What NOT to do

                                                              What NOT To Do
                                                               by Joel Carlinsky


 The most important thing to learn about cloudbusting is not how to do cloudbusting; it is how NOT to do cloudbusting. The first thing a student should learn is all the common errors, mistakes, and dangers and how to avoid them. It is like learning to fly a plane: Most of the instruction time is spent, not on how to fly, but on how to avoid doing something dangerous. The private pilot license is known as "a license to teach yourself to fly". Once the student has learned what NOT to do, the instructors job is over and the student is ready to teach himself to fly.



The late Jerome Eden was one of the very few who were seriously concerned about the issue of DOR and oranurization of the earth by the advent of nuclear technology. He was also one of the best of the people who took an active interest in cloudbusting, and was very concerned about the misuse of the cloudbuster, which in his lifetime was known only to a small group of insiders.

Eden wrote a book, The C.OR.E. Manual, about cloudbusting, with the main emphasis on the errors and misconceptions to avoid. It is the best book on cloudbusting ever written, but unfortunately, is now out of print and almost impossible to obtain.

Eden also offered a course in cloudbusting, the only such course ever offered to the public, and several people were trained by him in cloudbusting. 


 In his great book on cloudbusting, the C.OR.E. Manual, Jerome Eden devoted only 22 pages to the actual techniques of cloudbusting and the rest of the 126-page book to the mistakes Trevor Constable and Dr. Richard Blasband had made and the psychological reasons for them. It is much more important to know what NOT to do than to just mechanically pick up techniques without understanding them.

It is not possible to learn cloudbusting from a book any more than it is possible to learn to fly a plane from a book. Cloudbusting is a PHYSICAL skill, like sex or riding a bicycle. The things you need to know cannot be said on paper. What it IS possible to learn from a book, though, is what NOT to do.

 Orgone energy is ALIVE. Cloudbusting has much more in common with animal training or child-raising or practicing medicine than with engineering. In fact, anyone who uses the term "weather engineering", which Reich outgrew and abandoned, obviously does not understand the subject. Yet it is as "weather engineering" that cloudbusting is increasingly becoming known to a larger audience of people who learn of it from websites that use that term and promote cloudbusting as a form of "weather engineering" by which they imply that the operator can "control weather" for whatsoever purpose he chooses.

  Cloudbusting is not used to "make rain" unless it is being used improperly. Anyone who wants to "make rain" or "change the weather" or do "engineering" with a cloudbuster is a dangerous fool who fails to understand the basics of cloudbusting. PROPER cloudbusting is done to RESTORE ATMOSPHERIC SELF-REGULATION by removal of DOR.

 In general, removal of DOR is almost always the right thing to do, but it should usually be done with the minimum alteration of immediate weather if that is possible. Usually, weather that differs too much from the regional normal in a non-desert area, is the result of DOR-infestation and DOR-removal will return the weather patterns to normal. It is almost never needed to do an operation that will directly affect the weather. Changes in the weather are a SIDE-EFFECT of cloudbusting, not the goal of an operation in the majority of situations.

 That is the part that is hardest to get across to the power-drunks who want to "control weather" or "make rain". I cannot stress the point too strongly: Beware of anyone who uses the term "weather engineering" to describe cloudbusting. Cloudbusting is NOT a form of "engineering" and anyone using that term is displaying appalling ignorance of the proper use of the cloudbuster.


Joel Carlinsky

Some Standards Needed

                                                Some Standards Needed
                                                     by Joel Carlinsky

A correspondent writes

From: Sylvain Pafumi <sylvainpafumi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re : [OrgonomicEcology] Re: Good Severe Weather?
To: OrgonomicEcology@yahoogroups.co.uk
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011, 3:32 AM

How many persons in the world are trained to do cloudbusting operations
 and have enough  information to do it properly ?
And if there are any, how many are ready to expose themselves to a
possible orgonotic overcharge which could be harmfull for their health, as 
was the case for one of Reich's assistants (since an automatic rotation
of the device by electric remote control could cause additional DOR) ?

My reply

You raise a good question. I have no idea how many people there are who have done cloudbusting, how many of those did it correctly, or how many screwed up and caused a disaster. I also have no idea which of them could become good operators if they kept at it or had some training.

And the question becomes even more complicated if you realize that even the best operators will do something wrong at least some of the time. Nobody can be 100% successful every time. Even the best operators will make mistakes.

One way to add to the body of knowledge in the field and enable all workers in the field to help each other would be for a standard to be set up that all operations must be public, not only the successful ones. As things are now, the individual who wants to try out cloudbusting just does so, and then decides if he will tell anybody or not.

 So of course, nobody ever published a report of a failure. James DeMeo and Trevor Constable both have published reports of many operations over a period of many years, and all you can tell from their reports is that they both are 100% successful. How likely is that?

Then, many who want to get into cloudbusting are paranoid. They fear to become known as doing cloudbusting because of irrational beliefs that some super-secret government spy agency will kill them or kidnap them for it. They forget that nobody INCLUDING REICH has ever had any troubles from any government over cloudbusting. The silly rumors about a conspiracy against Reich have an effect of preventing communication in the field.

Plus, of course, there are perfectly rational fears of being sued for damages if you cause a flood and somebody DOES believe you!

Another problem is, what skills are needed? Many people seem to think meteorologists and physicists are the right professionals to do cloudbusting. I disagree. Ecology is the relevant branch of science here and anyone doing cloudbusting who is not familiar with ecology is simply not competent to do cloudbusting. And as far as I am aware, so far, NOBODY who has even the minimum basic knowledge of ecology has ever done any cloudbusting work.

That is because cloudbusting is usually presented as ''weather control'' instead of as ''ecosystem medicine'' for healing a sick ecosystem. Many of the new crop of ''weather engineers'' come to cloudbusting from a background of having an interest in machines and inventions, and they think of the cloudbuster as a ''new technology''. It is not presented to people with an interest in trhe biological sciences as a new way to help protect the environment from human-caused damage.

So, here are some suggestions. All operations should be done by a group or team, not by a single individual. The team must either include at least one ecologist or must consult with an outside ecologist before starting operations. All proposed operations must be made public in advance, and a means provided to make public any criticisms and suggestions from the public.

Then, afterwards, all results must be published, including the failures and disasters, so the people working in the field can learn from the mistakes of others and will not have to repeat them. And insurance should be purchased to be sure of being able to compensate anyone who is harmed by an operation.

And anyone not abiding by these standards should be regarded as a renegade operator with no concern for the public welfare. Nobody should dare to think he can do what so many do now, announcing, possibly years after the event, that they have done some experimenting with a cloudbuster, placing the public at risk, and never told anyone until they felt like it, and never telling anyone if they failed to get the results they wanted.

From this you can see how far distant we are now from even a bare minumum of responsiblity and accountability in the cloudbusting field. It is a growing backyard hobby for a collection of incompetents with not even a clue as to how real science is done or how to avoid killing innocent members of the public when they play their exciting new game of ''weather engineering''.

