Slashdot Mirror


Why Weather Control Conspiracy Theories Are Scientifically Ludicrous

barlevg writes "The Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang breaks down two popular conspiracy theories: that HAARP is responsible for severe weather and that contrails from commercial airliners are actually 'chemtrails' sprayed for nefarious purposes. The article shows why each is preposterous to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of meteorology or an iota of common sense. The author readily acknowledges that his analysis will do nothing to convince the tinfoil-hat-wearing, vinegar-spraying members of the populace."

251 comments

  1. Frack Off by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is ground-shaking stuff.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  2. Don't believe anything until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...is being officially denied.

    1. Re:Don't believe anything until... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      ...is being officially denied.

      A very good quote I heard somewhere, and though I can't get it verbatim, I'll try to at least do it justice:

      "There are people who will immediately dismiss out of hand the opinions of well educated experts in the field, but without a moment's hesitation take for word of fact the writings of someone they have never met and know nothing about.

      All the WaPo writers are doing is further cementing the opinions of conspiracy theorists (as if any actually would deign to read the WaPo) that there really is at least one secret weather control program.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Don't believe anything until... by bmo · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that.

      "There are people who will immediately dismiss out of hand the advice of their own doctors, but without a moment's hesitation take the word of some celebrity."

      Like Jenny McCarthy.

      That's just one example.

      --
      BMO

  3. Politically Motivated by AlleyTrotte · · Score: 0

    The Washington Post has no credibility, but I guess they are right this time.

    1. Re:Politically Motivated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if the author touched on sending signals at 2.5Hz (and its other multiples - 5.0 and 7.5 Hz) by reflecting them off the chemtrails and how that may seemingly make it work as a Tesla weapon.

    2. Re:Politically Motivated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if the author touched on sending signals at 2.5Hz (and its other multiples - 5.0 and 7.5 Hz) by reflecting them off the chemtrails and how that may seemingly make it work as a Tesla weapon.

      You have it wrong, that is just a decoy. The real story is how they forced the 5GHz band free because it works so well for mind control. Now most home routers are ready for it..

    3. Re:Politically Motivated by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Washington Post has no credibility, but I guess they are right this time.

      You're confusing Washington Post with Washington Times, which is some kind of right wing scandal rag (suitable city to have one, though, never a shortage of scandals, just be kinda nice if they were to report equally on the idiocy of either side of the aisle, but I guess the WaPo is for reporting on the Right Side of the aisle).

      Seriously though, Weather Control Conspiracy is the domain of Weekly World News if you're going to discuss print media.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Politically Motivated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference in Hz and GHz is enoromous. ;)

    5. Re:Politically Motivated by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      And we just crossed the line from science to sex...

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    6. Re:Politically Motivated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is this feasible?

    7. Re:Politically Motivated by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Oh, The Washington Times. How quickly the country forgets real controversies.

    8. Re: Politically Motivated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure harrp? Is some sort of weapon.

      It is said nuke tests screw up the ionosphere. If correlation != causation then also cause!=effect, except for muons. So the ionosphere experiments are trying to cause anti-muon explosions in north korea qed.

      I am sure you could all enjoy filling in the blanks and we might create a new meme or even better a new type of game. We can call it hydra hat. I place this under gpl v3.

  4. As a paid up member of the Illuminati by baldass_newbie · · Score: 2

    I have to state unequivocally that the author is correct - there is nothing to worry about.

    Ewige Blumenkraft

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:As a paid up member of the Illuminati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Head over to Suspicious0bservers if you want Brains with your Theories - http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers

      A lot of not entirely unbelievable content bein discussed there.

    2. Re:As a paid up member of the Illuminati by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Heute die Welt, morgens das Sonnensystem!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:As a paid up member of the Illuminati by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      A boy has never wept nor dash a thousand kim.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    4. Re:As a paid up member of the Illuminati by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. Contrails do control weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They may not be nefarious, but they do add particulates that had a demonstrative effect on atmospheric temps during the 9/11 airspace shutdown.

    And Jesse Walker has a new book on the United States of Paranoia that traces the bipartisan conspiracies since our founding and before.

    I'll check that out before some condescending post article

    1. Re:Contrails do control weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrails do control weather (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on 2013-08-16 15:08 (#44587245) They may not be nefarious, but they do add particulates that had a demonstrative effect on atmospheric temps during the 9/11 airspace shutdown.

      Control and effect are not the same words. Contrails do not control weather. No one is using contrails to control weather. They effect weather, but that's a side effect. Words matter.

    2. Re:Contrails do control weather by lgw · · Score: 1

      Nice - Poe's law in full effect: I simply cannot tell if the AC is trolling, and ultimate it doesn't matter. People really do think this way. However, as self deluded people go they're harmless: they neither tell me who I can sleep with nor what kind of car I can drive, so I'll take em over the more familiar left and right nutjobs.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Contrails do control weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They affect weather. Words matter.

    4. Re:Contrails do control weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except when you're talking about faces. then affect is noun.

    5. Re:Contrails do control weather by johnjaydk · · Score: 2

      They may not be nefarious, but they do add particulates that had a demonstrative effect on atmospheric temps during the 9/11 airspace shutdown.

      Contrails contributes to an effect called global dimming where some sunlight is prevented from reaching the earth. The 9/11 ban on flying provided a perfect experiment for measuring the effect and the researchers where surprised at how large the effect was. The dimming effect goes some way to counteract the CO2 greenhouse effect.

      As to the chemtrails, there were an air force program once where they tried to eliminate contrails by adding various chemicals to the exhaust. The solution turned out to be unpractical and were dropped.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    6. Re:Contrails do control weather by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You racist commie. :P

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re: Contrails do control weather by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, and the one you want is "affect." Because the sentence "contrails effect weather" means they *cause* weather.

    8. Re:Contrails do control weather by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      Effect is also a transitive verb, meaning to make or do, or to cause to come into being. The word affect -- also both a noun or verb -- is entirely unrelated.

  6. Wanted to find the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the text the last link pointed to since it seemed to be gone and I think it is this one.
    This is really funny.
    http://youtu.be/YsdeAF_Prfo

  7. TO: Weather Gang. FROM: J. Bezos by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

    TO: WeatherGang
    FROM: J. Bezos
    SUBJECT: Weather Conspiracy Theories


    Guys,
    I know you're not that great at the whole internet thing and all, being a newspaper and such. But one of my other companies is actually pretty good at it. So take my advice. Don't feed the trolls.

    Regards,
    Jeff

  8. Craziness brings us all together by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    The summary links to both a guy who writes on DailyKos and a guy who writes on Free Republic, and they agree with each other. Apparently vinegar-spraying chemtrail nuts are, in fact, the key to world peace. Or at least 1990s nostalgia.

    --
    Visit the
    1. Re:Craziness brings us all together by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...Or at least 1990s nostalgia.

      The problem with 1990's nostalgia is that it spent time pining for the 1970's... which in turn was bemoaning the 50's. So it doesn't matter which nostalgia you pick - it isn't as good as it used to be.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    2. Re:Craziness brings us all together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you remember the 50's,
      when Emperor Claudius died?
      The apostle Paul traveled to Greece and....

    3. Re:Craziness brings us all together by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Well at least they weren't pining for the fjords.

    4. Re:Craziness brings us all together by 32771 · · Score: 1

      I always knew old people were right in their claim that everything was better way back then.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    5. Re:Craziness brings us all together by nobodie · · Score: 1

      fnords

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  9. What is this? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    The 1960s? Are we going to start seeing new stories about the government seeding the clouds?

    AVOID THE BROWN ACID, MAN!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:What is this? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      The internet has precipitated a rise of self-congratulation and echo chambers that magnify and enhance conspiracy theories in the minds of the sufficiently credulous. This has allowed thought diseases like vaccine paranoia, chemtrails, and reptoids to spread rapidly among the at-risk populations.

      My proposed cure is that everyone be forced to have a 5 minute debate with a random individual they disagree with about their core beliefs. This should allow the spread of the "mental antibodies" that help resist this kind of infection*.

      *this method is pending clinical trial, and people who take my ideas seriously enough to schedule a clinical trial.

    2. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet has precipitated a rise of self-congratulation and echo chambers that magnify and enhance conspiracy theories in the minds of the sufficiently credulous.

      Crazy that something like that is being said with a straight face on a website like Slashdot. The groupthink is so thick here you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw.

    3. Re:What is this? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, there's no way I'm engaging with people who post disagreeing with me. (Self fulfilling posts are best posts).

    4. Re:What is this? by Laxori666 · · Score: 2

      Actually they did a study, something along these lines: they'd pick a divisive topic, and then show people arguments for and against either side of the topic. The people would also rate the effectiveness of the argument. They also marked down how strongly they believed in their position before and after reading the arguments.

      When people read arguments for the side they already agreed with, they would end up agreeing even more strongly - no surprise there. Yet it turned out that when people read arguments against the side they agreed with, they would *still* end up agreeing even more strongly with their own position. In fact, the more well-rated an argument was by people who agreed with that side, the more it would cause someone who already disagreed to disagree even further.

      Unfortunately that was a bit laboured and I have no links handy, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went. The net take-away is, you can't convince anybody via textual arguments if they already strongly agree with something. The internet's archives are ample proof of this.

    5. Re:What is this? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually they did a study, something along these lines: they'd pick a divisive topic, and then show people arguments for and against either side of the topic. The people would also rate the effectiveness of the argument. They also marked down how strongly they believed in their position before and after reading the arguments.

      When people read arguments for the side they already agreed with, they would end up agreeing even more strongly - no surprise there. Yet it turned out that when people read arguments against the side they agreed with, they would *still* end up agreeing even more strongly with their own position. In fact, the more well-rated an argument was by people who agreed with that side, the more it would cause someone who already disagreed to disagree even further.

      Unfortunately that was a bit laboured and I have no links handy, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went. The net take-away is, you can't convince anybody via textual arguments if they already strongly agree with something. The internet's archives are ample proof of this.

      I remember that study but I don't think it shows what most people think it does.

      Basically they asked someone how they felt about a topic, showed them an argument that disagreed with them, then asked again and found they were even more convinced of their original position.

      But if you think about it in practical terms that's neither surprising nor particularly irrational.

      For instance I believe AGW is real. I admit there's some degree of uncertainty, and papers that are wrong, and even researchers or journals not being as unbiased as they should be. But on the balance of evidence I think the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.*

      But a true believer who thinks AGW is a mistake or a fraud is going to come to the table with very refined arguments. They'll quote studies, incidents, effects, mistakes, all sorts of things I'll have no answer for. For me to simply switch sides in the face of those arguments would frankly be irrational, since all I'd have to do was wait until I ran into a well educated advocate for the other side and I'd switch back!

      Instead I reinforce my opposition to their position and argue back. Push their arguments trying to look for holes or misrepresented facts. This is what I think the study detects, the defensive response when people enter an argument.

      What they don't look at is what happens later. When you keep thinking about the good arguments and doing research and the other side still holds up. Eventually if people keep seeing the good arguments they start to reevaluate their position, but it doesn't happen over the course of a single argument where people are trying to defend themselves.

      I actually had this happen with regards to nutrition, I'd heard some extended interviews with Gary Taubes explaining how nutrition science had gotten it wrong and carbs and insulin were the true cause of obesity and I was a believer for a time. But then a friend argued with me, presenting some good points, so I dug in and defended Taubes hypothesis. But later I went back, did my own research, and eventually came to the conclusion that Taubes was wrong.**

      If that episode was in that study I'd probably been just as sure as before of Taubes in the immediate aftermath of that conversation. But that conversation eventually led me to reverse my position entirely.

