Arguments
Contrails have a simple explanation, but not everyone wants to believe it. Everyone has looked up at the clouds and seen faces, animals, objects. Human brains are hardwired for this kind of whimsy. But some people – perhaps a surprising number – look to the sky and see government plots and wicked deeds written there. Conspiracy theorists say that contrails – long streaks of condensation left by aircraft – are actually chemtrails, clouds of chemical or biological agents dumped on the unsuspecting public for nefarious purposes. Different motives are ascribed, from weather control to mass poisoning.
The chemtrails theory has circulated since 1996, when conspiracy theorists misinterpreted a U.S. Air Force research paper about weather modification, a valid topic of research. Social media and conservative news outlets have since magnified the conspiracy theory. One recent study notes that X, formerly Twitter, is a particularly active node of this “broad online community of conspiracy.”
I’m a communications researcher who studies conspiracy theories. The thoroughly debunked chemtrails theory provides a textbook example of how conspiracy theories work.
Boosted into the stratosphere
Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, whose podcast averages over a million viewers per episode, recently interviewed Dane Wigington, a longtime opponent of what he calls “geoengineering.” While the interview has been extensively discredited and mocked in other media coverage, it is only one example of the spike in chemtrail belief.
Although chemtrail belief spans the political spectrum, it is particularly evident in Republican circles. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has professed his support for the theory. U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has written legislation to ban chemical weather control, and many state legislatures have done the same.
Online influencers with millions of followers have promoted what was once a fringe theory to a large audience. It finds a ready audience among climate change deniers and anti-deep state agitators who fear government mind control.
Heads I win, tails you lose
Although research on weather modification is real, the overwhelming majority of qualified experts deny that the chemtrail theory has any solid basis in fact. For example, geoengineering researcher David Keith’s lab posted a blunt statement on its website. A wealth of other resources exist online, and many of their conclusions are posted at contrailscience.com.
But even without a deep dive into the science, the chemtrail theory has glaring logical problems. Two of them are falsifiability and parsimony.
The philosopher Karl Popper explains that unless your conjecture can be proved false, it lies outside the realm of science.According to psychologist Rob Brotherton, conspiracy theories have a classic “heads I win, tails you lose” structure. Conspiracy theorists say that chemtrails are part of a nefarious government plot, but its existence has been covered up by the same villains. If there was any evidence that weather modification was actually happening, that would support the theory, but any evidence denying chemtrails also supports the theory – specifically, the part that alleges a cover-up.
People who subscribe to the conspiracy theory consider anyone who confirms it to be a brave whistleblower and anyone who denies it to be foolish, evil or paid off. Therefore, no amount of information could even hypothetically disprove it for true believers. This denial makes the theory nonfalsifiable, meaning it’s impossible to disprove. By contrast, good theories are not false, but they must also be constructed in such a way that if they were false, evidence could show that.
Nonfalsifiable theories are inherently suspect because they exist in a closed loop of self-confirmation. In practice, theories are not usually declared “false” based on a single test but are taken more or less seriously based on the preponderance of good evidence and 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 tends not to meet the criteria of parsimony, also known as Occam’s razor, which suggests that the more suppositions a theory requires to be true, the less likely it actually is. While not perfect, this concept can be an important way to think about probability when it comes to conspiracy theories. Is it more likely that the government is covering up a massive weather program, mind-control program or both that involve thousands or millions of silent, complicit agents, from the local weather reporter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or that we’re seeing ice crystals from plane engines?
Of course, calling something a “conspiracy theory” does not 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, the evidence just isn’t there.
This is a good article.
However it was predictable that this ludicrous and other ludicrous conspiracies would grow now. I personally predicted this and watched them grow in line with the predictions, not just online but with talking and meeting people. As good as the article is, however, it doesn't cover why these deep state conspiracies are growing now at this point on time.
CL Matheson knows that conspiracies do exist. It would be equally ludicrous to claim otherwise.
While world conspiracies among scientists would be virtually impossible it would be unreasonable to believe that governments do not conspire particularly with their friends and allies.
