I am pointing towards the people who pay for these services? There is a public interest here.
Not to soil the air
not to have a soil soiled by heavy metals, defeating the the objective for this tech
playing with power they cannot control, potential for causing widespread damages and even loss of life.
Under the guise of climate change all kinds of things can be done. And perhaps this is one way to direct attention to an even more widespread but secretive process.
My guess, based on the article on investment tier A, I would say, the stuff they use to make precipitation is patented. IF what they say is true: that they can proof whether water precipitation was a consequence of their actions, they must be able to chemically proof it, which poses the question: what are they really using.
Also not saying anything is one way or the other, just pointing out some directional issues we’d need to wrestle with in one, while saying what I hope is maybe going on with the other.
Sure!
I am pointing towards the people who pay for these services? There is a public interest here.
Under the guise of climate change all kinds of things can be done. And perhaps this is one way to direct attention to an even more widespread but secretive process.
My guess, based on the article on investment tier A, I would say, the stuff they use to make precipitation is patented. IF what they say is true: that they can proof whether water precipitation was a consequence of their actions, they must be able to chemically proof it, which poses the question: what are they really using.
And is this a dual use thingy ....
100%
Also not saying anything is one way or the other, just pointing out some directional issues we’d need to wrestle with in one, while saying what I hope is maybe going on with the other.