Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My wife is a scientist... We look at evidence not statements
Any person who doesn't know this is occurring really is simply uninformed
As you're the only person in this thread so far that claims to not only have evidence, but also the ability to correctly interpret it, I'm asking you again to please post the evidence you've examined which proves the chemtrail claim, so we can discuss it.
Pulse doppler radar tracks precipitation, not cloud formation. What the publisher of that video is showing is rain activity, not cloud formation or tracking.
This is a good example of people attempting to use technology or information which they don't understand to prove something that isn't happening. The fact that you posted it indicates that you don't understand it any better than he does.
I'm more than happy to discuss any evidence you have, but I'd strongly advise against using YT videos published by people that don't know what they're talking about. Video as a medium isn't a bad thing, but one has to be able to discern between the nonsense and the factual information if they're going to post it, and so far, everything you've posted has been nonsense.
I'd much prefer text based information, partly because it's easier to search through and cite, and partly because I don't always have the time or opportunity to watch and listen to drawn out videos that contain no useful information, or simply repeat the same information found in hundreds of other videos.
As you're the only person in this thread so far that claims to not only have evidence, but also the ability to correctly interpret it, I'm asking you again to please post the evidence you've examined which proves the chemtrail claim, so we can discuss it.
Thanks
Quote:
Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails
IPCC warns policymakers not to stop ‘solar radiation management’
I had to go find the source report, as the article doesn't link to it, which is a red flag right off the bat. They also quote Dane Wigington, which is a very strong indicator that the whole article is BS. Nevertheless, we'll look at what it actually said.
Your article is misrepresenting what's being discussed. For instance, they cite this text:
Quote:
“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]
And here's the full context of that comment (page 45 in the PDF from the link above, report page 29):
Quote:
Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon D ioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7}
They're discussing proposed ideas, not activities that are currently taking place.
If you can find information in that report which supports your assertions regarding chemtrails, please cite the text and the page number. Articles referring to the report are meaningless, as we have discovered, and there's no reason to defer to others' interpretations when the source material is available and clear in its language.
Let's see....
Jet fuel is a chemical (hydrocarbon).
When jet fuel is burned, it combines with oxygen, creating water (another chemical) and carbon dioxide (another [gaseous] chemical).
Under certain conditions, the water vapor becomes visible water droplets or ice crystals.
Since water is a chemical, and it is sometimes visible behind high flying jet aircraft, YES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, chemical trails in the sky are REAL!
Also, since all high altitude aircraft with the sun shining on them look white from the ground, the "white jets" are also REAL!
"The more we do to you the less you believe we do it."
I believe I've asked you twice already to provide the evidence you've claimed to have collected which convinced you that "chemtrails" are real. Are you interested in having a discussion or not? You wrote that you examine evidence, and that your wife is a scientist, implying that you understand the scientific method and what type of information satisfies the evidential requirements of the process.
Are we to assume at this point that you don't have anything to offer in that regard after all?
Yes, that is normal. Do you have any information which demonstrates that it's not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.