It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 37
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:20 AM
Measurements .....not dumping..... Simulations and models........By far the weakest proof.

BTW,where are the MODS????????

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

By far the most authentic, extensive, scientific and convincing amount of chemtrail evidence compiled in one thread on ATS ever. Thanks to the OP and all the other intelligent, dedicated and persistent people who helped to shine the light and bring forth the truth to deny ignorance.

The mods are most likely enjoying all you contrail con-artists squirm in your seats and racking what's left of your brains to try and come up with any way possible to disprove the existence of the geo-engineering chemtrails

The written documentation of the geo-engineering studies by the US government

Trends in emissions of ozone-depleting substances, ozone layer recovery, and implications for ultraviolet radiation exposure

Library and Chronological listings -9

MUST SEE geo-engineering / chemtrail documentary

What in the world are they spraying?
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:04 AM
HAARP hole punch clouds and Chemtrails

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:47 AM
Library of congress

Cloud Seeding^*&PID=fPdVx5QaxiUe5TAQqcJYQKnsXAsf&SEQ=20110302114137&CNT=100&H IST=1

Climate change^*&CNT=100&hist=1&type=quick

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:59 AM
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports
Internationally, many assessments have been produced to address important questions related to environmental issues such as ozone depletion, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity. Many of these assessments have provided the scientific basis for the elaboration of international agreements, including the Assessment Report Series from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
National Research Council Reports
Historically, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has partnered with the National Research Council of the National Academies. From this partnership resulted a series of reports that provide advice on Federal climate change research and related activities.
NOAA State of the Climate in 2009 Report
On July 20, 2010, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released the 2009 State of the Climate report. This report draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years. For a 10 page summary of the report click here, or see the entire report and summary materials at

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:03 AM

3.4.2 Global Models The GISS model setup for the regional emissions sector perturbation experiments was the same as that used in the transient climate studies (Section 3.2 and 3.3; see Appendix C and D, sections on Goddard Institute for Space Studies). The NCAR regional/sector perturbation simulations used the CAM-chem model (Lamarque et al., 2005b), in which an updated version of the MOZART chemical transport model (Horowitz et al., 2003) is embedded within the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3, Collins et al., 2006). CAM-chem has a representation of tropospheric chemistry with non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs) treated up to isoprene, toluene and monoterpenes. The particle simulation in CAMchem includes the bulk particle mass of black carbon (BC, hydrophobic and hydrophilic), primary organic carbon (POA, hydrophobic and hydrophilic), secondary organic carbon (SOA), ammonium and ammonium nitrate, and sulfate particles. Further details on the CAM-chem model are found in Appendix C in the section on National Center for Atmospheric Research. 3.4.3 Impact of Emissions Sectors on Short-Lived Gases and Particles This set of experiments consisted of six simulations

Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2
Climate Projections Based on Emissions Scenarios for Long-Lived and Short-Lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols
Lead Agency: NOAA
Click to order a free copy of this report from the Global Change Research Information Office.

How to cite this report: CCSP, 2008: Climate Projections Based on Emissions Scenarios for Long-Lived and Short-Lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. H. Levy II, D.T. Shindell, A. Gilliland, M.D. Schwarzkopf, L.W. Horowitz, (eds.). Department of Commerce, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 100 pp.
See also brochure: Climate and Airborne Pollutants
Click to order a free copy of this brochure from the Global Change Research Information Office.
The report is available for download below both in its entirety and in individual sections.
Note: All files are in PDF format.
Complete Report [4 Mb]
Individual Sections
Front Matter and Preface [756 Kb]
Front Matter [1 Mb]
Executive Summary [430 Kb]
Chapter 1: Introduction [401 Kb]
Chapter 2: Climate Projections from Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Stabilization Emission Scenarios [724 Kb]
Chapter 3: Climate Change from Short-Lived Emissions Due to Human Activities [2 Mb]
Chapter 4: Findings, Issues, Opportunities, and Recommendations [307 Kb]
Back Matter [472 Kb]
Supporting Materials
Appendix A: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Projections (Supplemental to Chapter 2) [228 Kb]
Appendix B: MAGICC Model Description (Supplemental to Chapter 2) [167 Kb]
Appendix C: Composition Models (Supplemental to Chapter 2) [264 Kb]
Appendix D: Climate Models (Supplemental to Chapter 3) [190 Kb]
Appendix E: Scenarios (Supplemental to Chapter 4) [189 Kb]
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

You are out numbered by twice the amount of people just in that small sample so far

Is that how you decide on what's true, check to see what the crowd is thinking? Orwell called that Group Think.

How many people do you know who believe the government's version of 911? I'm betting they outnumber the cynics by more than two to that makes them right?

Do you doubt that intelligence services have the ability to post bogus information as part of an effort to dazzle and distract from what they're really up to? Do you think only the chemtrail deniers are susceptible to such ploys?

Use the same atmospheric measurements used for predicting contrail persistence to prove your point. The tools and information are at your fingertips.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I might have been "had". For someone to change the weather, they wouldn't get far by only spraying reflective aerosols during times when contrails would persist anyway. They would need to be sprayed regardless of conditions, and that is what you can use in your favor. Find the evidence and post it.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

That post was only a response to a comment that I was a "laughing stock" because I believe chemtrails exist

The evidence of aerosol testing is clear and I suggest you read it yourself

As to the rest of your question I'm not sure what you're asking or saying. Please explain
edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Haarp holes are not chemtrails. It makes sense for the intelligence services to give a false lead like chemtrails to distract from HAARP and ELF technology. If you want to help raise awareness about this issue, proof will go a long way.

