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

[MikeC]

The "one time increase" results in a cost increase for as long as it is maintained - it is NOT a one-time cost.

Low cost carriers proliferate because they pare down costs for absolutely everything - even a 5 minute shorter turn-around on the ground can result in an extra flight on a given day, resulting in higher utilisation of the aircraft and lower seat-mile costs and hence lower fares. Adding a row or 2 of passengers at the expense of class dividers or a "full service galley" can likewise make a massive difference to seat mile costs.

I have seen how airline economics work - if you think a 1% increase in the price of fuel will not matter then I can only assume that you have no such experience.

Air mashals and reinforced doors are minor costs compared to fuel.

Airlines compete agaisnt othe forms of transport - in the US teh train system may be a train wreck (sic), but elsewhere in the world there is a lot of competition between high speed trains and air travel, and increasing the fuel cost for one mode but not the other WILL cause reduction in services.

 

[George B]

The "one time increase" results in a cost increase for as long as it is maintained - it is NOT a one-time cost.

Low cost carriers proliferate because they pare down costs for absolutely everything - even a 5 minute shorter turn-around on the ground can result in an extra flight on a given day, resulting in higher utilisation of the aircraft and lower seat-mile costs and hence lower fares. Adding a row or 2 of passengers at the expense of class dividers or a "full service galley" can likewise make a massive difference to seat mile costs.

I have seen how airline economics work - if you think a 1% increase in the price of fuel will not matter then I can only assume that you have no such experience.

Air mashals and reinforced doors are minor costs compared to fuel.

Airlines compete agaisnt othe forms of transport - in the US teh train system may be a train wreck (sic), but elsewhere in the world there is a lot of competition between high speed trains and air travel, and increasing the fuel cost for one mode but not the other WILL cause reduction in services.

It is a one time increase . . . once it is made it is a recurring sunk cost, overhead like everyone else has unless someone can use high sulfur fuel while everyone else is using low sulfur fuel . . .

Not trying to be Provential but the market, fuel use, percentage of pollution represented by the US, Europe, Japan,etc and military air drives the market . . . not small markets where rail might compete . . . convenience and time efficiencies are far more important than nominal costs differences between two travel options. . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Please clarify

No

 

[MikeC]

It is a one time increase . . . once it is made it is a recurring sunk cost, overhead like everyone else has unless someone can use high sulfur fuel while everyone else is using low sulfur fuel . . .

Yes - it is a recurring cost - my point entirely!

Not trying to be Provential but the market, fuel use, percentage of pollution represented by the US, Europe, Japan,etc and military air drives the market . . . not small markets where rail might compete . . . convenience and time efficiencies are far more important than nominal costs differences between two travel options. . .

Indeed they are - and high speed trains are eating into all of those. It is not a "small market where rail might compete" in Europe and Japan.

 

[George B]

Yes - it is a recurring cost - my point entirely!



Indeed they are - and high speed trains are eating into all of those. It is not a "small market where rail might compete" in Europe and Japan.

Do you honestly believe the marginal markets and minor cost bumps you are referring about drive significant decisions by the major air carriers, regulators or IPCC . . .??

 

[George B]

Indeed they are - and high speed trains are eating into all of those. It is not a "small market where rail might compete" in Europe and Japan.

The rail in Europe and Japan are subsidized just like the air industry . . . trust me any imbalances in passenger use and tweaks will be made to correct the numbers to appease the appropriate lobbies . . .

 

[solrey]

I doubt anyone lost their job because of a cost all Airlines will have to pass to their customers

Guess again.

Midwest Air CEO: Rising fuel costs made layoffs necessary.

Grappling With High Fuel Prices; When Fuel Costs Spike, Everyone In General Aviation Is Impacted

The end for Comair

Airlines Increase Layoffs to Adjust to Shifting Demand

It now that this preference to relax close to home is extending to customers outside of the United States and that, coupled with fuel prices, is having adverse effects on the airline business model.
[..]
If one was to believe that the malaise might expand across the pond, the obvious factor to point to is the price of fuel. While its true that fuel prices have taken a dip in recent weeks it does not appear that this trend will continue much longer. Beyond that, the price of powering commercial jets has become a much larger factor on airlines' expense sheets, now accounting for about thirty-five percent of all costs. Additionally, large, multinational airlines now face competition from more regional rivals than ever before.

