New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

And how is there a "cover of AC"?!

How am I "covered"?! Are you any less covered as "George B"! You are STILL just some anonymous (paranoid and stupid) asshole on some conspiracy site...regardless of how you label yourself in your posts.

What a stupid comment...

You are the biggest loser for not listening to me..Its 1 year and its happening..There is no need for chemtrailing anymore..Its in the cards ,the die is cast,get ready for the big blast!!..Just like I was told..One more thing,Chemtrails are real in every shape or form..Have a good day!!..

I'm no loser for not listening to some paranoid moron on a conspiracy site. That's a fact.

You are a nutcase.

And it will be proven soon enough...

How many years have to go by before you'll admit you are just a paranoid loser?

I love how you act as if this Middle East thing is a sign that your prophecy is coming true.

That region has been a violent hotbed...FOREVER!

This is just a upswing in violence...and the downswing will come soon enough. It always does...

There will be no "big blast".

By the way, I still see the same trails....all the time in my area. Why?! If there is "no need" for them, why do I see them?

You are a nutjob...and always will be. Seek some medical attention.

You see the chemtrails??..You acknowledge they exist!!..Im so proud of you for admitting that..There is more to the story then what your feeble mind can comprehend..This is the big one,buy some twinkies..They have a shelf life of 20 years..1 year,just like I was told..Garry Owen!!..

Of course they exist, stupid! I have never said otherwise. But, they are still contrails...nothing more.


There is no more to the story...you are a paranoid loser...the end!

The end??..Not for me buddy..For you??..Im glad Im not you..

Yeah, you are going to magically survive this "big blast" while those of us who know you are full of shit won't survive...BECAUSE we know you're full of shit...

Trust me, I'm glad I'm not you....you are pathetic.

Stock up..This whole world is going down..I told you within 1 year shit was going to happen and it is,right now..Chemtrails??..Fuck your Chemical poisons from the sky!!..It matters no more..Very soon that shit eating grin will be wiped off your face..Garry Owen!!..Death from above!!..

Yes, I'm aware of the story you told me. It's after a year already and there is war in the Middle East, as there always has been....yawn.

I still don't understand how "stocking up" will save you from the "big blast". It's your fantasy, I'm sure you have all the details worked out...in that void you call a mind.

Nope, the grin I have will be there for a long time. I'm not falling for your paranoid fearmongering.

Every time I see a contrail (persistent or otherwise), I think of you chemtards and mutter to myself..."idiots..." and then I grin some more. I'll be doing that for many years to come....

I'm so glad that you pay such a high price for your paranoid nonsense beliefs. You deserve it for spreading it as truth/fact.

You are pathetic.

How about calming down . . . you can both agree to disagree instead of name calling . . .

No one is talking to you...chemtard.

It is my Thread and I will police it as I wish Noble . . . if you want to respectfully debate an issue about chemtrails or related subjects you are welcome and free to do so . . . if not . . . well that puts the ball in my court as they say . . .

It's a public forum..and I'll respond to a paranoid moron by calling him a paranoid moron...you paranoid moron.

And if these fearmongering assholes insist on posting nonsense as truth/fact instead of belief, which is all it is, I'll respond by posting the fact that you paranoid morons are paranoid morons.

And why won't you answer my question about your "cover of AC" comments?

It is courtesy to (properly) ID oneself . . . if you don't understand that I can't explain it to you . . . sure anyone can adopt AC or any Name to fool or confuse people as to who they are . . . I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt . . . so why don't you be a nice guy and clearly play above board . . . it is just good sportsmanship . . .

It's a courtesy not to be a fearmongering asshole who recruits the gullible into a cult of fear based on that ignorance. How dare you mention courtesy...

And how is logging in any more identifying than my I'd number?! You know it's me...but, do you know who I am?! NO! We are all anonymous anyway...and I couldn't care less. How is that "confusing"?

Don't EVER mention "sportsmanship" you asshole! All you are about is paranoid and ignorant assumption.

Fucking hypocrite

You are doing a better job at recruiting opposition to a rational process than I could ever be . . . which is not, by-the-way, my intention . . . I want an open and free debate of the issues surrounding the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theories . . . what do you want . . . a yelling contest based on who can sling the best insult . . .

Last Edited by George B on 11/20/2012 01:30 PM

I don't give a shit about the fucking chemtards...how many times do I have to explain that? I'm not here to discuss anything WITH them...or influence them in any way. I'm recruiting no one into anything. They are USING my posts in whatever way they use them because of their mental illness. That's not my problem.


To suggest that it's MY fault that they are unable to have rational conversation without making stupid paranoid assumptions, is ridiculous. And you know it!

Yes, I want to insult those who DESERVE to be insulted for the ignorant fearmongering they perform. It's disgusting to make statements of fact about subjects that one is uneducated in, in an effort to recruit other gullible people into these stupid little cults.

Just look how I'M opposed just for pointing out that there is no evidence to support the claims. I deserve to be labeled a "shill" and a "government agent" for pointing out that there is no evidence that ANY trail is anything more than a contrail?


Of course, i'm not surprised that one chemtard agrees with the others...go for it.

No skin off my nose.

Well Noble you need to tone down your mouth or you won't be welcome here . . . so if you wish to stay . . . cool the foul mouth . . . .

Fuck you fearmonger

Good by Noble . . .

David Keith on the Australian ABC . . .

[link to www.abc.net.au]

[link to www.abc.net.au]

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.

David Keith, thanks for joining us.

DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.

TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?

DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions.


TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?

DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.

The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research.

And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.

TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?

DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.



TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?

DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, "What's the very most likely thing to work right now?" that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.

So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we'd be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.


TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.

So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don't think we should - I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.


TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably - if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there'd be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you'd actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.

How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?

DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn't happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.

Last Edited by George B on 11/27/2012 10:14 PM

I just made this account and wanted to thank anonymous coward for attempting to rationalize with the chemtards.


Grow up. Get yourselves a more productive hobby.

Thank you, George.

So what is your contribution to the debate?

Last Edited by George B on 11/27/2012 10:48 PM

The reason why I don't think the persistent trails in the sky are chemtrails . . . that does not mean some form of geoengineering experimentation has not or is not taking place . . .

One thing I would add . . .

If I meant you harm, I would hide it well
Why hang it in the air for all to see
I'd spray them at night to dissipate
So if you see them in the air no need to fear
They are clouds writing a tale of trade and travel

If Atmospheric Science is not your bag
Simple logic can prevail, you see
Simple, No one puts a sign in the air if they wish to hide

Why would I put a billboard in the sky?
Ask yourself . . . Why would I put a billboard in the sky?

Thanks for all your votes . . . now over 2700 votes . . .


POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 37.3% (1008)
No, I do not . . . 23.4% (632)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 18.1% (490)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 10.1% (272)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.8% (157)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (146)
Blank (View Results) (499)

Non-Blank Votes: 2705

And each and every one of them...meaningless