Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

Contrail over Kildare. Image Author
Contrail over Kildare. Image: Author

There are those who claim that the trails we see behind aircraft high in the sky are not the normal condensation of water vapour from the hot exhaust gases but are in fact chemicals that are being deliberately sprayed upon us by government agencies for some dark and sinister reasons. When asked to prove their claims, however, their response is invariably either just a video or blog of someone else making the same unsubstantiated claim, or a simple “Well why don’t you prove that they’re NOT chemtrails!”. Proof has been given time and time again but ok, here it is one more time, using only sound scientific methods and no political mumbo-jumbo.

Actually, it should not be for me or any reasonably-minded person to reprove something that has always been a normal and scientifically-accepted fact of life. If others come along and claim that it is something totally new and different then it is actually up to them to provide evidence that proves beyond doubt that the original theory is wrong. The simple fact is that this evidence does not exist, but this does still not deter them from making these claims and denouncing anyone who tries to argue against them.

I am not denying that geo-engineering, still just a theoretical exercise, could be easy enough to try out, given the right modifications to an appropriate aircraft, or that cloud-seeding experiments have been carried out (but these only consist of silver iodide crystals from burning flares and not actual dumping of material). I am actually totally against the whole idea of trying to geo-engineer our way out of what is really not a problem, in my opinion. In any case, it would be such an inefficient method of poisoning us, as the resulting concentration of chemicals in the air would be the equivalent of only half a teaspoon in 4 billion Olympic-size swimming pools! (See my calculations at the end of this article).

What I AM denying is the claim that the trails we see from normal commercial airliners, both with our own eyes and in the photos of our readers, are chemtrails, as is claimed by a certain number of conspirators every time a reader shares a photo with us. Using such sites as Flightradar24.com it is so easy to check at any minute of the day what planes are flying overhead, generating the contrails we are seeing. To claim that these planes are not just innocent airliners but are being used for dumping harmful chemicals requires specific proof.

Has anyone ever seen a refueling truck loading anything other than fuel into the tanks as you board a plane? Have you ever spotted nozzles on the wings spraying these chemicals as you look out the window as you fly along? Do you think the airlines are in on this and agree to carry the extra weight of these substances? No, I didn’t think so.

Anyway, what are contrails (CONdensation-TRAILS)? They are plumes of ice-crystals formed by the condensation and freezing of water vapour in the exhaust-gases of an aircraft flying at high altitudes and under the right conditions. As fuel (petrol, diesel, avgas, Jet-A1, kerosene, natural gas, etc.) is a hydrocarbon, burning it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O), along with other materials, such as nitrogen oxides, sulphates, hydrocarbons, soot, metal particles, etc. This applies to planes as it does to trains, cars, trucks, buses, motorbikes, lawnmowers, boilers, etc. Different fuels contain different additives and produce different levels of these by-products, but they all produce CO2 and water vapour. That is basic Junior Cert chemistry and something that cannot be denied. The difference with planes is that they operate in conditions very different to these other vehicles.

I am now going to take the main arguments that the conspirators use in their claims that the clouds we see can not be simple contrails, and will give a scientific explanation of why they are wrong and what is actually happening. In each case I will first give some simple analogies to illustrate the reason, then give a deeper scientific explanation. That way no one can claim it’s above their comprehension.

But first, some definitions:

Dewpoint: The temperature at which condensation (fog/cloud) will occur if air is cooled enough. Humid air has a higher dewpoint than dry air. The relative humidity is 100% when the dewpoint and temperature are equal.

Relative humidity: The amount of water vapour in the air, expressed as a percentage of the total amount of water vapour the air can hold at that temperature and pressure. Warm air can hold a lot more vapour than cold air. 100% means the air is totally saturated and condensation (fog/cloud) will form.

Conspiracy Claim 1.“Contrails only last for seconds but these ones lasted for hours, therefore they must be chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: Contrails can last from seconds to hours, depending on the relative humidity at cruising altitudes. If it is above around 70% then the contrails can last for hours.

ANALOGIES: In summer you don’t normally see your breath, in cold winter you normally do. In summer you don’t see truck exhausts form water vapour clouds, in winter you
normally do, and they can last for relatively long times (especially in places like Siberia). If you throw a saucepan of boiling water in the air in summer it will
simply fall to the ground as water, with some of it evaporating on the way. If you do the same in winter (below around -20 °C) then it will freeze instantly into a cloud of fine ice particles and hang around a for much longer. This video illustrates this perfectly. Seen from below we see the larger ice-particles falling quickly to the ground but the main cloud of tiny crystals remains suspended and drifts slowly, just like a contrail.

THE SCIENCE: Many days we don’t actually see any trails at all from aircraft flying high above us as the trails dissipate as soon as they are formed. The air at cruising altitudes is very cold (-40 to -60 °C) and usually very dry (low relative humidity). The water vapour from the exhaust gases alone is not enough to form a contrail. Knollenburg (1972) gives a breakdown of typical components of aircraft exhaust gases, with around 1.37 kg of water vapour released per kg of fuel burned. The study found that exhaust gases contained around 1.7 g of water vapour for every metre flown, but found actual persistent contrails to contain at least 30,000 times that level (20,700-41,200 g per metre). This means that the overwhelming majority of the water in contrails comes from the atmosphere, with only around 1 in every 30,000 molecules originating from the burning of the fuel. It is therefore clear that relative humidity at cruising altitude needs to be relatively high for contrails to form and be visible, and very high (above around 70%) for them to persist for long periods.

We get these conditions from time to time and place to place, especially a few hundred miles ahead of an approaching depression (warm front), and to the west of an upper ridge-axis, among others. We normally see natural cirrus clouds (thin, high, wispy clouds) in these conditions, but even when conditions are not quite humid enough for natural cirrus to form on their own they can be right for contrails, as the exhaust particles (soot, etc.) act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) around which water vapour can condense and freeze into ice-crystals. This is why we can sometimes see contrails without natural cirrus, but normally we would see some cirrus too, even if just a few random wisps. If the relative humidity is below around 60% then the ice-crystals can sublimate (turn from solid directly to gas) fairly quickly and dissipate but if it’s above around 70% this sublimation process is much slower and the contrail can last for hours. Contrail ice-crystals are also much smaller (0.001 – 0.1 mm) than cirrus crystals (0.01 – several mm), which allows them to remain suspended for longer.

Conspiracy Claim 2. “I saw two aircraft flying in the same area. One aircraft’s contrail dissipated within a few seconds, the other’s grew and lasted for hours. The second aircraft was obviously spraying chemicals”.

ACTUAL REASON: They were simply flying at different altitudes and/or were different types of aircraft (engine).

ANALOGIES: Your bathroom mirror doesn’t fog up when you first take a shower. It only does so after a while, when there is enough vapour in the room to increase the dewpoint to the temperature of the mirror, allowing the vapour to condense onto.

A small cup of coffee makes a smaller steam cloud than a large open pot of coffee. The pot has a larger volume of steam rising and condensing off it, which rises to a greater height before evaporating, just as a larger engine produces more emissions than a smaller one.

THE SCIENCE: Cirrus clouds are very high up but relatively thin (sometimes only a few hundred metres deep), therefore there is only a narrow layer in which conditions are right for their formation. The same goes for contrails. Two identical aircraft flying at different altitudes can therefore produce very different contrails as the temperature and humidity can be very different.

Look at this sounding (plot of temperature, dewpoint and wind measurements from an instrument attached to a weather balloon) for Camborne, in the extreme southwestern
tip of England, around the middle of the day on August 22nd, 2013.

