My God. The world is on fire and there are still people out there who want to throw a cup of water on it
.
Point well taken, Richard, but there are some related issues which are important, and have not been seriously and transparently evaluated. Some examples:
1. Witnesses, including fire officials, have stated that the way recent wildfires flash into existence, in sync or close to it, strongly suggests well organized arson. Needs a LOT of honest looking-into, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts. Maybe public panel members should be elected.
A friend here in my village saw a TV news item in which the Quebec fires, viewed from satellites, seemed to burst into flame close to simultaneously.
2. Witnesses, including fire officials in California, have reported that the way residential fires there flash into existence, burning residences down to their concrete foundations, sometimes consuming vehicles, but with nearby vegetation remaining untouched, is highly unusual. Deserves investigation, with public scrutiny and input. Not all experts.
Allegations of directed energy fire projection need to be part of such investigations.
Allegations of aluminum deposition from "geo-engineering" which can cause hotter and more readily triggered fires need to be investigated.
3. The matter of whether current-day "geo-engineering" technology can actually cause droughts and floods needs to be transparently investigated, with lots of public scrutiny and input.
Then the investigators need to turn to the question of whether geo-engineering is actually being carried out, by whom, for what purposes, and for how long.
4. While we're at it, we need an investigation into what sort of sea level changes are actually taking place. Again, an investigation with public participation and representation - not all experts.
Looking at the closely observed history of the Mont-St-Michel commune on France's Normandy coast might be a good place to start since observational data is available, and which includes public input.
5. There have been allegations that climate data has been manipulated, both by altering numbers, and by locating weather observation equipment in known places with temperatures higher than a truly representative average. Allegations of weather equipment next to tarmac with airliner traffic and hot exhausts need investigation, with public scrutiny and representation - not all experts.
Investigational data needs to be published AS SOON AS ACCEPTED AS VALID by the panel. No waiting until the entire investigation is published. That way, knowledgeable people can criticize at a stage when discovery of falsification can make a real difference.
Waiting to criticize until publication is virtually a guarantee that nothing can change the conclusions.
I feel your pain, Richard. We get dosed with some pretty thick smoke up here ...
-- Squirrel
