Senator Kelli Ward (Arizona) calls public meeting to address chemtrails concerns

deirdre

Senior Member.
Agreed. How hard is it to spell out the simple fact that when you burn jet fuel in an engine you get thrust and lots of water vapor? If they start questioning the details, then explain further. The believers already THINK they are being scientific about it all. I don't see any alternative to blowing their minds by showing them just how shallow and flawed their "science" has been.
as a non-nerd I gotta ask ( I don't really want to know ) what does Thrust have to do with anything? is till think the easiest way to explain it, at least for people in cold climes, is car exhaust on cold mornings. everyone knows about that.

and the colder it is the longer the frozen stuff persists (see at 5:30mins)
 
Last edited:

skephu

Senior Member.
Showing that contrails can be persistent would not be enough to convince the believers. I've seen some believers argue that OK contrails can persist but the conditions for persistence are very rare, and persistent trails can be observed almost every day so it must be chemicals.

If there was a simple way to take a sample from a contrail and show it is just ice it would be easier to convince these people. The problem is they cannot simply check the composition of contrails themselves.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Once someone has been alerted to the trails in the sky and told they are not natural products of combustion in jet engines, they either reject the notion or they buy into the fantasy. Once vested into the misidentification they are easily lead down any path a convincing individual is able to lead them. If they interpret the trails as a threat, they are even more resistant to any logical explanation to the contrary. The conspiracy then becomes the umbrella under which to place all their other fears and misgivings about what they don't understand or are angry about. I believe it becomes the one easily verifiable piece of evidence they use or fall back on to prove the evil intent and far reaching capability of "THEM."
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Showing that contrails can be persistent would not be enough to convince the believers. I've seen some believers argue that OK contrails can persist but the conditions for persistence are very rare, and persistent trails can be observed almost every day so it must be chemicals.

Absolutely, but you have to start somewhere.


If there was a simple way to take a sample from a contrail and show it is just ice it would be easier to convince these people. The problem is they cannot simply check the composition of contrails themselves.

That has been done, both by chemtrail believers and regular scientists. Results: Water. the believers dismissed the test as somehow being inconclusive. Of course the true believers with still say that unless every trail is tested, they might be chemtrails. There is no end to excuses and 'work-arounds' to rational explanations, but you can't prevent that.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Once someone has been alerted to the trails in the sky and told they are not natural products of combustion in jet engines, they either reject the notion or they buy into the fantasy. Once vested into the misidentification they are easily lead down any path a convincing individual is able to lead them. If they interpret the trails as a threat, they are even more resistant to any logical explanation to the contrary. The conspiracy then becomes the umbrella under which to place all their other fears and misgivings about what they don't understand or are angry about. I believe it becomes the one easily verifiable piece of evidence they use or fall back on to prove the evil intent and far reaching capability of "THEM."

I think one of the best explanations is that REAL geoengineering wouldn't even look like the trails we see in the sky. It would be done at much higher altitudes and wouldn't leave visible trails.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I've seen some believers argue that OK contrails can persist but the conditions for persistence are very rare
well don't they technically always persist? its just we cant always see them because when its dry sky the bulk of the water is absorbed into the dry areas and spreads out quickly vs. 'staying together' because the air around it is too saturated to absorb more. (or am I complicating the issue?)

like if you dip a dry paper towel into a cup of water it will absorb more and faster than dipping a wet paper towel into a cup of water.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
well don't they technically always persist? its just we cant always see them because when its dry sky the bulk of the water is absorbed into the dry areas and spreads out quickly vs. 'staying together' because the air around it is too saturated to absorb more. (or am I complicating the issue?)

like if you dip a dry paper towel into a cup of water it will absorb more and faster than dipping a wet paper towel into a cup of water.

No, if a trail isn't visible it isn't a "contrail", by definition- it's just exhaust.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
well don't they technically always persist? its just we cant always see them because when its dry sky the bulk of the water is absorbed into the dry areas and spreads out quickly vs. 'staying together' because the air around it is too saturated to absorb more. (or am I complicating the issue?)
The contrails consist of ice crystals. When these ice crystals sublime, i.e. undergo a phase transition from solid to gas phase, it's no longer considered a contrail.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The contrails consist of ice crystals. When these ice crystals sublime, i.e. undergo a phase transition from solid to gas phase, it's no longer considered a contrail.
I get that now. I guess the point is the little white dots that make up the persistent contrails we see, still exist even if we don't see them. They are just too spread out to see <using layman terms ; )

chemtrailists seem to think if they don't see a trail then nothing is coming out of the engines. but just like our cars the same stuff is coming out ALL the time. whether or not we can see it just depends on the outside air conditions.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Can you point me to some of those tests? Especially those done by chemtrail believers.

