A BBC documentary about cloud seeding from a time before the BBC started insisting it’s all a big conspiracy theory.
Where do they claim cloud seeding is a big conspiracy? I think the confounding of chemtrails (condensate trails from jet engines) which most modern aircraft make with the very niche use of cloud seeding is the astute, acute distinction they made.
Cloud seeding is like chemistry 102 for even today’s undergraduate students. Like a classic/elementary example for second order nucleophilic substitution reactions.
I think the part that makes me go huh is why worry about a mostly inert silver molecule that is like… less than 1/2 a grain of salt across a 100 foot ball fields or like…if you dissolved it into a standard Olympic pool, you’d have like on the order of 0.00001 PPM.
add in the fact it is only used in certain areas and relatively costly to do and cant be use in all places, it just isn’t a conspiracy
7 Likes
Umm, all over mainstream media. Anyone that mentions chemtrails gets lumped in with flat earthers. Maybe it’s not happening where you live but here there are a lot of days where there’s not a cloud in the sky at dawn, then by 9am there’s a familiar crisscross pattern in the sky of plane trails that are not evaporating. By midday it’s just one big hazy soup, then there’s a lot of rain over the next few days, then it starts again a few days later.
I’m not confounding chemtrails with condensate trails, but you are by your statement. They are very different things.
2 Likes
I’m not sure I know what you are referring to when you say the MSM is saying that one of the oldest geoengineering tricks in the book is a conspiracy. It simply isn’t economical or predictable or reliable or used prevalently. Is it still an area of research, yes.
Cloud seeding is something taught openly in schools, is old science, is not very technical at all in nature, is not harmful, and is 100% different than contrails… In fact, the very concept is to have an inert polluting particle which will knock out the center of droplets and facilitate freezing easier and more amenable conditions.
And you categorically are confounding them, quite literally verbatim. Something done in a handful of regions regularly is not contrails. Chemtrails is like the chupacabra or big foot, but just if being used to describe something we already have a word for like a rabbit or squirrel. Idk. Science do indeed go brr.
It is just lazy IMO. A grain of salt ever 200-300 football fields of an insoluble inert silver ion. Scary, scary… But you ignore something real, like BPA breaking down into estrogen analogues and being in every water source in the planet. Debunk that, because you can’t. Chemtrails, as you describe, are not a thing. I’d be willing to wager that if you have ever been within 100 yards of an active reversal project or any flower from said project, possibly any seed or soil from it, than you have 100% taken in more silver from cannabis than you ever will from cloud seeding and that is if you guzzle 30 gallons of unfiltered rainwater daily… a chemistry class from grades 9-12+… any number of jewelry products or medical devices or health aids or a number of other sources.
Seriously. Take a hydrocarbon chain…like any fuel we use regularly…and combust it. These aren’t even 102 subjects. This is simply a combustion reaction. This is 000 level high school chemistry honestly. Class, what do we get? water vapor and carbon dioxide along with traces of oxides from impurities! Now image you are at like…20k+ feet high…wow that is cold…wow that has implication on the capacity to hold water on the air, yeah? So take that effluent stream exhausting from the jet engine and throw it into a giga freezer near -30 or below…and you do indeed get some condensation.
What do you think ‘chemtrails’ are?
3 Likes
Yes, I know. 
When someone introduces a word with no rigorous definition or accepted definition, it isn’t on the audience to define said word for the individual introducing it my guy.
3 Likes
Check out this patent 
1 Like
Try putting “chemtrails meaning” into Google if you don’t know what it is.
It’s impossible to talk with you when you completely rewrite your posts after someone replies.
1 Like
My original post with the BBC documentary was supposed to be tongue in cheek, for all the nay-sayers who claim every plane trail is condensation. I personally believe there is an agenda to spray the skies with something that causes the sky to cloud over and to change the weather, and to possibly even affect people’s health. I see evidence of it in the sky almost every day when I look up and see planes leaving trails that do not dissipate over time as they used to thirty years ago. You can have a different opinion and I’m fine with that, I won’t try to gaslight you into believing what I believe, but that’s still what I believe. If you believe different then think of it like a religion, we don’t all have to think the same.
2 Likes
Here is more information for anyone interested. Peace to all and to all a good night 
1 Like
No one has ever called cloud seeding a conspiracy. Bad one in that case since I can go online and order it.
1 Like
For sure its a religion when you believe stuff without any proof whatsoever. Seems a boring one though. And religion is like a big dick . It ok to have one. Even be proud of it.
But please do not whip it out in public.
2 Likes
that’s a sub panel, fed from elsewhere so it’s ok…
/s in case anyone thinks i’m not joking here.
i saw something a year ago that said all the planes have to do is fly 5% lower or higher to eliminate the “chemtrails” everyone thinks are bad, but it’snot as fuel efficient so nobody is making anyone do it. and it keeps everyone distracted when they are so misunderstood and folks think they’re dangerous or a conspiracy or some crazy shit.
you can believe anything you want to but when you try to convince others it’s real, well, you can do that too but it makes folks look stupid as hell and causes all sorts of trouble, not to mention plays right into the hands of those trying to divide us. enjoy the day.
