The (Lack Of) Science Behind Social Media Claims Of Weather Control
Hurricane Milton, a Category 5 storm at the time of this photograph, is pictured in the Gulf of ... [+] Mexico off the coast of Yucatan Peninsula on October 8, 2024 seen from the International Space Station as it orbited 257 miles above. (Photo by NASA via Getty Images)
Getty ImagesEven before Hurricane Helene made landfall earlier this month, there were repeated claims on social media that the storms were being made stronger, and even went so far as to suggest that the government could even control the weather. Just last week, a post on X—the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, suggested Hurricane Milton was being "modified and manipulated."
Users on social media pointed to "cloud seeding," which is a type of weather modification that can be employed to improve a cloud's ability to produce rain or even snow. It has been used since the 1940s, but according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, cloud seeding efforts proved ineffective compared to a hurricane.
Sowing The Seeds Of ConfusionAs cloud seeding does exist, even to a limited degree and with limited success, it has proven to be enough fact or proof for some people to believe that weather can be controlled on a larger scale, and that has continued to make the rounds on social media. The irony is that many of the same users likely dismissed the notion that this summer's record heat wave was the result of climate change.
"There are those who don't want to admit climate change is real, but they need a cause for these extreme weather events, thus their opponents are manipulating the weather even though, currently, there is no reliable mechanism to do that," suggested technology industry analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group.
Though tech billionaire Bill Gates is among those who have proposed methods that would work in the Gulf Of Mexico, the cost, size, and scale of the effort, particularly given it was just a theory, would have been beyond what most countries, let alone companies could afford. It would also require changing the temperature of the water to stop the mechanism that created the winds.
"Obviously if you could counter hurricanes, you could create them as well, but given the effort was designed to eliminate not create, directing the result remained outside of the theory that founded his concept," explained Enderle.
Given the severity of the recent storms, the constant threat of drought and the unpredictable nature of weather, attempts to master it are real—and that only adds to the threat of misinformation and even disinformation.
"The need to manage the weather is still great but methods like cloud seeding have proven unreliable though China has been using that method for some time to create rain in times of drought. California did attempt cloud seeking decades ago, and it seemed to work, but the resulting damage and liability had them discontinue that program and it still wasn’t clear if it worked, or if it would have rained anyway at the time it was discontinued."
Why "Weather Control" Has Found Traction On Social MediaThe claims of weather control are just the latest narrative that is making the rounds on social media in part because of our political divide—and it hasn't taken long for some to suggest the hurricanes have been a form of retribution against so-called "red states," or that it is an attempt to make it hard for rural voters to get to the polls on Election Day.
That such hurricanes might also impact those in blue counties seems to be lost in the mix.
"There are a few reasons these narratives are spreading currently. Historically, whenever there are significant events that affect thousands or millions of people, a few actors often take the opportunity to spread disinformation about aspects of the event to increase their following, create confusion, or propel specific narratives," warned Dr. Lance Hunter, professor of international relations and faculty member within the Online Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies Program at Augusta University.
There are many historical examples, but modern technology allows such dubious claims to spread to the masses like never before.
"In the current era, disinformation/misinformation is more common due to social media," added Hunter. "Social media is an ideal vehicle for spreading disinformation/misinformation because of how quickly the misinformation/misinformation can be disseminated to millions of people around the world with little to no verification of the truthfulness of the information."
Complex Issues—Ripe For ConfusionEnvironmental and climate issues can be complex at times, and following a major weather-related event, misinformation is likely to pick up steam. This year it is also politically charged.
"Some individuals conflate truthful scientific information—e.g., regarding cloud seeding which research has shown does not affect storms or hurricanes in any manner—with recent weather events to attempt to create a false narrative that a specific group is controlling the weather for nefarious purposes using certain strategies—e.g., cloud seeding," said Hunter.
That may be completely false—and has largely been debunked by the mainstream media—yet, individuals will employ the complexity of the issue, and at times limited public knowledge on the issue, to conflate information falsely and misleadingly. Hunter also suggested that disinformation is likely more prevalent now given that a presidential election is less than a month away.
"Disinformation/misinformation tends to increase leading up to elections, especially presidential elections," he acknowledged. "Thus, the combination of extreme weather events, an upcoming election, and the prevalence of social media leads to conditions where disinformation is created by actors who purposefully combine environmental and political disinformation to propel specific narratives. Some individuals then see the disinformation online, unknowingly believe it, and share it leading to an online loop of disinformation/misinformation."
Source: The (Lack Of) Science Behind Social Media Claims Of Weather Control
Men won all the science Nobels this year. There’s an even bigger problem
Since the Nobel Prizes were created in 1901, just 24 women have received awards in the sciences. This year, that number stayed the same: All seven laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine were men.
