Aluminum, Barium and Strontium: the New Manhattan Project chemtrail sprays

By Peter A. Kirby

For about 20 years now, the people running the New Manhattan Project have been saturating our atmosphere and forcing us to ingest the witches’ brew coming out of the back of their airplanes. It is not normal jet engine exhaust. Contrary to what the ignorant and deceptive propose, the most common chemtrail sprays have been found to consist of aluminum, barium and strontium in that order. Probably hundreds of times, lab tests from around the world have confirmed this. If you do not know what the New Manhattan Project is, please see the author’s previous article “Chemtrails Exposed: A History of the New Manhattan Project.”

Rainwater sample test results from Europe and America showing elevated levels of aluminum, barium and strontium have been compiled at GeoEngineeringWatch.org  and ChemtrailsProjectUK.com. Many other test results can be found at GlobalSkywatch.com. All over the Internet, from all over the world, countless other verifiable test results have been posted.

As this author has repeatedly shown, whenever we gain a basic understanding of any given aspect of the New Manhattan Project, we can also subsequently find lots of evidence supporting its historical evolution in a coherent chronological order. Our discovery of the chemtrail spray ingredients and the historical development thereof is no exception. This is not a coincidence, but it is quite interesting when one considers that all Western governments continue to claim that this Project does not exist. In this case, the relevant historical evolution is that of aluminum, barium and strontium used as ingredients in chemical sprays designed for use in weather modification and the atmospheric sciences. Along with brief technical discussions, this paper examines that history.

Different substances / different uses

Aluminum oxide is the main substance and the focus of this article. A litany of evidence for aluminum being used as a nucleant (as they call it) for weather modification is in the next section.

The New Manhattan Project utilizes aluminum oxide particles to modify the weather. When these tiny particles are dispersed and subsequently hit with the appropriate electromagnetic energy, they heat up. Electromagnetic perturbation of atmospheric particles for the purpose of weather modification distinguishes the New Manhattan Project. When large lower-atmospheric volumes of particles are heated, a high pressure zone is created. If one can create a high pressure zone, one can push low pressure systems around. In combination with ionospheric heaters’ documented ability to redirect the jet stream and many other techniques, this is how they modify the weather.

Barium is used not for modifying the weather, but rather as a tracer for gathering atmospheric data. Barium performs in this capacity because barium can be radioactive. It shows up on radar well. The literature pertaining to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences is full of references to radioactive materials such as barium being used as atmospheric tracers. Let us refer to a 1962 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled “The Atmospheric Sciences 1961-1971.” This report states, “Radioactive substances of suitable half lifes [sic] injected into the air are very useful as tags and may be used to study air motions on a variety of scales. Tracers used in sufficient amounts for this purpose could add immeasurably to our knowledge of the currents of the atmosphere and the dispersion within air masses.”

A little later in “The Atmospheric Sciences 1961-1971,” the authors expand further upon the usefulness of radioactive isotopes. Under the heading “Research on Trace Substances,” the report’s authors write, “Where radioactive compounds are involved, containing tritium or carbon 14, radioactive decay times lead to a calculation of the time elapsed since the formation of the water or carbon dioxide in the sample. Thus, it is possible to date the rain water and the water in wells, rivers, and oceans, and to use this information to study the exchange processes between the upper and lower atmosphere, between the atmosphere and the oceans, and between the atmosphere and the Earth. Research in this area should be vigorously pursued.” This passage suggests that barium is being used today as a way to trace the entire hydrological cycle.

In the 1972 Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences report a more technical discussion of this type of program is found. On page 18 it reads:

Atomic Energy Commission research in precipitation scavenging by convective storms requires knowledge of both the storm and cloud dynamics and the microphysics of the precipitation processes. Atomic Energy Commission laboratories and contractors have developed considerable expertise in the use of selective chemical tracers which can be introduced into the storm or cloud as a function of time, altitude or position. Subsequent analysis of the tracers in the resulting precipitation provides details of dynamical features of the storm, hydrometer growth rates and mechanisms and the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation.

Two types of tracers have been used, specific chemical elements rare in abundance in the atmosphere, and the cosmogenic radionuclides produced naturally in the atmosphere by cosmic ray actions with argon. The chemical tracers are introduced into the storm as aerosols via aircraft and/or surface generators. Analysis of the resulting precipitation for the tracer elements provides insight into the time scales and trajectories of the air motions within convective storms and into the hydrometeor growth rates and deposition patterns.

Cosmogenic radionuclides (particularly Na-24, Cl-38 and Cl-39 with 15 hr, 37 min, and 55 min half-lives respectively) can also be measured in precipitation. These are produced in the atmosphere at known production rates, attached to the natural aerosol and coexisting, presumably, with freezing nuclei, condensation nuclei and inactive aerosols. Because of their differing half lives, the cosmogenic nuclide ratios can be used to determine cloud development times and hydrometeor growth rates and mechanisms. The use of inert chemical tracers and the cosmogenic radionuclides together affords the opportunity to relate the dynamics of the cloud or storm system to precipitation effects such as heavy rainfall, or damaging hail through severe storm research programs such as NHRE, STORMFURY, and Metromex. Tracer techniques also offer unique potential in the evaluation of the various weather modification projects currently being conducted by the various Federal Agencies.

Currently, the AC support of the Illinois State Water Survey in Metromex is directed at the use of chemical tracers to determine the dynamics and efficiency or urban modified severe storms to ingest and precipitate atmospheric aerosols. The tracers are released either by aircraft into the storm updraft or from the surface.

Although it is largely unclear at this time why strontium is showing up in the samples, strontium may be used as a photosensitive catalyst. It could be used to free associated aluminum from the oxide form when exposed to UV and visible light. Free aluminum is much more conductive than aluminum oxide and therefore allows for better propagation of the New Manhattan Project’s electromagnetic waves.

Added strontium may also be showing up West of the Rockies as fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. There is a very good chance that storm updrafts over the Pacific Ocean are picking up strontium from Fukushima, which continues to discharge radioactive seawater as well as airborne pollutants.

Aluminum and weather modification

Since at least 1954, researchers have been busy developing the aluminum concoctions ultimately used in today’s New Manhattan Project. This section recounts the chronological development of aluminum nucleants utilized in weather modification and the atmospheric sciences.

In 1958, Norihiko Fukuta (1931-2010) of Nagoya University in Japan published a paper titled “Experimental Investigations on the Ice-Forming Ability of Various Chemical Substances” which appeared in the Journal of Meteorology. This paper referenced an earlier paper (1954) by Asada, T., H. Saito, T. Sawai, and S. Matsumoto. Fukuta asserts that this earlier foursome discovered the usefulness of aluminum oxide as a nucleant. Fukuta’s paper reads, “Asada [8] tested the activities of various substances of cubic and hexagonal shape considered similar to ice structure and consequently discovered the effectiveness of aluminum oxide.” The author has been unable to find this 1954 document. 1954 is the earliest reference to aluminum oxide used as a nucleant known to the author.

Fukuta’s 1958 paper also details his research utilizing Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) as an experimental nucleant.

Norihiko Fukuta at the cloud chamber
 Image source unknown

***

The 1962 U.S. patent #3,274,035 “Metallic Composition for Production of Hygroscopic Smoke” by Lohr A. Burkardt and William G. Finnegan describes how aluminum, barium and strontium may be used as ingredients in, “…a composition which produces hygroscopic smoke for use in influencing the weather.”

***

The 1964 U.S. patent #3,140,207 “Pyrotechnic Composition” by Mary M. Williams and Lohr A. Burkardt describes how aluminum can be used in compositions which have, “…use in cloud seeding.”

***

Also in 1964, the Navy wrote, “The development of devices to produce hygroscopic nuclei is also continuing. Pyrotechnic mixtures and devices are being developed and tested which produce chlorides of lithium, magnesium, aluminum, and sodium. Trials have been made using hygroscopic liquids for the dispersal of warm fogs.”

***

1964 was a busy year. This was also when the National Science Foundation (NSF) presented the work of a Dr. A.C. Zettlemoyer (1915-1991). Albert Zettlemoyer was an important figure in this development. Zettlemoyer discovered that small particles with both hydrophilic (water attracting) and hydrophobic (water resisting) sites were able to hold more water than uniformly hydrophilic particles. The NSF’s sixth annual weather modification report explains:

For a number of years, Albert C. Zettlemoyer has been conducting a study of the surface properties of nucleating materials and the physical and chemical characteristics which make them efficient nucleators. He has hypothesized that a good ice-nucleating agent, such as silver iodide, is primarily a hydrophobic material, and contains a percentage of hydrophilic areas dispersed about its surface. These hydrophilic areas form the nucleus around which water molecules may cluster and form centers upon which ice forms. According to the investigator, optimized nucleating efficiency occurs when 20 to 30 percent of the nucleating surface is covered with hydrophilic sites and the remainder of the material is hydrophobic. Based upon this hypothesis, the investigator has been successful in synthesizing several active nucleating materials possessing the proper hydrophilic to hydrophobic balance. Silicas, clays, alumina, bauxite, and magnesite have become good nucleating materials when suitably treated. In addition, polymer-coated and surface-esterified silicas have been prepared which have shown excellent nucleating properties in the cold chamber.

Prior to the above disclosure in the NSF’s sixth annual report, Dr. Zettlemoyer was featured in an article which appeared in the American Chemical Society’s Chemical and Engineering News. Dated December 9, 1963, the article reads:

A new series of artificial nucleating agents for possible use as cloud seeders in cloud modification work can now be produced. Now that the surface chemistry of the most effective nucleating agent (silver iodide) has been recognized, it’s possible to seek out other materials which nucleate or promote crystallization in gaseous and liquid media such as water clouds, according to Dr. A. C. Zettlemoyer of the surface chemistry laboratory of Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa.

New and cheap cloud seeders (or nucleating agents), inorganic materials are used as substrates. Silicas, usually of colloidal size, are very desirable inorganic substrates, the Lehigh chemist finds. Other substrates can be used, but it is difficult to find cheaper ones than silicas, he says. These include carbon black, magnesite, limestone, dolomite, clay, bauxite, alumina, magnesia, and lime.

A.C. Zettlemoyer et al, 1963
Image source: Chemical and Engineering News of the American Chemical Society

It looks like the above photo has been altered. Zettlemoyer’s head is too big for his body and it is significantly bigger than those of the others standing next to him. Also, it appears that Zettlemoyer’s head is lit from the right while everything else is lit from the left.

Mr. Zettlemoyer was president of the American Chemical Society in 1981.

***

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a 1970 report titled “Proceedings of the Twelfth Interagency Conference on Weather Modification.” Contained therein is a report titled “National Science Foundation Program in Weather Modification for FY 1970” by P. H. Wyckoff, the program director of the National Science Foundation’s Atmospheric Sciences Section. Mr. Wyckoff writes, “A number of aluminas ranging from particle sizes of 1 to 0.05 microns have been plated with silver which has been converted to silver iodide by exposure to iodine vapor.”

A little later he continues, “Professor L. Grant and Professor M. Corrin have jointly assumed responsibility as co-principal investigators for the nuclei simulation facility at CSU.” Colorado State University (CSU) is where these experiments were conducted.

***

The 1971 U.S. patent #3,630,950 “Combustible Compositions for Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable for Cloud Modification and Weather Control and Aerosolization Process” by Henry M. Papee, Alberto C. Montefinale, Gianna L. Petriconi, and Tadeusz W. Zawidzki suggests using powdered aluminum in combination with an oxidizer whereby, “…a finely dispersed aerosol smoke consisting of moderately hygroscopic condensation nuclei, and a non-hygroscopic gas are simultaneously evolved, said gas acting to disperse said nuclei.”

Of the handful of substances Papee et al tested, aluminum was found to be, “…the most suitable metal since, besides being relatively cheap, it may be considered inert at room temperature (this characteristic is an important factor for safety in the preparation and transportation of the described compositions), it yields remarkable heat of combustion which favours a good continuity of reaction and a good aerosol dispersion. Moreover it is available on the market in the suitable purity and particle size.”

A little later they write, “…we have found that aluminum sulfide, which forms during combustion of compositions containing powdered aluminum and sulfur, is a very good ice-nucleating substance.”

***

During experiments detailed in a 1977 paper by J.H. Shen, K. Klier and A.C. Zettlemoyer, aluminum was used in combination with something called a phlogopite. These phlogopites are described as a new breakthrough. “Ice Nucleation by Micas” states, “A fluorine mica, fluorophlogopite, has been found to produce higher bulk water freezing temperature than many other nucleating agents including the parent hydroxyphlogopite and even silver iodide. It is the most efficient catalyst yet found in this Laboratory.”

***

The 1978 U.S. patent #4,096,005 “Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition” by Thomas W. Slusher and Nuclei Engineering, Inc. of Louisville, Colorado describes how aluminum can be used in compositions designed for weather modification.

***

In 1991 United States patent #5,003,186 “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming” was assigned to the Hughes Aircraft Corporation. The patent describes a method for dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere in order to save us from global warming. The author David B. Chang suggests that aluminum oxide be used for this purpose.

“One proposed solution to the problem of global warming,” it reads, “involves the seeding of the atmosphere with metallic particles. One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude.”

The first mention of aluminum occurs in this passage, “The method comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength region. Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are also suitable for the purpose.”

The second mention of aluminum occurs a little later. It reads, “Another class of materials having the desired property includes the oxides of metals. For example, aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is one metal oxide suitable for the purpose and which is relatively inexpensive.”

The Hughes Aircraft Corporation was acquired by and is now integrated into Raytheon.

***

In the mid-nineties, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories scientists Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde wrote a series of papers calling for the spraying of megatons of aluminum to save us from global warming. The mid-nineties was when reports of chemtrail spraying in American skies began pouring in.

