I think I know What Chemtrails are... and it's worse than you can imagine!

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I can see that point, but I do not see where a possibility that something is causing global dimming also means that chemtrails are doing it. Surely that is too tenuous for words?

Because it is the most logical form of propogation...

Oh don't get me wrong there have been other mechanisms that could and have been proposed such as this one...

Cloud-making ships may reduce global warming

A scientist at the University of Edinburgh says that a fleet of water-borne cloud makers could help reduce global warming. The unmanned sailing ships would patrol the oceans, spraying tiny droplets of seawater into existing clouds in order to enlarge and thereby whiten them – bouncing more radiation back into space and cooling the atmosphere in the process.

It is claimed that a change in the brightness of marine clouds could cool the earth enough to compensate for the increase in man-made carbon dioxide over the last century.

you may also like this...



Korg.

waynos

Korg Trinity

waynos

Korg Trinity

Because people like the above work sooooo hard to discredit even the notion that it was possible.... Sticks out like a sore thumb that they are trying to keep something hidden....snip

Not at all, my post, if you were able to comprehend it

I stopped reading after this point...

As if I have such a sub IQ that I somehow couldn't understand your words...

Give me a break... I bet I could beat you at any mensa test with enough time spare to go to the shop to buy you a new pencil eraser!

Korg.

edit on 6-10-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Yep, thats right, keep on proving my point that you didn't read

If you want someone to read you you had first learn to avoid insulting comments.... if you must insult someone try it at the end of the text... that way you will be guarantee an reply!

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Why dont you apply the same standards you expect of others to yourself?

reply to post by Korg Trinity

I find it odd though that you totally ignore all the evidence including peer reviewed papers which support my ascertation

Reviewed the thread...could not find anything remotely resembling a peer-reviewed paper containing the word "chemtrails."

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Why dont you apply the same standards you expect of others to yourself?

Oh so if a man punched you on the nose... you should turn the other cheek right...

Guess I'll know which one you are then... the one with two black eyes!!

Korg

totallackey
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I find it odd though that you totally ignore all the evidence including peer reviewed papers which support my ascertation

Reviewed the thread...could not find anything remotely resembling a peer-reviewed paper containing the word "chemtrails."

Try searching for geo-engineering and global dimming!

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Hold on mush, After I posted a reply to exiteternity explaining my position regarding why I dont believe people who think they are seeing chemtrails actually are, YOU responded with a lengthy piece that addressed NOT ONE point I made, but instead called into question my character and motives for posting here. Lets be honest about who chucked the doll out of the pram.

Yet again we see you going on a personal attack because you cannot provide a response to the points raised.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


So, If we can discuss things in a civil manner. Where is it recorded or reported that geo engineering is the same thing, or looks like, chemtrails? This is another great, often repeated but unanswered question. It appears, as I said in the post just referenced, to be a convenient peg onto which chemtrail promoters have hung their hat. I would be happy to concede that particular point if you can demonstrate it.

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Hold on mush, After I posted a reply to exiteternity explaining my position regarding why I dont believe people who think they are seeing chemtrails actually are, YOU responded with a lengthy piece that addressed NOT ONE point I made, but instead called into question my character and motives for posting here. Lets be honest about who chucked the doll out of the pram.

Yet again we see you going on a personal attack because you cannot provide a response to the points raised.

Thus far I have not read anything regarding the actual subject matter, Your position is clear... you oppose me... I get it... I really do...

I couldn't give a monkeys what your thoughts are on me but you do appear to be trolling somewhat and attempting to derail the thread.

Let's get back on topic shall we?

Korg.

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

So, If we can discuss things in a civil manner. Where is it recorded or reported that geo engineering is the same thing, or looks like, chemtrails? This is another great, often repeated but unanswered question. It appears, as I said in the post just referenced, to be a convenient peg onto which chemtrail promoters have hung their hat. I would be happy to concede that particular point if you can demonstrate it.

Please review the post at the top of this page....

Korg....

reply to post by Korg Trinity


But surely this is completely pertinent to your topic? Clearly you are looking into climate change and it's causes. Would it therefore not be helpful to look thoroughly into the likelihood of how real chemtrails are, rather than just assume they are and looking for ways to make them fit (for that is how the first post reads). Your OP even begins with a picture of contrails as the very first thing we see. That's what makes it relevant.

Korg Trinity


Please review the post at the top of this page....

Korg....

Yes, I have also seen that before. It actually makes it seem even less likely, to me, that aircraft are spraying chemtrails.

