Because, as the article states, many countries have been trying to control the weather for decades with varying success.

Use the term “modify” instead of “control” if you like, but pretending that countries aren’t trying to control the weather is exactly why conspiracy theorists gain legitimacy and many journalists lose credibility.

The point of the article is that technically, technically, conspiracy theorists could be wrong about weather control if we struggle to split hairs about what “weather control” is, but telling ourselves stories to deny reality is the same problem that “conspiracy theorists” have.

If you deny a historical, documented conspiracy(secret plan) that took place, you lack credibility the same as a theorist without evidence. Conspiracies are real, they are secret plans, and they have definable limits like everything other plan that exists.

“Yes, there was a secret plan to seed rainclouds.” That secret plan was a conspiracy to control the weather.

No, that conspiracy did not result in a super cyclone, there’s no evidence for seeding rainclouds having the ability to lead to a super cyclone. Anyone who asserts that is incorrect according to the available evidence.

Conspiracies to control weather still happened.

Facts defined by reasonable accuracy.

It’s hard to bust any conspiracy theory in direct proportion to the stupidity of the theory, simply because that corresponds directly to the stupidity of the theory believers.

“Two can keep a secret, if one is dead.”