1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15478012.ab

    Translated:

    The linked story is:
    http://kkuriren.se/nyheter/vingaker/1.1554491

    Here's the poll results:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In related news, a Finnish Green Politician discussed the topic on TV, bit more sensible though.

    http://www.uusisuomi.fi/kotimaa/536...ttui-kansalaisten-huolesta-cia-rikkoisi-lakia

    Translation:

     
  3. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Chemtrails is not a conspiracy theory - the Conspiracy theory is that every government and politician tell us nothing is going on but normal contrails!

    For more information on these crimes against humanity please visit chemtrail crime exposure websites like:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/90288466/Stop-Chemtrail-Crimes-Against-Humanity-vf-rs
    http://www.carnicom.com ,
    http://www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com ,
    http://theintelhub.com/2011/10/11/why-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btqPdW__wNY&list=UUKQ251Ifq3Gn-olVGxOFfaQ&feature=plcp - March 30 2012 – David Icke - 8 parts

    Millions of people are now aware of this crime! The ZIONazi's must be stopped from carrying out genocide for that is where this is going!

    Wake up - look up - your government works for the cabal!
     
  4. Palli

    Palli New Member

    Swedish pilot who knows!

     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Anonymous quotes don't add much credibility to the case, Palli. Very easy to fake, don't you think? I could go and post one myself right now.

    I'm sorry to hear that the Green Party there has been distracted by this conspiracy theory. Is there any evidence that they bring up that you'd like to discuss?
     
  6. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    Swedish sailor who knows!
    22 september:

    Anonymous: "When we go out on the harbour it is hard for us in the know not to notice the deadly white chemwakes being left behind the fast boats zipping across the water. The boats leaving the mysterious white chemwakes all travel very fast, probably to make it harder for them to be identified. They can be distinguished from normal boats because normal boats do not leave any white wake behind them. That is a known fact.

    Any boat that leaves a white wake behind it is leaving deadly poisons. All harbour masters and fery crews are under strict instructions to avoid collision witrh these boats leaving chemwakes, even though it is hard to return home at the end of the day to our family and close friends and resist the urge to sink those boats."

    You see anonymous, If a person knew absolutely nothing about boating they might be gullible enough to believe the above "quote" might be true. Anyone who actually understands boating in any detail will immediately recognise the "quote" is utter bunk and an obvious fabrication.

    The same situation applies to your quote . Anyone who actually understands aviation will immediately recognise it is a fabrication and has no more credibility than the quote I included.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Palli

    Palli New Member

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member


    YES those are normal aircraft. That video shows perfectly normal persistent contrails and spreading contrails. The atmospheric physics behind this normal spreading effect has been well understood by scientists for many decades .
    Peter Kuhn," Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)


    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2
    http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf

    http://elib.dlr.de/9238/1/jgr-ice.pdf

    Are you fully familiar with those papers I just linked to?
    I suspect you are not intimately familiar with such information which is common knowledge to atmospheric scientists and aviation experts and that is exactly why you seem to think there is something strange.

    If a plane is approaching an airport it will tend to be at low altitude. Contrails mostly form at high altitude from planes at cruising altitudes on their way somewhere else.
    Many planes fly enroute paths high above airports but never land at them. People unfamiliar with aviation may also find this strange.
    If a person is familiar with aviation they are likely to know that airliners use radio navigation beacons and so may fly over airports with beacons but never land at them.
    If a person is knowledgeable they will know such things are normal. If they are not knowledgeable they may find such things strange.
    Your comment suggests you are not familiar with the basic characteristics of the contrail formation and general aviation.

    Contrails tend to form at higher altitudes where the temperature is very cold rather than low altitudes due to the phenomena known as "lapse rate". Do you understand what lapse rate is?
    Mick's site contrailscience.com explains the many aspects of the the physics of contrail appearance in great detail.

    If the planes are taking off from or landing at an airport then they will most likely be too low to form engine contrails.

    Most flying planes are NOT near an airport. For many aircraft, an airport is only close to it at the very beginning or end of the plane's journey.
    Your comment is similar to saying that a car driving at speed along a dirt road shouldn't be leaving a large dust trail because it isn't near its driveway or garage.
    It would only be near its garage at the beginning or end of its journey and only when it has slowed down to very low speed and far less likely to kick up a large dust trail.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Palli

    Palli New Member

    And what do all these aircraft when they crosses the sky at night and the forecasts changes from sunny to be a bad weather?


