1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The recent segment on Joe Rogan's Question Everything (JRQE) with Brooks Agnew was supposed to demonstrate how HAARP could alter the weather.

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/joe-rogan-questions-everything-weaponizing-weather.2103/

    [​IMG]

    It came about because of a thread here on Metabunk.
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-brooks-agnew.842/#post-45164

    That thread was looking into a couple of times that Agnew had appeared on TV to show off his cloud chamber experiment, where it looked he basically made air move around by heating it up. Nothing to do with HAARP at all, but his claims were breathless repeated by Jesse Ventura, and the History Channel.


    There was a brief discussion of the science (hot air) his credentials (seemed to be mail-order), and then came this post, from Agnew himself:

    I asked for more details, then promptly forgot about this. But a while later, after I'd filmed my "chemtrails are contrails" piece for JRQE, the producer contacted me to ask if the demo was a go, and if they could come and film it for the show. I explained I'd forgotten about it, and they should contact Agnew directly. They did this, and a few weeks later the shoot was set up.

    The shoot was at a small new-age shop called Zero Point Research (not really a lab as such, more a workshop) in Santa Monica that sold healing devices called "LifeForce Generators", which were basically just high voltage low current electric field generators in boxes. You put your hand on them and that gave you a tingling sensation, and you could touch other people and tingle or shock them.
    upload_2013-8-1_17-17-44.

    I arrived at ZPR, and waited around for a while so Joe Rogan could interview Brooks Agnew one-on-one. This took quite a while. Eventually a producer ushered me in, and I was led into a darkened room with Joe and Brooks standing in a pool of light in front of a large glass box (around eight feet tall and three square). Joe motioned for me to stand between him and Brooks. With very little ado things began. I really had no idea what was expected of me, and felt a little nervous, as my HAARP knowledge was perhaps not the best in the world.

    upload_2013-8-1_17-33-15.

    Joe started by asking me about the old experiment on YouTube (a segment from TrueTV). I explained that it looked like it was just heating the air, causing the water cloud to rise from convection. He asked me if I thought I replicated HAARP. I told him no, it was just a local effect, and HAARP affected the ionosphere 70 km up.

    We talked a bit about what HAARP could do. I said that since it could only heat the ionosphere, then it was not going to affect the weather. Brooks disagreed, saying that HAARP heated the entire column of air above it. I know this to be false, as I’d just been reading about how it’s focused in a very narrow range of altitudes, just a few hundred meters. I explained this, and then Joe asked me how HAARP did this focusing. That was the low point of the interview for me, as I did not actually know - it was something I had been trying to find out that morning. But I muddled though, saying I did not know exactly, but it was done by manipulating the frequencies.

    I then started to explain the difference between effective radiating power, input power, and total radiating power (transmitter power). The input power of a transmitter is the power it actually consumes. The TRP is the power it transmits (which depends on how efficient it is, so power will be lost as heat). The effective radiating power (ERP) is a little difficult to explain. But it’s basically the amount of power it can deliver in a particular direction multiplied by the number of directions. Since the HAARP beam is tightly focused, then the ratio of HAARP’s actual transmitter power (3.6 Megawatts) to ERP (5.1 Gigawatts, or 5,100 Megawatts) is very high. This is very important when discussing the HAARP issue, as the two figures are often confused. Suggesting that HAARP is a 5.1 gigawatt transmitter is like saying it’s blasting the entire output of a large nuclear power station into space. It’s not. HAARP uses (and broadcast) a relatively small amount of power, which it actually generates on site from four 2.5 MW diesel generators (10MW potential input power, but the transmitters operate only at 45% efficiency, and additional power is subtracted for other equipment such as cooling and low level amplifiers).
    upload_2013-8-1_17-48-10.
    All this can be very confusing, and it’s this confusion that the promoters of HAARP use to help spread the myth. As it turned out though Agnew did not really seem to understand it either. I explained to him that the amount of power was really very small, so even if his experiment worked, it was not realistic to scale it up to use with HAARP, which only transmitted 3.6 Megawatts. He was using 100 watts to heat about a square foot (ignoring the depth of heating, which makes his quandary far worse). HAARP delivers only 0.00003 watts per square foot. (This calculation was something I had not done before the filming. I really wish I had). Then if we accept his assertion that the entire column of air receives heating, then that’s around 300,000 feet, reducing the amount of the power per cubic foot to 0.1 nanowatts. A trillion times less power than he was using. And as it turned out, it did not even work.

    Agnew tried to go with the idea that it was in the gigawatt range, but I could tell he was not really grasping the concept. After a little more of Agnew trying to claim that the entire column of air above HAARP is heated up (apparently killing all the birds and blasting clouds out of the way) we moved on to the demonstration.

    The large glass box contained a small wooden table with a plastic box on top of it, and on top of that was what looked like a couple of metal shelves. The top one smaller than the lower one. The plastic box I recognized as a “Lifestream Generator” that was sold in the showroom we were currently in at Zero Point Research. When I recognized this I was glad I’d spent the time poking around the ZPR site, as I knew exactly what this was. A very simple high voltage field generator, with a couple of metal shelves sat on top of it. Nothing really that technical.

    upload_2013-8-1_17-32-39.

    I’d read the description of the box and knew that in an attempt to keep supposedly harmful AC electricity out of the box it had first an external AC to DC converter, and then for some reason the actual box itself contained a DC motor that powered a DC generator that then powered the field generator. This whole setup would naturally put off a bit of heat.

    There was also a fog generator at the top of the box, and first Agnew switched that on, the box filled with mist, and we waited for it to stabilize.

    With cameras rolling, Agnew switched on the Lifestream Generator, and sure enough the fog around the device started to lift up, much like steam rising from a cup of coffee. Agnew claimed this was working. Joe said he could see it moving, but what was it? I said looks like it’s just heating the air. Agnew was quite adamant that there was no heating involved. The chamber cleared of fog fairly quickly, and Agnew switched off the generator, and opened up the chamber and took out the metal shelves (his wave guide - although what it was guiding was not really clear). He handed them to me to show it was not hot. It felt around room temperature.

    upload_2013-8-1_17-42-34.

    Then Joe asked if the box was hot. I felt it, and sure enough it was pretty hot. I reported this, and immediately it was clear that the experiment was a bust. The box was simply hot, which caused the air to rise. Agnew tried to make out that I was not that hot really, but it was actually quite a bit above room temperature, and that’s all it takes for a convection current to raise the air up. “I wouldn’t want to put my balls on it”, said Joe.

    upload_2013-8-1_17-42-56.

    Agnew tried again, but nothing really worked. We found that the spotlight shining on on the box from behind was heating it up even more. Then we switched to lights from the side, and moving the field generator outside the chamber. But now with all sources of heat removed nothing moved at all. There were just very slight natural convection currents in the box from the lights, but nothing that could be attributed to the metal shelf. Once Agnew saw the air moving, and gleefully said "look, it's moving over the antenna", but then he realized the device was switched off. He quickly moved on.

    upload_2013-8-1_17-44-2.

    Agnew remained relatively cheerful through the whole thing. Constantly maintaining that the air was moving when we could see it was not, and that the box was not really hot, but if we insisted he would change it again. Eventually time ran out, and the whole thing came to an end.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 9
  2. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    I noticed on the show that Agnew said something to the effect of, "Every ham radio operator on the planet disagrees with you" (regarding your statement that the HAARP transmission only interacts with the ionosphere). As I understand it, ham radio uses the ionized gases in the ionosphere to "bounce" signals, and thus get around the curvature of the earth. I'm not a physicist and I don't claim to understand it well either, but intuitively it seems to me that if those shortwave radio signals were expending their energy interacting with (and heating up) all of the atmosphere between the transmitter and ionosphere, and again back down to the receivers, there wouldn't be much energy left to continue carrying the signal. Ham radio relies on the fact that the signal is only refracted by the ionosphere. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can correct me here.
     
  3. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    thought Id post the Video ?
     
  4. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    That´s real an important point to understand how conspiracy-theorists do their tricks...

    This (and also some other Haarp-Basics) are well explained in this article:
    http://www.gizmag.com/haarp-operations-on-hold/28383/

    I´ll try to explain the trick by comparing it with a Photo-Sensor, a Laser and a ligthbulb.

    Conspiracy-Theorist are acting as there is a photo-Sensor in the Ionosphere. The energy Haarp could place there is known, and for a layperson the energy transmitted into the ionosphere seems to be huge. And they just playing with this known fact...

    But does this energy (Light) detected there there comes from a Laser or a ligthbulb?

    If it is a concentrated beam to the Photosensor in the Ionosphere, this "huge" Energy comes from a source like a Laser. But the Conspiracy-Therorist are doing the "effective-Power / Radiation-Power-Trick". They just claiming, that Haarp acts like a lightbulb, not like a Laser, so the energy used must be much more from their side of view.

    Haarp is acting like a Laser and can only heat the Ionosphere direct above the facility. Claiming, that this could results in Earthquakes on the other side of the Earth, controlling the Weather somewhere else, is responsiple for "wavy-Clouds" everywhere on Earth or controlling minds is just stupid. Basic knowledge about Physics for middle-school should be enougth to recognize this.

    These 180-Haarp-Antennas are Dipol-Atennas, 22 meters high, rammed into the permafrost-ground of Alaksa. They are beaming straigt above their facility, Whatever it does, it does it just above the own facility.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There actually an editing issue with that. Agnew's answer "Every ham radio operator on the planet disagrees with you" was actually in response to me explaining how HAARPS' Effective Radiating Power was not the actual amount of power it was transmitting. He just did not understand.

    When I said that HAARP only reacts with the ionosphere he responded with something like "that would take a massive standing wave", which was also nonsense.

    The editors just cut it together as it made for simpler TV.
     
  6. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    That´s a real interesiting claim he has made. I am observing the german-speaking HAM-Radio-Amateurs, because they do sometimes high-level Missions with Stratopheric-Ballons.

    I´ve never seen a german HAM-Radio-Men acknowledge the claims of the HAARP-Believers.

    In converse: In the german hollydays a practicant has published an "Haarp-Is Whoooo!"-Article on a german Amateur-Radio-Magazine and he (and the Magazine) get´s a kind of shitstorm for doing so.

    Did anybody knows (or find) a HAM-Radio-Men using the Claims of the HAARP-belivers?!

    ... I´m waiting for!
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He was really just talking about his interpretation of ERP, which of course they would not agree with either.
     
  8. I had the opportunity to do my Honours year in the Space Physics Group (University of Newcastle) looking at exactly that ionospheric refraction and beam-focussing issue which would have come in handy here. The equipment was crappy, according to a mate of mine in the SPG, so I went and did Maths Honours (solar kinematic dynamo) instead because there was no faulty equipment to mess things up!

    I am now convinced, thanks to Mick, that the observed effect is just thermal convection and your argument about transmitted/ERP looks spot on. I can't watch video on this antiquated home PC but will look at the vids at work. Thanks.
     
  9. Also, I read that HAARP is open to the public. When it reopens, would you consider visiting the facility with Agnew and discussing the physics with a technician? Techo's always really know what's going on and I humbly submit that Agnew is not equipped for anything above the basic technical level. A first-hand explanation of the frequency-tuning to refine the focus area seems like something Agnew needs.
     
  10. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    2013 0805 Joe Rogan's Question Everything - Debunked ? i havent watched it yet but thought Id post it .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2013
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  12. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ah right thanks, I thought it was just a link to the full episode.

    My segment was vastly edited too. It's normal for that type of program.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just finished watching Scott's rebuttal. Rather telling that he agreed with Agnew. Actually, even Agnew admitted that the hot box was creating thermals, that's why we re-did the experiment - and then nothing moved.

    The problem with HAARP is that is so complicated that 99.99% of the people who talk about it have really no idea what it actually does, and how.
     
  15. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  16. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    I'm sure it warms the hearts of physicists and engineers to see silly make-believe such as Agnew's getting the attention it does.
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Indeed, and really it would have been better if someone with more knowledge of antennas could have been there to explain why his device would do nothing. Although I guess the technical stuff would have been meaningless to most of the audience.

    Where that segment really failed though wasin making it clear that if it got hot that meant the experiment was bogus because the heat would make air rise.
     
  18. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Technical details are boring I reckon.

    A little thermal imaging might have helped this particular demonstration without having to go into detail about how radio waves interact with gasses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    That wasn't even an antenna. That rig was simply producing a voltage potential, which wasn't even high enough to create a coronal discharge. Now if something like a cold cathode coronal discharge had been produced it would have created condensation nuclei ions, which could potentially produce even more droplets, the opposite of clearing the air. The heat source did more than induce convection, it also warmed the air above the dew point so the droplets evaporated. Stevens has it all backwards, warmer air holds more water in vapor form, which is why the droplets evaporated and the air cleared. The heat source certainly does not introduce more moisture into the chamber, it just forces a change of phase from liquid to vapor. If I was doing the backwards weatherman comedy skit I did in 6th grade today, Stevens would be my template.

    And Mick, I thought you said Scott Stevens was a nice guy. I'm curious if your opinion has changed after he tried to set you up and called you an idiot. Seems more like a vindictive back-stabber to me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'll change it to he's a very personable guy. He was actually a little mean about some other people when I chatted to him at the conference, but seemed very nice and friendly to me at the time.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, with hindsight, a thermal camera would have been the perfect thing to have there. Instant debunk.
     
  22. Joev

    Joev New Member

    ATTN Mick West and Joe Rogan!!! Debunk This Geniuses:

    Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering
    http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/g...lateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364
    CIA Backs $630,000 Scientific Study on Controlling Global Climate With Geoengineering
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/cia-geoengineering-control-climate-change
    Rep. Kucinich's HR 2977 Names Chemtrails As An 'Exotic Weapon'
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2977ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr2977ih.pdf
    UK House of Commons: "The Regulation of Geoengineering"
    http://climateresponsefund.org/inde...&catid=38:climate-intervention-news&Itemid=63
    Targeting Solar Geoengineering to Minimize Risk And Inequality
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...oengineering-to-minimize-risk-and-inequality/
    Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102
    UN Weather Weapons Treaty
    http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cpmhuemt/cpmhuemt.html
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty
    Federation of American Scientists - Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 USAF
    http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
    Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186
    Other Patents
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/
    Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research
    http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/01/bill-gates-funding-geoengineering-research
    Obama Science Czar at MIT: “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth could conceivably be done,”
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10218083-54.html
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options
    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/media/application/pdf/101129_cop16_oc_rpac.pdf
    Targeting solar geoengineering to minimize risk and inequality
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/hu-tsg101912.php
    Asteroid Dust Could Fight Climate Change on Earth
    http://www.livescience.com/23553-asteroid-dust-geoenineering-global-warming.html
    Can geoengineering avert climate chaos?
    http://www.newscientist.com/article...ngineering-avert-climate-chaos.html?full=true
    Shading Earth: Delivering Solar Geoengineering Materials to Combat Global Warming May Be Feasible and Affordable
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120830191017.htm
    Geoengineering clouds to slow global warming
    http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20120821-geoengineering-clouds-to-slow-global-warming
    Former FBI Chief, Ted L. Gunderson: Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

    House Votes to Defund U.N. Climate Change Panel
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ge-panel-missouri-congressman-calls-nefarious
    Exclusive: Chief sponsor of landmark climate manipulation conference maintains close financial ties to controversial geo-engineering company
    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/...ies-to-controversial-geo-engineering-company/
    Attack of the vapours – how jet trails block out the sunshine
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-jet-trails-block-sunshine.html#ixzz2bUfLCpH2
    Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails

    Ben Livingston: The Father Of Weaponized Weather
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  24. Joev

    Joev New Member

    I love it when Gish Gallop is used incorrectly. Definition: debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

    Take all the time you need Mick, you are not being rushed. I urge you to go down the list and debunk each of these so called "half-truths or lies".

    My point is to show everyone here the many credible government and mainstream sources that document the FACT that chemtrails or geoengineering DOES exist.

    Don't be overwhelmed Mick. I know it's really really hard to debunk official government reports and patents, but take your time. After all, you do want to put forth correct information to your readers correct?

    If you delete this then everyone will know you are hiding the truth and putting out disinfo. Let's be honest.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Pick one Joe, or I will delete it.

    It's your call.
     
  26. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Joev, that term is an accurate description of what you have done there, as applied to a text environment. Most, if not all of those points have been debunked here previously. Many of them have threads specifically about them. Most are off-topic in this thread.
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some of them are not even bunk, just links to reports or patents without any claim being made as to the significance of that thing. what's to debunk there Joe? What is there to debunk about HR 2977? Especially considering I explained it in great depth six years ago:
    http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

    You've just dumped a whole load of old claims, and have not done even the most superficial fact checking yourself. You can't really expect others to did it all for you. Please make a little effort. Pick one, check it has not already been debunked, then say what you think about it, and we can proceed.
     
  28. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Hi Joev-

    interesting list....most if not all have, in fact, already been debunked- As Mick mentioned, perhaps spend some on this site and then come back if you find something wrong or confusing:

    Have a look at this article regarding the KSLA report:

    http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

    any thoughts?


    (Why do I feel like we will not see Joev again?? )
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2013
  29. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Mick, leave it up. He would love to see it deleted.

    Joev, many of those are just links to folks discussing the possibilities of geo engineering. That doesn't mean it is being done. If my hubby and discuss that we would like to take a science cruise up the inside passage, and we get prices and compare cruises and talk about which we would prefer, that doesn't mean we have taken the cruise. Even if buy tickets for it, that doesn't mean we went.

    Can you pick one item that hasn't been debunked and see what we can do?
     
  30. PhishyBongwaters

    PhishyBongwaters New Member

    Joev, various patents have been awarded for time machines. Do you see any time machines? Do you see any evidence of time machines? i love conspiracies, some of them are interesting, and as history shows, sometimes they are true. What I hate are uneducated bafoons regurgitating the same "facts" they were spoon fed. Just about everything you posted has been debunked thoroughly, the others are in no way indications of chemtrails or a HAARP super weapon.

    For you to believe in chemtrails, and HAARP, you need to be ignorant. Truly ignorant of the facts. What's the lynch pin argument you get from every single chemtrailer? Contrails don't persist. Sure they don't, in bizaroo land where the laws of physics don't apply. here, in our universe, on our planet, contrails DO persist. If you can't grasp the basics of a contrail, how can you expect to argue that something isn't a contrail? You can't.

    As for HAARP, it's a little more advanced than grade 9 science class, so it's to be expected that people won't fully understand the technology. There's no excuse for remaining ignorant though, plenty of information you can google in an afternoon to get up to speed on HAARP and what it actually does.

    Patents aren't enough. Sure, the technology behind HAARP could, potentially, with vast adjustments, be weaponized. The installations that are present currently, the one in Alaska being the largest, simply don't have those abilities, they are extremely limited in what they can achieve.

    And for the love of science, stop using geo-engineering and cloud seeding as examples of "chemtrails" because you just look silly. No one is debating the existence of cloud seeding and geo-engineering, it's been done since the 50s. Very well documented too. You chemtrailers and HAARP lovers can't even agree on what they are or their purpose...

    HAARP creates storms and steers them into cities at the control of Obama, sure, that makes sense, cost yourself billions in recovery and cleanup, yup, makes sense
    HAARP is mind control. Ehh, you can induce different emotional responses and feelings with microwaves and radio waves, but again, you couldn't just target 1 dude, and the people you'd be targetting would have to be around 70km directly above the HAARP installation....
    HAARP causes earthquakes. Well, it doesn't, plate tectonics do that, but even if it did, prove it, you have access to seismology reports from around the world, and I believe you can find out the HAARP operating schedule. I'm eagerly awaiting a graph showing a correlation....

    Chemtrails are full of deadly chemicals, we have samples!!! No, you have soil and sludge samples showing the exact, EXACT amount of aluminum you'd find in the soil naturally.
    Chemtrails are a depopulation program...

    This is my favorite. Go find a farmer who uses crop dusting, probably deep south or you'll need one of those aforementioned time machines. Ask them how effective aerial spraying is. not very, you have to remain low, very very low, and the drift makes it hard to direct. It's wasteful, so I'll give you that much, wasteful fits in with most government projects...

    But.... they would be poisoning themselves, and their families, while trying to "depopulate" the earth. That, my friends, doesn't fit.

    Critical thinking, question everything, but you've got to stop ignoring facts that don't align with your theory, that's faith, not science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a bit more popular than you suggest. I've seen quite a bit of crop dusting in California. You see it off the I5 all the time.
     
  32. PhishyBongwaters

    PhishyBongwaters New Member

    My bad, it's not used that much in my area of Canada as it's mostly small farms, but it's good to know they are still using it in parts of the US and probably over into the UK too. I'd love to have a sit down conversation with a crop duster and ask them what they think about this chemtrail nonsense. I figured by now those GMO crops with built in pesticides had put dusters out of business.

    It's a great conspiracy to get you involved in debunking, because at first, it just seems plausible. After I read about it, and HAARP, I was scrutinizing every cloud I saw. Then I went a step further, and started looking at flight times from the airports where I'm at, atmospheric readings, and low and behold, the only time I saw "chemtrails" would be times when I'd expect to see a contrail. They linger under the right conditions, just like the science tells you. It's like that number 23 enigma for some people, once they hear it, it's real, and it's everywhere.

    now the big thing, at least on some of the sites I frequent, it trying to link chemtrails to HAARP. That's just ignorant of both geo-engineering and HAARP. If this HAARP or Chemtrail conspiracy had any merit, people wouldn't have to make stuff up, lie, and ignore basic science.