How a Far-Fetched Conspiracy Diverts Attention from the Real Threat of Climate Change

“Everyone knows that airplanes negatively impact the climate…”

Oversnap/Getty Images

Years ago, I attended a climate science conference at University College London. While the specifics of the meeting are lost to me, the day remains vivid. Upon arrival, I encountered demonstrators outside, a familiar sight at such events that typically draw both supporters and skeptics of climate change.

Initially, the protesters conducted themselves peacefully, and I chose to enter the conference. Around mid-morning, however, they disrupted the lecture hall, heckling the speaker before storming the stage with their slogans and signs.

The protesters were unlike any I had encountered. Instead of being traditional climate activists or skeptics, one was a proponent of a conspiracy theory called chemtrails. In essence, this theory posits that the condensation trails (contrails) left by aircraft contain harmful substances deliberately released to manipulate the weather, poison people, or serve other sinister purposes.

This is untrue. Contrails are simply long streaks of ice crystals created when water vapor in engine exhaust freezes in the cold air at cruising altitudes. While they typically dissipate quickly, under certain conditions they can linger for hours, forming what conspiracy theorists label as chemtrails.

Like many conspiracy theories, this one carries elements of truth. Although contrails may look stunning against a summer sky, they nevertheless contribute to environmental damage.

It’s well-established that airplanes have an adverse effect on the climate. Burning aviation fuel represents about 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, contrails and contrail-induced clouds are categorized as “aeronautical non-carbon dioxide.” The climatic effects might be equally or even more severe.

This is attributable to basic physics. Similar to greenhouse gases, ice crystals in cirrus clouds trap infrared radiation escaping from Earth, generating a warming effect. They also reflect incoming sunlight, counteracting this effect. Ultimately, though, they contribute to global warming.

In reality, the impact of contrails on climate is not completely understood. Last year, NASA acknowledged this knowledge gap and asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to investigate the climatic repercussions of contrails and suggest research methodologies.


Contrails may look eerily beautiful on a summer evening, but they are quietly harming the environment.

Recently published, the report states that contrails might contribute to warming potentially exceeding that of aviation fuel, though significant uncertainty remains. Fortunately, options exist to mitigate this impact, including altering fuel formulations, refining engine designs, and rerouting flights to avoid areas conducive to contrail formation.

The report does not mention chemtrails, which is sensible. While the panel might have considered debunking this unfounded conspiracy theory, they opted not to give it publicity. Regardless, the report is unlikely to effect change, especially under the current US administration. Donald Trump’s administration has shown a tendency towards anti-science and conspiracy-driven climate skepticism, making addressing contrails a low priority. Significant regulatory changes regarding the airline and fossil fuel industries are necessary, so don’t expect immediate action.

I suspect that the airline and fossil fuel sectors silently welcome chemtrail theorists; their distractions divert attention from the true implications of contrails on climate.

Instead, the report will likely collect dust, while another report on chemtrails gets commissioned. Reports associate President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with the conspiracy as part of an unscientific initiative to make America healthy again. Despite the absence of credible evidence, the notion persists.

Earlier this year, while enjoying a sunny afternoon, I had a conversation with my neighbors. “Have a nice day,” I said. “If they weren’t here, they will be,” he replied, gesturing skyward at intersecting contrails. He, too, is a climate change skeptic.

The chemtrail conspiracy is inherently frustrating—wholly futile. Despite their lack of scientific understanding, conspiracy theorists seem to think their beliefs will yield results. They are intrinsically distrustful of corporate and governmental authority and care about both environmental and human welfare. Yet, their actions only draw attention away from genuine protests and misallocate it toward unfounded notions.

The UCL meeting ultimately succumbed to continuous protests. If the dissenters believed they had triumphed, they were mistaken. Climate change remains a grave threat—chemtrails do not exist.

What I Am Reading

What We Can Know By Ian McEwan.

What I See

ITV Hacking.

What I Am Working On

I recently underwent hernia surgery, so I am careful to avoid straining my stitches.

Topic:

  • Environment /
  • Climate Change

Source: www.newscientist.com

EPA Leaders Pledge “Complete Transparency” on Geoengineering Amidst Ongoing Weather Conspiracy Theories

The individual in green is R-Tenn. He mentioned that Sen. Tim Burchett is a co-sponsor of the initiative. The barchet is spreading equally perplexing assertions regarding severe weather.

