Normal Contrails: Some Sanity

[foot_soldier]

Lou wrote:

.....I think it comes down to what a wise person once said, "It's the economy stupid", not that you or I or the millions of other everyday people are stupid, that quote goes directly to the greedy money mongers and the fact of the "WHY" of it becomes as usual the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, the control and the power.

All down through our history it's always been about wealth and the power that it brings, unfortunately we obviously have learned little from our mistakes because we keep repeating them, societies rise and then fall because we can not get it right, how foolish are we to let a few rule the many when history tells us that the few will bring us to ruin.....

Amen.

[Lou]

Lou,

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Deborah

Now this darn quote option is working, go figure.

You are quite welcome Deborah. :D

[Lou]

On another note, I wonder how people, the media and the "experts" would react if this type of crap was puffing out of auto exhaust.

It is Kola.

[Lou]

AUTOS ARE FAR WORSE THAN AVIATION POLLUTION

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse_fs.htm

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do. Motor vehicles emit millions of tons of pollutants into the air each year. In many urban areas, motor vehicles are the single largest contributor to ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Ground-level ozone is the most serious air pollution problem in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states. Cars also emit several pollutants classified as toxics, which cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer in the country each year. Auto emissions also contribute to the environmental problems of acid rain and global warning.

Pollution control measures have drastically reduced emissions per vehicle in the past 20 years. However, during that time the total miles traveled has doubled, resulting in higher levels of air pollutants in many parts of the country.

[halva]

Wayne_You just don't get it, do you?

Where do bread crumbs come from?

Think about that.

I am glad that we are beginning to come to grips with some of the subtler aspects of our subject. This is only possible because of the absence of noise and distraction.

What is it that I don't get, Lou? Our environmental commissioner Stavros Dimas is engaged in the issue of pollution from aircraft emissions, pursuing a running battle in the EU commission with the real "baddie" Verheugen who is the direct instrument of the energy lobbies. But you cannot talk to Dimas about chemtrails, or even about geoengineering as a proposal as opposed to a reality.. He is as much in the denial faction as is Verheugen on that subject. Which in turn only encourages the climate change contrarians, whose "freedom of speech" the Telegraph was nattering on about in that article from the British Telegraph you posted yesterday. The contrarians perceive that their opponents are on the defensive, so they lay the boot in even more. They even make fun of geoengineering, in order to keep the public on their side, rather than on the side of the "Frankenstein" scientists.

Is Deborah/Footsoldier avoiding this issue or not?

Please tell me again Lou, what is it that I don't get. And you tell ME where breadcrumbs come from. I am pleased that we are beginning to get down to tintacks and hope that we can have a real engagement with all this as opposed to exercises in one-upmanship based on AVOIDANCE of real issues and real problems.

You yourself have said in the past that that aircraft emissions and their effects are one subject, deliberate "chemtrails"/geoengineering and weather modification another. The fact is that you can get the good guys in the European Commission like (Footsoldier's hero) Dimas to talk about the former. (In fact he is talking about it anyway. He has taken up the question and is fighting the baddies.) But not the latter, which remains a no-no, a tabooed subject and
our problem.

[halva]

Because I think there is as much obfuscation and public perception-manipulation on the matter of contrail pollution as there is on the matter of possible atmospheric "geo-engineering" / aka insolation management.


This is simply untrue. There is not. There is a section of "respectable" public opinion that would agree with Footsoldier and the rest of us on contrail pollution.

Why is "contrail pollution" being proposed by some not as a problem but as a solution? This is where you cannot get debate with any "respectable" person. All that you can get from Dimas and/or from climate scientists, is assertions that "insolation" management is a bad idea and denial that anyone is taking it seriously.

Footsoldier is equivocating just as they are, and rude Jeff Reynolds is justified in asking why she does this.

[kola]

Lou,

My comment was meant to mean what if auto exhaust was producing chemtrails like we are seeing spewing from jets. My fault for not making that clear.

Kola

[kola]

now where is Socrasmelly?

or is that Ed Socrates?

Yaakrates?

[Jeff Reynolds]

I have already, and on several occasions, elaborated, point-blank, on my reasons for looking at contrails as a separate issue.

One more time:

Because I think there is as much obfuscation and public perception-manipulation on the matter of contrail pollution as there is on the matter of possible atmospheric "geo-engineering" / aka insolation management.

And I think that is very revealing.

Now, please do not ask me again.

Thank you.

So foot soldier is saying that "chemtrails" are only a possibility. What the f%^# is she doing on chemtrail boards then?????? It doesn't add up unless one is talking astroturfing or disinfo.

[Lou]

I am glad that we are beginning to come to grips with some of the subtler aspects of our subject. This is only possible because of the absence of noise and distraction.

What is it that I don't get, Lou? Our environmental commissioner Stavros Dimas is engaged in the issue of pollution from aircraft emissions, pursuing a running battle in the EU commission with the real "baddie" Verheugen who is the direct instrument of the energy lobbies. But you cannot talk to Dimas about chemtrails, or even about geoengineering as a proposal as opposed to a reality.. He is as much in the denial faction as is Verheugen on that subject. Which in turn only encourages the climate change contrarians, whose "freedom of speech" the Telegraph was nattering on about in that article from the British Telegraph you posted yesterday. The contrarians perceive that their opponents are on the defensive, so they lay the boot in even more. They even make fun of geoengineering, in order to keep the public on their side, rather than on the side of the "Frankenstein" scientists.

Is Deborah/Footsoldier avoiding this issue or not?

Please tell me again Lou, what is it that I don't get. And you tell ME where breadcrumbs come from. I am pleased that we are beginning to get down to tintacks and hope that we can have a real engagement with all this as opposed to exercises in one-upmanship based on AVOIDANCE of real issues and real problems.

You yourself have said in the past that that aircraft emissions and their effects are one subject, deliberate "chemtrails"/geoengineering and weather modification another. The fact is that you can get the good guys in the European Commission like (Footsoldier's hero) Dimas to talk about the former. (In fact he is talking about it anyway. He has taken up the question and is fighting the baddies.) But not the latter, which remains a no-no, a tabooed subject and
our problem.


Wayne_You have a terrible habit of avoiding answering a direct question, you would make a great politician.

We can discuss what it is that relates to FS and why she is pursuing Aviation Pollution ( In my opinion anyway.) as she has been doing and refraining from the Chemtrail aerosol spraying aspect_But first you must explain to me where bread crumbs come from or_ we are done here.

[Jeff Reynolds]

So Foot soldier believes chemtrails are a possibility, while aviation emissions are real. Sure, I agree they are real and bad in themselves, same as auto and industrial pollution, etc., but the disinfo here is as blatant as it is disturbing, for it is coming from someone who has been all over these chemtrail boards from the beginning. Foot Soldier has revealed herself as a debunker. Since chemtrails are a possibility, that means that what we are witnessing is the result of all aircraft emissions, that chemtrails are contrails. Foot soldier is a fraud.

A debunker named foot soldier should stop bitching out this blatant astroturfing disinfo. The more she makes dumbass comments like this, the more obvious it is that she is a debunker punk, that she doesn't believe in chemtrails. :mad:

[Lou]

Lou,

My comment was meant to mean what if auto exhaust was producing chemtrails like we are seeing spewing from jets. My fault for not making that clear.

Kola

Hi Kola,

I knew what you meant, I was just being literal in referring to automobiles pumping out the same polluting garbage as you say "spewing from jets", in fact, much more than jets do.

Sometimes I believe that we (Humans) are in a race to see who can muck up the planet the fastest and most efficient manner.

Kola_Do you really miss the Reynolds twins, isn't life better without their loud, obnoxious irritating noise, why are you encouraging them? :rolleyes:

[halva]

Breadcrumbs come from when we cut the bread and they are dislodged by the cutting from the main mass of the bread. OK, Over to you now Lou. What is the next thing you have to say to me?

[halva]

Wayne_You have a terrible habit of avoiding answering a direct question, you would make a great politician.

We can discuss what it is that relates to FS and why she is pursuing Aviation Pollution ( In my opinion anyway.) as she has been doing and refraining from the Chemtrail aerosol spraying aspect_But first you must explain to me where bread crumbs come from or_ we are done here.

The best way of getting Jeff Reynolds out of the discussion, if that is what you want to do, Lou, would be to engage with the subject in a way that is beyond his level of comprehension.

The fact is that there is a basis to what he is unintelligently griping about.

[foot_soldier]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/362040139_883bfdefa2.jpg

Boston, Massachusetts near Quincy Market__50 mm lens__No zoom.

[foot_soldier]

That is my photograph by the way. I took it.

[halva]

A discussion about whether Footsoldier is a disinformationist or a debunker would be an insulting and dishonourable discussion.

But a discussion on why she focuses on aircraft emissions and not deliberate "chemtrailing" for geoengineering or other purposes is a subject that would be worth discussing, with or without her participation.

[foot_soldier]

Another one of my photographs:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/362040140_033cda33f4.jpg

Boston, Massachusetts over the Harvard Medical School area__50mm lens__No zoom.

[halva]

That is my photograph by the way. I took it.

Footsoldier, would you like to send them to our new Enouranois blog, run by the young Cypriot Costas Landos?
http://enouranois.blogspot.com/

[Lou]

Breadcrumbs come from when we cut the bread and they are dislodged by the cutting from the main mass of the bread. OK, Over to you now Lou. What is the next thing you have to say to me?

Excellent Wayne_You have defined where bread crumbs come from with great ease, showing all of us just how intelligent you are.

