I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

I am new to your forum . . . these are some of the reasons I believe there is an Aerosol Injection program in place and or Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .
Checklist
1. Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists? . . . Yes
2. Is there evidencesuggesting that something has changed the rate of global warming? . . . Yes
3. Is there evidenceof unaccounted budget and mechanisms to allocate, spend and manage projectswithout the public's knowledge or consent? . . . Yes
4. Are thereunidentified Aircraft that fly daily which the public has no information about their mission,goals, flight path, altitude or purpose? . . . Yes
5. Do these unidentified Aircraft sometime leave persistentTrails? . . . Yes
6. Are there whistleblowers who have indicated that aChemtrail program is ongoing?. . . Yes
7. Are there inexistence technology to accomplish a program of aerosol dispersal at altitudeand a set of airframes available to accomplish such a mission? . . . Yes
8. Has there beensufficient time from the development of technology and motive for chemtrailprograms to see them fully tested, deployed, and operational? . . . Yes
9. Are theresufficient aerosol materials readily available to accomplish such a dispersalprogram? . . . Yes
10. Is there historyof pre-existing or similar aerosol dispersal programs?. . . Yes
11. Is theresufficient process and infrastructure to maintain secrecy and covertoperations? . . . Yes
12. Is there ahistory of operational research regarding the effects of (chemical) aerosols being added to jet fuel to monitor the visual and atmosphericmeasurement effects? . . .Yes
13. Are there Local, National, and Global motives toengage in an aerosol dispersal program? . . . Yes
14. Are the motivesfor such programs and the technology and procedures for their implementationsbeing discussed in scientific and political organizations worldwide? . . . Yes
15. Are there national and international laws, regulations, treaties, andorganizations available ready to facilitate and not eliminate such aerosolinjection programs? . . .Yes
16. Are there any monitoring programs where data isavailable to the public that eliminates the possibility of the existence ofsuch a dispersal program? . . . No
17. Is there anyevidence other than official announcements from Governmental and Politicalsources that Chemtrails don't exist? . . . No
18. Is there a smallyet vocal group of people who insist that such a program exists? . . . Yes
19. Is there a history of unexplained substances which havebeen documented that have fallen from the sky? . . .Yes
20. Have the rates of respiratory diseases, allergies, andconditions associated with the atmosphere continually risen? . . .Yes
21. Has there been asteady increase in the number of persistent trails observed by people andreported as unusual to their memory? . . . Yes
22. Has NASA & NOAA as well as similar organizations inthe UK invested significant budget and effort in soliciting the public's helpto identify and report persistent trails in the sky? . . . Yes
23. Has anypractical contrail mitigation procedures or technology been invested in,deployed, installed or becomeoperational? . . . No
24. Has NASA utilized satellite imaging in an effort tocorrelate the presence of persistent trails visualized and detected from spacewith ground observations ? . . . Yes
25. Has NASA and other organizations presented significantresearch that persistent Trails and cirrus clouds may result in significantclimatic impact? . . .Yes
26. Are governments capable of initiating,implementing, maintaining, and coveringup programs which have been proven to be against the best interest to thehealth and welfare of their citizens? . . .Yes
27. Do you have any reason to believe some type ofcoordinated, high tech, aerosolinjection program from altitude, dispersed by some type of airframe has not, is not, or will not beimplemented ?. . . No

[Mick]

Hi George.

That's a lot of items. But where exactly is the evidence?

Start with #1, "evidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists"

Where is this evidence?

[Jay Reynolds]

You can see much of George's claims discussed already at godlikeproductions.

[Mick]

It's an interesting discussion technique. Sheer weight of "evidence". Of course the evidence seems either false, non-existent, or unrelated. However, there's so much of it that people get convinced that something must be going on. Otherwise, why would people make such long lists?

[Pogopoint99]

I believe it's called a Gish Gallop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

[Pogopoint99]

I am new to your forum . . . these are some of the reasons I believe there is an Aerosol Injection program in place and or Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .

Which one of those would you like to discuss?

[firepilot]

Lets do ONE AT A TIME, starting with #1, and not moving on to the next in a laundry list fashion, until this is one discovered.

Lets discuss this. What are these aerosols that have been found, that can not accounted for by any source?

[George B]

If you are talking about number (1) and/or number (2). . Here is your answer. . .

NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth’s atmosphere has offset some recent climate warming
July 21, 2011
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...particles.html

Light from a lidar instrument forms a beam in the sky over Boulder, Colo.. NOAA researchers and colleagues used lidar data to better understand recent changes in the amounts of tiny particles high in Earth's atmosphere.
Download here. (Credit: CIRES/NOAA)
A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to a new study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science.
In the stratosphere, miles above Earth’s surface, small, airborne particles reflect sunlight back into space, which leads to a cooling influence at the ground. These particles are also called “aerosols," and the new paper
explores their recent climate effects -- the reasons behind their increase
remain the subject of ongoing research.
“Since the year 2000, stratospheric aerosols have caused a slower rate of climate warming than we would have seen without them,” says John Daniel, a physicist at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo. and an author of the new study.
The new study focused on the most recent decade, when the amount of
aerosol in the stratosphere has been in something of a “background” state, lacking sharp upward spikes from very large volcanic eruptions. The authors analyzed measurements from several independent sources – satellites and several types of ground instruments – and found a definitive increase in stratospheric aerosol since 2000.
Sources of aerosols reach the stratosphere from above and below, as shown in the graph. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), and dimethyl sulfide(DMS) are the dominant surface emissions which contribute to aerosol formation.
Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully
understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles.
Daniel and colleagues with NOAA, CIRES, the University of Colorado, NASA, and the University of Paris used a climate model to explore how changes in the stratosphere’s aerosol content could affect global climate
change – both in the last decade, and projected into the future. The team concluded that models miss an important cooling factor if they don’t account for the influence of stratospheric aerosol, or don’t include recent changes in stratospheric aerosol levels.
“The ‘background’ stratospheric aerosols are more of a player than we thought,” said Daniel. “The last decade has shown us that it doesn’t take an extremely large volcanic eruption for these aerosols to be important to climate.”

[George B]

It's an interesting discussion technique. Sheer weight of "evidence". Of course the evidence seems either false, non-existent, or unrelated. However, there's so much of it that people get convinced that something must be going on. Otherwise, why would people make such long lists?

Or there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence which would make people think twice about their relationships . . .

Sorry, I am learning your rules and procedures . . . I am a bit out of my element here . . .

[firepilot]

And no where, did that ever mention aerosol particles where they could not account for the origin. Did you happen to miss this sentence?

Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles.

[Mick]

#1, you said they were unaccounted for. Yet your source says

Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles

Which seems quite reasonable. There's no suggestions that they come from anywhere mysterious, they just don't know which source it is exactly.

[edit] what Firepilot said......

And that's a bit vague for #2. Surely evidence of something changing the rate of global warming would be an actual change of global warming, not a change in something related.

I see you've debated these points before. Why did you come here?

[George B]

And no where, did that ever mention aerosol particles where they could not account for the origin. Did you happen to miss this sentence?

I think this sums it up quite well . . . not knowing the reasons implies that the origins could be suspect as well . . . since they do not consider an intentional injection program they would not list it as a possible reason for the unknown increase . . "These particles are also called “aerosols," and the new paper
explores their recent climate effects -- the reasons behind their increase
remain the subject of ongoing research.
“Since the year 2000, stratospheric aerosols have caused a slower rate of climate warming than we would have seen without them,” says John Daniel, a physicist at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo."

[George B]

#1, you said they were unaccounted for. Yet your source says



Which seems quite reasonable. There's no suggestions that they come from anywhere mysterious, they just don't know which source it is exactly.

[edit] what Firepilot said......

And that's a bit vague for #2. Surely evidence of something changing the rate of global warming would be an actual change of global warming, not a change in something related.

I see you've debated these points before. Why did you come here?

I came here to debate with people who do not believe that such a program exists and to see if you can teach me something as well . . . to hope to give you some rational evidence from possibly a different source . . . I also was accepting a dare to debate on a site that was not sympathetic to my arguments . . .

[George B]

You can see much of George's claims discussed already at godlikeproductions.

So you are aware of GLP . . . I have conducted several polls there and have a rather good profile on why people believe in the Chemtrail Conspiracy . . . I hope to share some of that information here if I am allowed to do so . . .

[George B]

Which one of those would you like to discuss?

