Search This Blog

Mission Statement

Cloudbuster Attacks On Planet Earth

Cloudbusting is a menace to the environment. Despite some claims to the contrary, cloudbusting is not a solution to environmental problems; it is a problem in itself, a destructive technology requiring a condemnatory response by the environmental movement.

Cloudbusting is not something new; it is already so comonplace as to be intolerable and an environmental movement to control this currently unregulated technology is needed to protect the public.

All over the world people are getting worried about what is happening to the climate. Each year, it seems, there are more and more extreme weather events of increasing severity and frequency. Records are being broken more often than ever before in recorded history. It is clear the climate of the entire world is becoming destabilized, less reliable, more random and chaotic, with droughts, floods, heat waves, and severe cold spells becoming the norm.

While there are several factors involved in this climatic breakdown, one seldom recognized major factor in this climate destabilization is the existence of a technological means to interfere with the natural movement of the atmosphere on a large scale. This device, called a cloudbuster, is simple and cheap enough to construct that in recent years hundreds of individuals all over the world, learning about it from instructions promiscuously posted on irresponsible websites, have taken it up as a backyard hobby.

Many of these individuals tend to be paranoid and delusional, and are using the cloudbuster as a sort of prop in a role-playing game, often imagining themselves to be fighting off hostile UFOs, resisting a secret government plot of some kind, or changing "bad" atmospheric energy into "good".

Many others claim they are "ending droughts", "making rain", or "doing research". They seem oblivious to the fact that the droughts they think they are ending resume as soon as they stop operating because the underlying cause of the drought has not been adressed. They fail to understand that the goal of proper cloudbusting is not to make rain, but to restore normal pulsation of the atmospheric energy so that, among other effects, rain will occur spontaneously as needed.

They ignore the rights of the people affected to be told what is being done to their environment and to have some say in the matter, and that subjecting people to a research program who have not given their informed consent is a human rights violation.

Some think they are "greening deserts", while in reality, they are subjecting the fragile dryland ecosystem to unusual stress from excessive rainfall in areas where all native life-forms are well-adapted to the prevailing conditions.

They usually have no idea of the scientific basis upon which the cloudbuster works, or fantasize, without evidence, that some wildly speculative theory of their own concoction is the better theory. Frequently they have little idea of what a cloudbuster is capable of, many of them, for example, thinking it only affects their local area.

As a result of these incompetent interventions in atmospheric dynamics, countless innocent victims have died and the environment has been seriously disturbed in numerous weather-related catastrophes.

Due to their paranoia they do not often communicate what they are doing to others working in the same field. Many of them, in fact, think they are the only ones doing anything with what they think is a somehow suppressed and secret invention. Many others are so arrogant they think nobody except themselves and their associates is able to conduct cloudbusting operations safely and properly, so they refuse to co-operate with those they deem "unqualified".

While there is certainly nothing secret or suppressed about the cloudbuster, it is regarded as crackpot by many of the scientific community, in large part because of the absurd fictions and folklore with which it has become surrounded. The fantastic legends of its' inventor, Wilhelm Reich, having been the victim of official persecution, or of some alleged conspiratorial plot, or having fought wars with beings from outer space, or having had meetings with Einstein, serve to distract attention from the serious issue of the menace of the cloudbuster he invented.

This large body of folklore functions to hide the reality of the cloudbuster as an effective, science-based tool and disguise it as a crackpot fantasy. It is perfectly right, in fact, the only rational response of anyone with even the slightest scientific education, to dismiss such a device as incapable of having any effect on the weather when it is presented wrapped in such packaging.

The failure to recognize the imput into the total atmospheric picture of this proliferation of crackpots playing around with cloudbusters means the scientists trying to understand the weather are misled into ignoring that a large portion of unusual weather events are being caused by this unsuspected form of technological intervention and instead think the climate changes now underway are being caused by some other factor, such as greenhouse effect from combustion products released into the atmosphere.

Any theory of what is happening with the weather and climate on this planet must take the social phenomena of a mass movement of cloudbuster hobbyists into account. And the environmental movement must mount an effective effort to counter this form of blatant interference with the atmosphere.

