EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOON

October 22, 2007

AGRICULTURE ALTER - PROTECT AGRICULTURE & YOUR WATER SUPPLIES

By Rosalind Peterson

October 20, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Prepare yourself for more water shortages, floods, droughts, and a

sharp decline in food supplies in the United States when U.S. Senate

Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445, that were introduced on July 17,

2007, are voted into law. These identical bills, titled: " Weather

Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of

2007 " , are moving forward at a rapid rate in Committees on Commerce,

Science and Transportation. Please note that these bills were not

referred to Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, the

Environmental Protection Agency, or Forestry, and that you were not

invited to debate the merits of these bills by your elected

representatives.

" It is the purpose of this act to develop and implement a

comprehensive and coordinated national weather mitigation policy and

a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather

mitigation and research. " The Board of Directors will be comprised of

eleven members and only one member shall be a representative of the

Department of Agriculture. There are no members of the public to be

appointed to this Board, no EPA representatives, no Natural Resources

or Forestry representatives, and there are no provisions for county,

state, public, or agricultural oversight of these programs prior to

implementation.

Experimental Weather Modification (or " mitigation " which is not

defined in these bills), can affect all of us by reducing water

supplies and changing agricultural crop production cycles (micro-

climates), while reducing crop production and water availability.

Since most experimental weather modification programs use chemicals

released into the atmosphere the public could be subjected to

increasingly toxic or unknown substances that could have negative

effects on agricultural, drinking water supplies, crops, and trees.

If the weather is changed in one location it may have severe adverse

consequences in another region, county or state. And who is going to

decide the type of weather modification experimentation, who it will

benefit, and who will suffer the negative consequences of these

actions? And will one state or region " steals " the rain or snow

that would normally go to another state by using these " weather

modification schemes " as is happening from current weather

modification programs?

Many current and ongoing weather modification programs (50+ listed by

NOAA each year-note the ones listed in this bill), are already

changing the climate in many regions of the United States. Since

most Americans have not been made aware of these programs it is easy

to blame severe climate disturbances on " global warming theories " or

climate change. These events are causing an overwhelming urge

to " mitigate " current weather problems with increased weather

modification experimentation, instead of examining local micro-

climate changes that are caused by current and ongoing programs. It

would be easier to stop these experimental programs than to add new

programs without a clear understanding of current and future

synergistic effects.

Senate Bill 1807 does not address these issues but intends to

implement more experimental weather modification programs without a

national debate or public oversight. Terry Krauss, Project Manager

for North Dakota based Weather Modification, Inc., owns a large fleet

of aircraft and conducts cloud seeding projects in more than a dozen

countries around the world. Many private companies, universities,

and government agencies modify the weather in the United States, and

in other countries. These programs could clearly be negatively

affecting the weather in the United States and exacerbating global

climate change.

The December 2005 Popular Science Magazine discussed a plan

to use an oil slick to stop hurricanes without noting the adverse

environmental impacts of the oil used to cover the ocean. Popular

Science also noted that a private company, Dyn-O-Mat had been

conducting " …early trials. In July 2001, Dyn-O-Mat engineers dumped

8,000 pounds of their Dyn-O-Mat Gel (capable of absorbing 4,000 tons

of water), over a small thunderstorm near the Florida coast. Within

minutes the storm disappeared from Doppler weather radar… " When this

toxic secret chemical drops into the ocean or over land what are the

environmental effects? Who is studying what happens to marine life,

crops, soils, and drinking water supplies when this chemical mixes

with rainfall on the ground?

According to Popular Science " …Dyn-O-Mat's founder and CEO,

has already arranged to lease a specially rigged 747 " supertanker " to

conduct trials on actual hurricanes. Meanwhile, he has assembled an

all-star team of scientists and labs at Florida State University, the

National Center for Atmospheric Research, NOAA, and elsewhere to

begin running computer models that analyze the gel's effect on larger

storms…'We already know the gel works', says Cordani…'Now we need to

figure out how much to use and where to put it'… " Could hurricane

and other experiments be causing drought in Georgia and other states

in 2007? Since the public is not informed, and Congress has no

oversight powers, the public is being kept in the dark about dates

and results of these experiments leaving many unanswered questions.

Alaska and other areas across the United States are beginning

to feel the impacts of climate change. Enormous changes are being

seen in the declining health of native plant and tree communities in

many areas across. Climate shifts are being recorded everywhere. In

the last few years abnormal rainfall and droughts have been occurring

on a more dramatic basis and few are asking questions about current

and ongoing experimental weather modification programs that may be

exacerbating these problems.

The answer seems to be that these bills will just be passed

to " mitigate " (no definition of this word in the bill), current

problems. If we are creating these problems with current weather

modification endeavors then how can we correct this problem by adding

more programs? Wouldn't it be better to account for all of the

experimental weather modification programs, and atmospheric heating

and testing programs, and study their synergistic effects, affects on

trees, micro-climates, and agriculture before deciding to implement

more experimental weather modification programs? If these programs

change growing seasons, disrupt photosynthesis, and interrupt the

pollination process, crop losses could be substantial, exacerbating

economic agriculture instability.