A spokesman for Greene stated that lawmakers have been “discussing this matter for quite some time” and asserted that the bill is unrelated to the floods in Texas.

In a follow-up email, Greene communicated with Zeldin and expressed encouragement over his actions.

“This is an uncontrolled experiment conducted in the atmosphere without consent. It’s reckless, dangerous, and must be halted,” she stated in an email.

Burchett’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment.

Following Milton and Helen, NOAA issued a factsheet in October 2024, aiming to debunk “weather modification claims” that emerged after two storms impacted Florida and North Carolina. The agency declared it would not “fund or engage in cloud seeding or any weather modification projects.”

Zeldin’s reference to more fringe theories regarding extreme weather coincides with the Trump administration’s reduction in climate change research funding and the removal of a website hosting the government’s climate assessment. President Donald Trump referred to climate change as a hoax, despite scientists uncovering stronger evidence linking the intensity and frequency of extreme weather to global warming.

Decades of research on weather modification have often fueled conspiracy theories.

From 1962 to 1982, NOAA participated in a project called Storm Fury, which aimed to investigate whether hurricane intensity could be altered. This study did not achieve its goals and was ultimately discontinued. NOAA has not undertaken similar research since. According to the factsheet.

Cloud seeding is a weather modification technology currently utilized. This practice has existed since the 1950s and typically involves dispersing silver iodide into clouds to extract moisture from the atmosphere, resulting in additional precipitation. Presently, cloud seeding programs are mainly focused on enhancing water supplies in western states. Companies are required to notify authorities before implementing such measures.

“Cloud seeding doesn’t generate water; it aids surrounding clouds in releasing 5-15% of their moisture. However, Texas was already experiencing 100% humidity, extreme moisture, and storms. The clouds didn’t require assistance,” Cappucci stated.

The proliferation of these claims coincides with escalating threats directed at meteorologists.

Geoengineering is a legitimate scientific field; however, assertions regarding its capability to control significant weather patterns and generate adverse weather are unfounded. Most geoengineering techniques remain theoretical and untested, with federal researchers making only tentative steps to evaluate their viability. Atmospheric scientists report no evidence of any large-scale programs.

Last year, in Alameda, California, a small test project in geoengineering, referred to as Marine Cloud Brightening, was disrupted by community protestors, despite researchers demonstrating its safety.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert described how conspiracy theories tend to surge, particularly during moments of weather events that leave individuals feeling powerless.

“Conspiracy theories offer emotionally gratifying narratives. They restore a sense of control by framing phenomena as intentional actions by powerful entities rather than unpredictable chaotic events,” Alpert told NBC News. “In this context, believing ‘someone is doing this to us’ is more bearable than facing the idea that ‘no one is in charge.'”

While some interpret the EPA’s actions as a sign of transparency, others view it merely as a recent political maneuver to sidestep critical environmental issues.

“Some individuals question whether the bird is real or not. Will that become your next focus?” Congressman Don Beyer D-Va remarked in response to Zeldin’s comments on Thursday morning. He went on to comment on X regarding the EPA guidelines, “How much taxpayer money will be expended on this?”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Concerns Grow That X’s AI Fact-Checkers May Undermine Efforts Against Conspiracy Theories

The decision by Elon Musk’s X social media platform to register artificial intelligence chatbots for creating FactChecks might inadvertently promote “lies and conspiracy theories,” warns a former UK technology minister.

Damian Collins criticized X for “leaving it to the bot to edit the news,” following the announcement that it would permit a large-scale language model to clarify or alter community notes before user approval. Previously, notes were written solely by humans.

X revealed that it plans to utilize AI for drafting FactChecking notes, asserting in a statement, “We are at the forefront of enhancing information quality on the Internet.”

Keith Coleman, Product Vice Chairman of X, mentioned that the notes would only be shown after human reviewers assess AI-generated content, ensuring usefulness from varied perspectives.

“We designed the pilot to operate as human-assisted AI. We believe it can offer both quality and reliability. We also released a paper alongside the pilot’s launch, co-authored by professors and researchers from MIT, Washington University, Harvard University, and Stanford, detailing why this blend of AI and human involvement is promising.”

However, Collins pointed out that the system is prone to abuse, with AI agents handling community notes potentially enabling “industrial manipulation that users may trust” on a platform boasting around 600 million users.