      * This is just an example, I'm not trying to cause an AGW debate.
      ** Or a Taubes debate, I've already got one going

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a fuck, bitch. So suck another cock and come back when you're ready for real conversation. Fucking hypocrite.

    7. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is AGW? See, all you conspiracy theorists are always using acronyms everyone else "should already know about".

    8. Re:What is this? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      AGW == Anthropocentric Global Warming.

      It basically means the planet is getting warmer and humans are the cause, it's essentially the climatology consensus in 3 letters.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re: What is this? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's a little more complicated than that. The consensus is that the climate is warming, which it would be doing naturally, but it's doing so at an unprecedented rate because of what humans are doing.

    10. Re: What is this? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I used to waste time arguing with idiots about HAARP, Orgone, SBX, and other hot topics that I had expertise in (high power RF and electronics), and explained the scientific principles involved. "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts" was the punch line of most of these encounters.

      I'm not going to bother any more unless my neighbor starts spraying vinegar.

  10. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Previous 3 years in Southwest there were temperatures in August that broke all time records for not the highest temps, but also how many consecutive days of 100+ heat, with the forecast that 2013 would be more of the same. HAARP, though, goes offline in May and what do you know, it's been the mildest, wettest, summer the South and Southwest have seen in over century.

    1. Re:Just a coincidence, I'm sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Perfect correlation with a sample size of 1.

      I'm convinced.

  11. Yeah right by Guest316 · · Score: 2

    Just like those "Gummint is watching everything you do!" tinfoilers were wrong. I'M ONTO YOU!

    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's just hogwash. Everybody knows nobody can track your movements, or eliminate you if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or correlate your movements to those of known adversaries.

      It's unpossible! Unheard of!

    2. Re:Yeah right by tibit · · Score: 1

      Collecting all internet and telecom traffic is not the same as watching everything you do, unless it's by your own choice.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  12. lolwut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:lolwut? by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between being a troll and being funny. This is just another thing that Jeff Bezos understands that most Slashmods don't.

  13. Recent events by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that in light of recent events, you have to give the tinfoil-hat crowd the benefit of the doubt, no matter how insane they seem.

    1. Re:Recent events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

    2. Re:Recent events by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's the proof that the conspiracy is real: Most of the people who try to make tinfoil hats screw up and actually make their hats out of aluminum foil instead!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Recent events by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It's right twice a day, but is never accurate.

      I'd rather have a watch that loses a second a day with no way to set the time, because it is far more accurate as a tool to tell me what time it is at any given moment.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:Recent events by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. :)

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    5. Re:Recent events by Zynder · · Score: 1

      As courtesy to our resident tin hatters who are doing it wrong, I'll point you to here

    6. Re:Recent events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that people that point a finger and say the phrase "tin-foil-hat" are the ones that have accepted that the US is the best country in the world, and elected officials (people with no training what-so-ever for the job that they have) should be respected as though they're gods. These are the same people that say that weather patterns aren't changing rapidly, ice isn't melting at the poles.... you know, everything's just like it was before $your_party fucked it all up. Yep, I fucking wish I could be like that too, really I do.

    7. Re:Recent events by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I think that in light of recent events

      What recent events? There are always "recent events" happening in the world.

    8. Re:Recent events by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ok, send me money, because BENEFIT OF DOUBT!

      if you don't, then the guberment is going to get it as tax money and that's enough for them to turn potatoes into lsd injection devices and then it will be to late for you to do anything.

      of course there's always the matter of how insane they seem, if you don't keep that line you're insane yourself.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Recent events by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the NSA domestic spying program.

    10. Re:Recent events by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought you were talking about some strange weather events or something. The thing about the NSA spying is that to me it is an ordinary conspiracy. This kind of spying has always been going on, with leaks and reports in the media. It's not the same league as controlling the weather.

    11. Re:Recent events by vandamme · · Score: 1

      The coming cataclysmic extermination of the human race by the collision with Nibiru, of course. Don't you surf Youtube?

    12. Re:Recent events by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I just watched a YouTube video with a mish-mash of ancient civilizations and an impending doom. The video was published in April 2012, and contained lots of references to Dec. 2012. Ho hum.

    13. Re: Recent events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. What's your PayPal account?
      Plz hurry.

  14. The sad thing about conspiracy theories by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sad thing about conspiracy theories and the internet age is that no matter how far out or whackjob the theory may be, you can find a dozen videos documenting "proof" of the theory and entire forums full of people who believe in the lunacy and who circle-jerk each other in a frenzy of panic.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't that the "History Channel"?

    2. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by baldass_newbie · · Score: 2

      The sad thing about conspiracy theories and the internet age is that no matter how far out or whackjob the theory may be, you can find a dozen videos documenting "proof" of the theory and entire forums full of people who believe in the lunacy and who circle-jerk each other in a frenzy of panic.

      Because there were no whack jobs and conspiracy nuts before the 'internet age'?
      Son, sit right down and let me tell you about Lyndon LaRouche.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    3. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

      My neighbour, although a really nice man with a pet tractor, thinks that David Icke is a splendid fellow with much to recommend his thinking.

      We really are doomed.

    4. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad thing about conspiracy theories and the internet age is that no matter how far out or whackjob the theory may be, you can find a dozen videos documenting "proof" of the theory and entire forums full of people who believe in the lunacy and who circle-jerk each other in a frenzy of panic.

      The other side of that double-edged sword is that it's now trivial for trolls and misinformation agents to convince the masses that an actual, legitimate conspiracy is "bunk" merely by publicly and regularly lambasting anyone who brings it up. For example, every person who claimed the NSA was spying on Americans, prior to Ed Snowden's recent disclosure.

      Not saying that's the case here, just pointing out the flip side.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by TubeSteak · · Score: 2
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weather control program is run out of New Mexico, not Alaska.

    7. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Deflagro · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. I laughed out loud in a very quiet office. Hilarious :P

      --
      Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    8. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I agree that people who believe in the nefarious HAARP and these ridiculous "chemtrails" are looney, the article itself does a very bad job at debunking anything. It merely reports these people exist. I know that. They know that. I went into the article hoping I'd find something in it to convince them with facts why their kooky theories would not work and what would actually happen (or more precisely why nothing would happen). This article was a bit light on that.

      So I ask you, slashdot, how would you convince someone you don't want to give up on that:
      1) If chemicals were added to burning fuel, then what could/couldn't happen and why?
      I've tried explaining that even if it did do something, it a ridiculously complex and random rube-goldberg like device to accomplish something very simple in a very difficult way. I tried explaining the cost of the rare earth minerals. Is there a way to get through to these people?
      How do I disprove HAARP does not control weather? I know it's ridiculous, but do I really need to study these kooky theories myself to point out where their "science" differs from real science?

    9. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A key component of nearly all, or in fact all, conspiracy theories is a vast group of dedicated individuals with almost infinite resources who, in ways grand and mundane, affect reality to hide some truth or collection of truths. The problem with that theory is that any evidence to the contrary, no matter how convincing, is in fact seen as evidence *for* the theory.

      An example. There are two ninjas outside your window right now.

      Go on, take a look.

      See any ninjas?

      No, of course you didn't, because they're invisible. Ninjas are badarse pros who would never be seen by an amateur. They're there, though. I was reading on Black Helicopter-o-pedia about the ninja training program in 1967 that produced hundreds of thousands of these trained, stealthy killers and they watch "persons of interest" constantly. Go read a book, sheeple!

      More seriously, though, the root cause of conspiracy theories is usually ego. The kind of people who believe in them are typically those who have a very high opinion of themselves, often to the point of believing that they're amongst a small group of people (as small as 1 person) who are somehow smart enough, or cunning enough, or brave enough, or in some way "special" enough to avoid some great trick or ailment that affects the "mundanes". The idea, though, that they are infact deficient in some manner, such as being batshit insane, can't cross their minds because they've convinced themselves that they're better than everyone.

      That's not to say that mainstream ideas are always correct, or that the most popular opinion is the best one; but any theory that relies, in some part, on you being intrinsically better than everyone, including academics and those with decades of experience and know-how in certain areas who have no incentive to cover up vast scandals, or that relies on a global, infinitely resourced, powerful, invisible cabal to work is probably bullshit.

      Plus, you know, these things do have a tendency to come out. The NSA got busted doing a huge amount of domestic spying lately. They ARE an organisation that is essentially global, essentially infinitely resourced, powerful, invisible... and they managed to conceal this fact for what? Ten years, only?

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    10. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That technique is called "poisoning the well" and has been a psyops technique for decades. The rise of the Internet has made the operation orders of magnitude cheaper and easier, and it's no longer just the realm of government either. Corporations have jumped on it in a big way, stuffing online polls, flooding online forums with fake posts, and creating false product recommendations on buying sites. The weird thing to me is that people refuse to believe that it's going on, even when presented with the confessions of people who had been paid to do it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    11. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2

      After getting a long lecture from one of my conspiracy theory believing friends about how some particular conspiracy was real, I summed up her explanation as, "The complete lack of evidence of the conspiracy is proof that the conspiracy is real." She liked her explanation better.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    12. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      One good term deserves another:

      The weird thing to me is that people refuse to believe that it's going on, even when presented with the confessions of people who had been paid to do it.

      That, my friend, is called cognitive dissonance, better known around these parts as doublethink or mental gymnastics - the active denial of reality, when reality counters a strongly held belief.

      And I concur, it is quite mindblowing to see in action.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other side of the coin is that it's easier to disprove some of these claims. The number of stories I've heard that I could confirm as false on Snoopes is amazing and a large number of them were told first person.

    14. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Let's give the History Channel a break. They had to go somewhere after they'd worn out Hitler.

    15. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy: noun
      1. the act of conspiring.
      2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
      3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
      4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
      5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

      Theory: noun
      1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
      2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
      3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
      4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
      5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles

      So this means that no matter what, if something happens and there would have to be more than one person involved, but you don't know exactly who did it, why they did it, or how they did it, then you have a conspiracy theory. To say that 'anyone that has a theory that involves two or more people' needs a tinfoil hat is not only silly, but it also provides everyday normal people to say things like, "Aww man I don't know what happened, but I'm not a conspiracy freak..." When people say that, it means that they don't want to be called a tinfoil hat wearer. Next thing you know, the government has all the power and the people are sheeple.

    16. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But everyone already knew the NSA was spying on Americans for decades. This was not a secret and absolutely not a suprising revellation. This was widely acknowledged by people with no other conspiracy theorist associations. The new part was how they were doing it as well as the involvement of telecommunications companies.

      A conspiracy theorist on the other hand would be the sort of person who believes that the clicks when talking on the phone are there because it makes that sound when the NSA flips the switch to change who they're listening to. If they start obsessing over this phone clicking and start telling all their friends, they may be right about the NSA spying while simultaneously being a nut job.

      If you come to the correct conclusion through an illogical deduction then you can be both right and wrong at the same time.

    17. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the appeal to etymology, the fallacy of breaking an idiom or word up into parts and then trying to rebuild a definition from the parts instead of using the actual definition or intended connotation to make an argument that distracts from any actual content. You know who tend to really like equivocation... conspiracy theorists.

