Here is another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNrkp6a_6As&NR=1

You are quite right, Josh. These discussions are utterly embarrassing.

The chemtrails activists are not in their right minds talking to these people.

It is not the chemtrails activists who have to be silenced and disappear. It is the Caldeiras and Robocks: the politicians in scientists’ clothing, the key cadres of whom received their training in the American nuclear weapons’ laboratories.

Robock: “There is no such thing as metal spraying.”

Activist: “There is!”

Robock: “As a scientist, you need to have a trail of evidence”

Activists: excited chatter

Trail of evidence? Zero.

I am almost cringing when watching these activists trumpeting out their youtube-acquired ignorance ...

Man, can we have annother ten days of silence?

Don’t you like me agreeing with you how embarrassing it is?

Something has to be done about it!!!

Someone has to go!!!!

Wayne Hall said:

“Something has to be done about it!!!”

Yes. Remove the bunk. Expose the ignorance. Spread real knowledge.

When will you start already and stop spreading bunk?

Here is an opportunity for you.
http://www.cypenv.eu/envenergy/eeforum/index.php?topic=460.0

Help Brian to persuade me that I am talking bunk.

He is a scientist who played an important role in dealing with ozone depletion.

(Something that “will” be reversed “if Crutzen gets his way”.)

He is on your side. Give him a hand because he is not telling me vigorously enough that I am talking bunk!!! Go to it!!!

Wayne Hall,

in the discussion you linked you are employing the same ‘strategy’ as in this blog. You don’t show any interest in the arguments that debunk chemtrails; instead, you treat their existence like a dogma. Without a shred of evidence, of course.

No, I don’t think I will chime in. As Michael Glynn said: “Can I say Wayne that you return to the subject when it suits you, but veer away when asked any questions about it. You may think that clever… However it is painfully transparent.”

It is clear that you like talking to yourself.

Brian is a scientist, not an unimportant one, and his on your side.

Why don’t you enlighten him about me?

I could continue making postings, but all it would do would be to provide the opposition with an opportunity to forget the implications of the debate at its present point.

This is from the forum in Cyprus:
http://www.cypenv.eu/envenergy/eeforum/index.php?topic=463.0

Look at these two videos:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUaW3DQqPig
2. http://deoxy.org/watch/tX1WfZ_Wrq4

If aircraft condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet, why in Europe are they taxed for increasing the temperature of the planet?

Wayne Hall,

unfortunately the BBC video does not give any references or names when mentioning “scientists”.

Anyway, from what I read the impact of contrails regarding heat trapping or reflection is not fully researched yet. What is clear though is the enormous amount of CO2 emitted by jet airplanes.

So why treat them any different from factories?

This article gives a good overview regarding the overall impact of contrails:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures

The writer quotes a study that said:
“[...] even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.). Aviation emissions, which are rising dramatically, are the true culprit.”

More names of scientists supporting the cooling scenario can be found in the BBC’s Global Dimming documentary:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

You can see it here: http://www.buildings.gr/greek/perivallon/planitikiskiasi.htm

Click on:  Πατήστε εδώ για να δείτε την ταινία >>

There is a critique of the documentary at: http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall6.htm

Here is an extract

Global Dimming

Another example of shriekingly radical climate change discussion on bogus foundations is provided by the 2005 BBC Horizon documentary on Global Dimming Focusing on the phenomenon of declining levels of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface in recent years, (between the 1950s and the early 1990s the level of solar energy reaching the earth’s surface dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, almost 30% in Russia, 16% in parts of the British Isles) the programme again studiously avoids mention of geoengineering, attributing the rise in aerosol levels in the earth’s atmosphere, with subsequent global dimming, to some unspecified “air pollution” from industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels, including in aviation.

“Perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming” says the programme script “is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect….. it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought..”

(to be continued)

(to be continued)

The strongest warning in the programme on the implications of global dimming (including perhaps the clearest, though still veiled, hints on the factor of deliberate intervention, or “geoengineering”) comes from the climate scientist Peter Cox: “If we carry on pumping out particles it will have terrible impact on human health, I mean particles are involved in all sorts of respiratory diseases…. If you, if you fiddle with the, the balance of the planet, the radiative balance of the planet, you affect all sorts of circulation patterns like monsoons….. it will be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to cancel out the greenhouse effect just by carrying on pumping out particles, even if it wasn’t for the fact that particles are damaging for human health.”

The programme relies heavily for its effect on the proposition that “dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world’s population.” “What came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store.”

The climate modeller Gavin Schmidt, in no way a climate change “sceptic”, queried the plausibility of this thesis, saying that: “The argument that (global dimming) would lead to huge re-assessments of future global warming, that it was linked very clearly to the famines in Ethiopia, in the 1980s, with the implication that worse is to come, is horribly premature. The suggested ‘doubling’ of the rate of warming in the future compared to even the most extreme scenario developed by IPCC is highly exaggerated. Supposed consequences such as the drying up of the Amazon Basin, melting of Greenland, and a North African climate regime coming to the UK, are simply extrapolations built upon these exaggerations. Whether these conclusions are actually a fair summary of what the scientists quoted in the program wanted to say is unknown. However, while these extreme notions might make good television, they do a disservice to the science.”