Now, using the same bread crumb analogy, wouldn't you agree that FS is carving one slice at a time off the larger "aviation pollution" loaf and subsequently creating many crumbs in the form of information that we (at least those smart enough) are ingesting to promote growth. / (learning)

In my humble opinion FS is not promoting chemtrails because she does not have to, they are part and parcel of the pollution issues as a whole_one and the same_peas in a pod_hand and glove, this the blind can see, so why can't you and some others that keep on browbeating FS for standing fast on her position?

Take what she is offering and be thankful, FS is one of the most intelligent people that I see posting at various forums and I see very few people actually thinking about what it is that she has to say and contributing anything positive in return, the criticizing and attacking that I see people do of her reminds me of a bunch of pre-school brats who dislike there teacher, these people really need to grow up in my opinion and start thinking rather that just reacting or pretending that they can think.

FS is not responsible for aviation pollution or chemtrails but she is responsible for showing us that they are interconnected by there very being and I can not understand how so called activist / environmentalist / concerned citizens can find fault with her dedication in enlightening us to the fact that it's all pollution, no matter what form or delivery system it comes from.

Thank you Wayne for you're concise explanation of where bread crumbs come from, it is perhaps not the best analogy of aviation pollution, chemtrails, geoengineering and the HARRP projects presently taking place and underway but you summed up what FS is doing nicely when you stated, "dislodged by the cutting from the main mass of the bread", I could not have said it better myself .

[Lou]

A discussion about whether Footsoldier is a disinformationist or a debunker would be an insulting and dishonourable discussion.

But a discussion on why she focuses on aircraft emissions and not deliberate "chemtrailing" for geoengineering or other purposes is a subject that would be worth discussing, with or without her participation.

Is any discussion concerning FS motives really necessary, what is your motive in this suggestion Wayne, stiring up more controversy?

[halva]

It is not a very high-priority subject, but given the way that Jeff Reynolds is banging on about it, I thought it might be nice, for the record, if Footsoldier clarified to what extent her focus on aircraft emissions is a tactical adjustment to the input of chemtrail debunkers, who have been slamming her relentlessly for years.

[halva]

Who knows. Jeff Reynolds might learn something if Footsoldier makes herself clear.

[Lou]

It is not a very high-priority subject, but given the way that Jeff Reynolds is banging on about it, I thought it might be nice, for the record, if Footsoldier clarified to what extent her focus on aircraft emissions is a tactical adjustment to the input of chemtrail debunkers, who have been slamming her relentlessly for years.

I certainly can not or would not begin to speak for FS but in my opinion she "Has" made herself quite clear in bringing awareness to the "Whole" issue of aviation pollution of which Chemtrail Aerosol Spraying is a part.

I could be wrong in my thinking on this but in following FS postings for some time that's the opinion that I have formed for what it's worth.

[Lou]

Who knows. Jeff Reynolds might learn something if Footsoldier makes herself clear.

Jeff Reynolds / Socrates knowledge base is of no concern to me, I have no interest in his ideas or theories since he went off on everybody being "fakes" and attacking long time advocates of the Chemtrail spraying issue which is just ludicrous. :rolleyes:

He has portrayed himself as some joker and troublemaker with his "everyone is a fake" rants and in that regard he is just as annoying, irritating and disruptive as the malicious debunkers, that is why I have him like the other Reynolds ignore listed, these two can carry on and write volumes all they want to but I do not have to read their crap, they will waste their time_not mine.

He like Onion Boy has his right of free speech but we have the right to ignore him. :D

[halva]

Socrates was OK until he got the idea into his head that he is surrounded by fakes.

[kola]

its called "drug induced paranoia."

[halva]

I don't know what the explanation is.

[Jeff Reynolds]

I stumbled across some fake website called abovetopsecret while using the google and came across a debunker who sounds very similar to the debunker FootSoldier. I'm not putting up a link because I wouldn't want anyone wasting any time at that place.

...Chemtrails do not exist. What some people claim are chemtrails are just ordinary contrails. There really is no big deal about contrails. (well, almost, but I will get to that in a moment)

...That doesn't meant that there aren't issues with contrails, there are. There are questions about the impact of excessive contrail formation on the climate.

Chemtrail believers never want to talk about that, they just want to believe that there is someone up there that is trying to deliberately spray them.

So just substitute chemtrails do not exist with:

{FootSoldier}Because I think there is as much obfuscation and public perception-manipulation on the matter of contrail pollution as there is on the matter of possible atmospheric "geo-engineering" / aka insolation management.

And I think that is very revealing... and you have the same friggin argument that chemtrails are contrails. Yet at least the other asshat like my cousin Jay doesn't try to hide his fake debunking by wearing "chemmie" clothes. So why is this person on chemtrail boards all these years when she doesn't even believe they are real??????

Here are some "contrail" pictures from the website she linked to at http://www.contrails.nl/index.htm

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2003-2/magicgallery/cc-20030713-01-deventer.jpg

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2003-2/magicgallery/cc-20030713-05-deventer.jpg

At this website the photos are all under the heading of "Contrails and Cirrus (Aviation Smog)".
If one was to put two and two together, they might start wondering if FootSoldier is a debunker in chemmie clothes. They might start wondering why this person has been all over chemtrail boards for years, yet has no insights to offer about "chemtrails". They might start wondering why she sounds so much like Lord Reynolds, that chemtrails are contrails. She has been served along with the Megasprayer frauds. Chemtrails are not contrails. All Aircraft Are Not Involved!!!!!!!!!!!

[foot_soldier]

You say you're 47?

I find that very difficult to believe.

Grow up.

You don't have a clue as to where I'm coming from.

[Jeff Reynolds]

When I edit my posts it is usually within a few minutes to tidy up spelling mistakes, etc.. Yet, I just took a peek at post #1 on this thread by FootSoldier. It was first posted on January 21st, 2005. It was edited four weeks ago. That's real nice. Make a post, then over two years later just rewrite it. Two plus two begs the question what exactly this person is doing on chemtrail boards. She doesn't even believe they are real. This is as insidious as it gets on the internet. But a lot of folks have copped on to the psy-ops and eventually people figure it out, kind of like with the debunker haven over at the left gatekeeper DemocraticUnderground.

[foot_soldier]

You say you're 47?

I find that very difficult to believe.

Grow up.

You don't have a clue as to where I'm coming from.
.

[Jeff Reynolds]

You say you're 47?

I find that very difficult to believe.

Grow up.

You don't have a clue as to where I'm coming from.

47? You are taking info from my first posts here when myself and Aubuchont (J Vitum) worked in tandem to bash Lord Reynolds. Disinfo creeps are well known to collect assorted info like that from posters they are trying to keep in line. I don't care what you think. You have been exposed as a debunker in chemmie clothes. The cats out of the bag about your fakery.

[foot_soldier]

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

***
Aviation
Transport 2000.org

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/Aviation.htm

Significant growth is forecast in the aviation industry both in terms of passenger travel and movement of air-freight. People and the environment face serious threats from this growth, including noise problems, possible cancer clusters around airports and climate change. Transport 2000 says it's time to manage demand for air travel and make aviation pay for the problems it causes.

Aviation has been almost the forgotten environmental issue. While growth in road traffic has led to considerable awareness of the problems caused, air travel has continued to rocket over the past few decades almost unnoticed and its effects are less well known. A research report published by Transport 2000 - The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment - predicts that by 2015 air travel world-wide could be more than double that in 1995. And if the trend continues, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times that in the mid-90s.

Aircraft produce large amounts of toxic emissions that are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research in the US has linked VOCs generated by Chicago-Midway Airport to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity. Heathrow Airport is already one of this country's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there will make the situation worse.

Aviation also generates levels of noise that pose a serious threat to the health of those who live around airports. The report reveals that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded and that one in eight people in the UK are affected by noise pollution from aircraft.

In October 2001 the European court of Human Rights ruled that night flights from Heathrow violated the human rights of local residents by denying them a normal night's sleep. The UK Government has, however, successfully appealed against the decision. The latest ruling sets back attempts to bring aviation to account for its effect on local communities around airports and under flight paths.

And aviation poses a massive threat to the environment. Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail.

While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft.

Transport 2000 believes that aviation needs to be held responsible for its effects on people and the environment. If air transport continues to soar in the longer term, then people and the environment will pay the price. Campaigners have called for future demand to be managed to reduce the adverse effects as much as possible. They have proposed an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemptions on aviation fuel. The need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives, such as rail for short-haul flights, are also clear.

Some people say that restricting aviation growth would have serious effects on the economy but The Plane Truth report sheds doubt on this. Professor John Whitelegg, who compiled the report, says this assumption is at best questionable and quite probably flawed, and that limiting aviation traffic might even deliver positive economic benefits..... (continued)

The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment
Transport 2000
www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf
Here's the post "Socrates/SocraticTruth/vericarl/FUIWontDoWhatUTellMe/Jeff Reynolds" is whining about.

I deleted the first two sentences.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Originally Posted by foot_soldier View Post
You say you're 47?

I find that very difficult to believe.

Grow up.

You don't have a clue as to where I'm coming from.

copying and pasting the same crap over and over again is known as spam. I am not the one who edits posts two years after the fact, something a disinfo creep would do.

[Jeff Reynolds]

.

Here's the post "Socrates/SocraticTruth/vericarl/FUIWontDoWhatUTellMe/Jeff Reynolds" is whining about.

I deleted the first two sentences.

Hey asshole, how the hell am I this guy vericarl? Big Bunny said that and now you are too. You changed the very nature of the thread by what you deleted. I remember it said Jay Reynolds sez....

How many other posts do you edit months and years after the fact?

