all costs printing the far more impactful percentage increase between them.
So I had to do the math. It’s 48 percent above the previous record. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for close to sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by a gigantic margin.
In December 2017, wtop.com said “ ‘Brief’ winter wonderland: Record snow totals and ‘what to expect next’.”
Under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits any mention of where this record took place. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”. It makes the subject almost completely unsearchable. For the record, it’s Washington, D.C.
“Brief” winter wonderland kicks us off with “it won’t last!”, and “what to expect next” pulls the subconscious of the mouth-breaking headline reader off onto the future they are supposed to think about, and off of the record that’s been sandwiched in between.
“The D.C. area ‘felt’ a wave of winter weather Saturday, its first significant snowfall in December since 2013. The day's weather ‘even’ broke snowfall records in all three of the region's airports.”
Where “felt” a wave of weather is deviant, and bizarre, hedging a giant step back from “experienced”. “The day’s weather ‘even’ broke snowfall records” tacks what should be the lead item of the story onto the very back end of the blathering.
“Storm Team 4 Meteorologist Steve Prinzivalli said Saturday’s snowfall broke records at Dulles International Airport (4 inches), BWI Marshall Airport (2.6 inches) and Reagan National Airport (2 inches).”
This story does not say a word about what the previous records were, or when they were set. That’s another example of the propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
In December 2017, weather.com snidely said “Saturday's snowfall ‘set’ records, ‘but it was only 2.4 inches’.”
Under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits any mention of where this record took place. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”. It makes the subject almost completely unsearchable. For the record, it’s Washington, D.C.
An historically unprecedented weather event, described snidely as “but it was only 2.4 inches”. The author makes no mention of what the previous record was, or when it was set.
In October 2017, yourdailyglobe.com said “Friday snow, rain brings ‘record’ precipitation”. Where, under the false guise of familiarity, the headline omits any mention of the location, to make the subject virtually unsearchable. For the record, they’re talking about Wisconsin. The terse “record” precipitation is as general as possible, and hedges against providing awareness into the wider trend I’m documenting here. The article continues:
“The 8 inches of snow that fell when rain turned into snow on Friday set an Oct. 28 record for Ironwood, according to the National Weather Service office in Marquette.”
The author says a record was set, but no more.
“Another 2 inches fell for the 24-hour period to 7 a.m. Sunday, making the weekend's snowfall 10 inches. About half of Friday's wet stuff fell as rain and the precipitation total of 1.63 inches for the period also set a single-day ‘record’.”
The author has mentioned another record was set, but won’t mention what it is. The article continues:
“Precipitation for October now stands at 5.59 inches, compared to the 116-year ‘average’ of 3.67 inches.”
They’ve compared the new record to the average, but carefully omitted mention of the previous record, while still trying to confuse you into thinking they’re being scientific, and stuff. The article continues:
“The ‘monthly’ record snowfall through Oct. 30 is the 26.7 inches that was measured in 1967, according to the NWS.” Where the author has now moved to discussion of the monthly record, again to avoid having to document what the previous precipitation record was, and when it was set.
March 15, 2017 – At Jackson Hole Mountain Resort the total snowfall received at the 9,580-foot elevation in Rendezvous Bowl from December 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017, was 390 inches. The Rendezvous Bowl weather site has the longest continuous record of snowfall on the upper mountain, and the record snowfall at that site for December through February is 417 inches, or almost 35 feet of snowfall. That was during the winter of 1996-97. The winter of 2016-17 is now ‘the second-snowiest “winter season” on the mountain, in its 40-some years of weather records. All other winters are a distant third’.
In early March 2017, Rendezvous Bowl’s snow depth reached 158 inches. That ‘beat’ the old deepest snow depth record of 157 inches, which occurred in late March 1997.
“Water-wise: During the three months of the winter season 2016-17 Jackson had an astonishing 11.85 inches of precipitation, almost a foot of precipitation. That ‘completely washed away’ the previous record from the wettest winter ever in Jackson. The old record was 9.28 inches of water from the winter of 1964-65.”
The author used the general “completely washed away” as a hedge against providing the far more impactful percentage increase between the records, to blunt awareness of the wider trend I’m documenting here. The new record is 28% above the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for almost sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential margin.
The article continues:
“February 2017 accounted for almost half of this winter’s total precipitation, with 5.75 inches. That is “five times” the average for February of 1.14 inches and “more than double” the previous record precipitation of 2.83 inches for February, set back in 1962.”
The author did what they could to hedge by saying “more than double” instead of providing a far more impactful percentage. So, I had to do the math. 2016/17’s total precipitation was 404% above average, and 103% more than the previous record, set almost sixty years before. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here the record stood for over half a century, and then was broken by an exponential margin.
“As for temperature, ‘it may not seem like it recently’, but winter 2016-17 was colder than normal, overall. December was quite cold, with a mean temperature — the average of high and low temperatures — that was 6 degrees lower than normal. January was even colder; with a mean temperature that was ’11 degrees below the long-term average’. February ‘made up for some of that temperature deficit’, coming in almost 7 degrees above normal.”
They said “it may not ‘seem’ like it ‘recently’ ” because of the incessant “hottest years in history” programming.
“ ‘Temperature deficit’ shows there’s an agenda.
“Comparing temperatures from that other wet winter of 1964-65 with this winter, the biggest difference was that ‘1964-65 was warm all three months.’ It rained in December 1964, with high temperatures in the lower 40s. It rained in January 1965, with highs also in the lower 40s. It rained in February 1965, and high temperatures reached 50 degrees on Feb. 4, 1965. This winter, we never hit 40 degrees in December or January, and the winter’s highest temperature was 44 degrees on Feb. 16, 2017.”
So it was warmer 50 years ago, yet mechanical, carbon-driven Global Warming is purported to have occurred in the time since. What gives? The only thing to do to preserve the programming is narrow your eyes and bitterly affirm “yeah, but that’s ‘there’ “.
On May 18, 2017, Cheyenne Wyoming broke a snowfall record with 11 inches, 120% more than the 5 inches that fell in 1915.
On May 9, 2017, Cheyenne Wyoming broke another snowfall record, with 3.3 inches, 10% more than the 3 inches that fell in 1915.
Cumulatively, the storm from 2017 dumped 66% more snow than the storm from 1915. The record stood for almost a hundred years, and then was broken by an exponential, historically-unprecedented margin. The author uses the hedging generality “broke” the record to describe a 66% increase.
In July 2017, the U.K.’s Telegraph said “Met Office warns Britain is heading for 'unprecedented' winter rainfall”.
Where “unprecedented”, while accurate, is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda. The article continues: “Britain is heading for "unprecedented" winter rainfall after the Met Office's new super computer predicted records will be broken by up to 30 per cent.