This move represents the latest challenge to human fact checkers by US tech firms. Last month, Google stated that user-created FactChecks would degrade search results, including those from professional fact-checking organizations, asserting that such checks “no longer provide significant additional value to users.” In January, Meta announced its intention to phase out American human fact checkers and replace them with its own community notes system across Instagram, Facebook, and Threads.

An X research paper describing the new fact-checking system claims that specialized fact checks are often limited in scale and lack the trust of the general public.

An AI-generated community note asserts that “rapid production requires minimal effort while maintaining high-quality potential.” Both human and AI-created notes will enter the same pool, ensuring that the most useful content appears on the platform.

According to the research paper, AI will generate a “summary of neutral evidence.” Trust in community notes, the paper states, “stems from those who evaluate them, not those who draft them.”

Andy Dudfield, leading AI at the UK fact-checking organization Full Fact, commented: “These plans will add to the existing significant workload for human reviewers, raising valid concerns about the adequacy of AI-generated content that lacks thorough drafting, review, and consideration.”

Samuel Stockwell, a researcher at the Alan Turing Institute’s Emerging Technology Security Center, noted: “AI can assist fact checkers in managing the vast array of claims that circulate daily on social media, but it hinges on the quality of X, which risks the chance that these AI ‘note writers’ will mislead users with false or dubious narratives. Even when inaccuracies arise, the confident delivery can deceive viewers.”

Research indicates that individuals view human-generated community notes as significantly more reliable than a simple misinformation flag.

An analysis of hundreds of misleading posts on X leading up to last year’s presidential election reveals that in three-quarters of cases, accurate community notes were not displayed, nor were they supported by users. These misleading claims, including accusations of Democrats importing illegal voters and the assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, have amassed over 20 billion views, according to a center combating digital hatred.

Source: www.theguardian.com

How did the Autopen conspiracy theory about Biden gain traction?

Mike Howell observed a letter from the Missouri Attorney General questioning President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s ability to sign pardons and executive orders with “psychic ability.”

Howell, executive director of the Surveillance Project under the Conservative Heritage Foundation, saw an opportunity for critique in this letter. After comparing Biden’s signatures on various official documents for months, he noticed similarities in many of them. Before boarding his flight, Howell made a controversial post he later claimed he conspired with X about.

Critics of Biden’s fitness questioned his appointments, but so far, no evidence has surfaced to suggest that he disagreed with any actions he has taken.

Upon landing, Howell’s post gained traction rapidly. Within days, a theory emerged that a shadowy, deep state agent was secretly running the country on behalf of Biden, using mechanical means to achieve sinister goals, sparking fury.

Autoopen is a machine that replicates a person’s actual signature using a real pen. Politicians have been using such devices for decades with little public interest. Data from the Media Tracker revealed that the term was mentioned 49 times in US television, radio, and podcasts in the first two months of the year, spiking to 6,188 mentions on March 17th alone.

Right-wing media outlets are now extensively covering topics related to wet signatures and autopen technology. They focus particularly on Biden’s signatures on pardons for political allies like California Democrats Adam Schiff and Hunter Biden, casting doubt on the former president’s mental acuity and his awareness of the documents he signs.

President Trump himself has criticized Biden’s use of autopens, questioning the validity of the pardons granted without providing evidence, suggesting they were void. Trump has also used an autopen in the past, raising doubts yet again during an Oval office press conference.

Biden has not confirmed whether he personally signed all the pardons, but a senior aide mentioned they were automated during his administration. A Biden spokesperson has yet to comment on the matter.

There are no federal laws prohibiting the use of autopens, as noted by the Justice Department. The president has the authority to instruct subordinates to affix his signature to a bill. Legal experts question the president’s ability to revoke a pardon based on notes from 1929 suggesting a presidential signature is not essential for a pardon to be valid.

The rise of speculative and legally dubious theories promoted by pro-Trump activists highlights the efficiency of today’s right-wing media environment.

The origins of the conspiracy theory are uncertain, but a post on the 4chan message board in October referencing autopens and Biden may have contributed to its spread.

Howell’s Surveillance Project, established in 2022 by the Heritage Foundation, has been deeply involved in researching this topic.

Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz, now a visiting fellow at the Surveillance Project, proposed collecting copies of presidential documents signed by Biden to verify signature authenticity.

Staff members began compiling documents and requesting copies of resolutions and bills from the National Archives after Biden’s withdrawal from the race, but the project gained urgency when Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s letter raised concerns about the enforcement orders and pardons signed by Biden.

