Max Bliss debates chemtrails

[skephu]

the topic of this thread is CHEMTRAILS. You are a thread polluter

When communicating with conspiracy theorists, it is important to understand and recognize their concerns, especially when some of their concerns are justified. It is important to tell them what are the concerns that we share.
Chemtrail believers' concerns about having less blue skies are justified; concerns about the possibility that geoengineering may be implemented without seeking international and public approval are also justified, and we can share these concerns with them.

 

[deirdre]

When communicating with conspiracy theorists, it is important to understand and recognize their concerns, especially when some of their concerns are justified. It is important to tell them what are the concerns that we share.
Chemtrail believers' concerns about having less blue skies are justified; concerns about the possibility that geoengineering may be implemented without seeking international and public approval are also justified, and we can share these concerns with them.

[...]
Shouldnt you be trying to convince the chemtrailists to stop using the term 'chemtrails' and to stop talking about 'spraying aluminum, barium etc' ?

I dont really feel the 'less blue skies' is justified in most cases. I live near one known chemtrailist who has published and he way over exaggerates his claims and 'concerns'. I think enabling him to 'be afraid' when there is no evidence or scientific or observable data supporting his claims is cruel. And you confusing him doesnt help.

I'm also not concerned about 'international approval' because no wide spread program of any significance is going to be able to be implemented without other countries knowing ( or actual whistleblowers). Countries keep tabs on each other and they have way more resources to do so then a bunch of online bloggers/facebookers and youtube movie makers.


I personally am not 'concerned' about contrails at this point in time because the scientists are studying it. And as you have pointed out, they have been watching the contrail situation since at least 1970. So far the scientists havent found any significant impacts, but they are planning ahead and considering the options if the need arises. IF in the few locations around the globe that they do actually have one or two days a month of 'contrail cover' of any significance, it is up to those specific locations to decide what to do about it. re: crops or unhappy citizens.

And as I've said pollutants from cars, trucks, and buses actually does have tons of scientific evidence of significant harm and pollution, both globally and for many many many specific locations. If you can't motivate people to care ( ie. be concerned) about THAT, good luck getting wide spread caring about a few extra clouds in the sky!

Either way this isnt really the forum to discuss 'what if' scenarios except in Chit Chat to some extent.

 

[David Fraser]

I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.

ps. I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this, so quit acting like none of this is a surprise to you. K?

Why would Mick know of the NATO Pipeline Committee? I know about this but then I live in a country that it affects. In the UK we have the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS). Thay are so shady that they even have a website so you can report issues with http://www.linewatch.co.uk/map-PDF/map-GPSS.pdf This is a system set up since 1939 and ramped up after Operation Overlord. Have you heard of Operation Pluto ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto

 

[Rico]

When communicating with conspiracy theorists, it is important to understand and recognize their concerns, especially when some of their concerns are justified. It is important to tell them what are the concerns that we share.
Chemtrail believers' concerns about having less blue skies are justified; concerns about the possibility that geoengineering may be implemented without seeking international and public approval are also justified, and we can share these concerns with them.

I'm generally against pollution in general, so in a sense, I agree with you--at least to the point that pollution is undesirable.

But I think the point of the forum is not about activism nor sharing concerns as it is removing bunk.

One thing I'd like to point out too is the nature of contrails. Contrails are largely just contrails, a product of condensation. In fact, the primary composition of a contrail is that of condensed water. It may be "pollution" in the sense that for some, it is unsightly, but it's certainly cannot be described as chemical pollution so much as the exhaust gases themselves, that exists whether or not water is condensing. Certainly, it can be a concern for some, but here we are really deviating on the subject of chemtrails.

 

[skephu]

It may be "pollution" in the sense that for some, it is unsightly

Unsightlyness is the least of problems. Much more relevant is the effect on the regional weather, regional climate, and global climate as I mentioned earlier. I believe that these issues should be discussed honestly when communicating with chemtrail believers. Therefore if you want to engage them you need to be knowledgeable about this subject. And that's the reason why it does belong here.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I disagree. Contrails, when they form (regardless of one's sense of 'aesthetics' about their appearance) constitute a minimal portion of total surface area (if you view them from directly above, for example). They are merely lines, with a huge amount of 'empty space' between them.

In the instances when persistent contrail seem to expand and completely cover in a high, thin overcast? It is most likely that even absent the existence of airplanes at all, those high thin cirrus clouds would still form.

Time-lapse photography shows this...example:


Sorry to have posted a full 5-minute vid...but it illustrates rather clearly the motion of clouds in the upper atmosphere. Our perception (as Humans) when restricted to our own sense of 'time' and its passage tend to form a "confirmation bias" when it comes to contrails, and their relation to other cloud formations.

Those clouds in the first half are, BTW (to my eye) alto-stratus and alto-cumulus mostly. I see a few (much higher-level) non-persistent and persistent contrails....all of which continue to move along as the upper-level winds carry them across Earth's surface. Later on I see some cirro-stratus, and again a few contrail fragments that are persisting.

My point here (to reiterate) is the perception of the "contrail as pollution" is inaccurate.

BTW, there are plenty more examples of such time-lapse cloud videos to be found.

 

[Mick West]

This thread is over a year old, and has devolved into a largely semantic argument over if contrails are "pollution"

We know what contrails are. If you consider them "pollution", then that's just your definition of pollution.

If you think there's really an issue here, then continue in PM, or start a more focussed thread.