Joel Carlinsky

Reply To A Weather Ranger

                                                        Reply To A Weather Ranger
                                                                 by Joel Carlinsky
From: david wells <davidwells3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Good Severe Weather?
To: "joel carlinsky" <joelcarlinsky@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 2:24 PM

Joel Carlinsky , We were approaching new moon phase when the storms hit the areas . The moon is as close to the earth as it ever gets now . When new moon occurs , the sun and the moon gravity both combine to increase the waves from Sedona , Arizona . At the times of the tornadoes , alignment to the Sedona vortex and moon occurs . The Mapleton Iowa tornado also lined up .

     If the wave from Sedona to the moon passes through a thunderstorm , a tornado is likely to form .

     We are in for some really wild weather this year because of the close moon .

     Do you still think it is OK for 284 people to die from something that could have been prevented ?

    David Wells

From: "joel carlinsky" <joelcarlinsky@yahoo.com>

To: "david wells" <davidwells3@gmail.com>

Subject Good Severe Weather?

I have never denied that astronomical factors are involved in weather. They certainly are. In fact, the hurricanes you want to sabotage are formed by the vast streams of orgone energy that flow in from space and impinge upon the earth. These streams superimpose and merge, and in the process, create hurricanes.

These hurricanes will happen regardless of there is DOR or not, but in going through their life-cycle, they remove large amounts of DOR in the process.  They are the most important of the several mechanisms by which the earth cleans out the DOR accumulation from the atmosphere each year, and without them the earth would soon become uninhabitable.

 But in addition to these astronomical influences, there are a number of more localized influences, and one of the most important of those is the nuclear technology that has developed on this planet over the past several decades. The orgone field of the earth is being constantly excited by the presence of nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs and other anthropogenic sources of secondary radiation, including any high-voltage alternating current devices.

The atmospheric orgone energy reacts to this irritation by a strong storm, with high winds, lightning discharges, and circulating motion, in other words, a thunderstorm / tornado. This motion restores the field to life. If there is no such reaction, or if it is not strong enough, the local portion of the field "dies" and lapses into DOR, a stagnant state in which it is toxic to life and unable to perform it's natural function of pulsation which is what produces rain in the contraction phase of the cycle. So if there is too much DOR around, there will be a drought.

So to avoid a drought, which if it lasts long enough, becomes desertification, either there must be storms and tornadoes to re-mobilize the stuck atmospheric energy, or cloudbusting operations to remove DOR must be done.

When the build-up of DOR becomes too great, there will be tornadoes as a reaction and they will reduce the amount of DOR to below the threshold required to trigger a tornado. If they do not, there will soon be more tornadoes. If there are not enough tornadoes, the drought will go on until the region becomes a permanent desert.

Cloudbusting operations can be a good thing to do if the operations are done to reduce DOR, thus restoring motility to the atmospheric energy field. In that case, rain will eventually fall as the atmosphere resumes normal pulsation. Or cloudbusting could be a bad thing to do, if it drains off just enough of the excess excitation to prevent tornado formation, but not enough to allow normal pulsation to recover. In that case, there will be a drought that may go on until the area has become a desert.

So the answer to your question, " Do you still think it is OK for 284 people to die from something that could have been prevented ? ", is, I think obstructing tornado formation which is needed for DOR-removal is vandalizing the atmosphere and increasing the tendency to droughts and possibly long-term desertification. A tornado may be more dramatic, but actually does far less damage than a long, possibly permanent, drought would do.

There is another factor to consider here too. DOR does not only affect the atmosphere. It is toxic to biological processes. DOR-sickness is another effect of high concentrations of DOR in an area. All biological processes are affected negatively by high levels of DOR.

So the answer to your question should also take into account how many thousands would die from cancer, heart attacks, flu epidemics and other infections brought on by reduced immune function caused by DOR, accidents due to DOR-induced misjudgements, suicide from depression intensified by DOR, homicide by people driven into a rage by DOR, and countless other symptoms of DOR-sickness.

And the question then is: How many cases of DOR-sickness, many of them fatal, are you willing to cause by sabotage of vitally-needed tornadoes that we need to clean out DOR from the atmosphere and keep the earth healthy and habitable?

The orgone theory is not a explanation thought up Post Facto to "explain how the cloudbuster works". It is a very robust theory that was worked out step by step, in great detail, over many years before the cloudbuster was invented. It was tested and proven at every step of the way.

And the cloudbuster was not "stumbled upon" by accident, and then an "explanation" of how it worked needed to explain it. It was the result of consistant following up on one fact after another, each new finding proving the vailidity of the previous findings and leading logically on to the next. The value of a scientific theory is it's ability to predict, and the orgone theory PREDICTS the cloudbuster-effect.

Instead of citing pseudo-scientific, pseudo-orgonomic ideas of Trevor Constable, who is NOT an authority in orgonomy, as you did in one of your previous e-mails to me, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rather large body of orgonomic literature.

Two good references to start with are:
( 1 ) The Emotional Desert: The Medical DOR-buster: Part One. Included in Selected Writings, by Wilhelm Reich.
( 2 ) DOR Sickness: A Review of Reich's Findings, by Chester Raphael.
Both these sources are available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum and can be ordered via their website.

Joel Carlinsky

"Improving" The Cloudbuster

                                                "Improving" The Cloudbuster
                                                        By Joel Carlinsky

I have often stated that the cloudbuster is a finished product. That it can never be improved. There is no possible way to make a better cloudbuster than the one Reich invented. This is a highly controversial statement in some quarters. There are some people who want to think there are no limits to human ingenuity and inventiveness, and that the future will inevitably mirror the recent past in the boundless development of new technologies until the entire universe is under perfect human control.

This is what the ancient Greeks called "Hubris", the folly of placing oneself on the level of the gods. And the inventors and their groupies who expect more and more technology to save them from the problems caused by technology are sadly deluded. The cloudbuster is a case in point. It acts as a conduit to conduct orgone energy from the sky to the ground, just as a lightning rod does, but in slow motion. The physics of the orgone, flowing through a conduit to the water that attracts it, determines the materials and form of the conduit and the hollow tubes grounded into water is the expression of the laws of orgone physics.

Some people wrongly think the orgone theory was thought up to explain how the cloudbuster works. It was actually the other way around. The cloudbuster was not stumbled across by accident. It was the predictable and predicted result of the understanding of the orgone energy that had been discovered in 1939 and studied carefully ever since until the observations led to the design of the first cloudbuster in 1952.

Long before then it was known that water attracted orgone energy and that orgone could be conducted along a hollow metalic tube from an orgone accumulator to the site of an injury on the body. The small orgone "shooter" had alrerady been in use for years before the application of the same principle to drawing orgone through similar tubes from a cloud to a pond was tried and found to be as effective as would be expected.

The observations of the basic principles on which the cloudbuster is based long predated the cloudbuster. It is important to state this because of the frequent misconception that the orgone theory was thought up "to explain how the cloudbuster works" and that some other explanation might be as good or better.

