From: kym@kymhorsell.com   
      
   (Just to boil it down to the basics.)   
   Skybuck Flying  wrote:   
   > The latest hypothesis/conspiracy theory:   
   > 28 august 2022 by Skybuck Flying   
   > The attack on pakistan & the drought in Europe.   
   > This conspiracy theory/hypothesis is based on four things:   
   > 1. China shooting rockets into the sky to manipulate the weather.   
   > 2. Pakistan having used ammounts of water for many many days now.   
   > 3. Europe facing incredibly droughts, rivers drying up, not seen in the last   
   500 years.   
   > 4. Basically crystal clear skys above Europe for many days. BLUE BLUE BLUE   
   BLUE for days and days and days on end.   
   > 5. My own personal observation which I also recorded on video. But what I   
   smelled may have been very important.   
   ...   
      
      
   To generalise things a bit maybe we should ask the question --   
   is anyone controlling the weather?   
      
   We know for one thing that human emissions of black carbon and CO2 as   
   well as other gases over the past 150 have made a noticable change   
   to the world's climate. This is "control" in some sense. But it's more   
   like "out of control".   
      
   We know the US military is moderately interested in weather control.   
   An internal paper someone mailed me a few months back was a study into   
   mostly the *uses* weather control could be put by the US military.   
   It made firm recommendations that weather control should be pursed because   
   it would be so darn useful to make conditions favorable for the US military   
   and allies and could also make things so unfavorable for any selected enemy.   
      
   I can put a copy of this up on my web page if required.   
   (The title was "Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025"   
   a study undertaken by the USAF by a list of majors and colonels in 1996).   
      
   As to weather e.g. the US military is actually doing something about   
   controlling the weather (rather than just letting climate change do   
   its own thing that normally comes back to bite advanced economies so   
   not likely is being used as a weapon of war itself)   
   we can hypothesis if it *is* then maybe US military spending is directly   
   related to subsequent weather conditions.   
      
   Be prepared for a surprise...   
      
   Year                   mil spend       av glb prec    Model   
                          Pct GDP         mm/mo   
   1950                      1.33333      277.751      268.807   
   1960                      1.33333      258.856      268.807   
   1961                      1.33333      283.783      268.807*   
   1964                      1.33333      271.742      268.807   
   1965                            1      263.137      265.529   
   1967                            2      266.766      275.363   
   1970                      2.33333      265.278      278.641*   
   1974                            2      276.486      275.363   
   1977                            2      281.101      275.363   
   1978                      1.33333      267.506      268.807   
   1980                            1      253.186      265.529*   
   1985                      1.66667      275.171      272.085   
   1986                            2      283.361      275.363   
   1987                      2.33333      263.498      278.641*   
   1989                            2      274.077      275.363   
   1990                      2.66667      297.567      281.919*   
   1993                      2.33333      297.688      278.641*   
   1994                      2.33333      279.262      278.641   
   1999                      1.66667      265.674      272.085   
   2001                      2.33333      264.559      278.641*   
   2002                      3.33333      271.903      288.476*   
   2003                            2       287.22      275.363*   
   2004                      3.33333      299.185      288.476   
   2005                      2.33333      277.401      278.641   
      
   That produces this model:   
      
   y = 9.83446*x + 255.694   
   beta in 9.83446 +- 6.12089  90% CI   
   alpha in 255.694 +- 12.646   
   T-test: P(beta>0.000000) = 0.994274   
   Rank test: calculated Spearman corr = 0.360000   
   	Critical Spearman value = 0.343 2-sided at 5%; reject H0:not_connected   
   r2 = 0.25705347   
      
      
   IOW this simple test has shown a statistically strong connection   
   between US military spending and global precipitation.   
   In years where US mil spending was higher there was more rainfall;   
   in years where is was less there was less rainfall.   
   Two statistical tests say the link is beyond chance.   
   US military spending (as %GDP) "explains" 26% (the R2) of the year-to-year   
   global rainfall.   
      
      
   Of course this does not "prove" the US military is conducting   
   successful weather control experiments but it is entirely consistent   
   with that hypothesis.   
   It's also consistent with the hypothesis that "someone else" is   
   controlling the weather on behalf of interests that   
   also control the level of US military spending.   
      
   Or it may all just be a total coincidence. :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)