Camborne

Airliners cruise at between around 30,000-40,000 ft (9,000-12,000 m). The sounding shows cold and mainly dry upper levels (the temperature and dewpoint curves are far apart), however there is a very thin humid layer just below 300 hPa (9,500 metres), where the dewpoint curve (left) shoots over to almost meet the temperature curve (right), meaning high relative humidity. We would expect very few contrails in this scenario as only those planes flying exactly within that humid layer will produce contrails. Other layers are just too dry. The actual data points from this sounding show that humid layer to be at around 9,116 metres (around 30,000 ft), with a relative humidity of 78%. Sure enough this high-resolution MODIS satellite picture for 11:40 UTC (around 20 minutes before the sounding) shows just one fresh contrail just south of Lands End, which FlightRadar24.com shows as United Airlines flight 43, a Boeing 767-400 flying at 30,000 ft. It shows dozens of other aircraft at different heights all over southern England and the English Channel, but not one of these is producing a contrail as the levels they’re flying at are too dry. Not surprisingly they’re not producing chemtrails either!

Sometimes we see broken or very short contrails, i.e. with breaks, as in my photo at the top of this article. This can be caused by an aircraft climbing through a humid layer, or by the effects of gravity waves at altitude. The plane enters and exits humid areas as it flies along, giving a broken contrail. We also see this type of effect with natural transverse cirrus bands along which form perpendicular to the jetstream flow (strong winds at altitude). An aircraft flying parallel to the jetstream will be passing in and out of the humid areas that are causing the transverse cirrus, so its contrail will be discontinuous.

tranverse cirrus
Transverse cirrus bands form perpendicular to the jetstream wind, shown by the wide swathe of fibrous cirrus.

Two different types of aircraft flying at the same altitude can still produce different contrails. Different engines produce different-sized exhaust plumes, and newer engines produce cooler exhaust-gas temperatures than older engines. Cooler exhaust temperatures allow the contrail to form quicker, before the gases have a chance to mix with the ambient air, as the gas needs less time to cool to condense the vapour into ice-crystals. Engine contrails can also be affected by the aerodynamics of the aircraft wings, etc., and even the weight of the aircraft, which can strengthen wake-vortices and enhance contrails. In fact, some contrails are not even related to the engine exhaust gases at all and are merely condensation formed within the wake-vortices, where the pressure is locally lower than the surroundings. We can see that when landing or taking off on a very humid day.

To an observer on the ground it can be very difficult to accurately estimate the relative heights of two aircraft flying near eachother. They may SEEM to be at the same altitude but in reality they could be a few thousand feet apart and therefore in possibly very different ambient conditions.

Planes
These planes look they’re colliding but they’re actually at least 1,000 ft apart vertically.

Conspiracy Claim 3. “Those trails are in regular criss-cross patterns, so there is obviously some systematic spraying going on”.

ACTUAL REASON: Planes fly many different routes (called airways), which can cross eachother at points called Intersections.

ANALOGY: No need for one here, it’s pretty straightforward!

THE SCIENCE: Ireland’s airspace is very busy with transatlantic traffic, with hundreds of morning eastbound and afternoon and evening westbound flights every day. Ireland has actually done away with the upper airway system within its airspace, instead allowing aircraft to fly their own direct routes between intersections along the eastern and western borders of the airspace. This saves the airlines time and fuel, but also means no real set published flight paths, as there used to be previously. Planes cross paths all the time, depending on what the intersections they are flying between. Just off the east coast these flights all converge at a few intersections, which can give a more regular contrail pattern to an observer on the ground. The link above also shows the complexity of the airway system over the UK airspace and this video shows how busy traffic gets throughout different times of the day, especially the afternoon and evening in Europe.

Conspiracy Claim 4. “I never saw this many contrails when I was a kid so it must be chemtrails that I’m seeing now”.

ACTUAL REASON: There are more flights now than years ago. Engines are larger and produce cooler exhaust gases, which make it easier for contrails to form, as explained
above.

ANALOGY: A room full of kids is a hell of a lot louder than a room with just one kid!

THE SCIENCE: Pretty much explained in the other points above. We should not, however, compare what we are seeing now to what we remember as kids. We all think that the
summers were better back when we were young, but there are no data to back this up. Our minds as kids were different to what they are now, having developed through all
the stages of cognitive development. In the same way, we were most likely not counting contrails back then and wouldn’t have probably noticed them much in any case.

Conspiracy Claim 5. “Children have lots of respiratory problems now and it’s due to chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: This has to be the craziest claim I have heard from a conspirator. There are many more plausible and well-documented reasons for children’s health problems. The use of a sick child as proof of chemtrails is stooping to a new low.

THE SCIENCE: The science of the previous explanations debunks this claim as it proves that the chemtrails are not there in the first place. Increases in children’s health problems are well-documented and can be due to increased obesity, poor diet, less excercise, more time spent indoors, etc.

Satellites

Satellite imagery is a perfect tool for spotting contrails. Visible imagery is good, but there are other types of imagery (IR, Water-vapour, RGB, Dust RGB, etc.) that show them up to varying degrees. These images are formed by filtering various wavelengths, which show up differences in cloud physics, such as small or large ice-crystals, thin or thick layers, etc.

The Eview image below of the Iberian peninsula at 1800 UTC this evening shows an area of persistent contrails over Biscay and the northern and northwestern parts of Spain and Portugal, with none showing up elsewhere. Comparing this image with the predicted 300 hPa relative humidity chart from the GFS model (underneath) shows that the contrails are forming right inside the area of >75% relative humidity, which stretches from the Pyrenees to central Portugal and up to Galicia. Other areas are too dry for contrails. This is a good example of how we can actually predict the areas that will have contrails.

Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat
Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over Biscay and northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat
GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image: weatheronline.co.uk
GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image: weatheronline.co.uk

Conclusion

It only requires one test to prove a theory wrong, but in this article I have given several. Sometimes we see things that we cannot explain. Various theories circulate to try to explain them, and invariably some of these theories take on a political theme – a Them versus Us kind of thing. Some people are more prone to accepting these theories than others, and a quick check of the Facebook profiles of many of the conspirators on our page will confirm that.

This has been an effort to explain why their chemtrail theory is false on so many levels, and maybe some of them will finally see the light and accept that science rules over our imaginations 100% of the time.  I can, however, forecast even now the responses I will get to this article, as some people just want to believe in the alternative, for whatever reasons. I can do nothing about that. We are all different, but ignorance is no excuse for stupidity at any time.

Fergal – Irish Weather Online

UPDATE: Calculation of half a teaspoon in 4 billion Olympic-size swimming pools.

Just to highlight how unbelievably inefficient chemtrails would be as a method of poisoning people, I have done a quick calculation on how much chemicals would be added to the atmosphere every day if every single jet plane on the planet was spraying all of the time (turbprops use Jet A1 too, but for the benefit of the conspirators let’s assume they are all high-level jets). It is based on the daily consumption of Jet A1 fuel (which in 2010 was about 5,220,000 barrels/day) and assuming a very generous chemical contamination of 10% in the fuel. This level would, of course, be too high for the engines to operate, but hey, why let logic get in the way when it comes to the topic of chemtrails.

Overall, the resulting contamination of the atmosphere would be just 0.0000000000000000002844%, or the equivalent of just a half of a teaspoon of water in 4 billion Olympic-size swimming pools!

Here are my calculations. As most airliners normally cruise at between 33,000-39,000 ft, I have taken the average cruising altitude as 36,000 ft (11 km). They would therefore be contaminating a volume of the atmosphere (what I call the Cruisosphere) from that level down to the ground. By finding the total volume of this cruisosphere and the total amount of chemicals being sprayed into it we can find the resulting concentration in the air we breath.