Some scientists have expressed frustration about the lack of women among this year’s awardees, particularly the omission of two women who contributed to the work honored for the prize in physiology or medicine. Experts who study gender bias in the sciences say the Nobel’s gender gap reflects the larger barriers to success faced by women in science — and that science is poorer for it.
The men who received this year’s prizes are “superstars,” said Liselotte Jauffred, a physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute who has studied gender bias in the Nobels. But “what are the mechanisms that make it easier for men to enter that pool of superstar scientists that could even be nominated for a Nobel Prize?”
Certain fields, like biology, chemistry and social sciences are reaching gender parity in undergraduate and graduate degrees. But representation falls further up the academic ladder — a problem known as the leaky pipeline. Some women are pushed out of science altogether because of experiences of sexism. Those who persist are less often promoted to senior professorships, and even fewer become chief physicians, department heads, or journal editors.
Even once in academia, women are not given tenure as often as men. They are not listed as the key author on as many papers, are cited less often than male colleagues, and receive fewer prestigious awards overall.
Figuring out whether the Nobels reflect even more bias than academia as a whole was “not easy” Jauffred said. Researchers had to account for the lag between when a discovery is made and when it is recognized, and for the lower representation of women in science over the years. But even when accounting for those factors, she and her colleagues found in a 2019 study that the likelihood that bias against women played a role in the decision of who gets awards was around 96%. This year’s Nobel for physiology or medicine, which was awarded to Gary Ruvkun and Victor Ambros for the discovery of microRNA, has attracted particular scrutiny with regard to gender bias. Many outside observers commented on the fact that Rosalind Lee, Ambros’ wife and long-time collaborator, was not recognized for the discovery despite being a first author on one of the studies cited by the committee. To some, the story seemed to write itself — another Rosalind overlooked by the committee, much like Rosalind Franklin, whose contributions to the discovery of DNA’s double helix were not initially recognized. There are, however, reasons beyond sexism that can lead collaborators like Lee to get overlooked. The Nobel committee limits awards to three people, which some scientists have pointed out is an antiquated way to reward discoveries that are increasingly part of large collaborations. “Any project of any complexity rolls out over years with many contributors,” said Bruce Wightman, a biologist at Muhlenberg College who was in Ruvkun’s lab and worked on an aspect of the discovery of microRNA. “Science takes a village.” A spokesperson for UMass Chan Medical School said Lee and Ambros are “celebrating the Nobel Prize and view it as a recognition of the team’s collaborative work.” That said, how credit is distributed to scientists that are part of a large collaboration may also be the product of bias. One study found that women who co-authored papers were less likely to receive tenure compared to those who published papers alone. This kind of collaboration didn’t have any effect on men’s ability to get tenure. Another found that women tended to receive authorship on papers or patents to which they had contributed less often than male colleagues. The Nobels tend to “recognize people who were in a position of power and authority, instead of the people who actually made a discovery or had an idea or proved it experimentally,” said Pnina Abir-Am, a historian of science at Brandeis University, who has studied collaborative couples in science as well as documented the women who were not recognized for the Nobel prize for RNA splicing. Newsletter Weekdays Sign up for Morning RoundsUnderstand how science, health policy, and medicine shape the world every day
The Nobel committee is often “narrow-minded” in who it gives awards to, Abir-Am said, favoring those who are heads of the lab where the research was conducted as well as those who have trained with other Nobel laureates. That means lower chances of receiving the prize for women, racial minorities, and more junior scientists who have made breakthrough discoveries but are less likely to be in positions of power.
Nobel winners also tend to come from socioeconomically privileged backgrounds, according to Paul Novosad, an economist at Dartmouth College who studies access to opportunity and upward mobility. Novosad and his colleagues published a white paper this week finding that on average, laureates came from households with fathers in the 87th percentile of income in their country. Around half were in the top 5% by income.
Female laureates tended to be from even more elite families, which the authors write may be because the higher socioeconomic status helps them overcome some of the gendered obstacles in academia. But “it means that elite women in the sciences are drawn from an even smaller socioeconomic pool than men, implying substantial misallocation,” they write in the paper.
“If children who are brilliant but poor fail to make it into the sciences, then all of humanity loses out on their potential discoveries,” said Novosad.
Things may be changing. The analysis found that the average socioeconomic status of laureates is creeping downward, which could signal a slow democratization of the sciences. “This kind of research is really important for the same reasons that we would like to see less elite demographics represented in various top positions,” said Novosad. “Unfortunately there is still a surprising amount of work to do just to convince men in senior scientific positions that these barriers exist at all.”
