It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[halva]

Arianna Huffington has just written an article called 'The Pentagon Sounds the Alarm on Global Warming'. At the end of it she says: 'The Democratic nominee needs to remind the White House — and the American people: It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.'

There would be nothing wrong with a Democratic Party candidate doing that, but it should not be ignored that there are by now very large numbers of Americans who realise that 'fooling with Mother Nature' is something currently proceeding on a gigantic, planetary, scale, with the blessings of not only of the Bush regime but also of many opponents of Bush who are genuinely concerned about global climate change and are supporters of 'geoengineering'.

To Americans like this, Arianna's remarks about fooling with Mother Nature may seem to be underrating their intelligence, or knowledge.

The geoengineering issue has now been addressed by the activists of ATTAC-Hellas in Greece, which is Arianna Huffington's native land also:

See
http://www.attac-hellas.org/seminars/geoengineering/programmeenglish.htm

Further information at:
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/Hall.htm

The genuinely grave situation of the planet should not become an excuse for manipulative danger-mongering and for acceptance of classification of climatic change as a 'national security' question, if this is going to mean a continuation of the dishonesty and lack of transparency with which the Pentagon has so far operated on this question, and characteristically operates on all questions.

It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'.

[jayreynolds]

The author of the preceding post, "halva", is Mr. Wayne Hall. He is a recruiter for the "chemtrail" conspiracy cult. He is seeking to propagandize people here to believe that when they see contrails from jets in the sky that they are being sprayed by military jets to combat global warming.

This hoax has been extant for over five years now, and has been debunked by pilots, meteorologists, and scientists from the USA and Europe. It has spawned a cult of belief not unlike a religion, yet without salvation. Members are led into a never ending conundrum of fantasy, fake 'activism', worthless purchases of books, videotapes, medicines, and "protective products" produced by their cottage industries. Some have been provoked to make threats to shootdown commercial jet airliners.

Be aware of information the cult doesn't want you to know, visit my website to see the rest of the story.

[halva]

O.K. A response from the Usual Suspects.

How about from someone else?

[jayreynolds]

Here is the sort of lame propaganda Mr. 'halva' (Wayne Hall) distributes to promote the chemtrail hoax.

The photo is an obvious photoshop job where an airplane was pasted into a sky shot.

http://www.willthomas.net/Articles/greekreport.htm

This article appears to be from a tabloid in Greece which quotes Hall, and Wayne Hall has distributed it to a Canadian website for republication. How much clearer can it get, folks, fake pictures to support a fake hoax.

What are the motives behind promoting this hoax?

Well, for one, try following the money trail. :idea:

How about this?
The Canadian webmaster, William Thomas, to whom Wayne Hall distributed his faked picture, has his "chemtrail" video for sale-
Chemtrails: Mystery Lines in the Sky:

http://www.harmonycentral.org/cart/view_product.php?product=WTCTVHS


Don't watch videos? Not to worry, Buy the book!
"Chemtrails" Confirmed- yeah, right
http://www.harmonycentral.org/cart/view_product.php?product=WTCC&PHPSESSID=474add0ae2c93d3c7f8370fcf0ae0db4

Here's something for everybody, T-shirts, coffee mugs, more videos, baeball caps, tote bags, all emblazoned with anti-"chemtrail" slogans.
Lotta good thaose things will do somebody, right Wayne? Guess who benefits, hmmmmmmmm? :?:
http://www.cafeshops.com/cloud_busters/

What's that, somebody told you "chemtrails" made you sick? Fear not, for a mere $40.00 you can "detoxify" that nasty aluminum and barium they sprayed on you(and their own families?). Get your snake oil right here, folks: :!:
http://www.herbalhealer.com/air-pollution.html

Lastly, for those willing to "Take on the Evil Reptilian Alien Overlords of Darkness" :twisted: , join the 'Etheric Freedom Fighters', the most lunatic of "chemtrail" factions, which is a front for people who sell plastic resin "Powerwands" and "chemtrail-busters". A "Pro-Powerwand"(who the hell knows what it's for?) sells for a mere $450.00! :idea:

http://eff2.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=vendspec&action=display&num=1067651113

How's that for an introduction into this zany cult?

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, folks, LOL! :roll:

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Since we're into posting links, try this one:

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html

The photomontage on the Ethnos story was the inspiration of some irrelevant junior journalist in the photographic department of the newspaper. Giannis Kritikos, who took the Ethnos interview, publicly apologized for it and his apology was posted in the Rumpus Room section of the Chemtrails Central Forum, which was subsequently closed down owing to Reynolds' never ending slanders and ad hominem attacks.

If Arianna Huffington wants to check on this she can ring the Ethnos newspaper in Athens and ask for Giannis Kritikos.

[jayreynolds]

I see that Mr. 'halva'(Wayne Hall) does not deny distribution of the faked photo to the Canadian website. Hmmmmmmmmmm? :idea:

I read the first sentence at the link provided by "chemtrail" propagandist and found a misleading statement:

"For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media."

No coverage eh? Perhaps you need to find better researchers!

USA TODAY- Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/2001-03-07-contrails.htm

Sacramento Bee- Lawmakers swat down Internet's tall tales
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3665147p-4690977c.html

Vancouver Courier - Trail of Conspiracy
http://www.vancourier.com/085101/news/085101nn1.html

Weatherwise(syndicated) - Chemtrail Controversy
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html

Finally, the "Lightwatcher" website 'halva' directs us to is substantively misleading. The premise on that site is that 'chemtrails' are military tanker jets spraying "dust" to combat global warming. That conspiracy theory is based on speculative research which considers various 'what-if' scenarios such as building giant "space parasols" to shield the earth from the sun.

Lightwatcher, however, misleads the readers by stating the following-

"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."


NOTE: "Lightwatcher" says that only 1010 kg(2027 lbs.) of dust would stop global warming. What kind of magic pixie-dust is this?

Folks, the actual research is available http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/454.html#pagetop

The actual amount of "dust" stated in the article was 10 to the tenth power kilograms, or 10 BILLION kilograms!

One 747 cargo jet can carry 100,000 kg, so to loft 10 billion kg would take 100,000 flights, and this must be repeated every 83 days! A rather big difference from the 1010 kg the liars of the chem-cult wanted you to accept as true.

Pretty obvious why "Lightwatcher" didn't want you to know the real figure, isn't it? There is no end to the sophistry, false and misleading propaganda this cult puts out. Thankfully, if free and open discussion is possible, liars can be outed as such, and few will fall for the chemtrail hoax.


Sorry to spoil your fun, 'halva'. But then again, you reap what you sow.

[halva]

Reynolds, what do you have to say about Arianna Huffington's advice to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change, now that it has been given prominence by the new report from the Pentagon?

[jayreynolds]

No, Mr. Halva, you first. You cannot simply expect Mrs Huffington to ignore how you attempted to midlead her.

YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

If she had become a follower of your cult, she would have been discredited among journalists, she would have become a laughing-stock.

So now it's YOUR turn, halva. I'm sure Mrs. Huffington would like to know how a man from Greece would stoop so low.

[Dona Terry]

“Release in our skies by military aircraft of non-fuel related chemical vapors” i.e., CHEMTRAILS


Below is a section of the proposed 2004 Democratic Party Platform of the Dubuque County of Iowa.

SNIP:
Chemtrails:
Many of the vapor trails across Iowa have been verified, through Senator Harkin’s office and the USAF, to be Chemtrails placed in the sky by UASF training pilots. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the substances being released in these Chemtrails do not guarantee non-toxicity to humans, animals, or plant life. Citizens of the USA are being exposed to these substances daily and have never educated or even notified about this practice.

The US Congress shall enact legislation to put an immediate halt to the release of non-fuel related chemical vapors in our skies. Congress shall investigate the complete history of the release of Chemtrails and the motives that make this practice commonplace. The spread of Chemtrails should be permanently banned.
END OF SNIP

The inclusion of this plank in this county's Democratic Party platform validates what thousands of us have seen with our own eyes, in the skies above America.

Simply look up and see for yourself; don’t brush this off just because this Jay Reynolds person is debunking it. This guy has spent untold thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars trying to convince people that nothing is unusual, but he is wrong. People have reported that he uses personal ridicule, insults, and harassment to try to keep this message from the public about the release in our skies of non-fuel related chemical vapors.

Do a search on the Internet on “chemtrail” and it will bring up over 29,000 web pages devoted to this subject. Look at the sky, decide for yourself.

Dona Terry
Founder of Chem Trail Tracking USA Message Board
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/
A Yahoo Group of concerned citizens who report on a daily basis when they see the release of chemical aerosol in their area

[jayreynolds]

I find it pitiful that Dona Terry comes to the table all swelled up proudly bearing, not proof after five years of waiting that "Chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails, but rather her fellow cultists lame attempt to piggyback their hoax on a legitimate political group.

Doing some checking, it seems the Dubuque Democrats are led by a professor of physics and chemistry. :shock:
I already know what he will think of chemtrails once he examines the so-called facts, so Dona better kiss your latest phyrric victory goodbye. :(

Now that's activism. :lol:

BTW, since you brought it up, Dona, please refer us to the MSDS sheets for what you claim is "being released". I'm sure this will be of interest to Mrs. Huffington.

