Debunked: Ian Simpson's Presentation at the 2015 Cambridge SRM Conference

[deirdre]

Ian made a comment about the scientists having no response, as if they can't explain Ian's "smokers". That looks bad to the uninformed public.

he would say something along those lines either way

 

[deirdre]

I don't think anyone but the committed conspiracists would interpret it like that

but the committed CTs would interpret it like that and the 'fence' people would believe them just like they believe all the other bunk they say. no?

It's not a scientists job to convince laymen of the science. It's not a scientists job to market their science to the populace. It's not a scientists job to know every aspect of aviation. SRM in the form of spraying pollutants up higher is never going to happen anyway and if it does then the experts can interview the scientists and present it to the public. Scientists "Debating" with a bunch of conspiracy theorists over an imaginary conspiracy is ridiculous.

That would be like.. if they found the missing link, inviting Bigfoot people to the conferences who insist they have "proof" (which they don't) that Bigfoot is the missing link still alive today.

 

[Belfrey]

but the committed CTs would interpret it like that and the 'fence' people would believe them just like they believe all the other bunk they say. no?

It's not a scientists job to convince laymen of the science. It's not a scientists job to market their science to the populace. It's not a scientists job to know every aspect of aviation. SRM in the form of spraying pollutants up higher is never going to happen anyway and if it does then the experts can interview the scientists and present it to the public. Scientists "Debating" with a bunch of conspiracy theorists over an imaginary conspiracy is ridiculous.

That would be like.. if they found the missing link, inviting Bigfoot people to the conferences who insist they have "proof" (which they don't) that Bigfoot is the missing link still alive today.

Part of the scientist's role is to do public outreach and education regarding one's specialty, particularly where that information may impact public health, policy decisions, etc. David Keith does this already, speaking on talk shows and public events about the possibility of future geoengineering programs. Since there is an active (if disorganized) campaign of misinformation about David Keith's primary field, I do think it's appropriate for him to be prepared to address those claims when they come up. Just like any outspoken evolutionary biologist knows how to answer "Why are there still monkeys?", and any prominent climate researcher can respond to "It's just a natural cycle."

 

[deirdre]

Just like any outspoken evolutionary biologist knows how to answer "Why are there still monkeys?", and any prominent climate researcher can respond to "It's just a natural cycle."

yea but those are real things.

 

[Belfrey]

yea but those are real things.

Right, and so are Ian's pictures of contrails. And Keith is a physicist who can help explain them.

 

[MikeC]

And he has done already - and his efforts either misrepresented or ignored.

 

[deirdre]

Right, and so are Ian's pictures of contrails. And Keith is a physicist who can help explain them.

No. that's two different things.

If he could then he would have, so apparently being a physicist doesn't mean you know everything about airplanes. or need to know. or need to tech the public about airplanes.

 

[Belfrey]

No. that's two different things.

If he could then he would have, so apparently being a physicist doesn't mean you know everything about airplanes. or need to know. or need to tech the public about airplanes.

Nor does every evolutionary biologist "need" to know specifically about primate evolution to do his or her job, but if they run the talk show circuit then there's a good chance it'll come up, and if they're smart they'll be able to answer the usual canards. I really don't understand why you object so strongly to the idea that he could inform himself on this stuff. (edit: And really, he probably has done so as much as anyone in his field.)

 

[deirdre]

Nor does every evolutionary biologist "need" to know specifically about primate evolution to do his or her job, but if they run the talk show circuit then there's a good chance it'll come up, and if they're smart they'll be able to answer the usual canards. I really don't understand why you object so strongly to the idea that he could inform himself on this stuff. (edit: And really, he probably has done so as much as anyone in his field.)

Because I think that's going to make him sound like a shill. Of course I also don't understand why any scientist would want to debate the creationists either. I mean who cares if they think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But 'evolution' isn't a 'conspiracy theory' either. so that example is just people either not understanding the science or people who want to believe their Preachers.

I don't see the 'chemtrail' thing as comparable. But that's my opinion. David Keith will do what he wants.

 

[Belfrey]

Because I think that's going to make him sound like a shill. Of course I also don't understand why any scientist would want to debate the creationists either. I mean who cares if they think the earth is only 6,000 years old. But 'evolution' isn't a 'conspiracy theory' either. so that example is just people either not understanding the science or people who want to believe their Preachers.

I don't see the 'chemtrail' thing as comparable. But that's my opinion. David Keith will do what he wants.

Oy. I'd love to discuss why scientists care about confronting misinformation, but this conversation has wandered well off topic, and should probably be split into Rambles or Open Discussion.

 

[deirdre]

I'd love to discuss why scientists care about confronting misinformation

: ) I already know why scientists care about confronting misinformation.

