David Suzuki Rejects Chemtrails Theory

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.


I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific theory of “chemtrails”. Some also claimed the column supported geoengineering, which it didn’t.

The reaction got me wondering why some people believe in phenomena rejected by science, like chemtrails, but deny real problems demonstrated by massive amounts of scientific evidence, like climate change.

Mick West

Staff member
I think this underestimate the problem of chemtrails. Because the "wacky distraction" acts as a hard barrier to even addressing the the climate change denial. It's a barrier in front of a barrier.

Unless you can convince someone that chemtrails are not real, then you will never convince them that global warming is real (unless they already believed that, and like Dane Wigington, have incorporated it into the theory).

The fake problems always seem more compelling and important than the real ones. Why bother with campaign finance reform if the Bilderbergers are running the world? Why reduce carbon emissions if psychopaths are deliberately destroying the ozone layer?

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Earth Island Journal has picked this up:

Also Ecowatch:

The believers came down very hard on Ecowatch, "he's a shill", of course.

It is disappointing to read:
How often have we pointed out that cloud and atmospheric seeding for weather modification is nothing to do with geoengineering ( = ways to slow global warming).

I would use this article in a discussion in another domain, but that statement, on the face of it, contradicts a line upon which I have been quite firm. It is pretty clear Suzuki is talking about cloud seeding for the albedo effects and not canonical cloud seeding for precipitation modification. The distinction is not explicitly delineated, and this explanation is unlikely to be accepted on the chemtrail forums.

It would be great if these big-name guys would run their material past us so that they could get these details right.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
BobArtwohl David Falch - Blue Angel UFOs and Aliens 0
Mick West Commander David Fravor Faking UFO Encounters in California Desert UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
Mick West Claim: Fertility Clinics are a new thing (David Icke) Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Trailblazer Misrepresented: Stanford, NASA say perpetual sky-haze slows wind, cuts rainfall Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Strawman David Keith on Colbert discussing Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 30
TheMindBoggles Max Bliss & David Lim - Genuine concern or fear mongering? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mattnik David Icke - The People's Voice General Discussion 22
Oxymoron Alleged Murder of David Silva by 8 Policemen Conspiracy Theories 0
HappyMonday DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK Contrails and Chemtrails 159
Mattnik David Icke General Discussion 5
PCWilliams Video: David Icke: Methods Of A Madman Conspiracy Theories 12
U I just don't get this website - I am sorry (David Keith, Calgary) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
J Sorcha Faal = David Booth = dutchsinse? Conspiracy Theories 11
Mick West We Are Change Calgary meets David Keith - Chemtrail / Geo-engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West David Icke: The moon is not real. Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 44
Jay Reynolds Cuba Rejects Kidnappers Conspiracy Theories 39

Related Articles