Contrails, chemtrails, and pollution

Some people here keep posting in the chemtrails threads and remind us of the pollution caused by jet engines. Of course pollution of any kind is a genuine concern, and no individual critical of the chemtrail theory will deny this (hopefully).

However, I'm not really sure what this has to do with chemtrails by their common definition, but this would be a good place to get to the heart of that matter.

So my questions are:

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

originally posted by: payt69
Some people here keep posting in the chemtrails threads and remind us of the pollution caused by jet engines. Of course pollution of any kind is a genuine concern, and no individual critical of the chemtrail theory will deny this (hopefully).

However, I'm not really sure what this has to do with chemtrails by their common definition, but this would be a good place to get to the heart of that matter.

So my questions are:

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

I say why do certain chemtrail debunkers here on ATS get so agressive and put down people in such a despicable manner?

This is a subject that should be discussed with mature intelligence and not treated as from the first or second post by certain people who are just downright rude in my opinion.

Here we go with people that are going to flame my words... who cares... we know how these people now react now when this type of thread is written.

But why bother using agressive terms? SOMETHING That you cannot prove with peer (AND I MEAN PEER reviewed articles?)

Kindest respects

Nibs

I guess you kinda get what you give. If you want an intelligent and mature discussion, it helps to bring intelligence and maturity to it.

So maybe you can make a statement in that vein regarding the subject of this thread?

originally posted by: payt69

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

1: Because the Chemtrail Theory has overshadowed the real issue of persistent Contrails that does have potential health issues by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by up to 10%, some 20,000 square miles of the UK airspace is covered by persistent contrails and this could lead to Vitamin D deficiency and other health related illnesses.

Jet contrails above Britain can block sunshine over 20,000 square miles

2: Not sure where you got your figure that only 2% of the pollution is from aircraft's, please supply your source (But you know what they say, 110% of stats are made up) but I think you may be referring to Global Warming pollutants. Back on topic here some figures and links;

On every flight to New York and back, each traveller emits about 1.2t of CO2, using Department for Transport figures. This compares to an average British personal total of 9.5t. To get down to a fair share of the world’s total, this must be cut by 87%, leaving 1.2t. Air travel is really worse than this because it puts out more pollution than just CO2. For example water vapour at high levels forms thin clouds that have a warming effect. We can see trails visibly blanketing the earth. This and other effects mean that air travel has more than twice the warming effect of the carbon dioxide alone. So each flight adds more to climate change than we should be emitting altogether.

What about short-haul flights?

They emit 150g of CO2 per passenger kilometre. A one-way journey from London to Manchester (185 miles) emits:

Plane – 63.9kg per passenger if the plane is 70% full, and 44.7kg if the plane is completely full.
Car – based on the average car 19.8kg per person when carrying an average 1.56 people and 7.7kg when carrying a family of four. A fuel-efficient car with an emissions figure of 100g/km produces 11.8kg and 4.6kg respectively.
Train 5.2kg per passenger if the train is 70% full
Coach – 4.3kg per passenger if there are 40 people on the coach.

Air Travel’s Impact on Climate Change

Plane Exhaust Kills More People Than Plane Crashes

So whilst Chemtrail believers and debunkers try and out do each other in threads such as these, we are not addressing the real health issues regarding Persistent Contrails is having on our health on a daily basis. So discussing "Pollution" from aircraft and sunlight reduction in a Chemtrail thread is extremely on topic and should be given more credence than whatever theory anyone has on the powers that be poisoning us fellow earthlings!

a reply to: payt69

Where's all the threads about car trails? I swear that F-100 was spraying something out of it's tailpipe...

Whatever the threat that chemtrails or contrails pose (if those threats exist) they pale to comparison to the harmful fumes that millions of road vehicles emit every day.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: payt69

Where's all the threads about car pollution? I swear that F-100 was spraying something out of it's tailpipe...

Whatever the threat that chemtrails or contrails pose (if those threats exist) they pale to comparison to the harmful fumes that millions of road vehicles emit every day.

