In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

BOTH sides have the burden of evidence to actually investigate what is in the air.

This seems to be the gist of all yourt posts, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. We don't need to prove over and over again how contrails work, what the science is behind them etc.

There are already working theories in place that explain contrails. The research is out there for you to be looked into, as you may very well have done already.

So if you think there's another mechanism at work that causes some or all contrails, then you have to start with this new hypothesis, think of ways to test this hypothesis, perform tests, and if the outcome of those tests correspond with your hypothesis, then you're well on your way.. This new theory has to have greater explanatory power than the old one for it sto be accepted as a new theory. It then goes through a process of peer review where fellow scientists will scrutinize your theory and try to shoot holes in it or improve on it. If all this hashes out, you have a new theory that explains your phenomenon.

That's how the current theory for contrails got in place. It's already been through various stages of scrutiny, and it's held up over and over and over again.

Here is one such paper: www.aero-net.info...

So if someone comes out and claims that something that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail is in fact something else, and implies that it's the result of a world wide network of conspiring agencies and companies and implicating all airlines.. well you have your work cut out for you. So far I've seen zero credible evidence for anything like that. Have you?

The only thing worth responding to is this:

originally posted by: payt69
Here is one such paper: www.aero-net.info...

Yes, and I'm sure you understand every bit of the "basic science" contained in Schumann's 2005 report (your link says "in press," which means the same article may not be one that appears in a peer reviewed journal). Note this is not the 70 years of research that you suggested exists above. I also distrust your accuracy that Schumann's analysis on contrails in general can be best summed up in your words:

originally posted by: payt69
I mean this is basic science we're talking about here. Water particles freezing in cold saturated air. Not some kind of long shot antigravity science or anything, just basic stuff.

Even the abstract of Schumann's report indicates:

Contrails trigger contrail cirrus with far larger coverage than observed for line-shaped contrails, but still unknown radiative properties. Some model simulations indicate an impact of particles and particle precursors emitted from aircraft engines on cirrus cloud properties. However, the magnitude of this effect cannot be assessed.

--So I don't know who you think you're fooling about "basic science," as if all is simple and well-known.

More importantly, you continue to confound what is actually in the sky at any given time and on any given day with research that is only a general explanation of a phenomenon.

But to be fair, I'll paraphrase the gist of what you're driving at: Debunkers want to continue stigmatizing all chemtrailers to reinforce the social reality and make it appear the reason a segment of the population is concerned about jet aircraft activity is for nothing but the fear of "a world wide network of conspiring agencies and companies." Never mind the many issues people labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are actually concerned about (distrust of the government, reckless military activity, unethical experiments, stigmatization of a segment of the population by establishing social reality, apathy over pollution and environmental issues, solar radiation management, the likely effect of capitalism on geoengineering, etc.). Let's just keep doing is continue our small talk about what is a "normal" contrail, what is a persistent contrail (i.e., it's only normal), and why persistent contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds (a "normal" phenomenon, given the bizarre notion that human beings are supposed to be making clouds in the sky). If anyone challenges this talk, we'll just keep telling them the burden of proof is on YOU, the chemtrail conspiracy theorist, to "prove" what is in the air. That's an approach no better than propaganda.

Read more about how debunkers ignore (and dread) the burden of proof for their own assertions:
In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof




I'll leave you with an interesting quote, which I'm sure you will not understand within the context of a thread about chemtrail conspiracy theorists:

The expansionist logic of airlines and airports assumes that the air around and above us has an infinitely absorptive capacity and can tolerate any pollution. We used to think that about rivers. It isn't true, in either case. Industries that pollute rivers have been forced to change, to clean up. The people who worry about pollution from planes (noise pollution, trails of fuel waste raining down) are no longer Luddite crackpots.

Source: Airline Pollution: The Sky Has Its Limits

originally posted by: Petros312
The only thing worth responding to is this:

And why is that?

Yes, and I'm sure you understand every bit of the "basic science" contained in Schumann's 2005 report (your link says "in press," which means the same article may not be one that appears in a peer reviewed journal). Note this is not the 70 years of research that you suggested exists above. I also distrust your accuracy that Schumann's analysis on contrails in general can be best summed up in your words:

originally posted by: payt69
I mean this is basic science we're talking about here. Water particles freezing in cold saturated air. Not some kind of long shot antigravity science or anything, just basic stuff.

It is basic science though, even if the scientists involved go down the nitty gritty of the phenomenae involved. But it's basic in the sense that you can do your own experiments to see the things described in the paper at work. It's an every day phenomenon, unlike say trying to find a higgs boson in a very large collider.. but you seem to have no problems accepting that science either (or do you?).

