1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This video of Rosalind Peterson at the UN in 2007 has been repurposed on social media as if it's something new. It's been posted with such headlines as "100% Proof!" and "Leaker Speaks Out At United Nations".



    The session she spoke at was titled "Coping With Climate Change: Best Land Use Practice"
    http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/Roundtable4.htm



    Her presentation only discusses geoengineering in the abstract future tense, and focuses more on weather modification (cloud seeding), sounding rockets in the ionosphere, and the effects of normal persistent contrails. Here's the official summary:


    And Peterson later (in 2012) explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails:


    Here's what Rosalind Peterson said:
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
    • Useful Useful x 4
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Loading...


  3. jpsitig

    jpsitig New Member

    "and the effects of normal persistent contrails."

    Exactly when in the video does she say this?

    Sorry- but how is she DEBUNKED?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2015
  4. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    She is not debunked - the claim about what she is saying is debunked as it's completely false.
    eg...


     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. jpsitig

    jpsitig New Member

    Her claim is completely false? You did research refuting her claims?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    You seem to have trouble following this simple concept - what is debunked is the claim made about what she is saying - the presentation BY OTHERS of what she is saying is false.
    What is her claim? If by that you mean this statement -

    “If we don’t look at the problems we are creating ... and we say to ourselves we want to geo-engineer or add more particulates to help global warming or stop climate change, we are going to have a pea-soup of chemicals detrimental to our health.”
    - I would say she has not proved that the chemicals are going to be detrimental to our health because it depends on what ones are actually used and IF they ever get used, but it would be wise to be cautious and not to rush into it and so is a fairly reasonable position (though probably not a fully informed one).
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Like the claims about cloud seeding? What's to refute?
     
  8. Agav8r

    Agav8r Member

    SHE is not debunked. The title of the video, "Chemtrails, Here is your PROOF 100% Real "MUST WATCH" " (as it appears on youtube) is what is debunked. Mick was generalizing this, as the same video appears in multiple social media locations with similar misleading titles. If you actually watch the video, she never once says the word 'chemtrail', and does refer to persistent lingering contrails, and how they behave. She also references weather modification (cloud seeding) and speaks of potential geo engineering in a future tense. There is really nothing to debunk in what she says. It could be argued that her claims of heat trapping and light blocking caused by contrails should be researched more. The misrepresentation of what she is actually saying is what is debunked.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Agav8r

    Agav8r Member

    At 4:58 she mentions persistent jet contrails, and how she believes they are affecting photosysnthesis by reducing sunlight. She did not include the word ‘normal’, but that would be a redundancy.

    She says ‘persistent jet contrails’ a few seconds later when referencing NASA’s explanation of how contrails spread into cirrus clouds, and the claim that they trap heat. She follows that by explaining how persistent jet contrails spread across our skies.

    At 6:00 she states that: “NASA studies show that part of our global warming problem can be attributed to these types of contrails.”

    The point is that she references persistent jet contrails multiple times during her presentation, and does so accurately for the most part. She never states, nor implies that these contrails are purposeful, that they are ‘chemtrails’, or that there is anything nefarious about them at all. She is concerned how they potentially affect agriculture, by reducing sunlight, and trapping heat.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    To clarify, what I was debunking were the claims about this video:
    • That it was new (it's seven years old)
    • That it's 100% proof of chemtrails (there's no actual evidence in it at all)
    • That she's a leaker (She's not a leaker, she has no inside knowledge, she's just a chemtrail believer)
    • That she's "addressing the UN". (It's just a conference at the UN).
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    I think the terms "Whistleblower" and "Insider" have been thrown around quite loosely by the chemtrail community when it comes to referring to anyone who simply comes forth with "evidence" of chemtrails. If this person has somehow worked for the government in their past life, such as Ted Gunderson, (Who the chemtrail community will say was THE head of the FBI, when in fact he was AN FBI chief), or Kristen Meghan who worked for the USAF, then that person is considered a whistleblower, and therefore results in "100% proof" of chemtrails. (Another term thrown around quite a bit)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Agav8r

