George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, Mick one can detect aerosols in the air (troposphere and the stratosphere) the key is can you determine the sources of the aerosols and their effect on global warming. . . .
Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
Yes, Mick one can detect aerosols in the air (troposphere and the stratosphere) the key is can you determine the sources of the aerosols and their effect on global warming. . . .
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
George, I suggest you read this educational document more than once. It is info on the well-established science of the our atmosphere.
You can even skip the test at the end of each chapter.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U2.htm
Consider it as keeping an objective view on your theory.
When you are finished, please consider the enormous naturally occurring complexity of the atmosphere. Yes, I know, contrails are not natural, however, the physics of the process is.
You can even skip the test at the end of each chapter.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U2.htm
Consider it as keeping an objective view on your theory.
When you are finished, please consider the enormous naturally occurring complexity of the atmosphere. Yes, I know, contrails are not natural, however, the physics of the process is.
George has a thick skin, but for future reference:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) I am not ignorant of atmospheric science. . .
2) I may not be the best scientist to ever have lived but I am aware of the scientific method and how it is used. . .
3) I do not believe that persistent contrails and the contrail induced cirrus cloud banks are chemtrails . . .
4) I do believe geoengineering using sulfur species injected into the stratosphere is a possible short term answer for global warming and may have been used for such a purpose. . . .
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
George, I've removed the ignorant comment. My apologies if I offended anyone.
Post #79 indicates you do not have a clear understanding of the upper atmosphere.
It was my understanding that Geoengineering and chemtrails go hand-in-hand. I have reread all five pages of this thread and without outright saying you believe in chemtrails, you've surely defended the conspiracy with your arguments. Devils advocate maybe.
I still strongly recommend reading the document I posted. I did, it is very informative.
Post #79 indicates you do not have a clear understanding of the upper atmosphere.
It was my understanding that Geoengineering and chemtrails go hand-in-hand. I have reread all five pages of this thread and without outright saying you believe in chemtrails, you've surely defended the conspiracy with your arguments. Devils advocate maybe.
I still strongly recommend reading the document I posted. I did, it is very informative.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) What part of #79 are you citing as my non-clear understanding of the atmosphere . . . ?
2) As far as chemtrail Conspiracy advocates . . . and my complicity . . . I am pointing out where they get their misunderstandings, their distrust of authority, and my belief that an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program using sulfur compounds injected into the stratosphere is possible . . .
3) And after months of discussion and debunking by MetaBunk I have not changed my mind . . .
lotek
Active Member
Given the Mass of said sulfur compounds, the size of an airplane, max payload, the size of photographed chemtrails, particle density required for light obfuscation seen(opacity), how do you propose such a mass of substance is transported and delivered into the sky?
I am curious how a plane can carry a payload with a mass greater than it's own.
let alone produced commercially without being noticed in global pricing of said sulfur compounds?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think this Thread explains most of it . . . https://www.metabunk.org/threads/66...-Covert-Atmospheric-Aerosol-Injection-Program
By - the - way, visibility with the human eye has little to nothing to do with using sulfur compounds injected into the stratosphere to alter the rate of global warming . . .
If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program
Last edited by a moderator:
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
I may have misinterpreted what you were saying it seemed you were in agreement with Jazzy. Regardless as long as you understand the troposhere comes first then the tropopause then the stratosphere, we can disregard my previous comment. I had to reread post number 79 about 5 times to figure out the context of your statement. the jet stream reside in the upper level Of the troposphere, Jazzys comment was incorrect.
lotek
Active Member
never said it did, merely it's viability in determining density of the 'aerosol'
Cairenn
Senior Member.
The simple fact is, is that there is NOTHING to indicate that it has been going on. There would be large shipments of sulfur needed at some sort of a processing plant. It would need to be shipped someway. Then you need to build the plant--what happened to the folks that built it? Then the processed sulfur has to be shipped to the airbases.
Some where, some one would ask questions.
Could me and such are nonsense, when there is no facts to back it up.
I can make a better case for Big Foot.
Some where, some one would ask questions.
Could me and such are nonsense, when there is no facts to back it up.
