These unusual cloud patterns are often called chemtrails, vapor trails left by aircrafts dispersing chemicals. Whether these trails are part of a project to curb global warming or have some other explanation, the Maui County Council will be asked to consider an ordinance to regulate this form of pollution.
An unusual environmental movement seems to have popped up in Maui County. According to a community-contributed story in this week’s Molokai Dispatch newspaper, the people of Maui need to be concerned about pollution from the “global disbursement of aerosols and other particulates into the atmosphere.”
Apparently, evidence of this action can be seen in the chemical-laden vapor trails of airplanes, known as chemtrails. The group Mauiskywatch.org believes these chemtrails are the result of geoengineering projects designed to counter the effects of global climate change. That is why the group has proposed a Maui County ordinance to regulate these disbursements.
The United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reports that, “Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.”
It is this second technique that concerns the people from Mauiskywatch.org and groups such as geoengineeringwatch.org. According to this website (linked through Mauiskywatch.org as a source), the U.S. government has been spraying experimental toxic chemicals into the sky using military tankers for the past seven years.
But whether increased sulphate compounds in the atmosphere is the result of deliberate spraying or general pollution is unclear. When probed for evidence, supporters have not been able to identify dispersion patterns and quantities of the purported materials in question. Believers are also unable to answer questions regarding the effects of upper level wind fields, saturation levels and the number of flights it would take to yield measurable concentrations in specific target zones on the ground.
On the website consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com, supporters of this theory admit that there is not yet enough scientific evidence. What they say has been found is high levels of aluminum and strontium in rainwater, chemicals that could be found in sulphate aerosols or in general atmospheric pollution caused by acid rain.
To help fund future research groups, a conference and global webcast called Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails 2012 has been organized for Aug. 17-22 in Los Angeles. This three-day fundraising event features 15 expert speakers along with “metaphysical” speakers.
Understandably, this movement has attracted many anti-government and conspiracy theorists. Many are the same people who believe in the Sept. 11 government conspiracies. There seems to also be some overlap with global warming deniers, although they tend to lean more toward the political right wing while the chemtrail theorists tend to sympathize more with left wing causes.
Another common link with chemtrail environmentalists is with those people who believe in the HAARP conspiracy. HAARP stands for The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a program to further advance our knowledge of the physical and electrical properties of the Earth’s ionosphere, which can affect our military and civilian communication and navigation systems. The HAARP program operates a world-class ionospheric research facility located in Gakona, Alaska. HAARP conspiracy theorists contend that the HAARP antennas are used to aim concentrated high frequency radio waves into the ionosphere to control weather, trigger earthquakes and exert mind control over the population.
But whether or not the any government or non-governmental group has undertaken these aerosol dispersals, Mauiskywatch.org believes it has already started and has asked the Maui County government to regulate the sprayings.
Now the council must decide if the Maui Clean Sky Ordinance deserves serious consideration. And if the council does want to fight this form of pollution, would it even possess the technology or the jurisdictional power to do so?
Filed under: maui county, News |
Molokainews's Blog 
Really???
Do people really believe that this is some kind of conspiracy???
I suppose there will be breakout sessions at this meeting to discuss how the CIA killed JFK and explain how NASA faked the landing on the moon, too.
Maybe they can also talk about how Obama wasn’t born in the US and how the moon is made of blue cheese.
Sheesh! Come on people, our County Council has real issues to deal with, not B*S* like this.
The fact that this is even being discussed is indicative of the type of people living in Maui county… no wonder we have so many issues to deal with!!
jo if you cant handle issues get the f*** out the kitchen.
Eh Brah,
take another one of those da kine chill pills. you gotta relax if you in da kitchen brah. no need to get the F*** out.
watch out fo da kine satellite spying on you when you in da backyard brah.
da big brother of the us government is out to get you and they are using these trails and da kine chill pills manipulate your mind.
eh brah?da kine?your pigin is very bad.you must not speak it often…makes you sound fake….but then what kind of person goes by the name kikkoman…was it your birth name
jo, the answer to your question is YES, more than you think.
The contrails are certainly polluting but so are cars and trucks and buses and electric generation plants and on and on…no conspiracy, no weird science…just plain old jet exhaust . The stuff you see in the sky is mostly water vapor or ice crystals with some hydrocarbon exhaust components thrown in plus CO and CO2, etc. Have you ever been in back of a jet taking off? Nasty! Jet fuel is much like kerosene. I can remember jet contrails from my childhood, years before the first jets in commercial aviation. It isn’t something that the County of Maui should be considering in any way…far beyond their jurisdiction and if you really want to destroy tourism, just try to put that sort of regulation on the jets coming into Kahului. These people are nut-jobs and the pols that pander to them are worse.