Trevor Constable, now retired, spent over 40 years in an unsuuccessful effort to market cloudbusting services commercially. He tried on many occassions to claim he had invented "new, improved" models of the cloudbuster and the older, original model, as invented by Reich, was now obsolete. This was mostly just commercially-motivated hype, in some cases even including public cloudbusting shows using a dummy stage prop of his "new, improved" equipment while an unseen assistant nearby was doing the actual work using the original type of equipment.

Constable did try to introduce several inovations into cloudbusting, none of which have any scientific basis. They include the dubious notion of "tunning" a cloudbuster, a concept derived from his employment as a shipboard radio operator, and not applicable to cloudbusting. 

He also claimed, without any evidence, that specific geomentric shapes can produce or create energy out of nothing, and that this energy could be projected by a cloudbuster, in complete contravention of the well-known and well-established mechanism of attraction between orgone and water by which a cloudbuster functions.

He also used a pendulum to tell if the "ratio" of length to diameter of his cloudbuster tubes was correct according to the theory of "radionics". Both radionic theory and the practicality of using a pendulm as a source of scientific data are highly questionable, to say the least. A pendulum is a means of making conscious information you already had, but could not access, and can only provide answers if you already know them.

The bogus pseudoscience of "radionics" machines refers to a class of devices which are really nothing but stage props, but are usually presented along with a scientific-sounding rationale about "frequencies", "waves", and "energies" that are intended to convince scientifically unsophisticated purchasers that they operate on scientific principles.

Radionics devices are another means, like the pendulum, of accessing abilities one has, but is normally unable to employ. These machines seem to work because they enable the operator to by-pass the repression of these abilities that is built into people raised in this culture in childhood by the disbelief and disaproval of their culture toward such abilities. By making it look as if the machine, not the operator, is doing the operation, it becomes more acceptable to the person raised in a mechanistic culture that represses such bioenergetic abilities and accepts the idea that machines can do almost anything.

The real operative factor in such cases is the bioenergy field of the person using the machine, which is able, as long as he thinks it is the machine, and does not realize he is doing it himself, to influence the energy field of the local atmosphere to a certain extent. This biological ability is the same that is involved in such more traditional methods as tribal rainmaking ceremonies, psychic weather control, etc. practiced by tradtional cultures all over the world.

 The radionics machine is only a more modern-looking method to do what these traditional cultures do by the older traditional  means, and is more convincing to a person raised in a modern, machine-oriented culture. It gives permission, so to speak, to utilize such latent and repressed culturally frowned upon abilities that the individual would otherwise find unacceptable.

Compared to the cloudbuster, such bioenergetic influence on the atmosphere is very localized, lacking the widespread effect of the cloudbuster, but is usually much more tightly targeted on the desired area and more precise in obtaining the desired effects, with far less potential to cause catastrophic damage.

Constable often incorporated the usual scientific-sounding double-talk concepts from radionics into his sales pitch, though how much of this line of stage-magician's patter he himself believed is an open question.

 His devices also include some that impart motion to orgone accumulating devices of various supposedly relevant shapes and proportions, and these do have an effect, although the geometric shapes and the exact proportions and ratios of the small accumulating containers do not matter. The motion of an accumulator through the orgone field of the earth excites the surrounding atmospheric energy field into a state of greater expansion, and in cases where there is a drought going on and the atmosphere is already in a chronic expanded state, it can-- sometimes-- add enough extra expansion to make it reach the limit of it's capacity and contract suddenly, and that contraction causes rain.

So operating such a device can result in rain falling, but that is not a satisfactory solution to a drought. A drought does not consist of a lack of rain. It consists in the first instance of a build-up of DOR, which has several effects, one of which is a lack of rain. It can and often does, rain in the middle of a drought. After the rain, unless the DOR that was inhibiting rain has been removed, the drought will resume.

This is not good from a standpoint of the health and long-term functioning of the atmosphere. The goal of cloudbusting is, or at least should be, to remove DOR, which is an inhibiting factor, so the atmosphere can return to a normal rate of alternating expansion and contaction, in which the contraction phase of the cycle produces rain. This spontaneous pulsation is what is meant by the term, "self-regulation".

The process of FORCING a contraction by adding extra excitation to cause even more expansion to an already expanded atmosphere until it collapses into a contraction is the equivalent of beating a sick horse to make it run. It may work, but only up to the point when the horse dies from the maltreatment.

 And, just as such maltreatment is harmful to an animal, it is also harmful to the atmosphere. Each time the process of inducing a forced contraction is repeated, the atmosphere is damaged and it becomes harder and harder to get rain the next time. Eventually, the injured atmosphere will stop responding to the stimulus entirely. In that case, the area will become stuck in a chronic drought condition that will prove very hard to cure, even by proper and well-conducted cloudbusting methods.

Of course, from the point of view of Constable and any other would-be commercializer of "weather control services", that is a good thing, at least in the short term, since it means repeat business, at least until the atmosphere in the area is exhausted and stops responding to the excitation, and it is time to move on to the next customer.
.

The Torture Of The Atmosphere: The Pseudo-orgonomy Of Trevor Constable And His Followers

   The Torture Of The Atmosphere:
                        The Pseudo-orgonomy Of Trevor Constable And His Followers
                                                       by Joel Carlinsky



"They delude themselves with their patent
PSEUDOSCIENCE--and erroneously encourage a distrust of REAL SCIENCE among their followers.  It is slip-shod, cocksure, pig-ignorant engineers .................... who give engineers a bad name among real scientists."
----------C.Leroy Ellenberger

  This statement about certain people and their lack of attention to actual evidence applies as well to the pseudo-Reichians like Trevor Constable and his followers who persist in trying to revise the orgonomic understanding of the universe, and in particular, of the atmosphere and the functioning of the cloudbuster.

So, at the risk of repeating myself once again, the cloudbuster DRAWS energy from the sky. It acts as a conduit to draw the energy from where it is pointed, and the attraction between orgone and water is what provides the drawing power. It does NOT "shoot out" energy. The water it is grounded into is what provides the attraction. The water does NOT provide the orgone energy. A cloudbuster MUST be grounded into water to function. It CANNOT be made to work without water grounding.

The pipes can be of almost any diameter, and of any length that is long enough. They are not "tuned" or "tunable" in the way a radio antenna is tuned. There are no "ratios" that are of any importance. Geometric shapes DO NOT produce orgone energy from nowhere and there is no geometric shape that emits orgone energy. Pleasing aesthetics, according to human perceptions, are not an indicator of scientific facts, no matter how attractive that idea may be from a human-centered philosophical point of view. The so-called ``Golden Section`` of the ancient Greek philosophers is not relevant to the functioning of a cloudbuster.

All of these false ideas of how a cloudbuster functions, along with many others, were introduced into the subject by Trevor Constable, and none of them is supported by any actual scientific evidence. On the contrary, Mr. Constable scorns evidence and bases his concepts of cloudbusting on his intuition, the pseudo-scientific field of ``radionics``,  and the philosophical notions of the 19th century mystic and foklorist, Rudolph Steiner.

