EXPERIMENTAL
WEATHER MODIFICATION COMING TO YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD SOON
AGRICULTURE ALERT - PROTECT
AGRICULTURE & YOUR WATER
SUPPLIES
July 2008
(Update) by Rosalind Peterson
UPCOMING TELEVISION PROGRAM KTVU-TV 2 Jack London Square, Oakland, California
Part of this story will air on Channel 2, KTVU Oakland/San Francisco/San Jose:
Monday: July 28, 2008, on our Ten o’clock Television News.
John Fowler, Health and Science Editor for KTVU-TV (Channel 2), visited Rosalind Peterson at her home in Mendocino County, Northern California, and filmed
a segment for his program on Experimental Weather Modification.
Prepare yourself for more water
shortages, floods, droughts, and a
sharp decline in food supplies in
the United States when Texas Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s U.S. Senate
Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445,
that were introduced on July 17,
2007, are voted into law in 2008.
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 nor does it mandate
that the public will be advised of
these programs in advance of their
implementation.
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 Eglin
Air Force Base (Florida), 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, 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 of 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, Director, 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.
In addition, two climate security
act shams, U.S. Senate Bills S2191
and S3036, were debated on the floor
of the U.S. Senate between June 2-6,
2008. Senators Boxer and Lieberman
will be bringing this legislation
forward, in the near future, once
they have the sixty votes needed
pass either one of them. California
Senators Boxer and Senator Lieberman
are the driving forces behind these
Climate Security Act shams and
California Senate Feinstein is
supporting this legislation along
with Senators McCain and Clinton.
Hidden inside these bills are
unregulated weather mitigation
programs and legislation that will
lower water standards in our Clean
Water Act to allow a highly
polluting underground carbon
sequestration program.
(Don’t
be fooled by the “Cap & Trade”
slogan attached to these bills. It
just means that the American
taxpayers will pay taxes to set up
an unregulated private corporation
called the, “Climate Change Credit
Corporation”, that is designed to
sell bogus credits to polluters in
an unregulated money market scheme
so that polluters can pollute more
in the future.)
Note:
A new experimental weather
modification is to be initiated in
Southern California this fall to
place more snow and rainfall in the
San Gabriel Mountain area to benefit
only a few special interests.
Rainfall and normal weather patterns
are needed to supply watersheds and
agriculture crop production in
surrounding areas. This huge
program will disrupt normal weather
patterns and rainfall distribution
over thousands of square miles and
could cause a major drought over the
California’s Central Valley, our
food breadbasket. This program could
also negatively impact rainfall and
climate in the State of Arizona.
This experimental weather
modification programs needs to be
re-considered, as to detrimental
impacts, before being implemented.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-seeding16-2008jun16,0,5097974.story
Please
contact all of your elected local,
state and federal officials to stop
these bills and action in their
present form. These bills need 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
Contact: E-Mail:
info@californiaskywatch.come
http://www.californiaskywatch.com/
By
Rosalind Peterson
First
Published by:
http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm
November 2, 2007
Marie Gunther - Guest & Program
Producer will interview Rosalind
Peterson –
Experimental Weather
Modification & Atmospheric
Heating Testing Programs –
Climate Change – Agriculture
(Man-Made
Clouds & Weather)
THURSDAY - AUGUST 6,
2008: 6 A.M.
PACIFIC Time Zone
www.ThePowerHour.com
or
www.ThePowerHour.org
ThePowerHour with Joyce & Dave"
is a three-hour syndicated radio
broadcast
Monday through Friday, 7-10 AM
CST. Listen Live at
www.ThePowerHour.org,
www.ThePowerHour.com or
www.GCNLive.com
(Please note
the Public Announcement that
trails my sign-off - Your show
(with us) will air nine more
times in the following 24 hours
for anyone, anywhere in the
world, can go and listen to it
again and again. In other
words, all three hours of our
broadcast continually replays
every three hours.)
