Minute 9 Second: 49 "Weltklima Forscher rechnen auch 2017 mit Wetterextremen" The "Tagesschau" claims there is an UN-report about weather extremes. Unfortunately, it does not give a hint to investigate the claims with some references. Nevertheless, there was a finding with an article of the Washington Post. In that article there was no reference made to the UN but to NOAA. The UN are an international body. NOAA is part of the U.S. government. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...peratures/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na Further research made leads to the website of the "Guardian" where you may find a reference as "polar heatwaves pushing ice cover to new lows". https://www.theguardian.com/environ...climate-change-world-uncharted-territory How many there were is not told. Maybe it was only the one of December 31rst 2005. Links within the Guardian article may lead to the World Meteorological Organization webpage. But there you have to look through a jungle of information before you have the information you are looking for. Heat waves like the one in Iceland are of importance. If you claim such an event it would have consequences in everyday-life. Also the German newspaper "Süddeutsche Zeitung" talks of polar heat waves as commonplace. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/pan...newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170320-99-735071 The question - as stated by Dane Wigington - why there are stationary weather structures as in California, USA are only answered with a fictive: "This is new territory." This is like Merkels announcement a couple years ago that the internet is "new territory" although the CeBIT has been going on since 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeBIT
What Prof. Jorge Chau embezzles is the explanation of the necessity to build a HAARP-array close to Tromso, Norway which is even bigger than the one in Alaska. Is this also only for the worldwide communication with submarines? The drastic rise in temperature of around 20 C degree around Iceland on December 31rst 2015 insinuates that EISCAT had a test run shortly before its official inauguration in march 2016.
It's obvious that the Tagesschau (ARD) wants to send a message showing black people in this context. It's a neurolinguistical connection with the racist topic. It's a similiar strategy as reducing the environmental problems to the CO²-question. Pure carbon itself is black. In other words: whoever questions the CO²-question is a racist. And again - that way you have a "right wing" respective a "leftist" topic which is emotionally loaden by each ones general political world views instead of hunting the truth up to reality. ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18144#Post18144 ) Also without contradiction the broadcasting company of public law ARD defines that way what is "right wing" and what is "leftist" appearing to be politcally "neutral" - what it is not! Different interests beyond the usual ideological scheme determine the selection of the broad variety of topics existing around the world as a "News".
This post makes reference - look more above of this post - to the EISCAT field which is in Tromso, Norway. "EISCAT is funded and operated by research institutes and research councils of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, China and the United Kingdom (the EISCAT Associates). Institutes in other countries also contribute to operations, including Russia, Ukraine, Germany and South Korea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EISCAT
If you stretch - with the help of HAARP-like facilities - the upper atmosphere into outer space you rise the responsiveness of this part of the atmosphere to cosmic particles which are the real motor behind the creation of clouds. You may also manipulate the JETSTREAM in that manner.
If you want to apply the "precautionary principle" to other arrays you end up with cosmic topics like gravitational waves or gamma rays from Supernovas coming already in the direction of Earth.
And there is a big discrepancy in applying the "precautionary principle": For the CO²-question it is supposed to be a matter of survival "just to guess that it could be harmful" whilst the appliance of the "precautionary principle" in matters of electromagnetic non-ionizing radiation is too expensive. This kind of handling of the "precautionary principle" - which is legally binding the Federal Republic of Germany - is a contradiction in itself.
