Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No]

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Guy McPherson, who blogs as a climate alarmist, is not an atmospheric scientist, but he does have a background as a science (ecology, natural resources) teacher at the University of Arizona. The chemtrails crowd has claimed him as one of their own. So it is a little reassuring to read that he disagreed with Wigington, Mangels and Buckman at a conference in Chico (and was castigated for that by Wigington). http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/a-meeting-with-scientist-guy-mcpherson/
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Wow...the comments on that are fairly alarming/disheartening...so, much bunk.

Is Dane referring to the "tests" that have been repeatedly debunked here- pond scum et al ??

The two biologists and myself briefly discussed the extensive lab testing we had each done which proved the fact that extreme levels of toxic heavy metals (matching the elements in climate engineering patents) were now present in precipitation.
Content from External Source
 

JDubyah

Member
Wow...the comments on that are fairly alarming/disheartening...so, much bunk.

Is Dane referring to the "tests" that have been repeatedly debunked here- pond scum et al ??

The two biologists and myself briefly discussed the extensive lab testing we had each done which proved the fact that extreme levels of toxic heavy metals (matching the elements in climate engineering patents) were now present in precipitation.
Content from External Source


I think they have trouble distinguishing problems with testing and problems with sampling. That is, the tests they do may very well show elevated levels of x,y, and z, and the labs that perform the testing may be reliable, but the fact that the samples being sent are suspect doesn't seem to penetrate into many people's understanding of the whole procedure.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The tests are reliable and in some cases the samples are probably non-suspect, but neither the levels or the elements found are anything out of the ordinary.
storyboard50.jpg storyboard51.jpg McConnell.jpg
 
The tests are reliable and in some cases the samples are probably non-suspect, but neither the levels or the elements found are anything out of the ordinary.

Unfortunately, for many chemtrail believers, with this information they will just start to say that chemtrails have been actually going on since the 1960's.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Guy McPherson has written a blog post titled: Geoengineering, Real and Imagined
the type of geoengineering proposed by the nut-jobs well-intentioned, easily misled folks promulgating mythical chemtrails is imaginary. This approach has been discredited thoroughly in the scientific community — notable critiques based on reason can be found here and here — but the conspiracy freaks continue to pound the drum of their collective imagination
Content from External Source
He links contrailscience.com and metabunk.org in those two links.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
So, there is the obvious double standard here.

When it suits chemtrail believers, credentials are important to the argument from authority. For example:

Francis Mangels is constantly cited as a “retired USDA biologist.”

Marvin Herdon is a “well known scientist” headlined by Dane Wigington.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/well-known-scientist-sounds-the-alarm-on-geoengineering/

Less well know, but following the same theme is Vandana Shiva, an “internationally recognized theoretical physicist”

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...l-physicist-acknowledges-climate-engineering/


That said, I am still amazed at just how quickly Cori Gunnells dismisses "facts" irregardless of the bearing on any issue. What seems to matters more is the source of these "facts" or, perhaps more accurately, their adherence to the accepted orthodoxy.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Less well know, but following the same theme is Vandana Shiva, an “internationally recognized theoretical physicist”
Strange. I read the interview, but, contrary to the title of the article, Vandana Shiva never actually acknowledges climate engineering. She just says climate engineering is a bad idea, but she doesn't appear to think it's happening.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Strange. I read the interview, but, contrary to the title of the article, Vandana Shiva never actually acknowledges climate engineering. She just says climate engineering is a bad idea, but she doesn't appear to think it's happening.

Fair point, but please let me clarify somewhat.

Dane Wigington has a consistent record of mishandling science to make his case, cherry picking information, citing it out of context, or the like.

His use of Vandana Shiva reminded me of the Arctic methane emergency topic that periodically appears on geoengineeringwatch.org. To support his point, for years Wigington has referred to research published by Natalia Shakhova.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/shakhova/
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...geoengineering-cure-that-is-fueling-the-fire/

However, a careful read of her work does not support any of Wigington's alarming claims.

When I engage in conversations with chemtrail believers, I try to find out just how much they have actually read when citing scientific work like this. To me, it seems that the disparity between what a scientific article or paper actually says and what it is presented as on sites like geoengineeringwatch.org or naturalnews should speak for itself.

Unfortunately, I often find that they haven't read anything whatsoever. They seem satisfied that Dane Wigington, or Russ Tanner, or whomever has provided an accurate summation. Further investigation on their part is unnecessary. The conversation then tends to devolve into a Gish Gallop, with "look at the sky" as an inevitable counterargument.

The source of credibility, the real "argument from authority" is not science, but the gatekeepers within the chemtrail community. Faith in Wigington, Tanner, Mangels, etc. is adequate "evidence" for most followers. I think that might be why arguments made with hard data and rational systems of thought are so difficult to make.

I hope that I am wrong about that.
 

Attachments

  • Shakhova 2010.pdf
    516 KB · Views: 1,077

JRBids

Senior Member.
The just do not believe what they do not want to believe. Case in point: screen shots were posted numerous times of Jim Lee calling people who believe in chemtrails by that derogatory name that we all know, saying he doesn't believe chemtrails, all those posts were ignored. Not even handwaved. It was like they weren't there. Questions asking how they feel about Jim Lee raising $2000 to take a train ride. Not even acknowledged. There is a wall there between what they believe and the truth.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Fair point, but please let me clarify somewhat.

Dane Wigington has a consistent record of mishandling science to make his case, cherry picking information, citing it out of context, or the like.

His use of Vandana Shiva reminded me of the Arctic methane emergency topic that periodically appears on geoengineeringwatch.org. To support his point, for years Wigington has referred to research published by Natalia Shakhova.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/shakhova/
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...geoengineering-cure-that-is-fueling-the-fire/

However, a careful read of her work does not support any of Wigington's alarming claims.

