All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 15, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:18:53
20130115_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Council of Government In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial commonwealth.
In Dallas, Texas, three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas.
The first reports say that President Kennedy has been seriously wounded by this shooting.
It is a big idea.
A new world order.
It was almost as if it were a planned implosion.
It just pancaked.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
I also believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of guns.
Guns will be taken.
No one will be able to be armed.
We're going to take all guns.
For many of the police and guard troops, it is an uncomfortable job to do this in an American city.
Global governance at last.
Is it one world?
The central bankers in charge.
But aren't we all just living and dying for what the central banks do?
Ask for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
The End Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Tuesday, January the 15th, 2013.
And here are our top stories.
Tonight, Joe Biden says the White House is eyeing 19 executive actions to enforce new unprecedented gun restrictions.
Meanwhile, New York passes a gun bill in the middle of the night that turns law-abiding citizens into criminals.
That's up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, our top story tonight, it looks like the White House is considering executive action.
Politico reports that the focus on executive orders is a result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting new gun legislation.
Well, you know, the political difficulty is not really the issue.
It's the legal difficulty.
You know, we have a political process.
We didn't elect a king, as Rand Paul pointed out.
We have a Congress that passes laws, and those laws have to be in accordance to the Constitution that the Congress and the President swear allegiance to.
You know, we really do have a king in America.
It's the Constitution.
At the time of the American Revolution, the cry was, no king but Jesus.
But in a sense, the Constitution is our king, and these people are kind of like the stewards.
If you want to go back to the Lord of the Rings reference, they're kind of like Denethor, the steward, who is unfaithful in trying to usurp power from the king.
Well, if they try to do this and move, as Politico says, unilaterally, If they try to move unilaterally, if they try to dictate this like a dictator, they're going to find a return of the king.
They're going to find the Constitution coming back with a vengeance.
As a matter of fact, a Texas congressman has threatened Obama with impeachment if he uses executive orders on guns.
This is a quote from the article, Obama's gun grab is an unconstitutional threat to the nation, says Republican Representative Steve Stockman of Texas.
He said, the White House's recent announcement that they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and an unconscionable act on the very founding principles of this republic.
And he goes on to say, if the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.
Well, a lot of us have been saying that when things like the NDAA were passed and the TSA, the actions that they do, FISA, the Patriot Act itself.
But, you know, these are, I guess you could call them a long train of abuses.
That's what the founders called it when they suffered those types of things at the hands of the British.
But the thing that triggered it was when they came for the guns.
And so we hope that Obama and the other Democrats that are pushing for this aren't such poor students of history.
But it doesn't look like they are.
In New York, the Senate has passed a draconian gun bill overnight.
These are the kind of tactics that we see them doing, passing these things in the dead of night.
And here's what the bill contains.
It's going to limit magazines to just seven bullets.
It's going to make unsafe storage of so-called assault weapons, which, of course, they have yet to define.
It's going to make that a misdemeanor.
It's going to outlaw internet sales of assault weapons to New York.
It will require retailers that sell ammunition to register with the state to run background checks on purchasers and maintain a database of all ammunition, ammunition sales.
And it will mandate health, mental health therapists to report their patients if they make a credible threat to use a gun illegally.
The police would then of course confiscate the firearm.
So basically what they're going to do is turn mental health personnel, psychologists, into government snitches.
And they're going to probably take that to a very, to a degree that they're going to protect themselves.
If there's any doubt whatsoever, they're going to turn people in.
They're not going to give people the benefit of the doubt, because that exposes them to legal risk.
And one of the other things it's going to do is it's going to force people to register so-called assault weapons with the police.
Now, of course, this is something that assault weapons, if you ask them to define it, you'll get a million different definitions, but I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of a legal definition.
One New York State Senator was hopping mad when this came out.
He said the gun bill that was passed in the middle of the night, quote, turns law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Members were forced to vote on a bill that they had not read, he said.
He said, I simply cannot support a bill that turns law-abiding citizens into criminals by creating an entirely new category of illegal firearms out of currently legal rifles and shotguns.
That was Senator Greg Ball, and we've got a clip of him.
Let's go to that right now.
Not long ago, I think a woman was in Georgia.
Somebody broke into her home, came after her, She shot him, I believe, six times.
Tonight, we're going to pass legislation that if she had eight rounds in that chamber, instead of seven, she'd be a criminal.
That's exactly right.
And he went on to say, we haven't saved any lives tonight except the political life of a governor who wants to be president.
Well, we have another politician, Rahm Emanuel, who is calling for citizens to be left out of the discussion.
Basically, everybody except law enforcement, he says, need to be left out of this discussion.
And he wants to use semantic terms to change the terms of the debate so that it's now not about fundamental constitutional rights, but simply a law enforcement issue.
So only law enforcement personnel should have something to say about that.
Now, Rahm Emanuel, I think, really shouldn't have anything to say about that, if he presides over a city that has some of the highest murder rates in the country, if not the highest, and has some of the most stringent gun control laws, and he can't realize that those two things, that gun control does not make anybody safer.
But we have a report on that with Aaron Dykes.
Here's that report.
Aaron Dykes for InfoWars.com.
Now we've already seen a big pushback against the system's gun control agenda.
Now we're hearing from Rahm Emanuel that if you're not in law enforcement, if you're not a police officer, you need to shut your mouth and not weigh in on the Second Amendment.
Put the police chief and the law enforcement community front and center.
Everybody else, from politicians to whatever, take a back seat.
Because the police chiefs have a credibility and authority and a voice on this.
First of all, we're not going to give up our First Amendment as you try to destroy the Second Amendment.
We will never give up our First Amendment.
We will never give up our Second Amendment.
They're inalienable rights.
They are not to be infringed.
going to be lectured to by the mayor of the murder capital of the world, Chicago, as you try to get these insane policies passed all around the country.
But second of all, you haven't been listening to law enforcement who have been speaking up across the country saying we will not infringe, we will not enforce any unconstitutional gun laws.
We heard a week and a half, two weeks ago from the Pennsylvania police chief of the small town who is introducing a second amendment defense ordinance to protect and keep the second amendment and saying they're going to nullify any laws which are unconstitutional and otherwise trying to infringe.
We've seen Wyoming lawmakers and others trying to introduce legislation upholding the Second Amendment and reminding and sending the message back to Washington that they too will not be in part of infringing on the Second Amendment.
And that's really what we need.
We need people recognizing their legal jurisdiction at the state, local, and county level and saying, no, we're not going to cooperate with the feds.
We will not participate in destroying our God-given and guaranteed rights.
Now we're hearing from Sheriff Denny Payman of Jackson County, Kentucky, Hedges.
He too is saying he will not enforce federal gun-grabbing laws.
He's standing up for his oath.
He's recognizing the fact that he is the highest law enforcement officer in his jurisdiction at the county level and that even the feds do not have higher jurisdiction there and cannot tell him what to do.
If Obama passes this, it doesn't matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.
They need to go back and they study that.
We're a commonwealth.
I can ask the federal people to leave.
They have to leave.
I can ask state people to leave.
They have to leave.
