may be it's neither, but something else. May be rather small in their scale applications of weather-control technologies to "steer" and "guide" large athmospheric events into "less melt overall" pattern. I mean, technology to clear skies in a certain and rather large location - such as for large holydays in a big country's capital city, - is existing for many years already, and is used on a regular basis.
What... No seriously that's complete nonsense. If you have proof of this cite the evidence.
...
No, very seriously, it is not. I didn't say "there is"; i said "may be". As such, i can only assume that your statement "complete nonsense" is about existance of technologies which allow - like i said, - to "steer" and "guide" large athmospheric events.
If so, then sure, here you go, i have some links for you. For a warm-up, Soviet union (and later Russia) been doing this not only for military parades (to ensure clear skies and good conditions), - it's been doing it after nuclear accidents too (more than once). Including after Chernobil disaster. Yours truly was a kid back then, and lived in Minsk. I've seen few-inches-tall foam forming on top of pads of rain water on the ground when it was raining; i've seen it with my own eyes when i went out for a walk. It was from chemicals sprayed upwind to deactivate and deplete clouds before they reach densely populated areas, as much as possible. The foam was yellow. So you have a 1st-hand testimony here. Some more details (including uses in other regions of the world) are at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Europe .
More recent and quite disturbing text - is
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr2995/text . Note, similar bill was worked on once again in 2007, but it also did not pass. One very disturbing (to me) detail is that basically such a national weather control program would be controlled by the department of commerce. I can imagine their priorities... Another disturbing thought - is that those bills did not pass. Indeed, i'd prefer the US senate to actually enact such a bill in some form; at least we'd know. I can see multiple reasons why they couldn't do it, and some are very true and right reasons, though. Still, the need of US administration to codify certain aspects of weather control activities means only one thing: such activities are at least desirable, at most - already being widely implemented, but are controlled by non-public regulations.
Or how about this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7726#.U-suhPmSwQk . "Stopping hurricanes" is exactly a form of "steering and guiding large athmospheric event", in my book. Yes, yes, it's not even clear if it'd work - but what do you want, it's public domain, eh. Even mere existance of this proposal makes one wonder, whether something not so public and not so unproven - exist. At least, it makes me. YMMV.
Something more concrete is
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-008/CEC-500-2007-008.PDF . I see all signs that they are about it in all seriousness. If they try to go for it in California - why couldn't they try to go for something else in the Arctic? Big plus - much easier to hide, since number of people living in Arctic is quite a bit less than number of people living in the California, eh.
That's just what i see with a darn single quick and shallow look in the public domain. Honestly, spend an hour and you'll find dozens of such things. Weather is being controlled on a regional level for various applications for decades already, when nesessary. You may not like it, i may not like it, but psst, without those actions, most likely lots of people would suffer more than otherwise possible. I am not a person who "blames the government" for all sins existing and imagined. The yellow foam i remember from my childhood quite possibly saved my life - i heard, quite a few kids in Minsk died from tyroid (if i remember english term right) cancer in later 1980s. Radioactive iodine...