Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Adding picture

Im adding a picture of two planes with long contrails behind them. The picture is from weatherwars.info, and i can guarentee that scott stevens does not mind me using his picture. It is clear to see that these trails are not typical water vapor contrails due to their non-dissipation and discoloration. Let me know if for any reason i should remove it. Thanks

I don't see the picture yet. Here's what you need to do. Take a look at Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission and send Scott Stevens a request resembling one of those. He needs to say more than that he "does not mind [your] using his picture." He must say specifically that he gives permission to "release it under the GFDL" (and if he doesn't know what the GFDL is he will need to have it explained.
When you upload the picture, you will need to indicate how it is licensed. You must indicate that it is GFDL licensed and you must quote Scott Stevens' reply to your request.
Wikipedia started cracking down on image licensing last year, and "fair use" and "used by permission" images are not allowed and will be removed, and fairly quickly.
GFDL. Gotta be GFDL-licensed.
(If Scott Stevens is a free licensing maven and knows about all the other licenses such as Creative Commons, there are other licenses that Wikipedia permits. But better to cross that bridge when you come to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What is Going On?

I personally have just watched our skies change from completely clear early (7am) in the morning, to wispy cloudy and white hazy 5 hours later. This happens on numerous occasions every week. The same wispy white clouds come in shortly after watching many planes with white trails following them blossom into huge clouds. The trails seem to enhance or change the existing clouds. There is no question in my mind that the planes are causing this, what it means is what I don't understand. What is in the clouds? I have no idea. I also don't have any idea why. Should we be concerned? Some of the most conspiratorial types seem to have some pretty far out explanations, but the fact that the governments will not give us an answer that makes sense is disturbing. The clouds are way lower than 35,000 feet so these can not be ice crystals.

I have not observed some of the things that some of the conspiratorial types claim such as respiratory problems, headaches, or nosebleeds. I have to say, that a lot the harder to prove claims (like wars with other extraterrestrials) tend to discredit, what anyone who looks out a window, should be observing. But it does seem to at least locally add cloud cover and make existing clouds bigger.

I don't recall this as a child or even later, that airplanes would fly overhead and create huge clouds, the contrail would quickly dissipate. In fact, it is possible, on occasion, to find regular contrails, if you watch carefully. They dissipate after about a minute or so and do not form clouds. These normal contrails can occur on the same days as the abnormal contrails, so it does not appear to be something that occurs on some days but not others because of weather conditions such as humidity.

I would think that astronomers would be aware of this phenomenon because it would pretty much make it impossible to see the stars using a telescope, the haze stays there for so long. Does anyone know an astronomer who can answer some of these questions?

As for weathermen looking into this, weatherwars.info by Scott Stevens has a guy who was a weatherman who is following all this. Some of his examples have arrows pointing to things that I personally would not be able to say is created by some weird conspiracy. But he also has plenty of photos that are decidedly strange and need some explanations. I would add that I don't necessarily agree with many of his conclusions. He seems a bit far out there when explaining what he sees.

- FFF

Care to tell us exactly where you observed this? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer: San Francisco Bay Area

This happens all the time here in Baltimore during the summer. The additional heat during the day creates a haze from the pollution and results in the exact same grey hazy sky and small whispy clouds. --Chiklit 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh noes, wispy clouds! It must be secret chemicals! Really credible website by the way, I'm right into his theories about aliens sabotaging our sun[1].

dido hear in New Mexico Albuquerque! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Green Bulb (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does the chemtrail believer camp have any reputable scientists (particularly meteorologists) in their camp? They certainly seem like nut jobs to me. How about the debunking side? Funkyj 18:22, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

I second funkyj's comment. These guys seem like loons, and I think the current article text takes them too seriously.

Well, I'm one of the people who's actively tinkered with this article. It started out as an assertion that chemtrails exist. I've tried to keep it NPOV it while at the same time acknowledging factual points made by believers.
I think that the existence of chemtrail believers is an encyclopedic fact, and that it is a moderately notable conspiracy theory.
The approach I've tried to take is to be careful about attributing the sources of chemtrail remarks so that readers can judge their credibility. The current article identifies Art Bell and Jeff Rense as talk-radio hosts "who frequently deal with other paranormal and conspiratorial topics."
I edited a remark which originally said simply that "analyses of samples showed them to contain aluminum," so as to put these analysis clearly in the mouth of "Clifford E. Carnicom, operator of the 'Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups' website." That specifies the source and leaves it to readers to judge credibility.
I think it was me who included a link to a debunking website in the external links.
The mention of chemtrails in House Bill HR 2977 was originally cited as government endorsement of their existence. It said "In Bill HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001, mention is made of "chemtrails" as a weapon to be banned by the Act." I expanded it a bit to identify it more clearly and to note that the mention of chemtrails had been removed when the Kucinich re-introduced the bill.
I'm trying to keep the article neutral and, in particular, acknowledge anything factual included by believers, so as not to spark an edit war. I'm very pleased that so far the changes I've made to make the article neutral haven't been reverted. (I don't know whether that's because the editors who believe in chemtrails find my changes satisfactory, or whether they just haven't noticed).
Why do you think the article "takes them too seriously?" What do you think should be done about it? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe that in your zeal to "not spark an edit war" you greatly harm the credibility of all of wikipedia by refering to this as anything other than a conspiracy theory with zero real science behind it.

[edit] "Skeptical response" problems

I personally think Chemtrails are bunk, but I really have a problem with the section recently added by FirstPrinciples: it seems to be a personal essay and/or original research, i.e. I have the impression that it is an expression of FirstPrinciples' own (sensible) skepticism.

"Skeptics assert" is just too vague. Which skeptics? Are there sources for any of these statements?

As written, and without source cited, I don't think this section is acceptable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which skeptics you ask? Obviously the skeptics who are skeptical of chemtrails.
I think you're being a bit too demanding... I believe all of my claims are substantiated via various links in the 'external links' section, particularly at New Mexicans for science and reason. Nevertheless, I appreciate the criticism and will add explicit references as soon as possible. -- FP 23:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's better now. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I say that I completely agree with you. I edited them with some "other side" possibilities to simply highlight the bias displayed in this section. Most of my comment was removed and little snappy notes like "Article is not the place for comment" thrown in for good measure. My problem is this...The section where the "claim" is that drugging the population would be cheaper and more effective if done through the water supply is ridiculous as some areas actually DO drug the water supply with the addition of Fluoride which is not only an official medication but is also on the list of medical POISONS in the US and UK.

If the writer is allowed to state that Chemtrail theory must be rubbish because they would instead drug the water supply then surely somebody is allowed to point out that the water supply is also being durgged, no???

I don't even believe in the damned things either! I just think that Wikipedia should ALWAYS be prepared to show all sides or just the facts and this section of the article displays neither.

On the subject of polluting water, would it not be a great deal easier to test for the chemicals in water with even amateur science equipment? This would only bring light to the agenda and cause a massive public backlash. Im by no means an expert on the field, nor do i have a standpoint regarding chemtrails, but the assertion that poisoning the water because its cheaper doesnt look as if it were completely thought through. --NyaR 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Chemtrails at aeronautical shows

Contrails are coloured sometimes at aeronautical shows. This technique may not be missed here, because these are REAL chemtrails!

Good point. Various display aircraft have smoke generation apparatus, often diesel-based. And of course, we have crop-dusting and firefighting aircraft that dump various agents. However I'm not sure many people would label these applications "chemtrails". -- FP 22:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

They are chemtrails in the technical meaning.Chemical trails.Why assign this only to this conspiracy?There should an article or section on these(e.g. Modified Contrails).

Um, does chemtrail have any meaning outside of the conspiracy? Clearly there exist chemical trails, but I challenge someone to find the word chemtrail in anything other than a conspiracy nut publication. 75.82.151.198 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed irrelevant link

The link http://www.freepressinternational.com/nasa10172004.contrails.6104.html adds nothing to the article. It's just a picture of contrails. It doesn't matter whether the site is identified as a "conspiracy site" or by its own name, it just doesn't add anyting to the article.

The page offers not the slightest evidence that any of these are chemtrails. It simply displays a satellite image of contrails and says "Many people including myself allege that many of these contrails are in fact chemtrails." It can't even be bothered to say which ones are chemtrails, or how they look different from the "real" contrails.

