Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

Mick said:
I think Jay hit the nail on the head when he said lee was using a corrupt version of the Socratic method.

The Socratic method is where you ask someone questions with the intend of getting them to realize something. It's a good teaching aid as you are not telling them something, you are showing it to them, and they are more likely to remember it. It's also good for teaching children to think for themselves.

Unfortunately lee seems to have a constantly moving target, so we never get anywhere. I think some of the points he are trying to make might also be based un misunderstandings, or perhaps just on a different set of axioms. So I suggest he tries explaining his point directly, to avoid confusion.

Lee, why do you keep asking about clouds?
Click to expand...



Ahem! ...

Who has been using that method?
 
Lots of people use it. It's a good method if done right. It fails when the person you are talking to does not actually get the point you are trying to make. Then you really should try a different approach, or consider if the point is actually correct.
 
He used up his posts in another thread, complaining about how I'm a nazi. He's banned now. I gave him my email address (metabunk@gmail.com) if he want to appeal, but I've heard nothing. He can still read the forums.

I'd still like to know why he was going on about clouds though :)
 
I'm glad that you (Mick) held him to his thoughts (posts).
Too often are there those who post partial ideas, then absolutely refuse to elaborate on those thoughts - either because they have little to gnaw on (substance-wise), or because it's not in their agenda to explain.
...Or they simply cannot explain because they fore-fronted their knowledge capacity.
 
Mick said:
Come on Lee, we've been over this is great detail. You didn't literally call me a nazi, you just said that fascism begins at home, and Goebbels and Orwell would be proud.

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/6600
Click to expand...

Ok boss. I didn't literally call you a nazi. Or, I didn't call you a nazi? I can see where the association was made, Goebbels most definitely was a nazi, or a very good actor. Orwell, most likely, was not a nazi at all, but wrote about totalitarianism. Fascism beginning at home is a general statement, and nazism was associated with fascism even though in its own name it uses the word 'socialist'. Distinguishing it from international socialism with the prefix 'national'. It's hard to tell the difference of the make of jackboot from the perspective of it on your throat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The patent offices do not hand out patents for things that don't work. If they did, any fool could roll up and claim rights to something they could then profit from in the future. I think that's pretty clear and requires no further comment."

Dude/dudette... you obviously have no idea what you're talking about or don't understand the English language. There are literally millions of patents filed to date that are just ideas having never reached implementation in the real world. Any fool CAN roll up and claim right to something they want to profit from in the future. THAT IS EXACTLY what is going on.
 
Thanks Mick and Others for continuing to educate Unregistered and the rest of us. My friend has been worried about contrails because of misinformation propagated by those like Unregistered. I have sent him a link to this thread to help guide him back to Earth.
 
Although this topic and the "Case Orange" report are already a little old I think it is still nice to look at a few things that I noticed when scanning the document.
It was original released by the Belgium "Belfort-Group". Their informal 'leader' is Peter Vereecke an ex-mayor of a town in Belgium.
http://www.belfort-group.eu/blogs/post/9

One of the highlights was certainly the presentation of "Case Orange", a scientific report, which has been compiled on behalf of the Belfort-group and of humanity by a team of experts with relevant aviation background. This is very important: the authors are inside experts. They know what they are talking about !

The document consists of 300 pages. As it is too expensive for us to send it in a copy-version and as it not possible to send it in attachment because the pdf-file is too heavy I ask you to download it via the links below.

By doing so you will be able to see and read the basic text of 70 pages with 177 footnotes. If you should be interested in receiving the appendices, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Sounds very impressive not? 300 pages, but only 70 of them are the real report, the rest is just fill up, including things like a 14 page printout of an internet forum. The line "the authors are inside experts. They know what they are talking about" also only seems to be put there to make it even more impressive, together with somebody from a Dutch University, Coen Vermeeren, calling this document a "good report, classical and according the rules of science, full of appendixes and checkable facts" (my own translation).

Since I didn't see much references in this thread regarding the report itself let me shine a light on just a few things in the following posts.....
 
The first thing I always try to figure out when discussing chemtrails is how the distinction is made between a contrail and a chemtrail. Most of the time the answer is something like "a contrail only exists for a couple of minutes, chemtrails spread out and can exist for hours."
This is also the view of Peter Vereecke as he mentions here in a interview (it's in Flemish though.... ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jxLi6E-hb4&feature=player_embedded#t=42s

So I was wondering what the "Case Orange" report had to say on this...