While researching, don't forget that FEAR is the whole point. TPTB want you to think they're omnipotent...they can control the weather, they can blow up the world, blah, blah, blah. Their technology doesn't need to actually work as long as the masses fear they DO work.

Be fearless. They're not nearly as powerful as you think.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by weedwhacker

Weedwhacker is right.

I am a humbled quasi-ex-chemmie.

I had been convinced for some time that we've been being sprayed like bugs. I was so sure of myself I started two threads about it, and then I tried to lie to myself by saying I was only "investigating' a suspicion, when in fact I was only looking for validation, not proof.

I don't doubt for a second that the government is engaged in all kinds of nefarious activity. I am certain TPTB wouldn't hesitate to spray us like bugs, and they may well be doing so, and I may well have witnessed it in action in years past, but so far the only proof I've been able to supply has shown the opposite.

Using the tools and the information provided by guys like Weedwhacker, Aloysius, FirePilot, SolyentGreen, etc., I put my suspicions (read: convictions) to the test by using sounding data and the Appleman chart to compare my suspicious-looking pictures to the weather conditions for the day the photo was taken. All I've shown is on the days I took the photos of "sky-crossing grids and lines", the conditions at altitude were optimal for persistence.

Of course there is probably a weather modification program...the rat bastards at the top would have no problem with that...however I am lacking any objective proof to support that hypothesis. At this time I can only prove I'm deeply suspicious of criminal government.

Be skeptical, but verify.


edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I'm saying I was attacking this from your perspective too. I know about the patents, and I know about the military having a boner for weather control, their testing, etc. You can check my dead thread about it and see how I began.

My point about 911 is people believe lies too. For 1000 years, many generations of very smart people believed Ptolemy...check your work to prove it to are the only one you need to convince.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew my dead threads about the matter. You sound just like me.

I am with you...I think weather modification exists and I want to prove it. Unfortunately I've only done the opposite so far.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

Oh my ....I'm so scared ....'re the one who let those contrail con-artists change your mind with ridiculous excuses and false logic. Why don't you grow a pair and read the documents.

You were on the right track in the first place

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

OK, I apologize for my abrasive attitude. But, hey listen up. Go read the rest of the threads I posted

Everyone complained when I posted videos. Everyone complained when I cut and pasted text.

I posted the links to all the sources. What more do you want man ? I mean come on, what is really going on ?

It's not enough evidence yet? Really.......

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

This is the karma I must pay for being such a dick to those guys I guess...

Now talking to you is like herding cats...look, you can dig in your heels all you like, but I'm on your side and you have the ability to prove or disprove your suspicions. Without proof, you're just suspicious...real proof needs to be questioned, so you need to scrutinize your proof as well as the proof provided by the opposition. This is something I hadn't done, but now that I have, I'm well prepared for the next barrage of sky-crossing grids, should they ever return.

If you're so certain, you should be able to prove it...not by posting work done by someone else, but by posting your own.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:53 AM
OK follow me and I'll walk you through it. This is where they say that the data is so important we have to hide how we got it......

The collection of all these data and their importance to global change research makes the long-term stewardship of data an essential part of the observational program. Not only is the volume of these data sets ever increasing, but they also come from a multiplicity of sources. All of these data sets must be archived and disseminated in ways to facilitate more conveniently and comprehensively their long-term use by the full range of user communities, especially by those involved in truly multidisciplinary scientific work and an increasing variety of adaptation and assessment uses.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Fair enough...add your own research to the ever increasing body of work. I'm interested in comparing your findings with mine. I'm happy to collaborate with you on this...that means holding your proof to the same standards as the proof of the opposition.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Yankee451

This is a government document I'm quoting...Don't you get it?


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Here is the link to the site page that has the other reports like this from 2004 until now. The report I was using was from 2009. There are 8 reports like this one in total available at this link available in pdf or html

2004-2005 report

2006 report

2007 report

2008 report

2009 report

2010 report pdf only

2011 report pdf only

Notice the legal disclaimer attached to these documents....

This document describes the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) for FY 2009. It provides a summary of the achievements of the program, an analysis of the progress made, and budgetary information. It thereby responds to the annual reporting requirements of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Section 102, P. L. 101-606). It does not express any regulatory policies of the United States or any of its agencies, or make any findings of fact that could serve as predicates for regulatory action. Agencies must comply with required statutory and regulatory processes before they could rely on any statements in this document or by the CCSP as a basis for regulatory action. Library of Reports 2010 Report Summary Data Report

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

You post a video of a cloud that refracts light and produces rainbow colors just like zillion other clouds do all around the planet. What's your point? You never say a rainbow, or beautiful colors of sunset? Do you get out much?

I was in mountains in Central Asia years ago and had to get up at 3 in the morning. The horizon was stripes of green, yellow and fading into dark blue of space. Must have been chemtrails! Yeah right.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

It's like talking to myself...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...exactly why I doubt everything from 911 to the Holocaust and more. I thought I had that proof about chemtrails, but I was mistaken. Again, this only proves that what I thought were chemtrails only existed at times when persistent contrails would be present.

To control the weather effectively with aerosol sprays, they would not be able to hide it.

If they're trying to reduce the population with slow-kill pathogens, spraying is a highly inefficient way to do it. Public water makes much more sense.

Think like a sociopath for a second and you'll see there are many better ways to kill people, and spraying chemtrails only when persistent contrails would form anyway is not an efficient way to control the weather...but they probably get a kick out of watching us argue about this instead of our status as chattel slaves.

new topics

top topics

<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in