Ok I think I see the points that we are stuck on.
Let’s set aside the topic of epistemology (TOK) Any argument can be derailed by introducing the aspect of theory of knowledge and taking it to a purely philosophical place about what we can know and how know/truth can be determined. It hasn't been settled in all of human history and it may never be. Philosophy is almost as useless as religion when used this way. So if the question is whether or not something is rational, it’s a useless question because unless your reasoning includes a logical system that can be demonstrated true or false, it’s all completely subjective.
Heres the main problem, I failed to note your (Ross) definition of "Chemtrails", "Chemtrails are quantities of particulate matter released into the air by air planes in order to counteract effects of global warming"
This is not at all what Chemtrail means to me. My impression is that the majority of people think;
1. Commercial airliners are spraying these substances.
2. Chemtrails form persistent contrails that seed cloud formation (the H2SO4 shouldn't do this, being an ion it will cause other micro scale particles to clump to it including water vapor in the right condition but it also binds to other particles and the two forms of bonded pairs of sulfur and h2o ions compete making a constantly changing balance of ions (like the classic glass of water example from chemistry class) which does not seed cloud formation in the lower troposphere. Basically is you spray it in the upper stratosphere, then it could make sheets of clouds and would have a good effect of reflecting heat but it would be way better to spray it much higher, like upper stratosphere both for ensuring it is effective at causing nucleation and for multiple other reasons, some related to the topic of mixing. At low elevations, like all the pictures of “chemtrails”, H2SO4 is not thought to seed clouds or contrails Search: Quantum Mechanical Study of Sulfuric Acid Hydration: Atmospheric Implications).
3. Persistent, or regular contrails, near airports/at low elevations are "chemtrails. (this couldn't be since it would be a complete waste of the acid, you want to spray it at the upper altitude limits of conventional aircraft) This goes back to the topic of mixing.
4. Many people don’t agree on the goal of the spraying, I believe Kristen Meghan started off in the "spraying to make only gmo crops growable" camp and has now switched.
I have no idea what your position is? You think that what Keith describes is happing? You think it is likely happing? You think it’s reasonable to say it could be happening? You somehow combine what Keith is discussing with a common(s) variation of “chemtrail” theory?
Your def of chemtrails is extremely weird. Most people seem to think they are related to contrails. Your definition includes non-anthropogenic increases of atmospheric H2SO4 from sources like geologic activity. If volcanos count as “chemtrails” then I guess they are pretty hard to deny.
“.If you must distribute a chemical evenly for it to be uniform in the atmosphere, then you're bound to have different concentrations at different spots in the atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric mixing. “
This doesn’t make sense in the form of an if/then stamen like you wrote it. It is not because; “you must distribute a chemical evenly for it to be uniform in the atmosphere” that: you're bound to have different concentrations at different spots in the atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric mixing. “
I think what you are trying to say is maybe that since atmospheric mixing causes not only a general mixing of the atmosphere, like its name implies, but also creates eddies of poorly mixed atmosphere but I’m really reaching for that. It does nothing to counter any of my statements on the topic. You are not factoring in time and elevation of application, like I already mentioned. It doesn't make much sense to go in depth further on any point until I can actually understand your position.
“As for the critical thinking line, I just like to use different word phrases to describe things.
Emotional? Hardly. Sarcastic? Totally.”
But if you use definitions for words/terms that only you know then you aren't communicating very effetely.
The tone of post 22 was not emotional, Really? Are sarcastic and emotional mutuality exclusive? I think they are actually often associated, as in passive aggressive and sarcastic. I don’t care, you seem cool. I shouldn’t have pointed it out in the first place. Sorry.
I haven’t read past post #33 yet. I have a feeling that we are of the same opinion on this somehow and this format isn’t great for the conversation. The way you described Joes position in post #2 is about how I think of it, depending on the version of chemtrails we’re talking about.
Bookmarks