Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In her paper Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering, researcher Rose Cairns suggests that mainstream treatment of the "chemtrail" movement is overly dismissive. She notes that the the spectrum of concerns of many chemtrail believers overlaps with the concerns of people who are concerned about geoengineering happening in the future - and if we broadly dismiss chemtrail believers as irrational and irrelevant, then we appear to be dismissing their valid concerns along with their unfounded concerns.

But she concluded on a pessimistic note:

And repeats a common criticism of skepticism (and debunking):
This all speaks to what I've personally been trying to do with debunking - specifically being polite, trying to establish common ground, and focussing on individual claims of evidence. Getting away from debunking as a sport. So I was a little sad when she referenced my sites thusly:
In some ways there's a false dichotomy here. The choice is not to "dismiss" or "engage" the chemtrail theorists. In fact I focus very strongly on engagement, and the notion of "dismissing" a theory is something I stay far away from, preferring instead to focus in individual claims of evidence, where some common ground can be found.

However I recognize that the perception of "dismissal" is one that is present in the minds of the chemtrail believers. Over and over I will explain how a particular claim is incorrect (for example, the claim that contrails did not persist - or even very minor points, like contrails appearing in old movies), and the response will invariably be "well, that does not prove it [chemtrails/covert geoengineering] isn't happening". They assume that I'm arguing that because I've found one flaw in their argument, then I'm then asserting their entire argument is bunk, and should be dismissed.

This of course is a failure of communication on my part. I'm failing to clarifying that I'm simply looking at an individual claim of evidence, and not the entire theory. Cairns seems to suggest that it's worse than this - not only do they extend their perception of my claim of falsification to their broader theory, they also extend it to their broader concerns. In many cases those are quite reasonable concerns (about pollution, complexity, cost, aesthetic, politics, and other issues related to geoengineering). The concerns are valid, but are tinged by them being concerns about something they believe is happening now, rather than concerns about something that might happen in the future.

What I need to do is ensure that communication is clear. Perhaps I need to emphasis at the outset of a discussion that I am just just looking at a particular claim of evidence, and not at the broader theory. I also need to strive to not invalidate any legitimate concerns that they might have, perhaps by addressing them directly, and empathically. We all share concerns about pollution, and about the overreaches of those in power. By establishing that I agree with people on many points, it hopefully becomes fare less likely that I will be perceived as rejecting their entire position when I correct them on a single point.

One must do all this with honesty, not in an attempt to win some argument, but in an effort to communicate science by establishing as much common ground as possible. The perception of dismissal is something we should actively seek to avoid, by being as open as possible, and by understanding the full range of concerns that are involved.
 

Attachments

  • workingpaper9cairnsclimatesofsuspicion-1.pdf
    332.4 KB · Views: 866

MikeC

Closed Account
you have to be demonized, because if something you say is correct then their entire edifice of conspiracy will fall over - it is self-supporting and interlinked - you cannot be allowed to remove (attack, debunk, criticize) just part of it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
you have to be demonized, because if something you say is correct then their entire edifice of conspiracy will fall over - it is self-supporting and interlinked - you cannot be allowed to remove (attack, debunk, criticize) just part of it.

That perception is why part of the communication burden on you is to get across that you are not trying to remove the whole thing.

It's not universal though, many people are happy to flit from point to point, and let you knock them down - they have plenty left.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This of course is a failure of communication on my part. I'm failing to clarifying that I'm simply looking at an individual claim of evidence, and not the entire theory
i disagree. you say that ALL the time. It's pretty clear in the posting guidelines.

You are doing an absolutely great job already. Constructive criticism is good to ponder but don't get distracted (self doubt) by some fancy credentials.

She used really small snippets of quotes from other sources and then tacked you in on the end to imply you too are saying condescending things. Pfft. That's her problem if she needs to stoop to such levels, not yours. You are very respectful and Polite. And she doesn't actually suggest otherwise, it just reads that way.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
And not for nothing, if she wants 'concerns for government control of weather' (which is a legitimate concern) to be taken seriously, she should be supporting you whole heartedly. Its the massive bunk that makes people dismiss chemtrailers. Not you!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
And not for nothing, if she wants 'concerns for government control of weather' (which is a legitimate concern) to be taken seriously, she should be supporting you whole heartedly. Its the massive bunk that makes people dismiss chemtrailers. Not you!

But, Dierdre...."where" have any of these various people posting on social media sites, who claim that "Geo-Engineering" is currently underway....where have ANY of these folks shown actual, verifiable proof to substantiate their claims?

(I know....it is a 'question' that is open-ended....I leave it for the casual readers of this thread to contemplate, when they happen along).
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The article doesn't point out anything new or unknown to those who try to engage. They regularly encounter the 'well you must think everything's fine and we don't need to question authority...etc.' gambit, so it seems she's falling for that strawman herself when she says

if we broadly dismiss chemtrail believers as irrational and irrelevant, then we appear to be dismissing their valid concerns along with their unfounded concerns.
(your paraphrasing)
That's a fallacy that's used all the time to deflect factual engagement.

And this is demonstrably false,
as you don't debunk beliefs you debunk claims of evidence, and go to great lengths to make that clear.

I guess it's of use in that it shows an erroneous perception of the dynamic involved, but there's only so much you can do.

ETA - and the only time most 'broadly dismiss chemtrail believers as irrational' is when they demonstrate irrational behaviour *after* being engaged rationally on their claim of evidence, when their reaction is typical and demonstrated again and again. There's a difference.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But, Dierdre...."where" have any of these various people posting on social media sites, who claim that "Geo-Engineering" is currently underway....where have ANY of these folks shown actual, verifiable proof to substantiate their claims?

(I know....it is a 'question' that is open-ended....I leave it for the casual readers of this thread to contemplate, when they happen along).
I often forget to post what im thinking (taking it for granted people can read my mind ; ) I was thinking of David Keith, since at quick glance that seems to kinda be her field of study, and him discussing how BEFORE climate control is implemented IF it ever needs to be implemented there will have to be great discussion on an international level. (because there will be concerns: future tense).
 

Jason

Senior Member
But, Dierdre...."where" have any of these various people posting on social media sites, who claim that "Geo-Engineering" is currently underway....where have ANY of these folks shown actual, verifiable proof to substantiate their claims?

(I know....it is a 'question' that is open-ended....I leave it for the casual readers of this thread to contemplate, when they happen along).
Unfortunately TJ, for chemtrail believers their proof resides in the skies above them everyday and everywhere. For the believers all they have to do is look up, and that cements their beliefs regardless of the science involving them or lack there of. I would say the majority of them believe it without even considering the "science" involved, so if a particular claim is disproved, fine but that still doesn't explain why there are persistant contrails "chemtrails" above their heads everyday. Once the distrust seeps into their way of thinking, it becomes not only plausible, but absolute in most cases. I would also like to add that giving participants a dislike when they are discussing their claim probably doesn't help the situation any.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
(much snippage) This of course is a failure of communication on my part.

I am reminded of something from Sun Tzu (all from memory - so it may be someone else, and may loose much in the telling :)) - IIRC he was called to the Emperor who had heard his boast that he could make soldiers of anyone. The Emperor gave him 200 concubines, telling him to do what was required to make them soldier.

Sun Tzu told the concubines "Now you are soldiers and you will obey my commands. When I say turn left you all turn left, when I say turn right you all turn right".

He then gave them orders, but all they did was giggle. Sun Tzu remarked "When the troops do not understand the orders then the commander must make sure the orders are clear" - he then repeated his instructions, and gave the orders again.

Again the concubines just giggled. Sun Tzu then said "If the orders are not clear then it is the fault of the commander that they are not obeyed, but if the orders are clear tehn it is the fault of the troops that they are not obeyed, and the troops shall be punished" - and he killed the head concubine.

The Emperor was horrified - but Sun Tzu remarked that he had been given carte blanche to make the concubines soldiers, and he was going to do just that.

He gave the orders again. The concubines obeyed.

At some point you have given as clear an explanation as is possible - and it is not your fault that people will not listen to it.
 

David

Member
But, Dierdre...."where" have any of these various people posting on social media sites, who claim that "Geo-Engineering" is currently underway....where have ANY of these folks shown actual, verifiable proof to substantiate their claims?

(I know....it is a 'question' that is open-ended....I leave it for the casual readers of this thread to contemplate, when they happen along).

That's the point of this website right? To show there is no proof.
You sound a bit negative about it, you won't convince everybody.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
What I need to do is ensure that communication is clear. Perhaps I need to emphasis at the outset of a discussion that I am just just looking at a particular claim of evidence, and not at the broader theory. I also need to strive to not invalidate any legitimate concerns that they might have, perhaps by addressing them directly, and empathically. We all share concerns about pollution, and about the overreaches of those in power. By establishing that I agree with people on many points, it hopefully becomes fare less likely that I will be perceived as rejecting their entire position when I correct them on a single point.

It seems to me you have done all this already...all along. And yet still Oxy thinks you're a shill. Look how many people you have had to ban for not giving you the same respect and benefit of the doubt that you afford them. You are dealing with...in it's most literal sense....the World Wide Web...and as such there is an incredible mix of beliefs, capabilities, motivations, emotions, psyches etc.... Chances are you have done way more good than you realize as most folks in the middle of the spectrum probably are silent whilst the vocal fringe protest the loudest. Hard core chemtrail believers are truly outliers.

Cairn doesn't do any favors by putting "debunk" in quotes insinuating a negative connotation.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I can't punish the troops, I can't cut off their heads. I can't even order them to do things.

All I can do is communicate better.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I can't punish the troops, I can't cut off their heads. I can't even order them to do things.

All I can do is communicate better.
no. you honestly communicate more than just fine. in fact many times THEY bring up (as Pete pointed out) the impression you don't believe any 'bad' stuff. So you pretty much always have the chance to communicate it is one claim of evidence being debunked.

You can try to communicate better but since you do such a great job now I don't see how that is possible. Except for maybe using smaller words, but she wasn't referring to that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
no. you honestly communicate more than just fine. in fact many times THEY bring up (as Pete pointed out) the impression you don't believe any 'bad' stuff. So you pretty much always have the chance to communicate it is one claim of evidence being debunked.

You can try to communicate better but since you do such a great job now I don't see how that is possible. Except for maybe using smaller words, but she wasn't referring to that.

It's not about "better" as in 110%. It's better as in different. Now my focus is on explaining what is wrong. Where I (and others) lack is in establishing common ground.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's not about "better" as in 110%. It's better as in different. Now my focus is on explaining what is wrong. Where I (and others) lack is in establishing common ground.
I'm aware of what 'better' means in this context. YOU do search for common ground, if you were any better at it you really WOULD sound like a shill. now, if you want to hold little workshops for the 'others' that might not be a bad idea.

Did you follow other links from this paper? These people are just reaching now, brainstorming (and just for the record no comparing it to a volcano is scarier!)
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...eering-to-the-natural-world-bolsters-support/

I understand the need to want to get it just right , trust me I've been there, and the frustration at slow progress and not being able to reach everyone. but that's just how the cookie crumbles. I sound flippant, sorry. it's a long process to come to the realization that there is only so much you can do and sometimes trying too hard (in the wrong direction) turns out to be the worst thing you can do.

I think you should write her and explain you don't debunk beliefs. She obviously didn't spend too much time researching you. But if you want to believe someone who doesn't even know you well enough to know you don't debunk beliefs, over the people who know you and actually know the social chemtrail situation, go for it.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
This of course is a failure of communication on my part. I'm failing to clarifying that I'm simply looking at an individual claim of evidence, and not the entire theory. Cairns seems to suggest that it's worse than this - not only do they extend their perception of my claim of falsification to their broader theory, they also extend it to their broader concerns. In many cases those are quite reasonable concerns (about pollution, complexity, cost, aesthetic, politics, and other issues related to geoengineering). The concerns are valid, but are tinged by them being concerns about something they believe is happening now, rather than concerns about something that might happen in the future.

The issue is not with your communication but the communication from the scientific community. Personally I feel that Metabunk has become intertwined in the chemtrail narrative (I love that term and do use it). Irrespective of how things may change that connection is never going to. The necessity to address the narrative is for communication by the wider geoengineering community, which appears to have failed so far.

There was a workshop on public engagement for a test bed called SPICE a couple of years ago, available here:
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Stratospherics/spice public views.pdf

A couple of interesting issues were raised by the public.

This is entirely correct and is an issue that some "actors" raise. Much of what is happening with research is kept within the realms of academia which may be difficult to access. For the most part all that is disseminated is what the press decides to pick up on.

However even if there is open communication it was mentioned by some that they still would not trust the information.

 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This of course is a failure of communication on my part. I'm failing to clarifying that I'm simply looking at an individual claim of evidence, and not the entire theory.

I think you are asking the impossible of yourself. Your actions and ethics have been above reproach by anyone who has fairly assessed them. This is not to say that there will not be those who UNfairly assess them. The people who think you are dismissing the whole story when you challenge one small aspect are just attempting to turn the tables and put you in the position of proving a negative. That is just standard behavior by those who promote CT.
 

Jason

Senior Member
All of the people.
I agree in that it isn't a fair assumption. I would also add that instead of dismissing here claim that your sites only debunk "beliefs", you should try to understand why an outside reader came to this conclusion. Granted we don't know if she spent hours upon hours on your sites combing through the forums to come to her determination, or if she spent 15 minutes on them. We don't know how she came to this determination, but the fact of the matter is, she did. Which means others can as well! So I think some focus should be spent trying to understand that, and perhaps it has nothing to do with you Mick, perhaps it has to do with your members. Some don't approach claims with the same level of class and unbias as you do most of the time.

Maybe it might be better if instead of pointing to the facts that dismiss a claim, time is spent analysing the claim itself from the perspective of the believer. Like any good scientist, they won't immediately dismiss a theory until they've spent time trying to prove it's correct first. It's in doing this that they come to the conclusion that the data either supports the claim or doesn't support the claim. If all claims are met with an immediate NO, That's not possibe, then it gives the participant the feeling that the site is biased. Granted this site is above par with respect to analysis, charts, data, links, and intelligent responses. I find most people often don't examine their facts or "proof", but instead counter with their own facts and proof which dismisses their claim, and I think this is why she came to that conclusion. Both sides need to be examined scientifically, otherwise it's just debunking beliefs and convictions.
 

David

Member
I think you are asking the impossible of yourself. Your actions and ethics have been above reproach by anyone who has fairly assessed them. This is not to say that there will not be those who UNfairly assess them. The people who think you are dismissing the whole story when you challenge one small aspect are just attempting to turn the tables and put you in the position of proving a negative. That is just standard behavior by those who promote CT.

Maybe it's not about Mick but more about everybody here that tries to help Mick and gets frustrated.
Mick stays polite, but not everybody here. When you made your point and you can't convince somebody just leave it.
 

blargo

Member
I believe that David Fraser hit the nail on the head. The key Chemtrail sites have all named Metabunk the disinfo site and not to trust any of the info on it. When I was recently have a discussion with my wife about persistent contrails and what contrails are, she thought they were steam. I pointed here to a couple of sections of contrail science, like the pics from pre 90's of persistent contrails. She quickly retorted that it was a government run site and none of the information could be trusted or believed. She is not a rabid chemtrail believer, she does not comment in chemtrail forums, but she gets a bunch of her info from the sites that run in that circle, like Natural News and Infowars among others.

Mick you have the patience of Jobe. I think you have to keep sites like Contrail Science with the "motto?" that you will change anything if it is proved to be incorrect. I peruse other sites and I see many people use the info at Contrail Science and here at Metabunk as support material. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and be respectful of others even if we have heard the claim 9 million times before. I think for the most part we do, on occasions we, not Mick, are a little short with people.

This site really has brought sanity to my life I can tell you that and I am grateful to this community for that!
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
However even if there is open communication it was mentioned by some that they still would not trust the information.

David Keith is a good example of this. He has been very open. Engaged the chemtrail community directly to address their concerns. He has stated unequivocally it's not happening and if it was he would try and stop it. Yet still they demonize him.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I honestly think Rose Cairns sums it up nicely and how the chemtrail narrative is largely an internet phenomenom. So she isn't trying to prove which side is right, she trying to explain meaningful discourse;
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
David Keith is a good example of this. He has been very open. Engaged the chemtrail community directly to address their concerns. He has stated unequivocally it's not happening and if it was he would try and stop it. Yet still they demonize him.


Similarly when Alan Robock took the time to answer questions from chemtrailers, they simply dismiss everything he says and accuse him of lying out of hand. Many of the die-hard conspiracy proponents will just dismiss anything that does not fit into their narrative, without offering anything that refutes the facts and science that was presented to them... they just call the person a liar.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Granted we don't know if she spent hours upon hours on your sites combing through the forums to come to her determination, or if she spent 15 minutes on them. We don't know how she came to this determination, but the fact of the matter is, she did
or... she just phrased her sentence badly. it happens.

either way, why people may feel that way has been discussed and examined (often). I guess that's my point. Metabunk has been in this field ALOT longer than this woman. While I respect what she is trying to do, Metabunks approach is right. Even "other members" who may seem a bit biased or get frustrated etc... just means they're human and real and not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes with social engineering strategies.
 