All metal containers function to some degree as orgone accumulators, even a pile of steel wool, which can collect orgone from it's surroundings. The layering of an orgone accumulator helps to collect more than is collected by a simple steel box, but is NOT essential to collecting at least SOME additional charge compared to the open air.

So metal enclosures of whatever shape, and whatever dimensions, will have an orgone field surrounding them. And if those metal enclosures are spinning around rapidly, they will have an exciting effect on the atmosphere just as any fast-moving orgone accumulator would.

This exciting effect on the atmosphere will cause expansion of the atmospheric field, which under most normal conditions will work against rain. But if there is a drought underway, and the atmosphere is already in a state of expansion, and the presence of a high concentration of DOR is causing the orgone of the atmosphere to react against it by expanding, the ADDED excitation will cause the already over-stretched atmosphere to undergo a sudden contraction when it reaches it's capacity level.

There is no fixed amount of time for an operation to accomplish a result. The amount of time needed will vary considerably, depending on the initial conditions of the atmosphere, which will be different for each location and will also vary with the time of year, time of day, and other external factors, such as sunspots, solar flares, and distant weather conditions such as hurricanes and man-made factors such as nuclear weapons tests and proximity to nuclear reactors.. The more expanded the atmosphere is, the less extra excitation will be needed to push it over the edge into a sudden sharp contraction as a reaction to the added stress.

That will result in rain. The inexperienced operator, not understanding the orgonomic dynamics of the atmosphere, will be happy with this result, thinking he has "solved" the drought problem and "broken the drought" by "making rain", when in fact, he has done nothing of the kind. What he has done is caused an already over-charged atmosphere to react with a contraction to additional excitation.

The rain will not last long. When the atmosphere recovers from the excess excitation, it will still be infested with DOR and still stuck in a state of chronic expansion again. The drought will therefore resume and continue until the DOR is eliminated from the region.

The operator will be needed again to "break the new drought" and this pattern will need to be repeated over and over again until there is proper DOR-removal done. That may be all to the advantage of the commercial operator, who wants repeat business, but it is not good for either the atmosphere or the people who are therefore required to keep paying him for his services. Such "solving" of a persistent drought problem will never result in the return of normal, self-regulating alternation of expansion and contraction to the region, which should be the goal of any well-done. well-thought-out cloudbusting program.

All of which goes to explain why I do not consider the so-called ``improvements``  developed by Trevor Constable to be effective at healing the atmosphere. What they really do is vandalize it. And the recent proliferation of young and ignorant Trevor Constable wannabes like Ash Palise, the ''socerer's apprentice'' who caused the recent floods in Queensland, Australia, tinkering around with his devices, is nothing but an additional amount of damage being inflicted on the atmosphere by people without any understanding of what they are doing.

The atmosphere is a self-regulating system, and like a living organism, works best when left alone. There is seldom any real justification for intervention. The bringing of the atmosphere under human control is a nightmare scenario that should not be allowed. But unfortunately, there are many authoritarian personalities who would welcome the development of a technology to control the weather. I have come to refer to them as "atmosphere abusers", since they exhibit close similarities to abusers of children, animals, and of nature in general.

 

Cloudbuster proliferation is a very serious threat to the environment and to the integrity of the atmosphere, and anyone seeking to use a cloudbuster to "control the weather" or do "weather engineering" is a dangerous fool who must be stopped. In particular, anyone who wants to resurrect the bogus pseudo-orgonomic misconceptions of Trevor Constable in place of the methods of cloudbusting developed by Wilhelm Reich is an even more dangerous fool.

 The Constable equipment is not the "improvement" Constable claims it is and that his uncritical groupies take on faith. It is a method of torturing the atmosphere into artificially caused expansions and contractions without regard to the condition of the atmospheric energy or the effect of such artificial manipulation upon it. The ultimate effect is to worsen the condition of the already damaged and malfunctioning atmospheric energy field, not to improve it.

What the Constable system of ``weather engineering`` is doing is like beating a sick horse to make it run. It will work, up to the point when the horse dies from the abuse. And while it is indeed possible to force the already damaged atmosphere to produce rain by such methods, the long-term result will be a weakened atmosphere, farther away from being restored to sparkle and life and the easy self-regulation that enables it to produce rain spontaneously on a more or less regular basis.

Constable, in his 40-odd years of cloudbusting work, never did anything to help restore the atmosphere to natural, self-regulating functioning. He was a control-freak, a power-seeker, and an authoritarian personality who was only interested in dominating the atmosphere, not helping it to function better.

In a letter to Jerome Eden, Mr. Constable once wrote: "Take the orgone by the balls and it will talk. Any other approach and it laughs at you." When Eden showed me this he asked what I made of it. Rather tentatively, I suggested, "It sounds like he doesn't like it very much." Eden exploded: "That's how you torture somebody!" And he was right, of course. It is always all about power, domination, and control with people like Trevor Constable.

Ash Palise, in seeking to become the successor of Constable, shows that he suffers from the same personality disorder. He acts like a schoolyard bully toward the atmosphere, seeking to dominate it and force it to yield to his will.

Many of the severe storms and other weather-related disasters that have been increasing in recent years have been wrongly ascribed to global warming, but should more properly be blamed on these ignorant hobbyists playing with their new toys.

  Such compulsive control-freaks, and their enablers like Jamie Ogg, who gets his kicks from encouraging their malpractice, are emerging as a threat to the self-regulating capacity of the atmosphere nearly equal in menace to the nuclear industry itself. It is long past time they were taken to task.

Weather Modification, By Cloudseeding Or Otherwise

This link is to an article by a professional meteorologist. The article was written with conventional cloudseeding in mind, but makes a case about weather modification that could apply as well to cloudbusting or any other method.
Joel Carlinsky

   http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/wxmod/wxmod.html

An Article In Favor Of Tornadoes

Today the news is all about the high death toll of a series of tornadoes all across the southern United States. At this writing, over 284 people have died from tornadoes.

The news media are presenting this as a great disaster. A natural disaster, something nobody is responsible for, and nobody could have done anything to prevent. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

There is a reason for everything, and that includes tornadoes. And the reason for a tornado is that the orgone atmosphere of the earth is being irritated by something, and the atmosphere is reacting to the irritation with a strong circulatory motion to get the stuck energy moving again.

A tornado is a healing processs in the atmosphere, a means of restoring normal pulsation to an atmosphere that has been exhausted and lapsed into stagnation by fighting a source of excitation for too long. It might not seem healing to the person who happens to find himself right in front of one, but healing it is, nonetheless.

I suspect the recent nuclear meltdown in Japan is the reason for these tornadoes. I expected them. And I expect more of them, perhaps for a very long time, until the radioactivity dies down and is no longer irritating the atmosphere enough to provoke it into a tornado-reaction.