Jay
=====================


From: Jay Reynolds

To: Dr. Jason Stecklein,
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Clarke College, Dubuque, IA
Chairman, Dubuque County Democrats
572 West 5th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
(563) 588-3550

Dear Dr Stecklein,
It has come to my attention that the Dubuque County Democrats, which you chair, has reportedly included in it's platform on environmental issues
language about "Chemtrails". Please be aware that "chemtrails" are part of an internet hoax which claims that jet contrails are actually military planes spraying various nefarious substances.

The text from your platform, which is now being circulated around the internet, allegedly reads:

"Chemtrails:
Many of the vapor trails across Iowa have been verified, through Senator Harkin’s office and the USAF, to be Chemtrails placed in the sky by UASF training pilots. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the substances being released in these Chemtrails do not guarantee non-toxicity to humans, animals, or plant life. Citizens of the USA are being exposed to these substances daily and have never educated or even notified about this practice.

The US Congress shall enact legislation to put an immediate halt to the release of non-fuel related chemical vapors in our skies. Congress shall investigate the complete history of the release of Chemtrails and the motives that make this practice commonplace. The spread of Chemtrails should be permanently banned."

Mr. Stecklein, I have no problems with your group's advocation of a ban on "spraying" harmful chemicals without regard to the environmental laws of our country. I do, however, take exception with the way this platform assumes that such a thing is taking place now. The facts show that the "chemtrail" hoax has developed a cult-like following that has gone past the point of science, logic and reason and into the realm of belief unsupported by any concrete proof whatsoever.

I urge you, therefore, to carefully examine the website I created which compiles what I have learned by studying the progression of the hoax over the last five years. I also urge you to carefully examine the many "chemtrail" websites out there and critically evaluate their objectivity and scientific accuracy. Given your background in physics and chemistry, I believe you will come to the inevitable conclusion that your platform needs some revision. Please let me know what your plans are on this matter.

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds
website: http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/
==================
"Chemtrail" hoax websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chemtrails&btnG=Google+Search

[Sore Throat]

I applaud you Arianna for your superb column on George W. Bush's attack on the environment and the health of the American public.

You and your readers might also find the following interesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/02/27/notes022704.DTL&nl=fix

"Mother Nature, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BushCo just really, really loathes this planet "

Mark Morford, SF Chronicle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some real world consequences of global climate change:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/02/27/cape_residents_face_harsh_reality/

"Cape residents face harsh reality
Insurance costs rising as firms restrict coverage"


By Sasha Talcott and Bruce Mohl, Globe Correspondent and Globe Staff, 2/27/2004

A growing number of property insurance companies are restricting coverage or pulling out of Cape Cod and the Islands, leaving policyholders in the lurch. ...more
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of ChemTrails, or geoengineering, that is being debated here has an ever growing interest by a large part of the American population who have witnessed the disappearance of their once blue skies, now replaced by a steel grey haze and high altitude quasi-cirrus clouds. That many of these emanate from the back of airplanes is beyond dispute, as it is so readily directly observed.

The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high sulfur content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate.

The concept of such geoengineering has, however, been widely discussed throughout reputable scientific circles as a method of mitigating the undesirable consequences of our reliance on fossil fuels and the resultant greenhouses gas release.

If the present threats to our climate stability were deemed sufficiently severe, policy changes could be made that would undoubtly have an economic consequence on our oil and coal companies.

Faced with such a threat, these companies would certainly invest substantially to protect their own economic self-interest, to the detriment of the vast majority of the American public.

Just as the tobacco were notorious for enlisting the "best science money could buy", so too is the situation today.

Readers will have to decide the true motivation of those who attempt to wisk away the reality of global climate change and the ensuing consequences for the planet.

Increasingly, notable scientists - Nobel Laureates and National Medal of Science Recipients, are speaking out against Bush and his environmental policies.

http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsirelease.html

While greed and corruption will hang on as long as possible to extract every last ounce of profit from the last drop of oil, true Americans are increasing realizing that for the sake of the country and our future generations, we need to rapidly move toward new technologies (and new jobs here in the US) that promote non-polluting, renewable forms of energy.

It is reasonable to question the motivation of those who state that this is unrealistic or can't be done.

For an extensive discussion on Anthropogenic Induced Climate Change, see:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000094.html

[jayreynolds]

I pledge to never use airconditioning in my new home. I didn't install provisions for one.

I use a solar powered water pump to supply my home with spring water which would otherwise flow to the sea and be wasted.

Will Arianna Huffington turn off the air conditioning in her 8,000 sq. ft. Bentwood mansion? :shock:

I'm thinking how much water it takes to keep her grass looking nice there in the desert.

People in glass houses..........

Mr. Throat, at one time you claimed that "chemtrails" were ethylene dibromide,er.....um.... barium,er....um.... brucellosis....er....um, aluminum,er....um... or caused flu-like symptoms. :roll:

Nice to see you've settled on global warming, er.....um....anthropogenic induced climate change, er.....um..... wasn't that anthropogenic induced climate instability?

Well, maybe you just haven't made up your mind what the panic-du-jour is today, LOL. :lol:


still haven't come up with a good explanation why those "chemtrails" sprayed aluminum oxide don't show up on weather radar, have you my dear Throatee? Perhaps they are just water vapor after all, eh?

ha!
Jay Reynolds

[Inhale2theChief]

Chem trails? LMAO ya H20 Vapor is a chemical alright,ya friggin losers!

[Yaak]

Jet aircraft exhaust is causing cloud formation. There are those who claim these clouds are being intentionally manufactured to help slow global warming. This does not make sense. Clouds trap and hold heat, particularly at night. Therefore, if anything were to be added to jet fuel to curb global warming, it would need to cause the sublimation, and not the creation, of contrails (ice crystals).

[liakopoulos]

I wonder why mr Raynolds attacks all those who care about this poor planet. As a physics professor I sugest that he should stand down from his unspeakable beliefs on chemtrails and stop poisoning a task, that is already difficult ,against those who order the spraying.

[Yaak]

I do not perceive Mr. Reynalds posts as attacks on anyone, unless your definition of attack includes exposing the truth, liars and charlatans. Mr. Reynalds does care and that is precisely why he has posted here. Our planet and our country have enough genuine problems to be solved without creating and wasting our time on imaginary ones.

If you believe that the clouds being caused by aviation are a problem, then approach it from that perspective. You will receive much more attention, cooperation, assistance and information from those that you contact concerning the issue, than if you assault them with conspiracy theories.

[amber]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. A lot of people think he is a chemtrail debunker, when in fact he is one of us. By constantly drawing attention to Chemtrails in such a vociferous manner , Mr Reynolds is, in fact, playing the role of double agent and is, in fact, keeping the issue firmly to the fore, and we thank him for that.
As a person of reasonably sound mind, I have never bought a book, videotape, medicine or ‘protective product’ related to chemtrails. Neither have I threatened to shoot down a commercial jet. I propose that any sensible person reading Jay’s diatribe will sense the hysteria that colours or ‘clouds’ (if you’ll pardon the pun) his view of the issue. I would ask you to consider, too, that he is pushing his own website.
Mr Reynolds has in his time, and in his own indomitable way, done more to make people aware of the reality of the Chemtrail issue, than many of my esteemed colleagues. And for that, we thank himJ

[jayreynolds]

liakopulus wrote:
"I wonder why mr Raynolds attacks all those who care about this poor planet. As a physics professor I sugest that he should stand down from his unspeakable beliefs on chemtrails and stop poisoning a task, that is already difficult ,against those who order the spraying."

Dear liakopulus,
In the first instance, why would you consider our planet a "poor planet"?
The planet we live on is rich, diverse, ever-changing, and created by God Almighty from the beginning. My personal opinion is that ours is certainly not a "poor planet".

I take exception with your characterization that I could possibly "attack all those who care". I will admit that I take my comission to expose the works of darkness very seriously, for if the good do nothing in the face of evil, it prospers. I am sure you would not knowingly allow people to be
misled, either.

If indeed you are a physics professor, which the facts of that matter have yet to be shown, you would be the first that I know of to follow the beliefs of the chemtrail cult, in a public way. I do not, as you have done, ask you to "stand down" from that belief. I believe in freedom of belief, even if that belief is false. In order to have my own freedom of belief, I must allow you to have your own.

That said, the marketplace of belief being an open marketplace, do not take my espousing of my own beliefs, or facts, or logical deductions as "attacks" upon your own beliefs. You may, however, take them as challenges, for if beliefs are to become widely held they must withstand the challenges of all comers. That is the only way that false beliefs can be left behind, and mankind progresses.

And so we can now move away from simple belief, the province of religion, and come to the realm of science, a realm in which you, if indeed a physics professor, should be familiar. I would expect a physics professor worth his salt to have thoroughly examined the facts about ordinary contrails and the claims about putative chemtrails before establishing a belief in the former's existence, yes of course you would.

As the owner and host of this forum, Mrs. Huffington, might perhaps be unsure of the physics relating to contrails vs chemtrails you would be uniquely suited to explain to her, and the at-large readership, answers to the following questions:

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions. :lol:


Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

I can only hope that the factual information I provide has been informative to the majority who take time to examine it.

Perhaps the best evaluation of my success would be to examine the number of regular posters at the chemtrail messageboards, and divide that number by the number of registered members. The quotient is small enough to show that the great mass of members can only be classiifed as 'inactive'.