The issues you wish to challenge . . .

[Pogopoint99]

not knowing the reasons implies that the origins could be suspect as well . . .

That's your conclusion, not theirs. In fact they link to a nice graphic of aerosol sources ...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...clesfigure.jpg

[firepilot]

I think this sums it up quite well . . . not knowing the reasons implies that the origins could be suspect as well . . . since they do not consider an intentional injection program they would not list it as a possible reason for the unknown increase . . "These particles are also called “aerosols," and the new paper
explores their recent climate effects -- the reasons behind their increase
remain the subject of ongoing research.
“Since the year 2000, stratospheric aerosols have caused a slower rate of climate warming than we would have seen without them,” says John Daniel, a physicist at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo."

Sorry, but no. Not knowing exactly the particular source, is not evidence of something else. Besides, did you see what the main constituents which contribute to these aerosols? Nothing that is mentioned on all the chemtrail sites. Two of the three mentioned were gases, the last is a liquid.

Besides, if the people who did the study were not suspicious, and you are, you are totally reading something into it that is not there. It even specifically mentioned SURFACE EMISSIONS. It is you that are turning into into some airborne emission program.

[George B]

That's your conclusion, not theirs. In fact they link to a nice graphic of aerosol sources ...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...clesfigure.jpg

Did they say they knew the only possible source or were they speculating as well . . . did they take into account that someone may be intentionally geo-engineering . . . is that not a real possibility . . .of course it can't be . . . they want to maintain their professional status and suggesting such a possible source would ban them for life . . .

[firepilot]

Did they say they knew the only possible source or were they speculating as well . . . did they take into account that someone may be intentionally geo-engineering . . . is that not a real possibility . . .of course it can't be . . . they want to maintain their professional status and suggesting such a possible source would ban them for life . . .

It is you that are speculating. You told us you had evidence, you told us you had proof of emissions with no known identifiable source. Now you are doing word gymnastics, trying to tell us that a lack of mention of your chemtrail source, is actually evidence for it.

You will need to give us actual evidence, not just your own conjecture and make believe. You are seeing things that are specifically not even in there, much like those who see Jesus in a slice of bread.

[George B]

Sorry, but no. Not knowing exactly the particular source, is not evidence of something else. Besides, did you see what the main constituents which contribute to these aerosols? Nothing that is mentioned on all the chemtrail sites. Two of the three mentioned were gases, the last is a liquid.

Besides, if the people who did the study were not suspicious, and you are, you are totally reading something into it that is not there. It even specifically mentioned SURFACE EMISSIONS. It is you that are turning into into some airborne emission program.

Sorry to disagree . . . sulfur compounds are the most often mentioned in Aerosol Stratospheric Geoengineering . . . the text underyour graphic . . .

"Sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), and dimethyl sulfide(DMS) are the dominant surface emissions "

[firepilot]

and back to your point of no identifiable sources?

Do volcanoes either not exist or, or do they exist but not actually emit sulfur dioxide?

[Pogopoint99]

Did they say they knew the only possible source or were they speculating as well . . . did they take into account that someone may be intentionally geo-engineering . . . is that not a real possibility . . .of course it can't be . . . they want to maintain their professional status and suggesting such a possible source would ban them for life . . .

They mention known sources of stratospheric aerosols. Period. Are you arguing that because they didn't explicitly mention geo-engineering as a source of the increased aerosols, it's evidence that a covert geo-engineering program is responsible for the increased aerosols?

So to answer your question: "Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source"

Maybe there is, but that particular NOAA article doesn't confirm it. Your question asked for evidence, but you've supported your answer with speculation and special pleading.

BTW Mick: I stand corrected, sarcasm is a poor communication technique in this type of forum.

[Mick]

What exactly do you think is going on George?

[Mick]

Actually, George, I imagine you could debate your list ad-infinitum, so let me propose a new criteria for discussion:

Which items on your list do not have a reasonable alternative explanation, based on our existing understanding of the world?

Using Occam's razor here. Do not introduce new entities unnecessarily. If your "evidence" can be explained without "chemtrails", then we should by default go with that explanation - as it does not introduce new entities.

For example: #1 - the rise in the background level of stratospheric aerosols is possibly from volcanoes, and/or pollution.
#4 - Unidentified aircraft are possibly military.