When I engage in conversations with chemtrail believers, I try to find out just how much they have actually read when citing scientific work like this. To me, it seems that the disparity between what a scientific article or paper actually says and what it is presented as on sites like geoengineeringwatch.org or naturalnews should speak for itself.

Unfortunately, I often find that they haven't read anything whatsoever. They seem satisfied that Dane Wigington, or Russ Tanner, or whomever has provided an accurate summation. Further investigation on their part is unnecessary. The conversation then tends to devolve into a Gish Gallop, with "look at the sky" as an inevitable counterargument.

The source of credibility, the real "argument from authority" is not science, but the gatekeepers within the chemtrail community. Faith in Wigington, Tanner, Mangels, etc. is adequate "evidence" for most followers. I think that might be why arguments made with hard data and rational systems of thought are so difficult to make.

I hope that I am wrong about that.

You're not wrong. These belief systems are exactly like cults in how the believers react to outside information. They simply reject anything which challenges what their leaders say, and quickly accept, without examination, anything they DO say.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
In a sense, this behavior is rational. Let's assume someone sounds the alarm on a claimed danger, while another person claims the danger is not present. If you do not have the expertise, time, and resources to definitively decide which of them is right, it is rational to err on the safe side and assume the danger actually exists. If it doesn't exist, you didn't lose much, but if it exists and you ignored it, that may hurt you. So you are better off believing the danger. Therefore alarm-sounders will always get more attention and more following than those who try to argue it's a false alarm. And many people don't have the education and expertise to investigate the claims, so they just follow the people who appear to be confident. And confident alarm-sounders will be more convincing than confident false-alarm-callers.
(Sorry, this is a bit off for this thread.)
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
In a sense, this behavior is rational. Let's assume someone sounds the alarm on a claimed danger, while another person claims the danger is not present. If you do not have the expertise, time, and resources to definitively decide which of them is right, it is rational to err on the safe side and assume the danger actually exists. If it doesn't exist, you didn't lose much, but if it exists and you ignored it, that may hurt you. So you are better off believing the danger. Therefore alarm-sounders will always get more attention and more following than those who try to argue it's a false alarm. And many people don't have the education and expertise to investigate the claims, so they just follow the people who appear to be confident. And confident alarm-sounders will be more convincing than confident false-alarm-callers.
(Sorry, this is a bit off for this thread.)

That is exactly the tack many fundamentalist religious people use: "What have you got to loose by believing....?"
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
In a sense, this behavior is rational. Let's assume someone sounds the alarm on a claimed danger, while another person claims the danger is not present. If you do not have the expertise, time, and resources to definitively decide which of them is right, it is rational to err on the safe side and assume the danger actually exists. If it doesn't exist, you didn't lose much, but if it exists and you ignored it, that may hurt you. So you are better off believing the danger. Therefore alarm-sounders will always get more attention and more following than those who try to argue it's a false alarm. And many people don't have the education and expertise to investigate the claims, so they just follow the people who appear to be confident. And confident alarm-sounders will be more convincing than confident false-alarm-callers.
(Sorry, this is a bit off for this thread.)

I can see your point. If it is a matter of self-preservation, you are exactly right.

However, the nature of the danger is also important. If it is imminent, then reason dictates action in favor of self-preservation. Geoengineeringwatch.org plays on that theme constantly.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/bio-geo-engineering-extinction-level-event/

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...reversible-damage-will-cause-mass-extinction/

Alex Jones is another source of a seemingly endless supply of imminent disasters.

Interestingly, the disasters never seems to materialize. Instead, they share space with a crowded landscape of potential calamities. These are periodically invoked on what resembles a disaster rotisserie. They are most effective when they do not offer specific dates or deadlines.

Alex Jones' penchant for making predictions with specific dates applied erodes his credibility, especially when dozens upon dozens of them never come true.


Chemtrail advocates like Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner are more shrewd in that they constantly keep that horrifying future right around the corner.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
In a sense, this behavior is rational.
I'd even suggest this behaviour is reinforced by evolution, just like "connecting dots" more often than reality justifies.

Assuming danger when in doubt aids with survival. So we are dealing with something deeply ingrained in ourselves.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
BTW, this PcPherson guy may be called an alarmist with some justification, but just recently there was a sobering article in a magazine which I'd never have associated with the spoiling of parties.

Rolling Stone, August 5, 2015: The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

As you might expect, having tickets to the front row of a global environmental catastrophe is taking an increasingly emotional toll on scientists, and in some cases pushing them toward advocacy. Of the two dozen or so scientists I interviewed for this piece, virtually all drifted into apocalyptic language at some point.
Content from External Source
The obvious challenge is to identify the point where the false alarms turn into real ones ...
 
His use of Vandana Shiva reminded me of the Arctic methane emergency topic that periodically appears on geoengineeringwatch.org. To support his point, for years Wigington has referred to research published by Natalia Shakhova.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/shakhova/
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...geoengineering-cure-that-is-fueling-the-fire/

However, a careful read of her work does not support any of Wigington's alarming claims


My apologies for necroposting, however I feel as if this needs to be said.

Recently (within this year), a comprehensive analysis/review of all studies over oceanic greenhouse gas emissions, specifically gas hydrate (or, clathrate/permafrost) ones has been conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the University of Rochester over a 7-year period.

Their rigorous and data-driven research shows a massive release of greenhouse gases through melt or degradation of these sources to be very unlikely with the next 2 to 3 centuries. This challenges the media-driven narrative one would attribute to methane.

The main page of this report, and the paper itself which was published in Reviews of Geophysics in February can be viewed here: https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top