U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-27-2012, 02:48 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641

Advertisements

Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

Claim: Rainwater should always have zero aluminum
Source: 05:20 Francis Mangels: "Should [aluminum] be in the rain? Absolutely not!"

Status: False. Since the Earth's crust is 8% aluminum, and soil varies between 2 and 30% aluminum, then windblown dust from soil and the weathering of rocks (often hundreds of miles away) will naturally contain aluminum. When it rains, the rain clears the skies of dust. Hence aluminum is expected in rainwater in varying, almost random amounts:
Source: A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE COMPOSITION OF PRECIPITATION IN S.E. ONTARIO, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967


Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

Last edited by plwhit; 08-27-2012 at 03:05 PM..

 
Old 08-27-2012, 02:51 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Default Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

  1. Claim: "Respiratory Mortality in the continental US has gone from 8th on the list to 3rd in just six years"
  2. Source: 00:09:26 Dane Wiginton:
    Status: False. Respiratory Mortality did move from 4th to 3rd, however the rate did not change, this was due to a decrease in the mortality from strokes.
    Reference: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db64.pdf
    Content from external source:


    Do leading causes of death change rank?
    Between 1980 and 2007, the three leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, and stroke) did not change in order of ranking. In 2008, however, chronic lower respiratory diseases replaced stroke as the third leading cause of death, and stroke fell to the fourth leading cause (6ranking order remains in 2009 (3). It is worth noting that because deaths from heart disease have tended to decrease throughout the 1980–2009 period, it is likely that at some point in the near future heart disease will no longer be the leading cause of death in the United States.) (Figure 6). This
    Figure 6. Age-adjusted death rates for leading causes of death: United States, 1999–2007 and preliminary 2008 and 2009


    NOTES: Rates are plotted on a logarithmic scale. Leading causes of death from 1999 through 2007 were, in order: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lowerrespiratory diseases. Leading causes of death for 2008 and 2009 were, in order: heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and stroke.SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.



    Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

Last edited by plwhit; 08-27-2012 at 03:04 PM..
 
Old 08-27-2012, 02:53 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Default Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

A new report analyzing global cloud cover pretty much debunks, in conjunction with other related data, the whole idea of a covert geoengineering program/increased cloudiness.

A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009

From the abstract:

An archive of land-based, surface-observed cloud reports has been updated and now spans 39 years from 1971 through 2009. Cloud-type information at weather stations is available in individual reports or in long-term, seasonal, and monthly averages. A shift to a new data source and the
automation of cloud reporting in some countries has reduced the number of available stations; however this dataset still represents most of the global land area. Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of -0.4 % per Decade.

Declining clouds in middle latitudes at high and middle levels appear responsible for this trend.


An analysis of zonal cloud cover changes suggests poleward shifts of the jet streams in both hemispheres. The observed displacement agrees with other studies.

So right in the heart of where they claim to have evidence that cloud cover has increased due to artificial clouds being made by "chemtrails", at high altitudes over the US (middle latitudes), there has actually been a measured decrease in cloud cover for the past 39 years. I'd say that completely blows speculation of geoengineering right out of the water.

Of note is Table 2 on page 29:

All units % / Century DJF MAM JJA SON ANNUAL
Fog -0 -0 -1 -0 -0
Stratus (St) -3 -3 -3 -4 -3
Stratocumulus (Sc) 2 2 2 2 2
Cumulus (Cu) 1 0 1 2 1
Cumulonimbus (Cb) 1 0 0 0 0
Nimbostratus (Ns) -1 -2 -2 -2 -2
Altostratus (As) -2 -2 -1 -2 -2
Altocumulus (Ac) 1 1 0 3 1
High (cirriform) -1 -7 -2 -3 -2
Total cloud cover -3 -7 -4 -4 -4
Clear sky (frequency) 1 4 0 2 2

Sorry about the formatting but notice that the frequency of clear skies over the course of a year has increased with a trend of 2%/century. So much for the claim that clear blue skies are rare today but were the norm in the past.

Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

Last edited by plwhit; 08-27-2012 at 03:04 PM..
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:00 PM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,938,655 times
Reputation: 1728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Indeed.

Laughing with...


Mircea



You're an health care worker?

You ought to seriously consider giving your license back to the State.

With respect to asthma, I guess it never occurred to you that the US is the only country where infants grow up on wall-to-wall carpet made of synthetic oil-based fibers or that central air/heat might have an impact.

Granted, you probably never saw the UN WHO report demonstrating that US children have higher rates of asthma than children born and raised in the dirtiest most polluted cities on Earth. Of course, those children don't have the benefit of synthetic oil-based carpet fibers, or central air/heat and even if they happen to have some form of carpeting, it's made from natural plant fibers or natural animal hairs.

I guess it also never occurred to you that the US is one of the few countries with oil in its food -- and that when oil is introduced to the US food supply 20 years ago in the form of oil-based artificial colorings, oil-based artificial flavorings and oil-based artificial preservatives -- not to mention that every single pharmaceutical introduced to the market since 1994 contains foreign imported light low-sulfur oil -- suddenly Americans get fat.

You are an health care worker, are you not? You do understand the function of the liver, and the enzymes produced by the liver, do you not?

