Chem Trails

[F, Calla & Luca]

Joanne~Spud started discussing Chem Trails and I had never hear of thi. So I listened to her link and started reading.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=784452324906419

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-c...


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

More to follow maybe. I guess I want a non sinister explanation.

[Camilla and Darwin]

Chem trails... (groan.) 

Once I find a peer reviewed scientific study that points to a wide-scale conspiracy I may be less skeptical, but that has not happened.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Meaning you do or don't think deliberate chem trails are being dispersed?

[Camilla and Darwin]

I do not think that there is a government conspiracy to disperse chem trails, and I have no reason to. There is no way for me to prove that they aren't - but that is completely irrelevant. The burden of proof rests on those making the claim, and as Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 

This is a conspiracy theory that I've seen plastered all over Facebook and e-mail, with plenty of sensational claims and no evidence to back up those claims. Unfortunately for this claim - the amount of Facebook shares and chain e-mails you gather has no bearing on the validity of your claim. Even if there were evidence to prove that a plane (or 10, or 100) had deliberately dispersed these chemicals, that would not be proof of a conspiracy. 

Science doesn't accept a claim until they provide the evidence, no matter how reliable the source (let alone sources as unreliable as conspiracy theorists) - and neither do I. I also find it disappointing to see the amount of concern and attention these radical claims get. Imagine if everyone who was so concerned about this shifted their efforts to being concerned about issues that we know exist. Maybe if everyone would turn their attentions to the environmental and air damage we are doing by emitting exhaust (with known, proven damage from substances we can measure) from planes and cars we could get somewhere. 

[F, Calla & Luca]

Amen!!!!

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I agree with Camilla. Or at the least, anything not put forth by "conspiracy theorists". :)

[Ricki and Tara (doodle)]

There is an ongoing discussion on one of our local radio stations on this subject....sigh.  I'm not buying into this theory but that does not mean that I trust the government. There are plenty of proven examples of our government covertly experimenting on people or exposing people to harmful substances without their knowledge either by accident or design. So there are reasons why some people have become quite paranoid in regard to the gov.  and why there is a community of "conspiracy theorists"  In case you're wondering, no, I'm not one. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders

My family was living in Idaho during the late 40's and early 50's when Hanford was releasing radioactive material into the air, contaminating a multi-state area.  There's no way to know or prove whether or not we were exposed or to what degree.  So, Camilla, I agree that we have plenty to worry about with the problems we DO know about but sometimes it is what you DON"T know about that kills you. :(

[F, Calla & Luca]

I know there have been awful cases of the government experimenting on people so I do not trust that because the government says it's hunky dory it is. I remember being taught about the poor people deliberately infected by syphillis. But that doesn't mean this is true either. so we all need to be vigilant but discerning.

[Ricki and Tara (doodle)]

It can be difficult to be discerning as the evidence is often classified or destroyed. The Freedom of Information Act has brought much of this information to light. Before that it was pretty tough to find out what was going on.

[Camilla and Darwin]

The problem is that untargeted worrying and paranoia DOESN'T help anyone. I don't believe in absolute trust in any entity - including the government. But if you put resources and time into supporting a conspiracy theory without evidence - you are wasting money and effort. We should all be using critical thinking skills to weed out fact from fiction. If we don't rely on the scientific method and evidence for EVERY idea that we ascribe to, it's like playing darts in the dark. Random guesses at what the government MIGHT be doing to us helps no one. And when government or other entity corruptions do come to light, it is because of concrete evidence, not wild speculation.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Amen again.

[Ricki and Tara (doodle)]

I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything concrete to back up chem trail paranoia. But often the questions are raised before the scientific evidence comes to light. It is what causes the research.  Did you see the movie Erin Brockovich? The questions came first and the scientific evidence came later.

I'm not sure we are defining "science" in the same manner. It seems that one can get scientific evidence to back up just about any claim anymore if one has enough money. If the government, corporations and humans were incorruptible it would be safe to rely on their information. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

[Camilla and Darwin]

Science is science, and it hasn't changed. My definition of scientific evidence is evidence that has been tested and proved using the scientific method EXACTLY and completely, without bias from any other source.

If evidence is produced via corporations or other entities that is not what it should be then it isn't produced following the scientific method. In other words - it's due to HUMAN error, not an error with the process of science. The scientific method has remained the best method for discovery since humans first started experimenting and learning, and when it is dutifully followed, it is perhaps the single most important tool we have as a species. It's propelled us forward from hunting with sticks to landing spacecraft on other planets. 

I agree with you that raising questions is important - I agree completely. I hate the idea of any entity or organization suppressing information. My issue is when people present these "conspiracy theories" as fact. They do in this specific example and they do in many others. I NEVER agree with anyone presenting information as fact when it doesn't have the evidence to back it up. So I take huge issue with people passing around information that they have not researched and found evidence for. Yes - raising questions is good. Raising questions should lead to testing their hypothesis and producing evidence. Never should someone develop a hypothesis, skip the testing step then pass it off as though it is proven. That is dishonest, fraudulent, dangerous, nonproductive, pick whatever term you prefer.

We don't have to rely on "their" information as being true. That is the beauty of science. Everything is subject to additional testing and correction - theories aren't just created then never questioned again. It doesn't matter that corporations and the government are trustworthy because humans are corrupt. Because their work will speak for itself, and it is forever open to discussion, additional testing, and criticism. NOTHING is taken on faith or trust. If something looks incorrect or biased, it will be made known through continuing testing and skepticism. Theories and results are constantly being dis-proven or altered because of scientists doing their own research and finding inconsistencies... science is a self-correcting process.

Carl Sagan's wrote a book called "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" and it  is one of my favorite books. It talks about this very thing. Science is completely unbiased, objective, and a tool that any person can and should use to navigate their way through life. It can always be relied on to give you guidelines and tools to discover what is true and what isn't - that is beautiful to me.