People will generally accept that people in the countries that are considered to be politically in opposition to their own country have been conditioned through a false narrative. However analogous to the cosmological principle this works both ways.
However when more and more people have come to realise this last point those without adequate scientific understanding will make the irrational leap to think that scientists around the world are also conspiring.
The growing awareness of the history of the Apartheid, illegal Settlers, ethnic cleansing and now the Genocide that we see today in Palestine has made people aware that people in countries that consider themselves democratic have been given a false narrative for their entire lives.
[snip]
This awakening is undoubtedly for the best but it carries this short problem of growing mistrust in conspiracies such as chemtrails.
The cause of this growth in conspiracies can be blamed on the false narrative that has come from politicians and the media that has encouraged or at best turnned a blind eye to the Apartheid in Palestine and it's consequences for more than over a hundred
years.
[snip]
[BL] Your two snipped paragraphs start to cross the line into politics that are potentially inflammatory and highly unrelated to the original post. Please re-read the Comments Policy.
Regarding chemtrail conspiracy theories. Its been suggested some people have a conspiratorial leaning personality. I asked Google Gemini the following question: "Some people strongly believe in conspiracy theories. It's been suggested some people have a conspiratorial personality. What does the science say? Quote a couple of studies if possible." Geminis response was interesting and convincing:
Science suggests that while no single "conspiratorial personality" type exists in simple terms, a cluster of specific personality traits and psychological motives makes some individuals more susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories. These traits often relate to suspicion, a need for uniqueness, and a lack of analytical thinking.
Key Personality Traits and Predictors
Research has identified several personality characteristics and psychological factors linked to a propensity for conspiratorial thinking:
Antagonism and Paranoia: A sense of antagonism toward others, high levels of suspiciousness, and paranoia are strong predictors. People with these traits tend to view the world as a dangerous and threatening place.
Schizotypy and Odd Beliefs: Traits associated with schizotypal personality (a predisposition toward certain psychological disorders), such as eccentricity, magical thinking, and unusual beliefs, are linked to higher belief in conspiracies.
Narcissism and Fragile Self-Esteem: A high degree of narcissism (an inflated sense of self and entitlement) and low, unstable self-esteem can predict belief in conspiracy theories. Such beliefs may help people defend a fragile sense of self-worth by making them feel unique or superior for possessing "secret" knowledge.
Lack of Analytical Thinking: Individuals who rely more on intuition ("gut feelings") rather than analytical, critical thinking are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories. Lower levels of education and scientific knowledge are also correlated with this tendency.
Need for Uniqueness and Control: People are more drawn to conspiracy theories when they feel a lack of control over their environment or a desire to feel special and unique.
Conversely, the general "Big Five" personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) have a much weaker, less consistent relationship with conspiratorial thinking in meta-analyses.
Noteworthy Studies
Two key areas of research illustrate these findings:
The Role of Personality Dimensions and Motivations (Bowes et al., 2020/2023): A meta-analytic review published in Psychological Bulletin (2023) by Shauna Bowes and colleagues synthesized findings from numerous studies to provide a clearer portrait of the "conspiratorial mind". The researchers found that while general Big Five traits had weak associations, more specific pathological personality traits, such as high grandiosity, low agreeableness/humility, and antagonism, were strong predictors. They concluded that conspiratorial thinking is complex and linked to various motives (epistemic, existential, and social), suggesting no single, simple "conspiratorial personality" type but rather a convergence of specific vulnerabilities.
Conspiracy Mentality as a General Predisposition (Bruder et al., 2013): A study in Frontiers in Psychology (2019) is part of a body of work that found a general measure called "Conspiracy Mentality" (a general predisposition to interpret events as the result of conspiracies) to be the best predictor of belief in specific conspiracy theories. This "mentality" captures a general mind-set of distrust and a tendency to see intentional, malevolent forces at work, and it was a more reliable predictor than broader personality traits like the Big Five. The study highlighted that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others, even mutually contradictory ones.
[BL] Having recently given someone else a hard time about using AI to generate comments, I'm not sure we want to encourage it here. Although not explicitly stated in the current Comments Policy, that may change.