It starts on page 10 where it states
A very important feature is that these early contrails are short lived. However modern jet aircraft with more powerful engines and high turbine temperatures emit more persistent contrails, which usually 'trail' for 20-30 miles along.
Click to expand...
The funny thing it starts right away with mixing 'measuring units' ; "short lived" or "20-30 miles along". That makes sense (not), but if we simply translate 20-30 miles to time units this will be something like 5 minutes for an average airplane flying at plane cruise speed. This is along the utterances Peter Vereecke makes himself.

Then we continue reading on page 14:
But even with the aid of geostationary satellites it proves extremely difficult to predict formation, size and life span of contrails that may remain isolated or cluster in groups. Extensive survey is mandatory in order to understand fully the nature of contrails.
Click to expand...
So now the report states it currently isn't really possible to say anything about the duration of contrails.

To finish it on page 27:
When contrails turn into Cirrus clouds they are just incorporated in the actual weahter report (METAR in aviation). As there are no instruments for measuremnt most meteorologists just limit their impact on climate as being only 'esthetic'.

Not all contrails develop into Cirrus clouds and if they do, what is the exact scientific base?
Click to expand...
Besides the completely incorrect line "most meteorologists just limit their impact on climate as being only 'esthetic'.", it appears the report states contrails can persist longer, and even can turn into cirrus clouds?

So this seems like they are betting on three different horses, one of them must be right!
 
A small example of just plain stupid internet/wikipedia copy/pasting can be seen on page 18 :

The additive reduces coking and fouling in engine fuel systesm. Commercially, this additive is used in Boeing aircraft operated by KLM, and in police helicopters in Tampa, Florida. It is also used as fuel for Canadian CF-18 Hornets
Click to expand...

This is however an almost exact copy/paste action from a wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8#Variants ) :
The additive is a combination of a surfactant, metal deactivator, and an antioxidant, and was introduced in 1994 to reduce choking and fouling in engine fuel systems. Commercially, this additive is used in Boeing aircraft operated by KLM, and in police helicopters in Tampa, Florida.[citation needed] JP-8+100 is also used for Canadian Forces CP-140 Aurora & CC-130 Hercules aircraft.
Click to expand...

However they simply removed the 'citation needed' needed on most of the claims. I tried to find the base for the KLM claim, I think it is from this report on research done on the JP-8+100 fuel:
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j...14GgDQ&usg=AFQjCNEwHh3n8zsWZ2c1Jo9Dd77CcQ8rrw
JP-8+100 is being used in over 3000 military aircraft in over 70 locations around the world. It is also being evaluated for use in commercial KLM 747 airplanes.
Click to expand...

According to certain forums only three KLM 747 Boeings were used in these field tests, flying between Amsterdam, Bangkok and Singapore. It is however very unlikely they are still using it, since it was only a small test and the conclusion of the report was:
Based on this demonstration, the increased cost and logistics burden associated with using the +100 additive in these platforms cannot be justified since no clear (or sufficient) benefits in emissions were observed. However, a more extensive program should be established on these aircraft to study the potential benefits of the additive on reduced engine maintenance as has been observed in other platforms.
Click to expand...

But ofcourse this would be too much in the great wide open for the Case Orange researches so they conclude the section with:
Official tests results have never been released by the US government, which is also the beneficiary of the patent
Click to expand...
Completely missing the report above and claiming that a patent is helping to prevent espionage?
 
To conclude, for now, with a simple plain and easy fact being completely wrong, lets take a look at the graph on page 23 and the text surrounding it:
Although the majority of air traffic on this planet is civilian, military operations represent almost the most important segment in aviation:
..graph...
According to the Eurocontrol statistics military traffic is actually the biggest segment between 8AM and 3PM.
Click to expand...
However, when taking into account that some part of civil cargo traffic is performed on behalf of the military then we can assume that the military segment tops above 10% at regular intervals.
Click to expand...

Wow, amazing, although I found these claims hard to believe. Luckily the researchers were kind enough to put in the reference they are basing the claims upon:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...-in-air-traffic/tat5-night-freight-report.pdf

Here we can find the same graph, but then being able to read what it says, on page 31. More importantly on page 30 it tells us what the graph represents:
"If traffic were uniformly distributed during the day, then each hour would have 4% of the traffic"
Click to expand...
To be precisely it is 4.166% ( 100% / 24hour ) as the thick black line "Average Hour" shows in the graph. This means that the graph is plotting the % per segment per hour based upon the "average hour". So if a specific segment (e.g. "Low-cost") would be exactly divided over the day equally it would be overlaying the "average hour" line. It is obvious not representing all flights at a certain hour during the day, since that would mean all lines added up would always have to be 100%, which they are clearly not. However this is what Case Orange researchers are trying to tell us.

