It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Zealand Green party - chemtrails lack robust scientific evidence

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
A New Zealander thought he'd see if he could get the local Greens on side with chemtrails & sent a letter to thdem asking for help against chemtrails- the reply is quite interesting:


Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email to Russel. Given that there are always constraints on staff capacity to work on the many issues that may be deserving of attention, the Greens need to focus on issues for which there is robust scientific evidence and broad consensus among the science community. Chemtrails do not meet this criteria. I’m sorry that we disagree on this issue.

Kind regards,
Anne

Anne Heins | Executive Assistant | Office of Dr Russel Norman MP




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It is not surprising that this happened. Why would they spend time and money on something that does not happen?

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Another Kiwi thought that was very sad but not unexpected.

Suggests the New Zealander starts educating the public and pressurizing the Scientific field into acknowledging the the validity of the issue.

Is it happening in New Zealand Skies?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence.

Nice try with the logical fallacy though.

There is no solid scientific evidence available to the public that aliens exist either. But common sense and logic prevail and many people expect the odds of aliens existing lead to an almost certainty.

That's why it's called a hypothesis. Also there is an expectation that the government and military complex would cover up pertinent facts and classify them as secrets if it threatens their 'national security'.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
This is like people in 1980 saying Pluto has only one moon.

However we now know due to recent discoveries in the last 10 years that Pluto has at least 4 moons.

See as we advance and gain more knowledge new facts come to light.

Do you really want to be one of those people who screams adamantly that Pluto had only one moon and it cannot possibly have more than that? Because you would be wrong.
edit on 22-12-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



As you say absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence - but if there should be evidence then it can be - and since the chetrmail theory postulaets all sorts of stuff that should be there, the fact that none, ever, has been able to verify that any single small part of it actually does exist, I think in this case tehre is no logical fallacy involved.

Except "yuo can't prove they dont' exist" - that one has no exceptions



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is like people in 1980 saying Pluto has only one moon.

However we now know due to recent discoveries in the last 10 years that Pluto has at least 4 moons.



no it isn't.

Because no-one was ever saying that Pluto definitely has more moons except we can;t actually show you any good evidence for it.


See as we advance and gain more knowledge new facts come to light.


Got an new facts about chemtrails?


Do you really want to be one of those people who screams adamantly that Pluto had only one moon and it cannot possibly have more than that? Because you would be wrong.


Got any evidence there ever were any such people??



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
Another Kiwi thought that was very sad but not unexpected.

Suggests the New Zealander starts educating the public and pressurizing the Scientific field into acknowledging the the validity of the issue.

Is it happening in New Zealand Skies?


If you go to the site that article is on you'll see plenty of posts about them, including 1 since the reply I quoted om the OP.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



As you say absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence - but if there should be evidence then it can be - and since the chetrmail theory postulaets all sorts of stuff that should be there, the fact that none, ever, has been able to verify that any single small part of it actually does exist, I think in this case tehre is no logical fallacy involved.

Except "yuo can't prove they dont' exist" - that one has no exceptions


Wrong again.

There is NO CONSENSUS on 'chemtrail theory', especially considering it's a hypothesis.

"There should be evidence", well there very well could be evidence just like there WAS evidence that Pluto had more than one moon for thousands of years, it's just humans didn't have access to that evidence in the form of factual knowledge until the last 10 years.

Keep digging that grave, I am more than glad to help.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Because no-one was ever saying that Pluto definitely has more moons except we can;t actually show you any good evidence for it.


Sure people were saying that, you just didn't see or hear them because you cannot possibly talk to and know every person that lived in history.

Keep it up with the absolutist claims, you are so easy to discredit right now.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence.

Nice try with the logical fallacy though.

There is no solid scientific evidence available to the public that aliens exist either. But common sense and logic prevail and many people expect the odds of aliens existing lead to an almost certainty.

That's why it's called a hypothesis. Also there is an expectation that the government and military complex would cover up pertinent facts and classify them as secrets if it threatens their 'national security'.



I see this referred to so often, it boggles the mind that people still resort to this labeling...

When a person has a hypothesis (i.e., the trail left by the plane in the is a chemtrail), then scientific process demands valid research and falsifiable results to support the hypothesis...at which point, it is no longer a hypothesis, but instead, FACT...

There can be NO possible way for a cover up in this case...if there were chemical trails being left by planes in the sky, as purported and supported by the typical photos presented, then there would be PROOF...no cover up possible...You cannot fool someone with spectrographic analysis of the skies, chemical analysis of soil and water, etc....

So, in this case, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE is indeed EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE...at least as far as chemtrails are concerned...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence.

Nice try with the logical fallacy though.

There is no solid scientific evidence available to the public that aliens exist either. But common sense and logic prevail and many people expect the odds of aliens existing lead to an almost certainty.

That's why it's called a hypothesis. Also there is an expectation that the government and military complex would cover up pertinent facts and classify them as secrets if it threatens their 'national security'.



Mishmash...You want to school someone on logical fallacy, yet jump to an appeal to large numbers in support of alien existence? Please...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Got any evidence there ever were any such people??


Sure, how about the thousands of people who didn't even believe Pluto existed at all in the first place for the majority of human history?

You have been entirely discredited as pushing a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have been revealed to be pushing absolutism in order to further your personal agenda.

Had you said 'it is unlikely they exist due to the lack of evidence' allowing room for possible contradictory views, than I wouldn't have bothered to discredit you as that type of open minded thinking is reasonable.

