The North State Breakdown Episode 31: Chemtrails, a Charlatan, and Gullible Community Members – A News Cafe
Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain.
In this episode of North State Breakdown, we examine the resurgence of chemtrail conspiracy theories in Shasta County, sparked by Supervisor Kevin Crye’s decision to revisit the topic at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting. The episode covers Dane Wigington’s claims, excerpts from his documentary The Dimming, and the public’s reaction.
[embedded content]
Today, I’d like to discuss chemtrail conspiracies, their roots in Shasta County, and how misinformation spreads through social media. This topic, recently reignited by Supervisor Kevin Crye, highlights the enduring impact of disinformation and the responsibility of our leaders in fostering informed discourse.
The Chemtrail Conspiracy: A Persistent Myth
The chemtrail conspiracy has gained a surprising foothold in the public imagination over the last two decades, claiming that aircraft contrails are not merely condensation, but are evidence of deliberate chemical spraying.
Shasta County has been the focal point for these claims, most prominently back in 2014, when the Shasta County Board of Supervisors heard from Dane Wigington and others advocating for the investigation into so-called chemtrails. Despite being repeatedly debunked by scientists, this belief continues to thrive online and within community circles.
2014: Dane Wigington’s original Shasta County’s Chemtrail Presentation
Wigington’s 2014 testimony focused on claims of increasing levels of aluminum and other heavy metals in the environment, which he attributed to clandestine geoengineering programs. The board ultimately voted to investigate these allegations, though the inquiry yielded no evidence to substantiate the claims.
Over the years, Wigington continued to promote his theories through platforms like Geoengineering Watch and through his recent documentary, The Dimming.
2025: Kevin Crye Reignites the Debate
Fast forward to 2025. Wigington found an ally in Supervisor Kevin Crye.
After approaching Crye with concerns about geoengineering at a Shasta County Air Pollution Control Board meeting, Wigington successfully convinced him to place the topic on the January 28th Board of Supervisors meeting agenda.
Crye, initially intrigued by Wigington’s claims, justified the discussion by citing anecdotal concerns from constituents about environmental health issues:
Kevin Crye – Air Pollution Control Board Meeting (December 10th)
“Yeah, so I appreciate you coming by, and just so the public knows, since it’s recorded, when an individual that I know that I’m friends with, their child has an extremely rare form of cancer. It affects, I think, like one in 800,000 kids. But when I found out there’s three kids in Shasta County alone that have it and this individual talked about the environment, he obviously connected us and then I had asked you, I said, hey, I think the best place to start with anything as it relates to the environment is to come to the air pollution control board. So you’ve done that.”
His sponsorship of the item reignited the local debate on chemtrails, drawing significant public attention.
However, Crye’s tone shifted noticeably after Wigington’s upcoming presentation gained widespread attention.
“I think, I mean, not I think, I wanted to bring this forward because I want people to have the conversation around what’s going on in the county and make up their own minds. I’m not going to tell you yay or nay if I believe what Mr. Wingington is saying, but he gives a lot of data, he gives a lot of facts. And a lot of the stuff that I’ve already looked at with him concerns me greatly.”
Decide for themselves, signaling a retreat from his earlier enthusiasm. This change suggests he may have recognized the controversy surrounding the topic and the dubious nature of Wingington’s claims.
January 28th: The Board of Supervisors Meeting
On January 28th, before speaking at the Board of Supervisors meeting, Wingington played a four-minute clip from his documentary, The Dimming, which serves as a centerpiece of his campaign against the alleged geoengineering programs.
Excerpt from The Dimming (2021)
“Perhaps the greatest lie ever perpetrated on populations all over the world is the condensation trail lie.What we’re seeing in our skies is not condensation, it’s sprayed particulate dispersions with very few exceptions.They shouldn’t be there. Jet engines burn clean. So if there’s anything coming out of them, it’s an additive.They’re absolutely not contrails. Contrails do not linger, dissipate, and go into cloud coverage. Period. And a report.”
Claims Made in The Dimming
The film claims that a covert global effort is underway to manipulate the climate through aerosol spraying, using high-altitude aircraft to disperse toxic metals such as aluminum, barium, and strontium into the atmosphere.
Wingington argues that these activities are responsible for climate instability, environmental degradation, and public health crisis, though he provides little verifiable evidence to support these claims. The documentary relies heavily on anecdotal accounts, selective data, and speculative interpretations of atmospheric phenomena, all of which have been widely challenged by atmospheric scientists and meteorologists.
Social Media and the Spread of Misinformation
Social media plays a crucial role in amplifying misinformation about chemtrails and other conspiracy theories. A study published in Nature Communication analyzed the way misinformation spreads online, finding that false claims tend to propagate faster than factual information due to the emotional and sensational nature of the content.
The study showed that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube create echo chambers where users primarily engage with content that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, reinforcing their misconceptions. Chemtrail conspiracy theories thrive in these environments, as algorithmic amplifications prioritizes high engagement posts over accuracy.
This has led to a cycle where misinformation is continuously reshared and reinforced, making it difficult for factual corrections to gain traction. The study shows the importance of digital literacy and critical thinking when engaging with information on these platforms.