There is a danger, however, that some fool with a cloudbuster and zero common sense will try to ''save lives'' by sabotaging the tornadoes, interfering with the process by which the earth is trying to clean itself up and recover from the meltdown. If some fool does try to prevent the formation of tornadoes, a vitally-needed resource, indispensible for removal of the effects of radioactivity from the biosphere, we could end up with long-term desertification instead of a few brief tornadoes.

I found this article by a meteorologist on the benefits of severe weather, including tornadoes. It is from a conventional science point of view, but makes some excellent points and is well worth reading.
Joel Carlinsky

good severe weather?

Radar Images

                                                                     Radar Images
                                                                  by Joel Carlinsky


Some people have suggested the use of radar to track the effects of cloudbusting. Some have even published videos of cloudbusting operations documented by radar images to illustrate what is happening.

This no doubt sounds to them like a "scientific" idea, and they think radar would give more exact information on what is happening in the sky than just looking at the sky and estimating what is happening. Unfortunately, like so much else that modern science has to offer, radar is not useful for keeping track of the effects of cloudbusting.

The waves sent out by a radar transmiter are reflected back by the raindrops and tell to a very close aproximation what is happening inside a cloud, how much rain is falling, and other facts of importance to a meteorologist. But cloudbusting is not meterology and by the time a cloud has formed or raindrops are falling, or there is anything else that can be seen on radar, it is already way past the time when it would do a cloudbuster operator any good to have that information.

The changes in the orgone continuum that will eventually end in rain take place far in advance, sometimes up to several days, before there is anything that could be detected by radar. The cloudbuster operator must know a day or even sometimes, two days in advance, if there is going to be rain in response to his operations or not.

 He must learn to read the signs of the changes in the orgone field of the atmosphere, including the way his own body feels, the behavior of animals, the appearence of plants, the look of the clouds, the slight differences of color and light intensity in the sky, and other biological factors, and from them deduce if his operations have been a success already or if he should keep working.

This problem applies also to other mechanistic methods of monitoring weather. No measurement of temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, electrical potential shifts, or anything else that can be detected by instruments is worth much in telling you what your cloudbuster is accomplishing because none of these parameters is altered by cloudbusting right away. They all take time to happen and do not happen until after the operation has been concluded and the cloudbuster is back in the barn.

It will no doubt sound terribly unscientific and imprecise to people of a scientific bent who would like to have actual objective measurements and readings to guide them in knowing what to do while cloudbusting, but so far, there is no instrument that can tell you much that is of use. The trained human senses are still the best source of data on what the orgone field of the atmosphere is doing and what effect your cloudbuster is having.

There is one known exception to this rule. That is the use of electrodes embeded in the bark of a living tree, with a volt meter then being used to detrect the changes in potential between them. The tree responds almost instantly to an action by a cloudbuster, even at a great distance. This biological reaction to cloudbusting is much more revealing and much more significant than anything that a non-biological system can detect.

So if anyone suggests "modernizing" cloudbusting by "taking advantage of developments in science since Reich", that person is showing that he does not really understand what it is that a cloudbuster does. A cloudbuster does NOT "change the weather". What it does is, it changes the orgone envelope of the earth, and THAT changes the weather.

And since it also changes the physiological functioning of every living organism within the area affected, the operator had better know what he is doing. Because he is practicing medicine, regardless of if he knows it or not.

ANOTHER CLOUDBUSTER PHOTO

Recently I was served with a notice from the provider of this website service to remove a photo of a cloudbuster because there had been a complaint from Jamie Ogg, who claimed he owned the copyright to that photo. That photo has been deleted and here is another photo of the same cloudbuster, by someone other than Mr. Ogg. It differs in a few minor details, such as the degree of growth of the vegetation around the cloudbuster, but presents the same view of the same equipment.

This replacement of a photo posted on this site for educational purposes was made necessary because Jamie Ogg, formerly an advocate for responsibility in the cloudbusting field, has undergone a reversal of his position and become an enabler of atmosphere abuse, encouraging irresponsible promiscuous use of the cloudbuster by individuals clearly psychologically unfit for the task.

The cloudbuster shown in this photo is one of several made by the Southport Machine Company in Portland, Maine, for Reich in the 1950s. While some people have made a few minor changes in some of the details, the basic design remains the same and is so simple it cannot be improved upon.

Joel Carlinsky

The Cloudbuster

The Cloud Buster — Click on the image to enlarge.

Weather Rangers Threaten The Great Plains

I have been having a good deal of e-mail correspondence lately with David Wells, the leader of a weather-control advocacy group called the Pow...., er.., sorry, make that the WEATHER Rangers. The Weather Rangers are an internet-based club of backyard hobbyists who want to control the weather.

While we have some major disagreements on scientific theory about how the atmosphere functions, we have an even bigger one on what type of planet we want to live on. These e-mails between us render in stark relief the gulf between the biocentric attitude and the anthropocentric attitude.

These letters are an important record of the vast differences in values and it is important for those who wish to protect the natural world, including the weather, upon which the entire biosphere depends, to know exactly where the problem lies. Too often, environmental activists think the problem is only a few big corporations motivated by profits, and fail to recognize the bigger problem of an anthropocentric culture. The attitudes and values shown by Mr. Wells illustrate perfectly what we are up against and we ignore them at our peril.




Here is a letter from Mr. Wells, followed by my answer.

David Wells wrote:

Joel Carlinsky .

 I think you are wrong about restoring the land to the grass lands of the past , There are too many people now to turn back . I read somewhere that half of all the people that ever lived are alive today . Until the population is somehow prevented from increasing , we will need more and more food . To do this , weather control can help more than any thing else . Weather is more important than fertilizer when it comes to yields .

     A man in town put a stove in his shop that burns waste oil from cars . He doesn't have to pay for his heat . Why doesn't everyone do that ? It is because his one stove uses all of the oil in the whole town . If we turn Iowa back into a prairie and hunt the buffalo , only a few will be able to live here and all the people Iowa feeds will have to starve . We can not go back . We can only try to preserve what is left of the wilderness . The only way to do that is increase production on the existing farm land .

     Production has risen dramatically over the years . I grew up on a farm in north Iowa . Back in the 50's and 60's we only got 75 to 100 bushels of corn per acre . The same land today produces 175 to 250 bushels per acre . Irrigation can boost that number to over 300 bushels per acre . Irrigation water comes from the rivers and it is not good to take too much out of rivers . It would be much better to get the water from the rain . Irrigation is like the guys stove that burns waste oil . Only a few can use it before the river is sucked dry . Even wells are limited . Some farmers tried drilling wells to irrigate the land and all of the surrounding wells dried up . The only unlimited supply of water is in the sky . If production is to increase , the weather will have to be managed .

     The buffalo were not very good live stock  They were too wild and mean . Deer are a much better animal . They don't bother anyone and provide a lot of meat . Cattle and hogs and chickens and sheep are much more productive when it comes to feeding people .

     If you like it the way it was , there are still some undeveloped foreign countries you could go to where the people are starving because they do not farm their land productively .

 May I suggest Ethiopia ? It is geographically quite a bit like here , but they are just starting to farm some of it . They could farm Ethiopia but there is no money there to buy machinery and all the other stuff you need to farm the land .

