I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

I have a scenario to share that I think could work to explain how a geo-engineering scheme could have been in place for several years at least on an experimental level . . . with very few people involved . . .

1) It is based on an analysis of the sulfur content of jet fuel, the fuel's source, the research accomplished in the literature, etc.
2) I will start by saying that one can use the existing maximum allowable sulfur content of jet fuel as it exists and get a significant contribution to mitigating global warming . . .
3) It is estimated that the average sulfur content of jet fuel is between 500 and 1,000 ppm (Page 12 http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document/aviation_tech_review.pdf )
4) Simply by raising the sulfur content of jet fuel to the maximum allowable (3,000 ppm) or even a little higher (3,500 ppm plus) to jet fuel used in the worlds aircraft . . . for the sake of argument let's assume 3,000 ppm can be added on top of the expected minimum average of 500 ppm . . . we have a real solid start on cooling the earth . . .
5) This would be 0.3 percent of all jet by volume in the world ( Total: 217,835,274ton as of 2006 . . .
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm ) wrong link . . . I will correct later . . .


I will finish this tomorrow . . . good night . . .

 

[MikeC]

4) Simply by raising the sulfur content of jet fuel to the maximum allowable (3,000 ppm) or even a little higher (3,500 ppm plus) to jet fuel used in the worlds aircraft . . . for the sake of argument let's assume 3,000 ppm can be added on top of the expected minimum average of 500 ppm . . . we have a real solid start on cooling the earth . . .

Yes - I know - I posted as much here - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread806120/pg3#pid13413605

 

[Noble1965]

I have no doubt that your information is correct . . . however, I do know this person personally and know he is what he says he is . . . I asked him to respond to this Forum in person but the individual is reluctant for the obvious reasons . . . he does not want his identity to be connected with the conspiracy . . . like a lot of professional people . . . I have no such issues myself but I have to respect the people that do . . .

I'll ask again...Is it John Lear? You have brought him up at GLP along with the same claims.

Either way...if it is/or isn't him...do you actually know this person "personally", or have you met someone on a website claiming to be a pilot, or John Lear...?

If it is John Lear, he has great reason not to want to be connected with ANOTHER odd conspiracy which has no facts to support it...

If it is John Lear...he is NOT a typical pilot...Not that it really matters...

 

[Noble1965]

1) It is based on an analysis of the sulfur content of jet fuel, the fuel's source, the research accomplished in the literature, etc.

Blah blah blah...

edited to save space...by request

So, now we can establish that you "believe" the main culprit must be Sulfur...correct?

 

[George B]

Yes - I know - I posted as much here - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread806120/pg3#pid13413605

Good we agree at least on one thing. . . But to maintain secrecy . . . How?? . . . So the fly in the ointment is the testing regime and refinery game which is actually more controllable . . . Can the increase within allowable maximum sulfur content be ignored, concealed, controlled, manipulated or suppressed.? . . How many people would know and need to be controlled and in how many places.?. . this part of the game I don't know. . .

However, overall this is the most cost effective and easily manipulated strategy I can imagine to accomplish geo-engineering on the sly. . . . it would involve the smallest number of people . . .

 

[George B]

So, now we can establish that you "believe" the main culprit must be Sulfur...correct?

Yes, It would be my choice if geo-engineering were the only goal of intentional aerosol injection. . .

 

[George B]

I'll ask again...Is it John Lear? You have brought him up at GLP along with the same claims.

Either way...if it is/or isn't him...do you actually know this person "personally", or have you met someone on a website claiming to be a pilot, or John Lear...?

If it is John Lear, he has great reason not to want to be connected with ANOTHER odd conspiracy which has no facts to support it...

If it is John Lear...he is NOT a typical pilot...Not that it really matters...

I do know this person personally and know he is what he says he is . . . I asked him to respond to this Forum in person but the individual is reluctant for the obvious reasons . . . he does not want his identity to be connected with the conspiracy . . . like a lot of professional people . . . I have no such issues myself but I have to respect the people that do . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Yes, It would be my choice if geo-engineering were the only goal of intentional aerosol injection. . .

Ok, in your opinion, is "geoengineering" the only goal of intentional aerosol injection. . .

If not, what are the others goals, and what "chemicals"/elements are "they" "spraying"?