Luckily this report also tells us what the Case Orange is trying to claim, on page 80 of "Eurocontrol Trends in Air Traffic" report. The table there shows that the military segment in 2007 is only responsible for 1.9% maximum of all flights.

So the question is; do the Case Orange researchers ("the authors are inside experts. They know what they are talking about") really don't know how to read a simple graph, or have they been twisting the reality? (why use such a bad quality graph otherwise)
 
I certainly hope that someone didn't actually pay for this report, although I think its possible that someone did. One reason I attribute this whole report to one person is that if a group of aeronautical experts actually wrote it, I would have expected much of the errors you mention to have been weeded out.

Mick brought out the reliance they put on a teenager who pretends to be a meteorologist, claimed receipts for barium which aren't included, and their interest in an internet forum where commercial pilots are having a joke about chemtrail believers. link

If I am wrong and the report were actually written by more than one person, that group as a whole doesn't display much rigor in fact checking, reliable analysis, or critical thinking ability. Very shoddy work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I'm in the wrong thread, but you guys have any info on this http://www.naturalnews.com/037451_chemtrails_conspiracy_theory_geoengineering.html?

Chemmies are a really annoying sort. I can't understand how you can be so patient. I already been threatened with bans and wrath of God on my little facebook forum. Because they are so very shifty that I can't even follow all the numerous posts and this-and-thats instead of simple dialog where one person asks a question, get's an answer, makes a remark and get's an opinion, proposes a viewpoint and a discussion on why it should or shouldn't be accepted follows. It's maddening, it's all over the place and it's the end of my rant. :)
 
One reason I attribute this whole report to one person
Click to expand...
I tend to think it is a committee report. The first 30 pages discuss the adverse impact of ordinary contrails, and seems pretty sensible. Then there is the paragraph saying that Mick totally demolishes the chemtrailer arguments. Allthough the writer of that paragraph suggests Mick may be an agent, he does seem relatively skeptical. The Kevin Martin attribution and other stuff is later in the report
 
Unregistered said:
You've got an odd obsession with patents that 'don't exist'; it's not too clever, using it to deflect focus from the real questions. A good example of someone who has a pre-existing position and can't, for whatever reason, extricate themselves from their entrenched view based on a perception of what science is or can do. It's no better or worse than a religious person arguing their point to the exclusion of all others. You, matey, are adrift in that pseudo-religious swamp
and with your 'methods', you couldn't debunk a bunk bed; not to anyone with the capacity for critical thought.
I hope there might be some others here to read that and all else I've posted.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely destroying all three of these debunking geniuses!!

Unregistered said:
I'm getting into this debunking thing - serves no purpose, but I like it.

I quote:

Thanks for the condescension trail (geddit?), but we're not talking about contrails per se, we're talking about that they now turn into clouds, like they never used to - that probably means there's more ccn's available, wouldn't you say? particulates, aerosols, slice of lemon and some ice? that type of thing...the whole picture

why does this only happen in some parts of the world? is the atmosphere different in non Nato countries?
Click to expand...

Man you are destroying these guys, are you an actual scientist?

Unregistered completely destroyed all 3 or 4 of you in here and you dont even know it. That is more scary to me than the fact that Mick references his own websites while debating. Hahaha
 
Unregistered said:
People will believe what they want to; it's a bad habit. You three are a good example of this. It is perfectly possible to back up any idea/theory if one chooses only to reference the points one wants to, rather than putting together all the relevant - and perhaps contradictory - information. Ironically, some of you are guilty of this at the same moment as you deride others for what you perceive as the same; no doubt you choose not to see this somewhat embarrassing element to your own efforts. It is important - if getting to the truth of a matter is what we really want - to be open and honest with each other; and crucially, with ourselves.

Psychology is a powerful tool, and phsychologically it is very difficult to accept such a premise when those who claim to work on our behalf deny it - and use all the tools at their disposal to back this claim. The required learning and understanding of this goes far beyond what you are discussing here; it appears to me (as you all lean towards the 'me' in your arguments, I thought I might be permitted the same subjective and unscientific approach) that you lack this understanding. Do you believe everything establishment agencies or individuals tell you? Are you still able to be skeptical in its true meaning?

