Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering

[33degree]

Hey guys,

Rhode Island just passed [introduced] Bill H5480 that defines and regulates the use of Geoengineering: https://legiscan.com/RI/text/H5480/id/1125840/Rhode_Island-2015-H5480-Introduced.pdf

On page 2 it defines Geoengineering:

(6) "Geoengineering" means activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a
change in the area climate, with the intent or purpose of minimizing or masking anthropogenic
climate change, including global warning. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Attempts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; and
(ii) Solar radiation management or cloud whitening, or similar process whereby aerosols, particles, chemicals, gases, vapors, or other compounds are injected into the atmosphere to reflect
a portion of the sun's radiation back into space

When they talk about "cloud whitening" and injecting clouds with aerosols, what does that mean?

In the "Findings of Fact" section of the bill, it states:

The general assembly finds and declares as follows:

(1) Geoengineering or climate remediation is a process that is in the experimental stages
and, if unrestricted and unregulated, could have an economic impact on the
state by potentially allowing increased amounts of air contaminants and air pollution throughout all areas of the state.

What air contaminants are they talking about here and where would they come from?

 

[Mick West]

When they talk about "cloud whitening" and injecting clouds with aerosols, what does that mean?

It means any of a large number of proposed geoengineering techniques

Cloud whitening is explained here - making low clouds brighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_reflectivity_modification

Conversely, low cloud tends to be warm and highly reflective to sunlight, especially when the cloud is white due to the presence of smaller droplets (because of the Twomey effect). Therefore, modifying these clouds to make them more reflective cools the climate. This proposed technique is known as 'marine cloud brightening' or 'cloud whitening' on low cloud.

What air contaminants are they talking about here and where would they come from?

They seems to be referring to things that would be sprayed as part of a geoengineering program. Again, there are lots of different proposals. None of which are in operation, AFAIK.

 

[AB_lickem_Jr]

This explains what we are seeing. Our community is in an uproar over this. Last sunday it was brought up at service and I was amazed at how many people are wondering what in the hell is going on. Thanks for sharing.

 

[deirdre]

Rhode Island just passed Bill H5480 that defines

I admit all these bills and revisions etc confuse me.. but where are you seeing it 'passed'? this page says 'held for further study' (not that pre-regulating such things is odd in any way)


https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H5480/2015

What air contaminants are they talking about here and where would they come from

it tells you pretty specifically in the text. and what the 'regulation proposals are'. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText15/HouseText15/H5480.pdf


Why is your community in an uproar?

 

[Pete Tar]

This explains what we are seeing. Our community is in an uproar over this. Last sunday it was brought up at service and I was amazed at how many people are wondering what in the hell is going on. Thanks for sharing.

No it doesn't. What are you seeing?

 

[deirdre]

No it doesn't. What are you seeing?

me? stuff like this.

 

[Mick West]

Rhode Island just passed Bill H5480 that defines and regulates the use of Geoengineering:

It didn't pass, it was just scheduled for another committee meeting on May 21:
http://status.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/agenda-11234.pdf

 

[Pete Tar]

me?

No, I was replying to AB's post but you got in just before me, so I added the quote I was replying to.

 

[Trailblazer]

This explains what we are seeing. Our community is in an uproar over this. Last sunday it was brought up at service and I was amazed at how many people are wondering what in the hell is going on. Thanks for sharing.

How can an act seeking to control a technology that hasn't been implemented anywhere yet "explain what you are seeing"?

 

[deirdre]

How can an act seeking to control a technology that hasn't been implemented anywhere yet "explain what you are seeing"?

there are alot of flight paths going past RI.

what cracks me up.. no offense AB... Rhode Island is literally the size of a postage stamp global area wise. Not only is the global location not conducive to geoengineering/SRM, but if they tried spraying stuff in the stratosphere Connecticut and Massachusetts would be all over them! because anything you sprayed from RI would blow onto Conn or Mass or the fish we eat.

And if Conn or Mass decided to take contracts to allow SRM spraying, we'd make sure the fallout landed on RI so their 'legislation' isn't going to help them much.

 

[Trailblazer]

there are alot of flight paths going past RI.

what cracks me up.. no offense AB... Rhode Island is literally the size of a postage stamp global area wise. Not only is the global location not conducive to geoengineering/SRM, but if they tried spraying stuff in the stratosphere Connecticut and Massachusetts would be all over them! because anything you sprayed from RI would blow onto Conn or Mass or the fish we eat.

