SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Find some very recent ice core data for Seriouslydebatable to look at, ride that jackass on over to the library and do something productive for a change.
I find this to be highly offensive.
Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I find this to be highly offensive.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
trekkie or trekker does not have a negative connotation, that is why people who like star trek call themselves that. No chemtrail believer I have seen calls themselves a chemmie. Either way the tone in the comments is pretty negative, whether or not a label was used. Getting upset is a sign of a closed mind, and people label other people when they get upset. I hope he can overcome his weakness about his ego by not feeling the need to call people chemmies OR jackasses anymore.
Jay was not calling you OR GeorgeB a Jackass. "Jackass" is a reference to the argument, not the person. Jay has used this a phrase few times with GeorgeB. I had assumed that "ride that jackass" was a regional American phrase meaning something like "keep flogging that dead horse", as George keeps tirelessly bringing up variants on the same argument over and over again.
"Chemmie" is a phrase chemtrail believers/theorists/promoters/scientists/enthusiasts do use themselves. Sure, people sometimes get upset over little things like that. But I think it's mostly used as a handy abbreviation, and I don't allow words like "[chemtrailer]", "chemnut", or other worse words and phrases.
I'm afraid you are going to have to ask a specific question here. I'm guessing you want some kind of data on the Mauna Loa observations. But I don't like to guess. So what EXACTLY do you want to know?
See Jay's expansion on the Mauna Loa topic here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/13899
Last edited:
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
George, since this is not directly related to ice cores, etc. I have responded in the original thread on this subject:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/13899
Last edited by a moderator:
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Your people coined the term, about 2000. If gays want to call themselves gay, don't blame anyone for speaking of them using their own terminology.
Background: When the term chemtrail began, practically every sort of atmospheric phenomenon which was observed had the prefix "chem" attached to it.
You had "Chem"bows, "Chem"domes, "Chem" fog, etc. Pretty soom Chemmie became a moniker used amongst the believer. This is pretty standard for small cults, they create a specialized jargon essentially only they can understand, it sets them apart from others and contributes to groupthink cohesiveness.
Ref: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/msg62262.html
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Sometimes Jekyll comes out. I'll try harder to individualize my scorn and not box unworthy folk into a group they may not fit.
Seriouslydebateable, what would you prefer I call the collective "chemtrail conscious activist people", in shorter concise terminology, please.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
This is my problem. I do not like to be labeled, or grouped into a category. I am an individual, who is skeptic just like you. Furthermore I am not on either side of the debate, and I have no dog in the fight. I have seen no absolute proof for chemtrails, nor any absolute proof of their absence. I prefer you describe people who question things, as skeptics. Either contrail skeptics, or chemtrail skeptics.. or you could say they are chemtrail theorists... I think that should give you a better idea of what I am talking about.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I refuse to call chemtrails a theory. Based on fifteen years of experience examining the claims and its promoters, I find that calling it anything other than a hoax to be seriously debateable, if that gives you a better idea of what I am talking about.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Much like data in collecting rainwater is given, they list the container material used to collect the rain, the dates the rain was collected, the location, etc. so that people can either repeat the test and see if they get the same results, or be able to identify a source of contamination or other flaws with the test.
I am not sure how aerosol is measured or collected so I cannot specify the information that I want, what I am wondering is if the data used for the tests is publicly available, and if anyone has checked the results to make sure they are accurate. If the test is inaccurate, then there is no reason to debate its conclusions.
Last edited by a moderator:
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Hoax implies deliberate misleading. Not everyone who adheres to chemtrails are deliberately misleading others. Fine don't call them theorists... Whats wrong with skeptics though? If you call someone anything other than a skeptic (such as a chemmie), then you are assuming what their opinion is, and being stereotypical. You could just go the route of not calling them anything at all, except for their name. You can call me Serious. Thanks Jay!
P.S. if it is debatable, seriously or otherwise, it is still on the table, meaning it has not been decided. Refusing to call it anything other than a hoax means you have made a decision. You just made a contradictory statement. I don't usually get to point those out. Sorry!
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I'll call you SD for short. I think you may have come a long way from where you were less than 2 weeks ago. You are hanging around the right place, anyways.
So, let me put it this way, if you had ten minutes to present the best possible factual evidence for the chemtrails hxxx, what would you provide as the most unimpeachable evidence? (I will show you the bunk)
Also, of all the facts laid out so far against the chemtrails hxxx, which do you consider the weakest?(I will show your error or I will strengthen the explanation)
So, let me put it this way, if you had ten minutes to present the best possible factual evidence for the chemtrails hxxx, what would you provide as the most unimpeachable evidence? (I will show you the bunk)
Also, of all the facts laid out so far against the chemtrails hxxx, which do you consider the weakest?(I will show your error or I will strengthen the explanation)
I think the paper describes it quite well:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf
Jay also posted this link:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2011-lo-rez.pdf
SIDEBAR 2.3: LONG-TERM CHANGES OF ATMOSPHERIC SOLAR
TRANSMISSION—E. DUTTON
Both the solar and thermal infrared transmission of the atmosphere play important roles in Earth’s energy balance. For example, the anticipated long-term worldwide decrease in infrared atmospheric transmission, due to increasing greenhouse gas abundance, gives rise to the issues and concerns of global warming. Similarly, long-term increases in the solar transmission would contribute to warming, while a decrease would have the opposite effect. While considerable attention and effort has gone into observations necessary to track and understand the long-term global background of the atmospheric infrared transmission, relatively few similar records of the solar transmission exist.
One of the longest, continuous observational records of solar transmission through the free troposphere and above is maintained by NOAA at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii (Dutton and Bodhaine 2001). This consists of qualified daily and monthly averages of clear-sky morning “apparent” solar transmission obtained from pyrheliometer observations by the methodology first described by Ellis and Pueschel (1971). The “apparent” is an optical term applied to the solar transmission values used here because they are determined from ratios of direct beam solar irradiances observed at different solar zenith angles (atmospheric paths) such that the computed transmission is relative to the irradiance already transmitted along the shorter path. The irradiance is measured with a calibrated pyrheliometer. The linear calibration factor cancels out in the apparent transmission ratio, yielding a more accurate and stable result.
This measure of solar transmission is particularly sensitive to aerosols. The computational procedure diminishes the effect of water vapor, which is the other major contributor to variable clear-sky solar transmission, due to saturation effects. There is also a minor ozone contribution, although this is not significant on the scale of the variations seen. Spectral aerosol optical depth is also observed (sun photometer) at the site and confirms the primary aerosol role in current observed solar transmission variability. Although only a single site, Mauna Loa can be considered representative of a much larger portion of the Earth because of its remote central Pacific location and high elevation, above most local effects, especially in the early morning during downslope-wind conditions when daily transmission measurements are made.
Here's one of the instruments:
There are a bunch of Scholar links to pyrheliometer usage on Mauna Loa
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Mauna+Loa"++pyrheliometer&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
It's not the only location measuring solar radiation, there the entire SURFRAD network, from which a lot of data is available:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/
Which is part of the larger ESRL-GMD
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/field.html
The raw MLO clear sky data is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.html
You can download extensive datasets for SURFRAD here:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/radiation/surfrad/
Last edited:
P.S. if it is debatable, seriously or otherwise, it is still on the table, meaning it has not been decided. Refusing to call it anything other than a hoax means you have made a decision. You just made a contradictory statement. I don't usually get to point those out. Sorry!
Being debatable is not the same as being undecided. Christopher Hitchins would debate Christians all the time. That does not mean he was undecided about his atheism.
Jay is debating you, he also thinks it's a hoax. These things are not incompatible.
U
Unregistered
Guest
I think "hoax" is the right word. I think Will Thomas knows he was mistaken and deliberate when he started spreading this nonsense. He was looking to become more famous so he used the gullibility and ignorance of the average conspiracy theorist to spread the word....and further his career.
Just because the hoax is started by someone who knows the information to be wrong...doesn't mean it isn't then spread by others who have no idea...as with all hoaxes.
Just because the hoax is started by someone who knows the information to be wrong...doesn't mean it isn't then spread by others who have no idea...as with all hoaxes.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
how about chemtrail believers? fyi hxxx is not an alternative, it is censored. The word does not need adjustment, the label does. Once you start to use a label, then you lump a true skeptic into a group that believes in aliens, nibiru, illuminati, etc etc etc and that is an attack on someones character. Not everyone who entertains the idea of chemtrails is a conspiracy theorist.
I don't see much evidence for or against chemtrails.
My biggest issue is government accountability and transparency. Whenever questions are asked they are ignored or not explained properly, and while nothing nefarious may be occurring, IT USUALLY IS! Good deeds are done in the open, and bad deeds are done in secret.
I would say the best evidence for chemtrails is that they have admitted to spraying them before (experimental tests, military exercises) but they deny it happening on a regular basis.
The best evidence for contrails... well... I agree there is persistent contrails already. The best evidence I would say for contrails, is the lack of evidence for chemtrails. This just means we need to find a definitive way of testing things
I don't see much evidence for or against chemtrails.
My biggest issue is government accountability and transparency. Whenever questions are asked they are ignored or not explained properly, and while nothing nefarious may be occurring, IT USUALLY IS! Good deeds are done in the open, and bad deeds are done in secret.
I would say the best evidence for chemtrails is that they have admitted to spraying them before (experimental tests, military exercises) but they deny it happening on a regular basis.
The best evidence for contrails... well... I agree there is persistent contrails already. The best evidence I would say for contrails, is the lack of evidence for chemtrails. This just means we need to find a definitive way of testing things
I tend to use "chemtrail believer" and "chemtrail promoter" - as they are two different things. I can understand people wanting an abbreviation though.
That's just evidence for things being sprayed out of airplanes - you could use crop dusting for that. Plus those tests were low altitude and did not leave visible trails.
The real question is: what is the best evidence for any those long white high-altitude trails being something other than contrails.
That's just evidence for things being sprayed out of airplanes - you could use crop dusting for that. Plus those tests were low altitude and did not leave visible trails.
The real question is: what is the best evidence for any those long white high-altitude trails being something other than contrails.
I spoke with Thomas a few weeks ago. My impression was that he did not know he was mistaken. I explained some of his mistakes, and he actually seemed quite open to my input. He seems to pretty much be basing his belief on some supposed whistle-blower testimony from 12 years ago. I think it's quite possible that he himself was hoaxed.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
The real question is; how can we test for evidence for any of those long white high-altitude trails being something other than contrails. There is no evidence because we have no way to test it... BUT we can see if anything similar has been done in the past... like deliberately releasing radioactive chemicals over U.S. and Canadian cities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States and since it has been done, that means chemtrails are plausible and not off the table. I have seen reports where there are a ton of trails for weeks, then no trails for weeks... extensive tests for years would need to be done it would seem to get to the bottom of this.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
To clarify my position, I believe most trails are persistent contrails. I am however aware that the government has sprayed citizens before unsuspectedly and that it is possible that at times, some of these trails may be laden with chemicals. Since this would have to be happening on a regular frequency to be able to adequately test the possibility, and since no tests are being conducted at every possible location at every possible time, that makes testing for random "chemtrails" quite difficult. It is possible, and it has been documented so to dismiss it completely would be ignorant of history.
No one denies that they are "plausible".
What do you conclude from your comment " I have seen reports where there are a ton of trails for weeks, then no trails for weeks..."
I'll bet I conclude something completely different...and completely benign.
And tests (sampling) are done on our environment all the time...from hundreds of schools and hobbiests. NOTHING unusual has been found....ever.
What has been reported as "evidence" from chemtrail advocates has consistently been nothing more than misunderstanding and ignorance on the part of the advocate.
So far...there is literally NOTHING to support the claims of a widespread program to manipulate the weather/harm the population/hide planets/whatever...
What do you conclude from your comment " I have seen reports where there are a ton of trails for weeks, then no trails for weeks..."
I'll bet I conclude something completely different...and completely benign.
And tests (sampling) are done on our environment all the time...from hundreds of schools and hobbiests. NOTHING unusual has been found....ever.
What has been reported as "evidence" from chemtrail advocates has consistently been nothing more than misunderstanding and ignorance on the part of the advocate.
So far...there is literally NOTHING to support the claims of a widespread program to manipulate the weather/harm the population/hide planets/whatever...
JFDee
Senior Member.
If you have no evidence that those long white high-altitude trails are something other than contrails, why do you cling to the belief that something sinister is going on? Is is YouTube? Chemtrail propaganda sites?
What made you delving into the subject in the beginning? Just observation? Honestly?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Thomas began by being hoaxed. His first claim was that ethylene dibromide was being sprayed. He got that from the email by Richard Finke. He claimed to have the lab report, but never showed it. He then claimed to have "photos of air tankers spraying out of their tail booms deluging my office", but he never showed them, either. I offered to pay for copies of both, he would no sell them. He had a good opportunity to show all of this at the conference, but he didn't. I conclude that he was hoaxed, but later started to fabricate stuff, so he is dishonest. Maybe he can redeem himself, but to do so, he has to come clean about all of this and much more.
SD, I think that you were propagandized to some extent by the claims of chemtrails believers. You have come a ways away from that, probably by hooking up here. You can't deny that much of what they tried to convince you about their claims has been debunked, and when I asked you for specifics you dodged. That tells me you have seen enough here to have doubts. If there are further claims which you would like us to examine for you, just ask.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Good question. I think no justification is needed in the private sector, as an individual can do what they please with their own money. But if you want to go that route, there are tons of things that I do not want tax dollars spent on. Perhaps it would be best if they just allowed people to keep their money eh?
But suppose someone, a private individual, was considering spending $100K of his own money on sampling. Now obviosuly he can do what he wants with his own money. But suppose you wanted to tell him it's a good idea - what evidence would you show him to convince him it's a good idea?
The question I'm asking is if there's actually enough evidence to justify sampling. Because if there's no evidence, exactly why should ANYONE takes samples.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I was thinking about a situation nearly 12 years ago and reviewed it. The chemtrails believer 'Sore Throat" recognized that airplane cabin air filters would collect anything toxic in the outside airstream, and spoke of obtaining one. Here was my prediction:
12 years later, same guy, still hanging around thinking about how he 'coulda been a contenda':
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg124109.html#124109
Sad to see................hope his throat hasn't been sore for 12 years!
JayReynolds said:
12 years later, same guy, still hanging around thinking about how he 'coulda been a contenda':
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg124109.html#124109
Sad to see................hope his throat hasn't been sore for 12 years!
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I am not just talking about the plausibility of the capability to spray, but the plausibility of doing it in secret.
I conclude that test results are always subject to independent analysis and I gave one example of how varying conditions could produce different results.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soiltest.html
“From a telephone conversation with one of the agronomists at the laboratory (A & L Canada Laboratories East, Inc.) I learned that soil testing that included aluminum testing was a relatively new addition to the standard agricultural tests – just over the last few years.”
The tests being used to determine whether or not chemicals are being sprayed are fundamentally flawed. Because of the amount of aluminum already present in our environment, it will almost always be detected. What needs to be done is a test showing the accumulation of metals such as aluminum over many years like from a varve core or an ice core.
Firstly, I do not need to have a belief for something to be a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
deliberately releasing radioactive chemicals over U.S. and Canadian cities
http://books.google.com/books?id=y69nhn-9FqcC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
Weatherman radar gets jammed by chemtrails-Military testing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc0TWVtozio
Second, I am open to all evidence, which is why I am here. There is no debunking yet of the actual spraying, only the tests themselves. I am aware that they have sprayed secretly in the past, and at least one mission was discovered, who knows how many other secret missions may have never seen the light of day. I am just here to see how much of it is currently happening, and how widespread and frequent it is, and the agenda part of it could be anything, but I try not to speculate on that too often, because it is sidetracking from evidence.
I have an open mind, nothing more. I remain open on the issue of a mass global engineering program.
I did not dodge anything, if you would like an answer to something then ask again I must have missed it in all the chatter. I already had my doubts before coming here. I just see this is mostly a one sided debate here, and I can at least give an argument for both sides.
Some recent ice core samples or varve core samples would be nice. Testing for the 3 "alleged" chemicals that they are spraying on us. Of course I don't think we will get those any time soon as an accurate result would require many varve cores from many parts of the world and testing would be expensive.
You links above, the first one is about "Unethical Human Experiments", which just show that people have done unethical human experiments in the past. There's nothing in it about long white high altitude trails.
The second one is about chaff, which is visually invisible, so again it's not long white high altitude trails.
What evidence is there that the long white high altitude trails people keep pointing to are anything other than contrails?
The second one is about chaff, which is visually invisible, so again it's not long white high altitude trails.
What evidence is there that the long white high altitude trails people keep pointing to are anything other than contrails?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Well the question would be whether you would like to pay for an investigation, which would probably be much more than $100k. Testing should be included in any physical investigation. That answer would be different for everyone personally... and if it was up to me... I would rather invest in clean air technology for my residence and move to an area with little airplane traffic if any. It would be much cheaper and would eliminate the possibility for me. Even if I did fund an investigation, it would not be "official" and I could not act on the results. Even a positive result in the tests would not give me much power to stop it. Both official and unofficial investigations are open to scrutiny, but only official investigations results are able to influence policy.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I have none, nor have I ever claimed to have had any. I do have additional unanswered questions however that I will address as they come to mind. Again I will give the other side of the argument here. What evidence is there that the long white high altitude trails people keep pointing to are ALL contrails?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Has ANYONE examined some? Preferably from different airliners, in different areas, over an extended period of time?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Even if the observation of the spraying is not visible, and people have mistaken contrails for the spray itself, there is still plenty of evidence for spraying. Let's not use semantics to "cloud" the real issue here. Chemtrails may very well be invisible.
A) They all look and act exactly as you would expect contrails to look and act
B) There is no evidence that they are anything else.
It's the same thing as robot cats. I've got no evidence that the cats round here are not robots, even though they do act a bit odd sometimes. But they still look and act exactly like you would expect cats to look and act, and there's not evidence that they are not cats.
You can't PROVE everything is what it appears to be, but if there's zero evidence that it is not, then why would anyone believe otherwise? Why don't they go around thinking maybe cats are robots?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
A more accurately interpretation would be that it shows that people have BEEN CAUGHT doing unethical human experiments in the past.
What is the evidence of spraying (other than known forms: crop dusting, cloud seeding, chaff, fire fighting, insect control, oil dispersants, etc)
What's the difference?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
They most likely are contrails that you see. It does not mean that a plane with a contrail cannot also be spraying something invisible.
Similar threads
- Sticky
