The story just before Guy's interview regarding the growing insecurity of satellite-based communication and Tom's comment regarding ionosphere experiments at Guy's blog, Nature Bats Last, in the post prior to the one about your interview with him, inspires me to share what I know that might also be behind those experiments. In WW II–pre-satellite–meteor ionization in the ionosphere provided the means for trans-Atlantic radio communication. The longest radio operators had to wait for this ionization to be in the right place for a signal to be broadcasted to where they wanted it to go was 5 minutes. I do not know how long any particular ionization event remained viable for signal transmission, and obviously the size of the meteor creating it would be a factor. (Source: stories my father told me.)Anyway, with satellite-based communication is no longer secure (since 1974), a land-based means of creating the needed ionization to have a substitute means of transmitting radio signals around the globe would be a capacity which the military would view as an important redundancy to develop. While the geo-engineering possibilities are not ruled out by this capacity, I find the "HAARP" cloud 'conspiracy' discourse hard to give creadance to (i.e. it seems to me to be a self-reinforcing motivated reasoning dynamic), especially having interacted with a wave table and having a basic understanding of the troposphere, clouds, and dew point. Likewise, the contrail conspiracy (less the wave table dynamics) seems more motivated reasoning than substance. Conspiracy theory thinking, in general, seems to me to be motivated reasoning based.I'm posting this here, and choose not to do so at Guy's NBL, for several reasons. The name of your blog suggests it is more appropriate here. The effort you put into it is obvious, and the number of comments you are getting as a result just doesn't seem fair. ;) In addition, the motivated reasoning that seems to drive the dominate commenters at NBL seems to have been well critiqued by Lidia at the close of the same comment thread, and to my ear and limited experience at NBL, suggests an ongoing dynamic I don't want to feed into.The problem conspiracy theory thinking seems to be solving is that it is an explanation of why a society is acting irrationally. It can be observed that hegemonic societies act with increasing irrationally as a status quo fails to respond to external change. For the subset of humanity that are biased to act asked on reason–those whose sense of homeostasis is predicated on doing so–accepting that their condition is both a minority position and prejudiced against by the vast majority of society, confounds this subset's feelings. It's iteration of motivated reasoning explains away the consequences social irrelevance they experience by projecting their failure to invoke rational behavior from society onto a conspiracy that precludes their success. To the degree this is clear, I wonder what you think and feel about it.
Thanks for the comment Greg. I'd agree with you on all points. The general implication of being a "conspiracy theorist" is that your a nut-job with a gun. This simply isn't true. 90% of "conspiracy" types are just questioning their surroundings. Unfortunately the debate over the last 10 years has been dominated by these paranoid delusional types (Alex Jones for example) who give the rest of us a bad name.On this site, I am to do one thing... PUBLISH CONTENT. Thats my only motivation. I believe in having rational debates about sometimes irrational concepts. Unfortunately the previously mentioned psychotic conspiracy people drown out the rest of us that just like to question our surroundings.Example being when I was one of those Paranoid types, I thought everything was a god damn conspiracy. After my personal life turned back around, I began to see that not everything was a conspiracy, though some do exist.I quite enjoy talking about HAARP, chemtrails and Mar's bases. That doesn't mean I claim to know the truth or that I am intelligent enough to decipher the entire puzzle.Thanks for coming by. Much appreciate intelligent responses such as yours. If you ever would like to write a guest article on here, let me know. I really enjoyed your comment.
@TheConspiracyHQFirst, you are welcome.Second, besides the paragraph formatting disappearing when I pasted it into the comment box, I see that the iPad's auto correct function turned 'biased' into asked', and 'consequenced' into 'consequences.' That noted, I'd like to respond to your invitation: no thanks–due to the reasoning found here (http://home.roadrunner.com/~robie/). But thanks for the nuanced definition of conspirtorists. Given the insight regarding society being crazy that I shared in my previous comment, your effort here, and it's business model, may work. Or it may just be another way to act and feel ignored. ;)
[...] I was interviewed by Rob Daven at Conspiracy HQ a few days ago. The video failed, but the audio worked and is embedded at this link. [...]
[...] We have been saying this all along… check out the interview I did with Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last! [...]
[...] more of a primer on what we are facing, I recommend my interview with Guy MacPherson, as he is one of the true “experts” on the [...]