[foot_soldier]

47? You are taking info from my first posts here when myself and Aubuchont (J Vitum) worked in tandem to bash Lord Reynolds. Disinfo creeps are well known to collect assorted info like that from posters they are trying to keep in line. I don't care what you think. You have been exposed as a debunker in chemmie clothes. The cats out of the bag about your fakery.
No, actually I am "taking information" from the Private Messages you initiated, to me, unsolicited, in another venue. Would you like me to post a few of them?

You are clearly attempting to discredit me. Everyone knows it.

[foot_soldier]

LOOK at the photograph.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/362040139_883bfdefa2.jpg

Boston, Massachusetts near Quincy Market__50 mm lens__No zoom.

[Jeff Reynolds]

The bottom line is that you have spent years and years on chemtrail boards, though you don't even believe they are real. I thought that it was a tactical move to stay away from debunker harrassment. You've had more than enough opportunity to clarify this but haven't. Maybe you can go back to your thousands of copy and paste posts and see what else needs to be changed.

I have always made it clear I was those user names. This vericarl thing is just another astroturfing scheme in response to you spooks being exposed.

[Jeff Reynolds]

No, actually I am "taking information" from the Private Messages you initiated, to me, unsolicited, in another venue. Would you like me to post a few of them?

You are clearly attempting to discredit me. Everyone knows it.

I give you no right to publish any personal pm's. I bet you would love to make some crap up and present it as my words, just like with this vericarl crap. I said I was 47 in my Jeff Reynolds intro.

You have exposed yourself. I just happened to notice it.

[foot_soldier]

I give you no right to publish any personal pm's. I bet you would love to make some crap up and present it as my words, just like with this vericarl crap. I said I was 47 in my Jeff Reynolds intro.

You have exposed yourself. I just happened to notice it.
You are trying to discredit me.

Everyone knows it.

Grow up.

[Jeff Reynolds]

LOOK at the photograph.

What is your point, that those are from commercial airliners coming out of Logan airport? Where's your evidence of that? Oooh, good debunking. Nice job. Real chemmies must be so grateful to have you as a prolific chemtrail poster, NOT!!!!!!! :p

[Jeff Reynolds]

You are trying to discredit me.

Everyone knows it.

Grow up.

Stop fudging chemtrails into contrails and stop editing posts over two years later. Stop saying I am vericarl without any proof. You have discredited yourself. You are the one to blame for appearing to be a disinfo astroturfer.

[foot_soldier]

Hello, Lou.

This particular link to the Holland updates has been posted in this thread on a fairly regular basis. I'm glad you're finding it interesting and instructive. I think this guy is doing a great job documenting the continuous crappification of our skies, don't you?

You have noted, no doubt, that this thread is dedicated to continuity-of-information on one specific topic, that topic being contrails. I have isolated this one specific topic for very deliberate reasons. I'm betting you understand that.

We have a research community out there conveying to us that increasing incidence of contrail and resulting aviation-cirrus/smog cover is "simply not a good thing." We have scientists working as we speak on trying to determine how much of a net-warming impact these veils of heat-trapping thin cirrus are exerting on conditions at the surface. We have scientists working to determine the impact of contrail-aerosols on regional precipitation patterns.

In other words, there is concern about these issues, not to mention that we ourselves can see, for God's sake, that this cloying mess in our skies is not a normal state of affairs.

I am point-blank wondering why, given what is now known on this matter, this situation is being allowed to continue.

That is what I think after years of looking at it in-depth from a number of perspectives. It is being allowed.

WHY??
.

[foot_soldier]

Grow up.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Big Bunny wrote that chemtrails are coming from your local airport, for example, and you let it slide. You talk about chemtrails as only being a possibility. The question that is the gorilla in your living room is what the fuck are you doing on chemtrail boards if you don't even believe they are real. And I don't see much point in even interacting with you, seeing that you like to edit posts way after the time you write them, that when you are exposed as being a debunker in chemmie clothes, all you have are threats to reveal personal pm's that you would probably doctor anyway, when all you have is to call me a schizo poster with a million id's, when in fact I was the one who has always been open about where I have posted and as who. It shouldn't be about who is posting, but what is posted. But all you can do is tell me to grow up and call me vericarl, who I really don't know, I've seen the name at Carnicom's, I haven't really looked into his posting patterns like I have with frauds like you and others.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Foot Soldier seems to be on the same payroll as Lord Reynolds saying that chemtrails are contrails.

Anyone who interacts with FootSoldier might want to quote her. One never knows when her posts will be altered, could be a spelling correction a few minutes later, or it could be some insidious change made over two years from the original post.

Why do you keep calling me vericarl? And why do you keep crossposting yourself all the time? That is called spam. It is now common knowledge that you are a debunker in chemmie clothes, and that everything you post must be read with that in mind, same as with the other asshats over at Megasprayer. Chemtrails are not contrails you dingbat. Heh, a new one, Oh I know, you are a meathead, from the neck up.:p

[foot_soldier]

Grow up. You are making an absolute fool of yourself.

[Jeff Reynolds]

One can now see that this debunker in chemmie clothes doesn't have much to offer other than copying and pasting. Instead of addressing the fact that she is calling chemtrails contrails, she comes up with this vericarl thing. Hey vericarl, if you're a good dude, sorry you are getting used by such insidious debunkers.

[foot_soldier]

Hello, Lou.

This particular link to the Holland updates has been posted in this thread on a fairly regular basis. I'm glad you're finding it interesting and instructive. I think this guy is doing a great job documenting the continuous crappification of our skies, don't you?

You have noted, no doubt, that this thread is dedicated to continuity-of-information on one specific topic, that topic being contrails. I have isolated this one specific topic for very deliberate reasons. I'm betting you understand that.

We have a research community out there conveying to us that increasing incidence of contrail and resulting aviation-cirrus/smog cover is "simply not a good thing." We have scientists working as we speak on trying to determine how much of a net-warming impact these veils of heat-trapping thin cirrus are exerting on conditions at the surface. We have scientists working to determine the impact of contrail-aerosols on regional precipitation patterns.

In other words, there is concern about these issues, not to mention that we ourselves can see, for God's sake, that this cloying mess in our skies is not a normal state of affairs.

I am point-blank wondering why, given what is now known on this matter, this situation is being allowed to continue.

That is what I think after years of looking at it in-depth from a number of perspectives. It is being allowed.

WHY??
.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Grow up. You are making an absolute fool of yourself.

No, it is more like many people are saying aha, I always wondered why that asshat was all over the chemtrail boards seeing that she never has anything to add about chemtrails.

[Jeff Reynolds]

How am I vericarl? Got any links and an explanation. I am curious why you picked this person to be me.

[foot_soldier]

Apparently I am not the only one who has seriously considered the following possibility:

.....One of the recently recognised contributing factors to global warming is the con-trails of aircraft. How feasible is it to alter the properties of a con-trail (eg by fuel additives to vary particle size/absorption properties) to alleviate the blanket effect, or even make it a net radiator?

This is a small bit of geo-engineering (which we're already doing, albeit wrongly) that would buy us some time.....
http://www.futurismic.com/2006/10/new_column_jamais_cascio_on_th.html


.....Very good summary of the situation. I would suggest, unfortunately, that as the crisis becomes more and more obvious, society will be less and less able to mobilize resources as well. Imagine trying to build and launch the space mirror at the same time that we're dealing with multiple displacements and destruction on the order of hurricane Katrina and the recent tsunami.

I can only hope that there are enough tweaks like beneficial con trails that are inordinately effective and we start acting on those wedges yesterday or sooner.....
http://www.futurismic.com/2006/10/new_column_jamais_cascio_on_th.html


From:

The Geoengineering Option
by Jamais Cascio
http://www.futurismic.com/2006/10/new_column_jamais_cascio_on_th.html




Is that clear enough for people??

[Jeff Reynolds]

sulfate specs are down for commercial jet fuel. The military jet fuel is where so much more sulfates are allowed. They wouldn't even give a sample to the Discovery Channel to test for their show. The commercial jet fuel came out clean. So yet again you have nothing but the obfuscation that chemtrails are contrails.

[kola]

footsoldier,

In a few sentences could you tell me what you think is happening in our skies.

kola

[Jeff Reynolds]

I looked up vericarl at carnicom's. It says he made 19 posts. I could only see about ten of them. One had a warner bros logo, a cloudier one, not exactly chemtrailish per se, so ok I am interested in chemtrail subliminals, I can understand the connection. I also saw another post of his where he was fed up with the bs being posted, kind of too nutty for him, kind of like me again in a way. But I go back to what I said earlier, this type of info collection is the kind of stuff that spooks do.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Here's the post "Socrates/SocraticTruth/vericarl/FUIWontDoWhatUTellMe/Jeff Reynolds" is whining about......

I deleted the first two sentences.

She actually changed the fundamental tenor of this whole thread. She now has it as

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

From page 3, I was able to retrieve what she originally had written via my cousin Lord Jay's post:

Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

That looks like more than a few sentences and is merely a feeble attempt at damage control about her really being a debunker. She is pretty much saying that aircraft contrails are fundamentally altering the atmosphere. I bet they are doing a lot of damage. I personally don't see the need for so much air travel. But her main message is that what we are seeing are contrails, that the fake overcasts are a result of commercial contrails. So I guess the gorilla in her living room continues to be why if she is so adamant that chemtrails are contrails is she spending so much time on chemtrail boards?

I say, Foot Soldier sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by via specific aircraft. It's all perfectly normal and natural result from all aviation activities. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual and nothing to do with specific aircraft deliberately creating fake overcasts. So just shut up and get used to it. Chemtrails are contrails. End of debate.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Uh, the name is SocraticTruths, not SocraticTruth, from the gatekeeper DemocraticUnderground, because I realise this is all kind of complex due to ilk like you, much more complex than any astroturfing campaign squeeling out that chemtrails are contrails.

