杏吧原创

I鈥檝e spent a lot of time debunking silly conspiracy claims in my time. , the , a mysterious planet named would wipe out life on Earth in 2003, the government created that wouldn鈥檛 melt and scorched when burned鈥� I鈥檝e even debunked .

So when I say I haven鈥檛 bothered debunking chemtrails because they鈥檙e too goofy even for me, you can glean how I really feel about them.

Still, a handful of people are extremely devoted to the idea that the government is spraying us with chemicals from planes, and what you think are simple contrails are actually high doses of mind-altering (or climate altering) chemical compounds meant to keep us under control, I mean, come on, wake up sheeple!

Sigh.

Just water vapour

In fact, when you see clouds coming from planes . But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy?

Still, it鈥檚 worth trying. That鈥檚 why scientists from the University of California, Irvine, and the Carnegie Institute .

They knew they wouldn鈥檛 convince the conspiracy theorists, but having a solid source of objective science might help inform the public discourse.

Given how anti-science so many members of the US Congress can be, I don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any idea too silly for them to not take seriously.

They surveyed hundreds of experts in contrails as well as those who study atmospheric deposition (how various chemicals fall to the ground from the air), presenting them with the evidence provided on various chemtrail websites (mostly in the form of photos of plane trails and analyses of water and soil samples), asking them to evaluate it.

No evidence

In the end, 77 scientists reported back, and the results were not terribly surprising. 98.7 per cent (76 out of 77) of the scientists said they had encountered no evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric programme (SLAP). Everything they saw on the conspiracy websites showed that what they were seeing was the natural consequence of planes flying around all on their own without government nefariousness.

Of course, the first thing you鈥檒l notice is the one scientist who dissented. In that case, it鈥檚 hardly a smoking gun: The one participant who answered yes said the evidence they had come across was 鈥渉igh levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 鈥榣ow鈥� soil barium鈥�.

In other words, they found some unusually high amounts of barium, which hardly supports the idea of wide-spread cover-ups of mind control techniques 鈥� and it sounds like the scientist in question was simply saying they can鈥檛 rule SLAP out, which is a very different thing from saying it鈥檚 real. When I can鈥檛 find my keys in the morning I can鈥檛 rule out that dinosaur ghosts hid them from me. It just seems a tad unlikely.

Walk away

The research is actually rather interesting, and I encourage you to read it. But as the authors note, it won鈥檛 make a dent in the conspiracy theories. The first thing you鈥檒l find out when you deal with people like that is that any evidence against them is part of the cover-up. This is what I call a philosophical cul-de-sac; they鈥檝e removed themselves from any possible evidence and criticism, and at that point I鈥檝e learned to walk away.

At least to walk away from them specifically; in some cases it鈥檚 worth pursuing the discussion with the public because they鈥檙e liable to hear about it, and a place to find actual facts and debunking is a handy thing to make available.

So I鈥檓 glad these scientists went to the effort, even though it may seem silly. Conspiracy theorists usually don鈥檛 make a big splash in real life, but if they get the ear of a politician, time, money, and effort can indeed be wasted 鈥� sometimes on a big scale. Given how anti-science so many members of Congress can be, I don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any idea too silly for them to not take seriously.

If Congresscritters think , that i, that , and that , then chemtrails don鈥檛 seem like that much of a stretch.

This article was first published by