In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality

Social reality is a social construction of reality. As individuals, we each form our social realities irrespective of facts often relying on experiences, attitudes, intuition, social influences (e.g., peers, media), and cultural influences (e.g., history, politics). Hence, when an individual develops a specific social reality it runs deep and acts as the lens through which various subjects are viewed. When many individuals come to the same conclusions about these subjects, sometimes referred to as a consensus, what is actually only social reality becomes lost in what a large group of people believe is simply the truth. Where a strong social reality has been intricately weaved within a given society, it becomes increasingly difficult for individual members to deny ignorance.

When you run a Google search for chemtrail conspiracy theory, the top result (as of this date) is an article from Wikipedia. This popular go-to web source believed by many to be authoritative on all topics is running an article on Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory that is an attempt to disarm the public and discourage critical thinking about what jet aircraft may be doing in the sky. As more and more people read this they will be influenced to construct a reality in which anything associated with so-called "chemtrails" and jet aircraft in the sky can be nothing but a hoax.

As the public is scrambling for information that the authorities behind geoengineering know they are not likely to find, if you don't believe that even scientists know there are serious risks involved, consider the language of this report titled, An Overview of Geoengineering of Climate Using Stratospheric Sulphate Aerosols (2008):

"The studies reviewed here suggest that sulphate aerosols can counteract the globally averaged temperature increase associated with increasing greenhouse gases, and reduce changes to some other components of the Earth system. There are likely to be remaining regional climate changes after geoengineering, with some regions experiencing significant changes in temperature or precipitation. The aerosols also serve as surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry resulting in increased ozone depletion. The delivery of sulphur species to the stratosphere in a way that will produce particles of the right size is shown to be a complex and potentially very difficult task. Two simple delivery scenarios are explored, but similar exercises will be needed for other suggested delivery mechanisms. While the introduction of the geoengineering source of sulphate aerosol will perturb the sulphur cycle of the stratosphere significantly, it is a small perturbation to the total (stratosphere and troposphere) sulphur cycle. The geoengineering source would thus be a small contributor to the total global source of ‘acid rain’ that could be compensated for through improved pollution control of anthropogenic tropospheric sources. Some areas of research remain unexplored. Although ozone may be depleted, with a consequent increase to solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) energy reaching the surface and a potential impact on health and biological populations, the aerosols will also scatter and attenuate this part of the energy spectrum, and this may compensate the UVB enhancement associated with ozone depletion. The aerosol will also change the ratio of diffuse to direct energy reaching the surface, and this may influence ecosystems. The impact of geoengineering on these components of the Earth system has not yet been studied.

Source
Full text available

The quote above is from authentic scientific literature. Now, go to the ultra popular website Wikipedia and read what is written there about Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory. Notice the exposé type tone of the topic as if it's something believed only by people who are illogical, unscientific, or who suffer from paranoid delusions:

According to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes...

--but geoengineering does not exactly have a "sinister" purpose, at least not overtly. It's supposed to be a way to control climate change. However, this does not mean that the activities of geoengineering are not particularly risky for both the environment and people of various regions of the world. Yet, those of us who oppose geoengineering and have suspicions about how exactly aerosols will be deployed for geoengineering purposes are accused of being nothing more than chemtrail conspiracy theorists.

Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconception.

--There is no "flaw" in the fact that a geoengineering experiment was designed in 2012 to take place at Fort Sumner, New Mexico to release sulphur gas into the atmosphere to be dispersed as a cloud to observe if there are effects of diminished sun radiation similar to what happens when a volcano erupts (see US Geoengineers Turn to Balloon for Planet-Cooling Test ) That might not be about the use of an aircraft to place a cloud in the sky, but to speculate that success of these experiments may lead to eventual deployment of aerosols using jet aircraft or that experiments are being done to advance knowledge of how these aerosols can most effectively be released, particularly without the public's awareness of the activity, is not based on misconception at all. In fact, it's based on foresight.

(continued below)

(continued from Wikipedia)

Believers in the [chemtrail] conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the claimed chemical release may be for solar radiation management , psychological manipulation, human population control, weather modification, or biological or chemical warfare, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.

--"Chemtrailer" has become a catch-all term. Consider the diversity of the claims all being lumped into "chemtrail conspiracy theory" and you see everything from mind control to respiratory illness. The people accused of being unscientific and unreasonable if not flat out delusional include the people who claim that the EPA needs to regulate air traffic for reasons that include jet engine exhaust and contrail formation. The contrails may not be the source of the air pollution (depends on what you mean by "pollution"), but they are still a marker for the jet exhaust released that research supports is the cause of more respiratory illness and deaths. See: Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes and Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles

Note too in the quote above the careful use of the terms "solar radiation management" and "weather modification." Instead of the activities of "geoengineering" mentioned as a suspected and fallacious claim of chemtrail believers (a term positivists want preserved as purely a scientific matter), the wiki article alludes to how some chemtrailers are confusing seeding clouds for rain enhancement weather modification (not to overlook that these types of projects do actually exist as a seperate matter) with contrail formation, but --does this supposedly rule out that jet aircraft are not being used for geoengineering experiments in some way which is manifested by things like persistent contrails, an increasing rate of persistent contrails, or the intentional effort to produce cirrus clouds? Of course not. I addressed in my prior post why most debunkers of chemtrail conspiracy theory feel content to dismiss such speculation in the absence of hard evidence.