    Do you work otherwise for these criminal...?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  10. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    That is pure speculation. It's like saying when I drive one day, it rains halfway through the trip, so therefore every time I drive it will rain at some point during the trip.
     
  11. Palli

    Palli New Member

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  12. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member


    Those are all normal contrails.

    Here is Mick's website which explains such observations in scientifically correct and verifiable detail.
    Have you taken the initiative to read and learn from it?
    http://contrailscience.com

    You appear to have little understanding of aviation or contrail formation.
    Have you read and understood EVERY aspect of these two atmospheric science papers I linked to previously?
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...O%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    http://cires.colorado.edu/science/gr...llenberg72.pdf

    Please answer Yes or No and perhaps indicate which atmospheric science facts and principles you cannot grasp.
    For instance, do you fully understand that water vapor is invisible and that moist humid air is lighter than dry air?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    This makes no sense. You're saying that the conspiracy theory is the idea that there is no conspiracy?

    These are precisely the sorts of sites that are debunked here. Please feel free to post what you think are the most convincing lines of evidence that they contain (although probably best to do it on a new thread, rather than derailing this one).
     
  14. Palli

    Palli New Member

  15. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
  16. hemi

    hemi Active Member

  17. hemi

    hemi Active Member

  18. hemi

    hemi Active Member

  19. Palli

    Palli New Member

  20. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Palli, do you have any interest in discussing things? Your videos showed basically two things - 1) that contrail formation depends on certain atmospheric conditions, and as the plane passes through areas with different conditions the contrails can appear to "turn on and off", and 2) that videos of fuel dumps are often misused by chemtrails believers.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Palli, you can't just keep posting all this stuff when it's been debunked years ago.

    Have a look around first. Check out http://contrailscience.com to see if your evidence has already been addressed. Use Google and add the word "Debunked".

    If you keep just posting old stuff with commentary, I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume you are trolling or spamming, and will have to ban you.
     
  22. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Look at these two videos:
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUaW3DQqPig
    2. http://deoxy.org/watch/tX1WfZ_Wrq4

    If aircraft condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet, why in Europe are they taxed for increasing the temperature of the planet?
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The net warming or cooling is still very uncertain (your video says the observations "suggest" a slight cooling, other studies say warming). But either way, it's a very small fraction of global climate change. It's also an effect that only last for a few hours. CO2 lasts for many decades, and has a much bigger effect.
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe you should address the fundamentals though. Did you know that contrails often persist and spread?
     
  25. PeaknikMicki

    PeaknikMicki Guest

    How can this still be debated.
    It is clear that chemtrails behave differently in the sky to normal contrails.
    Secondly the chemicals they are spreading eventually lands and has been analysed.
    Thirdly there are many pictures of commercial size passenger planes with outlets for the chems and there are even pictures of apparatus installed in planes for this. And no, I am not talking about crop dusters.
    Lastly, there have been several scientific seminars and meetings discuwssing geo engineering and weather modification. This is nothing new.
    Back in the Sovjet days already they used to silver ionize the sky to prevent rainfall at military ceremonies.

    Just have alook at this picture as example. Does that look like contrails to you?
    http://twicsy.com/i/ZKeagc
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  26. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  27. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    Reply to post #22

    A David Dees photoshopped illustration?

    That's me convinced.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    No, it doesn't look like a contrail, because it's a fuel dump.

    Take a look around the site before posting stuff that has been debunked.

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/64...rld-Are-They-Spraying-Wingtip-Fuel-Dump-Photo
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    How are they different from ordinary persistent contrails, exactly?
    Well, people have sampled soil and water, and assumed (incorrectly) that any trace metals found must be from "chemtrails". They are apparently unaware that aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth, making up about 8% of soil on average, and has always been found in rainwater and surface waters.
    There are many such pictures which have been misrepresented and misunderstood, yes. Go ahead and bring up your favorite, but you might want to search the site first, it's probably been addressed.
    They discuss geoengineering proposals. They all agree that it's not actually being done.
    Silver iodide - for cloud seeding. It's still done in various regions around the world. It's not secret, and it's not what "chemtrails" are claimed to be.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Look at the other video, which dates from a slightly earlier period when the priority was to get carbon taxing implemented on aviation so that "warming" was the buzzword. There they argue for a much larger role for aviation in climate change/global warming.

    http://deoxy.org/watch/tX1WfZ_Wrq4

    http://deoxy.org/meme/AviationSmog

    "NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
    —Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate"

    The video you are you presumably calling "my video" is not MY video. It is a ridiculous BBC propaganda video aimed at the general public, whose message is, basically, "don't listen to chemtrails activists. Everything is OK. Don't worry your little heads."