 To avoid famine , we have to produce food . Modern science has done a lot to boost production . I can see diminishing returns from chemicals and fertilizers . The only way on up with yields is more water .

David Wells


My response:

David Wells:

I agree the vast excess population is the root of all environmental problems, but that does not mean that nothing can or should be done about protecting the remaining natural areas until the population is "somehow" brought down. It means we have to fight on two fronts: We have to work on protecting what is left of the earth, and we must also work to reduce the overpopulation.

 Those of us who are trying to protect the remaining ecosystems from destructive forms of development like your proposal to manipulate the weather are well aware of the need to reduce population. Most environmental activists do include that goal as something they work for and advocate.

http://www.applythebrakes.com/

is a good example for you to follow if you want to do something about the population problem instead of ruining the weather.

Instead of trying to protect the remaining bits of the natural world, you are trying to destroy the remaining ecosystems by changing their climate to feed the excess people, but what are you doing to reduce the population?

Are you spending time in a lab trying to invent a better form of birth control? Why do the people who like to invent things always go in for free energy devices and weather-destruction machines instead of trying to invent better, cheaper, and easier methods of birth control? That would be an invention that could really help a lot of people, and do some good for the world instead of destroying the climate.

Are you politically active against the religious fundamentalists who try to prevent contraceptive education from being taught in public schools? Do you stand up and speak out publicly against the religious fanatics who try to ban abortions? 

Most developed countries have already brought population under control. Populations in Europe are not growing. Rampant population growth is a third-world problem. The United States is the only exception among first-world countries, and that is largely because of the Christian Right, which agitates against education about contraception, so one way to help bring population under control is to speak up strongly against these Christian cults and their interference in political issues at every chance. I do that. Do you?

You cannot preserve a wilderness while at the same time changing the climate in which all plant and animal species live. If the climate is changed, the species adapted to that climate will die, even if their habitat is protected from other forms of exploitation. So if your proposal to change the weather on a large scale, over a number of years, is ever carried out, the species native to the area you affect will die just as surely as if their land had been turned into farms.

Protecting any significant area of land in a natural state must also include protecting the natural weather to which the species native to that area are adapted.

Draining water from rivers for irrigation ruins the rivers and the ecosystems along their banks. Artificially increasing rainfall ruins the ecosystems and threatens the survival of species in the area which gets the increased rain. Neither is a good solution.

Restoration ecology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding your suggestion that I move to Ethiopia, so what if there are some other places left that people like you have not yet ruined? I am not interested in a place where I could go to hide out. I am intererested in protecting the natural climate of the Great Plains from people like you who want to destroy it, not in having a place to myself where you and those like you have not gotten to yet.

 This is not about my having a place for me personally to enjoy living in. It is about my wanting to protect my planet. My moving to Ethiopia would not do anything to protect the climate of the Great Plains from your attacks.

Actually, in most places, including Ethiopia, traditional methods of farming were quite able to feed the population successfully. The reasons for famines have nothing to do with lack of productivity. They have more to do with wars and displacements caused by political issues brought in from outside.

But there have also been some serious famines caused by droughts. Those droughts are not natural. They are caused by the huge increase in DOR due to human intereference in the weather by building nuclear reactors and setting off nuclear bombs. In other words, by humans controlling the weather instead of letting it alone. The people setting off the bombs and building the reactors did not intend to change the weather, and did not know they were doing it, but regardless of their intentions, that is what they did do.

Building nuclear reactors and setting off nuclear bombs is a form of weather control. The production of oranur and DOR changes the weather, regardless of if the people doing it know about DOR or not. So the famines in Ethiopia were caused by humans changing the weather. and if they had left the weather alone instead of changing it by testing nuclear weapons in Africa, as the French did in Southern Algeria in the late 50s and early 60s, which is what caused the current drought cycle in the Sahael, there would not have been a famine.
.
Joel Carlinsky

Cloudbusting In Montana

                                 Cloudbusting In The Northern Plains
                                                 By Joel Carlinsky

An experiment is underway in Montana. It has been going on for some 20 years now, and nobody is even noticing. It was not intended as an experiment, but it is one, nevertheless, for nobody knows what the long-term results might be.

Every summer for the past 20 years, a California-based New-Age shaman named Matt Ryan has driven from his home at Mt. Shasta to Montana, towing a small trailer behind his car. On the trailer is a cloudbuster, a type of device invented by Wilhelm Reich. The cloudbuster has, as one of it´s functions, the ability to alter the weather over a considerable area.

In Montana, a group of farmers pay Matt Ryan $10,000 each summer to make rain for them. And every summer, the rain comes at his command. The farmers are satisfied with his services and he is content with the $10,000 and does not seek additional business. He has little desire for publicity.

Matt Ryan is a former member of the Bear Tribe Medicine Society, a New-Age type organization of mostly white followers of the late Sun Bear, a Chippewa medicine man who won many white converts to his New-Age version of Native American religion. Today, he works as a public-relations agent for a New-Age guru at Mt. Shasta. And every summer he travels to Montana to make rain for farmers who pay for his services.

The cloudbuster is a deceptively simple device. It is easy to construct one. The hard part is in knowing how to use it. Of the many people who have built cloudbusters and used them, most have failed miserably. Many have caused serious floods, killing many people in the process. Many others have given up, unable to obtain convincing results.

Matt Ryan is one of the very few who do know what they are doing in this field. He was one of the students of the late Jerome Eden, who taught a course in cloudbusting in Northern Idaho in the 1980s. This course, the only formally organized course ever taught on this subject, was a very good one and Jerome Eden was a consumate instructor, well qualified to teach it and exacting in his standards.

So there is nothing surprising in the fact that while most of the people who attempt cloudbusting  unintentionally cause disasters, Matt Ryan has never, as far as I know, been responsible for any catastrophic weather events as side-effects of his rainmaking operations.

But there is another standard that can also be applied to cloudbusting operations, and that standard is that no operation should be done unless there is a need for it. The proper application of a cloudbuster is to bring back normal rainfall, not to increase rainfall over and above normal. Cloudbusting is intended as a form of medical practice, with the atmosphere as the patient. It is really "atmospheric medicine", not a mere form of "weather engineering", as some misguided people persist in regarding it. And using a cloudbuster to change the weather from what is normal for the area in the absence of a DOR problem, and from what is sufficient for the native, non-desert ecosystem, is malpractice.

 A desert is a location that suffers from a stagnation or blockage known in the cloudbusting field as DOR, that impedes movement of moisture into the area and inhibits rainfall. If this DOR condition is temporary, it is called a drought. If it persists over years, the region is called a desert. In either case, a cloudbuster can be properly employed to remove the stagnation that is preventing the normal rains.

But the plains of Montana are not a desert region. The year-long average of rainfall is enough for the growth of a spectacular verdant carpet of native prairre grasses and other vegetation, a lush native grassland, in fact, that before the introduction of farming in the mid-19th century, supported an impressive asemblage of wildlife, including bison, elk, pronghorn antelope, and the wolves, grizzlies, Indians, and other predators who fed on them. It has been called an American Serengetti, and was the richest, most biodiverse grassland ecosystem on Earth.