[foot_soldier]

.....She actually changed the fundamental tenor of this whole thread.....
Yes, I did.

I think Jay Reynolds is irrelevant at this point and I therefore decided to delete the reference to him in the first post. I had been thinking about it for awhile. I'm tired of the confrontational mode that people like him (and you) seem to thrive on in regard to this issue. I wanted to eliminate the setting of that tone in the initial post.

Why don't you go through and see how many posts I've edited here and provide links? That sounds like a good project for you. My guess is that out of 2,263 posts you may come up with ten at most.

[Jeff Reynolds]

She actually deleted more than what I had posted, and the new lines were there to begin with. From page 3 Lord Reynolds:

Originally Posted by foot_soldier
Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Yes, I did.

I think Jay Reynolds is irrelevant at this point and I therefore decided to delete the reference to him in the first post. I had been thinking about it for awhile. I'm tired of the confrontational mode that people like him (and you) seem to thrive on in regard to this issue. I wanted to eliminate the setting of that tone in the initial post.

Why don't you go through and see how many posts I've edited here and provide links? That sounds like a good project for you. My guess is that out of 2,263 posts you may come up with ten at most.

Lord Reynolds is only irrelevant to you now that it appears you have always insidiously agreed with him. No one need go through your copy and pastes. All one needs is gumption. Why should they give two shits about your insidious presence on chemtrail boards? And if they are interested in "normal contrails", I am sure that the google will work better than scrolling through your exhibition of mouse skills, i.e., the copy and paste.

It's too late for you. You shouldn't have posted all those photos and represented chemtrails as contrails. Word of yours' and others' disinfo as regards to chemtrails has spread out to the point that you have become as irrelevant as Lord Jay.

I know that aircraft emissions are a problem, but as regards to chemtrails, you are a problem, but a minor one now, since it is so obvious what you are up to.

[foot_soldier]

Why don't you go through and see how many posts I've edited here and provide links? That sounds like a good project for you. My guess is that out of 2,263 posts you may come up with ten at most.
.

[kola]

footsoldier,

In a few sentences ( and in your own words) could you tell me what you think is happening in our skies.

kola

[foot_soldier]

footsoldier,

In a few sentences could you tell me what you think is happening in our skies.

kola
Kola, please read what I've already posted and think about it.

Has anyone considered the possibility that (quote)normal contrails(endquote) are being studied and modified in order to cost-effectively achieve a modification of radiative balance in order to mitigate stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas pollution-driven climate destabilization?

In other words, I think there is a possibility that already existing pollution is being utilized in the service of geo-engineering.

[Jeff Reynolds]

When you came out and admitted that you don't believe in chemtrails, that was your big mistake. And since it is now obvious you are nothing but a copy and paster, it is best for the disinfo that a new character is developed. Maybe go away completely, then people will think mean Jeff Reynolds drove you off, that he is Ed Snell, Vericarl, maybe even Jim Phelps too, that chemtrails are so kooky, that chemtrails are contrails, that chemtrails must be contrails because Deborah is so brilliant and forthcoming, just look at all those articles she posts, and she's always printing them out to study them, ha, you have become so transparent.

Notice how she didn't respond to my claim about the sulfur specifications. That is the behaviour I have seen too often at chemtrail forums leading me to believe they are full of fakery. Their ideas are inorganic. They are not straighforward. They do not debate fairly. They come across as if they are spooks.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Kola, please read what I've already posted and think about it.

Has anyone considered the possibility that (quote)normal contrails(endquote) are being studied and modified in order to cost-effectively achieve a modification of radiative balance in order to mitigate stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas pollution-driven climate destabilization?

In other words, I think there is a possibility that already existing pollution is being utilized in the service of geo-engineering.

The commercial jet fuel came out clean on the Discovery Channel. Even Chem11 said in a post once that sulfate specifications are only high for military aircraft. Your whole argument about chemtrails is bullshit. You are a debunker in chemmie clothes. But not any longer. You are just another bullshitter who has been exposed. You have nothing.

She is just another debunker and probably gets paid for her character. The only difference is she is insidious about it. She is a fake "believer". She along with a bunch of others are the chemtrail gatekeepers. Fake believers, fake debunkers----- these are false flags, scripted fake debate.

[foot_soldier]

Kola, please read what I've already posted and think about it.

Has anyone considered the possibility that (quote)normal contrails(endquote) are being studied and modified in order to cost-effectively achieve a modification of radiative balance in order to mitigate stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas pollution-driven climate destabilization?

In other words, I think there is a possibility that already existing pollution is being utilized in the service of geo-engineering.
So, Kola, do you have anything to say?

[kola]

footsoldier, I am curious to hear, in your own words, what you think is going on. If that is too hard to answer I apologize. Kola

[foot_soldier]

Has anyone considered the possibility that (quote)normal contrails(endquote) are being studied and modified in order to cost-effectively achieve a modification of radiative balance in order to mitigate stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas pollution-driven climate destabilization?

In other words, I think there is a possibility that already existing pollution is being utilized in the service of geo-engineering.
Those are my own words.

How complicated does it have to be?

Read it again. You don't have to agree with it. But I have in fact answered your question. In my own words.

[kola]

So you support polluting the atmosphere and you believe it is the 'fix?"

How many usernames to you have and what are they? Have I read some of your posts on other forums?

Kola

[Jeff Reynolds]

Foot Soldier is Deborah. She is against the pollution, but to her chemtrails are contrails. She used the fancy words to present herself as uber intelligent. The truth is she is a copy and paster.

If Carnicom is for real, he might not want some insidious debunker on his website. She has been playing all of us for years. She's really not very different from Jay Reynolds. Anyone who believes in chemtrails now knows she is a fake. She's come out and now pretty much admits that she doesn't believe in chemtrails. This is the same nonsense one reads about at Megasprayer. They are debunkers in chemmie clothes. They are astroturfers whose posts are inorganic when delved into. All aircraft are not involved. All aircraft are not involved. All aircraft are not involved.

AND CHEMTRAILS ARE NOT CONTRAILS!!!!!!!!

[foot_soldier]

So you support polluting the atmosphere and you believe it is the 'fix?"

NO.

And I have said as much many times.

How many usernames to you have and what are they? Have I read some of your posts on other forums?

Deborah and foot_soldier.

That's it.

Kola
.

[halva]

Footsoldier HAS answered the question. The question i would have asked her would have to do with how far her de-emphasising the whole dimension of DELIBERATE pollution involved in geoengineering schemes is a tactical response to attacks from the familiar kinds of troll we knew before Jeff Reynolds came along to represent an unusual new hybrid species of troll, (indeed for the first time now raising questions for me whether he is in fact what he claims to be).

I said before to Lou that I think Footsoldier's "fudging" is not something that it worth making a racket about. She posts a huge amount of valuable information, both here and at Megasprayer and that makes her a friend. I sense that Jeff Reynolds would have launched his attack even without the slight amount of encouragement I gave him. (Really I was more interested in getting him to talk to Dewey. If he does not want to talk to Dewey about chemtrails then I will.)

If it is not the case that Jeff Reynolds/Socrates (or is it Jeff Reynolds/Jay Reynolds?) would have attacked Footsoldier anyway (taking advantage of his right of free speech) and I bear some responsibility for that, then I regret whatever encouragement I gave him..

Having said that, I am now going to focus on talking with Dewey.

[foot_soldier]

Kola, please read what I've already posted and think about it.

Has anyone considered the possibility that (quote)normal contrails(endquote) are being studied and modified in order to cost-effectively achieve a modification of radiative balance in order to mitigate stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas pollution-driven climate destabilization?

In other words, I think there is a possibility that already existing pollution is being utilized in the service of geo-engineering.
.

[foot_soldier]

I am talking about the possibility of deliberate utilization of existing pollution for purposes of cost-effective geoengineering.

I do not support this possibility. I am trying to get people to think about it.

Now that's it. I'm not going to be wasting any more of my time here. This thread has been resolved to my satisfaction.

[halva]

So you support polluting the atmosphere and you believe it is the 'fix?"

How many usernames to you have and what are they? Have I read some of your posts on other forums?

Kola

Footsoldier also used the name Javelina at the closed forum I started. Perhaps she hasn't counted it because that forum never really took off (or at least hasn't so far). Kola my view is that at this point we should lay off Deborah/Footsoldier and close ranks against the disruptor here. Wouldn't you agree? Does Socrates/Jeff Reynolds help in any way to clarify anything about Footsoldier?

[halva]

If Deborah has decided to leave DBS this is in any case something she should have done long ago in my view. She has no place in a world of "free speech".

[kola]

Thanks for clarifying things, Deborah/FS etc.

Now that I know a few of your usernames and your opinion, I can easily avoid wasting my time reading your posts.

I would rather focus my positive energy towards putting a halt to the chemical-aerosol operations.

Kola :cool:

[halva]

I agree and I think it is a shame that a person as well-informed as Deborah seems to suffer from this lack of clarity in her thinking. But she is not the only one, in any sense. It is a characteristic of the Megasprayer forum generally, which is doing quite well from the popularity viewpoint. And Lou defended this lack of clarity also.

But Socrates/Jeff Reynoldsis hopeless as a critic and deserves a kick in the bum for his ranting. Deborah is better off at Megasprayer where she is at least given the respect and support that she DOES deserve.

[surfari]

I give you no right to publish any personal pm's. I bet you would love to make some crap up and present it as my words, just like with this vericarl crap. I said I was 47 in my Jeff Reynolds intro.

You have exposed yourself. I just happened to notice it.