2 Likes
What about trying to convince others it’s not real? In efforts to help global warming
In 1991, the climatologists working in the Hughes Aircraft Line Company (now Hughes Aerospace Company) in the USA patented a chemical solution for decreasing global warming depending on the aluminum oxide formed in nanoparticles (Welsbach particles) that can reflect about 2% of the sun heat back in the space when seeded by jets in the stratosphere (patent USA # 5003186, 1991). In a special international meeting under the umbrella of the United Nations in 2000, the USA presented the positive results recorded after the application of this geoengineering technique over the entire continent during the period from 1991 to 2000 that decreased the warming by 70-80% [1].
3 Likes
straight bullshit on that one, source to follow.
3 Likes
here is the full answer showing it’s bullshit with sources: "
Short answer
No record exists of any United‑Nations‑sponsored meeting in 2000 where the United States announced a decade‑long continental geoengineering program that “cut warming 70–80 %.” Every traceable instance of that story comes from later chemtrail‑oriented papers and blogs, not from UN archives, IPCC proceedings, UNFCCC COP‑6 (The Hague, Nov 2000), or any other official channel. Climate observations from NOAA and NASA also show that neither the contiguous USA nor the planet cooled—let alone by 70 %—during 1991‑2000.
How the claim arose
| First appearance (so far) | Publication & context | What it actually is |
|---|---|---|
| 2018, Arab Journal of Plant Protection 36 (1):80‑85 | Conference‑proceedings paper by Monir M.M. El‑Husseini describing “chemtrail” weather‑engineering | Paragraph states, “In a special international meeting under the umbrella of the United Nations in 2000, the USA presented … decreased the warming by 70‑80 %.” The reference tag “[1]” is empty. |
| 2019‑2024 | Reposted verbatim in BRMI blogposts, ResearchGate PDFs and Facebook images | All cite El‑Husseini or each other; none cite UN minutes, press releases or journals. (brmi.online, researchgate.net) |
No earlier, primary UN or US‑government document containing that sentence can be located in the UN Digital Library, UNFCCC, UNEP, WMO, CBD or U.S. Federal Register databases (1990‑2005). Searches of those repositories return zero matches for “Shield Project,” “special international meeting” + “2000” + “geoengineering,” or any combination of “70‑80 % warming” cuts. The only United‑Nations deliberations that explicitly mentioned geoengineering before 2010 were scattered side‑events; the first dedicated UN expert meeting on geoengineering was an IPCC workshop in 2011, and the CBD adopted a de‑facto moratorium in 2010. (archive.ipcc.ch, etcgroup.org)
Why the story is implausible
-
US climate data contradict it
NOAA’s Climate‑at‑a‑Glance series shows that the 1990s were among the warmest decades on record for the lower‑48; annual mean temperature anomalies remained +0.6 °C to +1.0 °C above the 20th‑century baseline—no 70 % drop appears. (climate.gov) -
No funding, procurement or flight logs
A programme that sprayed the entire continent for nine years would leave budget lines, contracts, flight records and environmental‑impact filings. None show up in GAO reports, DOD budgets or FAA NOTAM archives for that era. -
Known patent ≠ deployment
The oft‑quoted US Patent 5,003,186 (“Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” 1991) is real, but its inventors never built or flew an operational system, and the patent was not referenced in any UN work plan. (en.wikipedia.org) -
UN process history
- 1997 Kyoto Protocol: emission cuts, no geoengineering provisions.
- 2000 UNFCCC COP‑6 (The Hague): collapsed over carbon‑sink accounting, no geoengineering agenda item. ([unfccc.int][7])
- 2008 CBD COP‑9: moratorium on ocean fertilisation.
- 2010 CBD COP‑10: extended moratorium to all large‑scale geoengineering. (etcgroup.org)
Bottom line
The statement you read is not supported by any official United Nations record, peer‑reviewed climatology, or U.S. government documentation. It appears to trace back to a single 2018 conference paper rooted in the “chemtrail” conspiracy community and has been repeated without verification ever since. Climate measurements and the documented history of UN climate negotiations both contradict the claim.
[7]: https://unfccc.int/event/the-hague-climate-change-conference-november-2000?utm_source=chatgpt.com “The Hague Climate Change Conference - November 2000 | UNFCCC” "
5 Likes
You edit your comment to include another paragraph, I edit mine to respond to said paragraph, then you use my edit as a red herring to ignore the content and claim me as a bad actor. That is by definition, arguing in bad faith. ZZZ brother man, the deepest of sleep
You have a physicist in the thread. Lets talk about contrails or global warming or the absorption properties of our atmosphere with respect to the EM spectrum, but don’t spew word soup up about something as easily debunkable as understanding 9th grade chemistry.
Even if you really believed this stuff, then how about you think about applying it. I’ll give you a million dollars if you make it rain on my farm. Now go up to 20k ft with 1/10th a grain of salt of powdered AgI and dope a cloud. See how many months of work it takes before you make it rain on MY farm…
How would this work in places where there is no water vapor to substitute the nuclei for? Oh, well…it just doesn’t work…
2 Likes
Just make your own Thread and stop that silly conversation please.
2 Likes
It’s a science that makes me go hmmm…
2 Likes
it’s non-political too…
1 Like