 

[Noble1965]

I do know this person personally and know he is what he says he is . . . I asked him to respond to this Forum in person but the individual is reluctant for the obvious reasons . . . he does not want his identity to be connected with the conspiracy . . . like a lot of professional people . . . I have no such issues myself but I have to respect the people that do . . .

Oh really?

What is your name?

And "The Pilot" doesn't have to reveal his identity! There are enough pilots/former pilots/enthusiasts here to recognize facts from BS on the subject. No one cares if he reveals his identity or not. The information (about aviation) is the same...regardless of the name...

You claim he is who/what he says he is...GREAT!

What we want is information which is contrary to the known facts about the subject...who provides such information is not an issue. Most of us here would be able to recognize if someone understands aviation within 2 minutes..and it would be interesting to see things from the perspective of an Aviation professional who has accepted "chemtrails" as "probable". I'd REALLY like to know why.

I have seen these trails through my entire life...and for a professional pilot to say that it's obvious that something is going on, I'd sure like to know WHAT is so obvious.....

Even YOU suggest that the visible trails aren't necessarily part of the "geoengineering"...so, again...WHAT is "obvious"?!

Could you please ask him to join us...again...or could you please ask him what is so obvious?

Thanks...

 

[George B]

Oh really?

What is your name?

And "The Pilot" doesn't have to reveal his identity! There are enough pilots/former pilots/enthusiasts here to recognize facts from BS on the subject. No one cares if he reveals his identity or not. The information (about aviation) is the same...regardless of the name...

You claim he is who/what he says he is...GREAT!

What we want is information which is contrary to the known facts about the subject...who provides such information is not an issue. Most of us here would be able to recognize if someone understands aviation within 2 minutes..and it would be interesting to see things from the perspective of an Aviation professional who has accepted "chemtrails" as "probable". I'd REALLY like to know why.

I have seen these trails through my entire life...and for a professional pilot to say that it's obvious that something is going on, I'd sure like to know WHAT is so obvious.....

Even YOU suggest that the visible trails aren't necessarily part of the "geoengineering"...so, again...WHAT is "obvious"?!

Could you please ask him to join us...again...or could you please ask him what is so obvious?

Thanks...

I will offer another invite. . . And see what the individual says. . . .give me a list of your questions and maybe he/she will give you more answers. . . .

 

[George B]

Ok, in your opinion, is "geoengineering" the only goal of intentional aerosol injection. . .

If not, what are the others goals, and what "chemicals"/elements are "they" "spraying"?

1) One would be more sulfur compounds in larger amounts per aircraft to supplement the existing program. . . Like buster shots to augment the process. . .
2) Military: Experimental and episodic applications of aerosols to facilitate military objectives. . . Enhancement media for communication, imaging, surveillance or suppression of such . . . Detection media for scalar weapon attack . . . Suppression of storm intensity, neutralization of biochemical attack, eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . .
3) Non-Military. . . I will have to think about this one. . . there are many . . . I just don't know which I would endorse. . .

 

[Noble1965]

1) One would be more sulfur compounds in larger amounts per aircraft to supplement the existing program. . . Like buster shots to augment the process. . .
2) Military: Experimental and episodic applications of aerosols to facilitate military objectives. . . Enhancement media for communication, imaging, surveillance or suppression of such . . . Detection media for scalar weapon attack . . . Suppression of storm intensity, neutralization of biochemical attack, eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . .
3) Non-Military. . . I will have to think about this one. . . there are many . . . I just don't know which I would endorse. . .

1) Yet, there is no evidence that there is enough sulfur in the atmosphere to link the "chemtrail" beliefs to global warming mitigation. No evidence of "buster shots"....
2) I see no evidence that the military needs to spray anything to improve communication,imaging, surveillance, or detection of scalar weapon attack. I know there are many things suggested about such things in "chemtrail" forums. But, these are usually misunderstandings/misinterpretations about actual projects involving airplanes which "advocates" "believe" is relevant to the "chemtrail" issue.
It's been my experience that "chemtrail advocates" LOVE to assume that anything involving aviation/airplanes/military (and military operations) / "The Government" /"geoengineering"/cloud seeding/ and anything having to do with "spraying" are all related to the "chemtrails". This is just not my belief.
3) Please let me know ASAP

 

[Noble1965]

I will offer another invite. . . And see what the individual says. . . .give me a list of your questions and maybe he/she will give you more answers. . . .

