Dailymail UK Thread On Chemtrails: How Jet Trails Block Out The Sunshine

reply to post by DJW001

So in other words, no, you don't want to address any actual issues. Thanks for making that clear in your inimitable, understated fashion.

Tell me what issues I have failed to address and I will address them.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

If posted pictures of contrails claimed to be chemtrails bother you enough that you can't help yourself from posting rudely or dismissively, take a break. You are not the only debunker here and I'm sure someone else will point out the facts eventually.

A very reasonable statement that suggests good advice for all......

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

You do realise new members join all the time and are newly exposed to conspiracy theories right. Everyone starts somewhere and its perfectly normal for people to make fools of themselves while learning. I'm sure you have at some point right?

The problem with this assertion is that it ignores the fact that most of these re-posted distortions and fabrications come from the same members; not new members. All you have to do is look, and you will see the same people re-hashing the same crap on different threads.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Tell me what issues I have failed to address and I will address them.

With pleasure:

Correct, water would contaminate the fuel and damage the engines. (As would aluminum, barium, nerve gas, etc.) The water is produced by the combustion of the fuel; ie, when it combines with the oxygen in the air and burns. The chemical formula is as follows:

C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) → 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g)
Wikipedia

Note that the principle products of this reaction are carbon dioxide and water. There is some controversy over the contribution this carbon dioxide makes to global warming, and the effect the water vapor might have on the Earth's albedo. These are legitimate considerations in the "Geo-Engineering Forum." Personally, I favor the development of high speed intercity rail (which can be powered by "cleaner" energy) over continuing to expand the aviation industry (which actually requires huge government subsidies). Nevertheless, the point is that contrails consist almost entirely of water produced by the burning of refined kerosene; they are just clouds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, if carbon dioxide and water are the natural result of combustion and impurities damage engines, how are the "chemtrails" created? Also, don't you have any opinion about the effect of aviation on global warming?

That's because it is an article that supports the "contrail theory!" I'm still perfectly fine with it. Why do you have a problem with it? Because it doesn't support the "chemtrail theory?" You still haven't explained how one typo invalidates the entire article.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

... how do you know it's not a typo? And what difference would it make? Does the author of the article present himself as a meteorologist? Is this article intended to be cited in journals?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you could care less, why have you made such a big issue of it? ...
Yes. You're leaping on to a single error (among several, incidentally) as though it proves over a century of meteorological research wrong....

When people attempt to answer the questions that are posed, why do you call it "meddling?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those will do for now. Eventually, I'd like to see you explain why it's necessary to prove that every single plane on Earth isn't involved in "chemtrailing," but you don't seem to think that the "chemtrail" theorists need to prove that at least one airplane is involved in it.

reply to post by jdub297

The problem with this assertion is that it ignores the fact that most of these re-posted distortions and fabrications come from the same members; not new members. All you have to do is look, and you will see the same people re-hashing the same crap on different threads.

An inherent problem with conspiracy forums....one that is not exclusive to people on one side of the argument or the other. It is an exercise in futility trying to change opinions of those whose emotional attachment to an issue has blinded them to potential flaws in their arguments.

Originally posted by firepilot
I can not make someone wrong, its information, facts, science and knowledge that make someone wrong.

Agreed.

Originally posted by firepilot
If someone felt humilated, because they posted something totally incorrect, they should man up and take that as a reason to be better informed. We are adults here, and anywhere in life, if someone is posting bunk and accusing others of taking part in some vast plot, they will get called on it.

Go ahead and call them on it but the way you do it is going to influence they're response. Humiliate someone and they will get angry, its a normal reaction. Does anger not cause people to become irrational? Think about that.

Originally posted by firepilot
So the "government agent" label, (which is against ATS rules by the way to accuse people of) has actually nothing to do with being from the government, and is a reaction to ones feelings getting hurt when they got corrected?

Interesting...

IMO......Yep. You may have hurt feelings, caused anger, made people feel teamed up on or even overwhelmed.

Originally posted by jdub297

The problem with this assertion is that it ignores the fact that most of these re-posted distortions and fabrications come from the same members; not new members. All you have to do is look, and you will see the same people re-hashing the same crap on different threads.

I certainly doesn't cover every thread or post, but a good number of them all the same.

