Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Critical thinking on the topic of "Chemtrails"
First I'll go into the science on contrails then I'll go into just some evidence against "chemtrails".
There are 2 different processes that is going on here, for the formation of contrails. The first one involves exhaust from the engine. Burning fossil fuel produces water vapor and carbon dioxide. The water vapor alone doesn't produce the contrails. It is a combination of factors. The water vapor introduced into the atmosphere increases the humidity past its saturation point. The exhaust provides particulate matter for the water vapor to condense around and at high altitudes these water drops freeze. Depending on the conditions this can occur very close to engines or a bit away. The reason they don't just "dissipate", "evaporate", "disperse" is the same reason clouds don't because that is what these are, clouds.
OK, that is a very basic and quick run down on contrails. Is there an impact on the environment? Yes, It amounts to an estimated 120KW of energy retained per square kilometer. If anyone is interested in the climate change science I can point you to the peer reviewed papers on the science.
Now for the evidences of a conspiracy of global chemical spraying.
1) You'd have to involve to many people to keep it so secret. All those chemicals would have to be manufactured, transported, and loaded on to the planes. At every point you are talking about countless people needing to be involved yet no credible evidence has ever come to light involving "chemtrails"
2) All these planes would have to have a storage and dispersal system installed which wouldn't be hard to see. If you believe that extra chemicals, to make you sick, are in the fuel then you don't know the testing that goes on with fuel. Don't be insulted most people don't. I've had extensive bulk fuel training while in the USMC. Not like it is a course given to every person in high school. Typically diethylene glycol monoethyl ether is the antifreeze used with very pure kerosene to produce jet fuel. You really don't want the fuel lines in your 777 freezing up at cruising altitude. The name might even sound very scary but so does dihydrogen monoxide and I bet you have no problem with that. Is the antifreeze safe to drink, of course not. It is a chemical compound that should not be ingested. Go here to read all about the chemical information on it.
3) If they where trying to disperse a chemical do you think they would do it in a manner which stays condensed in a very local region high in the atmosphere?
4) While I support peoples home grown veggies how does this help against a supposed atmospheric chemical spraying program? Again if some world organisation wanted to contaminate your food and water then there are a lot more efficient ways to go about it then spraying chemicals into the high altitude where those same chemicals are more likely to be broken down by natural conditions long before they reach the surface.
Finally saying Bill Gates admits to some "chemtrail" conspiracy is easy. I can say Santa told me that aliens control us with radio waves and I should wear a tin foil hat. Don't be insulted by the analogy. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be as much evidence of Bill Gates saying any such thing as Santa. It is very easy for us to hear someone say "Bill Gates said [x]" and believe it without ever hearing Bill Gates actually saying it but being convinced he has. It is also very easy for us to hear someone give some talk. Hear/ see something else and think we heard the first person say something they didn't. It is very common. They human mind is very good at inventing memories that didn't actually happen. So if someone like me asks for your source please don't get offended. If you want to know the source(s) to any of my statements I'm happy to provide it. Some might be my personal experience but I'll never tell you that I heard from person [x] that person [y] said something in the scientific arena. I've read the "article" about chemtrails and Bill Gates involvement with geo-engineering. It provides a very distorted take on the facts. Even while citing the information they've clearly distorted the information from the source which it self is only a blog post and not one supporting the idea of chemtrails at all. It is just this type of misinformation that makes me want to throw out the entire article. The fact that the "global research" web site is host to tons of conspiracy articles like the twin towers on 9/11 were not taken down by the air craft hitting them but the government having them rigged with explosive lends even more evidence that this sight isn't a good source despite how professional it looks. Some articles, like the one Ali linked to, are sourced well but following the sources there is extreme quote mining going on at best and out right distortion of the source material at worst.
Critical thinking is the clear rational and open minded investigation of topics that results in conclusions informed by evidence. The evidence does not support a world wide conspiracy to spray chemicals into our atmosphere using air crafts of all types involving what would probably need millions of people all around the world to pull off. Contrails science is pretty straight forward. Is our atmosphere polluted? Yes and we should stop that. The biggest causes are burning of fossil fuels and chemical by products. We should have better environmental regulation but while you're focused on contrails of aircraft, which should be addressed too, what are the corporations around you doing to the environment. Not to make you sick but just because they want more profits and don't care about messing up the environment if they can get away with it.
If anyone is really interested I could be convinced to write up a longer blog post on this with references.
Or you could believe that I'm part of the conspiracy.