George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I assume you want to change their minds . . . am I correct? If so how do you think you will be able to accomplish such a task . . .?
Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I assume you want to change their minds . . . am I correct? If so how do you think you will be able to accomplish such a task . . .?
By doing what I've been doing. Explaining where the purported chemtrail evidence is bunk, and supplying scientific explanations for what people are seeing as suspicious.
It works too. I've had plenty of former chemtrail believers thank me for helping them out of the conspiracy hole. Many more than that must have also been helped.
It's an aggregate task though. I push back the bunk on a broad front by a little bit. Everyone moves a bit closer to science and reason. A few will pop through to this side. The more entrenched true believers will just evolve their rationalizations.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmm . . . It is important to show respect for others' beliefs if you don't want to turn them off so they won't listen . . . "Bunk" may be a term you feel is OK. . . trust me . . . it won't make you any friends . . . I gravitate to the underdog . . . that is my natural inclination . . . chemtrail advocates IMO fit that definition . . .
What's a better term?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Don't even use the term . . . it is a flag word . . . use alternative explanation or clarification of facts . . . for example . . . have you considered the possibility that chemtrails could be misidentified persistent contrails . . . here are some things to consider . . .
1) research going back to 1950 created the concepts used by the military to avoid detection . . . it is called the Appleman Chart
2) NOAA and NASA have been taking satellite photos of persistent contrails since . . . and here are the photos . . . etc
3) Scientists have been talking about the potential climatic impact of long lasting contrails for decades . . . here are some studies which show that . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why do people believe in conspiracies and specifically chemtrails?
1) Our history, literature, legends, entertainment, even our religions are replete with conspiracies . . .
2) Remember . . . Where more than two people are gathered . . . a conspiracy exists . . . LoL!!!
3) The world is obviously changing . . . instant communication, population density, technology, number and frequency of aircraft . . . and therefore, the greater chance to see persistent trails in the sky . . . and no one has convinced believers these trails cannot be chemtrails . . .
4) Trust of authority and their motives are at an all time low . . . i.e.
6) Atmospheric science is a complex and dynamic science . . . with infinite variability and unlimited sources of contamination, natural as well as man made . . .
7) In my opinion, when people were encouraged to observe the sky because of the chemtrail conspiracy . . . there was a significant realization . . . there was much more to see than people thought . . . I believe some people had a primeval moment . . . the sky was always the source of foreboding and early warning . . . Storm clouds, smoke, volcanic ash, dust storms, migrating fowl and seasonal changes . . . the sky is our crystal ball !!!!
8) Right or wrong . . . the conspiracy has a life of its own . . . no amount of argument or scientific theory will likely remove many of those who believe . . . from their conspiracy . . . because of their distrust of scientists, authority, primeval foreboding, and knowledge, experience and belief in conspiracies.
9) So debunkers by implying that those who believe in chemtrails are defective loons, stupid and uneducated is counter productive . . . most believers are honest and tuned-in to their beliefs . . . to change beliefs takes time and patience . . .
1) Our history, literature, legends, entertainment, even our religions are replete with conspiracies . . .
2) Remember . . . Where more than two people are gathered . . . a conspiracy exists . . . LoL!!!
3) The world is obviously changing . . . instant communication, population density, technology, number and frequency of aircraft . . . and therefore, the greater chance to see persistent trails in the sky . . . and no one has convinced believers these trails cannot be chemtrails . . .
4) Trust of authority and their motives are at an all time low . . . i.e.
5) Constant, heated and contentious debate exists over the state of global warming, global dimming, ozone depletion, and whether people are the major cause of a deteriorating climate and environment . . . or not. . . scientists have effectively disenfranchised their credibility from much of the public . . ."Just one in 10 Americans approves of the job Congress is doing, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday, tying the branch's lowest approval rating in 38 years. Congress originally hit the 10 percent mark in February, before bouncing back several points."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...ating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html
6) Atmospheric science is a complex and dynamic science . . . with infinite variability and unlimited sources of contamination, natural as well as man made . . .
7) In my opinion, when people were encouraged to observe the sky because of the chemtrail conspiracy . . . there was a significant realization . . . there was much more to see than people thought . . . I believe some people had a primeval moment . . . the sky was always the source of foreboding and early warning . . . Storm clouds, smoke, volcanic ash, dust storms, migrating fowl and seasonal changes . . . the sky is our crystal ball !!!!
8) Right or wrong . . . the conspiracy has a life of its own . . . no amount of argument or scientific theory will likely remove many of those who believe . . . from their conspiracy . . . because of their distrust of scientists, authority, primeval foreboding, and knowledge, experience and belief in conspiracies.