    18. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by tibit · · Score: 1

      Cue some good fanfares. John Williams or somesuch. :) +1

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Raenex · · Score: 1

      For example, every person who claimed the NSA was spying on Americans, prior to Ed Snowden's recent disclosure.

      Please. After the AT&T warrantless wiretap incident, anybody who regarded the idea of the NSA spying on Americans as a whacko conspiracy was either ignorant or a fool. Who was really surprised by government surveillance? More than anything, many were angry that the details were released.

    20. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      More seriously, though, the root cause of conspiracy theories is usually ego.

      There's ego involved, but I don't think its the root. I think it has more to do with suffering. "The system" isn't working very well for them, so they feel under siege (or are demagogues trying to manipulate other people who feel under siege), and they don't understand power well enough to correctly identify why they feel that way or what they can do about it. Or maybe they could understand, but they can't stand the despair of seeing that there's very little that can be done. Conspiracy theories tend to represent the world in a simplistic, toy-like manner, where problems really could be fixed if only the right approach were taken.

      I think the first dynamic you mentioned, where their skewed view causes them to interpret information in a way that reinforces their skewed view, is an important part of this. But actually all systems of thought are like that, even though they're just not all quite as ridiculously brittle about it. For example, a scientifically inclined skeptic tends to view everything that can't be rigorously measured as unreal. So they ignore everything that can't be rigorously measured, since it unreal, so life continues to look that way.

      Years ago I listened to Art Bell and had all kinds of paranoid thoughts about things. Then I quit my alienating job, and got in a situation that was healthier for me, and the conspiracy thinking immediately stopped. It wasn't because I become less egotistical. And although egotism gives a person the confidence to believe something that most other people doubt, actually most conspiracy theories are believed by very large numbers of people. Go to many, many, countries in the world, for example, and ask them who destroyed the world trade center, and a majority will tell you the Mossad did it, or maybe the CIA. From my standpoint these views are almost as nuts as thinking that the moon landings were faked. Yet they do make a kind of sense, given the historical experience and worldview of those countries.

    21. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The same way you "prove" that I am not a 10,000-year-old "evil archmage" dedicated to bringing about the eternal triumph of Ultimate Chaos by driving all Slashdotters INSANE with my cleverly-disguised, "scare-quote"-and-GRATUITOUS-caps-and-boldface-filled "anonymous" posts about Hosts Files, that's how!

      --APK

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, I think it is difficult to paint people interested in a conspiracy theory with a single brush, as there is quite a variety, and people's interest and conviction to such things varies a lot too. That said, it seems a pretty common thread among conspiracy theory stuff is a sort of positive feeling people get out of figuring things out, often combined with the idea of being the select few to do so. Of course if you are facing some form of suffering, the positive feedback from some source of enjoyment can easily get unhealthily strong. But plenty of other people seem to get stuck that way too. But I've seen a few too many people who come from a well off background that seem to be dealing with more rebellious attitudes or boredom with the mundane. On a few rare occasions, I've come across someone who was doing well, and didn't fall from grace until they let things go a little too far and interfere with their jobs or friends, although then it really becomes self-reinforcing.

  15. Not the best debunking ever. by catfood · · Score: 3

    This article is a pretty weak debunking. If the government really wanted to spray chemicals from commercial jets, they wouldn't let a little thing like weight limits stop them. Make shorter flights that require less fuel. Leave a lot of empty seats to provide more slack weight. Spray in really small quantities. Whatever.

    Seriously, Occam's Razor debunks better than this. Simply: what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes? On what basis is the ordinary scientific explanation about vapor condensation not a good enough explanation for the trails? And if the government can spray chemicals in the air on that scale, why can't they make them invisible too?

    It's got nothing to do with weight limits and everything to do with unnecessary complexity.

    As long as I'm at it, wouldn't you think that if chemtrails were a real thing, Manning and Snowden would have found out and blabbed?

    1. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes?

      It's even simpler than that. The "chemtrails" are right there. You could easily charter your own flight to fly through the trail and collect samples for analysis. If you want to be cheap about it, use a weather balloon.

    2. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. And why don't they go after all the chlorine and/or fluor that many countries in the water. That seems like a easy choice for a even higher level of crazy.

    3. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by timholman · · Score: 1

      Seriously, Occam's Razor debunks better than this. Simply: what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes? On what basis is the ordinary scientific explanation about vapor condensation not a good enough explanation for the trails? And if the government can spray chemicals in the air on that scale, why can't they make them invisible too?

      This reminds me of a guy I spoke to recently who was convinced (by an Internet video) that cameras and microphones are being placed in all cable TV boxes so that they can watch us in our living rooms.

      I pointed out to him that his cell phone and his laptop computer already have microphones and cameras built in. On top of that, he carries his cell phone with him everywhere. So why in the world would anyone need to hide anything in a cable TV box, when they could just spy on us using our personal electronics?

      And yet ... he wasn't convinced. The conspiracy theory had taken root in his mind like a religious belief, and he could not let go of it. And that's why it's a waste of time arguing with a conspiracy theorist, because it's like trying to convince a religious man to reject his beliefs.

    4. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by catfood · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. It's not like you can't go up there and check. Sure, it costs money, and the airlanes are regulated so there's the little matter of getting the legal authority to go to the specific places where the "chemtrails" are, but... yeah.

    5. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The "chemtrails" are right there. You could easily charter your own flight to fly through the trail and collect samples for analysis.

      Ah... but of course not all jets are doing the chemtrails, in fact only a few of them are needed and they are randomly disbursed so it would be prohibitively expensive to run enough flights to detect them. (Does that pass the Poe's Law test?)

    6. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Texmaize · · Score: 1

      If you look into the theory of chemtrails, one of the first thing you learn is that they are different from contrails. They last longer, disperse in unusual ways. It was these differences that made people look into them. There are attempts to read them using various forms of elemental analysis, with some interesting findings. .

      No one is quite sure why the spraying is occurring (if it is at all). In your very unscientific approach to dismissal, you posit why not just have the government make the trails invisible. You say this because you have automatically assumed it is all unreal or imaginary, without looking into this yourself. Otherwise, you would understand the chemtrails people are not claiming they government is spraying the air with imaginarium or some Avengers made up compound, but real materials with known physical properties. It would not be invisible because nothing really is..

      I have not investigated chemtrails first hand. I have not run a spectrograph of one. I do not KNOW if the results are real or not. That said, I can routinely find made up results in most scientific journals, so I have a healthy dose of much of the "science" that is in play today. (As a practicing bioengineer, what I see published at times alarms me). So, I am not as fast to dismiss what is made fun of as fringe science as fast as the average reader on this forum. I believe in experiment and results, no matter where it leads. I prejudge nothing.

      More to the point, in an age where we find the NSA is spying on us all, which was just a few years ago laughed at as a fringe idea by many, you would think the intelligent people who read slashdot would get past the pejoratives and take a look at things for themselves with open mind. .

      FYI: from the US patent office about HAARP:.

      http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605 .

      The physics are interesting. Perhaps read? .

      -TM

      --
      "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
    7. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ah but to the conspiracy theorists no one knows about the spraying except for the few enlightened conspiracy theorists. The government doesn't hide their operations better because people are too stupid to notice the obvious. It's cheaper for the government to suppress the few enlightened theorists than to change their plans.

      This is great thinking for the theorists; it puts them into a tiny group or people who know a big secret, and that they're important enough that the government is trying to suppress them personally. Thus instead of being just a simple person with a simple job with no real importance in the grand scheme of the universe, they are now _special_ people.

    8. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as the previous experiments referenced in the patent, it had been established that plasma can be heated by RF power and this applies to the ionosphere. Unfortunately, his patents seem to either come in a basic/weird for (why specifically patent something that only uses fuel from Alaska?) or like some other patents, make some basic plasma physics mistakes.

    9. Re:Not the best debunking ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply: what the hell makes you think that chemicals are being routinely sprayed out of commercial jets for nefarious purposes?

      Simply: your government has form.

      In the 1950s, the US government was concerned about germ warfare being launched from USSR missiles. Since you can't fight what you don't know, the US government ran a series of tests to simulate how aerosolised bacteria would be carried on air currents in strategic areas. The used the bacterium Serratia marcescens because (1) When you culture it, it's bright purple and thus easy to distinguish from other airborne orgs and (2) it's non-pathogenic. At least that's what they were counting on. After the tests, there was an uptick in S. marcescens infections in people in the drop zone. Of course, they were secret tests so the doctors had NFI about any of this.

      Once this became known many years later, of course it became the seed material for "conspiracy theorists" because (a) the government had conspired (i.e. many people within the US military and the US government made secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act) and (b) there were negative outcomes for members of the US public, and the government didn't care.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Role_in_bio-warfare_testing

  16. Better explanations please by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article shows why each is preposterous to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of meteorology or an iota of common sense

    Actually, it doesn't. The closest I saw was this:

    HAARP does not and cannot control the weather. While the frequencies are high powered, it doesn’t have nearly enough energy to do anything over the Lower 48, let alone specifically target communities for destruction like one would see in a science fiction movie. Both common sense and a basic understanding of meteorology debunk the conspiracy theory surrounding HAARP’s alleged ability to control the weather.

    So the question is, how do we know how much energy is being pumped into the ionosphere? The whole article seems mostly of ridicule. "Well, of course it doesn't, you'd have to be crazy to believe otherwise, but we're not going to provide any evidence."

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think HAARP is part of an evil shadowy conspiracy to create tornados and tsunamis or whatever. But I'm also not a meteorologist... so a breakdown of the physics required to perform such a feat compared to what we know would be pretty useful. I remember a Weekly World News article claiming hackers can turn your computer into a bomb... and as a computer professional, I know exactly why that's impossible and might even giggle at the thought. But I can't expect the general public to explicitly know that there's no real-life equivalent to the HCF instruction.

    Kind of like What If at xkcd... putting things to scale such as a hair dryer that just happens to draw 11 petawatts of power can really hit the understanding home.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Better explanations please by HappyHead · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait... you linked to xkcd in a thread about conspiracy theorists and things like chemtrails, and didn't include the comic about that?

      Silly person!

    2. Re:Better explanations please by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      These debunking articles are always completely scientific garbage.
      Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just incredibly precise and detailed knowledge.

      And of course they could spray chemicals into the contrails of aircraft, if they wanted to.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Better explanations please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the question is, how do we know how much energy is being pumped into the ionosphere?

      No, the question is, "How much energy would need to be pumped into the ionosphere to do anything remotely interesting?"

      And the answer to that is, "Such a massive fucking amount that there would be no way that we wouldn't be seeing the impacts of that energy dump in many other areas first." We already did this with nuclear bombs in the 50s and 60s, and yes, the impacts of that level of energy input were definitely visible in many different areas. And no, it didn't do half of what the crazy-ass conspiracy theories think is happening now.

      ...I'm also not a meteorologist...

      And that would have what to do with this? The branch of science you want is Atmospheric Science. Meteorologists generally get to TV with a BS in Meteorology and some communications courses and interpret maps. Find an atmospheric scientist with a MS or PhD and you'll get a much more rigorous answer than what you're incorrectly rambling on about. Or they'll flame you as an AC.

    4. Re:Better explanations please by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      The conspiracy theorists won't listen to science anyway, so why not just ridicule them. They're going to need to get used to it if they insist on holding such stupid beliefs.