Sounds like someone might be having a bit of a mid-life crisis, Over at gastro you said you were 40.

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=altered&action=display&thread=1155313540

You have exposed yourself as a deranged charlatan yet again. I just happened to notice it.

[halva]

To get the focus of Jeff Reynolds and his sins, do you have any ideas about why no other 'chemmies' want to get involved in this discussion Surfari?

http://www.desmogblog.com/the-risks-of-relying-on-adaptation#comment-50831

[Jeff Reynolds]

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=233519&postcount=38

02-01-2005
posted by Foot Soldier


Actually, the contrail in the above-posted image was moving due south, right toward my window. I took five photographs of it, one approximately every 60-90 seconds. Note also that this situation was hardly limited to the presence of "a single contrail" but in fact was the culmination of an afternoon's loading of a previously clear blue sky with trail after trail after trail, all of which I watched spreading and smearing to ultimately cover the sky with the schmutzy mess shown here:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/imgdb/img/454-img.jpg

Commercial aircraft have nothing to do with chemtrails. Why is foot soldier all over chemtrail boards?????? People can attack me all they want. I am grateful to have gotten the message out about this fake debate betweeen my cousin Jay and Foot Soldier. They agree that the skies are getting blotched by commercial airrcraft. Yet one thinks it is a sign of peace and prosperity, and the other thinks it is out of control aviation pollution. The problem is for some reason both of these debunkers hang out so much at chemtrail boards. The true chemmie understands that both are fakes.

Chemtrails are not produced by commercial aircraft. They are the result of specific direct forcing on the troposphere by Frankensteinian geoengineers. Since a lot of this science is fairly new, and it is considered a crazy hoax, and if it weren't, there would be tons of lawsuits and consequences, they are experimenting and fine tuning. These jets are too fast to be commercial planes. The ones on these videos are not TWA going from Dallas to Anchorage. They are undertaking the ironically covert actions to produce fake overcasts. If Foot Soldier has all this info about commercial aircraft and contrails, why is she hanging out on chemtrail boards. It is strange how her, Chem11, and Big Bunny believe that all aircraft are involved. It is strange that the NSA/CIA contributed to something she was involved in many years back. Now why would the NSA/CIA be involved in something to do with a "chemtrail report"? And why does Jay Reynolds contin ue to haunt these boards when he has never explained why so often strange aircraft are flying crazy routes turning blue skies into fake grey ugly overcast. This is cointelpro 101. All these chemtrail boards have been scripted the whole way. I just happened to notice it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQSTkkvi6s&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LodSQO2mwfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlU5oEDByvc

Hey Reynolds, I thought there was supposed to be a small gap before a trail starts behind planes. And when did aircraft start having the ability to turn total blue skies into a complete fake overcast? How bout it Lord Reynolds?? Or is that association with William Cooper so shady that you realize you are seen to be as kooky as any fake believer?? Show us proof Reynolds of any of this same crap from before let's say 1995.

Explain this one Lord Reynolds!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I4wWTifb9o&mode=related&search=

How do planes and planes alone, not commercial ones, true chemmies are talking about planes on specific missions, how do these planes turn a blue sky into fake ugly overcast.

Fake believers and fake debunkers have now been totally exposed for the bullshit they have spewed over the last 7 years on chemtrail boards.

[halva]

You little creep. Stop trying to bring Reynolds back here. Persuade Dewey on the subject of chemtrails.

[halva]

It's time to start looking ahead to devising winners' strategies. Not continuing the old losers' debates with your namesake. You really need to be throttled.

[halva]

How have you got yourself into such a mess, Socrates, that Jay Reynolds is the only person you want to, and can, talk to. And even that only to argue with him???

[halva]

Socrates there are two kinds of people that we absolutely do not need in our discussions:

1) Debunkers of the Jay Reynolds type who are also climate change contrarians.

2) "Good people" on the subject of climate change who are nevertheless pussyfooters wanting to impose on us the political fiction that geoengineering is a hypothetical worst-case future scenario and not - according to overwhelming eyewitness testimony - a well-established present reality.

[kola]

This is a day of aerial assault which clearly shows the aerosol/chemical spraying operation. These are not normail contrails nor is it "beneficial" air pollution. For reliable infomation visit: http://www.carnicom.com/

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/kola58/10-29-06chem.jpg

[Jeff Reynolds]

It's time to start looking ahead to devising winners' strategies. Not continuing the old losers' debates with your namesake. You really need to be throttled.

This guy is a nut. He spits on all who believe in the saying that I might not agree with you, but I believe in your right to say it.

I used to think it was a waste of time to interact with Jay Reynolds, i.e., to even care what he thinks. Yet this was before I realized that the chemtrail boards are rigged. Now I think it is fascinating how similar Foot Soldier and Jay Reynolds are, it's just one thinks there is a problem, and the other doesn't.

And it seems that halvar just broke the rules again by advocating the use of violence against myself.

[kola]

halva quoted : You really need to be throttled.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Internet personal threats are a violation. Free speech does not apply when the intent is to harm others.

Kola

[Jeff Reynolds]

Originally Posted by foot_soldier
Jay Reynolds sez: They're just normal contrails. Shut up and don't pay any attention to the fact that our skies are being strafed with more and more of them as the years go by. It's all perfectly normal and natural. Just a side-effect of progress and business-as-usual. So just shut up and get used to it. End of debate.

Well, I'm not going to shut up and I'm not going to stop following the research on this issue. And as will become clear from the following material neither is anyone else who is genuinely concerned about those normal contrails and the cumulative damage they are doing to the only atmosphere we have.

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere. We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

Foot Soldier is trying to make it seem that she only deleted a few sentences. No, she deleted the first two paragraphs of the original post. By directly referring to Lord Reynolds, she had set this thread up as a strawman argument that chemtrails are contrails, while also trying to represent herself as a leading "chemmie" The only difference between the two, however, is that one thinks they are nothing, while the other thinks they are harmful. And who gets excluded from this discussion? It is the true "chemmies". This thread has just been one long fake debate. Yet the scam is all out in the open now because I just happened to notice it.

[Jeff Reynolds]

halva quoted : You really need to be throttled.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Internet personal threats are a violation. Free speech does not apply when the intent is to harm others.

Kola

Yeah, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie house unless there is one. Free speech is allowed as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Charles Manson might not have killed those people, but his speech led directly to the murders, making him a serial killer even if he never was physically involved with all the helter skelter.... now i got that beatles tune in my head,

[halva]

Socrates there are two kinds of people that we absolutely do not need in our discussions:

1) Debunkers of the Jay Reynolds type who are also climate change contrarians.

2) "Good people" on the subject of climate change who are nevertheless pussyfooters wanting to impose on us the political fiction that geoengineering is a hypothetical worst-case future scenario and not - according to overwhelming eyewitness testimony - a well-established present reality.

I reiterate this point, which is the bottom line and the only basis on which coherent and constructive dialogue can be conducted here.

It specifies a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable contributions which is not circular and self-subverting. To impose a requirement of lip-service to ideals of freedom of speech is to subvert freedom of speech.

[halva]

Jeff Reynolds have you given up your attempt to win Dewey over to your views on chemtrails?

[kola]

halva,

you constantly reply to your own posts.

you constantly call people out who have made it clear they do not want to waste time with you.

odd.

Kola:cool:

[halva]

I agree with you that I made a mistake in doing this with Socrates/Jeff Reynolds yesterday.

[halva]

What do you think I should do, Kola, continue to stay here opposing freedom of speech or defend freedom of speech, like Lou, and then leave in disgust?

[halva]

Commercial aircraft have nothing to do with chemtrails.


Document this assertion, Socrates/Jeff Reynolds.

How do you know this?

[kola]

quote: What do you think I should do, Kola, continue to stay here opposing freedom of speech or defend freedom of speech, like Lou, and then leave in disgust?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not care what you do...or do I care what you write...no different than footsoldier' s rubbish, jay reynolds bullshit or yaaks dribble.

kola:cool:

[halva]

If you find some friends here Kola it may become possible to perceive what your aims are in posting here.

[Lou]

If you find some friends here Kola it may become possible to perceive what your aims are in posting here.

Wayne_Why don't you just accept that kola "is" posting here and let it go at that, certainly we do not have to agree with each other but isn't the atmosphere here much better without the offence Vs. defense factions that where so prevalent not that long ago?

With Lord Reynolds going missing it's as though a breath of fresh spring air has wafted through this Science Forum, more people seem willing to post here now, isn't that much better for everyone?

Kola's motive for posting here at DBS is not important to me_ his thoughts are.

[halva]

Wayne_Why don't you just accept that kola "is" posting here and let it go at that, certainly we do not have to agree with each other but isn't the atmosphere here much better without the offence Vs. defense factions that where so prevalent not that long ago?

With Lord Reynolds going missing it's as though a breath of fresh spring air has wafted through this Science Forum, more people seem willing to post here now, isn't that much better for everyone?

Kola's motive for posting here at DBS is not important to me_ his thoughts are.

Certainly there now seems to be a little more hope of this section of the DBS forum developing into a worthwhile place rather than the shithole it has been for so many years now. I don't want to start arguments, about freedom of speech or anything else. If everyone else here maintains a polite and respectful tone I will do the same.

[Lou]

Certainly there now seems to be a little more hope of this section of the DBS forum developing into a worthwhile place rather than the shithole it has been for so many years now. I don't want to start arguments, about freedom of speech or anything else. If everyone else here maintains a polite and respectful tone I will do the same.

I concur, lets see how it goes for a month or so.

I'm hopeful that more people will join in if the bad elements stay away.