 

[George B]

Guess again.

Midwest Air CEO: Rising fuel costs made layoffs necessary.

Grappling With High Fuel Prices; When Fuel Costs Spike, Everyone In General Aviation Is Impacted

The end for Comair

Airlines Increase Layoffs to Adjust to Shifting Demand

And they will still pass their increased costs to their customers . . . now if you can prove that a 3 cent increase per gallon will make air traffic unattractive . . . I might believe it could have an impact . . . fuel varies more than that at my pump in one week . . .

PS . . . If some air carriers are that close to their operational costs and financial survival they need to be out of business . . . there is no limit to the number of carriers to take their place . . .

And it is the economy that is reducing air passenger traffic not a future, minor and equally applied fuel cost increase . . .

Problems dogging new high-tech air traffic system - CBS ...

www.cbsnews.com/.../problems-dogging- ...


4 days ago – High-tech overhaul to nation'sair traffic control system on track, but ...inspector general Calvin Scovel said in remarks prepared for a .... economy has caused a significant reduction of air travel.

Content from External Source

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....c-system/&feed_id=1&videoid=37&catid=57511302

of six programs that the agency says will revolutionize air travel by moving from an outdated, radar-based system to one that uses satellite technology for precision tracking. The goal is to move planes faster and more efficiently by making routes more direct, eliminating many weather delays and enabling planes to fly safely at closer distances.

Once fully in place, the modernization program will save 1.4 billion gallons of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million metric tons, the agency says.

Content from External Source

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Evidence surfaces about being sprayed.... its affecting the climate by 10-14 percent and causing pollution... That much is clear. Who cares if the conspiracy nuts are wrong and there is NO sinister motive by the government to purposefully spray.... The fact does not change that they are RIGHT about us being sprayed! The facts are the facts and motive is always speculation. After ALL this talk about not being sprayed, and then I prove that we ARE being sprayed... and when it is proven the topic changes from debunking the facts, to rationalizing and justifying the reasons and motive for the spraying. I can't believe this guys... WITWATS? Sulfur!

 

[George B]

No

OK . . . that is your prerogative . . .

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

No

Please clarify . . .

No

If you are helpful in presenting your evidence and reasoning, it can only help advance truth.

Mick is right Jay.

Hey Mick, if you get me a big bag of cats, I have a very cost effective way to check them for robot parts. We can then settle two controversies in one thread!

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Wow! This thread is HOT! It is one of the biggest threads in this forum... and people were posting in it regularly... but it has been 24 hours now (EDIT: Almost 24 hours) since I posted last and nobody has challenged my conclusion. I don't expect anyone to say I was right about the whole thing, even though it may be embarrassing, I do tell others when they are right. I consider myself more open minded than most people. I undebunked spraying and it seems that nobody wants to admit it, and nobody is going to remember that it happened if the thread quietly sinks into a memory hole!

 

[George B]

Wow! This thread is HOT! It is one of the biggest threads in this forum... and people were posting in it regularly... but it has been 24 hours now (EDIT: Almost 24 hours) since I posted last and nobody has challenged my conclusion. I don't expect anyone to say I was right about the whole thing, even though it may be embarrassing, I do tell others when they are right. I consider myself more open minded than most people. I undebunked spraying and it seems that nobody wants to admit it, and nobody is going to remember that it happened if the thread quietly sinks into a memory hole!

I don't think you have to worry . . . they are just doing a bit of research to reassert their process of combating your position . . . they have been down this road before . . .

 

[MikeC]

More likely no-one noticed it and his "conclusion" was throroughly debunked and he just won't admit it. Looking through the last 2-3 pages I see nothing that supports his post.

 

[George B]

More likely no-one noticed it and his "conclusion" was throroughly debunked and he just won't admit it. Looking through the last 2-3 pages I see nothing that supports his post.

Sometimes what you think is a debunk is simply your opinion . . . the problem is there is no third party unbiased judge to determine what the status of an issue is . . . both sides can declare victory and feel justified . . .

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Well the controversy is about whether jets are modifying the climate, and polluting the environment is it not? The facts below prove that they are "spraying" sulfur from the engine emissions, which affects climate and also pollutes.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar

Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth

http://news.discovery.com/earth/time-to-take-sulfur-out-of-jet-fuel-111216.html

aviation’s share anthropogenic climate forcing may be as high as 14%.