    5. Re:Better explanations please by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just incredibly precise and detailed knowledge.

      If they have that kind of precise and detailed knowledge about weather then someone ought to tell the National Weather Service so they can improve their forecasts.

    6. Re:Better explanations please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just incredibly precise and detailed knowledge."

      "If they have that kind of precise and detailed knowledge about weather then someone ought to tell the National Weather Service so they can improve their forecasts."

      All the weather service needs to do is hire some voodoo witch doctors and dousers to improve their accuracy.

    7. Re:Better explanations please by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Weather is chaos theory. Theoretically you do not need much power at all, just infinitely precise and detailed knowledge.

      TFTFY.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  17. WWII chemical warfare? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I guess all that WWII wartime footage of allied bombers leaving contrails is evidence of them spraying chemicals on the Nazis, as well as dropping bombs.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:WWII chemical warfare? by 32771 · · Score: 1

      They didn't spread British weather over Germany. Even though the additional 300mm of rain would have be great.

      --
      Je me souviens.
  18. US Patent No. 4,686,605 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Inventors: Eastlund; Bernard J. (Spring, TX)
    Assignee: APTI, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)
    Family ID: 24772054
    Appl. No.: 06/690,333
    Filed: January 10, 1985

    From his Wikipedia: "Bernard Eastlund authored three patents (US Patents #4,686,605, #4,712,155, and #5,038,664) that, it is claimed, led to the development of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP).[1]"

    A method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region which normally exists above the earth's surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

    ...

    This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same. Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like.

    Whether HAARP worked or not is unknown (or rather, classified), but weather modification was certainly a goal of the research and military application.

    1. Re:US Patent No. 4,686,605 by crtreece · · Score: 1
      11 years later, the USAF published Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. In the executive summary, they state:

      Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.

      I would suggest that significant advancements have been made in all of those areas.

      I am not a meteorologist, but it seems like the ability to significantly alter any particular weather event could come from the ability to selectively heat a specified area of the atmosphere. That seems right in line with the claims in the patent.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    2. Re:US Patent No. 4,686,605 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People cite his patents as being a motivator for HAARP is weird. I can understand that most people wouldn't catch some of the fundamental plasma physics mistakes that show up in some patents, but the other patents where he gets the physics right also directly cites how there were previous experiments already along the leading up to HAARP. It should be pretty obvious how HAARP is a natural extension of previous work.

      Whether HAARP worked or not is unknown (or rather, classified),

      Except their research is unclassified, and you can find the results in science journals and being presented at conferences every year.

    3. Re:US Patent No. 4,686,605 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some is available, but research into practical implementations for the military applications listed in the patents are not.

    4. Re:US Patent No. 4,686,605 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are doing classified work at a HAARP facility it must be a joke. I've work on other projects before that overlapped with classified work, and it didn't get handled the same way that HAARP results do at conferences and in journals. As far as the patents, I would like to see some results of implementations of the ones where he gets the physics wrong... because the implementations of the other ones are quite public, both before and after the patent.

  19. Trollage by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

    It's tempting to troll them by inventing a more plausible scenario involving weather control satellite network utilising Hall Thrusters for position keeping plus gyroscopic attitude control to allow accurate positioning of mylar solar reflectors. The orbits would be a bit of a nightmare, but not beyond the ken of Corona project types. Of course, it could rebound badly if someone with purchasing power within the dark and massive outlines of the military industrial complex sees this post and decides to try to implement it.

    It would be the ultimate water monopoly empire.

    We're doomed.

  20. come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not News for Nerds.
    its News for Idiots

    slashdot

  21. Here we go. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    Anyone with half a brain should realize the mass of the atmosphere is quite huge. In order for these so-called chemtrails to be able to saturate the atmosphere to the point where everyone would get a good dose of mind control agents (or whatever), the amount needed would be staggering. Probably more than is feasible both economically and industrially. Then add to that the upper atmospheric air is warmer and thus will not fall to the surface bringing any poisons with it. Nevermind that there is different wind flows above the surface (jetstream, etc.). And I am not a weather expert or enthusiast.

    I'm not even going to bother with HAARP because there is no theory to even ponder. HAARP simply can not manipulate the weather.

  22. Re: Stupid article by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 3, Funny

    They don't actually address HAARP, just a straw man of what the author imagines the conspiracy to be, which is much easier to do by someone with a lay educational background than the real conspiracy.

    The actual conspiracy is that HAARP doesn't use lots of energy, but instead, uses resonance to cause the ionosphere to dump energy (somehow, dunno what energy is expected to be there) into the lower layers of the atmosphere, thereby causing small effects to become magnified (rainstorms into hurricanes, etc).

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  23. secret chem trail organization excels at security by bertd · · Score: 3, Funny

    The NSA should hire the SCTO (secret chem trail organization) to handle their security. No more leaks to worry about. Show the NSA how to control information right.

    It is clear that the SCTO maintains a global fleet of thousands of specially modified tanker aircraft for 24/7 operations. There is a small army of technicians, mechanics and pilots. They skillfully manage extreme logistical challenges to safely manufacture, store, and distribute all the millions of tons of chemicals. All in secret. Not one whistle-blower. Not one crash or chemical spill. Not one photo or chemical sample has leaked.

  24. Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article reeks of poisoning the well. China has modified the weather publicly. Russia has modified the weather publicly. To claim that it's impossible is pretty damn idiotic! If you are not suspicious as to why the most allegedly advanced society in the world claims it can't do it you really should get off the medication.

    The fact that the plans for chemtrails and weather modification are not given does not make science study disappear. We know things are happening and we can measure them. Aluminum and Barium in the atmosphere has been shown to be true by numerous scientific studies. Those metals are measurable in plants and soil which has also been measured. The underlying "why" is not seen because it's all "top-secret" but that does not make the metals disappear.

    This idiot thinks that their "why" is better than someone else' "why". While everything is buried in "top-secret" files nobody knows. How about petitioning the Government to open up instead of claiming it's all for the greater good without any evidence? If we don't open things up, that speculation that it's all for the greater good has identical credibility to the guy who believes it's for nefarious purposes.

    Then we get to the outright lies in this article. "HAARP does not and cannot control the weather. " Wait a minute there non-scientist! If the stated goals of exciting and heating particles and atoms in the ionosphere, and we know that they can do that, how does that not give someone the ability to control weather? What happens to air that is heated and cooled? Water that's heated and cooled? Come now, someone has to have had junior high level physics and chemistry and can see how outrageous that claim is. If their argument is based on a lie, the rest of the summaries are worth nothing.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 2

      Well points for not posting anonymous, but do you realise that your post is a frothing mix of wide-eyed lunacy?

    2. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Oh please enlightened one, show me where I have provided any wide-eyed lunacy.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just that it's hard for anyone reading your post to see the connection between the various things you mentioned (unless they are already familiar with that particular conspiracy theory, I guess).

    4. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Your whole post, basically. If you can't see why it's laughable then you're beyond help. I'll give you a clue though - what's the total amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere compared to the amount that HAARP can put out?

    5. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You mean the mentions of the two items in the subject of the article and the article itself? Wholly Shit! If you are lost that easily you have some serious mental issues. I don't expect that people actually read articles mind you, but I commented on the 2 things mentioned in the subject.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 2

      I thought you didn't reply to ACs?

    7. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 2

      So there is nothing in my statements you can pinpoint as you claimed "wide-eyed lunacy", you just "think" it's all wrong?

      I'll give you a clue though - what's the total amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere compared to the amount that HAARP can put out?

      The energy of HAARP is enough to create a false Aurora Borealis, which you can find on HAARPs own home page. That is quite a bit of energy. Now if you take that same energy and heat up the front end of a storm system what happens to the storm system?

      Personally, I find it laughable that people deny facts in order to support the delusion. I don't assume that lucifarians are manipulating the weather, I don't assume the US Government is doing it to starve people in Cambodia, or anything else you wish to invent about my thoughts. I point out the reality that it is possible to use something like HAARP to manipulate weather. Hell, it does not even take HAARP to manipulate weather. We have used simple chemicals to extreme effect. If cloud seeding works without HAARP, what can it do when those chemicals are excited and heated? It should only take Junior High level physics and chemistry knowledge to begin to ask that question.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Is English your second language? If not, how would you conclude that "do not expect" is the same thing as a refusal?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite. This is the frothiest bit: "The fact that the plans for chemtrails and weather modification are not given does not make science study disappear. We know things are happening and we can measure them. Aluminum and Barium in the atmosphere has been shown to be true by numerous scientific studies."

      Shock horror, there's some elements in the atmosphere. Obviously they must have come there from chemical additives to jet exhaust for the purpose of weather modification! It's a ludicrous leap of logic and makes me ashamed to be in the same society as you.

      As for the rest of it, cloud seeding has a well known and reproducible mechanism for inducing rain fall (hint: it's not chemical, it's physical). HAARP is a radio transmitter for studying ionospheric communications. If you can't see the difference then you really are beyond hope.

      The kind of swivel eyed inferences you're making are a clear marker of the conspiracy nut. I'm not sure what particular mental illness causes you to believe in this nonsense, but I strongly suggest psychiatric evaluation.

    10. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Is English your second language?

      No, but it might be yours.

      You mean the mentions of the two items in the subject of the article and the article itself? Wholly Shit!

      I have to agree with you there.

    11. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Shock horror, there's some elements in the atmosphere. Obviously they must have come there from chemical additives to jet exhaust for the purpose of weather modification! It's a ludicrous leap of logic and makes me ashamed to be in the same society as you.

      And it is impossible to determine what normal values are to see if things become abnormal under certain circumstances? Okay, maybe you skipped every science class through school. I think it more likely that your irrational point of view, that a normal can never established, is laughable.

      HAARP is a radio transmitter for studying ionospheric communications. If you can't see the difference then you really are beyond hope.

      And how exactly do they study the impact the ionosphere? Are you telling me that these are like magic ground based sensors that use some really cool reverse osmosis to determine what is happening? Maybe you should read HAARP's own web site and figure out that they heat up particles in the ionosphere.

      So the real answer is that it's possible to use HAARP in conjunction with seeding to get huge impact on weather. Or are you ignorant enough to claim that radio waves that can reach the ionosphere simply can't reach lower levels of the jet stream?

      As mentioned, I'm not claiming every conspiracy is correct. I'm claiming that the potential for weather modification exists, which means the potential for abuse exists. If you assume that weather modification would never be used to harm people, then your assumption has no basis in historical reality. If you assume that weather modification is impossible, you are denying proven science (and we are not even talking High School level science here.).

      My point was, and is, that the potential is there for weather modification. These programs are top secret, so wee are ignorant to everything except for what we can prove study. Motives behind these missions can't be known while they are top secret, nor do we know the potential impact. You believing, like the author, that weather modification would only be used for a greater good holds exactly the same weight as the person that believes that it's a satanic order out to kill everyone. How many times does the US Government need to make people guinea pigs before you start to catch on?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Oooh, are you going to tell me that science is wrong because your daddy can beat my daddy up or something next? You can't really be that intellectually _and_ emotionally challenged on /. can you?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 0

      Seek help.

    14. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it. You keep saying I think things that I haven't even mentioned. Projection, perhaps?

    15. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Haha, you are funny in a very sad way. Nothing I said is factually incorrect, but somehow you just know facts to be incorrect. Understanding basic science to you is not simply incorrect, but requires a person to get help.

