[Bored chemist]

And the first picture you posted looks like a chemtrail to me.

Are you mocking me??

I admit I was kind of hoping you would say something like that but those were just pictures I took of the sky from my house just before I posted them.

Here are some similar "chem trails" depicted by John Constable nearly a hundred years before man achieved powered flight.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O82649/study-of-cirrus-clouds-oil-painting-constable-john-ra/

So, what you have done is prove that you are unable to recognise what's clearly a cloud.
that's what I was hoping for.
You can stop now.

[smart]

I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.

http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm 

[Bored chemist]

I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.

http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm

"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.


"A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity."
The "ends" of the "trail" are both visible. The "trail" beyond those ends has vanished.
Since it went away, it's clearly not persistent.
You on the other hand persist on wittering on even when it's clear that you can't tell what a cloud looks like.
Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself?

[smart]

"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.

You bet they will. What is a embarrassment is your complete ignorance of the science behind geoengineering.

Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid? And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured.

[Bored chemist]

"And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured."
Meanwhile, back in reality, nobody mentioned duration.

"Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid?"
Since there is no nozzle that makes no sense.
If you want to show some evidence that's fine.
In the meantime, you are the man who doesn't know what a cloud looks like.

[smart]

What evidences do you got to claim there's no nozzle used to spray the pressurized fluid?

Are you still confused in believing chemtrails is a lie?

Why do you think there's a whole page created on Wikipedia about this "conspiracy theory" ??

Is stratospheric aerosol (sulfate) injection another deception?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

[smart]

Here's another patent on the use of "volcanic ash" to disperse or inject fine particles into the stratosphere:

Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100127224

In one embodiment, the fine silica particles can include at least one of silica fume, fumed silica, or powdered quartz. The fine silica particles may have an average diameter ranging between 5 nanometers and 10 microns. The fine particles may closely resemble a composition of volcanic ash, such that they have optical and physical properties similar to volcanic ash.
[0014]
A method is provided for mitigating global warming in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Such method can include injecting or dispersing fine silica particles into the stratosphere. The particles are dispersed in a concentration sufficient to cause statistically significant warming of the stratosphere. A statistically significant cooling of the troposphere can also occur simultaneously with the warming of the stratosphere.

I cannot believe you still think geoengineering is only a conspiracy theory...

You have no scientific method whatsoever and refuse to admit the evidences put forward by experimented scientists.

What a joke!

[Bored chemist]

So, once again- no evidence from the man who can't recognise a cloud.

Did you read the wiki page? Here's the first paragraph or so. I have emphasised some words for you since you must have missed them.

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a POSSIBLE candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons HAS BEEN PROPOSED.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method COULD counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects."
Did you notice something there- nobody says that anyone is doing it (except on a tiny experimental scale).

You have misunderstood the scientific method .
It's not my job to prove that the mythical nozzles do not exist.
It's your job to show that they do.
You should be able to show me the things on lots of planes taken all over the world by holiday makers and plane spotters.
And yet  you have nothing.

why is that?
Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?

And I may have mentioned this before; the patent office does not comment on whether or not something would work. Also the existence of a patent does not indicate that the product actually exists or is in use.

Why post stuff about patents?
Is it that you don't understand them; or just desperation?

[smart]

Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?

You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself...

Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you.

Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated?

I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?

Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive...

[Bored chemist]

"You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself..."
I can search lots of pictures.
But we have established that you (the one who claims expertise) can't tell a chemtrail from a cloud.
So exactly what would I gain from looking at those pictures?
Did you somehow think you had made a valid point there?

"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."
Why make such an obviously false statement?
Evereybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size denies the existence of chemtrails (at least in the way you are suggesting they exists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory


"Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated? "
I'm happy to admit my ignorance.
Just as soon as you have made some attempt to show that I'm the  one who is ignorant.
As I have said repeatedly, you have not actually shown any evidence to support your claim.



"I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?"
I keep asking for that evidence; you keep failing to supply it. That's clearly got nothing to do with my subconscious (or any other aspect of me).
Why don't you supply some actual evidence? (Though I advise you to check on the meaning of the word, as it relates to science, iun oder to avoid wasting time + bandwidth with things like hearsay and logical fallacies)

"Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive..."
Science depends on evidence.
You have not yet produced any.
You have also failed to explain why chemtrails would even make sense.

And you still can't recognise a cloud.

[smart]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

This page is a good example of how Wikipedia neutrality is contentious. The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity.

The evidences that you deny looking at are proofs that the brainwashing is working!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1#No_evidence

[Bored chemist]

Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any  and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.


But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."

And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.

It's as if you can't spot a cloud when  you see one.

[smart]

Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle.

As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any  and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.

Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship.

But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."

And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.

It's as if you can't spot a cloud when  you see one.

Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?

I suggest you educate yourself about geoengineering if you insist in believing your wishful thinking is credible.

[Bored chemist]

And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "

"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense"  we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.

"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve  sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.

So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?

[smart]

And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "

"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense"  we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.

"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve  sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.

So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?

Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.
 

[Bored chemist]

Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.

"Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet."
Well,why did you introduce the topic then?
I never said it worked or not. What I said was that you have no evidence that anyone is actually doing it.

"You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. "
What disinformation do you think I have spread?
I have incidentally,pointed out several plainly false statements of yours.

"A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation."
If you had evidence of the thick white plume that would be a start.
You have not.
As for what that plume might be made from, one sensible documented cause is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
You don't need to make up stuff about flying unicorn farts or chemtrails.
(The evidence is just as good for either of those BTW)

The pictures I showed were clouds.
You stated that one of them was a chemtrail.
I pointed out that it couldn't be, because it wasn't persistent.
You have documented your lack of ability to recognise a cloud.
Do you think  anyone is going to take your opinion seriously?

[smart]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/anti-geoengineering-legal-team-serves-60-day-notice-of-intent-to-file-federal-actions-against-over-30-us-government-and-california-state-agencies-and-entities-300304818.html

I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud...

[smart]

What disinformation do you think I have spread?

You're ignoring the truth about chemtrails. Your wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress.

Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist.

Your attitude is desperate, nobody denies chemtrails except you...

[smart]

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -Winston Churchill

[smart]

"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." -Winston Churchill