Please be sure to tell the individual that his identity is irrelevant...

I think his expertise and reasons for thinking that "chemtrails" are "obvious" would be a welcomed addition to this discussion.

 

[George B]

1) Yet, there is no evidence that there is enough sulfur in the atmosphere to link the "chemtrail" beliefs to global warming mitigation. No evidence of "buster shots"....
2) I see no evidence that the military needs to spray anything to improve communication,imaging, surveillance, or detection of scalar weapon attack. I know there are many things suggested about such things in "chemtrail" forums. But, these are usually misunderstandings/misinterpretations about actual projects involving airplanes which "advocates" "believe" is relevant to the "chemtrail" issue.
It's been my experience that "chemtrail advocates" LOVE to assume that anything involving aviation/airplanes/military (and military operations) / "The Government" /"geoengineering"/cloud seeding/ and anything having to do with "spraying" are all related to the "chemtrails". This is just not my belief.
3) Please let me know ASAP

1) There is a history of complex research regarding concentration of sulfur compounds and in situ measurement and effects on visibility . . Seems to be a sound foundation on which to base such a practice. . . There is ample evidence the rate of global warming has changed. . . Even when the amount of ground based sulfur emissions from transportation sources are on the decline. . . seems to me Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds could be lost in the background noise. . .

2) The source on military missions are my thoughts and other sources and not from Chemtrail sites. . . They are from
my own research . . . Just like the sulfur compound proposal. . .

3) When I get around to it. . .

 

[Noble1965]

1) There is a history of complex research regarding concentration of sulfur compounds and in situ measurement and effects on visibility . . Seems to be a sound foundation on which to base such a practice. . . There is ample evidence the rate of global warming has changed. . . Even when the amount of ground based sulfur emissions from transportation sources are on the decline. . . seems to me Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds could be lossed in the background noise. . .

2) The source on military missions are my thoughts and other sources and not from Chemtrail sites. . . They are from
my own research . . . Just like the sulfur compound proposal. . .

3) When I get around to it. . .

1) So? None of that suggests an INTENTIONAL spraying of sulfur into the atmosphere. Sorry! And there are BILLIONS of sources of sulfur on the planet. Who cares about "transportation sources"?! "Background noise"?! Grasping at straws...
2) Yeah..."research". Sure.
3) when you've made it up...or accept it as fact from other "advocates".

 

[George B]

Different Sulfur findings with higher ppm. . . http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/97JD02209.xml :blobr:

"Microphysical properties of jet exhaust aerosol and contrails were studied in the near field of the emitting aircraft for different fuel sulfur contents. Measurements were performed behind two different aircraft (ATTAS test aircraft of type VFW 614 and Airbus A310‐300) using fuels with sulfur contents of 6 ppm and 2700 ppm, respectively. At closest approach (plume age < 1 s), the total number concentrations exceeded the measuring range of the condensation particle counter, i.e., N > 105 cm−3. The concentration of the dry accumulation mode aerosol, i.e., predominantly soot particles, was not affected by the fuel sulfur content."

 

[George B]

1) There is a history of complex research regarding concentration of sulfur compounds and in situ measurement and effects on visibility . . Seems to be a sound foundation on which to base such a practice. . . There is ample evidence the rate of global warming has changed. . . Even when the amount of ground based sulfur emissions from transportation sources are on the decline. . . seems to me Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds could be lost in the background noise. . .

2) The source on military missions are my thoughts and other sources and not from Chemtrail sites. . . They are from
my own research . . . Just like the sulfur compound proposal. . .

3) When I get around to it. . .

