I published two earlier diaries, one of which was, I admit, a little rambling and sensational. But I posted another, cleaned up version that was considerably tighter and well-documented, which cited only credible sources, yet which received very few serious replies. I did not bother replying to those serious replies, because I found that shortly after I posted my replies, I was unable to see them. I assumed that they had been deleted, but I was told - after considerable 'harassment' by the forum administrators - that there was something I didn't understand about troll ratings. Perhaps that is the case - I have only posted here a few times - but I found myself dismayed at both at the unprofessional, nasty, and childish attitudes of the administrators - I think 'Mark in SF', someone from 'Seattle', and someone else - which I find unbecoming of who ought to be 'fair' and 'objective' judges of a public forum; and at the fact that my ability to communicate was hampered because I was not preaching to the choir.
I published two earlier diaries, one of which was, I admit, a little rambling and sensational. But I posted another, cleaned up version that was considerably tighter and well-documented, which cited only credible sources, yet which received very few serious replies. I did not bother replying to those serious replies, because I found that shortly after I posted my replies, I was unable to see them. I assumed that they had been deleted, but I was told - after considerable 'harassment' by the forum administrators - that there was something I didn't understand about troll ratings. Perhaps that is the case - I have only posted here a few times - but I found myself dismayed at both at the unprofessional, nasty, and childish attitudes of the administrators - I think 'Mark in SF', someone from 'Seattle', and someone else - which I find unbecoming of who ought to be 'fair' and 'objective' judges of a public forum; and at the fact that my ability to communicate was hampered because I was not preaching to the choir. (The site tells me there are over 100 comments, yet I am able to see fewer than 30.)
If my arguments are so outlandish, then it should be no trouble to defeat them in a fair, honest, and open debate. Yet instead of finding what liberal philosophers of the past, such as J.S. Mill, might call 'free speech', I was treated to the kind of insulting and diversionary behavior one would expect of undisciplined children - or Fox News pundits. Because of this I can only assume that the intended effect was to stifle any discussion that does not lead to predetermined outcomes. For shame.
Nevertheless I have come back to present one last argument, and one last piece of evidence, in the hopes that some of you are decent, reasonable, and possessed of a courage and willingness to entertain ideas outside your intellectual comfort zone.
---
I will be brief. One: previously the most common argument thrown at me was, 'But the scientists say [x]!' 'The news media tell me there is a consensus!' 'You are saying that the government is controlling the weather, and that's just--just--crazy!'
First of all, no, I am not making the argument that the military is controlling the weather - I may have insinuated it at first, but I simply do not have the evidential support to back me up. So instead I am making the undeniable argument that the military has been tampering with the atmosphere for a long time, that it has openly stated its desire to control the weather, and that therefore we should investigate what exactly is going on. Is that really so irrational and paranoid? If so, please explain why.
It's that simple: we should see what the capabilities really are and what their effects could possibly be, because to my knowledge such capabilities have been neither mentioned nor acknowledged in the public, though the existence of such capabilities - regardless of their actual efficacy - is quite clear in the scientific and military documentary record. How can we say authoritatively that atmospheric weapons have no effect on climate or the weather, if we know neither their scope nor their power?
Second, I have been imputed to say that CO2 emissions have no appreciable effect on global warming. I said no such thing, for it would be absurd to say that burning tons and tons of hydrocarbons releases no heat into the atmosphere. All I said is that we should investigate all the possibly relevant factors before jumping to conclusions - and for that, I suppose, I am guilty of sinning against 'Science' and her high priests, who scream like clanging gongs:
'CO2 and nothing else! Case closed! No more discussion, period!'
I am sorry, but that is not the science I know - for the science I know tells me that everything is subject to revision.
I said I would present one last piece of evidence. It is Patent No. 4712155, submitted by Bernard Eastlund, inventor and subsequent critic of HAARP. I will include just a short quotation from the patent, which you are welcome to look up for yourself at Google Patents. It reads:
The use of electron cyclotron resonance heating to add energy to the electrons of a plasma has heretofore been restricted to regions of plasma which lie at altitudes where the cyclotron frequency exceeds the collision rate of the electrons, (e.g. ionosphere and higher). However, since many benefits (e.g. long distance communications, weather modification, etc.) may arise...
...his invention - which, he argues, ought to be placed on the North Slope of Alaska - is necessary.
It sounds like this guy is a total crackpot - in which case it is a scandal that the government and military should waste so much money on his ideas.