[foot_soldier]

April 10, 2007
Heathrow Passengers Turn Blind Eye to Warming
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41300/story.htm

Reuters News Service

LONDON - Public concern about climate change is growing in Britain but that will not stop a record Easter exodus from the world's busiest international airport.

Aviation contributes less to global warming than the likes of cars and farming but focuses minds on climate change because a single long-haul flight can double someone's annual greenhouse gas emissions.

A straw poll of 10 passengers flying from Heathrow on Thursday showed four were not convinced climate change was happening or caused by man, and all felt air transport was an inevitable part of modern life.

"We're teachers and say the right thing but maybe we don't do the right thing," said Chris Hykiel and his wife, off to Los Angeles for 11 days on a beach volleyball holiday.

"Yes, aviation can contribute to climate change but it's almost impossible to have an alternative," said Hykiel who would consider paying a "green tax" on top of ticket prices.

"It's just part of life now," said 40-year-old Khurram Mir, a doctor living in Glasgow off on a six-day trip to see family in Pakistan.

"You can't take a ship 6,000 miles to a business meeting. I'm a doctor, I can't take too much time off."

Companies like Climate Care allow people to fund emissions cuts elsewhere to offset their air travel -- for example by contributing to renewable energy projects -- and it calculates a return trip from London to Sydney produces 5.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person.

This is close to the annual per capita CO2 emissions of a Frenchman of 6.2 tonnes, according to UN data.

DEFENCE

The Association of British Travel Agents estimates a record 2.5 million people will leave Britain this Easter weekend, mostly by plane, versus 2.3 million last year.

The airline industry says it is only a small part of the climate change problem and stresses its contribution to jobs and lifestyles.

"People are keen to travel, it's part of their life, it's part of the fabric of the global community," said a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association (IATA). IATA reckons global aviation is growing at 5 to 6 percent per year.

In a review of the economics of climate change last year Nicholas Stern put aviation's share at 1.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, its contribution to global warming was two to four times that because of altitude effects.

"Public opinion may be driven by our consumer view of the world," said Kevin Anderson, climate change researcher at Britain's Tyndall Centre.

"Politicians can deal with broader concerns about ourselves and our families. There are many things you can do without having the public on board."

[foot_soldier]

Update: Holland
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/0overflow.htm

[Jeff Reynolds]

Update: Holland
http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-2007-2/magicgallery/0overflow.htm

Contrails are not chemtrails, yet Foot Soldier continues to hang out on chemtrail boards as a Lord Reynolds' appendage. Wow, all these years on chemtrail boards with no insights on them. Strange.

[kola]

Deborah, footsoldier, aka Stinkfoot, aka the copy-n-paste queen of Stink:

strikes again!!!


Kola:cool:

[Lou]

Kola_I'm surprised that you are following this "heard" mentality that's been infecting the threads at various forums lately including this one, you know, the fake this, fake that, fake him, fake her bullshit, don't you think that kind of negativity directed at those who believe in the chemtrail issue in point, defeats and lessens our ability as a collective entity to obtain the truth, does Deborah not writing about chemtrails bother you that much?

Pollution is pollution, whether it's from normal contrail's or from Chemtrails, it's all the same shit, just on a different day.

I'm not saying that you can not criticize or question someone's thoughts and opinions on an issue but I think it is self defeating to name call and bad mouth someone when they have done nothing to you.

I see Deborah's approach to be one of being "the sum of the parts equaling the whole", remember your math, not all solutions are obvious, they must be worked out, and we know that can be a long process. I say let Deborah work it out as she pleases, she is harming no one and she is by no means a debunker just because of her stance.

[halva]

Kola_I'm surprised that you are following this "heard" mentality that's been infecting the threads at various forums lately including this one, you know, the fake this, fake that, fake him, fake her bullshit, don't you think that kind of negativity directed at those who believe in the chemtrail issue in point, defeats and lessens our ability as a collective entity to obtain the truth, does Deborah not writing about chemtrails bother you that much?

Pollution is pollution, whether it's from normal contrail's or from Chemtrails, it's all the same shit, just on a different day.

I'm not saying that you can not criticize or question someone's thoughts and opinions on an issue but I think it is self defeating to name call and bad mouth someone when they have done nothing to you.

I see Deborah's approach to be one of being "the sum of the parts equaling the whole", remember your math, not all solutions are obvious, they must be worked out, and we know that can be a long process. I say let Deborah work it out as she pleases, she is harming no one and she is by no means a debunker just because of her stance.

I was half-hoping that JR2 might understand why I drew an analogy between Footsoldier and Rosalind Peterson's positions, but he didn't.

If he had he might have begun to understand what was really at stake during that period when his key accusation against me - picked up from Chem 11, whom he now slanders without really engaging with, or emancipating himself from, his ideas - is that I was promoting the "marketing of pollution".

When Rosalind Peterson says: "We can't prove that jet contrails are being made for deliberate geoengineering purposes...I wish I had the documents to back up this fact. I don't. Unless they appear I can't make the argument that it is deliberate. It is only an opinion. However, I can prove that jet emissions do negatively impact our environment" she is recapitulating the train of thought that has evidently brought Footsoldier to her present positions.

Not being happy with the political passivity that seems to be the corollary of these positions, I decided to try another approach. Applying the principle of "agenti incumbit probatio", i.e. that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, I decided to try to arrange situations in such a way that it was always the other side that was making the complaint, even if this meant looking like a defender of 'geoengineering' myself. Have you noticed that in the mass media coverage of geoengineering proposals it is always assumed 'conspiracy theorists' deplore the phenomena they are trying to draw attention to. What if we stop deploring? If we leave it to the other side, our critics, to do the deploring, then we can ask them, the plaintiffs, to prove that the geoengineering is not occurring. We thus free ourselves from the problem that both Footsoldier and Rosalind Peterson worry about, i.e. that we "can't prove that jet contrails are being made for deliberate geoengineering purposes."

The risk involved with this strategy is that one will indeed be mistaken for a defender of geoengineering proposals. This is something I have encountered not only from Chem 11 and his abusive disciple Socrates/Jeff Reynolds. I have encountered it from the people of DeSmogBlog, who - with apparent relief that I appear to be absolving them from the necessity of defending geoengineering themselves, portray me as a supporter of Crutzen.
http://www.desmogblog.com/is-geo-engineering-the-answer

And I have encountered it from officials in Greek conservation organizations who ask me if I am for or against these practices to which I am trying to draw their attention.

[kola]

Sorry Lou, I am not a follower... she annoys me..

..and her continual bombardment of copy and pasting ( without any personal comments) is annoying as well. I don't waste my time reading her posts.

Kola

[kola]

Stinkfoot has nothing in common with Rosalind Peterson except the possibilty they could both be females.
kola

[halva]

Stinkfoot has nothing in common with Rosalind Peterson except the possibilty they could both be females.
kola

I think I have documented the similarity in their positions. If Rosalind Peterson is more willing to take risks than Footsoldier, that doesn't mean that Footsoldier deserves to be insulted. I would be pleased if she explained herself more, but I don't hold it against her if she has given up on JR2.

[kola]

show me where rosalind thinks polluting the skies will be beneficial.

kola

[halva]

Show me where Footsoldier says that polluting the skies would be beneficial.

[halva]

Air Apparent does a similar fudging on deliberate chemtrailing and jet emissions:
http://www.airapparent.ca/
e.g.
The contrail effect. PBS Nova
PBS NOVA asks "Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?" We think so. Whether you believe that the trails are caused solely by 'business-as-usual' engine emissions from jet aircraft, intentional greenhouse mitigation, or other operations, there can be no argument that our skies are filled with chemically induced blankets of toxic artificial cloud cover that is effectively dimming our planet and damaging the atmosphere. See "The Contrail Effect"'

And Rosalind Peterson doesn't appear to see any need to single out for criticism the extreme anti-"chemmie" stance of George Monbiot.

[Lou]

I was half-hoping that JR2 might understand why I drew an analogy between Footsoldier and Rosalind Peterson's positions, but he didn't.

If he had he might have begun to understand what was really at stake during that period when his key accusation against me - picked up from Chem 11, whom he now slanders without really engaging with, or emancipating himself from, his ideas - is that I was promoting the "marketing of pollution".

When Rosalind Peterson says: "We can't prove that jet contrails are being made for deliberate geoengineering purposes...I wish I had the documents to back up this fact. I don't. Unless they appear I can't make the argument that it is deliberate. It is only an opinion. However, I can prove that jet emissions do negatively impact our environment" she is recapitulating the train of thought that has evidently brought Footsoldier to her present positions.

Not being happy with the political passivity that seems to be the corollary of these positions, I decided to try another approach. Applying the principle of "agenti incumbit probatio", i.e. that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, I decided to try to arrange situations in such a way that it was always the other side that was making the complaint, even if this meant looking like a defender of 'geoengineering' myself. Have you noticed that in the mass media coverage of geoengineering proposals it is always assumed 'conspiracy theorists' deplore the phenomena they are trying to draw attention to. What if we stop deploring? If we leave it to the other side, our critics, to do the deploring, then we can ask them, the plaintiffs, to prove that the geoengineering is not occurring. We thus free ourselves from the problem that both Footsoldier and Rosalind Peterson worry about, i.e. that we "can't prove that jet contrails are being made for deliberate geoengineering purposes."

The risk involved with this strategy is that one will indeed be mistaken for a defender of geoengineering proposals. This is something I have encountered not only from Chem 11 and his abusive disciple Socrates/Jeff Reynolds. I have encountered it from the people of DeSmogBlog, who - with apparent relief that I appear to be absolving them from the necessity of defending geoengineering themselves, portray me as a supporter of Crutzen.
http://www.desmogblog.com/is-geo-engineering-the-answer

And I have encountered it from officials in Greek conservation organizations who ask me if I am for or against these practices to which I am trying to draw their attention.

