As you could clearly see, my video comment was in response to a "low information voter" and I agree with Mick's response.
Geoengineering seeks to do globally what cloud seeders claim to do locally: control the weather. We lack the knowledge/ability to control rain after 60 years of cloud seeding, no scientific body recognizes cloud seeding as solid science, and the geoengineering SRM gang seems to think that in a relatively short time they can master their art and deploy. I can't see how. Currently, many different countries are modifying their skies, and there is little accountability or transparency. When Meteo Systems Weathertec claimed to create rain in the Abu Dhabi desert using ion generators<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html>, the WMO's expert team on weather modification<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf>had a meeting and issued the following condemnation: “It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so > large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind > patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate > severe weather phenomena. *Weather Modification technologies that claim > to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound > scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be > treated with suspicion.* > > Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, > dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud > seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a > sound scientific foundation.” > The same is true for geoengineering SRM. Too large, too many variables: treat with suspicion. Nonetheless, weather modification using ionization methods continue: <http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aquiess-sciblue-april-july-2012-cloud-ionizers-end-texas-drought.png> Aquiess and Sciblue are claiming to move tropospheric rivers using "Weather Resonance Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. How many other companies/countries have their hand in the cookie jar? My stance: ClimateViewer Position Statement, aka the “Clarity Clause” We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate engineering. [image: Terraforming Incorporated, How do you like your weather?] 1. Create a “multilateral registry of *cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation* events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1]<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm> . 2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities. 3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses. Jim Lee <http://www.facebook.com/rezn8d> ~ Jim http://climateviewer.com/ On Friday, August 9, 2013 5:12:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Hayes wrote: > > Thanks Mick, > > Yes, the "Ban" thing is becoming something of an urban legend. Here is > how I would deconstruct the key thinking: "*in the absence of science > based (science would not be absent), global (global what? Political, > science, media talking heads, The C**olbert Nation**?), transparent and > effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering (We > currently have 'reasonable knowability' of the combined human affect on our > large climate systems and BD. The AGU just confirmed this view. Thus, we > are currently, actively and knowingly geoengineering the planet. Once > 'reasonable knowability' is established, the word 'intentional' > becomes legally, morally and ethically moot...That truly is an > "inconvenient truth"!), and in accordance with the precautionary approach > and Article 14 of the Convention (This is contradictory to Article 15 of > the Rio Declaration <http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html>), that > no climate-related geo-engineering **activities > 76<http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76> > that > may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific > basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of > the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated > social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale > scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting > in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are > justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to > a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;" > Article > 15 must take priority. Or, the mindless adherance to Article 14 becomes a > suicide pact. No person, orginization or species should be subjected to > such logic.* > * > * > *Any thoughts?* > * > * > *Michael* > > On Friday, August 9, 2013 8:31:44 AM UTC-7, Jim Lee wrote: >> >> Now on YouTube: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6YgF_Sams >> >> Enjoy =) >> <3 u Clive >> >> Jim Lee >> http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