It's been a long time for that "believer" one. I don't know if I can find it right away. Maybe somebody else can remember who did that. The real science one is shown in a Youtube vid:

youtube.com/watch?v=miRZ0zJKB6Y

Sorry, but I have to run now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
same difference

One actual difference is that a contrail is largely NOT made up of things from the exhaust. The relatively tiny bit of extra water in the exhaust simply triggers the formation of tiny tiny ice crystals, and then these grow much larger from water vapor that is already in the air being deposited on the ice crystal. Over 99.9% of a contrail is just water that was already in the air.

So a contrail is not the exhaust made visible by cold air. It's the cold humid air made visible by the exhaust. That entire portion of the sky is a contrail waiting to happen - it just only gets triggered where the plane flies.

When a visible contrail does not form, all that's happening is that tiny bit of extra water vapor (and CO2, and a few minor other things) is mixed in with the air.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The relatively tiny bit of extra water in the exhaust simply triggers the formation of tiny tiny ice crystals, and then these grow much larger from water vapor that is already in the air being deposited on the ice crystal. Over 99.9% of a contrail is just water that was already in the air.
yea like snow flakes. forgot about that part.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Related (if a bit late) to this story:

Video title (on YouTube):

"Chemtrail Mania! Why Are Lawmakers and Others Who Should Know Better Falling For This Conspiracy?"


At ~2:20 "thevane.Gawker" is mentioned:
http://thevane.gawker.com/

Relevant post from "thevane":
http://thevane.gawker.com/tag/chemtrails


EDIT: And, I know, the young commentator (New York native?) didn't know how to properly pronounce the Native American words "Havasu" and "Mohave". Perhaps he has been informed, by now.... ;)
 
Last edited:

Balance

Senior Member.
Someone posted a part (I'm sure she said much more) of Alexandra Hunt's "fact-based" evidence. https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/1430713633869271

It includes her own testimony of "scientific observations" such as
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
One actual difference is that a contrail is largely NOT made up of things from the exhaust. The relatively tiny bit of extra water in the exhaust simply triggers the formation of tiny tiny ice crystals, and then these grow much larger from water vapor that is already in the air being deposited on the ice crystal. Over 99.9% of a contrail is just water that was already in the air.

So a contrail is not the exhaust made visible by cold air. It's the cold humid air made visible by the exhaust. That entire portion of the sky is a contrail waiting to happen - it just only gets triggered where the plane flies.

When a visible contrail does not form, all that's happening is that tiny bit of extra water vapor (and CO2, and a few minor other things) is mixed in with the air.

Ice Budget.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why couldn't they have had someone at the meeting to present something as basic and 'winning' as this?

Too much math. However I think the ice budget argument probably could be used more. Maybe need some better infographics.

Rather ironic that if you actuall look into the science, only contrails can persist, and chemtrails would quickly dissipate.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Too much math. However I think the ice budget argument probably could be used more. Maybe need some better infographics.

Rather ironic that if you actuall look into the science, only contrails can persist, and chemtrails would quickly dissipate.

I don't see how it's going to be possible to avoid direct scientific challenges to the information being presented and it will necessarily be somewhat complex. The believers keep presenting more and more detailed claims and claiming it is "science". Sitting in this forum and showing each other how Dane is wrong is not going to do it.

You could cut back on the amount of numbers in presentations, but have them ready for when the chemtrail proponents devise 'work-arounds', which they increasingly do and they become increasingly complex.

PS: Example: We explain the center of gravity problem with spray tanks and they say that the center wing tank is the one being used, which is near the center of lift.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't see how it's going to be possible to avoid direct scientific challenges to the information being presented and it will have to be somewhat complex. The believers keep presenting more and more detailed claims and claiming it is "science". Sitting in this forum and showing each other how Dane is wrong is not going to do it.

You could cut back on the amount of numbers in presentations, but have them ready for when the chemtrail proponents devise 'work-arounds', which they increasingly do and they become increasingly complex.

PS: Example: We explain the center of gravity problem with spray tanks and they say that the center wing tank is the one being used, which is near the center of lift.

