I have been observing discussions like this for years now, and I often took part in them too. I could make observations supporting or contradicting all commentors, stating that the measured increases of aluminum, barium and strontium in Natural Parks can only have fallen from the sky above; that using Ockhams razor works both ways; that you have to be an utter fool to believe that global dimming is something to be thankful for; that both persitrails and dissitrails occur in the same sky, at the same moment and at the same altitude and can be observed daily around the world and if that isn’t a fact I wouldn’t know what is; that those who still talk about the importance of carbon emissions haven’t read any serious scientific review for years and haven’t noticed that talks about global warming have been abandonned and have - years ago - shifted towards climate change, and what the hell is ‘climate change’anyway?
I am grateful for sites like TruthNews. But the main question that remains to be answered is: What is Truth?
Truth never comes from mainstream media, that much is ‘truth’.
Truth is not your or my opinion, though it could be both.
Truth doesn’t lie in petty arguments over details.
Truth isn’t scientific and isn’t created with the help of Ockhams razor, they are only occasional tools that might help but may also do the opposite.
The real Truth is that truth doesn’t actually exist.
For we are not rational beings.
The world is an image that we make of it using our senses and interpreting it with our brain. It is thus subjective.
So words like ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ are very subjective too.
Science is only one method for studying the world by observation and none of the ‘facts’ derived from those studies are ever deffinite. For science is constantly evolving.
These thoughts should urge everyone to be a little more modest and have a bit more respect for the opinion of others.
Today, Wayne is incapable of producing convincing arguments for the existance of such things as ‘chemtrails’. This is as objective as possible an observation. But another observation is that his opponents fail to produce arguments that convince Wayne that chemtrails do not exist.
Now some may think that they have produced ample ‘evidence’and that Wayne just is too stubborn to accept that. But do they realize that they stand alone in this conviction in this here debate?
Our society is based on sociological laws. One of which is that what is ‘true’ is being declared by the number of people that accept it. It doesn’t matter if they are ‘right’. From a philosophical or sociological point of view,the Earth was flat until the majority of the people on it believed it was round. So the essence here is not being right, but being able to convince the others you are. In this respect, Wayne has done a great job. Hereward Fenton on the other hand uses a denigrating tone that offends those who do not agree to his opinion. That’s not the way to act if you want to start a debate. Because this way, Fenton, your not debating a subject, but carressing your Ego.

Leonard: If you like I can try to find out where Robert Forgette is pursuing his litigation, so that you can proceed with your single-minded project, whatever it may be and whoever it is that you would like to help.

Mike: as I said before, since it seems I have to repeat myself, Rosalind Peterson from very early on adopted a “conciliatory” stance as her way of trying to get round the taboos and prohibitions imposed on the “chemtrails” debate from the outset and enforced at all levels. I also said that I found myself coming into conflict with her because she was failing to make distinctions between European Union led campaigns against aircraft emissions as contributors to global warming and geoengineers’ recommendations to use aircraft emissions as tools against global warming.

Different activists have speculated on her reasons for saying that “she has no evidence”. Some have claimed that she does not like according recognition to other people’s research. I myself said that I think this extreme statement was meant to provide justification for her declining to support Robert Forgette’s litigation. I could not really say any more about this without getting into the “contrails vs chemtrails” debate which I made it clear from the start that I do not intend to become involved in.

On the question of how Michael Murphy makes his living. At the time I met him two years ago he was a journalist who was in the process of becoming a film maker. My conclusions concerning his honesty are based on several days spent together with him and his then collaborator Paul Wittenberger, where I had ample opportunity to observe the way he behaves both towards me and towards others. Since then occasional e-mail contact has confirmed my confidence in his integrity and also in his capacity to develop intellectually beyond the right-wing libertarian views that then underlay his thinking (indeed the thinking of most chemtrails activists, particularly in the US).

As for reprimanding him for “bringing contrails vs chemtrails to the center of the discussion”. The contrails vs chemtrails distraction was introduced by the same geniuses in the Americans weapons laboratories who elaborated the key geoengineering proposals. Mike Murphy came onto the scene relatively late and so inherited the contrails vs chemtrails ruminations. It is to his credit that he is moving the subject on to the issue of stock exchange speculation around weather modification.

Will be interested to see the results, Leonard. According to the CASA register there are 143 civil 737’s registered in Australia. All but 5 are operated by either Qantas or Virgin. Two are operated by an offshoot of Qantas, AAL. Two are operated by the Nauru government but registered in Australia and one, VH JWL is registered to a company called Transpacific Pty Ltd. I don’t know who they are or what they do.
The RAAF has operates 5 Wedgetail AWACS variants of the 737, which will be very easy to identify and 34 Sqn operates two 737 BBJ’s as VIP transport.
There are some old 737-200’s which used to belong to Ozjet parked at a remote stand at Perth airport, but they haven’t flown for a couple of years now.

Eric, the science of contrails is proven. It is not up to people like me to prove it. It is up to people like Wayne to disprove it, which, as you say he seems unable to do.