Don't try to change the specific issue we are discussing and confuse me. : P

 

[tadaaa]

"Are we being sprayed by planes?" isn't a question like that, though. It has an answer, and even deserves one. For that matter, that answer was given.

This isn't a case of the scientists deciding not to give an answer, it's a case of the asker deciding not to listen. As I said above, when facing questions, he evaded most of them, claimed ignorance of the basic claims of his own theory that he asserts as true on a daily basis. Only one questioner actually managed to pin him down, and he spent the entire time evading and trying to get another question instead. He didn't invite answers, he simply refused to engage after his stage show was finished.

sure - and I was obviously being little facetious (and a little impolite, to which I apologise, my comment re that has been removed)

questioning and the thirst for knowledge is part of what makes us human - but constantly asking the same questions, that have been answered time and time again it what gets my goat

I don't let my children get away with it!!

the definition of madness, according to Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response/result

and the assumption that just because you ask a question and it does not get the full undivided attention of the worlds subject matter experts - is somehow telling and they "can't" answer it!! - is simply wrong

my post was really attacking the assumption that a question has inherent "validity"

and you are right - are we being sprayed? is worth asking and answering

I mean I am sure I read that the Chinese did quite a bit of it in the run up to the Beijing Olympics

so a suppose as ever the answer is Yes & No



PS - I prob should have checked the Einstein quote in the "quotes debunked" section - but I do exhibit that human trait of laziness!!!

 

[Trailblazer]

I mean I am sure I read that the Chinese did quite a bit of it in the run up to the Beijing Olympics

so a suppose as ever the answer is Yes & No

Did quite a bit of what? Cloud seeding, yes. Anything related to what chemtrail believers are talking about, no.

This is what cloud seeding by the Chinese Meteorological Administration looks like:

http://www.universetoday.com/16728/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/

Sounding like a military operation, the Chinese government authorized the use of 1,104 cloud seeding missile launches from 4:00-11:39pm on Friday night to remove the threat of rain ahead of the 29th Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing.

The CMA does also use aircraft for cloud seeding, but again this would look nothing like what chemtrail believers talk about.

 

[Trailspotter]

@deirdre, @Hama Neggs, @Belfrey
Just a side comment to your discussion about supplying the scientists with debunking resources.

As a scientist, I would be uncomfortable to argue at a scientific meeting the subject that I have not researched myself. If I'm aware about a published research on this subject that provides reasonable explanations, I would cite it and suggest the opponents' contacting its authors and/or the Editor, if they thinks that this research is flawed. If my colleagues present new findings and propose a non-conventional explanation, I would ask them first why a more conventional explanation would not suffice in their case.

As a scientist, I may take an interest in a particular subject outside my field of science and research it for myself, but it would require some time and effort. For example, I missed the initial discussion of Ian's "smokers", and learned about his video from his presentation in Cambridge a year later. I saw the main problem being to explain not just why ordinary contrails appear dark, but why the planes remain bright at the same time. I found a physical explanation to this phenomenon and backed it up with photographic records of previous observations, including my own. I "published" this explanation here on Metabunk, where it can be found by other interested scientists, as well as by the uninformed public.

 

[Ross Marsden]

Ian made a comment about the scientists having no response, as if they can't explain Ian's "smokers". That looks bad to the uninformed public.

On the other hand, just because David Keith had no explanation for the appearance of the contrails in the "smokers" video does not mean that there is no explanation. Contrails are not his speciality. And the lighting is a bit special.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Like many ideologues, Ian equates "I don't know" with "You are right".

 

[Hama Neggs]

Like many ideologues, Ian equates "I don't know" with "You are right".

Ian spoke of posting more vid, possibly including his interaction with Keith. I'd like to see what Keith actually said.

 

[SR1419]

Once scientists become professional debunkers we'll have even more people not believing the scientists. I think his 'innocence' makes him sound more authentic.

thats true- Patrick Minnis - contrail scientist - took a stab at some debunking and engaging Believers about 10yrs ago and quickly became a pariah not to be trusted no matter what he said.

That being said- David Kieth has been very open to engaging with folks in the past but as Hevach said the other side just doesnt really want to listen to his answers:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/we...ts-david-keith-chemtrail-geo-engineering.163/

 

[deirdre]

That being said- David Kieth has been very open to engaging with folks in the past but as Hevach said the other side just doesnt really want to listen to his answers

yea. I think hes perfect at how he interacts now. he's very good at it.

(although I don't think he should be interacting at all with chem mies about chemtrails... he isn't really, HE is trying to talk geoengineering -I just don't know if he 'really gets', that they just hijacked the term and they are not talking about geoengineering or hearing geoengineering when the discussions happen. They are gathering 'proof' that chemtrails are geoengineering happening now. I think sometimes [eggheads] dont really understand how typical folk process and hear information. But it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.)

 

[Psychic]

yea. I think hes perfect at how he interacts now. he's very good at it.