There is no real content to the page beyond "some people allege that some contrails are chemtrails." This is presented better, and in greater detail, both within the article itself and in the other references. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

User:Goferwiki has added the NPOV tag to this article. He has also marked a couple of other articles as NPOV with no explanation. I'm trying to get him to explain his objections now. -- FP ?? 12:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

-1) I had not had time to add my comments yet, I don't really appreciate your candor in terms of the implication that I am somehow adding NPOV tags wontonly. 2) My main problem with the article is this: although you do a good job of trying to balance conspiracy and skeptics, there is an overall implication that there may be some truth to the conspiracy camp. However, none of the sources you site really reference any real objective evidence for the existance of this phenomena. In some sense, the mere existence of this article assigns some truth-value to the concept. The NPOV tag is relevant because this concept is discussed as if it should be encyclopedic (i.e.-exist in an encyclopedia as a topic). I think the article should merely be a definition, Goferwiki 12:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my "candour". I did not intend any offence. It is important to realise, however, that you should add NPOV tags one at a time and explain your concerns on the talk page as soon as possible. I see you are a relatively new user; hence it is possible that you do not understand what the NPOV policy means (I do not say this to insult you but simply because I honestly suspect it might be the case).
The NPOV policy (which is absolute and non-negotiable) says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. Hence, articles should describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.
If you read the chemtrails article again, you will see that although it describes the chemtrail theory in detail (with some reference to claims made by chemtrail advocates, and with several links to external web sites) it does not advocate the position. In fact I believe a full reading of this article will lead the reader to be highly skeptical of chemtrails.
I would like to add that I agree with you that chemtrails are utter bunk with no scientific merit. However that fact is irrelevant to the NPOV position. I would be happy to completely reconsider my views if you offer specific examples of statements that you object to. -- FP ?? 13:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is all good,I am not insulted-I am a little defensive because as much as people want Wikipedia to be about contribution, I have noticed a general reluctance for change and open-mindedness on some of these talk pages. (See my loosing battle on The Seldon Plan (band) discussion). Anyway, I would be OK with you removing the NPOV tag if you changed the paragraph discussing the elements/compounds suppposedly found in chemtrails from sounding like it was the result of careful chemical and scientific analysis to something just saying that these compounds have been speculated to be found in chemtrails. The paragraph as it stands suggests that this is the result of scientific analysis, which it is not. I do however disagree still that this article just simply describes chemtrails. It goes farther to discuss Art Bell and there is a general tone that "this might just be true" that I get from the article. That may be a result from my own biases-so if you make the change I suggested then I will compromise on the NPOV tag.Goferwiki 14:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to sleep now but will consider the requested changes within 24 hours. I would also be interested to see if Dpbsmith has any comment because he is a far more experienced and level-headed user than I. -- FP ?? 14:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I am convinced that a significant number of people do hold a belief in the existence of "chemtrails" (i.e. believe that some linear clouds observed behind high-flying aircraft are not condensed water, but deliberate chemical spraying done for some unknown conspiratorial purpose). An accurate report of a a set of beliefs is factual and NPOV. The article should also present a reasonably balanced set of well-sourced statements that inform the reader on what can be said for and against the truth of the beliefs.
All of the statements "supporting" chemtrails are carefully qualified. The theory is labelled "conpiratorial." Proponents Art Bell and Jeff Rense, are identified as talk-show hosts "who frequently deal with other paranormal and conspiratorial topics." One paragraph mentioning a report is ascribed to Clifford E. Carnicom, who is immediately identified as "operator of the 'Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups' website." This gives the reader a basis to judge the credibility of the source.
Goferwiki complains that "this concept is discussed as if it should be encyclopedic (i.e.-exist in an encyclopedia as a topic)." Of course it should. We have articles about many belief systems, such as UFO, Dianetics, Homeopathy, and Voodoo. Are these unencyclopedic?
I think the NPOV tag should be removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Goferwiki's argument for tagging it as non-NPOV is faulty; it supports listing the page for deletion, but not for marking it as non-NPOV. (For the record, I would not support deleting it.) I see nothing non-neutral about this article and believe the tag should be removed. Kelly Martin 15:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the tag under the good faith that my suggestions will be taken. For the record on my argument about the encyclopedic nature of belief systems (not provable by objective fact): I think they all should have the NPOV tag. This is because by the sheer act of listing them, you are stating an implicit validity. If all of these sorts of entries automatically had the tag, you would eliminate the implicit POV problem and give the reader a more objective set of assumptions. Goferwiki 15:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a "this is an unproven theory" tag instead. After careful reading of the article, I detect no bias whatsoever. The article does a good job of presenting both sites of the chemtrail theory fairly. Very encyclopedic. The NPOV-disputed tag should be removed.
In case you are wondering, I came away from the article feeling that the chemtrail theory is almost certainly bogus. Anyone can claim that a large scale covert operation of some type is going on, but since such an operation is highly unlikely, the claim requires hard evidence to have any sort of credibility. There is no definitive hard evidence of chemtrails; just some air samples which contain elements which seem to be just ordinary air pollution. Realistically, there is the possibly of some sort of isolated experiment involving chemtrails, or possibly a lone chemical company air-dispersing unwanted chemicals instead of dumping them.... but this is just speculation on what's possible. No hard evidence exists to back up this speculation, either. - Pioneer-12 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article looks like an appropriately neutral and unbiased look at an amusing theory. I see it doing no harm to Wikipedia in its current form. The material is accurately presented as being highly speculative without stooping to denigration. Incidentally, I support Pioneer-12's move to the new article title. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. - Pioneer-12 18:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemtrail -> Chemtrail theory

I renamed the article "chemtrail theory". I think this is a more accurate name for the article, a name which puts the reader in the right "frame of mind", and a name that does not imply truth or untruth. A theory is a proposed, but not fully proven explanation. A theory is likely to be believed by some but disputed by others. Goferwiki, I hope that this addresses your concerns regarding NPOV. And to the contrail theory supporters out there, I hope this represents a fair and accurate statement of your theory and your beliefs. - Pioneer-12 16:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A theory has a very specific scientific definition. As it is impossible to falsify the notion of chemtrails, it does not qualify as a theory. --MagicMoose 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chemtrails vs "chemtrails"

I feel that putting chemtrails in quotes implies that it is not a real word and thus implies a negative opinion of the word. Thus I prefer the wordier but more neutral "the phenominon labelled "chemtrails"" to start and then simply chemtrails (with no quotes) after the first usage). (Yes the wordier version still uses quotes around the word, but it does so in a way that simply indicates that it is label.)

The thing is, a supporter of the theory would never write "chemtrails" in quotes like that, while critics love to write things like "Where is the proof for these so-called "chemtrails"?

- Pioneer-12 18:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excessively reminding the reader that "this is only a theory" has the effect of pushing a POV. A neutral article will eschew such authorship. I would recommend against quoting "chemtrails" whereever it might appear, for that reason. Kelly Martin 18:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I can see where Pioneer-12 is coming from; there's a page here [2] about 'scare quotes'. However, I believe that in this case they are justified, for a different reason - "chemtrails" is a neologism, a made-up word, an unusual one. The quotes are there for the same reason that, say, "Bumper" Harris [3] has quotes, to distinguish the term from a person's real name, or from an actual medico-scientific term such as clonus or micturition. If I was writing an article about Doctor Who for an encyclopaedia, I would describe the Doctor's most nefarious adversaries as "A race known as the "Daleks"; small amoeba-like creatures who travel around in pepperpot-shaped armoured fighting machines" - not because I doubt their existence, but because we cannot expect the reader to be familiar with them.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goferwiki and the Carnicom passage

I read Goferwiki's main objection as being to the passage which reads:

Clouds formed by joining chemtrails have been reported to create a two colour spectrum of orange and yellow. According to Clifford E. Carnicom, operator of the "Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups" website, his analysis of samples taken after such observations show them to contain aluminium, barium, calcium, magnesium and titanium. He also states that particles of fiber have also been isolated from samples in areas of reported chemtrail activity.