Science seems to allude to the fact that persistent condensation trails created by jets (what some refer to as chem trails) are the result of dense atmospheric conditions at the given altitude of the trail. If it is correct, a wikipedia article states that an investigation conducted a decade ago by a news reporter for KSLA news in Calif. performed a lab test of con trail water vapor residue in which were found high barium ratings. In the end it turned out that the reporter had misread the test readings, but by this time it was too late, the shot had already fired around the world thus being reported by other news agencies. Although misleading, this in turn reinforced those who already believed in the theory of chemicals and metallics being introduced to the atmosphere.
Nevertheless it is hardly fare to compare this with those who deny Global warming. There simply is no scientific entity, government or private, who support the chem trail theories that are being advocated. In contrast to this over 10,000 scientists including 52 Nobel Laureates, have signed a document questioning the impact of global warming. These same scientists also protest the political interference of research into the matter demanding scientific integrity be restored in government policy. This is common knowledge in England in which the BBC has covered this extensively, however remains quite mute in the U.S. and is simply passed on as “Right Wing Extremism”………
Just a few of the global warming sceptics include the following:
Claude Allègre member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: ” Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, professor at MIT, (considered one of the great experts in the world on weather) Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Russian Academy of Sciences, supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California,.Ian Clark, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Tim Patterson , paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada,.Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London:
I ran your comment past my favorite scientist, who is also a personal friend. Dr. David Grinspoon is Curator of Astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. He was also recently named Astrobiology Chair at the Library of Congress. Here is what he wrote:
“Ah, yes this is a list of many of the most famous global warming deniers. Most are not climate scientists. It sounds impressive to cite a Nobel Laureate but when you look in detail these guys often don’t have much of a clue about this topic. A few are actually climate scientists – for example Fred Singer. He has a very nice house outside the University of Virginia campus, having shilled for the tobacco companies against the idea of smoke being harmful (and having also helped DuPont in denying that the ozone is being destroyed by CFCs) before his current lucrative occupation of denying climate science. These people have been involved in a campaign of disinformation which has succeeded in convincing some people, like your letter writer (unless he/she is one of them) that there is significant scientific dissent against the IPCC consensus that global warming is real and human caused.”
Although I am not a scientist, I have looked at much of the evidence myself and I tend to agree with Dr. Grinspoon that global warming is real and human caused.
Warming? Maybe, maybe not. As to who is to blame, nature or man, anyone’s guess and everyone seems to get their two cents in. Science has gotten incredibly politicized by government and the warming or not argument takes on the fervor and fanaticism of religion…too much heat for the cold logic of science as it should be practiced. But we digress.
Sure there are chemicals in vapor trails. The same ones you get from burning jet fuel. When someone comes up with a pollution free “warp” engine, we’ll be saved.
David, your friend reminds me of those who attack one of the most esteemed climatogists- Richard Lindzen, because he once advised the oil industry. Create a list of scientists who support the global warming theory and an interesting fact that you find in the division of these two groups of scientists is that majority within the group in opposition are not threatened by the allurement of “tenure”.
10,000 scientists and 52 Nobel Laureates is an awfully big number to just write off.
My issue with those such as your friend Dr. Grinspoon, is that the computer simulated theory is not empirical and is certainly worth further evaluation. And this concerns me most, that a popular theory can’t even be questioned without one being labeled a “right wing extremist, or denier” Who is the conspiracist? Very convenient talking point to pull out the “campaign of disinformation” label but it says nothing! Even some of the most strident supporters have begun to alter their course. Why do you think it is now called “Climate Change instead of “Global Warming” The primary issue among opposing scientists is not whether or not humans contribute to global warming or climate change, but how much, and is the contribution significant?
When I was a boy the constant threat at the time was the imposing ice age….. But then again I am sure your friend would say that’s what all of those crazy global warmer deniers say.
(Cont’d). Furthermore, If your friend Dr. Grinspoon had actually taken the time to study opposing theories, his initial response would most likely have been a criticism of the evaluation of the opposing scientists, not a demonization of character. Dr Grinspoon’s conclusion that Fred Singer was a shrill for the tobacco industry in regard to Singer’s estimations on that second hand smoke gives way to Dr Grinspoon’s shallow political bias. And of course Fred Singer has a nice house so deductive scientific thought concludes that it must be because Fred Singer is the pawn of the tobacco industry. Where Singer got in trouble was not in the facts that he presented but for challenging a popularly assumed hypothesis. No one cared whether Singer was correct or not, to even question the hypothesis was assumed politically incorrect.
