Friday, November 19, 2010
Australian Laws On Weather Modification
I have done some checking on Australian laws that could be considered relevant to cloudbusting. I did not find any specific legislation AGAINST weather modification, but there are several laws AUTHORIZING it for specific programs at specific times and places.
It seems that in Australia, unlike in America, weather modification is required to obtain a speficic legislative act authorizing it and is otherwiser considered to fall under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974, the Wilderness Act of 1987, the Fisheries Management Act of 1994, Threatened Species Act, 1995, Local Government Act, 1993, Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997, and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
Any weather modification done without a legislative act exempting it from these Acts is a violation of them.
Of course no prosecution is possible until the government is convinced the process is effective, but once that is accomplished, any publicly-known cloudbusting will automaticly become illegal.
It seems that in Australia, unlike in America, weather modification is required to obtain a speficic legislative act authorizing it and is otherwiser considered to fall under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974, the Wilderness Act of 1987, the Fisheries Management Act of 1994, Threatened Species Act, 1995, Local Government Act, 1993, Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997, and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
Any weather modification done without a legislative act exempting it from these Acts is a violation of them.
Of course no prosecution is possible until the government is convinced the process is effective, but once that is accomplished, any publicly-known cloudbusting will automaticly become illegal.
Non-Orgonomic Arguments Against Hurricane Suppression
1. Hurricanes over water stir up bottom sediment which provides extra norishment to plankton, which are the base of the oceanic food chain, so for several weeks after a hurricane all aquatic life florishes.
2. Swift-churning waters break off small pieces of coral reefs, which are carried some distance away and sink to the bottom to grow into new reefs. This is how coral propagates, so without hurricanes the reefs could not spread.
3. When a big tree falls, the gap in the canopy allows sunlight to reach a lot of seedlings and underbrush which need sunlight to grow and could not grow in the shade of the big tree. Many species in a forest community need these gaps and the sunlight they permit to fill their role in the forest ecosystem.
4. While a big fallen tree is being recycled back into the forest floor to provide nutrients for a next generation of trees, it is also providing years of food and habitat for the insects and microbes that do the recycling.
5. It also is providing habitat for many species of animal life that hide in the tangle of broken branches to protect them from predators.
6. In areas where hurricanes are common, all native species are adapted to them. Non-native species which are not so adapted therefore are kept out of the area by the recuring hurricanes. If the hurricanes stopped, they would be able to invade the former huricane zone, to the detriment of the native species there, as all introduced species are always destructive to native species that are not adapted to them.
7. In areas where hurricanes are common, a significant portion of the yearly water supply comes from them. Without hurricanes there would be a water short-fall amounting to a major drought.
8. The water shortfall could not be made up by simply causing extra ordinary rainstorms because the heavy downpour typical of hurricanes provides enough water all at once to flush out coastal ecosystems and rejuvenate them. Since this is an annual event, these coastal ecosystems are adapted to it and need it.
9. Low-lying coastal areas in the tropics and subtropics are the richest, most diverse ecosystems on earth. Many such areas are under heavy threat from unrestricted development. Other areas are still relatively intact because the frequency of hurricanes discourages human occupation. If hurricanes wre no longer a factor, these fragile coastal ecosystems would soon be overrun by development from which they are now at least partly protected by the fact that hurricanes are common there.
2. Swift-churning waters break off small pieces of coral reefs, which are carried some distance away and sink to the bottom to grow into new reefs. This is how coral propagates, so without hurricanes the reefs could not spread.
3. When a big tree falls, the gap in the canopy allows sunlight to reach a lot of seedlings and underbrush which need sunlight to grow and could not grow in the shade of the big tree. Many species in a forest community need these gaps and the sunlight they permit to fill their role in the forest ecosystem.
4. While a big fallen tree is being recycled back into the forest floor to provide nutrients for a next generation of trees, it is also providing years of food and habitat for the insects and microbes that do the recycling.