If and when cloudbusting is ever recognized by the scientific community as a science-based reality rather than a prop in a fantasy role-playing game, then it can be expected that official agencies will take over the job of protecting the public from improper use of the cloudbuster. But until then, it is up to concerned environmentalists to fill that role. Otherwise, until cloudbusting can be regulated, countless innocent victims will continue to die each year from cloudbuster-murder by crackpot Reichians.

And greenhouse gases from combustion will take the rap. The world is now facing serious economic problems at least partially caused by the mistaken belief that the atmospheric disorder caused by cloudbusting is due to a greenhouse effect instead, and numerous laws are in the process of being passed taxing or restricting fuel-burning activities in an effort to prevent weather disasters that are really being caused by cloudbusting and could only be prevented by restricting the use of cloudbusters.

Until effective regulation is in place, however, the few responsible people who are aware of the threat posed by cloudbusters must be ready and willing to take whatever action is needed to stop the use of cloudbusters in their home areas. Direct intervention by concerned citizens is often the only way to prevent serious harm to the earth and to the public, and this is one of those cases.

**************************************************************************************************

In recent years, as the internet has made it possible for anyone with a
computer to spread the word about anything they please, irresponsible
instructions for building cloudbusters have mushroomed and
cloudbusting is now second only to nuclear power as the worst environmental
threat.

Cloudbuster proliferation has become a major environmental problem.

The cloudbuster is a very simple, easy to construct device that can be used to help restore a sick, damaged atmosphere to normal self-regulatory functioning.

This re-establishment of natural self-regulation to the atmosphere when it has become damaged and stagnated is the goal of any properly-done cloudbusting project.

Unfortunately, many people fail to grasp this point. Anyone who uses terms like "weather engineering", "etheric engineering", "weather control", "rainmaking", and the like, does not understand this important factor in cloudbusting.

It is an unfortunate side-effect of cloudbusting that it can be misused to cause rain and can have other direct effects on the weather.


In recent years many environmentalists have expressed concern that the details of how to construct a cloudbuster are too easily available on the internet. There is a growing Orgonomic Ecology Movement that is concerned about unwanted consequences of cloudbuster interference in the weather and seeks to prevent cloudbuster proliferation and combat those individuals guilty of hubris who wish to intervene in the weather by this means.



The Orgonomic Ecology group exists to explore ways and means to stop the proliferation of cloudbusters and expose to public outrage the power-drunkards and control-freaks who are attacking our atmosphere with cloudbusters, however they may rationalize their destructiveness.

We will pull no punches. We will name names and fight back against the propaganda of the atmosphere abusers and their enablers.

We regard Atmosphere Abuse as similar to other, more personal, forms of abuse, such as abuse of children or animals. The psychology of the abuser is the same, and we intend to expose that pathology.

We seek to build an anti-cloudbuster movement that can bring to a halt the rapidly growing hobby of manipulating the weather by control-freaks who are unable to leave the natural world alone.

Please spread the word around about this blog and urge your contacts to read it and to pass it on to their own contacts also.



About Me

I have been very involved in orgonomy since 1967 and have done cloudbusting, oranur work and laboratory experiments with orgone accumulators, medical DOR-busters, and pre-atomic chemistry. I was a student of Dr. Eva Reich, the daughter of Dr. Wilhelm Reich, who invented the cloudbuster, and have a letter from her saying I have learned what she has to teach and she considers me "very knowledgeable in this field".

Follow by Email

Total Pageviews

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Wolves And Water

Ultimately, this is a conflict between two world-views, Mechanism Vs. Functionalism.  
 
What Reich called "Fuctional thinking" is practially unknown to modern science. With only one exception that I can think of, modern science is exclusively mechanistic in  outlook and values. The sole exception is Ecology, which is the only functional science to enjoy widespread acceptance, or, in other words, the only mainstream science to employ functional thinking.  
 
That is why this article below is a good example of the sort of thing you need to study a lot of before you are in a position to decide what the weather should be. It illustrates perfectly the interconectedness of the world we live in.
 
A good grounding in ecology should be considered a prerequisite for responsible cloudbusting. This article explains why cloudbusting alone will never solve water problems in the West and how wolves are needed to ensure sufficient water suplies in the Rocky Mountains.
 
