Contrailscience puts a lot of useful stuff in one place, but the photographic and video sources are not original with contrailscience so you could go independently verify any of that. The scientific explanations haven't changed, or needed to change, since the effects were first explained. You could look all of that up in as many sources as you care to find, but really it's just very, very basic science.
One way to get chemtrail theory taken more seriously would be to have someone who understands that basic science to write an explanation that first *gets the science right* about the conventional explanation, and then explains in scientific terms how scientists have been getting this explanation wrong for decades. But the problem with that is, again, that the science behind contrail formation is such basic stuff, based on principles that are easily demonstrated and that have been studied extensively for a very long time by a large number of scientists. That's probably why you never see chemtrail theorists who seem to have even a basic understanding of how scientists (think they can) explain contrail phenomena and have done so for decades.
But jet fuel residue is not good for living creatures. It is pollution, if nothing else. Unnatural clouds caused by extra water vapor can change our climate, reducing sunshine and the normal cycles of evaporation and cooling.
Nothing to disagree with there! Even the 1980 video from NBC I posted noted that the contrails had enough of an effect to increase cloudiness and affect the weather. (" In the absence of natural clouds, given the correct atmospheric condition, jet aircraft in high frequency can almost completely cover the atmosphere, visible atmosphere, with clouds." and "Weather researchers, studying cloud cover in 10 Midwestern states, found a sharp increase in cloudiness with the increase in commercial jet travel ..."). If the effect was noticeable 33 years ago, it's certainly going to be more pronounced today.
This doesn't support chemtrail theory in the slightest, but it does suggest that we should be aware of how human efforts on a large scale can have unintended effects. (Ironically, in that 1980 video they were saying that the climate effect was a *good* change.)
Vapor trails also alert us to the activity of planes. Many are not passenger planes. It is fair to inquire what those planes are and where they are traveling. They are in our airspace above our properties.
I don't think anyone would dispute that there are a lot fo planes up there that aren't carrying passengers. There are military flights and freight-only flights. Fedex, UPS and the USPO alone would account for a significant number of the planes up there. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but so far nothing you've said supports the chemtrail theory.
There are open documents recording and suggesting military and scientific uses for deliberate release of various substances in the atmosphere by planes. This has been done without the knowledge or approval of the general population.
Certainly there have been deliberate efforts to use planes to release various things into the atmosphere. Cloud seeding has been around for a long time for example. Some of the "what are they spraying" photos are of planes dumping water or chemicals on fires. There have been proposals for other things that could be done, like deliberate attempts to affect the climate. And I wouldn't automatically rule out that there could be efforts by the government to spray things into the atmosphere for any number of reasons.
But what's left of the chemtrail argument? If you accept that contrails, including the ones that spread out and linger, have been observed for as long as we've been burning fossil fuels at high altitudes and that the scientific explanations that have been used to explain these phenomena have been studied in depth for decades without finding any reason to doubt that basic principles of condensation, freezing, sublimation, etc., explain everything we observe and have for decades, then you've wiped out most of the chemtrail theory case. If you look at how flight patterns and the number of flights differ now from twenty years ago, for both passenger flights and for all the cargo flights that are up there also, then it's not surprising that you see more.
What's left *is* perhaps a reason for being suspicious. If something is possible to do, and it would be a bad idea but possibly appealing to someone in power, then you can't rule out the possibility that it's actually being done. But then the next step would be to look for evidence that it actually *is* being done. Instead what you get is the "look up at the sky" and "I don't remember this from when I was a kid" arguments, and massive scientific ignorance about even the most basic principles.
Then again I were a government official trying to cover up some top-secret spraying program, I'd have people out there spreading that kind of ignorance and posting photos of firefighting planes dumping chemicals on fires and posting things like that video of a refueling tanker (be sure you find the original on that one), etc.
Think about it. If there is such a program, you couldn't hide it from scientists working in the relevant fields. It would be almost trivially easy for them to unmask. So you have to get the scientists not to look. What better way to get them not to look than to have chemtrail theorists out there pointing to ordinary contrails doing ordinary things that they've always done, and chemtrail theorists showing that they don't even have a high school level of understanding of principles like freezing, condensation, sublimation, high-atmosphere conditions, the non-uniformity of atmospheric conditions, etc.? It virtually guarantees that scientists will dismiss the whole thing.
That's why I said that the way to get it taken seriously would be to start by getting the science right. But that won't happen because doing so tosses 99% of what people offer as evidence for chemtrails right out the window.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: