Science of Conspiracy Theories.

@metal-brain said
You are wrong again. See the part about the Vietnam war in that article. They have already tried to do it.

The CIA admitted it. I posted a video of Brennan saying so. You are in denial again. Incredulity is not a good reason to live in denial of facts when they are right in front of your face.

You wrote: "The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something."

The article highlighted this important fact: "It should be emphasized that while the US military confirms that weather warfare is fully operational, there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US."

I pointed this out to you.

You say I am wrong.

Rinse, repeat.

@wildgrass said
You wrote: "The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something."

The article highlighted this important fact: "It should be emphasized that while the US military confirms that weather warfare is fully operational, there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US."

In other words, the link contradicts MB assertion.
Given his past history of being nearly always wrong, no surprises there.
"The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact"
AND
"there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US"
is very obviously a contradiction because no evidence means by definition its not a fact.

I took a look at the UN convention [1]. Article I states:

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques - Article I
[Bold face is my emphasis]

The remaining articles are all procedural except for article II which defines what is meant by weather modification:

As used in article 1, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques - Article II

What this means is that one may modify weather if the effects are localized, short term and not severe or if the modification is for civilian purposes. The prohibition is on use and not on research.

The US Air Force document [2] discusses the UN Convention and legality. They explain the scope of their study as follows:

In conducting the research for this study, the broadest possible interpretation of weather-modification was initially embraced, so that the widest range of opportunities available for our military in 2025 were thoughtfully considered. However, for several reasons described below, this paper focuses primarily on localized and short-term forms of weather-modification and how these could be incorporated into war-fighting capability. The primary areas discussed include generation and dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance. These applications are consistent with CJCSI 3810.01, “Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations.” [11]

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Chapter 2, p. 6 (p. 14 of 52).

Footnote 11 explains what CJCSI 3801.01 is:

CJCSI 3810.01, Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations, 10 January 95. This CJCS Instruction establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for conducting meteorological and oceanographic operations. It also defines the terms widespread, long-lasting, and severe, in order to identify those activities that US forces are prohibited from conducting under the terms of the UN Environmental Modification Convention. Widespread is defined as encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred km; long-lasting means lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; and severe involves serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources, or other assets.

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Footnotes to Chapter 2, p.7 (p.15 of 52)

What this means is that they are aware of their treaty obligations and were speculating about the potential military applications of technology that might feasibly be available in 2025 as envisaged in 1996. What I read there explains the purpose of some ionospheric experiments people were complaining about 15 or so years ago. On the grounds that large scale weather modification was deemed to be unfeasible they reduced their scope to what they believed to be legal under the convention anyway.

It's interesting to note that the convention applies to operations against State Parties. The scenario they described in Chapter 1 involved a drugs cartel who are not State Parties, so from a legalistic point of view it is not obvious that the "widespread", "long-lasting", or "severe" restrictions would apply.

While I can well imagine that there are questions of interpretation of the words "widespread", "long-lasting", and "severe", they haven't been tested in a court and the interpretation in the CSCJI 3810.01 is certainly going to have been written by a senior lawyer, so this does not constitute evidence that they are deliberately planning to violate the weather-modification treaty. I wouldn't exactly say that there's nothing to see here, but it's within the arena of democratic debate and cannot be seen as a conspiracy.

[1] http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm
[2] https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/vol3ch15.pdf

The Chaper X page m (page n of N) notation is because the internal numbering of the document has the introductory material numbered with roman numerals with the pages numbered using Western Arabic numerals beginning at 1 after the introductory material, as is customarily practiced. The pdf numbering is in square brackets and is just a "physical" page count.

@wildgrass said
You wrote: "The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something."

The article highlighted this important fact: "It should be emphasized that while the US military confirms that weather warfare is fully operational, there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US."

I pointed this out to you.

You say I am wrong.

Rinse, repeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

@deepthought said
Slander is a tort, that is sufficient. You would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a tort and I could pursue you in the courts. The dictionary definition (OED) is: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So it has to be both secret and involve malice. Nation States are known to develop weapons systems and it is usual for them to keep the de ...[text shortened]... national law, or where the secrecy of the project is being maintained by breaking accountancy rules.

"Slander is a tort, that is sufficient. You would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a tort and I could pursue you in the courts."

Not in the USA. Something being legal does not make a conspiracy any less of a conspiracy. If you think it does prove it. The legality or illegality has nothing to do with a conspiracy being valid.

