Yes, Utah has been modifying your weather OFFICIALLY since 1973.
In fact, Utah’s legislature spends around $250,000 every year on sometimes controversial weather modification programs.
Before we get to the meat of this story from a *Utah specific* perspective, let’s give some brief background.
WEATHER MODIFICATION BACKGROUND – REAL OR MYTH?
There are some basic official sources, that can quickly confirm, weather modification has been used by the United States for a long time. It has been used for both military and civilian purposes, but the military has historically been the main driver in developing this professional industry.
Consider this quote, spoken by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, on April 28, 1997, during a DOD news briefing and published on the website of the US Department of Defense:
One practical example that fits with Mr. Cohen’s explanation, is this article that originated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which suggests a connection between an atmospheric condition and the earthquake — Exactly as our Secretary of Defense described in his speech.
Another official source is the US Air Force’s publication.. “Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather by 2025“:
Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather by 2025
From official US air force servers or
From our servers (in case the other link ever stops working): Weather as a Force Multiplier – Owning the Weather by 2025.pdf (322.46 kb)
Another pretty good research site globalresearch.ca says “Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century.”
And a comprehensive report from Geo Engineering Watch…
Weather Weapons – The Dark World of Environmental Warfare (also available here, in case the geoengineering watch link goes down)
AS FAR BACK AS WORLD WAR II
“The Nations which first learn to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe”
General George C. Kenney, World War II Commander of the US Strategic Air Command
US Government and Treaties Against Weather War
The US State Department has also posted an article, referencing a treaty signed in 1977 where the US promised never to use weather modification as a weapon of war.
UTAH’S WEATHER MODIFICATION HISTORY
- 1973 General Legislative Session – Cloud seeding/weather modification officially regulated
Cloud Seeding to Increase Precipitation (HB284)
- State of Utah is the only entity, private or public, that shall have authority to sponsor and develop projects to alter precipitation or cloud forms.
- All artificial rain is public property, no change in claim of ownership.
- Utah keeps a register of all individuals/organizations that modify weather
- 1973 – Emergency Services Act (SB 136)
- Subsection on “Weather Modification” :$500 fine if you modify the weather during an emergency
- 1975 – Cloud Seeding Appropriation (HB69)
- First money ever paid out for geoengineering – $200,000 appropriated to weather modification
- Recent History – Spent Annually on Weather Modification
- 2011 – $208,500
- 2012 – $181,300
- 2013 – $238,800
- 2014 – $227,200
- 2015 – $300,000
- 2016 – $250,000
HOW MUCH WATER IS CREATED THROUGH GEOENGINEERING EVERY YEAR?
According to the Compendium of Budget Information for the 2014 General Session http://le.utah.gov/lfa/reports/cobi2014/LI_RPA.htm
It has been estimated that state funding sources have been supporting approximately 20% of Utah water
It may sound like a nice thing to have 20% more water for crops and other needs. But I am not convinced that’s a good thing. The water doesn’t come from nowhere (it’s not the federal reserve of creating water). Some say that taking water artificially out of the sky causes droughts in other parts of the country. Although a local weather modification company, North American Weather Consultants, claims that is just a myth in their F.A.Q. document.
WHERE TO READ THE CURRENT LAWS
Utah Code: Title 73, Chapter 15, Modification of Weather
Utah Division of Water Resources – Cloudseeding
Utah Administrative Code – Rule R653-5. Cloud Seeding.
Man made Climate Change through CO2 is a fraud, however geoengineering programs by humans are a real threat to be worried about. So next time someone claims the climate is changing because of all the crazy weather, consider these man made geoengineering programs may actually be what you’re witnessing. The following short documentary explains how the spraying causes many of the symptoms that the news media is quick to blame on CO2 emissions.
The following speech is a big read, but instructive. It was given by Rosalind Peterson of the Agricultural Defense Coalition at the UN. She went to the UN to teach people that some of the geoengineering programs are incredibly dangerous for our food supply, and she explained how they actually create the appearance of climate change among other things. This speech has been scrubbed from the internet, but I found a copy in an internet archive site. If the people at the conference were honest and paid attention, they would have realized she was debunking much of the “science” they were hearing elsewhere in the conference.
If the speech below is too long to read, the above short documentary covers much of the same important pieces of information.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for research sources.
