[smart (OP)]

Or even Trump isn't stupid enough to believe in  it.
I remind you that you have yet to provide any actual evidence that it happens .

So let me guess... You think websites like geoengineeringwatch.org are BS?
Quite frankly, I think you're the one that should provide evidences that this is NOT happening.

[chiralSPO]

So let me guess... You think websites like geoengineeringwatch.org are BS?

yes, probably.

Quite frankly, I think you're the one that should provide evidences that this is NOT happening.

That's not how science works. There are plenty of very reasonable explanations of contrails that follow from scientific theories, and are very consistent with observations. If you think you have a better explanation, then you have to provide evidence that your explanation is better.

[smart (OP)]

That's not how science works. There are plenty of very reasonable explanations of contrails that follow from scientific theories, and are very consistent with observations. If you think you have a better explanation, then you have to provide evidence that your explanation is better.

"Chemtrails" are most likely highly dispersed condensation aerosols. This class of aerosols has been developed for drug delivery purposes.

[Bored chemist]

Or even Trump isn't stupid enough to believe in  it.
I remind you that you have yet to provide any actual evidence that it happens .

So let me guess... You think websites like geoengineeringwatch.org are BS?
Quite frankly, I think you're the one that should provide evidences that this is NOT happening.

Well, tat website didn't provide any actual evidence so yes- it's BS.
Did you not realise that?

Also, you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you are the one who needs to produce evidence.
Judging by past experience, the first thing you need to do is find out what evidence means in this context.
Here's a hint; so far you have provided precisely zero evidence of any geoengineering on anything but a tiny experimental scale.

[smart (OP)]

Well, tat website didn't provide any actual evidence so yes- it's BS.
Did you not realise that?

Also, you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you are the one who needs to produce evidence.
Judging by past experience, the first thing you need to do is find out what evidence means in this context.
Here's a hint; so far you have provided precisely zero evidence of any geoengineering on anything but a tiny experimental scale.

Define "tiny experimental scale". Geoengineeringwatch.org is not BS, it documents the organized assault on atmospheric weather happening on a global scale. You have an attitude problem to ignore evidences from alternative (independent) media sources.

[Bored chemist]

Well, tat website didn't provide any actual evidence so yes- it's BS.
Did you not realise that?

Also, you are the one making the extraordinary claim so you are the one who needs to produce evidence.
Judging by past experience, the first thing you need to do is find out what evidence means in this context.
Here's a hint; so far you have provided precisely zero evidence of any geoengineering on anything but a tiny experimental scale.

Define "tiny experimental scale". Geoengineeringwatch.org is not BS, it documents the organized assault on atmospheric weather happening on a global scale. You have an attitude problem to ignore evidences from alternative (independent) media sources.

You keep saying there is evidence.
Why not just post that evidence?
In place of evidence you cite web pages that spout dross.
The issue isn't that they are independent or alternative.
The problem is that, like you, they don't seem to understand what evidence is.

The "tiny experimental scale" might as well in this context mean the total project costs less then a million dollars.
Or that it was a short duration thing to see what happened- then it was written up and not done again.
Or a whole lot of other possible variations.

The point is that you can't provide any evidence of any geoengineering at all- on any scale- that I need to worry about  checking if it fits a definition.

Show us evidence of geoengineering, then we can discuss whether it's tiny or experimental.

[alancalverd]

It is well known that the aliens who forged Obama's birth certificate and planted toxic moss from Uranus on Trumpf's head, spend the night hours pissing out of the windows of their silent, invisible flying saucers just for the fun of creating the next ice age so they can breed mammoths in Birmingham and Make America Great. Come on, BC, face the Truth. We are doomed/saved/inconsequential.

[smart (OP)]

You keep saying there is evidence.
Why not just post that evidence?
In place of evidence you cite web pages that spout dross.
The issue isn't that they are independent or alternative.
The problem is that, like you, they don't seem to understand what evidence is.

The main problem is that military planes are dispersing condensantion aerosols over our heads, under our noses and hidden in plain sight. Failure to acknowledge this "evidence" of clandestine geoengineering activity is a serious political, environmental, and public health issue.
 

The "tiny experimental scale" might as well in this context mean the total project costs less then a million dollars.
Or that it was a short duration thing to see what happened- then it was written up and not done again.
Or a whole lot of other possible variations.

You have absolutely no idea what you're baffling about. Unilateral geoengineering activity is happening on a global scale, and this has been confirmed by multiple reports and documentaries over the Internet.

Show us evidence of geoengineering, then we can discuss whether it's tiny or experimental.

It's not my job.

My job is to educate you on the risks and potentially harmful effects of clandestine geoengineering activity.

[alancalverd]

My job is to educate you on the risks and potentially harmful effects of clandestine geoengineering activity.

Please do so.

[Bored chemist]

You keep saying there is evidence.
Why not just post that evidence?
In place of evidence you cite web pages that spout dross.
The issue isn't that they are independent or alternative.
The problem is that, like you, they don't seem to understand what evidence is.