And if Conn or Mass decided to take contracts to allow SRM spraying, we'd make sure the fallout landed on RI so their 'legislation' isn't going to help them much.

Yes, you raise a good point in terms of location. Most SRM proposals talk about targeting areas between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south of the equator. Rhode Island, at about 41 degrees north, is well outside that zone.

 

[deirdre]

Yes, you raise a good point in terms of location. Most SRM proposals talk about targeting areas between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south of the equator. Rhode Island, at about 41 degrees north, is well outside that zone.

thats wider than i would have thought. i would have picked like 20 each side. i'll add a pic so AB can see.

 

[Trailblazer]

thats wider than i would have thought. i would have picked like 20 each side. i'll add a pic so AB can see.
View attachment 12941

That's a nice clear illustration. So limiting it to areas within 30 degrees of the equator would exclude:

All of Europe.

All of Canada, and all of the USA except Hawaii, Florida and a very thin strip along the Gulf Coast.

The southern third of Australia, including Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth (the vast majority of the Australian population, I would suggest)

All of New Zealand.


Will we start to see a surge of anti-geoengineering groups in Central America, Brazil, Africa and SE Asia?

 

[deirdre]

Will we start to see a surge of anti-geoengineering groups in Central America, Brazil, Africa and SE Asia?

at least Gnarly Carly is somewhat justified for freaking out

 

[deirdre]

And if Conn or Mass decided to take contracts to allow SRM spraying, we'd make sure the fallout landed on RI so their 'legislation' isn't going to help them much.

see?

 

[skephu]

Looks like the anti-geoengineering legislation in Rhode Island is still on the table. Dane Wigington has posted a video recording of a recent hearing. Apparently Dane has supplied his misinformation to the representatives, and has turned them into full-blown chemtrail believers.



Although the text of the bill only talks about geoengineering as a future possibility, from the hearing above it is clear that both representatives who introduced it (MacBeth and Price) do believe it is already going on in our skies.

 

[SR1419]

from the hearing above it is clear that both representatives who introduced it (MacBeth and Price) do believe it is already going on in our skies.

that is sad...and dangerous.

 

[Mick West]

Very unfortunate that they are wasting time with this. Karen MacBeth is an elementary school principal, Justin Price is former marine, fisherman, and carpenter. Both sound like good people reasonable who have just got sucked into the chemtrail conspiracy theory.

The reason this happens is probably just down to powers of persuasion. Neither of these people have any familiarity with the science or history of contrails (much like most people) so their opinions about the chemtrail theory are formed by conversations they have had with people that they trust. It's not based on any real understanding of facts or science. They just get sucked in.

One wonders how far it has gone? If I were to talk to them, would they think i was a government disinformation agent? Would they go as far as Dane Wigington and claim that ALL scientists were in on it, and that "they" have been doing it for 70+ years.

 

[Lisa P]

If I were to talk to them, would they think i was a government disinformation agent? Would they go as far as Dane Wigington and claim that ALL scientists were in on it, and that "they" have been doing it for 70+ years.

Mick I think it would be worth finding out what they actually believe and then take each issue on. If you present facts and get shut down and not believed then you are actually dealing with something else and there is nothing anyone can do to help that (that I know of).

I say give it a go I think once the facts are put on the table people in their right minds will get it pretty quickly. My advise is to listen and try to understand then present facts rather than just throw fact after fact. If you get people that purposefully use tricks like a gish gallop, they won't listen to anything you say and throw bunk after bunk it isn't even worth talking to that type of person. I see that as wasting time on a person with narcissist tendencies they love the attention and you are giving them a present by arguing.

I saved the link to this bill last night and was going to do a bit of investigating today mainly to see if it was passed so saved myself some time coming here!

 

[skephu]

This bill has not yet been passed but it is still under consideration:

 

[Balance]

I can imagine it's only a matter of time before the Board have to consult the accused (governement, industry, science research) and this whole fiasco will be shown for what it really is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Although the text of the bill only talks about geoengineering as a future possibility, from the hearing above it is clear that both representatives who introduced it (MacBeth and Price) do believe it is already going on in our skies.

I can already picture the "government officials admit to chemtrails 100% PROOF" videos.

