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 ??

 

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 ??


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
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

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

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:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
firepilot Does Roxy Lopez have callers on her friday internet show? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Pogopoint99 Does Rosalind Peterson believe in chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
SR1419 Does more dust equal more contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top