Of course there are diehards, go into any forum on ATS and you will find them.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Go ahead and call them on it but the way you do it is going to influence they're response.

Pointing to contrailscience.com should be effective then, since it is written in a non offensive manner (the author even invites people to correct him if any of his facts are wrong), but most 'chemtrail' believers immediately have a knee-jerk response at the sight of that link.

Humiliate someone and they will get angry, its a normal reaction. Does anger not cause people to become irrational? Think about that.

True, but also the person may be irrational and therefore more prone to anger (taking contrary evidence as a person insult, insult to their intelligence, etc).

Originally posted by adeclerk
Pointing to contrailscience.com should be effective then, since it is written in a non offensive manner (the author even invites people to correct him if any of his facts are wrong), but most 'chemtrail' believers immediately have a knee-jerk response at the sight of that link.

Sadly, many are not willing to FULLY read linked evidence on both sides of the debate.

Originally posted by adeclerk
True, but also the person may be irrational and therefore more prone to anger (taking contrary evidence as a person insult, insult to their intelligence, etc).

That is true aswell but please don't try to insinuate that everyone who has gotten angry didn't have a damn good reason too. That goes for both sides.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk
Pointing to contrailscience.com should be effective then, since it is written in a non offensive manner (the author even invites people to correct him if any of his facts are wrong), but most 'chemtrail' believers immediately have a knee-jerk response at the sight of that link.

Sadly, many are not willing to FULLY read linked evidence on both sides of the debate.

Originally posted by adeclerk
True, but also the person may be irrational and therefore more prone to anger (taking contrary evidence as a person insult, insult to their intelligence, etc).

That is true aswell but please don't try to insinuate that everyone who has gotten angry didn't have a damn good reason too. That goes for both sides.

I'm just saying I can really understand the anger coming from the conspiracy side. Those who are of a conspiratorial mindset are probably more likely to be irrational (hence why they think all of this NWO conspiracies, etc are out to disadvantage them, or maybe some want someone to blame for their shortcomings) and more likely to get angry.

I also understand how I may incite anger with some people on the other side. While our frustration is shared, I'm going to try to clean it up a bit.

Thank you for provoking me to look at things a little differently. It's very easy to be rude in an anonymous place like the internet.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk
Pointing to contrailscience.com should be effective then, since it is written in a non offensive manner (the author even invites people to correct him if any of his facts are wrong), but most 'chemtrail' believers immediately have a knee-jerk response at the sight of that link.

Sadly, many are not willing to FULLY read linked evidence on both sides of the debate.

Indeed, I often link to contrailscience.com, and since it's my site, I get to see if anyone actually follows the links. I quite often get responses before anyone even visits the site.

I think that the vast majority of the time people don't follow bare links.

From a debunking/communicating point of view, it's best to be able to extract the important points as briefly as possible, and preferably in the form of an image (a picture being worth quite a few words). Like, instead of linking to the article on "Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don't" to make a point about perception of heights, I'd just post this image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a351f9d85494.jpg[/atsimg]

Then I'd maybe include the link for reference, if it expands on the point.

It's not about talking down to people or anything like that. It's about effective communication.

Originally posted by adeclerk
I'm just saying I can really understand the anger coming from the conspiracy side. Those who are of a conspiratorial mindset are probably more likely to be irrational (hence why they think all of this NWO conspiracies, etc are out to disadvantage them, or maybe some want someone to blame for their shortcomings) and more likely to get angry.

It seems the loudest voices are normaly irrational. I can agree with that. I don't subscribe or even read any conspiracy site that peddles junk for profit. There are alot of us though who watch and listen, waiting to make up our minds.

Originally posted by adeclerk
I also understand how I may incite anger with some people on the other side. While our frustration is shared, I'm going to try to clean it up a bit.

Nice to hear.

I know you "know" you're stuff when it comes to this topic and I assure you people will be more willing to listen to you, and you're facts, if you present those facts to them with a friendlier approach.

Originally posted by adeclerk
Thank you for provoking me to look at things a little differently. It's very easy to be rude in an anonymous place like the internet.

Your welcome. See we're getting along now.

