Concerning, at present, probably the most important topic of your life

[Topsy]

You could also link to what pages you read it on, then we'd have an idea what you classify as journal of atmospheric science and what as conspiracy site. A journal can just aswell be involved in a conspiracy.

also, the 'journal' nowhere states that they are talking about 'normal' contrails..^^

Edited March 7, 2013 by Hopping_Topsy

[Revolver]

I would have to agree that humans are f**king with the planet -

All of that shit there can't be doing any good.

We do live in an awful, shallow, self-centred society right now.

I think people don't realise the scale of things. Oh, it's just one can or wrapper or whatever. Sure, but multiply that by the billions of people that live on the world and you've got a mile high stack of stuff.

Humans evolved, it was purely chance, which is why we're a mistake. There are far too many people.

Nevertheless, there's a solution.

I'm not going to sit on the side of the foil-hats, nor the skeptics, I'm going to sit on my own side - people need to learn respect, for other people, even people you've never met, or never will. And for other people's things. If it's not yours - and this applies to the whole planet - then it's not yours to treat like shit.

[1a2bcio8]

Its naive to think people won't do something for money and power. But I'm not convinced about the how and why of what this guy is talking about. However whatever is going on is certainly in full swing, the earth is changing anyone measuring geological change is seeing huge changes from the atmosphere to the sea to the balance of eco-systems.

Whatever is happening is bad for us, and it's important to remember that the earth has only been inhabitable to humans for a relatively short time. The day that every person is willing to say hands down that the earth is becoming inhabitable it will be to late to reverse.

Its important for us to keep an open mind, because the science of this field is complex underfunded and on such a huge scale that it's very difficult to model mathematically.

This is the primary thing for me. Irrespective of chemtrails which, placed within contexts most people seem to be unaware of and dismiss them as conspiracy prior to any knowledge about them, have a plausibility the main point is that it looks as though the environment is changing in a way that could wipe us out. I may have gotten the bit that academics agree on somewhat wrong; it related, I think, to the risk from methane and the speed at which things could happen. Scientists do not, in the main, disagree on effects of global warming anymore unless they are sponsored to say otherwise.

It was also not that the contrails themselves are causing harm but rather there is an additional element being released from planes for the purposes of geoengineering - shaping the environment. Again, coming from a government that has a 'star wars' military plan and spends half its GDP on the military beyond an array of other psychopathic activities, it wouldn't really be that surprising.

And I'm open to the possibility that scientists have it wrong. I don't feel the need to decide 100% on anything and think being able to adjust your view is a good thing but it appears very likely as does our governments underhand efforts both foreign and domestic.

[1a2bcio8]

I'm not going to sit on the side of the foil-hats, nor the skeptics, I'm going to sit on my own side - people need to learn respect, for other people, even people you've never met, or never will. And for other people's things. If it's not yours - and this applies to the whole planet - then it's not yours to treat like shit.

The trouble is that certain matters require, not ambivalence, but deciding upon a likelihood. Your third choice isn't really a third choice. It's what actually underpins the need to spend the time looking at the evidence and reasoning so that you can act in accord with what you find reality to be. If global warming is a reality you need to find it as such, despite 'evidence' that goes against it, and act accordingly. If we are stealing resources from and murdering people of other countries you need to decide that is the case, again, by working your way through the evidence and acting upon it. Having a good attitude isn't enough if you sit in the middle of descriptions of reality because, ultimately, it just means inactivity. You won't manifest your good will. Which isn't to justify rigid dogma but is to say you need to act according to probabilities irrespective of a degree of chance.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Revolver]

The trouble is that certain matters require, not ambivalence, but deciding upon a likelihood. Your third choice isn't really a third choice. It's what actually underpins the need to spend the time looking at the evidence and reasoning so that you can act in accord with what you find reality to be. If global warming is a reality you need to find it as such, despite 'evidence' that goes against it, and act accordingly. If we are stealing resources from and murdering people of other countries you need to decide that is the case, again, by working your way through the evidence and acting upon it. Having a good attitude isn't enough if you sit in the middle of descriptions of reality because, ultimately, it just means inactivity. You won't manifest your good will. Which isn't to justify rigid dogma but is to say you need to act according to probabilities irrespective of a degree of chance.

