Tag Archive: pollution

Chemtrails Investigation

Doing the Rounds with Chemtrail Hype

From worldtruth.tv

From worldtruth.tv – or is it?

This image on the left, from WorldTruth.tv (sic) purports to be an air plane landing and the pilot has forgotten to turn off his chemtrail generator.  They disingenuously headline with,

“Busted Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS While Landing”

Below the amazing image is a video of another plane, landing during a very misty night, ditching fuel possibly, while emergency vehicles rush to the scene (the sirens are wailing after all).

If you think the plane is chemtrailing while landing you need to check your eyes and ears because that is not my opinion of the video.

By using TinEye reverse image search I found tens of recent websites using the image as chemtrail proof.  You too can do the same by copying then pasting this image URL below into the TinEye page:


Steve Morris Photo from 2005

Steve Morris Photo from 2005

There are also several earlier websites listed which all ultimately point to the source of the photo, here, on the right.  You can see it all here: Steve Morris’s original photo from 2005

Far from being chemtrail pollution, the Boeing 757 is landing at Gatwick on a typically humid British day.  Morris has captured the plane in low sun and emphasised the colours produced in the air from the London vehicle pollution for effect, IMHO.

Morris’s page 2 has some fantastic images, none of which are chemtrail proof, but could of course be used as such – he actually has hundreds of images.  A busy, skilled, dawn and dusk photographer.

WorldTruth TV seems more like place to generate visits to further their financial gains from advertising, since the site is plastered with adverts, many, what I’d call very dubious in nature, gambling and big tit adverts for instance.  It is typical of the genre, much like the Daily mail’s website.

 Chemtrails Themselves

Chemtrail Image Search

Chemtrail Image Search

Doing a Google image search shows hundreds of so-called chemtrail images as some sort of proof.  Similarly as a standard page search.

But I’m an old guy now and I’ve seen a lot of sky.

I’m also a scientist with a physics and polictical background.  I understand fears and have witnessed government corruption and wheeler-dealing for decades now.

Despite that, I cannot see how chemtrailing is at all cost-effective and no clear reason for doing it has ever been eschewed.  It is all, guesswork.

The atmospheric proof is nothing.  I’ve seen many, many weird skies ever since I was very young and I have grown up and witnessed a phenomenal growth in:

  • air travel,
  • motor vehicle usage,
  • rain forest destruction,
  • changing agricultural methods

…..on a global scale.

All of these influence the atmosphere and its water-particulate balance with water in each of its triple states.  See this link on the triple point of water.  Both water and carbon dioxide (both highly important greenhouse gases) have unusual triple points and triple states of matter.

The state of the atmosphere can produce very weird effects, especially when combined with the global air corridors that planes must use, many criss-crossing the jet-streams several times.  Undoubtedly, high altitude cirrus has increased and would be expected to increase from increased jet travel, along with the natural aerosol injections from volcanoes and forest fires.  This cirrus is one of the components that naturally modifies global climate.  So stop air travel?  Yeah, that’ll happen.

  • If you cannot understand triple points then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
  • I you cannot understand that an aircraft flies by the vacuum sucking it into the sky then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.
  • If you cannot understand how photographers can use light and technology to take and process images then you will of course be taken in by the very atmospheric images obtainable of flying aircraft.  Check out Steve Morris’s photos for more “examples” of chemtrail….  http://www.airteamimages.com/steve-morris_pid1507.html – he has hundreds! LOL.

It’s not my fault that you are allowing yourself to be deceived by the chemtrail theory if you cannot understand the above.


What we need is proof.  If you understand aircraft flight, photography and physics, then please supply some proof of chemtrails, the reasons for doing it and how and why any government in collusion with others would do such a thing.

I have not read  a single definitive proof.

Related Posts:

Trafigura, BBC and the Stink from Two Views on Damages.


Back in 2009, Trafigura nearly put the blockers on free speech and the reporting of parliament.  Twitter claimed to be part of this unlocking process…  whatever.  It was all to block the publication of the Minton Report.  A long BBC Newsnight video report was also blocked with the article mysteriously vanishing from the BBC website.

But Now?

Now the BBC article is found here, along with the banned video!  The video is below in two parts.  It was uploaded after its removal from the BBC website.

In the second part video, Trafigura boss Erich de Turckheim fatuously states that nothing untoward happened with the poisoning vessel, the Probo Koala whereas last year the company was fined (only sadly…) €1m for the very same poisoning.

Trafigura also state that the emails are selective and biaised.  Well I’ve read them and they totally back up the BBC story.  Here they are.