5. It also is providing habitat for many species of animal life that hide in the tangle of broken branches to protect them from predators.
6. In areas where hurricanes are common, all native species are adapted to them. Non-native species which are not so adapted therefore are kept out of the area by the recuring hurricanes. If the hurricanes stopped, they would be able to invade the former huricane zone, to the detriment of the native species there, as all introduced species are always destructive to native species that are not adapted to them.
7. In areas where hurricanes are common, a significant portion of the yearly water supply comes from them. Without hurricanes there would be a water short-fall amounting to a major drought.
8. The water shortfall could not be made up by simply causing extra ordinary rainstorms because the heavy downpour typical of hurricanes provides enough water all at once to flush out coastal ecosystems and rejuvenate them. Since this is an annual event, these coastal ecosystems are adapted to it and need it.
9. Low-lying coastal areas in the tropics and subtropics are the richest, most diverse ecosystems on earth. Many such areas are under heavy threat from unrestricted development. Other areas are still relatively intact because the frequency of hurricanes discourages human occupation. If hurricanes wre no longer a factor, these fragile coastal ecosystems would soon be overrun by development from which they are now at least partly protected by the fact that hurricanes are common there.
Response To A Critic
First, there is no reason for me to "stick to science". I do not claim to be a "scientist". I am in the role of an environmental activist, not a scientist, and my role is to oppose the evildoers, not to try to convert them. Looking at it from the point of view of the evil ones would not be helpful. It would only be a distraction from the job of pointing out the evil they are trying to do.
I am not trying to convert the Weather Rangers. I do not think that can be done, no matter what I might say, because I consider their desire to tamper with the weather to be a symptom of mental pathology, not something simply due to ignorance of scientific facts.
What I am trying to do is formulate the basis of an opposition movement, not convert the enemy. I am speaking to potential anti-Weather Ranger activists, not people who are already on the Weather Rangers team.
So please forget about trying to convince me they are not of bad intentions. The intention to stop hurricanes is a bad intention. The opinions of the people who want to do it are irrelevant. It is a bad intention, no matter what the evildoers might think.
If you were on a jury, would you vote to aquit a murderer because he claimed to hold the opinion the person he killed deserved to die? No? Well, how is that any different from trying to destroy a hurricane because they think hurricanes should be destroyed?
Now, having thrashed out all that, can we please get around to discussing the issue of hurricane prevention instead of evading it by discussing my terminology? So far, I still have not seen any questions on proper vs. improper procedure, what possible harm hurricane prevention might cause, the legalities, financial liabilities, and other aspects of weather interventions, or all the other REAL issues.
So, heve you raised the issue of the ecological role of hurricanes with anyone?
Have you discussed with anyone the possibility that interfering with the weather might violate numerous already existing laws?
Have you talked to any Weather Rangers about the propriety of altering the habitat of any endangered species which is illegal under the Endangerd Species Act?
Have you brought up the suggestion that it would be the responsible thing to do to carry insurance to compensate anyone who is harmed by operations, as is required by law for cloudseeders in some states?
Would the Weather Rangers admit liability if someone was killed as a result of a Weather Ranger operation? If you divert a hurricane from one place, where it was headed to someplace else where it would not have gone if not for you, and someone is killed by it, it makes no difference how many people MIGHT have been killed if it had stayed on the previous course; the person killed by it was still killed as a result of your operation.
Have you discussed the legal requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act to announce the planed project in advance and allow for public comment?
Have you mentioned to anyone that NOAA requires 10 days advance notice for doing any form of weather modification?
Have you suggested consulting a lawyer about any of these points before dashing out and trying to alter weather?
Have you mentioned to anyone your concerns about possible ecological damage from preventing hurricanes?
And, have you told them you think they are making a mistake by pretending to ignore me instead of paying attention to the real and serious issues I have raised?
Have you pointed out to them that the articles on the website of James DeMeo are obviously biased, and that DeMeo has plenty of motivation to try to discredit me because of my justified criticisms of his bungling operations?
