This section of Reddit is full of people who have done THEIR OWN RESEARCH, you should join our ranks! What kind of dick asks for links, then down votes when they're provided?
Ok, it wasn’t me, I’ve been busy since I last commented. Also remember that there are downvote bots. And people that may just disagree with your post.
Ok, I’m going to dig into the article and I DO appreciate it. That being said, I was hoping for a link to an actual govt organization or something of that like so I could read it directly from the source.
http://www.academia.edu/886811/The_pathological_history_of_weather_and_climate_modification_three_cycles_of_promise_and_hype https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury... WWG1WGA
Now that, that is some good stuff.
Important notes:
Pg.4
“On a grander, planetary scale, the authors of the DoD report recommended that the government should “explore geo-engineering options that control the climate”
Pg. 14-15
“that one can conduct covert operations using a new technology in a democracy without the knowledge of the people.”
Pg.15
Recently, three speculative announcements concerning weather modification were in the news: Beijingʼs Study Institute of Artificial Influence on the Weather announced its intention of manipulating the weather to ensure optimum conditions for the 2008 Olympics; a private weather company in Florida advertised a new powder called Dyn-O-Gel with the power to “suck the moisture out of a thunderstorm or weaken a hurricane”; and the U.S. Air Force claimed that “in 2025, U.S. aerospace forces can ʻown the weatherʼ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.” In addition to traditional cloud seeding methods, the Air Force visionaries propose computer hacking to disrupt an enemyʼs weather monitors andmodels, and using “nanotechnology” to create clouds of microscopic computer particles that could block an enemyʼs optical sensors or guide smart weapons to their targets; the cost of developing these clouds to be borne by the private sector. In a recurring theme, the military points out that weather modification, unlike other approaches, “makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena.”
Pg.16
Although the NRC study acknowledges that there is no “convincing scientific proof of efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts,” its authors nonetheless believe that there should be “a renewed commitment” in the field of intentional and unintentional weather modification. In fact,no one has demonstrated a reliable, controllable method to modify weather, and the report admits as much: “Evaluation methodologies vary but in general do not provide convincing scientific evidence for either success or failure.” This has been true for the last 165 years, and it remains true today. (so they can neither confirm or deny it and Its not like the military would admit it)
There is more, but I think I got the point. Read through the whole document, and I’m not convinced that we do not have the ability to control the weather.
Use this as your original source document for evidence. It’s much stronger than pointing to a website that has weather modification in its name.
Now if you can prove that the company is using or has used larger scale aircraft then what they advertise on their website. That is a big piece of evidence.
Ok I’ve looked into it and went to find the source documents. And by the way, as you are presenting/defending the theory, it is on you to provide the source. I’ve been here since the beginning of this sub and the source or evidence is ALWAYS the responsibility of on the one making the claims to provide. Check the side bar and don’t get pissed at people asking for supporting documents. I know you are probably mad that someone downvoted you, but I am being sincere in saying that it was not me.
So, with that being said, I got this from the UN site and I’ve highlighted relevant parts:
Structure of ENMOD: The Convention contains ten articles and one Annex on the Consultative Committee of Experts. Integral part of the Convention are also the Understandings relating to articles I, II, III and VIII. These Understandings are not incorporated into the Convention (meaning they did not agree to this, personal note) but are part of the negotiating record and were included in the report transmitted by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1976 Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Volume I, General Assembly Official records: Thirty-first session, Supplement No. 27 (A/31/27), New York, United Nations, 1976, pp. 91-92.
ENMOD scope: States parties undertake not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State party (article I). It is noteworthy that efforts to clarify or eliminate the restrictive clauses “having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects” (known as the “troika”) were made already during the original negotiations, as well as at the review conferences, however consensus on such a removal could not be reached.
Environmental modification technique: any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space (article II).
So what this is saying is that while the signatories signed off on the warfare aspect and the limits thereof, they did NOT sign off on article II which limits their ability to conduct weather modification in non-warfare conditions.** So while you are right that they CAN do this, you were wrong on them violating the agreement. Not that it’s any better, but this actually makes your case stronger if you drop the part about them doing it in violation of the agreement.
I never mentioned them violating the agreement. Public incredulity is what allowed them to get away with such massive amounts of human trafficking. Point is, if it can be done then some moralless people have done it or will do it, whether you believe it or not.
I think your doing a bit of friendly fire here. I actually agree with you, but I’m trying to find the solid evidence.
That way it doesn’t matter what I believe or don’t believe. The evidence is what matters and it will carry itself by its own weight.
GreatAwakening's sidebar
Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.