Rosalind Peterson’s Speech
UNITED NATIONS SEPTEMBER 3-5, 2007 New York 60TH Annual DPI/NGO Conference on Climate Change: How It IMPACTS Us All
The 60th Annual Climate Change Conference took place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from September 5-7, 2007. More than 2,500 representatives from over 80 countries attended the roundtables, panels, and workshops during the 3-Day event. The Conference reviewed mostly exaggerated or fraudulent scientific “evidence” on climate change, including its consequences on indigenous peoples, water security, land use, and the politics of energy.
On May 21, 2007, Rosalind Peterson, lifelong Redwood Valley, California resident, was invited by Kiyo Akasaka, Under- Secretary General of the United Nations, to address this Conference during both a workshop, held on September 5th, and a round-table session, held on September 6, 2007, at the United Nations. Rosalind was invited to address this conference due to her research and work in the agriculture field relating to climate change, global dimming, and the affects of man-made clouds and experimental weather modification programs on agriculture.
Rosalind is co-founder and President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition. The ADC was formed in 2006, in partnership with Bridget Conroy, from Phoenix, Arizona, in order to protect agriculture crop production from uncontrolled experimental weather modification programs, atmospheric heating and testing experiments, and geoengineering schemes. Between 1989 and 1993, Rosalind was an Agriculture Technologist working for the Mendocino County Agriculture Department. She also joined the California U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency in 1992, and became a U.S.D.A. California Certified Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor between 1995 and 1998. Rosalind has also won several awards and recognition for her extensive efforts to protect drinking water supplies from toxic chemical contamination in Martinez, California. She writes articles for newswithviews.com on many subjects including climate change brought about by experimental weather modification and other experimental atmospheric programs that have negative impacts on agriculture, trees, and drinking water supplies.
Rosalind’s presentation was on climate change associated with man-made clouds and how these clouds exacerbate climate change / global warming. In addition, she addressed such topics as the negative affect experimental atmospheric programs are having on agriculture crop production and tree health. Other issues addressed included global dimming, produced by persistent jet contrails reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, possibly lowering crop production,
and the affect of experimental atmospheric heating and testing program chemicals have on drinking water, air, soil, and tree decline. Website: 60th Annual DPI/NGO Conference – Climate Change
The following speech was given by Rosalind Peterson on September 6th, 2007:
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a pleasure and a great honor to be here with you today. One of the things I would like to say is that we are in a global drumbeat, right at the moment, talking about climate change and global warming. The word â€œmitigationâ€ without definition of the type of mitigation proposed, is heard in speeches and presentations. Many â€œmitigationâ€ proposals would place particulates or chemicals into our atmosphere without public,
Congressional, or agriculture oversight of any kind being in place. If you use various mitigation programs will we be trading one problem for another without considering the consequences to our drinking water, soil, trees, or agriculture as a whole? Will we be railroaded into questionable schemes by the drumbeat of fear that states: â€œWe must do something now!â€
1) One of the most important things that is negatively affected by climate change is agriculture. Some of what we are experiencing is man-made, in a different way than you may guess. Weather modification programs, experimental ones that use private companies, initiated by the United States government, government agencies or individual States, are now underway. There are more than fifty such weather modification programs in operation across
the United States according to NOAA. All of these experimental weather modification programs negatively impact agriculture because they change the micro-climates needed for agriculture to survive. None of these programs, that I know of today (and this information is available to the public), are under any direct public, agriculture, or Congressional oversight, to my knowledge, in the United States.
These experimental weather modification programs that negatively impact agriculture are not only found in the United States but around the world. International and U.S. weather modification companies are modifying our weather with programs that cover thousands of square miles. Most of these programs use toxic chemicals or particulates to alter the
weather with either ground-based or airborne releases that change or modify our local micro-climates. One of the things I am concerned about and that we need to address, now and in the future, is how these programs are affecting the micro-climates needed for our crops to survive and for pollination to take place. If we artificially change the growing seasons, our pollinators like bees and birds (many now in sharp decline across the United States), many not
survive, leaving many flowers, native plants, agricultural and trees crops that are not pollinated. Native grasses, plants, trees, and agricultural losses could be devastated not only in the United States but on a worldwide basis. 2) The need for public, agriculture, Congressional and worldwide oversight. One of the areas of our investigation has been to determine if we can begin to put weather modification programs under congressional, agriculture, and public scrutiny and oversight to determine how they alter agriculture crop production, change climate or produce artificial droughts or floods. When a private company can modify your weather for the
personal gain of their respective clients then we have an agricultural and forestland crisis in the making.