Maybe you ought to be lecturing THEM instead of me.
I am not trying to convert the Weather Rangers. I do not think that can be done, no matter what I might say, because I consider their desire to tamper with the weather to be a symptom of mental pathology, not something simply due to ignorance of scientific facts.
What I am trying to do is formulate the basis of an opposition movement, not convert the enemy. I am speaking to potential anti-Weather Ranger activists, not people who are already on the Weather Rangers team.
So please forget about trying to convince me they are not of bad intentions. The intention to stop hurricanes is a bad intention. The opinions of the people who want to do it are irrelevant. It is a bad intention, no matter what the evildoers might think.
If you were on a jury, would you vote to aquit a murderer because he claimed to hold the opinion the person he killed deserved to die? No? Well, how is that any different from trying to destroy a hurricane because they think hurricanes should be destroyed?
Now, having thrashed out all that, can we please get around to discussing the issue of hurricane prevention instead of evading it by discussing my terminology? So far, I still have not seen any questions on proper vs. improper procedure, what possible harm hurricane prevention might cause, the legalities, financial liabilities, and other aspects of weather interventions, or all the other REAL issues.
So, heve you raised the issue of the ecological role of hurricanes with anyone?
Have you discussed with anyone the possibility that interfering with the weather might violate numerous already existing laws?
Have you talked to any Weather Rangers about the propriety of altering the habitat of any endangered species which is illegal under the Endangerd Species Act?
Have you brought up the suggestion that it would be the responsible thing to do to carry insurance to compensate anyone who is harmed by operations, as is required by law for cloudseeders in some states?
Would the Weather Rangers admit liability if someone was killed as a result of a Weather Ranger operation? If you divert a hurricane from one place, where it was headed to someplace else where it would not have gone if not for you, and someone is killed by it, it makes no difference how many people MIGHT have been killed if it had stayed on the previous course; the person killed by it was still killed as a result of your operation.
Have you discussed the legal requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act to announce the planed project in advance and allow for public comment?
Have you mentioned to anyone that NOAA requires 10 days advance notice for doing any form of weather modification?
Have you suggested consulting a lawyer about any of these points before dashing out and trying to alter weather?
Have you mentioned to anyone your concerns about possible ecological damage from preventing hurricanes?
And, have you told them you think they are making a mistake by pretending to ignore me instead of paying attention to the real and serious issues I have raised?
Have you pointed out to them that the articles on the website of James DeMeo are obviously biased, and that DeMeo has plenty of motivation to try to discredit me because of my justified criticisms of his bungling operations?
Maybe you ought to be lecturing THEM instead of me.
Some More Of The Same......................
I did present reasons why not to do what they plan. And, aside from Ash, who is a full-time nut, look at the reactions. Two members have posted links to the slanders by DeMeo, one ( besides Ash ) has posted that he has set his spam filter to delete anything from me, one has asked to be removed from my mailing list, and nobody has yet asked me to present my reasons for being against the proposed project. None has said anything to refute me. None has suggested any errors in my evaluation. All they do is say the slanders by DeMeo & Co. are "news" and "a must read".
And again, I am not trying to win them over; I am presenting a case against them to an audience who are accustomed to hearing this sort of speach against lumber companies, whalers, trophy hunters, nuclear power plant executives, and other evildoers who belong in the same basket with these friends of yours and for the same reasons: they all are out to do damage to the earth. And they all go home at night to loving families who think they are good people.
I think being tolerant of people who do bad things because they themselves or their friends and families think they are good people is a fundamental mistake. If I am introduced at a party to someone who then mentions that he is a scientist who tortures animals in sadistic experiments, or is a soldier in the fascistic American Army, or likes to watch foxes torn to bits by dogs, or is a prison guard, I do not act polite. I let that person know exactly what I think of him.
And the Weather Rangers are in the same catagory. I do not care what they think they are doing. I care what they really ARE doing.