A Weather Damage Modification Program conducted by the Bureau

of Reclamation, according to this bill, does not evaluate the

negative impacts to agriculture, water supplies, or micro-climates in

counties or states surrounding experimental weather modification

programs. Thus, their models are flawed. U.S. Senate Bill 1807,

Section 4 – Definition (3) declares that " …investigative findings and

theories of a scientific or technical nature… " will be turned into " …

practical applications for experimental and demonstration purposes,

including the experimental production and testing of models, devices,

equipment, material and processes " . Does this include toxic chemicals

or atmospheric heating and testing experiment chemicals? "

NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter that increasingly persistent

contrails forming man-made clouds and haze are " …trapping warmth in

the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming… " NASA goes on to note

that: " …Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-

term changes in Earth's climate. Likewise, any change in Earth's

climate may have effects on natural resources… " U.S. Senate Bill 1807

does not address this issue or issues regarding Global Dimming (NOVA

PBS 2006), or consider them in any models. Thus, the bill has built-

in flaws.

Weather modification companies, private corporations, scientists, and

universities are lobbying hard for this bill to pass because they see

our tax dollars going to them for these projects until at least the

year 2017, prescribed in this bill. No doubt amendments will be

submitted by private corporations to elected officials as part of

their Congressional lobbying efforts. The public is not invited to

attend or be represented in any manner.

Priorities in the bill are funding, training and support for

scientists, participation in international efforts, and research and

development. Note that research related to potential adverse affects

of weather mitigation is also in this bill but the bill does not

specify agriculture, micro-climate damage, crop losses, drought or

flood inducement, or chemical toxicity from these types of

experimental weather modification programs. Our micro-climates and

food production (the livelihoods of thousands of people who are in

the agriculture business) are to be used as guinea pigs without

warming, prior notification, public oversight or input. And if crops

our damaged, our grasslands in drought or floods, who is responsible

for these disasters when they are man-made by experimental weather

modification (mitigation), programs? The agriculture industry will

suffer staggering losses and food prices will skyrocket due to these

losses, food shortages will increase…while we import more and more

contaminated food from countries like China. This bill does not

protect the public.

The bill will require a description of " …any potential adverse

consequences on life, property, or water resource availability form

weather mitigation efforts, and any suggested means of mitigation or

reducing such consequences if such efforts are undertaken… " However,

we have over sixty-six current and ongoing programs, why won't they

be assessed first to address environmental and agriculture problems

well in advance of any additional experiments? The bill does not

state that any public hearings will be held in advance of any

experiments or that the public will be notified when these programs

are to take place or what means of mitigation for adverse

consequences will be in place. In addition, this bill does not

address compensation for losses due to this experimentation.

Since the first report on this bill is not due until January 31st, in

the second calendar year following the date of the enactment of this

Act, but if passed, this plan will be implemented not later than 180

days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This means a huge

gap where no public oversight, congressional oversight, public debate

and hearings, or any other method of oversight will be required. And

with the public excluded from any participation to protect water,

agriculture, forest, natural resources, and other public interests

from questionable experiments, the programs will be implemented

without proper protection for these interests.

Atmospheric experiments, the Alaska H.A.A.R.P. program, military

experiments on weather modification, like those being undertaken at

Elgin Air Force Base, and elsewhere, are not listed as being part of

this bill. In 2004, The Science Channel, for a special television

program titled " Owing the Weather " , conducted an interview with J.

Gregory Glenn, a Research Scientist at Elgin Air Force Base in

Florida, where " …Air Force weapons researchers and nano particles

specialists are conducting weather control experiments… " Thus, the

public will be subject to these experiments with no Congressional or

public oversight. And your local insurance company and other private

corporations will continue " mitigating " for private profit at your

expense.

We know today, and most weather modification companies, will tell

you, that weather modification works. They can't always control the

results but we do know they work or may have unintended consequences

or have been used in other ways. In the 2004, Science Channel

Program " Owning the Weather " , are the following statements

on " Project Popeye " : " …Though they had denied it for more than seven

years (until Seymour Hersh of the New York Times broke the story),

the U.S. Military had been using weather modification as a weapon in

Vietnam and Laos. Starting in 1966, the United States Air Force had

made over 2,600 top-secret cloud seeding flights. Codenamed " Project

Popeye " , this clandestine operation attempted to turn key enemy

transport roads to mud, rendering them impassable…As a result of the

uproar over Project Popeye, on the 10th of December 1976, the United

Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 3172. It explicitly

banned the use of weather modification in warfare… " Other U.S.

hurricane clouds seeding projects have also been classified, until

years later, due to the devastating results of these experiments and

fear of lawsuits.