1) Yet, there is no evidence that there is enough sulfur in the atmosphere to link the "chemtrail" beliefs to global warming mitigation. No evidence of "buster shots"....
2) I see no evidence that the military needs to spray anything to improve communication,imaging,
surveillance, or detection of scalar weapon attack. I know there are many things suggested about such things in "chemtrail" forums. But, these are usually
misunderstandings/misinterpretations about actual projects involving airplanes which "advocates" "believe" is relevant to the "chemtrail" issue.
It's been my experience that "chemtrail advocates" LOVE to assume that anything involving aviation/airplanes/military (and military operations) / "The Government" /"geoengineering"/cloud seeding/ and anything having to do with "spraying" are all related to the "chemtrails". This is just not my belief.
3) Please let me know ASAP

Threat assessment and countermeasures. . . .it is what the military is paid to do . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

1977 UN Environmental Modification Convention
Main article: Environmental Modification Convention
Weather control, particularly hostile weather warfare, was addressed by the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention[19] on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" was adopted. The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.[20]

 

[George B]

1) One would be more sulfur compounds in larger amounts per aircraft to supplement the existing program. . . Like buster shots to augment the process. . .
2) Military: Experimental and episodic applications of aerosols to facilitate military objectives. . . Enhancement media for communication, imaging, surveillance or suppression of such . . . Detection media for scalar weapon attack . . . Suppression of storm intensity, neutralization of biochemical attack, eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . .
3) Non-Military. . . I will have to think about this one. . . there are many . . . I just don't know which I would endorse. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_syringae
Pseudomonas syringae
P. syringae also produce Ina proteins which cause water to freeze at fairly high temperatures, resulting in injury to plants. Since the 1970s, P. syringae has been implicated as an atmospheric "biological ice nucleator", with airborne bacteria serving as cloud condensation nuclei. Recent evidence has suggested that the species plays a larger role than previously thought in producing rain and snow. They have also been found in the cores of hailstones, aiding in bioprecipitation.[5]​ These Ina proteins are also used in making artificial snow.[6]​

 

[Noble1965]

Different Sulfur findings with higher ppm. . . http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/97JD02209.xml :blobr:

"Microphysical properties of jet exhaust aerosol and contrails were studied in the near field of the emitting aircraft for different fuel sulfur contents. Measurements were performed behind two different aircraft (ATTAS test aircraft of type VFW 614 and Airbus A310‐300) using fuels with sulfur contents of 6 ppm and 2700 ppm, respectively. At closest approach (plume age < 1 s), the total number concentrations exceeded the measuring range of the condensation particle counter, i.e., N > 105 cm−3. The concentration of the dry accumulation mode aerosol, i.e., predominantly soot particles, was not affected by the fuel sulfur content."

Ok, Great...airplanes produce sulfur as part of the combustion process...just as all hydrocarbons do when burned. Got it!

And this "study" tells us what else?

 

[George B]

1) One would be more sulfur compounds in larger amounts per aircraft to supplement the existing program. . . Like buster shots to augment the process. . .
2) Military: Experimental and episodic applications of aerosols to facilitate military objectives. . . Enhancement media for communication, imaging, surveillance or suppression of such . . . Detection media for scalar weapon attack . . . Suppression of storm intensity, neutralization of biochemical attack, eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . .
3) Non-Military. . . I will have to think about this one. . . there are many . . . I just don't know which I would endorse. . .

While the quote below is about research using Chaff . . . the only difference is the altitude and size of the released particles . . . other substances could have been developed since this research to all types of weather modification . . . especially as countermeasures . . .

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-219.htm

"If chaff reduces lightning, it could cause forecasters to
underestimate the severity of storms. NOAA scientists and a
University of Oklahoma weather researcher said they would like to
further study the effects of chaff on thunderstorms if they could
obtain funding. DOD officials stated that the
U.S. Forest Service has used chaff for a number of years to suppress
lightning and prevent forest fires, and NOAA issued an environmental
impact statement on lightning suppression in October 1972. DOD
believes the findings of this project should be reviewed to determine
the need for additional analysis of this recognized phenomenon prior
to expending additional funds. "

 

[George B]

Ok, Great...airplanes produce sulfur as part of the combustion process...just as all hydrocarbons do when burned. Got it!

And this "study" tells us what else?

