Cyclone Alfred Fuels Conspiracy Theories Amid Growing Climate Change Anxiety
The coastal regions of Queensland and New South Wales, Australia, braced for impact as Tropical Cyclone Alfred threatened landfall in early March. The Bureau of Meteorology initially projected the storm’s arrival on Thursday or Friday, March 6th or 7th. However, Alfred stalled and weakened before finally making landfall on Saturday morning. While the physical impact of the cyclone was less severe than anticipated, the delay ignited a wildfire of misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media, echoing a troubling global trend. As climate change intensifies weather events and erodes public trust in authorities, each natural disaster seems to spawn a fresh wave of speculation and distrust.
A dominant theme among conspiracy theorists was the belief that Cyclone Alfred was a product of “geoengineering,” a term used to describe human manipulation of weather or climate. Online forums buzzed with claims that the cyclone’s southerly trajectory toward Brisbane was evidence of deliberate intervention. While historical records show cyclones have impacted southeast Queensland before, proponents of this theory dismissed established science. They pointed to online resources detailing geoengineering patents, fueling speculation despite the lack of any credible evidence linking these technologies to Cyclone Alfred. While human activity, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, does influence cyclone behavior and may contribute to their southward movement, as highlighted by the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, this is a far cry from deliberate manipulation.
The term “geoengineering” itself is subject to misinterpretation. Within scientific circles, it often refers to proposed methods of mitigating climate change, such as atmospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture. However, conspiracy theorists often interpret geoengineering as secretive government programs designed to control weather patterns, blending elements of genuine scientific concepts with unsubstantiated claims. One persistent theory connected Cyclone Alfred to the High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a research project in Alaska that studies the aurora borealis using radio waves. Despite HAARP’s legitimate scientific purpose, conspiracy theorists allege its involvement in weather manipulation, a claim unsupported by any scientific evidence. The theory ignores the fact that weather phenomena occur in the troposphere, a much lower atmospheric layer than where HAARP operates. Another theory posited cloud seeding, a technique of stimulating rainfall, as the cause of the cyclone. While cloud seeding is a real practice, its effectiveness is debated, and manipulating rainfall is vastly different from creating or steering a cyclone, a task requiring immense and currently unattainable energy levels.
The prolonged period of anticipation before Cyclone Alfred’s eventual landfall provided fertile ground for misinformation to proliferate on social media. Some dismissed the entire event as a “media beat-up,” a conspiracy orchestrated by governments and media to curtail freedoms, drawing parallels to the distrust and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims disregarded the genuine threat posed by the cyclone and highlighted how misinformation can undermine public trust in vital information sources during emergencies.
This phenomenon is not isolated. Similar narratives emerged following Hurricane Milton in the US in October 2024 and the Los Angeles wildfires in January 2025, demonstrating a growing trend of misinformation surrounding natural disasters. The spread of AI-generated content and outdated media further complicates matters, making it increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction. This surge in climate-related misinformation has prompted calls for action, with the United Nations emphasizing the urgent need to combat these narratives.
Social media platforms, including Meta and X (formerly Twitter), are grappling with this challenge. Their shift away from active content moderation towards community-based fact-checking has left a void, particularly in loosely moderated community groups. While these groups can be valuable sources of support and information during crises, the lack of oversight makes them susceptible to the spread of misinformation. This is especially problematic as people increasingly turn to social media for updates during emergencies.
Several factors contribute to the allure of conspiracy theories. In the face of unpredictable and increasingly intense weather events driven by climate change, the simplistic narratives offered by conspiracy theories can provide a sense of control and understanding. Attributing a disaster to a deliberate human act, even a nefarious one, can be more psychologically palatable than grappling with the complex and often unsettling realities of climate change.
Addressing this challenge requires a multi-pronged approach. Governments and social media platforms must actively combat the spread of misinformation, while individuals also bear responsibility for critical evaluation of information. Seeking information from trusted sources, recognizing the dynamic nature of weather forecasting, and prioritizing scientific evidence over unsubstantiated claims are crucial steps. While community groups can be valuable for practical support, relying on them for expert advice should be avoided. Recognizing the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories and their potential for harm is essential in fostering a more informed and resilient approach to navigating the challenges of a changing climate. Ultimately, succumbing to misinformation undermines our ability to prepare for and respond effectively to disasters, further eroding trust in institutions and each other.
