Chemtrails and other conspiracies

A Facebook friend of mine is a conspiracy nut. She was tagged in a post by a friend of hers, so up in my ‘news’ feed comes a post offering incontrovertible evidence that persistent contrails are in fact chemical spraying of the populace or the planet for nefarious purposes. I was dimly aware of this notion but was taken aback when encountering such people in the (virtual) flesh.

People who don’t buy it are portrayed as ‘ignorant’ or ‘duped’, and are urged to open their eyes and their minds to the Obvious Truth. Just Look Up! A rash of ‘proof’ videos gets posted in comments. If the statements were subsequently retracted, they’ve been ‘got at’. If they admit hoax, they’ve been got at or it was all part of the plot. The world is sharply divided into Believers and Non-Believers; the latter are either ‘sheeple’ or part of the Disinformation Plot. There is no conceivable evidence that can convince a Believer that they err, that the trails have a simple physical explanation, or that there is not a massive international Them out to get us. Non-believers could be convinced, but their evidential standards are clearly different. Yet both sides wrangle on, certain that if they can just find the right form of words, the other will see sense.

This all has a familiar ring.

To me, conspiracy theories don’t even get out of the starting gate because of basic human nature. The implausibility of a sustainable conspiracy involving even a handful of people with no blabbing, pricked conscience or deathbed confession, is enough to dismiss the entire lot. In the case of chemtrails we have airlines, airports, security allowing tankers airside, mechanics, ATC, airplane breakers yards, chemical factories, transportation, governments of every conceivable political hue, including those whose relations extend only to grudgingly allowing each others’ planes to land … tens of thousands of people having supposed knowledge of and complicity in the spraying of toxins on family, friends, neighbours or foreign nationals (and, incidentally, on Them), in a co-ordinated manner coming in from all points of the compass. Yet none of these people carries a smartphone? This elaborate hogwash is preferred over the physical explanation, that under certain atmospheric conditions contrails (like clouds) persist. It’s an approach to evidence I cannot even begin to comprehend. It beggars belief that people should subscribe to such tosh, but subscribe they do, in droves. One sees some amusing exchanges – such as here, where a surprising number of people takes it seriously, and is subjected in return to some hilariously deadpan responses (“Who needs mass vaccination anyway?” “You do”). Of course such sites, to the committed, are part of the disinformation plot, to make chemtrailers look ridiculous (!). It stops being funny when one sees people so incensed by the ‘poisoning’ to which they believe they are subjected that they advocate violence to pilots and planes. I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone takes action.

I know that some here have supported one conspiracy or another, so I thought an OP may generate some interest.

410 thoughts on “Chemtrails and other conspiracies

  1. I look at it a bit differently, mung. I simply wonder if the absence of a belief is sufficient to make one an atheist. I’m the real deal.

  2. Unlike fifth, I don’t claim to know that no Atheist or atheists exist, I just lack any belief that any Atheist or atheists exist.

  3. walto: I look at it a bit differently, mung. I simply wonder if the absence of a belief is sufficient to make one an atheist. I’m the real deal.

    WTF is the real deal?

    Atheism means without theism. If I have no sheep, that does make me a farmer with no sheep.

  4. Frankie: fooled by a literature bluff

    Oh, you mean like when Behe was presented with a stack of papers that he had not read that explained the thing he claimed could not be explained?

  5. walto,

    look at it a bit differently, mung. I simply wonder if the absence of a belief is sufficient to make one an atheist. I’m the real deal.

    I think have the correct definition of agnostic which is uncertainty. Richard Dawkins said that there is almost certainly no god. Does this make him atheist given there is some uncertainty? Does the real deal mean no uncertainty? Or is there an agnostic atheist tripping point? Is there another point of separation with those that feel the need to evangelize atheism like Richard Dawkins even though he has a small doubt.

  6. Frankie: A scientifically illiterate judge

    And that ruling has yet to be challenged. Should be simple if that judge was so scientifically illiterate? Just find a judge who understands science and present them with the same evidence!

    Frankie, do you have any opinion on why that has not happened? I understand you are fond of direct action, any chance of you having standing in such a case were it to be brought?

