What sources would you believe for contrail science?

The internet is filled with chemtrail lies and misinformation. There are only a few sites that deal directly with contrails and the science that explains them. Obviously there is a multitude of information about meteorology, which says the same thing the contrail sites do. But when a person is hell bent on believing in chemtrails, they seem to not be able to believe anything that isn't pro chemtrail. So what sources would you believe? Who's interpretation of facts would suit the average chemtrail believer?

Why are the chemtrail believers so afraid of science?

a reply to: network dude

Well, I wouldn't use any sources provided by yourself or Aloysius

I wish that ATS had a section for "Trolling For Arguments". Alas, sadly, they do not.

Nobody's afraid of science. There are, however, quite a few out there who are afraid to let others express their suspicions of what is potentially sprayed in our skies.

You make a great deal of assumptions about "chemtrail believers". You are hell-bent on it. So this whole thread is moot, is it not?

a reply to: network dude

What sources would you believe for contrail science?

None on ATS....the agenda is so transparent as to be humorous.

Ive still not really made my mind up on it.

Yes contrails seem to linger longer than i remeber, but with climate changing all the time that could be completely normal - but on the other hand some additive to jet fuel for some reason is also just as plausible.

Till some well respected world recognized scientists really do some serious study's on it, i think im going to have to remain on the fence.

@ OP - what do you currently think about it at this time?

originally posted by: Biigs
Ive still not really made my mind up on it.

Yes contrails seem to linger longer than i remeber, but with climate changing all the time that could be completely normal - but on the other hand some additive to jet fuel for some reason is also just as plausible.

Till some well respected world recognized scientists really do some serious study's on it, i think im going to have to remain on the fence.

@ OP - what do you currently think about it at this time?

But thats the problem! Any respected scientist is only respected while they follow the OS. I ignore most of what others say these days, I'd rather use and believe MY OWN EYES!

a reply to: network dude
Why are you scared of chemtrail believer's??
I don't agree with religious fanatics but I don't go around making threads asking what it would take for them to flip their beliefs 180°
So people believe that they are chemtrails, quick look at your posting history seems like you are on a crusade against the believers.
Let them believe what they want and then you can laugh about it if you don't agree with it

There are just more traffic than there were couple decades ago..
This is intresting map of contrail science flight map
It takes a bit to load but you can zoom in to the location of airports too
MAP

Have fun

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
I wish that ATS had a section for "Trolling For Arguments". Alas, sadly, they do not.

Nobody's afraid of science. There are, however, quite a few out there who are afraid to let others express their suspicions of what is potentially sprayed in our skies.

You make a great deal of assumptions about "chemtrail believers". You are hell-bent on it. So this whole thread is moot, is it not?

Yeah, but the science quoted in chemtrail debunking sites (such as contrailscience.com and metabunk.com) are easily confirmable with decades and centuries of experimentally provable science to support their claims.

Chemtrail sites?...not so much.

a reply to: dollukka

You know that's a shill website don't you?

Sad

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Chemtrail sites?...not so much

ClimateViewer.com

contrailscience.com and metabunk.com

Because a video game techie is always the best source for learning science.

/sarcasm

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: dollukka

You know that's a shill website don't you?

Sad

What is a "shill" website? One that doesn't agree with your agenda? Sad indeed.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Chemtrail sites?...not so much

ClimateViewer.com

That site you linked is basically saying that jet exhaust can contribute to air pollution and the increase the amount of cloud cover. They are right about that, and nobody I know who debunks what people refer to as "chemtrails" would disagree with that.

However, when most people refer to "chemtrails", they refer to the covert praying of chemicals (often from special planes with chemical tanks) for the express purpose of introducing those chemicals into the atmosphere for secret, and potentially nefarious, purposes.

Most people who refer to "chemtrails" make statements such as follows:

"contrails always dissipate in a few minutes; however if a trail last for hours, then it isn't a contrail, but instead it is a specially-made chemical trail purposefully sprayed as part of a secret program to put chemicals into the atmosphere".

I'm not sure what your position on this is, but to me a big fluffy white trail in the sky could very well simply be a contrail...and a contrail is (quoting one of the sources from the website YOU linked) is simply this:

Long clouds of ice crystals caused by the exhaust from the engines of high-flying aircraft.

So even the source quoted in your link doesn't say anything about those trails being the result of a secret spaying program of purposefully-sprayed chemicals for the express purpose of forming trails of chemicals. They are simply clouds of ice crystals that form due to jet exhaust.

contrailscience.com and metabunk.com

Because a video game techie is always the best source for learning science.

/sarcasm

Science is science, and is verifiable and testable no matter who is making statements about science. The question as to who is referencing that science doesn't change the science itself.

I mean, am I supposed to doubt any and every source you link to (no matter how verifiable the information in the source itself may be) until you show me your degrees in meteorology, atmospheric science, or chemistry? Why should it matter who is making references to specific science if that science is generally accepted, peer reviewed, and verifiable?

a reply to: Rob48

This is a shill website.

contrailscience.com


Here's a perfect example why.

LA missle explained in pictures



The truth

Source

"It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine … to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," speculated Ellsworth.

Ellsworth said such tests were carried out in the Atlantic to demonstrate America's power to the Soviets, when there was a Soviet Union, but he doesn't believe an ICBM has previously been tested by the U.S. over the Pacific.

Officially, at least, the projectile remains a mystery missile.

EDIT:

ATS thread

UPS902 Contrail Science plane theory debunked

a reply to: MagicWand67

Sorry, what is your point? You post a link to a story written BEFORE the plane was identified (dated November 9 2010) and think that somehow disproves a later article written AFTER the plane was identified (dated November 13 2010)?

In the real world, new information takes precedence over old information. And sure enough, CBS published an update the following day: www.cbsnews.com...

Not only that but they even credited Mick West with the identification! Not bad for a shill

It was a plane. Boring, but true. Life is a lot less exciting than conspiracy freaks like to imagine.

a reply to: MagicWand67

The bulk of the evidence pointed to the LA trail to be a contrail in the sunset that looks to be perpendicular to the horizon due to perspective.

I know what Ellsworth said, but his opinion on the matter didn't seem to be backed up by any corroborating fact. He seems to have not even considered that a "contrail in sunset" could possibly be an explanation for that trail. I'm not sure why he didn't consider it, but possibly because he is ignorant to the notion that contrails can look as if they are pointed "up or down" (perpendicular to the horizon) because of perspective.

I think he was simply incorrect, and the facts seem to agree with me. I don't necessarily believe anything I read without doing research to see if the person making the claim is saying things that are valid or could be corroborated with direct evidence or has science to back it up.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
It staggers me that this story ever got traction at all. California faces west and has a lot of air traffic. Surely people there are used to seeing contrails lit up by sunsets by now? Must have been a very slow news day.

a reply to: network dude

All we want them to do is admit that these chemtrails are Dihydrogen Monoxide!

A lethal chemical that if inhaled in its room temperature form can cause drowning!

Know the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide
www.dhmo.org...

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: network dude

All we want them to do is admit that these chemtrails are Dihydrogen Monoxide!

A lethal chemical that if inhaled in its room temperature form can cause drowning!

Know the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide
www.dhmo.org...

First I heard of it and your link doesn't seem to cover it. How do you figure it's coming out of jet engines?

a reply to: minkmouse

Really? Dihydrogen Monoxide? It doesn't come from the engines, it's vapor is condensed by these nacelles on the wings of aircraft.

Most know it by its street name: water.

Its chemical composition is H2O.