9) So debunkers by implying that those who believe in chemtrails are defective loons, stupid and uneducated is counter productive . . . most believers are honest and tuned-in to their beliefs . . . to change beliefs takes time and patience . . .
Sure, but I generally don't use the work "bunk" directly when describing someone's mistakes. I DO just tell them what is wrong, and in great detail. Look at ContrailScience.com
I use the term "debunk" to describe in broad terms what I do. I use the term "bunk" to describe things that are incorrect. It's sometimes an emotive term, but I feel that if I can be polite in my explanations, then I can generally use it in an illustrative manner. Everyone uses the phrase "that has been debunked" in the sense of "that's been shown to be incorrect". A good debunking is a good explanation.
No it doesn't. You're missing George's point here. And not being polite.
Pardon me..
Are you aware that some think it's impolite to call others impolite?
Just sayin...
Hypocrite.
Apparently he can't stop himself from posting if he's not banned. It's a shame as he's generally sensible, just rather prone to telling people exactly how stupid he thinks they are. This has happened before.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
He sometimes asked me to ban him from my Threads on GLP . . . I usually agreed . . . I tend to drive him over the edge . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
When you use the word "bunk" IMO it is a derogatory term . . . no matter what you intend . . . also, just because you say something is debunked does not magically make it true . . . that is your opinion . . . the person's belief that you say has been debunked by you can and often will have a different perspective . . . Like . . . I recognize your argument but I don't believe it contradicts or negates my belief. . . so it is best IMO to say these are the reasons you may want to reconsider your position on this issue . . . not . . . . I debunked that . . .
Your terms are just fine if you want to slap each other on the back and enjoy your communal triumphs at DEBUNKING people you disagree with . . . but if your mission is as you seem to be saying . . . trying to change minds and the hearts of the mistaken masses. . . IMO you neeeed to clean up the words you use to communicate with them . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It is God Like Productions . . . a conspiracy forum . . . http://www.godlikeproductions.com/
I use the same name here as there and the same Avatar . . .
The stuff there is way over the top . . . it is more entertainment than real debates . . .
I understand the negative connotation that the words "bunk" and "debunk" sometimes have. But I think that on balance it's still the best words for the job.
I very rarely say "that is bunk", I explain what's wrong with it.
I title threads "Debunked: xxx..." in part to help people find then on Google.
SR1419
Senior Member.
It goes both ways, however.
I ("we") get called "debunkers" as if somehow that is a bad thing...Its often perceived as a derogatory term with which to label non-Believers.
The literal meaning of "bunk" is appropriate in this context...since if you called it bulls**t it would raise the defensiveness and close minds even more.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A title is one thing . . . I understand your need to ID/Tag a concept with a common term for a search engine . . . my point is primarily one on one communication . . . engaging in an exchange of ideas that can lead to learning and understanding on both sides of an issue . . . do you want to invite people here who disagree with you or just be a Forum for like minded individuals . . . ???
You may not want someone like myself here at all . . . however, I am rather stubborn and thick skinned . . . I take and I give in return . . . some of your participants obviously wish I would go away . . . I like knowing what you think and like engaging in debate . . . however, I will not roll over and say you have won an argument when I don't think you have . . . you have done a lot of hard work finding your evidence and presenting your arguments . . . where you need improvement is in the delivery to people who don't support your position . . . that is all I am saying . . . believe me or not . . . your choice . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You are trying to change hearts and minds . . . that requires a higher ground . . . you are trying to demonstrate how logic, the scientific method and empiricism is a better tool to find the truth . . . it is all up to you . . . returning insults for an insult is not helpful nor does it accomplish anything . . .
Indeed, and that's why I have a politeness policy.
The word "bunk" is a useful catch-all term to describe the type of errors we are looking for. You are right that individuals might take offense if their personal beliefs are characterized as bunk - and that's why I don't do it.
I'm not saying "chemtrails are bunk". I'm saying there's bunk in the chemtrail theory.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I respect your attempt to respect others . . . but I would add . . . it is hard to separate ones belief from ones personality so calling a major piece of their fact base bunk or error is very close to calling them bunk. Best to keep offering alternative explanations or asking hypothetical questions . . .
That's what I try to do. Where exactly did I overstep the line?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you are very careful . . . but it is hard to police all your posters . . . they sometimes do damage you cannot repair . . .
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
This reminds me of how very easy it is to overstep the line...
Frosh week is the tradition time where universities welcome their new students. The froshies are divided into small groups and assigned a group leader whose task it is shuttle them to organized events and generally help acclimatize the new students to life on the university. This year, the group leaders were given several new instructions.
First, no longer could they refer to first year students as froshies. Instead they were to be called "first year students" or maybe "first years". Someone decided that being called a "froshy" was derogatory and offensive. In fact they were told to call "frosh week" by the politically correct designation "orientation week".