What they SHOULD be doing is to discuss the matter publicly. Openly. And fully. Discuss the whole subject of if it is a good idea to stop hurricanes. If they want to be a legal, above-ground organization or an illegal, underground one. If they wish to respect environmental protection laws or disregard them. If they want to show fiscal responbsibility by carrying insurance to compensate any people they might accidently harm by their operations. If they want to admit they do not have expertise in ecology and should hire an ecologist to advise them before doing anything that could have major environmental effects.
They should be willing to hear what I have to say and if they disagree, they should do it on the issues, not by second-hand personal attacks.
Then, if they still disagree, maybe I would at least admit they mean well. But until they show a willingness to listen to me first before deciding I am wrong, I continue to regard their platitudes as self-deception, on a par with the research scientist who fools himself into thinking his vivisection is justified by "helping people".
And again, I am not trying to win them over; I am presenting a case against them to an audience who are accustomed to hearing this sort of speach against lumber companies, whalers, trophy hunters, nuclear power plant executives, and other evildoers who belong in the same basket with these friends of yours and for the same reasons: they all are out to do damage to the earth. And they all go home at night to loving families who think they are good people.
I think being tolerant of people who do bad things because they themselves or their friends and families think they are good people is a fundamental mistake. If I am introduced at a party to someone who then mentions that he is a scientist who tortures animals in sadistic experiments, or is a soldier in the fascistic American Army, or likes to watch foxes torn to bits by dogs, or is a prison guard, I do not act polite. I let that person know exactly what I think of him.
And the Weather Rangers are in the same catagory. I do not care what they think they are doing. I care what they really ARE doing.
What they SHOULD be doing is to discuss the matter publicly. Openly. And fully. Discuss the whole subject of if it is a good idea to stop hurricanes. If they want to be a legal, above-ground organization or an illegal, underground one. If they wish to respect environmental protection laws or disregard them. If they want to show fiscal responbsibility by carrying insurance to compensate any people they might accidently harm by their operations. If they want to admit they do not have expertise in ecology and should hire an ecologist to advise them before doing anything that could have major environmental effects.
They should be willing to hear what I have to say and if they disagree, they should do it on the issues, not by second-hand personal attacks.
Then, if they still disagree, maybe I would at least admit they mean well. But until they show a willingness to listen to me first before deciding I am wrong, I continue to regard their platitudes as self-deception, on a par with the research scientist who fools himself into thinking his vivisection is justified by "helping people".
And Still More..............................
Perhaps it would be better to call them authoritarian personalities attracted to cloudbusting because it gratifies their desire for power and control. Or perhaps to say they have a compulsion to tame and doinate nature because they were forcibly tamed and dominated as children. Or possibly they fear the natural world and its processes because of ancestral memories of natural catastrophes which their ancestors barely survived. Or maybe they want to compensate for feelings of weakness and inferiority due to the powerlessness of ordinary individuals in a mass society. Or maybe it is what the ancient Greeks called "hubris", the folly of placing oneself on the level of the gods.
I really don't care what the reason may be that someone is evil. If they are doing something that will destroy the environment, they are evil, whatever the reason may be. Loggers who will claim they are trying to feed their families by clear-cutting forests, Canadian seal-killers bashing baby seals heads in for money, Africans eating gorillas, Japanese whalers harpooning whales and claiming it is scientific research, are all evil. No claim of culture, tradition, custom, religion, --or innocent wish to help humanity-- can change the fact that they are evil. And I am not interested in why they are evil. What I am interested in is how to stop the bastards. Period.
Now, having reached an agreement to disagree on what to call people who want to damage the atmosphere and what to think their motivation is, let's move on and deal with the other issues I raised in my last message. Or not, if you do not want to deal with them. But you might as well give up trying to convince me that people who are trying to murder ( word used intentionally for the emotive value ) hurricanes are well-meaning.
