(3/27/2004 9:18:34 PM)
Weather Modification or Biological Warfare?|
|Swedishoo from Chemtrail and Company III
|Weather Modification or Biological Warfare?
|| Posted 7-31-2001 19:05 |
Following posts written by Dick Eastman 2/25/2001:
The discovery of desiccated blood cells in chemtrail residue is evidence sufficient for me to retract the clandestine weather modification theory.
Find ways to defeat this.
I retract the CWM thesis.
Chemtrails are biological
warfare against those who
threaten the globalist elites.
Because of the famous limitations imposed by "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," even with the best high-speed computers and with EOS and later remote sensing systems around the globe computer weather prediction is limited to about three and a half weeks maximum.
In contrast the climate models are just about as reliable as econometric models, which is to say "not-at-all-but-who-cares-since-the-prediction-will-be-forgotten-when-the-prediction-comes-due."
Yet the billions of pounds (dollars) thrown at climate modeling, and motivated by "concerns" and can't-afford-to-wait-and-see "possibilities" and "potentials." (And notice that the advocates are not geophysicists and meteorologists, but "global warming experts" speaking from platforms paid for by transnational-corporation supported NGO's -- even as once-respected critics of the global-warming hypothesis are shut out of the conferences that are got up -- like the recent one in Shanghai...Shanghai, there will not be nosy reporters asking sticky questions etc. ...
At any rate, my question is why do we throw our money at climate research, when the possibility of return benefit is so much greater in short-term weather prediction and control. Even if the dire global warming scenarios are correct (a big "if") the climate models offer no hope for a technology to control the problem. But the three and a half weeks (or even two weeks!) of accurate weather prediction permits continuous weather modification. (And if the weather modification interventions are also continuous, control can be continuous too.) If climate changes drastically, weather modification would be our best hope of seeing that the macro effects (of higher general temperature, for example) could be distributed in the least damaging way, or even in the most beneficial way. For example, if increased carbon dioxide does cause in increase in temperature -- and a concomitant increase in the vapor the atmosphere carries at any time, is there not therein the opportunity for greater use of cloud seeding than otherwise -- perhaps causing deserts to bloom even as average temperatures do rise. Perhaps yielding Russia its ice-free ports at last, or filling the sinking ground water of central China?
I ask this of those of you who reject the idea that the international agencies are already modifying the weather clandestinely -- to consider the sense of the question posed above. Then ask yourself why weather modification technology has disappeared from the media and from textbooks. (Officially the U.S. discontinued a weather modification involvement that had been growing every year since the 1940's -- so that today the U.S. spends "zero" on weather modification. (While, Israel, according to an Israeli meteorologist currently obtains 22 percent of its rain from weather mod.)
Climate is not where we should be putting all of our atmospheric science research. (And of course, there is the possibility that "global warming" is just a scare story to get funds to by the equipment used in ongoing "clandestine weather modification" systems.
If you post a comment on this here, please e-mail it to me as well.
Yakima, Washington U.S.A.