Posting to myself because I’m not going to waste my time on the resident troll. Cloud seeding was acknowledged as existing, but the use of radar, etc is said here to be impossible to affect weather. But on the NOAA page Dutchsinse linked to, at https://libguides.library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modification-project-reports
it mentions #8:
“Activities subject to reporting.
(a)Weather modification activities are defined as “Any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere” (see 15 CFR § 908.1). The following, when conducted as weather modification activities, shall be reported (see 15 CFR § 908.3):
(ED: #1-7 here, followed by #8 below:)
Using lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation”
Why does the law require reporting on the use of weather-modifying lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation, if such things cannot POSSIBLY modify weather?
I’ve asked that quite a few times on this thread and similarly, have gotten no responses other than ad hominem attacks.
Which is actually very revealing.
From wikipedia: “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. “
I said the troll was using logical fallacies such as the appeal to authority and circular reasoning. I noted that rather than answering my questions as to why the govt requires reporting on electromagnetic energy weather modification and what the cone-shaped blips on the radar screen are, the troll questioned my credibility.
And I’ll just add here that it wasn’t just one troll who did this; it was the WHOLE ARGUMENT OF THE ENTIRE “SIDE” supposedly refuting this video. NOBODY has addressed my questions.
It isn’t an ad hominem attack when I point out the troll techniques being used. It IS an ad hominem attack to avoid the actual content by making the issue all about how crazy the presenter of the evidence/question is. Which is the ONLY response I have received to either of my 2 evidentiary questions. Two pieces of evidence have been brought up and both have been discarded because they appear on the internet:
1) the cone-shaped blips showing up on the radar;
2) the NOAA website showing the federal law requiring companies to report whether they have used any “lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation” to modify weather.
The supposed “scientists” here who are so much smarter than dolts like me have assured us all that radar means nothing if you see it on the internet (where the heck ELSE do you ever see it?), and that federal law isn’t federal law if it’s shown on the internet (again, where he heck ELSE do you or I ever see the actual text of federal law?)
Does anybody truly expect us to believe that real scientists would be making these claims? Get real.
“Why does the law require reporting on the use of weather-modifying lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation, if such things cannot POSSIBLY modify weather?”
AJ claims radar is ionizing radiation. First sentence in OP. That is absolutely false.
But you defend him saying this is not about physics!