The main problem is that military planes are dispersing condensantion aerosols over our heads, under our noses and hidden in plain sight. Failure to acknowledge this "evidence" of clandestine geoengineering activity is a serious political, environmental, and public health issue.
 

The "tiny experimental scale" might as well in this context mean the total project costs less then a million dollars.
Or that it was a short duration thing to see what happened- then it was written up and not done again.
Or a whole lot of other possible variations.

You have absolutely no idea what you're baffling about. Unilateral geoengineering activity is happening on a global scale, and this has been confirmed by multiple reports and documentaries over the Internet.

Show us evidence of geoengineering, then we can discuss whether it's tiny or experimental.

It's not my job.

My job is to educate you on the risks and potentially harmful effects of clandestine geoengineering activity.

All you have done there is make statements.
Saying "Trump eats unicorns"  doesn't make it true.
Nor does saying "geoengineering is happening" make it true.
Either show some real evidence or admit you don't have any.

And, for the record, since you are the one making the claim; it damned well is your job to provide the evidence.
If you don't understand that  about science, you are not in a position to educate anyone.

[smart (OP)]

All you have done there is make statements.
Saying "Trump eats unicorns"  doesn't make it true.
Nor does saying "geoengineering is happening" make it true.
Either show some real evidence or admit you don't have any.

And, for the record, since you are the one making the claim; it damned well is your job to provide the evidence.
If you don't understand that  about science, you are not in a position to educate anyone.

All you have done is 'ignore' scientific evidences and hide under your mama skirt afraid to face the reality of geoengineering.
Trump or Obama aren't idiots.
They know damn well the existence and purpose of (unilateral) geoengineering is to alter the climate on a global scale.
I feel like repeating myself.

http://nuclearplanet.com/indjsrt.pdf
 

[Bored chemist]

So, rather than evidence you have posted insults.
Do you think that's going to convince anyone?

I'm not ignoring scientific evidence.
I'm ignoring nonsense.
That paper is an example of nonsense.
It starts by stating "Since the late 1990s tanker jets have been spraying particulate matter into the troposphere with no disclosure of the chemical compositions which mix with the air people breathe".

If it was science (rather than nonsense) it would explain why they believe such a weird notion.
It shows some lovely pictures of cirrus clouds- which  have been documented since antiquity- and claims- again with no evidence- that they are pictures of some sort of spray pattern.
That is nonsense, unless you can show how they travelled back in time to spray them for people to paint before teh invention of aircraft.

So, go on: explain it.
How are there pictures of these "spray patterns" from before there were planes to spray them?

(Incidentally, you seem to ave forgotten what chimneys are for)

[alancalverd]

Of course Herr Fuhrer Trumpf eats unicorns, and Kim Jong-un doesn't defecate. Don't you read the propaganda? Typical denier. Just because something is arrant nonsense with no rhyme, reason or basis in fact, doesn't excuse you from believing it! If it's in print, it must be true.

Very few painters managed to produce realistic clouds before Constable, who studied meteorology. The sudden, anachronistic appearance of realistic clouds in his later career is quite at variance with his contemporary Turner and can only be due to time-travelling CIA agents (remember the technique was described by H G Wells but the CIA moved his birth date for disinformation) spraying cumulus and stratus over an English landscape where none had been before.

One of the most expressionistic and powerful of all his studies is Seascape Study with Rain Cloud, painted about 1824 at Brighton, which captures with slashing dark brushstrokes the immediacy of an exploding cumulus shower at sea. 

Exploding cumulus? Exploding CIA tanker, more like.

[smart (OP)]

CIA tanker

Precisely.

[Bored chemist]

CIA tanker

Precisely.

OK, so, since you think that John Constable painted a picture of a CIA tanker in 1824, I think we can all conclude that you have precisely no idea what you are talking about.

[smart (OP)]

CIA tanker

Precisely.

OK, so, since you think that John Constable painted a picture of a CIA tanker in 1824, I think we can all conclude that you have precisely no idea what you are talking about.

You have a talent for disforming my quotes into nonsense.

[alancalverd]

Hey! I can get people to believe in complete bullshit! The question is, should I use this discovered talent to run for the US Presidency or Chairman of the IPCC? Heck, why not both?  Watch this space, folks!

[smart (OP)]

The question is, should I use this discovered talent to run for the US Presidency or Chairman of the IPCC?

Please do so.

[smart (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69963.0

[Bored chemist]

CIA tanker

Precisely.

OK, so, since you think that John Constable painted a picture of a CIA tanker in 1824, I think we can all conclude that you have precisely no idea what you are talking about.

You have a talent for disforming my quotes into nonsense.

No.
You write nonsense.
I point it out.

Your claim that the CIA travelled in time to produce "chemtrails" for Constable to paint, well before the invention of aeroplanes, was stupid anyway.
It would have stayed stupid whether I pointed it out or not.