I can make a better case for Big Foot.
lotek
Active Member
using the word sulfur here is bad. its SO2 and H2S which are two of the most insidious poisonous gases you can deal with. two reaction gases i never let form in my home lab unless its unavoidable. i have gotten a dose from sodium metabisulfate sanitizer solution decomposed in a sealed pressure tank once. was awful vomited in my lawn. from a very minor amount. the feeling of sulfuric acid forming in your sinus and lungs... mmmmm.
where are the pictures of rust? we seem to get tons of pics of everything else.
wonder how many DOT corrosive high pressure tanker trucks make regular deliveries to every commercial airport from which these grid pattern producing chemtrail spraying planes are taking off which seems to be every airport in every town in every state.......
but this is kind of aside the point.
where are the pictures of rust? we seem to get tons of pics of everything else.
wonder how many DOT corrosive high pressure tanker trucks make regular deliveries to every commercial airport from which these grid pattern producing chemtrail spraying planes are taking off which seems to be every airport in every town in every state.......
but this is kind of aside the point.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Sulfur also makes silver tarnish very quickly. Years ago, the site where an event was was on the shores of a lake. All the folks on the site, disturbed the fire ants and they were everywhere. I had taken my husky with me and he awakened me in the night screaming from ant bites. I ended up taking him into the shower (and he hated water also) to try to get them off of him.
The only thing we could use on our camping/merchant area was sulfur. Every silver item we had had to be re-polished the next week. One weekend and within a week, it was black.
If there were a lot of sulfur being added to the atmosphere, we would see more tarnishing than we do.
The only thing we could use on our camping/merchant area was sulfur. Every silver item we had had to be re-polished the next week. One weekend and within a week, it was black.
If there were a lot of sulfur being added to the atmosphere, we would see more tarnishing than we do.
lotek
Active Member
i dunno about that. i actually think the amounts states here are tiny to see any effect vs amounts produces annually naturally and by humans. a very optimistic pdf indeed. forget the barium/Al tests. wheres the soil acidification due to acid rain? etching on buildings? or does it not mix down? and if thats the case then how can that be reconciled with cters saying they can taste the shit?
GB's pdf says 1.38m short tons is enough. so lets see. to simplify ill use just usa and china. in 2004 china produces 22.5 million short tons. in 2008 usa let off about 12 million short tons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/b...5088partner=rssnytemc=rss&pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_...program=dataprog.national_1.sas&polchoice=SO2
am i to assume the gross difference is in the altitude of emissions? seems 7% at least from volcanoes is physically ejected into the stratosphere, let alone mixing.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/bate1229/estimate.shtml
i also dont really get how sulfur compounds can be a contributor to global warming, yet also be used to drastically reverse it due to altitude or placement. however its 130 am and i have not looked into that,
GB's pdf says 1.38m short tons is enough. so lets see. to simplify ill use just usa and china. in 2004 china produces 22.5 million short tons. in 2008 usa let off about 12 million short tons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/b...5088partner=rssnytemc=rss&pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_...program=dataprog.national_1.sas&polchoice=SO2
am i to assume the gross difference is in the altitude of emissions? seems 7% at least from volcanoes is physically ejected into the stratosphere, let alone mixing.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/bate1229/estimate.shtml
i also dont really get how sulfur compounds can be a contributor to global warming, yet also be used to drastically reverse it due to altitude or placement. however its 130 am and i have not looked into that,
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sulfur compounds or species "Term" is used because there are so many chemical combinations with a wide variation of activity and uses . . . The proposals published for sulfur injection never clearly state exactly how it is to be manged; however, sulfur compounds are one the most common industrial products shipped throughout the world . . . usually shipped very safely as Oleum. . . massive amounts of Oleum shipped most anywhere would hardly raise an eyebrow. . . .
As an intermediate for transportation
Oleum is a useful form for transporting sulfuric acid compounds, typically in rail tankcars, between oil refineries (which produce various sulfur compounds as a byproduct of refining) and industrial consumers.
Certain compositions of oleum are solid at room temperature, and thus are safer to ship than when liquid. Solid oleum can then be converted into liquid at the destination through steam heating or dilution or concentration. This requires some care to prevent overheating and evaporation of sulfur trioxide. To extract it from a tank car requires careful heating using steam conduits within the tank car. Great care must be taken to avoid overheating, as this can increase the internal pressure within the tank car to a value exceeding the limit of the tank's safety valve.
In addition, oleum is less corrosive to metals than sulfuric acid, because there is no free water to attack the surfaces. [2] Because of that, sulfuric acid is sometimes concentrated to oleum for in-plant pipelines and then diluted back to acid for use in industrial reactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleum
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The overall amount diluted in the atmosphere is very small. . . it would be no different than a volcanic eruption about 1/10 the size of Mt Pinatubo . . .
