A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

Crickets...

Where's all the arguing?

Where's all the debunkers telling everybody else "They're all just contrails, you're wrong if you think different?"
Or all the "chemmies" trying to be heard through the din?

Did the zero sum game stop being fun when people realized they were playing?

reply to post by coyotepoet


There really is nothing to debunk anymore.

"Chemtrails" at least the ones that are associated with Geoengineering have been proven.

www.gao.gov...

people.ucalgary.ca...

reply to post by coyotepoet


thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by coyotepoet

 

There really is nothing to debunk anymore.

"Chemtrails" at least the ones that are associated with Geoengineering have been proven.

www.gao.gov...

people.ucalgary.ca...

edit on 30-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link

Thanks for that! Actual .gov info on something that could involve chemtrails.

Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results—a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM.

Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totaling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s analysis found that 43 activities, totaling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches.

I would actually read a thread that had in it's title something scientific, mention this .gov SDM thing, and talk about what chemtrail proponents believe; leave out any words like "proof" or fanatical stuff. Like I said earlier I stopped reading them because they always seemed to have zero proof but it was like the end of our free will because some government nano bot was controlling our thinking... I'd be interested in what normal people have to say about it. (that "normal" is not refering to the OP or anyone in this thread).

This picture and even the one article by the Russians at least point to some factual basis to it, even though it's to reflect CO2, not anything nefarious.

Council on Foreign Relations - Developing an International Framework for Geoengineering

Video discussing Geoengineering
www.cfr.org...

CFR Geoengineering

www.cfr.org...
EDIT
Here's another picture

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/118a56273d6f.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Thermo Klein

I'd be interested in what normal people have to say about it. (that "normal" is not refering to the OP or anyone in this thread).

Here's some normal people discussing Geoengineering

fora.tv...

reply to post by coyotepoet


Or we have lives away from our monitors. I'll choose that one. I left because it was time for dinner, then I started watching a documentary in Spanish, so I spun some wool while reading the screen. Then I went to bed, but was awakened by a stuffy nose (I had my bedroom window open most of the day and I'm allergic to maple pollen), so I got up, made a cup of coffee, talked to the dogs, finished watching a documentary about the Triangle Shirt Waist fire, then I picked up my computer and surfed for about an hour before coming back to ATS, which is usually my last regular stop before closing up for the day.
Don't have time to read your illogical argument that I'm close-minded and petty. So sorry.

Reports on aerosol Geoengineering

ncar.ucar.edu...:vrqcdm9nm2y&cof=FORID:11&sitesearc h=

An Overview of Geoengineering of Climate
using Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols
www.cgd.ucar.edu...

Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and
stratosphere
acd.ucar.edu...

Using WACCM/CARMA to study astratospheric sulfur injection geo-engineering scheme
www.cesm.ucar.edu...

Geoengineering Nanotechnology
www.nsf.gov...

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

2.3 Aerosol Injection Scenarios
An issue that has been largely neglected in geoengineering proposals to modify the stratospheric aerosol is the methodology for injecting aerosols or their precursors to create the desired reflective shield. As exemplified in Section 2.4, climate simulations to date have employed specified aerosol parameters, including size, composition and distribution often with these parameters static in space and time. In this section we consider transient effects associated with possible injection schemes that utilise aircraft platforms, and estimate the microphysical and dynamical processes that are likely to occur close to the injection point in the highly concentrated injection stream. There are many interesting physical limitations to such injection schemes for vapours and aerosols, including a very high sensitivity to the induced nucleation rates (e.g. homogeneous nucleation) that would be very difficult to quantify within injection plumes. Two rather conservative injection scenarios are evaluated, both assume baseline emission equivalent to ∼2.5 Tg S/yr (which ultimately forms about 10 Tg of particles): 1) insertion of a primary aerosol, such as fine sulfate particles, using an injector mounted aboard an aircraft platform cruising in the lower stratosphere; and 2) sulfurenhanced fuel additives employed to emit aerosol precursors in a jet engine exhaust stream. In each case, injection is assumed to occur uniformly between 15 and 25 km, with the initial plumes distributed throughout this region to avoid hot spots. Attempts to concentrate the particles at lower altitudes, within thinner layers, or regionally — at high latitudes, for example — would tend to exacerbate problems in maintaining the engineered layer, by increasing the particle number density and thus increasing coagulation. Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 km flight path during an four-hour flight (while few aircraft are currently capable of sustained flight at stratospheric heights, platform design issues are neglected at this point). The initial plume cross-section is taken to be 1 m2 , which is consistent with the dimensions of the platform. Note that, with these specifications, a total aerosol mass injection of 10 Tg of particles per year would call for one million flights, and would require several thousand aircraft operating continuously into the foreseeable future. To evaluate other scenarios or specifications, the results described below may be scaled to a proposed fleet or system

