Contrails *do* influence the weather, here is proof by NASA

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

Band wagon? what band wagon? Are you claiming there is no such thing as geo-engineering?

Well you are equating geo engineering with the white lines in the sky aka contrails when that is a fallacy.

I never said geoengineering isn't a thing, it just isn't the thing you think it is.

Now with that said do you have any evidence that backs your claim this is geoengineering?

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

This is an insult? How?

If I have to explain it then you don't understand the context of the comment.

And calling people shills or trolls would commonly be considered an insult, unless of course one is actually either of the two.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" is the same as saying, "if you see and hear something that looks and sounds like a duck then it probably is"

do you believe your own eyes and ears?

I never called anyone a shill or a troll (not yet anyway)

a reply to: robbo961

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

Ah the old you can't prove they aren't argument.

This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is geoengineering happening as we speak it\s not up to me to prove it does not exist it\s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

Can you provide that, or as I said before are you just jumping on the bandwagon?

a reply to: robbo961

I never called anyone a shill or a troll (not yet anyway)

Well, at least it's good to know you plan to in the future.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

Ah the old you can't prove they aren't argument.

This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is geoengineering happening as we speak it\s not up to me to prove it does not exist it\s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

Can you provide that, or as I said before are you just jumping on the bandwagon?

What am I supposed to be proving exactly? I don't have to prove anything to disagree with you, In case you havent noticed, I havent said anything for or against the con/chem argument. I am merley prompting you to to prove that what we are looking at is not the result of geo-engineering. Works both ways mate. You have taken a stand, now prove yourself.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

I never called anyone a shill or a troll (not yet anyway)

Well, at least it's good to know you plan to in the future.

I don't feed trolls anymore, I just have fun with them when I'm bored

a reply to: robbo961

And that is exactly what I am trying to prove with my forecast thread.

If I can show that observed persistent trails can be explained (and, indeed, forecast in advance) using nothing other than weather data, then that is good evidence that they are indeed nothing but contrails.

I am prepared to put in the legwork. Are you?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: robbo961

And that is exactly what I am trying to prove with my forecast thread.

If I can show that observed persistent trails can be explained (and, indeed, forecast in advance) using nothing other than weather data, then that is good evidence that they are indeed nothing but contrails.

I am prepared to put in the legwork. Are you?

Me? no. But good luck with your observations, this subject is far from being resolved.

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: robbo961

And that is exactly what I am trying to prove with my forecast thread.

If I can show that observed persistent trails can be explained (and, indeed, forecast in advance) using nothing other than weather data, then that is good evidence that they are indeed nothing but contrails.

And what if your observations show that there are no significant variances in temperature measurements that support the explaination of the different trail lengths? remember there are only 2 outcomes, very short and very long trails, there are no inbetweenies here

edit on 5-7-2014 by robbo961 because: not sure what happened with this

originally posted by: Rob48
Metabunk is a very good site. It has lots of knowledgable people, including many pilots, and no patience for woo and pseudoscience.

Not to turn this into debunk or verify metabunk thread ... (which I think someone should start!!) ... but my question about that site is this ... WHO PAYS FOR IT?? I see no ads at that site. I see no charge to post. So I'd like to know what funds the site. That would add or subtract from the confidence I have in any information coming from there and being posted on this this (or other) threads.

I wouldn't use metabunk as a source of information. It's just opinion and 'blogging' type speculation. They may get the speculation correct, or they may get it wrong. But it's not like quoting straight from an actual scientist.

a reply to: robbo961

I am merley prompting you to to prove that what we are looking at is not the result of geo-engineering. Works both ways mate. You have taken a stand, now prove yourself.

I guess you aren't capable of supplying any evidence whatsoever to back your claims...gotcha.

I have nothing to prove as it has been shown what your seeing are contrails, but now you have the burden to show they are something other than contrails can you do that?

Now if you can show any, and I do mean any evidence that shows otherwise you might have something, but until then they are what science tells us they are...contrails.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Mick West pays for it. He's a science writer who hates pseudoscience enough to put in the effort to refute it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Not to turn this into debunk or verify metabunk thread ... (which I think someone should start!!) ... but my question about that site is this ... WHO PAYS FOR IT?? I see no ads at that site. I see no charge to post. So I'd like to know what funds the site. That would add or subtract from the confidence I have in any information coming from there and being posted on this this (or other) threads.