I'd like to see some figures concerning road traffic!
These days cars (petrol) are extremely efficient. Back in the 60's when I was growing up I remember how my eyes would sting and the awful taste caused by the fumes from traffic, but these days you can stand behind a petrol car and not be able to smell anything! The same cannot be said for diesel cars however.
Also many cars are now using electricity!

originally posted by: Nibbles

originally posted by: payt69
Some people here keep posting in the chemtrails threads and remind us of the pollution caused by jet engines. Of course pollution of any kind is a genuine concern, and no individual critical of the chemtrail theory will deny this (hopefully).

However, I'm not really sure what this has to do with chemtrails by their common definition, but this would be a good place to get to the heart of that matter.

So my questions are:

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

I say why do certain chemtrail debunkers here on ATS get so agressive and put down people in such a despicable manner?

This is a subject that should be discussed with mature intelligence and not treated as from the first or second post by certain people who are just downright rude in my opinion.

Here we go with people that are going to flame my words... who cares... we know how these people now react now when this type of thread is written.

But why bother using agressive terms? SOMETHING That you cannot prove with peer (AND I MEAN PEER reviewed articles?)

Kindest respects

Nibs

Please show us where us debunkers have been agressive and rude. Because i can show you 1000 posts where chemtrail pushers have been rude and called us shills.

In fact, if anyone is rude to chemmies, its me. The rest of the "gang" are nothing but polite and informtaive and above all patient.

Personally, u think you have to be outright a bit stupid to believe in chemtrails....there i said it.

Please show us where us debunkers have been agressive and rude. Because i can show you 1000 posts where chemtrail pushers have been rude and called us shills.

And i agree. Chemtrails SHOULD be discussed with mature intelligence. So should the existance of Humpty Bumpty, the Trix rabbit and my favourite, Osmium pooping pink unicorns. Because they are all equally "real"

a reply to: VoidHawk

That probably has something to do with the catalytic converters.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Power plants and factories are far worse than cars. There's one power plant I go past that I can see the exhaust cloud from over 60 miles away. We went past a Cargill meat plant that had an exhaust cloud over the road that caused the road to be in shadow.

a reply to: flammadraco

I just don't know why you would have any anger in the subject you are discussing. I don't believe there is any disagreement.

I say this a lot, and it's ignored in favor of a venom filled fight every time. We are only contesting the people who point to a contrail and claim to KNOW it's a chemtrail based on incorrect information. It's not physically possible to determine anything other than it's a white puffy cloud like line in the sky, based on a picture alone. Hell, we can't say it's definitely a contrail, but we can say it looks a lot like a contrail, and to date, no other explanation passes peer review.

So please, explain why you would post with an angry tone with something nobody disagrees with?

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: payt69

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

1: Because the Chemtrail Theory has overshadowed the real issue of persistent Contrails that does have potential health issues by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by up to 10%, some 20,000 square miles of the UK airspace is covered by persistent contrails and this could lead to Vitamin D deficiency and other health related illnesses.

Jet contrails above Britain can block sunshine over 20,000 square miles

2: Not sure where you got your figure that only 2% of the pollution is from aircraft's, please supply your source (But you know what they say, 110% of stats are made up) but I think you may be referring to Global Warming pollutants. Back on topic here some figures and links;

I got that from here: www.atag.org...

Which seems to be the general consensus. There may be a delta of 1 or 2 percent, but whatever the case, aviation emissions are hugely overshadowed by all the other polluters.

I'm rather short on time atm, so I hope to respond to the rest of your post later

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded.
Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified.

Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month.

Please note, I am not advocating for air travel, or diminishing it's environmental impact. I don't like pollution either. If I could make it go away, I would.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
The cat has indeed cleaned up emissions, which is why I'd like to see some figures. I've had many occasion where I've been broken down on the hard shoulder of motorways, and even on those there is no smell of fumes.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Agreed. As a truck driver for many years, I got to see some of the pollution being pumped out by various plants and mills etc. I also noticed how many of them appeared clean during the day, but at night while the masses slept they pumped out massive clouds that would spread for many miles.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nibbles

originally posted by: payt69
Some people here keep posting in the chemtrails threads and remind us of the pollution caused by jet engines. Of course pollution of any kind is a genuine concern, and no individual critical of the chemtrail theory will deny this (hopefully).

