Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
good so we agree it's bad pollution
I think I haven't made my point clearly, so I will reiterate: There are only some few tens of thousands of airplanes on this planet, compared to billions and billions of automobiles, trucks, diesel locomotives and backyard lawnmowers (etc) ALL of which (A) burn petro fuels and, (B) operate at the surface, where their emissions are far more prevalent.

Further to the other point (RE: contrails). It would certainly be possible to eliminate the formation of visible aircraft-produced contrails (which are, ultimately, merely a type of cirrus cloud) .... this would be extremely expensive and inconvenient, though. Would require the extra expenditure of fuel burned...which would then INCREASE the amount of pollution emitted! And all of that pollution in form of water vapor would by its very nature, as water vapor, be invisible to the Human eye.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
good so we agree it's bad pollution
Please don't paraphrase people to add emotive and subjective words they did not use.

Nobody would ever suggest that aircraft exhaust is not pollution. Nobody would ever say pollution is not bad. But describing something as "bad pollution" is suggesting bad compared to something else, like factories, or cars.

But are contrails pollution any more than invisible engine exhaust from the same plane a few minutes later is pollution?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread has diverged from the original topic, so will shortly be closed.

Jim, if you'd like to make a more focussed point, then I suggest you start a new thread, and keep it short. Although you really should answer this question first:

Do you agree that planes emit the same pollution whether or not they produce visible contrails?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
and if you dont like contrails, dont live under a major flight path. right?
Except....many have called this the "NIMBY argument" (Not In My Back Yard). This is usually related to noise, near airports. Such as at the "John Wayne/Orange County" airport (KSNA) where there reside a great many wealthy people who, because of their activism and political influence (right-wing, mostly) have instigated some procedures that are, frankly, "challenging" for aviation professionals to the point that KSNA is now an FAA designated "Special Airport", because of these 'community actions'.

And this thread may be closed....but the concept of FAA-designated "Special Airports" is easily searched, and then understood, on any number of search platforms.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I also understand that the thread title has been veered....This has run its course....almost 500 posts?

Signal to noise.....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Saying the thread is about to be closed is not an invitation to cram in as much off topic stuff as possible :)

It's to give an opportunity to tie up loose ends.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
It's to give an opportunity to tie up loose ends.
Well...what loose ends need to be "tied-up"?

This is really about a guy named "Max Bliss"...his online persona, might be his real name. Doesn't matter, really.

The actual issue here is about facts....and well "bunk"....because "bunk" is not factual. It is "opinion" (often) and unsubstantiated (usually).

The "calling out" (if that phrase is OK?) of "bunk" seems to to be the primary focus, here.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
OK..."Jim Lee" uses a moniker, here on the MB website.

I still do not understand the "point" of the posts. Airplanes make pollution, yes. So do many other ground-based machines.

AND....does "Max Bliss" understand this as a fact?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
OK..."Jim Lee" uses a moniker, here on the MB website.

I still do not understand the "point" of the posts. Airplanes make pollution, yes. So do many other ground-based machines.
Read his past posts. He has a history of not answering direct questions.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
As I understand it, there are different definitions of 'pollution' in use in this discussion.

Metabunk members refer to the common usage of the word, which includes all unwanted chemical products of combustion in jet engines.

@rezn8d however counts in all unwanted effects associated with contrails, which includes reflectivity change, triggering of clouds etc.

Like with "chemtrails", this is again a matter of term redefinition which @rezn8d should avoid or explain very clearly. However, if he did so, then there likely wouldn't even be a controversy ...
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
All pollution is bad, otherwise it wouldn't be pollution.
Air traffic is a tiny fraction of overall pollution compared to ground traffic and industrial process, including coal fired power stations. but, just like ANY pollution, anything we can do to reduce it will be good.