And he's being asked by journalists how he's going to participate in confiscating guns, that dangerous task.
You're never going to pull a gun project.
I can't get there quick enough to help those people.
My best help to them is to let them keep their fire on.
I can't do it for the other counties.
I can't stand up for them.
But I can't stand up for my people.
And, you know, I was one of the first people to say, I think they need armed school teachers Not all of them, but there's somebody that needs to have a weapon there.
And it's so clear what's going on that this sheriff is saying the founding fathers will be turning over in their graves.
The Second Amendment makes that very clear.
And our forefathers made that very clear.
Otherwise, they would have been so high on the amendment.
They would have been down the list someplace.
To me, I would be ashamed if one of them was in this room right now and having to listen to what we're having to talk about.
I would be ashamed to have them sit here and listen to all the people that have given their lives for this right for us.
And we just give up so flippantly just because somebody says so.
First of all, you shouldn't want to participate in destroying the things that make this country great.
Our country was different.
That's why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution gave us the quote 5000 year leap.
Second of all, This whole talk of infringing the Second Amendment, the fact that people see openly that the media and the Washington policymakers are collaborating to try to restrict the Second Amendment, is putting everyone on edge.
That's why you're seeing record numbers at gun shows, that's why you're hearing from people that they won't put up with infringement on the Second Amendment.
And police officers should not be a part of that.
They need to send the message that they don't want to infringe either.
We don't want to see violence in this country.
We don't want things to lead to a civil war.
But that's why right now we need as many of these sheriffs, of these local police chiefs, of these state officials to send the message back to Washington, no, no, shall not infringe.
And if we do that, they'll stop, they'll back off.
Signing off for InfoWars.com.
Well, it looks like they will try anything, whether it's executive orders or a legislature meeting in the middle of the night and passing a bill that no one has read, or Rahm Emanuel using semantic tricks to keep people out of the debate, to change the terms of the debate.
Another thing that they're willing to use is their connections in crony capitalism.
Putting pressure on businesses that they can punish or reward.
And along those lines, Walmart looks like now is forbidding new ammunition orders from their managers.
A message posted on the Daily Sheeple website read, I've read various postings on message boards claiming local Walmart managers told customers they are no longer permitted to reorder ammo and inventory.
I can confirm that this is true.
I went to Walmart today in our town to buy ammo and the case was almost empty.
I asked the store manager when new supplies would arrive, and he said, Corporate headquarters notified all local managers that we cannot order any more ammo until further notice.
Well, that's contradicted by management.
Management says that they are not putting a restriction on ordering new ammunition, but that local manager candidly said that they were.
Now here locally, Travis County, as well as the city of Austin, both have been talking about banning gun shows in this area and trying to find some way to do that.
Travis County commissioners unanimously voted Tuesday to reverse course on a proposal that would have banned gun shows from county facilities.
Now a lot of people pushed back on this, including the Attorney General of Texas, General Greg, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, And so it looks like they're not going to be able to do that.
They've backed down at the county level and it still remains to be seen if the people at the city level are going to be wise enough not to try to pull something like that.
We have one of our last gun stories here.
We've got an update on Piers Morgan and his guest calling for threats on Alex Jones's life.
Melissa Melton reporting for InfoWars Nightly News.
Last week, Alex Jones appeared on the Pierce Morgan Show on CNN to discuss his views on gun control.
The following night, Pierce decided to host a panel regarding Alex's appearance, and he had on Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger, Huffington Post Abby Huntsman, and lawyer Gloria Allred.
And Mr. Bissinger made what can only be described as a threat against Alex's life.
Let's take a look at this clip.
It is pathetic, it is ridiculous that you are allowed, I don't care what the justification is, that you are allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon, much less a handgun.
But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for?
The only reason I think you need it is, Pierce, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally, and pop him!
I'd love to see that!
In uniform!
I'll borrow my brother's uniform.
Now, as you saw in that clip, Bissinger tells Morgan the only reason he would need a semi-automatic gun is to, quote, pop Alex Jones, to which they all laugh, and Abby Huntsman actually says, I'd love to see that, and Morgan even says he would borrow his brother's uniform.
And this isn't the only time during that television show that a threat was made on Alex.
Earlier in the show, one of Pierre's guests also made the comment that he hoped Alex's children would not be killed.
I don't want Alex Jones to get the phone call at 3 o'clock in the morning that one of his children have been shot and killed by somebody who shouldn't have.
A handgun or a rifle.
This kind of talk from supposedly anti-gun activists is abhorrent.
They're making a threat on national television to shoot and possibly murder someone.
And it's no joke either.
As you'll see in this next clip, private investigator Doug Hagman came on the Alex Jones Show just a few weeks ago and talked about how he has an inside source in the Department of Homeland Security and that the DHS is actually keeping a list of pro-gun activists and political activists Who will be taken out?
Anyone reporting on journalism, speaking out against government policies, anyone who protests anything that is antithetical to this regime will be shut up and censored, if you will.
And not only that, but according to my source, put on a list, if you will, because when the money supplier, when the economy collapses, when the dollar collapses, when we can no longer buy anything, and the riots break out, the very first people to go, according and the riots break out, the very first people to go, according to my source, the very first people to be rounded up, the very first targets, if you will, on the radar of this regime are the people that are speaking the truth about what's
On Hagman's site, he relayed in detail that there are lists of political dissidents maintained by DHS, and vocal opponents of the politics of the global elite, the bankers, and the opponents of anything standing in their way will be.
Well, they are on the top of the list to be, quote, handled.
In the days following that broadcast, news broke that Keith Ratliff, a man behind FPS Russia, a gun show on YouTube that made the channel one of the top ten most popular on the entire site, was tied to a chair and shot execution style in the back of the head.
Then, John Noveske of Noveske Rifle Works, a gun manufacturer known for his AR-15s, was mysteriously killed in a car crash just days after he posted a list on Facebook linking mass shootings and horrible acts of murder and suicide to anti-psychotic medications.
In the wake of these threats against Alex on the Pierce Morgan Show, it would seem Twitter fans picked up Pierce's sentiment and also threatened to shoot Alex.
One Twitterer wrote, I hope Alex Jones gets taken by terrorists who shoot his arms and legs off starting at the fingers and toes and work their way up.
Another, for the first time I see a good reason for guns in the USA.
Alex Jones, someone please shoot this Muppet.
I wish somebody would shoot this Alex Jones guy in the face.
And then another responded, please and thank you.
As the system ratchets up this war on our Second Amendment rights, we are seeing some unprecedented attacks against pro-gun activists and political activists who are just trying to fight for our freedom.
Are we going to see another false flag next?
Are we going to see another mass shooting, another Oklahoma City, another systematic takeout of a group like we did in Waco?
Well, Doug Hagman left us with this chilling warning.
By the way, Alex, according to my DHS source, expect more.
Expect at least one more.
One more incident to really solidify in the minds of people that these big, bad assault rifles, a misnomer to be sure, are not to be in the hands of the American people.
For InfoWars Nightly News, I'm Melissa Melton. .
Well, along with new gun regulations, they're also looking at new taxes.