I've tuned it to make it clear that Carnicom is a (strong!) chemtrail-theory advocate and supporter, and not a neutral source. The passages in which he describes his analyses are quite detailed as to methods and procedures used, to the point of sounding as if one could duplicate them if one wished to. On his website, I couldn't find any indication of scientific credentials or experience in chemical analysis. I've reworded the passage to try to make it clear that Carnicom not to be regarded as an independent, credentialled, neutral scientist. New wording is:

Little has been said as to what the specific chemicals in chemtrails might be, beyond ominous speculation. One chemtrail advocate, Clifford E. Carnicom, operator of a website entitled "Aerosol Crimes and Cover-ups," claims to have analyzed ground-level air samples following chemtrail events. It is not clear what his experience or expertise in chemical analysis is, but he carefully details the methods and procedures he used. He claims to have found aluminium, barium, calcium, magnesium and titanium, and particles of fiber.

It's not my business but I think that the factual content of the article is now about the same as before; and that nothing germane that was in it before has been removed; but that the article now has an overall tilt that is distinctly toward the skeptical side. This reflects the consensus view of the editors currently working on the article, all of whom are skeptics. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time someone who subscribes to the chemtrail theory comes along to look at the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current Changes

I think the changes made look really good at this point. I agree that there may be a slight tilt in the skeptical position now, so I am looking up a few supporting websites and would support a "Supporters" headine to balance out the "Skeptical Response" headline. Goferwiki 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue for removing it, as I think it provides needed context... but I don't like the sentence "Most people believe that the 'chemtrails' are no different from ordinary contrails." This implies that "most" people (whomever they may be) have seen "chemtrails" and seen "ordinary" contrails and have formed a judgement of some kind. My guess is that "most" people have never heard the word "chemtrail," and most people barely know what contrails are and certainly could not give a thorough description of the range of appearance that contrails present. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed

A current bill introduced to the 109th Congress is proposing switching all federal and state weather modification projects under the direct control of "Department of Commerce the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board". The url with the complete text is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109mtjYHv
This link doesn't work. And it's not clear how it relates to chemtrails. Do not reinsert without a working link. Does the bill say that the weather modification projects involve the use of high-altitude spraying, or not? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa has confirmed through his office that "chemtrails" are a real phenomena, and not just a conspiracy.
This needs a source citation. Where and how did his office "confirm" this? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's one for you, but it reveals that Harkin only helped the family discover they were being sprayed by the military with aluminium chaff:

From the July 2006 Idaho Observer: Chemtrails:GAO report admits "chaff" Lisapollison 10:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More material removed

I removed this from the main article because it is basically messy, non-encyclopedic speculation.

obviously it is to costive for private citizens to test the athmosphere from5-12km with taking samples by planes or missiles permanently for researching the truth. But:how can it work that 2 planes with the same range of appr.1800ft altitude(classic contrails are appearing in stratospher up from 3300ft at high minus temperatures!) are generating :1. no trail 2. a non dissipating trail? Why do these trails not appeare on fotos/movies before 1998(for Europe 2003)?

Cheers -- FP <talk><edits> 09:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd sure like to know why this question hasn't gotten a response yet. Because I've asked the very same thing myself. I have yet to see a picture that illustrates this "perfectly normal" behavior of jet planes from before the mid-1990's. Can anybody who discounts the "chemtrail theory" provide any visual evidence of this normal behavior happening from before a time when chemtrails, whether real or hoax, were first being reported? Even as late as this is being added, I don't feel any photographs have been found yet to substantiate "contrail behavior." HaarFager (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A theory begs competent evidence, not the absence of conflicting evidence. cf. negative proof. 75.31.253.14 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical waste disposal theory

Does anyone have a source citation for this theory? Who is it that makes this suggestion? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the recently-added phrase "chemical waste disposal" in the sentence

Possible conspiratorial explanations include atmospheric and weather modification, biological warfare, mind control, chemical waste disposal, or purposes associated with a New World Order.

pending a source. This should not be a list of any possible conspiratorial explanation that anybody can think of, it should be a list of possible conspiratorial explanations that have been proposed by chemtrail believers. Now, I realize that the other explanations aren't sourced either... and this is a problem that should also be dealt with. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm also removing this paragraph

Some eco-conspiricists have offered the theory that chemtrails are part of a program of for the disposal of chemical wastes by aerial dispersion. According to this theory it is cheaper to spray industrial wastes into the upper atmosphere than to dispose of it according to enviromental regulations.

until someone names an eco-conspiracist who has offered this theory. I don't ask a lot, but I don't want a completely unattributed assertion in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemtrail advodate

As a chemtrail theory advocate I would like to say I am happy with the bias (or lack thereof) expressed in this article. Further to the first comment on this page about trails in the San Francisco Bay area - I can confirm exactly the same thing on a daily basis in London UK (6/7 days a week). I know this isn't the time or the place, but to the doubters - either you don't live in a trailed area or you're not actually OBSERVING the sky. Either way, keep an open mind. Mike (UK)

[edit] Material removed pending discussion. Do not reinsert until consensus is arrived at

I removed this material. The next section explains why.


[edit] Geoengineering: The Chemtrail Smoking Gun?

In 1992 a massive 994 page study was done, called the Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming and it was authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more.

In their conclusion of Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.


The following are excepted sections of the 1992 study done on Geoengineering the Greenhouse Warming issue:

Evaluating Geoengineering Options

"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail."

"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."

"The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms."

Screening Out Some Sunlight

"Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided below."

Stratospheric Dust

"Although the space dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20 to 40 km are of the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to increase its net reflection of sunlight."

Mass Estimates

"Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm."

"The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models."

Delivery Scenarios

"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted. However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."

"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."

"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."

"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated."

Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach

"Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."

"Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud, which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud cover would be formed every time the number of CCN increased."

Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei

"With Albrecht's assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are present, the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 ¥ 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 ¥ density, and it is assumed that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 ¥ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is 2.7 ¥ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 ¥ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN. To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient CCN."

"Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use. Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle."

"Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust compounds in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere."

"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted."

"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

(end of excerpts)

[edit] Discussion of "Chemtrail smoking gun"

I removed this material because, although it cites a study of "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming," the interpretation of this as supporting the chemtrail theory is completely unsupported. No sources for believing this are cited.

I believe that this entire section should be boiled down to a short paragraph that should a) a describe the study and link to its text; b) name and cite the theorists who believe that this study is an explanation of the purpose of chemtrails; c) briefly quote their reasons for making this connection.

I have done so, and have replaced the section with the following paragraph:

Bruce Conway, in an article entitled The Chemtrail smoking gun, has suggested that chemtrails represent the implementation of technologies suggested in a 1992 National Academy of Science study entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming; specifically, that chemtrails are part of a secret project intended to mitigate global warming.

I don't think anything more than this needs to be said. Interested readers can follow the links. The theory that chemtrails are related to the "Policy Implications" document is not at present widely enough held or well enough established to merit more than a mention. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


I believe that the excerpts removed do site a lot of factual data that ought be considered. The data in the report IS supporting evidence, please read the Delivery Scenarios paragraph again. Is that not a direct suggestion there to link these planes and what we are now seeing to what this study was commenting on in 1992, 5 years before we started to see these planes, and their chemtrails in the air?

I believe the study itself and the papers offered at the bottom are enough supporting evidence that "Geoengineering" is seemingly underway. I would say leave it in as a valid theory. This report has got some serious funding and brain power behind it, look into that part of the study as well, before determining that it is not a supported theory. Look at the fact that Congress authorized and funded this report. This is the most credible evidence to date that there is a plan underway at this moment to stop global warming through the "dumping" of this particulate matter into our atmosphere. I wouldn't remove any of this data. Mournblade (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2005 (PST)

I inserted what I think is a reasonable summary paragraph, as noted above. The material you cite is just a summary of the 1992 paper, plus speculation. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "Geoengineering" should be mentioned however, as it was critical in the finding of this study. Mournblade (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2005 (PST)

[edit] Please fix the link to the 1992 NAS study

Check the link to the study, it appears incorrect. I get a forbidden message when clicking it. the correct link is http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html ...need an L at the end, html not htm. thanks! Mournblade (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2005 (PST)

  • I did. Sorry for the mistake. BTW if you'd chosen to fix it yourself, nobody's ever going to object to that kind of edit.
I would have, except it was in an non-editable section for me. Thanks!