    Agav8r Member

    Or, like in the case of Kristen Meghan, she states that she is a chemtrail believer, then goes on to her claims of whistleblowing about USAF personnel and overexposure to carcinogens on bases where she has worked. These claims then somehow get morphed into her being a 'chemtrail' whistleblower, in spite of the fact that she has clarified otherwise right here on this site.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    One other thing I noticed in the video, about 6:55 to 7:15, was the picture of a contrail and what she describes as a "burst" at the end of it. This is an example of argument from ignorance, i.e. we don't know what that cloud is, therefore it must be chemtrails geoengineering. This is one of the standard logical fallacies. If anyone on the board has a better idea what this cloud might be, I would be interested to hear it.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It just looks like a fairly ordinary cloud, but hard to say without seeing the original photo. The video is indistinct - here I've extracted it as best I can:
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Quantumbeliever

    Quantumbeliever Banned Banned

    It seems to me that the discussion here misses the point. Ms. Peterson's talk focuses on the fact that there are over 50 sites/projects in the US that are engaged in weather modification. She goes into say that the weather is manipulated either by shooting chemicals into the air or by releasing chemicals from jets or planes. She doesn't mince words or talk in hypotheticals in this regard. These comments can be heard between 1:30 and 3:00 minutes of her talk. For me the controversy seems to be:
    1. Does the US government or any private business/organization EVER, for any reason, release chemicals into the atmosphere by way of a jet or plane?

    I think, if you are to believe Ms. Peterson, the answer is unequivocally, yes.

    The question then becomes, "For what reason and shouldn't there be some type of oversight and public discussion concerning the release of chemicals into our ecology?

    I don't buy into the theory that there is a global conspiracy to poison the worlds population through chemical aerosols. These projects are very likely exactly what she says they are; experiments in weather modification and are possibly harmless. Having said that, I believe that the people living in areas where the research is done have a right to know the details of said experimentation.

    I believe this is a reasonable and prudent position to take and is EXACTLY the point Ms. Peterson is trying to make in her talk. She is calling for oversight and regulation: a sane, rational, and reasonable request.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You seem to be confusing weather modification with the chemtrail theory.

    Are you asking for more oversight of normal cloud seeding? Or more oversight of some theoretical thing for which there is no evidence?
     
  17. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Yes.

    Often.

    www.weathermodification.com

     
  18. M Bornong

    M Bornong Senior Member

    also, crop dusting,


    pest control,

    and as this video demonstrates the use of DDT, sometimes the long term effect wasn't desirable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I thought that "Rosalind Peterson" was growing, and learning. AM I incorrect?
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This is an old video. 2007
     
  21. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Oh. Well.....my mistake, then.
     
  22. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Rosalind Peterson was a no show at the Shasta County Supervisors, for what it's worth. Wigington said something about sick family members.
     
  23. Strawman

    Strawman Active Member

    You are talking about weather modification here, shooting chemicals (salts) into the air (clouds) or releasing them from airplanes. That is called cloud-seeding, making clouds rain off. The public actually often is being informed about cloud seeding activities via newspapers etc. So, if you are talking about weather modification/cloud seeding, and people are being informed about it happening beforehand, and it is actually pretty harmless (and, one might add, its success is disputed), what exactly is the problem?
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Quantumbeliever

    Quantumbeliever Banned Banned

    Ok. Glad to know "cloud seeding" is now normal. Also nice to know that the public is informed "by newspapers and stuff" whenever some idiot shoots "salts" in the air to "rain off clouds". Are you saying that "cloud seeding" isn't done from planes? [...]

    Are you kidding me? That's absurd. There is NO evidence it works (like you said), so any plane spraying anything into the clouds is suspect. Please provide evidence to back up the multiple claims and inferences you made that I suspect are completely contrived.
    1. That "cloud Seeding" is widely practiced.
    2. That the public is regularly inf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2014
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    See here:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-notice-of-intent-to-perform-weather-modification.306/

    It varied by state, but "Notices of Intent" are published in some local papers before spraying. e.g.

    http://www.ecprogress.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=14575
    http://www.leadvilleherald.com/legals/article_920a6f32-13c0-11e2-9af2-0019bb30f31a.html
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  26. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Not really. These videos show examples of "cloud seeding" in action, and some technical details. There is some effectiveness in this procedure, from the addition of condensation nucleii into clouds that are otherwise prone to make rain...the nucleii simply "help the process along":





    (NOTE that there are also ground-based silver iodide, and propane generators used, as well).
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Strawman

    Strawman Active Member

    ad 1: Will Wikipedia suffice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding#Modern_uses
    ad 2: For some examples, please see Mick's post. Also, recently, a German newspaper informed people about cloud seeding (Hagelfliegen, "hail flyers"): http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/i...auf.cba9196e-5e5d-4a05-9086-f196c31ea41e.html. The article discusses both why it's being done (protecting harvests or grapes (wine regions!), or protecting new cars from damage by hail (Volkswagen)), and by whom, it's paid for by farmers, companies, counties or cities. Also, the article discusses how cloud seeding is somewhat inefficient against huge thunderstorms, due to size. You see, in Germany there is about a handful of these planes.

    This custom of notifying the public about cloud seeding activities has already been around in the 1960s: http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvh7n6YSeD1qzgk6co1_r1_400.png

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that never said that. I said: it's done both from the ground (see the notice from the 1960s) ) and by plane (see Stuttgarter Zeitung).

    So, I stand by my previous statement: yes, cloud seeding is not a secret, and is in fact often even made public beforehand. And I would also agree to the statement (I actually did not make before), that cloud seeding as a means of weather modification is a fairly wide spread practice.

    And, finally, I don't mind being asked for evidence. In fact, I encourage it and I love providing it. Having done that, would you now mind taking back the accusation against me of making things up?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. Agav8r

    Agav8r Member

    Not just "now", but for more than 60 years, at least. WMI has been in business for that long. http://weathermodification.com/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    That's a pretty good demonstration of why there's so little public discussion about it, by the way: Every attempt is liable to be poisoned by chemtrailers and the like.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member


    1) From the state of Utah, the article states that cloud seeding was taking place in that state in the 1950's

    http://water.utah.gov/CloudSeeding/Default.html

    2) Cloud seeding used in the UAE (where I am currently at) to increase rainfall in a desert environment

    http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/weather/what-is-cloud-seeding-1.1236765

    and

    http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/weather/124-cloud-seeding-operations-since-start-of-year-1.1236770

    3) A cloud seeding tower on a ski resort at Lake Tahoe

    http://www.npr.org/2014/01/09/261070150/its-not-magic-on-the-mountain-its-a-rain-making-machine

    4) China wanting to use cloud seeding to reduce its smog problem

    http://news.yahoo.com/can-cloud-see...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ4Nl8x


    May I ask you this question? In what way is cloud seeding dangerous, and how do you think it causes mass health issues? It is performed from small propeller planes or ground based sources, and it is not visible from the ground. Chemtrail believers have always claimed that the long white lines in the sky, or persistent contrails created by high flying commercial airliners are "chemtrails". So which one is it?

    If anything in the form of smoke or such things coming from an aircraft is going to be lumped into the "chemtrail" category, does that mean skywriting is now a deadly and nefarious spraying operation as well?

    last-chance-2-620x465.


    How about air shows, with smoke generators in the engine exhausts like the Blue Angels use?

    blue-angels-formation-02.

    Fuel Dumping
    fuel_dumping.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 3
  31. Quantumbeliever

    Quantumbeliever Banned Banned

    Su
    Sure. Take it back. Sorry. Do you support the idea that weather modification that involves the release of chemicals into our atmosphere be regulated and that the public has a right to know if and when such activities are taking place? Again, this is only prudent and sensible. It is really the only point I'm trying to make. I realize, Mick, you have a lot invested in the whole "chemtrail" issue. I have no opinion on that other than to say that what some propose to be "chemtrails" are probably weather modification attempts using aerosols from planes. If this activity is "safe" and poses no threat to the public, then I would think any sensible plan would include public notification. Keeping such activity from the public only heightens the hysteria from those that believe harmful chemicals are raining down on us.
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have nothing invested in "chemtrails". I'm a debunker. I go by the evidence.