(although I don't think he should be interacting at all with chem mies about chemtrails... he isn't really, HE is trying to talk geoengineering -I just don't know if he 'really gets', that they just hijacked the term and they are not talking about geoengineering or hearing geoengineering when the discussions happen. They are gathering 'proof' that chemtrails are geoengineering happening now. I think sometimes [eggheads] dont really understand how typical folk process and hear information. But it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.)

Eggheads? Really?

 

[Hama Neggs]

(although I don't think he should be interacting at all with chem mies about chemtrails.

I have to agree, to a degree. I have seen debunking twisted into proof of a coverup more times than not. It's as if ANY reaction solidifies their beliefs. But, what do you do to educate those who are not yet "true believers"?

PS: It's as if the more outrageous a claim is, the more likely it is to stick simply because more people point out how outrageous it is.

 

[deirdre]

Eggheads? Really?

is that a politically incorrect term in your culture? I didn't know how to describe them without insulting us laymen.

 

[deirdre]

But, what do you do to educate those who are not yet "true believers"?

that's what debunkers are for.

He has educated people about geoengineering. He educated me. But I spent my young adultdom with a bunch of hippies so literally lived outside 90% of my twenties. I know what clouds look like and what stunning beautiful skies look like, so I don't see anything abnormal in todays skies. So when I HEAR him, I actual hear him properly. which is why I know:
1. if pollution spraying SRM was happening now, we wouldn't see it.
and 2. it certainly wouldn't be happening over the areas that cry "chemtrails" the most often because to manage the sun you need to be where the real sun is. which is certainly not England or Canada or even the US.

 

[Trailspotter]

(although I don't think he should be interacting at all with chem mies about chemtrails...

I have to agree, to a degree. I have seen debunking twisted into proof of a coverup more times than not. It's as if ANY reaction solidifies their beliefs. But, what do you do to educate those who are not yet "true believers"?

I do not think that it is a good idea to contact individual scientists about available debunking resources, but it may work with communicating this information to the Organizing Committees of future conferences that chemmies are planning to attend and let them to decide whether to share this information with the participants or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not think that it is a good idea to contact individual scientists about available debunking resources, but it may work with communicating this information to the Organizing Committees of future conferences that chemmies are planning to attend and let them to decide whether to share this information with the participants or not.

I do think that it was surprising (and disappointing) that the Cambridge conference would invite Ian to speak without offering a decent rebuttal to his presentation. I assume he had to submit details of what he was going to talk about in advance?

 

[Hama Neggs]

I do think that it was surprising (and disappointing) that the Cambridge conference would invite Ian to speak without offering a decent rebuttal to his presentation. I assume he had to submit details of what he was going to talk about in advance?

I agree. Why was he asked in the first place, just to show they weren't afraid of his "information"? Light comedy?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

I do think that it was surprising (and disappointing) that the Cambridge conference would invite Ian to speak without offering a decent rebuttal to his presentation. I assume he had to submit details of what he was going to talk about in advance?

I believe they were invited so that scientists and future policy makers might better understand the opposition to geoengineering programs. It's not about convincing Ian that he's wrong, or debunking him, but rather to understand Ian's objections.

This was expressed in a Washington Post article.

As farfetched (and baseless) as these claims may be, a recent scholarly analysis of the chemtrails movement suggests we can't write off its relevance entirely — not because its proponents are right, but because of the insights they may offer about a future debate over geoengineering. It might be many years, after all, before any geoengineering proposal seriously enters the policy realm. Still, writes science and technology policy researcher Rose Cairns of the University of Sussex in The Geographical Journal, "Ignoring or dismissing these discourses out of hand as pathological or paranoid is to ignore potentially revealing insights about the emerging politics of geoengineering."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-could-derail-the-debate-over-climate-policy/

David Keith agrees with Cairns views. One can't understand the opposition if they don't talk to them.

BTW... contrailscience.com was linked in that Washington Post article.

 

[tadaaa]

yes, I can see that as a valid tactic tbh

And an adaptation of General Chuikov's famous directive - at the battle of Stalingrad to

"Hug the enemy"

 

[Trailspotter]

I agree. Why was he asked in the first place, just to show they weren't afraid of his "information"? Light comedy?

There was a lot of PR at this conference. They had a German TV crew filming all of it, a Panel Discussion open to public, as a part of Cambridge Science Week. The Ian's was a Lunchtime presentation, not exactly a part of the conference scientific program. Still, like @Trailblazer, I was rather disappointed by the lack of rebuttal, or at the least a proper grilling of the Ian's "arguments" for an ongoing Geoengineering project.

