Key Takeaway:
Hurricane Milton in Florida sparked a rise in extreme weather conspiracy theories, which often arise after catastrophic events. These theories aim to explain significant events by attributing them to the secret actions of powerful groups. However, these theories often require a plausible group capable of executing the secretive actions they propose. People embrace these explanations due to a fundamental psychological need for control and security, especially in the face of unpredictable and uncontrollable natural disasters. Climate change, with its global, long-term impacts, amplifies this fear, making it easier for some to reject the notion of climate change and seek solace in conspiracy theories. However, these theories have real-world consequences, as they can undermine global efforts to combat climate change and erode trust in democratic institutions, public health efforts, and societal cohesion. Encouraging critical thinking and analytical reasoning can help combat this growing tide of climate conspiracy beliefs.
When Hurricane Milton barreled into Florida’s west coast on October 9, it marked the second powerful storm to hit the state in less than two weeks. As the winds howled and the waters surged, most Floridians turned to meteorologists for urgent updates and explanations. However, amidst the warnings and forecasts, a small but vocal group of skeptics began whispering a different narrative: claims that the hurricane was man-made, or worse, a deliberate act targeting Florida’s Republican voters.
These weather conspiracy theories are not entirely new. For years, natural disasters have given birth to similar suspicions. These types of theories often arise after catastrophic events, especially as people try to make sense of uncontrollable forces. As extreme weather becomes more frequent and severe, understanding this tendency is becoming increasingly crucial.
Conspiracy theories typically seek to explain significant events by attributing them to the secret actions of powerful groups. By their nature, these theories thrive on the idea that nothing is as it seems. However, if we zoom out and reconsider these beliefs from a broader psychological perspective, a surprising observation comes into focus: conspiracy theories usually require a plausible group capable of executing the secretive actions they propose.
For instance, while faking the moon landing might be improbable, it’s not entirely implausible. Creating a set, costumes, and special effects, while keeping thousands of NASA employees sworn to secrecy, remains within the realm of human ability. But when it comes to the weather—massive, uncontrollable systems like hurricanes—such theories quickly fall apart. Human beings can influence small-scale atmospheric conditions, like seeding clouds to produce rain, but controlling or manufacturing an entire hurricane is far beyond our technological reach.
Despite this, belief in weather manipulation persists, and we see this time and again after extreme weather events like hurricanes. Take, for example, the aftermath of Hurricane Helene just weeks prior, when former President Donald Trump falsely claimed that the government was withholding disaster relief from Republican areas. These narratives, although baseless, provide a sense of comfort for those who feel vulnerable in the face of nature’s wrath.
Why do people embrace such explanations? The answer lies in a fundamental psychological need: the desire for control and security. Natural disasters, by their very nature, are unpredictable and uncontrollable, making them especially terrifying. Climate change, with its global, long-term impacts, amplifies this fear, as it poses an existential threat that challenges people’s sense of safety. For some, it’s easier to reject the notion of climate change altogether and seek solace in conspiracy theories that suggest human agency is at play—giving them a false sense of control.
Recent psychological studies have begun to delve deeper into the connection between natural disasters and conspiracy thinking. For example, research from the 2019 tornado outbreak in the U.S. Midwest revealed that those most affected by the disaster were more likely to believe that the tornadoes were government-controlled. This belief, the study found, stemmed from a sense of helplessness. When people’s lives are upended, conspiracy theories offer a means of restoring their sense of agency, even if that control is illusory.
Further experiments have supported this theory. In one study, participants were asked to imagine living in a fictional country where natural disasters were either common or rare. Those in the high-risk scenario were more likely to endorse beliefs that the government was manipulating the weather. The sense of existential threat—feeling that their lives were at risk—pushed people toward conspiracy theories as a psychological defense mechanism.
The problem is, these theories don’t just stay in the realm of abstract thought. Belief in climate-based conspiracies has real-world consequences. Research shows that individuals who subscribe to such beliefs are less likely to accept the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. They’re also less likely to support pro-environmental policies or trust the scientists who produce evidence about climate change. This skepticism has a direct impact on public behavior—those who deny climate change are less inclined to take action to mitigate its effects, creating a vicious cycle where inaction leads to worsening disasters, which in turn fuel more conspiracies.
This self-perpetuating cycle of disbelief and inaction is dangerous. As climate change accelerates and natural disasters become more frequent, the rise of conspiracy thinking threatens to undermine global efforts to combat the crisis. What’s more, these theories can spill over into other areas, eroding trust in democratic institutions, public health efforts, and societal cohesion.
So, what can be done to combat this growing tide of climate conspiracy beliefs? Encouraging critical thinking and analytical reasoning can help, as research has shown. Exposing people to scientific reasoning that directly challenges conspiracy assumptions has been effective in reducing belief in some theories, such as those surrounding COVID-19. Additionally, providing communities with better resources to cope with natural disasters—such as disaster preparedness programs and clear communication—can help alleviate the feelings of helplessness that drive people toward conspiracies in the first place.
The stakes are undeniably high. If we fail to act on climate change and allow these conspiracy theories to proliferate unchecked, we may find ourselves facing an increasingly divided society—one where trust in science, government, and even each other continues to erode. Yet, with thoughtful interventions and a focus on empowering individuals to take meaningful action, it is possible to break this harmful cycle and build a future where evidence, not conspiracies, guides our response to the planet’s most pressing challenges.