In their 1997 paper “Global Warming and Ice Ages,” the Livermore Labs trio wrote, “It has been suggested that alumina injected into the stratosphere by the exhaust of solid-rocket motors might scatter non-negligible amounts of sunlight. We expect that introduction of scattering-optimized alumina particles into the stratosphere may well be overall competitive with use of sulfur oxides; alumina particles offer a distinctly different environmental impact profile.”

They continue to espouse the virtues of stratospheric alumina in the footnotes writing, “Alumina, like sulfate, is ubiquitous in the terrestrial biosphere, and its stratospheric injection seemingly poses no significant environment issues.”

***

In his 2010 paper “Photophoretic Levitation of Engineered Aerosols for Geoengineering,” top geoengineer David Keith suggests particles consisting of both aluminum and barium be used for the purpose of weather modification. Dr. Keith’s proposed aluminum and barium particle sandwiches suggest that one chemtrail spray material may simultaneously serve the dual purposes of weather modification (aluminum) and atmospheric tracing (barium). Keith notes that these particles can be engineered to employ a layer of aluminum oxide to protect internal free aluminum from oxidation. Also in 2010, in the feature documentary What in the World Are They Spraying?, David Keith says,

…on the environmental consequences of alumina in the stratosphere. There’s a bunch of papers going back to the seventies that look at the radiative and ozone destroying properties of alumina in the stratosphere and those make you think it might be useful. Do this in just a jet in a very simple way. Make high quality alumina particles just by spraying alumina vapor out which oxidizes. So it’s certainly in principle possible to do that.

David Keith is a professor at Harvard University who is heavily invested in geoengineering. According to his Harvard bio, “David divides his time between Cambridge where he is Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Public Policy in the Harvard Kennedy School; and Calgary, where he helps lead Carbon Engineering a company developing technology to capture of CO2 from ambient air.”

Dr. Keith has received geoengineering grants from the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research. According to the Stanford website, “Grants for research are provided to Harvard University from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds.”

David Keith
Image source: Harvard University

***

The April, 2012 edition of the Journal of Weather Modification featured a paper titled “A non-silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Nucleus – Al2O3.” In this paper, the authors William G. Finnegan and Lee Ates propose a new aluminum oxide weather modification spray to replace the industry standard silver iodide.

If the reader will recall, William Finnegan (1923-2011) was also one of the co-authors of the aforementioned 1962 U.S. patent “Metallic Composition for Production of Hygroscopic Smoke.” According to a Journal of Weather Modification obituary, Bill Finnegan worked at the China Lake Naval Ordinance Test Station where his work garnered him several patents. The focus of his career was that of applied research on the generation and characterization of artificial ice nucleants. After his work at China Lake, Mr. Finnegan became a professor at Colorado State University (CSU). After CSU and until his retirement, Dr. Finnegan worked at Nevada’s Desert Research Institute.

William G. Finnegan
Image source: the Journal of Weather Modification / the Desert Research Institute

Particle size

This investigation has found that the aluminum particles dispersed as part of today’s New Manhattan Project may or may not be in the nano-sized range. Many have feared that these particles are nano-sized because when nano-sized aluminum particles are inhaled, they are so small that they go directly into the blood stream and right into the brain causing a host of neurological disorders. In recent years, there have been massive spikes in the number of cases of diseases that have been found to be caused by aluminum toxicity. This has provided support for the notion that these particles are nano-sized. As we will see, the literature pertaining to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences shows nano-sized aluminum particles only as a possibility, not a certainty. Particle size here means the particle’s diameter.

By 1947 scientists had figured out that the best nucleating weather modification sprays consist of nano-sized particles. In an award-winning 1998 documentary film titled Langmuir’s World pioneering weather modifier Bernard Vonnegut (1914-1997) said he found that the best silver iodide particle size for nucleation is about, “a hundredth of a micron.” 1 micron equals 1000 nanometers, so .01 microns converts to 10 nanometers. This is probably what we see today in the conventional, regulated weather modification industry where airplanes spray silver iodide under regulatory supervision. Bernie Vonnegut should know. He was the guy who discovered silver iodide’s usefulness as a nucleant, thus spawning the commercial cloud seeding industry. He was also a scientist who contributed greatly to the foundation of the New Manhattan Project.

Different materials used as nucleants have different optimum sizes. The optimum size has historically been the most water absorbing size. The most water absorbing size is known as the most ‘hygroscopic’ size. The most hygroscopic particles of many different materials have been found to be nano-sized.

Although the particles used today as part of the New Manhattan Project may not be tailored to be the most hygroscopic size, this is what chemists producing nucleants for weather modification have historically sought. Today’s New Manhattan Project may not be shooting for optimum nucleation. Rather, today’s New Manhattan Project may be shooting for particles that are more receptive to this Project’s electromagnetic energy. The nucleation capabilities of said particles may be a secondary or nonexistent objective. But, in order to determine the particle size of today’s New Manhattan Project main chemtrail substance, it is important that we look at some historical examples of aluminum particles used in weather modification and the atmospheric sciences.

By 1963 the aforementioned Dr. A. C. Zettlemoyer concluded that, “…particle size of the substrates should range from 0.01 to 10 microns, and preferably between 0.3 and 1 micron…” That translates to 10 to 10,000 nanometers and preferably 300 to 1000 nanometers. His nucleation substrates included aluminum.

NOAA’s previously mentioned 1970 report “Proceedings of the Twelfth Interagency Conference on Weather Modification” noted that they had found effectively sized aluminum and silver particles in the .05 to 1 micron size range. A range of .05 to 1 micron translates to a range of 50 to 1000 nanometers.

In his aforementioned 2010 paper “Photophoretic Levitation of Engineered Aerosols for Geoengineering,” top geoengineer David Keith proposes use of particles consisting of aluminum and barium sized at about 20 microns (20,000 nanometers).

David Keith’s proposed geoengineering particle
Image source: National Academy of Sciences

We see from this investigation that aluminum particles ranging in size anywhere from 10 to 20,000 nanometers have been formulated or proposed. As discussed earlier, although this size range from 10 to 20,000 nanometers is documented as preferable for hygroscopicity, hygroscopicity may not be what today’s geoengineers are shooting for. They may be largely or entirely shooting for electromagnetic manipulation and in that case, the particles would be sized to be most receptive to the applied microwaves. This is why the results of this investigation into particle size are largely inconclusive. At this time, we are unsure of the exact electromagnetic energy frequencies being used. This fact, coupled with a lack of any known particle measurements, means that we cannot be sure of the particle sizes.

It is also important to note that the particle sizes listed here are the initial dispersion sizes. Due to the fact that these dispersed particles may, as they float down to Earth, attach themselves to other ambient atmospheric particles and/or each other, the particle sizes of these dispersed substances, upon reaching the ground, may be significantly larger. Conversely, relatively large particles may be dispersed which are designed to break up upon exposure to sunlight. The relatively large particles proposed by David Keith (20 microns), may be designed to break into nano-sized fragments.

Resonance frequency / the Welsbach effect

In order for the chemtrail sprays of the New Manhattan Project to be effective, the dispersed particles need to interact with the applied electromagnetic energy appropriately. As previously mentioned, when the aluminum particles of the New Manhattan Project are hit with the right electromagnetic energy frequency, they heat up. The most effective heating frequency is known as a particle’s ‘resonant frequency.’ Different materials have different resonance frequencies.

When large masses of atmospheric alumina particles are heated by specifically applied electromagnetic energy, they behave as something akin to a plasma. More specifically, heated aluminum particles make the aluminum particles around them heat up (or resonate) as well. This is known as the “Welsbach effect.” It is demonstrated in the mantle of a gas lantern. Applied energy makes the entire mantle light up not because the mantle is soaked with fuel, but because the particles comprising the mantle are resonating together. The New Manhattan Project turns our atmosphere into a gigantic mantle with the chemtrail sprays comprising the mantle material and electromagnetic energy being the applied energy. The 1988 U.S. patent #4,755,673 “Selective Thermal Radiators” by Slava A. Pollack and David B. Chang describes how small particles may be energized in this fashion.

David B. Chang is one of the inventors listed on the aforementioned “Selective Thermal Radiators” patent and Mr. Chang is also the sole inventor noted on the infamous “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for the Reduction of Global Warming” patent. Hughes Aircraft is listed as the assignee on both.

The former President and CEO of Hughes Aircraft was a man by the name of Lawrence ‘Pat’ Hyland (1897-1989). He wrote a 1993 autobiography titled Call Me Pat. On this book’s cover, Mr. Hyland is pictured lighting a gas lantern and thus producing the aforementioned Welsbach effect. The lantern he lights has an inscription. It reads, “THE OFFICIAL BICENTENNIAL PAUL REVERE…” America’s bicentennial was in 1976. Paul Revere was, of course, the early American patriot who famously warned the citizenry about the advancing British army. As one can see, there is more to this inscription but your author has not been able to decipher it. In the book it is not explained. Your author has provided the reader with an enhanced image of the inscription.

Call Me Pat book cover
Image source: the Donning Company Publishers

Call Me Pat book cover lantern inscription close-up
Image source: the Donning Company Publishers

Smart dust

Although aluminum, along with barium and strontium are shown here to be the usual New Manhattan Project chemtrail sprays, evidence exists describing the possible utilization of other, more curious materials.

The seminal 1996 Air Force document “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather 2025” mentions using smart materials for the purpose of weather modification. On page 17 it reads,

With regard to seeding techniques, improvements in the materials and delivery methods are not only plausible but likely. Smart materials based on nanotechnology are currently being developed with gigaops computer capability at their core. They could adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given fog seeding situation and even make adjustments throughout the process. They might also enhance their dispersal qualities by adjusting their buoyancy, by communicating with each other, and by steering themselves within the fog. They will be able to provide immediate and continuous effectiveness feedback by integrating with a larger sensor network and can also change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects. As mentioned above, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] could be used to deliver and distribute these smart materials.

Conclusions

We know they are spraying aluminum and barium. These substances are consistently showing up in rainwater samples taken from chemtrail-laden skies all over the world. This work shows that there is a grand history of these substances being developed as material to be sprayed from aircraft for the purpose of weather modification. We see the jets high in the sky spraying us almost every day. It is apparent; with these substances we are being sprayed.

This is where we can gain direct evidence. If we can get chemical signatures of the metals showing up in rainwater samples that match any found or confiscated chemtrail sprays, then we may be able to establish direct evidentiary links between spray, sprayers and producers. These links may be the most important to future litigation. May this work help to establish a conviction. Our best works are like dirty rags.

In the meantime, can somebody do something to put an end to this nightmare so that we don’t have to breathe this stuff in any more? Can we stop mass murdering Humanity now? Can we stop savaging our entire ecosystem? The evidence for these claims of mass murder and environmental devastation will be discussed in a forthcoming article.

Due to so many people’s outstanding efforts, there is enough information available now that we shouldn’t have to continue suffering. There is enough information available now for a Congressional or Government Accountability Office investigation. The time for denial is over. Stop the spraying now.

Peter Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer and activist. Check out his ebook Chemtrails Exposed: A new Manhattan Project. Follow him on Twitter @PeterAKirby.

Notes

Chemtrails Confirmed a book by William Thomas, published by Bridger House publishers, 2004

U.S. patent #4,686,605 “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere,” by Bernard J. Eastlund, 1987

The Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences reports 1960-1978, published by the Federal Council for Science and Technology

“The Atmospheric Sciences 1961-1971” a report by the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, published by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, 1962

“Experimental Investigations on the Ice-Forming Ability of Various Chemical Substances” a paper by Norihiko Fukuta, published in the Journal of Meteorology, February 1958

U.S. patent #3,274,035 “Metallic Composition for Production of Hygroscopic Smoke” by Lohr A. Burkardt and William G. Finnegan, 1966

U.S. patent #3,140,207 “Pyrotechnic Composition” by Mary M. Williams and Lohr A. Burkardt, 1964

“Weather Modification: sixth annual report” by the National Science Foundation, 1965

“Weather Modification: Second annual report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1960” by the National Science Foundation, 1960

“AgI Points to New Nucleating Agents” published in Chemical and Engineering News of the American Chemical Society, December 9, 1963

“Proceedings of the Twelfth Interagency Conference on Weather Modification” a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1970

U.S. patent #3,630,950 “Combustible Compositions for Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable for Cloud Modification and Weather Control and Aerosolization Process” by Henry M. Papee, Alberto C. Montefinale, Gianna L. Petriconi, and Tadeusz W. Zawidzki, 1971

“Ice Nucleation by Micas” a paper by J.H. Shen, K. Klier and A.C. Zettlemoyer, published by the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, June 1977

U.S. patent #4,096,005 “Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition” by Thomas W. Slusher and Nuclei Engineering, Inc. of Louisville, Colorado, 1978

-U.S. patent #5,003,186 “Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming” by David B. Chang, 1991

“Global Warming and Ice Ages” a paper by Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde, published by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1997

“Photophoretic Levitation of Engineered Aerosols for Geoengineering” a paper by David Keith, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 21, 2010

What in the World Are They Spraying? a documentary video by Michael Murphy, Paul Wittenberger and G. Edward Griffin, Truth Media Productions, 2010

“A non-silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Nucleus – Al2O3” a paper by William G. Finnegan and Lee Ates, published by the Journal of Weather Modification, April 2012

“Langmuir’s World” a film by Roger R. Summerhayes, 1998

“Early History of Cloud Seeding” a report by Barrington S. Havens, published by the Langmuir Laboratory, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, and the Research and Development Center, General Electric Company, 1978

Langmuir, the Man and the Scientist a biography by Albert Rosenfeld, published as part of “The Collected Works of Irving Langmuir” by Pergamon Press, Volume 12

“Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control” by The Advisory Committee on Weather Control, 1958

“History of Project Cirrus” a report by Barrington S. Havens, published by the General Electric research laboratory, 1952

U.S. patent #4,755,673 “Selective Thermal Radiators” by Slava A. Pollack and David B. Chang, 1988

Call Me Pat: The Autobiography of the Man Howard Hughes Chose to Lead Hughes Aircraft a book by L.A. ‘Pat’ Hyland, published by The Donning Company Publishers, 1993

“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” by Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt. Col. James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj. Ronald J. Celentano, Maj. David M. Husband, Maj. Ann E. Mercer and Maj. James E. Pugh, published by the United States Air Force, 1996

Websites

worldcat.org
geoengineeringwatch.org
chemtrailsprojectuk.com
globalskywatch.com
nationalacademyofsciences.org
en.nagoya-u.ac.jp
nsf.gov
acs.org
www1.lehigh.edu
harvard.edu
carbonengineering.com
stanford.edu
weathermodification.org
navy.mil
colostate.edu
commerce.gov
noaa.gov
raytheon.com
llnl.gov
af.mil
house.gov
senate.gov
gao.gov

  • Mistaron

    Thank-you.

    • Tuaca1107

      Ditto!

  • Peter A. Kirby

    Hey everybody. Let’s keep the robot and troll comments down by logging in and down-voting them and let’s keep the actual person comments up by up-voting them. This is how we win the information war. Thank you.

    • CMRedwood

      Another great article, thank you! You are a humble hero and much appreciated.

    • Thomas_Avit

      IMHO: The Ruff / Burke dog & pony show below appears to be a bit too scripted as a distraction rather than a real debate.

      • Arcanek

        Ruff appears to be far too stupid to script anything. He actually posted links to his claims, so I looked into them. The main impetus behind the NASA support is to try to revive their federal funding, so they jumped on the GW bandwagon. As for the idiotic sceptical science, it is a group of self declared ‘peere’ reviewers. The fact that NASA, and not the NOAA is behind it should give anyone a clue that the movement is bogus. It doesn’t take long to see that the peer review was invalid statistical jury rigging and outright fraud.

        • dale ruff

          Ruff has a world class education. NASA temperature data confirmed by the Berkeley Earth Project, funded and headed by climate science skeptics. If the data is solid, there is no need to invent a conspiracy theory of why it is biased.

          Scepticalscience is an independent website and has nothing to do with the tradition of peer-review in science. I suspect you do not know what peer-review means and why is the pillar of scientific self-correction.

          Invalid use of statistics would be exposed by peer-review. You have no idea what you are talking about, and that’s a fact.

          The metastudies on the global warming consensus includes several large research projects. Just google global warming consensus studies and educate yourself. You can’t find a climate scientist who denies global warming, let alone a majority. The consensus has been researched, peer–reviewed,and replicated on a large scale. There is no doubt among the scientifically literate, tho many are still brainwashed by fossil fuel industry propaganda (tho they have known for 35 years). Check it out………….every claiim have made can be fact checked.

          Those insecure about their educations are known to take pot shots at those who exhibit a far better education. It’s amusing to see people with no background call out people (such as climate scientists) with superior educations. Go ahead: google consensus on global warming and immerse yourself in the research showing there is no debate about global warming, just a scientific consensus and an industry propaganda campaign.

    • Paceride

      That’s how you win the information war? By stifling anything you disagree with? Okey Doke!

  • Leo

    Anonymous new video on geoengineering with Dane Wignington as narrator. So much information in 23 minutes. Real good, but disturbing as hell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj0deqKo444

    • Veri Tas

      Critical mass = 10% of the population, according to scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

      The scientists found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion.

      “When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

      There’s hope yet.

      • dale ruff

        4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years …
        http://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
        Jun 5, 2014 –

        • Paceride

          Oh then it must be true.

          • Arcanek

            What a lame retort. About all you seem to be capable of.

      • Paceride

        Too bad “beliefs” aren’t “facts”. Just cause 10% of the people believe in Big foot doesn’t make it true.

        • Arcanek

          Where were ‘facts’ even mentioned? i notice you only make snide remarks, and seem to have quite a few problems with comprehension. time to throw out your schooling, and way past time to start educating yourself, troll.

          • Paceride

            That’s just it genius, “facts” are never mentioned. Just beliefs. Use your head for something other than a hat rack. You’ve done a marvelous job “educating” yourself.

          • Arcanek

            Exactly, clown. you tried pulling a straw man, here. Try learning some formal logic. And you don’t even bother to defend your juvenile sniping. Try contributing some knowledge, if you ever figure out what knowledge is. You’ve done a seriously lousy job letting yourself be programmed.

  • dale ruff

    I am not paid shill. I am a retired person who has researched atmospheric science and what the atmospheric scientist have found: they have found that what the 5% of believe in chemtrails see in the stratosphere are contrails, frozen vapors, with jet fuel residues, which form cirrus clouds which slightly warm the atmosphere, travel thousands of miles by air currents before, radically, diluted, falling to earth (or usually the ocean). As such, they are useless to target populations or to cool the atmosphere.

    If you look up commericial flight paths, you can then correlate what you see with the millions of normal commericial flights each year, ever increasing.

    Like burned fuels on the ground level, which cause 8 million deaths a year and hundreds of millions of sickenesses, burned fuel at 30,000 ft is polluting. But it does not contain aluminum, barium and strontium, which would destroy the engines.

    Aluminum,barium, and strontium are common in nature and widely used in industry and household items like toothpaste and sandpaper. Each year more and more is used and gets into the soil, the water, and yes, the lower atmosphere.

    I know you do not want to hear this, but this is what actual experts on atmospheric science say. You can claim they are all frauds and sold out, but then you only have the amateurs and fossil fuel industry propagandists, the same ones who tell you global warming is a hoax and all the world’s climate scientists from 180 nations are lying. It is a clever way to deflect attention from the lethal pollution created by the fossil fuel industry and to shift the blame to the very government which is in a position to pass laws to reduce pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.

    Those who believe this clever ruse are useful idiots for such people as the Koch brothers, who want to maximize profits on their polluting enterprises (100 billion isn’t enough) by thwarting regulation of pollution and greenhouse gases. They do this by confusing the public into believeing there is not a scientific consensus (99%) and by pandering to distrust of the government, shifting blame from their own guilt in destroying the environment to the very agencies which are in charge of protecting it, such as the EPA. They hundreds of millions to spread this propaganda, with dark money, in order to protect their hundred billion of assets. The entire fossil fuel industry funds anti-global warming propaganda, and chemtrails is a subset of that effort to deceive the public.

    I urge all of you (I know you think I am a paid shill, for whom I am not sure) to read what actual atmospheric scientists have to say and then comparing that with the non atmospheric scientists and actual shills are telling you. I urge you to take the words of the atmospheric and climate scientists over the word of anyone else.

    Since trails from planes at 30-35,000 ft cannot be used to target a population or cool the atmosphere, it is not logically a way to harm people or do anything but warm the atmosphere, which contrails already do. The only logic behind chemtrails is to fool the public and to prevent legislation to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, by shifting blame. I urge you to think about it after finding out what the scientists who are expert and do research in the field have discovered.

    I urge you to consider who benefits from articles that spread this manufactured menace. I will not respond to attacks…..I am not telling you anything other than to check it out with the scientific experts in the field. If the only way you can maintain your illusions is to attack me for this reasonable advice, that is a sign of how deeply you may have been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry.

    • sk1951

      Bots can’t respond. Or can they?

      • dale ruff

        My response was in my post: check out what actual atmospheric scientists have to day. Theirs is the only response with any scientific authority. I am just reporting on what they have said. If listening to actual scientists is botiftude, so be it. I urge you to find out what they are saying. I have nothing else to add. Go by the science is as much as anyone can respond. If that doesn’t make sense, you are hopelessly brainwashed.

        • Richard Phillips

          It’s not necessary to check on any science all you need to do is look up every day and ask yourself “why is this being done”?
          It’s also fairly obvious to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence that the food and drink on the supermarket shelves is almost entirely highly processed, genetically modified, toxic shite designed to make the human body very sick. Again, ask yourself “why”?

          * POPULATION REDUCTION * This has been going on for decades

          Once you get that ‘concept’ firmly lodged in the brain then it becomes very clear to see how & why all this other stuff ties in. It matters not if there are actually too many people on the planet or not, the point is the controllers who have all the influence think there are and they are doing something about it. You don’t need a science degree to see that!

          • dale ruff

            I do look up everyday, for years, and what I see are contrails,from commercial flights, in the troposphere were the polluted water vapor of jet fuel engines is frozen. Why do you assume it is anything else? Spraying aluminum,barium, and strontium would foul yet engines,and by the time it settled to earth, thousands of miles away over a period of months, it would be radically diluted and 2/3 would fall into the ocean.

            Once you are brainwashed to see ordinary contrails (which do pollute and warm the atmosphere: the EPA is trying to get permission to regulate jet fuel emissions, just as ground level pollution is regulated) as chemtrails, your imagination takes over.

            Given the facts of atmospheric conditions, if you wanted to kill people by spraying particles which are common in industry and household items (sandpaper, toothpaste, etc), you could not target them from 30-35K ft altitudes, which is the only place you will ever see vapors; you would have to spray at a much lower altitude.
            All the trails you see are at the level of cirrus clouds (indeed they become cirrus clouds), which is above 30,000 ft, where air currents move and dilute the emissions over a period of months useless to target anyone.
            To target people,you would need to operate at the level of crop dusting…….

            You will never see trails below the level of cirrus clouds (such as the level of rain clouds)…so they are useless to target populations.

            In some areas where almost no one lives (one example is
            Sedona,Arizona…with a population of 10,000),but where commercial flights commonly fly over (Sedona has the flights from LA going east and Phoenix going North crisscrossing), you will see hundreds of trails. But hardly anyone lives there. If you wanted to target populations to kill people, you would have to spray at a low altitude and you would do it only over populated areas, large cities, etc. Yet out in the middle of nowhere, you see many trails………………frozen vapor of jet engine emissions.

          • Arcanek

            ***I do look up everyday, for years, and what I see are contrails,from commercial flights, in the troposphere were the polluted water vapor of jet fuel engines is frozen. Why do you assume it is anything else? Spraying aluminum,barium, and strontium would foul yet engines,and by the time it settled to earth, thousands of miles away over a period of months, it would be radically diluted and 2/3 would fall into the ocean.

            Looking up at the sky, I have seen interrupted trails. The trails are interrupted 4 or 5 times in a rather narrow portion of the sky. The engines would have to be shut off several times rapidly in order for this to occur. No pilot I am aware of would ever turn the engines on and off several times a minute. And the interruptions could not be from other planes, either. If they were, then why would the other planes have left no trails. It’s a telltale sign of exercising discharge valves if you understand anything about those systems. And spraying those materials would not foul jet engines,since you’ll notice the trails are behind the planes and well above the other flights in the sky. Yes, it does get in the engines as the vapors descend, but so does a lot of dues, insencts and other material. And try taking a look at the ground, as well. you ought ot be able to notice a whitish, metallic looking powder in the cracks of the asphalt. That wasn’t happening years ago.

            ***Once you are brainwashed to see ordinary contrails (which do pollute and warm the atmosphere: the EPA is trying to get permission to regulate jet fuel emissions, just as ground level pollution is regulated) as chemtrails, your imagination takes over.

            You are no oneto be crticizing anyone else about being brainwashed. You swallowed the collectivist wad time after time. You even fell for the ‘democratic anarchy’ programming BS. That is beyond brainwashed.

            ***Given the facts of atmospheric conditions, if you wanted to kill people by spraying particles which are common in industry and household items (sandpaper, toothpaste, etc), you could not target them from 30-35K ft altitudes, which is the only place you will ever see vapors; you would have to spray at a much lower altitude.

            You’re assuming that this is intended to kill. Another straw man, here.

            ***All the trails you see are at the level of cirrus clouds (indeed they become cirrus clouds), which is above 30,000 ft, where air currents move and dilute the emissions over a period of months useless to target anyone.

            Another straw man. you assume they are targeting people to poison them. And this is not dilution, it is dispersion.

            ***To target people,you would need to operate at the level of crop dusting…….

            Why do you insist that it must be directly targeting the people? That is a straw man.

            You will never see trails below the level of cirrus clouds (such as the level of rain clouds)…so they are useless to target populations.

            The material ends up falling to the ground. Poisoning the land, or killing off part of the life chain are just as effective in the long run, and goes right past the bootlickers and authority worshippers like you.

            ***In some areas where almost no one lives (one example is
            Sedona,Arizona…with a population of 10,000),but where commercial flights commonly fly over (Sedona has the flights from LA going east and Phoenix going North crisscrossing), you will see hundreds of trails. But hardly anyone lives there. If you wanted to target populations to kill people, you would have to spray at a low altitude and you would do it only over populated areas, large cities, etc. Yet out in the middle of nowhere, you see many trails………………frozen vapor of jet engine emissions.

            Since you apparently haven’t caught on, here’s a clue to investigate: clouds aren’t stationary.

          • dale ruff

            I urge you to consult actual atmospheric scientists. Broken contrails are explained by differences in atmospheric temperature–no great mystery.

            Contrails all are witnessed in the 30-40K ft atmosphere. There are no higher flights, and you will not see trails often below 30,000 ft except where freezing temperatures have dipped.

            Commercial flights are weighted down to the last ounce with people packed inside like sardines. There is no room, or extra weight, for barrels of spray. It’s a myth. Contrails do not form at the level of rain clouds, etc but only at the level of cirrus clouds, which they become, thinning about and being carried thousands of miles as they dilute. You don’t know what you are talking about, my friend. I urge you to consult atmospheric science and those who study it to get your information, as I have done. I can find no atmospheric scientists, with peer-reviewed research on the atmospheric emissions, who accept chemtrails. I challenge you to find some and cite their research. I have looked for years: they don’t exist.

      • William Burke

        I’m guess it’s about 65-35 that they can.

    • William Burke

      I’ve seen enough of your posts to surmise that you are either (1) a paid shill of some agency or (2) a government Web-bot. I will not respond to your attacks.

      • CMRedwood

        He’s probably not paid, rather an ideological Globalist Kool-Aid drinker.