 
The Big Bad Wolf Makes Good 
The Yellowstone Success Story and Those Who Want to Kill It By Chip Ward
At long last, good news.  Fifteen years have passed since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and the results are in.  The controversial experiment has been a stellar success.  The Big Bad Wolf is back and in this modern version of the old story, all that huffing and puffing has been good for the land and the creatures that live on it.  Biggie, it turns out, got a bum rap.
The success of the Yellowstone project is the kind of good news we long for in this era of oil spills, monster storms, massive flooding, crushing heat waves, and bleaching corals.  For once, a branch of our federal government, the Department of the Interior, saw something broken and actually fixed it.  In a nutshell: conservation biologists considered a perplexing problem -- the slow but steady unraveling of the Yellowstone ecosystem -- figured out what was causing it, and then proposed a bold solution that worked even better than expected.
Sadly, the good news has been muted by subsequent political strife over wolf reintroduction outside of Yellowstone.  Along the northern front of the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado, as well as New Mexico and Arizona, so-called wolf wars have added fuel to a decades-old battle over the right to graze cattle or hunt on public land.  The shouting has overwhelmed both science and civil discourse.  This makes it all the harder to convey the lessons learned to an American public that is mostly ecologically illiterate and never really understood why wolves were put back into Yellowstone in the first place.  Even the legion of small donors who supported the project mostly missed the reasons it was undertaken, focusing instead on the “charismatic” qualities of wolves and the chance to see them in the wild.
No Wolves, No Water
Here’s the piece we still don’t get: when we exterminated wolves from Yellowstone in the early 1900s, killing every last one, we de-watered the land.  That’s right -- no wolves eventually meant fewer streams, creeks, marshes, and springs across western landscapes like Yellowstone where wolves had once thrived.
The chain of effects went roughly like this: no wolves meant that many more elk crowded onto inviting river and stream banks where the grass is green and the livin’ easy.  A growing population of fat elk, in no danger of being turned into prey, gnawed down willow and aspen seedlings before they could mature. Willows are both food and building material for beavers.  As the willows declined, so did beaver populations.  When beavers build dams and ponds, they create wetland habitats for countless bugs, amphibians, fish, birds, and plants, as well as slowing the flow of water and distributing it over broad areas.  The consequences of their decline rippled across the land.
Meanwhile, as the land dried up, Yellowstone’s overgrazed riverbanks eroded.  Life-giving river water receded, leaving those banks barren.  Spawning beds for fish were silted over.  Amphibians lost precious shade where they could have sheltered and hidden.  Yellowstone’s web of life was fraying and becoming threadbare.
The unexpected relationship between absent wolves and absent water is just one example of how big, scary predators like grizzlies and mountain lions, often called “charismatic carnivores,” regulate their ecosystems from the top down.  The results are especially relevant in an era of historic droughts and global warming, both of which are stressing already arid Western lands.  Wolf reintroduction wasn’t a scheme designed to undermine vacationing elk hunters or harass ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands.  It wasn’t done to please some cabal of elitist, urban environmentalists eager to show rural rednecks who’s the boss, though out here in the West that interpretation’s held sway at many public meetings called to discuss wolf reintroduction.
Let’s be clear then: the decision to put wolves back in Yellowstone was a bold experiment backed by the best conservation science available to restore a cherished American ecosystem that was coming apart at the seams.
The Biggest Losers
Today, wolves are thriving in Yellowstone. The 66 wolves trapped in Canada and released in Yellowstone and the Idaho wilderness in 1995-96 have generated more than 1,700 wolves.  More than 200 wolf packs exist in the area today and the effect on the environment has been nothing short of astonishing. 
There was one beaver colony in the park at the time wolves were reintroduced.  Today, 12 colonies are busy storing water, evening out seasonal water flows, recharging springs, and creating habitat.  Willow stands are robust again and the songbirds that nest in them are recovering.  Creatures that scavenge wolf-kills for meat, including ravens, eagles, wolverines, and bears, have benefited.  Wolves have pushed out and killed the coyotes that feed on pronghorn antelope, so pronghorn numbers are also up.  Riverbanks are lush and shady again.  With less competition from elk for grass, the bison in the park are doing better, too.