    Now that the agenda has moved away from securing acceptance for carbon taxes to securing acceptance for geoengineering, including "solar radiation management", opposite, i.e. cooling, characteristics, are attributed to aircraft condensation trails.

    I make no claim as to whether condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet. I merely asked that if they do this, why they are taxed for raising the temperature of the planet?

    Is not this BBC video from 2011 going to complicate the task of the authorities wishing to impose taxes on airlines for raising global temperatures? From the general tone of your posting, your references to C02, etc., I surmise that you are not a "climate change sceptic", so this complicating factor may seem regrettable to you.

    There is a characteristic that is shared 1) by the geoengineers (and their BBC propagandists who attribute overall cooling characteristics to aircraft emissions and therefore propose solar radiation management, and 2) the climate change activists and the European Union officials benefiting from their activism against the warming effect of aircraft emissions. Both of these groups have an ideology that IS MAKING MONEY FOR THEM. And it doesn’t matter which tendency is predominant. This is something for taxpayers to argue about.

    Do you care which tendency is predominant??

    The lobbyists for these conflicting agendas don’t talk to each other, (in public). They each talk to their own section of the public, whom they attempt to mobilize behind their respective proposals, which cost and/or will cost money.

    You imply that the net cooling effect of contrails is not yet established. The geoengineering lobby says the opposite. Do you ask me to take sides between them?

    The facts are for scientists to sort out. Not taxpayers. A legitimate demand for taxpayers is for government to get its act together and put together an internally coherent account of a need that can plausibly justify demands for taxpayers’ money.

    If today’s political system cannot offer that, then clearly what is needed is an alternative political system, which can then seek a mandate.

    What I posted has nothing to do with whether contrails raise or lower temperatures. I merely point out that both viewpoints are being put forward and securing and/or demanding funding.

    Do you as, presumably, a taxpayer, care about which of these projects your money will be used to fund? I assume that you would prefer to pay a carbon tax rather than fund solar radiation management.

    If this is the case what are you doing to prevent your money going towards funding solar radiation management?

    Denying that it is occurring? Does that help you to stop it, if it needs to be stopped?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  31. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Definition of "fundamentals": what I want to talk about.

    I could not care less what name you or anyone else give to an aircraft condensation trail that persists and spreads.
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The geoengineering lobby says very little about contrails. But all scientists would say that it's not established. Various studies suggest different things. There is a range of uncertainties.

    You seem to be saying that persistent contrails are deliberate geoengineering, and that they cool things down so much that there is no reason to worry about CO2 emissions? Is that what you think?

    Because BOTH lobbies would strongly disagree with that.

    The effect of contrails is SMALL, TEMPORARY, and UNCERTAIN.

    The effect of CO2 is LARGE, LONG TERM, and HIGHLY CERTAIN.

    ALL geoengineering researchers feel that CO2 needs to be addressed as a matter of great urgency. Your two lobbies are in agreement with that. Ask them. Ask David Keith, or Ken Caldeira.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  33. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Here is a graph from an article in a German meteorological magazine. It indicates that the aviation warming impact on climate due to contrails and cirrus clouds is positive and possibly larger than the CO2 effect, but with a large degree of uncertainty. On the days when the aircraft do not form contrails, they produce gaseous water vapor, which is definitely a greenhouse gas, but the authors concluded that was a relatively minor impact.
     

    Attached Files:

  34. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    There is not a range of uncertainties. There is a range of conflicting certainties. All of them support lobbies and all of them are making money, or expecting to.

    I choose not to get into the argument about what is deliberate and what not, because these are the arguments that you have doubtless been trained to shoot down, and I prefer to hit you where you are untrained.