That said, in a recent post at the messageboard which you co-moderate,
a poster stated:
""But in 1991, the composition of jet fuel used by commercial and military jet aircraft in the U.S. was changed from JP4 to somewhat less flammable JP8. A Department of Defense source says the move "has saved some lives" in air crashes. Ethylene fibroid is a key component of JP8."
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&num=1073374651

Do you and your co-moderators find the text in bold to be accurate?
If you know it is false, why not mention the fact? If you do not know, why not find out? Do you personally find that the prime purpose of "chemtrail" activism is to replace the ever failing membership rolls? I have many more questions and hope you will return with answers, as we have not had many opportunities for discussion.

Amber, visiting your messageboard at the link above, I note that products claiming to "stop chemtrails", as well as books and tapes on the subject are advertised. I sell no chemtrails related merchandise, and would never allow such things to be advertised there.

Perhaps 'amber' doesn't personally buy any of the products advertised at her message board(maybe that tells us something of their value), but the webpage certainly engages in advertising for them. They are all sham products, worthless ripoffs and she know it.
Jay

[halva]

The initial tension and rigour that characterized this thread has almost instantly degenerated into a flaccid boredom that would not hold the interest of Arianna Huffington or any other intelligent person for five seconds.

Face it, Reynolds, you thought you were going to win an easy victory here, you haven't won it, and now have no strategy other than attrition through boredom.

[jayreynolds]

Mr. Halva,
No YOU face it, halva, you are trying to skirt around the issue of the false and misleading propaganda you referred Mrs. Huffington to on page one of this discussion. Perhaps that has been perceived by you as a relaxation of tension but is merely your internalization, and not what has actually taken place.

The top of this page reads:
"Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues."

Mrs. Huffington headed the prestigious Cambridge debating society and knows what it means when a person in debate fails to address straightforward questions. It means that person is a loser.

I will repeat my questions to you:
YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

========================

I add to your list of questions, which mount ever higher even as you fail to address them, 'halva':

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

=================================
I am patiently waiting for answers to these most simple, basic questions which are primary in nature. They are the central defining issues framing any debate about the existence of "chemtrails". Unless you engage in debate over these issues, you concede defeat. That is the bottom line and always will be, 'halva'.

Bring it on.
Jay Reynolds

[Azerelus]

Contrails/Chemtrails - both are dangerous:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/goesscience.htm

Points out that jets cause the formation of clouds which changes the weather. This is NASA note the .gov

http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/eco-list-old/1997-September/000526.html

Hints at how contrails (or chemtrail if you want) may have a more drastic impact than previously thought.

Let alone the amount of material (unburnt jet fuel) I find http://www.caa.co.uk/dap/environment/default.asp?page=52 to be interesting.

"The emissions of nitrogen oxides lead to the production of ozone in the upper troposphere. There is also increasing scientific concern about the sulphur oxide and soot emissions. The impact of aerosol and cloud formation from these species could potentially have a large but currently uncertain impact on climate change."

Sounds very much like what chemtrail folk (the more reasonable ones) have been saying for a long time, there is something wrong in our skies.

Now I know Jay that you feel that it is your duty in life to rush in and tell everyone that everything is ok. However I would like to point out to you that pollution is not ok. And the research being done on the so called harmless contrail (chemtrail) is revealing hidden dangers.

Perhaps you should examine the bath water, it would appear that you are throwing out the baby with that bathwater.

[jayreynolds]

Azerelus brings out some factual information I covered in my very first article(1999) about the "chemtrail" hoax. This was five years ago-


"Since contrails are composed of water in the form of ice crystals, and they often eventually form cirrus type clouds, their effects are the same as natural clouds. Clouds influence our weather both by blocking the suns rays and by absorbing and radiating back heat emitted by the earth itself. Since air traffic is increasing as much as 5% per year, and the traffic is sometimes concentrated into corridors, the local and worldwide climate may be affected.

Over the last decade, NASA has been conducting the Atmospheric
Effects of Aviation Project concerned with the possible effects of jet aircraft effluent in the stratosphere, primarily on ozone chemistry, and more recently in the troposphere, including climatic effects of jet aircraft contrails."
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/linesinsky.html

In a more recent article in Earth Island Journal, I updated with relevant new research:
"The contrails formed do have a small effect on climate similar to natural cirrus clouds. Their high thin nature actually tends to warm the surface of the earth by reflecting heat back towards the surface. Contrail coverage of the earth currently amounts to 0.1 percent, and is projected to increase to 0.4 percent by 2050."
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=646&journalID=66

My point has always been that what these people are calling "chemtrails" are merely ordinary contrails. On that, azerelas and I can agree. The scientists, meteorologists, and airline pilots that venture to make statements such as yours, Azerelas, among the inner sanctums of the chemtrail cult, are branded 'debunkers" and summarily banned from inclusion in the conversation.

Ironically, jets create the same pollution whether they leave contrails or not, the contrails are practically all water. If the promoters of the "chemtrails" hoax were actually against pollution perse by aircraft, they would have to be against all flights, not just the ones in which linear contrails were visible.

No, Azerelas, the hoax goes deeper, far deeper than mere environmental concerns. It has drawn in a diverse herd of new-age/alien/government conspiracy types of the most extereme sort. The 'big-tent' mentality has allowed bad elements with ulterior motives to find easy residence among true believers. The glass-house syndrome has elevated tolerance among the faithful that no institutional progress has been made, no one evaluates critically within the cult because to be critical of others means allowing yourself to be criticized. This has led them on a path directly towards error and away from rationality.

Legitimate environmental groups have spurned the chemmie advocates once open discussion is allowed such as on this forum. If you are interested in such activism, you should contact Holger Peterson, a Danish astronomer who has formed an interest group concerned about ordinary contrail effects, but who has been banned from participation at the "chemtrail" cult websites. Don't take my word for it, ask him for yourself:
Holger's resource room on contrails:
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/notes.html
Holger's website:
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/
Holger's International Clear Sky Asociation
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/ICSA/

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Since Azerelus has kindly answered the question you asked me, Reynolds, perhaps you could answer my previous question. What do you think of Arianna Huffington's appeal to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change as outlined in the new Pentagon report?

[Sore Throat]

The fact that numerous, objective, measureable indicators (glacial retreat, rising global temperatures, melting of permafrost, coral reef bleeching, rising sea level, etc.) all point to accelerating climate change, those who refuse to acknowledge these realities are modern day intellectual equivalents of the Flat Earth Society.

You don't see Nobel Laureates lining up to say that everything is OK...no need to worry. Oil and energy companies...and their paid lackies...sure.

With over six billion humans collectively contributing to climate change, we are now living at a stage in the history of our planet that is entirely unprecedented.

Many scientists have discussed geoengineering as an approach for dealing with the consequences of the increase of greenhouse gases.

Fertilization of the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth has already been carried out in several areas of the world.

Multiple projects are also underway to study effective means of CO2 sequestration.

These facts cannot be disputed.

Similarly, numerous projects have been proposed to use a variety of means to alter the atmosphere to reduce incident solar radiation. Such projects have even been discussed openly on the CBS Evening News.

Given the urgency which many scientists feel about the rate of climate change, is it really that proposterous to assume that experimentation in these venues could already be underway?

What is likely is that if such projects were underway, without the informed consent of the population, there would be severe political consequences once their reality was revealed.

Why? Collateral damage. The law of gravity. What goes up must come down.

If foreign substances are being sprayed into the atmosphere, it is likely that there would be consequences for weather patterns (condensation nuclei which would affect precipitation) as well as the human health impacts of the chronic breathing of sub-micron particles.

Respiratory illness and childhood asthma are currently approaching epidemic levels.

While there are many sources of air pollution (especially now that the Bush junta has eased clean air restrictions for coal burning energy companies), there is a limit to what the American public will tolerate, especially when it's the health of their families that is at risk.

[jayreynolds]

"Since Azerelus has kindly answered the question you asked me, Reynolds"

No such thing has happened, halva. I have perused the three documents Azerelus referenced. One is from Dr. Claire Gilbert, who disputes the chemtrail hoax on my side, she even republished my article debunking the hoax- "Those Mysterious lines in the Sky". One is from NASA, which co-published, along with FAA, EPA, and NOAA a factsheet disputing "chemtrails". The last link speaks only of contrails. None of what Azerelas wrote answered any of the questions I previously asked.

I repeat the questions YOU, halva, must answer to Mrs. Huffington about the false and misleading link you referenced her attention to on page one of this thread-

YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

I add to your list of questions, which mount ever higher even as you fail to address them, 'halva':

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If YOU rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await YOUR scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

I need not remind you, halva, that Mrs. Huffington was head of the prestigious Cambridge University Debate Society and is well aware that in debate the party unwilling or unable to answer on point in debate is by default the loser.

This is the third chance YOU have had to explain yourself to her. :oops:

You have called out to all your friends at three other messageboards to come and run interference but anyone can see you are cornered like a Saddam in a hole. No one will answer for YOU, you must answer for your own actions. Will you go down so easily?

Jay Reynolds :twisted:

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds posts:


"The contrails formed do have a small effect on climate similar to natural cirrus clouds. Their high thin nature actually tends to warm the surface of the earth by reflecting heat back towards the surface. Contrail coverage of the earth currently amounts to 0.1 percent, and is projected to increase to 0.4 percent by 2050."

