Silence
Member
How would you know that considering that has never been the case?Science only works if the same amount of money flows whatever the results.
How would you know that considering that has never been the case?Science only works if the same amount of money flows whatever the results.
Because scientists are only human!How would you know that considering that has never been the case?
Have you ever read the book "merchants of doubt"? Or the documentary of the same title?No I don't - however I think that the fact that NASA gets a substantial chunk of its money from investigating CC distorts its conclusions. Remember the scientists who got paid by the tobacco companies to research the consequences of smoking - not surprisingly many of them came to the conclusion that it was harmless. There was, for example, the theory put forward that some people smoked because they had some sort of discomfort/itch in their lungs which would ultimately develop into lung cancer - thus skewing the statistics!
Science only works if the same amount of money flows whatever the results.
David
Yes, I believe this did happen. Indeed they promoted a theory that certain people who were susceptible to lung cancer, had an itch of some sort that was relieved by smoking tobacco - so the facts that these people smoked and got lung cancer were not causally related. Unfortunately this has allowed people to slur others in debates like this by simply assuming they are getting money from "Big oil" (curiously "Big Coal" never seems to get mentioned!)
I’ve said this here before, and my views have not changed, Climate change is the red herring of weather modification/geoengineering going on now at full speed for over 70 years. Read between the lines, look where they don’t want you to look, climate change is deliberate indeed, not by cow farts and big vehicles, but by man’s deliberate attempt to control the weather. It’s just not debatable anymore and that this is not obvious means you’ve really not researched at all.
Start here: https://weathermodificationhistory.com/
Thanks for that, Mishelle,
This is potentially interesting - if only because it might provide an explanation for the insane Climate Change movement. The trouble is, I don't know anything about this, and would find it really hard to assess if this is real. Have you tried suggesting the topic to Alex?
My impression is that climate is so complex that it may be extremely hard to predict what if anything these techniques will achieve.
David
Well of course, we have a lively discussion about 'Climate Change' here. I think the link is, that science has closed in to protect this rubbish in a form of group think - much as it has opposed anything it considers 'woo'. Part of the Skeptiko message is that science isn't always honest.I did mention it to Alex when I first found Skeptiko, but only in passing. I guess I can’t really find the right angle to make it of interest here, since I’m not seeing the ‘extended consciousness’ conversation aspect of it. How would you see it fitting in Skeptiko, I’d be very interested to hear, because this is my biggest research area and I think it would be awesome to be able to discuss it with folks.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “what if anything these techniques will achieve”, please be more specific. I think climate is not that complex actually, compared to something like, flying rockets to space. Weather modification is huge business, what they are capable of is happening, right now, and it’s documented and the corporations advertise to governments all over the world. There are dozens of corporations doing it globally, and if it doesn’t work, then why are they getting paid?
Well of course, we have a lively discussion about 'Climate Change' here. I think the link is, that science has closed in to protect this rubbish in a form of group think - much as it has opposed anything it considers 'woo'. Part of the Skeptiko message is that science isn't always honest.
Climate is complex in the sense that it is a function of so many variables - the concentrations of the various gasses in the atmosphere, temperature, pressure, ground terrain, solar radiation etc etc. That makes for a formidable set of coupled partial differential equations which can only be solved by approximate methods over a grid of three spatial dimensions plus a time axis! Furthermore it was the equations of weather forecasting that led Edward Lorenz to discover chaos.
Is any of this weather modification performed openly?
David
artner and I decided not to have children, and part of the reason was nuclear weapons.
We've exaggerrated how much we can influence things globally, and become blind to the fact that things aren't nearly as bad as they are perceived. The great barrier reef is actually doing well, so are the polar bears, the glaciers aren't all melting, and the seas are rising at the same rate as they've been doing for quite some time; but if one focusses on the negatives, things seem much worse than they actually are. The real sin may actually be one of hubris, in believing we can have much more of an influence than we do.
Steering atmospheric rivers:
Thus by analogy, the fact that there is a lot of research into this may not translate into any 'useful' capabilities.
Well Jeremy Corbyn's brother is a meteorologist and 'climate denier' who actually makes money out of selling his long range weather forecasts! I think he claims that weather forecasting has just got stuck in the CO2 story and that better forecasts are possible without that assumption.Mike Morales gives more accurate forecasts than the weather channel.
The trouble is, there are just so many scandals around nowadays - LOL!And there’s so much more! But, I understand, you’re busy, folks are busy, and until a disaster hits them personally, they probably won’t look into it