Jason

Senior Member
While I respect what she is trying to do,
What is she trying to do? Because I don't think she's blaming Metabunk for anything, but merely using it as an example since it gets the most hits on the internet. Its an easily searchable site for people to check out if they wish to check up on her resources. And while she might not be as experienced in "debunking" as you or mick or anyone on this site for that matter, her credentials speak for themself. The point of her paper wasn't about debunking per say, instead she examined the discourse that takes place between the believer and non believer, and how labels don't add to the conversation but discredit a claim.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
or... she just phrased her sentence badly. it happens.

either way, why people may feel that way has been discussed and examined (often). I guess that's my point. Metabunk has been in this field ALOT longer than this woman. While I respect what she is trying to do, Metabunks approach is right. Even "other members" who may seem a bit biased or get frustrated etc... just means they're human and real and not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes with social engineering strategies.
To be fair the phrase "most engagement......to 'debunk' chemtrails..." is correct according to her method. The link she accessed in Contrail Science is "How to debunk chemtrails".

I feel what is missing is a description of debunking, but she the made the distinction between dismissing and engagement/debunking, especially given the audience for the paper.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
What is she trying to do? Because I don't think she's blaming Metabunk for anything, but merely using it as an example since it gets the most hits on the internet. Its an easily searchable site for people to check out if they wish to check up on her resources.
don't quote me because all these sciences meld to me... but she like david keith I think. shes into climate change and geoengineering (the real kind). so theyre trying to figure out a way to make it 'friendlier' to the common folk who are 'scared of the new magic'. like my link above comparing the cleaning systems with trees (which doesn't work because trees don't store the carbon dioxide they convert it, but that's another topic) http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/people/lists/person/312334
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
To be fair the phrase "most engagement......to 'debunk' chemtrails..." is correct according to her method. The link she accessed in Contrail Science is "How to debunk chemtrails".

I feel what is missing is a description of debunking, but she the made the distinction between dismissing and engagement/debunking, especially given the audience for the paper.
yea but she said "debunk belief" while the paper is talking about peoples fears of gov controlling the weather so to me "beliefs" means peoples fears of gov controlling the weather. (but I read things different then a lot of people.). as I said just worded not quite right.

edit: very true about the audience though.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Maybe it's not about Mick but more about everybody here that tries to help Mick and gets frustrated.
Mick stays polite, but not everybody here. When you made your point and you can't convince somebody just leave it.

Well, there is no "made your point" moment because CTers keep repeating the same false notions over and over again- things which are factually and provably false and yet they prefer to ignore that. CTers want to focus on the "BIG PICTURE" and then say they: "CONNECT THE DOTS". They just don't care that individual bits of what they consider "evidence" are wrong- they feel they still have a mountain of stuff on their side. Therefor, since you can't get them, generally, to care or admit that any one bit is wrong, it's impossible to get them to come to realize that most ALL of the bits are wrong- they just switch to another and say: "But what about this?".

PS: The reality is that Mick HAS proven the whole chemtrail meme to be ridiculously wrong, but not just by dismissing it out of hand. He has gone through each one of their claims of evidence, point by point, and shown them to be fallacious. You just can't get CTers to follow along with the minutia of the debunking. They just don't want to work that hard to prove themselves wrong and so the status quo is maintained.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I believe that David Fraser hit the nail on the head. The key Chemtrail sites have all named Metabunk the disinfo site and not to trust any of the info on it. When I was recently have a discussion with my wife about persistent contrails and what contrails are, she thought they were steam. I pointed here to a couple of sections of contrail science, like the pics from pre 90's of persistent contrails. She quickly retorted that it was a government run site and none of the information could be trusted or believed. She is not a rabid chemtrail believer, she does not comment in chemtrail forums, but she gets a bunch of her info from the sites that run in that circle, like Natural News and Infowars among others.

Mick you have the patience of Jobe. I think you have to keep sites like Contrail Science with the "motto?" that you will change anything if it is proved to be incorrect. I peruse other sites and I see many people use the info at Contrail Science and here at Metabunk as support material. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and be respectful of others even if we have heard the claim 9 million times before. I think for the most part we do, on occasions we, not Mick, are a little short with people.

This site really has brought sanity to my life I can tell you that and I am grateful to this community for that!

I am constantly(as is Mick) asking CTers to point out anything on contrail science or Metabunk which is wrong and back it up. They NEVER have . Not once.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Remember though there's a spectrum of believers. We are never going to convince those who are in too deep, like Russ Tanner. But there are those more in the middle that will listen to reason.

I'm not talking about some radical adjustment in debunking methodology here. I think the basic idea of polite focussed debunking of specific claims of evidence has been very productive - and continues to be so, with literally thousands of people visiting Metabunk every day, and many of them reading these focussed debunks. I don't want to change that.

What I'm think here is if there are some adjustments, or more specifically additions, to the approach that will make it more effective - allow it to reach more people.

Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Need help debunking a picture [Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top