Chemtrails and quiet governments.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Carbon monoxide is a poison - CO2 "merely" a GHG.

As for your previous post about the amounts of CO2 & H2O - I believe you are correct about the quantities.

However all the brouha has been about contrails - contrails are the visible part of exhaust and are only H2O.

all the other exhaust products are still there of course, but apparently they are of no concern to chemmies (well all except you perhaps) - they are, it seems, invisible!!

similarly with the H2O when there are no contrails - it is still getting pumped out of course...but it seems if you can't see it then it is not a problem.

It's just another inconsistency with the whole chemtrail mythology.

Of course if you are anti the pollution then you probably roll your eyes at chemtrails as being a distraction from the real problem.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Since I feel you know more about airplane engines then me,
I will let you describe the redesign of aircraft engines, and how they put out more co2 now
then they did in the past.

Then we can look at smoke stack emissions,
and how they put out more co2 gas now then in the past.

Without knowing maybe our first geoengineering was with co2,
but either way we all paid more for, product and tax.

And if we were misled with co2 gas,
what else might they mislead us about?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Since I feel you know more about airplane engines then me,
I will let you describe the redesign of aircraft engines, and how they put out more co2 now
then they did in the past.

What makes you think they put out more CO2 now than they used to?

Then we can look at smoke stack emissions,
and how they put out more co2 gas now then in the past.

Without knowing maybe our first geoengineering was with co2,
but either way we all paid more for, product and tax.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Since I feel you know more about airplane engines then me,
I will let you describe the redesign of aircraft engines, and how they put out more co2 now
then they did in the past.

What makes you think they put out more CO2 now than they used to?

So it appears that aircraft engines put out less co2 now, but more since increase of aircraft in sky.

(Which you showed me last night)

So we have more aircraft, more cars, more co2,
but co2 was suppose to be good, trees live on co2 etc.

CO2 Emissions/NM Decline | More efficient engines = less CO2 Unfortunately, while average CO2 emissions per aircraft have been more than cut in half, the fleet of business jet aircraft has increased from about 1,150 in the late sixties to about 19,000 in 2008. Thus, the overall CO2 emissions from business aviation have increased from about 1.0 to 2.0 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year in the late 1960s to between 15 and 20 million tonnes per year today. A metric tonne equals 2,204 pounds and is the common unit of measure in the world of CO2 emissions.

www.conklindd.com...

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Since I feel you know more about airplane engines then me,
I will let you describe the redesign of aircraft engines, and how they put out more co2 now
then they did in the past.

What makes you think they put out more CO2 now than they used to?

So it appears that aircraft engines put out less co2 now, but more since increase of aircraft in sky.

(Which you showed me last night)

I did??

So we have more aircraft, more cars, more co2,
but co2 was suppose to be good, trees live on co2 etc.

CO2 Emissions/NM Decline | More efficient engines = less CO2 Unfortunately, while average CO2 emissions per aircraft have been more than cut in half, the fleet of business jet aircraft has increased from about 1,150 in the late sixties to about 19,000 in 2008. Thus, the overall CO2 emissions from business aviation have increased from about 1.0 to 2.0 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year in the late 1960s to between 15 and 20 million tonnes per year today. A metric tonne equals 2,204 pounds and is the common unit of measure in the world of CO2 emissions.

www.conklindd.com...

If you have these sources why are you asking me, and telling me I've supplied you with information that I dont' recall??!!

Most of the smoke stacks moved off shore so I can see we lowered co2 in two ways
shut them down/regulation in America, and some country's have no standards overseas yet.
But looks like more co2.

Geoengineering with co2, on going, or the past?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Geoengineering with co2, on going, or the past?

the word Geoengineering is defined as

ge·o·en·gi·neer
  [jee-oh-en-juh-neer] Show IPA

verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
1.
to make a large-scale effort to modify (the earth or its environment), especially to counteract global warming: Pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is one way to geoengineer the planet.

- dictionary.reference.com...

AFAIK no-one has ever attempted to use CO2 to do this - so in answer to your question, option 3 - never.

Perhaps you mean attempts to lower CO2 production rather than "using" CO2 for geoengineering??