What was in bold type Noble . . . "eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_syringae

Pseudomonas syringae
P. syringae also produce Ina proteins which cause water to freeze at fairly high temperatures, resulting in injury to plants. Since the 1970s, P. syringae has been implicated as an atmospheric "biological ice nucleator", with airborne bacteria serving as cloud condensation nuclei. Recent evidence has suggested that the species plays a larger role than previously thought in producing rain and snow. They have also been found in the cores of hailstones, aiding in bioprecipitation.[5]​ These Ina proteins are also used in making artificial snow.[6]​

 

[Noble1965]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_syringae
Pseudomonas syringae
P. syringae also produce Ina proteins which cause water to freeze at fairly high temperatures, resulting in injury to plants. Since the 1970s, P. syringae has been implicated as an atmospheric "biological ice nucleator", with airborne bacteria serving as cloud condensation nuclei. Recent evidence has suggested that the species plays a larger role than previously thought in producing rain and snow. They have also been found in the cores of hailstones, aiding in bioprecipitation.[5]​ These Ina proteins are also used in making artificial snow.[6]​

So, this is another theory of yours? That "they" are intentionally seeding the atmosphere with airborne bacteria so water will freeze at higher temps..

Wow...artificial snow...is now a byproduct of "chemtrails"...


Have you SEEN any of this "artificial snow"?!

When I see snow now...would it be a "reasonable" assumption to believe it's caused by P. syringae?!

 

[Noble1965]

What was in bold type Noble . . . "eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . ."

I don't care

 

[George B]

Ok, Great...airplanes produce sulfur as part of the combustion process...just as all hydrocarbons do when burned. Got it!

And this "study" tells us what else?

from above . . .

1) There is a history of complex research regarding concentration of sulfur compounds and in situ measurement and effects on visibility . . Seems to be a sound foundation on which to base such a practice. . . There is ample evidence the rate of global warming has changed. . . Even when the amount of ground based sulfur emissions from transportation sources are on the decline. . . seems to me Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds could be lossed in the background noise. . .

 

[Noble1965]

While the quote below is about research using Chaff . . . the only difference is the altitude and size of the released particles . . . other substances could have been developed since this research to all types of weather modification . . . especially as countermeasures . . .

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-219.htm

"If chaff reduces lightning, it could cause forecasters to
underestimate the severity of storms. NOAA scientists and a
University of Oklahoma weather researcher said they would like to
further study the effects of chaff on thunderstorms if they could
obtain funding. DOD officials stated that the
U.S. Forest Service has used chaff for a number of years to suppress
lightning and prevent forest fires, and NOAA issued an environmental
impact statement on lightning suppression in October 1972. DOD
believes the findings of this project should be reviewed to determine
the need for additional analysis of this recognized phenomenon prior
to expending additional funds. "

Grasping at straws...

More manipulation in an attempt to make things APPEAR as if they have something to do with your "chemtrails".

 

[Noble1965]

from above . . .

1) There is a history of complex research regarding concentration of sulfur compounds and in situ measurement and effects on visibility . . Seems to be a sound foundation on which to base such a practice. . . There is ample evidence the rate of global warming has changed. . . Even when the amount of ground based sulfur emissions from transportation sources are on the decline. . . seems to me Stratopheric Injection of Sulfur compounds could be lossed in the background noise. . .

Yet STILL nothing that even suggests that it's intentional...or would even HAVE to be.

 

[George B]

What was in bold type Noble . . . "eradication/neutralization of plant and animal pathogens that are airborne. . . ."

I don't care

You implied that I just review the Chemtrail sites which I only rarely do when referred by someone like yourself . . . I use my own mind and do my own research . . .

 

[George B]

Yet STILL nothing that even suggests that it's intentional...or would even HAVE to be.

Well . . . I have given you significant information on the Sulfur content of fuel and how it can be used to reduce global warming . . . now is it intentional .? . . well it has been suggested for quite some time and from some very, well respected scientists . . . the timeline is sufficient from the concept to implementation . . . it is quite feasible . . . since it is by definition a covert operation we may never be told it is intentional . . .

 

[George B]

Grasping at straws...

More manipulation in an attempt to make things APPEAR as if they have something to do with your "chemtrails".

You equate me presenting information in debate as 'manipulation' . . . but when you do . . . it is evidence . . . Hmmmmmm

 

[Noble1965]

Well . . . I have given you significant information on the Sulfur content of fuel and how it can be used to reduce global warming . . . now is it intentional .? . . well it has been suggested for quite some time and from some very, well respected scientists . . . the timeline is sufficient from the concept to implementation . . . it is quite feasible . . . since it is by definition a covert operation we may never be told it is intentional . . .

