“Since the late 1980s, these experimental weather modification programs have grown in scope and sophistication. The public has been denied access to this information, in most cases, and weather modification has usually not been reported by the media except on rare occasions. ”
“MORE AND MORE WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS ARE PLANNED WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT”
FORECASTING YOUR WEATHER
By Rosalind Peterson
September 6, 2008
What meteorologists and the media are not telling you
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will provide to anyone that requests the list, a copy of experimental weather modification programs ongoing (as well as historical), in the United States. This list is not complete due to the fact that many experimental weather modification programs are “classified top secret” by the U.S. military. These experimental programs are unregulated and are not subject to oversight by anyone. In addition, the public, ranchers, watershed supervisors, forestry, the Environmental Protection Agency, states, agriculture food producers, fish and game agencies, local counties, and anyone else that depends upon the weather, are usually not notified in advance of these programs being initiated.
NOAA has, under its umbrella, the National Weather Service (NWS). If the NWS is notified about these experimental weather programs, they rarely put this information into their state and local weather forecasts, leaving the public to believe that their weather is “normal” or that “extreme and other weather events” are caused by climate change or “global warming.” The NWS provides weather information to local, county, and state meteorologists who then use this information to add to local weather forecasts in the area where you live, but most neglect to advise the public about these modification programs.
The National Weather Service uses weather models in their forecasting. These models are based on data which is collected from a variety of sources and historical information. There is just one glitch.
Their models may not include at least two factors: 1) Experimental weather modification programs, and 2) Climate changes, based on NASA studies and research. (NASA noted in an October 2005, newsletter that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into man-made clouds that are”…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to state that “…any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth’s cloudiness, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources…”) Thus, state and local forecasts may be wrong, in many instances, because they don’t take into consideration these two factors which can dramatically change your state, county or local weather.
Since the late 1980s, these experimental weather modification programs have grown in scope and sophistication. The public has been denied access to this information, in most cases, and weather modification has usually not been reported by the media except on rare occasions.
The local weather forecasters usually don’t report on these weather modification programs, on the results of those programs, when giving local and regional forecasts. Many may not even be aware of these programs or may have been told not to report on them. This means that most weather forecasters are not giving the public the true facts about the weather they are experiencing as a result of these programs. Those meteorologists that know about these experimental weather modification programs and don’t report them in advance, during or after these events, are denying the public critical information, especially to those who depend upon the weather to grow the crops we depend upon for food, drinking water supplies, and tree health.
The majority of agriculture producers are never told about these weather modification programs which could cause adverse weather like drought or flooding. Current legislation is now pending in the U.S. Congress: Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s U.S. Senate Bill #1807 and Colorado Democratic Congressman Mark Udall’s Bill #3445. These bills do not contain provisions that require public participation in the decision-making process, public notification, congressional oversight at any level (other than notification of these programs after the fact), or any provisions to protect crop production, public drinking water supplies, watersheds or forestlands throughout the United States. Military programs and experiments are also allowed under these bills. The Environmental Protection Agency is not notified and therefore not able to protect the public and the environment from adverse weather affects or from some toxic chemicals used in some of these experimental programs.
On July 28, 2008, KTVU News (Oakland/San Francisco/San Jose, California), presented a new program on weather modification.  John Fowler, the Health & Science Editor for KTVU, conducted research into this subject after being given many government documents and other information. This Special Report was the result of his investigation and it is one of the very few you will see on this subject.
KTVU Program Advance Advertising Segments prior to the Broadcast of their Special Report:
1 – “Coming up we investigate a weather modification program underway here in Northern California.” (This implies there is only one ongoing program in Northern CA. NOAA experimental weather modification records indicate there were at least 13 California programs in 2007, and there are 5 or more ongoing programs so far in 2008.)
