AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → [Necro] Chem-trails poisoning our air

155 70443
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
478 posts
Nomad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

http://okanaganchemtrails.blog.ca/2009/04/20/symptoms-resulting-from-chemtrai-spraying-5978978/

http://rense.com/general20/alum.htm

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/aluminium.html


Chm-trails contain many harmful substances that we can't be breathing in. It's dangerous to our kids, food, animals, environment, and ourselves.

  • 155 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

where you got that from? the knmi (our national weather station) and some other sources i can't recall right away all say we are exiting a warm period and enter a cold period... (or we should be..)

Here's one possible source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

The Holocene, which is the time period we are in currently, counts as interglacial. Interesting is the section in the link "Next Glacial Period", where it says some hypothesize this interglacial to last another 50'000 years (it is of course anything but precise, but the trend is plausible I'd say)
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That link points out a key phrase "key driver in Climate Change", which we've already known. That's why we and the other 1st world countries banned almost all usage of it! These other gasses, as well as CO2, still have roles in the elevation (as they are greenhouse gasses), but at least they didn't rip metaphorical holes in the sky >


Yes I didn't' mean to say CO2 wasn't doing anything to raise temperatures.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

1% of 17k = 170


Not 1%.
.1%
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

That may be, but how does this affect whether global warming is true or not?

Nothing really besides that they are the primary for your argument.
I believe I was mistaken when I said 17,000, of course if there are almost twice as many people backing my point then I'll go with that.
The people who signed it may be few and the ones with degrees in Climatology may be fewer but is there a petition where many Climatologists sign for the argument of global warming.
One of my many side notes, does anyone care about this thread's intended purpose of Chem-Trails.
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

Primary group in your argument

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

The people who signed it may be few and the ones with degrees in Climatology may be fewer but is there a petition where many Climatologists sign for the argument of global warming.


No..because they most likely don't feel the need to. Refer back to my quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

I believe I was mistaken when I said 17,000, of course if there are almost twice as many people backing my point then I'll go with that.
The people who signed it may be few and the ones with degrees in Climatology may be fewer but is there a petition where many Climatologists sign for the argument of global warming.


Rewind-and-play-again's don't work in the WEPR and I don't think you've gotten what he was saying.

This was an online petition, where literally anyone can register and sign the waver, in a similar vein to "support Breast Cancer Awareness by clicking the like button!". You can be an uneducated hermit with a computer and sign this petition, which is a GLARING FLAW, considering this is about a controversial issue with news mediums giving out misinformation weekly.

You don't have to be a climatologist to be educated about Climate Change (as you don't have to be a Naturalist to be educated about Evolution), but it's clear that, with this petition, comes the very likely chance that most of these who signed the petition against the issue prooobably do not know jack about Climate Change. If they knew how and why, they wouldn't be signing it.
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

No..because they most likely don't feel the need to. Refer back to my quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson

As a kid I didn't feel the need to do my Math homework, I still needed to to prove that I knew what I was doing.
thugtastic
offline
thugtastic
162 posts
Peasant

not know jack about Climate Change. If they knew how and why, they wouldn't be signing it.

Or they're scientists and know more than all of us.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Or they're scientists and know more than all of us.


If they are scientists, they wouldn't be signing the petition against Global Warming regulations (because 96+% agree with the imminent threats). We're talking esteemed academics with Masters and Doctorates in Scientific fields. They have gigabytes more knowledge stored in their brain (a weird measurement, but I couldn't think of a better term) about scientific phenomenon than I do, yet they are almost unanimously for regulation? I wonder how that works if several thousands signed that online petition?

Perhaps you should dig up some research on the demographics of those who signed it.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

As a kid I didn't feel the need to do my Math homework, I still needed to to prove that I knew what I was doing.


So by making a petition, then can they have a proper stance that climate change is actually happening?

Or they're scientists and know more than all of us.