Stratospheric sulfur injection computer models doubling, or more, the sulfur concentrations needed to change the climate has shown little or no harm to the ecosystems due to acid rain and dry deposition. . . .
First paragraph & Line 157 of conclusion . . . Important study indicates acid deposition would not harm environment ( up to 5Tg in tropics and 3TG in Arctic )
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/aciddeposition7.pdf
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Just some facts. . . .
Conventional wisdom indicates (SO2) in the stratosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. . . . aircraft is felt to contribute around 1% I believe. . . .
Page 2.40 http://ozone.unep.org/pdf/07-Chapter2.pdf
" The source for SO2 consists mostly of anthropogenic sources from fossil fuel use (~70 Tg (S) yr–1), with volcanic outgassing (including small eruptions) and biomass burning con- tributing 8-20 Tg (S) yr–1 (Graf et al., 1997; Andres and Kasgnoc, 1998) and 2.5 Tg (S) yr–1 (Hao et al., 1990), respectively. Note that portions of the latter sources are deposited directly into the free troposphere and can reach the stratosphere more efficiently. The amount of sulfur emitted by aviation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere was estimated to be 0.06 Tg (S) yr–1 in 1992 (see Fahey and Schumann et al., 1999). The Mt. Pinatubo eruption is estimated to have injected 20 Tg (S) directly into the lower stratosphere."
page 2.43
"Kjellström et al. (1999) estimated that aircraft emissions contribute less than 1% of the total sulfate mass in regions of high air traffic."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My thoughts . . . reduce contrails to reduce warming potential or increase the reflection of short wave radiation back into space (geoengineering) are coming or have already been implemented . . . I put money on it . . .
Good article on geoengineering cost analysis, etc for sulfur injection . . .
Good article on geoengineering cost analysis, etc for sulfur injection . . .
Geoengineering Could Be Essential to Reducing the Risk of Climate Change
Using technology to cool the planet may be the only way to deal with the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, argues scientist David Keith.
http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ntial-to-reducing-the-risk-of-climate-change/
Keith and some of his colleagues recently hired engineers to estimate how much one approach to sulfate injection might work, and how much it might cost. It could be done at first with existing airplanes—certain business jets can fly high enough to inject the particles into the upper atmosphere. Eventually we would need new planes that can fly higher. All in all, once the procedure is scaled up it would cost about a billion dollars a year and require about 100 aircraft. That’s cheap enough for most countries to pull off on their own.
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
[/QUOTE]
That study is hypothetical and untested. What is the delivery method? I didn't see that in the paper.
It also states the arctic latitudes and mid latitude waterways would be negatively affected. Line 116, 155, and 161. Or that those areas were areas of uncertainty.
It seems to me the cost of such an experiment would be prohibitive and would definitely be noticed
[/QUOTE]
First paragraph & Line 157 of conclusion . . . Important study indicates acid deposition would not harm environment ( up to 5Tg in tropics and 3TG in Arctic )
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/aciddeposition7.pdf
That study is hypothetical and untested. What is the delivery method? I didn't see that in the paper.
It also states the arctic latitudes and mid latitude waterways would be negatively affected. Line 116, 155, and 161. Or that those areas were areas of uncertainty.
It seems to me the cost of such an experiment would be prohibitive and would definitely be noticed
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is the study. . . .
Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf
2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.
For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.
A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:
x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year
x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year
x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year
:coffee4:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
First paragraph & Line 157 of conclusion . . . Important study indicates acid deposition would not harm environment ( up to 5Tg in tropics and 3TG in Arctic )
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/aciddeposition7.pdf
Noticed. . . I am not sure about that . . . However, all proposals and studies are untested in general. . . the cost is well within the reach of any G20 nation and many multi-national corporations. . . also is should be remembered that a decision to engage in geoengineering might have been made and implemented years ago when even the less information about side effects was known. . . sort of like the decision to detonate the hydrogen bomb, etc. . . risks yes . . . but what if we don't?
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
Interesting but its still just a study. They even state they don't really have a feasible aircraft and propose the cost of r&d for a special aircraft. The service ceiling of a Boeing 747-400 is 43,000. It would be very difficult to seed the stratosphere at that altitude, if not impossible. The study was proposed in 2010, I can't imagine anything being attempted for another 10-20 years, strictly speaking from a technology standpoint. If you consider the environmental impact, largely unknown, I see it never being attempted.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I see it from a different perspective. . . the information and knowledge now is not what the mind think was much earlier. . . the amount of Sulfur need to nudge the climate was thought to be as little as one million to two million tons . . . and the ability to inject it at low stratospheric altitudes was still possible in the northern latitudes. . . . 35,000 feet plus. . . . the decision makers were cold war and WWII stalwarts. . . . They didn't believe in sitting on ones hands when something could be done. . . ala SDI. . . Dr Edward Teller of LLNL is a prime example. . . .By-the-way many technically suboptimal missions have been engaged despite the dangers and unknowns . . . for example, 1969 . . . landing on the moon for one . . .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
George has been made aware numerous times of the known limitations of that Aurora study which continued to mention 747's even though it is easily seen that they do not even come close to satisfying the altitude requirements for effective geoengineering. That part of the study is a bad example of how a contractor can stretch the fine print of feasibility to suit his own purposes and make some money putting out worthless proposals. David Keith knew better and should have rejected inclusion of a non-viable option in the study.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jay, Allow David Keith speak for himself . . .David Keith on the Australian ABC . . .
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...2/s3639096.htm
Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.
David Keith, thanks for joining us.
DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.
TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?
DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions.
TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?
DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.
The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research.
And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.
TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?
DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.
TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?
DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, "What's the very most likely thing to work right now?" that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.
So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we'd be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.
TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?
DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.
So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don't think we should - I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.
TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably - if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there'd be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you'd actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.
How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?
DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn't happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Sort of exactly the reverse of breathing sodium oxide smoke, known in the chemical industry as "Stife". That is also fun, as the first thing it does is completely paralyze respiration. One could be the cure for the other, of course.
Jay, you're wasting your time with a bag of feed in your hand.
lotek
Active Member
okay so besides the paper saying the use of so2 and h2s, they would use oleum, so where are the oleum to so2/h2s conversion plants at every commercial airport from which these grid pattern producing chemtrail spraying planes are taking off which seems to be every airport in every town in every state.......
"The overall amount diluted in the atmosphere is very small. . ."
very small indeed. less than 1/20th the annual emissions. i still dont get that part.
optimistic pdf..
"The overall amount diluted in the atmosphere is very small. . ."
very small indeed. less than 1/20th the annual emissions. i still dont get that part.
optimistic pdf..
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The oleum is converted simply by adding heat . . . my guess is this can be done probably most efficiently in flight . . . heating elements within the storage containers . . . differences in air pressure would force the liquid and or gaseous oleum from the aircraft into the stratosphere . . . passively using the speed, drain size and possibly other technology using ceramic or ceramic lined conduits . . .
The number of dedicated heavy lift aircraft is tiny . . . estimated from anywhere from nine to a few dozen . . . flying daily for less than 300 days each year from one to eight airfields . . . again one good volcanic eruption can put much more SO2 than would be needed to alter global warming . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes . . . so if atmospheric scientists could cause just the right volcanic eruption at just the right duration and just the correct amount of injected SO2 into the stratosphere the use of other means would not be necessary . . . however, don't think we are there yet . . . and this is also a reason that any geoengineering scheme must use a strategy that allows for a rapid reaction to such an event . . . one can only nudge the climate . . . a ball ping hammer approach is ill advised . . .
Three aircraft in military formation doing what exactly?
Three aircraft in military formation doing what exactly?
Jay Reynolds is a US American military contractor and denialista extraordinaire, in there right from the off.....
Such denials are his: that 'former' nazis never populated NASA (never heard of SS Colonel Werner von Braun, apparently); that 'The US is the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' (with no irony intended); and 'You can't have what we have - there's more of us than you'. Not so much a denial as a sneer, admittedly. And we should remember the GMO corn he grew on his 'organic' farm.
I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
Ascending then? Why do you think that?
Climb the pyramid lee. You know the deal.
It's your pyramid, not mine. And every word is factual.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jazzy
Closed Account
So when the ocean acidifies and the phytoplankton die, and the forests acidify and they die too, exactly where are we going to get the oxygen we need to live, on this cooled planet?
"They" aren't secretly hiding the delivery of SO2 to the atmosphere, WE ARE ALL publicly burning it in our fossil fuels, George. Your "disinformation" harms us all. Including yourself. All else self-censored.
Similar threads
