Global Climate Disruption.

[Fragony]

Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.

[Crandar]

Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.

Still, their potential financing by certain interests might influence their objectivity. Also, their shareholders usually tend to invest in other sections of the economy, which is inevitably going to also affect their credibility.

[Sir Moody]

Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.

are you being serious here? Tabloids are part of the "quality media".

They, much like any media company, cater to their readers bias - its how they make sure they sell enough papers!

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps someone has already brought it up, so they will direct me to where I belong.
My wife is sure of the existence of so called chemical trails which the planes leave after them. She claims that these are not inversion traces (since the latter are soon to disappear while chemical trails are long to stay visible in the sky), but some chemicals (namely some compounds of barium, aluminium and ferrum) sprinkled from passing planes with the purpose either of expanding some reflecting surfaces for satellite surveillance or of contaminating soil in third world countries (to make them dependent on GM foods).
How much truth is you think in such assumptions fed by internet?

[Husar]

I don't really care all that much about whether we cause global warming or not.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the stuff we blow into the air is unhealthy for us anyway, whether it's through global warming or causing lung cancer. So we should probably stop polluting the earth anyway. I would in no way ever endorse getting even more combustion engines onto the roads in our cities even if combustion engines were 100% proven to cause global cooling. At the moment it seems even worse than passive smoking, which is far more easy to avoid.

[Greyblades]

Firstly, I would like to point out that the climate change deniers frequently give out huge sums to any scientist who would back their side, do you really believe that less than 5% of scientists take the money if climate change is a hoax.

Secondly, in what universe does one tabloid's word overule the testimony of basically every authority on the subject (that isnt obviously in the pocket of those who will make less profits if humanity actually acts against climate change.)?

Thirdly:

If we're right and we do nothing we pretty much lose 20% of earth's usable landmass, most of it our most usable farmland, either to the rising waters or to the increased climate that will make some surviving areas uninhabitable. Hundreds of millions will become homeless refugees and earth's population will shrink significantly from starvation. Even if we're wrong and climate change doesnt happen the changes we'd have done to lower our carbon emissions would still do much to stop the smog clouds, depleted oceans, polluted rivers, acid rain and all those other nasty side effects of uninhibited pollution that we are currently experiencing right now.

Both scenarios where we act bring huge benefits and the cost we'd endure averting it is no more than the amount of money we waste year upon year in failed wars. Whereas if we do nothing, nothing happening is litterally the best thing we will get, so what's the problem exactly?

I posted this six months ago. I have yet to hear even one remotely serious attempt to counter it.

[HoreTore]

My wife is sure of the existence of so called chemical trails which the planes leave after them.

She's wrong.

Plain and simple. It's complete nonsense. Tell your wife to stop attending lectures at Google University.

Tabloids are more reliable than 'quality media' because they rely less on advertisements of those who want you to be absolutily terrified. Making people absolutily terrified of CO2 is a billion-business. The CO2 lie is one of the greatest scams in human history.

Billions, eh?

You know what's a trillion-dollar business?

Oil, gas and coal.

And they're looking to hire. They're ready to shower gazillions on whoever can back their case up and say global warming isn't really such an issue. If scientists are the corrupt bastards you claim they are, why on earth don't they take that money instead of the pennies you believe they get from "BigEco"...?

Your case doesn't even make logical sense, much less factual.

Consensus is not science. It is popular opinion. How scientific is that?

You just failed the Science 101 class.

Sign up again next year.

Oh, and John Coleman isn't a "top meteorologist". He's a weather presenter and broadcaster. He has 0 knowledge on climate. He has no related education.

He has done absolutely no research, and he is not a scientist. He's worth as much as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

It's quite telling how weak the case of the climate deniers is when all they can bring to town is one charlatan after another. Never anyone with actual knowledge.


Oh, and for some comedy relief, here's John Stewart on what happens when the bungling morons in the US committee on science and technology encounters people who know what they're talking about.

[Husar]

Of course planes leave chemtrails, just like cars do.

[HoreTore]

Of course planes leave chemtrails, just like cars do.

And just like you do

[a completely inoffensive name]

Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them. It is what it is, and I am accepting that many jobs I hold in the future may very well be the beginning stage of helping the US cope with a hotter Earth for centuries to come.

[Fragony]

Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them.

True that

[Beskar]

Oh, and for some comedy relief, here's John Stewart on what happens when the bungling morons in the US committee on science and technology encounters people who know what they're talking about.