The â€œmitigationâ€ drumbeat heard everywhere sounds impressive. However, these undefined measures may be detrimental to human health, crop production, soils, and drinking water supplies. It is now necessary to define what is meant by mitigation and to place all of these measures under congressional, agriculture, and pubic oversight. We do not want to place ourselves in the position of making huge mistakes by trading one pollution problem for another more serious problem. The following example reflects a â€œmonetary mitigationâ€ agreement that allows polluters to purchase the ability to pollute more:
(SF Chronicle â€“ September 2007 â€“ California makes deal with ConocoPhillips so that it can expand its refinery in the San Francisco Bay Area while paying the State of California $10 Million total so that it can release an additional 500,000 tons of pollutants from their Rodeo, CA, facility. In addition, their proposed expansion agreement would add one million tons a
year of carbon dioxide from another facility that currently releases yearly 1.9 millions tons a year. This expansion also increases the amounts of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, soot and other pollutants that will be emitted when the facility expansion is completed. The Chevron Oil Company wants to build a similar plant expansion in Richmond, CA, and the State of California is looking to make sweet deals for other oil companies. Our California air is to be polluted in the future for a measly one-time sum of $10 Million when oil companies are making record profits? You bet – human, agriculture, and tree health has been sold out! Just the medical bills alone, for increased human health costs, will be astronomical.
4) Geoengineering Schemes
Geoengineering schemes, many developed to place chemicals, salt or other particulates into our atmosphere to control global warming, are waiting in the wings to be implemented or have already been implemented. The release of chemicals or particulates, like highly polluting sulfur, are now being discussed at NASA Ames (November 2006 Geoengineering Meetings), and by many scientists worldwide waiting in the wings for funding. These chemicals and particulates are being proposed so that the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth is reduced in order to cool the planet. What is not being discussed, for example, is that California in 2006, took highly polluting sulfur out of diesel fuel due to asthma and other environmental problems. Now there are proposals to place sulfur back into our atmosphere to reduce global warming. Where is the discussion about environmental, agriculture, and human health declines from this proposal?
What about public and congressional oversight of these proposed programs? No public oversight, hearings or regulations are being proposed that would protect agriculture or public heath. The actions of placing chemicals into our atmosphere is certainly going to have negative effects on crop production and tree health. And if you place in our skies chemicals to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, you are going to reduce the photosynthesis needed for crop production. In order to produce crops and for plants and trees to grow and
thrive they need direct sunlight. A recent corn crop study at the University of Illinois shows that increased cloud cover reduces corn crop production while direct sunlight increases production. Photosynthesis is the process whe re plants and trees gain the energy to grow and produce crops. If we â€œmitigateâ€ to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth, negatively affecting crop production not only in the United States but worldwide, we could put the world in a food shortage crisis. Two experiments are now believed to be reducing crop
production in the United States: 1) Micro-climate shifts caused by experimental weather modification programs and, 2) a lack of photosynthesis cause by persistent jet contrails that produce (according to NASA), man-made clouds that change our climate. (Solar voltaic panels are beginning to produce less power due to these experiments.)
5) Man-made Clouds
NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter, and from other study results, notes that increasingly persistent contrails are turning into man-made clouds that are â€œâ€¦trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warmingâ€¦â€ NASA goes on to note that: â€œâ€¦Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term changes in Earthâ€™s climate.
Likewise, any change in Earthâ€™s climate may have effects on natural resourcesâ€¦â€
(The Power Point Presentation begins at this point in Rosalindâ€™s presentation.) Jets leaving persistent jet contrails are changing our climate to the degree that one jet leaving a persistent jet contrail has the following affect according to NASAâ€™s Patrick Minnis (February 2007): â€œâ€¦We had found that (jet) contrails were producing much more cloud cover than we ever thought they did. This one particular aircraft produced a contrail that covered an area of four thousand
square kilometers and lingered for six hours. But we also found that there were contrails covering much larger areas and lasting more than twenty hours…â€ Dr. Wayne Evans, Atmospheric Scientist: â€œâ€¦You see the two contrails formingâ€¦cirrus cloudsâ€¦ While most natural
clouds actually reflect more sunlight back into space than they supply infrared heat energy towards the earth. However, cirrus clouds are different. They actually radiate more heat energy than they reflect solar energy back into space. Therefore, cirrus clouds contribute to global warming…â€ The picture up on the screen shows just one jet leaving a persistent jet contrail â€“ that one trail can expand to cover an area of four thousand square kilometers and linger for more than twenty hours. This phenomenon was unheard of in the early fifties, sixties and seventies. It was not until the late 1980s that there was a huge change and people began to see the first persistent jet contrails that persist like we see today on a massive scale.