      If you are happy living in your imaginary world, don't expect others to join you. Go back to Fox News where your delusion is safe!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy of HAARP is enough to create a false Aurora Borealis, which you can find on HAARPs own home page. That is quite a bit of energy.

      The latter doesn't follow from the former. A "false northern lights" doesn't imply any sense of scale, and could imply anything from less than a watt to well over the power they actually use. Additionally, the same principles that works well at heating up parts of the ionosphere will not work at lower altitudes.

      It should only take Junior High level physics and chemistry knowledge to begin to ask that question.

      And unfortunately it might take some basic plasma physics to answer the questions thoroughly (as opposed to just parroting something from a book), but not more than would easily be obtainable with high school level education. Nonetheless, the questions are still laughably uninformed, in a literal sense, as I see this stuff get laughed about by people I've talked to at plasma physics conferences, some of which have actually worked on HAARP.

    17. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I meant all the other stuff that didn't seem to be directly related to the article. The post as a whole came across as rather random. I sensed that you were trying to make a point, very emphatically, but I couldn't tell what the point was.

    18. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understanding basic science to you is not simply incorrect, but requires a person to get help.

      You take small pieces of actual science that are correct and then assemble them in away that is not correct. It takes more than a few correct premises for an argument to produce a correct result, you need all the premises to be correct and the logic to be sound.

      This isn't coming from watching Fox News or missing basic science, this comes from having an actual background in plasma physics and the fact that HAARP's research is publicly available. I wish I could say the HAARP researchers laugh over these things, but it has gotten to the point of just being sad. They are easy enough to find at some conferences though, and talk openly of their work, assuming you don't lead in with a charge of them missing basic science or not knowing anything about HAARP...

    19. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well look at the source the Washington Post is not what it used to be it's starting to read like Pravda from the 1980's.

    20. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrails disappear within 30-40 seconds behind a jet, they don't hang out all day and disperse into clouds.

    21. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seek help.

      Wow, just, wow... Even in your extreme ignorance regarding these matters you still can't help but wave your hands around and try to defend the "Official truth" propaganda that you hear. In the end resorting to the most base form of attacking someone else who won't conform to the official stance without actual proof backing it up.

      What you are doing is caused by the group social conditioning that you have been subjected too. i.e. you have a weak mind and will. If you could see yourself from the point of view of those putting out the official lies you'd see how little respect they have for you morons who actually believe their crap.

    22. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. I'm not that other guy, but I'm also telling you to seek help.

    23. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      I can sympathise with them. Unfortunately it's very difficult to make a dent in this level of cognitive dissonance.

    24. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the Conspiracy! Have you received your membership pack yet?

    25. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      you'd see how little respect they have for you morons who actually believe their crap.

      Whereas those of us in the reality based community have nothing but respect and admiration for the Tinfoil Lancers, crusaders for Truth.

    26. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the same principles that works well at heating up parts of the ionosphere will not work at lower altitudes.

      Not only that, if you could heat up the jet stream from the ground think how much you'd heat up the air below a thousand metres in the process. Quick, someone investigate whether there's any suspicious shipments of air conditioners and tropical uniforms to Alaskan research bases.

    27. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    28. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can sympathize with people like Optimal Cynic, in that at some point you see people who will refuse any amount of evidence, or at least in some cases will insist on something stupid even if there is no evidence one way or another. I once gave a talk that include a few random pictures of the building and the labs within that I worked at years ago. Someone afterwards asked how I got pictures without any armed guards in it. When I tried to explain there weren't any, the person went on about how it was a military run facility and guarded by MP with rifles. I asked why he didn't go to any of the couple open-houses they have a year for science outreach and see for himself, and he insisted that he was on some target list and couldn't go near the place. Turns out afterward, I found out that part was slightly true, in that he was caught sneaking into a lab without permission once (the building isn't guarded or even locked during business hours...) and fiddling with equipment and warned he would be arrested for trespassing if he returned.

      But there are people out there who need help on some level, and the line between that and those that just are stupid about specific issue can get quite blurry at times. Plus people who are familiar with these places are human too, with finite patience, and won't endlessly answer and dance to someone's requests to just convince one person they are wrong. You act like this is being duped on some level, and just helping to spread lies. Yet when I work at some place, have been physically through every lab in the building and know the people who work there, how am I being duped when telling someone there is no big device they are describing as being in one of the labs?

    29. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAARP's research is publicly available

      Will you please provide some references?

    30. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1
    31. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dead stuff follows straight lines, doesn't change directions arbitrarily.
      living stuff has randomness built-in.
      everything being powered by the sun, it follows that dead stuff
      follows straight lines, thus like a domino and very "predictable".
      living beings/humans are also powered by
      the sun; are elements (with built-in randomness) in the predictable field.
      because everything is powered by the sun since a long time (melleons of years) the whole
      system (earth-weather-etc). has in a chaotic field constricted around a strange attractor.
      it is a strange attractor because the earth (and the planets) feed-back to the sun.
      if you are aware of this strange attractor you can of course with very limited
      energy input (or change) influence HUGE directional changes (of the dead matter).
      do they really know how to do it?
      do they know how to subtly influence the geomagnetic field lines which in
      turn (could) influence the suns activity?
      Are they modern priest that attach secret strings to the goddesses statue to make her cry or smile,
      to influence the believers?
      clarification: a fish is born in water. it is made from water. it works
      against the water (its world) to stay alive (move to find food).
      so it is possible for the fish to have the water propel it without any energy exertion.
      basically it IS water but with a randomness to it.
      same for humans as part of earth but with randomness.
      unaware people might call it abuse, but they are not aware. the randomness of life especially the higher levels
      which are popularly called "self awareness" allows for complete disregard of what is "natural", thus for abuse.

    32. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      This article reeks of poisoning the well.

      Only if sanity is considered "poisoning the well.

      China has modified the weather publicly. Russia has modified the weather publicly.

      Cloud seeding is not weather modification. It's more like weather "coercion". The energy is already there. The moisture is already there. All cloud seeding does is add a nucleation agent. And even then there's a relatively high probability of failure.

      True weather modification, such as creating or dissipating tornadoes or hurricanes is so far beyond our technology that it may as well be magic.

      To claim that it's impossible is pretty damn idiotic! If you are not suspicious as to why the most allegedly advanced society in the world claims it can't do it you really should get off the medication.

      No it claims it can' do it because it can't. To truly be able to modify weather requires enormous amounts of energy and the ability to control atmospheric conditions across a large volume of the troposphere. It also means having the ability to precisely control the atmospheric conditions at different levels of the atmosphere, as well as keeping out other influences that could interfere.

      Even if you could orbit a full nuclear power station you wouldn't even come close to the require power that would be needed to pull something like this off, let alone have the technology to actually do something like this.

      The fact that the plans for chemtrails and weather modification are not given does not make science study disappear. We know things are happening and we can measure them. Aluminum and Barium in the atmosphere has been shown to be true by numerous scientific studies. Those metals are measurable in plants and soil which has also been measured.

      O RLY? You provide no citations for this nonsense, and the only sites that come up on a cursory google search are all links to nutter sites. Not to mention aluminium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, with aluminium oxide being the most common form (which is biologically inert).

      Basically, you make big claims but have no evidence.

      The underlying "why" is not seen because it's all "top-secret" but that does not make the metals disappear.

      It apparently also doesn't make the metals appear either.

      This idiot thinks that their "why" is better than someone else' "why". While everything is buried in "top-secret" files nobody knows.

      The government can't even keep a surveillance program from leaking. What makes you think it is competent enough to keep something like a weather modification program from being leaked?

      How about petitioning the Government to open up instead of claiming it's all for the greater good without any evidence? If we don't open things up, that speculation that it's all for the greater good has identical credibility to the guy who believes it's for nefarious purposes.

      The article didn't say anything about being for the greater good. It said that believing such garbage either means you're an idiot or you're crazy (or maybe both).

      Then we get to the outright lies in this article. "HAARP does not and cannot control the weather. " Wait a minute there non-scientist! If the stated goals of exciting and heating particles and atoms in the ionosphere, and we know that they can do that, how does that not give someone the ability to control weather?

      Because exciting a few atoms in the near vacuum of the ionosphere is completely different and unrelated to altering weather in the troposphere. To influence even a small region of weather would require an enormous amount of energy, orders of magnitude more than any power source we can orbit. That's basic physics. For example, take the amount of water in a typical thunderstorm and calculate the

      --
      ~X~
    33. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone one else find it funny that s.petry lays out some simple points and Optimal Cynic attacks him. Where have I seen that before?????

    34. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "China has modified the weather publicly. Russia has modified the weather publicly."

      Source?

    35. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone need to heat up massive amounts of the sky to modify weather? That is a pretty stupid thing to say, and very unrealistic. If the system can heat up a very small area of the sky below the ionosphere it could modify weather. Logically you are claiming that in order to boil a pot of water, a heat element must surround the pan. That is crap and you know it.

      If you have the power to hit the ionosphere, you have the power to hit lower levels in the atmosphere. If you add metal particles (aluminum and barium) the effect is intensified greatly. Maybe heat conduction is difficult for you, but I have a feeling that you are ignoring the obvious for reasons I have in the subject of my response.

      The government can't even keep a surveillance program from leaking. What makes you think it is competent enough to keep something like a weather modification program from being leaked?

      Logical failure! Look how long it took to keep COINTELPRO from getting into the public. Because one secret got out does not mean all secrets are out.

      You can Google search results for metals being found in certain conditions after what appears to be seeding. Of course mileage varies with credibility of authors, but there is enough data to read within a simple search.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    36. Re:Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logically you are claiming that in order to boil a pot of water, a heat element must surround the pan.

      Nonetheless, a small cigarette lighter won't boil a 5 gallon soup pot. There is a point that no controllable difference is made, because at some point the heat radiates away at the same rate that you add heat. You can easily work out the amount of heat needed to boil a pot of water, and see that on the time scale needed to boil it with a small source of heat will be untenable with any potentially realistic loss of heat from the pot.

      If you have the power to hit the ionosphere, you have the power to hit lower levels in the atmosphere.

      That does not follow at all, it isn't about raw power, but that the radio waves won't interact at all with the lower levels. Small amounts of metal won't help, as you can easily find research about the effects of metal naturally in the atmosphere on various such projects. You seem to be missing some pretty fundamental basics of the principles involved, yet are trying to make broad inferences about it...

  25. Soulskill will be fired tomorrow by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    I see Soulskill just posted his first - and invariably last - story that dares to suggest Paullowers (of which slashdot of course has many) are not the true chosen ones. This type of opinion cannot stand here and must be punished for being presented. If he's lucky he will only lose his job over this.... Soulskill, I'm sorry that you tried to suggest anything other than The Official Gospel here, now you have to pay. I'd say you could get a job working for a liberal news organization but I can't think of any that are left in the US.

    And yeah, Paullowers I know I just pissed you off. Go ahead and mod me down. My karma and I can take it.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  26. get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some nutters in our community still believe temperatures here on earth are affected by carbon emissions!! LMAO

    1. Re:get this by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You may LYAO but physics gets the last laugh.

  27. Haven't you all seen star trek? by wizkid · · Score: 1

    They'll have weather controlling satillites soon. Then the only worry will be when Q comes to town....

    --
    I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
  28. Re: Stupid article by OptimalCynic · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the conspiracy is even more stupid than the straw man version? That's quite an accomplishment.

