Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Chemtrail - Is a colloquialism

Chemtrail is a colloquialism in common everyday use to refer to the aerosol sprays emitted from high altitude tanker jetliners. The technical term for aerosol spraying from planes is Geo Engineering or climate modification. These tanker planes have customized spray ports along the wings. Commercial planes also have spray ports as in this video made by a passenger on a commercial flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybLUGo8xp0 This video shows a chemtrail being left by the plane while the jet engines are NOT leaving a CONTRAIL. A contrail is a vapor trail left for a short while - ten minutes - when the air temperature allows. Chemtrail aerosols not only remain in the air but expand into a suspended vapor covering 1/3 of the sky from one chemtrail.

Tanker planes have been filmed turning off and on the aerosol sprays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSx44akT8As

A new effect of the nano particulates sprayed from tanker planes and jet lines is massive forest fires like the McMurray fire in Alberta Canada which in 11 days has burned 1370 square miles (CNN). The Rocky Fire in California in 2015 burned 10 square miles in 24 hours. Aluminum is used in rocket fuel because of its expansion rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant Burning aluminum particles creates wind (air displacement) resulting in such super fires as above.

Documentation for tanker planes and commercial airliners spraying aerosols with metal particles can be found by using any of the following terms; Aerosol spraying, Geo Engineering, Climate modification, Chemtrails.

Djagda (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

YouTube videos and a website run by tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts fall way short of meeting Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy. Please go and read some actual science about atmospheric phenomena like condensation trails and high level cirrus clouds to understand why this woo does not belong here and why con-trails are a perfectly natural phenomena that can disappear quickly or remain for a long time and even spread dramatically, all depending on the atmospheric conditions at the time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And correction, the insert of truth you just deleted was to Nick Thorne, not djagda. Funny how the truth is always deleted here and corruption and lies win out. Go figure, these surnames give so much away, "thorne", "wales", etc., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nick, how do you explain the increased aluminium and barium in the soil, especially in pristine environments? 198.84.236.50 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no "increased aluminium and barium in the soil", just people misinterpreting test results. Soil naturally contains around 7% aluminium by mass, on average. Barium levels vary hugely by geographical location, but barite is a common enough mineral. (By the way the video above showing "spray nozzles" is clearly a fuel dump.) Umop ap!sdn (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

At the beginning of the page, it states that chemtrails are just an unproven suspicion. However, the director of the CIA actually admitted to the use of chemicals within the vapor spread by certain planes. I would like to kindly request that that be changed to say that it has been admitted to by the director of the CIA, but many still have suspicion on the subject. Thank you for your time. 2601:280:5303:442A:A564:EB12:ECFC:7695 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And your reliable source for this admission is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This cannot be added without a reliable source; I've declined for now, but we can still keep talking here of course. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I googled this out of curiosity. It would seem the requester is referring to a youtube video that takes a clip out of context from this speech by the CIA director. He is talking about something entirely different: the future possibility of sending reflective particles into the stratosphere in order to combat global warming, mimicking the way that volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect. Manul ~ talk 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Cloud Pattern Shift/Migration

"Chemtrail"'s may be considered conspiracy theory; However the article should also include some mention of Cloud Migration theory. In short, one effect of global-warming is cloud patterns have shifted poleward -- the Tropics don't have the same amount of cloud cover as it did pre-industrial (receives more sunlight too).

Cloud drift is an established phenomenon; "Chemtrails" are simulated clouds distributed in the same areas where cloud cover has decreased -- appears that chemtrails were an attempt to mitigate for global warming.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C0:C000:1210:7529:5D56:57FC:8EA4 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That information would need reliable sources first. While cloud patterns have shifted, this was only recently documented, and sources would need to clearly explain the connection between those finding and this topic to be considered. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New paper

A new editor, RobP, added content about a new study in this dif. That content was sourced to inquisitr.com and I reverted as that source seems dicey and in general we don't cite popular media stories about science papers.

However RobP very nicely posted on my Talk page asking what's up. So here is the actual paper that was being reported on: Shearer, Christine; et al. (10 August 2016). "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (8): 084011. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help). The journal in which the paper published, Environmental Research Letters is pretty good, but this is a primary source.

What do folks think? RobP just added the ref behind our existing-and-already-sourced statement that "Scientists and federal agencies have consistently denied that chemtrails exist, insisting the sky tracks are simply persistent contrails". Should we do that, or add new content... something like: "In 2016 investigators surveyed 77 scientists (atmospheric chemists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution) to ask whether there are secret large-scale atmospheric programs (SLAP); the investigators summarized the results, stating that 76 of them said "they had not encountered evidence of a SLAP, and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols." from this the paper? Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog - and I love your suggestion! BTW, the single scientist who could not totally agree with the other 76 did so only because they had come across evidence of 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium." This paper was discussed on this week's SGU podcast, and it was mentioned that this could have been explained by mundane things not investigated. RobP (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick visual scan of the article and read various parts of it. It sounds reasonable so far, but I need to come back later and spend more time going over it. Others people need to read it very closely to ensure nothing glaringly obvious jumps out. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

my own position, btw, is to not use this as it is a primary source. but maybe we bend here. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this study deserves to be mentioned (something like your "something like"), I saw it mentioned in WaPo: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How about "A 2016 study surveying 77 atmospheric scientists concluded that "76 out of 77 (98.7%) of scientists that took part in this study said there was no evidence of a [secret large-scale atmospheric programs (SLAP)], and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, such as typical contrail formation and poor data sampling instructions presented on SLAP websites." Sourced to WaPo and the study. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, should "Secret large-scale atmospheric program" be a redirect to this page? I added it to Slap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me just pop in and say thank you to Jytdog and RobP for discussing this revert. RobP is new and genuinely interested in helping and that is a wonderful thing to see. And Jytdog you handled this very kindly and did not bite the new editor, clearly explaining what was wrong. This is how these interactions should happen. Now back to the discussion of the paper.Sgerbic (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome Sgerbic - and thanks! BTW, It is also referenced in the 8/15 NYT online. RobP (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Just Say No", clever! Also in a usually RS swedish newspaper. [[2]]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Did a translate from your Swedish paper and it concluded with a quote from the authors: "Our goal is not to convert those who are convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying programs - which often dismisses rebuttal as further evidence of his theories - but rather to create an objective scientific source that can contribute information in public discourse "write the authors." Sounds perfect for WP! RobP (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

"Hoax" category implies intentional deceit

I don't agree with this article being in Category:Hoaxes. Hoax implies intentional deceit, and I see no evidence of that presented here. "The USAF says these accusations were a hoax" is fine, since that's what they've called it, but that doesn't mean it is one. Hanlon's razor applies here; it seems that most or all of the believers in chemtrails spread this belief ignorantly, not maliciously. Just because the "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" paper has a disclaimer that "This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios" doesn't mean that the original spreaders of the rumors read (or believed) that part.