In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 7. Steward of the Earth

So yes it is debunkers who label her as such. I don't see chemtrailers labeling her, but I DO see that what she is concerned about is what many people labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are also concerned about, and this is that something harmful is being sprayed in the sky, which may or may not be indicative of what looks like the condensation trail of jet aircraft, which in several ways does qualify as a "chemical trail" or "chemtrail" for short (See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail ).

OK so let's have a look at what you're claiming there then:

According to NASA's own website (science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...) jet engine exhaust contains carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates, soot, and metal particles. This means air pollutants are indeed sprayed by jet aircraft. The contrail itself is a "human-induced" cloud formed by water vapor that condenses as it clings to the particulate matter of jet exhaust and then freezes. Because a contrail may be mostly composed of water, this does not negate that it contains soot as well as "dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide." Sulphur dioxide is an indisputile form of air pollution. Water vapor on its own may not qualify as pollution, but it is certainly a chemical (H2O). Every condensed and frozen droplet has formed around a particle of soot. So even if there are no unexpected toxic elements present in a "normal" contrail, every time a contrail marks the sky its presence is a guarantee that air pollution was released. It practically begs the question: Why is the term "chemtrail" considered by some to be such an inappropriate name for the trail of chemicals left behind by jet aircraft?

But why stop there? What makes jets so special that they get to be the only ones to create 'chemtrails'? How about all the other polluting industries? I don't think i've seen you worry about those too much, yet they create 'chemtrails' (as you'd like to define it, for some reason) all day long, every single day. And they do on a much grander scale than all the jets combined.

For example, In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2. That's quite a big chemtrail, if you ask me.

Some more statistics: Worldwide, flights produced 705 million tonnes of CO2 in 2013. Globally, humans produced over 36 billion tonnes of CO2.

The global aviation industry produces 2% of total human induced CO2 emissions

Another fun fact: The new Airbus A380, Boeing 787, ATR-600 and Bombardier C Series aircraft use less than 3 litres of jet fuel per 100 passenger kilometres. This matches the efficiency of most modern compact cars.

www.atag.org...

So here you are, making a lot of noise and emotional garbage about why we don't call contrails chemtrails. Well the reason is that another group of people has already claimed that term, and they won't agree with you that a chemtrail is the same thing as a contrail, since they don't believe in persisting contrails. Try and convert them to your side, instead of picking a fight with 'debunkers'.

I don't see why you'd want anything to do with the chemtrail community anyway if you want to be serious about pollution. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd stay as far away from this group of fruitloops as possible (and with that I mean the Guru's who keep the hoax going, such as Michael Murphy, Dane Wigington, Ian Simpson, Max Bliss, etc, not so much the mere followers/repeaters).

What's the point of trying to get people to call contrails 'chemtrails'? And do you understand that the same amount of pollution is produced by a jet whether a contrail is formed or not?

a reply to: payt69

And do you understand that the same amount of pollution is produced by a jet whether a contrail is formed or not?

Something that seems to be missed by the chemtrail crowd.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: payt69

And do you understand that the same amount of pollution is produced by a jet whether a contrail is formed or not?

Something that seems to be missed by the chemtrail crowd.

indeed.. one thing among a very long list of things

originally posted by: payt69
What's the point of trying to get people to call contrails 'chemtrails'? And do you understand that the same amount of pollution is produced by a jet whether a contrail is formed or not?

There isn't much to respond to in the rant you posted about "emotional garbage" etc., but as far as the question you ask about the "same amount" of pollution being created with or without presence of a contrail, it's quite irelivant whether pollution is contained within the contrail or not, and you're simply searching for every possible angle to support that a "contrail" is not a "chemtrail," even when the evidence is supported by a NASA website that there are chemicals within the contrail itself other than H2O. Moreover, if you refuse to believe the "chemical trail" that concerned people are talking about is NOT only indicative of a persistent contrail, see In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrails are NOT their only concern

a reply to: Petros312

But why is it "irelivant" (sic)?

If you call the contrail a chemtrail because it contains pollutants, what do you call (and how do you define) the non-visible exhaust containing the exact same pollutants which is far more prevalent?

If we talk about 'jet exhaust', this covers any combustion emission from the back of a jet engine. Whereas a 'contrail' (ie trail of condensation) perfectly adequately describes the trail of water ice that may be formed as a result of jet exhaust, but isn't always. In this context the term 'chemtrail' is utterly redundant.

Your insistence on calling a contrail a chemtrail would seem to have one of two possible outcomes. Either only jet pollution that is contained within a visible trail of ice is a chemtrail, letting every other source of pollution, including planes that aren't leaving 'chemtrails', completely off the hook. Or, EVERYTHING is a chemtrail, from jet exhaust, through factory and car pollution down to when a cow farts, so diluting the term that it becomes utterly meaningless.

Which of these ways to undermine and degrade chemtrail believers is the one you're aiming for?

a reply to: waynos

But why is it "irelivant" (sic)?

Because it goes against his beliefs would be my guess.

originally posted by: waynos
If you call the contrail a chemtrail because it contains pollutants, what do you call (and how do you define) the non-visible exhaust containing the exact same pollutants which is far more prevalent?

--Do I really need to tell you that you answered your own question? (Yes, I do.) You are referring to two types of "chemical trails," one is more visible than the other (jet aircraft fuel emissions are actually visible sometimes as a dark cloud upon take off.)

originally posted by: waynos
..."contrail' (ie trail of condensation) perfectly adequately describes the trail of water ice that may be formed as a result of jet exhaust, but isn't always. In this context the term 'chemtrail' is utterly redundant.

--This is only your OPINION, and you're entitled to it, but it's is based on no great fact, and doesn't negate that a group of concerned people referred to as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" have valid reasons to call even a persistent contrail a "chemtrail." More importantly, they are concerned about more "chemical trails" other than a persistent contrail. See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrails Are Not Their Only Concern

a reply to: Petros312

LOL, how is it merely my opinion that contrails sometimes form and sometimes they don't?

a reply to: waynos

originally posted by: waynos
..."contrail' (ie trail of condensation) perfectly adequately describes the trail of water ice that may be formed as a result of jet exhaust, but isn't always. In this context the term 'chemtrail' is utterly redundant.

Now with bold type to highlight what is nothing but your opinion.

a reply to: Petros312

Your entire posts are nothing but your own opinion, so what? Can you not actually answer the point?