Contrails are formed at high altitudes (5–10 miles or 8–16 kilometres) and if any chemicals were released at such altitude they would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground.

--A half-truth, and there's no citation for this very broad claim of chemicals always fall "harmlessly" from high altitudes. Basic physics tells us what goes up must come down.

In a particularly crafty manner, Wikipedia reinforces the "paranoid" aspect of this very broad range of people all being lumped into a group commonly referred to as "chemtrailers" by quoting someone who is supposed to be an expert on the topic:

Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, is quoted in USA Today as saying that logic does not dissuade most chemtrail proponents: 'If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, Well, you're just part of the conspiracy.' he said.

This quote made by a NASA atmospheric scientist, taken from the right-wing newspaper USA Today, appears on the Wikipedia article for Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory for the sole purpose of trying to use an expert's words to discredit anyone who might be tarnishing the image of America by suspecting various agencies of the US government might be working in collusion with researchers supported by a billionaire like BIll Gates eager to conduct geoengineering experiments --the type of activities that scientists themselves have already predicted may have negative consequences. Now, that's what I call "sinister."


Through it's popularity on the web, Wikipedia is establishing social reality about chemtrail conspiracy theories as much as anything factual about them. If you think it's the only source engaged in making opponents of geoengineering look like freaks, see the mainstream news media, such as one article that was run by the Washington Post in January 2015 called How a group of conspiracy theorists could derail the debate over climate policy . They are using the same language you see in the wiki article:

...as it turns out, some people believe that a global campaign is already underway to have aircraft spray the air with chemicals — whether to control climate change or for other, more sinister purposes. Meet the “chemtrails” crowd, who posit that governments, scientists and other institutions are using airplanes’ “chemtrails” — basically contrails that are allegedly laced with chemicals — to alter the climate, create extreme weather, poison people, or even control our minds.

And encouraging the belief that chemtrailers may even pose a serious danger:

A very tiny subset of the chemtrails activists could have a more chilling effect on the field of geoengineering, Keith worries. He notes that he continually receives nasty emails and voice messages from chemtrails believers, and he has even received multiple threats of violence that have prompted him to contact the police.

And they're discussing this in the context of an article with the title, "How a group of conspiracy theorists could derail the debate over climate policy." Derail? --as if what chemtrailers fear about aerosols being sprayed in the sky using jet aircraft is what this policy is actually about? Because if not, then there's nothing for chemtrailers to "derail."



As a socio-political attack on chemtrail conspiracy theories, widespread attempts to establish social reality have been made. It's an intentional effort to create a consensus within a culture so that people generally believe the same thing, and in this case it's about believeing that people who in any way sound like proponents of chemtrail conspiracy theories are supporting a hoax. It's not simply an attempt to "educate" the public as much as it is an underlying way to disarm the public and discourage critical thinking about what jet aircraft are doing up there and why.

a reply to: Petros312

Great analysis on how that Wikipedia web page uses an "expose' tone" or perspective in writing about the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theories. The way something is written truly does have a significant impact on how that information is received by the readers.

The tone itself is demeaning and condescending to me, the bias is dripping from my computer screen as i read that type of thing. S & F

a reply to: Petros312

Sometimes, just sometimes lots of people from all walks of life decide to look into the "chemtrail" debate.
What happens on this journey that you yourself are experiencing right now, is exactly the same process that many other people before you have also taken.
They have spent hours, looking for the peer reviewed studies, anything just one shred of empirical data, that PROVES IT.

They learn that in all the biological and chemical tests, it was always very low altitude release of agents. As high altitude would kill many biological agents and with the slipstreams at high altitude the whereabouts of the "fallout" would be highly unpredictable.
Why would they resort to killing us from high altitude, when they can do it with food and medicine?
Much more direct and effective, no?

As for the geoengineering side of chemtrails. Everything about the release of agents into high altitude as a means to prevent global warming is a proposal, now I have no doubt that some mad scientists somewhere in the world have probably tried it, as a small study to find if the side effects really are bad. But can I prove it? No.

If someone could there wouldnt even be a debate.

EDIT:

Im not trying to be condescending or anything. Because you sound just like me when I first came into the chemtrail debate.
Im just describing my own journey with regards to chemtrails.

a reply to: Petros312

The so called chemtrail conspiracy should be researched by anyone interested in any conspiracy. It is a fascinating study in psychological factors, narrative coherence and myth.

On a fundamental level, it's incoherent. 50% believe it's depopulation and the other 50% believe it's a misguided attempt to save the world. It can't be both. So it's very interesting in that respect.

What is also interesting is how other misinformation campaigns use the chem trail conspiracy for cover. In the last 3 months I've seen Chem-trails linked with so-called "anti-vaxxers" and also with "9/11 truthers". I suspect that it is a straw man conspiracy used for disinformation campaigns to cover real conspiracies. Possibly to identify paranoid people and extreme anti-authoritarians.

