The conspiracy theory is that "someone" seeded clouds to cause a flood in Texas. Most responses focus on how cloud seeding isn't powerful enough to do something like this, the absurdity of the gap between the existing technology and what the conspiracy theorists think.

But can we back up and ask another question: Why?

Why do the conspiracy theorists think that someone would do something like this? What is the motivation?

The conspiracy theory is that "someone" seeded clouds to cause a flood in Texas. Most responses focus on how cloud seeding isn't powerful enough to do something like this, the absurdity of the gap between the existing technology and what the conspiracy theorists think.

But can we back up and ask another question: Why?

Why do the conspiracy theorists think that someone would do something like this? What is the motivation?

@futurebird The motivation is purely in their heads to rationalise their disbelief in climate change.

@futurebird

The motivation question is sound (and proves the conspiracy to be ridiculous) but are you sure that seeding techs aren't up to that task ?
From the little I know, making already formed clouds rain is exactly what they're able to do.

(about the motivation, it's quite simple actually, these people think that the world revolves around them, so if they feel bad or look bad for something, it means somebody probably did that to them)

@davep

OK. But, why not just say it was a freak flood. Heck, I suspect that climate change is making these things happen more often, but I couldn't say "this was caused directly by climate change"

It seems like less effort to just decide that it was a freak tragedy.

I suppose the next part might be the problem? Because regardless to "prevent it from happening again" it means investing in science, building warning systems and trusting the government. hm.

@futurebird Maybe it's something that can be used to explain the sudden increase in "freak" floods generally. Your average MAGA will swallow all this BS anyway, they're not necessarily big on critical thinking.

An act of terrorism that most people mistake for a natural disaster doesn't make the terrorists seem powerful or further their cause. And who exactly would they be anyway?

Why target that region? Why not target someplace with more people or a military or political target?

I know it's a mistake to expect coherence, but people latch on to myths because they explain the world in ways that are comforting and predictable.

How does this even fit in?

@futurebird At this point, their definition of "comfort" is "agreeing with the current admin," they just need anything to latch onto so they don't get any pesky doubts about "maybe funding weather response is good ". bc in addition to your points about motives, a robust weather response program could've also noticed "seeded clouds". If they really believed, they'd want MORE weather infrastructure. That they don't shows they have no intention of engaging in good faith.

@futurebird At this point, their definition of "comfort" is "agreeing with the current admin," they just need anything to latch onto so they don't get any pesky doubts about "maybe funding weather response is good ". bc in addition to your points about motives, a robust weather response program could've also noticed "seeded clouds". If they really believed, they'd want MORE weather infrastructure. That they don't shows they have no intention of engaging in good faith.

An act of terrorism that most people mistake for a natural disaster doesn't make the terrorists seem powerful or further their cause. And who exactly would they be anyway?

Why target that region? Why not target someplace with more people or a military or political target?

I know it's a mistake to expect coherence, but people latch on to myths because they explain the world in ways that are comforting and predictable.

How does this even fit in?