Re: Myanmar Cyclone is Artificial?

On May 15, 12:22 am, Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallag...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Vngelis wrote:
> > On May 14, 4:19 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> I think this is fooling and your conspiracy nonsense is just that:
> >> nonsense.
>
> > Here David in one of your 'academic' journals which took me 5sec to
> > search for on the internet
>
> > Something the other buffon Holmes cant do and Einde only wants 'peer
> > reviewed' journals before he repeats parrot fa****on what his
> > Professors in their ivory towers tell him about all and sundry...
>
> Thi is a falsification - one of your typical tactics. I would however
> like to have a source for your wilder claims that actually knows
> something about what he's talking about - not just a crazy nut that has
> access to the Internet and psots any old rubbish. The Internet is full
> of the wildest theories - even the Creationists have wensites that claim
> god created the whole universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh day -
> and some of the people behind them even have university degrees.
>
> > Its even got pictures of the Chinese using these weapons and an
> > interview with the people involved in it.
> > If you want I can get a primary school kid to explain to you how they
> > do it.
> > Its quite basic I am sure you might understand it but then again you
> > might ...not.
>
> > PS there are hundreds of bits of information on the internet regarding
> > this technology and it has been around for 4 decades.
>
> There's a huge difference between seeding rainclouds with silver iodide
> to create or prevent rain in particular places and creating a tropical
> storm with winds of over 200 kph. The former technology does exist and
> was even used with mixed results by the Americans in the Vietnam War -
> whether it will have better results for teh Chines in Peking remains to
> be seen.
>
> The energy input needed to create a tropical storm is far beyond
> present-day technical capabilities - for a start it would require
> precise targetting of the energy equivalent of a large number of H-bombs
> to achieve even a small one - and then to steer it in the direction of
> Burma once it had started when it actually formed near the east coast of
> India is also way beyond human tecnical capabilities in the foreseeable
> future.
>
> Einde O'Callaghan

Just on journals. Most journals are not peer-reviewed. This 'academic'
method is only im****tant on final conclusions, on science that is
going to actually be relied on to make policy. I have no problem with
the 'Technology Review' vngelis posted, any more than I have from
Scientific American (also not peer-reviewed articles) but interesting
nevertheless. But an article, a point-of-view, should be reviewed on
it's own merits and based on a scientific method *of some sort*.

What we get from vngelis is the lack of any method. We get this: could-
seeding removes clouds from local area (maybe)-->US wants to invade
Burma-->US seeds clouds to cause a tsunami. This is called "junk
science" and is the opposite of Marxism. The same is true with the
phony fire reasons in Athens: US opposes gas/oil deal by Greece with
Gasprom-->Fires break out in forests in Greece-->therefore fires
caused by US. This is called "Junk Politics". It's fun, and, certainly
entertaining but is fraught with error.

D.