Weather Modification

Here ya go: Bolded for emphasis

“The Project on Shi’ism and Global Affairs encompasses an interdisciplinary approach with a focus on the history, sociology, theology, and politics of the diverse Shi’a communities and nations across the globe—who number over 200 million individuals mainly spread across the Middle East, Central and South Asia, Africa, and the West. Indeed, the rise of modern Shi’ism has been one of the most eventful developments shaping the cultural and sociopolitical landscape of the Islamic world.”

" The [Canada Program]
(Canada Program), made possible by the William Lyon Mackenzie King endowment, presents rich intellectual opportunities for Canadian studies at Harvard: graduate and undergraduate courses offered by distinguished visiting Canadian scholars across the social sciences and professional schools, dissertation research grants for Harvard graduate students, thesis research and travel funding for Harvard undergraduates, a vibrant seminar series of esteemed Canadian guest speakers, and an annual faculty-led conference.

The endowment was established in 1967 following a campaign spearheaded by David Rockefeller, who wished to honor William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874–1950), a great friend of his father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. A Harvard graduate, King was deputy minister of labour in Canada when, in 1914, he was recruited as an industrial consultant tasked with brokering an agreement between management and labor workers at the Rockefeller-controlled Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. According to Harvard’s Directory of Named Chairs , a dispute between management and labor had resulted in “a long, bitter and bloody strike against the company.” And, “[w]hile Rockefeller hoped King would help extricate his company from a labor dilemma which he believed had been badly handled, he had a larger purpose in urging the Rockefeller Foundation to use the Colorado situation as a means of recommending a plan of broad application to industrial relations generally.” King managed the situation, helped amend public perception of Rockefeller, and produced a book for the foundation, Industry and Humanity (1918). After a time as industrial adviser to a number of American utility and extraction firms, King returned to Canadian politics, took leadership of the Liberal Party, and went on to serve Canada as prime minister for a collective twenty-two years.

Spread the word STUDENT FUNDING

I see no evidence that you want to have a serious conversation. The SDMB is dedicated to fighting ignorance, which means that someone taking a position on a subject is expected to at least have some modicum of knowledge and facts to back up that position. It’s OK to not know about a subject, but then one is expected to listen with an open and inquiring mind.

What you have done, instead, is start this thread with a badly written and generally incoherent cite filled with batshit crazy conspiracy theories, and when challenged on it, instead of listening and learning, you argue.

And then you argue some more by dredging up a bunch of completely irrelevant cites to what are mostly obscure limited-scale experiments in cloud seeding, and try to present this as some kind of “evidence” that there is some secret global-scale geoengineering going on.

And you just did it again with this latest burst of nonsense about the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster RIsk Reduction and the World Weather Research Programme. The Framework for Disaster RIsk Reduction is a multifaceted framework that does exactly what the title says and has absolutely nothing to do with “weather modification”. The WWRP is a program to improve weather forecasting and climate projection, nothing to do with “weather modification” either.

You also don’t seem to even understand that weather modification and global climate geoengineering are completely different things. The former has been done on small scales, mostly experimentally and with inconsistent results. The latter is pure speculation and will probably never be done. If you really want to know what the UN – and their expert bodies like the IPCC – think about climate geoengineering, you can refer to the comprehensive IPCC Working Group 3 Assessment on climate mitigation. Geoengineering as a climate mitigation strategy is mentioned only in passing as a highly speculative emergency potential, and most scientists don’t take it seriously – it’s mostly the domain of crackpots.

What the actual fuck? You’re citing the Canada Program as proof that China is controlling Canada’s weather?

That’s it. I’m out of here.

And learn how to use the quote function.

Look yeah I am! It a GLOBAL PARTICIPATION. Also I am trying to discuss hypothetical geo weather engineering scenerio. It very well could be happening and the past research certainly proves someone, somewhere is geo engineering weather.

Another scenerio in 2030 if this proves to be a success. Note the usage of word’ services’ below:

The goal is to provide the citizens that we serve with fit-for-purpose, high-quality weather, climate and hydrological services, and the underpinning sFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030"

Can government’s, corporations, countries, people and 501c’s including different religions just order weather and pay up? As long as they have the money? I see that being a problem.

“, hydrological and climate services to enhance community resilience, contribute to economic growth and protect life and property from extreme weather, climate and water events. The goal is to provide the citizens that we serve with fit-for-purpose, high-quality weather, climate and hydrological services, and the underpinning sFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030”

Look it’s a research project on a GLOBAL scale. Now are you implying that none anywhere would weaponized weather for whatever their reason is?

Why don’t you tutor me is the finer art of the Discourse quote function. While you’re at it the finer points of debating online and proper punctuation?

“It very well could be happening” is insufficient grounds for your argument. What you need is actual evidence, and none of your “cites” provide that. What you have given us is a bunch of conspiracy theories cited as support for each other, and that’s never been good enough for this message board.

If you want an actual, reasonable discussion on the topic, give us scientific evidence for your assertions that the technology to do what you’re describing even exists and is feasible instead of repeating unfounded assertions over and over again because you think it “could be happening”.

If what you want is to discuss the implications of “what if this science/technology actually exists”, try IMHO, which is better suited for speculations and thought experiments. That might even be an interesting discussion. “What if: we could redirect the gulf stream? Would England get tropical? Would FL cool off?” Or “What if: we could redirect rainstorms so that the drought could be broken in Africa? How would that affect the rest of the world? Would CA dry up completely and turn into a desert?”

People here are happy to speculate, at length, on what the implications of new or imagined technology would be or even just what ifs with current technology. There was, for example, a fairly lengthy thread on whether a plane could take off from a treadmill that was moving backwards at the same speed the plane was rolling forwards.

In any case, repetition will convince no one here that your ideas should be taken seriously.

That’s how you read that?

They’re not providing high-quality weather, they’re providing high-quality weather services. If you would read your own links, which you have shown an unwillingness to do for the most part, you’d know what high-quality weather services entails. Ordering a tornado is not part of their offerings.

But just saying it could even make it happen.

Wow. OK, points for random caps.

Look it’s research projects on a GLOBAL scale. All over the world. This study is part of the the Canada Project. It and research from past projects and future research projects will shape policy throughout the world. I’m on pretty sure AI will do its thing to tweak to perfection.

Anyone with an agenda, cash, or enough carbon credits and a lobbiest or the right connections could weaponize weather for whatever their reason is. Be glad Trump isn’t the president!

"Her research examines colonial capitalist dispossession and violence on Indigenous lands and bodies, as well as Indigenous practices of resurgence and freedom. Her current research focusses on the renewal of Indigenous relations of care that emerge through Mushkegowuk waterways, and how those generate decolonial possibilities within conditions of extractive violence. Michelle’s writing has been published in Antipode , Environment & Planning D , Political Geography and Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society .

“GLOBAL” Gotcha.

That random crap is college students and professors shaping public policy, laws and treaties for you and all humans on earth. That is what they chose to study. The future policies is from their ideas and learning and vision of the future. It is not our game anymore.

So are options are to think that it is true, or pretend that it is true? Why bother to give us cites, then?

I’m sure by now you’ve heard of the 4th Revolution? There is 2 versions click on switch if you don’t like this version. It’s in the link . This is what the majority of people voted for policy change. It’s here :smiley:

What the hell does the above have to do with weather manipulation?

No-please tell us about it.

I did. I already posted it look above your last post.

I have no idea what’s going on here, yet I’m eager to hear more. Maybe it’s the Bio Jesus I’m vaping, creating clouds of vapor. Hmmm clouds.
Timeline tool and research.

Lolz :joy::joy: