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

@Hama Neggs, what approach has produced the best results for you?
I would venture a guess here, but I doubt he's had any luck in positive results. That's not a knock on Ham, it's just easy to see that in the way he confronts bunk. Obviously, if he had satisfactory results he wouldn't be so negative about being able to help people by using debunking
 
@Hama Neggs, what approach has produced the best results for you?

I am usually pretty polite, but don't often see overt results at all. It's for the onlookers, mostly, that you never hear from. A few times I have gotten a "thanks for the info" from people who seemed pretty hard-core, but sometimes they come back later as if they never read what I gave them. It's all pretty odd, actually, and hard to read.

Right now I'm having a conversation with someone where I'm just flat-out saying that Dane Winington is full of shit and a serial liar. I'm showing her examples. I'll let you know how it goes.

PS: That person seems really confused over some perceived connection between cloud seeding and geoengineering and I'm still trying to sort through that too.
 
oh! I know. just preprogram tag EVERYONES signature. EVERYONES with "Metabunk: Debunking individual claims of evidence. We do not debunk conspiracy theories."

because just for the record even if geoengineering pollution IS a concern, its still really a conspiracy theory that we will be lied to about it (even if we will be lied to about it)

edit:if you do I want deep royal purple. it'll go good with the blue and my green.
 
Last edited:
I think that one claim is quickly becoming the central, driving force in the chemtrail movement.

This is indeed sad, if true. I cannot state, more emphatically, how WRONG such a claim is....

....the "claim" that modern high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails.

I mean....man, just MY experience alone refutes this assertion, a hundred-fold!!
 
Ohh... ALWAYS include evidence to support it! I didn't mean to just SAY they are liars. AND I would usually use a less inflamatory term, like: "falsehood".
The facts and evidence should speak for themself. Stating its a lie or non truth or false isn't necessary.
 
This is indeed sad, if true. I cannot state, more emphatically, how WRONG such a claim is....

....the "claim" that modern high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails.

I mean....man, just MY experience alone refutes this assertion, a hundred-fold!!

That, again, is my point. The claim is SO absurd... How do you confront it without offending anyone? I think you can't.

PS: Wigington has even stated that someone from Rolls-Royce jet engines has confirmed the claim to be true!
 
I am usually pretty polite, but don't often see overt results at all. It's for the onlookers, mostly, that you never hear from.


THAT (^^^) is a premise that I try to keep foremost.

On YT I have been told many things ("hair-trigger temper", for example) to which I replied that I:

a) Respond in the tone presented towards me, sometimes and;

b) Those who haven't been around actual pilots, especially some ex-military, and haven't heard the way we talk, and the language that is tossed about casually (often vulgar)....well, then they just haven't hung around with any pilots and gotten to know them!
 
PS: Wigington has even stated that someone from Rolls-Royce jet engines has confirmed the claim to be true!

Dane Wigington?

OK......(long pause)....well, then Mr. Wigington must now provide some evidence to support such an assertion.

(EDIT for a "P.S.": Recently on YouTube someone cited Mr. Wigington....hoo, boy! I did my best to disabuse that YT member of the veracity of Dane Wigington. Not sure if it's possible to get through to a "true believer", sometimes....).
 
I don't know some of this evidence can get pretty technical.

THIS is very, very true....and leads up to how conspiracy theories ('CTs') can arise.

This is anecdotal (sorry) but just the other night a neighbor was in the pool/hot tub of my Condo, and the conversation of orbits (i.e., artificial satellites, the planets, our Solar System, etc) came up. It was amazing (to me) the lapse of understanding that (again, to me as a science "nerd") can understand quite easily.

THAT (describing orbit mechanics) was ALSO very technical, and difficult to convey without some other "tools" at my disposal, such as drawing a diagram, etc. ALL based on verbal communication, not usually the most efficient way to convey complex ideas. Still, I tried my best.....

(2nd EDIT): [Mick, please feel free to delete]....but THIS is a video that, as I mentioned above, I wished I could SHOW to a person who asked very good questions about orbits, because she wanted to learn and understand!:



Only one of many that I also use in order to "stay up" with these concepts of science....most of these are not "intuitive" to our species, these involve higher brain functions beyond simple "Eat-and-don't-get-eaten" survival instincts!! ;)

(EDIT, again): BTW, I watch this over and over, to learn. I think that this NASA video was developed to help those Astronauts who were "Mission Specialists", but NOT pilots, during the Shuttle missions. Many of these scientists who flew on those missions needed some basic education. Still, this is one of my "fave" videos, and I'm glad that someone uploaded it to YT!!!
 
Last edited:
THIS is very, very true....and leads up to how conspiracy theories ('CTs') can arise.

This is anecdotal (sorry) but just the other night a neighbor was in the pool/hot tub of my Condo, and the conversation of orbits (i.e., artificial satellites, the planets, our Solar System, etc) came up. It was amazing (to me) the lapse of understanding that (again, to me as a science "nerd") can understand quite easily.

THAT (describing orbit mechanics) was ALSO very technical, and difficult to convey without some other "tools" at my disposal, such as drawing a diagram, etc. ALL based on verbal communication, not usually the most efficient way to convey complex ideas. Still, I tried my best.....
There has to be a way to dumb it down for those types of people, myself included at times, and unfortunately this is where the philosphy of teaching comes into play. And not everyone knows how to practice that when describing technical stuff..
 
Dane Wigington?

OK......(long pause)....well, then Mr. Wigington must now provide some evidence to support such an assertion.

(EDIT for a "P.S.": Recently on YouTube someone cited Mr. Wigington....hoo, boy! I did my best to disabuse that YT member of the veracity of Dane Wigington. Not sure if it's possible to get through to a "true believer", sometimes....).

Dane is their go-to expert and science guru, at this point. He made that assertion, I think, on one of the Saturday broadcasts they do. I was mistaken when I thought they had skipped some of the broadcast dates. They just hadn't uploaded them yet. You can call in there, if you want, and there is a chat function. I tried the chat once ( I think you have to sign up, somehow), but I was quickly banned for asking "inappropriate" questions. That show is quite an enlightening listen. Many times it's both Wigington and Tanner, with some other guests. It's a good way to take the 'pulse' of the movement.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/geoengineering-watch-radio/
 
Last edited:
THIS is very, very true....and leads up to how conspiracy theories ('CTs') can arise.

This is anecdotal (sorry) but just the other night a neighbor was in the pool/hot tub of my Condo, and the conversation of orbits (i.e., artificial satellites, the planets, our Solar System, etc) came up. It was amazing (to me) the lapse of understanding that (again, to me as a science "nerd") can understand quite easily.

THAT (describing orbit mechanics) was ALSO very technical, and difficult to convey without some other "tools" at my disposal, such as drawing a diagram, etc. ALL based on verbal communication, not usually the most efficient way to convey complex ideas. Still, I tried my best.....

I found, during the Planet X debates, that many people think the "common man" should just be able to inherently grasp subjects like astronomy and understand it just from the experience of looking at the sky during their lifetimes. They reject the idea that people with higher education and training and would know much more than they can just 'figure out' on their own. :rolleyes: They think that educated people have been indoctrinated with false dogma by the PTB.
 
Last edited:
I know. That's just another example of their broad world view being faulty. They think all opposing views are from the "official story". :rolleyes:
Think of it as multiple layers of debunking - not only do they hold several false beliefs about contrails etc, but they also hold false beliefs about you. And it's this second set of beliefs that is preventing you from getting anywhere with the first.

So you can keep hammering away at them, but if they think you are just disdainfully calling them an irrational idiot, then you will not get very far. So you have to "debunk" that perception.
 
...but if they think you are just disdainfully calling them an irrational idiot...

Understood. However, in some instances it seems that no matter what factual evidence is presented, it just doesn't get "accepted" by the individual.

Of course there is always the fact that an "unknown" audience is looking in ("lurking", as it were) so there's that ....
 
Think of it as multiple layers of debunking - not only do they hold several false beliefs about contrails etc, but they also hold false beliefs about you. And it's this second set of beliefs that is preventing you from getting anywhere with the first.

So you can keep hammering away at them, but if they think you are just disdainfully calling them an irrational idiot, then you will not get very far. So you have to "debunk" that perception.

Yeah, but I really don't advocate that, nor do I usually do that. My point was that to really confront the degree to which they are wrong, it's almost inevitable that they will be offended.

I liked the tack you have taken by saying: "OK- go ahead and assume I am a government shill... where I am I wrong?". It really stops them in their tracks!:cool:
 
I just feel like we are putting out perimeter brush fires when there are a few people like Dane and Russ, who are in the center, continually pouring gallons of kerosene on the fire.
 
Understood. However, in some instances it seems that no matter what factual evidence is presented, it just doesn't get "accepted" by the individual.

Of course there is always the fact that an "unknown" audience is looking in ("lurking", as it were) so there's that ....
So that should be where the conversation ends. Agree to disagree so to speak. There doesn't need to be a "winner" in a tit for tat conversation. One should see the writing on the wall and walk away, which I see many do that on here. And try to approach it differently later on. And its important the "unknown" audience doesn't see it that way as well. For them, and myself it does a disservice when conversations spiral out of control. To the point where the facts and evidence are ignored, and they will go search out another similar thread or topic.
 
I just feel like we are putting out perimeter brush fires when there are a few people like Dane and Russ, who are in the center, continually pouring gallons of kerosene on the fire.

But I don't think going around telling people Dane is a liar is going to help at all. Quite the opposite. I also think it's largely inaccurate to say he's a liar about everything.

Dane's claims have been called out many times in individual posts here. He ignores Metabunk, and portrays it as a disinfo site. Haranguing him any more than is currently done is just going to make people take pity on him.

There's enough debunking of him out there for a reasonable person to get the picture.
 
Jason, PLEASE do not sell yourself "short". You are very intelligent.

You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.
 
Jason, PLEASE do not sell yourself "short". You are very intelligent.
Honestly, I think we all stand to learn something new each day. This site offers that to the public. Technical know how isn't my forte, so I was just being honest. Honesty is also vital to this topic, more specifically the honesty that deals with what our intentions are and what led us here...
 
If someone is concerned that geoengineering will lead to continued ocean acidification, then that is a valid concern.
But I thought climate change and sea warming was already leading to acidification, so why would geoengineering designed to reverse that lead to acidification?
 
You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.

Sorry.
 
You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.
still in all, ive seen some of your old old posts and your communication skills evolution. you are absolutely doing great now. messing with a good thing is just messing with a good thing.

*Now if its a passionate subject all the guys like to jump on and get involved with, maybe you can private message each other more and say "hey, back off a few minutes, let me talk to him first. because sometimes there are too many of you throwing out different stuff and the main focus points, not so much get ignore, but the 'ct' is distracted by new 'attacks'.

I rot at these conspiracy terms, but its like a gish-gallop (?) of debunks ; )
 
I can't punish the troops, I can't cut off their heads. I can't even order them to do things.

Yes indeed - my example was to illustrate that sometimes people simply will not co-operate without such extreme measures, and if you cannot resort to them (as you can not!) then you also must give up expecting cooperation from those people.

All I can do is communicate better.

I doubt that you can, and I don't think you should beat yourself up for the shortcomings of others.
 
But I don't think going around telling people Dane is a liar is going to help at all. Quite the opposite. I also think it's largely inaccurate to say he's a liar about everything.

Dane's claims have been called out many times in individual posts here. He ignores Metabunk, and portrays it as a disinfo site. Haranguing him any more than is currently done is just going to make people take pity on him.

There's enough debunking of him out there for a reasonable person to get the picture.

Haven't done that or advocated doing it. I have pointed out specific falsehoods he is perpetuating, while stating that there are many more.

OK- I have a report on that conversation with the woman to whom I was pointing out Dane's specific falsehoods/lies. She sidestepped the issue and found an excuse to flounce(run away). I'm not sure that outcome would have been any different had I acted other than I did. Her issue seems to be cloud seeding, which denotes weather modification, which denotes geoengineering, in her mind. She was posting on a vid of Dane's presentation and said that people should listen to him. When I tried to get her to make any specific connection between Dane's talks and cloud seeding, she wouldn't even try and when I tried to show her where Dane has made false claims, she just didn't want to hear it, or at least she wouldn't admit even reading what I said about it, let alone try to defend Dane's claims. Make of her reaction what you will- I have no idea what it means. It's fairly typical, no matter WHAT you say to chemtrail believers.
 
