New Zealand Green party - chemtrails lack robust scientific evidence

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

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


Irrelevant to the context.

There was a time when spectroscopic analysis was unknown to humanity, to be specific, over 99% of our history.

In that period before spectroscopic analysis technology, people indeed did claim and believe that there was no such thing as Pluto or it's multiple moons.

Yes, debunked indeed.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
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...


Incorrect assumption.

It was the use of an example to clarify the failed usage of logical fallacies to push absolutist claims.

I never claimed aliens existed or do not exist in this discussion, nor did I claim chem-trails exist or do not exist.

I remain open to the potential possibilities.

You cannot twist my criticism of your fallacious points back unto me merely because I offered an example of how those claims are absolutist and fallacious.

Straw-man alert. Ad hominem red flags popping up.
edit on 22-12-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



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



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.


Anyone with a relatively low level education can read my post and decipher exactly what I was stating...I stated it has been known for many more years than has been the chemtrail nonsense...this is a true statement of FACT and therefore is not misleading...


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


For the last time, if there is no evidence for existence, the simple FACT is, whether you or anyone else does not like it...it, whatever that IT IS, does not exist...case closed Sherlock...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Now I have made my points and thus any further bombardment would equate to over-kill.

Time and ammo are limited and there are more pressing concerns to attend to.

I shall sail onward to participate in more important battles.

As your ships are sinking you are welcome to revel in whatever absolutism or narrow thinking you wish.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by jeichelberg
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...


Incorrect assumption.

It was the use of an example to clarify the failed usage of logical fallacies to push absolutist claims.

I never claimed aliens existed or do not exist in this discussion, nor did I claim chem-trails exist or do not exist.

I remain open to the potential possibilities.

You cannot twist my criticism of your fallacious points back unto me merely because I offered an example of how those claims are absolutist and fallacious.

Straw-man alert. Ad hominem red flags popping up.
edit on 22-12-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


And, since you label yourself open to potential possibilities, you do nothing BUT SUBSTANTIATE my claim...You are INDEED linking the chemtrail nonsense and alien junk...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



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.


Anyone with a relatively low level education can read my post and decipher exactly what I was stating...I stated it has been known for many more years than has been the chemtrail nonsense...this is a true statement of FACT and therefore is not misleading...


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


For the last time, if there is no evidence for existence, the simple FACT is, whether you or anyone else does not like it...it, whatever that IT IS, does not exist...case closed Sherlock...


Read a dictionary before you come at me with your ad hominem garbage.
This is your last artillery shell you may earn from me, and then I am for sure departing these empty waters.


fact
1.something that actually exists;
2.something known to exist or to have happened


You said it is a fact that an absence of evidence creates fact. This is incorrect technically per the definition of the word.

You need evidence to create fact.
You cannot create fact with a lack of evidence.

You are merely pushing absolutism through assumptions.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by jeichelberg

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


Irrelevant to the context.

There was a time when spectroscopic analysis was unknown to humanity, to be specific, over 99% of our history.

In that period before spectroscopic analysis technology, people indeed did claim and believe that there was no such thing as Pluto or it's multiple moons.

Yes, debunked indeed.


Spectrography happens to BE RELEVANT to both of these subjects...and more astronomers knew of the existence of an unknown planet (later found to be Pluto)...you are so lost in a tangle of fraud, deceit, and twisting of fact, it is almost laughable...back to the bullpen...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Muzzleflash is having fun with the, er, (T&C.....!), uh, perpetual chemtrail deniers. How is that?
Absolutists never admit possibilities that run contrary to "party" lines.
Indeed.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
******************** A T T E N T I O N ********************

The topic of this thread is the communications to and from the New Zealand Green Party, not your views on the existance of chemtrails (or not), logical fallacies, or each other's personalities.

Please keep your eye on the ball (topic).

Thanks



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Since you are good at defining terms, here is addtional definition of FACT:


NOUN
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something"based on fact"
3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance "Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court."
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case


Chemtrail nonsense MEETS ZERO of these definitions... AS does the ALIEN claptrap you provided in support of your specious analysis...and therefore is NOT A FACT!!! So again, there is no fallacy-based argumentation on my part...


...But common sense and logic prevail and many people expect the odds of aliens existing lead to an almost certainty.


You see, the idea that Pluto or some other planet was there was based on FACTUAL OBSERVATION of orbits...and follow up analysis and searching CONFIRMED the idea...

Here, we have a bunch of people claiming chemtrail presence...seeking help from others...I hear crickets chirping...You know why? NO EVIDENCE...the reason no evidence? CHEMTRAILS ARE NONSENSE!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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.


got any proof that such people existed? I did ask for it before, and you seem to have not noticed.


