Why argue the point?

Craego, a commenter over at Northland NZ Chemtrails asks a good question of those of us who spend time debunking chemtrail believers [edit: comment has now been deleted, presumably in another bout of site ‘cleansing’ by Clare] …

LMFAO now WHY would anyone with half a brain waste their time creating a webpage trying to PROVE that something they believe doesnt exist, does not in fact exist??

Yes indeed, a question that requires a LMFAO and a two question marks! (And no apostrophes). That aside, why do we do it?

Now, my ‘debunking’ days started when I was browsing through YouTube one evening, and stumbled across a video showing what it purported to be ‘chemtrails’. To me, they looked like normal contrails, so I asked the poster why they thought they were ‘chemtrails’. The answer: ‘because real contrails don’t persist for more than a few seconds’. I was pretty sure this wasn’t right, so I asked a meterorologist and a commercial pilot about the science behind contrails. Of course, the fact of the matter is that contrails can persist for minutes, or even hours — it all depends on the conditions at the time. The evidence for this (both scientific and observational) is irrefutable.

But, browsing around the (many) sites dedicated to chemtrails, it quickly became apparent that this piece of misinformation (that persistent contrails = chemtrails) is deeply entrenched in the chemtrail believers’ community. However (as I quickly found out), if you point this out to them, you get labelled as a ‘shill’ or ‘disinformation’ agent. Here’s a fantastically representative example of this happening over at uncensored, where the “persistent contails = chemtrails” meme is repeated (again), and when I point out the inaccuracy of this statement, the original poster (surprise surprise, Clare Swinney), starts shouting ‘disinformation agent’ at the top of her voice, whilst completely avoiding the actual mistake she’s made (again).

So, why continue? I’m never going to change the mind of someone like Clare, so why persevere?

The thing is, not everyone is like Clare, and there are probably plenty of people (like myself) who do catch a whiff of this thing called ‘chemtrails’ on the internet, and then do some ‘research’ to discover what it’s all about. And if you’re the type of person who believes what they read, then if the only type of site you find when googling up ‘chemtrails’ are the likes of Uncensored, Northland NZ Chemtrails and Pacific Chemtrail, then you’d very quickly start to believe that a persistent contrail is a chemtrail, that the presence of aluminium and barium in water samples is somehow unnatural, and that a pretty sunset or a 22° halo indicates the presence of man-made chemicals in the atmosphere.

Chemtrail believers often decry ‘disinformation’ agents who spread incorrect facts, but are amongst the worst perpetrators of such behaviour themselves. Hence the desire to add some balance (i.e. facts) to the discussion. Hopefully people doing some online reading on the ‘chemtrail’ phenomena will also stumble across sites like this one, Contrail Science and Contrails North NZ that will let people realise that those long white clouds formed by planes are nothing but condensed water vapour and nothing to worry about.

After all, there are plenty of things that are worth worrying about in this day and age, so having one less thing on that list is surely a good thing.


3 thoughts on “Why argue the point?

  1. Yep exactly – “true believers” are never going to be convinced otherwise.

    But most people are not “true believers” – they weigh up the evidence and make up their own minds based upon it. without the balance of reality they are going to fall for the delusion.

    Chemtrails are a hoax that probably has the potential to harm people by way of inducing paranoia, and certainly tcan waste a lot of their time.

    IMO debunking the hoax is a community service to the wider population.

    Please keep up the good work!

  2. Its comments like this that get me wound up.

    Posted be “100% no Brainer” on Clares site.
    “Thanks for posting this Clare. It helps me realise that ALL of can do something! Many of my school friends are waking up & one by one are waking up their parents.”

    Maybe he/she should go and talk to a science teacher befor listening to Clare and her misinformation friends.

  3. I think that it is not accurate to call this “chemtrail conspiracy” – that implies that chemtrails exist, and there actually is some sort of conspiracy to create them.

    Rather this rubbish should, IMO, be called the chemtrail hoax.

    It is the chemtrails that are the hoax, perpetrated on an unsuspecting and sadly gullible public, causing totally bogus fear and paranoia. The hoax is the hazard – not the ficticious chemtrails.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s