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.

    • jonathan7luke@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      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.”