Maximizing energy usage

I've always wonder if the BIG oil corporations were using some kind of weather control technology to maximize our country's energy usage for heating and cooling homes. I just read an article on weather.com about how the jet stream is causing freezing temperatures in the Northeast and excessive heat in the Southwest:

Winter Outlook: El Niño AND a Weak Polar Vortex

It just kills me how it seems every year we go from Summer to Winder within 5 to 10 days. And then Winter to Summer within 5 to 10 days.

And then I remembered reading articles about military or government weather control technologies specifically used to control the location of the jet stream (here's the conspiracy stuff):

"As a result, some consider HAARP to be a new breed of weapon with the capability to alter jet stream routes along with weather patterns."

Can facilities like HAARP be used to manipulate the weather?

Only $300 million to build and about $5 million per year to run:

Research center or weather weapon? US military is shutting down HAARP

"Managing the ionosphere for military needs, such as communication, appeared a promising idea back in the early 1990s, when the US Air Force, Navy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the University of Alaska teamed up to fund the $290 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)."

"The annual costs of running the facility have been around $5 million. This is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the military’s total budget - over $600 billion for 2015."

So what do you think? Is HAARP being used by BIG oil to maximize profits at tax payer's expense? Or, being able to control the location of the jet stream is simply not possible? And if possible, simply not meaningful because CEO's are sincerely just trying to serve the public good.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Wouldn't it be easier to simply raise the prices of their product?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

Wouldn't it be easier to simply raise the prices of their product?

Both is more profitable.

btw, tax payer's expense equals free

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

Wouldn't it be easier to simply raise the prices of their product?

Both is more profitable.

btw, tax payer's expense equals free

And it doesn't include Big Oil using military technology to change the weather to increase product use?

I'm not fully into this unless you somehow wrap into the theory Nazis in Antarctica.

Because if you are going to have a batsnip crazy theory, you have to go all in!

The reason the jet stream and our climate are screwed is definitely because of fossil fuels. The oil companies had nothing to do with it, however - we all did, every one of us.

HAARP?

No.