Occam's razor is not some scientific law that ideas have to conform to in order to be plausible. It's nothing more than a philosophical tie-breaker. In fact, Occam's razor (or, the parsimony argument) is only useful if competing theories are equally plausible. Personally, I believe that there is more reason to believe that chemtrails are just that - chemtrails. I have yet to see a strong argument supporting any of the following:

1) chemtrails are the same as contrails
2) chemtrails don't exist
3) chemtrails are harmless

I have personally seen for myself planes releasing chemtrails. About a week ago, I watched four planes over Houston releasing chemtrails. At first there was nothing behind these planes, and then the trails began suddenly (as if a switch was flipped), and then the trails stopped abruptly after several minutes. The planes were flying eastwards. I watched these trails slowly expand for probably two hours. They never dissipated. While I was watching the skies and the expanding chemtrails, I saw those same planes returning from the direction they had flown in - no chemtrails. They were all heading back to the west somewhere.

The next day, I had a sore throat and a cough. More interesting, Houston had severe thunderstorms and hailstorms which caused flooding in the area.

Of course, as somebody already mentioned, your mind is already made up, just like mine is. My job isn't to convince you of something you don't want to believe. My job is to protect me and my loved ones - and that is guided by what I know to be the truth at this point. Secondary to that is my effort to combat disinformation. One of these pieces of disinformation that "debunkers" like to spread is the belief that Occam's razor is some hard and fast rule that theories must pass before they can be accepted. The implication is that if a competing theory is simpler, then more complex theories which require more assumptions cannot be true. This is one of the disinformation movement's secret weapons.

~WX