Now I know this does not prove that there is a sinister motive, an intentional desire, or a conspiracy at hand here, but that is not the point and that is not what I am trying to prove. I am trying to prove that they ARE spraying... So, by default... "What in the world are they spraying" should not say "debunked". It should say "sulfur".

 

[George B]

Well the controversy is about whether jets are modifying the climate, and polluting the environment is it not? The facts below prove that they are "spraying" sulfur from the engine emissions, which affects climate and also pollutes.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar

http://news.discovery.com/earth/time-to-take-sulfur-out-of-jet-fuel-111216.html


Now I know this does not prove that there is a sinister motive, an intentional desire, or a conspiracy at hand here, but that is not the point and that is not what I am trying to prove. I am trying to prove that they ARE spraying... So, by default... "What in the world are they spraying" should not say "debunked". It should say "sulfur".

I am sure they will assert that engine emissions are not spraying . . . what do you say about that issue????

We know the level of sulfur can be significantly lower because low sulfur fuels are available (and are cheap) . . . and a decision to use the lower sulfur fuels could be made by a concerned industry . . .

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I am sure they will assert that engine emissions are not spraying . . . what do you say about that issue????

What I say about that issue is how you label what they are doing is semantics. Take the word "spraying" out and the facts still remain. They are "adding" pollutants, and "causing" climate change. Distracting from the facts means they have a weak argument at best. Let them make the definition of "spraying" an issue. I dare them.

We know the level of sulfur can be significantly lower because low sulfur fuels are available (and are cheap) . . . and a decision to use the lower sulfur fuels could be made by a concerned industry . . .

So why are they not concerned? This part deals with conspiracy. Now the argument gets even more interesting hehe. Either way even if there is no conspiracy, I have still proven my facts.

 

[solrey]

I've had it... I'm calling you out SD.

SD's assertion that sulfur is purposefully added to jet fuel comes from a COMMENT in the article, 'Time to Take Sulfur Out of Jet Fuel', NOT THE ARTICLE ITSELF!!!!! The comment was made by a 'Mechling Andy' with NO SOURCES. When I asked SD for a link to that assertion, because I didn't see it in the article and didn't even pay attention to the comments, that don't count for a hill-o-beans, all I got back was some snarky response that he already provided the link and it was just a one page article, go find it yourself. Well I finally got around to it after digging post holes all day so I'm fellin' a bit randy. SD conveniently failed to mention it was just some random schmoe's comment. Nice.

I searched and could find no source whatsoever to back up the claim.

I also referenced a List of Crude Oil Products as proof that quite a bit of sulfur occurs naturally in raw crude oil. The terms 'sweet crude' and 'sour crude' are actually in reference to sulfur content. A certain amount of sulfur is actually removed from crude oil early in the refining process in order to protect the equipment down the line.

SD also keeps repeating this little snippet, from the actual article in question, in an apparent attempt to make it sound like sulfur is in jet fuel on purpose because "aviation’s share of anthropogenic climate forcing may be as high as 14%". However when taken in context, that cherry picked sound bite is simply describing results of new simulations, inspired by the new target of 15ppm set by the DOT, in order to gauge aviation's contribution to anthropogenic influences on climate as a piece of the whole of human emissions/airborne pollutants. It says nothing about how the lower sulfur fuel will affect that current 14% contribution. To wit:

Unger used a global-scale model that assessed the impact of reducing the amount of sulfur in jet fuel from 600 milligrams per kilogram of fuel to 15 milligrams per kilogram, which is the level targeted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. She simulated the full impact of sulfur removal on all aviation emissions, including ozone, methane, carbon dioxide, sulfate and contrails—those ribbons of clouds that appear in the wake of a jet. Previous studies examined each chemical effect only in isolation.

"In this study we tried to put everything together so that we account for interactions between those different chemical effects," Unger said in a press release.

Unger points out that the aviation industry is currently responsible for about 3% of all CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. But when you tally up all non‐CO2 effects, aviation’s share anthropogenic climate forcing may be as high as 14%.

Yes, aviation; like automobiles, electrical generation and industry in general, all contribute their particular percentage to the whole of human airborne emissions. Pollution from airplanes is no more "spraying" or geo-engineering than what comes out of an industrial chimney or the tail pipe of a car.

