Trump, Chemtrails and Climate: A Narrative That Collapses

Trump, Estela and Climate: When the Narrative Collapses

A theory is circulating claiming that since Trump returned to power, snow, rain, and cold have returned to Spain, Europe, and the United States. The explanation offered is not meteorological: it suggests the new White House occupant cut funding to alleged climate manipulation methods—estela, spraying, HAARP, or whatever—and the weather reverted to normal. It is hailed as a victory for freedom lovers, with Kennedy Jr. promising to end chemical trails.

The problem is that the evidence does not support this. Geoengineering exists and is regulated: Article 3 of Spain's Consolidated Water Act states that the atmospheric phase of the hydrological cycle can only be artificially modified by the State Administration or those authorized by it. Any public or private action aimed at modifying rainfall regimes must be previously approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Urbanism upon proposal from the Basin Authority. In other words, cloud seeding is a recognized and regulated activity for decades, not a secret deactivated by Trump.

Why Do People Say Snow and Rain Returned With Trump?

The assertion rests on a hard-to-sustain premise: that before Trump, there was no rain or snow. Historical records of floods in the Mediterranean region date back centuries, and torrential rains in the Valencian Community are documented long before the term "climate change" existed. Attributing the return of precipitation to a change in the White House tenant is, at best, bold.

Some argue that what changed was not the climate, but perception and funding. They claim that without subsidies for certain programs, attention is paid to what was previously ignored. Others point out that winter has been unusual, with cold and snow episodes that do not fit the global warming narrative. The discussion, in any case, mixes meteorological data with suspicions about political intentions.

Geoengineering Exists and Is Regulated: What the Law Says

The Spanish legal framework is clear. Artificial modification of the atmospheric phase of the hydrological cycle requires express authorization from the State. It is not a clandestine practice; it is published in the BOE (Official Gazette). Anyone wishing to modify rainfall regimes must submit a project and obtain approval from the relevant ministry. This does not miccionan a secret global climate control program exists, but it dismantles the idea that everything is an invention without regulatory basis.

Confusion between authorized geoengineering and conspiratorial estela is the core of the misunderstanding. One thing is seeding clouds to provoke rain in a specific area; another very different thing is spraying the population with chemical trails from commercial planes. The former is regulated; the latter has no scientific evidence supporting it.

Climate Has Always Changed: The Debate on Human Cause

That climate changes is a fact. It has been changing for millions of years. The debate begins when attributing this change to human activity. Some maintain that scientific evidence is overwhelming and that 99% of studies corroborate it. Others respond that this percentage refers to subsidized studies, that contrary views are not funded, and that scientists who dare to dissent are silenced or sidelined.

The argument of scientific censorship is recurrent. It is said that cancel culture has reached laboratories and that questioning the official consensus leads to unemployment. Against this, it is argued that science works through evidence, not consensus, and available evidence points in one clear direction. The debate, however, is far from settled.

What About Taxes and Climate Measures?

One of the most repeated criticisms is that the real goal of climate policies is not saving the planet, but raising revenue and control. It is argued that green measures increase citizens' cost of living while the rich continue flying, eating meat, and heating their homes without issue. The carbon footprint, they say, accounts for meat consumption, travel, and even flatulence, but only to justify new taxes.

The idea that environmentalism is an excuse to implement dictatorial social control systems is a widespread opinion in certain circles. The example of "15-minute cities" is cited as a model of mobility restriction. Against this, it is responded that energy transition is necessary and green taxes aim to correct externalities, not control the population.

Drought, DANA, and Political Use of Tragedy

The debate intensifies when mentioning the DANA (Depresión Aislada en Niveles Altos) in Valencia. Some accuse others of using tragedy to justify lies, recalling that brutal floods in that area have been known for centuries and are documented in historical archives. The controversy over protected frogs swept away by the flood and turned into compost exemplifies how environmental issues mix with criticism of political management.

The discussion on whether climate change caused the DANA or if it was just another extreme weather episode remains open. What is clear is that the politicization of climate has turned any atmospheric phenomenon into an ideological battlefield.

Flat Earth and the Discrediting of Doubt

One side effect of this debate is the emergence of positions questioning even the spherical shape of the Earth. Some say the sphere concept does not convince them and that theodolites show optical effects. Against this, it is argued that if the Earth were flat, surveyors could not build suspension bridges, pilots could not calculate fuel, and GPS would not work.

Associating doubt about climate change with doubting the Earth's shape is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it ridicules any skepticism. On the other, defenders of legitimate doubt complain about being lumped with flat-earthers to discredit them. The question is whether this association is fair or a strategy to close the debate.

---

With these elements, climate has become the battlefield where all other wars are fought: fiscal, energy, cultural. If Trump stopped funding something, it was not rain. Or does anyone truly believe the weather obeys a presidential decree?