Not unless someone provides some actual scientific evidence that it is the weather machine that is doing it. Correlation does not imply causation (i.e. just because someone claims to have built a weather machine and the number of hurricanes have decreased does not mean that the two events are connected http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
@morio
I love those types of sites, And sometimes I can look at those correlations and see maybe some connecting mechanism behind them, Very often not but hay its a good brain teaser. But I also know that sifting thought to see potential mechanics of a connection as an intellectual exercise does not mean that said connection is there, Or that it is ether practical or factual. For instance the total revenue generated by arcades and the number of computer science doctorates awarded in the united states…I could see a practical connection there If some expert sat down and did a 60 minutes special on it I could go for that. I might have my reservations, I might have my questions and personal opinions but I could see a connection between more cultural investment in the field of computers, And more profit from some aspect of computers.
But with murders by steam and age of Miss America, Not so much. I mean If someone finds a connection I’ll listen, Of course I would. That would just be too good not to, But I would most likely have far more reservations about it and It would be considerably harder to make a believer out of me.
@lots
Now this site http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp? Shows me a list of hurricanes and tropical storms for the last hundred years or so, And I can look at it and make some nice general assumptions that seem true. One we have dry spells, Those happen, Fairly frequently too, Now Looking at this data I see that frequently we have high spikes in the number we get.
So Yea if its a combined of 10 or a combined of 35…I’m not going to say its an abnormal number of storms to have. Now if we got 15 hurricanes and 30 tropical storms a year for 3 years in a row…I might be a little suspect, If we got none and none for 10 years in a row, I might be a little suspect as well, The constant for that weather pattern is change.
What type of scientific evidence are you talking about?Please explain.
Looking at this website and the conversation about hurricanes, I think we’d probably look into deductive theory if no hurricanes hammered the USA for ten years or so, especially if it’s such an unusual phenominon. I suppose the best way to start on that would be to see weather trends over the course of millions of years, then hundred-thousands, then ten-thousands, etc down to the one-hundred that that particular site represents. I mean 100 years is nothing in ecological terms so it may not be as unorthodox as it may otherwise seem. If we can manipulate weather in such a way it’s significant over that level of time, then we can potentially assume man is responsible.
I’ll take a stab at what would make me happy for scientific evidence.
1- I would want a twenty year study. Ten with it on and ten with it off.
2- I want charts and graphs, I want to have someone hold my hand as they explained the physics of it.
3- I want them to explain the before and after as well, I want to know how weather works before this device and after.
4-And nothing cool is with out side effects and small component parts. I want those explained to me as well. Is it using a magnet so powerful that the eddy currents in metallic objects near it cause them to be difficult to move? Is there some exotic element that is needed to make this work like I mean is this like the use of doped silicon in semi-conductors. I want some details
5- Nothing is ever fully new, we tend to stand on the shoulders of giants as we reach for the stars, And I have adhd and both read allot and am an accomplished professional in my field. So I expect when I see this device explained to me to see some stuff I could ether understand and relate to from other devices, Or be able to research on my own, For instance Lets look at Cathode Ray Tubes and tv
CRT’s for tv at first seemed unbelievable to those who heard of them at first and that was because it was a NEW application of technology, But it was built on the proven technology of vacuum tubes. Some wise ass had the brainstorm and understood that phosphorous lights up when you spray electrons at it, And that electrons can be deflected by magnetic fields. And as vacuum tubes were all about spraying electrons.
most technology is built off of older technology. Things get smaller faster and bigger, And occasionally scientific discovery’s change the landscape, Like going from vacuum tubes to transistors and then to IC’s. But If you look at a tube amp or a tube computer and you compare it to a transistor one. You will see much in common. And the reason for that is that we don’t reinvent the wheel every time we discover something new, No. We just go from using stone, to making them out of wood. And then to making them out of rubber or high tech plastics. A wheel is still a wheel. and once you know how one works the rest of them are not that hard to figure out.
Artificial God
I happened across a couple of articles related to this that I found interesting. One suggesting that the CIA believes Russia may be using weather control technology to attack the US and another, from 2010, suggesting that Russians may be under the impression that the US was using weather control technology to attack Russia.
Russian Scholar Warns of ‘Secret’ US Climate Change Weapon
It’s interesting, you know, because these countries do have a lot of secrets and these secrets give way to suspicion and conspiracy theory so that whenever something negative happens one suspects the other is behind it. I remember that asteroid that blew up over Russia a few years ago and at least one Russian politician publicly announced his belief that it was not an asteroid and instead some advanced US weapon.
This means that a completely natural phenomenon could trigger a war simply because one thinks the other might be behind it. The Russians, for instance, don’t know what HAARP is or what the X-37B is so they must assume the worst and that assumption could land the world in a very precarious place.
Say for example HAARP really is just for communication, but because it’s a big secret the Russians think it’s a weather weapon and assume that their next drought is actually an act of war by the US so they retaliate. The US sees this retaliation as an act of war and responds in kind thus WWIII is born except that the spark was actually just paranoia, the HAARP was not a weather weapon and the drought was perfectly natural.
I don’t know how to respond to your links atr1337, without fobbing off your sources as bollocks. I wouldn’t trust the Daily Mail to tell an honest story or display facts clearly if my life depended on it. Like most newspapers, they’re there to sell papers and they tend to do that by propagandising and distorting the facts and figures in order to make a favourable (to them) point, not to mention the use of other ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacies. The only thing papers are good for is getting a good general idea of the sorry state of the world.
Your second link; he even says the whole thing is just a concept and theorised.
“First of all, I would like to say that what I wrote in that article, even the citations, does not in any way claim to a be final truth. It is, if you will, speculation, in other words, the definition of an hypothesis,” Areshev said.
This means that a completely natural phenomenon could trigger a war simply because one thinks the other might be behind it. The Russians, for instance, don’t know what HAARP is or what the X-37B is so they must assume the worst and that assumption could land the world in a very precarious place.
This is actually slightly off-topic, but I don’t think the authorities (that actually matter) world-wide are that stupid. Here’s a link for more reading on this particular subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nuclear-false-alarms.html There’s a couple of sites with this if you do a bit of research and you can probably hunt down the individual situations to gain more information about them (especially if you want to verify accuracy). Essentially though, mishaps and near-misses have been happening since the 60’s, so this is not a new phenomenon. It’s a little worrying, but not unusual nevertheless.
I don’t know anything about the Daily Mail, just something that came up in a search. I don’t think world leaders are particularly stupid, but I do think they are often particularly paranoid. Really they have more enemies than the average joe, those enemies are often quite capable and the extent of their capability is generally unknown.
And of course the media’s tendency to sensationalize doesn’t help matters for those of us just trying to get an idea of what’s going on.