Weather Modification

zippy 99

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-1-16/64150.html

Link to an article discussing government use of weather modification techniques.

Interesting that the Chinese are considering using it for the opening & closing of the Beijing Olympics.

I would be aganist such techniques and see this as a step to far in mans quest to control nature.

From a green point of view it is unethical.

Any opinions?

djpbarry

Without concrete evidence to support them, such claims to many remain little more than a hot topic for conspiracy theorists.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As for "radiation expert Dr Rosalie Bertell", she earned a doctorate in biometry at the Catholic University of America, in 1966, and has been working ever since time in environmental epidemiology. She is also a member of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart.

I'm not sure any of that qualifies her as an expert on the HAARP project or on the mechanics of the ionosphere.

humanji

It does if god did it all!

RedPlanet

What a load of conspiratorial rubbish.

djpbarry

humanji wrote: »

It does if god did it all!

Touché

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote: »

What a load of conspiratorial rubbish.

Which the OP has already posted in the Conspiracies Forum, in a thread about Chemtrails.

zippy 99

RedPlanet wrote: »

What a load of conspiratorial rubbish.

Dont be so quick to make rash judgements.

History's Greatest Misconceptions Held by the Masses of People
1. The earth is flat

2. The Sun revolves around our Earth

3. Only God can control the Weather

UNITED NATIONS TREATY PROHIBITING NATIONS USING WEATHER WARFARE!

The existence of laws about cars, houses, or guns prove that these things exist, and exist in the quantity needed to produce the type of laws we see on our books. If an alien from outer space were to visit this Earth many eons from now, and wanted to find out how we humans moved about our cities, for example, he would have to look no further than the laws in our records to know that we operated a machine we called autos. He would further be able to ascertain much technical data about the auto from the laws in our records just by studying the regulations governing their use.
To put this principle in another way, the very existence of laws about autos proves that autos exist, and exist in enough quantity to prove to be a huge problem without the laws that regulate them.
The existence of the recorded law regulating automobiles proves the existence of the automobile to anyone who has never seen one in his life!
Of course, the same could be said for anything in our society, both technical and non-technical.
Since this is true, you can imagine our surprise and shock when we discovered that a United Nations Treaty exists which pledges all member states to refrain from using Weather Control as a lethal weapon upon other states!
The existence of this recorded law -- this U.N. Treaty -- proves the existence of the reality of Weather Warfare!

http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1694.cfm

humanji

Well, very few people actually believed that the Earth was flat and as for the other two "facts", lack of education caused people to believe everything that they were told by those in authority. To disagree was not advised.

Oddly enough things are a tad different these days. As for the "There's a law, therefore it's true" evidence, it's illegal to detonate nuclear warheads in Ireland.Therefore nuclear warheads have been detonated in Ireland. See how that works/doesn't work?

zippy 99

humanji wrote: »

Well, very few people actually believed that the Earth was flat and as for the other two "facts", lack of education caused people to believe everything that they were told by those in authority. To disagree was not advised.

Oddly enough things are a tad different these days. As for the "There's a law, therefore it's true" evidence, it's illegal to detonate nuclear warheads in Ireland.Therefore nuclear warheads have been detonated in Ireland. See how that works/doesn't work?

I think your first point is still relevant today, poor education and disagreement not advised.

Your simile is poor. This law proves the EXISTANCE of such technology. So is it such a step to believe governments could use technology?

djpbarry

zippy 99 wrote: »

The existence of laws about cars, houses, or guns prove that these things exist, and exist in the quantity needed to produce the type of laws we see on our books.

There is a whole load of nonsense laws that don't really mean anything. For example:

• In Hartford, Connecticut, it is illegal to cross a street while walking on your hands.
• In Miami, Florida, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
• Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.

The existence of a law proves nothing other than the law exists.

zippy 99

djpbarry wrote: »

There is a whole load of nonsense laws that don't really mean anything. For example:

• In Hartford, Connecticut, it is illegal to cross a street while walking on your hands.
• In Miami, Florida, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
• Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.

The existence of a law proves nothing other than the law exists.

You are right, there is a whole load of nonsense laws that dont really mean anything, and you have posted some examples.

However, this UN law regarding weather modification dosent fall into this category.

I've stated in another thread, I believe you are the biggest troll and debunker on this website, please refrain.

humanji

zippy 99 wrote: »

I think your first point is still relevant today, poor education and disagreement not advised.

Your simile is poor. This law proves the EXISTANCE of such technology. So is it such a step to believe governments could use technology?

People have the ability to make their own minds up. You're the one easily swayed by what you read on the internet.

Oh, and having a law against somethign DOES NOT prove it exists. There's a whole load of laws that different countries have against things that they though COULD come into existence. Hence the example I gave you, which is incredibly apt.

zippy 99

humanji wrote: »

People have the ability to make their own minds up. You're the one easily swayed by what you read on the internet.

Oh, and having a law against somethign DOES NOT prove it exists. There's a whole load of laws that different countries have against things that they though COULD come into existence. Hence the example I gave you, which is incredibly apt.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/184/4141/1059

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare

It exists and has been used.

Please refrain from talking vaguely about a 'whole load of laws' aganist things 'that could come into existence'. Please get specific.

humanji

Please get specific? This coming from you? lol

bonkey

This law proves the EXISTANCE of such technology.

No, it doesn't.

Have you actually read the Convention you're referring to?

Have you paid attention to the bit which explicitly refers to it being "of unlimited duration", and considered this in conjunction with the bit which recognises "that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment"? By your logic, this proves that all future developments in this area, for the rest of humanity's existence have already been invented!!!

Have you considered when it was signed - two years after the end of a war where the US used dioxins and exfoliants to target the environment as part of its military strategy?

Or have you just read some internet article (the same one you've copied and pasted from in this thread) which references the article, and believed what they say, without checking the sources referred to?

zippy 99

bonkey wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

Have you actually read the Convention you're referring to?

Have you paid attention to the bit which explicitly refers to it being "of unlimited duration", and considered this in conjunction with the bit which recognises "that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment"? By your logic, this proves that all future developments in this area, for the rest of humanity's existence have already been invented!!!

Have you considered when it was signed - two years after the end of a war where the US used dioxins and exfoliants to target the environment as part of its military strategy?

Or have you just read some internet article (the same one you've copied and pasted from in this thread) which references the article, and believed what they say, without checking the sources referred to?

Check my post above, it is in existence.

bonkey

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../184/4141/1059

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare

The first link requires authentication, so I've no idea what its about.

The wikipedia link refers to cloud-seeding to create rain (a technique which recent studies have called the efficacy of into question, if memory serves), and a similar technique (salting) to try and reduce fog.

Hardly chemtrails or HAARP-level stuff.

djpbarry

zippy 99 wrote: »

However, this UN law regarding weather modification dosent fall into this category.

Why? Because it conveniently supports your argument? That's rather selective reasoning.

zippy 99

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? Because it conveniently supports your argument? That's rather selective reasoning.

No, because it is a UN charter signed by many countries.

Harldy the gutter level of your silly laws which are confined to one state regarding things like walking on your hands across crossing or whatever rubbish you posted.

zippy 99

bonkey wrote: »

The first link requires authentication, so I've no idea what its about.

The wikipedia link refers to cloud-seeding to create rain (a technique which recent studies have called the efficacy of into question, if memory serves), and a similar technique (salting) to try and reduce fog.

Hardly chemtrails or HAARP-level stuff.

Weather modification, glad you acknowledge its existence.

oscarBravo

This thread, which has earned zippy 99 a long-overdue ban, is mercifully closed.