Associated Reference Articles and
Links to Government Documents and
Current U.S. Legislation:
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_summary.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?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3613992.PN.&OS=PN/3613992&RS=PN/3613992
14, Use of artificial
satellites in earth orbits
adaptively to modify the effect that
solar radiation would otherwise have
on earth's weather-1998:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5762298.PN.&OS=PN/5762298&RS=PN/5762298
15, Weather modification by
artificial satellites 1999
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5984239.PN.&OS=PN/5984239&RS=PN/5984239
16, Combustible compositions
for generating aerosols,
particularly suitable for cloud
modification and weather control and
aerosolization process 1977
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=RE29142.PN.&OS=PN/RE29142&RS=PN/RE29142
17, Method and composition
for precipitation of atmospheric
water 1994
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5360162.PN.&OS=PN/5360162&RS=PN/5360162
18, Method and apparatus for
altering a region in the earth's
atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or
magnetosphere 1987
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4686605.PN.&OS=PN/4686605&RS=PN/4686605
* Bridget
Conroy, from Arizona, and Rosalind
Peterson, from California, are
co-founders of the Agriculture
Defense Coalition. They joined
together in October 2005, to fight a
similar experimental weather
modification bill that was
introduced in 2005. Thanks to their
dedication and hard work in bringing
this to the public’s attention,
organizing rallies, with lots of
help from local individuals and
groups in several states, many
people across the United States
contacted their elected
representatives, and these bills
were not passed in 2006 or 2007.
They have mobilized again to fight
this new threat to agriculture and
natural resources.
Information on
Carbon Trading: “Cap & Trade Money
Market Schemes”
1, Communities for a Better
Environment Fall 2006 Newsletter:
Richard Drury’s article: “Pollution
Trading: We Don’t Buy it” Excellent
Article on the “Pollution Shell
Game”.
2, Los Angeles Times April
1, 2007 “Carbon Trading Won’t Work”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-dorsey1apr01,0,7611817.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary
3,
http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind2.htm
Cap & Trade Article Part I
4,
http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind3.htm
Cap & Trade Article Part II
5,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Defense
According to
Source
Watch this group has “…evolved into
George Bush's favorite environmental
group…”
6,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-3036
U.S. Senate Bill 3036 Text
7,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2191
U.S. Senate Bill 2191 Text
8,
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
U.S. EPA Information
Information on Experimental Weather
Modification Bills:
9,
http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm
Contact your elected officials and
defeat these two bills experimental
weather modification bills from
passage in 2008. U.S. Senate Bill
1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445
brought to you with compliments from
Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
10, In a speech (June 5,
2008),on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, Senator Salazar of Colorado,
spoke of the drought which has
decimated his state in the last two
years. The Senator blamed global
warming as the cause of these
problems without realizing that the
Colorado drought started at the same
time a massive experimental weather
modification scheme was initiated in
Wyoming. It is easy to blame global
warming for all of our problems
rather than look at the experiments
we are conducting on ourselves with
more than 50 experimental weather
modification programs ongoing in the
United States (according to NOAA
records).
NOAA - Current Weather Modification
Programs – How are they linked to
current weather problems and
agriculture declines due to the
disruption of local micro-climates?
11, NOAA 2005 Listing of
Experimental Weather Modification
Programs.
http://bakersfieldskywatch.com/docs/weather/NOAA%202005%20Final%20Weather%20Modification%20Programs%20Spreadsheet%2005WXMOD5.pdf
12, NOAA 2006 Listing of
Experimental Weather Modification
Programs
http://bakersfieldskywatch.com/docs/weather/NOAA%202006%20November%2019,%202007%20Weather%20Modification%20(NC)%2006WXMOD5.pdf
13, NOAA 2007 Listing of
Experimental Weather Modification
Programs
http://bakersfieldskywatch.com/docs/weather/NOAA%202007%20November%2019,%202007%20Weather%20Modification%20(NC)%2007WXMOD5-2.pdf
14, Honey Bee Decline
Articles & Documents
http://www.bakersfieldskywatch.com/docs/bees/