In which case attempts to reduce carbon output are certainly happening now.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You told me to tell my wife more aircraft equals more contrails, you post more then me,
can't remember them all.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Geoengineering with co2, on going, or the past?

the word Geoengineering is defined as

ge·o·en·gi·neer
  [jee-oh-en-juh-neer] Show IPA

verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
1.
to make a large-scale effort to modify (the earth or its environment), especially to counteract global warming: Pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is one way to geoengineer the planet.

- dictionary.reference.com...

AFAIK no-one has ever attempted to use CO2 to do this - so in answer to your question, option 3 - never.

Perhaps you mean attempts to lower CO2 production rather than "using" CO2 for geoengineering??

In which case attempts to reduce carbon output are certainly happening now.

But with the definition it proves co2 point!
Why create a term that has only has one purpose,
to remove co2.
Airplanes have increased co2 so we need,
geoengineering to clean up what they call contrails
and car exhaust!
So he has just back up my point.
planes are related to geoengineering.

Maybe I should use terraform with co2 instead?
Airplanes and cars may be terraforming with co2,
I don't think contrailers will accept that term either,
although maybe they should since they defend how harmless contrails
are, and all the good it does for humans.

Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the biosphere of Earth, in order to make it habitable by humans.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by zatara
The thing that I think is obvious in this whole chemtrail busines is the fact that not all leaders of governments and decision making people in governments are corrupt and that they must have a very good reason to keep us out of the chemtrail loop.

that would be that there's no actual evidence that chemtrails exist, that there's no actual geo-engineering programmes going on spraying anything into the sky, and that therefore there is no loop.

Glad to have cleared that up for you

Did you ever look up Aloysius...? I mean did you ever look up at the sky, at those so-called chemtrails? I guess you did look up but never did see something that should look like a chemtrail....I mean how does a chemtrail suppose to look like if they do not exist?

Maybe I should ask ....Aloysius...? Did you ever see aerosol spraying...the geoengineering kind of sprays?

Maybe it is a better question if I should ask if you if you always believe what your government is telling you.

You are completely right if you say that I am not to decide who is allowed to reply in the thread I started. It was more a kind of request because like many other chemtrail debunkers you do not contribute to what this thread is about.

It is my experiance that within no time a chemtrail thread is being derailed towards the 'do or do not' existance of chemtrails while the specific subject of the discusion is about something else.

So. me personally consider it rather rude if a debunker comes into the discusion just to excersise his right to enter a thread. Such actions mostly result in derailment with old debunk info and nothing new to contribute.

I would clear that up for anybody..

Aloysius the Gaul, I respect your opinions but they have been cloud seeding for years. It's so obvious. Your powers of observation must be limited.

Here is your proof that this is going on.

You should have used Thomas as your name. You have to see to believe.
They have been doing experiments on people and atmosphere for a long time and some have admitted it. Be it agent orange that was hidden and sprayed on the population,or silver iodide, there are some planes out there spraying. Just the fact that it is possible is enough to convince me that it's being done.

I don't care if you do not believe it. The FACT remains the governments has been hiding experiments, manipulating the masses and using people as guinea pigs for there own agenda under the guise of protecting the masses for a very long time.

Unlike you, I dont need proof, your ideology is that of the earth being flat.

reply to post by zatara


Here's what I think.
Like the average person, not all people are questioning this phenomenon. Which includes, politicians. Some politicians are just as complacent, complying and cooperating as 'regular' folk.

The others who have noticed our skies being marked up in the last 10 years?.....well, I think they can't get any more of a clearer or concise answer than we can. Jesse Ventura (like him or not, he is the CLOSEST 'politician' we have) tried airing a chemtrail series which got rejected or cancelled. And so it goes.............

I think our Sun is so incredibly unpredictable right now that some (or all) of these trails are to block out radiation. And if I'm correct and this is indeed a humanitarian act opposed to global genocide.......I think it's being kept secret in fear of civil disruption. If some people were to learn this (if I'm correct that is then...) there's no saying what would happen on the streets. People might take a 'who gives a crap' attitude and start rampant crime sprees. After all, what do they have to loose or fear if the Sun might wipe them out?

Just a theory.

Aerosol spraying has been very VERY quiet here in south-east Florida for about a month now.
I think, just a hunch, when the Sun tosses off a coronal ejection our way.....in which we have a day or two to react....the aerosol spraying gets fairly heavy.

reply to post by Grossac


I believe cloud seeding is done from the ground....then shot upward. Like a cannon-like apparatus.

