If the Cloud Seeding tech bro says it’s not dangerous it must be true right?

This week the CEO of cloud seeding operation, Rainmaker, has been making the rounds on various media defending his business and the science of cloud seeding. Augustus Doricko, the 25 year old computer science expert who founded and operates Rainmaker, has been proving his salt (heyo) as a business leader by tackling the controversy of his operation’s connection to the fatal flood in Texas head on. 

In several interviews, Doricko says that while Rainmaker was cloud seeding in the exact spot the major rainstorm opened up in Texas, they had stopped their efforts two days prior to the downpour which caused the flood. He has explained that based on the science, his product (that he is liable for and that he needs for his living) couldn’t possibly be responsible for the unexpected increase in precipitation. 

Whatever Doricko, who has the most to lose in the case of the Texas floods, might say about the safety of cloud seeding the truth is we actually have no idea what the long term impacts on cloud seeding are or what the scope of their impact could really be. Even though the United States and every wealthy country in the world has been doing some version of cloud seeding for 70 or so years, there hasn’t been any significant amount of work or data on how making more rain today in one spot impacts storm events tomorrow in the same spot or perhaps 100 miles away. 

There is a good reason why the data is so scant on cloud seeding and it’s not nefarious. In the past, we simply did not have the technology to scale an experiment or study what’s happening inside of a storm in a meaningful and nuanced way. New radar and sensor technology may improve that ability but the issue of scaled experiments will always remain. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) which is tasked with oversight over government agencies and programs released a report on cloud seeding data in December of 2024. Its key conclusion was that there simply was not enough data to determine safety or effectiveness of the practice even in the immediate let alone for long term impacts. So when members of Congress like Marjorie Taylor Greene propose legislation to ban the practice (which states like Florida have already done, see Doricko testifying against that measure here), its not based on radical conspiracy or ignorance, its based on the significant lack of pertinent data on what cloud seeding outcomes. 

Doricko isn’t a villain. He doesn’t deserve harassment or hate. But his word, as a 25 year old tech entrepreneur and financial beneficiary of cloud seeding, is not remotely sufficient to collectively agree that the practice can’t possibly have any ramifications on regional or longer term weather activity. Cloud seeding might be what saves the world from drought, it really might not be responsible for what happened in Texas or any other severe weather increases. But it’s not unreasonable to assert that we need and deserve a lot more information before we continue to allow it to be widely in practice.