2 – Julie Haener (KTVU News Anchor): “Ever wish you could change the weather? What you might consider impossible is not only possible, but is happening here in Northern California. KTVU Channel 2 News reveals who is modifying our weather and why. Weather patterns have been around longer than man. Should they be tampered with now?” Rosalind Peterson: ‘Who plays God with our crops, who plays God with different areas of the State of California or (individual) counties?” Julie Haener: “See the upcoming program on KTVU Channel 2 News.”
(Transcript of the Special Report aired on July 28, 2008. Note: If there are errors in any part of this transcription – we apologize in advance as no transcript was provided by KTVU. The items in parenthesis below were not part of the program but added to clarify statements or visuals.)
Frank Somerville (KTVU News Anchor): “Should humans tamper with mother nature? Weather modification is a growing trend both here in Northern California and around the world. So, does it work? And why do some people say it could do more harm than good? KTVU Health & Science Editor, John Fowler, has tonight’s Special Report.”
John Fowler: “California sure could use more rain. Tinder dry forests are burning at a record pace…” (due to a highly unusual lightning storms which hit California between June 19-20, 2008.) “Drought proclamations have millions of Bay Area water users cutting back or paying more. And climate experts predict that we are in for decades of unpredictable supplies. The State’s top water forecaster says: ‘We are on the edge right now’…”
Maury Roos (California State Department of Water Resources): “If the next winter is wet, everything will be fine. And if it is dry we will be in a real drought.”
John Fowler: “So what about making rain?” (KTVU Shows a Paramount Move Clip from The Rainmaker showing actor Burt Lancaster yelling “Rain!”) “Burt Lancaster’s character was based on a real life Californian who claimed 500 rain making successes, including a San Diego flood. Charles Hatfield died a half century ago without revealing his secrets. But his successors are hard at work, here in downtown San Francisco, at PG&E’s (Pacific Gas & Electric Company), headquarters, up on the 16th Floor, in their weather office, where the utilities top weather man, Byron Marler, studies charts and satellite pictures. Marler’s job is to change weather, although he won’t say it that way.”
Byron Marler (PG&E): “Well, we are not really changing the overall picture of the weather in the Sierra Nevada with the exception of causing a little more snowfall over some of the watersheds. 5% to 10% additional water on an annual basis.”
John Fowler: “PG&E uses what are basically big propane (ground based), gas flares in the mountains. But others use different methods, including airplanes to scatter tiny particles of silver iodide to seed clouds.” (There are other more sophisticated methods using a wide variety of chemicals but these were not identified in this program.)
Byron Marler (PG&E): “Most of this watershed in the Sierra Nevada are cloud seeded by someone.”
John Fowler: “Water districts, corporate farms, even private individuals, all modify the weather with little oversight and no government restrictions.”
Golden Gate Weather Consulting Meteorologist, Jan Null, advises cloud seeders: “You have a lot of people experimenting with the atmosphere, with only partially known sorts of effects that are going to come out of it.” (No mention of the synergistic effects of these multiple California programs or effects on California from experiments being conducted in adjoining states like Nevada.
Note: There are lawsuits with regard to weather modification programs in California.)
John Fowler: “So are we messing with mother nature?”
Rosalind Peterson: “Who plays God with our crops, who plays God with different areas of the State of California or the counties? In other words, the weather belongs to all of us.”
John Fowler: “Former (California U.S.D.A. Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor) Rosalind Peterson, of Ukiah (CA), spoke (as an invited guest speaker), at the United Nations (forum on Climate Change), last year (September 5-7, 2007), opposing weather modification (legislation due to negative impacts on agriculture and watersheds). Although some studies (three published prior to 1992) dispute it, she said pulling extra water from clouds in one place steals water from folks downwind (or in surrounding counties and states disrupting the micro-climates needed for crop production).” (This program did not specify which government studies dispute these claims.)
