A new blog post on the Weather Rangers website by Alberto Feliciano, one of the leaders of the Weather Rangers, included this encouraging change of course:
Is it necessary to totally eliminate Hurricanes?
Probably not.
Many people have expressed concerns about what eliminating natural atmospheric phenomena might do to the planet's natural energies, and there might be something to that.
Maybe only those storms that threaten human lives should be altered a bit, not every single storm out there. Lets keep this in mind while we're working with the weather. There is still much, much to be learned about our Planet.
In the meantime let's also get ready for the People-killing storms. As you can see from the picture I posted today in our photos section, a picture from NOAA Hurricane Center, the season is now open: activity is picking up. August and September are traditionally the two busiest months of the year for Hurricane formation. Let's pray for guidance and do that which is best for all involved.
Alberto
Many people have expressed concerns about what eliminating natural atmospheric phenomena might do to the planet's natural energies, and there might be something to that.
Maybe only those storms that threaten human lives should be altered a bit, not every single storm out there. Lets keep this in mind while we're working with the weather. There is still much, much to be learned about our Planet.
In the meantime let's also get ready for the People-killing storms. As you can see from the picture I posted today in our photos section, a picture from NOAA Hurricane Center, the season is now open: activity is picking up. August and September are traditionally the two busiest months of the year for Hurricane formation. Let's pray for guidance and do that which is best for all involved.
Alberto
I note that he does not say who these "many people" might be, but as far as I know, I am the only one to have expressed concern about the appropriateness of preventing hurricanes. And Mr. Feliciano has not replied to any of the numerous e-mails I have sent him on the subject.
On the contrary, he has instead posted a message approving of some personal defamation about me. That might possibly be the reason he is reluctant to identify the source who raised the issues upon which his change of thinking is based.
Possibly someone else has remonstrated with him about the potential risk to the biosphere of interfering with so important a natural phenomena, and possibly he has been convinced by to material I sent him that his former policy of trying to block all hurricane formation was of questionable wisdom. If someone else has managed to get through to him, I would like to know who it was.
But I remain unsatisfied by the depth of his conversion. This recent post, though welcome, still leaves many issues unresolved.
He still has not mentioned the many ecological considerations I brought up which require no knowledge of orgone energy to understand, and he does not cite the specific orgone energy discovered by Wilhelm Reich, which underlies all weather phenomena and upon which the functioning of the cloudbuster is based, but refers in vague terms to unnamed "natural energies" (plural).
He still has not mentioned, let alone subscribed to, the all-important concept of Atmospheric Self-Regulation, and he still has not grasped the distinction between a healthy atmosphere and a sick one. It is this concept of the way the atmosphere normally functions and the role of DOR in causing it to malfunction that presents a reliable guideline for when to intervene in a weather situation, not the anthropocentric criteria of if humans are likely to be killed or not.
He refers to "people-killing" storms and suggests that it might be all right to alter those, while leaving other, less dangerous storms alone. I would like to know how he plans to know in advance which storms will take lives and which will not.
I would also ask how is it possible to alter the course of a storm without taking responsibility for the new direction it is deflected into. If you save lives in a coastal zone by directing the storm out to sea, for example, and it then sinks several ships, drowning the people on board those ships, you are then responsible for killing those people, no matter how many lives you might have saved on shore.
The solution is not to distinguish between storms that kill some people and those that do not, since that would be hard to know in advance anyway, but to minimize the damage done by any storm by adopting sensible building codes, reasonable land-use policies and zoning laws that prevent large concentrations of people from congregating in areas that are known to be at periodic risk from storms.
Such modest measures are less exotic and less gratifying to one who enjoys a sense of power than weather control, but are within the realm of possibility without the risk of wreaking incalcuable harm on the natural enivironment upon which, like it or not, human life depends.
So I am glad to see Mr. Feliciano is open to changing his mind when he is informed about things he had not previously considered, and I look forward to his further enlightenment.
And, of course, I stand ready to provide him or any other members of the Weather Rangrs with any informatuion they may need to reach a responsible policy on how and when to intervene in the weather.
Joel Carlinsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.