And I am being as fair as people who cite slander by DeMeo against me deserve. If anyone has some argument in favor of preventing hurricanes, so far I have not heard it. All my reasons for not interfering in natural atmospheric processes have been met by citing DeMeo as proof that I am a bad person and refusing to even read letters from me. It looks to me as if I really struck a nerve someplace with my telling them hurricane-prevention might not be such a good idea. Maybe the reason nobody is trying to refute my claims is because they can't.
I started a new discussion list to give the Weather Rangers a chance to debate the issue, but obviously nobody wants to. Instead, they think refusing to read what I write will make the problem go away. It will not, because I am not the problem; The hubris of the Weather Rangers is the problem.
I really don't care what the reason may be that someone is evil. If they are doing something that will destroy the environment, they are evil, whatever the reason may be. Loggers who will claim they are trying to feed their families by clear-cutting forests, Canadian seal-killers bashing baby seals heads in for money, Africans eating gorillas, Japanese whalers harpooning whales and claiming it is scientific research, are all evil. No claim of culture, tradition, custom, religion, --or innocent wish to help humanity-- can change the fact that they are evil. And I am not interested in why they are evil. What I am interested in is how to stop the bastards. Period.
Now, having reached an agreement to disagree on what to call people who want to damage the atmosphere and what to think their motivation is, let's move on and deal with the other issues I raised in my last message. Or not, if you do not want to deal with them. But you might as well give up trying to convince me that people who are trying to murder ( word used intentionally for the emotive value ) hurricanes are well-meaning.
And I am being as fair as people who cite slander by DeMeo against me deserve. If anyone has some argument in favor of preventing hurricanes, so far I have not heard it. All my reasons for not interfering in natural atmospheric processes have been met by citing DeMeo as proof that I am a bad person and refusing to even read letters from me. It looks to me as if I really struck a nerve someplace with my telling them hurricane-prevention might not be such a good idea. Maybe the reason nobody is trying to refute my claims is because they can't.
I started a new discussion list to give the Weather Rangers a chance to debate the issue, but obviously nobody wants to. Instead, they think refusing to read what I write will make the problem go away. It will not, because I am not the problem; The hubris of the Weather Rangers is the problem.
More From My Correspondence......................
People are able to rationalize almost anything as being for the "good of humanity". There are plenty of Americans who rationalize the invasion of Iraq as "for the good of the Iraqi people". The FDA agents who sent Reich to prison no doubt thought they were protecting innocent cancer victims from a con-artist. So what people think their motives are has little relationship to what they really are.
And good intentions do not matter much anyway. What counts are the results. James DeMeo has good intentions, but does a lot of damage with his cloudbusting through ignorance of ecology, and is in denial about it. There is no convincing him. I have tried for years. I doubt the Weather Rangers will prove any more willing to listen to advice that he is. So their intentions are not as important as the fact that they are trying to do something that if it actually gets done, will do a lot of harm.
When people get a new toy like a cloudbuster, the last thing they want is be told it is not a good thing. They like to fantasize themselves as heroes, saving the world from killer storms and floods, not be sent back to grade school to learn things directly opposite to what they have always been taught. Egotism will be at work here, wait and see.
And if you think I have made some valid points, please tell them so. They do not want to listen to me. Al Feliciano has said on the Weather Rangers website that he has set his Spam filter to block anything from me. Does that sound like he is willing to listen?
Both he and another one of the group have sent links to a 20-year-old slanderous defamatory article on the website of James DeMeo. Neither of them undertook the simple task of asking me what my side of the story might be. They just took whatever DeMeo said at fact value without realizing he has a obvious motive to slander someone who has been critical of his work. If their scientific research is of similar caliber, how much would it be worth?
Since they tolerated Ash ranting incoherently and making vague threats, and nobody spoke up to tell him he was out of line, why should I regard the rest of them as any better? They are all his enablers.
Ash stated frankly that he would ignore any environmental protection laws because HE is better qualified to decide what is best. Is that Weather Rangers policy? Maybe there should be some discussion of if the Weather Rangers are a legal group or an illegal one?