The reasons I have for saying this are the purported requirement for a fleet of 1500 ships (surely equating to many more aircraft) plus the need for the ships to spray seawater, an unending source for sure, compared to the actual disposable load of any given aircraft which would be tiny by comparison.

However, Regarding the question you were responding to, while it does indeed refer to cloud expansion (though not creation), I would qualify that point by pointing out that these would look like the clouds you see emerging from power station cooling towers, not long thin high altitude contrails. It is however a closer similarity than I have seen before, so thank you for reminding me.

Yes I think it is wise to first show if chemtrails are real or not before trying to show what the might-be-real phenomena is used for. It is kind of nonsensical to do so.
But I still very much support an open minded pure speculative discussion about this.
But then the part about evidence should be left aside since there are none.

I also love discussing aliens and stuff like that. Just because there isn't hard evidence doesn't mean one should not consider it and discuss it. But I wouldn't go as far as discussing what the aliens intentions are before first verifying they are real

I hope u don't get me wrong

Korg Trinity

totallackey
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I find it odd though that you totally ignore all the evidence including peer reviewed papers which support my ascertation

Reviewed the thread...could not find anything remotely resembling a peer-reviewed paper containing the word "chemtrails."

Try searching for geo-engineering and global dimming!

Korg.

Try posting a peer-reviewed paper containing the word, "chemtrails."

Korg Trinity

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Hold on mush, After I posted a reply to exiteternity explaining my position regarding why I dont believe people who think they are seeing chemtrails actually are, YOU responded with a lengthy piece that addressed NOT ONE point I made, but instead called into question my character and motives for posting here. Lets be honest about who chucked the doll out of the pram.

Yet again we see you going on a personal attack because you cannot provide a response to the points raised.

Thus far I have not read anything regarding the actual subject matter, Your position is clear... you oppose me... I get it... I really do...

You haven't read any of the hundreds of papers published over the past 50 years about contrails?

And then you wonder why we question whether you may be wrong?

IF chemtrails were real, and IF global warming was something that we had total control over, (and if it was caused by man) Then PERHAPS "chemtrails" could be used to adjust the temperature to whatever we like it to be.

As I understand it, that is your premise. Except,...... that you seem to jump from IF, to they obviously exist, when you need to keep your opinion flowing.

Bigfoot may be real, and Nessie may be real, though I doubt they have any bearing on the global temperature. But if you follow those discussions, almost everyone admits that it's just an idea at this point and until some real evidence comes into play, it will remain just that.

totallackey

Korg Trinity

totallackey
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I find it odd though that you totally ignore all the evidence including peer reviewed papers which support my ascertation

Reviewed the thread...could not find anything remotely resembling a peer-reviewed paper containing the word "chemtrails."

Try searching for geo-engineering and global dimming!

Korg.

Try posting a peer-reviewed paper containing the word, "chemtrails."

You'll find them in the same section as unicorn and pixie

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Zaphod has circumstantial evidence to the identification of the plane.....

Wrong...Zaphod has posted credible evidence...

Korg Trinity

waynos
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I can see that point, but I do not see where a possibility that something is causing global dimming also means that chemtrails are doing it. Surely that is too tenuous for words?

Because it is the most logical form of propogation...

Oh don't get me wrong there have been other mechanisms that could and have been proposed such as this one...

Cloud-making ships may reduce global warming

A scientist at the University of Edinburgh says that a fleet of water-borne cloud makers could help reduce global warming. The unmanned sailing ships would patrol the oceans, spraying tiny droplets of seawater into existing clouds in order to enlarge and thereby whiten them – bouncing more radiation back into space and cooling the atmosphere in the process.

It is claimed that a change in the brightness of marine clouds could cool the earth enough to compensate for the increase in man-made carbon dioxide over the last century.

you may also like this...

Korg.

edit on 6-10-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Who is to say that it is the most "it is the most logical form of propogation..."?

I could sit here and say that unicorns crapping rainbows are the most logical explanation and I would have just as much proof as you do (none) that "chemtrails" are causing it. How can you prove that "chemtrails" cause it when you cant even prove what "chemtrails" are in the first place?

So where does that leave us?

totallackey

Korg Trinity

totallackey
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I find it odd though that you totally ignore all the evidence including peer reviewed papers which support my ascertation

Reviewed the thread...could not find anything remotely resembling a peer-reviewed paper containing the word "chemtrails."

Try searching for geo-engineering and global dimming!

Korg.

Try posting a peer-reviewed paper containing the word, "chemtrails."

there are certainly "journals" that will happily publish it for you.....