1.)Those two statements say the exact same thing. However the first one i quoted is worded very poorly. Now, if you would like to understand the technology you are talking about here are some very publicly avail;able news articles that make it very obvious:
http://www.livescience.com/124-artificial-neon-sky-show-created.html
OR,
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/1995_jgr_21385.pdf
OR,
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091002/full/news.2009.975.html
and they are talking fainter than the many of the stars around it.
-------------------------------------------------
neglects to mention the multiplication of power that is in the Eastlund patent AND the scientific literature
2.)A Theoretical patent, as many(most) are. something which has been proven many times. Can you tell me in Which non patent literature, and exactly wherein it this is stated? anything to do with an untested, unchecked patent cannot be considered evidence. at all. so please provide the second half of your statement.
---------------------------------------------------
next to actual ionospheric research illuminates that EASTLUND HAD AN EXCELLENT UNDERSTANDING
3.)What research?
---------------------------------------------------
Eastlund also acknowledged in his patents that there is an energy potential that expands the currently embraced scientific paradigm.
4.)Where is this backed up in research?
---------------------------------------------------
real world published scientific documents
5.) Where?
---------------------------------------------------
Tesla ( who Einstein purportedly called the greatest scientific mind of the day ) understood this.
6.) Meaningless appeal to authority.
--------------------------------------------------
Tesla talked with pigeons and could put on a good show. Far more importantly, He understood and modeled cascading energy.
7.) Reference please?
--------------------------------------------------
true capabilities of HAARP in myriad ways
8.) Reference for the true capabilities?
-------------------------------------------------
dynamic coupling of energy between the upper atmosphere and lower.
9 .) Source showing large enough impact to alter global climate?
-------------------------------------------------
meridional flows(a), the polar vortex(b) and chemistry changes caused by injecting energy into the upper atmosphere(c). He just doesn't know.
10.) Enlighten him. Have some sources for him? A, B, C?
-------------------------------------------------
Lotek, I love to see that you are attempting to understand the science of atmospheric alteration. For your example try adding a boundary just above the candle and a wind moving horizontally through the flame. What are the effects on the sheet just above the candle? How is the chemistry of the sheet effects? How is the wind moving horizontally effected ? How is the flow of energy just above the candle altered?
11.) You are over thinking the application of my analogy. those are not the parts of the system you were referencing an impact having been made on.
-------------------------------------------------
it has also been shown in the gravity wave thread
12.) You think very highly of your own conclusions.
-------------------------------------------------
It is only a sliver of what actually results.
13 .) Source.
-------------------------------------------------
The evidence is conclusive
14 .)

You are assuming massive variances in power levels based off superficial data and misappropriated sciences. Prove me wrong, source me into oblivion.
-------------------------------------------------
The EISCAT job posting and other links clearly establish that alterations at 80 km modify weather and climatic circulation in the lower atmosphere.
15.) Pure supposition.
-------------------------------------------------
I will link 3 scientific examples of energy changes and modification that are all much more significant than Dunning or you seem to embrace. The net effects are very significant. This is not my claim, it is in the documented peer reviewed public documents.
16.) And I hold you Nobel prize in my hand, awaiting yoru serious answers to my questions, and those (3) scientific examples.
Bear in mind they need to be legitimate examples, and not just things you find ramblingly related to the subject at hand, from which you will for the umteenth time conclude you have proved beyond doubt haarp with a weather modification device.