I've been over your list, and I can't immediately see any that pass that test. Are there any?

Because if not, I could form an equally valid list about robot cats.

[Spongebob]

1. Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists? . . . No

[Pogopoint99]

28. Is there evidence of chemtrails?... No.

[firepilot]

Well I think we have put to rest #1, as not being true.

2. Is there evidencesuggesting that something has changed the rate of global warming? . . . Yes

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, it is not evidence of an aircraft spraying program.

[SR1419]

George said:

"did they take into account that someone may be intentionally geo-engineering . . . is that not a real possibility"

No, it is (IMHO) not a real possibility that they could intentionally geo-engineer the climate to such an extent as to effect the rate of warming without it being widely known...

Simply the logistics involved over a global scale would not allow for absolute secrecy over years..or according to theorists- decades now...

Moreover, if these trails in the sky that people decry in fear were somehow not normal or unexpected...wouldn't some atmospheric scientist...somewhere in the world point that out?

How come in all the years of this discussion- not single atmospheric scientist - any where in the world- has agreed that these trails are suspicious?

[George B]

and back to your point of no identifiable sources?

Do volcanoes either not exist or, or do they exist but not actually emit sulfur dioxide?

Of course they do but NOAA is obviously aware of volcanoes and the rate of eruption . . . they still cannot explain the total increase in the aerosols and change in rate of global warming . . .

[George B]

George said:

"did they take into account that someone may be intentionally geo-engineering . . . is that not a real possibility"

No, it is (IMHO) not a real possibility that they could intentionally geo-engineer the climate to such an extent as to effect the rate of warming without it being widely known...

Simply the logistics involved over a global scale would not allow for absolute secrecy over years..or according to theorists- decades now...

Moreover, if these trails in the sky that people decry in fear were somehow not normal or unexpected...wouldn't some atmospheric scientist...somewhere in the world point that out?

How come in all the years of this discussion- not single atmospheric scientist - any where in the world- has agreed that these trails are suspicious?

1) It is not readily apparent if natural particulates are used at concentrations that do not greatly exceed normal spikes in concentrations . . . there are few if no high altitude monitoring programs that would catch such increases . . .
2) If my theories are correct the persons and institutions accomplishing such an injection program have the mental power and resources to be very, very covert and yes for decades if necessary . . .

[George B]

Well I think we have put to rest #1, as not being true.



Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, it is not evidence of an aircraft spraying program.

The point is there is not direct concrete evidence that an injection program is ongoing so advocates like myself have to rely on circumstantial evidence coupled with history, capacity, opportunity, and motive . . .

[George B]

What exactly do you think is going on George?

I think there is a program of some type in operation . . . it is being accomplished by some of the most covert minded and intelligent people the world has produced and they will not be easily discovered or will they admit their operations . . . until they are ready to do so . . .

[George B]

28. Is there evidence of chemtrails?... No.

That is your opinion not mine . . . the type of evidence and the quality of the evidence is the question . . . what you will not accept others do and will . . .

[Mick]

Point to some evidence that does not have a reasonable alternate explanation, then we can talk.

[Pogopoint99]

That is your opinion not mine . . .

No. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Apparently you agree...

The point is there is not direct concrete evidence that an injection program is ongoing...

Those are your words, aren’t they?

the type of evidence and the quality of the evidence is the question

But George, you're not offering evidence, you're speculating.

[George B]

Actually, George, I imagine you could debate your list ad-infinitum, so let me propose a new criteria for discussion:

Which items on your list do not have a reasonable alternative explanation, based on our existing understanding of the world?

Using Occam's razor here. Do not introduce new entities unnecessarily. If your "evidence" can be explained without "chemtrails", then we should by default go with that explanation - as it does not introduce new entities.

For example: #1 - the rise in the background level of stratospheric aerosols is possibly from volcanoes, and/or pollution.
#4 - Unidentified aircraft are possibly military.

I've been over your list, and I can't immediately see any that pass that test. Are there any?

Because if not, I could form an equally valid list about robot cats.

Hmmm . . . I need to think about your rules of engagement . . . I am not sure they are valid in a court of law or a debate . . . Occam's razor may be valid when one can control the environment of investigation within the hard sciences and then check all identified variables by a process of elimination . . .the biosphere, human history, behavior, politics, is very complex and I think it is possible the rules may be bit too restrictive . . .

