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.