Maybe there should be some discussion of such things as carrying insurance coverage to compensate anyone you harm by some ill-advised operation too. In case you do not know it, some states already have legislation requiring insurance coverage for any weather modification operations.
But instead of delving into such real issues as taking financial responsibility in case of a disaster, the Weather Rangers would rather discuss if I committed a single minor crime 30 years ago or if I committed the blasphemous sin of writing an article for Skeptic magazine.
And do not forget the Weather Rangers came out of the free-energy inventors sub-culture, that is, they are already technophiliacs, with an emotional vested interest in new inventions as the road to salvation. Telling them they will make things worse can only sound like Luddism to people with that mind-set.
I will send you some articles to pass on to them, if you want to. But be careful: you might become the first person to be excominicated by the Weather Rangers.
I do not expect to be able to convince any of them no matter what I do. What I am trying to do is start a counter-movement to oppose them. My polemical style is directed to that end.
And good intentions do not matter much anyway. What counts are the results. James DeMeo has good intentions, but does a lot of damage with his cloudbusting through ignorance of ecology, and is in denial about it. There is no convincing him. I have tried for years. I doubt the Weather Rangers will prove any more willing to listen to advice that he is. So their intentions are not as important as the fact that they are trying to do something that if it actually gets done, will do a lot of harm.
When people get a new toy like a cloudbuster, the last thing they want is be told it is not a good thing. They like to fantasize themselves as heroes, saving the world from killer storms and floods, not be sent back to grade school to learn things directly opposite to what they have always been taught. Egotism will be at work here, wait and see.
And if you think I have made some valid points, please tell them so. They do not want to listen to me. Al Feliciano has said on the Weather Rangers website that he has set his Spam filter to block anything from me. Does that sound like he is willing to listen?
Both he and another one of the group have sent links to a 20-year-old slanderous defamatory article on the website of James DeMeo. Neither of them undertook the simple task of asking me what my side of the story might be. They just took whatever DeMeo said at fact value without realizing he has a obvious motive to slander someone who has been critical of his work. If their scientific research is of similar caliber, how much would it be worth?
Since they tolerated Ash ranting incoherently and making vague threats, and nobody spoke up to tell him he was out of line, why should I regard the rest of them as any better? They are all his enablers.
Ash stated frankly that he would ignore any environmental protection laws because HE is better qualified to decide what is best. Is that Weather Rangers policy? Maybe there should be some discussion of if the Weather Rangers are a legal group or an illegal one?
Maybe there should be some discussion of such things as carrying insurance coverage to compensate anyone you harm by some ill-advised operation too. In case you do not know it, some states already have legislation requiring insurance coverage for any weather modification operations.
But instead of delving into such real issues as taking financial responsibility in case of a disaster, the Weather Rangers would rather discuss if I committed a single minor crime 30 years ago or if I committed the blasphemous sin of writing an article for Skeptic magazine.
And do not forget the Weather Rangers came out of the free-energy inventors sub-culture, that is, they are already technophiliacs, with an emotional vested interest in new inventions as the road to salvation. Telling them they will make things worse can only sound like Luddism to people with that mind-set.
I will send you some articles to pass on to them, if you want to. But be careful: you might become the first person to be excominicated by the Weather Rangers.
I do not expect to be able to convince any of them no matter what I do. What I am trying to do is start a counter-movement to oppose them. My polemical style is directed to that end.
Threat to The Biosphere
Weather Rangers Pose Threat to Biosphere
Almost the first thing you see on the website of the group calling itself the Weather Rangers, a group of weather-control hobbyists who have the presumption to claim they are the ones who should be allowed to determine our weather, is the proclamation that they are dedicated to the prevention of hurricanes and tornadoes. Now, let us examine that closely in detail.