Elk are the sole species that has been diminished -- and that, after all, was the purpose of putting wolves back in the game in the first place.  The elk population of Yellowstone is still larger than it was at its low point in the late 1960s, but there are fewer elk today than in recent decades.  The decline has alarmed elk hunters and the local businesses that rely on their trade.
Worse yet, from the hunting point of view, elk behavior has changed dramatically.  Instead of camping out on stream banks and overeating, they roam far more and in smaller numbers, browsing in brushy areas where there is more protective cover.  Surviving elk are healthier, but leaner, warier, far more dispersed, and significantly harder to hunt.  This further dismays those who had become accustomed to easy hunting and bigger animals.
A lively debate is underway among game wardens, guides, and wildlife biologists about just how far elk numbers have declined, what role drought and other non-wolf variables may be playing in that decline, and whether elk numbers will -- or even should -- rebound.  State wildlife agencies that once fed hay to bountiful populations of elk to keep them from starving during harsh winters depend on hunting and fishing licenses to fill their coffers.  Predictably enough, they have come down on the side of the frustrated big game hunters, who think the wolves have killed too many elk.  Hunters have been a powerful force for conservation when habitat for birds and big game is at stake, but wolf reintroduction hits them right in the ol’ game bag, and on this issue they seem to be abandoning former conservation allies.   Of course, wolves themselves can be hunted and selling the privilege of doing so has proven lucrative for state wildlife agencies.  Montana recently expanded its wolf-killing quota from 75 to 186, while Idaho licensed 220 wolf kills in 2009.
Beyond the Bovine Curtain
As wolf reintroduction took hold and wolves migrated out of Yellowstone as far as Oregon to the west and Colorado to the east, it became clear that surrounding states needed plans to deal with their spread.  Once regarded as an endangered species and legally protected by the Endangered Species Act, wolves were taken off the formal list of protected creatures wherever states created plans for restoring and managing them.  The intention of the federal government was to allow states to participate in, and so take some control over, the recovery process in the West.
As it happened, however, most states took a strikingly hostile approach to their new wolf populations, treating them as varmints.  A federal court took away Wyoming’s power to regulate wolves within its borders when it decided that the state’s management goal would be no wolves at all outside of the Yellowstone and Teton national parks.  Other Western states are now planning to keep their numbers as low as possible without triggering a federal takeover, too low to play their ecological role, or even survive over the long run, according to conservation biologists.  After wolves were “delisited” in Idaho in 2009, 188 of them were killed by hunters before the year was out.
In August 2010, a federal judge ruled that wolves everywhere but in Minnesota and Alaska (where wolf populations are plentiful and healthy) must be relisted as an endangered species and afforded more protection.  How this major decision will shape the debate from here on out is uncertain.  Since relisting precludes sport hunting, state wildlife agencies are now making plans to kill more wolves themselves to keep their numbers low.  Critics worry about a return to the days when wolves were routinely shot, trapped, poisoned, and gassed in their dens.
Up until now, where wolves and cows mix, cows have ruled.  What wildlife advocate George Wuerthner calls the “bovine curtain” limits full wolf restoration to within Yellowstone’s park boundaries.  Outside the park, where the feds have less power and control, wolf packs continually form but are often slaughtered, usually at the insistence of ranchers who can legally shoot wolves that attack cattle.  They are also compensated for wolf-kill losses from both state funds and privately donated ones.  Wolf predation accounts for only about 1% of livestock deaths across the northern Rockies, but those deaths generate disproportionate resentment and fear.
Ranchers are the first to understand that, in the arid West, a cow may require 250 acres of forage to live.  In the states where wolves are spreading, cows wander wide and don’t sleep safely in barns at night as they do in the east.  Wolves need room to roam, too.  Overlap and predation are the inevitable results.  If wolves are ever to effectively play their ecological role again across the West, significant changes in animal husbandry, like adding range riders and guard dogs, would be required, as well undoubtedly as less grazing overall.  The implied threat to limit grazing provokes fierce opposition from cattlemen’s associations, a powerful and influential Republican constituency throughout the West.  Real cowboys don’t sip tea, but as anger over those wolves builds they may be riding off to the nearest tea party nevertheless.
