A "no spray day"?

originally posted by: Skaffa

Has anyone debunked these guys yet?

What's to debunk? They are proposing ideas about mitigating climate change. Using computer models and research.

This is the key point to why we are all here on this forum. It's not that we get giggly every time someone says "chemtrails", it's that if as you say, "people keep crying wolf", if there is a legitimate threat, it may be missed due to all the bullsh!t and lies that have been spread. So far, nothing anyone has brought to the table says that we are actively engaged in Geo-engineering projects. Again, that's not to say that it won't happen, just that as of right now, no evidence points that way.

If people keep being lazy and dishonest, this problem will continue. If people take the time to understand what they are posting and realize what is written, they will save themselves a lot of time and build credibility along the way.

Just to be clear, debunking is nothing more than figuring out what is fact, and what is BS. Remove the BS and let the facts speak for themselves.

Now, the link you just posted, what do you feel is said in that report?

originally posted by: network dude


This is the key point to why we are all here on this forum. It's not that we get giggly every time someone says "chemtrails", it's that if as you say, "people keep crying wolf", if there is a legitimate threat, it may be missed due to all the bullsh!t and lies that have been spread.

Yep - that's a major issue IMO - chemmies are trotting out so much rubbish "proving" that "spraying" is happening that any ACTUAL spraying may well get lost in the chaff!!

Eg this guy on metabunk is totally convinced that aerodynamic contrails aer spraying and won't accept any evidence that they are just a normal matter of physics - he even goes so far as to label all information saying that as "false" - and there are any number of scholarly papers dealing with the topic that he just writes off.

a reply to: Skaffa

Has anyone debunked these guys yet?

What exactly is there to debunk?

All they do is talk about what would be a good way to do so if needed, which btw has been talked about by David Keith for years.

originally posted by: Skaffa
a reply to: waynos

So the notion of chemtrails has become ridiculous to you because ''evidence'' so far has been debunked?

Yes. Because claimed "chemtrails" have alway been contrails, right back to the snake oil salesman who first started the scam, If ALL the evidence is bunk, what is left but trying to create a potentially credible threat out of something that was simply a lie in the first place? That seems pointless to me.

The perfect way to discredit a CT is to make it seem even more preposterous than it already is.

I've suggested this myself, as if the chemtrail nonsense is a diversion from something real. That would mean all the chemmies have backed the wrong horse. But it still doesn't make chemtrails real.

In my opinion combating climate change could be attempted by spraying chemicals into our atmosphere.

I agree. But that wouldn't be chemtrails and all the methods posited would not look or behave like chemtrails either. To me, this is the danger. If someone is looking for chemtrails, as evidence of geoengineering, they may as well read Marvel and DC for evidence of paranormal powers in people. It's that ridiculous.

I don't think it is wise to compare the idea to pink unicorns just because some paranoid bastards have been crying and pointing their fingers at every airplane they see.

But that's EXACTLY what it's like.

Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it can't ever happen in the future.

If you mean geoengineering, I agree. If you mean chemtrails then no, it absolutely cannot. They are impossible. An aeroplane, any aeroplane, cannot physically carry the volume of material that would be required to "spray" a chemtrail from within it that would look like a contrail from the ground. It also requires this substance to be able to replicate itself in order to create a thick blanket across the sky. Both requirements are idiotic. That's why chemtrails are a fools errand and not helpful at all.

The Tamaki Foundation sees it as the most probable solution to climate change.

Injections of sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere is the most popular and most likely geoengineering option implemented because – compared to a global shift to alternative sources of energy than fossil fuel – this option is simple and inexpensive: it could be deployed in less than two years by existing government contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, who would vie for lucrative contracts to control the Earth's climate. Though most scientists are quite sure that the combination of increasing carbon dioxide and stratospheric aerosols would lead to profound changes in the climate (including those listed above), the research studies to quantify these changes have not yet been done. With inadequate science to inform a debate on this extremely dangerous proposal for a geoengineering solution to global warming, it is difficult to imagine that governments won't take the seemingly easy out and deploy this last-gasp technology to mitigate some of the global warming problem, rather than shift the global economy away from fossil to alternative clean fuels.

We are using state-of-the-art climate models to simulate and quantify the impact of this geoengineering "solution" on the regional and global climate, and to further quantify the impact that these climate changes will have on global food security. Our hope is that our findings will catalyze an informed debate on whether we should pursue this 'solution' before this it becomes an uninformed fait accompli.

Has anyone debunked these guys yet?

This is solar radiation management, or a discussion of it. Not chemtrails. You see how the lines are getting blurred for you?

a reply to: network dude

What's to debunk?

Dang should have read the second page before replying.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Eg this guy on metabunk is totally convinced that aerodynamic contrails aer spraying and won't accept any evidence that they are just a normal matter of physics

Could that be Dane himself, because I see he doesn't have much respect for metabunk and probably Mick either?

I ask because he sure is hawking that video from geoengineeringwatch.org pretty hard.

First post, saw these weird perpendicular lines / trails over the southern end of Lake Conroe TX
Not sure if this is the correct place to put this, please move or direct me to a proper location. I cannot make my own OP so this seemed as good a place as any.
Thanks

[URL=http://s146.photobucket.com/user/stunard/media/IMG_0115-1.jpg.html][/URL ]

If people keep being lazy and dishonest, this problem will continue. If people take the time to understand what they are posting and realize what is written, they will save themselves a lot of time and build credibility along the way.