Now, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and Congressman

Mark Udall (Colorado), have reintroduced similar bills for passage

this year. Once again it is time to act to protect our natural

resources, our soil, water, agricultural micro-climates, and crops

from unknown types weather modification experimentation. In

addition, they have ignored addressing issues raised in a December

13, 2005, letter to Senator Hutchison from John H. Marburger III,, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C.

which states in part: " …there is a host of issues—including

liability, foreign policy, and national security concerns---that

arose in the past and should be adequately considered before the U.S.

government undertakes the coordinated national research program this

legislation would require… " These include but are not limited to " …

Department of Justice on legal issues, with the Department of State

on foreign policy implications, with the Department of Defense and

State on national security implications, and with pertinent research

agencies to consider the reasons the U.S. Government previously

halted its work in this area… "

Mr. Marburger's letter went on to define some local, political and

legal ramifications, national Security Implications, and Research

issues which included: 1) Weather modification may promote rain in

one area to the detriment of another; 2) These legal and liability

issues pertaining to weather modification (now mitigation), and the

potential adverse consequences on life, property, and water resource

availability resulting from weather modification activities, must be

considered fully before the U.S. government could take responsibility

for this new research program: 3) Given Global weather patterns,

whether one country " owns " its weather so as to assert intra-border

control with extra-border consequences, must be considered under

present international conventions… "

Senator Hutchison and Congressman Udall did not address any to these

issues in the text of their legislation. Thus, it is believed that

they both ignored the issues not only brought forward by the public

but by the Office of Science and Technology. Also missing from this

bill are references to various U.S. Patents that discuss weather

modification methods through the use of atmospheric chemicals,

ionospheric modification and testing, how satellites can be used to

change the weather, and space based weather modification satellites.

The range of patents and geoengineering schemes to modify the weather

are staggering in number and scope. And this bill does not address

any of these issues or the myriad of geoengineering schemes now in

use or proposed for the future that will modify our weather.

Please contact all of your elected local, state and federal officials

to stop this bill in its present form. This bill needs to have

appropriate agriculture and public oversight, with public hearings

included, prior to any more experimental projects. We need a

national dialogue on this subject before more experimentation takes

place. Concerned grassroots citizens are involved in this educational

protest movement to protect agriculture from unwise experimental

weather modification programs. " We, the people, simply will not

accept this reckless experimenting on our weather and are fighting

the passage of this bill in order to protect agricultural crop

production and our water supplies. "

END

Associated Reference Articles:

1, " Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy

Authorization Act "

U.S. House Bill 3345 Full Text:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3445

U.S. Senate Bill 1807 Full Text:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1807

2, Other Related Articles:

http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalindA.htm

3, NOAA Project StormFury 20-Year History:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hrd_sub/stormfury_era.html

4, http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

5, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-12-19-wyoming-cloud-

seeding_x.htm

6, http://asd-

www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p8.pdf

7, Weather Modification, Inc. Home page, Atmospheric Research,

Aircraft Modification, and Cloud Seeding Website:

http://www.weathermod.com/index.php

(WMI February 2007 Discovery Channel Program: Krauss: " …The demands

for fresh water are increasing. People think nothing of drilling

wells and extracting ground water. Well, now we are trying to use

modern technology to extract water that goes unused in this river of

water vapor that is passing over us each second of the day. A lot of

people don't realize that California has been conducting wintertime

cloud seeding for almost fifty years to supply the increasing demand

for water (and power) in California… "

Krauss speaks WMI just using unused water vapor. However, that water

vapor would have a final destination as rain or snow somewhere else,

in another county or state, if not artificially interfered with by

chemicals. When you deliberately put more snow in the Wyoming

mountains (December 2005-February 2006), you deprive another area of

the rain or moisture that would normally fall in other areas. Thus,

more snow in the Wyoming mountains may cause drought in surrounding

counties or states. What legal right do we have to modify the

weather and deprive other areas of that so-called " unused water

vapor " that could alleviate droughts or keep our agriculture micro-

climates intact?

(Also note that weather modification companies have a financial

investment in promoting experimental weather modification programs

and would see nothing wrong with implementing those programs.)

8, NOVA " Dimming the Sun " April 2006:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

9, Global Dimming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summar

y.shtml

10, November 20, 2006: " NASA plans to block out the Sun "

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nasa-looks-at-plan-to-blot-out-

sun/2006/11/19/1163871272174.html

11, May 3, 2006: " Blocking Out the Sun "

http://californiaskywatch.com/global_warming/index.html

Peterson – Could the H.A.A.R.P. Project in Alaska, NOAA, DOE, NASA,

Air Force, Department of Defense, etc., be the reason for climate

changes that have been escalating since the late 1980s, when the

funds and technology allowed for the escalation of atmospheric

heating and testing programs like NASA's TMA Night Cloud tests using

trimethylaluminum or the advanced testing of military weapons systems

like star wars?

12, NASA's Night Clouds Atmospheric Testing Program:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/20jun_TMAclouds.htm

13, U.S. Weather Modification Patents & Weather Modification

Method:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?