Rosalind Peterson: “If we are doing a lot (of weather modification), here… (pointing to a map showing the State of California).” (Rosalind Peterson presented a color map of the United States showing the number, from NOAA statistics, and the scope, number of square miles, of weather modification programs in the United States that are now part of the public record. KTVU declined to show the entire map or discuss the 60+ ongoing programs listed by NOAA. In addition, during the taped 1 hour, 45 minute interview, KTVU failed to mention the number of programs ongoing in California or the vote by the Los Angeles City Council (June 2008), to start a new weather modification program to put more snow, each year, on the San Bernadino Mountains in Southern California. A program that could impact rainfall and weather across the food belts in the Central Valley and in areas where agriculture crop production and surrounding forestlands depend upon fragile micro-climates and “normal” weather patterns for water and snow.)
John Fowler: “Peterson says that is sparking ‘weather wars’ across the Western states, expanding rainmaking programs that have unknown (synergistic) consequences. She says cloud seeding maybe making water problems worse.”
Rosalind Peterson: “I think that we could go to conservation, I think we could take others steps for better water usage and maybe limit those (experimental weather modification) programs, to only a very (regulated) few, if at all.”
John Fowler: “And what about unintended weather modification such as those persistent jet contrails that crisscross our skies. These are over Mendocino County where military jets practice.” (KTVU showed persistent jet contrails and a military jet onscreen).
Maury Roos: “They are blocking some of the sunlight coming in but they also trap, trap some of the heat, so the jury is out as to what the exact effects are…but those contrails do have an effect upon the weather and climate.”
John Fowler: “In Beijing (China), over the next few weeks, well funded Chinese weather modification experts will attempt to reduce smog by increasing air cleaning rain and will try to decrease rain during Olympic events. (August 2008). U.S. experts are skeptical.”
Maury Roos: “I can’t help but wonder if maybe they are exaggerating the amount of influence they have over weather.”
Jan Null: “It rains about half the days during the early part of August in Beijing. The effects are probably not going to be noticeable to anybody in the stands watching an Olympic event.”
John Fowler: “Professional rainmakers say they can increase or decrease precipitation anywhere conditions are right. Proof is elusive. Forecasters can’t predict precisely how much rain would fall anyway. Still proponents say California and the United States are falling behind the rest of the world in rain-making science (and) that we need to invest in technology that might help us avoid water worries. – Health & Science Editor, John Fowler, KTVU Channel 2 News.” End (Thank you KTVU & John Fowler for bringing to light this critical issue in your Special Report – Rosalind Peterson July 28, 2008.)
John Fowler’s statement that these programs might help us avoid “water worries” fails to address the issue of “who owns our weather and who will, or will not, profit from these experimental programs”? Since there is only a limited amount of water available at any given time, and since micro-climates and the weather needed for crop production and watersheds is critical in every county, this issue needs to be addressed by the media, the public, all agriculture production and water resources entities, and our elected officials.
Will KTVU Meteorologists now report on these ongoing programs and where they are modifying your weather today? And remember that United States weather modification companies are reported to be conducting weather modification programs in more than 50 countries around the world. It doesn’t appear that our science and weather modification programs are behind other countries or even that they are underfunded. U.S. Homeland Security is now funding Hurricane experiments starting in August 2008.
Who owns your weather and who decides who gets your rain or snow? The decision is not being left up to you. The news media and their meteorologists are not giving us all the facts about our weather. And more and more weather modification programs are planned in your future without your knowledge or consent.
For more experimental weather modification information and legislation:
1, Colorado Representative Mark Udall has introduced this weather modification bill #3445 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison U.S. Senate #1807. These bill could be passed at any time in 2008.
2, This is the link to the KTVU Channel 2 Program that aired on July 28, 2008 on Experimental Weather Modification (John Fowler)
3, The Telegraph.co.uk February 8, 2008 “U.S. Government (Homeland Security), Aims to Tame Hurricanes this August” “…The senior official responsible for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, Jay Cohen, has given his support to the new hurricane reduction programme…”
4, August 3, 2008 – New York Times Oppose this electronic voting bill.
© 2008 – Rosalind Peterson – All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.
Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.