1) No one had suggested a conspiracy to use robot cats to accomplish anything . . .
2) Unidentified aircraft are also possibly foreign craft allowed access under international treaty . . .

I have to run now I will return tomorrow and hope to continue if you will allow . . .

[George B]

No. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Apparently you agree...



Those are your words, aren’t they?



But George, you're not offering evidence, you're speculating.

I don't have time right now . .. However, circumstantial evidence is used in the courts of this country and many others . . . it is a form of evidence based on inference. . .I feel I can prove that there is a set of such evidence available in the case of the Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .

[George B]

Point to some evidence that does not have a reasonable alternate explanation, then we can talk.

Almost anything can have a reasonable alternate explanation . . .

[Mick]

I am a robot cat advocate - I believe in a autofeline spy program!

these are some of the reasons I believe there is an autofeline program in place and or a robot cat Conspiracy . . .

Checklist

1. Is thereevidence of cats in my neighborhood which are unaccounted for by any source whatsoever . . . Yes
2. Is there evidence suggesting that something has changed the neighborhood? . . . Yes
3. Is there evidence of unaccounted budget and mechanisms to allocate, spend and manage projects without the public's knowledge or consent? . . . Yes
4. Are there unidentified cats that walk around which the public has no information about their mission,goals, path, attitude or purpose? . . . Yes
5. Do these unidentified cats sometime stare intently at me and other people? . . . Yes
6. Are there whistleblowers who have indicated that a covert surveillance program is ongoing?. . . Yes
7. Are there in existence technology to accomplish a program of developing robot available to accomplish such a mission? . . . Yes
8. Has there been sufficient time from the development of technology and motive for robot cats programs to see them fully tested, deployed, and operational? . . . Yes
9. Are there sufficient robot parts readily available to accomplish such a program? . . . Yes
10. Is there history of pre-existing or similar use of robots by the military?. . . Yes
11. Is there sufficient process and infrastructure to maintain secrecy and covertoperations? . . . Yes
12. Is there a history of operational research regarding the use of robots for surveillance . . .Yes
13. Are there Local, National, and Global motives toengage in an robot cat surveillance program? . . . Yes
14. Are the motives for such programs and the technology and procedures for their implementations being discussed in scientific and political organizations worldwide? . . . Yes
15. Are there national and international laws, regulations, treaties, andorganizations available ready to facilitate and not eliminate such surveillance programs? . . .Yes
16. Are there any monitoring programs where data isavailable to the public that eliminates the possibility of the existence ofsuch a surveillance program? . . . No
17. Is there any evidence other than official announcements from Governmental and Political sources that robot cats don't exist? . . . No
18. Is there a small yet vocal group of people who insist that such a program exists? . . . Yes, although admittedly we are smaller than chemtrailers.
19. Is there a history of unexplained substances which have been documented that have been discovered on my lawn? . . .Yes
20. Have the rates of small dead animals associated with cats continually risen in my yard? . . .Yes
21. Has there been asteady increase in the number of odd acting cats observed by people and reported as unusual to their memory? . . . Yes
22. Has the federal givernemt as well as similar organizations inthe UK invested significant budget and effort in soliciting the public's helpto identify and report certain animals? . . . Yes
23. Has any practical cat mitigation procedures or technology been invested in,deployed, installed or becomeoperational? . . . No
24. Have utilized implantable microchips in an effort to track the locations of real cats? . . . Yes
25. Has DARPA and other organizations presented significantresearch that robot animals could significanly alter future spy operations? . . .Yes
26. Are governments capable of initiating,implementing, maintaining, and coveringup programs which have been proven to be against the best interest to thehealth and welfare of their citizens? . . .Yes
27. Do you have any reason to believe some type of surveillance program using robot cats has not, is not, or will not beimplemented ?. . . No

I rest my case!!!!

Now how is your list any better than mine?

[Pogopoint99]

However, circumstantial evidence is used in the courts of this country and many others . . . it is a form of evidence based on inference. . .

It seems to me a conclusion based on inference is only useful if all other possibilities have been eliminated.

Can you think of sources of atmospheric aerosol that do not involve a secret geoengineering program? Have you eliminated all those other sources as reasons for the increase?