A bit of an offtopic question for you(since I can't remember what your views were). Do you support or oppose the man made Global Warming theory?
agreed ^^ we have no idea what impact we've had based on our past experiments with weather control.PuckMercury wrote:
again, the bulk and meat of my statements were not intended to address a particular subset but the wholistic concept of weather control. And since we don't have the technology or science to understand the state of the weather fully now, there's no way we did when we started utilizing this technology. As such, there's really no way to know one way or the other what effects may or may not have been bourne from using the techniques specifically mentioned.
Last edited by steelie34 (2008-04-11 09:52:41)
I really don't want to descend into that arguement in this thread, but personally I think the Earth is cycling of it's own accord which isn't to say we can't (aren't) exaserbating it. I fully believe we need to be conscious of and minimize our carbon footprint but do not believe that said footprint is the cause of current climactic shenanigans.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
A bit of an offtopic question for you(since I can't remember what your views were). Do you support or oppose the man made Global Warming theory?
My main reason for asking that was, you said:PuckMercury wrote:
I really don't want to descend into that arguement in this thread, but personally I think the Earth is cycling of it's own accord which isn't to say we can't (aren't) exaserbating it. I fully believe we need to be conscious of and minimize our carbon footprint but do not believe that said footprint is the cause of current climactic shenanigans.
How can you claim that, while at the same time say that the massive carbon emissions are not the cause of GW? There is far more research pointing in the direction of man made global warming, than research showing Hail defense/weather control has/had any global effects(positive or negative). Isn't that a bit hypocritical, seeing how carbon emissions have a far greater potential to effect our climate, and consequentially the weather, since they are worldwide, and they are massive compared to the minuscule ammounts of silver iodide shot in the clounds in a relatively small area? Yet you believe our carbon footprint has no effect?PuckMercury wrote:
As such, there's really no way to know one way or the other what effects may or may not have been bourne from using the techniques specifically mentioned.
P.S. Sorry if I make no sense today, I'm just not in a right mood. That's why my posts are a bit... well, poorly thought out. Also maybe a bit dishonest from my side, I suspected what your answer might be from your "conservative" views in the other thread and it was kind of a trick question. Too bad I couldn't come up with a better thought out reply . It was a fairly good trap...
Don't worry, I saw where you were going.
I have an opinion, I don't espouse it as fact. I believe it to be true - that's why I believe it. I see evidence on both sides pointing to opposite conclusions. Given the evidence I've seen, I will defer to the historic cycle of our planet. I won't go further into this as it's not the point of this thread.
We have no idea that carbon emissions have a greater potential impact because we really have NO CLUE what the weather and climate will do. As such, we have no control group and nothing by which to measure any impact other than trending which we can't determine for sure is our fault either. Everything I've said lines up with simply not having enough information and not being able to be sure what impact we will have doing anything. As we can't know what impact we will have, my advice is to minimize whatever impact we MIGHT have to stay on the safe side and let the Earth do what it does best.
We can't measure the impact of an unknown against an unknown in anything but theoretical terms.
I believe it was George Carlin who said that in the end, the Earth will shrug us off like a bad cold.
I have an opinion, I don't espouse it as fact. I believe it to be true - that's why I believe it. I see evidence on both sides pointing to opposite conclusions. Given the evidence I've seen, I will defer to the historic cycle of our planet. I won't go further into this as it's not the point of this thread.
We have no idea that carbon emissions have a greater potential impact because we really have NO CLUE what the weather and climate will do. As such, we have no control group and nothing by which to measure any impact other than trending which we can't determine for sure is our fault either. Everything I've said lines up with simply not having enough information and not being able to be sure what impact we will have doing anything. As we can't know what impact we will have, my advice is to minimize whatever impact we MIGHT have to stay on the safe side and let the Earth do what it does best.
We can't measure the impact of an unknown against an unknown in anything but theoretical terms.
I believe it was George Carlin who said that in the end, the Earth will shrug us off like a bad cold.
weather is controllable?
Lol. Type "Chemtrails" or Contrails into google.IRONCHEF wrote:
weather is controllable?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/contrails.htm
It's a huge conspiracy that actually has some truly scary evidence. There was actually a lake that was tested somewhere under an area known for dense airline traffic and it has some really high levels of nasty chemicals that should not be there.
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-04-11 11:43:46)
Do you know that the average fish today has more mercury than a rectal thermometer? Would you eat a rectal thermometer? ANSWER ME, DAMN YOU! Well ... I would ...
+ to anyone who gets that reference.
anyway, mysterious chemicals are bad ...
+ to anyone who gets that reference.
anyway, mysterious chemicals are bad ...
hilarious!PuckMercury wrote:
I believe it was George Carlin who said that in the end, the Earth will shrug us off like a bad cold.
my avatar answers many things, but this is not one of them sadly.Steel wrote:
your avatar is the answerPuckMercury wrote:
Do you know that the average fish today has more mercury than a rectal thermometer? Would you eat a rectal thermometer? ANSWER ME, DAMN YOU! Well ... I would ...
+ to anyone who gets that reference.
anyway, mysterious chemicals are bad ...
I LOVE being right!!steelie34 wrote:
hilarious!
EDIT: Well I suppose I was technically wrong ... a bad case of fleas ... not a cold. Freaking love Carlin.
Last edited by PuckMercury (2008-04-11 12:06:48)
A sort of Weather Control Device would prove useful in the event of war with Russia...
Sealab 2021. That was a funny episode.PuckMercury wrote:
Do you know that the average fish today has more mercury than a rectal thermometer? Would you eat a rectal thermometer? ANSWER ME, DAMN YOU! Well ... I would ...
Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park.PuckMercury wrote:
To quote someone poorly, "When thinking on whether or not we can, it is beneficial to stop and ask if we should."
Chaotic systems like weather are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. If I remember correctly, chaotic systems were initially found and investigated in early computer simulations of climate models (Be either Lorenz or Lorentz...I never remember the right spelling).PuckMercury wrote:
even if this is implemented on simply a city or regional scale, this seems to epitomize the "Butterfly flaps its wings ..." scenario wouldn't you say?
Ah, more stuff for Red Alert 3.
They're replacing it with a particle beam *grr at Ion Cannon ripoff*unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ah, more stuff for Red Alert 3.
---
Not a good idea. We've already shown that we can fuck over the environment to the point that our involvement overrides all other factors (ozone hole), we've shown we're doing it again (GW) and this runs the risk of being strike three.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Ah, more stuff for a Red Alert 3: Red Alert mod.Spark wrote:
They're replacing it with a particle beam *grr at Ion Cannon ripoff*unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Ah, more stuff for Red Alert 3.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-11 22:41:43)