You see ypgirp, you are approaching the problem from the wrong end.
You need to know what the ionosphere is and how it handles HF radio signals.
If you had that knowledge you would know how the conspiracy sites are silly.
I could rattle off a lot of words about erp, ierp, peak power, path
attenuation, antenna gain etc etc and what would that mean to you ?
That is not to put you down as only a few people work in these areas.

I suspect that the only secret work at that Haarp site was an attenpt
to stop the Russians using OTHR (Over The Horizon Radar) to see radar
targets in the US. That of course is only a guess.
Actually, it might have made it easier !
The Haarp site used to be in Maine US at first if I remember correctly.

You said;
these harmless experiments in altering the environment in which we evolved

That question is itself meaningless.
I doubt if there would be any such articles.
Some conspiracy nuts who believed it was for communicating with
alien life forms might say it has no effect on earth, but that would be about it.

The technology is old and has been used here in Australia and in the
Antartic and many other parts of the world for donkey's years.
It is still used today for experimental and prediction work.
I think all the US was doing was the same but using higher power to
see if they could improve the reflection properties for a period by
strengthening the ionisation of an area to enable communication using
that section above the site. Another guess.

Really that is about all there is to it.
Don't worry no men in dark suits in black vans are likely to park
outside because we have been talking about this.
Cheers Bazz

Re HAARP FYI.

Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 6 January 2013 9:26:09 AM

Thank you Bazz for sort of satisfying my curiosity. I find it all too east to suspect the worst about just about everything the USA does in the name of progress or freeing the world for democracy, decency and so on, when I consider the deaths of millions at that country's hands since 1945. By the 1980s, former CIA man John Stockwell had put the figure at six million from mass bombing in Southeast Asia to employing death squads in South America. Updated figures suggest the US military and the CIA have been directly and indirectly responsible for around ten million deaths - which isn't mass murder, of course, it's war on terror.
Add to that countless others whose lives have been sacrificed on the altar of US corporate profit; e.g. hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers who have taken their own lives over the past decade and a half largely as a result of US agribusiness manipulating global commodity prices courtesy of policies enacted on its behalf by the US government or due to the corporate monopoly, or frontier technology, of terminator seeds that also landed farmers in debt which was just too much for them to bear. The US was merely helping to feed the world - weren't they?
Fortunately for my state of mind, you've convinced me I was foolish to imagine that the intentions of US tinkering with the ionosphere etc. would be anything other than benign.

ybgirp, I guess many people hear the reports of some technology causing
cancer, or even just headaches and not having any technical knowledge
just believe what they read or see on the TV.
There was an example on the TV tonight on channel 7.
It was about smart meters. This man who did not act much like a
nutcase, said all he had to do was drive past a house with a smart
meter and he gets a headache !
There were other people who claimed they make them ill and no doubt
soon someone will sue because a relative died.
Those same people sit and watch their TV for hours.
I understand that the smart meters in Melbourne use a mobile phone
link back to the company computer.
I just wonder how many of these people have mobile phones !

What annoys me is that the technical people in the TV stations don't
stop this nonsense from going to air.
I realise that the journalists would not stop it as they are as a race
of people totally stupid anyway.

I am probably in the same situation in regard to global warming.
I don't have the physics and wx knowledge to be able to come to a firm
belief in AGW or otherwise. However I have worked in instrumentation
and control systems so I have some understanding of the data logging,
and things like three term control loops.
That helps but not much.
What makes me skeptical is the mad rush to spend $Billions on an
attempt to control the climate. It seems reckless.

Bazz, you do not need physics or scientific knowledge to ascertain whether there is any basis for the AGW assertion.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

It is a plausible theory, but does not stand scrutiny, since in practical terms human emissions have no demonstrable effect on climate.

The IPCC, a political organization headed by a disreputable railway engineer promotes the AGW fraud. Their backhanded admission that human emissions have no effect, is their assertion that it is “90% certain”. Apparently there are five independent scientists who endorse this. Originally there were seven, but two withdrew. Another 55 scientists endorsed it, but all were conflicted in interest. Like having the Climategate miscreants endorse an assertion.

A petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists asked the US Senate to take no action on AGW until there was scientific evidence to support it. Perhaps that was one of the factors in the US taking none of the action advocated by the scare mongers, and declining to sign the Kyoto Agreement.

In view of the absence of warming over the last 15 years, when CO2 in the atmosphere has uniformly increased, the whole CO2 assertion needs revision, not just the baseless assertion about human emissions.

Thank you again Bazz - this comment of yours, "I realise that the journalists would not stop it as they are as a race of people totally stupid anyway," is probably true, but I would add that mainstream journalists and interviewers are also conscienceless in that they are prepared to always give the 'official' version of everything and never demand the right to report alternative points of view. An obvious example being the adulation poured over Obama by Australian media when he paraded his daughters and expressed pity for the children shot at a school recently. Surely a reporter worth his/her salt would have mentioned that this same Obama has authorised the massacre and maiming of several thousands of innocent men women and children during his three years in office?
Leo, the cause of global warming is no longer particularly relevant, however, the fact that the climate is changing is very relevant. As it's clearly not possible for us to do anything to stop it, any money spent should go towards preparation for probable unpleasantness, such as lack of fresh water, droughts, diminishing food supplies, marine inundation... or do you think precautionary policies are also a waste of money?