PART 1 - THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Weather modification discussion of November 10, 2005
Introduction
This article presents a 2005 discussion held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The discussion involves weather modification and its legislation. It goes to show how subversive the elected leadership operates; with complete disregard for the consequences of their decisions and the impact on the common good of Earth and humanity, and without public consent. Meanwhile, the nefarious programs march on behind the backs - and literally above the heads - of the unsuspecting inhabitants of Earth.
(The article has been cut up in 8 parts due to email technicalities that have to do with gmail.)
The question immediately comes to mind “why is it suddenly necessary to modify the weather?”
As you carefully pick through this discussion, you will realize how misleading the entire Weather Manipulations Act is. In fact, it is a set up to cover up for certain activities that are actually the cause of ‘global warming’ and the associated climate anomalies.
You will also recognize various familiar names of the individuals involved with the weather modification undertaking (for instance John D. Rockefeller IV).
Vernacular: the discussion refers to ‘global warming’ as caused by air pollution. The word ‘pollution’ is substituted for ‘global warming’. The term ‘global warming’ is substituted for EMF (electromagnetic frequency) applications, that are omitted as the true cause of ‘global warming’ and the ongoing climate anomalies.
You will recognize that the Committee’s concerns are disingenuous, false and misleading. They discuss in veiled phrasing the reasons why they want to fund weather manipulations: whereas they talk about drought-stress and various weather anomalies as if these were naturally existing events, these are in fact the results of space industry and the systematic destruction of the protective plasma layers around the Earth. With the burgeoning space industry a need presented itself to develop some type of program to mitigate and buffer the risks of this climate-impacting industry. And that is the Weather Modification Act. But because the entire space industry and the associated geoengineering are so intensely destructive to the Earth and its protective layers, the Weather Act had to be packaged and presented as a ‘good’ thing. Therefore, disingenuous concerns about ‘water shortage’ and ‘increasing water demands’ were put on the record.
Another important reason for developing this program is to own the weather. He who owns the weather, wins. He can make it pour wherever and whenever he wants, he can cause droughts wherever and whenever he wants.
As you may have noticed already, since the adoption of this Bill, the Earth’s climate is increasingly adversely impacted with bizarre anomalies such as devastating storms, golf-ball size hailstones, horrendous droughts, tremendously destructive tornadoes and hurricanes, to name a few, and other weather anomalies that you hear of regularly these days - even in areas where they never existed before. One can hardly speak of mitigation. In fact, one is led to conclude that the Weather Modification Act is being used both as a tool to cause wilfull destruction, as well as a means to buffer damage caused to our atmosphere by the latest industry on Earth, the space industry.
And lastly, the US Military has avowed to ‘own the weather by 2025.’ Weather as a force multiplier.
Important facts to note:
No mention is made of HAARP. It is conspicuously omitted from the discussion, even though these global antenna arrays are regularly bombarding the upper atmospheric layers with EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) that cause warming up much like a microwave warms things up - the real cause of ‘global warming.’ (More about that.)
Their claim not to conduct operational cloud seeding is contradicted by ongoing cloud seeding efforts since this Weather Modification Act.
A predicted shortage and ‘increasing demands’ of fresh water around 2020 is being used to lend weight and credence to their program in support of weather manipulations.
The hypocrisy of the Weather Manipulations Act rings loud and clear with the current active destruction of crops and other food supplies to foster hunger in the world, rather than a ‘protection from droughts.’
Hurricane models are discussed to be done by computer programs, to be tested when completed - just like the covid non-existent ‘virus’ was modeled by a computer program, and tested afterwards.
Bill Gates, notorious for his experimental injection fetish, is now also involved with weather manipulations, driven by his desire to inject the atmosphere with a sun-blocking substance - supposedly to cool off the Earth from its ‘warming up.’ He is heavily funding this experimental endeavor as well. (https://www.frontnieuws.com/apocalypscrimineel-bill-gates-gaat-door-met-zijn-voornemen-om-de-zon-te-blokkeren-door-een-krijtbom-20-km-boven-de-aardatmosfeer-te-exploderen/)
Severely amplified dust storms are currently used for experimentation in sun-blocking. See for instance the Sahara dust storm article in this substack.
Spain has recently acknowledged the use of ‘chemtrails.’
https://www.frontnieuws.com/explosief-spanje-onthult-geheim-militair-chemtrailprogramma/
In German: https://www.legitim.ch/post/explosiv-spanien-enth%C3%BCllt-geheimes-milit%C3%A4risches-chemtrail-programmTheir statement “So cloud seeding extends the area of precipitation beyond what nature is able to provide. This is analogous to receiving a flu shot to make our immune system more viable during flu season. It is mostly not true that getting a flu shot gives us the flu. Not getting the flu shot generally means getting the flu.” is no different from the justification of the covid ‘pandemic.’
S. HRG. 109–446
WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON:
SCIENCE AND SPACE;
DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28–211 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
08:20 Jun 30, 2006
Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00001
Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov
Fax: (202) 512–2250
Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director
CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director
DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel
MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska, Ranking
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
BILL NELSON, Florida
CONTENTS
Page Hearing held on November 10, 2005 ...................................................................... 1 Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 1 Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 18
WITNESSES
Golden, Dr. Joseph H., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado .... 3
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5
DeFelice, Dr. Thomas P., Past President, Weather Modification Association .... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8
Garstang, Michael, Ph.D., Professor, University of Virginia; Chair, Committee
on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, National Research Council of the National Academies ..................................................................... 10
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX
Marburger, III, John H., Director, Executive Office of the President, Office
of Science and Technology Policy, letter, dated December 13, 2005 to Hon.
