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

George B, I know you claim to be open minded on both sides of the debate, your title for this thread is : If you believe chemtrails are real . . . what source of information has reinforced your belief mos
It looks to read like tell why you believe chemtrails are real, so why do you allow the chemtrails believers to be insulted and stalked by those shill stalkers.

This makes your credibility look bad.
That is what makes this thread of yours a joke allowing gang stalkers .

Actually that is your job. You implied that there was something funny about the failures. Just prove you assertion.

It goes both ways. I have been insulted and called names while refraining from doing the same. I am trying to point out the inconsitancies in the "Chemtrail" story. It doesn't make sense that the contrails are anything other than contrails. There just isn't any evidence supporting that assertion.

From what I understand this is not a Contrail thread, why don't you do yourself a CONTRAIL thread and find out who cares about them , everyone knows what a contrails is already.
No, you'd rather harass and be stupid.

Awwwww...

Poor baby...

"Credibility"

lol

George wants us around...keeps his thread in the top spot...so he doesn't need to bump it all the time.

There you go. You just proved my statement. People who believe in chemtrails are vengeful, insulting, and rude.

The relevance is that the things that people call chemtrails are in reality contrails, water vapor and ice crystals. No one has been able to prove they are anything else.

You just showed you would rather insult than have a rational discussion.

And last time I looked at the Constitution I can say what I please. It is people like you who fear the truth.

How many years do you have to study something before you take a practical step . . . it has been studied intensely since the late 1990s????

I try to allow unlimited participation . . . it isn't perfect but it is about the best I can do . . . someone will always feel they were treated badly . . . as far as the title . . . my purpose was to follow up on a previous poll which asked how people were first introduced to the Chemtrail Conspiracy . . . This Thread was just the next logical step . . .

Thread: How were you introduced to the concept of the Chemtrail conspiracy?

Last Edited by George B on 03/31/2013 03:28 PM

No study, just shill.

Bad doggie, no biscuit.

You wanted to be a naviguesser, huh... Why am I not surprised.

Started in a "backseater" mentality and stayed there as you began hiding behind nurses' skirts. Couldn't handle the top spot in any industry. Now you spend your days trying to fuck with and scare unintelligent people.

No, I didn't want too . . . I was asked if I would . . . there is a big difference . . . I just wanted out of the military and return to Law School as soon as possible . . .

Last Edited by George B on 03/31/2013 03:20 PM

To a certain point partially true . . . I have tried to use other titles and the response is disappointing on the Poll response . . .

For Example this Thread . . .

Thread: What can civil aviation do to help save the planet?

Last Edited by George B on 03/31/2013 03:26 PM

I am not so quick to jump on the geo-engineering bandwagon as you. As soon as you do something with the intent of making changes you are geo-engineering. We do not know the climatology well enough to embark down the geo-engineering trail. There could be unintended consequences. I don’t mind at all people studying and discussing the issue but we have to be sure of the results. No second chance. And no, I do not think contrails or persistent contrails (what some call chemtrails) are an intentional attempt at geo-engineering. We know fairly well how, why, when, and where contrails form and can persistent. The ones we see fit our understanding of contrail formation.

Bad doggie, no biscuit.

We are talking about mitigating persistent contrails . . . not engaging in active geoengineering. . .

Last Edited by George B on 03/31/2013 03:47 PM

Partially nothing.....

Thanks for your participation. . .


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

8) I see persistent trails in the skies . . . 70.1% (251)
10) Scientific papers, patents, symposia (mainstream) . . . 8.4% (30)
12) Other. . . please specify in this Thread. . . . 7.0% (25)
4) YouTube Videos about chemtrails . . . 6.4% (23)
7) There are websites I visit that talk about them . . . 2.5% (9)
2) I have dreams about them . . 1.4% (5)
5) Reading about different conspiracies they mentioned them . . 1.4% (5)
11) Papers, articles, symposia by other chemtrail believes . . . 1.1% (4)
3) Documentaries about them on the History Channel . . . 0.6% (2)
6) My friends and/or family talk about them . . . 0.6% (2)
9) Rap songs or other entertainment including celebrities . . . 0.6% (2)
1) TV news stories about them . . . 0% (0)
Blank (View Results) (172)

Non-Blank Votes: 358

Since persistent contrails are a global phenomenon that affect radiative forcing, and hence climatology, any intentional change IS geo-engineering whether you want to admit it or not. They are not a local pollution like acid rain. We don’t know enough to make a change either way.

So we shouldn't reduce the sulfur content of gasoline from 300ppm to 10ppm with that logic or have installed catalytic converters on cars . . . very strange logic . . . persistent contrails are not natural . . . they are something we can remove without fear of causing an imbalance in nature . . .

Not natural...but they are normal.

They act exactly as they are supposed to.

Different and I already said the difference. They form low level pollution that immediately affects people's health. Mitigating persistent contrails, in itself, is not a bad thing but the question needs to be asked, will there be unintended consequences? You may think you know, but you don't. No one knows yet. Then there is the cost, what if we have to spend $100 billion to mitigate and it does not change climate either way. Is the cost worth it? I have already posted links showing the FAA is studying the problem. They haven’t reached a conclusion yet.

But Jorge as...because he has studied the subject through google...

Come on . . . no serious atmospheric scientist believes persistent contrails are not a concern and should not be mitigated . . . the only thing is a commitment from IPCC and the agencies like FAA to request action . . . it could be as simple as placing mirrors or video cameras in the cockpits so flight crews are aware they are leaving a persistent trail . . .

A concern yes but still no one can say what would happen with the change. No one, and that includes you. ANY change in radiative forcing has consequences.

So you fear mitigating contrails could have a deleterious effect . . . and what might that be???

The new season of Game of Thrones is starting now......if your into that....yay

Only saw it once . . . have fun . . .

Gee, if I knew that it wouldn't be unknown now would it? It is a change in radiative forcing. Can you predict what will happen when you change the radiative forcing?