Another factor SD apparently thinks is some kind of conspiracy, is the switch to ULS jet fuel hasn't happened yet although gasoline and diesel have. Well, the ULS diesel standard was just introduced in 2006 and things like changes to fuel chemistry don't just happen overnight in the aviation industry... it can take several years to complete the rigorous testing required for certification. I've already explained this and even provided a link to a document describing the plan to certify ULS jet fuel, which is part of an overall plan to reduce aviations total emissions, that actually began a decade ago and the testing of ULS fuel is currently underway, according to the timeline in the document, Aviation Emissions Characterization Roadmap Organizational Plan and Project Reference

DEBUNKED KAPUT FIN

 

[Danny55]

"So, by default... "What in the world are they spraying" should not say "debunked". It should say "sulfur"."

WITWATS claims that Aluminium, Barium and Strontium are being deliberately sprayed in the skies, so unless you have any evidence of that claim, then yes, it has been debunked.

 

[Spongebob]

Solrey and Danny have concluded this episode...

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I've had it... I'm calling you out SD.

No need to get upset... You can walk away any time you have had enough.

SD's assertion that sulfur is purposefully added to jet fuel comes from a COMMENT in the article, 'Time to Take Sulfur Out of Jet Fuel', NOT THE ARTICLE ITSELF!!!!! The comment was made by a 'Mechling Andy' with NO SOURCES. When I asked SD for a link to that assertion, because I didn't see it in the article and didn't even pay attention to the comments, that don't count for a hill-o-beans, all I got back was some snarky response that he already provided the link and it was just a one page article, go find it yourself. Well I finally got around to it after digging post holes all day so I'm fellin' a bit randy. SD conveniently failed to mention it was just some random schmoe's comment. Nice.

I searched and could find no source whatsoever to back up the claim.

Whether or not they are adding extra sulfur is irrelevant. It was a trivial claim that I made earlier. The fuel is still high in sulfur regardless of whether extra sulfur is added or not.

I also referenced a List of Crude Oil Products as proof that quite a bit of sulfur occurs naturally in raw crude oil. The terms 'sweet crude' and 'sour crude' are actually in reference to sulfur content. A certain amount of sulfur is actually removed from crude oil early in the refining process in order to protect the equipment down the line.

I agree, but more sulfur is removed from gasoline and diesel than is removed from jet fuel.

SD also keeps repeating this little snippet, from the actual article in question, in an apparent attempt to make it sound like sulfur is in jet fuel on purpose because "aviation’s share of anthropogenic climate forcing may be as high as 14%". However when taken in context, that cherry picked sound bite is simply describing results of new simulations, inspired by the new target of 15ppm set by the DOT, in order to gauge aviation's contribution to anthropogenic influences on climate as a piece of the whole of human emissions/airborne pollutants. It says nothing about how the lower sulfur fuel will affect that current 14% contribution. To wit:

While sulfur might not account for the entire 14%, it is still a big factor. At least 10%

Yes, aviation; like automobiles, electrical generation and industry in general, all contribute their particular percentage to the whole of human airborne emissions. Pollution from airplanes is no more "spraying" or geo-engineering than what comes out of an industrial chimney or the tail pipe of a car.

Not true. Aerosols in the upper atmosphere stay in the air for much greater amounts of time than pollution produced close to ground level.

Another factor SD apparently thinks is some kind of conspiracy, is the switch to ULS jet fuel hasn't happened yet although gasoline and diesel have. Well, the ULS diesel standard was just introduced in 2006 and things like changes to fuel chemistry don't just happen overnight in the aviation industry... it can take several years to complete the rigorous testing required for certification. I've already explained this and even provided a link to a document describing the plan to certify ULS jet fuel, which is part of an overall plan to reduce aviations total emissions, that actually began a decade ago and the testing of ULS fuel is currently underway, according to the timeline in the document, Aviation Emissions Characterization Roadmap Organizational Plan and Project Reference

I never said it was a conspiracy. It is happening now, and if they have plans to address it then great! but it does not remove the fact that they HAVE been "spraying" sulfur and WILL BE spraying sulfur until this ULS jet fuel is introduced.

DEBUNKED KAPUT FIN

Nope. You did not even address this quote below, which is clear as day and cannot be taken out of context. This one quote alone makes my entire case, and you never addressed it.

Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth

"So, by default... "What in the world are they spraying" should not say "debunked". It should say "sulfur"."

WITWATS claims that Aluminium, Barium and Strontium are being deliberately sprayed in the skies, so unless you have any evidence of that claim, then yes, it has been debunked.

Although there is a film about spraying, and the thread is about that film, the film gives unsubstantiated claims and is not the authority on the subject. I am not trying to debunk a film here, so either way pick your favorite thread, and replace the word "aluminum" with "sulfur". There you go. I debunked that we are not being sprayed...

 

[George B]

I think the answer to the Thread title is #2 below:

1) Will spikes of suspect elements and compounds from chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in Ice Cores, Tree Rings and Varves . . .??

2) Not in a way that can be verified by source . . .

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I think the answer to the Thread title is #2 below:

1) Will spikes of suspect elements and compounds from chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in Ice Cores, Tree Rings and Varves . . .??

2) Not in a way that can be verified by source . . .

Well I do not remember whether the tests showed sulfur, or if it is distinguishable from natural sulfur in the environment already, but this is just one more topic, one more avenue, one more side discussion for the overall actual main discussion. Sure I could make an entirely new thread, and rehash all of this back up since it does not go with the topic, but Mick did state earlier that he was going to try to split this thread himself. Testing the ice cores, varves and tree rings was just a suggestion to obtain data that we did not have before I found this article. Testing now becomes irrelevant since we already know what substance is being "deposited" and what the source is. Either way it would be nice to have some form of acknowledgement that even though my facts could have been better presented, in the end I still make a valid point. I would at least like to have had this thread accomplish something. I feel it is all take and no give with you guys (Except George ). I have admitted to being wrong numerous times on this forum, and since nobody can deny this quote thus far (see below), it would be nice to get a little bit of praise here for my hard work and ultimate accomplishment. Am I asking too much?

'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US.

So unless you can prove either:
1) Desulfurizing jet fuel will not reduce aviations impact on public health, or
2) The use of non ULS jet fuel will not impact the climate by a tenth (10%)

Then you gotta give me credit where credit is due. Please?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

. . . trust me..... .

No.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Then you gotta give me credit where credit is due. Please?

No.

 

[George B]

Either way it would be nice to have some form of acknowledgement that even though my facts could have been better presented, in the end I still make a valid point. I would at least like to have had this thread accomplish something. I feel it is all take and no give with you guys (Except George ). I have admitted to being wrong numerous times on this forum, and since nobody can deny this quote thus far (see below), it would be nice to get a little bit of praise here for my hard work and ultimate accomplishment. Am I asking too much?

SeriouslyDebatable,

You are on the wrong Forum . . . the vast majority of participants here have a common mind-think . . . they are on a mission to discredit any data, speculation, or theories regarding the chemtrail conspiracy or preemptive geoengineering (as well as other conspiracies of their choosing) . . . they will wrap it in the scientific method, the greater good, the TRUTH etc., etc. . . . the mission of MetaBunk and Contrail Science is to enlighten the world to the error of believing in Bunk . . . so no pat on the back SD . . . just some frustration at their inability to convince you to give up your fantasy . . . so they will say you accomplished nothing but wasted their time . . . and yours . . . of course there is no third party impartial judge to determine this status . . . just their communal opinion . . .

 

[SR1419]

...even though my facts could have been better presented, in the end I still make a valid point.

I admit that I have been following this thread only in a cursory sense and thus for the sake of brevity and clarity, could you summarize your point in a sentence or 2??

Is that sulfur is bad? or planes pollute??

Thanks!

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I admit that I have been following this thread only in a cursory sense and thus for the sake of brevity and clarity, could you summarize your point in a sentence or 2??

Is that sulfur is bad? or planes pollute??

Thanks!

Sorry dude. Jay just ruined it for you, and George just gave me a realization. The people here are deniers, not debunkers. I might add that they are rude as well. I cannot continue a battle of wits with these unarmed glittering jewels of ignorance. The last post I made summarizes everything I want to say. I am not going to waste any more time here. open minded polite forum? DEBUNKED.

 

[Mick West]

Sorry dude. Jay just ruined it for you, and George just gave me a realization. The people here are deniers, not debunkers. I might add that they are rude as well. I cannot continue a battle of wits with these unarmed glittering jewels of ignorance. The last post I made summarizes everything I want to say. I am not going to waste any more time here. open minded polite forum? DEBUNKED.