Last edited:
But I don't think going around telling people Dane is a liar is going to help at all. Quite the opposite. I also think it's largely inaccurate to say he's a liar about everything.

Dane's claims have been called out many times in individual posts here. He ignores Metabunk, and portrays it as a disinfo site. Haranguing him any more than is currently done is just going to make people take pity on him.

There's enough debunking of him out there for a reasonable person to get the picture.

Yes. My recent suggestion was to confront Tanner on his specific claim about HBTF engines. His claims on that SEEM reasonable enough, on the surface, to maybe fool more reasonable people. I think his claims on that are having a significant effect.
 
still in all, ive seen some of your old old posts and your communication skills evolution. you are absolutely doing great now. messing with a good thing is just messing with a good thing.

*Now if its a passionate subject all the guys like to jump on and get involved with, maybe you can private message each other more and say "hey, back off a few minutes, let me talk to him first. because sometimes there are too many of you throwing out different stuff and the main focus points, not so much get ignore, but the 'ct' is distracted by new 'attacks'.

I rot at these conspiracy terms, but its like a gish-gallop (?) of debunks ; )

Heh.... the problem being that there is soooo much wrong with their claim and everyone has a different aspect they want to deal with or a different approach they want to try. In a way, it's like a carnival game of skill and everyone is excited to try out a new method of getting the wooden ring to stay on the milk bottle. :D
 
But I thought climate change and sea warming was already leading to acidification, so why would geoengineering designed to reverse that lead to acidification?

There's two things.

CO2 leads to acidification, warming does not. Solar Geoengineering does not reduce CO2, so it does not reduce acidification. We use SRM to fix the temp, but emissions continue to rise - hence "continued acidification". If you don't fix the temp with SRM, then in theory you'd be forced to cut emissions, which would cut acidification.

And some schemes involve spraying acid into the stratosphere - eventually this rains out, increasing acidification - although this is a small amount, it's still a concern.
 
The thing they have to be told, at some point, is that the center of the chemtrail movement is being driven by congenital liars like Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner.
Just some clarification would be nice. Are Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner knowingly and intentionally lying, or do they actually believe in what they are saying. Because there's a big difference between the two even though the message is false.
 
Just some clarification would be nice. Are Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner knowingly and intentionally lying, or do they actually believe in what they are saying. Because there's a big difference between the two even though the message is false.

I'm most familiar with Dane. I think he generally believes what he says, but he's excessively resistant to being corrected. So even when it has been explained why he is wrong, he keeps promoting the same thing. I think he thinks the explanation is a lie - like if it is shown that aluminum levels in water are perfectly safe, he will either suggest the test was rigged, or that the EPA has changed the "safe" levels. But I don't think this is a deliberate falsehood on his part.

Tanner has much more unusual beliefs, and I don't know what he really thinks.
 
I'm most familiar with Dane. I think he generally believes what he says, but he's excessively resistant to being corrected. So even when it has been explained why he is wrong, he keeps promoting the same thing. I think he thinks the explanation is a lie - like if it is shown that aluminum levels in water are perfectly safe, he will either suggest the test was rigged, or that the EPA has changed the "safe" levels. But I don't think this is a deliberate falsehood on his part.

Tanner has much more unusual beliefs, and I don't know what he really thinks.
Has Dane conducted his own test to corroborate his "beliefs" by any chance?
 
So even when it has been explained why he is wrong, he keeps promoting the same thing. I think he thinks the explanation is a lie -

Right, but he doesn't even attempt to explain his thinking on that, right? He just ignores the correction.
 
Right, but he doesn't even attempt to explain his thinking on that, right? He just ignores the correction.
quick off topic: so with this Turbo whatever engines... so, they don't produce contrails. BUT some produce chemtrails that dissipate quick and some produce chemtrails that persist. is the thinking because they are different chems?
 
quick off topic: so with this Turbo whatever engines... so, they don't produce contrails.

Wrong, Deidre. The "Turbo whatever engines" (as you called them) are the modern High Bypass ratio TurboFan engines, that every modern airliner today is equipped with.

Yes, they DO form contrails, and very voluminous and sometimes persistent contrails, when conditions aloft are suitable.
 
Back
Top