This is a particularly annoying case of a vicious circle - chemtrail believers use spurious "evidence" to recruit officials, who will then get used as further evidence, and so it goes on...

 

[skephu]

People can comment on this bill on this page:
https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H7578/2016

There are already a lot of comments, and all of them are from chemtrail believers, including some of the usual suspects.

 

[MikeG]

I can imagine it's only a matter of time before the Board have to consult the accused (governement, industry, science research) and this whole fiasco will be shown for what it really is.

Man I hope so.

 

[jonnyH]

People can comment on this bill on this page:
https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H7578/2016

There are already a lot of comments, and all of them are from chemtrail believers, including some of the usual suspects.

Not quite all, there is one easily missed, well informed comment:

Colin King
The University of Sheffield
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that a bill about geoengineering has something to do with the aircraft contrails seen in the sky. That is not the case. Geoengineering/solar radiation management is a proposed technology that would take place in the stratosphere, approximately double the altitude of aircraft contrails. It would not create visible trails or clouds, it would simply reflect a small proportion of the sun's rays, mimicking the global effect of a volcanic eruption (eg Pinatubo). As of 2016, no SRM technology has ever been deployed anywhere in the world, let alone in Rhode Island.

 

[Efftup]

I can already picture the "government officials admit to chemtrails 100% PROOF" videos.

This is a particularly annoying case of a vicious circle - chemtrail believers use spurious "evidence" to recruit officials, who will then get used as further evidence, and so it goes on...

People are still posting Rosalind Petersen discussing chemtrails at the UN, even though the actual non UN meeting was in 2007 and she has since changed her mind about chemtrails

 

[skephu]

People are still posting Rosalind Petersen discussing chemtrails at the UN, even though the actual non UN meeting was in 2007 and she has since changed her mind about chemtrails

Not really, she gave a similar talk at Dane Wigington's mega event last August.

 

[skephu]

I found this on facebook, it is about last year's version of the bill.

Rhode Island Against Chemtrails
July 8, 2015 ·
UPDATE on Rhode Island House Bill 5480 - The bill was held for further study following yesterday's hearing (5/21/15). Rep. MacBeth received materials from Dane Wigington (flyers, DVDs...) to pass out to the other legislators. RI activist (initial inspiration for the bill) Tom L. made sure she received the delivery. Tom L. was unable to attend the hearing due to a health issue, despite very much wanting to be there.
Email from Rep. Karen MacBeth -
"All bills are originally held for further study so that is not a surprise nor does it mean that it wasn't taken seriously.
I found the interest this year to be much higher than last year. One person on the committee was very knowledgable and supportive and even answered some of the questions that other committee members had.
I was surprised that the members asked as many questions as they did. I agree that further data in needed for future testimony.
I am also disappointed that I had the meeting rescheduled to have public testimony and only one person showed. I guess I can say that I was more than disappointed. It is one thing for people to post on social media wanting change...it is another to stand up and do something about it...more people need to go beyond posts and come testify!
Given the huge increase in attention to this across the nation I do think we can become stronger for the future." ~ Rep. MacBeth

So it looks like Dane Wigington is actually all behind this, through one of his dedicated followers, Tom Loiselle.

I don't know how the committee members try to get informed, but these people never mention the word chemtrail and hardly mention contrails, so chances are they will never stumble on contrailscience or metabunk.

I found the audio recording of last year's committee meeting, it is on this web page, click the 5-21-2015 meeting's audio recording. It contains a more detailed discussion of the issue than the February 25 meeting, but most participants are essentially either hardened chemtrail believers or just completely clueless.

 

[Balance]

I can imagine it's only a matter of time before the Board have to consult the accused (governement, industry, science research) and this whole fiasco will be shown for what it really is.

I'd like to revise my comment. From scrutinising the bill and other information provided, I think this consultation has already occured (for instance, see above video @10:30mins) and none of them (except Rep's Price and MacBeth) are falling for the CT.