Maybe you live in an area where it gets very cold occasionally, say -20C. Just for fun boil some water, go outside, and throw the cup of boiling water in the air. What will happen is that the water will instantly turn into a cloud of ice, and there's your instant persisting contrail

Now imagine a jet at 30.000 feet spewing out exhaust gases of some 700 to 900 C. This exhaust gas contains water vapour. As soon as this very compressed gas exits the exhaust, it starts expanding. As you may know, expanding gas cools down (as you can experience for yourself with a tin of compressed air), the water molecules contained in it (as well as H2O in the ambient air)freeze onto nuclei (little particles of whatever is around, mainly soot) and a contrail forms.

What happens next depends on the circumstances of the air in which the contrail was formed. It sublimates if the air isn't saturated, and if it is saturated, the H2O has nowhere to go and the ice cloud persists, and may even grow into a cirrus cloud.

Feel free to correct me if you see anything wrong in this reasoning, I'm not a meteorologist myself, but this is how I understand the process to be taking place, in general terms.

So i'll just ask you point blank then: what part of contrail science do you have problems with? Don't you think contrails form in the right conditions at cruise altitude? Do they have the ability to persist? Are you completely clueless?

Even the abstract of Schumann's report indicates:

Contrails trigger contrail cirrus with far larger coverage than observed for line-shaped contrails, but still unknown radiative properties. Some model simulations indicate an impact of particles and particle precursors emitted from aircraft engines on cirrus cloud properties. However, the magnitude of this effect cannot be assessed.

--So I don't know who you think you're fooling about "basic science," as if all is simple and well-known.

Oh I'm not saying that each and every aspect has been completely fathomed, but to say that they're completely in the dark as far as contrails are concerned is to paint a false picture.

More importantly, you continue to confound what is actually in the sky at any given time and on any given day with research that is only a general explanation of a phenomenon.

It just happens to be the phenomenon that chemtrail believers claim is something other than contrails. If you think there's something in the sky to be alarmed about, then tell us what it is and how we can detect it.

But to be fair, I'll paraphrase the gist of what you're driving at: Debunkers want to continue stigmatizing all chemtrailers to reinforce the social reality and make it appear the reason a segment of the population is concerned about jet aircraft activity is for nothing but the fear of "a world wide network of conspiring agencies and companies."

Well I can only speak for myself, even though I have a feeling most debunkers will agree with this. I'm not trying to stigmatize anyone here. Chemtrail believers have done a wonderful job of that themselves, as they keep repeating the same long debunked nonsense over and over again, and seem very disinterested in learning what might be causing those things they're so concerned about, calling people 'shills', 'paid government agents' etc. That seems to be the only way in which they can make sense of anyone daring to cast doubt on their claims. And they all claim the same things, and respoind in more or less the same way to being challenged, which tells me that their convictions and mental brainwash come from the same source (usually WITWATS and Geoengineeringwatch).

Never mind the many issues people labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are actually concerned about (distrust of the government, reckless military activity, unethical experiments, stigmatization of a segment of the population by establishing social reality, apathy over pollution and environmental issues, solar radiation management, the likely effect of capitalism on geoengineering, etc.).

That'sall fine with me, I'm concerned with many of those issues too. But that list of issues doesn't warrant the reality of chemtrails, just because it fits so well in the global picture. So I think we shouldn't take it for granted that chemtrails are 'real' because we've established that the government is evil, or anything along those lines.

Let's just keep doing is continue our small talk about what is a "normal" contrail, what is a persistent contrail (i.e., it's only normal), and why persistent contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds (a "normal" phenomenon, given the bizarre notion that human beings are supposed to be making clouds in the sky).

You really have a weird way of phrasing things sometimes. So are you saying persistent contrails aren't normal, or shouldn't be talked about that way? And no-one is saying that human beings are supposed to be making clouds in the sky any more than that ships are supposed to be making waves in the water. It's a side-effect of aviation, that's all.

I'll leave you with an interesting quote, which I'm sure you will not understand within the context of a thread about chemtrail conspiracy theorists:

The expansionist logic of airlines and airports assumes that the air around and above us has an infinitely absorptive capacity and can tolerate any pollution. We used to think that about rivers. It isn't true, in either case. Industries that pollute rivers have been forced to change, to clean up. The people who worry about pollution from planes (noise pollution, trails of fuel waste raining down) are no longer Luddite crackpots.

Source: Airline Pollution: The Sky Has Its Limits

Well I agree, but this is talking about pollution, not chemtrails. I hope you know the difference.

dbl post, nvm

a reply to: Petros312

Once again Petros, you are "defending" "chemtrail conspiracists" by talking about contrail persistence, pollution and other topics that nobody is arguing against.

