The rabbit hole with Craddock gave me a headache. <br><br>I compounded it when I decided to read up on scalar theory for myself.<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://weather.ou.edu/~metr4424/Files/W1_ScalarAnalysis.pdf">Here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>But I found this<br><br><<‘Weather Wars’ — Bad Science Fiction for Meteorology Fans<br>May 12, 2006, 7:29 pm<br>By Martin Hackworth<br>Senior Lecturer<br>Idaho State University<br><br>The Associated Students of Idaho State University and ISU have provided forums for recent talks on UFOs, creation science, weather wars and future attractions include the Bigfoot Rendezvous. All we need to round out the pseudoscientific theme are a psychic detective, a chiropractor who doesn’t believe in germs, and perhaps an astrologer.<br><snip><br> The best potion in the world for loopiest ideas is exposure.<br>Scott Stevens, a locally well-know former TV weatherman, was the most recent presenter in this fringe science series. For those of you who missed the lecture, titled “Weather Wars,” Steven’s ideas and opinions on human (and extraterrestrial) manipulation of weather and climate on the Earth may be found on his Web site at
http://weatherwars.info.According to Steven’s Web site, his formal meteorological training came during a brief stint at the University of Kansas which he chose, in part, because “the math requirements at KU weren't too tough.” It is then perhaps only a bit surprising that Steven’s presentation contained little in the line of scientific information on how weather and climate systems actually operate and furthermore demonstrated a complete dearth of understanding about atmospheric optics, mathematics, electromagnetic waves and quantum mechanics.<br>While the latter items are understandable given Stevens austere scientific background I find it difficult to understand how anyone who spent more than a decade in front of a green screen (albeit mostly reading an AccuWeather script from a teleprompter) in the business of dispensing weather forecasts to the public failed to grasp the relationship between water vapor, condensation, and clouds.<br>Steven’s talk is illustrated throughout with cloud photographs, mostly altocumulus clouds<br> (
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/mdl/altcu.rxml), <br><br>that he claims harbor unusual shapes and formations. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The mechanisms purported to be driving these unusual clouds are scalar waves, a type of longitudinal electromagnetic wave created with energy from the vacuum of space.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>These scalar waves are supposedly produced by scalar weapons in secret locations around the world, in outer space, and even from small, mobile tank mounted systems though the exact caliber of the ray gun on the tanks was not revealed.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>The problem with all of this is that cumulonimbus clouds, being about as common as warm fronts, are found in variety and abundance throughout Earth’s skies. Furthermore though <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>there is no scientific evidence for the existence of scalar waves or the extraction of energy from zero-point systems</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> there is well over a hundred years of evidence to the contrary — evidence that forms the basis of several of the most successful theories in all of science and the basis of nearly all of modern optics, thermodynamics, electronics and atmospheric science.<br><br>Stevens also discussed his ideas on the production of aircraft contrails which he refers to as “chemtrails.” <br>Evidently Stevens doesn’t find it plausible that aircraft a) ever fly through clouds, b) are capable of producing visible vapor trails via mere condensation, c) are generally flown by human beings. According to Stevens, chemtrails, which somehow elude spectrographic analysis, are the attempts of aliens and their agents in governments around the world to manipulate climate on earth in a manner more successful than that yielded by their attempts at manipulation of the luminosity of the sun.<br>Apparently he feels that this is the major cause of global warming rather than 150 years of our using the atmosphere as a CO2 dump. Of course the fact that Stevens acknowledges the existence of global warming puts him, at least, ahead of President Bush’s science advisors.<br>There actually is truth in the claim that aircraft contrails influence climate. Contrails are suspected of influencing global temperatures by affecting the amount of sunlight that is transmitted through the atmosphere and reaches the surface of the earth. During the 9/11 hiatus when no aircraft were flown for several days variations in temperature over North America increased. As for the rest, well, there is again no evidence that contrails are anything other that water vapor and spent jet fuel and certainly no evidence that their production is the result of an alien plan to affect global warming.<br>Finally Stevens insists that hurricanes such as Katrina and Rita have been manipulated by human (and alien) weapons in such a manner as to increase their destructive power. Evidence cited by Stevens included a newspaper photograph which he purported to be of polychromatic laser beams from outer space irradiating the ocean — this resulting in the abnormally high surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico that fed Katrina.<br>As the majority of students in my freshman physics courses know laser beams are both highly monochromatic and generally not seen passing through air unless they interact with something. What this particular photograph did illustrate, quite artistically, was the separation of color due to a defect in the printing process. Most, if not all, of the film clips and photos shown by Stevens displayed nothing untoward to those familiar with the atmosphere, atmospheric optics and photography other than unusual camera angles and liberal use of frame rate adjustments.<br>Let me be clear. Stevens has every right in the world to believe that humans and aliens are conspiring to influence our weather and if he feels that it’s his evangelical duty to warn all of us about it, even if he’s a little fuzzy on exactly how and why, then good for him. Heck I’d even agree with him if he were right. Unfortunately he is not. And his claim that there is scientific support for his views simply does not stand up to even a modicum of common sense much less scientific scrutiny.<br>There is not a scintilla of scientific, mathematical or historical evidence to support Stevens’ claims concerning weather and climate. And though even the most lucid explanations for simple natural phenomena, like jet contrails, aren’t likely to make a dent on Stevens or his small army of scientifically impaired sycophants, don’t you be fooled. There is simply nothing to any of this.<br>Though I found the majority of the “Weather Wars” presentation to be funny, albeit inadvertently so, I was mildly disappointed (though not surprised) by the lack of critical questioning from members of the near capacity crowd. The majority of opinion voiced was in support of Stevens.<br><snip><br>If we, as a society, did do a better job of encouraging critical thinking and the value of the scientific method of inquiry, ideas like weather wars, 9/11 conspiracies, Bigfoot, etc., would have a half-life of about a nanosecond. >><br><br>While alot of this is good exposure, yet there is some academic pooh-poohing that has absolutely no basis of proof for the "obvious" explanations given. Example:<br>In regard to the photo of the Gulf where the three bands suddenly appear parallel to one another, and which indicated actual water temps, this lecturer has this explanation: "What this particular photograph did illustrate, quite artistically, was the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>separation of color due to a defect in the printing process.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"<br>Hahaha. Smart people. Ya gotta love 'em. I mean we simply do not have ANY technology that could irradiate portions of the ocean, and we have no weather modification programs, and no experimentation on any large scale. It was a defect in the printing process (!!) which explains it all.<br>And his throw away analysis of chemtrails is another example of applied rigorous academics...not.<br>"Evidently Stevens doesn’t find it plausible that aircraft a) ever fly through clouds, b) are capable of producing visible vapor trails via <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>mere condensation</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, c) are generally flown by human beings." <br><br>Oh ok.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.pocatelloshops.com/blogs/Journal_Opinion.php?id=237">www.pocatelloshops.com/blogs/Journal_Opinion.php?id=237</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
by yesferatu » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:00 am 