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.
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
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.
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.
So “chemtrails” is just bone apple tea for “contrails” this whole time?
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
But later in the article it also says
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.”