Here is the reality:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29940

Jetting Toward Climate Change

CHICAGO, Illinois, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - Commercial jet aviation has the potential to soon become the number one cause of human caused climate change, according to a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

The study by Dr. Katta Murty cautions that major increases in commercial flights and expansions of airports would not only add to greenhouse gas emissions, but could further harm the protective ozone layer that surrounds the Earth.

Current industry projections predict the world's air transportation industry could triple within two decades.

"It is an important problem to analyze at what altitudes additional releases of greenhouse gases will have maximum impact on global warming," according to Murty.

"This study also points out that the much more rapid melting of polar ice near the North Pole compared to that at the South Pole," she said, "may have been caused by the very large fraction of jet air flights in the world occurring over the northern polar region."

Murty says jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.

According to Dr. David Travis, professor and chair, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, research "has demonstrated that jet contrails have caused substantial increases in the high cloud coverage over the most heavily trafficked regions of the United States and Europe."

Travis says these increases in high clouds have led to suppression of the temperature range causing both daytime cooling and nighttime warming in areas where contrails are most abundant.

"During the three days following September 11th - when no commercial aircraft were flying - the skies across the United States were remarkably clear with a much wider range in temperature between day and night, giving an indication of how the U.S. climate used to be prior to the days of aviation," Travis said.

The findings of these researchers - along with the recently publicized study by consultants to the U.S. military warning of the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change - are more evidence the United States needs to rethink its transportation system, says Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO).

"Now, more than ever, there is support and urgency to demand a U.S. moratorium on all airport expansion projects currently in the works," Saporito said. "Furthermore, there is a real need for environmental impact reviews to be taken seriously and results stringently enforced."

************************************************** ********

and if that's not bad enough, consider:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-5.html

Climate change set to poke holes in ozone

Arctic clouds could make ozone depletion three times worse than predicted.

PHILIP BALL

The thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic could be much worse than we thought, because of a side-effect of global warming.

If the upper reaches of the Arctic atmosphere get colder - a predicted consequence of climate change - then the rate of ozone depletion could be three times greater than currently forecast, according to Markus Rex of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, and his co-workers.

"I was surprised to see these results," says Drew Shindell, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York. "We never suspected the models were this far out of whack," he says.
Rex and his colleagues studied climate conditions in the Arctic over the past ten winters to calculate how ozone destruction depends on the weather. They found a surprisingly strong relationship between ozone loss and the amount of polar stratospheric clouds, they report in Geophysical Research Letters 1.


These clouds form 20 kilometres above the ground in winter-time, and are sometimes called 'mother-of-pearl clouds' because of their shimmering appearance.

But they are not harmless things of beauty: the clouds provide reaction surfaces for chemicals eating away the Earth's protective ozone. Chemical reactions in the clouds convert chlorine from industrially produced compounds, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) found in old refrigerators, into a reactive form that breaks apart ozone molecules.

The destruction of ozone allows more ultraviolet rays from the sun through to the surface of the planet, harming humans and the ecosystem close to the poles.

Colder air in the stratosphere is thought to promote the formation of these clouds and the destruction of ozone. But it has proven difficult to appreciate the scale of the problem. On average the Arctic stratosphere has cooled barely perceptibly over the past few years, but Rex and colleagues say the winter-time conditions are getting more conducive to ozone destruction. The amount of stratospheric cloud has been climbing steadily since at least the late 1960s, they say.

If Rex's findings and models prove correct, then all our predictions about future ozone depletion are under-estimates, says Shindell.

It is not all bad news: Rex points out that even if polar stratospheric clouds continue to increase in size and number, the amount of CFCs should decline as the chemicals have largely been phased out. However, they do hang about in the atmosphere for a long time, so they will continue to cause ozone depletion for several decades yet.

References:

1.Rex, M. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L04116, (2004).

************************************************** **********

One final observation.

Have you ever know anyone who so virulently, pathologically, invested so much of their time attempting to disprove something they felt wasn't real?

How much of your life has been invested in trying to prove something...anything...wasn't real?

What would be the underlying motivation?

Who would profit by such activities?

Follow the money.

[halva]

Reynolds this is not Dodge City and I am under no obligation to join in a gunfight with you in the main street, whenever and wherever you want it, just because you demand it.

I would be quite within my rights to refuse to talk to you at all until you apologize for dragging back an issue, that of the photomontage at the Ethnos newspaper, for which you have already received adequate explanation, publicly. Yet you merely tell the world when I mention this not unimportant fact, that I 'do not deny' your renewed accusations.

Why did you bring it up again in? This in itself is enough evidence of your fundamental lack of integrity, dispensing people of any obligation to debate with you.

Here is what the Ethnos journalist Giannis Kritikos already wrote on this issue, and you have read, since it was posted publicly, and you responded. The only reason I cannot simply link you to it again is that the site it was on has been closed down due to your never ending disruption of it. A policy which you are attempting to continue here. But you will fail, because the world has moved on.

Giannis Kritikos wrote:

'Dear Mr. Hall,

Those friends of ours who have pointed out the confusion that may be caused by the illustration we published are quite right, which was a combination of two photographs: one of an aeroplane and one of a photograph with lines of cloud. In any case, the montage, which was done by colleagues in another department that handles page layout, was not so very....'realistic' and it was obvious that the aircraft was unconnected to the rest of the real photograph.

It was an omission on our part not to make clear in the inscription that this was an illustration of what was being discussed in the text and not a regular photograph. The same is true of our omission to cite the name of the publication of William Thomas. I sincerely apologize to everyone concerned.

The explanation is as follows: in the initial draft for the article, which was larger and occupied two pages, there was more text, and other photographs with corresponding titles and the necessary explanations. A little before printing there had to be a rearrangement of the material, reducing the size of the article. In the changes which were carried out hastily, so that the article could fit, a part of the text was left out along with other photographs, and what was left could indeed have led to misunderstanding in relation to the only 'photograph' accompanying the report.

We intend to return to this subject with additional information that has emerged from our own research, but the war in Iraq has taken up a large part of the pages of our newspaper and obliges us to leave it for later.

Wherever you judge suitable you may use these explanations we have provided,

With best wishes,

Giannis Kritikos'

You will note that when I sent the Ethnos article to William Thomas I did not attempt to hide the fact of the photomontage. In fact I mentioned it, because it was irritating.

To return to your demand for an individual-to-individual debate on your terms, any of your relevant points that Azerelus hasn't dealt with Sore Throat has. Sore Throat doesn't use the term 'chemtrail'. He uses your term 'contrail', and I personally couldn't care less which word is used. It is enough for me that there be recognition that 'something is wrong with our skies' and that activity which is currently being pursued secretly be exposed to honest public debate, as a first step to deciding democratically whether or not it should be continued.

As Azerelus aptly remarked, you 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', and that is the least of your offences. You have set yourself the task of mercilessly hounding anyone who tries consistently to promote public debate on what is going on in the skies, and you have indeed succeeded in putting a number of our less robust colleagues out of action.

What you are now attempting to do at Arianna Huffington's forum is what you have done before at a direct democracy forum in which I participate. You burst into the forum in a similar manner hurling accusations and after much rhetoric on the subject of democracy managed to enlist some of the weaker-minded people on the forum (along with outside collaborators you had brought with you) into voting that the chemtrails/contrails/geoengineering subject be removed from discussion.
That was an unmoderated forum which had been specifically set up as a 'free discussion' counterpart to another moderated forum where votes could be taken and decisions made. Because of the nature of the forum, many participants abstained from voting in protest at the attempt to turn a free discussion forum something it was not intended to be and could not be. It is not possible to have a legitimate vote without a moderator.

But the handful of votes you picked up were enough for you to proceed to pose as the defender of democracy and expel from discussion the subject you did not want to see discussed.

Having succeeded in that, your interest in democracy disappeared and you left the forum.

I suspect that your interest in Arianna Huffington's article on climate change and the Pentagon report is of a similar quality to the interest in democracy that led you previously to the Continuing International Conference on Direct Democracy forum.

This is why I ask you to tell us now what you think of Arianna Huffington's intervention in the climate change debate. In fact I suspect that you are not interested in it at all.

[amber]

"One final observation.

Have you ever know anyone who so virulently, pathologically, invested so much of their time attempting to disprove something they felt wasn't real?

How much of your life has been invested in trying to prove something...anything...wasn't real?

What would be the underlying motivation?

Who would profit by such activities?

Follow the money. "


"Reynolds this is not Dodge City and I am under no obligation to join in a gunfight with you in the main street, whenever and wherever you want it, just because you demand it."



Mr Reynolds feels it's his mission from God himself to protect the world, and those who consider chemtrails a reality, from themselves. He is indeed pathological about it. Consider the fact that he has followed Halva across the net to post in this forum. And this is not the first time he has followed him to harrass him. Were we in the 'real world' rather than cyberspace, this would constitute stalking. JR shows an unhealthy need to be in halva's 'face'. And you have to ask yourself, is this stalking behaviour really about chemtrails? Or is the chemtrail issue a mask for some unconscious, underlying psychological need or drive on JR's part?
Also, any reading of JR's previous encounters with anyone who stands up to him, will show that, more often than not, it ends up with him demanding a telephone number. I, for one, find this disturbing.
As far as I know, the world revolves around the sun, not JR. He is not the pinnacle of truth and righteousness, and has no right to continually parade himself as such, demanding people answer to HIM. Make your own mind up about chemtrails - JR clearly thinks you are incapable of doing so.