Wayne_I'm sorry but I have had enough of this for awhile, I've been trying really hard, in a nice way, hinting to people, NOT TELLING THEM, that we should at least try and conduct ourselves as ADULTS and maybe this board could be something besides a BITCH FEST, I see now that there is not much hope of that ever happening, one A-Hole Reynolds has been replaced by another who's agenda seems to be to disrupt and corrupt any possibility of the remaining posters here having anything resembling a civil discussion.

I am withdrawing from posting here indefinitely_ effective immediately.

Take care and good luck.

Lou.

[foot_soldier]

April 12, 2007
Transport seen surging, damaging climate: UN draft
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=72743

Reuters News Service

Surging use of cars and planes will push up greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades, making the transport sector a black spot in a fight against global warming, according to a draft U.N. report.

"Transport activity is expected to grow robustly over the next several decades," according to a 101-page technical summary of a draft report by the U.N. climate panel, the most authoritative on threats from global warming.

The summary, to be issued on May 4 in Bangkok at a meeting of scientists and more than 100 governments, says efforts to curb emissions from transport "are faced with many barriers" despite options such as new engine technologies or biofuels.

Transport, mostly trucks and cars, accounted for 26 percent of total world energy use in 2004 and, barring a major shift, "projections foresee a continued growth in world transportation energy use by 2 percent a year, with energy use and carbon emissions about 80 percent above 2002 levels by 2030."

In some nations such as the United States, Italy and Australia car ownership is already 5 to 8 per 10 inhabitants -- 10 or 100 times more than in developing states.

The study projects biofuels could rise to 3 percent of total transport fuel by 2030, or to 10 percent if a penalty for emitting heat-trapping carbon dioxide were $25 a ton.

Measures such as tighter vehicle efficiency standards, lighter materials and better aerodynamics could double the fuel economy of new vehicles by 2030, roughly halving their emissions.

It foresees more use of hybrid cars but says, for instance, the outlook for hydrogen powered vehicles is uncertain.

The section on transport is part of a draft by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that says fighting global warming can be inexpensive but that governments are running short of time to avert big temperature rises threatening more droughts, heatwaves, floods and rising seas.

About 2 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions from human activities come from aviation. Emissions from this sector are likely to rise by 3-4 percent a year given projected annual traffic growth of 5 percent outpacing annual improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency of 1-2 percent, it says.

Planes also damage the climate in other ways, partly by emitting heat-trapping nitrous oxides at high altitude. "These effects are estimated to be about 2 to 4 times greater than those of aviation's CO2 alone," it says.

Extra charges for fuel or the inclusion of the aviation sector into a greenhouse gas trading system "would have the potential to reduce emissions considerably," it says.

[kola]

another worthless chem fourm.

[halva]

But not for the reasons you gave.

[kola]

I no longer choose to defend my opinions nor argue about things.

Have fun posting to yourself. I'm gone. :)

Kola:cool:

[halva]

I don't imagine that I'll be alone for long.

If you want to take Socrates with you, please do.

[Jeff Reynolds]

another worthless chem forum.

It's sad. We come to these forums thinking we have found kindred spirits who want to work together to get this shit exposed. They can't defend themselves against my message, so they try to turn the tables and say that I am the fake.

Chemtrails will not be able to go on forever. Too many of us would rather confront the bullshit than allow it to go on without any friction. "They" can flood forums and drive regular folks away. "They" can try to be Reynolds' appendages by presenting chemtrails as kooky.

But that can't stop the truths emerging that chemtrails as contrails is false, and that chemtrail forums are also fake.

"They" want us to read and link to their screwball sources. "They" dont want any continuity to chemtrail threads anywhere. That is why "they" have created all these fake, kooky characters.

"They" don't mind what we post, as long as it doesn't expose the fake believers and the basic kookiness. I respond with a line from a Rage Against the Machine song, fuck you I won't do what you tell me.

But I can see how we all can get confused over the true nature of chemtrails. All this shit being floated around on the internet is at the base of their operation to keep the public from influencing whether chemtrails stop or continue.

I liked Lou a lot. We posted a lot together over at Gastro. To see him come out and praise weatherfake is the final blow. All we have are our eyes Kola. We see the trails, and we know they aren't commercial airlines and all other aircraft interacting with global warming and humidity/temperatures etc.. Chemtrails are a deliberate act with the goal being a fake cloud cover. It sucks that the chemtrail forums are full of fakery, but it has now been exposed.

The fakery actually is more circumstantial proof that chemtrails are real. Why would psy-ops go to so much trouble to screw around with chemtrail boards, instead of allowing freedoms of movement and association, if chemtrails weren't real? It is because "they" want anyone on the fence to believe that chemtrails are kooky. If not that, "they" want people on the fence to follow Foot Scab and her girlfriends Chem11 and Big Bunny in believing that chemtrails are contrails.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Here is what FootScab does.

http://p211.ezboard.com/Chemtrail-Sunscreen-Taught-In-US-Schools/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=8578.top ic

Someone makes a post specifically about chemtrails, yet she feels it is her role to spin it towards her brand of disinfo.

...why not utilize *existing pollution* for cost-effective insolation-management purposes?

This is the way the automatons currently in charge of such matters think. They are not interested in "stewardship" of anything but their own interests.

And for the last time, I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED to such an idea. It is my non-negotiable OPPOSITION to such insanity that motivates me to EXPOSE the possibility that it's being seriously considered.


She is not saying anything new or that difficult to understand. This is Marketing of Pollution 101. The difference, however, for the FootScab is that chemtrails as Frankensteinian geoengineering is only a possibility. Here she took it even an insidious peg lower. She is now astroturfing that all these geonengineering patents and ideas are simply proposals. That is what Jay Reynolds has been blabbering all these years. We already knew that FootScab believes that chemtrails are contrails, that all aircraft are involved. Now the question remains, why has she spent all these years on chemtraIl boards if she doesn't even believe they are real?

[foot_soldier]

April 12, 2007
Transport seen surging, damaging climate: UN draft
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=72743

Reuters News Service

Surging use of cars and planes will push up greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades, making the transport sector a black spot in a fight against global warming, according to a draft U.N. report.

"Transport activity is expected to grow robustly over the next several decades," according to a 101-page technical summary of a draft report by the U.N. climate panel, the most authoritative on threats from global warming.

The summary, to be issued on May 4 in Bangkok at a meeting of scientists and more than 100 governments, says efforts to curb emissions from transport "are faced with many barriers" despite options such as new engine technologies or biofuels.

Transport, mostly trucks and cars, accounted for 26 percent of total world energy use in 2004 and, barring a major shift, "projections foresee a continued growth in world transportation energy use by 2 percent a year, with energy use and carbon emissions about 80 percent above 2002 levels by 2030."

In some nations such as the United States, Italy and Australia car ownership is already 5 to 8 per 10 inhabitants -- 10 or 100 times more than in developing states.

The study projects biofuels could rise to 3 percent of total transport fuel by 2030, or to 10 percent if a penalty for emitting heat-trapping carbon dioxide were $25 a ton.

Measures such as tighter vehicle efficiency standards, lighter materials and better aerodynamics could double the fuel economy of new vehicles by 2030, roughly halving their emissions.

It foresees more use of hybrid cars but says, for instance, the outlook for hydrogen powered vehicles is uncertain.

The section on transport is part of a draft by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that says fighting global warming can be inexpensive but that governments are running short of time to avert big temperature rises threatening more droughts, heatwaves, floods and rising seas.

About 2 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions from human activities come from aviation. Emissions from this sector are likely to rise by 3-4 percent a year given projected annual traffic growth of 5 percent outpacing annual improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency of 1-2 percent, it says.

Planes also damage the climate in other ways, partly by emitting heat-trapping nitrous oxides at high altitude. "These effects are estimated to be about 2 to 4 times greater than those of aviation's CO2 alone," it says.

Extra charges for fuel or the inclusion of the aviation sector into a greenhouse gas trading system "would have the potential to reduce emissions considerably," it says.
.

[foot_soldier]

We cannot synthesize a new atmosphere.

We need to start thinking seriously about taking better care of the one we were given.

***
Aviation
Transport 2000.org

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/Aviation.htm

Significant growth is forecast in the aviation industry both in terms of passenger travel and movement of air-freight. People and the environment face serious threats from this growth, including noise problems, possible cancer clusters around airports and climate change. Transport 2000 says it's time to manage demand for air travel and make aviation pay for the problems it causes.

Aviation has been almost the forgotten environmental issue. While growth in road traffic has led to considerable awareness of the problems caused, air travel has continued to rocket over the past few decades almost unnoticed and its effects are less well known. A research report published by Transport 2000 - The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment - predicts that by 2015 air travel world-wide could be more than double that in 1995. And if the trend continues, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times that in the mid-90s.

Aircraft produce large amounts of toxic emissions that are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research in the US has linked VOCs generated by Chicago-Midway Airport to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity. Heathrow Airport is already one of this country's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there will make the situation worse.

Aviation also generates levels of noise that pose a serious threat to the health of those who live around airports. The report reveals that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded and that one in eight people in the UK are affected by noise pollution from aircraft.

In October 2001 the European court of Human Rights ruled that night flights from Heathrow violated the human rights of local residents by denying them a normal night's sleep. The UK Government has, however, successfully appealed against the decision. The latest ruling sets back attempts to bring aviation to account for its effect on local communities around airports and under flight paths.

And aviation poses a massive threat to the environment. Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail.

While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft.