Stop making up crap that is not true!

@metal-brain said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

It was clear from your prior posted materials that.. "there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US".

Was that the wrong link?

@wildgrass said
It was clear from your prior posted materials that.. "there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US".

Was that the wrong link?

That was a quote from a book that is wrong. Operation Popeye shows they did use it against Vietnam. Do you dispute that?

@metal-brain said
"Slander is a tort, that is sufficient. You would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a tort and I could pursue you in the courts."

Not in the USA. Something being legal does not make a conspiracy any less of a conspiracy. If you think it does prove it. The legality or illegality has nothing to do with a conspiracy being valid.

Stop making up crap that is not true!

You might want to find out about your own legal system before making statements like that. Meeting in secret to throw a surprise birthday party does not constitute a conspiracy. There has to be an intended harm.

@wildgrass said
It was clear from your prior posted materials that.. "there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US".

Was that the wrong link?

Actually, he's got a point here. The operation itself would not have been in contravention of International Law because the relevant treaty did not come into effect until 1978. However the Wikipedia article [1] does state that the existence of the program was denied to Congress by the then Secretary for Defence:

The chemical weather modification program was conducted from Thailand over Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam and allegedly sponsored by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA without the authorization of then Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird who had categorically denied to Congress that a program for modification of the weather for use as a tactical weapon even existed.

Laird either knew or ought to have known about the project and appears to have lied to Congress about its existence. I'm not certain that this constitutes a conspiracy as the objective - environmental modification - was not illegal and there are legitimate reasons for maintaining secrecy surrounding a militarily significant capability, however lying to Congress is a crime, so we need a legal opinion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20090612231729/http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/popeye

@metal-brain said
That was a quote from a book that is wrong. Operation Popeye shows they did use it against Vietnam. Do you dispute that?

No. I don't know but I was just reading/responding to the article you posted.

Is this "evidence" from the Pentagon Papers? From the wiki it seems really unclear if it even worked and the evidence seems real thin. In that Daytona Beach Morning journal reference, Dennis Doolin (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) was quoted saying: "When you look at the amount of rainfall that was in these areas anyway and what was added to it possibly by these extra seedings, it looks like if you are forecast to get 21 inches in a given area we can add 2 inches."

How do they even know? Forecasts are wrong now, so I can't imagine what that was like in 60's Vietnam? Do you know if there was any way to quantify the effectiveness?

After reading your article and the Wikipedia article, I agree with deepthought. This doesn't appear to be a proven conspiracy theory at all.

@deepthought said
You might want to find out about your own legal system before making statements like that. Meeting in secret to throw a surprise birthday party does not constitute a conspiracy. There has to be an intended harm.

What is your source of information?

@wildgrass said
No. I don't know but I was just reading/responding to the article you posted.

Is this "evidence" from the Pentagon Papers? From the wiki it seems really unclear if it even worked and the evidence seems real thin. In that Daytona Beach Morning journal reference, Dennis Doolin (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) was quoted saying: "When you look at the amount of rainfa ...[text shortened]... edia article, I agree with deepthought. This doesn't appear to be a proven conspiracy theory at all.

What theory? Operation Popeye is a fact, not a theory.

@metal-brain said
What is your source of information?

information about what?

@metal-brain said
What theory? Operation Popeye is a fact, not a theory.

Yes, but of itself it does not constitute a conspiracy for the reasons outlined above. In your haste to identify a conspiracy you've missed the real one. In so far as there was a conspiracy it was to mislead Congress about the existence of the program, probably because Kissinger was worried that the Soviets and Chinese would get in on the game and that Congress might halt the research program.

@deepthought said
You might want to find out about your own legal system before making statements like that. Meeting in secret to throw a surprise birthday party does not constitute a conspiracy. There has to be an intended harm.

"Meeting in secret to throw a surprise birthday party does not constitute a conspiracy."

Not true. It is a conspiracy and intended harm has nothing to do with it. Look up "conspiracy" in the dictionary. Just because people are not in the habit of saying they are conspiring to throw a surprise party means nothing. It meets the definition of conspiracy.

Slander in not illegal in the USA if it is merely verbal rumors. There is no gossip police here and I doubt in the UK either. Only if it is determined to be libel is it illegal. I don't know how the laws are in the UK, but anybody can conspire to spread false rumors. Edison did it to Tesla during the current wars.

Legality has nothing to do with it.