  29. Chemtrail debunking the wrong theory? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    I thought the Chemtrails were supposed to be a mystery additive to jet fuel that does whatever the government feels like that day. So you wouldn't have tanks and plumbing and stuff in the aircraft, it would be a shadowy something or the other at the refinery. Or maybe added in transport or something. Maybe I made that up because the real conspiracy makes no sense at all. Even then you're talking about something that has to survive being burnt up in a jet engine and quite a bit of time up in the stratosphere (in sunlight) before finally filtering down to the ground. People near airports would also receive a massively higher dose, so it couldn't be too obvious or people would notice. It's hard to make this conspiracy work even theoretically, and that's before you even start talking about the properties of the mysterious fluid and what it is supposed to do.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Chemtrail debunking the wrong theory? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's something they're putting in our water supply:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s

  30. As someone who aspires to be a critical thinker.. by LittleIron · · Score: 2

    I am more put off by people who mock and lampoon those with differing belief systems, than I am by those with whom I simply disagree.

  31. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if chemtrails are debunked, 9/11 really was an inside job?

    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by omnichad · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Obligatory XKCD by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      How does knowing the truth about 9/11 help you live a better life, be a better person, and treat people better?

    3. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      live a better life, be a better person, and treat people better

      Some people aren't interested in those kinds of things. Some people just want to watch the world burn. (While coated in highly flammable chemtrail cocktail!)

  32. DC Weather Guys="Duh FUD-Guys" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't everyone know the "DC Weather Guys" are Capitol-Hell-paid FUD-Merchants? They can't come right out and claim that aliens and contrails are causing the excessive air warming and massive increase in turbulance, the gale and hurrican-force blows increasingly blasting the land and all the rest going nutty in our weather, because all of us who know we are sane would write them off as additional kooks.
    So, instead, they sow seeds. They salt the airwaves and the electron-sea cyberspace depends on with nuggets e can laugh at, just as contrails salt the upper atmosphere with hydro-carbon combustion chemical byproducts and particulates.
    Their purpose? To mist and drizzle their propaganda into us, to soak us with the seep of the ideas they want us to remember, that they are selling by pretending to not be selling.
    Their object? To prepare us to think "well, it could maybe be aliens and contrails after all..." and to ask each other, "Do you suppose those vinegar-sprayers _were_ onto something after all?" when hotter and harder blowing and turbulence become undeniably noticable.
    Why? Do you need to ask? These guys are paid to shift our attentions away from Washington, D.C. as the source, aren't they?
    As long as we don't tumble to the fact that the real cause of the increasingly hot and violent blowing and blasting is coming from their District of Columbia, is coming, specifically, in fact, from Capitol Hill, well, they will be earning the grift they get from Congress to do just that, won't they?

  33. Way To Distort The Truth, OP! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    My hat is off to OP, who managed to cite a conspiracy theory in his little diatribe about conspiracy theory.

    News: while I agree that vinegar-sprayers may belong to the tinfoil hat clan, there are no more of them, in proportion to total number of people, in Ron Paul supporters than there are in any other group.

    1. Re:Way To Distort The Truth, OP! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      I meant "managed to SUPPORT a conspiracy theory himself, in his little diatribe about conspiracy theory."

      There. Fixed that for me.

  34. I guess I've been doing it wrong by pelirojatica · · Score: 2

    All this time, I've been spraying vinegar to clean the kitchen floor. Silly me. I'm not doing anything to stop the... um what was it again... oh yeah! chem trails. At least the floor is clean.

  35. I want a vinegar spray by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Vinegar is a nice and very cheap chemical product, specifically white vinegar which is kind of the pure form (dissolved in water). It cleans and disinfect stuff. I even cleaned red wine on a shirt with 25% vinegar, 25% alcohol and 50% cool water, it just all went away and I wore it without washing it further.

    I've been wanting it in a spray but did not find empty spray bottles yet, I didn't look for it much either, in supermarkets they just sell them but full of some crap I don't need. Though, I stumbled upon a wine vinegar spray but don't want to pay 2 euros for it.
    I want to spray some in an old pair of sneakers with a horrible smell to see if that kills the life that's in it.

    1. Re:I want a vinegar spray by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      I even cleaned red wine on a shirt with 25% vinegar, 25% alcohol and 50% cool water, it just all went away and I wore it without washing it further.

      Everyone in the office must have loved you.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:I want a vinegar spray by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The ICA Supermarket on Lillåvägen in Bagarmossen has heaps of pre-emptied spray bottles for sale (as of yesterday evening when I did some shopping there).

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:I want a vinegar spray by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Woolies in Australia has plenty too. We have half a dozen around for cat-squirting purposes (with water, not vinegar).

    4. Re:I want a vinegar spray by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Go to a garden or hardware store, they'll have trigger sprayers for misting plants like this one. http://www.seedandgarden.com/shop/products/40-oz-plant-care-sprayer.html

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  36. Re: Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you cant provide a mechanism that ether, does not violate physics as we know it, or can be used to make a test that will show it to work independently, then it is just evidence free rampant paranoia. Given the scale of the effects from such small causes and the relative simplicity of the equipment it should not be too hard to make up a test that will consistently show smaller scale effects from cheep equipment, large enough to measure at least. It would not have to use the atmosphere itself or anything like that to be convincing get it working in a bell jar is fine. No one has yet.

    Even the richest most profitable of the conspiracy theory websites don't even try, they just make up more plausible sounding reasons without trying to substantiate them, every time you knock one down they have another 2 and each takes 10 times longer to refute than to asspull or rote recite. It is a strategy related to the Gish gallop, argue by having so many assertions in such a short space that your opponent can not refute them all. It does not make all assertions at once (like the Gish), instead relying on making multiple fresh assertions for each single assertion refuted. Thus it works better in casual debate by giving the impression that you opponent is struggling because the arguments against his position are constantly multiplying. It might be best called the Hydra assertions strategy, effective at persuading and without any relevance on reality.

  37. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen it where a contrail has gone from an itty bitty thing in the sky to something miles long and hundreds of meters wide that lasts tens of minutes or longer. I can agree, temperature, time of day, and relative humidity can affect the characteristics of contrails. However, I have seen planes over Chicago that seem to spray something into the atmosphere, in a grid pattern no less and I've seen that pattern last 6 or more hours. Ask around, you will find people who've seen the exact same thing.

    I know China and Russia have publicly announced weather modification programs.

    I know HAARP has probably nothing to do with the ordeal but it is certainly suspicious.

    Additionally I've seen some blogs that have claimed scientific findings where they collected and tested soil and foilage samples in a lab and determined spraying of silver iodine was occurring.

    One cannot rule out, based upon the evidence presented, that spraying is occurring and that in some areas weather modification is occurring. Who and why and what are they spraying is another set of questions entirely.

    1. Re:Fact. by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live very close to Chicago (less than five miles and O'Hare (which is #1 or #2 of world's busiest airport depending on year). some days many contrails happen to look like grid pattern just because so many jets fly in different directions. But all made by different jets, not a single jet passing back and forth. Since a contrail is just a cloud, whether visible or whether it lingers depends whether a cloud at that same altitude would linger. that could be a short time, could be a long time.

      In illinois there were indeed experiments done with cloud seeding with silver iodide, even into the 1980s. Not done from jets, but you can read about them online, they were small experiments and downstate not near chicago. *yawn*

      in short, nothing suspicious regarding contrails seen in half a century by me and I am aviation buff. This year's airshow in Chicago to be a bit strange due to lack of military craft. see you there

    2. Re:Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some days many contrails happen to look like grid pattern just because so many jets fly in different directions.

      It is not just the random number of jets, but that there are some preferred airways and corridors used by commercial flights that are only a couple miles wide, with busy sections having the flights spread out across the path. The result is a bunch of parallel contrails, quite regularly in busy areas. And if you are near a place where two of these paths cross, you will quite frequently get a grid of contrails. It doesn't always happen near airports, but it is far from like that everywhere. And if it were a conspiracy spend so much time carpeting the exact same middle of no where locations instead of more populated places...

  38. Re:secret chem trail organization excels at securi by Oidhche · · Score: 1

    What do you expect? They work daily in near proximity to concentrated mind-control agents, how could they whistle-blow? Same goes for anyone who would get close to a crash or spill site.

  39. Every second scientists have to waste on this shit by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Is a second not spent curing cancer and inventing cool stuff.

    And it's not like it'll do any good anyway. The creationist/altmed/antivax/birther/truther/moon-hoax crowd is invested into their beliefs in a fashion that does not permit rational refutation.

  40. Hardly Scientific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they do all the deep math, physics and whatever it is to wash off all the theories, this article is useless.

  41. Re:Cool Story Steve! by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to be clever or do you not know it's actually Jeff Bezos? "There are literally dozens of patents about weather modification" - there's patents for perpetual motion machines too, and yet I still have to pay the power bill. It's all a conspiracy by Big Utility.

  42. Conspiracy or not, weather modding is attempted by AlienSexist · · Score: 2

    A number of patents have been issued for various methodologies for weather modification (which I suppose doesn't prove they work). But don't also forget that China openly brags about doing weather modification such as clearing smog for the Beijing Olympics or around other cities.

    I wouldn't suspect they are the only ones.

    1. Re:Conspiracy or not, weather modding is attempted by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But don't also forget that China openly brags [google.com] about doing weather modification such as clearing smog for the Beijing Olympics or around other cities

      Yeah, well, China also tries to pass off dogs as lions . So, yeah.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Conspiracy or not, weather modding is attempted by Jerome+from+Layton · · Score: 1

      Check on our activity in Vietnam back in the 1960s and possibly 1970s. The idea was to locally intensify monsoon rain over the Ho Chi Minh trail to slow down their transport. Vietnamese live in the rain for about half the year depending on the location and its just another thing to handle. So, I don't think this operation had any real impact. Maybe someone from the PAVN could comment.

  43. Feeling snubbed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm white, Texan, tall, male, ivy-league educated, engineer, military brat.
    I've consulted for the Fed, worked for a Swiss Bank, and been inside a vault for meetings at the Dept of Defense in Ft. Meade.
    I even know 2 billionaires, one in tech, and one in finance. ...and I've never once been invited in to a secret society or conspiracy theory. I don't even know anyone that has. Geez, if not me, then who? And how are they so good at keeping secrets?

    1. Re:Feeling snubbed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee. I've know mid range international political figurers who have described the black mail system. You have to have dirt on everybody in order to get anything done and to protect yourself in the process.

      One of the tactics described was the now popularly understood trap where at parties targets are inebriated, seduced and filmed having sex with just barely under aged girls. It gets darker from there. Hearing this described freaked me out when I learned it back in the 90's because I'd never heard of anything like that before.

      I once got to see a half inch thick envelope of cash change hands in exchange for illegal papers and passports. It was really upsetting, because the rule system obviously didn't apply and the people cruising at that altitude were selfish, well connected and had really dark tastes.

      So, maybe you just know clean people.

      "Conspiracy" is a word used to make people feel too embarrassed to think for themselves or ask questions. But just because people get cowed into silence through simple social engineering tactics like that, doesn't mean there's no dirt and evil in power positions.

      Also, working for a bank is the same as being part of a massive conspiracy. Banking is a con job even if the average teller or executive doesn't realize they're aiding and abetting.

