Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

Removing sulfur from jet fuel would not impact the climate in total by 10%, but rather it would only affect the portion that aviation contributes by 10%. That increase is very small. It equates to 0.5% of the total anthropogenic radiative forcing... half of one percent.

Maybe that is all they need... maybe they need more which is why they are not taking sulfur out, and are allowing increased amounts of flights each year.

You say less than 1% like it is a small thing... but this is .5% WORLDWIDE. That is a HUGE percentage which equates to a very large amount on that size of a scale!
 
I agree that is accurate as to how most conspiracies are handled on this forum, but My conspiracy to tax thread meets all of these criteria and is in "off topic and rambles" instead of "conspiracy theories"... So the criteria I think it is more or less based on the discretion of the administrator, their opinion and their mood. In other words... if he feels like it.
Well he is the administrator and he has a mission . . . if you deviate from the mission . . . there are consequences . . . we are guests on his Forum . . . as guests one has to meet his wishes . . . as he would have to meet my wishes if he posted on my Threads on GLP . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well he is the administrator and he has a mission . . . if you deviate from the mission . . . there are consequences . . . we are guests on his Forum . . . as guests one has to meet his wishes . . . as he would have to meet my wishes if he posted on my Threads on GLP . . .

I guess the question has been answered then.
 
Maybe that is all they need... maybe they need more which is why they are not taking sulfur out, and are allowing increased amounts of flights each year.

Ya... maybe.

Listen, I'm not interested in speculating or playing "what if" games. It's a useless time consuming exercise that sends threads to the "Off Topics" section. If that's your intention, please tell me now.

You say less than 1% like it is a small thing... but this is .5% WORLDWIDE. That is a HUGE percentage which equates to a very large amount on that size of a scale!

It's a small percentage of about 0.25% to 0.5% of the total man made contribution. You do understand how percentages work?

You claimed that removing sulfur from jet fuel would have a 10% effect on the total climate. Do you still hold this to be true?
 
Maybe that is all they need... maybe they need more which is why they are not taking sulfur out, and are allowing increased amounts of flights each year.

You say less than 1% like it is a small thing... but this is .5% WORLDWIDE. That is a HUGE percentage which equates to a very large amount on that size of a scale!

your reliance upon the 10%/25% figures was thoroughly debunked here - and now you bring them up in another thread, possibly hioping no-one will notice - and they get debunked again.

Perhaps you should try to understand what you source actually says rather than just repeating it every now and then and claiming it is evidence of something it is not??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been trying to figure out how this Forum decides which Conspiracy/Conspiracy Theory/Concept to debate/discuss/debunk . . . . . . I think I have come up with a short list . . . see below . . . please add any you think I missed . . .

I think the criteria for confronting a concept/conspiracy are the following once a threshold has been reached:

a. The concept/conspiracy has reached a significant level of popularity
b. People recognize the name of the concept/conspiracy and recognize a generalized definition
c. There is significant disagreement regarding the fact base or error in the logic of the concept's adherents/promoters
d. Promotion of the concept/conspiracy has generated an economic advantage to promoters
e. Some damage may result if the concept/conspiracy is not challenged

I think you are missing something that differentiates a "conspiracy" from a bunch of people getting together to do something - for example some friends going out on a fishing trip could conceivably tick all of yor points - to wit:

a. fishing is very popular
b. People recognise what fishing is
c. Talk to the wives about whether fishing is more important than fixing the yard, or among the group as to where the best spot is, etc
d. Feeding yourself
e. To fish stocks - in many parts of the world fishing is heavily regulated for precisely this purpose, and individuals have catch limits

So perhaps it also requires that someone is trying to keep the conspiracy secret and ther is usually an element of illegality involved?

I don't think (d) is important at all - sure it is common, but I do not think a conspiracy requires it, nor that it is a criteria for being on here.
 
He is talking about THIS FORUM though,
I have been trying to figure out how this Forum decides
not the topic of conspiracies in general in all places. In here Mick is judge, jury ... and if needed... executioner. Don't matter what people think cause they ain't the ones moving, deleting or having anything to do with moderating.

I guess the question has been answered then.
Case closed.
 
In here Mick is judge, jury ... and if needed... executioner. Don't matter what people think cause they ain't the ones moving, deleting or having anything to do with moderating.

But I don't decide what gets debated. I just try to guide HOW it is debated, in a polite and fact-based manner.
 
So, you want someone to drop some planes?

So, you are about twenty years old, son? That explains some things............

No ageism please, you old codger :)

There's a constant stream of young people feeding into conspiracy culture as they come of reasoning age. It's a big part of the fuel that drives it. Communicating effectively with those young people is part of debunking, albeit a challenging and frustrating part.
 
I think you are missing something that differentiates a "conspiracy" from a bunch of people getting together to do something - for example some friends going out on a fishing trip could conceivably tick all of yor points - to wit:

a. fishing is very popular
b. People recognise what fishing is
c. Talk to the wives about whether fishing is more important than fixing the yard, or among the group as to where the best spot is, etc
d. Feeding yourself
e. To fish stocks - in many parts of the world fishing is heavily regulated for precisely this purpose, and individuals have catch limits

So perhaps it also requires that someone is trying to the conspiracy secret and ther is usually an element of illegality involved?

I don't think (d) is important at all - sure it is common, but I do not think a conspiracy requires it, nor that it is a criteria for being on here.

I would agree in principle with the boldface . . .
 
I think the criteria for confronting a concept/conspiracy are the following once a threshold has been reached:


a. The concept/conspiracy has reached a significant level of popularity
b. People recognize the name of the concept/conspiracy and recognize a generalized definition
c. There is significant disagreement regarding the fact base or error in the logic of the concept's adherents/promoters
d. Promotion of the concept/conspiracy may have generated an economic advantage to promoters
e. Some damage may result if the concept/conspiracy is not challenged
f. Someone tries to keep the conspiracy secret and there is possibly an element of illegality involved
 
So, you want someone to drop some planes?

So, you are about twenty years old, son? That explains some things............

"Regulate" is a song performed by Warren G and Nate Dogg. Released in the summer of 1994.
I don't listen to it now, but I did when I was about that age. It's been 18 years since 1994 though... Son.
 
But I don't decide what gets debated. I just try to guide HOW it is debated, in a polite and fact-based manner.
Maybe, but moving things and putting them where they are hidden from search results limits peoples decision making capabilities, so even if you are not directly controlling what gets debated, you are influencing what gets debated by making some things harder to find. This is not accidental, it is a decision.
 
No ageism please, you old codger :)

There's a constant stream of young people feeding into conspiracy culture as they come of reasoning age. It's a big part of the fuel that drives it. Communicating effectively with those young people is part of debunking, albeit a challenging and frustrating part.

Just dropped you an email on this score Mick.
 
In this week issue of Nature (October 4th, 2012) there are three relevant publications:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/index.html

Climate science: The aerosol effect
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/full/490040a.html

Sulphate–climate coupling over the past 300,000 years in inland Antarctica
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/full/nature11359.html

Natural and anthropogenic variations in methane sources during the past two millennia
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7418/full/nature11461.html
 
Back
Top