EU Parliament Query Claims AEMET Staff Admitted Weather Manipulation

The EU Parliament Question Regarding AEMET Staff and Cold Drops

A written question registered in the European Parliament claims that four employees of AEMET (Spanish State Meteorological Agency) confessed in 2015 to causing "cold drops" (DANA) in the Valencian Community, Murcia, and Almería. The text provides no names, exact dates, or documents supporting these alleged confessions. It offers only the assertion. And a response from the European Commission which, when read in full, dismantles the narrative: there is no report from Spanish meteorologists asking for a stance on the matter, and an investigation with Spanish authorities found no evidence of a military geoengineering plan to change the climate in Spain.

The Origin: A Parliamentary Question Without Proof

The mechanism is old and well-known. Any MEP can register a written question. All it takes is writing a text and submitting it. That does not make its content true. The question that headlines this issue starts from a premise that does not hold up: the four employees are not identified, there is no public statement from them, and there is no administrative resolution or court ruling recording such supposed acknowledgment. The European Commission states clearly: it has received no report whatsoever from Spanish meteorologists on this subject and, after consulting with Spanish authorities, found no evidence of the allegations.

The rest is noise. The official response also refers to a previous answer from 2014, in which Brussels already stated that it considers geoengineering inappropriate for solving environmental problems. In other words, the same body accused of complicity with the alleged plan has been saying the opposite for a decade.

What Exactly Does the European Commission Say?

The text of the response is short and leaves no room for doubt. The Commission has not received any report from Spanish meteorologists asking it to take a position on the matter. The Commission investigated the issue with Spanish authorities and found no evidence of the allegations regarding a military geoengineering plan to change the climate in Spain. It refers to the answer to written question E-000922/2014, where it already qualified geoengineering as inappropriate.

Some argue that this response is actually a smokescreen because the Commission merely asks for proof from the alleged perpetrators, the Spanish authorities. The argument goes as far as it goes: if the investigating body is the same one allegedly executing the plan, it will hardly incriminate itself. It is a circular objection, valid for any institution and any accusation, and adds no new data.

Cold Drops, Cadmium, and Other Layers of the Narrative

Layers have stuck around the conspiratorial core. One of the most repeated is cadmium poisoning. Symptoms are listed—vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, difficulty breathing, metallic taste in the mouth, fever, extreme weakness—and it is claimed they coincide with what some people felt just before the pandemic. The logical leap is notable: from documented toxic exposure to a climate manipulation plan, there is no proven connection anywhere.

Another layer is climate change. The contradiction is striking: some deny that the climate is changing due to human activity while simultaneously claiming it is being modified at will with planes and chemicals. Both cannot be true at the same time. Yet they coexist in the same discourse without anyone’s alarm bells ringing.

Segarro, Cloud Seeding, and the Leap to DANA

The narrative mutates according to current events. When the DANA catastrophe occurred, some media outlets published that Segarro was planning cloud seeding that could affect Spain. The news, presented as an urgent warning from meteorologists, fueled the idea that the storm had been directed from outside. Cloud seeding is a technique that exists, has been used in several countries, and consists of dispersing particles to promote condensation. From there to causing a cold drop with hundreds of victims lies an abyss that no one has documented.

The original parliamentary question spoke of the Valencian Community, Murcia, and Almería. DANA shifted the focus to Valencia. The pattern is the same: an extreme weather phenomenon, an official explanation deemed insufficient, and a theory attributing the catastrophe to human will. Lack of evidence does not stop the theory. It feeds it.

Why Do These Hoaxes Work?

They work because they offer a total explanation. Faced with the complexity of a climate system, with its models, uncertainties, and margins of error, conspiracy delivers a clear culprit and intent. They also work because institutional discrediting is fertile ground. If the European Commission says there is no evidence, that very fact is interpreted as proof that evidence exists and is being hidden.

And they work, above all, because no one pays a price for spreading them. A baseless parliamentary question becomes a headline. An anonymous blog is cited as a source. An official response debunking the narrative is skimmed and discarded. The cost of verification is high. The cost of belief is zero.

---

The European Commission responded that there is no evidence of a military geoengineering plan to change the climate in Spain. The question remains there, registered, cited, and forwarded. No one has yet identified the four AEMET employees who supposedly confessed. Nor is it necessary: the hoax has already done its job.