In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: rebelv
[
I do believe that someone is spraying chemicals into the air.

Lots of people are - even you - every time you breathe!

I got replies that Geo-engineering is different from chem trails.

I got replies that cloud seeding is different than chem trails.

Both of these are true

But, that's what these planes are doing, they're making clouds,
artificially.

Contrails are certainly artificial clouds - but they are not secret, not done for any purpose, they are water (although the jet exhaust contains all sorts of other crap pollution).

They may or may not have some effect on climate - the science is out so if they do it is probably completely minor.

And they are being generated and behaving exactly as they have done sine they weer fist noticed in large numbers in WW2.

Chemtrails, OTOH, as a plan for doing...something...whatever the conspiracy of the day is today .....have no evidence to support their existence ....not one shred.....ever.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Now, is there any way barium in that form can end up in the blood?

I didn't catch this part when I first read the post. That is a damn good question so I suspect it might be ignored.

a reply to: Petros312

Obvious sarcasm

You spotted it? Well done!

a cheap jab intentionally designed to irritate me

But you're so beautiful when you're angry.

you do not quote the important info

I didn't quote the 'info' that was important to you; I quoted what was of importance to the person I replied to.

Note above the phrases "a person's respiratory and neurological system" (i.e., a human being) and "when breathing in airborne barium" (which is not ingestion by mouth to the digestive system).

They were phrases used originally by you, which I quoted verbatim.

"No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans."

Perhaps you don't understand what this means. It means that no controlled clinical studies have been conducted on the subject. Any intelligent person can see why. However, there have been studies on people who have accidentally inhaled barium in compound form, and these are discussed in the document.

'What happens when humans inhale barium' is: nothing. That is what the document concludes, and that is what studies to date have shown. That document is a survey of the literature; it is complete, i.e. exhaustive. If you don't like its conclusions, tough. Go and do your own research — I don't mean googling, I mean conducting a scientific study into barium inhalation. Don't bother to reply to this post until you've found some volunteers to snort barium for you.

My work is done here.

And it has achieved nothing, unless you count making things unpleasant with your blustering and your accusations of malfeasance. But please don't let that discourage you; people like you are what make ATS so entertaining for people like me.

originally posted by: waynos It frustrates me quite a bit more than it probably should that others don't seem to understand why.

I don't really understand why you're so angry at them over a simple discussion? I mean why be a condescending bully about it?

Some people have different opinions about this subject, it's a touchy one yes, and always has been. We should all respect each other's opinion.

In order to have a debate about the possibilities of weather modification or chemtrails, there needs to be both sides heard.

So If it upsets you so much, duscussing it might not be a very healthy activity for you to engage in my friend. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation

Some people have different opinions about this subject, ..

It is not that people have different opinions, it is that people are putting out as FACT a position that has no supporting evidence and says that I am a criminal.

originally posted by: rebelv

....what I perceived to be a
condescending and patronizing reply, so rather than get into an
argument, I decided to try and be funny...

You're right. It was. I'm sorry. You copped for disdain that someone else had stirred and that was unfair.

I do believe that someone is spraying chemicals into the air.

I got replies that Geo-engineering is different from chem trails.

I got replies that cloud seeding is different than chem trails.

But, that's what these planes are doing, they're making clouds,
artificially.

Geoengineering (viva aerial methods) is a genuine proposal but still at the study stage. Scientific reports and studies admit they don't know enough about potential consequences to consider implementing it.

Cloud seeding is an established activity, it induces rain or snow from existing cumulous type clouds, it doesn't create clouds because the type of clouds created by aircraft, as contrails, are the cirrus type, which aren't the sort of clouds that produce rain or snow. This means you can't create a cloud then make it rain. This is why its not cloud seeding.

Chemtrails are just what people call contrails when they either don't understand the phenomenon, or have been lied to by scammers. Harsh as that sounds, it's a true fact.

I'm not a scientist but I did watch Dr. George Fishback back in the
day, and I do know that in order for clouds to form they must form
around particulates in the air. Those particulates could be natural
dust, etc. It could be pollution, or... it could be chemicals being
sprayed into the air, at an altitude in which there is sufficient humidity
and temperature.

