First peer reviewed published study on 'chemtrails' finds no evidence of a cover-up

What a surprise (not really), the first peer reviewed study of chemtrails shows that there is no evidence of a cover-up.

www.sciencealert.com...

The first peer-reviewed journal article has been published on the 'chemtrails' conspiracy - the idea that organisations or governments are covertly pumping chemicals into the sky via aircraft.

The researchers found no evidence of large-scale chemical spraying programs going on without our knowledge, and concluded that distinctive 'chemtrail' patterns in the sky can all be explained by the regular science of water vapour.

How did they do this peer reviewed study?

To find out what was going on, the team interviewed 77 scientists who should know what they're talking about - they were either atmospheric chemists who specialise in condensation trails, or geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution.

Out of the group, 76 of the 77 experts said they hadn't come across evidence of secret, large-scale spraying programs.

The evidence that the 77th had come across was "high levels of atmospheric barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium".

In other words, she's seen an imbalance that could be explained by chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere, but hadn't come across any signs of nefarious activity.

So why has there been an increase in contrails?

The researchers also suggested that contrails are more common these days simply because air travel is becoming more regular.

"Despite the persistence of erroneous theories about atmospheric chemical spraying programs, until now there were no peer-reviewed academic studies showing that what some people think are 'chemtrails' are just ordinary contrails, which are becoming more abundant as air travel expands," said one of the researchers, Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution for Science.

There is a link to the full study here

Will this be enough to convince the die-hard believers?

It's doubtful, but when did evidence ever get in the way of a good scary conspiracy theory?

This is good. Assuming that all scientists were not paid-off shills , this promotes question and scientifical response.

It's always good to question the norm. Especially when questioning leads to the public being more aware of science.

I never understoud the condemnation of chem-trial believers. It's seriously hard to know the difference between chemtrials and contrials unless you research the subject. Even when researching the subject you are bound to hear ideas from both sides.

Without a science-related background, how can one differ between opposing opinions?

a reply to: cuckooold

So you're telling me that, PROFESSIONALS in the required area, are in agreement that there's no chemtrails?

How could that be? Dane Wiggington has said there are. And he's a professional.....oh, yeah.

Never mind.

a reply to: cuckooold

Nope, still not buying it.

The conclusion:

While we understand that many of the fears underlying SLAP theories may be legitimate, the evidence as evaluated here does not point to a secret atmospheric spraying program. Changes in aircraft technologies may be causing contrails to persist longer than they used to, and changes in industrial development could potentially be increasing aerosol deposition in some areas.

It's really difficult to prove a negative and the study was far from definitive (check out the methodology). (I don't believe in chemtrails, BTW)

Our contrail survey consisted of four pictures taken from SLAP websites that have been cited as evidence of a SLAP. In each case, the experts were first asked whether they thought the most parsimonious (i.e. simplest) explanation involved a SLAP. They were then asked to explain the photo and offer a reference to the scientific literature that best described the mechanism(s) that account for the phenomena shown in the photo. They were also asked whether trails behind aircraft persist for longer time periods today than when air travel first began, and the factors underlying any change.

a reply to: cuckooold

A group of researchers got together and answered interview questions giving their professional opinion on chemtrails. That's it. They simply drew from their own past clinical experience and their own past research and that of other researchers, and gave their professional opinion on the matter based on things that have already been published. That's what a peer review study is. No new research or clinical studies. Just rehashing the data they already have and publishing their opinion.

Evidence does not equal proof. So until it's proven either way, which it has not been, then it is perfectly appropriate to continue looking for answers. Just because some researchers say that they don't personally believe it to be true doesn't mean it is suddenly cold hard fact. And they say as much, right there in your source article.

Yeah but yesterday I saw a cloud that , if I tilted my head and squinted, looked just like a kangaroo eating a sandwich. You are not telling me that's natural. You never saw kangaroo shaped clouds when I was a kid and all this was just field's etc etc.

Let's see, the government subsidizes airports to make air travel more affordable so many more jets are flying around. The companies who make our military jets under contract with the government also design the engines on jets, that just seem to put out more contrails. Just a coincidence.

So since these scientists did not have any approved evidence to show chemtrails exist. A contrail is a chemtrail, how could they miss something like that. There is chemicals dispersed into a trail and that trail is geoeffective.

We had a military airport here, the only contrails we saw before were from military jets or from change of elevation. They did not last too long. We used to see lots of jets in the air above us, they had a little contrail that dispersed quickly.

There is a major difference scientists, maybe you should have been looking up in the sixties and seventies instead of sitting behind a desk. Where do they find these people, do they have to search to find scientists without any common sense or ability to see what is right in front of their faces? Or are all of them so brainwashed they can't look up in the sky and see that there is a major difference in the way contrails persist.

Is this a conspiracy, no. Just a bunch of people without brains that cannot see that the sky is full of contrails. We had jets going over a lot here, they did not do that years ago. To reflect sunlight, you do not need to have weird chemistry in the contrails, just create a cloud cover. The jets have been redesigned to create them, was it intentional? I think it was, they have known this was coming for many years, they started to engeneer the engines long ago to make this possible.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yeah but yesterday I saw a cloud that , if I tilted my head and squinted, looked just like a kangaroo eating a sandwich. You are not telling me that's natural. You never saw kangaroo shaped clouds when I was a kid and all this was just field's etc etc.

Do you have one of those medical marijuana cards by any chance?

a reply to: tigertatzen

The problem is that those promoting chemtrails have no evidence and no science on their side.

I've never seen a chemtrail supporter a peer reviewed study which is the benchmark for establishing what could constitute scientific evidence.

Persistent contrails are proven, chemtrails not so.

a reply to: cuckooold

I'm the most superstitious MF I know, and I've barely ever weighed in on chemtrails threads. I've looked long and hard at the evidence, the crystals, the 'effects' and pretty much all the evidence that is out there.

PERSONALLY, I find zero proof that anything untoward or nefarious is taking place against the human race, humanity or any particular demographics as seems to be the projection from some camps.

Why kill all the taxpaying slaves?

Unless the chemtrails are designed to make us live longer............

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yeah but yesterday I saw a cloud that , if I tilted my head and squinted, looked just like a kangaroo eating a sandwich. You are not telling me that's natural. You never saw kangaroo shaped clouds when I was a kid and all this was just field's etc etc.

Do you have one of those medical marijuana cards by any chance?

No, but maybe that's what they are spraying!!!! We must immediately start monitoring sales of Cheesy Wotsits and Snickers bars for proof.

Peer review fraud is on the rise in the scientific community... There are companies in China making money off of fabricated peer reviews.


The link below quotes the author of a blog on scientific research called "Retraction Watch, it talks about fraudulent peer reviews being trendy.

pjmedia.com...

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Of course you aren't.

a reply to: Elton

(I don't believe in chemtrails, BTW)

That's the problem right there. "Chemtrails" don't exist, geoegineering does. Now, is there nefarious geo-engineering going on? The fact "chemtrails" and the chemtrail agenda got pushed as hard as it did, smells like a limited hangout/disinformation.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org... at least calls it for what it is. Now, Im not saying every contrail is geo-engineering, but I am recognizing the latter exists. To what extent and what purpose Im unaware as I haven't got into it. But I would think that'd be where to start. As for there being "no cover-up", you can't prove a negative.

Others claim there is one, and I haven't taken time to review it (Im not sure Id want to know if it does exist), but looking into these instances and others, is where to start....

At the mere cost of $190 million dollars, of taxpayers funds, the Environmental Protection Agency has bought its independent advisers. That is the amount of payoffs, in the forms of “grants” to its advisers, to assure the results are what the ideologues want from the studies. In fact, ALL such decisions based on these advisers were bought and paid for—illegal under the law. This is fraud, embezzlement and corruption.

Believe a government financed “independent” study at your peril, your wallet and your job. How bad is this corruption—when a UCLA professor, James Engstrom exposed it, UCLA—the beneficiary of the payments and corruption fired him—for the crime of exposing crime.

a reply to: boncho

Geoengineeringwatch makes the same mistake as all the other chemtrail believers who claim that these trails in the sky have something to do with geoengineering -- they haven't bothered finding out anything about geoengineering.

Essentially the logic went like this:

The chemtrail community had already decided that something was being sprayed from planes
Someone in the community heard about geoengineering and the fact that it may involve spraying something from planes
They decided that what they had decided was being sprayed from planes must therefore be for the purpose of geoengineering.
The chemtrail community believed that the trails in the sky are geoengineering

Never mind what geoengineering would actually involve or even look like, that's all they needed and they've got the proposals and studies to prove it!

a reply to: boncho

SRM or SAI are intended to be sprayed in the Stratosphere. Since the Stratosphere is higher than commercial planes usually fly, it's not as conducive for trail formation, and the ideas proposed for what SAI is supposed to do would look more like a hazy sky than lines in the sky. But I'd love to hear your take on this subject.

a reply to: cuckooold

It's doubtful, but when did evidence ever get in the way of a good scary conspiracy theory?

First off i have never been a person who has engaged in the chem trail topics but i will say there is tangible evidence that chem trails are real and that they also have a technical name which was admitted very recently by a director of the CIA.

The technical name is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.
Maybe this slipped under your radar but if it's admitted as FACT by the heads of the intelligence services then the so called conspiracy theorists have been proven to be vindicated in their beliefs.
Take a look here for Stratopheric Aerosol Injection admitted by CIA director.

a reply to: southbeach

You're missing the same point as every other chemtrail believer who claims that these trails are stratospheric aerosol injection.


The STRATOSPHERIC bit

Those who want to believe will.