Here's the thing is there anything on that site that you or anyone can show is wrong, because there is an open invitation to do so if you care to take on that task.

Why not just ask the owner these questions as I don't think he has a problem answering them.

I guess it would be more credible if he had a donate link on it just as the many chemtrail sites have?

originally posted by: Rob48
Mick West pays for it. He's a science writer who hates pseudoscience enough to put in the effort to refute it.

Thank you for your response.

So the statement is that it's strictly private funding through the site owner. He must be extremely dedicated and be an extremely successful writer to be able to afford it and to be so involved in this without outside funding help. I'll keep this in mind when I consider if I buy what metabunk puts out.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Why not just ask the owner these questions as I don't think he has a problem answering them.

I'm not a member there and I'm only asking because people here are linking to it and I figured that those people would know the answers. After all ... I wouldn't link to something like that unless I had confidence that the site was on the 'up and up'. My one really big question for the site - who pays for it? It has now been answered ... the site owner says he pays for it himself. (dedicated guy) That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Rob48
Mick West pays for it. He's a science writer who hates pseudoscience enough to put in the effort to refute it.

Thank you for your response.

So the statement is that it's strictly private funding through the site owner. He must be extremely dedicated and be an extremely successful writer to be able to afford it and to be so involved in this without outside funding help. I'll keep this in mind when I consider if I buy what metabunk puts out.

From the horse's mouth:

Nobody pays me anything. I work for nobody. I debunk because I enjoy doing it, and I think it's the right thing to do - to get rid of the bunk, so we can focus on real issues.

Source.

Funny how often he is accused of being a "paid disinfo merchant". Usually by people who are selling something based on the chemtrail theory, or their supporters.

Look at the kind of abuse that gets hurled at him. Read this and tell me if you think chemtrail believers are mentally balanced people?

______beforeitsnews/chemtrails/2014/04/metabunk-disinfo-shills-2444916.html

"Metabunk disinfo shills"? "Shameful round the clock gargantuan effort"?

Unlike "Beforeitsnews" which is a money-generating ad-funded site, Mick West doesn't make a penny from it. Who do you want to believe?

originally posted by: Rob48
Funny how often he is accused of being a "paid disinfo merchant".

I'm not accusing. I was just asking. I ask that about all the sites that people quote here .... be it infowars or metabunk or FOX or MSNBC. I always follow the money trail. I'm satisfied with the answer that was just given to me ... the site owner is interested in the subject matter and he invests his own time/money/talent into it. No problem. If I had a bunch of money and were retired, there are a few projects I'd like to 'take on' on the internet as well. So kudos to anyone who actually gets up and does something about something they believe in, and they use their own funding to do so .... I still say good for them for getting involved (no matter if I agree with them or not).

a reply to: FlyersFan

Fair enough, I'm not saying you are accusing him. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

But if you google "metabunk shill" there is some astonishing vitriol out there. It's truly disturbing.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: robbo961

I am merley prompting you to to prove that what we are looking at is not the result of geo-engineering. Works both ways mate. You have taken a stand, now prove yourself.

I guess you aren't capable of supplying any evidence whatsoever to back your claims...gotcha.

I have nothing to prove as it has been shown what your seeing are contrails, but now you have the burden to show they are something other than contrails can you do that?

Now if you can show any, and I do mean any evidence that shows otherwise you might have something, but until then they are what science tells us they are...contrails.

Gotcha? are you kidding me. Which argument have you won exactly?

Firstly, I have seen evidence of our skies being blighted. I know not with what... yet. So I go online a do a bit of digging. Then I find that the UN are having a debate on the legitimacy of some the companies involved with existing UN programs that are spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. Further to this I discover a BBC webpage dedicated to explaining the science of geo-engineering using aerosols (spraying)

So unless you can prove to me that contrails are not a part of this global program (so elequently explained by the BBC) then you're up the creek without a paddle mate. I mean, who the hell are you exactly to tell me you have a better explaination than every other IP who logs into a forum? And give me one good reason why I should believe your version of events?

a reply to: robbo961

Oh sorry.. of course you'll require evidence of my digging. Here's just a little bit for your convenience.


UN discussion
www.youtube.com...=354

BBC geo engineering
news.bbc.co.uk...

Okay, now bring on the debunkers and the 'ice crystal' fairies, lets hear what you have to say about geo engineering