[edit] Material removed

I removed the following material, because I don't understand how it relevant to the chemtrail theory. Any sort of contrails have an effect on insolation and on climate is well established, particularly after the measurements made during the days following 9/11. It would seem as if this material belongs in Contrail, not Chemtrail theory. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it IS relevent because it discusses "Persistent" contrails. Just because they themselves do not call them "Chemtrails" these are the types of trails they are referring to. The fact that there is a picture of a "persistent" contrail on the GLOBE site indicates they know what that this phenomena is happening. They just do not call it by the same name, but that is undoubtedly what they are talking about.
Please reinsert the section. I find it very relevent, especially since they claim that "persistent" contrails are "human-caused".
This statement adds credence to the theory of "chemtrails" which are known to be the "persistent" contrails of which they are speaking about.
Also, since this is a NASA funded program, gives more credence to the fact that there is government prior-knowledge of the existence of these trails. Mournblade (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish Original research, no matter how well founded or buttressed by facts it is. You are saying that you believe that persistent contrails are chemtrails, but the source you are citing does not say that. You could certainly write an essay arguing that a) the government acknowledges the existence of "persistent" contrails, b) you believe that the only explanation for persistent contrails is that they are chemtrails. You might be able to buttress this with other evidence. Such an essay might be very credible, maybe even publishable. You could put such an essay on your user page. But you can't put it in an article, but that would be your original research.
Before you can put something like this in an article, you must find and cite some reasonably authoritative source for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contrail Count-a-Thon

In honor of Earth Day, the GLOBE Program performed a scientific experiment, or what they called a "Contrail Count-a-Thon", on April 22, 2004. This was nationwide, and it called on teachers and students to "count contrails" in their "piece of the sky". GLOBE is managed by UCAR/CSU with support from NASA, NSF, the US Dept. of State, and other cooperating organizations. The GLOBE program existed so "Student observers can collaborate with scientists by observing contrails in their area and reporting on the amount and type of contrails present. The results could help atmospheric scientists determine the atmospheric conditions when persistent contrails form and thus help them predict where they will form and possibly assist air traffic managers in planning different flight-paths or altitudes to avoid contrail formation." because according to the website "Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in Earth's climate." and further to say that "any change in Earth's climate may have effects on natural resources. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth's cloudiness"

[edit] albedo of the earth: no support for any chemtrail-theory

Science 6 May 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5723, p. 825

Changes in Earth's Albedo Measured by Satellite Bruce A. Wielicki,1* Takmeng Wong,1 Norman Loeb,2 Patrick Minnis,1 Kory Priestley,1 Robert Kandel3

NASA global satellite data provide observations of Earth's albedo, i.e., the fraction of incident solar radiation that is reflected back to space. The satellite data show that the last four years are within natural variability and fail to confirm the 6% relative increase in albedo inferred from observations of earthshine from the moon. Longer global satellite records will be required to discern climate trends in Earth's albedo. Redecke 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemtrail "theory"

This article should be modified to remove all reference to chemtrails being a theory. It isn't a theory in any scientific sense since that would require it to be falsifiable. It might weakly qualify as a hypothesis but even then it is unproven since there is no evidence to suggest chemtrails even exist or ever have. --MagicMoose 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Only scientific theories are ones that are theories in the scientific sense. This is still a theory, just not a scientific one. 207.5.236.67 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the title is fine but I'm certainly open to discuss move to a different title if MagicMoose has a concrete suggestion on what that title should be. I think the word "theory" has the same meaning here as it does in Conspiracy theory and I think most readers will read it that way.
"theory," AHD4: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Seems to me that it clearly fits meanings #4 and #6, though I agree, it does not fit meaning #1.
The article title has got to be neutral, because it mustn't imply either that the belief in chemtrails is true or that it is false. Chemtrails may not be a fact, but the existence of a chemtrail belief system is a fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No evidence

You people who say "there is absolutely no evidence for persistent contrails", how do you explain the millions of sane people who obsever them in their own locality, with their own eyes, each day, worldwide? What about the tens of thousands of photographs that are present on the internet? They can't ALL be photoshopped. When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. Still, I accept that this isn't good enough for an encyclopedic entry, although this how can we ever get scientific evidence if scientists insists that chemtrail theory be accepted as a real phenomenon before investigating it? It a Catch-22 situation. Regarding the debate on Chemtrail vs. Persistent contrail, these terms mean exactly the same thing in practice and should be considered interchangable.

Contrails vary widely in appearance. I saw contrails similar to those you describe in the 1950s. The question isn't whether people see what you describe. The question is whether the things you're describing are chemical sprays or simply the way contrails behave under certain atmospheric conditions.
In any case, do read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and citing sources. In some ways, Wikipedia is friendlier to non-mainstream theories than traditional encyclopedias.
The general rule is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about truth. Verifiability doesn't mean a statement is true, it means that a statement has been published and that a reader can in principle check to see that the publication really says the same thing that the statement in the article says. A very good example of a verifiable statement is this:
"Chemtrails" are mentioned in House Bill HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001, introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, where it appears as one of a list of "exotic weapons system" to be banned under the bill.
Some people believe in chemtrails, some do not, but everyone should be able to agree that the word really did appear in HR 2977.
Find mainstream print sources that talk about "persistent contrails" and you can quote them in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trails over Las Vegas

I walked out of my house this morning at 7:45 AM (March 30,2006) to clear blue skies, all but for two long white contrails directly overhead across the sky. They seemed strange to me to be so long. Not thinking much of it, I opened my car door and then was suddenly struck by the sight of two more contrails in the Eastern sky and I could see the planes streaking across laying the trails. These planes were moving fast.

Coincidentally, I had my digital camera with me because I needed to take it to my son's school program. I took pictures of the trails. As I drove to work, I noticed more planes and more trails criss-crossing each other. The sky began to take on a hazy grey look. When I arrived at work, a mere 15 minutes after leaving my house, I took more pictures of trails still crossing the sky. By this time, the entire sky was grey, except for some blue in the horizons to the far eastern sky.

This was really strange to me. I know Las Vegas gets a lot of aircraft coming in, but the contrails never seem to last that long. I know Nellis AFB is direclty north of Vegas, but these planes were traversing all over the sky, many of them.

So about an hour after I sat at my desk, I popped up Google and did a search on "trails in sky". About half a page down, I find this link with the description: "Chemtrails -- What is wrong with our skies." I read the article and then typed "Chemtrails" in Google. I was astounded. All this information on a subject I had never even heard of before. To get a more objective take, I tried wiki and there it was. More than I bargained for on a typical Thursday in early Spring.

The discussions are poignant. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that these are biological agents, let alone UFO trails. But I am still baffeled. What the hell are they? I've never noticed them before and they definitely weren't around when I was a kid.

You can argue all you want about whether chemtrails is a theory or a hypothosis, or plain bunk like crop circles. But the fact remains, many people would like to know exactly what they are and why they are a new phenomenon.

Dear unknown user ! take a look at this document here: it talkes about the persistent contrails you mentioned. NACA report. by the way, it dates from september 1942... Regards, M.Redecke Redecke 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Since I have no idea how old you are but I'd be willing to guess that you grew up in the jet age, Yes they were around and if you want to know what they really are try this Wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrails


They're not a "new phenomenon." The appearance and behavior of contrails, clouds, and other things is subject to wide variation. If you look at the sky a lot you'll see all sorts of fascinating phenomena. About six years ago, I saw a cloud--it must have been full of ice crystals, but it did not look like a cirrus cloud--that was being lit by the sun from, apparently, just the right angle, to have a blindingly bright, intense band of rainbow colors along its edge. I don't mean the sort of feeble colors you see in a real rainbow or a sundog or anything like that. It was fantastic and I'll always regret not having a camera.
Pick up a book like the Petersen Field Guide to the Atmosphere and glance through some of the photos in it of things like lenticular clouds... or Minnaert's "Light and Colour in the Outdoors" and read about the Fata Morgana, the Spectre of the Brocken, etc. etc. All of these things could easily have magical or conspiratorial explanations. They're seen rarely enough that it's not easy to pin down an exact scientific explanation. Heck, some scientists thought the Green Flash was imaginary, until people finally got some photos of it in the 1960s... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing "chembuster" information

Doing a search for the term "chembuster" comes up with null. I have read about the apparatus, among other places on Ken Adachi's website http://Educate-yourself.org. I suggest this article should have some information about this alleged technology. __meco 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Papers on natural and artificial climate change

I think these links are irrelevant to chemtrail theory and should removed. They belong, if anywhere, on the climate change page. If no one disagrees I will remove them.

RESPONDING TO PAUL CRUTZEN

(The proposal referred to is presented in Paul Crutzen’s “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulphur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma”)

Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, should -- to put it as tactfully as possible -- work on the hole in his head.