reply to post by DJW001

No, MatthiasAndrew has murdered another thread.

That the best you got?
No counter argument or debating facts??

reply to post by backinblack

That the best you got?
No counter argument or debating facts??

There is nothing to debate in his posts. They are all factual. None of them has anything to do with "chemtrails." I thought the purpose of this thread was to engage in a debate about the "chemtrail" conspiracy. MathiasAndrew has turned it into a blog about geo-engineering research. If he wants to discuss geo-engineering, he needs to start his own thread. Personally, I am opposed to geo-engineering.

reply to post by DJW001

There is nothing to debate in his posts. They are all factual. None of them has anything to do with "chemtrails." I thought the purpose of this thread was to engage in a debate about the "chemtrail" conspiracy. MathiasAndrew has turned it into a blog about geo-engineering research. If he wants to discuss geo-engineering, he needs to start his own thread. Personally, I am opposed to geo-engineering.

Are you saying chemtrails may not be geo-engineering?

True chemtrail believers are uncertain about their reason..
They just believe they exist..

Geo-engineering may be one of their purposes..

reply to post by backinblack

Are you saying chemtrails may not be geo-engineering?

True chemtrail believers are uncertain about their reason..
They just believe they exist..

Geo-engineering may be one of their purposes..

What I am saying is that condensation happens naturally. That's how clouds form. "Chemtrail" believers think that some of the trails that jets leave behind are actually chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere deliberately. They also claim to be able to tell the difference between ordinary contrails and the poisonous "chemtrails." They provide no evidence for any of this beyond pictures and videos of ordinary contrails. MathiasAndrew is committing the same sort of fallacy that ET believers do: just as ET believers automatically assume that any light seen in the sky is "proof" that UFOs are alien space ships, MathiasAndrew assumes that any mention of geo-engineering is "proof" that these contrails are intentionally sprayed chemicals. None of his sources suggest that any of these schemes have ever been implemented at any scale. If he understood what they were actually saying, he would know why such projects are not economically viable.

I must agree that MathiasAndrew is not providing relevant content to this thread's topic. Geoengineering is not in a stage of implementation and every document he provides discussed Geoengineering in a research light. What Mathias is doing is attempting to form an association between theoretical geoengineering models and the "chemtrail" hoax. His thought process is undoubtedly that by somehow convincing people geoengineering is happening (which it isn't) he can convince them that "chemtrails" are not a hoax. His hope is that by broadening the scope of what a "chemtrail" is he will garner a broad acceptance of "types of chemical trails" which he hopes will lead to acceptance of the "chemtrail" hoax. This is an intellectually dishonest tactic and I personally feel that anyone with a measure of intellect can see right through it.

There is however another possibility relating to MathiasAndrew....

I've noticed that sometimes on ATS people will feverishly and whole heartedly cling to a viewpoint that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be invalid. I'm sure you've all seen this before on the boards. Someone saying "the sky is green and i know it is so i dont care what proof you bring me its all made up and fake and only I am right" to me is proof that the person is a part of a government conspiracy.

Think about it folks. What better way could be employed to discredit those of us on ATS than from the inside? When I see any poster ranting and raving, ignoring questions or responses to their posts, being evasive, posting without a source, posting opinion as fact, or generally irrationally believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I get this gut feeling they are a government agent hired to act as irrationally and illogically as possible in the hopes that we (the real users of ATS) will be tarnished for it. Is there any better way to defeat something that frightens you than from the inside? I'd like to think ATS has given the Government more than a few "raised hairs" and I for one can easily see them employing someone like MathiasAndrew to make us all look crazy.

reply to post by coyotepoet

Where's all the debunkers telling everybody else "They're all just contrails, you're wrong if you think different?" Or all the "chemmies" trying to be heard through the din? Did the zero sum game stop being fun when people realized they were playing?