NASA studies show that climate change and global warming problems could be attributed to these types of persistent jet contrails and that jets cause them to form in our once clear blue skies. One of the issues needed to be addressed as we go forward is: â€œHOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SKIESâ€¦NATURAL OR MAN-MADE?â€ And right now we are making manmade clouds like the ones you see up on the screen. And these man-made clouds are trapping warmth in our
atmosphere. Isnâ€™t it time that all of us addressed this global warming issue? The climate change produced by the jets picturedâ€¦not all jetsâ€¦mostly non-commercial jets, can be observed in our skies and by weathermen who canâ€™t predict the weather very well because they refuse to put these man-made formations in their weather prediction models. These man-made clouds trap warmth in our atmosphere and increase our humidity. This allows for diseases, flu, molds, mildews, fungus, viruses, and pests to proliferate. These pictures of man-made clouds were taken in Lake, Mendocino, Contra Costa, Sonoma and other California counties, to show what man-made skies look like now. They represent thousands of similar pictures taken worldwide the
show persistent jet contrails turning into white haze and man-made clouds. NASA, NOAA, and other U.S. government agencies know that these unusual clouds are man-made and not â€œnormalâ€ cloud formations. No one is asking what happens to agriculture and human health from man-made reductions of the amount of direct sunlight hitting the earth because it is blocked by man-made clouds. Pictured on the screen is one example of what scientists call â€œglobal dimmingâ€ a process that reduces direct sunlight from reaching the earth. Is this why rickets, a bone disease, has been increasing in children across the United States (not seen in the U.S. since children were freed from working in American coal mines)? The pictures that you see on this screen look odd, unlike historical cloud formations that were observed and photographed
prior to the late 1980s, and back through U.S. history. We have time-lapse photographs and hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the formation of these man-made clouds from thin, spindly contrails being left by unmarked jets. All of you here today can begin to look up and observe this process for yourselves.
6) Chemical Atmospheric Heating and Testing Programs
There are also other experiments taking place in our atmosphere. The colors in this man-made cloud photograph in Mendocino County, CA, shows just one of many experiments. These colors represent a chemical reaction produced by experiments conducted by NASA and the United States Air Force. They are sending up canisters loaded with toxic chemicals designed to explode when superheated in order to conduct atmospheric and ionosphere experimental tests.
Some persistent jet contrails and man-made clouds, I believe, allow scientists to observe the results of these tests from either satellites or ground-based observation platforms. Without man-made clouds these tests could not be observed, as the chemicals would not produce a visible marker.
The NASA / U.S. Air Force CRESS 1990 Press Kit http://www.flyaria.com/document/html/mission/crres/cr.htm
outlines an atmospheric NASA testing program (linked to H.A.A.R.P. and the U.S. Air Force, that could produce
the Vibrant Spectrums (auroras), referenced above, as shown in my poster pictures. In this program canisters are loaded with chemicals and superheated at different atmospheric levels. These canisters contain the following chemicals that could be polluting our air and are showing up with unusual spikes in drinking water supplies in across California (California State Department of Health, Drinking Water Division Water Test Results- Public Records, Sacramento, California), and Arizona: Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, Lithium, Calcium, SF6-Sulfur hexafluoride
Note that SF6 is a very potent, toxic gas. It has the energy-trapping potential of 25,000 times that of Carbon Dioxide. The EPA has taken action to restrict release of this dangerous greenhouse gas and yet it is being used in atmospheric testing programs. Barium Releases March 22, 1976 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF0/019.html
Lithium Red Sky April 16, 1979 â€“ Alaska Science Forum: www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/312.html
Alaska’s Space Pyrotechnics â€“ Alaska Science Forum â€“ Barium February 18, 1985
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 NASAâ€™s TMA Night Cloud tests using trimethylaluminum or the advanced testing of military weapons systems like star wars? NASAâ€™s Night Clouds Atmospheric Testing Program:
7) The Agriculture & Tree Connection
The reason that many are so concerned about protecting agriculture from these programs is because we depend totally on agriculture for the food we all eat. None of these experiments, that I know of, have any public, agriculture or congressional oversight. Our drinking water, trees, and soils have been tested at various times and show unusual spikes of many of these experimental chemicals. The use of aluminum in atmospheric testing programs is a major problem with regard to both soil and drinking water pollution. With increasingly acidic rains, aluminum in the soil is released for uptake by tree roots. Once aluminum is in the root system the tree will die because it can no longer absorb the nutrients and water needed to survive. The tree
looks like it is dying of drought even though there is sufficient water for the tree to survive. The trees become stressed at this point and pests then attack these trees as they die creating a huge fire hazard. Many of our tree and plant communities are dying or in sharp decline in Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Shasta, Tahoe, and the Sierra Mountains. Many oak trees (without Sudden Oak Death Syndrome), redwoods, Douglas fir, agriculture crop trees, and plants are impacted by man-made clouds and atmospheric chemical programs. Molds, mildews, fungus, viruses and pests are on the rise in many areas of the United States. When persistent jet
contrails and man-made clouds raise night temperatures, and humidity, this reduces the number of freezing fruit set hours needed for crop production and to control pest proliferation.
