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."

Comments

TO: Weather Gang. FROM: J. Bezos

[localman57]

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

What is this?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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

AVOID THE BROWN ACID, MAN!

Re:What is this?

[i kan reed]

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.

Re:What is this?

[quantaman]

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

Recent events

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Recent events

[dkleinsc]

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!

The sad thing about conspiracy theories

[msobkow]

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.

Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Isn't that the "History Channel"?

Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories

[Sasayaki]

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?

Re:The sad thing about conspiracy theories

[cusco]

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.

Not the best debunking ever.

[catfood]

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?

Better explanations please

[Applekid]

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.

Re:Better explanations please

[HappyHead]

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!

Re:Politically Motivated

[ackthpt]

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.

Re: Stupid article

[O('_')O_Bush]

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).

secret chem trail organization excels at security

[bertd]

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.

Oh, the ole "Poison the Well" gag!

[s.petry]

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.

Re: Stupid article

[OptimalCynic]

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

Re:Craziness brings us all together

[Captain Sarcastic]

...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.

Re:Fact.

[rubycodez]

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

Re: Stupid article

[slick7]

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.