Mr. Crutzen has dreamed up an "escape route" from global warming that only Al Gore could love. Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, is so “grossly disappointed” by man's seeming indifference to the junk science that blames humans for the Earth's temperature changes that he proposes to artificially cool the global climate.

He hopes to release particles of sulphur into the upper atmosphere -- using high-altitude balloons or heavy artillery shells -- to reflect sunlight and heat back into space, according to The Independent in the U.K.

That geo-engineering would increase the reflectance ("albedo") of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect, he says. The controversial proposal supposedly is being taken seriously by scientists because Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research. And, after all, he did receive a Nobel Prize. But then again, so did former President Jimmy Carter.

And if that doesn't work, he believes giant reflecting mirrors in space, or laying reflecting film in deserts, or floating white plastic islands in the ocean mimicking the reflective effect of sea ice might work.

Which brings us to this question: If global warming is part of this orb's natural cycle, what global havoc might Professor Crutzen's proposals wreak?

(Editorial in Pittsburgh Tribune Review, August 7th 2006)

A confused question from an anthropogenic climate change “sceptic”. There is another question that could equally well be asked: what would be the effect of acknowledgement that proposals like those made by Professor Crutzen are not just proposals? What if geoengineering programmes similar to those he has advocated are actually under implementation?

What if the “policy dilemma” he sees arising out of the fact that sulphate particles, soot and other forms of man-made and natural air pollution partially counteract global warming from greenhouse gases - means that governments - or one government, on behalf of other governments - have/has already decided to go ahead and fight one form of pollution (carbon dioxide) with another (sulphur dioxide)? On a global scale!

There is nothing new about such ideas. As far back as 1992 the National Academy of Science’s report “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” was saying that “the most effective global warming mitigation would be spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere by utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft”. The NAS Report argued that “aircraft could be used to maintain a cloud of dust in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.” It reckoned that “emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates… would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2.”

If it were to be acknowledged that measures of such desperation are part of our contemporary reality, one result would surely be a total evaporation of public sympathy for the arguments of the “sceptics”. They would either have to start demanding that the outrageous and unjustifiable geoengineering practices be stopped, or they would be forced to concede that their categorization of global warming as a “non-problem” had been mistaken.

But it does not seem likely that we are going to see any such cornering of the sceptics. James Hansen, on behalf of mainstream climate science, has confessed that “we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. ..We have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. … We often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and the politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn’t really help.” This is the advice of a scientist advocating not more but less politics. On the other hand British Government scientific advisor Sir David King has described the climate change debate as a “pseudo-debate”. He asks: “Why does the debate on climate change continue to be reported?” “Part of the answer,” he says “is in the nature of the media itself, which likes to present two sides of a story.”

The media does NOT present the two sides of the geoengineering story. In media discourse one side of the geoengineering debate is never reported, or is reported only to be ridiculed. It is the side that consists of “conspiracy theorists”, who must on no account ever be taken seriously.

There is an either/or relationship between climate change “sceptics” and geoengineering “conspiracy theorists”. Scientific debate on climate change can have either one or the other as the interlocutor, as the “other viewpoint”. It cannot have both.

Paul Crutzen says in his “Albedo Enhancement” article that a large-scale climate modification programme of the kind he proposes could not be implemented without prior establishment of trust between scientists and the general public. This implies either an expectation of future success in persuading “sceptics” of the soundness of his “solution” (to a problem they do not recognize), or it means something rather vaguer: that he is a scientist who believes in the necessity of working with, rather than against, the public. And in this connection it should be acknowledged that he does quite clearly state in his article that “the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulphur release experiment would not need to take place.” He deplores the fact that attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions have been unsuccessful. He cites statistics indicating that while stabilization of CO2 would require a 60-80% reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, such emissions from 2000 to 2002 actually increased by 2%.

“Anthropogenically enhanced sulphate particle concentrations cool the planet, offsetting an uncertain fraction of the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. But this fortunate coincidence is ‘bought’ at a substantial price. According to World Health Organization figures, the pollution particles lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths worldwide.” ….. “Through acid precipitation and deposition, sulphates also cause various kinds of ecological damage.”

Crutzen bases his case for the sulphate spraying programme on the argument that “if sizeable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not happen and temperatures rise rapidly, then climate engineering such as represented here is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects.”

This could be interpreted as a warning that if society cannot free itself from the mentality that has led to the failure he describes, Crutzen can see no alternative to proceeding with implementation of his programme.

The feasibility of “trust”

How possible is it for one who believes aerosol seeding programmes to be not just drawing-board recommendations but a well entrenched planetary-scale reality, to “trust” a scientist who conforms to the official line of denying any such possibility? Or in any case ignoring it.

To start with, in replying to this, it may be worth speculating on the possible reasons for the more or less unanimous support given by scientists, including the most immediately implicated scientists, to the official story.. One of the relevant considerations is legality, the basic parameters for which were laid down a decade ago by, among others, Dan Bodansky:

“Climate engineering proposals, including those aimed at screening out sunlight by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to create cloud condensation nuclei and hence more clouds, by injecting dust into the stratosphere to screen out sunlight, by launching reflective balloons into the stratosphere, or by space mirrors or screens to act as a constant shield from the sun, possess such problematic features as the fact that this activity is intentional (and thus attracts greater scrutiny), has global effects, involves high uncertainties (with an indeterminate risk of something going wrong), and non-uniform effects (winners and losers result). These features of geoengineering raise several governance issues. The fact that geoengineering is an intentional activity with global effects raises the issue of who should decide whether to proceed. Should all countries be able to participate in decision making since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts? Also, how should liability and compensation for damages be addressed?

Schemes to inject dust or release balloons into the atmosphere are the most problematic of the geoengineering proposals in terms of existing international law because the atmosphere above a country, including the stratosphere, is part of its air space. Nations have claimed this area and acted on their claims (e.g., by shooting down aircraft).

Geoengineering proposals involving the atmosphere thus could be viewed as an infringement and incursion on national territory.

Although existing international legal norms are generally permissive, they are unlikely to be a reliable guide to how the international community will react if geoengineering schemes are seriously proposed. Instead, there is likely to be a great deal of resistance. Absent some crisis, there will probably be a drive for the regulation of these activities, and perhaps for their prohibition, because it is very difficult to discern what the inadvertent consequences of such proposals might be.

The ultimate obstacles to geoengineering may not be technical or economic, but political.

If the ultimate obstacles to geoengineering activity are political, however indefensible or defensible the stance might otherwise be, it is quite logical for a scientist persuaded of the necessity of geoengineering to wait for the relevant political obstacles to be removed by politicians rather than pre-emptively meddled with by scientists. Crutzen’s whole approach in his article can be seen as a way of giving a nudge to politicians, to solve, belatedly – IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER – the scientific problem he outlines.

But who are the politicians that can solve the problem? Certainly not any politicians obliged, like it or not, to share the political arena with climate change contrarians. And with their media support base.

The role of Edward Teller

Though acknowledging in his paper his scientific debt to researchers at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory - “so far the only ones who have modeled the stratospheric albedo modification scheme” - Crutzen does not appear similarly to recognize, and may not even have thought very much about, how deeply the politics of his stratospheric geoengineering proposal were similarly influenced by Livermore, and above all by the late Edward Teller, for many years its director.

Teller sets his own distinctive political seal on the stratospheric particulate seeding project in his popular article “Sunscreen for Planet Earth”.

“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it’s resolved scientifically.” As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I’m entertained by the high political theater that the nation's politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation--America--can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist—”

Teller here situates himself unequivocally among the “sceptics”. This makes him very different from Crutzen. But not content with categorizing climate change as a possible non-problem, Teller also puts himself forward as the man to solve the non-problem.

“Contemporary technology offers considerably more realistic options for addressing any global warming effect than politicians and environmental activists are considering. Some of these may be far less burdensome than even a system of market-allocated emissions permits (i.e. Kyoto, W.H.). One particularly attractive approach involves diminishing slightly – by about 1 percent – the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface in order to counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases.”

“As the National Academy of Sciences commented a few years ago in a landmark report: ‘Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented.’ …But for some reason, this option isn’t as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.

If the politics of global warming require that ‘something must be done’ while we still don't know whether anything really needs to be done--let alone what exactly--let us play to our uniquely American strengths in innovation and technology to offset any global warming by the least costly means possible. While scientists continue research into any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways to offset any possible ill effects. Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?”

