1. The National Research Council prepared a report on critical issues in weather modification research and it was published on 13th October, 2003. This report concluded that there is still no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of International Weather Modification efforts and that even though there are strong indications of induced changes yet the evidences have not been subjected to tests of significance and reproducibility.
2. This report however does not challenge the scientific basis of weather modification concepts. The definition of scientific proof perhaps involves randomized experiments, statistical support, physical measurement and understanding and replication.
But can any scientist demand for similar scientific proof in dealing with crucial environmental problems of climate change, green house effect and ozone depletion? 3. And yet the National Research council emphasises that there is ample evidence that inadvertent weather and global climate modification is a ... more.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.