Kay Bailey Hutchison .......................................................................................... 29
Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement .. 27 Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas P. DeFelice by:
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 33
Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 33
Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 34
Response to written questions submitted to Michael Garstang, Ph.D., by:
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 35
Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 35
Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 35
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joseph H. Golden by:
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 30
Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 31
Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 32
Wilhite, Dr. Donald, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln, prepared statement .......................................................... 27
WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005
U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEES ON:
SCIENCE AND SPACE; DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DEMINT. Good afternoon. Sorry for the confusion. I appreciate all of you folks joining us this afternoon and look forward to hearing from you. My other chairman of this meeting, Senator Hutchison, will be back in just a moment. And I know she’s been a part of inviting this group here today.
I am very interested in the testimony. We saw, numerous times this summer, and just this past weekend, in Indiana and Kentucky, that weather has a profound impact on the lives of Americans. And this afternoon, the Subcommittees will be discussing weather modification, and, specifically, legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Hutchison, Senate bill 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act.
As I understand, the genesis of this legislation was to help provide relief to drought-stricken farmers in West Texas and across the Nation. As we are all aware, weather modification technologies have been pursued for a number of years. For decades, the Federal Government has dedicated significant resources to weather modification research, and State and local governments continue to spend millions on both operational weather modification technologies and weather modification research.
I was interested to learn that recently the National Research Council of the National Academies, the Nation’s leading scientific body, raised some concerns about efficacy of weather modification research. Because of the importance of this issue, I’m looking forward to Dr. Garstang’s comments this afternoon and his assessment of the state of the science surrounding weather modification research. It’s entirely possible that, at some point in the future, weather modification technologies might be viable. I continue to be impressed by the progress of all kinds of American innovations. At some point, this Committee may get to the point where it is considering the complex legal, social, and political issues surrounding whether or not the Nation should support a regimen of weather modification. But I am aware there are serious concerns about pursuing a regimen of intentional weather modification and want to give those concerns careful consideration.
I’m also concerned that, as a Nation, we do not have sufficient understanding of how our atmosphere behaves. It seems that this may be a concern shared by the Academy, noting some of the findings in their recent report. I think this Committee should give thoughtful consideration to their principal conclusion, which stated that, ‘‘Atmospheric science is now in a position to mount a concerted and sustained effort to delineate the scope and expectations of future weather modification research. Such an effort must be directed at answering fundamental scientific questions that will yield results that will go well beyond application to intentional modification. The emphasis must be on understanding processes, and not on modification.’’ I think—in other words, I believe what I’m hearing them saying is that we need to understand how weather works now before we go too far in trying to modify it.
I would also encourage the scientific community, and particularly the atmospheric-sciences community, through the National Acad- emies or our scientific societies, to decide what are the highest priorities and most promising areas of research for fundamental atmospheric research. The NRC report on weather modification research outlines some areas that may inform weather modification, such as precipitation physics and cloud modeling. Could these areas or other areas of the research be considered as part of a comprehensive program of atmospheric research? I’ll let you answer the question today.
Priority-setting is going to be important. In recent years, Republicans in Washington have endeavored to constrain Federal spending. We’ve not been as successful as I would like, but I’m committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that Federal discretionary spending not only does not grow, but that it shrinks.
I say all this to encourage the atmospheric-science community to think critically about where you want to put the next dollar in atmospheric research. There are some very promising places to put this funding that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Americans. I would encourage you to consider the various research initiatives proposed by the Academy in light of the other important initiatives that need to be undertaken to improve prediction of tornado formation, to understand the rapid intensification of hurricanes, and the other challenges facing us.
How do all of these competing priorities interact? Maybe there is some overlap that will address these important issues and inform weather modification. I hope the scientific community can help me and this Committee with this priority-setting.
This Committee is committed to advancing atmospheric sciences, because we understand what an important role weather plays in the lives of all Americans. So, I’m looking forward to hearing from you. This issue leaves me with a lot of questions, and I’m hoping my witnesses can answer some of those questions today.
Appearing this afternoon is Dr. Joe Golden, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Envi- ronmental Sciences. Dr. Golden previously directed NOAA’s weather modification research programs. He will discuss Senate bill 517 and its potential benefits for weather modification.
Also with us is Dr. Tom DeFelice, past President of the National Weather Modification Association. He will be providing perspectives on the importance of weather modification and weather modification research.
Finally, appearing before the Subcommittees this afternoon, is Dr. Michael Garstang. Dr. Garstang is a Distinguished Emeritus Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the University of Virginia. He’s a fellow at the American Meteorological Society, the AMS—and has served on numerous AMS committees. He was also the Chair of the 2003 National Research Council Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research.
OK, having introduced all of our panelists, Dr. Golden, we’ll start with you, and if Senator Hutchison comes in, we may need to take a break and let her make a statement if she can’t stay the whole time.
So, Dr. Golden, please—I think we’re going to try to keep this to five minutes, and then some questions.
(Go to Part 2)
Fantastic! Can't wait to read the rest of it.