Which is all absolutely correct, though whether chemicals ARE being deliberately sprayed into the air is a particular bone of contention for several reasons. Some chemicals certainly come out of jet exhaust without anyone making any effort at all.

The contrail type cloud that an aircraft might create (not just jets at all) is caused by the nucleation of ice around the particulate matter (from the jet exhaust as well as ambient particles). They are formed at higher altitudes where the temperatures are always around minus thirty to minus fifty degrees. They persist and/or spread into cloud cover when local relative humidity, as you said, is high enough.

At lower altitudes in warmer air, jet exhaust never produces contrail clouds because water droplets don't form and suspend in the air like rainclouds. The only type of clouds you will see are aerodynamic ones where the moisture condenses out of the air momentarily due to pressure differentials over the wings or at the tips. I've photographed this at ground level (even nice spirals off the props of a Q400) and it always disappears immediately. So it's not just that aircraft produce clouds. It's the cloud type that important to consider.

And then on the other hand, chemical particulates need not even
form natural clouds at all, the clouds can be comprised entirely of
chemicals.

Yes, that's right and I believe that if Chemtrailing really occurred this is what they would be. Because (a) a secret spraying operation that everyone on earth can see is just plain stupid, (b) anything sprayed from an aircraft over a long distance at altitude would be impossible to see from the ground.

The water ice in the contrsils we do see comes from the water in the air already and the water created by the combustion of fuel. It's not carried by the plane, there's far too much of it for that.

I hope this is a more coherent reply to illustrate my viewpoint.

originally posted by: SheopleNation

originally posted by: waynos It frustrates me quite a bit more than it probably should that others don't seem to understand why.

I don't really understand why you're so angry at them over a simple discussion? I mean why be a condescending bully about it? Some people have different opinions about this subject, it's a touchy one yes, and always has been. We should all respect each other's opinion.

I don't think there are sny grounds whatsoever for calling me a condescending bully (first part, occasional lapse perhaps, second part, never). I certainly don't intend to come across that way. Also, it's not anger at different opinions. Opinions are fine. It's just frustration when someone ignores basic knowledge and reality in order to justify that opinion. I don't see the sense in doing that, it kills meaningful debate stone dead and that's the bit that frustrates me. Not that they disagree.

In order to have a debate about the possibilities of weather modification or chemtrails, there needs to be both sides heard.

So If it upsets you so much, duscussing it might not be a very healthy activity for you to engage in my friend. ~$heopleNation

Absolutely - providing one is not presenting a side that has to rely on fiction and supposition, whilst actively disregarding reality and then refusing to accept any information that goes against it. That's not discussion. There IS a genuine discussion to be had here and if I do get upset from time to time, hey, I'm human, and not a paid professional at this lark. ;-)

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The document our bad-tempered friend was fulminating about a few posts above contains the following, which suggests that about half of inhaled barium ends up in the bloodstream (at least it does in dogs, whose lungs, I suspect, work rather similarly to human ones).

No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans. Animal studies provide evidence that barium compounds, including poorly water-soluble compounds such as barium sulfate, are absorbed from the respiratory tract. Morrow et al. (1964) estimated that the biological half-time of 131BaSO4 in the lower respiratory tract was 8 days in dogs
inhaling 1.1 :g/L barium sulfate (count median diameter [CMD] of 0.10 :m, Fg of 1.68) for 30­ 90 min. Twenty-four hours after an intratracheal injection of 133BaSO4, 15.3% of the radioactivity was cleared from the lungs. The barium sulfate was cleared via mucociliary clearance mechanisms (7.9% of initial radioactive burden) and via lung-to-blood transfer (7.4%
of radioactivity) (Spritzer and Watson, 1964). Clearance half-times of 66 and 88 days were calculated for the cranial and caudal regions of the trachea in rats intratracheally administered 2 :g 133BaSO4 (CMD of 0.34 :m, Fg of 1.7) (Takahashi and Patrick, 1987).

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The document our bad-tempered friend was fulminating about a few posts above contains the following, which suggests that about half of inhaled barium ends up in the bloodstream (at least it does in dogs, whose lungs, I suspect, work rather similarly to human ones).