The planes are aerosol spraying. Grant it, they might be cloud-seeding from a plane (which I doubt) and if that is the case, why the secrecy? Cloud seeding, although tampering with nature, after all, is an evasive GOOD thing, right?

I don't believe what we see here in south Florida is cloud seeding. Mainly because there's enough moisture in the air (and rains every other day) that their efforts would be a waste of resources. They should cloud-seed in the deserts not in the tropics.

Me thinks they're blocking out the Sun's potential radiation rays. Makes too much sense for me to think otherwise at the moment.

But Grossac, we're still on the same side I think.

In general, any info about new science and technology the government makes public. Has been in the works for the past 20-30 years or so.

All the talk about geoengineering coming out is now fits perfectly in that timeline.

Originally posted by SteelToe
In general, any info about new science and technology the government makes public. Has been in the works for the past 20-30 years or so.

Like what?

All the talk about geoengineering coming out is now fits perfectly in that timeline.

Global warming has been discussed since the 1940's. discussion about geoengineering "coming out" is actually a reflection of your own lack of knowledge - it has been publicly available for over a decade - eg

The first use of the term geoengineering in approximately the sense defined above was by Marchetti in the early 1970s to describe the mitigation of the climatic impact of fossil fuel combustion by the injection of CO2 into the deep ocean.

- from this history of geoengineering written in 2000

Or from 1992 - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. 1992. Policy Implications of GreenhouseWarming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press (see here to purchase a copy)

Neither of these have ever been secret.

Certainly there is higher public awareness now - but that should not be confused with it not having been public before now.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Grossac

 

I believe cloud seeding is done from the ground....then shot upward. Like a cannon-like apparatus.

no need to have to "believe" it - it is well documented.

The planes are aerosol spraying. Grant it, they might be cloud-seeding from a plane (which I doubt) and if that is the case, why the secrecy? Cloud seeding, although tampering with nature, after all, is an evasive GOOD thing, right?

Waht secrecy about cloud seeding?

It is certainly done with the intention of creating a benefit.

I don't believe what we see here in south Florida is cloud seeding. Mainly because there's enough moisture in the air (and rains every other day) that their efforts would be a waste of resources. They should cloud-seed in the deserts not in the tropics.

cloud seeding is only any good where there are clouds...obviously....and in areas where they either want precipitation, or sometimes to ensure precipitation is in a form they want - eg rain rather than hail, snow over ski areas.

A google search for "cloud seeding florida" brings up cases from the 1970's, 80's and possibly from 2010 (but the article has to be purchased so not sure).

Me thinks they're blocking out the Sun's potential radiation rays. Makes too much sense for me to think otherwise at the moment.

What "potential radiation rays"??

See I am not the only one looking at Co2
So contrails may be helping to make us fat.

No, this is not 1 April – and this is not an April Fool’s hoax. Mad as it may sound, Danish researchers have announced a theory that may not only explain why people all over the world are getting fatter and fatter, but also warn of the serious consequences for life on Earth of continued pollution of the atmosphere by CO2 emissions. In itself, the theory is quite simple: CO2 contributes to making us fat.

Obesity may follow CO2 concentration
Hersoug has since studied events and research results that could support his theory. 1. He says the development in obesity in the US was fastest in the period 1986-2010 on the east coast – where CO2 concentrations are highest.

CO2 makes us eat more This discovery made it possible to develop a precise hypothesis for how CO2 makes us fatter: We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more.

sciencenordic.com...

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
See I am not the only one looking at Co2

Really?

Gosh what with all this worldwide discussion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas over the last 10-15 years, and stuff I thought you were......

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
See I am not the only one looking at Co2

Really?

Gosh what with all this worldwide discussion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas over the last 10-15 years, and stuff I thought you were......

I was ignoring it until a group showed up claiming contrails are harmless 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
And the more they try to suppress what people feel, the more I feel an agenda is developing.
And how come no contrail guys has discussed the cabin air filters on planes since I brought it up?
You just claim, pay for the research yourself, and try to bury the question when all contrail guys claim to be in the industry with experience but simple questions of passenger cabin air recirculation filters seems to be to avoided.
So what is the replacement ratio of the filters and what determines this and what is found in the filters.

he will just give me the

How in what way

then the question mark smiley as usual