Teller even injects into the very subtitle of his piece the same trickiness that pervades the text as a whole: “GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS. HEREWITH A SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. (IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THAT IS.)”

We see that Teller is not merely one of the pioneers of the stratospheric seeding idea ridiculed by one of his fellow contrarians at the beginning of this article. He is quite possibly also the architect of the whole conflictual scenario that we still see being enacted before us in 2006, three years after Teller’s death. But for which his – in American party-political terms – opponent Paul Crutzen has now been manoeuvred into the position where he, and by extension presumably Al Gore, must be the stool pigeons…. ..

This certainly represents progress over the heyday of the superpower arms race between the US and the USSR, in which Teller was, again, a leading protagonist. In the nuclear warfare psychodramas of those days it was Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon, Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan, not liberal democratic figures, that were cast as the madmen, or accomplices of madmen.

Admittedly, the inversion may well not be something deliberately planned. It may be just a side-effect of decisions to make weather and climate the business of military-oriented institutions such as the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, with the resulting extension into what were once civilian domains of the habits of secrecy and deception characteristic of military research, and above all of nuclear weapons development. Doubtless the conception of legality as an “optional extra” that we have suggested as an explanation for scientists’ apparent evasiveness over geoengineering reflects an expansion of such military assumptions and behaviour.

But the imposition of politically paralyzing contradiction is a Teller trademark, seen before at virtually every stage of his career, and certainly in the period of the Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) anti-missile shield campaigning immediately preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The double-bind that Teller had devised at that time was presented to the then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by Ronald Reagan at the 1986 Reykjavik Summit. It took the form of an unexpected willingness to consider an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on total nuclear disarmament of the two superpowers. Support, in other words, for Gorbachev’s stated objective of bringing about universal nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. The only precondition attached to an American agreement on total abolition of the United States’ nuclear arsenal was that Gorbachev should, in return, accept the legitimacy of the United States’ Star Wars anti-missile shield.

Gorbachev’s response was that if nuclear missiles were to be abolished there could be no justification for supporting a programme whose purpose was to shoot them down. But for the international political establishment and its media this meant that it was the conservatism of the Soviets that had prevented a epoch-making political breakthrough at Reykjavik. Teller was one of the few members, possibly the only member, of the American power elite with whom Gorbachev never agreed to shake hands.

What is there to discuss?

What common basis is there for discussion, between climate scientists of goodwill and “civil society”? If – as it seems – there are no grounds for expectation that any scientist of importance is going to acknowledge that spraying of massive amounts of sulphate or some other form of poisonous aerosol into the atmosphere is anything more than a hypothetical future possibility, an “insurance policy”, to quote NAS president Ralph J. Cicerone, “if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussion like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels and coastal flooding,” what demands can be made of climate scientists that might help to inspire the “trust” that Paul Crutzen says he wants to see?. One measure that might help be would be a demonstration by climate scientists that they are capable of standing up to the ‘sceptics’: refusing to debate them on the media for example, (unless perhaps the ‘sceptics’ in question are of the sincere - and politically clueless - type that are also protesting about “chemtrails”). Another step that might lead in the direction of “trust” would be by our raising the demand that questioning whether climate change is connected to human activity should be made illegal, (rather in the way that it is currently illegal in some otherwise civilized countries to question whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz!)

This would be against freedom of speech, just as it is against freedom of speech to compromise scientists and subject them to regimes of quasi-military secrecy so that they feel unable to admit what they are doing, and/or what is being done, and so that they are reduced to sending out smoke-signals to “the politicians”. Our challenge to freedom of speech would be HONEST and OPEN. It would not be a sly, tricky, below-the-belt Edward-Teller type threat of the kind that is actually in force.. A legal ban on “climate change contrarianism” would at least level the playing field.. A muzzling capacity would be extended to both sides, not just to the contrarians.. The weapon of litigation would be as available for us to use against them as it is available now to the contrarians (and any other interested party) to employ against any geoengineering advocate tempted to throw in his lot with the “conspiracy theorists” and admit that, yes, geoengineering is not hypothetical. We, and our friends, are doing it, and proposing it! Sue us!

Sir David King is on record for saying that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. He is still confronted on that statement by aggressive journalists, even today when it has become known that he sees nuclear power as part of “the solution” rather than “the problem”. Let his perception be systematized. If climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism then climate change contrarians are the moral and political equivalent of terrorist sympathizers. Let them be treated as such!

Anti-aviation campaigners

One possible focus for discussion between civil society and climate scientists would be the current campaign launched by the European Union and some ecological groups (e.g. Friends of the Earth) against the environmental cost of aircraft emissions. This campaign has included some very militant sounding assertions, for example by Friends of the Earth International vice-chair Tony Juniper, who has said : “Aviation is a rogue sector and its environmental impact is out of control. Climate change is the most urgent challenge facing humanity and yet aviation policy is doing the exact opposite of what is needed.”

Certainly readers of the NAS report on “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming” will agree that if “spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere by utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft” has actually been implemented as “the most effective global warming mitigation”, then it may be more than justified to describe aviation as a “rogue sector”. But this is not what Juniper, and other anti-aviation campaigners, mean. What they mean is in a way the precise opposite. It has to do not with the use of aircraft emissions to mitigate global warming. It has to do with the role of aircraft emissions as net contributors to global warming. Anti-aviation campaigners are worried about aircraft as producers of greenhouse gases. They want to see aviation being included in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. They want to abolish tax exemptions on aviation fuel so as to put an end to the current unfair advantages of air travel over other more ecologically sustainable forms of transport such as railways.

The argumentation of anti-aviation campaigners nowhere intersects with, interacts with, or shows any consciousness of, the argumentation of geoengineering advocates. Geoengineering advocates and anti-aviation campaigners argue past each other, ignoring each other. And most importantly, they base their arguments on diametrically opposite conclusions about the effects of aircraft emissions.. Geoengineering advocates posit a net cooling effect; anti-aviation campaigners a net warming effect of aircraft “contrails” on the earth’s atmosphere.. In both cases these conclusions correspond to the needs of political agendas.

Almost everything published in the mainstream media on the environmental effects of air travel is framed in a disingenuous tone that arouses suspicion. Which of the two sides of the non-debate between geoengineering advocates and anti-air-travel campaigners is more guilty of distorting scientific fact.? If anything the anti-aircraft campaigners seem more guilty, despite the fact that – or perhaps because of the fact that – their political objectives seem less unobjectionable, and even praiseworthy..

What is to one make of the following?

“The CO2 emitted from aircraft engines is not the only way that that aviation affects climate. Aircraft also affect climate through their contrails, the long trails of water vapour and ice that form in an aircraft’s wake and which can persist for several hours. Contrails trap heat in the atmosphere by reflecting infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface.

In 1999 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that contrails from the world fleet of 12,000 civil airliners contribute as much to global warming as the CO2 their engines pour out as they burn jet fuel.

But global air traffic is growing by around 3.5 per cent per year, and many of those extra flights are long-haul, high-altitude, contrail-forming journeys. So by 2050 contrails will be having a great deal more of an impact on global warming than the CO2 emissions from aircraft engines.

Contrails could be eliminated if aircraft reduced their altitude from about 33,000 feet to between 24,000 feet and 31,000 feet, depending on the weather.

But this would come at a price: lower altitude means denser air and higher air resistance, so planes have to burn more fuel. And this means more CO2 emissions, which would apparently negate any benefits from eliminating contrails.

But according to researchers at Imperial College, London, the idea may work after all. “It seems counterintuitive”, admits Robert Noland. But Noland and his colleagues have calculated that if planes flew low enough to leave no contrails behind, their fuel consumption would increase by only four percent, boosting CO2 emissions.”

Does this convoluted argumentation by anti-aviation writers reflect anything more than political determination to oppose the geoengineering approach to climate change without ever admitting that it exists or has ever been proposed? What is the scientific status of arguments (e.g. from NASA) that cirrus cloud cover generated from aircraft emissions are responsible for increasing average surface temperatures in the United States over a twenty-year period?

Given that it is one of the key charges of the climate change “sceptics” that liberal activists in general and ecologists in particular distort science in the pursuit of unacknowledged political objectives, would not the head-on confrontational approach of “conspiracy theorists”, particularly if backed by agreed scientific facts, be a more effective response to these charges than a more “discreet” approach that relies on possible manipulation of scientific data?