In all of your many and lengthy posts defending chemtrail conspiracists, you don't actually talk about chemtrails at all. This is why you have been asked (three or four times now?) what you think a chemtrail actually is and why a long white trail in the sky cannot merely be a contrail?

Is your lack of response an indicator that you don't actually know? Or are you simply trolling for lol's in the way you seem to studiously avoid the very subject you claim to be defending the believers of? So far you are failing incredibly badly. I'm sure you will proceed to post a lengthy and wordy rebuttal that ALSO fails to address the subject of chemtrails at all. Same old same old. What WAS your previous username?

originally posted by: waynos
In all of your many and lengthy posts defending chemtrail conspiracists, you don't actually talk about chemtrails at all...

Is your lack of response an indicator that you don't actually know?

It's because debunkers don't come close to understand apologetics, particularly as done in a social media environment. I am not defending a theory as much as I am defending the people who have been stigmatized beyond belief for their concern that the jet activity manifested both with and without contrails is a form of pollution obliterating the blue sky. It is not known if some of this activity is a) intentional for the purposes of solar radiation management or experimentation, b) is an effect of unregulated air traffic, c) is research on how aerosols can be dispersed for geoengineering purposes, d) (given a history of open air testing in the USA without the public's consent) is accompanied by some kind of aerosol spray that has nothing to do with the actual persistent contrail but is still potentially harmful, or all the above. Do I know if a,b,c, or d are the case based on solid evidence? No. But guess what? Neither do all those debunkers out there who keep encouraging all of us with bad science, logical fallacies, and irrelevant info-based "evidence" to uncritically and firmly conclude all jet activity and subsequent appearance of contrails is "normal."

originally posted by: Petros312

.....stigmatised beyond belief for their concern that the jet activity manifested both with and without contrails is a form of pollution obliterating the blue sky.

There you go again. That is an entirely reasonable concern, you and I know it. Indeed it's a point I've made several times myself. We also both know that is not what chemtrail conspiracy is about AT ALL. Pretending otherwise is merely a devious tactic.

It is not known if some of this activity is a) intentional for the purposes of solar radiation management or experimentation, b) is an effect of unregulated air traffic, c) is research on how aerosols can be dispersed for geoengineering purposes, d) (given a history of open air testing in the USA without the public's consent) is accompanied by some kind of aerosol spray that has nothing to do with the actual persistent contrail but is still potentially harmful, or all the above. Do I know if a,b,c, or d are the case based on solid evidence? No. But guess what? Neither do all those debunkers out there who keep encouraging all of us with bad science, logical fallacies, and irrelevant info-based "evidence" to uncritically and firmly conclude all jet activity and subsequent appearance of contrails is "normal."

a - these things are known to be in the discussion and modelling stage, it may be possible on a small scale that some illegal activity already took place, but nothing has happened to suggest there has, it would merely be unfounded supposition.

b - all air traffic is regulated, but this does not mean limited in any way in order to limit pollution, this would be a very valid concern and topic for discussion. Is such a thing even possible?

c - this is the same thing as (a) and the answer is the same.

d - quite possibly so, but like (a), merely supposition without anything that points in this direction.

None of which is about a deliberate spraying operation that has been in global operation in absolute secrecy in the open air for twenty plus years, which is what chemtrails are supposed to be. Indeed, why would long white trails in the sky be any more likely to be any of those things rather than just contrails? Just one solid reason? Chemtrail believers can, apparently, "see" chemtrails and can also "see" that a trail has been turned on and off rather than a plane transiting areas of differential humidity. And you think such claims are credible? It would appear that you have not only misread the debunkers on here completely, but you also don't even understand the subject that we are arguing against. Five whole threads to make that discovery.

ETA, please give an example of a logical fallacy or of bad science offered as an explanation of contrails and why it is bad, so I can see what you mean.

a reply to: waynos

When are you going to leave well enough alone waynos? Look at you out there back east in the UK, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what is happening out here in California. Nope, you don't bro, not at all whatsoever. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

Never mentioned California at all, once, ever. The principles hold good everywhere though. If something is being sprayed that isn't just a contrail, then it can be shown to not be contrail. If it can't be shown to be different, then maybe it isn't different at all? Wacky idea, I know.

a reply to: SheopleNation

Since we have all been here for a while, discussing the same things, could you please explain why you are convinced spraying is taking place there? I see an awful lot of people from CA talking about chemtrails. On the East coast where I live, there just doesn't seem to be that many trails to speak of. I don't think I have ever seen a day where the entire sky was covered.
But then I think you may have a bigger population than my area. (so that would equate to more flights)

You responded to my claim that chemtrailers are concerned about the pollution in the sky by saying:

originally posted by: waynos
That is an entirely reasonable concern, you and I know it. Indeed it's a point I've made several times myself. We also both know that is not what chemtrail conspiracy is about AT ALL. Pretending otherwise is merely a devious tactic.

