Ok. First let me say that I have no axe to grind, and also that I'm surprised there are so many people looking to back the 'official' version on this subject and that they are prepared to spend so much time 'disproving' something that, if it is as claimed, should really just be ignored and surely it will wither and die for its own intrinsic 'wrongness'. So, I suppose there's a question in there: what motivates you to spend so much time 'disproving' that there is a stratospheric Welsbach seeding program in operation?
As a rule I'm going to try not to get into petty arguments about specific lines that have not been understood in their context. I'll give an example or two off the top, and hopefully leave it at that: MikeC says: I am 52. Well done, but how exactly do you explain the difference in the performance of aircraft and the trails they leave? Or is it just the same as ever? And: MikeC asks: (I'm not picking on you Mike, it's just you're at the top of my page) What sort of information do you think constitutes a "rounded view of...sky activity"? Nice. You should have left out the dots and you would have done a proper job on misrepresenting what I wrote. I think it was pretty clear from the context and content of my post that I was suggesting there might be other issues at work, or disciplines that needed to be exercised; psychology, politics, historical record, common sense, minds free from pre-existing positions etc. If you read the whole, and refrain from trying to isolate and edit what I write to make it suit what you want to argue about, then we might get somewhere. Perhaps the sentence should have been more clear, but I think it makes sense in context.
That done, let me present some evidence for the defence.
The patent offices do not hand out patents for things that don't work. If they did, any fool could roll up and claim rights to something they could then profit from in the future. I think that's pretty clear and requires no further comment. Let's have a look at some patents:
is the US patent office record of the HAARP patent (I'm sure you're all familiar). Note in Description (2) Background Art, it states: It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.
There is no discussion required about whether or not this patented system exists in the real world. There are quite a lot of reports that barium is one of the particulates being turned up in soil and water tests. Or are people making it up? Barium is a metal known to ionize quickly in sunlight; put very simply, its purpose is to increase the efficacy of the HAARP installation in its 'work' by improving the carrying capacity of the atmosphere for radio frequencies emitted. This patent (although not originally) is owned by Raytheon.
is the us patent office record of the method of 'stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming' which states aluminium oxide as a suitable material; when? 1990; owned by? The Hughes Aircraft Co. - now owned by Raytheon; fyi, Raytheon is one of the largest defence contractors in the US.
Edward Teller (father of the H bomb, if you recall) came up with this Welsbach seeding proposal in 1997 http://www.rense.com/general18/scatteringEdTellerwithnotes.pdf
and suggested that putting 10-20 million tons of aluminium oxide particles into the stratosphere would slow down warming to the tune of 1 degree celcius. One of the National labs, Livermore, were into this and said: We can do this. We have the delivery system (patent as above, owned by...Hughes Aircraft Co, now Raytheon), the material and it will only cost 1 billion dollars per year as opposed to 100 billion to seriously start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and meet agreed targets on carbon reduction. I think it is safe to assume that someone commissioned (paid) Teller and his pals to come up with this report, and that it wasn't just for fun. It is also interesting to note that this document isn't so easy to find - not from its source - why do you think that might be? In fact, if you look you will find many cases of scientists discussing this possibility as a means to mitigate climate change. I think it's also interesting to note that the discussion on Climate Change has changed considerably since 1997, when it was known as Global Warming; that's quite a shift, isn't it?
Also interesting to note is that aluminium is another particulate being turned up in soil and water tests. Or is that all made up as well? One other patent in relation to aluminium is this one: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7582809&OS=7582809&RS=7582809
this is a patent for an aluminium resistant gene for plants; when? 2007; owned by? The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. Now, the US dept of Agriculture is pretty much owned by a company called Monsanto - GMO being very much a US industrial base. Given that we've never had any problems with heritage seeds, why would such a patent be desired at this time? If you don't know: elevated levels of aluminium in soil plays havoc with PH levels and causes great difficulty for plants trying to draw nutrients; in short: it's lethal. In case you don't know Monsanto's history: they gave us pcb's, Agent Orange (dioxins) and now carcinogenic herbicide (Roundup) resistant crops - all of which they said were perfectly safe. By the way, I think one of you said something about Case Orange being a Dutch thing because that was the colour associated with their royals. I think you'll find it was for the relevance of this subject to the systematic spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos - 42,000,000 litres of carcinogenic poison sprayed on se asia and its people, nice work. You can find that Monsanto and the US govt. denied that dioxins were harmful to human health and as a result thousands of exposed and subsequently seriously ill Vietnam veterans were denied benefits for about nine years while they argued it through the courts; many of them died before what was already known was 'proved' by lawyers. Perhaps poisoning your own people and denying responsibility along with a bit of genocide is ok as long as the victims are at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect the price of your beer.