Most of the scientists who appeared on the programme proved willing to discuss its style and content and most expressed similar, though more nuanced, objections. Beate Liepert said that “during the research process for the documentary I repeatedly raised my concerns about linking the indirect effect and the Sahel drought.” Graham Farquar said: “The program was not scripted in the way that I would have done. But I guess that you’d have to say that if I scripted it, only my mother would have watched it.” David Travis said: “I believe the Horizons show on global dimming was definitely over-produced and over-dramatized. However, I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. Without such effects much of the younger audience would likely have lost interest half-way through and the sort of discussions that are going on now would probably not be happening. I did however find myself feeling uncomfortable in spots where statements seemed a bit too bold without sufficient evidence to back them up (even one of my own!). Leo Rotstayn said: “I agree that some of the words in the Global Dimming documentary were alarmist. It screened in Australia a few weeks ago, with some changes to the voice over to make it a little less alarmist. It seems to have had a strong impact on many people who saw it, and I have mixed feelings about whether it is justified to be slightly ‘alarmist’ in order to get a strong message across. After all, if I had written the documentary, complete with caveats and qualifications, it would have put most of the viewers to sleep! On the other hand, as a professional scientist, I feel that it is important to be as accurate as possible.”

(to be continued)

(continued)

In a message to Gavin Schmidt, the programme’s producer David Sington said: “I want to refute the notion that Peter Cox, or any other scientist taking part in this or in any other of the films I have made, was “mugged” with trick questions and made to seem to say things he does not believe. …. Dr Schmidt’s suggestion is a serious libel (tantamount to accusing a scientist of falsifying his or her data). “The Horizon film” he concluded “was seen by 3.5 million viewers (representing about 7% of the adult population of the UK) and that copies were requested by the Prime Minister’s office. The issues it discussed are being actively debated in Britain.”

From the communications of a number of individuals on both sides of the “climate change” debate it is clear that following the screening of the programme to such a large audience, David Sington was deluged with e-mails from British people concerned about “chemtrails” and/or geoengineering. It is equally clear that he was absolutely determined to keep his distance from the “conspiracy theorists”, even boasting about this to a climate change contrarian who wrote to him to complain about the Global Dimming programme’s sensationalism and “bias”. Having taken receipt of Sington’s ingratiating reply, the contrarian then leaked their private correspondence onto the Internet. Sington could not have been pleased about this. Could he have avoided all these problems by making a different documentary: less sensationalistic, more truthful, more adequate?

Wayne Hall,

ever heard of TLDR?

Google it if you are not sure.

Instead of a three-post copy-and-paste, what is it you want to add to the discussion about climatic impact of contrails?

Can you do it in three sentences?

Yes, Too Long Didn’t Read.  I don’t know that abbreviation. So I can learn some things from Josh.

But I post here for people who read.

Waine Hall,

Oh, I started reading all right. I only stopped when I realized that you are not referring to the original video link that you posted.

I’d prefer if you’d discuss the issue you brought up yourself.

Quote: “If aircraft condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet, why in Europe are they taxed for increasing the temperature of the planet?”

The BBC video link that you posted first points to a program that was created in 2011. Then you refer to scientists in a transcript from 2005 ... Not a terribly convincing connection for “recent” research.

Anyway, your claim that “aircraft condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet” is an unfounded globalization. The studies found a regional effect in the post-9/11 week. They did not analyze the global (or net) effect.

And even the observed regional effect may still have been weather-induced, as this study from 2008 concludes:
http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Hong.etal.GRL.08.pdf

So, what about the dimming effect in relation to the CO2 pile-up?

Did you check out the link I posted previously?

You were looking for scientists who subscribe to the idea that aircraft contrails lower global temperatures. I gave you a handful of such scientists: the people who participated in Sington’s “Global Dimming” documentary.

The same theories are evoked in defence of “Solar Radiation Management” projects. Just check out the numerous related articles published by the Guardian in recent months (such articles in fact have been appearing for years).

I made no claim as to whether condensation trails reduce the temperature of the planet. I merely asked that if they do this, why they are taxed for raising the temperature of the planet?

Perhaps the person to ask this question to would be Tim Ball, since 911 Truth Oz have such good relations with him.

I checked out the link you posted, which just contains a lot of humming and haaing about whether the effects of condensation trails and to raise or lower temperatures. Ignoring the way that both of these positions have become a focus for impassioned lobbies and their related contradictory agendas.

All very good distraction for televiewers and newspaper readers, to keep their minds off what can be seen (by their insane neighbours) in the skies.

So, returning to the issue that “I brought up myself”, is not this BBC video from 2011 going to complicate the task of the authorities wishing to impose taxes on airlines for raising global temperatures? I see from the general tone of this last posting of yours that you do not (this week?) subscribe to climate change sceptic positions, so this complicating factor might seem a regrettable to you. Is it?

Wayne Hall said:
“You were looking for scientists who subscribe to the idea that aircraft contrails lower global temperatures.”

No, I wasn’t. I was wondering about the specific scientists mentioned in that video from 2011. The actual source for this program’s statements.

The question is still about the net effect of jet plane travel.

If you indicate that you dismiss the pile of facts pointing to a human-induced global warming, then there is not much to discuss though.

I quite agree that there is not much to discuss if all you want to talk about is contrails and chemtrails. Or even the net effect of jet plane travel.

The owner of the forum in Cyprus that you refused to come to has some strong ideas on that subject. He is a climate change true believer and a disbeliever in chemtrails, though a less dogmatic one than you.

I can’t give you more background to the ridiculous BBC video because they themselves don’t want anyone to look too closely at what they say.

Basically all they are saying is: everything is under control. Don’t worry your little heads about anything.