I see your point.

For me it is the principle of respect, like I laid out, that causes all of these issues. I would rather go back to the source and deal with that issue than approach each thing further down the chain of cause and effect.

I know that I do have to make a choice on some issues, though, but yeah, I see the lack of respect as the root cause and I'd rather concentrate my efforts there.

[1a2bcio8]

Sure and I don't disagree with the fundamentals of your attitude.

[Muel]

Can someone just tell me what to do and make it simple? Am I supposed to avoid flying on planes, or fly to work every day?

[1a2bcio8]

We just need an informed populace that cares. When you know and care about something you inevitably communicate it to other people. When enough people fully understand the ramifications of global warming change naturally follows. It's not hard to organise something of impact when there is enough of you and, yeah, the basis of organisation is knowing. You have places such as Democracy Now!, The Real News Network, Z-net, Medialens, Globalresearch.ca, Al Jazeera, Thought Maybe that offer an alternative but grounded view of world affairs. It takes time to feel like you're getting anywhere in the sense that world affairs are so complex but you quickly get a sense of how, often, things are made to seem other than they are by psychopaths in big business and government.

Sorry, in other words, just learn about what's happening in as much detail as you can manage. It's not an easy process and can be a headf**k but it has rewards that aren't obvious until you do it.

[Muel]

That did not make it simple.

Fact remains that most of us haven't got the time to read about what is going on in the world in too much detail. I for one have far too much to handle at home before I start caring about what's happening "out there".

However, I try to do my bit. I'm a big consumer of computer and climbing produce, both things that take a lot of energy and chemicals to produce, so instead of buying new ones, I buy second hand as much as I can. This is partly because it's cheaper but also I'm starting to care more about the environment.

[Pashley26]

The largest concern in my life at the moment is if I should have wholemeal pitta breads and sweet chili dip or knock up a emmental and mushroom toastie :/

[1a2bcio8]

Well, to be honest with you, you do have the time but you are choosing to prioritise other things as more important. If I were to offer you an analogy though, it's like saying "well I could potentially contribute to changing the self-destructive nature of the human race but I'm a bit busy doing fun stuff" even though the end of either your life or the civilization that allows for that fun stuff may not be around to allow for it to continue. Now, I don't mean that to be as condescending as it sounds because I am similar. I choose to ride my bike or watch a film when I could be deepening my understanding of what's going wrong. None the less, just spending a bit of time each day just reading 2-3 articles can make a big difference. 30 minutes of your day to contribute to the well being of the world?

All these other things we do simply aren't enough. We need radical change and that occurs through understanding.

[LukasMcNeal]

Prehaps I'm biased because I used to work on aircraft and their engines so know them pretty well, but if you said this 'theory' to people on the aerospace industry specifically the engineering side many would laugh at you.

[1a2bcio8]

I will admit that that dimension of the video is more debatable. The argument though was not that the contrails themselves were harmful but that something was being added to them for the purposes of geoengineering. Whatever the reason for that, if it happens to be true, it wouldn't be inconsistent with the type of activities that the American government does that are less debatable. America's human rights record is terrible both within and external to itself. The primary point though was that the data concerning the rate at which global warming is happening - irrespective of whether it is from chemtrails or not it is still man made - threatens all of us now and not necessarily in decades or centuries. The current change in weather ( http://phys.org/news/2013-02-links-extreme-weather-climate.html ) we've been experiencing is attributable to global warming.