No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans. Animal studies provide evidence that barium compounds, including poorly water-soluble compounds such as barium sulfate, are absorbed from the respiratory tract. Morrow et al. (1964) estimated that the biological half-time of 131BaSO4 in the lower respiratory tract was 8 days in dogs
inhaling 1.1 :g/L barium sulfate (count median diameter [CMD] of 0.10 :m, Fg of 1.68) for 30­ 90 min. Twenty-four hours after an intratracheal injection of 133BaSO4, 15.3% of the radioactivity was cleared from the lungs. The barium sulfate was cleared via mucociliary clearance mechanisms (7.9% of initial radioactive burden) and via lung-to-blood transfer (7.4%
of radioactivity) (Spritzer and Watson, 1964). Clearance half-times of 66 and 88 days were calculated for the cranial and caudal regions of the trachea in rats intratracheally administered 2 :g 133BaSO4 (CMD of 0.34 :m, Fg of 1.7) (Takahashi and Patrick, 1987).

Your bad tempered friend as you like to call him was correct.
You made the false claim that "HUMAN" respiratory testing was "extensively" contained within the EPA document.
If you now want to backtrack to save your own face, thats your own business. But your "bad tempered friend" was correct in what he said, on the other hand you was not.
Now its an assumption that dogs lungs and human lungs work exactly the same. Which may be true, but thats not what anyone was talking about in the first place.
The simple response would have been to apologise for not reading the document you made false claims about.
As an annoying meerkat likes to say...."Simples".

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: SheopleNation

originally posted by: waynos It frustrates me quite a bit more than it probably should that others don't seem to understand why.

I don't really understand why you're so angry at them over a simple discussion? I mean why be a condescending bully about it? Some people have different opinions about this subject, it's a touchy one yes, and always has been. We should all respect each other's opinion.

I don't think there are sny grounds whatsoever for calling me a condescending bully (first part, occasional lapse perhaps, second part, never). I certainly don't intend to come across that way. Also, it's not anger at different opinions. Opinions are fine. It's just frustration when someone ignores basic knowledge and reality in order to justify that opinion. I don't see the sense in doing that, it kills meaningful debate stone dead and that's the bit that frustrates me. Not that they disagree.

In order to have a debate about the possibilities of weather modification or chemtrails, there needs to be both sides heard.

So If it upsets you so much, duscussing it might not be a very healthy activity for you to engage in my friend. ~$heopleNation

Absolutely - providing one is not presenting a side that has to rely on fiction and supposition, whilst actively disregarding reality and then refusing to accept any information that goes against it. That's not discussion. There IS a genuine discussion to be had here and if I do get upset from time to time, hey, I'm human, and not a paid professional at this lark. ;-)

Supposition eh?

Like supposing that because a specific number relating to the blood toxicity level being quickly forthcoming means that...

originally posted by: waynos


nobody seems to know what constitutes a toxic level. Therefore the claim appears to be fatuous.

No it doesnt, it means that your own research and comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
I have found a proposed "normal" level while searching which was around 1.1mg/l(I think, I wasnt looking for normal levels I was looking for toxic levels) and also a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.
If only those making these claims could tell the difference being lack of data meaning lack of data, and lack of data meaning something is totally safe, only dangerous in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

I really cant be bothered to go through and dig up you other suppositions, but anyone can go through this thread and see some of your very own regarding the "safety" of Barium. And the lack of knowlegde that Barium inst found in nature as a free element. It is bound to other chemicals. So technically Barium poisoning alone doesnt exist. But barium chloride poisoning does, as does barium carbonate poisoning.

So just thought Id point out that little piece of hypocrisy right there.

Its not just conspiracy theorists that are capable of making false assumptions and claims, its not just conspiracy theorists that dont do the research, and its not just conspiracy theorists that let emotion cloud their better judgement.
To err is human, for anyone to think they are beyond mistakes, needs a psychiatric evaluation.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Supposition eh?

Like supposing that because a specific number relating to the blood toxicity level being quickly forthcoming means that...

originally posted by: waynos


nobody seems to know what constitutes a toxic level. Therefore the claim appears to be fatuous.

"Seems to" and "appears", Both denote an impression, not an assumption.

