"An Unconventional Shade of Grey" - Michael J. Murphy new Film

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
On a general note. I'd appreciate it if people could refrain for comments that could be interpreted as mockery.

Feel very free to point out flaws in his protocol, and the execution, or the equipment, or even the general premise. But think of the wider audience here, and do it politely.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
This does smell very much like the fact that as people have told him to get up and sample a contrail, he needs to SHOW the followers that he made a proper scientific effort.


I still do not understand why Believers just don't GoFundMe a couple of laps thru the sky with one of Weather Mod Inc's planes. I am sure WMI would more than happy to take their money.

http://www.weathermodification.com/environmental-monitoring.php

Too logical? or too close to the truth?
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
Yes it seems that out of all the theories there are bouncing around

Chemtrails seems one of the easier ones to prove or disprove
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
I'm a climate science researcher at the University of Southern California, and work largely on climate engineering. I spoke at the UN conference in Paris this summer (on geoengineering policy analysis), and was approached by Murphy after my talk for an interview. I hadn't heard of him, and the way he described the project made it sound like a legitimate documentary film on geoengineering (which I still think would make a great project). I ended up giving him an interview that was over an hour long. He asked me a few times to make statements that made me a little uncomfortable (I refused), but I assumed that he was just looking for dramatic dialogue. I just stumbled on this site today, and I'm extremely disappointed. I wonder how the footage will be edited to distort my words. Lesson learned, I suppose--I should have done my due diligence. Thanks for providing this resource. I'll be keeping an eye on it.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I'm a climate science researcher at the University of Southern California, and work largely on climate engineering. I spoke at the UN conference in Paris this summer (on geoengineering policy analysis), and was approached by Murphy after my talk for an interview. I hadn't heard of him, and the way he described the project made it sound like a legitimate documentary film on geoengineering (which I still think would make a great project). I ended up giving him an interview that was over an hour long. He asked me a few times to make statements that made me a little uncomfortable (I refused), but I assumed that he was just looking for dramatic dialogue. I just stumbled on this site today, and I'm extremely disappointed. I wonder how the footage will be edited to distort my words. Lesson learned, I suppose--I should have done my due diligence. Thanks for providing this resource. I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Hello Jon, thanks for posting here. Did Murphy give any indication to you at the time that he believes geoengineering is currently being carried out in our skies, or that aircraft trails are geoengineering? From your post, I assume not.

There seems to be a pattern with these "activists" in that they make all these dramatic statements to their followers about how it's indisputable fact that terrible things are going on above our heads, but when they actually talk to scientists they are very careful to hide their beliefs and talk only in very vague terms, to avoid being corrected. We see the same thing with Max Bliss, Ian Simpson et al when they go to climate conferences.
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
Hello Jon, thanks for posting here. Did Murphy give any indication to you at the time that he believes geoengineering is currently being carried out in our skies, or that aircraft trails are geoengineering? From your post, I assume not.

There seems to be a pattern with these "activists" in that they make all these dramatic statements to their followers about how it's indisputable fact that terrible things are going on above our heads, but when they actually talk to scientists they are very careful to hide their beliefs and talk only in very vague terms, to avoid being corrected. We see the same thing with Max Bliss, Ian Simpson et al when they go to climate conferences.

No, not at all. In fact, I got the distinct impression that we were speaking entirely about hypothetical future scenarios. I had the sense that he was very concerned both about the potential side effects of geoengineering and about the challenges associated with the sort of global governance such a policy would require, but those are entirely reasonable concerns. I share them. At no time did he (or Patrick Roddie, the cameraman) say anything that suggested they thought geoengineering had already been implemented. As I'm sure he knew, I would never have agreed to the interview if I'd known that that was his angle. Or, if I had, I would have been *much* more careful with my statements.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
but when they actually talk to scientists they are very careful to hide their beliefs and talk only in very vague terms, to avoid being corrected
Not necessarily to avoid being corrected, but to get the scientists to talk honestly and openly about the issues, or at least to talk to them at all. That's understandable and probably a good approach by someone making what is intended to be an investigative documentary.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Not necessarily to avoid being corrected, but to get the scientists to talk honestly and openly about the issues, or at least to talk to them at all. That's understandable and probably a good approach by someone making what is intended to be an investigative documentary.
That's part of it, but I find it very disingenuous. If they claim to have so much evidence, why don't they present it to the experts? I find it frustrating that they can stand there and ask vague questions, when you know that they are claiming to have "100% proof" of something nefarious going on. Surely if they had the proof they claim to have, they should be presenting it directly to the experts. They're not, and I think a big part of it is that they don't like being told that they are wrong. In a face-to-face situation, they cannot use their online tactics of censoring and blocking.