  7. Haystacks are atheists on your definition, petrushka. I make an atheist somebody who, according to some def. of “god” believes there is no god.

    What do you think is wrong with that definition? It seems to me to better fit common usage.We don’t normally call those who’ve never considered the issue atheists–although I agree that we certainly could.

  8. colewd: Is there another point of separation with those that feel the need to evangelize atheism

    To be fair, the theists have had the world to themselves for most of recorded history.

    So somewhat ironic when you complain about those pesky atheists who do what you’ve been doing forever.

  9. colewd:
    walto,

    I think have the correct definition of agnostic which is uncertainty.Richard Dawkins said that there is almost certainly no god.Does this make him atheist given there is some uncertainty?Does the real deal mean no uncertainty?Or is there an agnostic atheist tripping point?Is there another point of separation with those that feel the need to evangelize atheism like Richard Dawkins even though he has a small doubt.

    I don’t think being an atheist has anything to do with certainty. Dawkins is an atheist because he believes (on whatever warrant he has or doesn’t have) that there is no god.

  10. It looks like OMagain was fooled by the literature bluff too. Figures. But still funny.

    It also thinks that judges should decide what is and isn’t science. Also figures.

  11. Frankie: It looks like OMagain was fooled by the literature bluff too.

    A legally binding fooling, that!

    So, Frankie, to be clear, are you saying that you can make a case for the immune system to be irreducibly complex? Or that you can make a case that it could not have evolved?

    What level of detail is it that you would like to see regarding the evolution of the immune system?

    The fact it this is old news. Why don’t you explain why nobody has challenged the ruling, instead of just ignoring that point?

    Or, pick a specific component of the cascade and make your case!

    Or not, as you prefer.

  12. Frankie: Enjoy…

    If that exists why has that obviously wrong verdict from an ignorant judge not been challenged?

  13. colewd:
    walto,

    I think have the correct definition of agnostic which is uncertainty.Richard Dawkins said that there is almost certainly no god.Does this make him atheist given there is some uncertainty?Does the real deal mean no uncertainty?Or is there an agnostic atheist tripping point?Is there another point of separation with those that feel the need to evangelize atheism like Richard Dawkins even though he has a small doubt.

    Check out the diagram in my post. Theism and Gnosticism are not on the same spectrum, they are orthogonal. One can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. If you lack belief in any god or gods, you are an atheist, regardless of your reasons for that lack of belief.

  14. walto,

    I don’t think being an atheist has anything to do with certainty. Dawkins is an atheist because he believes (on whatever warrant he has or doesn’t have) that there is no god.

    So an agnostic is someone is who has yet to form a belief? Do you have any opinion on the basis of Dawkins belief?

  15. petrushka: WTF is the real deal?

    Atheism means without theism. If I have no sheep, that does make me a farmer with no sheep.

    The etymology of “atheism” is merely the privative of “theism.” Used as an epithet for another person, it could just mean “godless” or close to “infidel.” I suspect that’s more what it meant originally, an accusation that one is godless.

    Used for oneself, though, it’s almost certainly not taken as just “not theist.” Because, who would bother saying it if one had never thought about it? It would just be another imaginary idea that one had never espoused, not needing any special term for one who hadn’t bothered with it. If one agrees that one is atheist, otoh, presumably one has thought enough about it to think that there’s insufficient reason to conclude that there is a god.

    It’s a case, like many, where the etymology isn’t really the key to understanding the meaning of the word.

    Glen Davidson

  16. Patrick: Sour grapes from the guy who got his ass handed to him in Dover.

    At least Behe didn’t run away with his tail between his legs like “Vice” Dembski.He gets points for that.

    What a joke of a post, Patrick. How was his ass handed to him seeing there still isn’t any evidence for natural selection and drift producing IC systems?

    Miller lied on the stand. The plaintiffs fooled the judge with a literature bluff.

  17. OMagain- you make the case that natural selection. drift or any other materialistic process can produce an immune system. First you need to get the organisms that have one.

    Tell us the testable hypotheses for such a thing. Tell us the predictions.

    Or not as is your usual way.

  18. 3) The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism

    It’s called equivocation and evos have relied on that tactic for decades, regardless of how pathetic it is.