At public hearings across the rural West wherever wolves are rebounding, near-hysterical locals claim that their children will be carried off from their yards by those awful beasts set loose by evil Obamacrats willing to sacrifice life and limb to win favor with tree-hugging easterners.  In New Mexico, such hostility has led to poaching that has decimated an endangered species of gray wolves reintroduced 12 years ago after the last survivors of that species were trapped, bred in captivity, and released into the wild.
Eco-Commodities or Ecological Communities?
Today’s wolf wars pit opposing perspectives on how (or even why) our public lands should be managed against each other.  The disagreement is fundamental.  On one side is a historic/traditional resource management paradigm that sees our Western lands as a storehouse of timber, minerals, and fresh water; on the other side, a new biocentric orientation driven by conservation biologists who see landscapes as whole ecosystems and all species as having intrinsic value.  At one end of the spectrum lie strip-mining coal companies; at the other, deep ecologists.  In between you can find conflict, contradiction, and confusion as we sort out a new consensus about how to manage vast public land holdings in the West.
In the beginning, Americans assumed that nature was inefficient (if efficiency is defined as getting the most bang for the buck) and that humans could manage the planet better than Mother Earth.  Wild rivers, after all, spill their liquid bounty where they will and then empty themselves into the sea.  What a waste!  In the same way, forest fires were viewed as a prime example of Nature’s wanton destruction.  To a rancher who is leasing public land, wolves and cougars are monsters of inefficiency.
It’s far clearer now that nature is, in fact, efficient indeed, if creating healthy, viable ecosystems is what’s on your mind.  Matter and energy are never wasted in food webs where synergy is the rule.  Because we have come to appreciate how rich nature’s interconnections are, we are now committed to protecting species we once would have wiped out with little regard.  Health (including the health of the planet), not wealth alone, is becoming a priority.  Think of wolf reintroduction, then, as a kind of hinge-point between the two paradigms.  After centuries of not leaving the natural world’s order to chance, micro-managing wherever we could, we are now encouraged to take a chance on Nature, to trust the self-organizing powers of life to heal ecosystems we have wounded.
While organizing campaigns to make polluters accountable, I learned that citizens generally won’t take them on until they grasp that the deepest link they have to their environment is their own bloodstreams.  Once they understand the pathways from a smokestack or a poisoned watershed to the tumors growing in their children’s bodies, they can become a powerful force.  But first they have to know what’s at stake.
In this regard, ecological literacy is not a side issue.  It’s a prerequisite for survival.  The articulation of reality is more primal than any strategy or policy.  If greed is turning the Earth into a scorched planet of slums, ignorance is its enabler.  Just as American farmers once realized that erosion follows ignorance and learned how to plow differently, just as most of us finally learned that rivers should not be used as toxic dumps, so today we must learn that environments have the equivalent of operating systems.   Predation by large carnivores is written deep into the code of much of the American landscape.  Today, a rancher who expects to do business in a predator-free landscape is no more reasonable than yesterday’s industrialist who expected to use the nearest river as a sewer. Living with wolves may be a challenging proposition, but it’s hardly impossible to do -- as folks in Minnesota or Canada can attest.
Hard days are ahead as the weather, once benign and predictable, becomes hotter, drier, and ever more chaotic.  Western landscapes are already stressed -- whole forests are dying and deserts are becoming dustbowls.  To maintain their vitality in the face of such dire challenges, those lands will need all the relief we can give them.  We now understand far better the many ways in which nature’s living communities are astonishingly connected and reciprocal.  If we could only find the courage to trust their self-organizing powers to heal the wounds we have inflicted, we might become as resilient as those Yellowstone wolves.
Chip Ward lives in Capitol Reef, Utah, where songbirds are eaten by housecats, housecats are eaten by coyotes, and coyotes are eaten by mountain lions.  He is the author of Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West and Hope’s Horizon: Three Visions for Healing the American Land
Posted at 9:20AM on September 28, 2010.
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Blog Archive