I do not intend to get into reactive mode. Let me merely requote Philip Ridley, whose article Leonard was kind enough to post here:
The question is whether we wish to live in a natural world, or an engineered planet pumped full of megatons of sulphur and heavy metals. That debate ought to have free reign to question motives and the “science” behind it, lest the military’s stated goal of owning the weather provide them motivation to provide us a false narrative. It is this author’s opinion that the burden of proof should be on the perpetrators, not the general public.

Also, anyone wanting to know Rosalind Peterson’s views on these matters, she has responded to Philip Ridley’s article
http://www.economicvoice.com/liborgate-dwarfed-by-geo-engineering-of-entire-planet/50031362#axzz21z3jFvXC
and her stance, within the parameters of her own specific approach to the subject, can be studied there.

Eric,

if “everything was relative and debatable”, you would not have been able to type your post on a computer.

Science is the only way to learn about and make use of natural laws. Sure, our knowledge will never be complete, but science constantly changes and corrects itself based on reproduceable observations, generating progress.

Regarding the discussion here: there is no way around science. Most claims of chemtrailers are contrary to established (reproduceable) scientific knowledge, like the central claim that normal contrails always dissipate quickly.

So on what base should we discuss if we don’t take scientific knowledge into account?

And what do we do if a commenter even refuses to discuss the issue of the article he is commenting on?

Wayne,

The jets above us that leave persistent jet contrails (loaded with jet fuel emissions and water vapor, a greenhouse gas), are producing man-made clouds that are creating climate change-exacerbating global warming in the Alaska and Arctic Regions-and negatively impacting our natural resources according to NASA and other university studies.

No mention of anything about other chemicals. Thank you… Her stance is crystal clear.

Leonard wrote:

If I am able to locate the court where this is supposed to be heard I will contact the court.

Leonard, Robert Forgette says that you should contact “Joe Marman” for an answer to the question of where the case is to be heard.

My visual experience with “chemtrail” laying planes (in southern Europe) is they are not commercial airplanes. Further, I have a niggling hunch (along with others in the “gifting community”)these spew planes are remote controlled. Contrary to many other “conspiracy” areas, through orgonite it is possible to verify claims with relation to a chemtrails/HAARP agenda. Truth is the adequacy between intelligence and reality. It is through a constant back and forth between reality and my experience of reality that I get as close as possible to truth. Orgonite vs chemtrails is one area I have been able to do this, and thus confirm findings/observations of a good few. This is a path each should be able to replicate on his own.  http://orgonizeaustralia.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/2543247

Skywatcher - have you read the article?  yep

Have you watched the video which shows WWII Bombers creating massive contrails? - this is not a WWII Bomber

Your post suggests to me that either A) you have not reviewed the information, or B) you refuse to acknowledge it.  Youre response suggest to me you are either A) blind or B) stupid, or C) both

I have looked at your evidence, and it is consistent with the information contained in this article. It proves nothing, other than what we already know about aircraft contrails. Youre no qualified to say that it proves nothing

Why is it that you can’t (or won’t) consider my evidence? youre evidence, upon consideration, proves nothing - and im sick of watching planes spraying over where i live constantly.

Skywatcher there is another possibility to your theory of blindness or stupidity, and that is deliberate deceitfulness, for reasons that have to do with narrow self-interest of some kind (corruption) or with psychological factors that may be best left for a specialist to analyse. In either case, continuing the contrail versus chemtrail argument is not going to achieve anything but a monotonous and repetitive “dialogue of the deaf”.

Mike Glynn, if “solar radiation management” is in fact not being implemented, do you think that public opposition to it will prevent it from being implemented? Would you LIKE to see public opposition to it prevent it from being implemented?

Skywatcher, can you please clarify, expand upon or explain your statement:

“this is not a WWII Bomber”

If it’s not a WWII Bomber, what is it, in your opinion?

Wayne, I think public opposition would stop it. I also think scientific opposition would stop it as well, due to the large amount of unknowns involved.

I also think it is not happening, at least on any appreciable scale, at this time.

My position on climate change is that the entire issue… including the science, has been heavily politicised and hence very little coming from either side can be trusted to be free of bias or self-interest. The jury is still out as far as I am concerned. Therefore the I cannot answer the question of whether I would like to see opposition.

I would not like to see opposition to normal airliners plying their trade obviously, but I since I fly them, notwithstanding the fact that I regard the notion of commercial airliners willingly participating in any form of geo-engineering as absurd and easily disproved, I acknowledge that have a self interest in that issue.

Off the top of my head.. ( I can’t be bothered to look up the references) isn’t SRM supposed to be carried out high in the stratosphere?

Skywatcher, can you please clarify, expand upon or explain your statement:

“this is not a WWII Bomber”

THIS IS NOT A WWII BOMBER - sorry - i meant to post this link with that reference…this is not a WWII bomber..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TQ5VWdphM&feature=player_embedded

NOR IS THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiYdFKC0SBA&feature=player_embedded

and youd have to be stupid or blind or both to ( or deliberately deceitful - cheers wayne ) think ( or say ) they are normal contrails.

i posted a handful of links earlier too that went straight to moderation on the basis of possible spam.. that shows other previous government admissions of chem spraying..

the fact that they are doing it is not contentious, we need not ask IF they are spraying, of more concern is WHAT and WHY?

to claim that this website goes beyond the spin, when all we get from you is the same spin..  meh..

