3d ago

No, Chemtrails Are Not Real or Causing Floods, E.P.A. Says

www.nytimes.com

nytimes.com

The agency took the unusual step of creating websites debunking the conspiracy theory that chemicals are being sprayed in the sky to control the weather or do other things.

The websites are:

Apparently this conspiracy theory was too bonkers for even the Trump regime.

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics. @slrpnk.net

silence7 @slrpnk.net

3d ago

No, Chemtrails Are Not Real or Causing Floods, E.P.A. Says

www.nytimes.com /2025/07/10/climate/epa-debunks-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory.html

New York Times gift articles @sopuli.xyz

silence7 @slrpnk.net

3d ago

No, Chemtrails Are Not Real or Causing Floods, E.P.A. Says

www.nytimes.com /2025/07/10/climate/epa-debunks-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory.html

18 comments

Regular airplane made clouds are enough, don't need any conspiracy. ~~It's leaded fuel as well, so we're being sprayed with lead particles (because profits, there is no technological reason they have to use lead) while~~ the clouds they can leave (contrails?) in certain conditions add about 100% warming effect when compared to just the CO2 spewing.
https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/hoe-dragen-vliegtuigstrepen-bij-aan-de-opwarming-van-de-aarde dutch source for this claim.
- Avgas has lead. Jet fuel does not.
  
  Oops, thank Glob I was wrong! still dumb that avgas for piston planes use it but thats a whole different story.
Well shit, I never believed in chemtrails, but if this administration says they aren't real I'm second guessing that belief now.
- I prefer to figure out what's true and not based on the strength of the evidence. Baseless conspiracy theories are baseless no matter who promotes or debunks them.
Kind of reductive that the headline is "Chemtrials are not real or causing foods", but the linked website points out that contrails are real, and
Current models indicate that persistent contrail clouds could have a small net warming effect.
And considering that climate change is considered a contributing factor to floods...
Additionally, one of the leading conspiracy theories related to the floods is about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. And, while cloud seeding is real (and has happened in south-central Texas), it did not cause the Texas floods.
So yes, the headline is technically correct, but there's a lot of additional context that I feel like they're skipping over.
- Not every article is going to cover everything
  
  That's fair, but my point is that the NYT headline/article seems to be so simplified that it almost becomes contradictory. For example, you quoted this bit
  The agency took the unusual step of creating websites debunking the conspiracy theory that chemicals are being sprayed in the sky to control the weather or do other things.
  But later in the article it also says
  The chief executive of Rainmaker, Augustus Doricko, has said that while the company released silver iodide into a pair of clouds on July 2, the mission led to less than half a centimeter of rain falling on drought-stricken farmland
  So there is a company that is effectively "spraying chemicals in the sky" with the express intent of "leading to rain falling". Again, I realize that is very different from the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory, but that nuance could have been handled so much better.
  I much prefer the phrasing of the AP article's headline that I linked earlier: "No, weather modification did not cause the deadly flash floods in Texas."
- So "chemtrails" is just bone apple tea for "contrails" this whole time?
  
  People hear about the chemtrails conspiracy theory, look up, see contrails, and then blame them for their cat doing something weird, being attracted to the same sex, headaches, etc because of the conspiracy theory. Some basic knowledge helps avoid that, hence the website describing contrails.
- People would rather believe conspiracy theory bullshit with zero evidence, then the actual science that, at this point, likely has more data and evidence than anything we've ever studied in history.
  These people's brains are permanently burnt. We need to focus on younger people to make sure they don't turn into this.
Nice try lizard people.
- Exactly. What else would the EPA say?
  
  Ribbit.
It would be great if conservatives could read
Or... and here's my own little conspiracy theory... it was pushed by bad actors at the EPA, as such an "unusual step" could serve as a reverse psy-op to further initiate and entrench the nutcases who believe in extreme weather-modifying geoengineering, because "why is the EPA trying so hard to tell us it's not real, it must be a cover-up, ABOLISH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION AGENCY NOW!" (/s)
It does read as an earnest attempt by the reasonable people at the EPA, with info in clear language that attempts to appeal to a reader in saying their questions are valid. Even so, it will probably fuel the above conspiratorial thinking either way.
Hell, it's already fueled mine. I don't know who or what parts of this government we can trust anymore.
- I recommend thinking about how to evaluate truth without depending on trust.

18 comments