But instead you have been making absolutist claims and reveling in arrogance and therefore the 16" artillery is going to be aimed in your general direction.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence.

Nice try with the logical fallacy though.

There is no solid scientific evidence available to the public that aliens exist either. But common sense and logic prevail and many people expect the odds of aliens existing lead to an almost certainty.

That's why it's called a hypothesis. Also there is an expectation that the government and military complex would cover up pertinent facts and classify them as secrets if it threatens their 'national security'.



Mishmash...You want to school someone on logical fallacy, yet jump to an appeal to large numbers in support of alien existence? Please...


It was an example of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', not a straw man or appeal to ignorance per se. Context clues are very important and should distinguish the exact use of such examples.

Nice try though. I highly suggest looking for context clues next time. It doesn't matter if aliens exist or not, who knows? That's not the context it doesn't matter either way, it's an example of a logical fallacy within a prior subject matter being discussed.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

When a person has a hypothesis (i.e., the trail left by the plane in the is a chemtrail), then scientific process demands valid research and falsifiable results to support the hypothesis...at which point, it is no longer a hypothesis, but instead, FACT...

There can be NO possible way for a cover up in this case....


Incorrect.

There was no evidence that the Manhattan Project existed for many years, despite the tens of thousands of people that worked on it and the secrecy was kept fairly well.

The truth became apparent to the world when the Project was complete and the technology was ready and used in a real world situation.

The only people with sophisticated chemical analysis equipment and aircraft able to climb at the altitude (and gain clearance to do such a test) have to bypass government checks and allowances to conduct such a sophisticated and sensitive test. Therefore we have the wolf guarding the hen house so to speak.

Debunked.

Next?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is like people in 1980 saying Pluto has only one moon.

However we now know due to recent discoveries in the last 10 years that Pluto has at least 4 moons.

See as we advance and gain more knowledge new facts come to light.

Do you really want to be one of those people who screams adamantly that Pluto had only one moon and it cannot possibly have more than that? Because you would be wrong.
edit on 22-12-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Your offering of Pluto is very interesting, as there has been broad consensus among astronomers there were additional objects awaiting discovery...this has been postulated for many more years than the relatively recent chemtrail nonsense...

We have had the ability to analyze the light spectrum to determine chemical makeup for MANY years...none of the analysis supports chemtrail nonsense...we know how to do chemical analysis of soil and water...none of the results supports chemtrail nonsense...

Further, we have thousands of pilots, thousands of flight attendants, thousands of ground crew personnel, thousands of witnesses, thousands, thousands, thousands....NONE OF THEM have offered ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHEMTRAIL NONSENSE...

In short, if it was there, we know where to look...after all, it is, according to believers, "right in front of our eyes." If we can see BILLIONS of miles away and have a clue as to the chemical makeup of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and their many moons, (subsequently CONFIRMED by follow up probes) THEN SURELY we can CONFIRM the makeup of any chemtrails right in front of us...yet, there is none...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Got an new facts about chemtrails?


Irrelevant.

That has nothing to do with you making absolutist unknowable claims and using logical fallacies to support them.

All I have to do is reveal that you are not allowing for potential contrary possibilities.

I never claimed they were real or fake in this thread did I?

Straw-man fallacy.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by jeichelberg

When a person has a hypothesis (i.e., the trail left by the plane in the is a chemtrail), then scientific process demands valid research and falsifiable results to support the hypothesis...at which point, it is no longer a hypothesis, but instead, FACT...

There can be NO possible way for a cover up in this case....


Incorrect.

There was no evidence that the Manhattan Project existed for many years, despite the tens of thousands of people that worked on it and the secrecy was kept fairly well.

The truth became apparent to the world when the Project was complete and the technology was ready and used in a real world situation.

The only people with sophisticated chemical analysis equipment and aircraft able to climb at the altitude (and gain clearance to do such a test) have to bypass government checks and allowances to conduct such a sophisticated and sensitive test. Therefore we have the wolf guarding the hen house so to speak.

Debunked.

Next?


Debunked you say? WRONG!!! Do you know what spectrography is? You do not need a plane to do spectrographic analysis of light...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Your offering of Pluto is very interesting, as there has been broad consensus among astronomers there were additional objects awaiting discovery...this has been postulated for many more years than the relatively recent chemtrail nonsense...

We have had the ability to analyze the light spectrum to determine chemical makeup for MANY years...none of the analysis supports chemtrail nonsense...we know how to do chemical analysis of soil and water...none of the results supports chemtrail nonsense...

Further, we have thousands of pilots, thousands of flight attendants, thousands of ground crew personnel, thousands of witnesses, thousands, thousands, thousands....NONE OF THEM have offered ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHEMTRAIL NONSENSE...

In short, if it was there, we know where to look...after all, it is, according to believers, "right in front of our eyes." If we can see BILLIONS of miles away and have a clue as to the chemical makeup of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and their many moons, (subsequently CONFIRMED by follow up probes) THEN SURELY we can CONFIRM the makeup of any chemtrails right in front of us...yet, there is none...


Misleading analysis.

Pluto has been unknown for the majority of human history, over 99% of it, but you act as if it has been known for the majority in the slant of your context. Thus it is a misleading analysis and irrelevant to the overall point made about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

Then you proceed to push 'absence of evidence being evidence of absence' by spouting off the lack of evidence.

Logical fallacy. Does not compute.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Nice attempt at covering your tracks...you were clearly attempting to link chemtrails to alien existence, thereby making an appeal to large numbers...I am not going for it...




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join