Park City Resident Urges State Senator to Reconsider 'Chemtrail' Bill

Scott Greenberg expresses concerns that SB 23 could lend credibility to scientifically debunked claims.

Published on Feb. 7, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Park City resident named Scott Greenberg has written an open letter to his state senator, expressing concerns that a proposed bill addressing 'chemtrails' could undermine public trust in legitimate science. Greenberg argues that the 'chemtrail' conspiracy theory has been repeatedly examined and debunked by scientific authorities, and that advancing legislation based on this misinformation could inadvertently lend it credibility.

Why it matters

This case highlights the challenges lawmakers face in balancing constituent concerns with upholding evidence-based policymaking. Greenberg's letter suggests that bills rooted in unsubstantiated claims, even if well-intentioned, risk further eroding public trust in institutions and scientific consensus.

The details

In his letter, Greenberg acknowledges that the senator's sponsorship of SB 23, the Airborne Chemicals Amendments, likely stems from a desire to address constituents' anxieties. However, Greenberg argues that the 'chemtrail' narrative has been thoroughly debunked by scientific bodies like the EPA, which attribute contrails to normal aircraft exhaust. Greenberg worries that legislation targeting 'geoengineering' could validate this conspiracy theory, which has increasingly merged with other misinformation narratives online.

  • Greenberg wrote the letter in early February 2026, during the state's legislative session.

The players

Scott Greenberg

A constituent residing in Park City, Utah who believes in factual, data-driven science.

State Sen. Winterton

The Utah state senator who Greenberg wrote to, and who is sponsoring SB 23, the Airborne Chemicals Amendments.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“My concern is not about dismissing citizens who feel uneasy or distrustful, but rather about the risk that bills like S.B. 23 could undermine public trust in legitimate science and the institutions that rely on evidence-based reasoning.”

— Scott Greenberg, Park City Resident

What’s next

Greenberg hopes to engage in constructive dialogue with Sen. Winterton or their staff to discuss consulting with atmospheric scientists and independent experts before advancing SB 23.

The takeaway

This case highlights the delicate balance lawmakers must strike between addressing constituent concerns and upholding evidence-based policymaking. Greenberg's letter suggests that bills rooted in unsubstantiated claims, even if well-intentioned, risk further eroding public trust in institutions and scientific consensus.