I suppose it never donned on you that it was never intended for the liver to break down crude oils.

Okay, so mercury is in vaccines. Heavy metals in small doses/quantities are not harmful to humans.

You're body does require iron, manganese, chromium, molybdenum and other such metals, right?

The danger is when those levels are in toxic amounts. And no, I don't consider the EPA authoritative. According to the EPA regarding it's nonsense about lead, the US shouldn't even exist. Children in the 1700s played with lead toys covered in lead paint -- and they stuck those toys in their mouths, but it didn't result in a bunch of idiot freaks.

As an health care worker, you don't consider the fact that the change in the definition of autism results in an increased diagnosis of autism? You can't figure out that a change in the definition of manic-depressive disorder to "bi-polar" would result in an increase in the number of people "diagnosed" with "bi-polar."

If I define "tall people" as having at least 72" in height, and then I change the definition of "tall people to 68" inches in height, isn't the number of "tall people" going to increase? Of course, and it must be a conspiracy.....right? Shouldn't we make a video for Useless Tube?

Frightened....

Mircea



Why would I want to watch the documentary.

A few minutes into the documentary some blithering idiot claims there shouldn't be aluminum in rain-water.

That is junk science. Aluminum has always been in rain-water ever since the Earth existed. So have numerous other metals.

So the documentary is debunked as being based on junk science and not worth the time to watch.

It's not a conspiracy...it's geology.



Neither do you.

You don't understand the difference between a proposal and a completed act. The government proposed building neutron warheads, x-ray warheads and gamma-ray warheads...

...but in reality the government only developed, tested and deployed neutron warheads.

X-ray and gamma-ray warheads were never developed (or tested or deployed).



(Sigh), you don't even understand what you read.

Do you realize that "...30 miles above earth..." is 158,400 feet above Earth?

Do you know how many aircraft on Earth can cruise at 158,000 feet?

Um.....ZERO.

Do you understand that the flight altitude record was achieved in a MiG-25, and that it was about 125,000 feet?

Were you graduated by an high school? You ought to seriously consider giving that diploma back.

Still debunking...


Mircea
The only one promoting junk science is obviously you. I see the mainstream media has you wrapped around their fingers and you parrot their propaganda like a pro. Sad to see such gullibility in a person.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:09 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Default Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

So much for the elevated levels of aluminum in water because of chemtrail spraying....

Al, as a primary component of the earth's crust, is commonly used as a reference element in order to determine what proportion of particulates in atmosphere or rainwater samples are from "crustal origin" (i.e. airborne dust from the earth's surface), versus pollution from other sources.

An important paper along these lines (cited in a lot of later papers) appears to be this 1975 paper:

Duce, R.A., G.L. Hoffman, W.H. Zoller. 1975. Atmospheric Trace Metals at Remote Northern and Southern Hemisphere Sites: Pollution or Natural? Science 187(4171): 59-61.

Duce et al. found that Aluminum was the most abundant trace metal found in air samples (ranging from 8 to 370 nanograms per standard cubic meter). They proposed that since it was relatively abundant and well known to be an element originating from the earth's crust, its abundance in the atmosphere could be used to determine the proportion of other elements that came from the earth's crust, versus from other sources such as industrial pollution - which they called the "enrichment factor" (EFcrust)
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:14 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,685,018 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
The only one promoting junk science is obviously you. I see the mainstream media has you wrapped around their fingers and you parrot their propaganda like a pro. Sad to see such gullibility in a person.
So thats it? Not interested in addressing what he said about aluminum occurring naturally or that planes are not flying 30 miles above the earth? Nah, why reply to something debunking your evidence when you can just throw out some random blather about the mainstream media having him wrapped around their finger.

I vote you put the entire forum on ignore. That'll show 'em.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:15 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
The only one promoting junk science is obviously you. I see the mainstream media has you wrapped around their fingers and you parrot their propaganda like a pro. Sad to see such gullibility in a person.
I've noticed that when you run out of fantasies to post you devolve into name calling and similar posts to the above.

Does this mean this charade at science will come to an end?
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
9,033 posts, read 8,715,673 times
Reputation: 5665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
The only one promoting junk science is obviously you. I see the mainstream media has you wrapped around their fingers and you parrot their propaganda like a pro. Sad to see such gullibility in a person.
So why not provide a scientifically valid, point-by-point refutation? If the facts are as self-evident as you seem to think, you should have no trouble doing that.
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:30 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Ten minutes to destroy over sixty minutes worth of garbage...


Chemtrail Debunking: "What In The World Are They Spraying?" (Nothing at all) - YouTube
 
Old 08-27-2012, 03:35 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,376,698 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Michael J. Murphy, the producer of "Why In The World Are They Spraying" posted this image on his Facebook page on July 5th, 2012. He also added this comment to a shared copy of the image:

"This is a screen shot of a graphic in our soon to be release film Why in the World are They Spraying?"

He claims it's a "chemtrail", but it's just a plane (probably a Boeing 747) dumping fuel. We can tell this because the location and shape of the trails looks exactly like those in known photos and videos of 747s dumping fuel

Michael J. Murphy LIES! - Debunked- Wingtip Chemtrails - YouTube
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top