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


well you also made the absolute claim that people had said there could not possibly be another moon for pluto - I asked what your evidence was for that claim...yuo have declined to provide any......why is that?
edit on 22-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Muzzleflash is trying to prove that chemtrails exist through semanitcs, completely ignoring that chemtrails aer not actually a word game - their existence would be physical, testable and verifable if they did actually exist - and you should be able to provide some physical, testable and verifiable evidence to support the claim that they exist.

The Green Party letter notes that there is no robust scientific evidence" to support their existance. I dont' see anyone actually trying to argue otherwise - why not?

Zeno's paradox is also a clever word game - but clever word games do not make something true.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Funny this topic has come up today. I have witnissed alot of planes and chemtrails in the sky this morning here above Christchurch. I have never seen this much above us before. I will put a video below to prove it. There are two planes way up high in shot at the time. also there are alot of trails in the sky from early on that have spread into long skinny clouds. As I said before, I have not seen this before in CH CH.:

www.youtube.com...

Then this video shows the trail about 10 minutes after. Notice how it spreads. This was the trail from the last video that had a big turn in it.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by aarys
 


Your two videos?

Normal airplane contrails. (Adding....with a fair amount of normally formed cirrus clouds as well)....Not "chemtrails".



There are two planes way up high in shot at the time. also there are alot of trails in the sky from early on that have spread into long skinny clouds. As I said before, I have not seen this before in CH CH.:


Because contrails won't form every day. And, perhaps they DO form on some times when you aren't happen to be looking??

The reaction in that letter, though, is a tribute to at least some level of sanity on the part of New Zealand's "Green Party". Sanity, and science education.
edit on Thu 22 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The implications of the Green Party rejecting the request at this time are INDEED an INDICTMENT of the chemtrail nonsense...The party's entire EXISTENCE hinges on these principles:


The Greens generally focus primarily on environmental issues. In recent times, they have expressed particular concerns about mining of national parks,[1] fresh water,[2] climate change,[3] peak oil[4] and the release of genetically engineered organisms.[5] They have also spoken out in support of human rights,[6] and against the military operations conducted by the United States of America and other countries in Afghanistan and Iraq.[7]

In its economic policies, the Green Party stresses factors such as sustainability, taxing the indirect costs of pollution, and fair trade. It also states that measuring economic success should concentrate on measuring well-being rather than analysing economic indicators.[8]


AND


The following forms the English-language section of the charter (the founding document) of The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand:[9]

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Māori as Tāngata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand; and commits to the following four Principles:

Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.

Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.

Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

Non-Violence:
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.


en.wikipedia.org...

In short, if there was a hint, inkling, shred of doubt, etc., concerning the existence of chemtrails, they would have been ALL OVER IT!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aarys
Funny this topic has come up today. I have witnissed alot of planes and chemtrails in the sky this morning here above Christchurch. I have never seen this much above us before.


they have certainly been seen befoer tho - I was a kid in Christchurch in the 60's, and when NAC's Boeing 737's arrived from 1968 there used to be regular contrails from Wellington-Dunedin flights overhead. They would often still be there when the aircraft did the return leg over an hour later.

Also the site I took the OP from has several articles on "chemtrails" over chch - these are jsut those back to November 2010:

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com... (alps rather than Chch)

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com... (Rangiora)

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com... (Rangiora)

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Muzzleflash was actually not trying to prove anything. If anyone wants to know how posts are twisted by persons such as the one I am addressing here, just read Muzzleflashs posts. You decide if he tried to prove chemtrails exist.
Only then will you be able to see through the chem dust posted here by the trolls.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


a very illuminating response from the " green movement "

just my opinion - but when the green lobby admits there is no scientific basis for a position - its a damming indictment

just look at all the psuedo science that greens do accept and use as " evidence "



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What an unbelievable crock!! Is the alleged Green Party of New Zealand telling us that they are unconcerned with jet emissions so visibly polluting our skies? Here's my Christmas present to you Gaul: a link to your favorite, Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

and just a fact - I know nothing about the Greens of New Zealand but the Greens of Scotland and their independent plaids state:


Ecology: Our environment is the basis upon which every society is formed. Whenever we damage our environment, we damage ourselves. Respect for our environment is therefore essential.


Sounds like the Greens of New Zealand are in it for the money and not for the environment. Would you care to show us how green and pristine they are? Or will you just take any corrupted politico at their word? Did you know that Nano is considered green? Why? It's called packaging and marketing for public consumption. Make a New Year's resolution to end your naivete.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


hey - please read the NZ GREEN PARTY statement with care - they do not claim that jet travel is not an environmental issue [ co2 emmissions , nitorogen and suphur oxides , water vapour trails ] etc etc . what they do reject is the idiocy of " chemical trails "





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join