[jayreynolds]

I direct the attention of readers, again, to the text at the top of this page.

"Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues."

The issue put on the table atthe start of this debate, and that IS what this forum was intended for, was this-

halva wrote:

"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

That sentence, written by halva, asked for "public debate". As this forum was created for debate, and halva has called here for a debate, there is no room for anyone to complain if I, or anyone else, joins here in a debate. None whatsoever.

The sentence written by halva, in debate, is known as a "proposition", a formal declarative statement, a claim, a contention. In this case halva made it clear he contended that geoengineering "is ALREADY being done".
This is a proposition of FACT, not one of values, or policy.

As the negative debater, I countered with-
"He is seeking to propagandize people here to believe that when they see contrails from jets in the sky that they are being sprayed by military jets to combat global warming." I then directed readers to my own website for evidence that affirmed by position. I also provided an example of previous deception by 'halva' in the form of the distribution of the faked photograph.

In rebuttal, halva directed readers to the 'lightwatcher' website as evidence supporting his proposition that geoengineering was "ALREADY" taking place.

On the negative I showed conclusively that that website misled readers by claiming that 1010 kg of material could accomplish geoengineering, while in fact, the research cited a value of 10 billion kg and 100,000 flights of jumbo jets every 83 days, clearly an impossibility.

Note that halva never responded negatively to any evidence I proposed at my website, because he cannot argue against it. Note that halva never responded negatively to my exposure of the falsity found at the 'Lightwatcher" webpage, because the issue of falsity I raised at that site is undeniable.

At that point, halva ceased to debate.
-He no longer provided evidence supporting his proposition of geoengineering
-He would not argue against my contention regarding falsity at the lightwatcher page
-He would not deny his distribution of the fake photograph for republication at William Thomas' website, though he did explain how it was faked
-He would not return to his proposition and explain how his alleged "geoengineering chemtrails" differed from ordinary contrails

In actuality, halva has ceased to debate. He has conceded. He lost.

Now, to Amber.
You wrote:
"Consider the fact that he has followed Halva across the net to post in this forum. And this is not the first time he has followed him to harrass him. Were we in the 'real world' rather than cyberspace, this would constitute stalking."

halva made public postings on at least three other message boards inviting people to debate at this very thread. You, along with many others reading this got here in resonse to his notices. It is disingenuous for you to criticize my coming here after reading his notices because you came after reading exactly the same notice! As noted previously, this forum was established by Mrs. Huffington for debate and my participation here has been to debate in a substantive way. Unfortunately for halva, he has conceded.

Luckily for you, I am still here available and see you have made an affirmative proposition-

"Mr Reynolds feels it's his mission from God himself to protect the world, and those who consider chemtrails a reality, from themselves."

I take it from your statement, that you agree with halva about "chemtrails", and declare that they are "a reality".

I now respond to the negative by stating that "chemtrails" are nothing more than ordinary contrails, clouds of water vapor, and are not a deliberate form of "spraying" as you have stated previously(yes I have the quotes of you saying so, don't deny them).

I now challenge you, amber, to support your contention with evidence by answering the following questions:
What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.


Jay Reynolds

[amber]

Protest all you like Jay, I would expect you to do no less.

You deny following halva around the net like some love sick puppy?

Your actions speak louder than your endless, endless words.

It is disingenuous of YOU to PRETEND you came here for healthy debate, no one who knows you believes that for a moment.
Halva invited me over here in the same way that a person with a rat infestation invites in a rat catcher. And lets face it, halva has become your Pied Piper. So don't insult people's intelligence with your claims to be interested in debate.

I now challenge you, amber, to support your contention with evidence by answering the following questions:
What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...don't you ever get sick of the sound of your own voice? You're like a broken record.

'Eagerly await' my answers all you like. I used to have a stalker that stole my knickers of the washing line on a regular basis. He 'eagerly awaited 'me hanging them out, so I dried them indoors. Can you imagine his dissappointment at not getting his fix?
You're like a dog on heat JR, and I won't give you your fix, for the sake of your own mental health.

Now, no prizes for guessing what your reaction to my refusal to provide you with what you want is going to be, Jay. Your nothing if predicatable. And just to put it into words of one syllable, so that even your over-worked, narcissistic, single brain cell can understand - I am CHOOSING not to provide you with your essay. Grind your teeth and gnaw your hands all you want...I am withholding your gratification.
[/quote]

[jayreynolds]

I note that amber has refused to offer evidence to the affirmative for her proposition that "chemtrails[are] a reality". Her refusal to debate the issue constitutes her concession of the affirmative, she loses by default.

To the affirmative for my contention that halva publicly posted invitations to this forum, I proffer the following as evidence:

"posted 02-28-2004 02:11 AM
I have started a thread at Arianna Huffington's forum entitled: 'It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" -
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=56903#56903
Please join in." halva
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002048.html
=====================
Thread started on: Feb 29th, 2004, 11:12am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out this posting at Arianna Huffington's forum:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=57138#57138
and Jay Reynolds' response to it.
-halva
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1078 071155
=======================
From: "halva_gr" <halva@h...>
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:49 am
Subject: Pentagon Report and Arianna HuffingtonR
Check this out on the site of Arianna Stassinopoulou-Huffington:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6429
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/106752
========================
I still await a response from "Professor" leocopulus. If none is forthcoming today, I can only assume he has conceded and withdrawn from debate. :lol:

Won't any proponent of "chemtrails" have the temerity to engage in debate? This is certainly no way to publicize your cause before Mrs Huffington. If this continues she might actually have to conclude that none of you actually believe in it.



Jay Reynolds

[frankmann]

arianna, i can see now how right i was with my small donation to your governorship candidacy,even though i am not from your state. although i did not know much about you at the time, i did find your articles to be right on target and therefor took a chance.

well i want to say that i was right in supporting you. i also wnated to say how much i appreciate receiveing your column's in the email.

and now this! i discovered your forum and what a breath of fresh air it is! there are many forum's out there but i have to rate your's as among the top three of the twenty that i participate in. in fact i have recently dropped almost all of those forums in favor of yours and a couple others.

keep up the good work, and God bless your effort to enlighten this nation! we need many more of you, badly!

frankmann

[amber]

I note that amber has refused to offer evidence to the affirmative for her proposition that "chemtrails[are] a reality". Her refusal to debate the issue constitutes her concession of the affirmative, she loses by default

Bingo! YOU get the prize for being predictable, Jay!

Obviously the use of one syllable words was a bit optimistic on my part.

My refusal to debate with you, is simply that. Refusing to speak to someone is not evidence of being mute, is it?

If you ask a woman out, Jay (or a man) and she ignores you, do you take that as an affirmation that she/he wants you? Hmmm....perhaps you do.
Yea, most stalkers do that...see a woman's behaviour, that to a normal person would clearly indicate lothing and disinterest, as being confirmation that she wants the stalker. Stalkers cannot conceive that their victims would NOT want them. Believe it or not I do NOT want to debate with you. It's nothing to do with chemtrails...It's purely personal, so please, feel free to take offence.

I notice you keep trying hard to convince people that you are here at halva's invitation...I'm still not convinced, are you Jay?

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote:
"What do you[Jay Reynolds] think of Arianna Huffington's appeal to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change as outlined in the new Pentagon report? Let us deal gently with the truth. No more scaremongering: about nukes, about the climate, about terrorists, about anything."



I have just now completed reading both the executive summary and the full 22 page report. I am wondering if either halva or Mrs. Huffington have actually read it for themselves? Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive. It was not created to be used as a weapon against the very administration which comissioned it and any attempt to do so would be akin to taking a "poison pill", as those who read the actual report will find.

In the second place, I discourage any candidate who actually seeks to win against President Bush to not attempt to win by promoting speculative doomsday scenarios which engender no hope of victory. The last President who tried such a ploy was Jimmy Carter in his famous "Malaise" speech. That sort of rhetoric, even if true, is not what Americans want to hear and one cannot expect to win by it. In the case of President Carter, the result was the loss of the presidency to Ronald Reagan.

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

It is clear that you choose to not engage in debate, after making an affirmative statement that chemtrails are a reality in a debate, you offered no evidence for your position. You lose. Your choice. Don't make it any harder on yourself.

Next?
Jay

[amber]

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?

you offered no evidence for your position

I'm sitting down, infront of the PC...would a photo do?

You lose..rrrrr

[jayreynolds]

I'm sitting down

You may remain seated. :lol:
Jay

[Sore Throat]

Considering the favorable policy modifications that the oil and energy companies have purchased from the Bush junta, can you imagine the concessions that the insurance lobby has obtained?

Can you imagine a single group who would have greater financial concerns about mitigating the accelerating effects of global climate change?

Once again, follow the money.

************************************************** ***********
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/03/03/rtr1284302.html

Insurer warns of global warming catastrophe threat

In GENEVA item "Insurer warns of global warming catastrophe threat," please read in first paragraph ...the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened... instead of ...the costs of global warming threatened... (corrects to show the threat is from all natural disasters, not global warming alone. Qualifies same in second paragraph).

