If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief most?

So, you are suggesting that "anthropogenic" and "ground source" mean the same thing?!

I don't think that you understand that I don't have to prove anything to anyone. That's not what I'm doing, I don't care if you think everything in the world is a contrail. Hee heee....Maybe cotton candy is really a contrail..

Of course you do...you chemtards stick by each other...

Oops, I thought you meant George...I guess your lack of reading comprehension is contagious...

Yes . . . I should have been more specific . . .

Birds of a feather flock together

Yet, you feel the need to argue about it when others say it's most likely contrails...

And maybe the chemicals in the tap water cause the rainbows...right?!

You chemtards make the crazy sprinkler lady look like a genius.

So, that's a yes...you do think these terms mean the same thing?!

Wow....

Raintards.. Crazytards. Sprinklertards. Geniustards..

So you expect everyone to take your word on faith. As if your proclamations carry more weight than any scientific evidence. I will ask but expect the question will be ignored since no chemtrail believer has yet to answer, what is your science background?

I did not say they were the same . . . I am referring to the following quote . . . The average global anthropogenic SO2 emission strength has probably been fairly constant between 1980 and 1990, the increases in some regions being compensated by decreases in other regions (Boucher and Pham, 2002).

Last Edited by George B on 03/29/2013 03:46 PM

No, just the ones who think that contrails are chemtrails earn the "tard" suffix.

Yes, take my word on faith. I believe very much in the Lord.
I'm a Faithtard. Bibletard.

OMG George...look at what you wrote before I wrote "Why is it " not highly likely"?!" And ten look at your reply to that same statement...

Why do you guys take contrails so seriously?

Apparently she doesn't expect us to do anything with her statements. She's just letting us know what se saw...like a kid with Down's telling the world he has a cookie...

She doesn't want debate....

Because you people are so serious about spreading the ignorance as truth, when the truth matters so much more.

You people are spreading lies about people and subjects you know nothing about.

Why would I debate with someone on here that I don't know a thing about. That doesn't seem very logical. If you don't believe me, so be it, not a big deal.

And please give me back my cookie.

At least you can admit it....

But your interest was AFTER 1990. What happenend to anthropogenic SO2 emission after 1990?

Lol! The funny thing is, no one wants to debate you! You obviously see contrails, and use your limited education and propensity to believe in conspiracy theories to come to a conclusion based on assumption and anecdotal "evidence" you have accepted as truth from other chemtards. The fact remains, you have no evidence that any trail you've seen is anything more than a contrail.

You're here to lend support to George...we get it...and don't care.

Personally, I'd rather discuss the subject with a rock than with you.


But, the truth IS a big deal...and needs to be posted alongside the lies and stupid nonsense the chemtards post as truth.

There is no debate.

Have you seen evidence that anyone has flown through a trail that you, or any other chemtard has seen, and found it to contain anything more than water vapor and combustion gases?! Nope!

That's the truth! You can call them "chemtrails" but it's a lie!

Jesus isn't gonna like that!

George is a bad doggie, no biscuit.

According to the EPA in the US and like agencies in Europe the ground level concentrations went down. . . .

Doctors don't recommend it.

No matter how garbelled the communication. . . .I was trying to say ground (anthropogenic) sources were actually static . . . However, the other GROUND sulfur compound sources as the ocean are also very static as well. . . . the only greatly variable sources appears to be volcanic. . . .

I have to run. . . please play nice. . . .

It isn't the contrails per se but the anti-science, science illiteracy that bothers me. People ignore the science in favor of the mind numbing, irrational explanations that are counter to 2000 years of scientific progress.

Then there is the lack of complete logic:
“I know what I see.” You may know what you see but you may not know how it got there and you definitely don’t know what it is composed of.
“So many people argue against it, so it must be true.” That is just inane.
There are so many more examples.

People just do not realize that when they see something in the sky that is an observation. The observation has value but the improper extrapolation of interpreting what they see is meaningless.

Here is an example. Uri Geller is a so called psychic. Many years ago he was tested by a group of scientists and was able to convince them he had psychic powers. The problem was, none of the scientists were magicians. Later when a magician studied the problem he was able to explain and duplicate all of the Uri Geller feats as simple magic tricks. The scientists were rather embarrassed and retracted their statements.

The point is, the scientists were out of their field and made a mistake. If you haven’t studied science and particularly atmospheric physics you run the very big risk of being wrong. But so many people fear being wrong they dig in their heels and start arguing even though they don’t realize how ludicrous their arguments are.

People really need to know that this arguments in favor of chemtrails are just bogus arguments based on fear, ignorance, and lies.

Great post

But that is off by 40,000 to 100,000+ feet. The question is straospheric, not ground level SO2.

What is so great about it, it is stupid. I don't think anyone was saying they fear chemtrails, its mostly a question of why, who is doing it, funding it, what will happen when it is stopped.
Valid question that are not answered from you shills and sock puppets.