8) Our Skies â€“ no longer crystal clear and deep blue The skies that you see in these pictures depict man-made clouds and white haze. When traveling on Delta Airlines across the United States from California to New York on September 4th, 2007, we were struck by the fact that we were flying through miles of persistent jet contrails and white haze that lasted the entire five-hour trip. There were few real clouds and the skies looked exactly like the pictures on this screen.
9) 1999 EPA Subsonic Jet Fuel Emissions Report
One of the items we really need to examine is jet fuel emissions which contaminate our air in the same way as automobile exhaust. Scientific studies in the 1970s also found that jets release nitric acid which depletes beneficial atmospheric ozone. Please note some of the human health and agriculture effects listed on the screen caused by jet fuel emissions.
Important issues that should be closely examined are the problems we are creating for ourselves through government and private atmospheric heating and testing programs, experimental weather modification, jet fuel emissions, and persistent jet contrails that create climate change, with the idea of reducing or eliminating these programs. We can improve human
health through the elimination of these programs and we can protect our trees, agriculture crop production, and drinking water supplies from chemical contamination. If we only consider mitigation that adds more pollution, chemicals, and particulates to our atmosphere then we are doomed to failure. Reduction of pollutants is the only answer. The geoengineering programs that are now being promoted are only going to release more toxic chemicals and particulates into our atmosphere in the hope that they will, in the short term mitigate climate change. What they will do instead is create a toxic pea soup of chemicals, with unknown, and uncontrollable synergistic effects, that could destroy our ability to produce crops and grow trees. The human costs will be astronomical as rickets, asthma and other respiratory diseases and cancers increase form the use of particulates and toxic chemicals. Just examine the increase in these incidents since the late 1980s when we started to experiment with atmospheric programs on a grand scale.
11) The EPA 1970â€™s Model
It would be easier to reduce the pollutants by following the early U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) model. This agency was created to clean up our air, water, rivers, and streams, through strict reductions in all types of emissions, reducing pollution at its source, whether cars, trucks, factories, chemical plants, etc. This model worked in the past and can work again. (In the last few years the EPA has been under mined and is not working as this agency has come under corporate polluter control.) Now there is only talk of adding toxic chemicals and particulates to our atmosphere for a so-called short-term gain under the heading of â€œmitigationâ€. These geoengineering experiments represent an unknown, but the money and the will to use them are increasing with the climate change drumbeat. We must reduce pollution not add to it.
12) Tree Death & Fire Hazards
Our trees, across the United States are dying and in decline in many areas. In Northern California, Lake, Mendocino, Shasta and Sonoma Counties the evidence is almost everywhere. We have traveled to other states and counties and found the same declinesâ€¦it is a decline we cannot afford. Since the late 1980s forest fires have burned hotter and higher than ever beforeâ€¦and one reason is the use of flammable and toxic atmospheric chemicals which cause increased tree decline and also contaminate our soils and air.
One of the goals that we need to work toward is reducing pollution at the source not adding more pollutants to mix with what we are all producing at this time. Allan Buckmann, recently retired from the California State Department of Fish & Game and President of Microbe Tech, an invited guest speaker at a U.N. Workshop yesterday, spoke eloquently on the benefits of using microbes to clean up pollution and to also maintain the heath of our planet. We do have at our disposal the technologies and the wherewithal to make our planet healthier for all. We just need the will to use them instead of using â€œchemical solutionsâ€.