    2. Re:Feeling snubbed by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Silvio? Is that you?

  44. Already debunked by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

    this has already been thoroughly debunked. It is well known that man cannot affect the weather. Just look up "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", and you will see that they specifically state than "man has no influence on the weather". Anyone who states otherwise is decried as a "denier", and thoroughly mocked.
    Why would the United States spend Billions on this research, with significant tax increases, if it was true?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Already debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this. When the sun's up we wear lighter clothes, therefore the stars influence out behaviour, therefore astrology is true. Checkmate, debunkers!

  45. No subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laugh as much as you want, but it is a fact that our government has not only been interested in weather control but has been successful in it. Of course, not anything on the level of what conspiracy nuts make claim to; that would be silly. However, the US had used this during the Vietnam War:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

    As for the article, it does completely glance over HAARP. You can't say you've successfully debunked using HAARP for weather modification by simply stating, "I don't think it would be powerful enough to significantly change weather patterns except for over Alaska and surrounding area." Instead, wouldn't it be a bit more reasonable to give some numbers and show how little of an impact it has? Maybe even describe how HAARP works vs. what conspiracy theorists claim? Anything.

    1. Re:No subject by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      OK, here's a number. HAARP has slightly more than half the transmitted RF power of an AEGIS cruiser.

  46. Bull by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    There are times when I have looked up at the sky at what should be a clear blue sky, but the sky is covered with contrails, they've literally spread out and covered the whole sky.

    You can't tell me with a straight face that filling the sky with so much pollution that that doesn't make a difference, of course it makes a difference.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  47. what about regular contrails by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    Crazy mind-control additives aside, what is the impact (if any) of so many regular condensation trails being woven around the globe? I'm necessarily saying I believe it has an impact of global weather systems, I just like poking hornets' nests.

  48. Makes sense by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    ...if you're the world's biggest douche.

  49. I had thought electing a Marxist was ludicrous too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But yet here Americans sit: with Obama at their helm.

  50. Re:I had thought electing a Marxist was ludicrous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wherever you wentto school, please ask them for a refund. If you show them a printout of this post they'll cut you a check immediately, no questions asked.

    Then use a money to go to a school where they teach what marxism is.

    The rest of the human rest thanks you in advance.

  51. Skeptics have it too easy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I never dismiss conspiracies out of hand yet I do tend to ignore most for lack of evidence and interest.

    A recurring theme that has always bothered me skeptics are almost always on the winning side by default without having expended any effort to get there. I have observed some tend to invoke and get away with many of the same errors in judgement and thought as the pro-conspiracy crowd.

    Writing a broad article means you don't have to address or defend specific claims, you can use the most crazy claims to drown out nuanced assertions and you can invent and beat down as many strawmen as your imagination allows.

    While it is often not possible to prove negatives this is no excuse for making the unwarranted leap of asserting that you can. For example in TFA:

    "The idea that aircraft that produce contrails are really spraying âoechemtrailsâ is preposterous on its face"

    Translation: your crazy.

    "Airlines mostly operate based on the weight of the aircraft. The weight of the passengers, cargo, and luggage onboard is crucial for both determining how much fuel is onboard, which ultimately determines how much they pay to fill the tanks, as well as the balance of the aircraft in flight. If the plane is too heavy or the weight is distributed incorrectly, it could crash."

    Is this really why the claim is preposterious? Many have claimed chemtrails to be fuel additives. No attempt to quantify how much sulfur dioxide or whatever mystery sauce one could sneak aboard or consider aggregate effect of all commercial aircraft contributions over time or what quantity of x, y and z would be necessary to effect climate or people.. just vauge hand waving.

    The people who want to believe the conspiracy will believe it no matter what you tell them. If you try to explain the science and prove the theory wrong, youâ(TM)re wrong, because âoethatâ(TM)s just what they want you to think.â

    I think the central problem here is your need to "prove the theory wrong". Fundementally there is no proving most conspiracy theories wrong and to even try is a fools errand.

    If you want to rescuse someone who has fallen into a conspiracy trap the best approach I know of is to lead by example and insist on detail and vigour in exploring available evidence.

    1. Re:Skeptics have it too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I believe in the chemtrail conspiracy theory? Because I'm forty and those type of contrails didn't exist anywhere on earth before I was 28, because contrails dissipated within site of the aircraft up until the late 1990's and didn't hang out in the sky in grid patterns all day.

    2. Re:Skeptics have it too easy by dbIII · · Score: 2

      When I was about eight I lived in a place where there was a dust storm every week in summer after the plane arrived. It would stir the boundary between the stationary heated air layer above the ground and the moving cooler air above just enough for a lot of the air at ground level to get moving for about an hour. That's my antidote to believing weird weather control shit and instead looking in wonder at things like contrails, made by planes that "didn't exist anywhere on earth" in large numbers before the above poster was 28 but are everywhere now.
      It also helped that a failed weather control device was sitting right out the front of my Boy Scout Den when I was young, a "giger vortex gun", a cloud seeding device from the 1900s which was a good reminder that even now we don't know enough to be able to seed clouds and produce rain. There's been plenty of attempts but nothing with repeatable results.

    3. Re:Skeptics have it too easy by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      So what unit did you fight in during the Second World War, or was 28 too old to be drafted? https://plus.google.com/photos/107393796095434664991/albums/5235534135256807809?banner=pwa

    4. Re:Skeptics have it too easy by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I saw contrails that persisted for hours, some years before you were even born.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Skeptics have it too easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post.

  52. OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate change is real. Patent #4,686,605 is real. Governments undertaking secret activities is real (NSA etc). Kyoto protocol failure is real. If Government decided to utilize the one and only known climate change solution... It would look just like chem-trails.

  53. Re: Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual conspiracy is that HAARP doesn't use lots of energy, but instead, uses resonance to cause the ionosphere to dump energy (somehow, dunno what energy is expected to be there) into the lower layers of the atmosphere, thereby causing small effects to become magnified (rainstorms into hurricanes, etc).

    In many cases it is hard to say what is an "actual" conspiracy or not, as there are a wide variety of people believing in such junk with a variety of effort into trying to justify it. The result is there are conspiracies that are easy to point out as impossible or really implausible, and those that are more difficult to point out as such.

    With HAARP at least, I've come across some rather misinformed and/or stupid versions of the conspiracy, which amounts to it have just some insane amount of raw power. Frustratingly or humorously, depending on your sense of humor, this once happened when out to dinner with some colleagues at a plasma physics conference. Someone who butted into our conversation eventually went off the deep end and tried to tell us about how much power HAARP uses and how dangerous it is to be around and what damage it can do directly hitting things and so on, despite the fact that three of the guys at the table had actually worked on HAARP. The conspiracy guy just brushed off most things, although got down right offended when told they have public open houses from time to time and he could just come to the facility himself if in the area...

    Conspiracy theories seem to lose a bit of their amusement when you end up pegged as part of it.

  54. Re:TO: J. Bezos FROM: NSA by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

    In about 7 weeks, the real info will be released.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  55. Re: Stupid article by slick7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the conspiracy is even more stupid than the straw man version? That's quite an accomplishment.

    These are not the truths you are looking for, move along.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  56. washington post = paid bilderberg shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The washington post is attending Bilderberg meetings and owned by the same elite, so this mainstream news media cannot be trusted per definition.

    Some real research:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2x6TEeknfo

  57. UFO's in disguise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and besides that, some planes are UFO's in disguise!

  58. Why is not true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Snowden would already tell us. :p

  59. Step 1, Create Strawman by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Vinegar, really? To their credit, the "conspiracy theorists" don't make such radical claims nor do they contribute it to commercial airliners. A contrail is not the same as a chemtrail. I'll give the conspiracy theorists credit because the trails that are left behind are by federally deployed jets at high altitude. In California, they're deployed every two hours.

    It's not ludicrous and it *is* scientifically sound. The research was done in the 1940s to help mitigate global warming.

  60. Not weather mod. Mind mod. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way to tell if something is worth paying attention to is the volume and specific tone of a particular conspiracy crowd.

    There are legions of idiots claiming actors in that school shooting and in Boston. Their tone is vapid and somewhat hysterical. They bear a certain herd behavior (following gruff loudmouth authority figures on talk radio). Basically regular sheep who got bumped into a different pen. They're still sheep, and they still have wool growing over their eyes.

    Anyway, when you see that happening, you know there's probably something far more interesting going on, because they whip up those masses to distract from and discredit the real stuff. What that real stuff might be is often a lot less dramatic, but a lot more scary.

    Anyway, these Weather Mod types making claims about HAARP demonstrate the same behavior pattern. Which means their popular theory is probably just another loud circus designed to drown out the real stuff.

    The real stuff comes in two parts:

    1. Low power EM can be used to modify human behavior.

    2. HAARP is designed to create energetic mirrors in the upper atmosphere which can bounce directed signals down again into distant geographic regions around the globe.

    Far less Hollywood than creating tsunamis on demand, but far more practical. And based on not even secret science; entirely doable.

    And who needs to keep secrets when people can be so easily whipped up into gibbering states of stupidity and denial. They'll keep them for you by obediently not looking. Grown adults have been trained to feel shame when accused of conspiracy theorizing.

    When the general crowd has the emotional maturity and self mastery of a bunch of grade schoolers, population control is a party trick.

    But sure, yeah. Go ahead and debunk weather control with smug self righteousness. Because you're not part of the problem at all.

  61. Open Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before it was common knowledge that the United States was spying on its oun citizens that was also considered a stupid conspiracy.

  62. Note to weather control people (if you exist) by Maximus23 · · Score: 1

    Dear Weather control people... Can you please do something about all the snow we get in the northern hemisphere, particularly in the upstate NY area, I would like to continue biking through the winter season... oh wait... you can't you say? Then you really can't control the weather can you...

  63. Re: Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know who these three people are, I'd like to meet them. We are here to listen, verify and cut all the crap out. And If you are Anonymous while posting this - your argument does not hold the same level of credibility.

  64. Re: Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the need to trust a random Slashdotter, anonymous or not? HAARP researchers are easy enough to find. Their papers are in science journals, which typically include contact info for first authors. If you want to meet them, just look in a plasma physics conference (e.g. APS DPP) program and pick out their presentations.

    Or is what happened at the restaurant more important than their actual work? Because proving my point on the internet is more important than pissing off friends by dragging them into a pointless internet debate?

  65. Oh please.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is such a weak debunk. I'm not a hardcore believer in the whole HAARP thing, but it's possible, if you have a background in ionospheric and meteorological education. There's little to no substance in this washington post article.

  66. Scientifically ludicrous not stopping big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.weathermodification.com/

    Let's ignore the product page where they sell jets that modfiy weather for agricultural purposes or the fact the DoD is in their client portfolio....

  67. Re: Stupid article by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Easy enough for conspiracy theories to form, given that HAARP's scientific purpose is meaningless to most laypeople and that it is operated by air force, navy and DARPA.

    After all, why would the military be funding an innocent research institution? Easy to believe it is some sort of super-weapon.

    My vague understanding is that military is really interested because HAARP studies ionosphereic effects on radio propagation, which is a subject of importance in long-range and high-altitude radar systems.

  68. Hi sheep! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2x6TEeknfo

    please watch.

  69. Re:As someone who aspires to be a critical thinker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am more put off by people who mock and lampoon those with differing belief systems, than I am by those with whom I simply disagree.