A corrected version follows.

By Thomas Atkins

GENEVA, March 3 (Reuters) - The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making.

In a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda, Swiss Re said the economic costs of such disasters threatened to double to $150 billion a year in 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Center attack annually.

"There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time," Swiss Re said in the report.

"The human race can lead itself into this climatic catastrophe -- or it can avert it."

The report comes as a growing number of policy experts warn that the environment is emerging as the security threat of the 21st century, eclipsing terrorism.

Scientists expect global warming to trigger increasingly frequent and violent storms, heat waves, flooding, tornadoes, and cyclones while other areas slip into cold or drought.

"Sea levels will continue to rise, glaciers retreat and snow cover decline," the insurer wrote.

EXPONENTIAL RISE

Losses to insurers from environmental events have risen exponentially over the past 30 years, and are expected to rise even more rapidly still, said Swiss Re climate expert Pamela Heck.

"Scientists tell us that certain extreme events are going to increase in intensity and frequency in the future," Heck told Reuters by telephone. "Climate change is very much in the mind of the insurance industry."

Over the past century, the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, the largest rise for the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years, Swiss Re said.

In the short- and medium-term, simply knowing that the planet is warming will allow society to adapt, for example, through infrastructure to cope with more-frequent floods or by instructing farmers to use drought-resistent cereals.

In other cases, governments need to restrict risk-taking, such as approving housing developments in low-lying areas, and improve catastrophe management capabilities.

In the long term, Swiss Re said, greenhouse gases widely thought to trigger global warming will need to be reduced, the use of fossil fuels cut and new energy technologies developed.

"The role of the insurance industry is through establishing risk adequate tariffs and to give the risk taker the opportunity to implement appropriate measures to reduce the chance of possible losses," Heck said.

************************************************** **********

By the way, this warning isn't from hippie, tree-hugging Greenpeace activists...

this is coming from staid, conservative Swiss insurance underwriters.

And like I said, just how much political clout do you think that this lobby has.

So here's a final question:

How can the Bush junta satisfy both those who want to continue the ever expanding use of fossil fuels, and at the same time appease those who are impacted by the consequences of this action?

Then revist the scientific circles that advocate geoengineering mitigation as a partial, stop-gap solution.

Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring.

Follow the money.

[jayreynolds]

Sore throat has stated the following:
"Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring."

Mr. 'Sore',
Are you now taking the affirmative position "that this[geoengineering] is in fact occurring."?

If not, just say so.

If so, on with the debate.

You moved in debate with the affirmative, it is now encumbent upon you to factually and logically support your case with evidence.

I will take the negative position, that what you claim as "chemtrails" or "aerosol operations" or "geoengineering" are actually ordinary contrails.

You might wish to try your hand at the questions which seem to have stumped all your colleagues, questions central to your issue, questions which will come out whether you like them or not:

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

Let the debate begin,
Jay Reynolds

[Sore Throat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30538-2004Mar4.html

2003 Likely Europe's Hottest in 500 Years

By PAUL RECER
The Associated Press
Thursday, March 4, 2004; 2:33 PM


WASHINGTON - Last year's deadly summer in Europe probably was the hottest on the continent in at least five centuries, according to researchers who analyzed ancient temperature records. More than 19,000 people died.

Researchers at the University of Bern, Switzerland, collected and analyzed temperature data from all over Europe, including such climate measures as tree rings from 1500. They found that the climate has been generally warming and last summer was the most torrid of all.

"When you consider Europe as a whole, it was by far the hottest," said Jurg Luterbacher, climatologist and the first author of a study appearing this week in the journal Science.

Luterbacher said the study showed that European winters are also warmer now. The average winter and annual temperatures during the three decades from 1973 to 2002 were the warmest of the half millennium, he said.

Some studies have linked rising average temperatures in North America and elsewhere to global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but Luterbacher said his team did not attempt to make such a connection.

"We don't make any analysis of the human influence," he said. "We don't attempt to determine the cause. We only report what we find."

Other climatologists, however, say the new study agrees with models that have predicted a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.

Stephen Schneider, a climate expert at Stanford University and a prominent advocate for human-caused global warming, said the Luterbacher paper is consistent with what climate modelers have been predicting for 20 years.

"The data is starting to line up showing that those projections were correct," Schneider said. "We warned the world that this was likely to happen because we believed the theory, but couldn't actually prove it was happening. Now the data is coming in."

In the study, Luterbacher and his team analyzed the temperature history of Europe starting in 1500 to the present. For the earliest part of the half millennium, the figures are estimates based on proxy measures, such as tree rings and soil cores. But after about 1750, he said, instrumented readings became generally available throughout Europe.

During the 500 years, there were trends both toward cool and toward hot. The second hottest summer in the period was in 1757. That was followed by a cooling trend that continued until early in the 20th century. The summer of 1902, for instance, was the coolest of the entire record.

Starting in 1977, the record shows "an exceptionally strong, unprecedented warming," the researchers report, with average temperatures rising at the rate of about 0.36 degrees per decade.

Then came last summer.

"The summer of 2003 exceeded 1901 to 1995 European summer temperatures by around 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)," the study said. "Taking into account the uncertainties (in the study method), it appears that the summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any other summer back to 1500."

Record temperatures were recorded in most of the major cities of Europe last summer, with many readings over 100 degrees. Authorities have attributed thousands of deaths to the excess heat, making the heat wave one of the deadliest weather phenomena in the past century.

In France, the toll was estimated at about 14,802 dead. About 2,000 more than normal died in August in England and Wales. On Aug. 11, Britain's hottest day on record, there were 363 more deaths than average and the temperature reading reached 101.3 in Brogdale in southeastern England.

Altogether in Europe, based on official numbers collected by The Associated Press, there were more than 19,000 excess deaths in the summer months. France was hardest hit, but the average number of summer deaths increased by 4,175 in Italy, 1,300 in Portugal and more than 1,000 in the Netherlands.

The intense heat also wilted crops, caused wildfires and continued a centurylong trend of melting the continent's glaciers.

Luterbacher said some mountain glaciers have shrunk by 50 percent in the past century in Europe, and some ice fields lost 10 percent of their mass last summer alone.

In addition, he said, the long trend of warming temperatures is now melting the high altitude permafrost - the soil that usually remains frozen year-round - and that some buildings, bridges and roadways are now threatened with unstable foundations.

And it may get worse, said Luterbacher. He said some studies forecast that if the warming trend continues, Europe may have summers like 2003 every other year starting late in this century.

[jayreynolds]

It appears that Mr. 'Sore' intends to disrupt substantive debate on the subjet of geoengineering by throwing up "chaff".

That is a fitting description of his last posting considering some of his past allegations. :roll:

He has made no attempt to even claify if/if not he takes a position in debate, he has made no rebuttal, nor does he address the challenge questionsin any way. He appears to be conceding by failure to participate in debate.

I cannot stop him from posting irrelevant material, but will remind Mrs. Huffington that he is yet another in a serial cast of "chemtrail geoengineering" proponents who will not engage in debate on point.

If anyone else cares to debate in a rational manner bring it on. :lol:

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Now that Reynolds has abandoned the attempt to represent himself as a protector of Arianna Huffington, supposedly protecting her and her respectable politics from corruption by non-respectable lunatic cultists, and has made it perfectly clear that he is a political opponent of hers and a supporter of President Bush, matters are considerably simplified.

This is all just about politics. Reynolds punts on Bush saving his skin. We want to remove Bush from power.

Anyone interested in more of the early history of the contrails/chemtrails/geoengineering, see:

http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessageRange?topicID=303 6.topic&start=1&stop=20

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds states, "I cannot stop him from posting irrelevant material".

This is of course the only tactic that a professional debunker can take.

To say that issues of climate change are not relevant to a discussion of geoengineering (that being ONE of the possibilities of what we are witnessing) is laughable.

For years Reynolds has argued against the realities of climate change. Apparently now that the solid research evidence is overwhelming, he is forced to take a different tact.

Once it was only devout enviornmentalists raising the alarm. And the debunkers choose to label them "watermellons...green on the outside and red on the inside".

Now it's Nobel Laureates, National Science Medal winners, Pentagons advisors, Swiss insurance underwriters, and an increasing number of common citizens throughout the world who are expressing their concern.

The question is, given these realities, what can be done?

What is being done?

And do the people have the right to know WHAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR in the way of government sanctioned programs?

One other observation.

Reynolds is well known amongst a variety of Internet boards for his highly caustic and bullying demeanour. It is for that reason that he has been banned from a number of sites. It should be clear to all that he is once again attempting to dictate the terms and ground rules of this discussion for all participants.

I assume that moderators will track this behavior and act in an appropriate manner.

I will continue to provide a framework for our discussion of atmospheric modification....in my own way and in my own time, on my own terms.

************************************************** **********

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29956

Senators Grapple With Politics of Global Warming

Source: Environment News Service
Byline: J.R. Pegg


WASHINGTON, DC, March 4, 2004 (ENS) - The burning of fossils fuels is changing the climate and this change will have profound impacts on humanity and the Earth's biodiversity, a panel of scientists told the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday. The combined testimony of the panelists demonstrated the clear scientific evidence that supports that message, but whether it is enough to convince the elected officials of the U.S. government to take action is far less certain.