No it doesnt, it means that your own research and comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
I have found a proposed "normal" level while searching which was around 1.1mg/l(I think, I wasnt looking for normal levels I was looking for toxic levels) and also a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.
If only those making these claims could tell the difference being lack of data meaning lack of data, and lack of data meaning something is totally safe, only dangerous in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

Now who's making suppositions? Pot, kettle, black? I know perfectly well that Barium can be toxic, but it's all about levels. we are talking about barium levels following spraying, which the information we've had suggests (because I'm no expert) cannot be ingested in sufficient quantity this way. I can write all day about contrail misidentification, but I rely on information from others about chemical toxicity, so shoot me.

I really cant be bothered to go through and dig up you other suppositions, but anyone can go through this thread and see some of your very own regarding the "safety" of Barium. And the lack of knowlegde that Barium inst found in nature as a free element. It is bound to other chemicals. So technically Barium poisoning alone doesnt exist. But barium chloride poisoning does, as does barium carbonate poisoning.

You may be mistaking me for someone else. I don't claim to know anything about this aspect and have been reading the data provided by both sides to try and learn. So what if I commented regarding the way I was reading the information. If that was wrong it's an opportunity for correction, not an excuse to attack.

not just conspiracy theorists that are capable of making false assumptions and claims, its not just conspiracy theorists that dont do the research, and its not just conspiracy theorists that let emotion cloud their better judgement.
To err is human, for anyone to think they are beyond mistakes, needs a psychiatric evaluation.

Er, ok After our initial misunderstanding our exchanges have been quite civil until this attack. My posts have been entirely reasonable except for a bit of sarcastic humour with another member which missed its mark and I apologised for. If you don't like that, tough luck.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I have found a proposed "normal" level while searching which was around 1.1mg/l(I think, I wasnt looking for normal levels I was looking for toxic levels) and also a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.

Now that's interesting. 1.1 mg/l is 1100 mcg/l. Dicicco's lab test reports 190 mcg/l. Seems well below that "normal" level of 1100 mcg/l.

What should one make of the claim of high barium blood levels?

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Supposition eh?

Like supposing that because a specific number relating to the blood toxicity level being quickly forthcoming means that...

originally posted by: waynos


nobody seems to know what constitutes a toxic level. Therefore the claim appears to be fatuous.

"Seems to" and "appears", Both denote an impression, not an assumption.

No it doesnt, it means that your own research and comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
I have found a proposed "normal" level while searching which was around 1.1mg/l(I think, I wasnt looking for normal levels I was looking for toxic levels) and also a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.
If only those making these claims could tell the difference being lack of data meaning lack of data, and lack of data meaning something is totally safe, only dangerous in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

Now who's making suppositions? Pot, kettle, black? I know perfectly well that Barium can be toxic, but it's all about levels. we are talking about barium levels following spraying, which the information we've had suggests (because I'm no expert) cannot be ingested in sufficient quantity this way. I can write all day about contrail misidentification, but I rely on information from others about chemical toxicity, so shoot me.

I really cant be bothered to go through and dig up you other suppositions, but anyone can go through this thread and see some of your very own regarding the "safety" of Barium. And the lack of knowlegde that Barium inst found in nature as a free element. It is bound to other chemicals. So technically Barium poisoning alone doesnt exist. But barium chloride poisoning does, as does barium carbonate poisoning.

You may be mistaking me for someone else. I don't claim to know anything about this aspect and have been reading the data provided by both sides to try and learn. So what if I commented regarding the way I was reading the information. If that was wrong it's an opportunity for correction, not an excuse to attack.

not just conspiracy theorists that are capable of making false assumptions and claims, its not just conspiracy theorists that dont do the research, and its not just conspiracy theorists that let emotion cloud their better judgement.
To err is human, for anyone to think they are beyond mistakes, needs a psychiatric evaluation.

Er, ok

"seems to", "could", "may", "possibly", "I think" are all assumptions. Assumptions that are made because the facts arent fully known.

supposition
ˌsʌpəˈzɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
"they were working on the supposition that his death was murder"
synonyms: belief, surmise, idea, notion, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, view, inference, theory, thesis, hypothesis, postulation, guess, guesswork, feeling, hunch, assumption, presumption
"there is a widespread supposition that there is nothing of any value in these techniques"

Just saying.