Howell was surprised by Bailey’s letter’s alignment with his signature study and considered it a stroke of luck.

“It was eighth on the to-do list,” Howell remarked. “Then AG Bailey drops his letter and it shoots to the top.”

Howell’s thread received over 3 million views, sparking widespread discussions on conservative talk radio within hours.

The topic quickly spread to popular podcasts and cable news programs, with a focus on Biden’s autopen, especially concerning pardons for political allies.

The project highlighted the vulnerability of amnesty documents, releasing an analysis of Biden’s signatures on five amnesties issued on his final day in office.

Trump criticized Biden’s use of autopens as disrespectful to the presidency and potentially invalid at a Justice Department press conference following the release of the Surveillance Project’s findings on pardons.

Critics, including conservative jurist Jonathan Turley, dismissed the idea of nullifying pardons based on autopen usage, citing the president’s authority to use such tools and lack of concrete evidence for a conspiracy against Biden.

Howell believes the question can only be resolved in court and continues his work, publishing a legal memo on Autopens and planning to retrieve more documents signed by Biden for further analysis by a forensic handwriting expert.

“We’re preparing for all possibilities,” Howell concluded.

Source: www.nytimes.com

British Starlink User Disables Elon Musk’s Political Conspiracy Due to Strong Disapproval

t
ESLA sales have fallen, and X has seen users leave, but now it appears that a crack is appearing among those who have turned to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system as a way to maintain connections in remote areas.

The number of Starlink users is growing, but some subscribers have said they are venting their complaints about Musk’s political plot and will no longer use the high-speed satellite internet system.

Barry Nisbett, a Scottish fiddler Shetland Business Combining the music with a sailor, Musk’s controversial salute at Donald Trump’s inauguration event was one of the last straws that made him leave Starlink, citing whether he left Starlink, even if it put him at a disadvantage.

“For a while I’ve been deeply uncomfortable with the role he played in the US election and the monopoly he has that really bothers me,” he told The Guardian.

While Starlink controls the sector, signs of user anxiety will raise excitement among European tech enthusiasts and bring about the prospect of a homemade alternative that will eventually emerge. The value of Eutelsat, the French owner of OneWeb, London-based Starlink rival, has increased 500% since Trump’s oval office line with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Eutelsat’s chief executive told Bloomberg that the company could replace Starlink in a few months in places like Ukraine.

Viasat, which owns the UK network Inmarsat, is also in talks with the European government Regarding the replacement of Mask Star Link.

In the UK, Starlink is primarily used by people and businesses in rural areas with inadequate broadband access, but some buy “prepers” and technology.

StarLink installers for businesses and housing in the southern part of England told the Guardian that for now there is no better alternative to StarLink for those who need quick access to the internet.

“In the industry, we are stuck between rocks and difficult places. On the one hand, the necessary tools and solutions that exist in many rural areas, especially due to insufficient investment in infrastructure. But on the other hand, we now had to deal with Elon – to put it in politeness – the genitals,” he said.

“The majority of people who use it are those who need it because it’s remote, but there are also a few “chinfoil hats” brigade elements. ”

Richard Opie, a consultant living in a semi-rural Northumberland area, said BT hadn’t had enough and got Starlink during the pandemic, but now he was “wrestling” to decide whether to stay with the company or not.

“It’s a godsend, especially in remote areas, but things have developed politically ever since. Elon Musk is a very different person, and Tesla’s showroom is burned to the ground. I’m uncomfortable with how he gets into bed with Trump and how he throws his weight,” he said.

“It’s something we wrestled and saw alternatives, but we’re kind of stuck for now.”

However, Nisbet’s comments on Facebook’s “Starlink UK User Group” — he couldn’t justify supporting Starlink any further — sparked lively debate among users.

“I refuse to go to Trump’s hotel because I won’t give him a penny. Another StarLink user, Mel Sayer, said:

“I share your thoughts, but for now I’m stuck with Starlink,” says another user, Mike Brown. “Amazon is planning to launch rival services, but it probably won’t be until next year. We’ll jump the ship as soon as possible.”

Others are stuck with StarLink. “We’re looking forward to seeing you in the future,” said Paul Feekins, a consultant at West Sussex. “People use Starlinks because they can’t get an internet connection in any other way, but I think these idiots are making a statement by cancelling because they’ve come to oppose Yelon about something.”

Starlink has been requested for comment.