A new pay-per-mile scheme would boost taxes that we pay the federal government 250%.
The average driver, right now, pays about $96 a year in federal gasoline taxes.
But, if they start to measure us by the mile, they look at collecting up to $248 per year from each of us.
Now, one of the things I find interesting, as you see there on the graph, is that, of course, that federal tax, if they're going to do it by mile, that's going to mean that people with the most fuel-efficient cars will pay the same as the people who have the least fuel-efficient cars, which is a little bit strange.
They've been trying to push everybody into fuel-efficient cars, people have spent a lot of money to get hybrid cars, and now, at least, of course, they'll still be able to save money on gasoline.
But they're going to kind of take away that reward as far as taxes go, because it's not going to be taxed per gallon, but you're going to be taxed per mile.
But that also raises up some serious privacy issues.
Do we really want to have black boxes in the cars, you know, following us around and totaling up the number of miles and seeing where we're driving?
I don't.
I don't know about you.
Well, that brings us to our quote of the day.
The only conduct that merits the drastic remedy of impeachment is that which subverts our system of government or renders the president unfit or unable to govern.
That's Charles Ruff.
Well that's it for the news portion of our program.
Right after the break we've got a visit that we paid to the American Meteorological Society here in Austin.
They had their annual meeting here, and we went there to look at some weather modification issues as well as global warming.
And we'll have that report right after the break.
The bombing president!
You know, you gave us a phone.
They call these old whopers.
Even the job I work for gave us phones and they called them whopers.
Don't you be swearing.
It's better than that.
Rami, he sucks.
Rami, hey.
Rami, hey.
But first off, Michelle, I want to commend you for having the courage to come down here. I want to commend you for having the courage to Describe that thinking process and how that happened, and then tell people a little bit about yourself.
Okay, you fans.
My name is Michelle Dowery.
I live in Cleveland, Ohio.
I work for the Obama campaign.
This is Obama, four years ago, saying, I will never raise your taxes, not one dollar.
Here it is.
I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family, Making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.
Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
That's a firm pledge.
Now, guys, just because he's here, I know I've only got two guys here in the job aid people.
Will somebody just type in 77% of Americans got payroll tax increase?
People making $30,000 or up.
People making $30,000 or up.
Now, is $30,000 $250,000?
Is that a lie right there?
That's a lie.
George Herbert Walker Bush got thrown out of office for reading my lips, no new taxes.
People tell me now, well they just lie, that's what they do.
Well, I know they're liars, so I'm not going to turn my guns in.
Let's go to the next clip here for you.
Let's play this clip.
This is him four years ago saying, I'm not coming after your handgun, your rifle, your shotgun.
Here's that clip.
When y'all go home and you're talking to your buddies and they say, ah, he wants to take my gun away.
You've heard it here, I'm on television, so everybody knows it.
I believe in the Second Amendment.
I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms.
I will not take your shotgun away.
I will not take your rifle away.
I won't take your handgun away!
It sounds like you're starting to agree with me.
Well, that I learned and found out and you showed me in paperwork and on TV what he said.
You know, I don't put nothing past anybody.
You didn't know he told all those lies?
No!
I've got a bunch of others.
But I knew that he lied because about four years ago when I worked for the Obama campaign, he said he was going to re-renovate Harvard in the Lee area.
And that's where he started, where I started campaigning for him.
Here it is, four years went on, and now I'm at another four years.
And that place still looks the same.
Stop lying!
Take that stuff back to where you come from!
If you could be saved with a gun, we need to be saved with ours.
I don't want no punk, Obama, you punk!
Oh my God!
Oh, he should give me a gun and some grenades.
You know, you're taking it away, but we need our force here, too.
But I've seen it with my own eyes.
You pulled it up on YouTube or the TV thing.
Obama lying?
Right.
And it came up.
That was Obama saying what he won't do with the taxes.
Here I am, just got a job as a maid, and my first check is eating me the taxes, eating the hell out of me.
First check.
Uh, it's going up.
It's going up.
But... He said he wouldn't do that.
I've seen it right here on your show, Alex Jones Show.
Who are you going to vote for in 2016?
The darn show won't be Obama.
I don't know, they're talking about a third term for him.
Well, I don't think he's going to last that long.
I mean, Rahm Emanuel says we don't even need voters anymore.
All right.
Hello my fellow info warriors, Alex Jones here, introducing you to the pro-pure family of gravity-fed filters.
Now, you know that the globalists are filling our water with radioactive isotopes, fluoride, lead, mercury, arsenic.
And one of the few systems that can efficiently and economically remove or reduce down to non-detectable levels these poisons are gravity-fed filters.
And ProPure is the top of the line.
Their filters are impregnated with silver, A natural antibiotic.
On top of that, they're bigger, so they filter faster.
You don't have to prime these the first time you use them.
It's amazing.
Go to InfoWars.com and click on the shopping cart link to see the entire family of these babies.
Now, the fluoride they add to our water is so tiny that most filters can't cut it out.
But ProPure has their system that will, again, reduce it to non-detectable levels.
Almost get all of it out of there.
That's also available.
And if you look at the different systems they offer, the ProPure Big Brush Finish is on a stand, so it's easier on a table or at your restaurant or wherever you have it to go up with a glass or a mug and fill it up.
Then there's this big baby right here, the Pro-Pure King large version.
Got a lot of different options that come with it.
Also, they have the Pro-Pure Big, probably one of the best values out there.
And of course, it's burnished stainless steel.
And then, what I use on my RV, something that's great for your hunting cabin or the back porch, is the Pro-Pure Traveler.
Small and portable but packs a huge punch, cleans out all that garbage.
They also have a glass site spigot so you don't have to take the top off and look in the bottom area to see how much water.
You can see how fast it's filtering with this optional system.
The Globalist Obviously, you're hitting us through our water.
It's time to take control of our lives.
It's time to not give our children and families these poisons, and these systems cut it down to non-detectable levels across the board.
ProPure is the name.
I only promote what I believe in.
And I use ProPure in my home and my office.
And I recommend that you check out the information on ProPure at Infowars.com.
We already have the lowest price at Infowars.com on the ProPure gravity filter system.
But when you add in the 10% off when InfoWarriors use the product code WATER at InfoWars.com, nobody can top it.
So again, it's a win-win-win.
Stop drinking the poison water, checkmate the globalists when it comes to your health, and support InfoWars.com and the work we're doing here.
You know, many revolutionaries rob banks and things and kidnap people for funds.
We promote in the free market the products we use that are about preparedness.
That's how we fund this revolution against the New World Order in our move to restore our constitutional republic.
And a spirit of 1776 worldwide.
Check it out at InfoWars.com.
ProPure, top of the line, number one, most powerful and effective and economical gravity-fed water system in the world.
ProPure, available discounted at InfoWars.com.
Don't forget product code, water to save 10%.
It's the latest generation, years in development.
ProPure is the name.
Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
We're going to show you some before and afters.
Aaron, break down what happened.
Your story.
I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
It just didn't happen.
Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
I wanted that nutrition.
I didn't even understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals, but the products did that for me.