Your ages might also be a factor. If you are under thirty, or even thirty-five, it is unlikely that you will have the capacity in your memory to recall what jet travel looks like from the ground. You may also not recall what a clear blue sky looks like. You will therefore not be able to see the huge difference in the results of aircraft trails from 'before' and 'after'. This can be called empiricism. Observation, records, history, collection of data, experience, comparison; these are the starting tools available to anyone with the inclination to form a fair view. Couple to this - in a mind free of prejudice, with pre-existing leanings put aside - the analysis of these results and you have a good start in getting to the nub of a matter. One also needs to have at least a partial understanding of the political on a global scale throughout history. Science is not everything.

Your analyses are partial, in more ways than one. It is just as important to apply common sense sometimes, if there's any left, as it is exacting scientific data. One needs to know that not all the information available is available to you or me. Hence theorizing. Sometimes that lack of information is not down to the fact that we haven't collectively uncovered the truth yet; it's because someone else has (and there are such things as lies, boys) and they might wish to prosper from exclusivity in one way or another. Incidentally, I've never made a penny from trying to sell any idea to anyone, or t-shirts, videos etc. Every single organization, from Amnesty International to Greenpeace to any charity you want to name asks for donations - so why not criticize them for trying to ponce money to pay their staff's wages? That's no argument at all - and certainly isn't a scientific one, if that's what you claim to be.

Try and get a bit more 'rounded' view of the world and its sky activity - you might even surprise yourselves.
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more. In a few years when we are sold the particle spraying by the CFR, Mick and his followers will certainly lose all credibility.
 
Unregistered said:
I couldnt agree more. In a few years when we are sold the particle spraying by the CFR, Mick and his followers will certainly lose all credibility.
Click to expand...

How many years? The post you are quoting there is nearly two years old already. Anything changed?
 
I've been following the chemtrals hoax since its inception at 4pm on Sepetmber 17, 1997, 15 years ago. Still waiting for "a few years" from now when I will get my comeuppance. The folks flogging this Belfort Group paper nowadays don't realize it is speaking about persistent contrails, considers Mick as an expert, and uses Contrailscience.com as a reference. Think about that.

Case Orange said:
However it is significant that this website http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-mvths/ deals with any of the websites mentioned above, reducing the argumentation of 'chemtrail' protagonists to a piece of rubble.
Click to expand...
 
Jay Reynolds said:
I've been following the chemtrals hoax since its inception at 4pm on Sepetmber 17, 1997, 15 years ago. Still waiting for "a few years" from now when I will get my comeuppance. The folks flogging this Belfort Group paper nowadays don't realize it is speaking about persistent contrails, considers Mick as an expert, and uses Contrailscience.com as a reference. Think about that.
Click to expand...

Never spotted that, thanks. I can see that getting a great deal use :-)
 
Mick said:
How many years? The post you are quoting there is nearly two years old already. Anything changed?
Click to expand...

Look at. It this way Mick, if one continually states "The world ends tomorrow!" odds are one day someone will be right. These people are then revered as prophets.......
 
Well, I happen to be over 35 and I remember what the sky used to look like. My home is directly south of Dallas Love field.

It is obvious why we see more contrails--more jets.
 
It is very strange that the CFR is proposing spraying materials and seawater to combat global warming, then there is NASA admitting that contrails are causing a .1 degree C. increase in global temperature by 2050.

Contrails form in the exhaust stream of a jet engine operating high in the troposphere, particularly during the winter months, but fewer appear during the warm season. Minnis said the presence of contrails can trigger cirrus cloud formations that not only become persistent, but also can cover a wide area. Their long-term effect on the Earth's radiation budget, however, remains unclear.

.....That gradual increase over time translates to about a 0.1-deg. Celsius rise in surface temperature globally, but much higher increases in surface temperature can occur where contrails are concentrated, Minnis said.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib...ying+linear+contrails)+AND+DATE+IS+2000-01-17

So why are we being told the planet is warming but contrails are not an issue?

SacLink Login
sacauth.csus.edu
 
Obviously we HAVE been told contrails are an issue - otherwise you would not have that link.

But if they are going to cause 0.1 deg rise by 2050 they are much less of an issue than other factors that may cause a 2 degree rise by then.

however I cannot link to your link - it requires a login, and I cannot find contrails causing a 0.1 degree rise by 2050 anywhere on the net - do you have a link directly to the NASA data? I ddi find this 1999 paper predicting a possible rise in the radiative forcing effect of contrails by 2050 - but it does not give a temperature result for 2050 - it does give 0.01-0.02K global average or 0.01-0.1 K local variations for 1992.
 
