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.
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.”