I dont have my flag pegged to any mast in this debate, I first came at it from a biased perspective, but I have corrected that and am now unbiased. Im doing the research, and learning from that.
If I am making assumptions or false claims then please point them out, and if Im guilty I will apologise, if not I expect an apology. Is that too much to ask?

Technically the contrails are cloud seeding, if there were no clouds then contrails turned into clouds then that is cloud seeding. Its not rocket science.
If the sun is dimmed as a result of the large amounts of cirrus clouds caused by contrails in the sky, then that is weather modification. Either on purpose or as a side effect of an overuse of jet planes, its modifying the weather.
Then when you combine that with the admitted fact that barium is in JET FUEL, you can sort of understand why people may think that its "chemtrails". We know one thing is true, for every persistent contrail that is in the sky it also has an invisible counterpart of jet fuel pollution with all its additives, the particles of which can become the nucleus for water particles and ice crystals to form in the first place. You dont need to spray chemicals from planes, when you can put the particulates into the fuel.

Now the fact that some of these metals are being found in higher amounts from the soil samples, then the very premise of chemtrails has some legs. Does it not?
Just because an aspect of the over arching idea or "conspiracy" may be proven to be false, it doesnt mean the whole idea is wrong.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also it wasnt an attack, I was pointing out flaws. Things WE ARE ALL CAPABLE OF.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

I have found a proposed "normal" level while searching which was around 1.1mg/l(I think, I wasnt looking for normal levels I was looking for toxic levels) and also a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.

Now that's interesting. 1.1 mg/l is 1100 mcg/l. Dicicco's lab test reports 190 mcg/l. Seems well below that "normal" level of 1100 mcg/l.

What should one make of the claim of high barium blood levels?

Like I said that figure is a rough guess from memory, I may be wrong.
I think I spent enough time on that rabbit hole, I dont wish to go back.
The fact that barium in some forms is a poison is enough me to know. The fact that a pharmacist would use barium chloride to commit suicide is all I need to know.
The numbers are out there, but in studies that need a subscription for you to be able to read. I was lucky to find what I did find, especially the 9.9mg/l figure. Which just happened to be in the abstract of the study, not buried in the text that needs a paid subscription.

a reply to: OneManArmy

No answer was found in your reply. If 1100 mcg/l is to be considered normal what should one make of a claim that only 190 mcg/l is high?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

No answer was found in your reply. If 1100 mcg/l is to be considered normal what should one make of a claim that only 190 mcg/l is high?

Yes, no answer was in my reply and no answer will be forthcoming, because like I said "I dont know".

If fairies and unicorns existed, would the world be a better place?

a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, no answer was in my reply and no answer will be forthcoming, because like I said "I dont know".

That's unfortunate as the answer is quite simple. If 1100 is normal then 190 is not high. Why is that difficult?

The number you posted doesn't need to be correct to answer the question. I asked you to get you to possibly think about how that number would affect the veracity of the claim presented of a high level. If the number you posted is incorrect that's not my fault.

If the claim is false then all discussion of various levels other than what would constitute a high level is unnecessary.

a reply to: OneManArmy

You made the false claim that "HUMAN" respiratory testing was "extensively" contained within the EPA document.

Funny, I recall saying something different.

Astyanax
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted earlier.

Which is indeed the case. Have you read the document yet? All that is known concerning the absorption and retention of barium in the lungs, and the corresponding physical effects (which are asymptomatic) is in fact contained, as conclusions, in that document, largely in the sections mentioned. All that is known — an exhaustive survey of the data.

Allow me to draw your attention to something. Earlier on in the thread, my own principles — or, if you prefer, my own vanity — prompted me to correct an error that I had made, though none of you had even noticed it. Would I do that, yet lie merely to make a debating point in the same thread?

I have never once lied on Above Top Secret, even about little, unimportant things. The challenge for me here is to fight untruth with truth, and if I were to lie my 'victories' — not that anyone ever wins an argument on the internet — would be hollow indeed.

If you now want to backtrack to save your own face, thats your own business.

I am not backtracking. Not an inch. Now stop being so bloody rude.

