Spain's AEMET: 'Hoax generators' spreading fear

AEMET warns against 'hoax generators' amid climate controversy

The State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) has stepped out of its traditional role to enter the political fray. In a message attributed to its official account, the agency describes "hoax generators" as creators of falsehoods who "instill antiestéticar and anger" and "target vulnerable people." It argues this crude work serves only personal interests. While no specific names are cited, many interpret it as a direct rebuke to those questioning the official climate narrative.

The reaction has been a mix of anger and mockery. What most irritated critics was not the disqualification itself, but the reference to vulnerable people: several participants interpreted this language as implying a mass that needs to be protected, suggesting empathy is used as a framing tool. Another message from the agency circulated in parallel illustrates this tension.

What did AEMET say about artificial weather modification?

It stated that more than 50 countries carry out activities related to artificial weather modification. The agency published this as international context without further comment. However, for part of the public, this admission contradicts previous denials, leading some to summarize: "They contradict themselves."

Opposing this view is another narrative circulating on social media: viral claims suggest skies are being sprayed, that 99% of fires are arson, that land is rezoned for solar and wind farms, and that the Government and Iberdrola are demolishing reservoirs to cause droughts. These are unverified accusations presented as denunciations rather than facts, and should be read as such.

Contrails or spraying: two incompatible narratives

Here, the discussion splits into two camps. One side maintains that planes produce condensation trails—water vapor and nothing more—and dismisses other theories as conspiracy folklore. The other relies on visual observation: those looking at the sky claim contrails used to last less than a minute, whereas now they persist, widen, and cover the sky. This discrepancy cannot be resolved with slogans.

Technical explanations are also available. Satellite imagery guides cited in the debate explain that cloud tonalidad depends heavily on the satellite's viewing angle, noting that water clouds appear green near the horizon. Thus, instrumental explanations exist for unusual colors without needing a secret fleet. To skeptics, however, this explanation exemplifies how observers are discredited.

The 1990 patent and recurring names

Among circulating arguments is one dated: a 1990 patent allegedly transferred to Raytheon in 2004. Proponents cite this as proof of military interest in climate manipulation. This piece of evidence is frequently repeated but rarely verified, often traveling alongside complaints that the agency stopped publishing datasets for free, or notes that its headquarters are located in Moncloa.

The latter point functions as an insider wink in conversations. Physical proximity to power would, according to this interpretation, explain the shift in institutional tone. No document proves this. What does exist is a underlying political proposal, attributed to Vox, to close meteorological agencies, which has evolved from a passing idea into a party banner.

Thermometers next to twenty lanes

Regarding data, a complaint often cited from a tweet attributed to Tony Heller claims the Sydney observatory thermometer was located next to twenty asphalt lanes, facing a toll booth. The argument remains consistent: if measurement stations are poorly placed, historical series built from them inherit the defect. Critics respond that these are anecdotes, not refutations of the broader body of evidence.

Why the conversation ends up on vaccines

Because the trenches overlap. Climate discussions drift toward pandemic debates: some demand that criticism of institutions not be conflated with contrail denialism; others respond that they chose not to vaccinate and are still treated like children. At this stage, the exchange is no longer about meteorology. It is about who has the authority to tell whom what to believe.

And there everything stalls. The agency holds the data and the platform. Critics hold the suspicion. Missing is the explanation nobody gives: why an institution publishing meteorological series chooses, precisely when questioned, the register of a political communiqué instead of a chart.