"The question of how and when we deal with the threat of global warming is one of the great tests for our generation of elected officials," said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. "The question is do we have the courage to begin to bring about the changes to protect us, our children and grandchildren?"

Wednesday's hearing was part of an ongoing effort by Arizona Republican Senator John McCain to rally more support for the climate stewardship bill he and Lieberman have coauthored.

The legislation would require some sectors of the U.S. economy to enact mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Of the six most damaging greenhouse gases, CO2 is the most abundant.

The bill was defeated in the Senate last October by a vote of 53 to 44, but supporters of the legislation said the vote was a watershed moment in the U.S. debate over the issue of global warming.

It was the first action on the issue by the Senate in six years.

McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he is determined not to abandon the proposal.

"This is an issue of worldwide importance," McCain said. "We will get another vote and see if there is any temperature change in the Senate this spring."

It is the changing temperature of the Earth that has McCain and others worried. The vast majority of climate scientists note that human emissions have already caused temperatures to increase slightly. They predict that if greenhouse gas emissions are left unchecked, surface temperatures on Earth will rise between 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Higher temperatures caused by the increased levels of greenhouse gases are expected to result in rising sea levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, erratic and severe weather patterns, and a host of other environmental problems that could have far reaching economic and social impacts.

It is politics - not science - that is prohibiting action on global warming, said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat.

"The failure of some of those in office to acknowledge these impacts is at best myopic, at worst irresponsible," Lautenberg said. "If we ignore 30 years of scientific data, we are putting ourselves in jeopardy."

"We have to do more than study global climate change," Lautenberg said. "It is time for action."

But the Bush administration does not agree and neither do many of its Congressional allies. They have consistently questioned the validity of the science behind global warming and argued against mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who make such arguments do so despite "their lying eyes," McCain said.

Global warming skeptics should take a look at the Arctic, said Dr. Robert Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society and the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

The ACIA is an international team of 300 scientists, experts, and indigenous residents of the Arctic region who are preparing a comprehensive analysis of the impacts and consequences of climate variability and changes across the region.

"The trends are absolutely clear," Corell said. "The climate is changing in the Arctic rapidly."

In Alaska and western Canada, the average winter temperatures have increased by as much as three to four degrees Celsius over the past 60 years.

During the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased, on average, by about 10 percent, and this change has been 20 percent faster during the past two decades.

Continued melting of sea ice will lead to significant changes in the surface reflectivity, cloudiness, humidity, exchanges of heat and moisture, and ocean circulation, in particular along coastlines and near ice margins.

"Indigenous people have been observing these changes for some time," Corell told the Senate committee.

The cultures, livelihoods and health of the indigenous people of the Arctic are under threat from global warming, Corell said. Warmer climates could bring insects with diseases these people have never known and the species they depend upon, such as the polar bear, are unlikely to survive if global warming continues unabated.

The fate of the Arctic is as a "window into the future" and a preview for what the rest of the world is likely to see over the next generation, Corell said.

Dr. Lee Hannah, a research fellow with Conservation International, told the committee that climate change is the "major new threat to global biodiversity."

"Even a perfect conservation effort cannot save species from extinction in the face of unchecked climate change," Hannah said.

The challenge for policymakers is to figure out how to deal with the realities of global warming, according to Dr. Jerry Mahlman, a climatologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The viable options, Mahlman said, are mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to the effects of climate change, or doing nothing - business as usual.

It is the third of these choices that "appears to be the unstated national and international policy," Mahlman said.

McCain questioned Mahlman about allegations that the Bush administration pressured him to tone down his message about climate change at past hearings.

"The real pressure was to make sure that I was not testifying something about the science that was embarrassing to the administration," said Mahlman, who added he avoided the concern by testifying as a private citizen.

McCain acknowledged that there is little, if any support for his bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"My proposal was widely touted but it is really an incredibly modest proposal," McCain said. "But we need a beginning."

McCain's bill would set a nationwide cap on industrial emissions of C02 and reduce those emissions down to 2000 levels by 2010 through an emissions trading system.

It does not address the C02 emissions from the nation's automobiles, which represent some 20 percent of the U.S. total.

By contrast, the 37 other industrialized nations that have ratified the Kyoto climate protocol are committed to reducing their CO2 emissions an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels during the five years from 2008 through 2012.

With less than five percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for about 22 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

[foot_soldier]

Test

[foot_soldier]

Now it's Nobel Laureates, National Science Medal winners, Pentagon advisors, Swiss insurance underwriters, and an increasing number of common citizens throughout the world who are expressing their concern.

Very true. They have in fact been expressing their concern for some time now - years, actually. What's happening, finally, is that it's becoming more and more difficult to suppress and/or obfuscate the open public expression and dissemination of factual climate change- and climate change policy-related information - and the expression of an increasingly informed public concern.

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote:
"Now that Reynolds has abandoned the attempt to represent himself as a protector of Arianna Huffington, supposedly protecting her and her respectable politics from corruption by non-respectable lunatic cultists"

Anyone interested in more of the early history of the contrails/chemtrails/geoengineering, see:

http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessageRange?topicID=303 6.topic&start=1&stop=20
=========================
What halva refers us to is a letter written by Diane Harvey(AKA sedona, sedonadiane) to a USAF Colonel.

Perhaps readers need to become more familiar with MS Harvey's other beliefs, which by many accounts are indeed lunatic. Try this:

http://www.rense.com/general8/golden.htm

Or if her views about the battle between humans and Grey aliens isn't clear enough, check out this chemtrail site:

"Yes, the Greys are very nasty little "handmaidens" of darkness, working to establish ever-new levels of totalitarianism, in total accord with the purposes of the human dark ones. Whatever the actual relationship is: when different forces act on the same wavelength, out of the same general motive, they support and strengthen each other.

I live in a town full of "cute" (!) little images of the Greys- on bumper stickers, as posters, on t-shirts: it's quite the blatant indoctrination going on. THIS IS CHILLING."

"Whatever torments human beings in the ways the Greys do... is not being invited to do so subconsciously or otherwise by the human soul. We humans have our natural range of genuine spiritual difficulties, which are lovingly designed to stimulate growth away from ego. These are not imposed by totalitarian measures, do not involve mind control by other beings, the imposition of superior force by extraterrestrials, or paralyzing fear.
(For example: the higher orders of angels are awesome, but not terrifying.)

Greys may as well be demons for all the difference there is: in fact- I suspect they are actually worse. In any case, they are materially powerful PARASITES."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000016.html

Diane Harvey has, publicly at least, become disengaged with the chemtrail issue and is no longer a player, under that screen name.
Invoking her as a reference in debate is a mistake Mr 'Sore' would have advised you to not do, halva.

Her reputation was partially destroyed by her own lunatic views on aliens, and her self-destruction, along with Mr 'Sore' against chemtrail promoter Clifford Carnicom was memorable, to say the least.
================
To 'Sore Throat', please continue posting your weather/climate information here. I am sure you will be welcome, and as usual, boring. When you post relevant discussion on chemtrails/geoengineering, I will engage.
Jay

[Sore Throat]

I can only imagine how "boring" Jay Reynolds must find the daily, and growing number of reports on dramatic climate change and the consequences for our society. This is a reality that he has fought to deny for years.

How shattering this must be for him and his mentors.

Yet it is becoming increasingly obvious that he and his backers can no longer stop the floodtide of information that is reaching the American public.

An awareness is growing.


For those new to this topic, I would suggest looking at the following references:

1. Edward Teller Advances Global Warming Cure

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html


2. Sunscreen for Planet Earth
GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/981/teller.html


3. Climate Controls
If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a
moral outrage, we could cool the world.

By Gregory Benford

http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Note: This is really a must read. I found the following quotes particularly interesting:

"Some geoengineering systems appear possible to deploy now, and at reasonable cost. They could be turned on and off quickly if we got unintended effects. It would be relatively easy to run small-scale experiments to answer questions about how our current atmosphere behaves when one alters the kind of dust, or aerosols, in it. Nuanced knowledge is crucial; the biosphere is a highly nonlinear system, one that has experienced climatic lurches before (glaciation, droughts) and can go into unstable modes, too."

"Not all mitigation efforts need take place on land or sea. In fact, the most intuitive approach may be simply to reflect more sunlight back into space, before it can be emitted in heat radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide. People understand the basic concept readily enough: Black T-shirts are warmer in summer than white ones. We already know that simply painting buildings white makes them cooler. We could compensate for the effect of all greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution by reflecting less than 1 percent more of the sunlight."

"Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. "

"But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react--those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes. Not letting the radical greens set the terms of discussion will matter crucially."

Well worth reading the entire article.

4. GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT
Jay Michaelson - Stanford University

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two


5. Climate Engineering
A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context,
and possible impacts.

Ben Matthews

http://www.chooseclimate.org/cleng/cleng.html

[halva]

I second Sore Throat's call for Reynolds to be banned from this forum.

Anyone familiar with the Chemtrails Central Forum, of which I was a member of the Council when such a Council existed), will know that I have advocated banning from discussion groups any individual persistently denying that aerosol spraying from aircraft (or at least some kind of activity of aircraft that results in unprecedented clouding of skies necessitating public discussion of the phenomenon) is occurring. And any individual showing by irony or innuendo that such is his belief or claimed belief.

