Birdwatch Note
2024-05-13 16:17:59 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
Nope. The evidence against chemtrails is robust, with scientific explanations for contrails, regulatory oversight of aircraft emissions, the impracticality of maintaining such a large-scale secret program & a consensus among experts that chemtrails do not exist. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3 https://www.cnn.com/us/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory-explained-cec/index.html https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-officially-debunks-chemtrails-conspiracy-live-180960139/ https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/publications/chemtrails-arent-geoengineering-debate-we-should-be-having-because-they-arent-real https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/aircraft-chemtrails-conspiracy-is-long-overdue-for-departure/ https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-aircraft
Written by 8E0782E7F593AE43DE132F9A686B9623FE5078AF96C0655960B8BBFA4E740320
Participant Details
Original Tweet
Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1790016228179706105
Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.
All Information
- ID - 1790053889468727437
- noteId - 1790053889468727437
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 8E0782E7F593AE43DE132F9A686B9623FE5078AF96C0655960B8BBFA4E740320 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1715617079499
- tweetId - 1790016228179706105
- classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 0
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- Nope. The evidence against chemtrails is robust, with scientific explanations for contrails, regulatory oversight of aircraft emissions, the impracticality of maintaining such a large-scale secret program & a consensus among experts that chemtrails do not exist. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3 https://www.cnn.com/us/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory-explained-cec/index.html https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-officially-debunks-chemtrails-conspiracy-live-180960139/ https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/publications/chemtrails-arent-geoengineering-debate-we-should-be-having-because-they-arent-real https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/aircraft-chemtrails-conspiracy-is-long-overdue-for-departure/ https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-aircraft
Note Status History
| createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
| 2024-05-13 16:17:59 UTC (1715617079499) |
2024-05-13 20:14:45 UTC (1715631285393) |
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL | 2024-05-16 01:24:29 UTC (1715822669564) |
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL | 2024-05-13 20:14:45 UTC (1715631285393) |
CURRENTLY_RATED_HELPFUL |
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2024-05-14 03:34:12 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 01:39:03 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 00:27:11 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:31:45 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:39:25 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:33:33 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 05:36:21 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 01:14:43 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 22:18:18 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 17:59:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:38:33 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:33:26 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:12:58 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:05:06 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:37:41 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:36:15 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-15 01:13:13 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 02:33:22 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 19:41:37 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 19:14:45 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:49:26 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:48:01 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:23:30 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 22:58:46 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 13:17:42 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-14 01:01:32 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 12:03:04 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2024-05-13 11:45:46 -0500 | Rating Details |