I find that is comedy shows in the USA are more informative than many of the actual 'news' stations is a rather embarrassing trait.

[Husar]

I find that is comedy shows in the USA are more informative than many of the actual 'news' stations is a rather embarrassing trait.

I find it makes the actual news more pleasant to watch.

[Gilrandir]

She's wrong.

Plain and simple. It's complete nonsense. Tell your wife to stop attending lectures at Google University.

The latter we all do so it will meet a strong opposition on her part.
Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.
But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.

Some people don't recognize danger unless it is evident right in front of them.

I. Azimov exemplifies it in his "The Gods themselves" very vividly. One of my favorite books.

[Beskar]

Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.

It is rationalwiki, not wikipedia. It is a wiki about arguments and debunking myths.

[Husar]

But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.

Different flight altitudes and atmospheric conditions.
Although, coming from me it could be one of Putin's lies.

[Gilrandir]

It is rationalwiki, not wikipedia. It is a wiki about arguments and debunking myths.

As far as I know, wiki is notorious for the fact that any contributor may post there no matter how qualified he is. Don't know how rationalwiki is different from it, but the connected name doesn't reflect a great credit on it.
If it were something like "unwiki" or "dewikiwise it" it would sound more reliable.

Different flight altitudes and atmospheric conditions.
Although, coming from me it could be one of Putin's lies.

Unlike others I'm not biased to any opinions voiced by anyone. The only condition I make is qualification of the answerer. If you meet the requirement and elaborate your claim I can accept it. I'm a disinterested person here since it is my wife who believes in this conspiracy, I'm more skeptical about the theory, yet ready to hear both sides of the story.

[HoreTore]

The latter we all do so it will meet a strong opposition on her part.
Your link to a wikipedia article (which is a result of a Google search itself, no doubt) doesn't seem reliable just because of the reputation wikipedia has.
But the fact I eye-witnessed more than once myself is that the trail after some planes is quick to disappear, while after others it is long to stay and proliferates in all directions. I think a specialist would find it easy to explain, so I hoped for a professional opinion. And I still do.

Oh for crying out loud...

Are you sure it's only your wife who believes in chemtrails...?

Anyway, the link was, as has been pointed out already, not from wikipedia. It's from rationalwiki, a site devoted to debunking wingnuts, conspiracy theories and assorted other crap. With a snappy attitude as well, which I very much enjoy. And it's scientifically accurate, though it assumes familiarity with the subject from the reader.

The linky gives a good summary of the claims. I linked to it because I simply can't be bothered to prove a negative today. The chemtrails crowd has absolutely no evidence, not even attempted evidence. It's just a collection of freaks looking at the sky while being clueless about chemistry.

That contrails linger around for hours while others disappears quickly is completely normal behavior. I suggest you read a chemistry book.

Still, chemtrails is a harmless delusion. If she starts to call herself a Freewoman-on-the-land, however, I suggest you run for the hills.

[Gilrandir]

Anyway, the link was, as has been pointed out already, not from wikipedia. It's from rationalwiki, a site devoted to debunking wingnuts, conspiracy theories and assorted other crap.

I don't think much of the site which is designed to counter rather than explain something. The purpose of denying is in itself a flawed one.

With a snappy attitude as well, which I very much enjoy. And it's scientifically accurate, though it assumes familiarity with the subject from the reader.

A scientist shouldn't be snappy when explaining some elementary (as he believes) things to a layman. As someone said once: "If you can't explain to the woman who cleans your lab what you do here, you are wasting your time as a scientist."

The linky gives a good summary of the claims. I linked to it because I simply can't be bothered to prove a negative today. The chemtrails crowd has absolutely no evidence, not even attempted evidence. It's just a collection of freaks looking at the sky while being clueless about chemistry.

That contrails linger around for hours while others disappears quickly is completely normal behavior. I suggest you read a chemistry book.

The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.

Still, chemtrails is a harmless delusion. If she starts to call herself a Freewoman-on-the-land, however, I suggest you run for the hills.

This is the reason you ran for the hills from a Norwegian school? Or do Norwegian hills look so attractive?

[HoreTore]

I don't think much of the site which is designed to counter rather than explain something. The purpose of denying is in itself a flawed one.

A scientist shouldn't be snappy when explaining some elementary (as he believes) things to a layman. As someone said once: "If you can't explain to the woman who cleans your lab what you do here, you are wasting your time as a scientist."