I like you David and not a scientist, but I can say that I have read and listened to presentations on both sides and collected enough information to know that that there is a debate and that the conclusion is not absolute. I am inclined to support what MKK alludes to, that the absolutism which is often claimed in the issue (and can come from either side), turns the issue away from the scientific process and makes it more that of religion. But even religion is allowed polemic and apologetic exploration. Maybe this is simply the science of totalitarian thought.
By the way I have a friend who is a really good dentist and he completley agrees with me….. but then again he also believes that chem trails are a government conspiracy.
I swear I didn’t hit the button twice, and the typos, where did those come from?
(Cont’d). Furthermore, If your friend Dr. Grinspoon had actually taken the time to study opposing theories, his initial response would most likely have been a criticism of the evaluation of the opposing scientists, not a demonization of character. Dr Grinspoon’s conclusion that Fred Singer was a shrill for the tobacco industry in regard to Singer’s estimations on second hand smoke gives way to Dr Grinspoon’s shallow political bias. And of course Fred Singer has a nice house so deductive scientific thought concludes that it must be because Fred Singer is the pawn of the tobacco industry. Where Singer got in trouble was not in the facts that he presented but for challenging a popularly assumed hypothesis. No one cared whether Singer was correct or not, to even question the hypothesis was assumed politically incorrect.
I like you David and not a scientist, but I can say that I have read and listened to presentations on both sides and collected enough information to know that that there is a debate and that the conclusion is not absolute. I am inclined to support what MKK alludes to, that the absolutism which is often claimed in the issue (and can come from either side), turns the issue away from the scientific process and makes it more that of religion. But even religion is allowed polemic and apologetic exploration. Maybe this is simply the science of totalitarian thought.
By the way I have a friend who is a really good dentist and he completley agrees with me….. but then again he also believes that chem trails are a government conspiracy.
I don’t believe Dr. Grinspoon was presenting anything in absolute terms. He was simply questioning the credibility of the climate change deniers. Given the space and time he is more than willing to evaluate the scientific findings on both sides of the issue.
Since you and I, Steve, are not scientists, I think it is important to keep in mind that approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human activities. This is according to the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication. This shows pretty strong agreement within the scientific community. This doesn’t mean that a person should ignore the dissent. But consider that the IPCC report of 2007 was more closely peer reviewed than any standard science journal and it came to the same conclusion. As you said, Steve, it is not a question of whether or not global warming is real (since the data clearly shows that to be true) but the extent to which human activity contributes to it. When I speak of global warming “deniers” it is those people who have seen the data and deny that the mean surface temperature of the earth is rising.
Going through the list of scientists that I supplied and reading their positions, I could find none as Dr. Grinspoon claimed are “global warming deniers”. All in which I reviewed did not dispute the fact that global warming is real. It is cause that is being questioned not the effect.
So if they are not global warming deniers I guess they wouldn’t be the ones who overlap with the chemtrail conspiracists. The overlap between these two groups was my original point in the story.
It’s a hard pill to swallow, but since it was you and not Dr. Grinspoon who wrote this article, your definition of “Global Warming Denier” is what counts, so you win!
LOL – If you say so, but it was not really a win-or-lose type contest. It was, however, an interesting debate about climate change science, which, even among the experts, is clearly not a black and white issue.
This conversation has been about global warming, but that assumes that the reason for the spraying is climate modification. The possibility of societal modification needs discussion. Barium, aluminum aerosols? Are these poisons needed for climate tweaking?? And I hesitate to wonder who the manufacturer of these aerosols might be?
David, I was joking about the contest but mahalo for the discsussion. Now on to “Tractate Kiloyim”, or better yet I’ll let you answer Mel.
Thank you as well, Steve, for engaging the audience in an interesting and important topic. I will take a close look at the “New Caliphate” submission and try to post this week … Mahalo!. BTW, my Yiddish is weak, “tractate kiloyim?”
Actually, there is no evidence that anyone has been spraying to reverse global warming or for any other reason. The theory is that the government has been spraying sulphates into the air to reflect the sunlight back into the upper atmosphere to cool the surface of the earth. While it has been widely discussed, there is no reason to believe this is actually happening.
There ARE aluminum particals in the fuel, for starters, the deeper you get into educating yourselves, the more you will know. One reason, aluminum particals are used to block radar, and satalite infarred. Been used for a long time. God knows what else. Remember, we are still at war, another ingrediant is barium.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-the-realities-of-geoengineering-and-weather-modification/5311079
Mel, this link does not add any clarity to the debate. For instance, the article makes this claim: “More recent documentation points to private and government bodies’ active pursuit of weather modification, including the US Department of Homeland Security’s Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program.[6” The footnote cites a letter showing atmospheric research on hurricanes undertaken by NOAA that was dropped. The program was not pursuing weather modification. This is a blatant misconstruction of facts.