The burden of proof

As a final point for empowerment of currently excluded “conspiracy theorists”, it is often argued that the burden of proof for any assertion that geoengineering programmes are something more than proposals lies on those who make the claim. “Agenti incumbit probatio” (the burden of proof rests on the accuser). There is a surface plausibility to this, but on more careful consideration it should become clear that there is not any self-evident single “accuser” in these controversies. . In their way all parties are accusers. Paul Crutzen is an accuser when he implies that because of “taboos” his sulphate seeding programme is not being given the serious consideration it deserves. His accusation enables “us” to request that he prove his programme is not being given such consideration. (What more serious consideration could there be than actual implementation?) Climate change contrarians are being accusers when they caricature the proposals of Crutzen as those of a “nutty professor”. Can they prove that Crutzen’s sulphate seeding proposals are disproportionate to the seriousness of the situation he is attempting to deal with?

All in all the argument here is for the adoption of an offensive stance, a concerted attempt to become “the other side” of the debate, displacing the “sceptics” as interlocutors with mainstream climate science. Can we successfully do this?

22nd August 2006


No one has objected so I have moved the external links on climate change to here.

StraussianNeocon 11:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream media

Video, Bill Moyers, rightklick and save:

http://chemtrails.exzani.com/Chemtrails_-_NBC4-LA_-_Toxic_Sky_-_5-24-06.wmv

Las Vegas tribune articles:

--Striver 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Las Vegas Tribune is Mainstream Media ??? last time i checked it only existed on the internet and was not even worth a wikipedia article. And even Sonic the Hedgehog's girlfriend has an article...-- ExpImptalk con 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That's Paul Moyer, not Bill Moyers.--csloat 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NBC news: Chemtrails over California http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg

[edit] Reliable Sources ??

Anyone ever heard of this policy: WP:RS ? Rense is hardly a reliable source, as are others linked in the article.-- ExpImptalk con 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • They are pretty good sources for the existence of crank theories, though not for the truth of these theories.

[edit] Expo Frisco 2006

User:Jkliop recently replaced the entire content of the article with a comment to the effect that

"at a recent science expo in San Fransico. Expo Frisco 2006 was a gathering of the worlds top scientists as one of the events they had a discussion on whether chemtrails existed the vote was unanimous they are made up."

In its present form this item is unacceptable, but it might be an interesting item for the "skeptical response" section if someone can better identify the event, and cite a published source as to who these "top scientists" were, and quote the language they used in expressing their skepticism. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

Maybe someone can finally include the patent information. Apparently Hughes, APTI, and others have patents related to weather, atmosphere, and environmentalism which have bearing on this chemtrails topic. The idea being that chemtrails are the result of patented processes of a few major companies working on weather-related or environment-related projects.

  • All patents back to the 1970s are searchable and retrievable online at the patent office website. If you can dig out a few details, the patents should be easily verifiable. Haven't any of the chemtrail proponents mentioned specific patent numbers? What are they? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory

This is clearly a conspiracy theory, but it does not use that link anywhere in the article I can find. It should probably be described as such in the intro paragraph. I'm going to make the edit now, as the talk page seems to be moderately inactive; if people object, please discuss. Titanium Dragon 03:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the intro paragraph should indicate that this is probably imaginary, as it has no mainstream support. Titanium Dragon 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This aint "probably imaginary". Just look up.
Its not "probably imaginary", its just plain imaginary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.148.119 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government communication

Of course, these chemtrails are not contrails. I no longer have the reference number, but there was Senate legislation about a year ago, which presumably moved the project into private hands or authorized the patents. I think the place for Wikipedia to start is with government and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has been following this project for more than 7 years, is certainly capable of supplying information to Wikipedia. I also think that Tom Harkin could contribute. But the information now has to come from government. On the other hand, how anyone could not recognize these chemtrails as a project happening all over America and internationally is beyond me. Aluminum and barium? Supposedly the Canadians have samples of these chemicals and have information about them on their websites. It's meaningless to have people telling us that "they" look at them and don't see anything but contrails! This is related, naturally, to Global Warming and we have seen how effectively oil industry propagandists and the disinformation campaigns they waged managed to brainwash citizens, many of whom still think Global Warming is "myth." Chemtrails are no more myth than is Global Warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfulwonderful (talk • contribs)

[edit] If this is just CT, then it's easy to Debunk

All you have to do, is go through pre-1980 magazines, such as a National Geographic, and find pictures such as the newer pictures posted in this articles. If they have been around for fifty years, then it's just a crazy theory. However, if you don't find any pictures such as these until 1984 or later, then you might worry. Such pictures of pre-1980 trails would help this article. Of course, if you find that you can't find pictures of this type of events from that early of a date, we should mention that to. The article could mention the date that these started appearing, or the date that people started mistaking contrails for chemtrails. Also, since pictures like this exist, maybe we should include an explanation as to wtf this jet is doing. I mean, that doesn't appear to be a crop duster.—Slipgrid 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory?

This article is worded like it's all nonsense, but there isn't sufficient proof against it. The trails are made, some expand and some disappear, but is there proof that these trails are both the same thing? Worker4132 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If you could just walk up to an airplane and take a picture of the chemtrail dispenser nozzle, that would be a very encyclopedic contribution to the article. Thanks! --TotoBaggins 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. My observations aren't really 100% conclusive, but it makes you think. Worker4132 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 9:00pm (EST and PST), The Discovery Channel is featuring a one hour program on Chemtrails. 24.152.165.135 06:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to something TotoBaggins suggested: I don't think a picture of the "chemtrail dispenser nozzle" would be a useful or accurate contribution to the article. Pictures can be "Photoshopped" so easily as to make any such picture instantly suspicious. But in my opinion, when you come right down to it, every other type of proof that could be submitted can also be faked in some manner. Perhaps the overseers of this particular page could come to a consensus as to what true proof could look like and give a definition of it for others here in this talk page area. Documents can be altered or faked. Photographs can be faked. People can lie about what they saw, or what they know to be true or false. What possible kind of proof is left that can't be rigged, faked, altered, mis-read, falsified or misconstrued? Personally, in light of what I have just remarked, I can't seem to find any absolutely verifiable proof that Abraham Lincoln existed. Can anybody else prove that he did live using proofs different from all the ones I just detailed above that can be faked? This just goes to show that no matter what proof might be pushed forward to support any "theory," it can always be refuted in some way or another by those who do not wish to believe in the "theory." I would welcome any discussion as to what evidence of the "chemtrail conspiracy theory" would be "admissable in court" as true proof. (I had been signed in to Wiki, but apparently the software had signed me out before I realized it. That's why I went back in and signed my user name to it. I wanted it to be known that I personally had added it.) HaarFager (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low Altitude Formation

I have noticed that a continuing subject that comes up in chemtrail web sites is the altitude at which they're formed. Since the Wikipedia page on Contrails states: As NASA states [1],

   "Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C). Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds."

Several sites, such as this one: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/digital.html show how to calculate aircraft height and have photographed aircraft leaving contrails where, according to NASA, they cannot form.

Should there perhaps be something in the "Chemtrail theory" page contrasting these two behaviors? Kalkor 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible writing

I'm removing: 'It is quite distinguishable to the contrary, however, that due to various FAA-regulated state weather modification programs and even national, Federal-mandated, "global warming mitigation" operations performed by defense industry contractors like Raytheon and BAE Systems, "chemtrails" are just a new name for an already existing sub-covert practice.'

Besides giving us a wonderful example of terrible writing, the author makes bold statements that are wholly unproven. Also, 'sub-covert' is a mush of the English language that (if it had a meaning) would not carry the meaning that the author intends to deliver. Alpha262 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear to me that what the writer meant was something akin to "ultra-covert" or "super-covert," i.e., something even more covert than normal. HaarFager (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement fails to adequately cite sources

I have removed 'Such activity is outlined in various Air Force Articles, including those found at http://www.fas.org.' If there are articles (which shouldn't be capitalized by the way) available, please specify them. Also, if the FAS website holds relevant material, link to the material itself and not just the homepage. We mustn't expect readers to troll through other people's sites because of poor citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha262 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Forget it

This article's structure appears too far gone to be salvaged. The introductory text is a rambling series with poor thought structure. I suggest that the entire article be considered for deletion and reconstruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha262 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Much like the theory 72.144.198.53 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


ONE thing to be fixed is that "spam" caution at the top!

fixed! Vacapuer 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] links

Why is the External Links section longer than the actual article? Most of these links need to be deleted as per WP:EL. wikipediatrix 22:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of the non-notable links. Tried to leave the main chemtrail sites, and ones that looked halfway relevent. This did not leave very many. Vacapuer 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Solved?