Alastair Mullis – his view of damages.

In this video, Mullis, a professor of law, states that because the BBC paid damages to Trafigura over their story, this implied guilt.  It took WikileaksJulian Assange to point out thje fallacy in this argument. See video below:

Trafigura’s View of Damages

Back in 2009, the BBC here told the Trafigura story which also includes a link to a statement from Trafigura here.  This Trafigura statement shows their view on the money that they had already paid to the Ivory Coast, prior to their EU fine.  It’s point 13:

The settlement involved no admission of liability. Trafigura believed that the settlement was the best way for the people of Abidjan, the Ivorian government and Trafigura to move forward.

The People’s View on Trafigura and Damages


Well Mullis & Trafigura are seriously at odds on their view of damages, aren’t they?  One says if you pay up then you are obviously guilty – the other says the opposite.  (Remarkably, this is very consistent with the damages paid out by Jesse Willms in his dodgy dealings, but that’s another story.  Willms of course chooses his own philanthropic view of customer service which is at odds with the thousands of complainees…)

The thousands of people affected by this corporate profiteering nonsense are of course left with bog-all except sores, child defects and an everlasting hatred for all things western.

This site has an even more enlightened view from the west about Trafigura.  Quoting the final piece:

The Trafigura case, like the financial crisis, suggests that in business there are people ruthless enough to shut their eyes to almost anything if they think they can make money.

Business without regulation is scarcely distinguishable from organised crime.

Regulation without strict enforcement is an open invitation to mess with people’s lives.

Tedious directives, state power and bureaucratic snooping – the interference that everyone professes to hate – are all that stand between civilisation and corporate hell.

Well said.  Jesse Willms take note!

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

UK’s Sensible Energy Chief tells it Like it Is – Like Me!!!

Subway sentinel

Blow my own trumpet

The statements this week, by the UK government’s chief energy scientist, are right up my street.  See Britons creating ‘more emissions’ on the BBC.

It’s obvious really.

  • Over the last few decades our (meaning the UK and all western nations’) manufacturing industries have collapsed.
  • Yet we can still buy stuff, more and more stuff actually.
  • By making stuff, we, as humans invariably use energy and create pollution as either a by-product of energy consumption and/or the manufacturing process itself.
  • Where is the pollution if we don’t make it here?
  • Overseas obviously, where the factories are….
  • Where are the factories?
  • In China, mainly.

This much we all know, but we choose to forget it.  We want a DVD, we buy it.  We don’t care where it was made or how it got here.  All we want is it to be cheaper than yesterday.

Beautiful or not - you decide!!


And the same goes for everything.  Even plastic bags….


And so to my trumpet-blowing.

Back in May 2008 I posted exactly the same as Prof MacKay has so eloquently said.  He said that all our supposed anti-pollution efforts ……….

are an illusion.

And he’s also recognised the duplicitous facts of our behaviour in making China et al the arch-culprits of pollution —  because they are not.

They behave that way because they are copying us and our actions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Back in May 2008 I said,

China is the great factory for the world. While the rest of the world struggled, China just got on and made stuff and did stuff. The result is lots of pollution. Basically, it’s exported pollution from all the global companies that moved their production to China over the last few decades. In other words – it’s our pollution, but in China!

Industrial Revolution

Ironbridge: 1779. Dawn of the Industrial Revolution?

Now finally, someone at the top is saying the same and we might finally get some positive action to reverse our spiralling energy consumption and physical debt to the planet that we live on and from which there is no escape.


The Professor said this,

“Back in 1910 we were burning per capita the same amount as Americans do today so that’s an argument for saying we really have an ethical duty to take a lead and show the way and show that it is possible for a developed country to seriously de-carbonise its economy.

“By historical emissions per capita the top three are America, Germany and Britain so we are right up there on the winners podium for carbon dioxide emissions per person over the last 125 years. “

….which is a firm statement, putting the guilt and the ownership of affirmative action soundly onto our shoulders, specifically the UK, Germany and the USA.  He’s saying ‘we’re the ones wot done it – we should fix it’!!

Cause and effect?

Related Posts:

Comments are closed

Humphrey Hawksley and the Chip Fat Conundrum

Humphrey Hawksley in an article on today’s BBC News website has reported the (blindingly obvious, some might say) results of a 25-year American study into the effects of air pollution (specifically vehicle and industrial) on life expectancy.

City air pollution ‘shortens life’

Basically, it’s bad!

I live next to an A-class road, busy with holiday makers on this warm bank holiday day off to the West Country.  I know it’s bad!  They all pass my house.