Public Comments: Supporters Speak Out
Supporters of Wilmington’s claims voiced their concern during public comment:
Public Commenter – Lori Bridgeford
“Because this is impacting, Kevin Crye, you said, the children, the cancers, the lung cancers, all these issues and problems with immunity. And I’m just concerned the grocery sales will empty if you look at the global picture of the damage, the harm. We had the chem fog over the holidays. That was a nice thick mist for the whole planet. And yes, there’s patents for that kind of a thing. It’s been happening since, gosh, Vietnam War, Project Popeye, and all the rest.”
Public Commenter – Lora Hobbs
“We need to be aware that the air that we breathe has consequences. And we can no longer just quote unquote trust the science.”
Public Commenter – Jon Knight
“If you think water vapor can go from horizon to horizon and watch it turn on and off, are you telling me the air is different in this section and not this section?”
Public Commenter – Tim Saunders
“If anybody is in the room and over, I’ll just say, 40 years old, you remember looking up into the clear blue skies and seeing a jet go by and there’s a little contrail and it disappears after a few minutes and that’s it. And that’s not what we’re seeing now. Just just go outside and take a look.”
While these concerns may be genuine, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claims presented. Persistent contrails, often mistaken for chemtrails, form when hot, humid air from aircraft engines meets the cold upper atmosphere, condensing into ice particles. The length and duration of these trails depends solely on atmospheric conditions, not chemical spraying.
Additionally, scientific studies, including research from the Royal Aeronautical Society and Harvard University, have demonstrated that claims about heavy metal contamination from aircraft emissions are unfounded. Tests of supposed chemtrail residues have consistently shown elements that exist naturally in the environment.
Further, air quality agencies and environmental scientists have repeatedly debunked the claim that contrails are part of a government cover-up, finding no evidence to support such theories.
Persistent Contrails: A Documented Phenomenon
The idea that contrails did not exist decades ago is also incorrect. Photographic and meteorological records dating back to World War II document the presence of persistent contrails under the right atmospheric conditions. Advances in aviation technology and increased air traffic have made them more common, not evidence of a covert geoengineering program.
In fact, historical evidence supports this claim. A study analyzing 70 years of meteorological literature found that numerous cloud and weather books have documented persistent contrails:
– The 1991 National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Weather
– The 1981 Peterson Field Guide to the Atmosphere
– Cloud Reading for Pilots (1943), which includes photographs of persistent contrails
Even earlier sources, such as The 1957 Cloud Study: A Pictorial Guide, The 1969 Clouds and Weather, and The 1972 Clouds of the World, all describe contrails behaving exactly as they do today, further disproving the notion that persistent contrails are a modern phenomenon.
Supervisor Matt Plummer Questions Dane Wigington
During the meeting, Supervisor Matt Plummer engaged in a direct exchange with Wingington, asking pointed questions about the specifics of his claims and the evidence supporting them.
Matt Plummer:
“Thanks for being here, Dane. A number of questions for you. One thing that I’m trying to get my head around is what would be the motive for doing this? Are we referring to the U.S. using it as a weapon against its own people? Help me understand what the motive would be here.”
Dane Wigington:
“This is what is so profound that we have the term ‘conspiracy theory’, which is the final fallback of the truly fearful and the factless. This is solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection, cloud albedo enhancement. The entire global climate science community is discussing exactly what we see in our skies. Jets dispersing light-scattering particles to slow down the thermal energy buildup on planet Earth. They mention the exact consequences that we see happening. Destruction of the ozone layer, disruption of the hydrological cycle, complete contamination of the planet.”
Matt Plummer:
“So just to make sure I’m understanding, because I think you were addressing a lot of the public comments there versus what I was asking, are you saying that the goal is to reduce global warming?”
Dane Wigington:
“I’m saying that that is the stated goal by governments around the globe and the entire global climate science community. Geoengineering, climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection. But now you have pushback from the climate science community saying, because they certainly know this is going on, that this would have catastrophic consequences. Are we not seeing that right now?”
This exchange tells us a lot. While Wigington’s rhetoric was compelling to his supporters, his lack of substantive evidence and reliance on speculative reasoning failed to meet even basic scientific scrutiny. His inability to provide clear, verifiable data in response to direct questioning further undermined the credibility of his arguments.
The chemtrail conspiracy is not an isolated phenomenon. It illustrates how misinformation spreads and gains traction, often leveraging public fears and mistrust.
The Broader Pattern of Misinformation
This pattern mirrors the spread of election fraud claims, which many Shasta County residents believe despite a lack of credible evidence. These claims undermine public trust in institutions, foster division, and distract from pressing community issues.
The persistence of the chemtrail conspiracy goes to show the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making. As a community, we must prioritize scientific literacy and hold leaders accountable for promoting informed discourse. Social media platforms, while powerful tools for connection, must also take responsibility for curbing the spread of misinformation.
To those listening, I urge you to question the sources of information you encounter, engage with credible experts, and foster discussions rooted in fact rather than fear.
And that’s The Breakdown.