Also - and I may be going off on a slight tangent here - it seems to me that a lot of geoengineering experts are not very familiar with the chemtrail arguments. You might argue: "Why should real scientists trouble themselves with such nonsense?", but in a certain part of the public mind, geoengineering is inextricably linked with "chemtrails".

Indeed, if you Google "geoengineering", Dane Wigington's site comes up in the top four or five results, and is actually included in the boxed-out results at the top:

upload_2015-10-16_14-6-23.png

If scientists are trying to engage with the public about geoengineering, then they need to know about the chemtrail arguments, so that they can recognise leading questions and head them off. In the conference footage from Paris and Berlin, there were plenty of questions that could and should have been responded to in a way that made it clear that the questioners were totally off base, but they weren't. It seems like a missed opportunity.

What are your thoughts on that, @Jon Lawhead ?
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Wow. I really don't like that boxed-out top result. How did Google choose this? This should be fixed.
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
. If scientists are trying to engage with the public about geoengineering, then they need to know about the chemtrail arguments, so that they can recognise leading questions and head them off. In the conference footage from Paris and Berlin, there were plenty of questions that could and should have been responded to in a way that made it clear that the questioners were totally off base, but they weren't. It seems like a missed opportunity.

What are your thoughts on that, @Jon Lawhead ?

Yeah, I agree with that. I think the problem is twofold. First, there's a general problem with scientists and public communication of their work: many excellent scientists are neither interested in nor capable of presenting their work in a way that's accessible to the public. The translation often gets left either to journalists or "activists," which is problematic because both those groups frequently fail to accurately convey technical details. The skill set necessary to both understand cutting edge research and communicate the gist of that research to a lay audience is extraordinarily uncommon. I actually think that this is among the most useful and productive roles for philosophers to play in the scientific project. A lot of the skills and habits you acquire in the course of getting a doctorate in philosophy are extremely well-suited to that kind of task, especially when combined with advanced training in the relevant science; that's part of why I do what I do.

At the same time, though, you might think that a professional scientific conference isn't the best venue for engaging with a lay audience. Research conferences are primarily for researchers, and time spent trying to educate someone in a particularly weak epistemic position (e.g. a chemtrail activist) takes time away from high level scientific discussion. Conferences are where a lot of really novel research originates, so they're major drivers of scientific progress. This is especially true of areas that tend to attract serious crazies, because those people tend to monopolize the discussion and ask bad-faith questions; when I was in grad school, I did a lot of work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and unless conference participation was tightly controlled, we'd get mobbed by New Age Deepak Chopra acolytes who had such a poor understanding of the science that their questions were often incoherent. A professional conference on QM is not the right time for me to stop and explain how linear algebra works--it's a waste of everyone's time. The same is true of geoengineering.

That said, I certainly agree we as scientists have a responsibility to understand and engage with the body of mistakes and confusions that are prevalent in the public mind, particularly when it comes to things like climate change, which have an obvious and immediate relevance to everyone. Figuring out how to balance that obligation with the importance of actually conducting research is really challenging. It's unfortunate that there isn't a common public venue for this kind of thing, because it makes it hard to meaningfully engage with people. The Internet is the closest thing we have, but it's very difficult to have serious discussions with those who believe weird things, just because people are much more inured to criticism when behind a screen than they would be in person.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Not necessarily to avoid being corrected, but to get the scientists to talk honestly and openly about the issues, or at least to talk to them at all. That's understandable and probably a good approach by someone making what is intended to be an investigative documentary.

Yeah... except that they will trigger answers which can and WILL be misrepresented as information about CURRENT programs. :mad:
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
At the same time, though, you might think that a professional scientific conference isn't the best venue for engaging with a lay audience.
At some of the past geoengineering conferences, there have been set aside 'slots' for lunch talks, outside of the regular schedule, where chemtrail proponents had the chance to give a presentation. Unfortunately, there was little time or initiative to respond to their claims in an effective way.
However, I think the basic idea to give believers a platform at these events is sound. This contradicts directly their framing of the scientists as evil conspirators. Maybe a public discussion - separate from the conference program - could further this approach.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
At some of the past geoengineering conferences, there have been set aside 'slots' for lunch talks, outside of the regular schedule, where chemtrail proponents had the chance to give a presentation. Unfortunately, there was little time or initiative to respond to their claims in an effective way.
However, I think the basic idea to give believers a platform at these events is sound. This contradicts directly their framing of the scientists as evil conspirators. Maybe a public discussion - separate from the conference program - would further this approach.
Yes. The lunchtime talks at the Cambridge SRM Science were a good idea, but in practice they were a missed opportunity. People like Ian Simpson stood up, presented a lot of untruths, and seemed to feel validated. Nobody actually told him, even gently and politely, that he was talking nonsense.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
At some of the past geoengineering conferences, there have been set aside 'slots' for lunch talks, outside of the regular schedule, where chemtrail proponents had the chance to give a presentation. Unfortunately, there was little time or initiative to respond to their claims in an effective way.
However, I think the basic idea to give believers a platform at these events is sound. This contradicts directly their framing of the scientists as evil conspirators. Maybe a public discussion - separate from the conference program - could further this approach.
Alot of members here (and liberals in general) keep on about how "climate change deniers" shouldnt get equal "air time". Even though some of them are actual scientists. How exactly is that any different than the chemtrail movement. It's a Science Convention, not a Sci-Fi Convention. If they want to give say Herndon, floor space, thats one thing.. but Ian? or Dane saying "look you can see planes spraying".. give me a break.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Alot of members here (and liberals in general) keep on about how "climate change deniers" shouldnt get equal "air time". Even though some of them are actual scientists. How exactly is that any different than the chemtrail movement. It's a Science Convention, not a Sci-Fi Convention. If they want to give say Herndon, floor space, thats one thing.. but Ian? or Dane saying "look you can see planes spraying".. give me a break.
Public dialog and discussion on geoengineering is badly needed, even David Keith is a great supporter of this, see his paper from two years ago:
W. Carr, C. Preston, L. Yung, D. W. Keith, B. Szerszynski and A. Mercer. (2013).Public Engagement on Solar Radiation Management and Why it Needs to Happen Now.Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0763-y.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean giving the leaders of extreme conspiracist movements floor time. But voices from the general public should be heard, and they should be engaged in a discussion. And the conspiracist views cannot be ignored or left out of this.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Public dialog and discussion on geoengineering is badly needed, even David Keith is a great supporter of this, see his paper from two years ago:
W. Carr, C. Preston, L. Yung, D. W. Keith, B. Szerszynski and A. Mercer. (2013).Public Engagement on Solar Radiation Management and Why it Needs to Happen Now.Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0763-y.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean giving the leaders of extreme conspiracist movements floor time. But voices from the general public should be heard, and they should be engaged in a discussion. And the conspiracist views cannot be ignored or left out of this.
Of course the general public should be engaged. But chemtrailists are not the general public. I saw one of Keith's sit downs with chemmies and he did a great job - but he was very knowledgable of their tactics and myths. I wonder if he still feels the same way about engaging the chemmies though. Someone should ask him.

But regardless of what he thinks, i still disagree. But we've had this discussion already before :)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Of course the general public should be engaged. But chemtrailists are not the general public. I saw one of Keith's sit downs with chemmies and he did a great job - but he was very knowledgable of their tactics and myths. I wonder if he still feels the same way about engaging the chemmies though. Someone should ask him.

But regardless of what he thinks, i still disagree. But we've had this discussion already before :)
You could argue that you shouldn't give them floor time (I disagree, but never mind!)
But if you do give them floor time, you need to make sure that you can and do rebut their arguments at the time. Otherwise, the videos of them presenting their bunk unchallenged just appear to bolster their position. It's like the recent EPA hearing in Washington. I know the format didn't allow for any discussion, but the unchallenged presentation of chemtrail garbage in front of a government body makes the theory look "official".

In short: either invite them and correct them, or don't invite them at all.
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
Jon,
If Murphy didn't get you to sign a release of your interview you can probably ask for the video to not be published in the movie. If you did you might still make a demand.

Dr. James Fleming was interviewed similarly to you and much to his surprise ended up in Murphy's previous propaganda film:

https://www.metabunk.org/dr-james-fleming.t794/

I did sign a release (at least I read it first). At this point, my plan is to wait and see what the final product looks like, and how my material gets used. If it's been edited disingenuously, I'll try to use it as a teachable moment to draw some attention to the issue. In graduate school, one of my dissertation advisors was David Albert, who was featured prominently in the abysmal "What the Bleep Do We Know" film about quantum mechanics. Those filmmakers similarly misrepresented their project to him, and ended up editing the interview to make it look like he was endorsing all sorts of insane things that he wasn't. David ended up very publicly denouncing the film as "wildly and irresponsibly wrong," and actually managed to make enough of a fuss that the filmmakers released a re-edited version that more accurately represented his views. I think that's a great strategy. It drew a lot of public attention to the kinds of crazy things that people say about QM, and it drew the filmmakers into an extremely visible discussion that revealed their dirty tricks and weird views. The filmmakers released this statement about it:

As for David Albert. Dr. Albert was invited (not by us) to give a presentation at a conference last year with most of the other interviewees. We were going to re interview everyone so I contacted David. We had a long talk about the previous film. I said we were going to issue an extended version, but would not include him against his wishes. However I said that his views were extremely interesting and I thought it would be a loss. We then came to the agreement that we would re-film but, but would only include footage of him in the Rabbit Hole subject to his OK. He was sent a DVD of those interview segments, with interviews before and after so that he could see the context. He approved all of them. He came to the conference and gave a presentation on what he thought was incorrect about what we had in the first movie. All of us filmmakers were impressed by his willingness to come before a BLEEP crowd and contradict them and make them think. Instead of us focusing on our difference and conflict (which the media feeds on), we focused on what we had in common - an inquiry into the way the world works, and a refinement of that view in accord with the true workings of the Universe. Personally having watched many hours of the interviews with Dr. Albert, I can say that he has pushed me to examine more closely the ideas put forth. As Dr. Hameroff says during the credits in Down the Rabbit Hole - "I want to thank David for his healthy skepticism".
Content from External Source
That seems to me like the best possible outcome to something like this. I'm not too concerned about my own reputation being damaged or anything like that; I'm an academic, and I don't think this sort of thing matters much. My publications and whatnot can speak for themselves in that respect.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Jon, Michael Murphy & Co. also chopped David Keith's statements by 'creative editing' to make it appear he said things he did't say. As a result he has received many threats which got the RCMP involved. Murphy knows full well that the planes he sees are ordinary commercial planes because the co-producer of his first movie has answered that question unequivocally. So, a comparison with the BLEEP people isn't likely to occur. If you find you have to respond to something like what they did to Keith, you might find Murphy less than cooperative.

G Edward Griffin.jpg
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
Jon, Michael Murphy & Co. also chopped David Keith's statements by 'creative editing' to make it appear he said things he did't say. As a result he has received many threats which got the RCMP involved. Murphy knows full well that the planes he sees are ordinary commercial planes because the co-producer of his first movie has answered that question unequivocally. So, a comparison with the BLEEP people isn't likely to occur. If you find you have to respond to something like what they did to Keith, you might find Murphy less than cooperative.

G Edward Griffin.jpg


That's unfortunate, but I don't think there's a whole lot I can do at this point. I'll just have to deal with problems as they arise. I wish I'd found all this out before the interview, but I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
That's unfortunate, but I don't think there's a whole lot I can do at this point. I'll just have to deal with problems as they arise. I wish I'd found all this out before the interview, but I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.
Do you know any 'entertainment lawyers'? I would think asking for a copy of your full interview, uncut, should be something they would have to provide to you. maybe.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

JFDee

Senior Member.
@Jon Lawhead, slightly off-topic - if you don't do it anyway, I'd like to suggest that you save what you posted on Youtube recently for possible future use.

Some of your posts below the David Keith BBC interview are quite long but your style is captivating and the language is very accessible. I think the explanation of weather vs. climate (and their prediction) is particularly useful.

When people complain that scientists are not willing or able to communicate with the general public, you should be explicitly excluded :cool:
 

Jon Lawhead

Member
@Jon Lawhead, slightly off-topic - if you don't do it anyway, I'd like to suggest that you save what you posted on Youtube recently for possible future use.

Some of your posts below the David Keith BBC interview are quite long but your style is captivating and the language is very accessible. I think the explanation of weather vs. climate (and their prediction) is particularly useful.

When people complain that scientists are not willing or able to communicate with the general public, you should be explicitly excluded :cool:

Thanks! I do indeed archive everything that I write like that for future recycling (sometimes stuff from Internet arguments even makes it into formal academic papers). It's a really great tip, and everyone should do it. Having a big library of explanations like that to draw on also makes it much less time consuming to engage with these issues, since you don't have to reinvent the wheel for every new discussion. It makes it possible to have substantive discussions about stuff like this without it becoming a full time job to keep up with the conversation (cf. Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it").
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
(cf. Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it").

Unfortunately, I think it's at LEAST two orders of magnitude once the bunk proliferates across the internet.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Unfortunately, I think it's at LEAST two orders of magnitude once the bunk proliferates across the internet.
Especially since they just repeat it over and over, but demand full and irrefutable proof they are wrong every time, so we can't just repeat our debunk but have to redo the footwork every time.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
One of my common responses on ATS was along the lines of "if you come up with some new "evidence" then there maybe some new debunking, until then "the same old stuff" is all that is required"
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I feel this is something of a missed opportunity for debunkers. The chance to reach out and collaborate in a mutually beneficial methodology is there. I have no idea how such a sampling would be possible without specialist kit which MJM may not have ready access to. I know that the samplers DEFRA use in the UK draw though a cubic metre per hour and will run for 7 days so I would presume there needs to be some active way MJM needs to draw in outside air at a usable rate.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Murphy doesn't have the airplane capable of actually reaching a contrail, and doesn't bother to identify the airplane or it's altitude using anything at all. Murphy and Dane Wigington have both been told exactly how to do that according to my conversation with G. Edward Griffin. By ignoring the easily confirmed fact of the identity of the planes they see, both men show that they have no interest in actually resolving the conundrum of what is happening a mere six miles away. It is all about keeping the mystery alive so that their conspiracy theory can remain a viable belief system by avoiding a true test. Until they are willing to have their followers make an en-mass effort to identify the planes they remain under control and have the opportunity to draw in others who don't know better.

https://www.metabunk.org/14-years-of-chemtrails-comments-and-suggestions.t100/
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member.
Murphy doesn't have the airplane capable of actually reaching a contrail, and doesn't bother to identify the airplane or it's altitude using anything at all. Murphy and Dane Wigington have both been told exactly how to do that according to my conversation with G. Edward Griffin. By ignoring the easily confirmed fact of the identity of the planes they see, both men show that they have no interest in actually resolving the conundrum of what is happening a mere six miles away. It is all about keeping the mystery alive so that their conspiracy theory can remain a viable belief system by avoiding a true test. Until they are willing to have their followers make an en-mass effort to identify the planes they remain under control and have the opportunity to draw in others who don't know better.

https://www.metabunk.org/14-years-of-chemtrails-comments-and-suggestions.t100/


I posted the August 2015 meeting that Dane Wigington organized in another thread, but I think part of it applies to this discussion.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...event-will-expose-global-climate-engineering/

One topic that drew the most applause at the meeting was the ongoing reference to the attendees, who were portrayed as fighting the good fight against insurmountable odds. On many occasions, the audience was applauding itself.

In other words, Wigington, Murphy, etc. may not want a clear resolution to the “problem” of geoengineering, but neither do many of their constituents.

A solution would take away that special status too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In other words, Wigington, Murphy, etc. may not want a clear resolution to the “problem” of geoengineering, but neither do many of their constituents.

A solution would take away that special status too.

I don't think that's a conscious desire. What they really want is to be right.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
But for many they've skipped that part and moved on to *knowing* they're right. Lot's have already decided the proof is undeniable and there is no logical argument to be had establishing whether it's happening or not.
 
Top