        I LOVE how he tries to wave the RINO vs. DINO red flag of the Kochs when the majority of A.P. readers know they are hard-core globalists angling for the same totalitarian Technocracy their enantiomer oligarch Rockefeller pals are, even to the extent of openly spearheading and funding Agenda 21 policy initiatives in Colorado hand-in-hand with two Rockefeller foundations under the auspices of the Colorado Climate Project. Dale is a retired political scientist and he doesn’t understand the Hegelian dialectic?? Thesis and antithesis in some arenas, collaborators in others – pro re nata. Yes, we know daddy Koch made sure JBS was a Gatekeeper organization holding pen for older American generations opposing the NWO.

        • William Burke

          No, if you research him on the net, you will find the same phrases over and over. In itself, this means nothing. But there is a thing known as “reading between the lines”. There is a certain repetition which suggests “he” is AI. No… I used the word “I”, for “intelligence”, in a questionable application.

          • dale ruff

            Don’t research me: consult the findings of climate scientists who do research on climate change.

          • CMRedwood

            I’ve had long enough and complicated enough exchanges with him to know he isn’t a bot or program. This notion of repeating a meme over and over ad naseum is classic disinfo, I closely observed a similar pattern about 11 years ago apparently coming from SPLC operatives. FWIW, I’m in neurosci and it makes sense to me as a strategy.

          • William Burke

            SPLC? Interesting. I got personally trolled by Morris Dees a couple years ago. That was an eye-opener!

          • CMRedwood

            I bet it was an eye-opener. My interactive commentary was being analyzed by a group and somewhat inadvertently (Clouseau style) I managed to psy op them a time or two. The system was more malleable and more organic in those days.

          • dale ruff

            2 + 2 is 4 and will always be. What you see in the stratosphere are contrails……according to atmospheric scientists. The truth bears repeating. It’s not a meme: its science. It’s not a strategy but just repeating the truth to those whose refuse to listen, hoping that eventually, curiosity will lead them to check out the atmospheric science for themselves. The tactic is to continue to tell people to check out the science, hoping one day they will.

            The tactic of those who are afraid to face the actual science is to call those who refer them to it paid shills, agenda mongers, etc….to make personal accusations as an excuse not to CHECK OUT THE SCIENCE. There is nothing complicated about it: there is no scientific evidence for chemtrails. Says who?: the atmospheric scientists. I urge you to listen to them.

          • CMRedwood

            Authorities using “evidence” are always to be trusted like the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission? LSD was sprayed over a French village decades ago by the CIA and there’s Tuskegee. And surely you know Upton Sinclair famous quote about a certain kind of professional blindness. It’s highly prevalent in medical science, the difference is the mistakes are far easier to detect and expose than errors in models based on a weak understanding of climate patterns with a scale of billions of years.

          • dale ruff

            No, science is based on skepticism. From the Soviet geneticist Lysenko to the Monsanto scientists, science must always be subjected to skeptical inquiry. The Warren Commission has nothing to do with science and in fact in the 70’s a Congressional investigation found that the murder of Kennedy was a conspiracy.

            Science is not based on authority but on evidence, which is judged not by a central committee or government authority but by the most experienced scientists themselves in the process called peer-review. There is much evidence to refute the claim of Monsanto that there is no science to show that Roundup is safe; in fact the WHO just refuted the Monsanto claim, as have 40 nations. Lysenko in the USSR was finally denounced and his false science repudiated.
            Through a process of peer-review, science is self-correcting without recourse to external authority. The ultimate authority is evidence, the results of observation, experimentation, and measurement: the authority of empirical fact.

            There is no evidence that climate scientists in 180 nations or atmospheric scientists are guilty, on a collective level, of faking evidence. In fact, the Berkeley Project, led by climate skeptics, set out to find flaws in govt climate data: they found the opposite, that it is in fact totally valid. Their investigation, based on a skeptical approach, was overwhelming the the solidity of the evidence.. If you have evidence of the world’ scientists or atmospheric scientists involved in massive fraud, the skeptics would like to see it. There is not such evidence, nor a motive.

            Just as science is based on skepticism and challenge, so the efforts to deny science must be subjected to skeptical questions: what is your evidence? What is your source? Where is your research.

            I urge you to check out the Berkeley Project, which found that the empirical data on global warming is indisputably valid.

            I also urge you to continue to challenge the research funded by Monsanto and the lies told to the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission.

            Fake conspiracy theories like the “global warming hoax” and “chemtrails” are designed to poison the well, to make all questioning of authority look lunatic.

            We must use our critical thinking skills to sort out the toxic allegations from those based on evidence. If we do not, all allegations of abuse of authority will be poisoned by those designed to pollute the well.

          • visitor

            “Science is not based on authority but on evidence, which is judged not by a central committee or government authority but by the most experienced scientists themselves in the process called peer-review”

            It seems, Dale, that you have no personal experience with the ‘peer review’ process you refer to and speak so highly of. It is quite often a quagmire of competing personal/vested interests, with ‘evidence’ taking a back seat. But then, as someone who claims to have a background in philosophy, you should know the difference between true scientific method and scientism.

            But then, you throw in this mash up:

            “The truth bears repeating. It’s not a meme: its science. It’s not a strategy but just repeating the truth to those whose refuse to listen..”.

            The same was once said about the sun revolving around the earth, and ‘physicians’ also indulged in blood-letting, but intelligent people continued to question these ‘truths’, until they saw that 2 plus 2 did not equal the 4 they had been told previously. Have you not read Kuhn?

            And then, “hoping that eventually, curiosity will lead them to check out the atmospheric science for themselves. The tactic is to continue to tell people to check out the science, hoping one day they will.”

            However, I note also that in your posts here you repeatedly argue that readers should simply listen to experts and authority – which I find astounding, especially given that, as noted above, you shoot yourself in the foot by also saying ‘Science is not based on authority but on evidence’. Also, you continue to refer to ‘climate scientists’, which suggests that this issue is ONLY open to those who have paid their dues to the ‘established dogma’. Indeed, you also say that “Theirs is the only response with any scientific authority”. What utter bollocks – as you said (in the continual process of tripping yourself) it is about evidence, not authority. Dale, you seem to be very confused and unable to present a coherent argument (which is ironic, given your claimed studies in philosophy).

            Fortunately, there are those who have research skills (and higher degrees in other domains) who, not being handicapped at birth by having any particular professional insignia or guild stamped on their brains, can assess the available data and form their own opinions. As just one example, perhaps you could take the time to do some actual research of your own and read the recent article at this very site: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/weather-geoengineering-chemtrails.html#disqus_thread. Or, you could do some research on the data trimming and adjustments on temps that have been often made by your vaunted climate scientists. However, something tells me that is not your aim.

            However, in closing, I *will* take the advice you proffered in a recent posting:
            instead of appealing to the dogma of the day, I do indeed choose to reject “all forms of tyranny or top down control”, including the fanciful, non-science based ‘climate scientist’ dogma you depend upon.

            Happy researching (or not).

          • Common Sense

            Thank you.

            Please ignore dale. He does this all the time.

            He’s dug holes for himself so deep they are studying his methods for future mining operations.

            And he has no shame about it.

            Just sad, really sad.

          • dale ruff

            Dale is telling you to listen to what actual climate scientists have found out. Please ignore his advice. Nothing spoils a cherished illusion like knowledge.

            He has no shame in urging you to listen to the climate and atmospheric scientists. How sad is that?

          • CMRedwood

            My thoughts exactly, thank you for a terrific response. It was late and I had to get some sleep. You seem to be from the UK, that’s great.

            In some respects, Dale is doing us a favor showing us the limits of their propaganda and getting some adrenaline flowing in the process.

          • visitor

            CM – and Common Sense – you’re both welcome. CM, I think that you mentioned your background was in neurosci? If so, mine is only 15 degrees away, and spotting (very) poorly plotted persuasion tactics dressed up as pseudo science (often accompanied by “no, I’m not a troll, I really just want to help you all, but don’t ask me, check with the authorities…”) has become second nature (and in this case, I decided to indulge myself). As my wife commented of the present case under discussion, “he would never pass first year philosophy”…
            PS – not the UK, but Australia, and over the last 7 or so years, the chemtrails have been particularly obvious.
            Cheers to all free and independent thinkers, and thanks to the writers on this site and those who add to the discussion 🙂

          • dale ruff

            War is peace.
            Freedom is Slavery.
            Ignorance is Strength (1984)

            Today’s sheeple add:
            Science is Dogma
            Propaganda is Truth

          • dale ruff

            It was scientists who dispelled the ancient myth that the earth revolves around the sun. You claim that the research of climate scientists is dogma (dogma is belief without evidence) and that the propaganda is more reliable. You are entitled to your illusions; I will stick with the scientific and empirical knowledge.

          • Arcanek

            It was a single person who disputed it, and he was censored by peer review.

          • dale ruff

            Global warming is accepted by 99.9% of climate scientists. Peer review does not censor but filters out bad research. If you dismiss science and peer review, you are left with propaganda and lies.

          • Arcanek

            No, you’re lying. There is no consensus of 99.9%. There is no published data by any such group that shows any methodolgy whatsoever. There is no qualifying substantiation that accredits these ‘experts’. If they won’t show the mathm then they have no credibility. And peer review is a witchhunt. It fails a basic logic test. Who would be the peer of the most brilliant person on the planet, and why should that person’s ideas be subjected to the opinion of their intellectual inferiors. You are once again resorting to fallacy to support your trumped up position. It has nothing to do with science. It is the propaganda and lies that you say are rejected. You have never cited any source that shows any validated methodology for any of your foolish claims. you have merely spouted the party line.

          • dale ruff

            I do not lie. I present facts which contradict the propaganda you have digested. That is the opposite of lying: that is refuting lies with truth.

            99.9% of climate scientists, accept global warming as an empirical fact.This is based on 2 foundations: 1) several studies of thousands of peer-reviewed publications by thousand of scientists from over a hundred countries show that over 97% confirm global warming while less than 3% do not deny warming but deny we know for sure what is causing it. 2. The fact that you cannot find a climate scientist who denies global warming,tho there are plenty of amateurs from other fields,.with zero peer-reviewed studies,willing to claim the actual experts in the field are all frauds.

            An expert is a credentialed scientist (almost always with a PH.d) who has peer-reviewed publications of his research. Peer-reviewed means more than assessed by other experts prior to publication but also the efforts afterwards of ambitious young scientists seeking to find flaws………this is the self-correction dynamic of the scientific community, with a built in incentive to find fault with peer-reviewed research (a secure future in academia). The last large study of global warming was funded by the anti-climate change Koch brothers, led by a well-respected climate skeptic, Dr. Muller. He and team went looking for errors and fakery in the official government temperature records…while seeking to determine if the temperatures were distorted by various factors. Dr.Muller found the government data was absolutely accurate and solid and NOT distorted by any other factors. He also concluded that no other cause than human activity could logically explain the rise of over 60% in the atmospheric CO2 since 1800 and the rising temperatures, decade after decade. He was converted by the facts, like a genuine scientist. So know even the chief funders of the”global warming is a hoax” conspiracy theory, the Koch brothers,no longer openly fund anti-science propaganda but use subsidiaries to distance themselves from embarrassing results like the Berkeley Earth Project, which confirmed what it was intended to expose as invalid or faked. Look it up.

          • Arcanek

            ***I do not lie. I present facts which contradict the propaganda you have digested. That is the opposite of lying: that is refuting lies with truth.

            Your posts are a combination of lies, propaganda and fallacy. Your lack of knowledge of formal logic is childish. Youcite absolutely no credible sources for any of your false claims.

            ***99.9% of climate scientists, accept global warming as an empirical fact.

            This statement is totally unsupprotable. You just made this up, and it doesn’t take going back very far in your posts to see tht you have now changed this number. So, you were either lying then, or you are lying now, or both. Both would be the most likely case. Anyway, it is a logical fallacy to believe that any percentage of any portion of the populace determines the truth. This is a false appeal to authority. I’ve called you out on this juvenile garbage before, but apparently your shoer term memory is shot. The truth is not determined by who believes something or not. You can’t even provide a reference for this nonsense.

            ***This is based on 2 foundations: 1) several studies of thousands of peer-reviewed publications by thousand of scientists from over a hundred countries show that over 97% confirm global warming while less than 3% do not deny warming but deny we know for sure what is causing it.

            You just contradicted yourself. First, it was 99.9, which you cite no reference for, now, it is down to 97%. You can’t keep your story straight for even a few sentences.

            *** 2. The fact that you cannot find a climate scientist who denies global warming,tho there are plenty of amateurs from other fields,.with zero peer-reviewed studies,willing to claim the actual experts in the field are all frauds.

            Here you go lying again. Even your fake numbers that you can’t keep straight. You falsely characterize any dissenting opinion, and start fabricating false positions of the ‘opposition’. Peer review is just opinion. What kind of peer review did Copernicus or Gallileo get? Or, are you saying they were wrong. Peer review for climate change is based on paid shills’

            ***An expert is a credentialed scientist (almost always with a PH.d) who has peer-reviewed publications of his research.

            No, an expert is someone with hands on experience. It doesn’t have to be about science. You just blather on,redefining the language, because all you have is a worthless blowhard degree.

            *** Peer-reviewed means more than assessed by other experts prior to publication but also the efforts afterwards of ambitious young scientists seeking to find flaws.

            More lies from you. Peer review has nothingto do with what happens after the review, you liar.

            ***……..this is the self-correction dynamic of the scientific community,

            More BS you are spewing. First, there is no ‘scientific community’. You just make this garbage up.

            ***with a built in incentive to find fault with peer-reviewed research (a secure future in academia).

            More garbage. You’re just babbling, here. More unsupportable blathering from you. you are nothing more than a babbler, who spouts one baseless opinion after another. You just talk and talk, spewing nonsense. A secure future in academia requires going along with the program. It has nothing to do with peer review.

