Senator Malcolm Roberts is Seeking Submissions to Assist Him in Investigating Cloud Seeding in Australia
Senator Malcolm Roberts is seeking submissions to assist him in investigating Cloud Seeding in Australia.
Please carefully read the requirements he has listed in terms of evidence:
“Examples of evidence that meets this standard include flight paths, flight registrations or tail numbers, government approvals, other permits or evidence of material being loaded onto a plane.
This evidence must be temporally associated (i.e. close in time) to a claimed rain event.”
This is wonderful news, and I know there are many of you out there who do a great job in tracking flight paths, aircraft, etc., and could be helpful in providing damning evidence that this is occurring.
EVIDENCE ON CLOUD SEEDING IS REQUIRED FOR QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED
A number of constituents have raised concerns with me about weather manipulation, also referred to as cloud seeding and rain seeding.
Cloud-seeding is a weather-modification practice used to artificially create or promote additional rain/snow from existing clouds. Chemicals are added into a cloud to promote rain formation – usually silver iodide, potassium iodide, or solid carbon dioxide (dry ice), and sometimes liquid propane and table salt. This can be done from the air or the ground.
The success and safety of cloud-seeding remain debated depending on what method is used. Estimates place successful cloud-seeding programs squeezing an extra 3% of precipitation out of an existing cloud bank. Other studies could not determine a net benefit. In short, the effectiveness of cloud seeding appears to be unclear.
Australia stopped engaging in any kind of consistent cloud-seeding in the 1960s due to environmental concerns. There have been a few trials undertaken, with the last occurring in 2016.
In order to raise questions about these allegations of more recent cloud seeding than 2016 to the government, it is necessary to have evidence to interrogate them over.
This evidence must be rock-solid and contained in documents. Examples of evidence that meets this standard include flight paths, flight registrations or tail numbers, government approvals, other permits, or evidence of material being loaded onto a plane.
This evidence must be temporally associated (i.e. close in time) to a claimed rain event.
For example, concerns about cloud seeding were raised in relation to the 2022 Lismore and South-East Queensland floods. Satisfactory evidence in relation to this might be a flight path, combined with evidence of a permit or approval, which was timed closely to the rain event.
Evidence that would not be satisfactory to raise with the government includes photos of the sky or media releases relating to previous trial operations many years ago.
With satisfactory evidence, we can raise issues and ask questions. To date, no one has been able to provide satisfactory evidence that is temporally associated with an Australian rain event.