The tough native vegetation, adapted to the prevailing climate by thousands of years of adaptation, is now reduced to a few scattered patches of native grass, scattered among a vast cultivated field. The native wildlife has suffered a similar decline, with many forms on the verge of extinction.

The climate of the area is not really suited for farming, and the area should never have been plowed up and turned into farms, but it is still not too late to repair the damage done by several generations of farmers and get things back to normal. Several serious proposals have been made by conservation biologists for restoration of the Great Plains, or at least a major part of the Great Plains, to their natural condition. These proposals for what is known in the field of conservation biology as Restoration Ecology, include the extirpation of non-native plants and the re-planting of native grasses and other species better adapted to the prevailing climatic conditions.

Since the native species of plants were already adapted to the prevailing climate and able to cope with the dry summers, there is really no need to change the climate merely to accommodate farmers and their introduced crops. If farming cannot be successful there without a change of climate, farming is probably not the optimum use for the Great Plains.

The Northern Great Plains is not a desert region, does not suffer from lack of water, and does not need any extra rainfall. Unless a region is infested by DOR or normal weather fronts are being blocked by a DOR-barrier, there is no justification for cloudbusting to increase rainfall in an area where there is a rich native biota adapted to the prevailing climate.

So, even though there has never yet been a flood or other weather-related disaster directly caused by the yearly cloudbusting expeditions of Matt Ryan, the cumulative effect of his more than 20 years of annual increase of rainfall over and above what would fall there naturally, is likely to have had an effect on the balance of native vegetation compared to intrusive species brought in by the farmers from farther east, where the climate is naturally more moist. The conditions that favor farmers and their crops are not the best climate conditions for the plants that grew there for the thousands of years before the arrival of the farmers.

Before any long-term cloudbusting project is undertaken, an ecologist should be involved as a vital part of the team in the planning stages. A botanical census should be done, counting the number of different species of plants in a few selected representative sample acres. This count should be regarded as a baseline, and should be repèated at intervals throughout the life of the project. That way you would know if you are having a bad effect on biodiversity or not. Otherwise, you might be driving numerous native species closer to extinction without any way of knowing it.

Such precautions are actually the usual standard requirement these days for almost any type of project that could affect the environment. But in the 1980s, when Jerome Eden was teaching his course in cloudbusting, this sort of preparation was not so well-known and apparently Matt Ryan has not kept up to date with his education on what should be the proper and responsible practice in the field of cloudbusting.

References:
www.rainmaker-rainmaker.com

Restoration ecology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Why We Need Tornadoes

The atmosphere is not just a bunch of gases. It is a structure. It has distinct organized parts, just as a living body has distinct organs. And just as the different organs in the body have different roles to serve, and perform different functions, so do the various parts of the atmosphere.

Strong circulatory storm systems, including tornadoes, hurricanes, and other strong storms, are triggered into existence by a condition called "DOR". They are a reaction of the atmospheric energy field to the irritation of excess DOR. Some degree of DOR is normal, just as some waste products in the body are normal.

DOR consists of atmospheric energy that has stopped moving. It has become stagnant. The characteristic constant pulsatory motion of the normal atmospheric energy has ceased. It is "exhasted" , and stops moving.

This is a normal stage in the energetic metabolism of the atmosphere, just as a periodic need for sleep is not pathological in a human. But under some conditions, the build-up of DOR becomes too much for the usual cleansing processes of the atmosphere to metabolize and if something is not done, a drought will be the meteorological result. This corresponds to a human becoming sick.

So the surrounding, still moving, still living, atmospheric energy responds with a strong circulatory motion that gets the stagnated non-moving component, DOR, moving again. The worse the DOR-infestation, the stronger the reaction will be. And the stronger the circulatory motion triggered by the DOR build-up, the faster and more complete the elimination of the DOR infestation will be.

Before a tornado, the sky is "DORish", looking and feeling in a way that knowledgeable observers, familiar with what to look for and how their own bodies feel in a DOR atmosphere, will recognize as a DOR condition and from which, after some experience, they will expect a tornado. Even people who know nothing of DOR, if they have lived in areas where tornadoes are frequent, will make the connection and call it "tornado weather".

If a cloudbuster is used under such weather conditions to drain off the DOR,. it is possible to prevent the immediate on-set of tornadoes, but that would not be a good solution for the long run. It would never be possible to fully remove all the DOR, only to reduce it to slightly below the threshold that would trigger a reaction. Most of the DOR would remain, and would still have to be delt with later. And that time would come sooner than the next tornado would otherwise have come because there would still be more DOR around than if a tornado had taken place.

So cloudbusting operations to "prevent tornadoes" would need to be repeated at frequent intervals, and the risk of a failure, with an outbreak of more numerous and more powerful tornadoes, would become greater with each operation that only partially removed the DOR, leaving more each time.

Tornados also serve a public health role. DOR has direct biological effects as well as effects on the atmosphere. DOR sickness is a well-known, well-described disease condition caused by living in a DOR atmosphere. It has a wide range of DOR-specific symptoms which have been described in the literature.

More insidiously, it also weakens the entire biological system, reducing immune function and making the organism vulnerable to a long list of conditions that it would otherwise have been able to resist. Populations living in DOR-infested areas are significantly less healthy than those in areas with out significant DOR concentrations, though the effects require statistical analysis to detect since most of the conditions can occur anyway, just not in such great numbers.

In recent decades, the amount of DOR and the persistance of DOR conditions has become noticeably worse because of the widespread use of nucleat technology. High concentrations of intense radioactivity cause a reaction of the ambient energy called "oranuir", which persists for a while, and ends in formation of DOR as an end-product. The oranur process is itself toxic to all forms of life, and in the past 60-odd years, the amount of DOR in the atmosphere has increased greatly as a direct result of the employment of radioactivity. One result of this has been a general increase in strong storm systems, as the atmosphere reacts in an attempt to cleanse itself of DOR.

The current nuclear crisis in Japan has had a result of a series of strong storms that have been the reaction of the atmosphere to the irritation produced by the release of radioactivity. While there have been some concerns expressed that the storms could scatter the radioactive fallout farther that it would otherwise travel, from the point of view of the re-mobilization of DOR back into moving energy capable of supporting both life and normal meteorological processes, this reaction is a good thing and should be encouraged, not interfered with.

So any proposal to reduce or eliminate the incidence of tornadoes is sadly misguided, to say the least. Operations conducted for the purpose of preventing tornadoes should be considered a potential cause of droughts and an assault on the public health. 

Any damage tornadoes may do is only local, and the importance of it compared to the long-term effects of high concentrations of DOR on both the functioning of the atmosphere and the health of the biosphere is insignificant.

 A few tornadoes a year is a small price to pay to prevent the long-term droughts and decline in over-all health of all living organisms that would result from the absence of tornadoes.