I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods, and they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to infowarsteam.com.
Sign up as a distributor and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
InfoWarsTeam.com
Now, this year the American Meteorological Society is having their annual conference here in Austin, Texas.
Now the track that we were looking at was the planned and inadvertent weather modification.
That means they're looking at effects of pollution.
As well as cloud seeding.
We were interested mostly in climate engineering.
We're here with David Mitchell, and you just did a presentation about global warming and a way to possibly control that with CIRS, preventing CIRS cloud formation, is that correct?
Could you explain that?
It wouldn't really control global warming, it would just delay the effects a little bit.
So it could buy time to develop non-carbon based fuel economies, that sort of thing.
So now, could you explain the general idea of your approach?
Yeah, the approach is when the ice crystals fall faster out of the cloud, it reduces the cloud cover and what they call the optical thickness of the cloud.
So that, in the case of cirrus clouds, that would allow more heat radiation to escape to space.
So the greenhouse gases are trapping the heat.
This has the inverse effect of releasing the heat from the earth by removing some of the cirrus clouds or thinning out the cirrus clouds.
Okay, so now it's mostly computer simulations and models and that sort of thing.
Has there been any like empirical experiments that have been done out in the real world or anything like that to verify that that works?
Nothing like that.
This would be at a very high altitude for the cirrus clouds.
How long would it take for that to precipitate out and would there be any environmental concerns about the substances that you're putting up there for bismuth or would there be anything else that people might be concerned about in terms of quantity?
Yeah, as far as we know, bismuth triiodide is less toxic than silver iodide, which is used all the time in cloud seeding, and they've shown that that doesn't have any negative environmental effects, and they're constantly doing research on that.
Who would make the decisions for this, and who would fund it?
Is this something that would be a government operation?
I think it would have to be an international government, maybe the UN.
I'm just speculating, but it would have to be an international effort, I think, if something like that were to ever happen, which we hope would never be needed.
One of the things that you see here in the exhibit hall, most of these exhibitors that we've gone around and talked to are looking at ways to measure the weather, to predict the weather, to model the weather.
And so we talked to people about how well they're able to do that.
Of course, you know if you've looked at any weather forecast, you know yourself how well they're able to do that.
If computer simulations were perfect, we would be able to predict the weather perfectly.
And as you well know, we are not able to predict the weather perfectly.
But a computer simulation, you can do over and over.
So you can do the sensitivities of that.
Because you can do the same situation, you can change a parameter.
And do the simulation over and see what the effect is of that parameter.
In nature, measurements are important because we have to validate those simulations with measurements in nature.
But in nature, no cloud is the same as another cloud and no cloud will ever be the same as another cloud.
So you are sitting with a unique situation every time.
And so those measurements are important because they provide what is happening in your specific region.
I notice a lot of the papers here are done by people that are either doing measurements in the continental United States or in China.
There seems to be a great deal of research in China.
Is most of this government funded then in both places?
Most of the research is government funded, but there's also a large amount of it that is private funded.
And some of the operational programs, like the Texas cloud seeding programs, are basically funded by the water districts.
They pay a tax on their water use and this money is used then for some of that.
So they decide, they vote, if they want to participate in a project like this and do that.
Also, some of the programs have been funded by private industry.
The program in Mexico that I talked about earlier today was funded by the steel company in the north of Mexico.
They are the biggest water user.
And so they are very interested in sustainable water also because this is very important for them.
Now we talked to these people about climate change or global warming and of course they were big fans of Michael Mann.
They were not interested in defending it on camera.
So do you want to tell us what you do?
So Rob and I talked to them quite some time off camera, but not off the record.
And we're going to tell you about our conversation with them.
Well, so Rob and I were there at the AMS.
Rob was the cameraman.
And my first concern was to find places where they were doing weather modification or people who were maybe involved in spraying, cloud seeding, that sort of thing.
So I'm going up and down the aisles and I look around and Rob's not there.
And when I look back, he's engaged in conversation with these people that forecast the facts.
So tell us a little bit about that, Rob.
Well, I went around the corner and These guys, I noticed immediately that their stand was a little different than everybody else's forecast.
Everybody at that conference was science experiment kind of instrumentation.
Right, so on measuring equipment.
Mostly measuring equipment.
That's basically all we saw there was measuring equipment and other kind of materials like that, except for this one individual booth.
That was, um, it seemed like right out of Al Gore's Green Movement, which was very, in my opinion, it actually stood out like a sore thumb.
I don't know if it's the fact that I'm here a lot or, or, but just by browsing through it, there they were.
So, I went up to them and asked them a few questions, and I think that's when you actually were there.
Yeah, when I came around, the guy just kept repeating, I'm glad you're here.
I'm glad you're here.
That's all I'm saying.
I'm glad you're here.
I'm glad you're here.
He was stonewalling the whole time, but he had a lot to say to everybody else all around him, like a mouthful.
And the moment I turned to him and I started talking to him, he would repeat the statement, I have nothing to say, over and over again.
That's when I realized it was kind of a strategy thing, so we told them we weren't going to videotape them, we had a full conversation with them.
Yeah, what these guys are doing is, they're basically trying to get meteorologists to sign on to this.
Because, and they're trying to get the AMS, the American Meteorological Society, to sign on to their global warming statement.
Because, in their minds, I think it's something that, you know, science is determined by a majority vote.
That's never the case, right?
It's always really determined by facts and statistics.
And they didn't want to talk about the facts, even though they say that their forecast, the facts, you know, they had on their, one of the charts, they had a couple of charts, so we showed them in the film there.
One of them was some quotes from some climate, some meteorologists that were deniers of global warming, that had issues with it.
Another one was a chart showing where their poll of meteorologists fell.
And they had, I've got those figures here, 35% thought that it was a mixture of man and nature in terms of global warming.
19% thought it was natural.
Only 19% took their view that we have global warming and it's man-made.
27% said that there was global warming was a scam.
Another 9% said there isn't even global warming, right?
So when you take those and put it against theirs, it was rather equally divided.
But what they wanted to do, and they were very upfront about it, they said that 89% of the people get their weather from TV.
Okay, that's their source.
And they said 62% trust TV weather reporters as a source of information about global warming, higher than any other higher group Uh, sorry, higher than any group other than scientists.
See, they don't think of meteorologists as scientists.
Only climatologists are scientists.
That's interesting.
When we started talking to these guys, one of the things that I noticed that they said right off the bat was, oh, well, some of these meteorologists, they're jealous.
They're envious of climatologists, that they're not climatologists, and that's actually when I broke into him and I said, you know, I don't think what you're saying is fair.
Like, do you really consider your statements fair?
Like, you're injecting a lot of feelings and assuming a lot of feelings on these people as if it's fact.
Yeah, we asked him, we said, why do you think 27% of them think it's a scam?
And first thing he said, well, they don't want to accept bad news.
Right.
And then he started talking, the next thing he said, and then they're jealous of these real scientists.
And it's like, well, I don't know, we've been to a lot of these sessions, and these people were doing real science.
Exactly.
