NOTICE OF INTENT – WEATHER MODIFICATION
North American Weather Consultants, 8180 South Highland Dr., Suite B-2, Sandy, Utah 84093, a contractor licensed by the Utah Division of Water Resources, intends to conduct weather modification programs in Utah to increase precipitation with the following potential sponsors: Utah Water Resources Development Corporation (representing Beaver, Emery, Garfield, Iron, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Tooele, Washington and Wayne Counties), Box Elder and Cache Counties, the Bear River Water Conservancy District, Provo River Water Users Association, Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, Uintah Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Alta and Snowbird ski areas. The areas in which the effects are intended to occur are in the mountainous portions of Washington, eastern Iron, eastern Beaver, eastern Millard, eastern Juab, eastern Tooele, eastern Utah, eastern Salt Lake, eastern Davis, eastern Weber, Morgan, Box Elder, Cache, western Rich, Summit, northern Duchesne, northern Uintah, southern Daggett, Wasatch, western Carbon, Sanpete, western Emery, Sevier, Piute, western Wayne, western Garfield, northwest Kane, San Juan, and southern Grand Counties. The operations may be conducted during portions of the period from October 15, 2012 to May 31, 2013. Weather modification operations will be conducted using ground based, silver iodide nuclei generators. Limited aircraft seeding may be conducted for research purposes.
Persons interested in this permit application should contact the Utah Division of Water Resources: 1594 West North Temple, P.O. Box 146201, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, telephone (801) 707-8820.
NORTH AMERICAN WEATHER CONSULTANTS
Don A. Griffith, CCM President
8180 South Highland Dr., Suite B-2 Sandy, Utah 84093
http://utahlegals.com/notice.php?id=159078
In plain sight. These public notices appear in US newspapers etc. However, we all know what a yawn they can be. Just ignore them and get down to the skeet? This lack of response is quite usual but it seems that the government department in question is actually compelled to ensure that the promised action is implemented, according to Clint Richardson, writer and researcher. In other words, if we do not object then the action must be carried out.
To put it simply: Government requires informed consent in order to implement plans.How is consent obtained? Public Notices are a crucial part of the process. If a Public Notice has been published we have, technically, been informed. If we then do not register our non-consent government is compelled to carry out the proposed action. This seems to the case in the USA at any rate.
Clint Richardson’s article contains a wealth of information and the author makes a plausible case for taking another look at our methods of protesting about geoengineering. It seems that letters to representatives, blogs, social media comments etc will achieve little.. We have to communicate with government in ‘government-speak’. Pleas, begging, remonstration are all of little use. Our only effective course of action is to formally withdraw consent, we are advised.
The writer goes on to inform us that such terms as ‘research purposes’ can cover a multitude of malevolent intentions and while these matters may appear well-regulated at first glance, the permitted exceptions included actually appear to permit carte blanche possibilities to those in control.
Section 7. Precipitation caused by authorized project not presumed to constitute trespass or nuisance.
The mere dissemination of materials and substances into the atmosphere or causing precipitation pursuant to an authorized cloud-seeding project shall not give rise to any presumption that such use of the atmosphere or lands constitutes trespass or involves an actionable or enjoinable public or private nuisance.
Note that this is why just speaking, holding up a sign, signing a petition, or yelling from the top of your lungs to stop spraying our skies is never and never will be enough to halt the spraying, as we can read here. Government counts on the public’s lack of legal knowledge and power to withdraw consent in order to function against the wishes of the still-consenting-without-realizing-it protesters.
Clint Richardson.
The article provides further evidence of weather modification and underlines the fact that this form of climate intervention is both common and long-established. Clint Richardson includes references to the negative effects of widespread silver iodide spraying, the weather warfare possibilities and the huge number of patented aluminium-resistant seeds Monsanto has developed. We are urged to take action, as individuals, to register our non-consent rather than waste our energies on further protests.
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-only-way-we-can-stop-geoengineering/
So have we ignored IOM Government Public Notices regarding weather modification? I somehow cannot believe that this is the case. Has the IOM Government agreed to passively permit known parties to spray the island? If government does not register lack of consent can this be construed as informed consent? This is where we need more research and information.
The references to conversing with government in an appropriate manner have a ring of truth for me. Government is surely not obliged to take notice of letters of protest. However, a carefully-worded document clearly defining our non-consent submitted to the appropriate government department is a more direct and forthright approach, which might well be the path to take.
Whatever our course of action – and perhaps this should be a combination of awareness raising, protest, research and registering non-consent – we can now be in no doubt that weather manipulation has been ongoing for decades. It seems that the planet has finally had enough of things and the perpetrators cannot keep things under wraps any longer. N.B. WE are NOT to blame. Those who implement and consent to these programmes are the climate change culprits. It seems likely that an effective method of putting an end to geoengineering could be a refusal to discuss any further mention of climate change unless the data referred to contains all details of past and present global geoengineering projects. I suspect we would then hear the sound of silence.
free as thy sweet mountain air 