MikeC said:
however I cannot link to your link - it requires a login, and I cannot find contrails causing a 0.1 degree rise by 2050 anywhere on the net - do you have a link directly to the NASA data? I ddi find this 1999 paper predicting a possible rise in the radiative forcing effect of contrails by 2050 - but it does not give a temperature result for 2050 - it does give 0.01-0.02K global average or 0.01-0.1 K local variations for 1992.
Click to expand...

Here's a conference paper by Minnis and others giving the 0.1 deg C by 2050 figure:
Cirrus, Contrails, and Radiative Forcing over the USA: Their Relationships to Air Traffic and Upper Tropospheric Conditions

I like the wording in Unregistered's posts above - with NASA "admitting" contrail radiative forcing, as if this were something that was previously denied. Contrails have been studied regarding their potential effect on climate for several decades. The point being disputed on this site is not that persistent contrails may have some harmful effects, but that they are actually the result of intentionally "spraying" something other than engine exhaust.
 
MikeC said:
I don't see any mention of 0.1 deg C in that paper - it refers to 0.1 W/m^2?
Click to expand...

You are quite right. That's what I get for skimming! Possibly that's the source of the (therefore incorrect) figure as reported by Unregistered.
 
I've heard that contrails trap warmth in rebuttal to those who say deliberate contrail coverages are to modify warming trends - they tend to keep heat in overnight, adding a very small degree to warming.
No references though, it was Phage on ATS.
 
External Quote:
NASA Studying Linear Contrails

BYLINE: Edward H. Phillips

SECTION: AIR TRANSPORT; Vol. 152, No. 3; Pg. 428

LENGTH: 484 words

DATELINE: Hampton, Va.


NASA/Langley Research Center is studying the formation of contrail-induced cirrus clouds stemming from increased air traffic and their future effect on the Earth's climate.
''One of the biggest uncertainties in global climate change is the effect of clouds,'' which are important because they modulate the flow of solar energy into and out of the Earth's ecosystem and affect Earth's daily radiation budget, said Patrick Minnis. He is a research scientist at Langley's Atmospheric Sciences Div. Although contrails reflect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation, whether the radiative effect is detrimental to climate depends chiefly on cloud longevity and coverage, he said.


Contrails form in the exhaust stream of a jet engine operating high in the troposphere, particularly during the winter months, but fewer appear during the warm season. Minnis said the presence of contrails can trigger cirrus cloud formations that not only become persistent, but also can cover a wide area. Their long-term effect on the Earth's radiation budget, however, remains unclear.
According to NASA, current estimates are that contrails cover only 0.1% of the Earth's surface, but over parts of Europe and the U.S. coverage can be as high as 0.4%. As air traffic continues to increase, the growth of persistent contrails is predicted to be 2.5% per year up to the year 2050, when predictive models indicate that as much as 0.5% of the Earth's surface could be covered. That gradual increase over time translates to about a 0.1-deg. Celsius rise in surface temperature globally, but much higher increases in surface temperature can occur where contrails are concentrated, Minnis said. Data for a recent study of the U.S. was derived from NOAA-11 and -12 satellites equipped with Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometers to detect contrails over time based on their linear shape and temperature differences. Surface observations also were employed to help validate satellite information. The information is being used to estimate the ''potential longwave radiative impact on the U.S. based on a radiative transfer model,'' Minnis said.

Preliminary results indicate that contrail-induced cloud coverage over the U.S. is ''much greater than estimated from models,'' but more research and funding is needed to complete an estimation of the annual cycle of linear contrails, he said. The heaviest concentration was observed in the Northeast area, Montana, and the Northwest region of the nation. Minimum coverage occurred over the Southwestern area, but was heaviest along routes from New York via Chicago to San Francisco.

In addition, Minnis is studying the spreading of linear contrails across the U.S. using data from the Goes-8 geostationary satellite. He said studies indicate coverage of persistent contrails worldwide is higher than what has been observed by satellites.
 
To think NASA couldnt have altered the fuel slightly to create persistent contrails which enhance military radios/radar is pretty ignorant since theyve been testing barium in the atmosphere since at least 74' with the nasa ion cloud patent.

Forget about planes and chemicals for a minute. Let me ask you this: Has Nasa/AF ever released barium into the atmosphere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top