Next, first year students were no longer allowed to paint their faces during orientation week, as the practice could be offensive to native Americans.
lastly, the orientation week leaders were encouraged not to refer to people using the personal pronouns "him" or "her" as it could be offensive to transgender individuals.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This is not about being politically correct . . . this is about being effective at changing minds . . . if that isn't what you are after ignore what I have communicated . . .
HappyMonday
Moderator
Just to clarify and assuming you meant to type 'disenfranchised their credibility in the eyes of the public' or something similar. Do you think that debate within science, about the science it's presenting, detracts from the average scientists credibility in the eyes of the masses?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It can especially when accusations of fraud, cherry picking data, misrepresentations and deliberate suppression of opposition is voiced to the public . . . East Anglia University for example . . .
HappyMonday
Moderator
I don't know about accusations of fraud or suppression of opposition, but showing that a study relies on cherry picked data or misrepresents it's findings is part of scientific method. Peer review etc.
Publicly picking apart one another's work is what scientists do.
Publicly picking apart one another's work is what scientists do.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Not if the study in question is the foundation data analysis supporting the global warming actions of the entire world . . . it should have never have happened . . . the public expects more and deserves more. . . .
I assume you mean the "hide the decline" type things? Did you actually look into that after the various emails were explained?
Unfortunately it's quite easy to take things out of context in a technical topic. Since the public is mostly incapable of following the actual explanation, then it's very easy for Fox New, et al, to simply assert a meaning.
Take "free-riding on out grandkids". You've got to explain what moral hazard is in order to explain what was meant by free-riding, and what it refers to. Pretty much nobody understands.
Yes, science is being discredited, but what's really behind that is the anti-science bias of some political segments, and the general easy of misrepresenting scientific terminology. Science as a whole is very robust (but not perfect) at ferreting out errors and uncertainty.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Whether the discrediting was accurate or not is not really as important as the public impression of the events . . . what I implied I think is correct . . . scientists and their findings have been discredited . . . that is difficult or impossible to repair . . .
HappyMonday
Moderator
A bit utopian. People make mistakes, and on a fundamental level are more likely to see data that is supportive of conclusions they already believe than data which is not.
Either way, I don't agree that scientists are discrediting science by not presenting a united front. This was how I interpreted the original statement I responded to.
"Whether the discrediting was accurate or not is not really as important as the public impression of the events . . . what I implied I think is correct . . . scientists and their findings have been discredited . . . that is difficult or impossible to repair . . ."
I agree with the position you're now adopting here, and the explanation in Mick's post.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Scientific discussion might now take on a different flavor . . . through the advent of instant access journalism every political activist is capable of washing dirty laundry (of hither to internal controversy) in front of the public . . . peer review before publication better be up to the task or the situation could get worse . . . this could have a cooling effect on public disclosure of findings because the vetting process might be extended significantly . . .
HappyMonday
Moderator
Not really sure what that last means I'm afraid, just reads like a bundle of buzz words this side of the monitor.
Either way, we're off-topic, so I'm leaving it at that.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
We are obviously not on the same page . . .
I think you are greatly over-stating the "discrediting" of science. Very little has changed. Perhaps a little more propensity towards openness.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I guess we will have to disagree . . . I think there is a growing percentage of the public that hold scientists at the same level of respect as Congress . . .
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Hmmm... (rubs chin) I have seen videos of robot insects so I suppose a robot cat would not be too far fetched... and I did not even think about it before posting that. You are right. I recant my statement about past instances of robot cats not existing.
It really depends on what it is exactly that you suspect. I am not suspicious that some cats in my neighborhood are robots so to speak, because they are behaving in the natural manner that cats behave and are not a reason to be of concern, so even if they were robots, then I could care less. I think it would be kind of cool actually. What I would be suspicious of is if the behavior of these cats was malicious.
I think another thing to look at is prevalence. It is something that they are more likely to do just like you said. How many times has someone been caught using a robot cat to spy on people, versus how many times has an airplane been caught spraying people? I am sure they probably do use robot cats for special missions maybe to Egypt or something... (they love cats!) but it is more feasible and cost effective to use other types of spying on average citizens, so... Occam's razor.
When you say that there is no evidence that they are doing it, you are right, but you leave a very important point out; There also was no evidence that they were doing it at the time that they had done it either. It was done in secret, just like what could be happening right now. Because it has happened several times and is documented, it is much more suspicious than the robot cats which could be in my neighborhood, but are not documented.
The people spraying were caught years after the fact, not while they were doing it. They were not caught because of anyone doing tests or researching it... They were caught because there was too many loose ends and they could not contain the secret indefinitely.
Similar threads
- Sticky