Rationalwiki is intended to be a library detailing all the whacky theories of the intertubez. It does the job well.

There's no need to deny anything.

The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.

False.

That's a completely made up claim. This behaviour has been observed since the invention of the jet engine.

This is the reason you ran for the hills from a Norwegian school? Or do Norwegian hills look so attractive?

There isn't much else than hills here.... Anyway, a local "freewoman-on-the-land" just got evicted this week, which is what happens to you when you subscribe to that conspiracy.

[HopAlongBunny]

The only problem is that such "normal behavior of contrails" has been spotted only lately and was not in evidence 20-30 years ago.

Some of us are old enough (raises hand) to provide eye-witness testimony that this claim is false :p

[Husar]

Unlike others I'm not biased to any opinions voiced by anyone. The only condition I make is qualification of the answerer. If you meet the requirement and elaborate your claim I can accept it. I'm a disinterested person here since it is my wife who believes in this conspiracy, I'm more skeptical about the theory, yet ready to hear both sides of the story.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/tra...chemtrails.htm

When a jet engine is spewing out hot, humid air into an atmosphere that is cold and has low vapor pressure, the result is condensation. The water vapor coming out of the engine quickly condenses into water droplets and then crystallizes into ice. The ice crystals are the clouds that form behind the engine. This is why the streaks are called contrails, short for "condensation trails." To help explain it, scientists liken it to seeing your breath on cold days. You may have noticed that puffs of breath dissipate quickly on dryer days. The same is true of contrails: When the atmosphere is more humid, the contrails linger, but when the atmosphere is dry, the contrails disappear more quickly.

It's not even hard to look it up, you can probably find a lot more sources with exaplanations if you think this is a government misinformation source. I didn't read past the first page, but they also seem to cover various conspiracy theories there.

[Gilrandir]

It's not even hard to look it up, you can probably find a lot more sources with exaplanations if you think this is a government misinformation source. I didn't read past the first page, but they also seem to cover various conspiracy theories there.

I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions. On my assumption which I offered as an explanation to my wife, it may have something to do with different kinds of fuel the planes may use.
But thanks everybody who took this discussion to heart. Only there is no need to accuse others of stupidity and illiteracy if their viewpoint differs, after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?

[Husar]

I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions. On my assumption which I offered as an explanation to my wife, it may have something to do with different kinds of fuel the planes may use.
But thanks everybody who took this discussion to heart. Only there is no need to accuse others of stupidity and illiteracy if their viewpoint differs, after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?

Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude? Because "across the same space" is a pretty vague statement when we're talking about space...
Altitude really matters, otherwise the existence of clouds in the sky would also necessitate fog on the ground and so on.

[Gilrandir]

Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude?

Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.

[Gilrandir]

Are you sure they were flying at the same altitude?

Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.
Shoot! Again this repetition.

[HoreTore]

I saw two planes flying across the same space with approximately 2 minutes interval between them yet one left a trail to linger for some time, the other's trail dissipated almost at once. So it can't be explained by different humidity conditions.

Yes, it can.

Why don't you seek out actual information instead of making assertions like this?

after all tolerance is the keystone of European values, is it not?

You propose that there's a plot to kill off a significant portion of the world's population through covert means.

There's no tolerance for extremist ideas like that.

[Husar]

Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.

And how can you then claim the atmospheric conditions were the same?

http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/

http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/

I don't know whether I should find it great or sad that there seems to be a site dedicated to the "issue" of contrails.

[Papewaio]

Of course not. How can a person from the ground measure the altitude? All I can say is that they looked pretty much the same size.

You can, it's called trigonometry. People have used it since the ancient greeks to figure out the diameter of the earth, distance to the suns and using parallax the distance to other starts.

Also the contrails are effected by the attitude of the plane. Not that it has a cool attitude, the angle of the wings to the air causing the air to be more or less compressed. If one plane is changing altitude faster it will have a different angle of attack, hence the air will be compressed differently. End result will be different contrails even if everything else is the same (which likely isn't).

To see how quickly air changes look at trees on a gusty day, it is quite possible to see tall trees blowing one direction and the wind on the ground another (Coriolis force etc). Or send off a bunch of ballons and see how they move in different directions as they rise.

[HopAlongBunny]

In any case a new IPCC report will drop in November, renewing the cycle of evasion and misinformation:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rsible-damage/