New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Here you go George see if you can view them.

[link to i1302.photobucket.com]


[link to i1302.photobucket.com]

Oh please, stop the garbage.

George B is a Shill. Repeat, George B is a shill.

Yup . . . seen them many times . . . Me thinks they are very ugly . . .

I have been around since 2010 so I would be a Senior Shill . . .

you have a sense of humor about it, that's good!

:144:

Last Edited by George B on 05/08/2013 11:48 PM

Wow! Look at these crazy Poll numbers . . .


POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 38.3% (1111)
No, I do not . . . 23.0% (666)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 17.9% (519)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 9.9% (286)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.6% (162)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (156)
Blank (View Results) (543)

Non-Blank Votes: 2900

Some interesting info . . .

"Scientists alarmed by rapidly shrinking Arctic ice cap
Dimming the Sun

The accelerating change in the Arctic has brought new attention to geoengineering, in particular to solar radiation management (SRM) methods that reflect sunlight back into space (see Physics Today, August 2008, page 26). Advocates of SRM acknowledge that geoengineering is a last resort to be used only if the world fails to limit greenhouse gases. The failure so far to reach a global agreement to achieve meaningful emissions reductions invites the question of how an international consensus on geoengineering might be developed. Proponents of SRM techniques that modify the atmosphere acknowledge that adverse effects on local climates are likely, including changes in rainfall patterns. And no form of SRM would address the ocean-water acidification being caused by increased CO2 emissions.
Several SRM management techniques might be tailored to mitigate Arctic sea-ice loss . The lofting of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere has long been considered a sure and relatively inexpensive method of SRM. One group of scientists recently showed in models that stratospheric aerosols could also be made to counteract polar ice melt while minimizing undesired effects elsewhere. A paper published in the November 2012 issue of Nature Climate Change argued that reversing polar ice melt would require only a fraction of the solar shading that would be needed for planet-wide cooling. Smaller amounts of sulfates would mean fewer changes in rainfall patterns and less damage to the ozone layer. “If the problem is too little Arctic sea ice—and that is an important problem over the next half-century—then I would say that aerosols are the cheapest and most effective way [to address the problem],” says David Keith, a professor of applied physics at Harvard University who coauthored the paper. “There’s hardly anything else we can do, because cutting emissions [of greenhouse gases] isn’t going to do much over the next half-century—though in the long run we must cut emissions to near zero to limit climate risk.” Keith has also suggested that aerosols composed of engineered nanoparticles could be concentrated in polar latitudes through photophoresis—a phenomenon in which sunlight will cause the migration of particles suspended in a gas.
As for the price tag, Keith points to a paper he and colleagues published in Environmental Research Letters in August 2012. They concluded that several methods, including airplanes and blimps, could possibly deliver the million metric tons of aerosols required for solar shading for less than $8 billion per year. The paper compares that with the range of $200 billion to $2 trillion per year for the estimated cost of damage resulting from climate change or the cost of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions."

[link to www.physicstoday.org]

The US Code use to allow such experiments and was repealed in 1997 . . .

OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.


Section 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, Div. A, Title X, Sec. 1078(G), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, And Pub. L. 105-277, Div. I, Title Vi, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886 . . . [link to codes.lp.findlaw.com]


NEW CODE as of 01/05/2009

TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM -HEAD- Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents -STATUTE- (a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) - (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects. (b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes: (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. (c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees. (e) "Biological agent" defined In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro- organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing - (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or (3) deleterious alteration of the environment. [link to uscode.house.gov]

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 38.5% (1119)
No, I do not . . . 22.9% (666)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 17.8% (519)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 9.9% (288)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.6% (162)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (156)
Blank (View Results) (545)

Non-Blank Votes: 2910

I do not "believe" in measurable proven objects and activity. Belief is for the yet to be proven assumed concepts.

I know cars are real.
I know chemtrails are real.
Equally I do not "believe" in cars. A person who has never seen, touched, or ridden in a car can believe in one.

Some interesting information . . . Anything changing since chemtrails became a concept???

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

[link to www.nytimes.com]

Since 2009 I have been studying all sides of the Chemtrail issue and have published many, many Threads and Polls on this issue . . . I have always stated that what people are seeing is an increase in normal contrails that are very explainable based on technological advances in engine efficiencies and higher and more frequent high altitude flights . . . Please take the time to view the videos below . . .

The videos below were created to inform people of the fear and anger that the Chemtrail Conspiracy Movement has caused. Some people unfortunately have advocated violence. This IMO is unacceptable. The leadership of the movement need to tell their readers that they are seeing ordinary passenger and military aircraft making contrails.

Chemtrails Extremism II

[link to youtu.be]

[link to youtu.be]

Last Edited by George B on 04/20/2016 12:05 PM

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 38.4% (1123)

No, I do not . . . 22.8% (666)

Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 17.9% (522)

Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 9.9% (288)

Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.6% (163)

Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (159)

Blank (View Results) (547)

Non-Blank Votes: 2921

Last Edited by George B on 12/30/2013 12:27 PM

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 38.5% (1129)

No, I do not . . . 22.9% (670)

Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 17.8% (522)

Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 9.8% (288)

Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.6% (163)

Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (159)

Blank (View Results) (556)

Non-Blank Votes: 2931