They were going out, they had a hypothesis, they had computer models, they were taking measurements of things, going back and looking at the model and the hypothesis, seeing if that was true, and honestly reporting these, and then questioning each other about it.
These guys do not want any questions.
No, these guys have a dialogue, and that's it.
That's right.
Now, when this first came out about a year ago, when I went back and looked at it, this group first got involved with the AMS about a year ago, and we've got an article there, group compiles a hit list of TV meteorologist climate change skeptics.
There it is up there now.
Well, what I find interesting about that chart that you also said before is that one of the One of the catchphrases of global warming and this whole green movement or global warming movement, climate change movement, is that the debate is over.
That's been going around.
But yet, their very own sign, the signage that they were displaying out there as the reason for them to be at that conference, the reason for their own existence, negates the fact that the debate is over because 30% of the climate, or meteorologists who are actual scientists, these are people who study the weather, they study the climate every single day on a day-to-day basis, they disagree.
Right.
It's almost actually 40% by even their own, because it's 9%.
And they're not only admitting it, they're using those facts to justify their own existence.
And, which is it?
Is the debate over or isn't it?
Like, if the debate's over, then this group doesn't need to exist because then everybody would uniformly agree.
Right, if they had actual facts.
The debate isn't over.
It's just I think that their facade is breaking.
That's right.
But the interesting thing is that that article we had up there, what they were doing, and they were criticized even by people who believed in man-made global warming as a kind of McCarthyism.
What they were trying to do was to shame these people, and they came after a couple well-known meteorologists who pushed back against them.
One guy said, his name is Justin Burke, he's a meteorologist, and he said, there's clear evidence of human-induced influence on the local level, such as urban heat islands, but that does not relate to long-range climate.
Our weather records are too short and likely missing larger cycles.
Another guy, that same article, Joe Cioffi, I think is the way he pronounced his name, meteorologist, said, we're probably more hands-on in the day-to-day meteorology than climate researchers are.
It's amazing to me that because I'm a climate, quote, denier, unquote, I'm a right-wing meteorologist.
How dare these people politicize this process?
Thankfully, the AMS is not getting themselves drawn into this.
And that's exactly what it is.
They're politicizing this.
And he's also true in the sense that they are more day-to-day, hands-on.
That's one of the differences, and people may not realize this, the difference between meteorologists and climatologists is that the meteorologists are looking day-to-day at weather, at forecasts, that sort of thing, whereas climatologists are concerned with things that are decades long, that are centuries long, that are millennia long, and they don't even have They don't have enough valid weather information for more than 100 years.
And they don't even have enough weather information for the last 100 years to do it for Alaska and Hawaii.
And they don't have that much in the early records.
They don't have that much outside of just a few big cities.
So there really isn't much record data here to try to forecast a trend, especially for something as long as the climatologists are.
I think it's junk science.
Don't the weather records only go back a few hundred years at the most?
The very most?
Well, yeah, the very most.
And that would only be a few places like London and Paris and that sort of thing.
Like I said, the United States, they don't really consider that they've got enough in the United States.
I don't know what enough is for more than a hundred years.
And they exclude Alaska and Hawaii because they don't have the data for them.
But it's also interesting that this group, when I continued to look them up, another article that we've got here where it says political activists gagging our TV meteorologists.
Can you guys pull that one up?
That one, they did some research and they actually tied this group to George Soros.
Of course.
Okay.
And what they did was they did some research here.
If you guys can pull that up.
It's amazing to me how George Soros is always behind.
It's kind of the Moriarty of things, isn't it?
So, yeah, they went back and they looked at the Who Is records, they looked at some common stuff, and I'm not going to go into their detective trail here, but they actually found, you'll recognize this picture, Rob, Well, it doesn't look that good on the printout, but that's the guy that we have a picture of.
At the end of the, you know, we actually took this picture, I've got him at the, on the clip that we just showed there, right there.
That's him.
And he was one of the two guys that we talked to.
And this is one of the things they said in this article.
This is not grassroots.
This is big money that's come to the service of shadowy figures in the background of international politics and economics.
And that's true.
I mean, these are the guys who want to sell us.
They want to create a problem.
And then sell us the carbon credits and put a global tax on us.
Who's that going to go to?
Maybe some global government?
Maybe it'll go to some of these international financiers?
It's probably a combination or exclusively, yeah, definitely internationalists.
It's just funny to me how they're going to have to continuously shift their lie around, because it is a political, it's obviously just a political action they're taking, using climate or this stuff as an excuse.
And I think the more and more they fail at their objective of convincing everybody, then they've got to switch it around a little bit more, and now they have to do this, which is convince the meteorologists, and they're coming out stronger, and they shifted around a little bit.
In fact, I heard That gentleman that we ran into at that booth say that the new dialogue now is not global warming because the global warming has already happened.
So now we have to change the dialogue.
Get a document cam of this.
Can you pull this in?
They actually have bumper sticker type things.
It says climate change.
And there you've got the Statue of Liberty, kind of like Planet of the Apes type of thing, where the water's coming in on the Statue of Liberty right there.
Yeah, as if the new dialogue now is the first chapter in a, you know... And while you've got this up here, let me show you, this is the other thing.
How to be a climate caster.
Okay.
They want you to take your small weather report of maybe about three minutes and turn it into a propaganda piece.
And that's exactly it.
I mean, again, they're using the mainstream media.
They know, as they said in their statistics, that most people are getting their information from the television set.
They don't do their own research.
They don't investigate.
They don't look at alternative media.
So they've got a prime example here.
And we see this with another pattern with George Soros.
He loves to use the media to go in and propagandize and brainwash people.
Exactly.
And you know what?
It's the classic thing that Bernays basically set out.
If they can get their quote-unquote trusted authority on the issue to broadcast their opinion, then their opinion becomes reality to most people.
Yeah, and you know, one of the things, when we were talking to him, I asked him about, this is a good example, I asked him, well, what about Climategate?
Oh, Climategate's been thoroughly debunked.
I said, exactly, but in what way has it been debunked?
Okay, he wouldn't say, but he started attacking Ken Cuccinelli.
Oh, Ken Cuccinelli is just evil.
Well, what about Michael Mann?
Here's a guy who is supposed to be a scientist, but he's fighting tooth and nail to keep information that was part of his research that the public paid for.
He worked at a public university, so they funded his research, he's published the results, and the results are now being used to craft public policy, but we're not allowed to see that.
Does that sound like an objective, open scientist?
And what the guys at the Booth basically responded to you was, oh, I've never heard of such a thing.
Like, as if they were throwing their little strategy that they're trying to sell everybody right over here, they're trying to practice it on us.
And, you know, it's just like it was so, oh, you never heard of this before?
Well, now you have.
Now you've heard of it.
Right.
But their tactics are brainwashing through the media.
Ad hominem attacks to people.
And they come in and say, oh, they also shut you down.
Oh, if they've never heard of it before, they'll just coldly turn their back on you.
Or I'm not going to talk about that or ignore you.
I mean, they have all these different strategies to divert the subject, to, you know, make the conversation go the way they need it to go.
And if it's not going the way they need it to go, shut it down immediately.
Right.