    THere's no evidence that the trails people point at are anything other than contrails.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  33. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Actually, what I continue to see from those who claim "chem"trails, I recognize them as just perfectly ordinary contrails, resulting from the passage of normal jet airplanes. They are caused by condensation of H2O that freezes in the very cold environment of the upper atmosphere.

    There is simply no extra weight-carrying capacity for a typical passenger or cargo airliner to load "aerosols"...and of course, there is no provision nor apparatus or method to "spray" anything, anyways.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  34. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member


    Thats just it tho Quantum, its NOT being kept from the public.. The information's there for all eyes to see IF you're willing to quit looking for nefarious supervillian-esque "logic" behind it all. The issue with the information is that "they" are in control and there-fore "they" are using disinformation to keep the "sheeple" quiet. There's nothing secretive or clandestine about cloud seeding, and there wont be. Its up to people to remove their predispositions and ideologies and look at things objectively. Cloud seeding is used to try to help people.. like farmers, or people living in areas of extreme drought. The information's there, you just have to read it.. not convince yourself that JUST because its coming from a website that is government funded its automatically evil and full of bullshit. (BTW.. those are collective yous not singular.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  35. MrA

    MrA New Member

    So Chemtrails don't really exist?

    Why devote all this time and adamantly try to go against what the general consensus of the public is, and the worry that they have? Not everyone comes to metabunk, regardless of how many topics, and threads ol' Mick writes.

    So chemtrails are like fairy tales? Is that what "debunkers" are saying on here?
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not exactly. I'm saying there's no evidence that they exist.

    I look at individual bits of evidence, and see if the evidence is correct or not. See:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

    The specific form of bunk focussed on at Metabunk is claims of evidence. i.e. individual points that are used to back up a broader theory. For example, the fact that high levels of aluminum are sometimes found in rainwater is used as evidence for the "chemtrails" theory.
    Claims of evidence can be debunked in one of two main ways​
      1. Demonstrating that the evidence is incorrect (e.g. aluminum levels were high because the water was actually from a muddy pond)
      2. Demonstrating that the evidence does not support the theory (e.g. aluminum is expected in rainwater because of dust in the air).
    In some cases the "theory" might simply be "something really strange is going on". You can debunk that just by explaining possible normal explanations for the evidence.​
     
    • Like Like x 2
  37. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    That's a wide brush you are painting with when you claim what the "general consensus of the public" believe. All people are doing on here are explaining what those long white lines in the sky truly are, and backing it up with proven science and aerodynamic theory as well as documented facts. The chemtrail community claims a lot of things, and this is where we step back and take a glance from a logical and scientific standpoint.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You miss the point. This site is not about proving or disproving broader claims. It's about looking at the evidence, and removing bunk.

    Please read the Posting Guidelines. This thread is about Peterson's speech. If you want to talk about something else, then check first to see if it has been covered, and then start a new thread (or add to the existing thread on the topic).
     
  39. MrA

    MrA New Member

    Yeah I missed the canvas with my brush, sorry. Your right about the speech. Back to the topic.
     
  40. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Demonstrate any lies you can. (in the appropriate thread)
     
  41. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    As noted just above, the point here is to examine the claims that allege "chem"trails. And to prove otherwise. That is the essence of "de-bunking".

    Getting deeper it is this: Whenever a claim that alleges "chem"trail is a claim based on bunk....then that claim is proven wrong with thorough evidence and science to the contrary. Those who advocate for "chem"trails bear the burden of proof.

    On the other hand....the 'majority' of people on this planet understand the science and reality of contrails, HOW they are formed, WHY they are formed, and WHAT they are. It is a knowledge steeped in decades of scientific fact and research.

    SO.....we have a few on the 'fringe' claiming "chem"trails, and a vast majority of science that points to perfectly benign results from our techological world....High Bypass jet engines burning fossil fuels at high altitudes/very cold temperatures producing innocuous cirrus clouds..

    Sure....these cirrus clouds (because, deep down, this is all that a contrail is) are "artificial" or "man-made"....but, 'Mother Nature' produces FAR more on 'her' own, just as part of Earth's normal atmospheric processes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1