Tornadoes are not something that "just happens" for no reason; they are a reaction of the atmospheric orgone to heavy infestation of DOR. The remaining healthy orgone in the atmosphere reacts to high levels of DOR by strong circulatory motion, trying to mobilize the dead, stagnant energy back into moving healthy orgone again. This process should be aided, not hindered, by cloudbuster operators, whose goal should be the restoration of free pulsation to the atmosphere, not prevention of the means by which the atmosphere recovers from stagnation.
Hurricanes are not quite the same thing as tornadoes. They form as a result of the superimposition of two giant streams of orgone that reach the earth from space. They act like a huge broom, sweeping the atmosphere clean of DOR on a hemisphere-sized basis regularly each year. The track they follow is heavily influenced by the amount and location of DOR build-ups in the atmosphere.
At times when there is more DOR over land areas, they will veer inland; At times with less DOR in the interior of a continent, they will stay out to sea. This is no accident. DOR and water attract each other more strongly than OR and water, so it is to be expected that if there is a lot of DOR in the American Midwest, for example, the large concentration of DOR will draw strong storms toward that region. So, while hurricanes are formed by cosmic factors, the path they follow is determined by where there is a need for them.
Because they are a regular, seasonal phenomena, hurricanes are a part of the expected annual series of weather events and all species that live in a hurricane zone are adapted to their regular recurrence. They are therefore a part of the process that keeps the ecology in dynamic balance. Many species are dependent on them for creating the conditions they need. One good example is the breaking off of pieces of coral from coral reefs by the rapidly-churning waters stirred up by a hurricane. This is frequently regarded as a harmful thing, as "damage" to the reef, by people who do not understand the ecology of coral reefs and this is the version of the subject often presented to the media by operators of underwater tours to these reefs. But the function of coral reefs is not to provide a place for tourists to gape at, and it turns out that the broken-off pieces of the reef start new reefs in other places and this is how such reefs propagate.
Tornadoes on the other hand, are an irregular occurrence, taking place at varying intervals, so nothing is adapted to them because they are not reliable. But they are an atmospheric reaction to high levels of DOR in an area and are called into being, in effect by a situation which requires them. They are the atmospheric version of the immune system in the body. As they are stronger, faster, and therefore even better at mobilizing stuck energy than the larger, slower hurricanes are, they do even more to keep an area habitable by cleansing it of DOR on an "as needed" basis.
Both phenomena are of vital importance to maintaining the earth in a livable state. Both hurricanes and tornadoes are important parts of the metabolism of the earth, having different and complementary roles in removing DOR and restoring the regular atmospheric pulsation on which regular reliable weather depends. Without them all life would soon become impossible because of both direct effects of DOR in the form of DOR sickness affecting all living organisms, and indirect effects of DOR such as long and severe droughts and the inevitable unpredictable violent storms with which the atmosphere would react.
So why do the Weather Rangers want to destroy these life-giving storms? Why would anyone wish to prevent the remobilization of dead, stuck, stale, stagnant life energy back into healthy, moving, freely-pulsating life energy that can support life and regulate the weather, keeping it within normal bounds? Are they simply insane? Are they so evil and depraved they want to see the atmosphere and it's ability to support life destroyed?
This is a question that is hard to answer with any certainty. I am not a psychologist, so I will leave it to those who are to attempt an explanation of why these people hate life so much they want to destroy vitally-needed storm systems that are essential to all living things. This is not unique to the Weather Rangers, of course. There are whale-hunters who like to harpoon whales. There are seal-killers who consider it fun to club baby seals. There are loggers who do not see anything wrong with clear-cutting whole forests. And now there are hurricane-killers who want to destroy our vital hurricanes too.
For environmental activists who care about life on this planet, there is a clear duty to fight against these would-be hurricane-murderers by whatever means possible. Please join me in the fight to protect our hurricanes.
Almost the first thing you see on the website of the group calling itself the Weather Rangers, a group of weather-control hobbyists who have the presumption to claim they are the ones who should be allowed to determine our weather, is the proclamation that they are dedicated to the prevention of hurricanes and tornadoes. Now, let us examine that closely in detail.