The article is very well written except for right at the end, where somehow Hawksley has been suckered into a ‘trend’ sort of spiel.  Either that, or some young office bod, equally blinded by the ‘trend’, has amended his copy.

Specifically, it’s the very last paragraphs which go;

Over the next generation, however, it’s expected that pollution, especially that created by dangerous diesel particles, will be cut dramatically.   Standard filters are now being fitted to buses. Bio-fuels and cleaner energy in general, brought about by climate change pressures, will make the air safer.

I’ve emphasised the offending words.  While notionally appearing good, this is far, far, from the case.  Bio-fuels, mostly sold as vegetable oils (a.k.a. chip fat) in this country, are just as particulate polluting as diesel.  They chuck out exactly the same CO2 and the other stuff as well.  To state the obvious, burning them in the same way as diesel fuel will cut life expectancy in the same way.  It’s only the use of filters that improves things.

Furthermore, bio-fuels have been totally discredited as a major fuel source by everyone except George Bush et al since the Bush era.  In simple terms (and ignoring the plus point that it’s a carbon-neutral fuel), there isn’t enough land area on the world to grow enough biomass to power the USA, let alone the rest of the world.  (see my earlier posting, fuel-costs-red-herrings for some further reading and links).  We must be ever-so-careful not to lump all the different ‘green’ technologies into one panacea and state things that are clearly proven to be bollox.

This isn’t to state that bio-fuels are all bad.  No, it’s just the current implementation of using food soya and palm oil monoculture to the detriment of the world’s forests and human food needs.  Using algae, for instance, in tanks covering the hot sunny deserts of America, Asia and Africa, could be a way of generating enough biomass for fuel usage once the problem of getting enough water into the desert is solved.  But that’s another issue.  The current mindset is bio-fuel oil and even batteries! (news this week is that Indian-owned Jaguar are getting >£300m of UK cash to develop an electric performance car- this should help the better off feel greener!)

To check out my thoughts on the unfeasability of batteries as motive power, check out another earlier post of mine, mini-e-an-enviromental-disaster-looms-from-muddled-thinking. In a nutshell, there’s only enough lithium in the Earth’s crust for 35 million cars.  Even with the recent newer ways of using lithium, getting 10 times that number wouldn’t provide enough vehicles to satisfy the current  demands for personal transportation.

The Jaguar and other similar developments show the peculiar macho-power mindset that governs decisions.  Most current, populist, trendy ideas are part of this dead-end mindset.   This is the blockage that must be removed, not people’s creativity.

Related Posts:

This is Why We Needed the Orbiting Carbon Observatory Satellite

Fizzy Oceans Spell Doom

Orbiting Carbon ObservatoryAs an almost instananeous follow up (the interconnectedness of all things?) to my recent disappointment about the launch failure of the OCO satellite, the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc  have all been reporting some recent climate work from Plymouth.

An Italian Bay

There’s now so much CO2 being absorbed by the oceans that their pH is being significantly lowered.  A sea bay off Italy is giving us, in a microcosm,  a glimpse of real possible future conditions in the Earth’s oceans if the current accelerating rate of carbon dioxide climate forcing is continued.

The bay is volcanically located and CO2 bubbles up through the sea floor.  In all other respects, it’s a normal bit of the Mediterranean.  So it’s got a standard mix of fish, molluscs and vegetation, and the standard mix of predator-prey species.

Soft Limpet

Identified many years ago by Sir John Murray, the CCD is the ocean depth where dissolving calcium carbonate (like sea shells) matches the rate that calcium carbonate of either type (organic or non-organic) is deposited.  In the remote past it was very shallow and produced the huge beds of limestone and chalk like the white cliffs of Dover.  Or the Alps!  (the beds in the old Tethys Sea are over 30km thick!)

Now its quite a way down (over 4km!)

However, in the Italian bay, there’s so much CO2 that the sea is so acidic that it makes the CCD effectively zero!  The plants grow as a monoculture of sea grass on the abundant CO2.  The shell creatures (like limpets) can’t make their shells fast enough and they have no real protection.  Of course, for sea birds and similar predators, it’s a short term food bonanza.  But what happens when all the limpets are gobbled up and gone?  And what if you are a creature that can’t eat sea grass?

This, in a nutshell, is the problem we face with our whole world.  What will we eat when things don’t grow very well any more?  What will we do when we’ve gobbled up all our fossil fuels?

Related Posts:

© 2007-2017 Strangely Perfect All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by me