            ***The last large study of global warming was funded by the anti-climate change Koch brothers, led by a well-respected climate skeptic, Dr. Muller.

            More baseless garbage. This is all unsupportable. Too vague to have any real meaning. More cut and paste from a liar. Too ambiguous to have any meaning, and has no application in a formal argument.

            ****He and team went looking for errors and fakery in the official government temperature records…while seeking to determine if the temperatures were distorted by various factors.

            He’s a fraud, and has been called out time and time again. I’m surprised that you still bring this charlatan up. You haven’t kept up, except with spouting the lies.

            *** Dr.Muller found the government data was absolutely accurate and solid and NOT distorted by any other factors.

            He didn’t find anything in absolute. that is not possible. You resort to false dramatization, since you have no logic. the voice of reason needs no appeal to emotion. Emotion has no place in this, you drama queen.

            ***He also concluded that no other cause than human activity could logically explain the rise of over 60% in the atmospheric CO2 since 1800 and the rising temperatures, decade after decade.

            He would have to know everythign about everything to make such a claim. You lie like a child. your intellect is seriously lacking, here. you can’t even tell an adult lie.

            *** He was converted by the facts, like a genuine scientist.

            He is a paid shill, and has been expposed.

            ***So know even the chief funders of the”global warming is a hoax” conspiracy theory, the Koch brothers,no longer openly fund anti-science propaganda but use subsidiaries to distance themselves from embarrassing results like the Berkeley Earth Project, which confirmed what it was intended to expose as invalid or faked. Look it up.

            More phony character assassination. Try presenting some logical evidence, instead of this tripe. Where is the math for any of this? Just try searching on berkeley earth project fraud and you’ll get hundreds of thousands of results. Once again, you resort to a long winded, illogical, impertinent rant that is nothing more than diversion, since you ducked everything I questioned.

          • dale ruff

            Studies show 97% of climate scientists with peer-reviewed research accept human activity as the cause. Of the 3% who do not agree on the cause, none dispute the fact that the globe is warming.

            Therefore, based on studies, 99+% of climate scientists accept global warming,while 97% of them accept human activity as the source.

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            “A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

            A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

            Those who do not accept human causation DO accept that the earth is warming as an empirical fact, disputing only the cause. Try to find a published climate scientist who denies global warming.

        • dale ruff

          If you can find a climate scientist who does not believe the earth is warming, present his research. Put up or shut up. No one cares about Hegelian dialectics (which as a student of political philosophy, I have studied) but rather how to deal with climate change. I urge you to check out the Berkeley Project, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming is real and to read the op ed in the NY Times by the climate skeptic who led the investigation and was converted by the indisputable evidence.n
          Your other stuff I have previously shown to be false.

          • CMRedwood

            Why dumb down the debate by oversimplifying the complexities of climate change?

            I thought you weren’t going to reply to “attacks”.

          • CMRedwood

            “No one cares about Hegelian dialectics…”

            ROTFLMAO!!

          • dale ruff

            In regard to atmospheric science, Hegelian dialectics is just a distraction.

          • CMRedwood

            Two faux camps doing a circus routine is DESIGNED to be a distraction from the more complex analyses and high level synthesis required to understand WHY.

          • dale ruff

            If you said that to a climate scientist, he would laugh in your face. Your analysis is something like

            Person A tell talells the empirical truth.

            Person B says the opposite.

            You would then seek to harmonize the truth and the lie as a higher level synthesis. Hahahahahahahahaha.

            Empirical evidence is fact; it does not have an antithesis other than a falsehood. Hegel knew little of science, and what he knew has been refined over two centuries. His dialectic makes much more sense as a way of understanding history.

            Modern scientists do not study Hegel: they study the science of the great genius of modern science.

            The last serious effort to use Hegel in science was in the Soviet Union. Lenin studied Hegel, based on the fact that Marx invented dialectical materialism, and of course Stalin denounced “bourgois science” and invoked Hegel, while promoting a whole program of false science.

            I recommend to you

            Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars By Ethan Pollock, which explores the last serious effort to integrate Hegel into modern science, with catastrophic results, such as the anti-Mendelian genetics.

            “In 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences:

            He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists”

            This was the end of a science which attempted to base itself on dialectics.

            You might also check out Engels Dialectics of Nature.

            The dialectics which scientist today honor is the dialectics of Heraclitus and Socrates, that nothing is fixed and that what appears fixed is in fact a stage of evolution. Here is how Einstein rejected the philosophical approach:

            “”The elements of physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to the results of experiments and measurements” That is the credo of modern scientists, not theoretical Hegelian dialectics but “experiments and measurements.”

            In what field of science is your expertise?

          • dale ruff

            I am not. I am urging you to educate yourself. I am not defending myself; I am suggesting that if you want to understand what is going on in the atmosphere, you consult the experts. That’s not a defense; that is common sense advice.

          • clive mossmoon

            “Consult the experts,” lol, that’s the last thing you do, idiot. Think for yourself. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE BAN THIS PAID SHILL. THANK YOU.

          • dale ruff

            Think for yourself. All your ideas on chemtrails, etc are from media sources, none of whom are actual climate scientists or atmospheric scientists. My ideas on chemtrails as a myth and contrails as a reality is from reading atmospheric scientists and learning the basics of atmospheric science.

            If you had cancer, would you consult an expert.
            If your diesel engine broke down, would you consult a diesel mechanic.

            If I WERE a paid shill, I would argue by calling anyone who disagreed with me a paid shill. Smearing the messenger and libel are the tools of frauds who are unable to refute evidence of those who have actual knowledge.

            When I see someone called a paid shill, I am pretty sure they aren’t but that the person making the accusation is.

            How much do the Koch brothers pay you, brother? They have spent hundreds of millions on denying science. How well do they pay you to libel anyone who challenges the idea that the real pollution problem is not the burning of fossil fuels by wealthy oligarchs but nefarious forces spraying the troposphere, where stuff is moved around for thousands of miles over months before falling, radically diluted mostly into the ocean? Or are you just that stupid?

          • clive mossmoon

            “…nefarious forces spraying the troposphere, where stuff is moved around
            for thousands of miles over months before falling, radically diluted
            mostly into the ocean…”

            THIS is what gives you away as a paid shill. So there IS crazy SRM going on but it not the stuff we are seeing with our own eyes, right? That’s CLASSIC gatekeeper strategy you fucking knucklehead. Yes, I just helped you become a better shill by pointing out your obviousness. Carry on shill. In your next life you will be pinned down and sprayed in the face with the most hideous chemtrail mix. Karma’s a bitch you moral degenerate.

          • Arcanek

            He’s not a paid shill. He’s just a delusional bootlicker. Nobody would pay any so lacking in knowledge of formal logic to take their side. Unless they were actually trying to discredit the side he takes. and those types are usually a better at stirring the mud.

          • dale ruff

            Who better than climate scientists to understand and explain the complexities of climate change? Who? All of them agree global warming is an indisputable empirical fact, and 97% agree it is caused by human activity with the other 3% thinking it may have other causes.

            It’s not really complex: green house gases have increased from 250 per million in 1800, when the Industrial Revolution began the massive burning of fossil fuels, to over 400 today, the highest concentration in 800,000 years. The more greenhouse gases, the more the atmosphere warms. It’s that simple. If it were sun activity, we are in a period of relative calm so the atmosphere would not be warming.

            Dr. Muller, the climate skeptic who led the Berkeley Project, deals with all the competing theories of why the globe is warming and he concludes there is no other logical explanation than the greenhouse gases coming from burning fossil fuels. He goes thru all the theories and none make sense, except human activity. Look up his NYTimes op-ed under his name. The Berkeley Project proved the govt data, UN data, etc on global warming is all valid.

            So it’s not really that complex: the rise in CO2 since 1800 has caused global warming, and that causes all kinds of climate change, such as more rain, more drought, more extreme hurricanes, 90% of the world’s glaciers melting, rising sea levels, etc. None of the other explanations add up. It really is that simple. Occam’s razor mandates that we use the simplest and fewest assumptions, and so the simplest assumption is that the huge increase in greenhouse gases has warmed up the earth, and that this warming is causing all kinds of extreme climate changes. This is not MY theory but what the climate scientists of 180 nations have discovered to be true empirically and logically valid. You can deny the facts, but they are still facts.

          • Judy Cross

            It stopped warming +18 1/2 years ago. Even the warmists are calling it a hiatus, pretending it is going to come roaring back, that it is hiding in the deep ocean and methane is gonna eat your momma.

          • dale ruff

            You think if you slow down a car, it is stopped or going in reverse?

            “Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rateof temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.

            Although the ongoing increase is trouble,a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last? We now have an answer. Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.” scientificamerican 2/2015

            io9.com reports: “The latest myth making the rounds among climate-change deniers is that reports of a “global warming hiatus” are proof that climate prediction models are flawed. The global temperature, they say, hasn’t increased in nearly 20 years. As usual, they’re getting it wrong.

            Although the rate of increase in the globally and annually averaged temperature of the atmosphere near the surface has slowed since around 2000 compared to the rate of increase over the preceding three decades, near-surface warming of the atmosphere has continued. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, and the 2010s so far have been warmer than the 2000s.”http://io9.com/global-warming-hiatus-doesnt-mean-that-temperatures-s-1636344544

            You have been suckered by the propagandists, my friend.
            I recommend you look at the chart of tempertures from 1970 at http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf

            prepared by climate skeptic Richard Muller, who led the Berkeley Project.

            He wrote “Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.”

            Global warming, based on empirical measurement has slowed down (as the ocean absorbs more heat) but this does mean it has stopped anymore than slowing down a car means it has stopped.

            Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded. NOAA and NASA jointly released their global temperature data, indicating that this year topped both 2005 and 2010 as the hottest since record keeping began in 1880. The global temperature was 1.24°F above the long-term average, besting the previous record holders by 0.07°F.

            The global ocean temperature was also the highest on record, coming in at 1.09°F degrees above average

            What’s worse, the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.”

            The Berkeley Project, funded and led by climate skeptics (Dr. Muller) found that the NOAA and NASA data was accurate.

            It is warming, a little slower but it is getting warmer and warmer.

            You have been had.

          • Judy Cross

            Climate Models made to support the biggest scam ever attempted by the Banksters, have failed to predict reality. See 90 Climate Model Projectons Versus Reality http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/

          • dale ruff

            The evidence that the earth is warming is not based on computer modeling but empirical evidence and record keeping. Computer modeling is used to project future developments, not past. See Dr. Muller (a climate skeptic)’s NYTimes op ed on Global Warming.

          • Judy Cross

            The “evidence” is corrupted land based data that has been fiddled to death. Satellite and radiosonde data tell a different story. http//www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures

          • Judy Cross

            The land based data is corrupted by constant fiddling with it. There has still been no warming for 18 1/2 years according to the satellite data.

          • dale ruff

            Judy, that claim is not true. Here is the report from Dr. Muller, a climate skeptic who investigated all these charges in the Berkeley Project, funded by the world’s leading anti global warming funders, he Koch brothers. In his NY Times op ed, Dr. Muller states: ‘

            “CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

            My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
            ‘Converted’ Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent WarmingJULY 29, 2012

            These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

            Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.”

            Dr. Muller was the most respected climate skeptic in the world,and his investigation, as he details above, looked into all issues skeptics had raised and none showed the data to be false or distorted.

            You can read about the Berkeley at Wikipedia and elsewhere and here is the link for his entire Times op-ed.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

            The Koch brothers were so disappointed by the results of this study, which they hoped would show the data to have been falsified, have stopped open funding anti-global warming propaganda (they have spent hundreds of millions) and are now using ‘dark money” through subsidiary organizations.

            The evidence of global warming is empirical and valid. All over the world, record temperatures are being reached. Most of the hottest year on record have occurred in the past decade, based on confirmed data.

          • dale ruff

            “All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Leadauthors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:
            Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming… This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

            A detailed explanation of the discrepancies is discussed at
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

            The problem with the satellite data was:
            “To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.” When corrected for this decay of he orbit, the satellite data matches the surface data, and “At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record.”

            Science, by its skeptical nature, is self-correcting: when discrepancies are found, they are investigated. This is an example of such a self-correction, based on adjusting for the decay of the satellite orbit and the distortions it created.

          • Judy Cross

            Yes, over the long term the Earth has been warming as the aftermath of the Little Ice Age….BUT IT IS A LONG STRETCH TO PRETENDING THAT CO2 HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. Over centuries CO2 has risen in RESPONSE to warming. It does not cause it.

            The whole CO2 scam is based on a simple correlation CO2 and temperatures, which went up at the same time during the 10 year period between when Tim Wirth shut off the air conditioning and opened the windows in the hearing room the night before James Hansen delivered his nonsense about AGW to a Congressional Hearing in1988, and the peak El Nino in 1998…..but CO2 has increased by 10% in the last 18 1/2 years, and temperatures have not.

            NO CORRELATION=NO CAUSATION

            You loose, in more ways than one.

          • Arcanek

            I presented several links, but you refuse to accept any view that is not in accordance with your religion. Who are you to tell anyone to shut up? You’re a bootlicking windbag. We went through this before, and you refuse to accept any viewpoint that is in conflict with your religion. The Berkeley Project is, described by their website, “The Berkeley Project aims to permanently change the relationship between the students and residents of Berkeley through hands-on community service.” What does that have to do with ‘climate change’? And then, you refer to an editiorial piece in the New York times as some sort of authoritative reference? I presented you with several links to scientistswho disagree with the conclusions you are touting. Like I sadi before,you have demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge regarding formal logic. I await your next irrantional retort, unless you decide to duck out once again.

          • dale ruff

            Your ignorance of the Berkeley Earth Project is amusing. You apparently have not heard of the most famous study of data. http://berkeleyearth.org/ is the website: “Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

            From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect.Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record.”

            The Berkeley Project is a shorthand for this ongoing study.

            Your links did not cite actual climate scientists but people in other fields, with no expertise in climate science research.