For example, if you watch this documentary about fracking in America you'll find an example of how we simply allow terrible things to happen to our environment and people because there's profit to be made. It fulfils the criteria for psychopathy and opens up an understanding of the type of behaviour this is possible the way society is currently structured. Fracking, unfortunately, has just arrived in the UK. We are all threatened by this which you'll understand if you watch this documentary and do additional research.

http://thoughtmaybe.com/gasland/

[casualjoe]

Geo engineering has been talked about alot in recent years, scientists have proposed releasing titanium dioxide nanoparticles into the atmosphere like a giant aerosol to increase the Earths albido, reflecting more sunlight and cooling the planet down. These ideas have next to no support though and are currently seen only as a very last resort. Titanium dioxide destroys fishes brains so first they need to find a more benign compound that is also very white, I hate the idea personally and think we can avoid all this if we all work together.

Edit - All as in everybody on the planet, instead of the global economic race we have gotten ourselves into.

Other than that, the atmosphere can produce all sorts of lines and shapes and jets with changing temperature/pressure/humidity, which are very pretty and yet another wonder that makes life great

Edited March 7, 2013 by casualjoe

[Muel]

Well, to be honest with you, you do have the time but you are choosing to prioritise other things as more important. If I were to offer you an analogy though, it's like saying "well I could potentially contribute to changing the self-destructive nature of the human race but I'm a bit busy doing fun stuff" even though the end of either your life or the civilization that allows for that fun stuff may not be around to allow for it to continue. Now, I don't mean that to be as condescending as it sounds because I am similar. I choose to ride my bike or watch a film when I could be deepening my understanding of what's going wrong. None the less, just spending a bit of time each day just reading 2-3 articles can make a big difference. 30 minutes of your day to contribute to the well being of the world?

All these other things we do simply aren't enough. We need radical change and that occurs through understanding.

My dissertation is in very soon, trust me, I don't have the time.

Although I am choosing to prioritise my own life over my life in 10 years time, yes.

Here's a neat idea, why doesn't someone else read all this stuff and then just give me a bullet pointed list of what I should and shouldn't be doing? I don't own any down filled mountaineering clothes for example, because of how horrible down production can be (and usually is).

Here's a genuine suggestion (not in an arsey kind of way at all), you're clearly one of the most reasoned and aware people on the forum, why not just report back every now and again with stuff you find? If what I need to know from this 28 minute video is "f**k planes", then I'll just avoid planes.

[LukasMcNeal]

Looking at 'chemtrail' pictures on google shows that people are very very naive!

[Matt Vandart]

why are you gripping onto the chem trails bit?

It is essentially irrelevant.

The important thing to take away from that vid/sound thingy is that very soon a mass of methane is going to be released that will in all probability kill almost everything on the planet if the guy is correct.

This ^^ is the information that is appreciated and acknowledged by the scientific community not the chem trail shite.

[trialsiain]

so how long will we have left ? im not watching that entire video.. ?

[casualjoe]

You're right, the evidence is overwhelming, it's such a depressing thought I try not to think about it and just consume as little as I possibly can, sometimes thinking of ways to dissolve out a house in a limestone cliff using carbonic acid, (i think it uses CO2!), study renewable energy, write to politicians about investing in green jobs ect, try and learn as much as i can so that i make better decisions, (which works!)

Edited March 7, 2013 by casualjoe

[Muel]

So, do I carry on writing my dissertation or just get hammered on cheap booze?

[1a2bcio8]

My dissertation is in very soon, trust me, I don't have the time.

Although I am choosing to prioritise my own life over my life in 10 years time, yes.

Here's a neat idea, why doesn't someone else read all this stuff and then just give me a bullet pointed list of what I should and shouldn't be doing? I don't own any down filled mountaineering clothes for example, because of how horrible down production can be (and usually is).

Here's a genuine suggestion (not in an arsey kind of way at all), you're clearly one of the most reasoned and aware people on the forum, why not just report back every now and again with stuff you find? If what I need to know from this 28 minute video is "f**k planes", then I'll just avoid planes.

Yeah a dissertation is fair enough but beyond that I'm sure there's time?

I think it's dangerous you just relying on someone else's interpretation. I wouldn't want anyone just simply believing me rather I'm interested in getting people to investigate and learn so that they can decide for themselves although obviously I think I am probably right (otherwise I wouldn't be arguing). I believe people are much more capable and able to deal with these things than they presently allow themselves to. Part of the problem at present is that people simply believe established forms of authority even if those forms of authority are irrational. In other words, the problem already is following others too much. I think this also relates to the way we are schooled to simply accept official facts or rules and simply play them out rather than thinking laterally and developing our thinking in creative ways.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

It's my bad on the chemtrails. I was feeling a bit passionate about my concerns and whipped that first post out a bit quickly. I also misunderstood and thought that he was referring geoengineering as something that was already common knowledge and its effects recognised by the academic community when he was referring just the risk factor of global warming. Which isn't to say I don't remain open to the possibility of the government doing stupid things because, as I've constantly emphasised, their track record both in the past and present, is psychopathic. The main point of focus is that global warming is an imminent threat. As Matt say, if methane escapes from these pockets due to global warming we are f**ked.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Mark W]

if the guy is correct.

Which is sort of the key thing. For me, the 'problem' with the level of apathy people have is that so many people do the equivalent of 'liking and sharing' ideas like this that have varying levels of factual accuracy or likelihood that it means you have to trawl through a hell of a lot of shit to arrive at something which could possibly be doing something. It sort of reminds me of the peak oil thing which I know you've mentioned before - some estimates made in the early 2000's suggested we would have run out by now, and the shock-factor of those articles meant they got a lot of press at the time. However, we don't seem to have run out yet. I'm aware that it's still a looming problem, but people are going to be less inclined to believe in articles about it because of the wildly varying degrees at which theories claim we're going to run out. To look at it from another perspective, that guy who claimed that there was going to be 'The Rapture' - it garnered a lot of attention in the press, but then it passed with no issue. He then changed the date but no-one gives a shit any more - even at an ironic level - because the credibility of it is massively undermined.

It seems fairly shit to call people out for 'being lazy' and not caring about stuff when there are just so many different 'ideas' being floated around that are often either misinformation or just plain lies, especially on as flawed a platform as the internet. When the potentially sound ideas get cloaked behind other ambiguous shit (e.g. chemtrails) then that massively undermines them, so again it's not surprising that people have less interest in it or dismiss it as being irrelevant and implausible. I've had so many people just link me to bullshit Youtube videos about stuff that Youtube is pretty much the online equivalent of the Daily Mail for me. Until I see it in another source I find it hard to believe simply from past experience, and whatever I see I view through a "This is going to be hugely exaggerated" filter. There seems to be a fast-and-loose way that people treat what limited facts there are about climate change too, in that stripped of context a lot of the statistics are a little misleading (e.g. just showing temperature variations from the last couple of decades, without including a broader range of temperatures to show how global temperatures have fluctuated, just to try and make a point). Much like Michael Moore documentaries tend to twist statistics to their own end in the same way that they criticise the government for doing, it makes it harder to believe or take interest in.

if methane escapes from these pockets due to global warming we are f**ked.

Maybe it's for the best as we're such bad custodians

[Rusevelt]

All this doom and gloom is giving me a headache. Life is hard enough as it is without knowing that our very presence and occupation here on earth is causing more problems than solving them.

[1a2bcio8]

Which is sort of the key thing. For me, the 'problem' with the level of apathy people have is that so many people do the equivalent of 'liking and sharing' ideas like this that have varying levels of factual accuracy or likelihood that it means you have to trawl through a hell of a lot of shit to arrive at something which could possibly be doing something. It sort of reminds me of the peak oil thing which I know you've mentioned before - some estimates made in the early 2000's suggested we would have run out by now, and the shock-factor of those articles meant they got a lot of press at the time. However, we don't seem to have run out yet. I'm aware that it's still a looming problem, but people are going to be less inclined to believe in articles about it because of the wildly varying degrees at which theories claim we're going to run out. To look at it from another perspective, that guy who claimed that there was going to be 'The Rapture' - it garnered a lot of attention in the press, but then it passed with no issue. He then changed the date but no-one gives a shit any more - even at an ironic level - because the credibility of it is massively undermined.

It seems fairly shit to call people out for 'being lazy' and not caring about stuff when there are just so many different 'ideas' being floated around that are often either misinformation or just plain lies, especially on as flawed a platform as the internet. When the potentially sound ideas get cloaked behind other ambiguous shit (e.g. chemtrails) then that massively undermines them, so again it's not surprising that people have less interest in it or dismiss it as being irrelevant and implausible. I've had so many people just link me to bullshit Youtube videos about stuff that Youtube is pretty much the online equivalent of the Daily Mail for me. Until I see it in another source I find it hard to believe simply from past experience, and whatever I see I view through a "This is going to be hugely exaggerated" filter. There seems to be a fast-and-loose way that people treat what limited facts there are about climate change too, in that stripped of context a lot of the statistics are a little misleading (e.g. just showing temperature variations from the last couple of decades, without including a broader range of temperatures to show how global temperatures have fluctuated, just to try and make a point). Much like Michael Moore documentaries tend to twist statistics to their own end in the same way that they criticise the government for doing, it makes it harder to believe or take interest in.

Maybe it's for the best as we're such bad custodians

You're probably not going to like the fact that I think our laziness is symptomatic of mental illness in the sense that we don't address such pressing matters. I think if you don't like that then perhaps its hitting a nerve. I know it does for me who, again, I will re-emphasise I am including within these criticisms. I don't think anybody is beyond the symptoms I'm describing although there are varying degrees within which one is caught up. It's unlikely than any of us can get substantially beyond it until there's a significant social movement to do so. Such a movement, I think, is grounded in knowing about what's happening even if that knowing contains ambivalence.

However, the kind of ambivalence you're referring to that makes a decision seem overwhelming is the method that has been applied to global warming by big business to protect its interests. I know you mean it in a different sense but as I mentioned before climate change deniers are often sponsored by individuals or businesses that would be harmed by addressing its causes. It does make it frustrating when its confusing and complex but given what the negative outcome could be its worth striving for. I don't think it's an excuse it just requires more effort. The broader your contextual understanding of world matters the easier it is to recognise patterns that offer, I believe, appropriate scepticism or belief.

Michael Moore is a bit of a numpty who embellishes his documentaries but there are people who are offering information that seems much more reliable and coherent and that offer strong arguments. I've offered a range of examples of serious efforts to offer a view of the world not centred around greed. I experience things on Facebook I don't go near but I find plenty that provides a good argument. I think that social networking in association with alternate forms of media are offering people the chance to become political again. Interestingly, prior to corporate media, there used to exist a radical press and people were far more political. People, several centuries ago, used to chip in to share newspapers that reported on matters that affected the working class. In other words their spare money and effort centred politics as an important process. The government went out of their way to destroy this representative press and tried to do so with stamp duties and the like and eventually did so. What followed was a less engaged and informed populace that was more easy to control. Newspapers either represented a Barron's interests or focused on base matters such as gossip. The internet is changing that which is, no doubt, why you have America developing methods of controlling and observing the internet more closely.

Regarding oil scarcity, there's good evidence this was a myth created essentially for profit. It's pretty logical how that would work. That possibility would not exist as some anomaly but would be consistent other goings on in the corporate world. Again, if one spends time researching this sort of thing, they will find ample strong evidence.

So yeah, this situation is one of wading through lots of disinformation, over inflated interpretations and so on but, I think, there are voices of reason and sanity if you spend the time looking on a continued basis.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

The problem with oil is not the scarcity but rather that the energy within what is left has passed the point where we can create an alternative with it.