As I pointed out..only .1% of the signers are qualified for the field in which they are placing their input. Not even 1/3 have a PhD..but even still, that PhD can be in anything.
The petition is using the simple fact of a PhD as if it gives a person's input more validity. Why does a person with a PhD in, say, Chinese history have such heavy importance with this petition? He could know nothing on the subject of Climate Change, but the petition is waving the PhD around as if it makes him more trustworthy on the subject.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

thugtastic, please don't drop to the level of putting words in my mouth I never uttered. Where did I state that the environmental movements (in plural because there are so many of them, and their methods and goals are so diverse) are the primary group in my argument? I never said that.

My links are links from NASA sites and affiliated sites; my sources is the science of climatology and related sciences, NOT some activists that can say whatever they want.

The polar ice cap is shrinking, this is a fact. The ice cap on Greenland is shrinking too, this is a fact. Temperatures in average on the global scheme, have increased. This is a fact. CO2 levels are rising and thus oceans are acidifying, with the already mentioned consequences. This is a fact.

There are many more facts like that, people actually measuring temperatures and extent of ice and all that. There are serious scientists going out in the field collecting information. I hold their opinion higher than some linguistics thinking that global climate is a hoax. "Scientist" can literally be any scientist who is not even trained in a climatic line of thinking. Climatologists world-wide state and repeat that climate change is a reality, without need of an internet opinion check. To me the matter is clear.

That reminds me... recently in France they started a poll where members of a party could vote for their candidate to party presidency... thing was, anyone could write any name as long as the person named has an address in Paris. So it came that among the published list of voters, was the name of a recently deceased singer (that was not only dead at the time of the polling, but in his life more of a communist than a voter of a right-wing party).

To the question if anyone cares about chemtrails... only KnightDeclan does, I think. But since one of the argument was that global climate is a hoax and an excuse to spray things, defining that it is not a hoax is a needed step at defeating this argument.

KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
478 posts
Nomad

To the question if anyone cares about chemtrails... only KnightDeclan does, I think. But since one of the argument was that global climate is a hoax and an excuse to spray things, defining that it is not a hoax is a needed step at defeating this argument.
FIRST of all, just because I'm the only libertarian on here, it doesn't mean I'm the only on in the world, if that's what you meant. PLENTY of people I know care about chem trails. Secondly, your links are from scientists, who I'm kinda going against. I see them just as trusty reference as a catholic website, which I put on a few of the threads.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

FIRST of all, just because I'm the only libertarian on here,


Pretty sure NoName is a libertarian. Also, chem trails have nothing to do with libertarianism. That's just conspiracy theory crap.

PLENTY of people I know care about chem trails.


He meant people here on ArmorGames. You're the only one who does, here.

Secondly, your links are from scientists, who I'm kinda going against.


Yeah, see, here's why this entire argument is a farce. You're purposefully taking all the credible sources, and calling them a conspiracy against everyone. Then you take the -least- credible sources and try to say they make more sense than people who are EDUCATED in these matters and INDEPENDENTLY verify and research these things.

It's like going to ask a rocket scientist how rockets work, assuming he lied to you, then consulting your resident hobo and using that information to try and make a rocket. It don't work out well.

I see them just as trusty reference as a catholic website, which I put on a few of the threads.


*Facepalm headdesk fall out of chair hit wall roll over onto tack hit head on door*
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

FIRST of all, just because I'm the only libertarian on here, it doesn't mean I'm the only on in the world, if that's what you meant. PLENTY of people I know care about chem trails.

I meant to say you're the only one that seems to care on this site. And I would assume there are plenty of people like you, although I might note that doesn't give you more credibility.

Secondly, your links are from scientists, who I'm kinda going against. I see them just as trusty reference as a catholic website, which I put on a few of the threads.

It's always good to analyse critically what other scientists publish; if a scientists publishes something, it gets read and reread by colleagues and others. That's how we can make sure it is not complete BS.

You, however, don't show critical analysis skills. You reject it "en bloc" without giving proper reasons, other than "I think it is stupid and look this cool conspiracy site I found that says it's bollocks".

Scientists are supposed to be experts in their field, that doesn't make them infallible, but it does mean they have a more educated opinion than others.

Speaking of chemtrails, any comment on my question from page 9?
Showing 106-120 of 155