A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

reply to post by Dilligaf28

An example: I am defending my point that grass is green. Someone else is defending their point grass is blue. When I offer all sorts of testimony and science to back my claim the other person offers only anecdotal evidence and refuses to acknowledge my evidence and my analysis of their evidence simultaneously. Now lets say I go out and grab a handful of green grass and say "here is the proof the grass is green" and the other side immediately implements the ignoring tactic and starts to insist grass isn't green. How would this make you feel about continuing to debate a topic when all evidence, rationality, and common sense says that your point of view is the correct one?

I see what you are saying, but that's a specious argument at best. What about the people who are red-green color blind? Certainly on an objective level the grass is still green but on a subjective level, for that person it is not. I could show them all the grass I wanted and they would still just have to take my word for it because they couldn't see it in the same way I do. What about when the grass was brown? Would you still argue that it's green because that's the color grass is supposed to be? (rhetorical question.)

I have no problem with the fact that some people require a higher standard of proof than others before they believe something. In fact, I quite respect that-most scientists and engineers I know have the same requirements-that's why they are scientists and engineers. But I don't see the "chemmies" trying to convince you of anything, merely that they are continually drawn into arguments where they feel they have to defend their point of view. I have no problem with the fact that you are convinced, based on the standards you have set for yourself that all trails are contrails. But there are a lot of things for which there is no proof. That doesn't mean those things don't exist. Especially in something as conspiratorial as this where, if it did exist, the people involved would go to great lengths to prevent any proof from coming out.

It's like if somebody started a thread saying that the world was flat and wanted to discuss their perspective with others who felt the same way. Knowing of course, scientifically and photographically that the world was round I might make a post on that thread stating what I know to be true and why, maybe even posting a satellite photo of the round earth, and then I would kindly and quietly leave the thread and allow them to have their discussion. Keeping my mouth shut and trying to understand why they think the way they do (that's open mindedness.) They're not trying to convince me that the world is flat, nor could they, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to insert my perspective into every third post forcing an argument. If I still felt the need to "deny their ignorance" I might start my own thread, linking to theirs, talking about why I feel what they are saying is incorrect. And I would expect the "flat earthers" to pay me the same respect I paid them and not insert their opinion that the earth is flat on every third post of my thread.

But, that's just me. I understand that there are also people that feel the need to stick their noses into everybody's business. That's why something like Westboro Baptist Church exists (and yes, I'm making that comparison, they feel just as passionate as to the rightness of their perspective as you do.) That's what I have a problem with. This thread was intended to lay open the way this debate happens, not necessarily engage in the debate itself.

And you know that I can't choose A or B and be true to what I believe any more than you could choose Yes or No and still be true to what you believe. That's the point.

A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering) 2007

thehardlook.typepad.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Mathias I am quite sure that the government program putting their agent's online are quite capable of producing coordinated screen names across multiple websites. It would be only logical to do so in my opinion.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


Yes I suppose you could be right.

Are you actually suggesting that I am a government employee?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering) 2007

thehardlook.typepad.com...

Why are you linking to this PROPOSED FRAMEWORK?

It is clearly someone's ideas of how research MIGHT be conducted and then the results implemented.......so yet another pieceof information that does not say that chemtrails exist.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It is not someone else's idea. It is the top scientific advisory to congress on climate change and climate change research. It is the recommend plan of action back in 2007 and has been accepted as the best approach to solving the issues at hand. It has been and is now being incrementally implemented until the Governance issues are resolved and full scale operations are put into effect.

thehardlook.typepad.com...

SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007

Please look at the images in Fig 1. showing the predicted rise in Sea level around Florida in the year 2050.

thehardlook.typepad.com...

The pictures below show the effect of the predicted sea level rise on the State of Florida. We would lose three major metropolitan cities, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Saint Petersburg, as well as the nation’s trillion dollar investment at Cape Canaveral potentially by as soon as 2050.

That is just one of the reasons they feel the immediate need to begin taking action back in 2007

The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research
Regarding the need for solar radiation management (using sulfate particles), Paul J. Crutzen,
Nobel Laureate for his work on the ozone hole and considered one of the world’s premier
atmospheric physicist, stated last year:“the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.”

James Hansen, recognized as this nation’s leading governmental climate scientist, has predicted
that massive ice sheet melting may cause damaging increases in sea levels within the next few
decades, unless global temperatures can be reduced.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

The pictures below show the effect of the predicted sea level rise on the State of Florida. We would lose three major metropolitan cities, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Saint Petersburg, as well as the nation’s trillion dollar investment at Cape Canaveral potentially by as soon as 2050.

That is just one of the reasons they feel the immediate need to begin taking action back in 2007

The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research

Since when did "Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) RESEARCH" become an immediate need to take ACTION??

In what alternate reality does RESEARCH equal ACTION? Did you ever consider there is a reason why they are spelled differently??

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is not someone else's idea.

I didn't say "someone else's idea" - yet again you are making stuff up!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is not someone else's idea.

I didn't say "someone else's idea" - yet again you are making stuff up!

Playing more word games, is that really the best you can come up with?

It is clearly someone's ideas of how research MIGHT be conducted and then the results implemented.......so yet another pieceof information that does not say that chemtrails exist.