  19. Their fundamental point is that Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.

    And it seems to me Lenski demonstrated that nicely. Complex stuff changed in a complex way so that something complex could happen.

    Complex. New function. Sure, you’ll say it had the ability to digest citrate already. But I’m taking about the function that allowed it to be transported as the complex change. And even you admit that happened.

    And sure, I can’t demonstrate that change was not intelligently designed. But I can draw conclusions about that by observing what happened to the entire experiment.

    And so far, no support for the core argument there.

  20. GlenDavidson: The etymology of “atheism” is merely the privative of “theism.”Used as an epithet for another person, it could just mean “godless” or close to “infidel.”I suspect that’s more what it meant originally, an accusation that one is godless.

    Used for oneself, though, it’s almost certainly not taken as just “not theist.”Because, who would bother saying it if one had never thought about it?It would just be another imaginary idea that one had never espoused, not needing any special term for one who hadn’t bothered with it.If one agrees that one is atheist, otoh, presumably one has thought enough about it to think that there’s insufficient reason to conclude that there is a god.

    It’s a case, like many, where the etymology isn’t really the key to understanding the meaning of the word.

    Glen Davidson

    Yes, precisely. One can be bewitched by what I think J.L. Austin called ‘the trailing clouds of etymology.’

  21. Frankie: First you need to get the organisms that have one.

    Chuckle. On one side we have the efforts of many actual scientists investigating possible pathways for the origin of life. And on the other we have you, who despite never having done any actual work in the field already knows the answer to the question.

    Frankie: you make the case that natural selection. drift or any other materialistic process

    Why? I thought ID was not anti-evolution? And evolution is all about materialistic processes.

    Frankie: It’s called equivocation and evos have relied on that tactic for decades, regardless of how pathetic it is.

    There are many judges who would love to make their name in such a case. Why oh why will nobody step up to the plate?

  22. colewd:
    walto,

    So an agnostic is someone is who has yet to form a belief?Do you have any opinion on the basis of Dawkins belief?

    I hav en’t thought about it much, but I guess I’d say an agnostic is somebody who isn’t sure or who has formed no opinion.

  23. Frankie: Miller lied on the stand. The plaintiffs fooled the judge with a literature bluff.

    And Dembski ran away. Yes, yes, we know.

  24. Patrick: Check out the diagram in my post.Theism and Gnosticism are not on the same spectrum, they are orthogonal.One can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist.If you lack belief in any god or gods, you are an atheist, regardless of your reasons for that lack of belief.

    As indicated, I don’t care for that def of ‘atheism’ myself. It seems not to comport very well with common usage. But I don’t think your acceptance of it is a mortal sin or anything.

    In the immortal words of Bill Murray, ‘It just doesn’t matter.’

  25. Frankie: Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism

    Yes, sadly this is rampant in science.

    Courts don’t distinguish between paternity and supernatural mimicry of paternity, just assuming the former. Scientists don’t distinguish between plate tectonics and that whole convection currents in the mantle conjecture. Scientists don’t distinguish between ecology and concepts of gods farming the earth in their mysterious manner, just ignoring the latter possibility.

    Science, evidence-following bastard that it is, tends to take the effects expected of causes as indications that those causes occurred, rather than assuming some invisible agent working purposefully.

    Will this nightmare never end?

    Glen Davidson

  26. OMagain- Perhaps you should read the TSZ post ID is Not anti-evolution. If you have any questions post them there and we will have a look. And people have looked for a natural origin for Stonehenge. Keep looking, it doesn’t mean you will find what you are looking for.

    And if a judge had to decide what is and isn’t science then I would pity you. I would love to hear how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and other materialistic processes produced living organisms, ATP synthase, ribosomes, the genetic code. And Darwin’s “prove a negative” falsification will be fully exposed.

    As for ID judges are good with Occam’s razor stuff and should understand the positive case for ID if it is allowed to be laid out.

  27. GlenDavidson: Yes, sadly this is rampant in science.

    Courts don’t distinguish between paternity and supernatural mimicry of paternity, just assuming the former.Scientists don’t distinguish between plate tectonics and that whole convection currents in the mantle conjecture.Scientists don’t distinguish between ecology and concepts of gods farming the earth in their mysterious manner, just ignoring the latter possibility.