However, I'm not really sure what this has to do with chemtrails by their common definition, but this would be a good place to get to the heart of that matter.

So my questions are:

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

I say why do certain chemtrail debunkers here on ATS get so agressive and put down people in such a despicable manner?

This is a subject that should be discussed with mature intelligence and not treated as from the first or second post by certain people who are just downright rude in my opinion.

Here we go with people that are going to flame my words... who cares... we know how these people now react now when this type of thread is written.

But why bother using agressive terms? SOMETHING That you cannot prove with peer (AND I MEAN PEER reviewed articles?)

Kindest respects

Nibs

Please show us where us debunkers have been agressive and rude. Because i can show you 1000 posts where chemtrail pushers have been rude and called us shills.

In fact, if anyone is rude to chemmies, its me. The rest of the "gang" are nothing but polite and informtaive and above all patient.

Personally, u think you have to be outright a bit stupid to believe in chemtrails....there i said it.

I think you have summed things up when saying the following : "The rest of the gang"...

I do not need to show you the agressiveness from both sides (the search button here on ATS is for that) and you know that too... I am using a second avatar name but can assure you that I have been a long time member here under another name and have witnessed how "The Gang" on this particular subject operates

This is a very emotive subject that causes irritation on BOTH sides...

I have noticed that CT debunkers are very agressive towards those people... (be they new or old and no matter where they come into this type of thread)...

Be agressive... accept that other people with different opinions will also be agressive too when retaliating...

Kindest respects

Nibs

redacted

originally posted by: Nibbles

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nibbles

originally posted by: payt69
Some people here keep posting in the chemtrails threads and remind us of the pollution caused by jet engines. Of course pollution of any kind is a genuine concern, and no individual critical of the chemtrail theory will deny this (hopefully).

However, I'm not really sure what this has to do with chemtrails by their common definition, but this would be a good place to get to the heart of that matter.

So my questions are:

1: Why do these people keep going on about the pollution caused by jet engines in a forum which focuses on chemtrails?

2: Why the focus on just that bit of pollution (which represents abut 2% of all pollution)?

I say why do certain chemtrail debunkers here on ATS get so agressive and put down people in such a despicable manner?

This is a subject that should be discussed with mature intelligence and not treated as from the first or second post by certain people who are just downright rude in my opinion.

Here we go with people that are going to flame my words... who cares... we know how these people now react now when this type of thread is written.

But why bother using agressive terms? SOMETHING That you cannot prove with peer (AND I MEAN PEER reviewed articles?)

Kindest respects

Nibs

Please show us where us debunkers have been agressive and rude. Because i can show you 1000 posts where chemtrail pushers have been rude and called us shills.

In fact, if anyone is rude to chemmies, its me. The rest of the "gang" are nothing but polite and informtaive and above all patient.

Personally, u think you have to be outright a bit stupid to believe in chemtrails....there i said it.

I think you have summed things up when saying the following : "The rest of the gang"...

I do not need to show you the agressiveness from both sides (the search button here on ATS is for that) and you know that too... I am using a second avatar name but can assure you that I have been a long time member here under another name and have witnessed how "The Gang" on this particular subject operates

This is a very emotive subject that causes irritation on BOTH sides...

I have noticed that CT debunkers are very agressive towards those people... (be they new or old and no matter where they come into this type of thread)...

Be agressive... accept that other people with different opinions will also be agressive too when retaliating...

Kindest respects

Nibs

So, thats what your latching onto? The fact that i used the words "the gang"...ok then.

Im sorry, but im going to say that i dont believe you. Not one bit. You have not noticed debunkers being aggressive and rude to chemtrail believers. I have read every single chemtrail thread in all 25 pages and i have not seen that. I have seen countless times when belivers were incredibly rude and accusing and aggressive to people giving them facts.

So, no...you havent seen it.

Cheers

A debate about debating, oh no's....