I'm reserving judgement, but nothing I've heard or read is evidence of a large scale program to intentionally spray material in the stratosphere.

a reply to: Petros312

What are you "defending"? Could you define "chemtrail"conspiracy theory so we can all be on the same page?

ETA. It might be better to get that clarification first....

a reply to: Petros312

These are the best threads because the same people constantly come and vehemently call out anyone that thinks chemtrails are real. It's movie theater popcorn good how mad they get. They spout evidence this or that, but yet when you supply articles stating it's happening in some fashion, it's different from what they are talking about because as you said above they think everyone thinks it has a sinister context.

Another great argument, how could such a scheme be kept secret....LOL how many times can history repeat itself. We are just doomed as a species as nothing changes except for those calling the shots, but I digress. Let the fun begin i have the popcorn

I have a theory as to why they would spray and it's not sinister at all. There are easier ways to kill people.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

As for the geoengineering side of chemtrails. Everything about the release of agents into high altitude as a means to prevent global warming is a proposal, now I have no doubt that some mad scientists somewhere in the world have probably tried it, as a small study to find if the side effects really are bad. But can I prove it? No.

If someone could there wouldnt even be a debate.

We know David Keith was to do just that in New Mexico 2013...nobody's said it didn't happen so far?

Well, if I was head of an organization doing geo-engineering testomg on the planet, I would create a consensus to shuffle people's view of what was happening that they could see and pass out information to a bunch of people up at higher levels that would leak what I wanted out. This way people would be arguing over evidence that did not pertain to what is happening, evidence that could be disproved. Make people argue amongst themselves and it gives you a free reign to do things you want to get done. This actually wouldn't be hard to do.

Shifting people's focus so they can't see what is really happening is important. The only thing, what are they doing that they do not want us to know about. It is probably something in plain sight, something common. The way it is being done is important, the contrails could be delivering something but we are overlooking something because of our limited knowledge of things. Something simple.

But this is not really a conspiracy, they have been doing things like this for as long as I can remember. Just day to day deception of the public.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OneManArmy

As for the geoengineering side of chemtrails. Everything about the release of agents into high altitude as a means to prevent global warming is a proposal, now I have no doubt that some mad scientists somewhere in the world have probably tried it, as a small study to find if the side effects really are bad. But can I prove it? No.

If someone could there wouldnt even be a debate.

We know David Keith was to do just that in Mexico 2013...nobody's said it didn't happen so far?

But, even if he did that in 2013, what would it have to do with the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory? It wouldn't validate the claims of the CCTs ("chemtrail" conspiracy theorists) through the years. It wouldn't say anything about those lines in the sky we've been told ad nauseum to "look up" and see.

If he did, it would mean a proposed method of SRM has actually been tested in the air, at a very small scale. If that test did occur, I'd like to know about it. I'd like to know about any atmospheric testing of any SRM methods. I'm not in favor of any SRM schemes I've heard of (except maybe giant mirrors in space as long as I don't have to clean them). I'd bet most people that argue against the existence of "chemtrails" would oppose the upper atmospheric particle injection methods also.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

If he did, it would mean a proposed method of SRM has actually been tested in the air, at a very small scale. If that test did occur, I'd like to know about it.

I'd like to know too.
www.theguardian.com...

Regardless, of the testing, bear in mind Keith is on record of saying that there are options on delivery, Aircraft was one of them, the precise avenue delivery of that was not so clear, and that could be important.
To add, I should have said New Mexico, I have amended my other post.

Chemtrails are irrelevant when every time you drive to work you're sucking in toxic brake dust the auto industry spent millions covering up.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Petros312

Great analysis on how that Wikipedia web page uses an "expose' tone" or perspective in writing about the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theories. The way something is written truly does have a significant impact on how that information is received by the readers.

The tone itself is demeaning and condescending to me, the bias is dripping from my computer screen as i read that type of thing. S & F

And you can see from both the Wiki article and the Washington Post article it's quite obvious that anyone who has suspicions about the activities of geoengineers and their supportors are being lumped into the category of "chemtrail conspiracy theorist." Debunkers at ATS are now racing to make sure the effort to place a stygma on the label "chemtrail conspiracy theory" is maintained, and I'm not surprised.

I wonder if these people were suspicious?

Millions were in germ war tests

Was this ever disproved?

a reply to: Petros312

Don't lie.

There is a considerable effort to try and separate the two here on ATS by those you call debunkers.

There was even a thread authored by a debunker asking mods to have two separate forums, one for chemtrails and one for geoengineering.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

What do germ tests have to do with geoengineering?

Going on what the OP is saying, you must be a debunker trying to stigmatise the subject..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What do germ tests have to do with geoengineering?

Going on what the OP is saying, you must be a debunker trying to stigmatise the subject..

What does your comment have to do with social reality?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

What does yours?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What does yours?

What I posted was a social reality. And that's in the thread title.

Must be your shift, eh?