    Science, evidence-following bastard that it is, tends to take the effects expected of causes as indications that those causes occurred, rather than assuming some invisible agent working purposefully.

    Will this nightmare never end?

    Glen Davidson

    So do any of you understand what is being debated? Glenn doesn’t. Robin doesn’t. OMagain doesn’t.

    Why is it OK for you guys to attack a concept that you learned about from the blogs of its detractors?

    Evolution by design, ie directed evolution, is very different than Darwinian evolution and all of its progeny. And guess what? It is still evolution.

    As for paternity- what’s the point? Any paternity test would come up negative if given between chimps and humans- meaning using the same DNA sequence that connects you to your relatives it would not connect you to chimps.

  28. Pity that FrankenJoe has no evidence of evolution being “guided” except for the trivial case of evolution tending to track changes in the environment.

  29. walto: In the immortal words of Bill Murray, ‘It just doesn’t matter.’

    It obviously matters to the godless Patrick. Rather than have a position on the existence of God, he prefers to pretend as if he has no position, and thus he has no need to defend his position. Apparently skepticism entails intellectual laziness.

  30. Frankie: Evolution by design, ie directed evolution, is very different than Darwinian evolution and all of its progeny.

    I’m willing to believe you, but you don’t seem to be able to answer the most basic, simplest question about directed evolution.

    If it’s very different, how is it different?

  31. Frankie: Evolution by design, ie directed evolution, is very different than Darwinian evolution and all of its progeny. And guess what? It is still evolution.

    Yes, presumably the unknown directed evolution (that is, before humans) wouldn’t be constrained by the limits of unintelligent evolution, and thus wouldn’t be slavishly derivative of ancestors like we see throughout vertebrate evolution.

    That’s why Behe’s view of evolution is bankrupt. The rational leaps that one would not expect of known mechanisms of evolution but would expect of an intelligent designer are missing.

    Glen Davidson

  32. Mung: It obviously matters to the godless Patrick. Rather than have a position on the existence of God, he prefers to pretend as if he has no position, and thus he has no need to defend his position. Apparently skepticism entails intellectual laziness.

    Mung pretends to be able to read minds and know when people are lying about what they believe or don’t believe.

  33. petrushka: Mung pretends to be able to read minds and know when people are lying about what they believe or don’t believe.

    He must have caught that disease from fifthmonarchyman. You’ve got to be careful online — there are viruses, man!

  34. petrushka:
    I have a nephew who can read minds.

    When he’s off his meds.

    My relatives who need meds are of the opinion that if they don’t go to a mental health professional to be diagnosed, they clearly can’t have any issues. They get along well with those who proudly say “I’m not an alcoholic — I’ve never been to a meeting!”

  35. Mung: It obviously matters to the godless Patrick. Rather than have a position on the existence of God, he prefers to pretend as if he has no position, and thus he has no need to defend his position. Apparently skepticism entails intellectual laziness.

    That’s a problem with late 20th century / early 21st century atheism.

    A few apparently-advanced standard-bearers have positioned themselves as belonging to a (not really here yet) future culture where the posited existence of gods will be as irrelevant to everyone as the posited existence of leprechauns is to everyone nowadays.

    If/when general society reaches that point, then it will (finally) make sense to treat the term “atheist” as if were as neutral as “a-leprechaunist”. It would then be something most grownups would never have had to consider in their lives, never had to think about where they find themselves on the scale of disbelief to belief. I mean, if someone asks you right now if you’re a leprechaunist, you’d have to think for a moment to come up with an answer. And your answer would (presumably) look a lot like Patrick’s:

    I do not believe that any gods leprechauns exist.

    No one would quibble with that. No one would expect anything more definitive, because, well, leprechauns. Silly.

    But given that none of us do live in that hypothetical godless future, and especially given that active atheists like Patrick have been arguing about god (for decades now) I think Patrick should have the integrity to make the positive statement:
    “I believe that there isn’t any god”
    rather than the namby-pamby statement which he does make.

    He’s surely entitled to stake out his position as living in that future where atheism is a belief only to the extent that not stamp collecting is a hobby. And you’re surely entitled to point out that we’re not actually there yet.

  36. walto:
    I look at it a bit differently, mung.I simply wonder if the absence of a belief is sufficient to make one an atheist.I’m the real deal.

    I’m not the “real deal” — but I agree with your point. “Atheist” is a meaningless term if it can apply equally to babies, of whom we can surely say they, along with Patrick,

    do not believe that any gods exist.

    Yes, it’s mostly a semantic quibble. But semantics are sometimes life changing, so it’s not just a meaningless quibble.

    Remember “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!” ?

    “Queer” is not (necessarily) anti-straight, but it is a positive position. That’s what I want out of “atheist”, too. I don’t want to be limited by semantics to Patricks dull-as-dishwater lack of position, or else a specific anti-theist one (though I admit anit-theism is my default nowadays). What I want is a word which means “Godless and Proud”. “Atheist” is the closest we can get.

    I don’t want prigs like Patrick to insist they’re right and deprive me of the only positive term we have access to right now.

    C’mon boys, we’ve got work to do. We aren’t in the godless-taken-for-granted non-issue future yet.

  37. hotshoe_,

    I don’t think that’s a problem and it’s not an incoherent position.
    I couldn’t care less how important theists think the question about god’s existence is, it’s not important to me because god is not a thing, it’s a definition and every theist has his own. So it’s not even well defined. Why give a rat’s ass for something like that?

    And no, I don’t think that any of those gods exist, but they don’t even deserve an answer. The only deserved answer to posited imaginary beings is disdain

  38. Right, hotshoe. It seems to me that it makes sense to believe there are no purple people eaters in our solar system, and also that Apollo and Ganesha did not exist and Jesus didn’t have super powers.

    I believe those things. Could I be wrong? Sure, but I don’t think I am. I mean, any of them would be extremely weird. I think Patrick and keiths should man/woman up and join me in believing that those things are fantasies.

  39. This is silly. I disbelieve in revelation, but I have nothing to say about all possible definitions of god.

    I can have a positive disbelief in claims that people speak to a personal, human-like deity, without having any opinion on why there is something rather than nothing.

  40. dazz:
    hotshoe_,

    I don’t think that’s a problem and it’s not an incoherent position.
    I couldn’t care less how important theists think the question about god’s existence is, it’s not important to me because god is not a thing, it’s a definition and every theist hashis own. So it’s not even well defined. Why give a rat’s ass for something like that?

    And no, I don’t think that any of those gods exist, but they don’t even deserve an answer. The only deserved answer to posited imaginary beings is disdain

    I’m sure happy for you that you have the privilege to think that. I’m thrilled to imagine a future when every non-believer can afford to not even consider how important theists think the question is.

    Meanwhile, back here in god’s country, when I (or someone like me) gets hacked to death for atheism, I’d like it to stand for something more Out And Proud than your dull idea that theists “don’t even deserve an answer”.

  41. petrushka: I can have a positive disbelief in claims that people speak to a personal, human-like deity, without having any opinion on why there is something rather than nothing.

    It sounds to me as if we agree, not disagree.

    The term for “positive disbelief” in those kinds of claims is “atheism”.

    I don’t think anyone is confusing “atheism” / “atheist” with a requirement to have any specific opinion, or no opinion at all, on why there is something rather than nothing.

  42. hotshoe_: I’m sure happy for you that you have the privilege to think that. I’m thrilled to imagine a future when every non-believer can afford to not even consider how important theists think the question is.

    Meanwhile, back here in god’s country, when I (or someone like me) gets hacked to death for atheism, I’d like it to stand for something more Out And Proud than your dull idea that theists “don’t even deserve an answer”.

    I obviously didn’t make myself clear enough. I didn’t mean to say that theists don’t deserve an answer in the sense that they shouldn’t be challenged because atheism necessarily entails not caring.

    If a theist asks about god, they don’t deserve the credit of an answer, if a theist tries to push that nonsense into schools, or government, etc you stand up an cut them down to size

Leave a Reply