            Dr. Muller, the head of the Berkeley Earth Project, is an actual climate scientist, and his op ed in the NY Times explains the scientific reasons for his conversion form a skeptic about global warming to his conversion.

            People who have not done research in climate science (and you have cited none) are not qualified to offer expert opinion; only actual climate scientists with with peer-reviewed research can be taken seriously. The Koch brothers, Exxon, and other fossil fuel interests have spent hundreds of millions to create the illusion there is a serious debate among scientists about global warming. There is not.

            The links you offer do not reflect the view of climate scientists but they do offer support for the propaganda whose purpose is to create confusion in scientific illiterates to help prevent legislation to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. I will stick with the evidence provided by climate scientists…you can promote the propaganda of the Koch brothers and their shills.

            You wrote “but you refuse to accept any view that is not in accordance with your religion. Who are you to tell anyone to shut up? You’re a bootlicking windbag. We went through this before, and you refuse to accept any viewpoint that is in conflict with your religion”

            I am urging people to listen to actual climate scientists and to be skeptical of propaganda promoted by the fossil fuel industry and non-climate scientists who join their bandwagon. If you consider quoting expert opinion and evidence of my being a “bootlicking windbag,” I welcome such attacks since they demonstrate your lack of not only intellectual substance but civlity. When people cannot muster a rational response, based on evidence, they resort to name-calling. The scientific evidence is hardly a religion; that is the propaganda drumbeat of the Koch brothers whose own research (they funded the Berkeley Earth Project) proved that the temperature date supporting global warming is reliable. They know better but for profit reasons, they continue (now thru dark money) to promote the lie that global warming is a conspiracy of fraudulent scientists. They cynically use people like you to promote views they themselves know to be fraudulent.

          • Arcanek

            ***Your ignorance of the Berkeley Earth Project is amusing.

            Not compared to yours. You wrote, “I urge you to check out the Berkeley Project…”. You are the one who referenced the Berkeley Project, when it had nothing to do with the subject.

            ***The Berkeley Project is a shorthand for this ongoing study.

            No, it is not. The Berkekley Project is entirely different, and you are lying.

            ***Your links did not cite actual climate scientists but people in other fields, with no expertise in climate science research.

            Yes, they did. You did not respond, but rather, ducked out, as you have always done when I presented anything that disputes your blathering.

          • visitor

            You’ve summed him up well indeed – when he can’t answer or doesn’t wish to face his own glaring mistakes (which, as I have already posted, are numerous – he appears incapable of forming a coherent argument) he either responds with red-herrings (posts of irrelevant flotsam) or walks away…he has subscribed completely to the religion of authoritarian scientism.
            Thanks for your posts, which I enjoyed immensely 🙂

      • dale ruff

        Well, William, I know that when you have no evidence to refute the findings of atmospheric science, you make unsupported accusations. I have not attacked you, so what you mean is: I have noting to say to refute you so I will libel you. To me, that is an admission of defeat.

        • William Burke

          Without you trying to explain YOUR version of what “atmospheric science” entails and doesn’t, your statements about “the findings” are just Blowhardism.

          You have to define the parameters of your version of “atmospheric science”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. You evidently think I have no knowledge of the term. But I’m humble enough to admit I don’t understand it completely.

          On the other hand, you have the arrogance to maintain that you do.

          • dale ruff

            I do not have a “version” of atmospheric science. I have reported what atmospheric scientists have found. It’s not MY version: it is just atmospheric science, based on evidence. It’s not hard to understand: what you see in the sky are contrails. Period. How is that arrogant? It’s just what atmospheric scientists tell us. It’s not my theory: it’s their empirical science, which I rely on. What could be more humble than listening to the people who actually do understand and study the atmosphere. I urge you to listen to them. That is all I am saying. Why don’t you?

          • Arcanek

            It’s not based on evidence. It’s based on their own ‘peer review’ of cherry picked abstracts that they’qualified’ themselves. Try looking into their ‘methodology’. the 97% figure would be a good start. they just drop out the ‘qualifiers’ they used to get the data they want. It is nothing like 97%. More like less than 33%. they didn’t even tough metastudies, which is the first thing they should have done. they did no actual science. they didn’t even explain their criteria with even a single example.

      • Arcanek

        Who would pay such irrational troll. He touted his schooling as a ‘world class education’. His ‘world class education’ was nothing more than indoctrination in the school of irrationality. He claimed he was a ‘democratic anarchist. His education in philosophy didn’t even teach him the true meaning of anarchy, which is in opposition to democracy.

    • tomas rader

      Guess this guy chose to ignore the national geo special and nova documentary special where they admit it and discuss it … geoengineering was named. But I’ve also noticed that kool aide progs don’t own televisions and are pompously intellectually superior because they read … a lot. Television will never last u know!!! It’s a passing fad. LOL

      • dale ruff

        National geographic reported: ” But as the will remains elusive to get the biggest polluters to agree to knock it off, environmental advocates have started to consider Plan B—geoengineering—the new Plan A.

        The leading method is known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and effectively shoots particles into the stratosphere that act as tiny mirrors. They reflect sunlight back into space, keeping heat out before it can warm the Earth. As long as there are particles in the stratosphere, we on Earth can burn fossil fuels for hundreds of years (or until they simply run out). It’s not a terrible idea. Being told you can still pollute and emit without consequences is like being told that you can eat nothing but junk food and avoid exercise and still not get fat. It sounds great, but it comes with a nagging feeling that it’s probably not sustainable

        .

        Indeed it isn’t. A new paper from the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute looks at the long term demands of SAI engineering. Everything’s fine as long as you keep injecting particles. But the moment you stop, the particles start to settle back to earth and the planet would see drastic warming—much faster than on the gradual path we’re on.”
        http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/08/why-geoengineering-wont-work-forever/

        So it’s a back up proposal but has a big problem. Needless to day, proposals are not realities and this backup proposal is “probably not sustainable.”

        I could not find the Nova documentary special but I found this Nova article (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html) which reports:

        “The Contrail Effect………

        By Peter Tyson

        Posted 04.18.06

        NOVA

        Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate?

        Contrails, the man-made clouds left in the wake of jet aircraft, may alter climate, particularly regionally, though to what degree remains unclear

        A contrail will form behind a jet if, as exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity is high enough But with air traffic expected to double or even triple by 2050, leading contrail researchers say the influence of these artificial clouds cannot be ignored.and the temperature low enough for liquid water to condense.”

        There is no mention of “chemtrails” but rather the growing number of contrails and the way they are able to warm the atmosphere. That is why the EPA is proposing regulating jet fuel emissions.

        The documentary is probably Dimming the Sun. “The Producer’s Story:
        A Taxonomy of Skepticism
        by David Sington
        Dimming the Sun Filmmaker David Sington has been making films about the Earth sciences since 1991, but it was a film he made 10 years later called “The Day the Oceans Boiled” that really opened his eyes to the threat from global warming. “Dimming the Sun” is the second film he’s done on the subject, and he’s working on a third. Here, Sington offers his opinion as to why many people in the U.S., more so than in his native Europe, remain skeptical about how much global warming is due to human activities.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/producer.html

        This film does not admit anyone is spraying the earth other than the polluting contrails from fossil fuel emissions by ordinary aircraft. It examines the threat of global warming.

        I did a search of chemtrails at the Nova website, and the only reference is to a an article entitled “How Conspiracy Theories Emerge on FacebookChemtrails. HAARP. The Illuminati. Conspiracy theories are abound on the Internet, but they only prove one thing: that in a virtual world, people make themselves vulnerable to sketchy claims and spotty tales.”

        Walter Quattrociocchi of Northeastern University did a study published in the MIT Technology REview: he found…………..
        “that conspiracy theories may arise from posts made by users trolling the page, which are supposed to parody the target group. Eventually, though, “troll memes fomented animated debates and diffused through the community as any other information would,” Quattrociocchi and colleagues write.

        The team also learned that people discuss ideas on Facebook for the same length of time across the board—no matter what kind of page they post to. They also found that people who are attracted to alternative news sites are more likely to feed into and perpetuate false claims.”

        This is ironic since people go to alternative websites to avoid mass media manipulation.

        But don’t believe everything you read, and if you want the science, you need to go to real scientists with background and research in the field.

        Conclusion: National Geographic and Nova do not have information that “they” admit to geo-engineering, and in fact they DO have information about how people come to believe such false claims. Geo-engineering has, indeed been proposed as a Plan B by some individuals in the event the fossil fuel industry propaganda prevents the legislation necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it has problems and remains a problematic proposal as a last resort.

        Those trails in the sky, which increase each year with more flights, do pollute and do warm the atmosphere……..but this is done by private commercial flights and it is the government which proposes to regulate it.

        • tomas rader

          Watch dark wintet

          • dale ruff

            John Casey is not a climate scientist; he is a retired shuttle engineer for NASA. He has a BS in physics and math and an MA in management. He has no degrees or research background in climate science.

            HIs former employer says: “According to both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the year 2014 was the hottest ever measured, based on records going back to the year 1880.

            It now surpasses all past scorchers, including 1998, 2005, and 2010. Indeed, except for 1998, says NASA, the 10 hottest years recorded have all occurred since the year 2000.”

            Here is what climate skeptic Tom Nelson thinks of him:
            “hoaxer, fraud, or scam artist.”

            Here is what junkscience.com, an anti-climate science website thinks of Casey: “We think he’s a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn’t see how he expected to do so — now he’s told us. He’s looking for ‘meaningful funding’ and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash.”

            Climate skeptic Leif Svalgaard’s comments on Casey:

            “The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate”.

            I urge you to listen to actual climate scientists and not to promote amateurs as authorities. So much for dark wintet.

          • tomas rader

            It’s so typical of the people getting government grants to attempt to first discredit an opposing opinion supported by historical facts. Wanna explain how the genius set got the greenhouse effect wrong in 78. An elective course but a very respected climate prof had same agenda … grants. Not to mention, but will, peak oil and end of fossil fuels by 1994. Still have the sourced Omni mag with articles and the lecture tapes from 78. A parapsychologist has more conviction and credibility than any environmentalist you can name, when faced with the facts. As for temp on record … I’m a gov contractor who’s installed the power for monitoring stations for NOAA … in the middle of concrete fuel dumps, flat tat roofs, next to heat vents from swam coolers … have the jpegs to prove it. Maybe the engineers are just idiots or maybe they have an agenda and stock in solar industry. Also installed 3 solar systems … customers now have buyers regret. This new green industry doesn’t wish to include the carbon footprint of solar cell production … like mining silica, copper, freighter transport to/from china with sludge diesel, etc. That elective I mentioned was getting my BS in Accounting. Cost accounting spreadsheets and auditing (very detailed) are my forte.
            I know a vested interest propagandist when they reply in detail quasi facts provided by mann n gore.

          • dale ruff

            Are you suggesting there is no greenhouse effect from the burning of fossil fuels?

            ” A parapsychologist has more conviction and credibility than any environmentalist you can name, when faced with the facts.” ????

            David Suzuki?

            Solar customers have buyers regret? ”

            “US Solar Energy Capacity Grew An Astounding 418% From 2010-2014”

            The carbon footprint of solar energy is well-publicized, as an google search will immediately reveal. National geographic, eff energy, and dozens of others deal with this issue. Solar energy is not carbon neutral but it beats burning fossil fuels by a wide margin.

            “A 2006 report by the UK Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, has calculated a “carbon footprint” of less than 60g per kWh of electricity from PV in the UK (and around 35g/kWh for PV in southern Europe), compared to 10 times as much for fossil fuels. More recent research by Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, (2008) suggests that the total greenhouse gas emission (including CO2 and other gases) for electricity from PV panel is between 20 and 80g CO2-equivalent per kWh under UK conditions. This is ten times lower than the emissions for electricity from fossil fuels (UK grid average is around 500g/kWh, electricity from coal can be as high as 1000g/kWh).”

            I have no vested interest in solar energy other than that it is cleaner and cheaper (in sunny areas) than the dirty fuels which are currently killing millions each year.

            The reference to temperature, this was dealt with in the Berkeley Earth Project, which found that govt data was valid and that claims it was distorted did not hold up.

            What quasi fact did Mann and Gore present? I find your presentation absurd.
            Solar energy installations pay for themselves in 5-7 years and then provide clean, free energy for another 20 years. Only a paid shill or fool would prefer to burn fossil fuels to this solution. The above post is just incoherent propaganda attempting to smear the world’s scientists, leaving us, I suppose, to believe the Koch brothers, the world’s chief funders of anti-science propaganda.

          • tomas rader

            They said the same bullshit about burning alcohol, corn liquor at that., until they were found out. Alcohol produced with corn is dirty as hell. But corn farmers in Iowa needed those subsidies. There are only two clean fuels … nuclear n hydrogen. If you ride a bike … that aluminum n steel was smelted and without oil your paint job will suk.
            I’m in L.A. electrical contracting … the most tree huggin environment ass kissing codes devised by confused progs are written HERE. We comply to get our COO and soon as that’s accomplished I remove those MD switches, AF breakers, GFICs in laundry, etc., and replace them with inexpensive devices per the customers request. I always roll with the same set of green crap just to pass an inspection. And yes …. even the progressive tree huggers can’t afford green tek. For the seniors its a choice of cat food or pay for those MD proximity switches in the bathrooms just because they built a broom closet that qualifies as an addition. So now … we bootleg. No permits unless caught. Kinda like a self imposed executive order that defies a non recognized authority. I’ll bet I’m the only one doing this? Oh wait … what about greece.

          • dale ruff

            Not only are you a dangerous criminal, by your own admission, but you deny the effects of greenhouse gases. You do not think solar energy is clean, but you think nuclear is.

            I hope someone turns you in for violating the law and exposing people to dangers. You are also ripping people off: “I remove those MD switches, AF breakers, GFICs in laundry, etc., and replace them with inexpensive devices per the customers request. I always roll with the same set of green crap just to pass an inspection. ”

            GFCIs prevent electrocution. They cost about $10 each. If one is already installed, why would anyone pay you more to take it out and replace it with a devise that would not prevent electrocution? It would add more expense for less safety.

