Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

Chemtrail conspiracy theorists believe that scientists want to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to change the climate. Who would ever think up an idea that ridiculous?

Scientists say controversial plan to cool the planet is doable

Meanwhile, NBC News thinks the Arctic is melting at minus fifty-four degrees.

Ventusky – Wind, Rain and Temperature Maps

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

  1. Dave N says:

    Another one of those “no critical thinking skills” problems. “Reflect sunlight back out into space” = “less sunlight for solar energy, CO2 consumption by plants, etc etc”.

    Giving air time to total idiots is a continual past-time of the MSM

  2. Gator says:

    I find it hard to believe that the psychotic left does not know how catastrophic it would be for human life on this planet, if they are allowed to block the Sun. Just as they know CAGW robs life saving resources from millions, they know very well that this geo-engineering will lead to more human suffering and death. It’s what they live for.

    At times I truly understand how and why our forefathers picked up their muskets and started shooting.

    • Theyouk says:

      I would love it if a mainstream media outlet did an online survey with the following question:
      What percentage of CO2 should we try remove from the atmosphere?
      a) 10%
      b) 25%
      c) 75%
      d) All of it
      I would wager good money that the majority of responses would be for ‘c’ or ‘d’. *facepalm*

      • MGJ says:

        Good post!

        I fear you are probably right. Dammit we can’t be ‘soft on CO2’ now can we. Ban it!

        I suspect we’d get horrifying results for some specific groups – say – teachers in government schools, politicians, academics…

    • Shaun says:

      You should see the movie SnowPiercer.. Reality is catching up!

    • Robertv says:

      They hate all people not just brown ones.

  3. AndyDC says:

    This is going to go down as one of the coldest Novembers on record. Cities like St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield, IL are going to average at least 8 degrees below normal, probably the coldest November in at least 65 years. The cold was also unusually widespread. At least 85% of the (lower 48) US averaged below normal. A pretty good trick, considering we are allegedly undergoing catastrophic, species threatening warming. These are indeed trying times for our alarmist friends and all friends of world communism.

  4. Alan says:

    Tony I am not sure how to contact you with a personal question – so I am posting this comment. You can email me at the email included in this form. Thanks, Alan

  5. Laurie says:


    This is NOT new, and they have been … experimenting for (quite) some time.

    Tony, you’re spot on – as always.

    • Disillusioned says:


    • R Shearer says:

      I actually like the idea of some climate control but would give higher priority to protective systems that could deflect and protect the earth from impacts of comets, meteors and asteroids.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I also wonder what could be done about the climate of hate and smear created by Democrat “hate maps”.

      • J H Martin says:

        Your best bet is to control the climate between the 4 wall you own!

        Let’s see. we have 7.5 Billion on board. How about we all vote and let the IPCC deicide and control the overall environment, including, sunshine, rainfall, wind, dewpoint….all they need is more resources.
        To conserve they can skip the ballot as they already know, they know best.

  6. Sean says:

    I think there is a real opportunity here to solve 3 problems at once, whether or not they need to be solved.
    From what I understand they plan to inject Sulfur aerosol into the stratosphere which I suspect is to oxidize and form SO2. This is done at about 65,000 feet. Rather than build specialized aircraft to do this as was proposed, why not piggy back on the next generation of supersonic aircraft that fly at that altitude. Instead of burning low Sulfur fuel, perhaps they could use a high sulfur fuel to burn when the aircraft is traveling above 60,000 feet. (Perhaps they could even find a way to mix in some high sulfur bunker fuel which is being regulated out of existence.) And since only billionaires can afford to fly in these exotic aircraft, there will be people with very deep pockets to sue in case it doesn’t work out as planned.

    • Robert Austin says:

      November in the continental temperate zone. Dreary, cold and sunless. Don’t do anything to make it more dreary or there will be an uprising.

    • R Shearer says:

      All good thoughts.

      Here is some historical perspective. There has been an effort to remove sulfur in all liquid fuels in the last 4 decades. This was primarily driven by the need to protect catalytic converters in gasoline powered vehicles, then particulate traps in diesel vehicles. Prior to the 1970’s gasoline might contain over 1000-2000 ppm. Today in U.S. it’s < 30 ppm and going lower. Diesel is <15 ppm and was routinely over 2000 ppm not that long ago.

      Sulfur in jet fuel is following this trend and is typically < 300 ppm and as you mention, there are new regulations for limiting sulfur in bunker fuel oil burned in ocean going vessels.

  7. gregole says:

    Spraying toxic chemistries into the upper atmosphere to stop warming that isn’t happening…really?

    Klimate Psyence has gone from ridiculous to pathological.

    • Gator says:

      Once you invite a few kooks into the fold, many more will follow. The company you keep…

    • R Shearer says:

      Like it or not, the reverse experiment is already being done, i.e., lowering sulfur in fuels, including jet fuels. Like anything, there are costs, benefits, etc.

      I really don’t see the need to lower sulfur in jet fuel but it is happening . It makes jet fuel more expensive, and like CO2, plants need it (sulfur and they like it in many forms, including ammonium sulfate). Farmers (and plants) all over the world have been benefiting from this free source of fertilizer.

      In diesel, the process of sulfur removal costs quite a bit and in the hydrotreating necessarily to do so, some fuel lubrication properties are lost. Basically adding costs, lost energy, requirements for lubrication additives, shorter engine life, etc.

  8. Robert Forest says:

    This sounds like someone who is looking to bill we the people for a service we do not need, and take credit for providing the cooling the earth is moving into. They will expect “maintenance” applications to keep the earths climate stable.

  9. rah says:

    Outstanding piece by David Middleton on why even according to the IPCCs own models the Greenland Ice Sheet will not melt at a rate anywhere near that required to cause any of the catastrophic SLR that so many others are claiming.

    I book marked this one.

  10. Lasse says:

    This is no science fiction.
    We have done this and are now aware of the effects.

    Global dimming and global brightening .
    No more of this thanks!

  11. arn says:

    You should have added
    the video of CiA Boss Brennan talking in front of the CFR about that last year
    + that the cia has been sponsoring studys about AGW in 2013 with half a million Dollar.
    (Edward Teller has been suggesting this kind of geoengineering 30 years ago,so this news is not news but a start to teach the herd slowly to acceppt it as they did with illegal immigration)

    And as we know the cia is succefully using planes to poison people for more than 50 years since they started air america.

    PS-less sun=less evaporation=less water supply=less plant growth
    less sun=less energy=less plant growth.

    These guys are really busy with making AGW real(the effects of agw)

  12. arn says:

    Here btw-
    a new level of cultural enrichment
    (that”s something even i”d ever thought would be possible,even not when being raised by dogs and wolves

    but i”m pretty sure those guys suffering from Griphilys will have another excuse.

  13. richard says:

    Back in the 1970s ,when the climatologists thought we were in for an ice age, they talked about Nuclear energy and black soot to melt the ice caps.

    “Steven Schneider 1978: Melt The Polar Ice Caps To Stop The Coming Ice Age”

  14. The teenage neighbor across the street sagely warned me about “chemtrails” so I asked him how he found out. He waded into a story about how he personally watched a plane releasing one, then followed it as it drifted to ground. He swore he saw it drape over some vegetation like a sort of cobweb, took samples home where his microscope revealed complex microscopic growths resembling fungi… I offered to buy the microscope (I really was in the market) but he “no longer” had it. For any question this apparently normal high-school-age kid had dark, complex and unfalsifiable answers. I walked away baffled by what possible purpose such brainwashing of children could possibly serve.

  15. Kenneth J O'Leary says:

    I am impressed with the minds that are coming together on this blog. I have only scratched a few articles posted on this blog and it is amazing in the evidence. I came here, curious about the truth about chemtrails, and would enjoy seeing facts assembled here in a similar way, not biased one way or the other, but would like honest opinions from informed people on if there are such programs underway, experimenting in the US or elsewhere to modify the weather. If so, who is doing it, are chemicals being disbursed, etc. I see contrails in the sky that last a long time (many hours). I am told that high humidity will make contrails last hours and turn into clouds, but I see those long-lasting contrails on low humidity days and I see no contrails on high humidity days and it makes me curious…something is not right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.