As an example, I did a Google Scholar search for the two studies Gemini pointed you to. I did find something close, but:
Bowes, Costello, and Tasimi (2023) The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates, Psychological Bulletin.
Martin Bruder, Peter Haffke, Nick Neave, Nina Nouripanah and Roland Imhoff (2013) Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality
Questionnaire, Frontiers in Psychology.
Note that Gemini seems to have come up with different titles for the papers. Or it has simply decided that the titles didn't matter and it would be better to come up with its own. That sort of behaviour makes me worry a bit.
Moderator, I will refrain from posting AI results. However I think the AI was perhaps describing the content of the articles, rather than making up titles. The AI did include links to the papers for a detailed look. However it is still certainly confusing.
[BL] Your copy of the Gemini results didn't have actual links in it. That would have helped.
It's disappointing that my comments were regarded as being off topic whereas I believe the comments were precisely a major reason why conspiracy theories such as chemtrails are presently rising around the world. Furthermore to believe that conspiracies whether rational or irrational can be isolated from politics will prevent an explanation being addressed.
I would appreciate that my comments were treated seriously by other moderators.
[BL] First, you've posted basically the same comment twice. I don't know why - I assume it's a glitch in the matrix, but don't keep reloading/refreshing the page after you submit your comment. I have deleted the second copy.
Second: if you read the comments policy, moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted. It's in the very first point.
Third: the small portions that were deleted had the potential of leading to flame wars about non-climate issues. I don't think they were necessary to make your point.
pattimer @1, @4 and @5
Indeed, people who want to develop perceptions of superiority relative to others often have to resort to conspiracy beliefs to attempt to deal with reality (evidence and better understanding of what is harmful to Others that contradicts what they want to believe).
I am not a moderator. But I did see your original post before the moderator’s snipping.
It may have been better to generalize the comment rather than repeating a specific political interest that is unrelated to climate science or climate change impacts. That specific interest is only one example of the diversity of unacceptable results (misunderstandings and related harmful unjustified actions) developed in socioeconomic political competition for perceptions of superiority ‘any way that can be gotten away with - with related demands for more freedom to believe and do whatever a person or group wants’.
[BL] Pattimer's duplicate (almost) second post has been deleted, so you're now #5.
...but please hesitate to second-guess the moderators.
I have noticed a trend in conspiracy theories (chemtrails as well as climate denying, anti-vax, etc.) is that they push the solution to who must change to someone else. I am over 60, an applied physicst who has studied Wellness Coaching, and I cannot remember at time where science was telling us so much bad news and that we must change our ways! It is a common reaction, even amoung highly educated people, to blame others or deny the science instead of changing. I.e. Climate change is caused by a cabal of evil people using chemtrails and therefore I do not have to change. Does anyone know of papers addressing the issue from this angle? Thanks.
There are many reasons why people believe that contrails are chemtrails.
There is the political motivation by climate change deniers to encourage this conspiracy and so we cannot address this serious problem without looking at politics.
However why are people persuaded by this political deception and why is it growing at the present time? This is the question that we are addressing.
*People are seeing more contrails in the sky that they used to.
* People often want an easy solution to climate change that doesn't affect their way of life. If scientists explain that contrails affect the climate or that flying has a large carbon footprint then it's easier to deflect any obligations by believing the conspiracy.
* People have learned that there are real political conspiracies that the author accepts. There is a worldwide growing awareness or believe of a lifetime of false information that has been presented from media even in countries that consider themselves democratic. (Whether or not this awareness or believe is correct is "off topic" although important to be considered elsewhere). This is evident in the mass movements we see around the world regarding wars that use weapons from the West in particularly America and her allies. Therefore to those with a less scientific understanding, people are making the false
step from their realisation that they have been deceived by politicians and the media to believing that everything including the science is false.
I have personally watched the frightning denial and conspiracies for many decades but the latter point I make here is a new trend and one that I believe should be taken seriously.
Perhaps the Author would find some agreement with this.