I don’t want to discuss anything.  I am putting my faith in scientific method and doing what I can to get the HARC test implemented somewhere.  This is what Mike Glynn wants to do too.

Wayne Hall,

if you want to put your faith in the scientific method, why are you then promoting Michael J. Murphy who based his first “documentary” on the central claim that contrails cannot persist for hours?

Since this claim and most others from that film have been debunked, he is really the worst example for applying “scientific method”. He is making a living from spreading bunk.

You can’t get around the issue of “chemtrail” vs. contrail, no matter how you dodge.

BTW, the scientific method includes a rule which says that of multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one is generally correct. Apply that to your “obscenities in the sky” and just call it weather.

We have agreed to desist from idle rhetoric until the empirical facts are in. What are you doing to try to get them in?  I am doing what I can.

Wayne Hall,

countering bunk with evidence is not idle rethoric. There are plenty of old photos - like the one in this article - and reports about persistant contrails, debunking the claim that they did not exist before the 1990s.

I’m still waiting for your evidence. And I will continue to comment as long as you are promoting this hoax.

I made it quite clear in the earlier pages of this discussion what my attitude is to the chemtrails/contrails argument, and I documented my positions fully. Mike Glynn’s intervention and the subsequent enquiries with Robert M. Forgette persuaded me of the value of Mike’s approach, which for practical purposes I have adopted.

Wow, this is news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdxyWrCX5t4

Rosalind Peterson says: “No evidence for jet chemtrails found”

It’s a recording of Roxy Lopez’ “Truth Denied” radio show.

It IS news in the sense that it is a new development, arising out of Rob Forgette’s lawsuit and Rosalind Peterson’s response on Roxy Lopez’ programme to the question of why she is not supporting him.

But it is not news in the sense of introducing a new factor, or something that was not already known about Rosalind Peterson. Almost from the beginning of her career as an activist against aerosol spraying Rosalind has observed the taboo on using the word “chemtrails”, for the pragmatic reason that the word has been stigmatized as being at the heart of a “hoax” and will therefore not be accepted by a court of law. Rosalind therefore uses the terms “persistent contrails”, “weather modification”, etc.

Her pragmatism for a time appeared to be paying off, in the sense that unlike other chemtrails activists she was invited in 2007 to participate in a United Nations seminar on climate change.  http://newyorkskywatch.com/rosalind-peterson-speech-transcript/  But this was a one-off event.  She was not invited back, and after the Copenhagen Climate Summit it became clear that she had lost her status as the number one “realpolitiker” in the anti-climate modification/geoengineering milieu to the ETC group and Pat Mooney. 

The ETC group also focused its attention on what was “provable”, in their case on geoengineering proposals, which they succeeded at Nagoya in confining – on paper – to the status of proposals, gaining acceptance for a de facto moratorium on implementation.

For me the parting of the ways came with Rosalind when a disagreement with her emerged over the European Union’s campaign to have aircraft emissions included in the IPCC’s emissions trading scheme. This campaign was led inside the European Commission by Stavros Dimas, and was given very radical-sounding support by Friends of the Earth.  http://deoxy.org/meme/AviationSmog

My attitude was that in the interests of conceptual clarity, distinctions should be drawn between “aircraft emissions as problem” as in the Dimas/Friends of the Earth stance and “aircraft emissions as solution” as in the geoengineering approach. “Ignoring factors of intentionality versus non-intentionality of aircraft emissions, the militant anti-aviation declarations effectively deflect attention not only from the illegality of what may be surmised to be present governmental activities, but also from the whole logic of geoengineering and thus from its appropriateness or inappropriateness as a solution to climate change.”  http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall6.htm

With her unwillingness to talk about anything other than “contrails”, Rosalind Peterson was not interested in making this distinction.

It is true that in her latest interchange with Robert Forgette Rosalind has gone further than I have seen her go before in emphasizing the “unproven” nature of what Robert thinks he can prove to an American court.

Does this have any connection with her non-appearance on the speakers’ list at the impending Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails conference?

