That which we do not understand we mock.
Debunking Chemtrails was a fb page itself debunked by two events: the former CIA Director acknowledging that such a program could alter the status of greenhouse effect carbon emmisions, and the publication of a report by CBS, from October, 2018 (updated in December of the same year) that reported on the program to which the former CIA Director was referring. In that report, a Harvard professor echoes the sentiments, after having experimented with Chemtrails on a smaller scale than the CIA would have at its disposal.
The criticism of "Chemtrail Loons" should have died, right then.
That criticism often took the form of hair splitting, and cherry picking of the former CIA chiefs speech. While true, he said, "......programs like (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) could be used to alter the effect of greenhouse gases ..." The sheeple at Debunking Chemtrails, and similar orgs, claimed that the usage of the qualifying term, "could", applied specifically to the Stratospheric Aerosol Injection program, and that it does not (yet) exist, but, someday perhaps it will.
How could a program, that doesn't exist, be able to possibly do..... ANYTHING?
That, like most Metabunk and Snopes crap, is the whole of their "proof".
It is wrong on two factors.
1) the program that "could" change the weather has to already exist, in order for the use of the word, "program" to both make sense, and to have any relationship to his experiences as a guy with any authority on the subject.
A janitor could speak of non existent programs and be as relevant, under the illogical conclusions made by Metabunk, and Debunking Chemtrails the FB page.
2) Cherry picking: Metabunk (and by extension, Debunking Chemtrails, the FB page) mention a lot of unrelated statements made by the former CIA Director, and they do so by the use of these inappropriate syllogisms. What that means is clear in this made up example.
A: the sky is blue.
B: grass is green.
C: neither of those statements are about color.
D: color has nothing to do with biology
The evidence concluding that Chemtrails do not exist, as put forth by the would-be debunkers, are conclusions that are based on evidence cherry picked from the CIA Director's speech, and applied under both the Fallacy of the Fourth Fact, and the Fallacy of Too Much Information. The fallacious Fourth Fact that the would-be, "debunkers" arrive upon, is that Global Warming is real; when the argument was never about Global Warming.
Their argument is literally this:
A: SAI isn't real because it doesn't exist
B: The CIA Director said it might someday alter the climate
C: People who cite his speech as a confession are wrong
D: Global Warming is real. (The fallacious fourth fact)
This is an example of both the, "too much information" fallacy, and the "fallacy of the Fourth fact", in operation.
Global Warming exists, is a true statement, to some degree. But the fact it is, it is unrelated information, as it appears in their argument, and is illogical in this usage. It appears to identify and associate "Chemtrail Loons" with "Global Warming deniers". Global Warming is real: but it is not caused by man. Associating their cause, that Chemtrails do not exist, with Global Warming, is an illogical attribution that seems to place Chemtrail believers into the same category as Global Warming deniers. But, that's another argument. However, it has other than the intended effect in most cases. This one being no exception.
For part B: of their illogical syllogism, (The CIA Director said that SAI might someday change the climate) the "debunkers" have attributed their agenda into his words, and not what he has literally said. He did not deny that this program exists. All he did say was that perhaps the program will net some positive results in the issue of global warming. But he made no such denial of SAI. To the contrary, he defined just exactly what SAI's planners intend to achieve.
The debunkers are engaging in a fine example of cherry picking, as well as how Snopes, and other, similarly related orgs, ply the propaganda trade.
As discussed above, he refers to the RESULTS of a program as being able to possibly alter the environment. He made no such denial about the PROGRAM. Only it's possible results.
Specifically, he DID say that that the results of the program may someday succeed in altering the weather.
Therefore, the speech itself was cherry picked for the agenda that they pursued.
3)Chemtrails, and the program to which the former director was referring, were both proven to be true by an October 2018 CBS report that quoted a Harvard professor claiming that the technology would work. How does he know? He made some Chemtrails. Granted, he used balloons, because Harvard doesn't own fleets of cargo aircraft..... Thus, Harvard funded a study of aerosol injections by launching balloons. They don't have the budget the CIA has. There are also studies where 1 out of 77 scientists agrees that the samples showing high levels of Barium, in areas chemtrails are occuring with regular frequency, could be explained by the chemtrail conspiracy. 76 did not. However, until his confirming this, the scientific community cited, "unscientific sample storage" as an example of why the levels were so high. This opens the door for more examination.
At any rate, chemtrail deniers have been proven wrong. These experiments are just now becoming public, and God only knows what information the CIA learned from its deployments of experimental particulates, and is retaining as classified data. What is true is that there are both multiple nations experimenting with particulates, as well as private organizations who are experimenting with particulates.
Writing Chemtrails off as, "lunacy" is becoming more, and more difficult a sell.
But, we already knew the Chemtrail Deniers were not entirely correct by their use of logical fallacy. The Brennan speech that metabunk deconstructed tends to reveal a former CIA director who can't, for whatever reason, verify his personal knowledge that particulate injection works. He clearly believes it will, though. This could only be an opinion derived from having seen so, for himself.
The evidence is indisputable at this time. All the Chemtrail Loons were actually correct. Turns out, they weren't so Looney as to look truth in the face and ridicule it..... I wonder why some people ridiculed them, after all, they did not ask to be the subjects of debate and Facebook pages, they merely asked not to be ignored.
What some men may call science others may feel the need to objectify in social media platforms. But, the ones who were telling the truth will still be speaking of something that they have experienced. While those whom haven't experienced it may fall victim to the dishonest pursuits of others, whose motivations may lie beneath a darker intention. The CBS story will only appeal to those whom have experienced this by having seen it, or felt its effects. It isn't going to cite events, more than to validate that the experiments are taking place.
While those who haven't seen, nor felt the effects of chemtrails, may still pursue the objectification of others, we ought not join with them in the relegation of the great number of people whom continue to witness this now-proven fact.
This is a NASA plane spraying tracer chemicals in order to study vortices. Often used to disprove Chemtrails, actually, this proves that yes, the US government sprays stuff from planes. That settles it.