It is from experience with Reynolds more than anyone else that I reached the conclusion that such a policy is necessary. Reynolds clearly attributes no significance to his having shown me in the most tangible way, by attributing to me a desire to deceive the world by circulating a faked photomontage of an aircraft spraying a very visible trail of some kind - when it is obvious from Giannis Kritikos' letter that I had nothing to do with the concocting of the photomontage and obvious from my message to Will Thomas that I never concealed its status as photomontage because I remarked on it (it irritated me) - that he is a LIAR and not only a liar but an incorrigible liar, because he continues to make the same accusation even in the face of iron-clad evidence of being mistaken and continues to demand the right to continue dialogue with a person he has insulted in this fashion, and continues to insult.

When one has discovered such a fact about another person, when it is so simple to see the quality of his assertions about a matter whose truth and falsehood is so easy to judge, why should he be relied on in any way in determining the truth and falsehood of other matters which are not so easy to judge? There are so many other people around with expertise on the relevant subjects to whom one can turn for information.

Reynolds, who is an extreme case, is not the only reason I came to the conclusion that 'chemtrail debunkers' should be banned from sites discussing the problem. Very much energy is consumed at Chemtrail Central, and was consumed even moreso in the past, arguing the toss with debunkers at CTC on chemtrails/contrails and ignoring other much more valuable potential interlocutors: the environmental organizations, Greenpeace, the multitude of scientists and NGOs who have come forward to warn of the environmental dangers facing the planet, with first and foremost the issue of climate change. There was a widespread tendency at CTC and other 'chemtrail' discussion sites to be rather hostile to environmental groups because of an assumption that it was THEY who should be telling the world about 'chemtrails' and calling for action. The general feeling was that Greenpeace and other such groups must be sold out and corrupt because otherwise they would already be pressing the 'chemtrail' emergency button.

I eventually wrote an article in which I tried to put forward an explanation for the stance of the environmental organizations, calling for a change in policy in relation towards them.

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/Hall.htm

With the starting point of this text, as a member of the secretariat of ATTAC-Hellas, I was able to organize a joint seminar last month with Greenpeace in Athens Greece on the subject of climate change and geoengineering.

The level of discussion at that seminar was, I believe, quite high. It was, moreover, a discussion which, unlike the repetitive and nerve-wracking screaming matches with people like Reynolds, (and many other less pathologically aggressive 'debunker' counterparts) can hopefully lead somewhere, including joint political action.

I was not successful in my call at CTC for removal and banning of all 'debunkers'. Sore Throat, for one, who was also a member of the CTC Council, did not support me.

But as evident from his posting above, he would like to see Reynolds removed from the Arianna online forum. As indicated I support this call.

Reynolds future is bound up with the fortunes of the kind of politicians he supports, the Bush cabal. He will sink or swim with them. If fortune turns against them, Reynolds' only hope will be to be allowed to trade on the usefulness of his knowledge. Two adjustments will be needed: he will have to abandon all moral judgement of others (such as his judgement of Arianna Huffington's supposed high energy-consumption lifestyle). Occupying as he does the absolutely lowest rung of the moral hierarchy, he will have to get used to abstaining from moral judgement of anyone other than himself. And he will have to get out of the habit of lying, because the information provided by liars is suspect. A record of truthfulness will have to be re-established by him if he is to have any hope of his skills being in demand when his present political protectors have become history.

[Sore Throat]

Let it be clear that I did not "call on a ban of Jay Reynolds" from this discussion group.

His presence servers a purpose as he represents the position of the Bush junta and the major polluters of this planet.

Unless he reverts to the unscrupulous attacks that characterized his previous bannings, there is value in exposing his position for what it is.

I trust that the moderators of this board will be able to determine if, and when, a line has been crossed.

I would prefer Halva, that I be allowed to speak for myself.

[jayreynolds]

'Halva', the voice of true democracy. Calls for banning of dissenting opinions at a forum dedicated to "lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate.

'halva', the man who brings up the subject of geo-engineering in the affirmative, then when his evidence is shattered, withdraws from debate on geoengineering.

His next move is to call for his opponent to be banned!

halva, you sure know how to convince Mrs Huffington of your debating skills.

You are nothing but a little totalitarian loser. No different from the nazis that held Mrs Huffington's father in a camp during the war.

Wayne 'Goebbels" "halva" Hall

[jayreynolds]

Mr. 'Sore',

I am reiterating my previous question to you. You did not answer this question yet. This is a question that you have already answered elsewhere, to the affirmative, and yes I can bring in the quotes if needed.

Since this forum was specifically formed for debate, and the topic set up by halva was debate over "geoengineering", it requires the participants to take positons either affirmative and negative so that the debate can become defined and progress.

Not taking a position is an admission that one is not prepared to debate. It is known as 'waffling' in political circles, and is a position from which no persuation can occur, for if the persuader himself will not take a position, how can he ever expect to persuade others?

I reiterate my question-

Sore throat has stated the following:
"Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring."

Mr. 'Sore',
Are you now taking the affirmative position "that this[geoengineering] is in fact occurring."?

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

Mr. 'Sore' and Mr. 'halva',
Scientific inquiry into problems is generally aided by becoming familiar with the subject matter through education and study. I am curious, do either of you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned, why not?

Once technical competency is established, research is undertaken using strict scientific methods and review of known research. Have either of you
accomplished such research? Is so, where have you published it? If not, which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

Scientific credibility is known to be established by publication in peer reviewed journals. Can either of you direct readers to such publications which describe "chemtrails"?
If not, why not?

Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for either of you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did either of you, or any othet "chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

halva- why did you not attend this seminal event, just an ecological train ride away? (PS- you had better read all 400 pages of the proceedings, I am getting ahead of you already)

European Conference
Aviation, Atmosphere and Climate
30 June - 3 July 2003
Germany
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac/

'Sore', why did you not rent booth space here, just a few hours away?

American Association for Aerosol Research Conference
AAAR 2003 Annual Conference
Hilton Anaheim, Anaheim, California
October 20-24, 2003

These questions need to be answered for Mrs. Huffington to be able to examine your expertise and credibility. Failure to answer shows that you are a failure in your field, or are simply not serious.

Jay Reynolds, Bachelor of Science, Marine Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1977

[jayreynolds]

'Sore' wrote:
"The issue of ChemTrails, or geoengineering, that is being debated here has an ever growing interest by a large part of the American population who have witnessed the disappearance of their once blue skies, now replaced by a steel grey haze and high altitude quasi-cirrus clouds. That many of these emanate from the back of airplanes is beyond dispute, as it is so readily directly observed.

The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high suflur(sic) content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate."

'Sore' has now stated that "chemtrails" are simply contrails, but that they are a form of geoengineeringwhich could contain either:
1. "rich engine mixtures"
2. "high suflur(sic) content fuel"
3. metallic particles and/or polymers

The debate is defined!

I challenge Mr. 'Sore' to provide actual factual proof that any of his scenarios are factual.

I will take the negative position, that what he describes are ordinary contrails in every respect, no different than those produced fifty years ago when planes first reached altitudes allowing them to commonly form.

Let's go, 'Sore'. I'm sure Mrs. Huffington awaits your supposed "proof".

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

anybody home?

[Sore Throat]

Notice how conveniently Jay Reynolds ignores the content of all the geoengineering articles I have presented.

As if they don't exist.

As if the climate change that they are directed toward mitigating doesn't exist.

Note no comment on the Benford article citing, "Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. "

As if such proposals don't exist.

Ignoring numerous mitigation projects underway throughout the world (ocean ion fertilization, CO2 sequestration, etc.) ...as if they don't exist.

Assuming, on blind faith we must imagine, that somehow, any form of atmospheric mitigation project is absolutely implausible...virtually impossible....so strong is his FAITH. He knows, without a doubt.

Because Jay Reynolds HAS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF, that ALL aircraft contrails are NOTHING but normal jet exhaust and water vapor.

Based on the data that this Bachelor of Science, Marine Engineering from Texas A&M University has collected?

Or simply his BELIEF that all is normal?

Is it also his BELIEF that the US government has never intentionally exposed its citizens to harmful substances, justified as essential for NATIONAL SECURITY? ...and is he oblivious to the revelations of such programs decades AFTER they were executed on an unsuspecting, and non-consenting, population?

Perhaps he hasn't seen the numerous articles that state that CLIMATE CHANGE is a far greater threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY than TERRORISM.

Are we to believe that our caring and concerned government would sit idly by and do NOTHING in the face of this threat?

Has he forgooten how quickly the present rulers will sacrifice the lives of our sons and duaghters to protect our freedom (to burn oil that is) under the guise of a WAR ON TERRORISM? How rapid is the response to a threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY.

National security is also based on economic security. Is Jay Reynolds ignorant of the massive and mounting insurance costs attributed to climate change?

Just waht does this Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering actually BELIEVE?

And why is he so determined to force all others to accept, unquestioning, his point of view?

[foot_soldier]

I think we're already seeing the beginning of a pattern of changing climate in some parts of the world including this country. Is everyone aware of what happened in the Dallas, TX area yesterday when a line of thunderstorms went through there and did incredible damage right up into southeastern Oklahoma where three people were killed? I just read tonight that a "wind gust" blew a city bus off a bridge in Chicago when a line of storms went through that area today.

I thin