Tornadoes are not something that "just happens" for no reason; they are a reaction of the atmospheric orgone to heavy infestation of DOR. The remaining healthy orgone in the atmosphere reacts to high levels of DOR by strong circulatory motion, trying to mobilize the dead, stagnant energy back into moving healthy orgone again. This process should be aided, not hindered, by cloudbuster operators, whose goal should be the restoration of free pulsation to the atmosphere, not prevention of the means by which the atmosphere recovers from stagnation.
Hurricanes are not quite the same thing as tornadoes. They form as a result of the superimposition of two giant streams of orgone that reach the earth from space. They act like a huge broom, sweeping the atmosphere clean of DOR on a hemisphere-sized basis regularly each year. The track they follow is heavily influenced by the amount and location of DOR build-ups in the atmosphere.
At times when there is more DOR over land areas, they will veer inland; At times with less DOR in the interior of a continent, they will stay out to sea. This is no accident. DOR and water attract each other more strongly than OR and water, so it is to be expected that if there is a lot of DOR in the American Midwest, for example, the large concentration of DOR will draw strong storms toward that region. So, while hurricanes are formed by cosmic factors, the path they follow is determined by where there is a need for them.
Because they are a regular, seasonal phenomena, hurricanes are a part of the expected annual series of weather events and all species that live in a hurricane zone are adapted to their regular recurrence. They are therefore a part of the process that keeps the ecology in dynamic balance. Many species are dependent on them for creating the conditions they need. One good example is the breaking off of pieces of coral from coral reefs by the rapidly-churning waters stirred up by a hurricane. This is frequently regarded as a harmful thing, as "damage" to the reef, by people who do not understand the ecology of coral reefs and this is the version of the subject often presented to the media by operators of underwater tours to these reefs. But the function of coral reefs is not to provide a place for tourists to gape at, and it turns out that the broken-off pieces of the reef start new reefs in other places and this is how such reefs propagate.
Tornadoes on the other hand, are an irregular occurrence, taking place at varying intervals, so nothing is adapted to them because they are not reliable. But they are an atmospheric reaction to high levels of DOR in an area and are called into being, in effect by a situation which requires them. They are the atmospheric version of the immune system in the body. As they are stronger, faster, and therefore even better at mobilizing stuck energy than the larger, slower hurricanes are, they do even more to keep an area habitable by cleansing it of DOR on an "as needed" basis.
Both phenomena are of vital importance to maintaining the earth in a livable state. Both hurricanes and tornadoes are important parts of the metabolism of the earth, having different and complementary roles in removing DOR and restoring the regular atmospheric pulsation on which regular reliable weather depends. Without them all life would soon become impossible because of both direct effects of DOR in the form of DOR sickness affecting all living organisms, and indirect effects of DOR such as long and severe droughts and the inevitable unpredictable violent storms with which the atmosphere would react.
So why do the Weather Rangers want to destroy these life-giving storms? Why would anyone wish to prevent the remobilization of dead, stuck, stale, stagnant life energy back into healthy, moving, freely-pulsating life energy that can support life and regulate the weather, keeping it within normal bounds? Are they simply insane? Are they so evil and depraved they want to see the atmosphere and it's ability to support life destroyed?
This is a question that is hard to answer with any certainty. I am not a psychologist, so I will leave it to those who are to attempt an explanation of why these people hate life so much they want to destroy vitally-needed storm systems that are essential to all living things. This is not unique to the Weather Rangers, of course. There are whale-hunters who like to harpoon whales. There are seal-killers who consider it fun to club baby seals. There are loggers who do not see anything wrong with clear-cutting whole forests. And now there are hurricane-killers who want to destroy our vital hurricanes too.
For environmental activists who care about life on this planet, there is a clear duty to fight against these would-be hurricane-murderers by whatever means possible. Please join me in the fight to protect our hurricanes.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