14) â€œThe solutions are in our hands today.â€
If we decide to reduce pollution at it sources through regulations then we can make faster progress. If we choose the alternative solutions being proposed as â€œmitigationâ€ measures then progress will be slow, unproven, and uncontrolled as the chemical and particulate mixtures will exacerbate a deterioration in human and agriculture health. These geoengineering programs are waiting in the wings to be usedâ€¦thousands of them here and around the worldâ€¦none with
any agriculture, congressional, or public oversight. It is time to look at different solutions that are already here and it is time to look-up at our skies and see that some of these programs are already producing climate change and agriculture decline. And what damage are these ongoing
experiments doing to the fragile cocoon that protects our planet and makes life possible here? We do know that the atmospheric chemicals are showing up in our drinking water (California, Arizona and other states), tree ring samples, and soils. (The U.S. Air Force is releasing, according to their own records, 500 tons of aluminum-coated fiberglass (Chaff), worldwide each year, without notifying the public of the health effects of their actions.) In closing I would like to say that these atmospheric and weather modification programs are already negatively impairing crop production and tree health in the United States. We are seeing it in ever higher UV Radiation readings (burning of the tips of trees and grapevines), increased molds, mildews and fungus, and the proliferation of pests.
We hope that all of you, before jumping on the â€œmitigationâ€ bandwagon now being promoted and heavily marketed, under â€œCap & Trade Money Market Schemesâ€, will closely examine these proposed forms of mitigation before being stampeded into using them. Just who will they benefit? When a California corporation called Planktos (Summer or Fall 2007 Program), decides to create an artificial algae bloom in the Galapagos Islands Pacific by dusting the Pacific Ocean with iron dust, there is no worldwide oversight. They can harm marine life without any consequences. Why? So that they can say they are benefiting the environment and then
sell pollution â€œcreditsâ€ to corporations who want to continue to pollute more. Corporations are going to spring up from nowhere in order to buy tree areas or use other polluting schemes in order to make money on the stock market by selling these so-called credits on the stock market to polluters. These corporate schemes are just designed to allow polluters to keep polluting when the only solutions is to reduce the pollution at it sources. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is something we must all consider now and in the immediate future. When we consider the
Cap & Trade solutions or many â€œmitigation measuresâ€ we must know that reducing pollution is the ultimate goal. We must examine the consequences of our actions and research these suspect geoengineering plans. We have other options like using microbes. We have the technology and the ability now to reduce pollutionâ€¦the question is do we have the will to
move in that direction and to change our behavior? Thank you for your interest in these issues.
1) How do wars affect climate change?
I do believe that jets flying everywhere, not only over Iraq but other countries, contribute to climate change and add pollution to our atmosphere. The use of chemicals and explosives are adding to water, air, and soil contamination which impairs crop production and the quality of our air. War is a serious problem. The amount of money spent on wars impairs our ability to fund the EPA and other programs that would reduce pollution or conduct the research needed to advance such technologies. War funding ties up technology and funding that could benefit all of us. One expensive bomb destroys everythingâ€¦leaving nothing behind but damage, ruin, injury, pain, and death from â€œShock & Aweâ€â€¦it is the legacy that war leaves all of us.
2) Are we trading one pollution problem with another when we suggest some forms of mitigation?