Ahhh...there you all are. I was starting to wonder if somebody actually got the real point of my OP or this thread in general.

Don't have time to read your illogical argument that I'm close-minded and petty. So sorry.

No, MatthiasAndrew has murdered another thread.

Like I said earlier I stopped reading them because they always seemed to have zero proof but it was like the end of our free will because some government nano bot was controlling our thinking... I'd be interested in what normal people have to say about it. (that "normal" is not refering to the OP or anyone in this thread).

That the best you got? No counter argument or debating facts??

I thought the purpose of this thread was to engage in a debate about the "chemtrail" conspiracy. MathiasAndrew has turned it into a blog about geo-engineering research.

I must agree that MathiasAndrew is not providing relevant content to this thread's topic.

His hope is that by broadening the scope of what a "chemtrail" is he will garner a broad acceptance of "types of chemical trails" which he hopes will lead to acceptance of the "chemtrail" hoax. This is an intellectually dishonest tactic and I personally feel that anyone with a measure of intellect can see right through it.
Think about it folks. What better way could be employed to discredit those of us on ATS than from the inside? When I see any poster ranting and raving, ignoring questions or responses to their posts, being evasive, posting without a source, posting opinion as fact, or generally irrationally believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I get this gut feeling they are a government agent hired to act as irrationally and illogically as possible

But nope...it appears they didn't even though I spelled it out. Continue your back and forth arguing. God forbid that either side listen to each others point of view or treat each other with mutual respect.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Zero Sum Game:

A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

Cutting a cake is zero-sum game, because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others.

The most common or simple example from the subfield of Social Psychology is the concept of "Social Traps". In some cases we can enhance our collective well-being by pursuing our personal interests — or parties can pursue mutually destructive behavior as they choose their own ends.

Social trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole. Examples of social traps include overfishing, the near-extinction of the American bison, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, the overgrazing of cattle on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Since I was quoted in there I may as well chime in....

Exactly why should I attempt to engage in dialogue with someone like Mathias whom is so closed minded that they refute every credible reference and report yet so confirmation biased that they blindly accept any shred of pseudoscientific evidence which supports their view? How should I debate with someone whom refuses to take research proposals as research proposals even though the reports are labeled research proposals? Under what sort of acceptable debate style should I allow questions and queries to go unanswered? At which point am I to cease attempting to get Mathias to actually discuss anything in a point by point style when he is so all over the place and just engage in responding to each of questions raised as misdirection tactics? How should I remain on topic with Mathias when he brings irrelevant data to the topic of conversation?

Here is what the two choices are OP. You can choose to (A) accept Mathias's contributions to your thread however off topic they are and in doing so you can show the weakness of the pro "chemtrail" argument; or you can choose to (B) ignore him and in doing so acknowledge his tactics as the typical "chemtrailer" behavior where all sound logic and rationality are left behind in favor of wild supposition and other disinformation tactics.

A or B OP?

reply to post by Dilligaf28


Granted, it was couched in the prospect of being biased against debunkers, however, I repeat (and this includes "chemmies" too)

God forbid that either side listen to each others point of view or treat each other with mutual respect.

Both sides need to be willing to listen to and respect the other sides arguments. Neither side does. On both sides it is either "my way or the highway." Reread the bit about zero sum games and social traps. THAT is the point of this thread.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by coyotepoet

 

There really is nothing to debunk anymore.

"Chemtrails" at least the ones that are associated with Geoengineering have been proven.

Rubbish!

You haven't shown one single "chemtrail" to have been down to theoretical geoengineering.

So far, every single "chemtrail" has been shown to be a perfectly normal contrail. And you, as well as everyone else, have steadfastly refused to even attempt to prove they are not contrails!

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously!

(note: I assume by "chemtrail" you mean visible lines in the sky)

Quite apart from providing no evidence that deliberate geoengineering is taking place you have also totally failed to provide any evidence that any form of geoengineering would produce anything like what are called "chemtrails".

Big, big, FAIL!