Dear Editor,
To correct the record, Wilber Brewer and Bill Fisher started researching the science of Weather Modification in 1959 and 1960. Together, they contacted meteorologists and pioneers in the field of “Cloud Seeding” to learn what they could to protect their crops. Once making a plan to start a program, they held meetings to see if there was an interest in reducing hail losses, and naturally, there was definitely an interest. They bought a North American AT-6 and a SNJ-5 and the wing tip generators and prepared to start a program in 1961 that would continue for 55 years in successfully reducing hail losses in Bowman County. Why did they bother? Farmers in the area lost 100% of their crop seven out of ten years in the middle 1950’s. Prior to the start of the program, hail insurance premiums were over $25.00 per $100.00 of coverage. No one could afford to insure at that rate and quite often would forego insuring against hail damage. So it would seem logical that trying a scientifically proven technique could save many millions of dollars of farm profit at a far lesser cost than full bore premiums. When the project started, the cost was about $.03 per acre. Yes, three cents! In a short period of time the hail insurance premiums dropped to between $8.00 and $13.00 per $100.00 per acre. That’s a drop of over 50% in insurance premium costs which is about the same number statistically proven in reducing hail damage. Insurance company’s took serious notice of the reductions in damage and scientific research by the insurance company’s dictated a drop in premiums.
Now and in the past, people opposed to Weather Modification have charged cloud seeding with “chasing the rain away” and other things equally without basis. They have no scientific proof of that charge. They have no peer reviewed studies that would uphold their claims. They’ve not conducted any scientific research to reach any conclusion or collected field trial data to see if their hypothesis has any basis year in and year out. Instead, their argument is “I don’t have to study this, I know what I see”. I wonder if they also believe the rabbit actually lives in the magicians hat? To be fair, there have been papers written claiming that cloud seeding reduces rainfall. But the authors of these papers are not pushing their theories in the academic world, nor basing their studies on 55 years of data or of more than 55 years of research and development. There is no credible scientific basis in their ‘anti’ claims, period.
The opposition folks are good people and mean well, looking at the sky and at the local radar, but they aren’t trained to interpret what they see. They only see what they want to see. No rain this summer? Blame it on cloud seeding they say. They’d be better off blaming El Nino. I wonder what the claims were in 2013, 2014 and 2015, years with above rainfall averages?
My credentials? I’m the son of Bill Fisher, co-originator of the Bowman Slope Hail Suppression Program, with 12 years as a radar meteorologist in North Dakota, 2 years as a radar meteorologist in Texas, 4 years serving on the North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board and life long user and beneficiary of a successful Cloud Seeding program. I am no stranger to this science.
This general election, think about which argument has the most credible scientific evidence, the one with 55 years of continuing study and research improving the knowledge of cloud seeding, of sustained low insurance costs, scientifically proven 45% reduction in hail damage and more economic benefit, or the one with “I saw the rabbit come out of the hat”. I think I know which side you will choose.
BART FISHER, North Dakota