We have many technologies that have already been invented and are available to the public. We can use natural microbes to clean up pollution sour ces and restore our soils to a normal balance. We cannot, out of fear, use mitigation strategies which trade one pollution problem for another. The is a bill in the California legislature that would ban the use and sale of all incandescent light bulbs in favor of the use of fluorescent light bulbs. Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury and have inadequate market labels to let people know of the danger of mercury pollution from this source or how to properly recycle them at HAZMAT sites. If you break a mercury bulb your house, office or room it becomes a toxic HAZMAT site, which needs special cleaning. If you use your vacuum cleaner or your broom to clean up the site it then must be sent to a toxic disposal site. Many people donâ€™t know that there are light fixtures that fluorescent bulbs canâ€™t be used in or they may explode. And most people throw them in the regular waste stream without any precautions where they will easily break and contaminate
drinking water sources, rivers, and streams. Mercury poisoning goes up the food chain from water to fish and birds. Is California and the rest of our nation trading one pollution problem for another by considering passage of this bill? 3) How is agriculture affected by urban sprawl and what can be done about it? In Sacramento, California, miles of prime producing agricultural land is being turned into thousands of one-story tract homes; paved over with roads and buildings. Economical public rail transportation is not being put into place to move thousands of people to work and shopping malls placing more demands on the construction of more highways while
clogging streets and roadsâ€¦more time spent running automobile engines while sitting in long linesâ€¦more pollution. We must change the practice of paving over prime agriculture lands for housing tracts not only in Sacramento but also in Mendocino and other counties and states. These zoning changes are being railroaded through our local governments without agriculture being taken into consideration and how these tracts will negatively impact climate change and global warming while reducing the land available for crop production. Solar power and adequate water for these new housing tracts is not being considered by local and state planners nor is the implementation of high speed rail transportation. We 7 need to build not only higher in density but also in places where prime agriculture land will not be paved over, never to be
used for agriculture again. All the paving and roads just exacerbates climate change and global warming. These actions are not a solution to our climate or food problems.
4) Should college students be required to plant eleven trees in order to graduate?
Planting native trees is important. But we also have to examine why our trees are dying or in decline across the United Statesâ€¦even newly planted trees. 83% of the trees and plants in the Sierra Nevada region are dying along with the Douglas fir in many parts of Alaska, Nevada, Connecticut, and California. No money is being spent to find out why they are dying. California Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed cutting down thousands of dead trees in the Lake Tahoe area without spending a dime to find out why they were dying in 2006. And yes, it is important to plant trees, however it matters what type of trees we plant and how we maintain them after planting. In closing, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak at this United Nations Conference on Climate Change. Many technologies can now be used, like microbes, in developing nations. Americans use a lot of the resources of developing countries. And we need to reduce our impact on these countries. Water is going to be a more and more important issue
in the future. Do not let corporations (like Coca Cola), purchase your local water districts or supply sources. If you do the price you will pay in the future will be astronomical.
Agriculture is extremely important worldwide as well as preserving our trees. And to allow one country to modify its weather, changing the weather in another country, is something we all need to address. I hope that all countries become aware of the programs discussed today and join together to say â€œnoâ€ to some of them, like the weaponization of space, and the chemicals used in those programs. We can reduce our pollutants so that we make life and human health much better.
A special thank you the United Nations and to a few of the sponsors: The Light Millennium, Campaign for the Earth, Ribbon International, Peace Action, Peace Caucus, and the Turkish Cultural Center, New York. For more information on these and other topics: Website: californiaskywatch.com Many people spoke on the issue of climate change at this conference. United Nations Website on Climate Change.
– Compendium of Budget Information for the 2014 General Session http://le.utah.gov/lfa/reports/cobi2014/LI_RPA.htm
– Utah Code: Title 73, Chapter 15, Modification of Weather http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title73/Chapter15/73-15.html
– Utah Division of Water Resources – Cloudseeding http://water.utah.gov/cloudseeding/
– Utah Administrative Code – Rule R653-5. Cloud Seeding. http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r653/r653-005.htm#T4
– Rosalind Peterson’s UN speech – https://web.archive.org/web/20140531093112/http://newyorkskywatch.com/rosalind-peterson-speech-transcript/
– MIT Article, Atmosphere Above Japan Heated Rapidly Before M9 Earthquake – https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424033/atmosphere-above-japan-heated-rapidly-before-m9-earthquake/
– Owning the Weather by 2025 – http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
– Weather Weapons – The Dark World of Environmental Warfare
– Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Artificial Clouds – http://artificialclouds.com/
CIA Director discusses purpose of spraying to reverse Climate Change through reflection:
1. US Air Force : Weather-as-a-Force-Multiplier-Owning-the-Weather-by-2025.pdf (322.46 kb)
2. Utah-Legislature-1973-Session-HB284-and-other-bills.pdf (2.75 mb) (From Utah State Archives Digital Library)
3. Utah-Legislature-1973-Session-SB136-and-other-bills.pdf (3.47 mb) (From Utah State Archives Digital Library)
4. Utah-Legislature-1975-Session-HB69-and-other-bills.pdf (5.92 mb) (page 50, From Utah State Archives Digital Library)
5. Utah-Code-73-15-3-Weather-Modification.pdf (10.97 kb) (Current Utah Code on Weather Modification)