That seems a little impolite too.

Because of this, and because you claim not to want to come back, I'll ban you for a month so you don't get tempted to waste any more time. If you do return after a month, then I'd urge you to consider what it is you actually want to achieve here: fun debates, or actually refining and discovering what it is we actually disagree about.

 

[SeriouslyMick?]

Calling someone ignorant who refuses to give credit where credit is due is not being impolite. It is making a factual statement. Where is Jay's ban for his continued rudeness? I did not request a ban furthermore and I was referring to not coming back to the chemtrail forum... not metabunk itself in its entirety. Thanks for hastily taking it into your own hands though. In my opinion Mick, that was very a very pathetic reason to ban someone and a very cowardly way of handling it. I might wait until the end of the day to see if you have reconsidered your decision but if you have not and you want me to come back next month with the behavior and lack of appreciation you have shown me, well you simply do not deserve it.

-SeriouslyDebatable

 

[scombrid]

I debunked that we are not being sprayed...

Actually you didn't.

This one quote alone makes my entire case, and you never addressed it.
Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth

That's your whole case? That pollution from the cumbustion of fossil fuels constitutes "being sprayed"? That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the prevalent Chemtrail "theories".

 

[scombrid]

Well the controversy is about whether jets are modifying the climate, and polluting the environment is it not?

No. It has been made clear many times on this forum that pollution from aviation and other forms of transportation is real and being studied.

The paranoid conspiracy theory or "controversy" contends that climate change is a deliberate affect of active spraying by "them" and not a byproduct of the standard fuel.

Now I know this does not prove that there is a sinister motive, an intentional desire, or a conspiracy at hand here,

Then you have no point as far as this thread is concerned.

I am trying to prove that they ARE spraying...

The phrase "They are spraying" implies intent.

 

[George B]

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

 

[Mick West]

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

Shouldn't this be in your thread on the topic?

 

[Mick West]

Calling someone ignorant who refuses to give credit where credit is due is not being impolite. It is making a factual statement. Where is Jay's ban for his continued rudeness? I did not request a ban furthermore and I was referring to not coming back to the chemtrail forum... not metabunk itself in its entirety. Thanks for hastily taking it into your own hands though. In my opinion Mick, that was very a very pathetic reason to ban someone and a very cowardly way of handling it. I might wait until the end of the day to see if you have reconsidered your decision but if you have not and you want me to come back next month with the behavior and lack of appreciation you have shown me, well you simply do not deserve it.

-SeriouslyDebatable

Okay then, I've unbanned you. Consider it a warning though. And really think about what it is you are trying to achieve here. I would appreciate it if you read the following, just so we have a bit more shared understanding of what the forum is about.

https://www.metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

 

[George B]

Shouldn't this be in your thread on the topic?

It is but not in this exact form . . .https://www.metabunk.org/threads/779-When-is-some-concept-Real-a-Conspiracy-or-Fantasy

 

[Mick West]

The spin-off on people just arguing has been moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/784-Debunkers-vs-Debaters-How-can-we-have-constructive-discussions

 

[Trigger Hippie]

So unless you can prove either:
2) The use of non ULS jet fuel will not impact the climate by a tenth (10%)

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.

Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth --Unger

According to the graphs, the total net anthropogenic radiative forcing is estimated at about 1.6 W/m2. Aviation contributes around 0.08 W/m2 of that total, or about 5%. A 10% increase would raise aviation's effect on all anthropogenic radiative forcing to 0.088 W/m2, or from 5.0% to 5.5%. Influencing the climate via sulfur emissions by manipulating jet fuel seems to be an odd way of going about it considering that over 90% of all man-made sulfates that affect the climate come from industry.








The following is from Unger's 2011 abstract:

For standard jet fuel, the net global climate impact for sustained constant year 2006 aviation emissions is +44 ± 10 mWm−2 (2/3 due to non-CO2 effects) on a 20-year timescale and +73 ± 10 mWm−2 (over 1/3 due to non-CO2 effects) on a 100-year timescale. For desulfurized jet fuel, the net climate impact is +40 ± 10 mWm−2 on the 20-year timescale

Content from External Source

Here she concludes the net effect of removing sulfur would be 4 mW/m2, or a quarter of one percent of the total 1.6 W/m2.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

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 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.