Starlink grew rapidly in the UK. This has gone from 13,000 subscribers three years ago to 87,000 last year.

This is Starlink’s popularity in some parts of the UK, with the company charging extra “crowd charges” in areas in high demand.

The company offers ultra-fast broadband speeds through satellite constellations. UK customers typically pay £75 a month over a 30-day period and £299 for hardware.

For non-customers, Starlink may be well known for its Ukraine use, essential to Kiev’s battlefield communication, after the Starlink terminal rushed after the Russian invasion in February 2022.

However, recently the outlook has grown that Ukraine will be cut from Starlink, With Reuters report US negotiators have lost their system and threatened Ukraine. Musk Tweet Weekend: “If I turn it off, their whole frontline will collapse.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk faces backlash for endorsing anti-Semitic conspiracy theory as “actual truth”

Elon Musk has encouraged extremists and white supremacists throughout his year-long tenure as owner of Company X (formerly known as Twitter), but this week he continues to push back on the behavior that mainstream users — and advertisers — tolerate. succeeded in pushing the limits of

Musk on Wednesday endorsed a post by user X that accused the Jewish community of spreading “dialectical hatred against white people.” The statement itself was a response to another X post that shared a PSA video from a foundation fighting anti-Semitism, along with criticism of an anonymous user who posted online that “Hitler was right.”

“I believe that Western Jews, a large minority, [they supported] People who flood their countries don’t like themselves very much,” user X replied. “You want the truth told to your face, and there it is.”

Musk replied, “You told the truth.”

A post that went out of its way to praise Mr. Musk also caused the same thing. white supremacist conspiracy theory Endorsed by Tree of Life synagogue shooter Robert Bowers. Minutes before the shooting, Bowers posted on the far-right social media site Gab that HIAS, a Jewish-American nonprofit that helps refugees, “likes to bring in invaders who will kill our people. ” he posted. “I cannot stand by and watch my fellow citizens being slaughtered,” Bowers wrote shortly before 11 people were murdered at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

The X owner and CTO’s comments have drawn increasingly widespread condemnation. On Friday, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said: answered Musk’s recent support for white supremacy in his platform.

Citing the Tree of Life tragedy and the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel, Bates said, “This abhorrent act of fomenting anti-Semitism and racist hatred is the most “I condemn this in the strongest terms. This goes against our core values ​​as Americans.” It is a responsibility to unite people against hate and to speak out against those who attack the dignity of our fellow Americans and undermine the safety of our communities. ”

The fallout from Musk’s endorsement of anti-Semitic and racist conspiracies was further compounded Friday afternoon. Apple announces “temporary suspension” All company ads on X.

The tweet, which Musk called “actual truth,” also resonated with broader opinion. great replacement Conspiracy theory. A theory popularized by white supremacists to instill fear that non-whites will usurp the majority of the white population in countries like the United States.

The owner of X has been involved with anti-Semites before. Musk previously welcomed Kanye West to X after the singer was banned from posting on Instagram after he used anti-Semitic tropes. Less than a day later, West infamously tweeted, “I’m going to die.” [sic] con 3 About the Jews,” he then posted a Star of David fused with a swastika. X suspended West’s account in December, but reinstated it over the summer.

A year ago, Musk reinstated a number of accounts previously suspended for spreading hate, including Andrew Anglin, the notorious neo-Nazi who started the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. After his return, Mr. Anglin delved into Twitter’s new rules in a reply to Mr. Musk. “You got a 12-hour suspension for tweeting a Star of David with a swastika on it…whatever the rules are, people will follow them. We need to know what the rules are. It just is.”

Musk has made a habit of engaging with self-proclaimed white supremacists and other hate activists. In September, Musk liked someone’s tweet. Self-proclaimed “violent anti-Semite” Musk is the one who started the campaign to ban the Anti-Defamation League from X, accusing the Jewish civil rights group ADL of being “the biggest generator of anti-Semitism on this platform.” , threatened to sue the group over lost advertising revenue due to criticism of the rise in hate speech against X under his leadership;

Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskowitz sarcastically said: Explanation Regarding the situation with Threads, a competitor of Meta’s X. “Xitter CEO Linda Yaccarino is making the biggest decision yet as she decides whether to fire her anti-Semitic CTO or risk losing even more advertisers. We are facing challenges,” Moskowitz wrote. “How will she deal with this difficult but morally clear situation?”

Source: techcrunch.com