            “A ground fault happens whenever electricity escapes the confines of the wiring in an appliance, light fixture, or power tool and takes a shortcut to the ground. When that short cut is through a human, the results can be deadly. About 200 people in the U.S. alone die of ground faults each year, accounting for two-thirds of all electrocutions occurring in homes. ”

            You are a dangerous criminal and should be prosecuted for breaking the law and fraud. Your views on clean energy reflect your total lack of integrity.

        • tomas rader

          Gosh … you forgot to research all the filed patents … I did. Why go to that enormous expense of filing a patent if it’s not feasible? They have learned how to break it down to nano level now. If you want to kill the worlds population … just admit it. Everythings a conspiracy until it’s not. Maybe cosby just liked doing ludes without having sex with pretty girls and he never conspired anything beyond that. NOT

    • runsinquicksand

      Tell the elite to give up their planes, yachts, and large limos, and stop being hypocrites. Those scientists you mention have already been caught lying, and manipulating data for a profit.

      • dale ruff

        It is commercial airline flights, over a million a year, which create the most contrails.

        There are 10,000 climate scientists in 180 nations who all agree global warming is an indisputable empirical fact. The climate deniers, funded by the fossil fuel oligarchs (who don’t want to pay the price to end pollution and greenhouse gas emissions), have come up with one scientist they claim lied. In fact, he did not.

        Wikipedia (with primary sources) reports on the controversy based on one misunderstood email in Africa: ” In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth’s mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway…it is a growing threat to society.”[14]

        Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”

        The Berkeley Project funded by and led by climate skeptics found that the climate data of the government, etc was all accurate.

        You have been brainwashed by the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry.

        • Arcanek

          ***It is commercial airline flights, over a million a year, which create the most contrails.

          Another straw an from you. This isn’t about contrals, and contrails aren’t the problem, here.

          ***There are 10,000 climate scientists in 180 nations who all agree global warming is an indisputable empirical fact.

          No, this is a mischaracterization at best. This is based on some rather questionable reviews of abstracts. It is notdue to scientific investigation. It is also fails, as it does not take into account any absolute refernce, nor does it account for other variables. It s all a part of an agenda driven geopolitical ploy to enable the parasites who run it to enrich themselves at the expemnse of the populace in general.

          ***The climate deniers, funded by the fossil fuel oligarchs (who don’t want to pay the price to end pollution and greenhouse gas emissions), have come up with one scientist they claim lied. In fact, he did not.

          More baseless assertions from you. Greenhouse gas emissions are not the problem. Carbon dioxide is vital for life. the idiots who push global climate issues are a bunch of atmospheric hacks. they are not accounting for the electric field that is the basis for the entire system, because they don’t have any understanding of the electrical nature of the underlying implicate order. they don’t even understand how the water cycle actually works.

          ***Wikipedia (with primary sources) reports on the controversy based on one misunderstood email in Africa: ” In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth’s mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway…it is a growing threat to society.”[14]

          So they blame this all on a single email. Not even a nice try. I don’t care about issued statements until i see the data and the methodology. Anytime i see the term scientific consensus, I see a false appeal to authority. Another religion. No valid formal argument can be based on this type of propaganda.

          ***Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”

          Who were these committees? How many times have you ever seemn these committees discredit their own?

          ***The Berkeley Project funded by and led by climate skeptics found that the climate data of the government, etc was all accurate.

          Those weren’t climate sceptics. The founder even says he was not a sceptic. This is a lie. And not even everyone on the BEST project was in agreement. In fact, there’s this:

          One of the strongest voices criticising the study comes from the BEST team itself. Dr Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be a co-author on the latest BEST study, and says on her blog she does not “see any justification in [BEST’s] argument for” the group’s statement that its warming data fits with manmade carbon dioxide. Curry’s not alone: former climate scientist William Connolley claims BEST has done “none of the attribution work you’d expect”.

          There goes your ‘no scientist disagrees’ BS. Although i’m sure you’ll keep spreading it.

          ***You have been brainwashed by the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry.

          If you had a brain to wash, a soap bubble would be massive overkill.

    • Judy Cross

      You are probably not paid. I was told it is piece work, so the shills tend to keep their comments short. I don’t know what you are …except stubbornly misinformed. Further down, you cite Skeptical Science….a dead giveaway that you don’t have a clue.

      • dale ruff

        I quote climate skeptic Richard Muller who investigated the data and found it solid.
        What is your evidence that the sources used by skeptical science are not reliable? Accusations made without support can be dismissed as without merit.

        Dr. Muller carefully analyzed all the data from a skeptical viewpoint and was surprised to find it all totally accurate. Why are you ignoring his findings? Why are you afraid to find out that you have been brainwashed by propaganda?

        • Judy Cross

          Muller was NEVER a skeptic.Just do a search for “Richard Muller never skeptic”. Lots of quotes from him about how detrimental CO2 is. see Steve Goddard. Judith Curry, Junk Science, Popular Technology.

          • dale ruff

            It is dishonest to quote only part of a statement. Here is what Dr. Muller, who was hired to investigate the legitimacy of data on temperature by the Koch funded Berkeley Project (the Kochs are the world’s largest funders of anti-global warming “information.”).

            Here is the full quote: “”It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic.”

            Here is what he wrote in the NYTimes op ed:

            “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

            He was and remains a scientific skeptic. Efforts to paint him as anything else are an example of killing the messenger if the message is unwelcome

            Here is the full context of his acceptance of global warming:

            “There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse. The thing I would tell the president is that the global warming, according to the global consensus — that’s the IPCCscientists, who won the Nobel Prize — the global warming of the future is going to come from the developing world. It’s the exploding economies of China and India and Asia that are going to be responsible for the CO2.”

            His scientific skepticism in 2008 led him to disagree with most climate scientists at the existing scale of global warming (There has not been much), which put him at odds with the consensus. His work with the Berkeley Project convinced him that there IS much, as most climate scientists had been saying.

            The attempt to demonize Dr. Muller as a liar is part of the movement of the fossil fuel oligarchs to destroy the reputation of anyone (calling them either fake scientists or paid shills) who accepts the empirical evidence. Whatever Dr. Muller’s scientific skepticism, he proved that the data is authentic, that global warming is undeniably real, and that there has already been, in contradiction to his earlier views, “much.”

            No climate scientists has ever doubted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat. The skepticism of Dr. Muller was about how much heat had been trapped, and he formerly though it as “not much.” His investigations led him to conclude that indeed there has been much heating. That greenhouse gases trap heat is as accepted as the fact of gravity.

            No one currently seeking to debunk his claims to be a scientific skeptic (ie a person who demands solid evidence) is a climate scientists; they are all propagandists for the fossil fuel industry, which has a profit motive to thwart regulations of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of which is currently shifted to the public, to you and me.

            Anyone who falls for the propaganda is useful idiot who is defending the right of the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc to shift the cost of health and environmental damage to themselves in terms of higher taxes (cleanup funds) and higher insurance premiums (fossils fuels kill 8 million a year and sicken hundreds of millions worldwide). The whole goal of the anti-global warming movement, of which the defenders here at activist post and other such websites are unwitting tools, is to continue the ability of polluters to externalize the cost of the damage they do.

          • Judy Cross

            You are hopeless and I have to get on with my day.

          • visitor

            Thanks for your posts, Judy, and yes, unless you feel like sharpening your sword, there’s no point wasting time on the intentionally ignorant. You can only have a *real* discussion with those who have open minds, as opposed to a closed system that is incapable of learning or self-correcting. I note that his main tactic (or perhaps it is simply an inability to formulate an actual argument?) aside from monotonous repetition (as used in advertising or cults) is the proffering of numerous ‘red herrings’ and the construction of many ‘straw-men’, which even the barest breeze of reason topple.

            For those who are emotionally + intellectually mature enough to look outside the prison box of appeals to authority, here is a fresh link examining, among other things, whistle blowers (yes, former ‘authority figures’) and the utter failure of that holy grail for some – ‘peer review’ – in health journals.

            “Pfizer Vice President Blows The Whistle & Tells The Truth About The Pharmaceutical Industry” which can be found at collective-evolution.com

            Cheers 🙂

          • visitor

            Judy, one more link for the questing minds here:

            “3 Scientific Fields that are Evolving Humanity’s Worldview” which can be found at wakingtimes.com
            Although paras 2-5 are particularly relevant to the issue surrounding the failure of scientism and its notions of ‘facts’ (often parading under the authoritarian guise of the modern ‘scientific establishment’), the remainder of the article is fascinating also.
            cheers again 🙂

  • sk1951

    Has anyone tested the jet fuel? Seems like the place to start.

    • William Burke

      While I have no proof, I began watching and photographing chemtrails, with telescopic lenses and binoculars, beginning in 1998-99. I think it’s reasonable to surmise that a fraction of them planes are loaded with these additives in their fuel tanks. It seems logical that these particles would cause wear on fuel lines and engine parts. Perhaps someone out there in aircraft maintenance can tell us about jets that fall far short of their expected lifetimes. I was living in north central Virginia at the time (I’m a Virginian by birth), and noticed much more chemtrailing than I did in Richmond. I photographed many obvious SWA 737x planes spraying. When I moved to northern New Mexico in 2006, I noticed the same: many of similar SWA planes heading west, perhaps on the same flightpaths. I also took photos of a number of all-white, KC135-type planes at the same altitude, with not markings I could discern, spraying. The elevation range was nearly always, for all chemplanes, circa 35-42000 feet. I never saw any of the low-flying ones. In fact, I never have, though I’ve seen probably a thousand planes laying down ‘trails. Not saying they don’t exist. I never once saw one.

      • timwebb1000 .

        There is a great song by the Beatles called “Nowhere Man.”
        dale ruff comes to mind.
        His belief in “the scientific process” is touching, albeit nauseating to anyone who knows anything about the track record of these people.
        They, like almost everyone else, Mr ruff excepted, are human beings whose primary consideration is how they will pay their mortgages and continue to be invited to attend the freebie get-togethers which are the payoff for their commitment to the service of truth.
        Judgement will come upon all these deceivers as a thief in the night.

    • CMRedwood

      I assume most activists seriously examining chemtrails have concluded large scale spraying is being done with tanks that are separate from the fuel tanks.

    • dale ruff

      Yes, it is full of the same kind of contaminants as auto emissions…….and it has the same effects: pollution and warming of the atmosphere. Three weeks ago, the EPA, given the pollution of jet fuel residue, which is present in contrails and emissions which do not freeze and show as white vapor, proposed rules, such as ground vehicles all have.

      “The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday called for regulating U.S. aircraft emissions, expanding the government’s effort to crack down on industries officials say are contributing to global warming.

      The EPA issued what’s known as a preliminary finding of endangerment. The agency declared the emissions are harmful to human health and contribute to climate change — a declaration that lays the groundwork for the government to eventually regulate the airline industry.” foxnews

      Like I said……………………….

  • Sonia G

    Wonder why the media remains so silent? Have a look who is on the board for the Hughes Electronics Group: http://www.nndb.com/company/142/000053980/

    • CMRedwood

      What a list! Follow the money and the club connections.

      The silence is like 9/11, TPTB surmise their best strategy is to remain quiet on the controversy, pretend there is no issue, rather than spark a massive public debate they cannot win.

  • Hey class, 101 on the difference between a contrail and a ‘chemtrail’.. When you see a ton of trails in the early morning, before sunrise. You cannot see the zigg-zagg patterns and simply say those are “con-trails” from commercial flights. Come on, get real. I even posted the documentary film called What In The World Are They Spraying, which answers a lot of concerns on what they even do not know, esp. concerning aluminum oxide! Prepare for “War-on-Terra” (war.on.earth.).

  • Veri Tas

    There certainly is evidence that governments around the world are conducting weather modification and cloud seeding experiments. However, I have not yet found evidence of particular chemicals which are used for these experiements.

    The Queensland, Australia government, for example, has a freely accessible report, The Queensland Cloud Seeding Research Program, describing its weather modification experiments here:

    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/about/publications/pdf/cloudseedingfinalreport.pdf

    This would suggest that nothing sinister is being committed against the population at large, though the report frankly describes its “flight operation days,” talks about “weather modification” and “hygroscopic flares” as another means to seed clouds for the purpose of rain generation, etc.

    Not sure what to make of this or the conflicting reports on the internet that toxic chemicals are being deliberately sprayed across the globe for the purpose of weather modification.

  • bonnielou

    According to Dr J Marvin Herndon’s June 2015 article, “Aluminum poisoning
    of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity:
    implications for India,” [Current Science, Vol. 108, No. 12, 25
    June 2015, 2173-2176], coal fly ash from different European power
    plants was
    analyzed and foud to contain radioactive
    uranium and thorium, aluminum, barium and strontium, the same
    elements that have been identified in rain water samples collected. Dr Herndon believes that coal fly ash is being used as the source of aluminum, barium and strontium in geoengineering because it is a way to get rid of a waste product of the coal industry, much as fluoridation is a way to get rid of byproducts of the aluminum and phosphate industries.

  • tomas rader

    Good news and hope … on last 4 blood workups vitamin D is on very low. Been workin outside so that’s reasonable …. NOT! After a long discussion with Dr. about taking supplemental D I was informed that this phenomena is appearing nationally with VA patients. We have seen the return of rickets also at the VA facilities. Dr. didn’t get it because these guys are retired and outdoor daily. I informed her about GE and ingredients contained in same. Gave Dr. websites such as yours. She was livid and will launch an internal investigation to gather evidence before retirement. Wanted to know about any other med theories so … thyroid issues and the fukishima link was discussed. It appears we also have a spike in last 2 years in those issues at VA. Then of course … why? For this I directed Dr. ti agenda 21. I’m credible because I’m functioning, don’t drink, and test clear on all recreational drug use.Think I blew her mind. LOL

  • James Lee

    It is critical to understand the deep artificial manipulation of the Arctic methane releases ongoing by the Geoengineers. This is their desperate attempt to destroy the calthrate gun methane releases before it heats our Earth so severely life goes extinct in a matter of decades. please view and share.

    http://tabublog.com/2015/07/01/geoengineering-to-death-our-extinction-event-time-horizon/

  • Peter A. Kirby

    Allright, who’s going to decipher the “Call Me Pat” book cover lantern inscription? I think I’m getting closer.

