1031-MAR-2025-Uncle Scam vs Lady Liberty Clear vs Toxic Skies by Ed-Newmann
[Publisher's Update 03.29.2025: Watch the Iowa House Debate Calendar at this link here, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/eligibleDebate/houseDebateCalendar, to see when HF197 is slated for floor debate and potential voting on this important legislation.]
On February 11, 2025, more than 75 concerned citizens gathered in room 102 at the Iowa state capital for the House Environmental Protection Sub-Committee hearing regarding House File 191 proposed legislation from Iowa District 87 (Van Buren County) State Representative Jeff Shipley.
The proposed bill opens with: “An Act relating to the intentional emission of air contaminants into the atmosphere.” The room was packed wall to wall with people of all ages, including mothers with their young infant children. These citizens were there to support Shipley's bill to be passed out of this subcommittee onto the broader committee funnel to hopefully make it to the House floor for debate and passage. The effort had been broadly supported by ClearSkiesIowa.com founders who generated more than 1,700 petitions online and hand-signed from across Iowa. The subcommittee is made up of Republicans Sam Wengryn (District 42/Decatur County) and Craig Johnson (District 67/Buchanan County) and Democrat Ken Croken (District 97/Scott County). After listening patiently to more than a dozen citizens state their concerns and support for this effort to outlaw geoengineering, or aerial spraying of contaminants in Iowa, Croken was the only “No” vote to move the bill to the larger committee.
[Publisher's Note: This article first appeared in the Reader's March 2025 issue #1031 monthly print edition on March 6, 2025. That same day the full House Environmental Protection commitee voted to recommend to the House "Do Pass" with 11 yays and 5 nos, 1 excused.
HF191 was subsequently retitled to HF927. On March 24, 2025, Representative Shipley stated in an email "Rep Wengryn and I just filed this amendment language to HF927. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/
Back to Feb 11, 2025 at the State Capitol below where the current HF927 bill was introduced by Representative Shipley:
Below is a transcript of Shipley's remarks, my own remarks, and Ken Croken's remarks that day. The full audio file of the hearing can be found at RCReader Podcasts site, here.
Following these transcripts below are the missives from two additional Republican Iowa representatives days after the hearing, sourced from their e-mail newsletter updates to their constituents regarding HF 191, Mike Vondran (District 94/Scott County), and Eddie Andrews (District 91/Polk County). Their remarks are shared as examples of how our so-called representatives are positioning themselves to accommodate continued spraying of Iowa skies with contaminants and what sort of pretzel logic they've been coached to proliferate to maintain the status quo we all continue to suffer from here in Iowa.
Shipley is reporting that HF191 may be meeting in the larger committee on Thursday March 6, 2025, to vote on moving it further in the funnel. If you want to be kept up to date on these efforts please go ClearSkiesIowa.com and sign the petition and you will receive updates on this bill and the Senate File 142. Shipley stated that he is hopeful the Senate bill will be adopted to the House bill because it contains a more complete definition for these harmful activities and specifies a criminal penalty. You can read both of these bills and more coverage on this issue at RCReader.com/tags/geoengineering.
Representative Jeff Shipley's Remarks on February 11, 2025
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Environmental Protection Committee.
The people of DIstrict 87 are pleased to present for your consideration: HF 191, a bill to prohibit geoengineering.
At this time, I do wish to bring to the committee’s attention SF142, which is a superior legislative document I would implore the committee to consider.
This legislation was inspired in part by the state of Tennessee and their recent law, as well as dozens of other U.S. States considering their own geoengineering regulations. This is in addition to discussions happening in the European Union, and as well as congressionally mandated policy documents produced by the Joe Biden Whitehouse.
There is no doubt, the potential for polluting atmospheric activity as described in the bill, the potential for cloud seeding, for weather engineering, exists. And therefore it is incumbent on the State of Iowa to exercise sovereignty in this area.
Upon digging into this bill, I came across U.S. Congressional hearings exploring this topic from 2009 and the Council of Foreign Relations in 2010 discussing the need for an international geoengineering framework to combat climate change. So in my mind the State of Iowa is at least 15 years behind on addressing this topic, and the failure for the legislature to act, to surrender sovereign responsibility in this area, realistically puts the people of Iowa, our health and well-being, and our economic prosperity at serious and grave risk.
In closing, I do view this legislation as a necessary fact-finding exercise. The absence of clear information in this area is reason enough to justify an urgent prohibition of the practice, so we can gather clear evidence and data surrounding these technologies.
I implore the Environmental Protection Committee to act swiftly in delivering SF142 to the Governor for her signature – that’s the very least the people of Iowa can expect, the exercise of state sovereignty over the real and controversial practices of geoengineering.
Todd McGreevy's Remarks on February 11, 2025
Hi. My name is Todd McGreevy. I live in Scott County, Bettendorf, Iowa. I’m a publisher of a newspaper called the River Cities’ Reader for 30-plus years. We’ve covered this issue for over 10 years. In the River Cities’ Reader in November, we published a story called, “Is Geoengineering Over Iowa and Illinois Climate Engineering or Mankind’s Biggest Threat?” and among other things we talked about in that article, many things that this gentleman just talked about – they include – well, don't take my word for it. Take the word of the federal congressional committees and subcommittees that have produced white papers on this topic for years.
There are troves of videos online showcasing think-tanks and scientists discussing geoengineering, and the various forms such worldwide programs have been running including: Cloud Seeding, Weather Modification, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Go to ZeroGeoengineering.com and one cannot miss the U.S. government and World Health Organization source documents reviewing the pros and cons of such programs.
Most of these documents, if you take the time to read them, which I have, conclude that we don't really know for certain if these missions are helping or hurting our planet's health and those of us who inhabit Earth. And I bring this up because I just had a conversation with my good friend Ken Croken, who I've worked with many times here in Scott County, and the, I think the crossroads we’re going to come to is, that if, if some of, some of those who are against this because they finally acknowledge it’s happening but they think it’s good for us, because it’s going to mitigate climate change, I would point to the two words: Informed Consent.
We did not consent to have these things sprayed on us.
While you may feel that it is good for us to spray these chemicals and particles in the sky for some untested reason, those of us – we did not consent to have this being experimented upon; and so you all – and it’s kind of sad that we have to come here, hat in hand, and ask legislators to uphold their oath of office. You already took an oath of office to protect our property rights. Our bodies are our property, and you took an oath to uphold our constitutionally-protected rights. This is the right thing to do. Look at the evidence, and if you think it’s good for us because of climate change, we did not – there’s no informed consent. Thank you.
District 97 and Subcommittee Member Representative Ken Croken’s remarks on February 11, 2025
I understand very clearly, and you all have been very articulate, on what it is you want to prohibit. What I don’t know is who you want me to prohibit. Who is putting this into the air. I need to, I need to know more about who will, will pass a law. I mean, I hope we pass a law later this week, although I’m somewhat concerned about it, that would help us to keep out of the worst part. I know what to do with that. Okay? I don’t know what to do with suggestions that someone is seeding the sky in some way. I don’t know how to respond to that. I also don't hear anyone addressing the issue of solar-radiation modification, which also, by the way, I have not evidence is actually happening, but if it actually, if it does, in fact, um, protect me from the damage we've done for decades. I'd like to see the research continue to find out what it is we're trading on and off.
Look, I've had a, I’ve had a runny nose since 1954. I don’t know what causes it, and I certainly don’t want to latch on to somebody’s belief or impression about this. I think more needs to happen, more research needs to be done, that the, the state of the, the NOAA state of the fact sheet, doesn’t convince me that we need to take action immediately. I was quiet and respectful and listened to you. I don’t have the evidence that I need to support this bill today. I have the evidence I need to look to; I have the evidence I need to ban PFAS, so I’m back into – sorry; what am I trying to say? – fertilizer. I have the evidence to go there. These are issues that I think this body should be addressing and allow science to go forward and also tell us who it is that’s doing this? Who specifically is doing this? So, I will not be able to support this bill moving forward, but – so be it. Thank you.
Representative Mike Vondran's Week 5 Newsletter Excerpts
House Environmental Protection Subcommittee Signs off on Geoengineering Ban
On Tuesday, February 11, 2025, a House Environmental Protection Committee Subcommittee on House File 191 was held at the state Capitol to an overflowing room. The legislation takes up a "chemtrails" regulations via that bans the emission of air contaminants into the atmosphere to intentionally alter the weather. The meeting started off with Representative Jeff Shipley, R-Birmingham, one of 23 Republican co-sponsors of the bill, House File 191, stating that that while little is known about weather engineering technologies, a geoengineering prohibition was justified. Representative Shipley added with emphasis--"It is incumbent on the state of Iowa to exercise sovereignty in this area." A year ago, Tennessee was the first state last year to enact a law banning geoengineering. Several other states, including Kentucky, Arizona and Florida, have had introduction of legislation seeking to ban geoengineering.
Geoengineer is the effort via a number of emergent large-scale interventions in the Earth's natural systems to directly combat climate change through changing the amount of terrestrial heating that is created by solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere, oceans, and land. Much of the concern involves federal researchers who say their intertest into geoengineering is limited and that they are seeking to better understand the science behind geoengineering and its impact before potentially deploying it on a larger scale. There are advocates of geoengineering that say it could cool the earth as a stopgap measure to adverse climate change until humankind can stop burning the fossil fuels the emit greenhouse warming gasses into the atmosphere. However, other scientists and critics say there are legitimate scientific concerns that such effort could cool the Earth too much or unevenly, trigger severe droughts or incessant rains and floods or potentially sharply spike global warming if a geoengineering project were suddenly halted.
HF 191 provides that Iowa's Environmental Protection Commission would have to adopt rules to enforce the ban on geoengineering concerning the intentional emission of air contaminants for climate control purposes. The bill does not specifically prescribe any specific technologies, but broadly prohibits emission-based geoengineering that would include solar geoengineering and cloud seeding. Solar geoengineering seeks to temporarily lower Earth’s temperature by releasing particles such as sulfur dioxides in the atmosphere to reflect and disperse solar radiation/sunlight back into space. Cloud seeding involves emitting particles in the atmosphere to increase rain and snowfall or to brighten clouds that reflect solar radiation back into space. At least nine states have used cloud seeding in effort to cope with drought or help irrigate fields for farmers, including California, Nevada, Colorado, and Texas. The measure does not specify any penalties, however, a similar Iowa Senate bill, Senate File 142, would make it a class D felony to engage in "polluting atmospheric activity, cloud seeding, or weather engineering..." and would make such a violation punishable by no more than five years in jail and a fine between $1,025 and $10,245.
Representative Eddie Andrews Week 5 Newsletter Excerpts
House Environmental Protection Subcommittee Signs off on Geoengineering Ban
On Tuesday, February 11, 2025, a bill that I co-sponsored, House File 191, went through the Environmental Protection Committee Subcommittee with an overflowing crowd. The legislation takes up a "chemtrails" regulations via that bans the emission of air contaminants into the atmosphere to intentionally alter the weather. The meeting started off with Representative Jeff Shipley, R-Birmingham, one of 23 Republican co-sponsors of the bill, House File 191, stating that that while little is known about weather engineering technologies, a geoengineering prohibition was justified.
Representative Shipley added with emphasis, "It is incumbent on the state of Iowa to exercise sovereignty in this area." A year ago, Tennessee was the first state last year to enact a law banning geoengineering. Several other states, including Kentucky, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Florida, have had introduction of legislation seeking to ban geoengineering.
Geoengineering is the effort via a number of emergent large-scale interventions in the Earth's natural systems to directly combat climate change or other ideas through changing the amount of terrestrial heating that is created by solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere, oceans, and land. Much of the concern involves federal researchers who say their interest in geoengineering is limited and that they are seeking to better understand the science behind geoengineering and its impact before potentially deploying it on a larger scale. There are advocates of geoengineering who say it could cool the earth as a stopgap measure to adverse climate change until humankind can stop burning the fossil fuels that emit greenhouse warming gasses into the atmosphere. However, other scientists and critics say there are legitimate scientific concerns that such effort could cool the Earth too much or unevenly, trigger severe droughts or incessant rains and floods or potentially sharply spike global warming if a geoengineering project were suddenly halted.