So we have at least established then that is IS pollution from burning fossil fuels, and NOT anybody DELIBERATELY spraying any other substance for whatever reason is fashionable this month?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Jims position is very confused. He claims he is only interested in the pollution aspects of aircraft emissions, yet has no problem forming an alliance with Madisonstar Moon, someone who absolutely believes that contrails are full of illicit chemicals.

He then wonders why, coupled with his refusal to answer direct questions, why people suspect his motives.

 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
Reference the NASA ACCESS flights that Max Bliss recently stumbled upon. You have to feel sorry for Dr Rangasayi Halthore from NASA being sucked into the world of madness by these three. See from 13:00

https://espo.nasa.gov/home/tc4/person/Rangasayi_Halthore

 

skephu

Senior Member.
oh. then i dont agree it's pollution. i like clouds.
Persistent contrails can be viewed as weather pollution as they generate a hazy cloud cover where otherwise there would be a clear sky, alter the distribution of humidity and may affect precipitation patterns, affect temperature variations, the climate, etc. And this is only going to get worse as air traffic is predicted to triple by 2050. If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
It is likely that the most obvious methods to avoid contrails are leading to higher fuel consumption (lower flight levels, detours around humid areas). So it must be determined which measure has the least overall impact.

Anyway, it's simply confusing to mix all effects of jet traffic together and call it "pollution".
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Persistent contrails can be viewed as weather pollution as they generate a hazy cloud cover where otherwise there would be a clear sky, alter the distribution of humidity and may affect precipitation patterns, affect temperature variations, the climate, etc. And this is only going to get worse as air traffic is predicted to triple by 2050. If we have lots of contrails today, imagine what it will look like in 2050 if do nothing to reduce contrails.
no. clouds are not 'pollution' no matter how you look at it.

Pollution is only ONE aspect of global warming. To say clouds trap heat=global warming, ergo 'possibly harmful to the global environment' is one thing. but to call clouds 'pollution' is just a HUGE HUGE stretch of the word.

i understand the spin on the word as used in "light pollution"
but i agree we have too many planes, trucks, buses, boats, coal burning plants etc etc etc that contribute to global warming. contrail clouds is such a miniscule piece of that, it isnt even funny. To use your definition is detracting from the REAL issues and actions we need to address global warming. I can talk "doomsday thought regarding over population and industrialization" with you all day. I'm a pessimist. But Metabunk isnt about that.

and "Chemtrail theory" isnt about that. Chemtrail theory is about spraying ADDITIVES ie. metals into the atmosphere. If you guys want to change it to "Cloudtrail theory", well that would be ok.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
clouds are not 'pollution' no matter how you look at it.
That's your opinion. But the concept of weather pollution was used w.r.t. contrails as early as 1970:

From Kuhn PM: Airborne observations of contrail effects on the thermal radiation budget. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 27:937 (1970)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But the concept of weather pollution was used w.r.t. contrails as early as 1970:
cool. well since this was a 'pollution' concern 45 years ago.. and factoring in the dramatic increase in flights today from the 70s.. and since the effects today of contrail clouds are still rather miniscule, i dont think we have much to worry about come 2050 contrail increases. you made me feel much bettter, thanks.

and again, its still detracting from humanitys main problem.. car, truck, boat, industry pollution/ gloabl warming effects.
 
Last edited:

skephu

Senior Member.
since the effects today of contrail clouds are still rather miniscule
That's an unsubstantiated statement. The effects are not miniscule. Actually it's difficult to establish the magnitude of the effect; this question is still being heavily researched. I don't think we should become complacent about this.
you made me feel much bettter
I don't quite understand your logic. The issue was found to be a problem 45 years ago when air traffic was only about a tenth its current level. To me that says that the problem is a lot worse now than it was back then, and it's only going to get worse. You should not feel better. Feel worse!
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Pollution is any unwanted effect from a parent process - noise pollution, visual pollution, greenhouse-gas pollution. Contrails can overlap into a few areas depending on the context you're addressing. It's important to define terms of use so meanings aren't mixed; however some seem to do that deliberately.

