[smart (OP)]

tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.

I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.

I have tried many times to explain the evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity but Bored chemist attitude is just not reasonable enough. I cannot agree with the pseudoscientific voodoo of nucleating contrails. Lying is not a acceptable behavior on a science site.

[chiralSPO]

tkadm30, I am pretty tired of the one-sided nature of this discussion. Bored (and others occasionally) have offered evidence- and logic-based answers to your questions, and your only responses have been "lies, all lies!" and insistence that this is very important. While I would agree that it would be very important if, there were a concerted and massive effort to change the climate by spraying aerosols in the sky. But given the evidence presented (essentially none) and the incredible nature of the claims, I remain unconcerned.

I will lock this thread unless the next post from tkadm30 contains some attempt at backing up these claims (that contrails are not water, that normal jet fuel doesn't produce contrails, or that billions have been spent on creating the infrastructure necessary for this feat) using scientific reasoning or trustworthy references. If a reasonable effort has been made on this front, then the conversation can continue.

I have tried many times to explain the evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity but Bored chemist attitude is just not reasonable enough. I cannot agree with the pseudoscientific voodoo of nucleating contrails. Lying is not a acceptable behavior on a science site.

It's not just BoredChemist who is still waiting for something worth discussing here. No one is satisfied with the evidence provided thus far towards establishing anything about chemtrails. The claims run counter to everything that we understand about thermodynamics, aerodynamics, social dynamics and economics, and the narrative is essentially the classic example of a conspiracy theory. So unless you have some overwhelming evidence, no rational and well-informed human would consider it as possible true. Call it "brainwashed" if you will, but there aren't many frequenters of this forum that are willing to consider the notion.

I will stick true to my word, and not seeing any attempt at providing evidence, lock the thread. With apologies to those who may have been enjoying the back-and-forth, please consider this the last word.