And because they cannot actually show the facts of climate warming or their projections for climate change, basically their credibility comes down to their own personal credibility.
So they have to tout where they work, they have to tout their degrees, they have to tout the fact, and if they can, try to get AMS or these other people to come on and then say, oh, well, you know, there is no doubt about it, there's nothing that, but people who look at the facts, people who look at the data, people who look at the weather, see that's not happening.
I saw a thing from Steve Colbert that was really pretty funny, and what he was trying to do was make fun of climate deniers or skeptics, okay?
And what he said was, they'd had a snowstorm in Washington, and he said, well, that's it.
Global warming is obviously over.
And furthermore, if you look, temperatures are this in the winter, and then they went up to this in the spring, this in the summer.
At this rate, it's going to be 150 degrees by fall.
And that's exactly what they're doing, because they don't have the data.
They're making phony projections based on a very short-term trend, and they're projecting it out.
And I thought, well, that's exactly what the That's what the climatologists are doing.
He's trying to make fun of the skeptics, but that's exactly what the alarmists are doing.
Exactly, exactly.
I'd also like to add one more thing.
A few years ago, AAS had a conference, it's a scientific group, AAS, and they basically had a conference within that with a similar theme as this, and it was like how to talk to climate deniers was the theme of their conference.
And I just think it's This is a continuation of that, like, we should all see the pattern, see that there is a center post of propaganda, and they're using tidbits of scientific fact and quasi-scientific fact, glomming it onto the center post of propaganda.
Techniques.
Techniques.
They're using, they cherry-pick facts, or they do this, it's very sophisticated, like, or it's not even that sophisticated once you realize The tricks are being used over and over and over and over again.
They just update the information that they put into the techniques that they use.
I guess a few years ago it was how to talk to a climate denier for the general population.
Now it's how to get the weatherman to be on board because a lot of these weathermen apparently are looking at the facts and they're jumping ship.
Right, exactly.
They know what computer models are capable of doing and what they're not capable of doing.
Well, that's very interesting.
Thanks, Rob.
Now, as you can see, the Military-Industrial Complex is very well represented.
Right behind me, we've got people that are showing clips of fighter jets.
Over here, we've got SIAC.
One of the major sponsors here is Lockheed.
So, the military's been conducting extensive weather modification programs since the Vietnam War.
And we have a UN treaty signed in 1977 agreeing not to use weather modification as a weapon.
We have persistent aviation contrails increasing cloud cover, with consequences for climate and agriculture.
And we're seeing levels of aluminum soaring in soil and water samples.
Governments and others are actively modifying the weather, while George Soros and the mainstream media are telling us that the changes in the weather aren't due to sun cycles or deliberate modification.
But due to our lifestyle.
Sending money to global financiers like Al Gore and Soros in the form of carbon credits or creating a global tax will somehow solve the problem.
If there is a problem.
Mark Twain said, everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.
If only that were true today.
Well, that's what we saw at the AMS here in Austin.
We were looking for some way to tie global warming to geoengineering, and there really wasn't much other than that one organization was trying to turn weather forecasters into climate casters and use TV weather reports as kind of propaganda for global warming.
But we had one person there who was talking about climate engineering.
That was the David Mitchell interview that you saw.
But we wanted to broaden that out a little bit.
So we've got on the line here, Roslyn Peterson.
And she's been following this for quite some time, looking at contrails and their effects on the weather.
Welcome, Roslyn.
Well, thank you very much for having me as a guest on your show today.
Thank you.
You know, you've been following this for quite some time, and you've been watching the skies.
You've got an organization, it's California Skywatch, and also another one called Agriculture Defense Coalition.
Tell us how you got into this.
Well, back in 2002, ten years ago, I began to notice, since my background is in agriculture, That our skies were being covered over in white haze and persistent jet contrails.
And in 2002 it was so obvious here in Northern California where I live that you couldn't miss it.
So I started doing research to find out what was going on, impacts that this man-made cloud cover would have.
And over the last 10 years I've put about 40,000 documents on my website Documenting what is going on, government reports, all kinds of university studies, whatever I could find on the topic.
Yeah, you've got quite a bit of information there.
One of the things I think came out of this conference that I watched is we sat through quite a few presentations.
It seems to me like the science is pretty unsettled as to what they really are.
They're doing some things, obviously they're doing things, and we're seeing some effects.
And it seems like there's kind of a, well, let's throw this up and see what happens kind of effect.
The fellow who was talking about climate engineering, he was trying to do some things with aerosols, that was what he was proposing, that would stop cirrus cloud formation, because he believed that that was going to have a net warming effect.
But the very first guy in the question and answer period that got up questioned that and said, well, you know, cirrus clouds at a lower level actually have a net cooling effect.
So they're not agreed as to what the effects are.
And yet, you know, they do their computer models and then they put the stuff up in the sky.
I thought it was kind of interesting, one of the articles that you sent to me, they talked about how there was a net warming in the three days that all the jets were grounded following September 11th, back in 2001.
Yes, but what they did is they took an average temperatures and so when they talk about there was a warming, they weren't, in other words, they didn't give you all of the data that was found, I don't think, in that report.
Therefore, I have some questions because Scientists at NASA found that cirrus clouds formed by contrails from jet aircraft exhaust, which contain water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures, enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
So there is, because of this man-made cloud cover, which is a form of geoengineering, because it reduces the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth, but also traps heat, which warms us at nighttime, as well as may have a little cooling which warms us at nighttime, as well as may have a little cooling effect
But it still traps heat, and we're concerned about this because we feel that water vapor as an issue has not been discussed by any of the scientists or in any of the hearings that have been held on the subject of geoengineering by the U.S.
House Science and Technology Committee.
Yeah, and along those lines, news had just broken while we were at the AMS convention that they had just gone through and had the weather figures for 2012 and said it was, I think it was the warmest year they'd had on record or the warmest in quite some time, you know, in North America.
But overall, it was only the 7th or 8th warmest globally, because in other places there was cooling.
So, if they're putting a cloud cover that is raising the temperature over the United States, then that's something that could cause us to have warming here with their measurements, but perhaps, you know, not a global warming, because that's not being done everywhere.
Is that the way you see it?
Well, that's the way I see it.
And also, you have to look at a Stanford University report by Jacobson.
Professor Jacobson has noted that aircraft aviation and contrails are responsible for a good percentage of the warming over the Arctic and Alaska regions, and that the contrails from these, which is mostly water vapor and the man-made clouds they produce, are warming which is mostly water vapor and the man-made clouds they produce, are And no one talks about this in the news.
And I put this on my Alaska section of the website so people could look at the data and see what was going on there with the warming in the Arctic and Alaska.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Now, are you concerned at all when you're watching this?
Are you noticing things?
Some people have said that they've seen soaring concentrations of aluminum and barium and other things like that in the soil and water.
Have you noticed that with your agricultural watches out there?
Well, the California State Department of Health Drinking Water Division, I obtained all of their drinking water data for going back to the 1980s.
And you can tell in state drinking water testing, which is done by private, it's not done by private citizens, it's done by water districts.