I'm sure 99% of everyone who has ever posted on the internet has been rude at some time, myself incuded.

reply to post by NightGypsy

An inherent problem with conspiracy forums....one that is not exclusive to people on one side of the argument or the other. It is an exercise in futility trying to change opinions of those whose emotional attachment to an issue has blinded them to potential flaws in their arguments.
edit on 22-6-2011 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)

.
Well said. That explains why you are ignoring my last post.

reply to post by DJW001

So, if carbon dioxide and water are the natural result of combustion and impurities damage engines, how are the "chemtrails" created?

More importantly, why do you think either of these two has anything to do with each other? No one is saying any chemtrail aerosols are being emitted through the engines of a jet.

Also, don't you have any opinion about the effect of aviation on global warming?

The last time I checked, the topic of this discussion is chemtrails/contrails, not the effect of aviation on global warming.

That's because it is an article that supports the "contrail theory!" I'm still perfectly fine with it. Why do you have a problem with it? Because it doesn't support the "chemtrail theory?" You still haven't explained how one typo invalidates the entire article.

I never said I had a problem with this article, I was addressing your assumption that the "30C" was a typo. I never claimed any "typo" invalidate the entire article.

... how do you know it's not a typo? And what difference would it make?

I don't know that it's not a typo, just as you don't know that it is. It makes no difference to me either way because this article was not posted by me to support any of my beliefs, likewise, I will not be using it in the future as a source for anything I will discuss.

Does the author of the article present himself as a meteorologist? Is this article intended to be cited in journals?

I already addressed these questions in a previous post. Please review the thread.

If you could care less, why have you made such a big issue of it? ... Yes. You're leaping on to a single error (among several, incidentally) as though it proves over a century of meteorological research wrong....

I didn't make a big issue of anything. You are the one who said you doubted the article had been "researched at all" referring to it as "fluff." Then you assumed the "30C" was a typo.

You're leaping on to a single error (among several, incidentally) as though it proves over a century of meteorological research wrong....

Again, over-dramatization...."and the winner of the Academy Award goes too....."

When people attempt to answer the questions that are posed, why do you call it "meddling?"

I never said answering questions was meddling. Meddling is the (kindest and least offensive) term I use to describe the actions of those who belittle people or try to create an impression that someone is stupid and/or crazy when he has concerns about an issue that they have addressed to the government. People have the right to address their concerns in this manner.

Is there anything else?

reply to post by DJW001

Well said. That explains why you are ignoring my last post.

There is nothing in said post that is even remotely intimidating. If I DID choose to ignore it, however, it would most likely be because most of those questions have already either been answered by me, or have to relevance to this thread.

reply to post by NightGypsy

There is nothing in said post that is even remotely intimidating. If I DID choose to ignore it, however, it would most likely be because most of those questions have already either been answered by me, or have to relevance to this thread.

Because, obviously, this thread is all about you. Good night.

You have won. ATS please delete my account.

The truth about chemtrails will not be known at this website.There are too many users against the truth being know.

I do not have the time to keep up with all the name calling and fighting.

I did my job and it is done.

The truth about chemtrails will be know.

You win;Signing off forever.

Made in America: Fascism, Crack Cocaine, and Chemtrails

Originally posted by afw2121
You have won. ATS please delete my account.

The truth about chemtrails will not be known at this website.There are too many users against the truth being know.

I do not have the time to keep up with all the name calling and fighting.

I did my job and it is done.

The truth about chemtrails will be know.

You win;Signing off forever.

Made in America: Fascism, Crack Cocaine, and Chemtrails

So you came here with an agenda, that agenda wasn't met, and now you are leaving in a huff?

In the cities the sky is so light blue now. Younger people living there don't even know what a real sky looks like. In the U.S. the last real sky in the cities was seen the week after 9/11, when a nationwide no-fly order was in effect.

Originally posted by Aleister
In the cities the sky is so light blue now. Younger people living there don't even know what a real sky looks like. In the U.S. the last real sky in the cities was seen the week after 9/11, when a nationwide no-fly order was in effect.

edit on 22-6-2011 by Aleister because: spelling

If the color of the sky had actually changed, don't you think some scientists or meteorologists would have noticed?

The truth is, it does vary from day to day. Has it changed? Not likely. Here is a link detailing the mechanics of it. www.sciencemadesimple.com...