Radius of Earth, R: 6370 km
Average cruise altitude, H: 36,000 ft (11 km)
Volume of a sphere: (4/3)Pi(R³)

Volume of Earth (radius 6370 km): 1,082,696,932,433 km³
Volume of Earth + Cruisosphere (radius 6370 + 11 km): 1,088,315,571,792 km³
Volume of Cruisosphere: 1,082,696,932,433 – 1,088,315,571,792 = 5,618,639,359 km³

The daily consumption of Jet A1 in 2010 was 5,219,510 barrels (1 barrel = 42 US gallons (162 litres), so that’s 843,994,767 litres, or 683,635,761 kg, given that the density is 0.81 kg/litre). Assuming a 10% chemical-contamination, this gives a total of 68,363,576 kg of chemicals sprayed through the fuel per day. This is, of course, making the huge assumption that they survive the combustion and come out of the exhausts unaffected – a highly unlikely scenario – but let’s carry on nevertheless. As we said, logic is not a word the conspirators have in their vocabulary.

This leads to a daily concentration of chemicals in the atmosphere of 68,363,576/5,618,639,359 = 0.01217 kg/km³ (i.e. 12.2 g (or one dessert-spoon) in a volume of 1 cubic kilometre).

The density of the atmosphere at sea level is 1.225 kg/m³ and at 11 km altitude it is 0.2978 kg/m³. This gives an average density throughout the Cruisosphere of: (1.225+0.2978)/2 kg/m³ = 0.7614 kg/m³ = 761,400,000 kg/km³. Multiplying this by the volume gives us the mass of the cruisosphere: 4,278,032,007,942,600,000 kg.

This lets us calculate the daily percentage chemical concentration: 100 x (0.01217/4,278,032,007,942,600,000) = 0.0000000000000000002844%

So only 2.8 of every ten billion billion grams of the atmosphere would be from chemicals. One Olympic-size swimming pool is 50 x 25 x 2 metres = 2,500 m³ (2,500,000 litres), so ten billion billion grams is four billion Olympic-size swimming pools. One teaspoon is 5 ml, so 2.8 g (ml) is just over half of that. This is all we have in our four billion swimming pools. Over a year it comes to just 1 litre.

NOW do you still think they’re spraying?

728 thoughts on “Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

  1. And like a true sociopath he will lie about the context of his comment and deny his actual implication. He will continue to twist it until he looks innocent. There was nothing in the post he replied to that indicated I was telling you what to do, like a “mom”.

    • While at the same time avoiding those calculations I asked for.

      It’s one thing being an idiot behind an online username but it’s another when people know your full name and that you’re an artist from Dun Laoghaire. He’s not doing himself any favours there.

      • So we’re back to that again Fergal? We have been through this before, I have nothing to hide. Get my name out there and promote me if you like. Cool. Anyway what’s your point?
        You astound me man, when you call me an idiot behind a username haha.
        I sincerely mean it that I did NOT mean any reference to your Mother. Never in my lifetime have I disrespected anybody’s Mother. So apologies if you think I aimed that at you personally.
        It was a dig at Bill who appears to constantly dictate to you how to run you Blog.
        And now ye think I’m just being sweet to ye again…
        You guys. :D

      • I’ll show you the calculations on my way back from another photoshoot down your way. If you don’t believe me check out my trolling, artistic, idiotic, and can’t remember all the other names you and Bully have called me sofar on my fergalt youtube link. . Disgraceful Administration.
        How can your subscribers take you for real when you abuse them in a debate that you originally posted? Why did you even post it in the first place?
        I’ll txt you to let you know when and what time.
        Bet you’ll just happen to be “flying” that day.

      • You’re comments are there for all to see, Dec, so they can clearly make out the level of your contribution. You have never engaged in a scientific debate, you just posted some cryptic “fact” about pixels or something but resorted back to personal attacks when asked to show where you got it from.

      • Yes I know Fergal, of course my comments are there to see by all, isn’t that the point? Is that not your objective also?
        Listen mate, you brought this on yourself when you wrote this original post. Did you not expect any debate about it? A backlash like you have gotten?
        Of course you did, and you keep referring back to the original “scientifically proven” evidence that YOU provide to us because you ‘re a Pilot and an Weather Hobbist.
        Fair enough, but can we not ask questions here without being called idiots and trolls and whatever else you have called us questioners?
        That’s extremely disrespectful for a moderator of any Blog, Forum, Page, Channel, Social Network Sites …
        The most intriguing aspect about all of this, as I said, is why did you post this in the first place?

      • The calculations, Dec, please post your calculations. You’re not “asking questions”, you’re just trolling at this stage. I’ve always asked for scientific debate but have never received it, especially from you. Threats of a camera crew on my doorstep, name-calling, personal insults, ramblings from one side of the fence and then the other, that’s been the extent of your contribution.

        So – one last time – post your calculatons on how you arrived at 7300 ft so that you can gain back some bit of credibility. Also explain that bit about focal point and radar pixels because it makes absolutely no sense. If you don’t then I’m sorry but you’re still just like all the rest.

      • I sincerely hope you aren’t holding your breath, fergalt!
        Sadly this thread has now lost it’s way thanks to this behaviour. One of the major traits of a sociopath is constantly changing tack. They do it blatantly. Some people, during interaction with them, may think that there is something wrong with them the way they constantly and openly contradict themselves. But, what they are doing is striving for attention regardless of how much they contradict and lie, they know they are doing it, they just don’t care as long as they can convince people they are right. Once they have convinced people then they have control. The longer it takes him to get control over this subject the more he will come up with outlandish claims, ideas, suggestions and answers. As can be seen throughout the thread this has been the typical behaviour of all those posting in favour of chemtrails, they come up with the most mind-boggling and ridiculous claims, when asked for evidence they are affronted that anyone should dare to question them and they start attacking. Unfortunately there are some, like Dec, that just can’t provide sensible answers and hope to get by on incredibly silly claims, but their main fault is, they just can’t let it go.
        I can’t wait to hear his stunning answer!
        Have you noticed the grandiose claims beginning to reappear? He will take time out from the return journey from another of his photo shoots, down your way no less.
        On the one hand he has no problem turning my offer of help into me telling you how to run your blog, yet on the other hand he has no problem openly telling you that you aren’t running your blog properly. Two out of his last three replies are telling you you aren’t running it correctly, yet that should be OK, after all, he really does think he is more important.

      • I know he won’t come back with calculations because he made up that idea on the spur of the moment. He pretended to post a “fact” about pixels and radar, one which is complete gobbledegook, yet has now turned the comments back around on me for having the audacity to ask him for his evidence.

        All this, of course, after also playing our side of the argument a while back and rubbishing the chemtrail claims. He doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going, just like the Davoud Twohidys, Terry Lawtons, Max Bliss of this world. They know there are idiots out there that will latch onto their outlandish and fraudulent claims, but when questioned by the other 99% of level-headed individuals their only form of defence is attack.

        20 quid says he comes back here with a personal comment and not the calculations I asked for.

  2. US Patent 5003186 = seeding atmosphere for reduction of global warming (spraying with aluminum)

    THE PATENT IS IN PLAIN SIGHT

    /Thread

  3. The ‘Welsbach’ patent is well known, old (it’s patent has expired), and more importantly, there’s no evidence that it has ever been fitted, let alone used. But what if it had been used, it’s just a delivery system for a form of SRM. Geoengineering, if it ever happens, will be taking place in the stratosphere, and would not look like contrails, you sure as hell wouldn’t be able to see the aircraft, if they went that way. Balloons or rockets are as likely, as there are few planes that could fly to the required altitude.