Their testing reveals that there is a definite increase statewide in aluminum and barium Magnesium and other contaminants in drinking water since the 1990s.
Yeah, it was in one of the presentations they were doing some testing.
They did computer simulation and modeling trying to determine if the computer could predict the right cloud conditions that would be optimal for their cloud seeding operation.
And so they were putting up silver iodide and they put up a couple of trace radioactive elements, indium and cesium, and then he said they were going to test for those to see where they were coming back down, see what the rain pattern was going to be.
But he also mentioned, casually, aluminum.
And I really wanted to ask him about that, but it was in the same session where the fellow was that was talking about climate engineering, so we went for him first and we lost the other guy.
But most of what we're seeing as far as climate change and that sort of thing, any talk about that, that was pretty much under the radar at AMS.
I guess one of the things that struck me was just the sheer quantity of work that's being done everywhere.
And it seems like it's focused primarily here in the United States and in China.
Have you noticed anything in terms of increased cloud cover in China?
Or is that anything that you monitor?
I do a little, but you did notice the cloud cover and the jet contrails during the Olympics when it was held in China.
And so there was some background where you could see in the skies, you could see the contrails in the skies.
So we know that contrails that persist exist in other countries as well as the United States, especially the NATO countries.
One of the things we always want to do is follow the money.
And some of the stuff that you sent me, I mean, everybody's heard of carbon credits that are going to go to private companies like the ones that Al Gore runs that make them wealthy.
We've also got carbon taxes, which could be a way to fund a global government because they have to do that globally.
But you also pointed out that there's weather derivatives.
That was something that was new.
Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Yes, the Chicago Mercantile Stock Exchange has been allowing betting on the weather for some time, and then in the last couple of years, they have decided that they're going to allow betting on the weather.
Weather, how much snow, how much rainfall, all kinds of bedding.
And one of the things that we know is that there are 66 ongoing weather modification programs ongoing in the United States.
And that these programs are successful, that they're used every year.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a public utility in California, has been doing it for over 40 years here in California as just one example.
But in Wyoming and Colorado, Texas, there's been weather modification programs ongoing for years.
And that these, they're, when they say that there's indefinite information and we don't know how well it works, we have to realize that this has been perfected over time, especially considering that we, the US Air Force perfected it in the Vietnam War.
Uh, they were doing weather modification there on a massive scale and they know that it worked because they perfected the technologies then.
Yeah, so we even have a document going back to, uh...
1977, this is from the U.S.
State Department, Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.
This is something that came out of the State Department, went to the U.N., and so they were aware of it to the degree that they wanted to have treaties prohibiting using it as a weapon.
But there's nothing there that keeps them from using that here domestically, is there?
Well, yes, because the United States passed it, ratified it and passed it.
So it is, the An Mon Treaty has been ratified by the United States and because of our wartime activities in Vietnam about using weather modification for warfare.
However, if you say that something is experimental, or if you say that it isn't ongoing, it's one-time research and testing, then anyone can modify or change the weather in the United States without public notification, public oversight, without your elected officials knowing what's going on.
So, we need to really be aware that there's no laws preventing atmospheric manipulation of any kind right now.
In the United States.
And we've had people like Bill Gates and others who have talked about massively dumping quantities of particulates into the atmosphere in order to do something that, according to their computer models, they hope will have a beneficial effect in terms of cooling or something like that.
But there's really, as you said, there's not really anything that's going... they don't have to notify the public?
There isn't any agency that really oversees that, is there?
No, there isn't.
If you have an ongoing weather modification program, you do have to report to NOAA, and I sent you that NOAA list of weather modification programs, which is online, which they do on a yearly basis.
But we're talking about, in other words, David Keith, for example, is talking about putting aluminum oxide particulates in the air to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, using water vapor as a medium, which is a greenhouse gas, which doesn't make any sense because you'd be adding more greenhouse gases via aviation to the atmosphere.
Exactly.
So we're talking about that.
We're also talking about putting salt particles up.
This was Bill Gates was going to be funding this In other words, looking to the skies to whiten the clouds to reflect more direct sunlight away from the earth.
But here's your problem.
When you start putting up particles and chemicals, not only do you have an air, soil and water pollution problem, but you reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth and you have a photosynthesis problem.
Because all plants require direct sunlight to grow healthy and strong and produce crops.
for trees to grow strong and healthy.
You also reduce the amount of vitamin D absorbed through our skin, which means increasing health effects.
You lower solar panel power production when you start to add man-made clouds and haze, and you start to put up things that brighten the clouds to reflect more direct sunlight.
You are going to have an impact on the Earth's climate and weather system and our natural resources, as well as human health, crop production, and other items that need to be really discussed by the public.
And they're not being discussed at this time.
Yeah, it's amazing to me that, you know, both as government policy and also the EPA, for example, I mean, the things that most of their regulations are centering on, where they're shutting down businesses and that sort of thing, is to reduce CO2 and to reduce, even more so, to reduce particulate matter.
I mean, they've focused on that more and they have CO2 reduction.
And yet here you've got, at the same time, these organizations proposing, and in many cases actually doing it, dumping massive amounts of particulates and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as you point out.
I mean, on the one hand, they're Cracking down on individual users, and yet they're doing it at the same time.
And then telling us that in order to protect us from this global warming that we're causing, they're setting up these massive global schemes to make money, like the carbon credit exchange, the carbon taxes, that sort of thing, and even, you know, betting on it as far as derivatives.
That's right, because when you put a program into place, and it's known, like the weather modification programs going on, in the United States there's 66.
You can bet on those.
You can bet that in Colorado or Wyoming they're going to enhance the snow in certain areas, and you can bet on that, make fortunes.
Exactly.
It's insider trading, isn't it?
It's just like what we see the Congress doing all the time and doing it with impunity, saying, yeah, we're allowed to do insider trading.
Well, they're essentially doing insider trading with this and setting up a system to basically alarm us into a world government.
government organization or to create kind of a Federal Reserve on a global level, you know, which is the way I see this carbon credit scheme going.
Well, the carbon tax that they're proposing is not, what is that tax going to do?
It can't stop consumption because you don't have alternatives in place.
So they're going to tax us and then they're going to use the funds for something else.
And I object to that.
And they don't say how a carbon tax on all of us is going to, in other words, help with the climate, reduce global warming.
They're not talking about reducing the water vapor produced by aviation.
They're not talking about water vapor as being a problem, that they could reduce this.
In other words, they have these schemes, and the interesting thing about geoengineering or the part of it, solar radiation management,
Which means reducing the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, is that these schemes would be funded, but when you ask the people promoting them, a small group of men who really promote this, like David Keyes, for example, or Ken Caldeira, they say, well, once you start, you can never stop, because it doesn't fix the problem, it just masks the warming.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's incredible!
Sounds like the cancer industry.
Yeah, they don't ever come up with a cure, but they just endlessly treat it with more and more expensive treatments.
Yes, and they say, well, then you can't stop.
Well, when I say, well, you're going to do something in our atmosphere and you can't stop because then things will get worse, well, the programs that they're promoting are going to make things worse.
Air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, human health problems, all kinds of things.