Many things are "feasible"....but is that enough to be referred to as "evidence" that it's intentional?! Or part of some "program"?!

Not in my book!

Please tell me the names of the "respected scientists". .

And, also tell me who they are respected by...and if they are respected by their peers.

 

[MikeC]

Good we agree at least on one thing. . . But to maintain secrecy . . . How?? . . . So the fly in the ointment is the testing regime and refinery game which is actually more controllable . . . Can the increase within allowable maximum sulfur content be ignored, concealed, controlled, manipulated or suppressed.? . . How many people would know and need to be controlled and in how many places.?. . this part of the game I don't know. . .

If you read that link you would know - you cannot hide sulphur in fuel - all anyone has to do is buy a gallon at the airport and test its composition.

However, overall this is the most cost effective and easily manipulated strategy I can imagine to accomplish geo-engineering on the sly. . . . it would involve the smallest number of people . . .

and it would be almost trivially easy to spot.

 

[Billzilla]

You implied that I just review the Chemtrail sites which I only rarely do when referred by someone like yourself . . . I use my own mind and do my own research . . .

Can you describe the scientific process you use to come to a conclusion?
The incorrect way is to decide the end result and only look at the information/data that supports your theory.
Unfortunately this is by far the most common method people use.

If you use the correct scientific process, the correct results will appear.

 

[George B]

If you read that link you would know - you cannot hide sulphur in fuel - all anyone has to do is buy a gallon at the airport and test its composition.

Did you ever hear of bait and switch . . . someone capable of coming up with a Global Climate Strategy can handle a few details like that . . . how about a few extra bucks in your paycheck and you are helping to save the world . . . ask the thousands of people who worked on the F117 and at area 51 all those years . . .


and it would be almost trivially easy to spot.

Did you ever hear of bait and switch . . . someone capable of coming up with a Global Climate Strategy can handle a few details like that . . . how about a few extra bucks in your paycheck and you are helping to save the world . . . ask the thousands of people who worked on the F117 and at area 51 all those years . . .

"and it would be almost trivially easy to spot . . . "

No one has been looking . . . and what would they find Sulfur within the allowable maximum . . .

 

[George B]

[Edit By Mick]: Sorry George, but massive messed up cut-and-paste jobs have no place here. Format things so they are readable, explain what you think they mean, don't just give definitions of things

 

[SR1419]

George-

what do you think the single, most convincing piece evidence is that there is a spray campaign taking place?

Try not to obfuscate with lots of dots...just pick the single, most compelling piece of evidence.

 

[George B]

"Can you describe the scientific process you use to come to a conclusion?"

Sure, I used deductive logic using inferential circumstantial evidence and I weighed the preponderance of the evidence and it was IMO over 51% in support of an Intentional Aerosol Injection Program . . . which in US Civil Law is adequate for a finding of the court for the party presenting such a case . .. Hard Science is not the only process used to come to a finding .. .

 

[George B]

[Edit By Mick]: Sorry George, but massive messed up cut-and-paste jobs have no place here. Format things so they are readable, explain what you think they mean, don't just give definitions of things

I tried multiple times to edit it and the system was so slow I never got it done . . . I had no intention of leaving it the way it pasted in most of it was a hidden text that did not show on my initial copy . . .

 

[George B]

Please tell me the names of the "respected scientists".

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management )

As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cooldown the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create ahaze. PaulCrutzen suggests that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year. Itwould, however, increase the environmental problem of acid rain.[7]​[8]​[9]​

A preliminary study by Edward Teller and others in 1997 presented the prosand cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigateglobal warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth viainsertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1​locations.[11]​

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_(geoengineering)

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one tofour years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by thevolcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

 

[George B]

George-

what do you think the single, most convincing piece evidence is that there is a spray campaign taking place?

Try not to obfuscate with lots of dots...just pick the single, most compelling piece of evidence.


Sorry, there is no one convincing piece of evidence . . . it is a whole picture . . . there are some I consider more important than others . . . If I had to give one it would be the power and clout of the Congressional Industrial Military Complex . . .



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

 

[George B]

I must run and I will check back in when I can . . . good evening . . .