The weather-control advocates do not see this because they lack the all-important theoretical knowledge of the orgone energy continuum which underlies weather activity.

And that is why I harp on the importance of having the correct theory so often and am so intolerant of people who propose alternate theories for which there is no evidence. It may be more polite, tactful, and diplomatic to consider everyone entitled to his opinion, but when those opinions lead to actions as important as trying to control the weather, there is no substitute for having the RIGHT opinion.

Joel Carlinsky

Human Chauvinism And Weather Control In The Northern Plains

                         Human Chauvinism And Weather Control In The Northern Plains
                                                        By Joel Carlinsky

The atmosphere is not just a random collection of gases, moved about by differences in temperature, as conventional meteorological theory claims. It is a highly-structured, well-organized system, with specific parts that have specific roles in maintaining homeostasis, chemical composition, and a wide variety of functions. It is in every way an organized system comparable in complexity and organization to a living organism.

And, like any living organism, it can sometimes get sick. And when it gets sick, it can sometimes recover without medical intervention. And there are other times when medical intervention is needed.

There is a device, called a cloudbuster, that is able to restore natural pulsation to a stagnated atmosphere, and when that is done, normal weather will return as one of the effects of that pulsation. But unfortunately, there are some people who prefer to think of the cloudbuster, not as way to help a damaged atmosphere recover, but as a way to compel it to do their bidding. These people form a loosely-knit international sub-culture which I shall refer to as the weather-control movement.

Very few of them have the extensive background in ecology, or the biological sciences in general, that is required to practice cloudbusting successfully. Most of them are more interested in the mechanical arts and tend to think of the cloudbuster as an "invention" that can be used for "weather engineering", rather than as a medical treatment for a sick biosphere. To them, the invention of a method of "weather control", as they misunderstand the cloudbuster to be, is a welcome extension of human domination of the natural world.

This pathological urge to dominate and control is endemic to human society, and the urge to dominate and control the atmosphere is no different from the urge to dominate and control other people. The man who wants to dominate and control a woman or a child or an employee is acting exactly like the man who wants to control the weather, forcing his will upon a victim of his pathology. The laboratory scientist who rationalizes his sadistic torturing of animals as "scientific research" is showing the same urge to dominate and torment nature that motivates the "weather engineer".

This was brought home to me recently in an e-mail from David Wells, an unabashed human chauvinist who is the leader of an internet-based weather-control club called the Weather Rangers, in which he stated his wish to bring rain to "drought-stricken" farmers in North Dakota. He seemed quite concerned about these farmers and the frequent droughts that are such a problem to them.

 In a letter to me he wrote:

"Some areas like North Dakota have excellent farmland , but not enough water . Farmers who farm these marginal areas take big risks planting crops that fail due to drought . Many areas have the chance of raising a crop if the rain comes . The chances are somewhere between 10 and 90 percent that the rain will come and the farmer will succeed . Without weather engineering for agriculture , the farmer is taking a gamble every time he puts in the crop . Much potentially productive land goes to waste because the risk of farming there is just too great . 

These patterns do not have to be  . They can be stabilized and adjusted to take the risk out of the farming . Iowa has a problem in dry years of "spotty" rain fall .Two farms right next to each other will experience vastly different rain . One farm gets enough , the one next door gets burnt out and goes broke . The financial tragedy is bad .
  David Wells "

David Wells seems to think of everything in terms of money, and does not see the arrogance of saying that "potentially productive" land "goes to waste" because it is too risky to farm there. From my point of view, the land is being protected from exploitation by the higher risk of farming there and it is the land that has been turned into farmland that is "going to waste" as far as providing habitat for native plant and animal species is concerned. His concern for the economic plight of the farmers would ring more true if he was an activist for economic justice in other ways instead of only when it happens to co-incide with his dream of controlling the weather.

Well, I would prefer to take an historical perspective here, please. These lands were not always farms. In the 19th century, when farmers or people who wanted to become farmers, came to Iowa and the Dakotas from the East Coast, they found a vast plain, an American Serengetti, covered with a rich flora of native grasses and numerous other types of vegetation and grazed by huge numbers of bison, pronghorn antelope, and other herbivores who in turn supported a large population of wolves, grizzlies, and other predators. It was also inhabited by the Lakota people.

The farmers promptly slaughtered the bison to starve the Lakota into submission so they could be herded into concentration camps known as reservations. After a series of mass killings by the military forces that represented the farmers, and a series of broken treaties, the farmers took over the Great Plains. Their descendants, the farmers, are really squatters that live there today on the land their ancestors stole.

What was once a vast and incredibly rich and diverse ecosystem, one of the richest in the world, has now been reduced to a few scattered patches that struggle to survive in a vast wasteland of plowed fields, much of which produces, not food crops for human consumption, as the apologists for agriculture pretend, but ethanol for motor fuel.

Instead of resorting to increasing the natural rainfall to help these land-thieves, what I would like to see done is evict them and return the land to the Lakota to be managed as a native species reserve, with the invasive species of grasses and other vegetation that was imported from the East or from Europe removed and the native grasses and other native plants restored to provide forage for restored herds of bison and other native species of wildlife.

Bison could be brought from Yellowstone, where many of them are slaughtered each winter as they migrate out of the park into the Yellowstone Valley in search of winter food, and the former farmers could find employment for the next several decades removing the introduced species of plants and restoring as much as possible of the native grasses and other native plant species.

Because those native species of plants are perfectly able to survive the regularly recurring droughts of the Northern Great Plains. It is not the weather that is the problem. The weather has been relatively stable for several thousand years and was never a problem. 

There are good years with plenty of rain and there are years with less rainfall than is needed by plants imported from back east where there is normally more water. The native plants of the Plains are perfectly able to survive in the relatively dry years. The years designated "drought years" by farmers do not threaten their survival, as they have not threatened it for all the thousands of years those plants have lived there.

 It is the farmers that are the problem. The farmers that have introduced plants that are not native to the area, plants that are from the more moist climate of the East, or perhaps even originally from Europe, and cannot do well in the Northern Plains where they do not belong, are the problem.

Instead of changing the natural weather pattern to suit the invasive species brought in by humans, the solution is to get rid of those species and re-establish the species that can do well there. And if these species are not well-suited for farming, but are good forage for bison, then the best use of the Plains is as pasture for bison, not for farming.

It would take several decades of restoration work before the native Tall-Grass Prairie was restored and the bison herds bred back to reasonable numbers. Then, both the Lakota and the native predators that would have to be re-introduced to help control the numbers of the bison, would be able to live quite well on them. Until then, the former farmers could find gainful employment digging up non-native grasses and other plants that do not belong there  and planting native species.

They might even make enough money at it to pay the Lakota the 150 years of back rent they owe them for the illegal occupation of their lands.

Joel Carlinsky

Reference:
Restored prairie

Comments and feedback on this article are requested. Please write and tell me what you think of this idea as an alternative development plan for the Great Plains instead of interfering with the weather on behalf of farmers.