Alright, but how are you going to do this. I'm pretty sure he will refuse to debate me again. Issuing public challenges hasn't done anything.

If anything the debunking has too much science up front. What is needed is a bullet point debunking of the entire Gish gallop - but backed up with science and references.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
PS: Example: We explain the center of gravity problem with spray tanks and they say that the center wing tank is the one being used, which is near the center of lift.
that sounds complicated and unnecessary based on Jays pic. when I was looking up informed consent I found an neat little blurb thrown in.
Obviously for maybe Dane complexity is ok but for the average (actually probably more like 87.98%) of chemtrailists you gotta keep the explanations really simple. Mostly because the majority of the people aren't really into the actual science anyway. we like cliffnotes.


Too much math
actually I think Jays thing is excellent. Not really sure what the pic is showing. But its easy math. I mean if I can get it easily, most anyone could.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Alright, but how are you going to do this. I'm pretty sure he will refuse to debate me again. Issuing public challenges hasn't done anything.

If anything the debunking has too much science up front. What is needed is a bullet point debunking of the entire Gish gallop - but backed up with science and references.

No, I don't think he will debate you either. All you can do it put the challenge out there, in a blatant, public way, repeatedly, until it becomes more and more obvious that he won't debate.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
No, I don't think he will debate you either. All you can do it put the challenge out there, in a blatant, public way, repeatedly, until it becomes more and more obvious that he won't debate.

Maybe the challenge could specify claims you want Dane to support. I know he will continue to say it's all proved beyond a doubt, though.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Maybe just start with a challenge to the UV claims? I don't know... I just see the believers and leaders getting more and more public exposure and this meeting being a missed opportunity to show where they are wrong.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe just start with a challenge to the UV claims? I don't know... I just see the believers and leaders getting more and more public exposure and this meeting being a missed opportunity to show where they are wrong.

This thread is not that useful in itself:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/

But contains:

I think that's like the "top-level" coverage of a topic you need, with easily checked references to back it up.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This thread is not that useful in itself:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/

But contains:

I think that's like the "top-level" coverage of a topic you need, with easily checked references to back it up.

Sure, but where/how do you confront Dane with that or challenge HIM to show his methods and results? That's my point... what good does it do to have a few people read that here while Dane is 'testifying' in public before a DEQ board meeting and uploading his [...] to Youtube for thousands to see and believe?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sure, but where/how do you confront Dane with that or challenge HIM to show his methods and results? That's my point...

I suspect chasing him down will be hard. There are ways of directly addressing things in the web, but probably need another thread. I'm thinking specifically of the rbutr/Twitter interface.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How would that work?
I'll write something up. But basically adding a rbutr link to a page gives you a list of people who Tweeted about it, and you can send them a link to the explanation. Often they will re-tweet it to their followers.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I'll write something up. But basically adding a rbutr link to a page gives you a list of people who Tweeted about it, and you can send them a link to the explanation. Often they will re-tweet it to their followers.
Cool. I never heard of that.
 
This thread is not that useful in itself:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-dane-wigingtons-claims-that-uv-is-off-the-charts.2097/

But contains:

I think that's like the "top-level" coverage of a topic you need, with easily checked references to back it up.

Come to think of it, I think that coming up with infographics like this with quick little debunkings and then referencing places where the science is talked about more extensively is a great way to combat bunk in the soundbyte/infographic age we are living in.

It seems those most into CTs often share or retweet simple images making large claims that are already assumed to be true. Using thta method seems to be a great way to debunk specific claims, and then there is always more for a person to read if they doubt its true. It seems a lot harder to ignore a picture quickly debunking a claim than it is to ignore an entire thread talking about in depth science.

Also the blunt "so he's wrong" at the end of the infographic made me laugh really hard. I'm a fan of dry humor though, so :)
 
ME TOO!

Problem is...in print, "humor" (or "humour") can sometimes be 'relative'. It is a kind of 'quick-sand' to negotiate.
Right, I'm guessing the humor was unintentional, but it did make me laugh. If we take the infographic idea seriously, then it is best there are no intentional attempts at humor. I really like the infographic idea though. Even for someone like me who is willing to read the science behind it, it can be kind of hard to follow sometimes.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
....then it is best there are no intentional attempts at humor.

AND if we follow this site's "politeness policy", then must tread carefully when exposing such "unintentional" humor, lest it be construed as "mocking". It is a delicate line of balance, I admit....takes some sharp 'wordsmithing'.
 
Top