Rosalind’s counterposing of electoral activism at the local level to the difficulties of litigation in today’s USA seems to have paid off to an extent e.g. with Long Island Skywatch’s Suffolk County campaign of last year. Cindy Pikoulas, who spearheaded the campaign, did not find that her group’s testimonies were being dismissed as “unproven”. The argument used by the Suffolk County legislature was that “Suffolk County cannot override State, Federal and FAA regulations pertaining to air quality and aircraft emissions.”
   

Wayne Hall,

lots of writing, but what do you make of her statement that “after ten years of research” she “has no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions” ?

Is she lying ? Is she not qualified enough ?

Her reasons for saying this have to do with justifying why she does not propose to support Robert Forgette in his litigation. She will have lowered her status in the chemtrails movement by making her point in a way so open to malicious representation. Rosalind counterposes local activism to litigation as a more effect way of proceeding, admittedly without radically questioning the validity or integrity of American political institutions.

But Josh, you are a member of the 911 Truth movement, are you not?  Why has litigation not succeeded in exposing the criminality and fraud that lies behind the official 911 story in the US?

Wayne Hall,

I don’t care particularly about your implications about why she is saying what she is saying.

What do you think about the statement itself? Does she have a point?

BTW., I’m not a so-called “truther”, but that issue is not discussed here.

I thought you were a ‘truther’. I can’t understand what you are doing exercising responsibility at this site.

Like you I know what I believe in relation to the reality or otherwise of planetary-wide spraying of toxic aerosols.

There is another person who was posting here, Mike Glynn, who also knows what he believes but made the decision to support some Americans who are trying to take the whole question to court and prove it is a reality. (Or fail to do so.)

I was sceptical about Mike af first because he started his posting here with insults, but when I perceived what he was doing with the Americans I changed my mind about him and about the method he has set himself. It is not the method I choose, as I have made abundantly clear, but if it is pursued in good faith, then let it proceed.

Rosalind’s tacit advise to the plaintiffs is that they should not proceed. for a number of reasons, one of them being that they may not win their case. Now I can ask you questions too, and one question I would ask you is this: would you give Robert and Al the same advice that Rosalind gives them, or would you give them the opposite advice?

The person who made the malicious video has taken it down from You-Tube. But I made a copy.

Wayne Hall,

again you are hedging around Peterson’s explicit statement.

She was not tacit when she claimed that rockets are spreading toxic matter all over the world, which is as wrong as her claims about “chemtrails” ten years ago.

No, she basically said “there are no chemtrails” to believers who asked for her support. And she won’t attend a conference about “chemtrails” that originally listed her as a speaker.

You can spin it all the way you want - she has changed her mind. She, who was about the only leading “chemtrail” proponent with a degree in the field.

Do you believe she is right? Or do you believe that “the jets are releasing anything else beside jet fuel emissions”?

I promise that I will discuss the trail sampling issue once I read a clear, simple statement from you where you are standing in that matter.

I could invite you to ask Rosalind Peterson if she has “changed her mind”, as I suggested you ask the ETC group if they think their moratorium is being observed.  But you don’t like checking what other people think, and anyway in Rossalind’s case I doubt that you would receive an answer. 

You have not answered my question about whether you would advise Robert and Al to drop their litigation, as Rosalind does, or whether you would advise them to go ahead to set the record straight so that we don’t have to rely on mere opinion. 

If you say that you want me to answer your question first, I will tell you that I want you to answer my question first. I have already said everything that I am going to say re contrails vs chemtrails.

How do you interpret the fact that nobody else is any longer participating in this discussion, Josh?

Someone else has put the video back online, without the comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXt0BTOTN0&feature=youtu.be

I think most of us have refrained from further engagement here Wayne, due to your proprietal attitude towards the debate. The ETC has nothing to do with the topic. The question posed was one of the pivotal questions of the chemtrail issue. Are persistent contrails a recent phenomena, thereby indicative of a program of spraying?

If they are as old as high altitude aviation, that and the complete lack of any sample from a trail renders all other arguments moot. Any other “evidence” is circumstantial.

Therefore it is a central issue, and one you continually seek to divert attention away from.
For what it is worth, I have been flying heavy jets since 1987. In that time I have personally created, flown inside and witnessed many persistent contrails. According to CT theory I should at least be suffering the effects of severe heavy metal exposure.

I am not and neither is any pilot, flight attendant or frequent flyer I know. Why don’t you contact the ETC and ask their opinion on that?

Welcome back Mike. I hope you are continuing to be in contact with Robert Forgette. And I would also welcome any help you want to, and can, give in the direction of having the HARC test carried out somewhere. As I have made clear, testing of this type is not part of my approach, but you have said that it is part of yours, and it is an approach that also interests some young activists in Greece.

What the ETC group has to do with the topic, as I have said before and apparently have to say again, is this: they have pursued the so far least unsuccessful anti-geoengineering/weather modification strategy that is possible in the face of the ability of the corporate controlled media, aided and abetted by hordes of Joshes, to enforce the dogma that “‘chemtrails’ are contrails.” Other such dogmas, such as that Osama Bin Laden did 911, have been enforced with similar success, a parallel that I thought might register at a 911 Truth Forum, which I did not expect to be moderated by people of opposite views to 911 Truth.

Because I espouse the principle of equality I reject the assumption that those who identify with the corporate-enforced dogma have some “right” arrogantly and belligerently to demand “proof” from those who reject it.  I tell such people to f..ck off.

I pursue another approach to the subject of geoengineering/weather modification, building on the paper achievements of ETC without identifying with them, as I am not under the constraints that they are under as lobbyists operating in the thick of the corporate-controlled virtual world.

I also in my dealings with them, such as they are, ask MY questions, and pose MY issues, not those of other people, who are quite free to contact them themselves and ask the questions that are of interest to themselves. (I don’t know how they would respond or if they would give the same response that I would, if I were asked if their moratorium is being enforced). We have already seen how such contact can be beneficial, as with Robert Forgette, which helped me to understand something about you that I did not understand before.

The problems with Rosalind Peterson’s way of dealing with the problem of corporate imposition of virtual reality, i.e. superficial conformity with the “chemtrails are contrails” dogma, emerged long before the present Roxy Lopez programme, namely in her inability to intervene meaningfully in the European Union’s campaign to have aircraft emissions included in the IPCC’s emissions trading scheme. The “chemtrails are contrails” assumption and “contrails are bad” assertion promoted by Dimas and stridently so by Friends of the Earth missed the whole subject of geoengineering generally and solar radiation management specifically.  It was a fudge. And a fudge that Rosalind Peterson could not unfudge. Fortunately ETC came into prominence not long after that.

Dimas is as much from Wall Street as he is from Greece and there is nothing surprising about him supporting extension of the emissions trading scheme to cover aircraft emissions.

What is your attitude to emissions trading, Josh?

Do you think opposition to it could have been stronger if it were not mainly only anti-taxation anthropogenic climate change sceptics that were opposing it?

Ecologists were almost all suckered into lending it their support, including of course support for trading in permits on aircraft emissions.

Don’t you think a more coherent campaign against emissions trading could have been mounted, at least in connection with aviation, if the discussion had not been kept artificially separated from the discussion on geoengineering and solar radiation management?

Comments from two ecological activists, one a journalist, one an academic, both lumped together by anthropogenic climate change sceptics as ‘hairshirt global warming cultists’:

George Monbiot: “The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled. In common with all other sectors, aviation’s contribution to global warming must be reduced in the UK by some 87% if we are to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures.  Given that the likely possible efficiencies are small and tend to counteract each other, an 87% cut in emissions requires not only that growth stops, but that most of the aeroplanes flying today be grounded…

This means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means of video conferences. It means that transcontinental journeys must be made by train or coach. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully for me, political meetings in Porto Alegre - unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and the lives of the poor.”

Tim Flannery: “Transport accounts for around a third of global carbon dioxide emissions. Transport by land and sea can easily be powered in ways that emit less carbon dioxide and the technologies to achieve this either already exist or are on the horizon. Air transport, however, is fast growing and not likely to be fuelled by anything but fossil fuels. Thankfully, jet contrails contribute to global dimming, so it may be just as well that the jets keep flying long after wind-powered and solar-powered ships and compressed-air cars monopolize surface transport” (The Weather Makers, pp. 282-283)

Reducing climate impact from aviation

http://deoxy.org/watch/tX1WfZ_Wrq4