    Same here. Most often arm-chair "debunkers" come across as the most non-scientific and non-critical thinking people alive when they start spewing their hatred. They rarely know enough about the subject itself to critically debunk anything so instead they resort to playground level attacks against people who believe or at least research things that are contrary to the "Official Truth" espoused by some authority figure, because you know, authority figures have never been caught lying about anything for any reason... And groups of authority figures have never lied about anything or been wrong either...

  70. You're saying this now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But before Snowdon et al, you were the one saying "Rubbish! We have the Constitution! We are the freest in the world!" and other jingoistic claptrap.

    You may have opined that they spied on OTHER countries' citizens, but apart from the "VERY rare" errors, US citizens were fine and if you didn't like it, then go to North Korea and see what a government spying on their people looked like.

    Then when revelations came out? "Well, of course, EVERYONE does it!".

    "Everyone" who knew were called tinfoilhatters and you knew of their theories, so *technically* you're not wrong: you refused to believe the statements, but you KNEW them.

  71. Not just conspiracy theories ... by golodh · · Score: 0
    Just consider the "rational pi" crowd who insist that pi (the mathematical constant) must be a rational number, not a transcendental one.

    Then there are the peeps who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat (after all, they see the "evidence" on a daily basis don't they, so any data to the contrary is a fabrication, and of course "the government" is behind it all but hushes it up.

    They don't have much contact with their cousins, the Hollow Earth believers though. And when they do, that contact tends to be short and exciting.

    Then there are the creationists. After all, why consider any evidence and undertake painstaking exhausting research and fit models when you can have "Faith"?

    But you can do even better. Gospel not to your liking? Looking for something more "down to earth"? Try Scientology! It's practical and its'full of people like You! Ok, it costs a bundle, but then again, would they charge as much if it were all a big scam?

    And just to show you that all this has come to light in the glaring light of modern thinking in the Internet Age, there's a nice little book about these things: Gartner, M (1957) Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

    For those with a more serious bent and bit more time to spend there is: Sagan, C., Druyan, A. (1997) The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

    Don't let any radical fundamentalists (any kind really) see you reads such books though. You wouldn't like what they'll do to you.

  72. Where's the Al Gore's fat, therefore no AGW crowd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the Al Gore's fat, therefore no AGW crowd?

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4090283&cid=44567185

    /. user CajunArsen holds that view -- maybe he can come on here and tell us how GW is a hoax because AL GORE (mumble fat mumble).

    He might also believe some other ... interesting things that we can laugh at.

  73. Meteo Systems International, a Swiss company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meteo Systems International is a Swiss company that has been creating rain storms in Abu Dahbi, during the dry summer months.

    http://www.arabianbusiness.com/abu-dhabi-backed-scientists-create-fake-rainstorms-in-11m-project-371038.html
    http://www.innovateus.net/content/metro-systems-international

    http://www.meteo-systems.com

    They use giant ionizers to trigger rain and "control" the weather.

    So, tell me again, where is the conspiracy about controlling weather ? It's fact and documented.

  74. Re:Every second scientists have to waste on this s by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  75. Re:Not weather mod. Mind mod. by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

    Here we go folks, we've got a winner in the lunacy stakes!

  76. This is supposed to be an example of science?? by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    "One gallon of jet fuel weighs approximately 6.7 pounds. Take a Boeing 747-400, for example: a fully-loaded 747 flying from London to Hong Kong would require almost a full tank of gas – somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 gallons of fuel. That’s upwards of 370,000 pounds of fuel in the tanks. Between the weight of the fuel, the passengers, the cargo, and the luggage onboard, there’s simply no room left for “chemtrail” chemicals even if they did want to spray us all with toxic gunk."

    Who said chemtrails were made on London to Hongkong flights? This is your rebuttal of chemtrails??

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  77. Re:As someone who aspires to be a critical thinker by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

    I am more put off by people who mock and lampoon those with differing belief systems, than I am by those with whom I simply disagree.

    While I can sympathise with that viewpoint, how do you suggest dealing with the people who are completely immune to evidence and logic? You know, the kind of people who actually believe things like fake moon landing theories?

  78. This is a global thing by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy theories are becoming to be a bigger thing than I for one ever imagined.
    I don' t think North Americans realize how much this talk goes across the world. What was once quiet internet chatter has been taken mainstream by RT et al.

    In Argentina I noticed how Britain is mixed in with the USA which is also mixed in with general view-of-infidels Islamic paranoia and any other conspiracy theory going. Some of it is true but also people aren't checking facts at all and it all joins up. So when I get in a taxi in Argentina and I work in oil and gas I'm not simply a tourist, I'm 'one of them'. Now, the same thing is going on all over the world. Russian feel very much the same. The evil USA empire, HAARP, chemtrails, the lot. Same in the middle east and all of the Islamic world. Similar in nearly all of South America and so on. Pretty much this is all of the world.

    Conspiracy theories are a point upon which people rally around. The confirmations such as the NSA spying are remembered but it takes some guts to admit when you're wrong and you've been an idiot.

    I still think there's a lot of truth in conspiracy theories in general and many seem to just keep getting proved true all the time.

    The OP article shows what thoughts should be happening in relation to HARRP "it doesn’t have nearly enough energy to do anything over the Lower 48" but this is the kind of minimal thought/research people need to be doing when you read an article. As a matter of national security the USA should be educating people around the world on how to assess a story and sources. But it's not. Why? Because it was all true after all! ;-)

    For contrails wouldn't it be good to actually go up in a light aircraft with a convert and actually make some contrails?

    This all seems like a modern phenomenon but isn't this just a continuation of what people have always done? Only before such things were blamed on the devil. In fact, let's join it all up and say the devil is behind all these things, farming humanity as the good shepherd, steering genetics of the breed according to the required spec.

  79. I'm not saying these conspiracies are true by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    But the article does NOT debunk the theories.

    The claim that HAARP does not have enough power to do what some people claim it does is an erroneous one, because HAARP is designed to channel power from the ionosphere.

    The claim that you can't have planes spraying chemtrails is based on the idea that there's no room for the tanks on commercial flights. But this is a straw man, and anyone who would attack it is an asshole. They are forgetting military air traffic. There have actually been photographs of government planes filled with tanks whose purpose has gone unexplained. Since the government spends our money and then claims national security when we want to know specifically how it's been spent, it's completely possible to have funded a program like this. By distributing the work across multiple defense contractors who would have no idea what they were working on and who operate under legal secrecy, they could prevent anyone from actually knowing what is being built, or the total scope of the operation.

    I'm still not saying these conspiracy theories are true; you need proof to make statements like that. However, there is nothing of value in this article whatsoever. It is simply more anti-conspiracist FUD which is being distributed at this time to deprecate the value of conspiracy theories. The problem is that conspiracies are the norm, and so are secret conspiracies. Citations abound; there are many articles on "conspiracy theories which turned out to be true". Most of those theories were mercilessly ridiculed until proven. THAT also doesn't lend any credence to these theories, mind you.

    The article whines about how if you try to explain the science to people who don't understand it, they'll tell you that you're wrong. But this very article abuses science by engaging in logical fallacies of false conflation and attacking straw men.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I'm not saying these conspiracies are true by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      There have actually been photographs of government planes filled with tanks whose purpose has gone unexplained.

      Those are ballast tanks, you idiot.

      The "you idiot" part is because the first Google result for "chemtrails tanks" is a well documented piece pointing this out including photographs and citations.

    2. Re:I'm not saying these conspiracies are true by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The "you idiot" part is because the first Google result for "chemtrails tanks" is a well documented piece pointing this out including photographs and citations.

      Google customizes search results. It shows you what you want to see. Note, that goes for both of us. Last time I looked for such a page, it didn't exist. But I haven't actually thought about that in a while.

      In any case, it's not difficult to imagine a system by which chemtrail spraying could be going on. That's very far from suggesting that it is going on. But when articles describe all the reasons why it supposedly can't be going on, they're engaging in bullshit speculation just as much as people who have no evidence whatsoever who are speculating as to what the purpose of chemtrailing might be.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I'm not saying these conspiracies are true by vandamme · · Score: 1

      The older KC-135's used to have water injection to get better performance under certain takeoff conditions. Used to leave a lot of sooty exhaust, too. I think they figured out how to tune the combustion better by around 30 years ago.

  80. Need to watch documentaries by sterlingda · · Score: 1

    You all need to watch the excellent documentaries that put forth scientific proof behind these things. - What in the World are They Spraying? at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWku-lJe6I - Why in the World are They Spraying? at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis also available in Spanish, French, Russina, Dutch, Danish, Italian, Czech, Serbian, Romanian, Portuguese, Korean and Japanese subtitles.

    --
    Tomorrow's news yesterday -- the bleeding, visionary edge.
    1. Re:Need to watch documentaries by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Those documentaries are a complete load of bollocks - http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/ . Incidentally, your website rates about 9.5/10 on the crank-o-meter - how much of it do you actually believe and how much is just there for the ad revenue?

    2. Re:Need to watch documentaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean optimal Cynic, that you are getting paid for writing such comments in slashdot?

    3. Re:Need to watch documentaries by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Only in warm fuzzy feelings from replies like this.

  81. Re: Stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are here to listen, verify and cut all the crap out. And If you are Anonymous while posting this - your argument does not hold the same level of credibility.

    Yeah, except that is usually specific to verifying actual stuff about science or politics. What argument here is there to verify? That scientists eat dinner with the friends when at conferences? That they sometimes have to deal with stupid people? Of all the posts to reply to as such in this story, you made a great choice here. You're really standing up and sticking it to someone by demanding proof of their past dinner plans. I'm hoping there was enough alcohol involved that the answers you seek are forever beyond reach.

  82. Chem Trails by Jerome+from+Layton · · Score: 1

    Back in 1999, I watched one being formed by a single aircraft. It was in the late afternoon, about an hour before sunset. When I first saw it, half of the construction had been completed and the aircraft was flying alternating N-S trails and E-W trails. The result looked like a loose rectangular rattan weave. I estimated the altitude somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 feet and the spacing between the trails somewhere between 3000 and 6000 feet. The south end was around McClellan AFB and the north end was close to Beale AFB. Watching this thing was about the same idea as checking on an orb spider doing her thing. The aircraft departed the scene shortly before sunset and the trails slowly merged into a thin overcast. My best guess as to "Why" would be to impair the effectiveness of reconnaissance satellites. It was too thin to change nocturnal IR emission from the ground and the "overcast" was gone by the next day. For some actual pictures of the things, see Art Bell and Coast2CoastAM sites or Google the term. Other than consuming a few thousand pounds of JP-8, I don't see any real impact.

    1. Re:Chem Trails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like something different if you watched a single plan make out the grid. But a lot of pictures you see of a similar looking thing is a pattern made by how commercial jets use common airways. If you happen to live near an intersection of two busy airways, you will see that pattern a lot, with actually almost the same spacing. Although they are made by different jets.

  83. Re:Stupid article by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    It is indeed a really stupid article. All it actually says is that it is so, cause I say so. Denser journalism once again.

  84. im gonna go out on a limb this time by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    i never had it for conspirationists, i never had it for the atheists either, i never had it for the scientists, or the hardcore buddhists
    thats probably why the others are ians ims or ...us
    i have a short opinion on this which you can judge after reading it and knowing i didnt bother to rtfa
    chemtrails are not disprovern to be harmless but im sure no one gives a shit about it
    conspirationists should get out more so they can see the average person on a global scale does not give a shit about any of this and you will never make them care
    3) i need a vacation and more money ...

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?