--very untrue, particularly given I demonstrated quite clearly in this post from popular sources like Wikipedia and newspapers like The Washington Post who is being labelled a chemtrail conspiracy theorist:
In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality

--"Chemtrailer" has become a catch-all term. Consider the diversity of the claims all being lumped into "chemtrail conspiracy theory" and you see everything from mind control to respiratory illness. The people accused of being unscientific and unreasonable if not flat out delusional include the people who claim that the EPA needs to regulate air traffic for reasons that include jet engine exhaust and contrail formation. The contrails may not be the source of the air pollution (depends on what you mean by "pollution"), but they are still a marker for the jet exhaust released that research supports is the cause of more respiratory illness and deaths. See: Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes and Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles

It's not my fault if you refuse to understand that this label, "chemtrail conspiracy theorist," is not as narrow as the nice neat box of freaks that YOU want to fit all these people into. Perhaps you'd like to contact Wikipedia and The Washington Post and present your grievances?

a reply to: waynos

You can't prove nothing is happening out here because you're not here, and that was my point, and it still stands. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: waynos
ETA, please give an example of a logical fallacy or of bad science offered as an explanation of contrails and why it is bad, so I can see what you mean.

--It's been addressed here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But I am NOT just talking about bad science regarding what is or what is not a contrail, and this is NOT the whole issue, no matter how badly you want it to be. I mean bad science in any matter that involves "debunking" associated with chemtrail conspiracy theory, such as this argument that occurred regarding evidence trying to be used to suggest that barium is completely safe and does no harm when inhaled: www.abovetopsecret.com...

But there's no point to meeting these "demands" of yours; it's practically a pedantic exercise at this point. You're not saying anything new here.

originally posted by: network dudeSince we have all been here for a while, discussing the same things, could you please explain why you are convinced spraying is taking place there?

I knew you would show up network guy. I said he has no idea what is happening out here, which would include you as well.

I see an awful lot of people from CA talking about chemtrails.

Precisely my point, you see people talking online but you're not out here to see what they are talking about with your own eyes. Maybe you should take a drive out here, it's a beautiful State.

Yeah, Waynos could maybe fly out and meet up with you there. You guys could have a buddy trip. I can see it now, Led Zeppelin going to California playing on the stereo and all.

On the East coast where I live, there just doesn't seem to be that many trails to speak of. I don't think I have ever seen a day where the entire sky was covered.

Well I am on the West coast my friend, so I wouldn't know anything about what could possibly be going on out there. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Petros312


It is entirely your fault that you are trying to broaden the meaning of the term "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" to include pollution and environmental concerns and even quoting yourself as a source to back yourself up. You demonstrated nothing. The articles you link to don't even mention chemtrails at all. The link is only that YOU say they are talking about chemtrails. Unfortunately for you, they aren't. I can only guess that this is a concerted effort on your part to leverage some credibility into the chemtrail conspiracy, as it has none by itself. Whether this means you yourself have a website or sell products related to chemtrails is another thing I can only guess at. Or maybe you really are convinced?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: waynos

You can't prove nothing is happening out here because you're not here, and that was my point, and it still stands. ~$heopleNation

No I can't. Of course I can't. My point isn't about proof, on either side. It's rather that nobody has yet shown any reason that wasn't a lie or a fake or a simple "because I say so" to suspect that anything is being sprayed anywhere. It's the weakest conspiracy ive seen on this entire website because, unlike Bigfoot or the Moon hoax, for example, if it had a shred of reality, evidence would literally be EVERYWHERE.

So you find it a logical fallacy to say that something that looks and behaves and was created exactly like a contrail is probably just a contrail?

Do you also find it a logical fallacy to say "that thing in the sky looks strange to me, so many lines and grids just sitting there in the sky. It must be a chemtrail"?

So far you've not indicated an issue with such statements at all. Which would make you a hypocrite.

originally posted by: Petros312

But there's no point to meeting these "demands" of yours; it's practically a pedantic exercise at this point. You're not saying anything new here.

Oh right, so you quit then. There would be every point in clarifying your position if you weren't just grandstanding for effect and had some substance to support your rambling. I guess I got my answer anyway.

a reply to: SheopleNation

I'm more of a ELO/Queen guy. We could play Bohemian Rhapsody and call it Waynos' World.

originally posted by: waynos

I'm more of a ELO/Queen guy. We could play Bohemian Rhapsody and call it Waynos' World.

Lmao! Well either of those would work too, both are very good old school bands. ~$heopleNation