One change that may make recognition more fair going forward is the growing practice of papers delineating what each author has contributed to a paper. “Journals require scientists to say who contributed to conception and who contributed to experiments,” Abir-Am said. This creates less ambiguity around who directly contributed to discoveries that are being honored by awards — as opposed to assuming lab heads or senior authors did the lion’s share of the work. “I don’t care who is a director and who is a junior [researcher], I want to know who did what.” The organizations that select Nobel laureates have taken steps to address the laureates’ lack of diversity in recent years. In 2019, Nobel committees began asking nominators to consider gender and ethnicity to encourage a wider range of diversity in nominees. And since scientists have to be invited to contribute nominations, “[w]e are extending invitations to an increasing number of individuals from regions beyond traditional academic research hubs in the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan,” Thomas Perlmann, the secretary for the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, told Nature this week. “Moreover, we’re actively identifying more women and younger scientists as nominators.” Jauffred has also seen improvement. She was motivated to write her paper on gender bias in the Nobels after Donna Strickland in 2018 became the first woman to win the Nobel in physics in 55 years. Since 2018, two more women have also won the Nobel in physics. Still, progress is slow. “The demography of fields has been changing for a long time, but it’s not yet reflected in Nobel Prizes,” Jauffred said. “When we don’t see that diversity represented in the Nobel Prizes, of course we ask ourselves questions. Why does it have to be like that?” Megan Molteni contributed reporting.Source: Men won all the science Nobels this year. There’s an even bigger problem
The science of gullibility
Christian Chin-Gurret is a Bermudian writer with a Master of Science in Innovation and Entrepreneurship and a Bachelor of Science in Product Design, who offers a unique perspective on shaping the future of business through innovation, disruption and technology
What if I told you one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man is probably sitting in your kitchen right now, waiting to cause havoc? It’s true … or at least it sounds that way. Remember your high school chemistry classes? No? Well, scientists and chemists certainly do — and they are all too aware of the dangers lurking in a chemical called dihydrogen monoxide.
For those who don’t quite recall their high school chemistry, here’s a rundown of some of its well-documented hazards:
• It’s a major component of acid rain
• It accelerates the corrosion of metals and contributes to rust
• It may cause severe burns in its gaseous form
• It contributes to the greenhouse effect
• It has been found in the excised tumours of terminal-cancer patients
If this hasn’t got you worried yet, dihydrogen monoxide is also widely used in industrial solvents, in nuclear power plants, as a fire retardant, and even in the production of styrofoam!
It’s clear this chemical poses some significant risks, yet — shockingly — no global initiative has managed to ban it.
This brings us to 1997, when 14-year-old Nathan Zohner brought this terrifying chemical to public attention. Through his science fair project, Zohner succeeded in persuading 43 out of 50 of his classmates to vote for a ban on dihydrogen monoxide.
Spoiler alert: it’s just water
Of course, dihydrogen monoxide is just a chemical name for water (H₂O). Zohner’s experiment was never truly about banning water but about showcasing how gullible people can be when presented with facts, skewed in just the right way. His classmates weren’t uninformed, but they were overwhelmed by scientific jargon and a lack of critical context.
This phenomenon is now known as “Zohnerism” — the use of true facts to lead an uninformed or unsuspecting public to a false conclusion. It’s a trick that’s still very much alive today, especially in politics and media, where carefully crafted facts are used to mislead, rather than inform.
The dihydrogen monoxide parody: why we fall for it
The dihydrogen monoxide parody is a playful illustration of how easy it is to incite unnecessary alarm. By presenting familiar information — in this case, the properties of water — with unusual language, it highlights how much we rely on surface-level understanding rather than deep knowledge. The parody has been used in numerous contexts, from prank shows to election campaigns, to demonstrate how a lack of scientific literacy or critical thinking can lead to misplaced fears.
For example, in 2011, a Finnish voting-advice application asked parliamentary candidates whether “hydric acid, also known as dihydrogen monoxide” should be restricted. Nearly half the candidates (49 per cent) said yes. Similarly, in New Zealand, a staffer in the Green Party voiced support for banning this “toxic substance”, further proving how even the educated can fall for the parody when unfamiliar terminology is involved.
The science of gullibility
Why do people fall for these tricks? It all comes down to the way we process information. Often, we make decisions based on emotional responses or incomplete knowledge, then rationalise those decisions afterward. This is why two people can look at the same facts and arrive at wildly different conclusions.
Zohner’s experiment demonstrated how presenting information in a way that triggers an emotional response — especially fear — can override logical thinking. The scary-sounding facts about dihydrogen monoxide were all true, but when stripped of context, they became a compelling argument for an unnecessary ban.
The dihydrogen monoxide parody continues to demonstrate how easily we can be misled by scientific jargon or biased presentations of facts. It’s a reminder that, while we may be the smartest creatures on Earth, we are also vulnerable to our own gullibility.
Next time you read a headline screaming about the dangers of some unpronounceable chemical, remember this article. A little scepticism – and a quick Google search — might just save you from banning water.
• Christian Chin-Gurret is a Bermudian writer with a Master of Science in Innovation and Entrepreneurship and a Bachelor of Science in Product Design, who offers a unique perspective on shaping the future of business through innovation, disruption and technology
Source: The science of gullibility