  • Peter A. Kirby

    I’ll be appearing on the Nightwatch radio program live tomorrow night at 7pm PST.

    http://www.zombiebloodbath.com/nightwatch/front.html

  • Shadow Machine

    This is a very comprehensive and worthy of several readings. I know this takes some time to construct and appreciate your effort here. Came by here again today and just want to reach out and pull them from the sky.

    • Paceride

      Worthy of the circular file…

      • Arcanek

        It can go right in there with your garbage, troll.You seem to think your opinion is somehow factual and truthful. What a tool.

  • AP57

    Global Warming Petition Project

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    Purpose of Petition

    The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of
    “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis
    of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong.
    No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text
    and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this
    hypothesis.

    Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently
    claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced
    about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

    It is evident that 31,487 Americans with
    university degrees in science – including 9,029
    PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition
    statement that they have signed, it is evident that these
    31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

    These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming
    hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the
    basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counter productively damage
    both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

    Please sign or share the petition until we have enough “consensus” to end this deadly scam.

  • AP57

    Notable Quotes:

    “Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there
    are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts.”
    – William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, April 1997.

    “Now where there are the weather and earth shaking technologies, or some circles call these weather and electro-magnetic weapons, used insidiously unfortunately by our military, our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps our military contractors for purposes contrary to that to which our public servants take their someone else holding the bag in the event destruction produced by, and where so-called ‘natural events were produced by military contractor technology in the guise of ‘mother nature’.
    Respectfully, – Andrea Psoras, Senior Vice President QED International Associates, Inc US agent for Rapid Ratings International NY 10017.

    “A number of methods have been explored or proposed to modify the ionosphere, including injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle
    beams… It is important to note that many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally.” – Pg 29 1996 USAF report titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”.

    “Weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new
    weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale. The primary areas discussed include generation and dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance. The weather-modification applications proposed in this report range from technically proven to potentially
    feasible.” – Pg 5 1996 USAF report titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”.

    “We have discovered that the military in the east and west has developed new technologies which could attack the planet and transform it into a weapon itself! This technological process
    is by no means controlled by the public. Moreover these technologies can be used everywhere on the planet as plasma weapons, weather wars and geo-engineering.” – Claudia von Werlhof, Professor of Political Sciences and Women’s Studies at Innsbruck Austria.

  • AP57

    Must Watch YT Videos:

    What In the World Are They Spraying,
    Why in the World Are They Spraying,

    Aerosol Crimes,

    Rosalind Peterson The Chemtrail Cover-Up pt 1, 2, 3

    HAARP – NWO Weapon – The Ultimate Weapon,

    HAARP – Holes in Heaven,

    Owning the Weather the Secret Agenda of Atmospheric Manipulation,
    HOW TO Make an Earthquake,

    Chemtrails are $4Trillion solar umbrella.

  • John Burt Caylor

    I have been an Investigative Journalist since the 70’s in America. During that time I have published dozens of articles concerning the environment and at one point I worked for the United States Environmental Protection Agency HQ Region 4 Atlanta, GA.

    I want to debunk the aforementioned junk science article before reading it in detail and submit the following.

    During my 45 years experience including several years in the 80’s and 90’s undercover inside the Militia Movement in America leading up to Judicial Assassinations then Ruby Ridge, Waco, OK City and beyond, tracking true nutcases like Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols and others who were true believers in Chem Trails.

    I found those people in that movement which continues today, to be paranoid Tin Foil people – people who actually build bombs – kill people – and believe they are being Chem-Trailed! When McVeigh drove the bomb and parked it at the front door of the Kiddie Day Care Center and Courthouse I’m almost positive he felt like he was sparing those children the horror of secret experimentation at the hands of Big Brother – the same folks who implanted a micro-chip into his mind.

    The best way to corral these idiots is to present a bogus scientific article of technical speak to lay people who don’t know Dodo about Shinola, this way you drive your point home with those who believe we have been secretly invaded by Martians with the government and law enforcement providing protection. Any more articles about Chem Trails, for credibility sake I’ll unsubscribe fearing that Homeland Security and others who watch my emails will label me for at S.W.A.T raid.

  • John Burt Caylor

    I have been an Investigative Journalist since the 70’s in America. During that time I have published dozens of articles concerning the environment and at one point I worked for the United States Environmental Protection Agency HQ Region 4 Atlanta, GA.

    I want to debunk the aforementioned junk science article before reading it in detail and submit the following.

    During my 45 years experience including several years in the 80’s and 90’s undercover inside the Militia Movement in America leading up to Judicial Assassinations then Ruby Ridge, Waco, OK City and beyond, tracking true nutcases like Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols and others who were true believers in Chem Trails.

    I found those people in that movement which continues today, to be paranoid Tin Foil people – people who actually build bombs – kill people – and believe they are being Chem-Trailed! When McVeigh drove the bomb and parked it at the front door of the Kiddie Day Care Center and Courthouse I’m almost positive he felt like he was sparing those children the horror of secret experimentation at the hands of Big Brother – the same folks who implanted a micro-chip into his mind.

    The best way to corral these idiots is to present a bogus scientific article of technical speak to lay people who don’t know Dodo about Shinola, this way you drive your point home with those who believe we have been secretly invaded by Martians with the government and law enforcement providing protection. Any more articles about Chem Trails, for credibility sake I’ll unsubscribe fearing that Homeland Security and others who watch my emails will label me for at S.W.A.T raid.

    • Peter A. Kirby

      Your comment includes a lot of ad hominem and irrelevant information along with the tired, disinformation agent garbage about violent anti-government extremism. I’m still waiting for you to assert a discernible argument countering the information I have presented. I think you are simply trying to inflame. If that is the case, you’re going to have to try harder.

      • Belfrey

        You present some real information, embedded in many unsupported claims. For example, you refer to research and proposals about possible future geoengineering methods, and then claim (without valid evidence) that it is currently being implemented. You present real information about weather modification (cloud seeding), and then act as if it is evidence for geoengineering or “chemtrails” (it is neither). What do you consider to be the single most compelling line of evidence to support your claims?

      • dale ruff

        Calling people who accept absurd claims foolish or absurd is not ad hominem. It is a description that fits. In the absence of actual evidence of chemtrails, those who embrace the myth, are indeed being fooled.

        • Arcanek

          Attacking the messenger, and presenting a counter argument is an ad hominem attack, I told you this before. You don’t even understand your own language.

          • Paceride

            Presenting a counter argument is ad hominem? Okey doke!

          • Arcanek

            My mistake.that should have been attacking the messenger and *not* presenting a counter argument…

    • Arcanek

      ***I have been an Investigative Journalist since the 70’s in America.
      During that time I have published dozens of articles concerning the
      environment and at one point I worked for the United States
      Environmental Protection Agency HQ Region 4 Atlanta, GA.

      This is a false appeal to authority. You’ve undemined your argument before you have even presented it. Your credentials as an ‘investigative journalist’ mean nothing in a scientific context.

      ***I want to debunk the aforementioned junk science article before reading it in detail and submit the following.

      You just admitted that you are blathering about something you haven’t given much thought to. you have just discredited the rest of your irrational liturgy, as well as further undemining your self proclaimed title of ‘investigative journalist’ If this is the methodology you apply at present, it implies that you were even sloppier in the past.

      ***During my 45 years experience including several years in the 80’s and
      90’s undercover inside the Militia Movement in America leading up to
      Judicial Assassinations then Ruby Ridge, Waco, OK City and beyond,
      tracking true nutcases like Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols and others who
      were true believers in Chem Trails.

      You tracked McVeigh and Nichols? You were either oblivious to their intent, or you failed to inform law enforcement about them, contributing to the deaths of many innocent victims. you should be ashamed of yourself. Or maybe law enforcement didn’t take your claims seriously, which, given your present post, would be most likely, as you could hardly be considered to be a reliable source of anything other than zealous, delusional ranting. And you say that McVeigh and Nichols were true believers in chemtrails? Cite a link. Not that it matters. This is just poisoning the well. Apparently, your knowledge of formal logic is seriously deficient, further undermining your imaginary credibility.

      ***I found those people in that movement which continues today, to be
      paranoid Tin Foil people – people who actually build bombs – kill people
      – and believe they are being Chem-Trailed!

      So. your investigation did little, if anything to deter them? This implies that either you found little, if anything, or that law enforcement did not take you seriously. Probably both. Yet more indication that your credentials are bogus. so far, you have established no credibility, and instead appear to be a knee jerk reactionary.

      ***When McVeigh drove the bomb and parked it at the front door of the
      Kiddie Day Care Center and Courthouse I’m almost positive he felt like
      he was sparing those children the horror of secret experimentation at
      the hands of Big Brother – the same folks who implanted a micro-chip
      into his mind.

      Further eroding your credibility, you now claim to think like someone you have characterized as one of the ‘Tin Foil people’, therefore establishing your identity as one the ‘Tin Foil people’. No evidence, just conjecture. And how do you implant a chipin someone’s mind? Your journalism ‘skills’ are now also highly discredited, unless you think yellow journalism is valid.

      ***The best way to corral these idiots is to present a bogus scientific
      article of technical speak to lay people who don’t know Dodo about
      Shinola, this way you drive your point home with those who believe we
      have been secretly invaded by Martians with the government and law
      enforcement providing protection. Any more articles about Chem Trails,
      for credibility sake I’ll unsubscribe fearing that Homeland Security and
      others who watch my emails will label me for at S.W.A.T raid.

      You didn’t even bother to present any article at all, yourself. And then you claim you will unsubscribe for fear that the feds will SWAT you for taking the same position that they support? you just can’t support any of the drivel that you just spewed. This totally undermines your claim as an investigative journalist. Looking at your website, you seem to be quite the disturbed, delusional paranoid zealot you rage against. I doubt you’ll have the courage to respond.

  • dale ruff

    Hey, people, let’s censor anyone who disagrees with us or suggests we listen to the scientists. Long live suppression of dissent! That’s how we win, by banning views we don’t like. Forget about evidence or facts: that’s for wusses. We need to crush those who would challenge the views we have learned from the Koch brothers and other scientific illiterates. IF we do not, we will lose the misinformation war and may end with laws to reduce pollution, a crime against human liberty.

  • dale ruff

    Hey, folks, let’s call anyone who disagrees with us a paid shill. Libel works! It’s how Hitler was able to rally the Germans to destroy the Jews!
    We can win with name-calling and libel! It worked for Hitler!

    • Arcanek

      Where did Hitler call the Jews ‘paid shills’? Cite a reference. You always ask for supporting evidence, so back it up, big mouth.

      • Paceride

        Got any? Supporting evidence, that is?

        • Arcanek

          I was asking for supporting evidence. Got any readin comprehension?

  • hisrascal

    This is a question I can’t seem to get an answer for. Well, first, very informative article! The question: if the aluminum in the chemtrails is so toxic and we all breathe the air the chemicals are being sprayed into, wouldn’t that mean that everyone who breathes the air, which that includes all of us, are equally affected? I don’t get it that anyone would want those chemicals in their air. Anyone else think the same?

    • Peter A. Kirby

      You know, HisRascal, it’s hard to figure upon what their thinking is. It’s probably some type of Machiavellian logic where the ends justify the means. I think we’re looking at a cult of global warmists who think that their actions, as destructive as they are, will be good in the long run because they have convinced themselves that the outcomes of global warming would be worse. I know. It’s crazy. But people in power have historically been known to do crazy things.

      Not only that, but if you are rich and powerful enough to be in on this super-secret project, you can probably afford to do things that reduce one’s exposure. Air-tight houses are being made today. They are called ‘passive’ houses. If you own one of these coupled with a built-in, top-notch air purifying system, one can close all the windows and doors and be in a personal chemtrail-free zone. People in the know may also be provided with supplements designed to counteract the ingested chemtrail toxins. Lastly, remote areas such as South Pacific islands are probably not affected by chemtrails very much or at all. Many mega-rich people own remote islands such as these. Mega-rich people also often own giant yachts which could be parked almost anywhere. Basically what I’m saying is that there are ways to avoid chemtrails. Getting away from civilization is a good way to do it.

    • Paceride

      More like wouldn’t it mean we were all SICK. And we’re not. Go figure.

      • Arcanek

        We? You don’t seem capable of thinking for yourself, yet, here you are answering for nebulous ‘we’. Who is it you think you are entitled to speak for, other than yourself, troll?

  • gozounlimited

    The GEOENGINEERING ACTION NETWORK Begins Worldwide Legal Initiative Against Chemtrails, Geoengineering

    This lawsuit is still in the earliest planning stages. The exploratory phase is quite deliberate in order to ensure that every legal standard is properly met. It is very easy to jeopardize such a prodigious legal initiative, so every aspect must be carefully tended to and properly executed. The judicial branch throughout the entire USA has shown repeatedly where it stands vis-å-via We, the People and the U.S. Federal Government. Read More….. sign up….. http://chemtrailsmuststop.com/2015/07/class-action-lawsuit-against-geoengineering-chemtrail-in-the-works/

  • Robert A. McKeown

    Thank you for this well written and concise article. Years ago, when I first discovered the Chemtrail phenomenon, I noticed the three key chemicals used in the aerosols where aluminum, barium and strontium. All of which are types of electroceramics. Variants of these chemicals are used to build capacitors in electronic devices. Are these mad geo-engineers trying to turn the atmosphere into a giant capacitor?

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter