The truth behind the chemtrail conspiracy – and why it won’t go away

everyone has looked this way clouds And saw faces, animals, objects. The human brain is hardwired for this type of craze. But some people – perhaps a surprising number – look up to the sky and see Government Conspiracies and evil deeds written there. conspiracy Theorists say contrails – long streaks of condensation left behind plane – Chemtrails are actually clouds of chemical or biological agents that are thrown onto the unsuspecting public for nefarious purposes. Varying purposes have been reported, ranging from weather control to mass poisoning.

The chemtrails theory has been circulating since 1996, when conspiracy theorists misinterpreted the US Air Force Research Paper about climate modification, a legitimate topic of research. Social media and conservative news outlets have since amplified the conspiracy theory. A recent study states that X, formerly Twitter, is a particularly active node of this “broad online community of conspiracy”.

I am a communication researcher who studies conspiracy theoriesThe completely debunked chemtrails theory provides a textbook example of how conspiracy theories work,

boosted into the stratosphere

conservative pundit tucker carlsonwhose podcast averages over a million viewers per episode, recently interviewed Dan Wigington, a longtime opponent of “geoengineering.” While the interview has been largely discredited and mocked in other media coverage, it is only one example of the rise in chemtrail belief.

Although chemtrail belief spans the political spectrum, it is particularly pronounced in Republican circles. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed his support for the principle. U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has written legislation to ban chemical climate control, and several state legislatures have done the same.

Online influencers with millions of followers have promoted what was once a fringe theory to massive audiences. It finds a ready audience among climate change deniers and deep-state anti-government activists who fear government control.

Heads I win, Tails you lose

Although the research on climate modification is anecdotal, most qualified experts deny that the chemtrail theory has any solid basis in fact. For example, geoengineering researcher David Keith’s laboratory posted a clear statement on its website. A wealth of other resources exist online, and many of their findings are posted on contrailscience.com.

But even without delving deeply into the science, there are obvious logical problems with the chemtrail theory. Two of them are falsification and miserliness.

According to psychologist Rob Brotherton, conspiracy theories have a classic “heads I win, tails you lose” structure. Conspiracy theorists say chemtrails are part of a nefarious government plot, but its existence has been hidden by the same villains. If there were any evidence that weather modifications were actually occurring, that would support the theory, but any evidence denying chemtrails also supports the theory – specifically, the part that alleges a cover-up.

Those who support the conspiracy theory consider anyone who confirms it to be a brave whistleblower and anyone who denies it to be foolish, evil, or paid. Therefore, for true believers no information can refute it, even hypothetically. This refutation makes the theory infallible, meaning it is impossible to refute it. In contrast, good theories are not false, but they must also be formulated in such a way that if they are false, the evidence can show this.

Falsifiable theories are inherently suspect because they exist in a closed loop of self-confirmation. In practice, theories are usually not declared “false” on the basis of any one test, but are taken more or less seriously based on good evidence and the predominance of scientific consensus. This approach is important because conspiracy theories and disinformation often claim to falsify mainstream theories, or at least exploit a poor understanding of what certainty means in scientific methods.

Like most conspiracy theories, the chemtrail story does not meet the criteria for parsimony, also known as Occam’s Razor, which states that the more assumptions are required for a theory to be true, the less likely it is to actually be true. Although this is not correct concept This can be an important way to think about plausibility when it comes to conspiracy theories. Is it more likely that the government is orchestrating a massive weather program, a mind-control program, or both that involves thousands or millions of silent, complex agents ranging from the local weather reporter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or that we are watching ice crystals emerge from plane engines?

Of course, calling something a “conspiracy theory” doesn’t automatically invalidate it. After all, real conspiracies do exist. But it’s important to remember scientist and science communicator Carl Sagan’s adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In the case of chemtrails, there is simply no evidence.

psychology of conspiracy theory belief

If the evidence against it is so strong and the arguments against it so weak, why do people believe the chemtrail conspiracy theory? As I argue in my new book, “Post-Weird: Fragmentation, Community, and the Decline of the Mainstream,” conspiracy theorists form bonds with each other through shared practices of interpreting the world, seeing every detail and scrap of evidence as an unshakable sign of a larger, hidden meaning.

Uncertainty, ambiguity and chaos can be overwhelming. Conspiracy theories are symptomatic, ad hoc attempts to deal with anxiety caused by feelings of powerlessness in a chaotic and complex world, where terrible things like tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires can occur at random for reasons that even well-informed people have difficulty understanding. When people feel overwhelmed and helpless, they create fantasies that create the illusion of ownership and control.

Although there are liberal chemtrail believers, an aversion to uncertainty may explain why the theory has become so popular among Carlson’s audience: Researchers have long argued that authoritarian, right-wing beliefs have a similar underlying structure.

On some level, chemtrail theorists would prefer to become the target of an evil conspiracy rather than confront the limits of their knowledge and power, even if the conspiracy beliefs are not entirely satisfactory. Sigmund Freud described a fort-da (“Gone-here”) game played by his grandson, where he threw a toy and pulled it back on a string, which Freud understood as a simulation of control when the child had nothing to do. Conspiracy theories can serve a similar purpose, making their believers feel that the world is not actually random and that they, who see through the show, actually have some control over it. The bigger the conspiracy, the more talented and brave the conspirators will be.

The plots are dramatic and exciting, with clear lines of good and evil, while real life is boring and sometimes scary. The chemtrail theory is ultimately glorious. It’s a way for theorists to feel powerful and smart when they encounter things beyond their understanding and control. Conspiracy theories come and go, but responding to them in the long term means embracing uncertainty, ambiguity, and its limitations, as well as finding better ways to employ the tools we have in a new way: logic, evidence, and even humility.