Saying "someone's idea" or saying "someone else's idea", what a really big difference. It means they same thing.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


What I am stating is that your posting behavior and posting materials are so far off base and "cherry picked" that there can be no logical rational process to your methodology. Anyone wishing to support a theory isn't going to post off topic and cherry picked items to prove their theory as doing so is a very poor and unsustainable method to argue their point of view.

However, someone wishing to slander the users of a conspiracy website would do just as I've said above. That "agent" would act in completely irrational manner and offer up all sorts of meaningless and unfeasibly linked information to support their point of view. The whole idea in doing so being that, by association, all ATS users would be perceived by the general population as being irrational, unable to have intelligent discussion, gullible, and "tin foil hat wearing" people.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


This is from the report you keep citing:

Phase IV: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) begins under international control through the SRM control body. Implementation would be transparent and would include continuing monitoring and reporting of physical effects as well as and semi-annual plan revisions based on new information gained. Full SRM for the geographic area selected/world would be realized within weeks of full implementation. Note that if the quantities are correctly selected, it would be possible to design SRM so that no further warming of the area selected/world would occur after that time regardless of other climatic events as long as an appropriate level of particles is maintained.

Notice that part where it says implementation would be transparent? That means they wouldn't keep it a secret. Did you happen to notice that part?

reply to post by Dilligaf28

However, someone wishing to slander the users of a conspiracy website would do just as I've said above. That "agent" would act in completely irrational manner and offer up all sorts of meaningless and unfeasibly linked information to support their point of view. The whole idea in doing so being that, by association, all ATS users would be perceived by the general population as being irrational, unable to have intelligent discussion, gullible, and "tin foil hat wearing" people.

Not that I am accusing Mathias of this, because I don't believe he is and I generally agree with his perspective of things in regards to this topic (and accusing somebody of using this tactic can be it's own disinformation tactic) but I believe what Dilgaf is referencing can be directly spoken to by this tactic (and in the interest of fair and balanced argument):

2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

pakalert.wordpress.com...

Which begs the question,...who exactly can we trust?

reply to post by Dilligaf28


There hasn't been full scale global implementation. They are still working out the Governance issues.
Did you notice Phase 2? Why did you skip past that part?

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing
scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation
plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

However, someone wishing to slander the users of a conspiracy website would do just as I've said above. That "agent" would act in completely irrational manner and offer up all sorts of meaningless and unfeasibly linked information to support their point of view. The whole idea in doing so being that, by association, all ATS users would be perceived by the general population as being irrational, unable to have intelligent discussion, gullible, and "tin foil hat wearing" people.

Not that I am accusing Mathias of this

Why not?

Thus far all he has added to this "debate" are cut & paste snippets and various YouTubes.
If anyone wanted to pose as an ill-informed propagandist, MathiasAndrew is the perfect example.

















, because I don't believe he is and I generally agree with his perspective of things in regards to this topic (and accusing somebody of using this tactic can be it's own disinformation tactic) but I believe what Dilgaf is referencing can be directly spoken to by this tactic (and in the interest of fair and balanced argument):

2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

pakalert.wordpress.com...

Which begs the question,...who exactly can we trust?

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

What I am stating is that your posting behavior and posting materials are so far off base and "cherry picked" that there can be no logical rational process to your methodology. Anyone wishing to support a theory isn't going to post off topic and cherry picked items to prove their theory as doing so is a very poor and unsustainable method to argue their point of view.

However, someone wishing to slander the users of a conspiracy website would do just as I've said above. That "agent" would act in completely irrational manner and offer up all sorts of meaningless and unfeasibly linked information to support their point of view. The whole idea in doing so being that, by association, all ATS users would be perceived by the general population as being irrational, unable to have intelligent discussion, gullible, and "tin foil hat wearing" people.

This is as good a summation of MA as I've seen.

If there ever was a logical argument for AGW or "chemtrails," Mat has destroyed ATS as a player.

We will be a laughingstock if anyone bothered to look deeply into these threads.

jw

CHEMTRIALS described in the secret convenant of the illuminati??

Its kind of ironic how it this video the girl says:

"The soft metals will cause them to lose thier minds"

hmmmm sounds like chemtrials to me

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by jdub297

Why not? Thus far all he has added to this "debate" are cut & paste snippets and various YouTubes. If anyone wanted to pose as an ill-informed propagandist, MathiasAndrew is the perfect example

I think at a certain point it comes down to individual perspective, which is what makes this aspect of these arguments so interesting to me. And your question would be exactly what someone would ask to put people off the information he presents if they were propagating disinfo (not accusing you either.) It's kind of a no-win situation for either side in a way (which is exactly the kind of dialectic a true disinfo agent would exploit.)

reply to post by coyotepoet


J-dumbo doesn't phase me at all. He can think whatever he wants about me. Just because he thinks it doesn't make it true. Every post he makes reveals a little more of his true nature and his agenda. He never seems to provides anything of value to this debate That's why I just deny his ignorance and usually ignore his meaningless posts.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
He never seems to provides anything of value to this debate

I have complained abouy your spamming. It seems the only thing else you're interested in doing is insulting those who dare try and engage you in discussion. I guess that sums you up