The situation is this: when it is admitted that there is a proposal actually to proceed with a geoengineering operation, e.g. recently with Bill Gates and his stratospheric balloon, significant opposition emerges.

When discussion is limited by the “chemtrails are contrails” assumption, so that the conclusion is that what people are seeing in the sky are “normal” aircraft emissions (i.e. not geoengineering or some other scheme of deliberate pollution), significant opposition does not emerge because debunkers, buttressed by official definitions of reality, retain the upper hand.

In the Bill Gates case the proposal is for SRM to be carried in the stratosphere but if you look at “What in the World are they Spraying”                                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA                  between minute 7 and minute 7.30 you will see that David Keith is advocating spraying from aircraft (i.e. in the troposphere). 
                                            You say, Mike, that you cannot answer the question of whether you would like to see opposition to spraying from aircraft, if it were occurring. Consider the reality:

The European Union has introduced a scheme to include aviation (and so aircraft emissions) in its emissions trading scheme, supposedly for the purpose of reducing them on account of their damaging environmental effect (they are said to contribute significantly to global warming). Geoengineers on the contrary “propose to” use aircraft emissions to “mitigate” global warming, e.g through “solar radiation management”.

Whatever aircraft emissions do, whether they exacerbate or mitigate global warming, carbon credits are now being made available in Europe to enable them to do it. 

Is anthropogenic global warming a myth? People such as George W. Bush, who said that he thought it was, now support geoengineering proposals.

e European Union has introduced a scheme to include aviation (and so aircraft emissions) in its emissions trading scheme, supposedly for the purpose of reducing them on account of their damaging environmental effect (they are said to contribute significantly to global warming). Geoengineers on the contrary “propose to” use aircraft emissions to “mitigate” global warming, e.g through “solar radiation management”.

The above illustrates my contention that the issue has been, perhaps irretrievably, politicised by both sides.

Does the EU truly believe that aviation emissions are major factors in climate change or does it simply see an opportunity to raise much needed taxes under the guise of “saving the planet”? Probably a bit of both… but who really knows?

Is AGW a myth? Probably not, but also probably not as much of a factor that some with other agendas would like to paint.

I doubt we will ever know the truth.

My enquiry about the stratosphere, as you seem to have picked up, relates to the altitudes aircraft fly. That is generally within the troposphere although I believe I have breached the tropopause quite a few times, though nowhere near the 30 miles that Gates proposes to drop sulphur.

I believe David Keith’s position on the sort of Geo-engineering he proposes is that it should not go ahead. Please correct me if I am in error there.

Does the EU truly believe that aviation emissions are major factors in climate change or does it simply see an opportunity to raise much needed taxes under the guise of “saving the planet”? Probably a bit of both… but who really knows?

What I know is this: The ecological lobby were given more leeway and anthropogenic climate change sceptics stigmatized more vigorously in the media during the phase where the priority was to generate political support for emissions trading. When the job appeared more or less to have been done, the sceptics were unleashed again and allowed to wreck the Copenhagen summit.

In the meantime numerous sceptics, not only politicians such as George W. Bush but also super-“scientific” sceptics such as Lomborg, have become advocates of geoengineering.

David Keith has made his career out of advocacy of geoengineering, while at the same time saying that he “hopes” such solutions do not have to be implemented. He says he wants geoengineering proposals to get the message through to climate change sceptics that if “the mad scientists” are making such insane proposals, anthropogenic climate change must be a problem.

There is nothing new about any of this. Some of the key scientists involved in the Manhattan Project persuaded themselves that nuclear weapons would serve a useful purpose because they would make war so terrible that it would be impossible.

This is getting sort of exhausting ...

Wayne Hall,

where is your evidence that what people are seeing in the sky are not “normal” aircraft emissions?

Again, you are just assuming this and you seem to be deaf for any argument contradicting this assumption.

You can discuss politics all day, but the issue at the core is that scientists are talking propositions, whereas you claim that there are actual ongoing deliberate (and visible) spraying/geo-engineering activities.

But there is just no evidence of that.

All those long copy/paste posts from you did not contribute the least bit of relevant evidence of trails being anything else than contrails. So please no more of that.

The one valuable source that you recommended was this one:
http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/

I wonder if you have actually browsed through the plethora of knowledge available there ...

Wayne Hall, one more thing:

There are no “hordes of Joshes”, enforcing “the dogma that chemtrails are contrails” as you wrote.

There is one hobby pilot who may be as passionate defending reason and sanity as conspiracy believers are when they defend their ‘elite knowledge’. Why should that be unlikely?

And if there is more than one, all coming to the same conclusions, can it be that they may just have a point? Are you in fact seeing them as centrally controlled and “unleashed”?

By the way, a dogma is something that is not discussed. So by refusing to discuss the issue it is you who makes it so.