Well i guess i have been lazy, i apologize for blurring the lines between the possibilities of literal chemtrails and things like Boeing injecting sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere.
I did not know there was a difference as i took the term chemtrails quite loosely as you might have noticed, but i will choose my words more carefully next time as the last thing i want to be is part of the problem.

Now, the link you just posted, what do you feel is said in that report?

A group of academic researchers are explaining how officials are considering ways to combat climate change.
They say that the injection of sulfate aerosol into our stratosphere by government contractors like Boeing is being considered but this might involve some dangers. The researchers will try to simulate / test its effects to allow for an informed debate.

To me this meant ''chemtrails'' since i did not make a distinction between the ways the chemicals are released, or the ways it might appear to us looking at it from the ground.


What i was trying to say all along but didn't find the correct words for:

Try not to discredit the concept of chemicals being sprayed in the atmosphere on a large scale basis. It might happen some day.

But of course i was preaching to the choir.


On a different note.., what do you guys think is the main cause of climate change?

originally posted by: Skaffa

Try not to discredit the concept of chemicals being sprayed in the atmosphere on a large scale basis. It might happen some day.

do you not see the difference between "being sprayed" and "it might happen one day"??

No-one I know of disagrees with the 2nd - it certainly might happen one day.

But that is not evidence that of "chemicals being sprayed" now!

a reply to: network dude
There's a guy here in Australia who has been keeping rain samples since the early 80s apparently and can prove the governments have been spraying you since 1986. Just my 2 cents

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I never implied it is actually happening now, from the beginning i have only suggested to keep an open mind to it.

And if i'm talking about a concept, not an actual event, do i still need to state it is not an actual event?
By saying ''it might happen some day'' i thought i made that pretty clear.

Not trying to be a wise-ass, honestly just trying to improve my English

a reply to: jinni73

Would love to read more about this, if you have any more information to share?

originally posted by: superlite17b
First post, saw these weird perpendicular lines / trails over the southern end of Lake Conroe TX
Not sure if this is the correct place to put this, please move or direct me to a proper location. I cannot make my own OP so this seemed as good a place as any.
Thanks

[URL=http://s146.photobucket.com/user/stunard/media/IMG_0115-1.jpg.html]

[/URL ]

Those lines are persistant contrails, trails of frozen water ice left by high flying aircraft. You can see the wispy cirrus clouds above the trails, this shows that humidity is right for cloud formation and due to them freezing in a region of high humidity these trails can tend to hang around. In drier air thry would have vanished quite quickly so you only saw them one at a time.

a reply to: Skaffa


I'm sorry, but what does Agent Orange have todo with geo engineering and chemtrails?

originally posted by: jinni73
a reply to: network dude
There's a guy here in Australia who has been keeping rain samples since the early 80s apparently and can prove the governments have been spraying you since 1986. Just my 2 cents

And yet...he hasn't exposed this global lie, gotten super rich and saved mankind? Amazing.

That guy must be REALLY lazy..

originally posted by: superlite17b
First post, saw these weird perpendicular lines / trails over the southern end of Lake Conroe TX
Not sure if this is the correct place to put this, please move or direct me to a proper location. I cannot make my own OP so this seemed as good a place as any.
Thanks

Not weird at all if you look at the high level flight paths in that area

originally posted by: superlite17b
First post, saw these weird perpendicular lines / trails over the southern end of Lake Conroe TX
Not sure if this is the correct place to put this, please move or direct me to a proper location. I cannot make my own OP so this seemed as good a place as any.
Thanks

[URL=http://s146.photobucket.com/user/stunard/media/IMG_0115-1.jpg.html]

[/URL ]

There is a very very simple explanation. Planes fly very common paths overhead, kind of like roads in the air. So planes will frequently cross at 90 degrees to each other. If the conditions at the heights they are flying are right, a long contrail will form and persist. This is absolutely nothing other than a cirrus cloud forming. Now, if it's windy up there, as it often is...then the trails will be blown to the side a bit before another plane flies along the "road" the first one flew along, leaving a similar contrail and voila! Grids in the sky.

Now...don't forget that the sky is a very dynamic creature, so if you see a plane stopping and starting contrails, that's normal. It's just pockets of humidity it's flying through. If you see one plane leave a contrail and another not, that means that the conditions are right at one altitude and not for another. The planes might be separated by 1000 feet and that is enough for the conditions to be different.

I have to say, I hope you are young and educate yourself about all this because it kind of makes me sad to think of a grown man/woman being weirded out by what are essentially just clouds in the sky.

Please don't buy into chemtrails. You are being lied to by people who want your money. Science is open to all, free and easily explains what you are seeing

a reply to: network dude

I have noticed there seem to be a lot less chemtrails on weekends when the sheeple are slightly more awake and might take notice. Was this a weekend day?

a reply to: network dude

Also, isn't your logic (or absence of such) in this thread the same as taking a picture of an empty forest and saying "bigfoot must not exist" or taking a picture of an empty sky saying "UFO's must not exist"? You don't even show the rest of the sky or the planes or short contrails you are speaking about. If you are going to attempt to debunk chemtrails - try to think it out a little better next time.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Yea, it's a complicated theory. I show you a sky with planes that aren't spraying and ask why, but you fail to see the point.

Hear, I'll slow it down a bit. If chemtrails are real, why do they only show up on days that they upper skys are conducive for cloud formation?

And the picture was Monday morning. Chemtrail pilots must have slept in that day.