Now its an assumption that dogs lungs and human lungs work exactly the same.

Yes. A reasonable one. If we look up the science we may find it isn't even an assumption, but frankly, I can't be bothered. You do it if you want to. Or, like I told Petros, go and find some volunteers willing to snort barium.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes, no answer was in my reply and no answer will be forthcoming, because like I said "I dont know".

That's unfortunate as the answer is quite simple. If 1100 is normal then 190 is not high. Why is that difficult?

Because without the right figure being known its totally hypothetical.

Ok just to indulge this time consumer yet again, why do I have to be the finder and interpreter of information?

1.5 µg/L

In Urine.


If we correlate that with my previous fatal case where the urine barium level was roughly two thirds of the blood barium level, then maybe and yes its an assumption, we can assume that around 2µg/L in blood would be normal.

a reply to: OneManArmy


Yes, spot on. Please do read your own quoted definition. I've already said i have no 'belief' (as per the definition) in regard to barium toxicity, therefore I gave my impression from the information presented, which is open to correction, which is what I said and not any kind of assumption.

"seems to", "could", "may", "possibly", "I think" are all assumptions. Assumptions that are made because the facts arent fully known.

"seems to", "could", "may",& "possibly" all leave room for debate, denote uncertainty. "I think" (if followed by a definitive claim) suggests a belief or assumption, It's not the same and not what I said.

You seem to be like a dog with a bone here and i really don't get why.

Anyhow, moving on;

Technically the contrails are cloud seeding, if there were no clouds then contrails turned into clouds then that is cloud seeding. Its not rocket science.

No, its not rocket science. It's not cloud seeding either. Cloud seeding requires the cloud to already exist. the cloud is seeded in order to make it rain or snow. That's not an assumption by the way. That's why contrails have their own name, Contrail, or Cirrus Aviaticus, and cloud seeding is something else.

12) Is there any link between cloud seeding and chemtrails?

No. The WMA is unaware of any connection between cloud seeding as is practiced by its members and to what some refer to as “chemtrails” (chemical trails). Atmospheric scientists even dispute the existence of “chemtrails”. What some chose to call chemtrails are actually “contrails” (condensed engine exhaust trails)

www.weathermodification.org...

Either on purpose or as a side effect of an overuse of jet planes, its modifying the weather.

They can't affect weather, but there seems to be a genuine climatic effect which deserves greater study. Since chemtrails are supposed to be a deliberate and secretive operation though, any mention of them immediately prevents serious discussion of the real potential because chemtrails are a crackpot idea. Adverse environmental and pollution effects of jet aircraft are as worthy of study and discussion as the effects of road and rail traffic, industry, etc - but chemtrails are still figments of the imagination that require impossibilities of science and logistics.

Then when you combine that with the admitted fact that barium is in JET FUEL

I'm glad you reminded me of that. I've not seen this admission, could you furnish it? I did post information that would make it less likely for barium to be in jet fuel, as well as an open recognition that its a smoke suppressant in Diesel fuel. What did you make of that?

you can sort of understand why people may think that its "chemtrails". We know one thing is true, for every persistent contrail that is in the sky it also has an invisible counterpart of jet fuel pollution with all its additives, the particles of which can become the nucleus for water particles and ice crystals to form in the first place. You dont need to spray chemicals from planes, when you can put the particulates into the fuel.

I can certainly see why people might believe in chemtrails if a number of fallacies are allowed to take hold. Here i mean stuff like contrails not persisting and presenting fake evidence that isn't whats claimed. Barium in jet fuel may or may not be one of those, the jury is out until i can get further into it, but basically yes I can.

You mention visible contrails in the part i just quoted. Thats one of my main bugbears. Jet exhaust pollution is always there in the sky over our heads. When people post that the sky are blue because there are no planes, and these posts can be found on here, followed by dismay when 'the spraying started again', thats just delusion and lack of knowledge. If a person lives under a scheduled airline route they will have exactly the same amount of exhaust pollution over them every single day, visible or not. Do you see why i find that silly?

You see, I'm not trying to argue that jet exhaust is all wonderful. It isn't. Its the chasing phantoms and the fixation with visible trails (which ARE only different because they are water) that I'm arguing about.