1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This article:


    Is basically a re-hashing of old material.

    About half the article discusses the variety of concerns regarding geoengineering. While this is somewhat sensationalized, it's also quite reasonable - as there are numerous problems associated with geoengineering, and many concerns regarding its deployment, or even small scale testing.

    Which is why NOBODY HAS DONE IT YET.

    Unfortunately Watson makes the rather bold claim:

    But what actual evidence does he give for this:

    Nobody EVER said that planes did not create artificial clouds. This has been known since the 1920s. Contrails ARE artificial clouds.

    This is an example of Watson either misinterpreting, or not understanding the terminology. The programs he mention are only concerned with measuring aerosols and the effects they have. The term "radiative forcing" just means the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation (sunlight). It's not "forcing" anything. It's a noun, not a verb.

    The KSLA story was debunked in 2008, but unfortunately keeps cropping up just about every day. The sample was collected by leaving two bowls on the hood of a pickup in a yard for a month. The level of barium found was actually 0.068 ppm, 100 times less than was reported, and only 3% of the EPA limit for taste (not even a toxic limit). The reporter on the story quickly retracted it, and a full explanation can be found here.

    And ... that's it. That's the only piece of actual evidence they offer. One amateur test that was entirely wrong. Yes, scientists have discussed geoengineering for years. Yes, there are serious concerns about doing any geoengineering.

    But there is zero evidence that it's actually taking place.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The article says: "Scientists now admit that vapor trails from aeroplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists” were proven correct."

    The scientist mentioned in the artcle, Professor Keith Shine, is speaking about contrails, not something sprayed for geoengineering....... I checked his website and there is nothing about chemtrails: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/242

    The article later states;"Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere."

    But the source, in 2008, actually said:"Details from documents Cybercast News Service obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., are developing computer models of what might happen if a huge amount of particulate matter is shot into the stratosphere."

    Later in the article, it says:
    "Given that sulphur emissions cause ‘global dimming’, is it any wonder that the emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface?"

    So, sulfur can cause 'global dimming', and the claim is that since around 1997 when the idea of chemtrails began, there was an average 22% drop in sunlight? Reading the link, however, I find no such thing, it says that the decline in sulight was steady since the 1950's:

    "Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s."

    However, the 2005 article above that spoke of possible 'global dimming' was followed later that same year by another study that found during the time period that the idea of chemtrails began, there had been a period of global brightening!
    "The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface is increasing, two new studies in Science magazine suggest. Using different methods, they find that solar radiation at the surface has risen for at least the last decade."

    Why Paul Watson would put out such nonsense amazes me, but the fact seems to be that Alex Jones ordered him to do so in 2009, so he went and did it no matter how much falsehood he had to include..

    Here is when the order was given, you can hear them lay out the whole story two years ago, and it's very interesting to listen to how it came about:
    see: 3:25
    interesting way that youtube url came out, do they often do that?

    This Paul Watson sounds British, and very droll compared to the manic Jones. Anybody know about him?
  3. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Thanks Jay and Mick for taking the time to de-bunk this Alex Jones nonsense. So much of the world of bunk comes from Jones website, so it is much appreciated that you have taken on this major bunk monger at his task.
  4. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  5. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Unregistered, please register, or at least add a name to your post. There's too many "unregistered"s floating around.

    Can you explain ONE THING that your above link refutes? Specifically quote

    A) the claim, and
    B) the refutation
  7. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    The first evidence I'm hit with on Twitter are the geoengineering references and patents almost without fail. It's like anything with 'government' involved in it is an automatic smoking gun for these people.

    I wondered whether infowars had a franchisee on my shores. I wonder if it's Paul Joseph Watson.
  8. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    Beats me why there are claims like "Government docs prove chemtrails" or "Government admits chemtrails" and the like, yet when a government official is asked about geoengineering and chemtrails and denies that such things are happening, the claimants then say things like "The Government is lying" or " you can't trust what the Government says".

    Just seems a bit odd to me..... but obviously seems sensible to chemtrail proponents.
  9. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    There is no doubt about the reporter having made a mistake. Could you provide a link to the reporter having made the retraction please.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It was mentioned in an email that was later posted as a comment on CS. I'm not sure where he "made corrections"

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I'm not sure where this might belong, but I found a vid done about that news story and the mistake the reporter made. It has a lot of good info about barium levels, etc.

  12. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    It is almost like they are running out of theories that somehow prove that there is some spraying operation being conducted by high flying jet aircraft, so they keep reintroducing the same debunked nonsense in bits and pieces, hoping noone will remember that they were disproven quite some time ago. I have found that one of their main arguments is that "the government has lied to us in the past" so that proves that something sinister is happening right now as well. The latest favorite of the chemtrail community is referencing Operation Ranch Hand from the Vietnam War, in which Agent Orange was sprayed on the jungles to kill foliage and deny the enemy cover. The logic in this case is that the Air Force was spraying something some aircraft back then, so they must be in the 21st century as well, even if chemtrails and Operation Ranch hand have absolutely nothing to do with one another. With that reasoning, normal crop dusting used in the agriculture business is a form of chemtrails. Once again, they mention the government admittance of geoengineering and high level spraying, but cannot provide proof other than the normal photoshopped pictures and videos on Youtube of fuel dumping and and regular contrails.
  13. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Or, it's just new people who see it for the first time because chemtrail proponents seem to never remove anything they have claimed as evidence in the past, no matter how well debunked it has been, like the vid above. If something SEEMS to support their claims, they seek no further.
    • Agree Agree x 1