  4. What sort of proof do you guys class as good enough? Been a while since I’ve looked this particular ‘discussion’ up but, having just watched a video on the subject, I was reminded of this site. Debunk away, Fergalt or Bill, but please be respectful of the views of others, just because it doesn’t fall within what you believe does not give you the right to label somebody an ‘idiot’

    http://worldtruth.tv/united-nations-exposes-chemtrails-100-proof-we-are-being-poisoned/

    • Well something with sound scientific backing would be a start. Youtube videos of people pointing up and saying “that’s a chemtrail” are the opposite. Links to websites of people saying they are chemtrails likewise. And that first link claiming that the wake-vortex vapour trails from the landing plane are actually chemicals is just laughable.

      I don’t just ‘believe’ in the science, the science actually proves that what you and other ‘people of the same persuasion’ say is just bull. Just because you choose to believe it without any proof does not make the science invalid. It’s there in black and white, and people who choose to ignore it are…well…strange.

      Come back with some science that disproves my science and I’ll debate it with you. Problem is, you don’t have any.

      • It is hard to provide scientific evidence for something that, since you started this thread, has been pretty much kept secret from everybody. That said, whether you like it or not, people are going to use videos and the likes from youtube etc as a way of providing yourself with what others are saying. People in a higher position of authority than yourself. Take the link I put up for example. The subject is being broached in the UN yet you still want to shout over people? ‘People of the same persuasion’ really? You can continue to label people what you like but that stance, and that of the way you both try and belittle people for their beliefs, is a form of bullying. Therefore, the debate you crave will never materialise because you are just as extreme as any ‘conspiracy theorist’. He who shouts loudest, gets his mates in to help ridicule people! Like others on here, I judge on merit and what I observe. I don’t need some old timer telling me that ‘I’m strange/weird etc’ for what my own eyes tell me. Plus I would listen to someone debating such a subject in the UN, for example, rather than a weather man who would have no clue as to what the governments were or were not doing. So look at it from the other perspective, you can put up an article that a lot would not understand and then use it as a yard stick to hit them with, putting them down because you believe yourself to be above them. It’s very sad Fergalt, don’t you think?

      • So you still have no evidence, then? I thought as much.

        In case you didn’t read it, I gave both detailed and dummed down explanations of the science that rubbishes every word in that link you posted, and all other ‘evidence’ of chemtrails. If you don’t want to analyse it then there’s nothing I can do.

  5. I read it many years ago and have no wish to do so again. You do not want any evidence Fergalt, you want to carry on pretending you have the upper hand with your post as it contains science! I never proclaimed to have ‘evidence’ did I? I posted a link, nothing more and nothing less. I, and many others, would be inclined to believe a person within the UN rather than a weather man hiding behind his keyboard, throwing insults to people he believes are beneath him. That is how you come across. You go on one because you believe nobody can debunk your theories and refuse to believe anything if it comes in the form of a link to youtube. That says more about you than anybody posting a reply. To form a debate, you must open your mind and your ears as to what others are saying. You refuse to do so which puts you at the opposite end of the spectrum, you are just as extremist in your views as they are in theirs. Are you religious Fergalt?

    • Almost word for word a classic reply from a chemtrailer who knows he’s been had. There have been countless others on here like you, and they too have all resorted to personal jibes at me. But now you’re even asking if I’m religious. That’s a first! ;-)

      Oh and yes, I do want evidence. I’ve been asking for it all along but as yet have received none. So care to provide some?

      • Explain yourself Fergal, you make statements that make no sense. Why is that ‘word for word a classic chemtrailer’ reply? I was courteous and as polite as can be. Countless others like me? See this is the entire point, you bracket everyone because they do not accept the rubbish you post. As I said, you are just as extreme as the people who oppose you so that is just as bad you fool. Yes, I will resort to name calling since you are accusing me of doing so. I haven’t been had mate, you have. I have given you a link to a video which was showing an actual debate within the UN that actually admits to what you’re opposed to. But you want us all to believe what you say is gospel, the ramblings of an amateur weatherman! Can you not see how funny that is? Asking you if you are religious is a pertinent question Fergal, so please answer honestly.

      • Since when did religion come into it? Just another diversionary tactic.

        You have made several comments about me but have not once given your opinion on chemtrails, geo-engineering – call it what you will – and why you think we are being sprayed. You say it’s impossible to prove, which is a handy cop out but has actually been my point all along. There is no proof because it isn’t happening. My blog has shown why the 5 main claims are bogus.

        So, spud, please tell us:

        ● Why you think we are being sprayed
        ● How you think we are being sprayed (i.e. how they get the stuff on the planes, etc.)
        ● What effect spraying is supposed to be having on us
        ● and of course, HOW could it be having any effect on us if the resulting concentration in the atmosphere (in a totally unrealistically high dosage level by every single plane on the planet all the time) would only be the equivalent of a half a teaspoon in 4 billion olympic-size swimming pools?

        We have no idea of your opinions on these questions as you have only posted a link to laughable “evidence”. Answer these simple questions (to which I’m sure you already have answers, otherwise why would you be here arguing against the science?).

    • Very well said Spud, intelligent input into this ridiculous “debate” with Fergal. He’s like a dog with a Bone, just won’t let it go or even consider any alternatives whatsoever put to him, I think the term is “Flogging a Dead Horse”
      There is an alternative way at looking at this blog you know. For instance if Fergal is so vehemently opposed to this suggestion of Geo-engineering or “Chemtrails” then why even start the blog in the first place to highlight it? Umm…
      Why even have Irish Weather Online either? All Fergal, our amateur Weather Hobbyist is doing is copy / pasting weather forecasts from other more reliable Weather sources, so what’s the point? Is it all just a front to debunk any suggestion of Geo-engineering or “Chemtrails”?
      Fergal also refuses to be interviewed face to face which is unusual for somebody so clearly educated in Weather and Science don’t you think? If it was me I’d be only too happy to put my Science forward, but that’s Fergal for you. Run away when confronted when not behind the security of his keyboard.
      There’s Fergal, and there’s Millions of People on the Planet who refuse to have the wool pulled over their eyes, but of course all those millions of concerned People are STUPID! Right Fergal? You’re right and millions are wrong? All I can say at this juncture is that you’re either a delusional Howard Hughes wannabee or an online Troll most likely paid to keep up this ridiculous rant here. It’s so puerile it turns my stomach!

      • Flogging a dead horse indeed. If you read the article it actually revolves around 5 main claims by chemtrailers, so to say I’m not considering alternatives is a bit ridiculous and proves that you didn’t read it. If you had then you would also have seen my reason for posting the blog.

        I’m sure Peter wouldn’t take too kindly to your accusation that his forecasts are copied from somewhere else. He writes the forecasts and posts them here and elsewhere. So you’re wrong on that front too.

      • “For instance if Fergal is so vehemently opposed to this suggestion of Geo-engineering or “Chemtrails” then why even start the blog in the first place to highlight it? Umm…”

        And? Why did you even bother?

      • Thank you Myra. As you see, it doesn’t matter what we say, we get accused of name calling etc for him to justify not answering questions. If you’re not an amateur weather man then you can’t understand his diatribe is the way he looks at it. In any debate there has to be a middle ground yet he himself is not prepared to meet people half way. He can complain all he likes as to people resorting to name calling yet, when you look back through the comments, he and Bill are the ones trying to belittle people. I am now inclined to believe that these two, in particular, are nothing but trolls and probably paid for something such as this. He will demand evidence of such, without doubt, but that is impossible to prove. The fact he is still arguing the point a few years on speaks volumes for me. Even if he was given proper scientific proof, even if the leaders of governments came out and admitted to such acts, he would still not believe it as it goes against his ‘science’. What a sad, blinkered man

      • “…he and Bill are the ones trying to belittle people. I am now inclined to believe that these two, in particular, are nothing but trolls and probably paid for something such as this.”

        Actually, I haven’t belittled anyone! I happen to have read the article plus every response to it and pointed out where the pro-chemtrailers have actually belittled themselves by consistently contradicting themselves. Go on, have a look back, you will see it quite plainly.
        As for the two of us being paid to do this? I only wish! The only evidence of financial reward I’ve seen so far is from pro-chemtrailers who have linked to their website where they blatantly request money and offer false promises in return. Again, go back and check it out spudv.

        “I was courteous and as polite as can be.”

        You haven’t actually, what you actually do is try and disguise insults and rudeness with poorly disguised politeness. You may start of a post as if you are being courteous and polite but it very quickly degrades into insult; you just can’t help yourself.

        One thing that troubles me, why should it be important what someones religious convictions have to do with anything? That is a typical response of someone that can’t offer rational discussion. But if it’s important to you, how about telling everyone about your religious convictions? Perhaps you think it’s an invasion of your privacy that people should be told? But if I was to guess, I would guess that you are a Jehovah’s Witness, you stick your foot in the door and refuse to let it be closed! Myra claims we are like dogs with a bone yet behaves accordingly in that very same manner. This blog often rests for several months at a time yet every once in a while it is stirred up again, by a pro-chemtrailer.

        And please! Don’t give any of that old tired excuse that you want to save us. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, we don’t want to be saved; you’re wasting your time, go and preach to someone who wants to be saved. Quit being so self-righteous and thinking the planet revolves around your beliefs; it doesn’t. You aren’t that important.

        If you dislike this blog as much as you all claim and think that the person responsible for the site is a troll, then stay away for goodness sake. Stick to YouTubeopaedia for what you think are the facts. Why do YOU continue flogging a dead horse?

    • Boredom? I don’t think so.

      “For instance if Fergal is so vehemently opposed to this suggestion of Geo-engineering or “Chemtrails” then why even start the blog in the first place to highlight it? Umm…”

      • Eh…to highlight how ridiculous it is. Every time someone posted a photo of clouds than contained a contrail on our Facebook page we’d get some crazy chemtrail comments from conspirators like yourself who, also like yourself, refused to be purely told their idea is a conspiracy and instead demanded proof. Well here is such proof, so it kinda backfired on them.

    • haha you two are unbelievable! At no point have I been rude yet you want to accuse me of doing so. I have pointed out that you have both been rude to others who don’t share your views, YOU read back through the posts and you will see. Stuck in a time warp you two, deny, deny, deny, be obnoxious to people on your blog, deny, deny, etc. Acting like spoilt brats here, makes for hilarious reading. And then you try and turn it around. I asked one simple question and you refuse to answer, then Bill turns it back on me, with his wild presumptions on what religion I may follow myself. Even there, he continues his attempt at belittling a faith of which I do not follow. Shame on you Bill, I hope an actual Jehovah’s Witness pulls you up on this score. It actually shows how bigoted and how reluctant you are to see others point of view, despite your claim you are willing to do so if ‘science’ is used. Not sure about you, but where I come from it is common decency to answer a simple question rather than throw wild accusations and then bombard that person with questions of your own. So, for the third time, and I’ll even open it up to Bill, are you both religious men? Before you answer, if you actually do, I’m not trying to play games with this. I’m merely trying to figure out the mind set of two old men who think it is acceptable to put everyone down with your sly and unwarranted replies.
      Every time I post I am met with the ‘typical response’ yet, if it was ‘typical’ then others would have said exactly the same as me. Reading the comments, I haven’t seen anyone ask about your religious beliefs so that isn’t typical is it? Believe me Bill, I haven’t tried to disguise anything, point out where I was rude. You start a blog then clash with anyone that doesn’t agree with your point of view, childish beyond reason. Grow up, leave the insults and respond like the adult you tell us you are. I have seen plenty of comments where you have been rude Bill, you read the comments back and you will see. Please answer the one question

      • Your never rude or insulting? In one post alone today at 11.57am you say:

        “Acting like spoilt [sic] brats here, makes for hilarious reading.”

        “It actually shows how bigoted and how reluctant you are to see others point of view…”

        “I’m merely trying to figure out the mind set of two old men…”

        “You start a blog then clash with anyone that doesn’t agree with your point of view…”

        “…childish beyond reason.”

        “Grow up, leave the insults and respond like the adult you tell us you are.”

        Now, if you would like to read your full post, it starts of with you trying to come over as polite and courteous and then rapidly deteriorates into baseless facts and insults. You have no basis for any of those comments. And those insults are in your post claiming you don’t insult!

        Thirteen minutes later you then say:

        “that Fergie and Billy boy…”

        Since when was it ever polite to call someone by the wrong name? That’s what you do when you try to belittle someone.

        Yesterday evening at 11.48pm you said:

        “I am now inclined to believe that these two, in particular, are nothing but trolls and probably paid for something such as this.”

        I could carry on because you haven’t yet made one post that doesn’t contain an insult or rudeness. But, I stand to be corrected if you can point me in the direction of a post that doesn’t contain an insult or rudeness.

  6. I don’t know Fergal, it still doesn’t make much sense to bring it up but for debunking it. If it’s nonsense then why not just ignore it and get on with what the Blog is all about, the Weather.
    I simply wonder why suddenly millions of people around the globe just made something up? What’s the point in that? Maybe these so-called “chemtrails” single out a certain genus of people and turn them delirious and paranoid about funny clouds. I blame the legalisation of medical marijuana!
    You and Bill appear to be unaffected by it though.
    Ok, sorry gotta skoot, my glass of flouride is beckoning. :D

    • And to add, interesting post this. I do believe when you say that the amount of chemicals is a drop in the ocean, or swimming pool as you put it, much smaller, but I think I’m much more likely to die from a Butterfly bite than chemicals from plane fumes. Or Flouride. :)

    • Why millions suddenly made something like this up? Come on Myra, it’s obvious that they never read the ‘science’ that Fergie and Billy boy put in this article :) shame on the millions eh….

      • Millions? A couple of thousand worldwide maximum. I would hazard a guess that more people believe in Big Foot than chemtrails.

      • Even in the extremely unlikely event that “millions” did believe it – again, more gross exaggeration from chem-trailers – there are billions that don’t believe it. I’m afraid billions trumps millions :)

    • “I don’t know Fergal, it still doesn’t make much sense to bring it up but for debunking it. If it’s nonsense then why not just ignore it…”

      Exactly, Myra, if you have problems understanding or believing this blog, why don’t YOU ignore, why keep flogging YOUR dead horse?

      • Excuse me Bill but can Fergal not speak for himself? You consistently answer questions posed to Fergal through this Blog. Somebody asked before if you are his mentor or something, certainly appears to be the case?
        Anyway your response make little sense. I do NOT have a misunderstanding of this Blog. How can I ignore it? It’s an ONLINE BLOG!

        “why don’t YOU ignore, why keep flogging YOUR dead horse?”

        Why don’t you?

        “It must be the heat bringing them out again or they are just bored”

        Again, speak for yourself.

      • Perhaps you can enlighten me? Which questions were posed to fergalt that I consistently answer? Point them out and I’ll apologise to fergalt right away.

        ““why don’t YOU ignore, why keep flogging YOUR dead horse?”

        Why don’t you?”

        I was quite happily watching the progression of the foolish posts being made by you and spudv until you brought me into it. You both brought me into it merely to give yourselves another chance to hammer away on your keyboards because you have nothing better to do with your lives.
        If you don’t want my input, something I’m entitled to do and I won’t stop doing just because you think I should, then avoid bringing me into it. I would advise that you stop and have a good think, while you are assuming that you are showing no respect to the author of the article, you are merely showing how little respect you have for yourselves.

        ““It must be the heat bringing them out again or they are just bored”

        Again, speak for yourself.”

        Are these really the best responses you can post? Do you have nothing original or of value to write?

        Why not quit your whining and find yourself a real life? You’ve said your piece on the article, if you don’t agree with it then feel free to move on and ignore it. You are the one that is making no sense, of course you can ignore it. You know what the article is about and you know the majority of posters views, just stop coming onto the blog, simple, no one has said that you have to come on here and read it, you are choosing to, so don’t be so be stupid and say absolutely ridiculous things like “How can I ignore it? It’s an ONLINE BLOG!” You are making a fool of yourself.

        If you truly want an intelligent debate on this why don’t you and spudv go away and find some real evidence and present it on here and we can discuss it. You have all been asked numerous times to do so, but you won’t, simply because you have none. So, put up or shut up, simple.

  7. Let it be noted for the umpteenth time. I have not added any science to the original article, spudv. I have in fact added nothing to the original article. You seem to be incapable of understanding that simple fact!

    • Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself Bill? The way you act on here makes it seem that you have something to do with the original article which is why your name was included. I have only mentioned your name once in that respect so pipe down man! Obviously I was incorrect so let it go

  8. Youtube. About 560,000 results. for Chemtrails

    About 169,000 results for Geo-engineering.

    “What are they spraying” About 99,500 results.

    Google. Chemtrails. About 5,540,000 results.

    Chemtrail conspiracy theory. About 128,000 results.

    I could go on and on depending on Keywords, so that kind of blows your theory about a few thousand David.
    Get a grip man. ;)

      • No Fergal, not at all. We have to take into account responses from others but we also have to take into account all the people who don’t own a camera, a video recorder, an account on a site, people who don’t even have a computer, children, prisoners, mental patients, and a hundred more factors.
        All I’m saying to David is that if he thinks there’s only a couple of thousand people on the Planet who are delusional about funny clouds well then he’s delusional himself.
        Can he prove there’s only a couple of thousand?

      • That’s easy to debunk. How many people turn out for demonstrations and marches? They turn out in their tens of people. A petition to the UK government gained less than 900 signatures after nearly a year. That speaks volumes to me.

  9. On YouTube:

    Chemtrails = “About 473,000 results” But according to you, 560,000 can be found! It’s very important you quote more accurately because you are assuming that people won’t check out your claims.

    I’m not going to trawl through all those hits because it’s worthless and you are using those figures to deceive people. Those hits have not been posted by individual people, that is at least one point where you grossly mislead people reading your post. The vast majority are actually many posts put up by several people. One person alone stands out like a sore thumb; ChemTrailsMN.
    If you search your other keywords the same thing happens, but it becomes even more deceptive of you. If you search for Geoengineering your claim of 169,000 is more accurate. However, a great number of those are also multiple posts by a few, it also carries a lot of posts that came up in the “chemtrail” search, so that reduces your number of individuals greatly. Do you actually believe that this was an accurate assessment of “believer” numbers? let alone your lack of ability to quote accurately! I will also add that many of those hits are actually debunking the chemtrails, so those have to be removed as well.

    Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt and took those numbers you quote as individuals – which it isn’t – then 6 million believers hardly tells me that it must be right, there is a population of 7 billion for goodness sake! Don’t you think you are a tiny bit outnumbered?

  10. Bill, how conceited and bigoted you really are, it’s actually shocking. Pull my posts apart and make out they are insulting, they are all in response to things you have both posted. I’ll cover one of them, since you pick and choose what to answer. I did call you bigoted but that was because you was taking the rise out of someone’s faith, you know this so don’t try and use it against me. Anyway, you can’t even answer a simple question can you? Which, incidentally, wasn’t even aimed at you. You come in to protect your little friend when he’s struggling for words. Bless, how sweet. If you really believe any of that to be insulting then you really need to seek help, if I wanted to insult you I’d use other words and names. haha unbelievable honestly. If you want to talk about being impolite or rude then look no further than the reply you posted yourself, ridiculing someone because their English is not as good as yours. Really? Do both of you not understand that people may have difficulty in such subjects? Some people may be dyslexic yet you two think it is fine to forget what was said and make fun of them. That is so mature lads, your mothers must be so proud. Now answer the question and I will reply with what I was going to say. Are you a religious man? That is for both of you by the way. I bet you don’t even bother, you will find something to try and pick apart to make you feel better! Pair of bullies, nothing more nothing less. Don’t try and take the high moral ground when you have posted far more insulting stuff than I have Billy boy and Fergie. OOOO my bad, it is impolite to shorten peoples names but it is okay to ridicule someone’s faith hahahahaha good night gents

    • Ha Spud, you have copped on to these jokers very quickly, not too difficult though it is haha? I agree it’s a hilarious Blog on such an important site about the Weather.

      You know what this Blog and Biggles and the Red Baron, (Fergie an Bullyboy) reminds me of? Statler and Waldorf on the Muppets. I’ve been flogging my dead Horse for so long here now it’s starting to get a Heartbeat! LMAO! :D

      RE: Fergal. “Head. Brick. Wall.”

      Um, I’d give that up if I were you. Cocaine, heavy Alcohol abuse, Aluminium poisoning or Flouride, sad Childhood? Vertigo over the fields of Louth and Meath? I can reccommend a Collegue here in Dublin for a consultation about it if you like? Email me. ;)

    • “Bill, how conceited and bigoted you really are, it’s actually shocking. Pull my posts apart and make out they are insulting, they are all in response to things you have both posted.”

      I see, so it’s OK for you to do that to me, but no one is allowed to point out your failings?

      “If you really believe any of that to be insulting then you really need to seek help…”

      Sorry, spudv, but it’s not actually up to you or I to decide whether we have insulted anyone! Whatever comment you make towards someone, that may or may not be an intentional insult, it’s how the person it’s directed at perceives the comment and how it is directed. Likewise, you could intentionally insult people yet they either won’t notice it or even bother about it if they did. There is nothing you or I can do about that.

      I’m sorry, but where in my post did I ridicule your English as not being as good as mine? Go on, point it out? You won’t be able to because it just simply didn’t happen.
      If you are referring to my use of [sic] in your quote, then perhaps your English does need improving. [sic] is a legitimate term used in a quote to say that the mistake is not mine but actually exists within the original authors writing. That is not ridiculing your English, but merely pointing out that I haven’t misquoted. And quit being so patronising to dyslexics, what has that got to do with anything other than another chance for you to scrape the bottom of the barrel and get on your high horse, so you would serve yourself better by not trying to be so condescending, your tripping yourself up more.

      “…but it is okay to ridicule someone’s faith…”

      I haven’t ridiculed anyone’s faith! Again, you are patronising people. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness? If not, then get off it. If you are referring to my comments about Jehovah’s Witnesses, then you have that wrong again. I wasn’t ridiculing them. I spoke from experience, I have had years of experience with them coming to my home. They don’t stop, I’ve had to threaten them with legal action. But, on the other side of the coin, I actually have 3 close friends in the UK that are actually Jehovah’s Witnesses and they are friends, not via their religion but simply because they are friends. They are also well aware of my feelings about how they relentlessly hammer on to recruit people, they respect my feelings and I respect their mission, as long as it doesn’t involve trying to convert me. So don’t you even try and pretend that you are shocked by my comments; why should you be? The Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t.

      I’m not going to answer your question on religion, as has already been said, it has nothing to do with this, just like my nationality or skin colour has nothing to do with it either.

      Now, if you and Myra wish, why not answer the questions which are often asked of you both and all other chemtrailers then let the debate begin. Otherwise go back to your YouTube videos and continue frying your brain and stop using this site just to try and score points, points that you won’t actually win.
      You keep asking questions that have already been answered in the original article, or questions that simply have no bearing on the article, but steadfastly refuse to answer questions put to you.

      • @Bill, I was making a point that you refuse to answer a simple question yet will spend a good few minutes posting drivel and being personal. I responded by coming down to the same level as you. Let me answer to your post as it seems that you have got the wrong end of the stick. Go back and read comments you have posted yourself. You never ridiculed my English at all and I never said you did. I am not being insulting to those who may not have a good grasp of English, that was indeed you. Go on, take a look. You were being disparaging to Jehovah’s witnesses, the evidence is there for all to see. Just because you have friends in this religion, as indeed I do myself, doesn’t make it right. It’s like aiming a racist remark to someone but following it up with ‘it’s okay, I’ve got ethnic friends’ that is how silly your statement is.
        My question is relevant regardless of what you say. I’m not asking you for blood or anything so why refuse so vehemently?
        I never said nationality or skin colour has anything to do with this so don’t try and put words in my mouth pal. I’m not even bothered if you answer this as you are not worth any more time. The post before this shows the type of man we are dealing with, we will keep going in circles because you want to control the situation but I’m not letting you do so. Unless you resort, yet again, to insults and wild accusations then I will not reply to another post from yourself. You are trolling just as much as anyone on here, do you not see that?

      • You just can’t help yourself, can you? You are incapable of reading, how do you imagine you are capable of debate?

        “I am not being insulting to those who may not have a good grasp of English, that was indeed you.”

        First of all, I never said you were insulting, I said you were patronising! Tell me who’s English I was insulting about. You can’t make vague statements and expect them to be read as fact!

        I am not being disparaging towards Jehovah’s Witnesses. I stated a fact about how I have dealt with it and how I find them in regard to their mission. I am entitled to my opinion and beliefs based on my actual experience. As for your other comments on racism and ethnicity, again you are being very patronising and condescending to them. You keep bringing things like this into it when it has no relevance. Where’s your head? There will never be a debate with you, simply because you can’t keep track of what you say and what others say.
        Your question on religion may have relevance to you, but it has absolutely no relevance to me unless you first of all state that relevance in a clear and concise manner. If I then find it has relevance to me, then I’ll answer it.
        I never said you mentioned skin colour etc. Where did I point say that? Again you are misquoting. I did not try and put words in your mouth. I merely stated that religion, nationality and religion has no relevance to this blog. You are twisting words and trying to put them in my mouth. Just like Myra’s false claims and quotes on YouTube hits, you are incapable of quoting anyone accurately. I’m not your pal, I doubt I ever will be.
        The only circles we keep going around in is your inability to accurately quote someone.

  11. Bill, your Proxy Server does not hide your online presence. Check your email. “You have more friends on Facebook than you know” Ever wondered about that? :D

    • Well, Myra! You seem to have me. I’ve actually got no idea what your driveling on about with my “Proxy Server” email and friends on Facebook!
      But that apart, what has it got to do with anything? You appear to be getting more and more desperate.

  12. Now watch the responses Spud. Personal attack? Abusive post? Demeaning? Lets see what synonyms they come up with for dickheads, fools, idiots etc….
    :D

    • This comment looks like you posted some responses purely to get a reaction, which is the definition of a troll.

      Spud has conveniently managed to avoid answering the 4 questions I put to him yesterday. Myra maybe you would be so good as to give us your answers, and spud, feel free to give us yours too.

      ● Why you think we are being sprayed
      ● How you think we are being sprayed (i.e. how they get the stuff on the planes, etc.)
      ● What effect spraying is supposed to be having on us
      ● and of course, HOW could it be having any effect on us if the resulting concentration in the atmosphere (in a totally unrealistically high dosage level by every single plane on the planet all the time) would only be the equivalent of a half a teaspoon in 4 billion olympic-size swimming pools?

      • @Fergalt, since your friend has accused me of being rude and impolite, I would have to ask you to do as he says. Therefore, since it is rude to ignore questions, would either of you answer mine please? After all, it is not polite to answer a question with a question is it? Once you have done so, I will answer your questions no problems. Don’t hide behind ‘troll’ ‘chemidiots’ etc etc as you have put a blog up for discussion yet refuse to discuss anything unless they involve what you want people to say. You can’t control the way conversations go, life would be terribly boring if we all had the same views wouldn’t it? Come on Fergalt, it’s a simple request. Are you a religious man? From your silence I take it you are but only you can confirm such information.
        @Myra, I stumbled across this site a few years ago and quickly got bored of the pompous attitude of those who administrate this site, who started out wanting to inform others of their views, obviously opening up a debate, yet they will not discuss anything seriously unless it contains ‘science’. I love the way Bully Bill (say I’m being rude all you like BB, I’m just pointing out the obvious) changes a subject and either tries to ridicule the poster for their spelling, religious beliefs or, my favourite hypercritical comment, you are being rude! Having a go at others because they have not answered his questions, yet he will avoid answering anything. Hahaha I have to admit, only yesterday I was comparing them both to them particular muppets! That made me laugh Myra. Now let’s wait for the bitchiness they muster up for us both, two mature men who will be willing to debate this subject providing you are on the same side as them :)

      • As I said, religion is totally unrelated to this topic and is just something you’re latching onto to avoid answering my questions. Fine, don’t answer them if you don’t want, no problem. I wouldn’t be able to answer them either as there are no answers to them. Plain and simple.

        I don’t reckon Myra will answer them either. The same way not one of the other countless chemtrailers who has come and gone has. It will die down again as you and Myra disappear into the hazy chemical sunset.

  13. And that is what you want to happen Fergalt, for us to go away so you can not discus this any further. My question is relevant even if you think otherwise, so be a sport and answer. I have told you I will answer whatever questions you would like but, since it was me who asked a question first, and this being a site big on manners and politeness, then it is only fair that you give me an answer. You and the other one have been hoping to waste time by replying with nothing for the last four posts, trying to ridicule me when I ask a question yet I am the rude one? Get your head out of the sand for one moment and converse like adults, that is a simple request yet again. For the record, your wild assumptions, and that is levelled at you both, are way off the mark. You don’t know what my personal views on this subject are so please stop guessing, answer the question and then we can debate it like adults. Not much to ask really is it?

    • No, the others left because they knew the game was up. No one forced them to leave. They just saw that their ideas were debunked and they decided to cut their losses.

      I’m fairly sure you support the chemtrail idea as in your first post you linked to that laughable worldtruth site as proof of chemtrails. That is why I would like a detailed analysis of why you support it and how you think it can be true given the points I made in my blog. If my points are wrong then please do highlight how. Then you will actually be engaging in a debate like an adult, not like you are now.

      • What sort of proof do you guys class as good enough? Been a while since I’ve looked this particular ‘discussion’ up but, having just watched a video on the subject, I was reminded of this site. Debunk away, Fergalt or Bill, but please be respectful of the views of others, just because it doesn’t fall within what you believe does not give you the right to label somebody an ‘idiot’

        The above was my initial post the other day, which Bill seems to think I started off being rude and impolite to you both. I did this because I, wrongly, thought this site was debating the entire subject. I put the link up as it was from the UN talking about the subject, did you actually watch it? I started off trying to debate with you but you and your friend quickly turned it in to something else. I can not be blamed for the way you two are behaving can I? Yes, after that my tone changed somewhat but that is to be expected when two grown men are trying to ridicule me for asking a question. I think the pair of you are missing the point, people have left probably because of the attitude you both give out. They know they are not going to get a debate on the subject, they will invariably be spoken down to for reasons such as they can’t spell to the required standard, they have beliefs that do not follow that of the originators of this blog etc etc. Despite what you say Fergalt, I have been engaging in debate, at least attempting to, like an adult but I have been met with that brick wall you fondly talk about. Since you do it to me, I will assume you are a religious man, is that okay for me to do so? My reasons for saying this, and don’t take this the wrong way as it is not meant to cause offence, is that you are, by your own admission in comments further back on here, an older gentleman. Therefore, coming from Ireland, which is quite a religious country I would say, and from the generation you belong to then it is probably safe to say you have some belief in one religion or another. Am I right?

      • Really? You would consider 40 to be older? I’d class it as more towards middle-age myself, but whatever. I’m struggling to think of any comment where I said I was old. I don’t consider myself old so why would I say that? No wait, maybe I didn’t actually say it and it’s really just something you made up as an expansion of this crazy unrelated religious quest. Your powers of deduction are nothing short of amazing. Old Irish man = religious. Hmmm.

        So, you won’t answer the questions. Fine. The video you posted was no proof whatsoever (yes I watched it. 17 minutes that I will never get back). It was purely Rosalind Peterson on her soapbox for her 17 mins of fame, in which she first spoke about cloudseeding – yes, that has been happening for years and I said that already – and then spoke about the effects of contrails, yes contrails, no reference to chemtrails. She has since publically conceded that there is “no proof whatsoever” that the contrails we see are anything other than innocent contrails. So if even SHE admits it.

        https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rosalind-peterson-leaker-addressing-un-about-chemtrails-and-geoengineering.t3514/

        So, do you have anything to add as proof that maybe Rosalind has missed? Please do share it with us.

    • “@Myra, I stumbled across this site a few years ago and quickly got bored of the pompous attitude of those who administrate this site…”

      You must have a really boring life then, spudv. You find it boring yet continue to be a troll on it “a few years” later. How sad. Perhaps you should go the whole way and just call yourself Potato Head.

      When are you and Myra moving in together? You are both getting very cuddly together :) are you jealous of what you think fergalt and I have ;)

      • Bill, how can you write an entire novel on other people being rude when you go a few steps further? You have singled out, yet again, something that has been said and then tried to assassinate someone’s character with their own words. It won’t wash with me I’m afraid. Read my statement again, it says I’m bored of the pompous attitude of those who administrate this site. And there you go and prove the fact with more drivel and personal attacks. Why would changing my name to potato head change anything? See you really are a silly, pompous old man. My life is far from boring but thanks for your concern.
        This blog has been opened up for comments yet you do not want people to do so. The double standards are there for all to see Bill. You, personally, will converse properly with people who you think back up your claims yet if their views are at the opposite end of the spectrum to that of your own then you try that belittling thing you do. And you don’t do it very well either. I’m finished with you unless you can converse like an adult, there is no point in talking after that last pathetic post. You can label me a troll all you like, I’m here waiting for an answer to a question that I believe is relevant and I will keep posting until that answer materialises. If that makes me a troll in your eyes then fine, but I couldn’t care any less what you actually think about me. Have yourself a nice life looking at clouds you imbecile :)

      • I never said changing your name to Potato Head would change anything! Please read things carefully. I’ll tell you why you should be called Potato Head. You seem to think you have this whole thing sussed out and you don’t even come close, neither you or Myra.
        You are of the wrong belief on many items. Many items that have been explained many times during the course of this thread. Yet you still come up with the same accusations as your cronies and still get them wrong.
        I don’t even know fergalt, yet during the course of this thread, from start to finish, I have never read anything that indicates he is an old man! As for me, what do you base your assumption on that I’m an old man? I’m not an old man. But I do have 5 kids ranging from 5-years-old to 14-years-old and they all think I’m an old man, after asking my kids, they think you are an old man and Myra an old woman. I don’t think you are an old man, I think you are immature and petulant. So you see, Potato Head, you might well think I’m an old man and that’s OK, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, it’s all relative.

        Now, here’s another point you both keep getting wrong, I’m going to have to repeat it yet again, just for you (geez, it’s like trying to help my 5-year-old with his homework!)

        “The double standards are there for all to see Bill. You, personally, will converse properly with people who you think back up your claims yet if…”

        Wrong! Yet again, Potato Head. If you have read right through this thread and been able to follow it you would know that I was completely unaware of the chemtrail theory until I read the original article. I then did what you people seem incapable of doing, I looked at all the information, both for and against. I then formed my own opinion, I did not make a claim.
        Now here’s one thing I’ve noticed. No one has forced me to form my opinion on this, but all the pro-chemtrailers have continued to try and insult me and pass derogatory comments because I refuse to be swayed by their lack of evidence. So don’t you get self-righteous about what I’ve got to say.
        Your stupid and irrelevant questions about religion have no bearing on this, if you want answers, you need to state why it is important, why you can’t answer questions unless you know what anyone’s religious convictions are is beyond me and many others.
        Then we have veiled threats from the likes of Myra, about my Proxy Server, email and Facebook account!!! That, I’m afraid is being nothing less than a troll! What have these things got to do with chemtrail debates? Another one of your cronies tried veiled threats as well at one time, threatening that he would turn up on our doorstep because he knew where we lived. It didn’t scare me then and it doesn’t scare me now. As it turned out, he was full of bull as well and didn’t know anything about me.
        If I agree or disagree with fergalt, he’s fine with that, no problem. If I ask questions, he has no problem in answering them. He forces nothing on me. If I ask pro-chemtrailers a question, or question their reasoning they insult and attack. They want me to follow them regardless of the fact they have no evidence yet I’m called a sheeple because I choose to follow the evidence. I think I’d be more likely to be a sheeple if I followed them with no evidence.
        Right through this blog, I and many others have asked for debate and solid evidence but none of you really want that. You call me a bully, yet the real bullies are pro-chemtrailers, if you don’t follow them blindly they insult and threaten. Hardly a debate is it? Again, give something to debate and we will take you up on it, but if we question your evidence and you don’t like it, then you aren’t mature enough to debate. So, like I said before, put up or shut up.
        Enjoy the novel ;)
        By the way, I’m still waiting on you telling me where I belittled your English, dyslexics and peoples religious beliefs!

  14. @Fergalt, as I said there was no offence intended but since you refuse to answer a simple question, I did what you did to me, assume what I am or what I am not. Not nice is it? There is a post somewhere where you make out you are an older gentleman, I seen it when I was scrolling through the other day.
    Anyway, I want an answer to my question so I don’t have to assume anything, it has been about five posts since I asked and here we are still going round in circles. Yet you want me to answer things when you do not have the common decency to do so yourself! Come on man, play the game!

      • Believe me Fergalt, this is relevant or I would not pose the question. I’m not trying to pry or be personal. It’s a straight forward question that would have taken less time to answer than the rest of your posts thus far

      • “I’m not trying to pry or be personal”

        It’s becoming a bit ridiculous at this stage. My phone beeps. I see “spudv has replied to your message…” and I know exactly what the reply will be. More irrelevant nonsense about religion. That’s why I have no wish to feed the troll any longer. At least the other ones pretended to be commenting on chemtrails, but you have tried to turn it into something else completely.

  15. @Fergalt. Sorry I wasn’t meant to post that so early. Right, I started by asking what proof you guys wanted, I never stated that this was the thing you have been seeking. I posted the link as it was broaching the subject in the UN, nothing more nothing less. I even stated for you to debunk away did I not? I was just trying to show that there are discussions in higher places than this blog.

    • Rosalind Peters on did not address the UN. Her comments were made at a seminar that was in the UN building. Since then she has stated she has seen no evidence for chemtrails.

      However it begs the question as to why her address needs to be misrepresented as the UN discussing the subject ?

  16. Sorry please delete this same comment above, I put it in the wrong place thanks.

    Hello boys. Please do not jump down my neck because I want to understand some of the Science here thank you.
    Right now the Temperature is 19 °C and the Dew point is 16 °C and when calculated this gives an estimated cloud base altitude at approx 1300 feet. Is this correct?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s