Has anyone ever tried to link Chem Trails with Atmospheric Brown Clouds?

Recent research by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Stith and Prather is suggesting that a large portion of the brown cloud we see on the west coast there is an "Atmospheric Brown Cloud" swept from the far east across the Pacific. It's essentially black carbon, organic carbon and other aerosols such as sulphates and nitrates — formed by wildfires and by incomplete burning of fossil fuels and biofuels. China and India are major contributor to the brown clouds of smog which climbs into the jet stream and mixed with dust from the deserts in the middle east.

The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). So when a jet causes contrails, the water in the exhaust binds with the particles of soot and dust, creating large clouds. The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective and thus more visible. The rainbow effect from the chemtrails comes from the organic compounds in the air.

I've seen places where the contrail seems to turn on and off. Could it be that the plane is merely crossing in and out of polluted air?

The US has seen a decrease in pan evaporation over the last 50 years. This is directly tied to global dimming. The explanations for global dimming include both contrails and the atmospheric brown cloud. Coincidence? Maybe mythbusters could help. Um sorry chemtrails sells books. Kgrr 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using "trails" rather than "contrails"

The term "trails" should be used when describing what conspiracy theorists claim are not contrails, otherwise it makes not sense (they can't claim some contrails are not contrails). "trails" also includes smoke trails, trails left by fuel dumping, trails left by cloud seeding and trails left by aerial spraying of any kind. Also, "chemtrails" is not a portmanteau of "chemical contrails", since "contrails" is a portmanteau of "condensation trails". The word "chemtrails" is a portmanteau of "chemical trails" Vacapuer 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory

I changed it in the first paragraph to "theory". Although it may, to some, be just a "conspiracy theory", it cannot be seen as unbiased to call it so in the introduction of an article.

Too bad : the theory tells us there is a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy theory.Kromsson 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In what way does the theory tell us there is a conspiracy? It is a theory at it's base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.50 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemtrails and Schizophenia

I'm wondering if there is a possible connection between chemtrails and schizophrenia. Not that Chemtrails cause schizophrenia, I mean that it seems a very large per portion of the people who believe in chemtrails are schizophrenic, particularly paranoid schizophrenic, to some degree. Very few of the people who believe in chemtrails do not also believe in a host of other conspiracy theories overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific mainstream, and nearly all of the litarature on the topic of chemtrails seems to be written in a disorganized style, with little self-consistancy. Thoughts? --Gunbladezero 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A disorganized style such as you employ in your comment, Gunbladezero? Just clarifying what you meant for others, so they can see by example what not to do. HaarFager (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listen up

Chemtrails are, without any doubt what-so-ever, a load of garbage. In order for this conspiracy to be true, almost everything else in Wikipedia would have to be false. The idea that millions of people are being 'mind-controlled' is absurd, but that is the only explanation for the fact that nobody has any hard evidence for this. No 'dispensing nozzles' on airplanes, no spectrum analysis to reveal anything unusual in contrails. Every mechanic, engineer, and inspector in the aviation industry would have to be 'in on it'. The only people who believe in this are terribly ill-informed, ignorant, or mentally ill. You would have to believe that 'the government' is one homogeneous block. That all of modern science is an elaborately constructed lie, what with Spectroscopic_analysis being entirely make-believe, in order to cover up the chemtrails. All of modern psychology, biology, and neurology would have to be fictional as well, if there exists something you can dispense from airplanes that lets 'the government' read and control your mind. --Gunbladezero 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

hear, hear! (217.169.236.12 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Gunbldezero, can you offer any proof whatsoever that you actually exist? Keeping in mind that photographs can be faked, documents can be falsified, people can lie and birth records can be faked. I don't think there is any proof you could offer that couldn't be faked in some manner or another. So, where would that leave you if you were just trying to be heard and nobody would believe any evidence you could give that you existed? Not everybody that witnesses chemtrails believes that somebody is trying to control our minds through the use of these "chemtrail conspiracy theories." Not everyone thinks that these planes are flying out of every airport where they can come in contact with every "mechanic, engineer, and inspector in the aviation industry." (sic) But, it is true that some of those that believe in the "chemtrail consipiracy theory" think there are people that are "terribly ill-informed, ignorant, or mentally ill," (sic) but that some of those people you're describing are the ones that can blindly dismiss something that can be seen with their own eyes. People have described seeing planes leaving "persistent contrails"/"chemtrails" that start and stop at random. Does this mean the pilots of these planes turned off their engines and coasted for awhile? Show me in the "persistent contrail" theory where this particular phenomenon is accounted for. There is simply something going on that the "persistent contrail theory" cannot explain. The people that report these chemtrails, and I, only want to know what it is. We don't need or want loons like you just unilaterally calling us stupid. I am neither a, ill-informed, b, ignorant, or c, mentally ill. A, I am not informed at all, in the respect that I didn't hear about this from some other source, I personally see these things in the sky happening that didn't happen before the mid-1990's and wonder what they are; b, I am not ignorant, in fact, I am a published writer and novelist; c, I am not crazy and it has been verified that I'm not by trained medical personnel at different times in my life. (Such as when a person joins the Army and other comparable instances.) However, some psychiatrists might be interested in the type of person that would repeatedly call groups of other people crazy, though. I think the phrase, "Why do you hate your mother" comes to mind. So, don't just indiscriminantly go around calling the entire group of people who want to know what the "chemtrail conspiracy theory" (sic) is all about ill-informed, ignorant, mentally ill or loons. It makes you look less intelligent than than you might be. HaarFager (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gunbladezero, in case you couldn't understand what I was saying above, I will simplify it. There might be some people who think you're an idiot. Can you understand that? Mind you, I wouldn't stoop so low myself as to call somebody I didn't personally know ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaarFager (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


"photographs can be faked, documents can be falsified" you say above, and I totally agre, But my EYES dont lie.. And what you said about, "people can lie and birth records can be faked.", what has that have to do with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Green Bulb (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • They are a conspiracy theory. Not labelling them as such would be dishonesty, not neutrality. Chris Buckey 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Here is some sources regarding this topic:

Millions were in germ war tests @ Guardian Unlimited on April 21, 2002

--Striver - talk 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That isn't even close to the same thing as what the "chemtrails" are alleged to be. Chris Buckey 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgellon's Disease and chemtrails

There is evidence suggesting that chemtrails and Morgellon's disease are linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.241.224 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Army / Chemtrail news report

I have reinstated the following link (to google video) removed by 151.57.117.218 (diff). If used as a source I would agree that the reliability would be questionable, but unless the translation into english is horribly skewed it appears to be a relevant link to chemtrails in the media. Note that although the article even says chemtrails are for an 'unknown purpose', this is in relation to the general populace (at the time of there appearance?). Stating that the news report is not about chemtrails because a purpose was later given (artificial clouds? chaffing) is not sufficient for its removal IMHO. I have renamed the link to be more accurate. ---- Osndok (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Link in question: News report on German Army's use of chemtrails

[edit] Requested Move

This should really be merged into the contrails article, as there is no reputable evidence of 'chemtrails', and it is more or less a theory created by unreputable people. It bears no culture signifigance either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.77.0 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose it gets over 3000 hits on Google. It’s a notable crank theory. Brimba (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good example of an article that presents "facts about opinions." Most of the facts are not related to contrails, because the whole point of the theory is that they are not contrails... which is why they are called "chemtrails" instead. A good article about chemtrails should clearly present whatever it is that chemtrail theorists believe and why, and should also clearly present the fact that it this is not mainstream science, and reasons why others believe that it is nonsense. I don't believe that any reader of the current article would get the impression that chemtrail theory is established science! Whether chemtrail theorists are "unreputable" is irrelevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Osndok (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A little late, but I see no reason to move it. It is a theory backed up by nothing but pseudo-science, but it is notable nonetheless. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Page Protection

I am moving for a consensus that to protect the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Main Page under Wikipedia Semi-Page Protection Policy. The repeated vandalism of Anonymous_users (users with only IP addresses) are cause for us to protect this page. Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)