Those are going to get worse.
And then they say, well, we can't stop because then, you know, crisis will prevail.
Well, this doesn't seem like a long-term, long-lasting solution.
Yeah, exactly.
And I think one of the things that really disturbed me, of course, a lot of people that we saw doing presentations, there were many, many presentations, because Each person's presentation only lasted 15 minutes, and they were doing these the entire day for four or five days.
But they're typically going in with a thesis and doing something small, local, experimental.
Most of the meteorologists were doing computer simulations, and then they were going out and taking measurements, getting empirical data, that sort of thing, and trying to close the loop.
But when we're talking about massive things like climate change, they're not able to do that.
The climatologists are different from the meteorologists.
The climatologists are looking at things that are stretching out over decades or centuries or even millennia.
And the way they're doing that is they're modeling things and they're doing computer projections.
And so, you know, their understanding and how good their model is, is not anything that we can really verify.
So, I guess one of the concerns that I have is that they're talking about doing things and are doing things that they really don't understand what the consequences are.
No, and they're very focused on one thing.
They're not focused on the agriculture field and impacts, or tree health, or photosynthesis.
They're not interested in solar panel power production, and their models don't help with those things.
And when they say models, they never usually put aviation impacts into models.
See, the models can be flawed, and unless you know what parameters are excluded, or if they're taking averages and excluding things, then you can never verify that their models are correct.
Exactly.
And as we watch them do this, I mean, even when they were doing relatively small contained experiments, where they're doing cloud seeding over an area, for example, maybe during the snow season, And they're going out, they're measuring it constantly over two or three months, and trying to close that loop.
Even then, they have a hard time modeling it.
And so, as you said, you know, when they've got, when they're trying to model, and the fellow that we talked to from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, he was very honest about the limitations of computer models.
And I think he was very skeptical about Trying to do any kind of climate engineering, and also the massive environmental impacts he mentioned that would have to be considered if you were to do climate engineering.
But when you look at what they're trying to do with just a local controlled experiment, and see how difficult that is for them to model, because they're out in the real world.
Like I mentioned to him, my background is electrical engineering.
You're modeling something, if you do a computer simulation of electrical circuit, you're doing something that's very well known, that's there in the laboratory, that That, you know, it doesn't have the kind of infinite variables that the environment does.
And, as you said, they're not even looking at contrails and clouds that are coming, that are persistent from contrails that are being generated by aviation.
Yes.
So the thing is that when they look at their models, they look at a very small, like you said, they look at a very small detail and then say this or that about it.
But what we're finding is they don't look at the overall picture.
In other words, since agriculture, which is my background, and I work for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture here in California, For many years under the Farm Service Agency.
What happens is that they have no knowledge of water pollution, soil pollution, changing local climate.
They have really no knowledge and they can't put it into their models because the microclimates are hundreds of thousands.
Because each city and each town, each area has a different microclimate that they use that agriculture depends upon.
And you start changing those They have no idea what impact that's going to have to the next-door neighbors.
Yes.
And so, there's one other thing I want to say about that.
One of the things that has been noted is that you can enhance the snow or the rainfall in one area, but they're not studying the nearby areas that go into drought because their normal rainfall or snow never gets to them.
Very good point.
Yeah.
Yeah, they're robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
Yeah, so they look at one little thing that, oh, well, it worked or didn't work or whatever they see, and they model it, but they aren't looking at the overall picture to see what's happening downstream.
Well, one last question I had for you, which was, you know, most of the stuff that they're doing is silver iodide.
They did talk about, I think it was bismuth tri-iodide was another particle that they were looking at for their cloud seeding stuff.
Nobody would say they were doing anything with aluminum, but do you have, looking at it from an agricultural standpoint, I mean, do you have any concerns about silver iodide?
Well, it depends on the amount and the scope that they're using, and it can have its impact because it rains out.
And there is some EPA documentation that shows that silver iodide, in other words, can have some negative effects, and that's on the California EPA website.
Anyone can look it up.
What I'm concerned about is that it isn't just silver iodide.
It's salt, sea salt, is being used for cloud seeding purposes.
Hygroscopic, yeah.
Yeah, and there's ground-based cloud seeding.
There's not just small aircraft cloud seeding, there's ground-based cloud seeding.
So you have a tremendous amount of methods and techniques going on, and I list some of them on the weather modification section of my website, so that people can go and look at that, and they can see the various techniques and chemicals and different things that are used.
And it's stunning!
Yeah, yeah.
Your website has a wealth of information.
I've got to say, you must have sent me about 30 or 40 emails and each of them had multiple documents on there.
I mean, and that's just a small fraction of the data that you've collected over the years.
I would highly recommend anybody that wants to look into this and is wondering about You know, the massive contrails that they see in the sky crisscrossing.
Go to AgricultureDefenseCoalition.org.
They're going to find a lot of information there.
Also, California Skywatch.
Is that .org or is that .com?
That's .org, right?
No, it's CaliforniaSkyWatch.com and AgricultureDefenseCoalition.org.
If you click on the category section of either one, it will give you an alphabetical listing of everything on the websites by topic.
Great.
Thank you very much.
And that's the thing, you know, at this point we need to educate ourselves about what's being done because they're not telling us about it.
Most of what they're doing with the weather is under the radar at this point.
So, but you can find out what's going on if you go to these sites.
Roslyn Peterson and her organization has a wealth of information there.
Well, thank you very much, Roslyn, for talking to us.
Well, thank you very much, and it's been an honor and privilege to be on your show today.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
Well, if you want to know more about ground particulates and things that are coming out of these geoengineering projects, or why they're doing it, there's an excellent couple of documentaries, What in the World Are They Spraying?
and Why in the World Are They Spraying?
We have those available at InfoWars store.
We have a chemtrail combo where you can get both of those for $34.90.
Very good documentaries.
They go over exactly what people are seeing in terms of the concentrations of aluminum and barium and other elements that are part of these geoengineering programs.
And they also look at why they're doing this.
Because there's a lot of evidence, there's a lot of documents that The globalists have come out with why they're doing this.
So those are a couple things you might want to check out.
And also go to Prison Planet TV to check out our documentaries.
If you get a membership you'll be able to watch all the documentaries that we produce there at no additional charge.
And if you're watching this on YouTube, You can go to Prison Planet TV and get a membership that will help to fund our operation, and you can also pass that out to your friends and family, help to wake them up.
Ten people at a time can watch simultaneously.
Of course, you can hand it out to more people than that, but at least ten people can simultaneously watch it at a time, so that's a lot of reach to get this information out there to wake people up.
Just as we talked to Roslyn Peterson, you know, a lot of people don't really even take a look at what's going on above the sky.
They don't look and they might see things happening with the weather, they might see things happening with agriculture, but they don't stop to ask why.
We want to do that.
And I think if you're watching this, you're probably the kind of person who wants to do that.
Try to get your friends to be that kind of person, to look behind what's actually happening to them, to be aware of what's actually happening around the world, politically, chemically, in terms of weather, you know, and get the bigger picture.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow night at 7 o'clock Central Time.
▲
Export Selection