I don't know how the committee members try to get informed,

It would be interesting to see what information was used to draft the actual bill. (I'd bet Dane was cc'd in on it all, which would explain why he and all the other testifiers are now absent)

In the video above, it's clear the chair doesn't want to listen to the gish-gallop from Tom, asking he testify less about historical claims, current speculations and unfounded fears but instead focus on the bill itself (which appears to have zero hint of ongoing "chemtrails" and/or elevated chemical exposures), though he does state the board will gladly accept any further information the public sees fit.
At which point Tom goes on to to say this bill will be beneficial in regards to transparency but very quickly reverts back to a gish-gallop after which he's asked by the board to clarify "are we speaking about contrails from airlines...?" To which Tom replied "Yeah! It's, it's actually Stratospheric Aerosol Geongineering or Solar Radiation Mangement...". Tom then mentions that if this bill (which they presumably hope will reveal chemtrails are real) isn't passed, their legal team would have to "set up non-profit environmental groups as plaintiffs" against said chemical exposure.

And eventually, where Rep Price is stumbling along (around 14mins) trying to convince the panel to believe to see "the elephant in the room if you chose to believe it", Tom says it all. "You don't wanna believe it (spraying harmful stuff), right, but you have to get past that, you gotta believe your own eyeballs...I have loads of photos and videos..."

Considering Dane tells us that Tom was "in" on the legal team's conference call prior to this testimony (and presumably briefed/advised as best they could), as a believer I would be very disappointed to see how nothing's really progressed through the years.

 

[Trailblazer]

In some ways it might even be beneficial if this bill does get passed. Contrails will still appear above Rhode Island, and it can then be legally proven that contrails are nothing to do with geoengineering.

 

[skephu]

I'm not quite sure what will happen next. The committee recommended that the measure be held for further study. They did the same thing last May. Does that mean nothing will happen for another 10 months or so?
Anyone here from Rhode Island?

 

[JRBids]

@Balance, What video above? The one in #16?

 

[JRBids]

I found the audio recording of last year's committee meeting, it is on this web page, click the 5-21-2015 meeting's audio recording. It contains a more detailed discussion of the issue than the February 25 meeting, but most participants are essentially either hardened chemtrail believers or just completely clueless.

Regarding the 5-21-2015 audio; "Some people call it 'chemtrailing' but if you ask anyone in "science" it's called geoengineering" The speaker says. How could they let him go on and on saying Bill Gates is funding it, there are patents, etc etc and not ask for any proof? There are so many claims made and no citations, no proof.

 

[AumuA]

Due to their lack of proof, it almost seems like the chemtrail theorists are guaranteed to shoot themselves in the foot, in any one of a thousand different ways, at any one of a hundred junctions. Because of that, it's hard to imagine this going very far, and yet.. we're living in a time and place where we might seriously be electing Trump for our president, so I really wonder sometimes. I think people are grasping for meaning for their lives, in a world that doesn't offer them much of that.

 

[GregMc]

I wonder if there might be a benefit of mailing a copy of Scorer's "clouds of the world" book from 1972 to some of the wiser committee members.
Imagine a scenario where the book with its detailed images of contrails was held up and Price and MacBeth were asked "are these trails what you are talking about? Is this what you are trying to ban?"
The answer most likely would be in the affirmative and then the tabling of some documented historic science on contrails might introduce some sense to the proceedings.

 

[JPMajor]

I'm in RI. This is crazy. I've just emailed both MacBeth and Price about the bill. I doubt their goal is spreading pseudoscience into RI politics and making a joke of the state. Hopefully I hear back.

 

[AumuA]

I don't know, maybe what needs to happen, like someone said, is that this needs to get more into the public discourse to the point that an ongoing coverup of such large scale becomes more and more absurd, as more and more entities are looking for it, and not finding it.

 

[JPMajor]

I did hear back from one of the Representatives on the bill, Karen Macbeth, who basically just said in an email that "If nothing is going on then I guess it would be no big deal to have the legislation pass as then there would be no reporting necessary. I don't see that either side on this issue should be considered a laughing stock." (I had proposed that should such a bill pass it would result in RI becoming a 'laughing stock' of the scientific community, given that it would be touted as a win by conspiracy groups. In reality the scientific community likely wouldn't pay too much attention, but it would just confuse the general population as to what's going on. But I'm sure it wouldn't be ignored by the reporters either way.)

 

[JRBids]

What a fabulous idea: pay our legislators to spend their time passing bills against imaginary threats. Don't they have any real issues in Rhode Island?

 

[JPMajor]

What a fabulous idea: pay our legislators to spend their time passing bills against imaginary threats. Don't they have any real issues in Rhode Island?

Traditionally we've had a vampire problem...