 

[deirdre]

I believe they were invited so that scientists and future policy makers might better understand the opposition to geoengineering programs

I remember that. the problem with that is it makes no sense. that's like enrolling woman in a study to study male prostate health. The chem mies objections are not representative of the general population. If they want to learn about the objections of the general population, they should invite the general population. Not a bunch of myth believers. I mean, what part of "we don't want you spraying toxic stuff on our heads and adding pollution to the air" (the objection of the general populace) is so hard to comprehend?

edit: well unless youre republican, in which case the objection is "how much is this unproven bunk gonna cost us"

 

[Trigger Hippie]

The chem mies objections are not representative of the general population. If they want to learn about the objections of the general population, they should invite the general population.

The Chemtrail conspiracy believers are a part of the general population. A small, vocal, fringe part, but they are a part nevertheless. Cairns and Keith believe that some of their conspiratorial concerns are reflected in the general population, so understanding those concerns can shed some valuable insight.

Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering

The analysis finds that while some elements of the chemtrail narrative do not lend themselves to democratic processes of deliberation, and potential for engagement with more mainstream discourse appears to be low, nevertheless certain elements of the discourse (such as the moral outrage at the idea of powerful elites controlling the climate, or the importance of emotional and spiritual connections to weather and climate) highlight concerns of relevance to mainstream geoengineering debates.

They were invited because they are vocal, they have a developed opinion and they are willing to voice it, whereas the general population may not yet have formulated as complete a point of view on the subject of geoengineering. Understanding the chemtrailer mindset today, will help if/when the geoengineering debate becomes more heated and widespread in the future.

 

[Hama Neggs]

There was a lot of PR at this conference. They had a German TV crew filming all of it, a Panel Discussion open to public, as a part of Cambridge Science Week. The Ian's was a Lunchtime presentation, not exactly a part of the conference scientific program. Still, like @Trailblazer, I was rather disappointed by the lack of rebuttal, or at the least a proper grilling of the Ian's "arguments" for an ongoing Geoengineering project.

Right. Responding with facts can't be a bad thing, can it?

 

[Hama Neggs]

The Chemtrail conspiracy believers are a part of the general population.

And seem to be the only ones who really care much about it.

random members of the population may not yet have formulated as complete a point of view on the subject of geoengineering.

Exactly.

 

[deirdre]

formulated as complete a point of view

a complete point of view? lol. that would be fine if that point of view was based on geoengineering, but its based on a bunch of bunk non-geoengineers are spreading. ergo their point of view isn't what the general populace point of view is going to be. the general populace isn't vocal now because its like 'string theory' its just a thing scientists will be talking about and pondering and working out the math and models for the next few decades. If it becomes a 'thing' then I'm sure the general populace will start to ponder it.

AND the chem mies, many of them think this imaginary spraying IS NOW making them ill. How do you gather data from that when geoengineering is NOT making them ill, because there is no geoengineering?

Anyway, that's just my opinion, it makes no sense to include chem mies. again, its like including bigfoot people to a paleontologist convention.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

that would be fine if that point of view was based on geoengineering, but its based on a bunch of bunk non-geoengineers are spreading.

Their point of view is largely based on a misunderstanding of the science.

Understanding and learning how to deal with this vocal group of bunk spreading non-geoengineers today has value considering it's very likely that a large portion of the future population will consist of non-geoengineers that don't understand science very well.

 

[JFDee]

This was expressed in a Washington Post article.

Ah, yes, fond memories - I have posted quite a bit as OswaldHeger in the comment section.

 

[Efftup]

is that a politically incorrect term in your culture? I didn't know how to describe them without insulting us laymen.

Perhaps you should have said Boffins

 

[deirdre]

Their point of view is largely based on a misunderstanding of the science

Perhaps. But in my mind's eye, the science they are misunderstanding is contrails. They aren't even considering geoengineering science. And it doesn't appear they have any interest in learning about it, because to them it's the stuff coming out of passenger planes.

One of the men early on in the Cambridge session addressed this very nicely I thought. He basically said (and this is a HUGE paraphrase) that the general population, IF IF IF this is ever needed will be ok with it. and you can design a program to give out free scoops of ice cream and you will still have a small fringe group protesting about it.

Anyway... we'll just agree to disagree since we have no say in the matter anyway.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Anyway... we'll just agree to disagree since we have no say in the matter anyway.

The people that have much more say in the matter, like Dr. Rose Cairns who studies the implications of climate engineering to better inform governing bodies, believes that there is something to be learned from engaging chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and David Keith seems to agree with her. So you're really disagreeing with them... not me.

 

[deirdre]

The people that have much more say in the matter, like Dr. Rose Cairns who studies the implications of climate engineering to better inform governing bodies, believes that there is something to be learned from engaging chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and David Keith seems to agree with her. So you're really disagreeing with them... not me.

well obviously I disagree with them or I wouldn't have brought it up.

add: and PS wasn't it that blonde chick going to the Galapogas Islands who broght the idea up first?