    When you say BOTH lobbies I presume you mean both lobbies of anthropogenic climate change believers: those who support solar radiation management and other aggressive forms of geoengineering, and those who do not. I do not confine my attention to those lobbies, because there is also the lobby that says the talk about CO2 is a lot of horse manure. Doubtless there are other vested interests behind them too, namely oil and coal interests, but they are part of the political game and they seem to have been getting politically stronger since Copenhagen, so why should I ignore them??? I do not care about whether they are right or wrong. That is something for scientists to determine, and scientists are not determining it, because they have all become politicians.

    Here is a guy who says that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming:http://vimeo.com/47686055

    They call him a heretic, but they give him a platform at their mainstream climate change conference. They don't give a platform to chemtrails activists, or even to non-chemtrails activist opponents of geoengineering such as the ETC group. Therefore he counts politically and I don't take sides against him more than I take sides against anyone else.

    Do you insist that I should??? Why???

    Christy would say the opposite. Why should I take sides with you against him??? Answer this please, and remember who you are talking to. I am not any more interested in taking sides in the anthropogenic climate change debate than I was interested in taking sides with either of the "superpowers" in their nuclear arms race, where we saw the same bipolar inertial escalation. Not such a surprise, because the climate change debate, and especially the geoengineering proposals, came largely out of the same nuclear weapons laboratories.

    I am not going to ask either of those persons anything. Chemtrails activists who get into debate with them should have psychiatric treatment.
    https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress...ngineer-ken-caldeira-his-reply/#comment-11392

    All people who make the proposals the Keiths and Caldeiras make should be treated like lepers. Boycotted and ostracised. There is no reason whatsoever to discuss geoengineering with ANYBODY who is less opposed to it than, say, Pat Mooney, who has quite enough expertise.

    Here is what one climate change true believer (who was involved in UN work on ozone depletion) has to say about such geoengineering proposals. He is anything but a chemtrails activist and he says, in relation to Paul Crutzen's proposals for stratospheric spraying of sulphur:
    Argue science with him if you like. His name is Brian Ellis and he is a scientist, so a scientific discussion with him is appropriate whereas with me it is INAPPROPRIATE. I am a citizen and a taxpayer, and I engage on that terrain. I do NOT get involved in the climate change debate.

    You still haven't answered my question. As a taxpayer would you rather pay a carbon tax or pay for solar radiation management employing aircraft emissions?
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd pay for what ever gave the most bang for my buck. Right now there is no geoengineering to pay for, just some preliminary research. I don't like "carbon taxes", I'd prefer legislation along the lines of the clean air acts.

    CO2 reduction seems to be the ideal approach, however the political reality is that it's unlikely to be enough, so we should research geoengineering in case it is needed.

    Of course people think about safety, and side effects. If they did not, then they would probably be up there right now.

    And I have no training in arguing, so I don't know what you mean by that. Do you think I'm some kind of paid disinformation agent? Because I'm not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Hi, Wayne Hall. Thought I wouldn't recognize you? Think again.....
    Guys, this unregistered fellow is Wayne Hall from Greece. He won't speak about science, because he doesn't know any.
    He's here to waste your time involving you with fruitless political strategyspeak. He's been flogging this for about ten years.
    Usually, his fellow chemtrails conscious activist persons are glad when he finally gets off the stage.

    You can check out his site here:
    http://waynehall.blogspot.com/

    Wayne and I have tangled for years, including an epic 300+ page message board thread at Arianna Huffington's site.
    He sees himself as a great international diplomat for chemtrails. The reality is that when he addresses the issue it is all about him.
    Wayne sees himself as a Machiavelli pulling worldwide political strings to accomplish great things. He is just a worn-down guy speaking on a
    street corner in Greece:
     
    • Like Like x 4
  37. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Thanks for using the right imagery

    Yeah, just in case.

    It makes no difference to me whether you are paid or not. I suppose there could be people you want to impress. That is the usual motivation for unpaid work.

    Well, the latest item in the news is Pernilla Hagberg, not me, so I guess I should let you get on with making things difficult for her.
     
  38. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    We're not trying to impress anybody. A lot of us here debunk because we simply enjoy doing it - it's a good hobby, and you can really learn a lot of stuff from it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/09/25/1008/

    This is what is coming in on Pernilla Hagberg. It is politically unsophisticated stuff, but the political sophisticates of the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements (and the ecologists/Greens) whose business it should have been from the beginning, have had their heads stuck up each others' posteriors for the last twenty-five years, so the whole subject was relegated to youthful amateurs.
     
  40. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    The lack of evidence for her claims is what's making things difficult for her.