Personally, I have endeavoured to understand, as best I can, the physics of cloud formation and the physics of contrail formation - two similar, but distinct phenomena. The Appleman Chart is cited as being about as reliable a method for predicting contrails as exists. Please take a look if you haven't before. It's woefully inadequate in my experience.
One can learn fairly quickly that the important elements of contrail formation are rh, atmospheric pressure, temperature and altitude. This also goes for clouds. Someone's comment about Coen Vermeeren knowing little about contrail formation is disingenuous, to put it politely. There are so many variables in this chemistry that no-one knows that much, and research is a bit tricky and expensive - I can guarantee that, as an aeronautics expert, he knows a lot more about it than you or I. Or perhaps that person might like to enlighten us all with their greater knowledge of this.
I have made scores of observations, checking radiosonde data and following visible aircraft on radar and found that the necessary conditions for this phenomenon of 'persistent contrails' to form, by all the available methods, are not being met by the information in front of me, not even close. In the absence of these conditions I was seeing aircraft producing what you like to call 'persistent contrails' (a euphemism, I believe); 'clouds' would be the more accurate term. I was surprised and disturbed by this. This experience led me next to call on memory - was it always thus? The answer to that is categorical: No. So what's happening? I began to look at some official responses to requests to officialdom from the public for information - some are so contradictory they are diametrically opposed. Why?
Checking some of the radar pictures, along with reams of reports from joe public available on line (eyewitnesses), it appears that this phenomenon only happens in certain parts of the world. Why? What is different in these places? Is it Geo-physical or Geo-political?
Eyewitness reports are considered to be admissable in a court, indeed they are regarded as important tools in such matters; likewise in science. Observation leads to experience through data collected. Subsequent scrutiny of that data and all other relevant information (such as, for example: being in the midst of an ongoing discussion about the extent and severity of 'global climate change' and its possible 'remedies'? Maybe?) must lead the scutinizer to lean toward one side or another in this argument.
History shows that the governments of the US and the UK have sprayed hazardous materials on their populations over a number of decades. They didn't say so at the time. What's changed? Laws in both these countries allow this. Why would it be made law if it wasn't intended to be used?
The visual evidence is, well, visible. I'm surprised if you can't see it - and would love to hear your explanations of this relatively new phenomenon, as that is what it is. Please, no nonsense about more aircraft 'holding' for landing slots, or the like; you'll simply be displaying a lack of knowledge of contrail formation and its pre-requisites if you start on that.
If I were a policeman, trying to get the meat of a matter, I might take these quite pertinent (if I may say) bits of information and start to join a few dots to refine my line of enquiry. All kinds of evidence are evidence - it needn't all be scientific, indeed, science has got it quite spectacularly wrong on innumerable occasions. Science is forever changing, evolving - everything in science is really just a theory until another, more informed one, replaces it. Would you agree? Going back to being a policeman: I'd need to be able to interview relevant parties, get more documents, go deeper...but no-one 'official' really wants to talk, and when they do they contradict themselves and each other.
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful, wrongful or subversive act.
A theory is designed to describe a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
Any one of you has at one time or another speculated about a conspiracy theory. By definition that makes you a conspiracy theorist. What you are doing here is exactly that: theorizing about a perceived conspiracy. We have all been brought up on conspiracies; stories about them populate our daily media. Brutus conspired against Caesar; the US and UK governments, it is clear, conspired to lie to us about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. There are many examples of conspiracies that have been shown to be real. We should stop using this expression as a perjorative; it describes us all. Definitions are important.
Corporations have but one aim: to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Given the obsession with growth (I urge you to understand the exponential function and its relevance here re: sustainability) and its promotion by those who would seek to benefit in the short term, I suspect that there is a very big financial incentive to attempt to curb the alleged effects of so-called anthropomorphic 'climate change' or 'global warming' if you set it against the alternative stated in the Teller et al report. Activists trying to sell t-shirts or cd's to fund themselves cannot realistically be compared here; and if you do, as you explicitly have, I think you'll find that the former stand to make a fair bit more. One needs to apply the same standards to all relevant parties in this.
Anyway, I've tried to make a case in a very short space of time. And, as you all know too well, there is so much more that could be introduced into the discussion. However, I hope that the information here should be adequate to promote at least another look at the possibilities and probabilities that arise from it. I look forward to any response with interest.