That's an unsubstantiated statement. The effects are not miniscule. Actually it's difficult to establish the magnitude of the effect; this question is still being heavily researched.
But it's in the one percent range isn't it?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.

skephu

Senior Member.
But it's in the one percent range isn't it?
One percent of what? It depends on what we are looking at.
For example, cirrus cover over Europe is increasing by about 2% per decade. But that means percentage points, i.e. the cover increased from about 8% to 12% between 1980 and 2000, which is a 50% increase. Most of that is attributed to contrails, although there are uncertainties. Even measuring the cirrus cover is problematic due to invisible or nearly invisible cirrus.
The global effect of contrails may be small but the regional effects can be significant.
When chemtrail believers complain that they have lost their blue skies, they may exaggerate but they are essentially right. We have less clear skies over areas with heavy air traffic than we used to.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
One percent of what? It depends on what we are looking at.
For example, cirrus cover over Europe is increasing by about 2% per decade. But that means percentage points, i.e. the cover increased from about 8% to 12% between 1980 and 2000, which is a 50% increase. Most of that is attributed to contrails, although there are uncertainties. Even measuring the cirrus cover is problematic due to invisible or nearly invisible cirrus.
The global effect of contrails may be small but the regional effects can be significant.
When chemtrail believers complain that they have lost their blue skies, they may exaggerate but they are essentially right. We have less clear skies over areas with heavy air traffic than we used to.
well when i google "weather pollution" the only tie i see to that phrase in terms of contrails, so far, is your one source. i'm also getting 10% currently in europe for coverage. (so can you link sources)

eithr way, unless i missed an update (possible) Max Bliss doesnt think chemtrails are cloudtrails, like you apparently do.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
The problem with contrails is not just in estimating the radiation balance effects, but modelling the occurrence as well as the effects in the climate models.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Now, I'm wondering when the Metabunk clan will stop seeing contrails through rose colored glasses and at least call it what it is while debunking: pollution.
I've seen many members say jet exhaust is pollution. The fact is though, the the vast majority of chemtrail believers do not think it is pollution at all. Many think "chemtrails" are sprayed to poison us, make us sick so big pharma can make money, give us "morgellons", make us ingest metal so they can bean radio waves into our heads or some such nonsense, hide a second sun, create a plasma screen in the sky so that they can project Jesus/Allah/Buddha coming to earth. Oh, and a small number are now claiming it is pollution in order to get the ear of politicians (they don't trust who are merely puppets of the elite) and the media (who are also puppets who lie and read scripts) and all of us sheep.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
The contribution to retaining heat.
The contribution of contrails to global warming may not be very large. But this is not the only effect of contrails. Effects on the regional climates and local weather appear to be rather noticeable, as I mentioned earlier.
Just because we know contrails are not the result of a spraying program doesn't mean they are completely harmless and we love them. They are weather pollution and visual pollution as well.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The contribution of contrails to global warming may not be very large. But this is not the only effect of contrails. Effects on the regional climates and local weather appear to be rather noticeable, as I mentioned earlier.
Just because we know contrails are not the result of a spraying program doesn't mean they are completely harmless and we love them. They are weather pollution and visual pollution as well.
the topic of this thread is CHEMTRAILS. You are a thread polluter :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Debunked: Max Bliss and the Berlin Declaration Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Max Bliss performs seamless 180 U-Turn on global warming. Contrails and Chemtrails 13
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
HappyMonday Max Bliss - Anonymous Chemtrails 'Airline insider' speaks out Contrails and Chemtrails 54
TheMindBoggles Max Bliss & David Lim - Genuine concern or fear mongering? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked (again) Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
I Nathan Oakley's Flat Earth "Debates". Flat Earth 69
Hama Neggs Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Jay Reynolds Debunking in Live Debates Practical Debunking 4
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Latest posts

Top