Transport 2000 believes that aviation needs to be held responsible for its effects on people and the environment. If air transport continues to soar in the longer term, then people and the environment will pay the price. Campaigners have called for future demand to be managed to reduce the adverse effects as much as possible. They have proposed an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemptions on aviation fuel. The need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives, such as rail for short-haul flights, are also clear.

Some people say that restricting aviation growth would have serious effects on the economy but The Plane Truth report sheds doubt on this. Professor John Whitelegg, who compiled the report, says this assumption is at best questionable and quite probably flawed, and that limiting aviation traffic might even deliver positive economic benefits..... (continued)

The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment
Transport 2000
www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf
.

[halva]

Back onto the treadmill. Unintelligent rants from Socrates. Mechanical responses to them from Footsoldier. The security of the return to routine.

[halva]

The way to counter this boredom - this cultural sclerosis - this terminal paralysis of Americans - is not to give into it, run away from it, or snub it.

[halva]

Weatherman 714 is a breath of fresh air by comparison with this Reynolds - Deborah - Reynolds necrophilia.

[foot_soldier]

This is a very instructive article:

March 27, 2007
Israeli Develops 'Disruptive' Jet Engine
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=14720

SYNOPSIS: New R-Jet gas turbine engine intends to improve fuel efficiency and cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 percent.

When asked what makes his new jet engine unique, leading Israeli engineer, Prof. David Lior will tell you what he says General Electric told him: that his invention is "disruptive technology."

Lior's company, R-Jet Engineering, is currently developing a new gas turbine engine that intends to improve fuel efficiency and cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 percent. The new engine has fewer components, smaller dimensions and is lighter weight than conventional engines. It also significantly cuts operation and maintenance costs.

In a field that hasn't seen significant technological innovation like this in more than 50 years, Lior says his engine is a huge step in the right direction.

It is an innovation, he says, that will "disrupt" the decades-long stalemate in development facing the aviation industry, providing engine suppliers and manufacturers with a more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly and cost-effective engine.

The OCN (Orbiting Combustion Nozzle) engine is currently in the development stages at the small company's base in Herzilya, Israel, and is set for release in the next two to three years. The engine's primary application will be for low-cost, efficient electrical power generation, which can be placed anywhere – hospitals, schools and commercial centers, Lior says.

The cost of power generation is expected to be reduced by about 20% compared to other methods, with overall efficiency in OCN distributed power generation reaching more than 85%, double that of conventional methods.

The technology can also be used for other propulsion applications and in commercial aircraft and helicopters that use turbo-fan, turbo-jet, and turbo-shaft engines.

"The distributed power generation is considered ‘green’ technology, and the OCN engine, when in the market in about three years, has the potential of becoming a substantial player in this emerging market," explains, R-Jet co-founder, Giora Belkin.

Potential clients or collaborators include engine manufacturers such as General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, Turbo Mecca and Microturbo. R-Jet will either work through joint ventures or license potential clients to produce the new technology, an invention that Lior estimates will take 2%, or more than $200 million a year, of the current market.

The project receives 40% of its funding from the Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor through the R&D grant program at the Office of the Chief Scientist. Rafael Armament Development Authority owns 10% of the company.

According to the chief of staff at the Office of the Chief Scientist, Elad Stav, if commercially successful, R-Jet Engineering will be obligated to pay 3-5% in royalties to the ministry, up to the amount of the awarded grant. Stav says that the committee in charge of approving grant applications looks for Israeli R&D projects that are highly innovative..... (continued below)

[foot_soldier]

(continued from above)

In conventional gas turbine engines, the combustion that powers the engine is conducted in a static setting at a low velocity in the engine's core chamber. In the OCN engine, however, the combustion occurs in a high velocity medium called a vortex, where the air is constantly moving and flowing. Fuel is burned in the vortex of air created by the OCN engine. This saves energy otherwise lost in conventional engines, in which air decelerates when diffused into the combustion chamber, and accelerates again when it flows into the turbine.

"We avoid this deceleration and acceleration by keeping the air rotating all the time. This is why we gain a lot of fuel savings," says Lior.

By creating more effective combustion, the OCN engine uses 25-30% less fuel than its counterparts, fuel being one of the most significant costs for the airline industry. The engine also releases 20% fewer toxic pollutants into the environment, such as carbon hydrates (CH), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which may contribute to climate change and global warming.

"Every single liter of fuel that you save means that you are not actually putting CO2 and other noxious substances into the atmosphere like NOx and carbon monoxide, that we know create greenhouse gas warming issues," says aviation consultant and editor of Janes Airport Review, Philip Butterworth-Hayes.

"Aviation is already a major source of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. It is also rising very fast, faster than any other transport sector," says communications officer, Dudley Curtis, for the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), an environmental organization that promotes sustainable and environmentally sound transport, focusing primarily on European policy.

Reducing fuel use does not only cut airline expenses, says Curtis, but it is also directly linked to the reduction of the harmful emissions produced by fuel burning. The organization claims the aviation sector is responsible for 4-9% of the global, human-produced impact on climate change, the greatest climate impact of any transportation mode.

"We know pollution of aircraft is particularly bad because it is in the upper atmosphere and therefore its contribution to global warming is particularly significant," explains Israeli director of Friends of the Earth Middle East, Gidon Bromberg.

In 1999, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that aviation was responsible for 3.5% of the human contribution to climate change, including C02and non-CO2 effects. This estimate does not include the effects on cirrus clouds, however, which other environmental advocates say significantly increases the impact.

While statistics vary, according to the IPCC and environmental organizations, total aviation emissions are increasing every year, as demand for air transport outpaces reductions in emissions from technological and operational advancements.

[The environment] is really the major issue right now. Every year, there are new engine requirements, specifically in California but mostly in Europe, says Lior. "Everybody is trying to cut down CO2 pollution, CH pollution, NOx pollution – and we make it better through more efficient combustion."

The European Commission has considered integrating air transport into the EU emissions trading system, turning more focus on the effects of aviation emissions on the environment.

"In Europe, a new engine design would need to be at least 10% more fuel-efficient, with lower emissions from burning fuel," says Butterworth-Hayes.

Hayes explains that new engines designed for the aviation industry need to both minimize CO2 and NOx emissions, and at the same time create efficient combustion that can get the engines operating at their peak, maximizing the power of the engine while minimizing its "environmental footprint."

In addition to being more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly, Lior says the OCN design is also more compact and cost-effective, assets that will likely appeal to manufacturers and airlines.

The OCN engine isabout half the weight and size of other conventional gas turbine engines. Its design eliminates expensive components such as the diffuser and turbine stator, and it has fewer turbine stages, therefore cutting production costs nearly in half.

The engine's turbines are more powerful and more efficient, says Lior, working at supersonic rather than transonic speeds. This creates more energy per turbine stage, requiring less turbine stages in total.

It also has a unique blade-cooling method, which allows it to attain high efficiency even in small engines, which R-Jet says is not possible in small conventional gas turbines.

The last significant development in terms of fuel-efficiency of jet engines, says Butterworth-Hayes, was the introduction of high bypass ratio engine in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

"We are not able to make those quantum leaps in engine efficiency any more. We are about as efficient as we can get from extracting as much energy as we can from the fuel," he says. “We can tweak it, but we can't get those 30, 40, 50% increases in efficiency that we did when we introduced the last major design change."

In their 2006 report, "Clearing the Air: The Myth and Reality of Aviation and Climate Change," E&T claims that: "Today's passenger aircraft are no more fuel-efficient than those that flew half a century ago."

Curtis says the aviation community often refers to a claim of a 70% improvement in fuel efficiency over the past 40 years, but says these figures can be misleading..... (continued below)

[foot_soldier]

(continued from above)

Lior says that the engines currently being used in aircraft follow practically the same concept as they did 70 years ago, when Frank Whittle invented the turbine-powered jet engine to replace the piston engine.

That is why the OCN design is a step into unexplored territory, he says.

"[What airlines are looking for] all depends where you are in the world. If you are in Europe, it is increasingly important to keep the CO2 emission count down. If you are in the States, then you are looking for quiet engines. There the issue is noise rather than CO2 emissions. If you are in Africa, you don’t really care as long as it's safe, efficient, and cheap," explains Butterworth-Hayes.

"There is not one single technology or policy that can solve the problem," says E&T director, Jos Dings. Dings explains that aviation in Europe, unlike other transportation sectors, is generally unregulated when it comes to the environment.

"The aviation industry is a heavily subsidized market that doesn’t pay taxes on fuel," says Dings.

The sector is not covered by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and the Netherlands is the only European country that taxes fuel, according to E&T. The organization is currently working to incorporate the aviation industry into the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions trading scheme, hoping to reduce the sector's environmental impact through policy.

"If we are talking about climate change, the key issue at moment, what we care about is reducing emissions," says Curtis. "Now, however you get there, if by its technology or whatever you do, then that’s fine. But if it’s a tiny bit of reduction in emissions to pave the way for continued enormous growth from aviation, then that is clearly not acceptable.

What we would rather see from the industry is a commitment to cut emissions or stabilize emissions at a certain level rather than saying: 'Ah, well, we are investing $x-billion in technology and all the rest of it, because these figures make nice headlines, but they don’t actually reduce emissions." END

[halva]

This is a very instructive article:

Why don't you just post it at Megasprayer, where people aren't attacking you?

You said that your work was finished here - in other words that you were leaving because of attacks on you by Socrates/JR2. Why did you come back? Are you any better now at defending yourself from Socrates than you were before? You don't need to defend yourself (which you are not doing). anyway, I am defending you.

If you can't put Socrates in his place, stay away. That's what Lou does and it is the right thing to do.