SunflierHouse committee advances bill to ban chemtrails
until they decide enforcement means no contrails at all and suddenly they’ve found a new and exciting way to economically ruin the country.
The Secret Warming Effect of Contrails
Contrails are mostly water vapour that’s condensed due to the hot exhaust of airplane engines.
They are certainly not completely avoidable, they are likely inescapable without sacrificing significant fuel efficiencies (eg: all methods stealth fighters use to suppress or mask their exhaust heat signature)… which would negate any benefits to global warming.
P. s. I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
The linked one is a short video with a duration of 02:37. There’s no padding in this one. Naturally, you can’t actually get all of the nuances of the full-duration video, which also can’t cover the full nuances of the study itself that it’s based on (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64355-5).
Pop science videos making studies accessible to the general public are good, actually. I recommend that you stop being dismissive of them. Had you actually put in the time, you wouldn’t have posted things that are in direct contradiction with the latest science on the subject, spreading misinformation in the process.
I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase “I prefer”. I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It’s a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn’t extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
1: User actually said “contrails are completely avoidable”. 2: I said that’s factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don’t want to watch videos for science news, that’s clear - but I don’t care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We’re in the comments section on a ‘nottheonion’ news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y’know… wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
note the use of the phrase “I prefer”
Nah. Let’s note what you actually said, not this attempt at softening it. Someone posted a video link, and you said:
I’m not going to watch a YouTube video that could be a few paragraphs of textual explanation, because it’ll no doubt be eight times longer than it needs to be for the benefit of more ad money or promotion in the almighty algorithm.
You pompously and wrongly dismissed it. It was short. It was highly informational. It did not drag on or exhort you to smash the like button. You made an assumption, you were confidently wrong, and we all got to hear a mini lecture about the sins of the video format.
You tell me to educate myself about logical fallacies while misusing ad hominem. So here’s that education you were talking about.
I don’t try to discredit your argument about contrails by attacking you. I’ve not engaged you at all about contrails. I’ve said that your behavior, right here, right in front of me, was haughty and foolish, and it was. There is no straw man there. There is argument via ad hominem there.
So once again: pomposity followed by being confidently wrong.
If you can’t handle being called out for your bullshit, don’t open your mouth in public. This is not some vendetta on my part, it’s how the internet works.
Lovely that I don’t have to deal with another pompous reply from you. I’ll be having that wonderful life while you give me that silent downvote just to let me know you read this.