4 ms·
Louisiana lawmakers push 'chemtrail' ban legislation through the House
- techpineapple 1y agoWould this ban airplanes flying in the state?
- Bender 1y agoNo, it would ban people intentionally spraying chemicals or metals to induce rain by cloud-seeding for example. There are real chemtrails and then there are just water vapor trails created by jets. The corporate media have conflated the two and been intentionally deceptive on this topic to stir controversy where there is none and to make people look like ignorant hillbillies.
- duxup 1y agoBased on the article, it doesn’t appear the lawmakers are making the distinction you are.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago>> The corporate media have conflated [cloud seeding and chemtrails] to make people look like ignorant hillbillies. > Based on the article, it doesn’t appear the lawmakers are making the distinction you are. You are correct. State Rep. Kimberly Landry Coates (R-Ponchatoula) ... and several other lawmakers refer to the lines as “chemtrails,” which she claims are made of nanochemicals that alter weather patterns. During questioning on the House floor, State Rep. Candace Newell (D-New Orleans) asked about the chemicals Coates believes are involved. “Other than the nanoparticles of aluminum, what else have you found?” Newell said. “Barium. There is a few, some with long words that I can’t pronounce,” Coates said. Coates also claimed [that NOAA] sends chemicals into clouds to reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface. However, NOAA says it does not conduct weather modification experiments and has no plans to do so. Coates further suggested that multiple agencies are involved in what she believes is a chemtrail conspiracy in Louisiana. “Who is doing this?” asked State Rep. Matthew Willard (D-New Orleans). “There are multiple people. Multiple groups, contractors,” Coates said. “Who are the contracts with?” Willard asked. “I’ve seen the documents with at least nine federal agencies,” Coates said. I take issue with the gransparent's comment, where they infer these comments create an appearance of "ignorant hillbillies". Having grown up with hill people, I assert they are, on balance, more rational than the southern state legislators who are represented by these remarks.
- mosdl 1y agoThe problem is they vote for the worst type of legislators
- WarOnPrivacy 1y agoSure. Now consider trading law/power for campaign dollars which is what federally elected officials do ~every day. Why do ethical voters (most voters) respond to and vote for politicians who fund their elections thru bribery? I don't know but it's the same reason the Louisiana voters voted like they did.
- Bender 1y agoI was not referring to the article, rather the hundreds of articles that have been posted here about this issue in multiple states. HN is not immune to the conditioning that paid corporate media have been using to influence peddle.
- kstrauser 1y agoI disagree. It’s the quotes in the article making those people sound like ignorant hillbillies.
- tonetheman 1y ago[dead]
- mnemotronic 1y agoThe ban as you described it is pretty specific. Would it be ok for someone to spray chemicals and metals for other reasons and not to induce rain by cloud-seeding? Crop-dusting might fall under this category. And what exactly are "nanochemicals"?
- zzzeek 1y agoThis is not what either the article says or what the definition of "chemtrails" is. This is about a made up conspiracy theory pushed by crackpots, scammers, and in some cases personal acquaintances. We are most certainly talking about people who are along the spectrum from very ignorant to delusional, and the alarming development that state governments are starting to waste taxpayer dollars in treating this subject as something real.
- jleyank 1y agoHow about people who burn wood or paper? Vehicles rolling coal? There’s a whole lot of processes that put particulates into the air - are these banned as well? Or is it just banning water vapour?
- jmclnx 1y agoHow stupid can these republicans be ? I guess there is no limit. So they fear 'chemtails' is being used to help prevent climate change, really dumb. But it does not matter, in 50 years or so, Louisiana will be unlivable in the summer and there is a good chance New Orleans will be under water. So go ahead Louisiana People, keep voting in the dumbest people you can find.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> So go ahead Louisiana People, keep voting in the dumbest people you can find. Above I asserted that hill people are rational people. The natural Q to follow is why does their bloc elect ignorant, irrational people? My answer is IDK. However, it is the same answer as the one for this question. Why do ethical, observant people (nearly the entire voting populace really) continually reelect officials who routinely trade law and government power for campaign cash (an act indistinguishable from bribery)? And the corollary Q: Why is the press nearly always fine with this (~never informing voters of corruption, ensuring it continues unabated)? I'm pretty sure if I can answer one, I can answer them all.
- johnea 1y ago> nanochemicals that alter weather patterns Those wily legislators in the sportsman's paradise, what will they take on next? I hope they can prevent the lizard people, from inside the hollow earth, from grooming those children at Hilary Clinton's pizza parlor! As if there wasn't enough blatant polluting in Louisiana already, and now they're burdened with nanochemicals that alter weather patterns. I'm glad to see they're taking on the most egregious violators first!
- chkaloon 1y agoSome legislators probably have constituents that just won't shut up about it, so they figure let's pass this since it doesn't actually ban anything that actually exists and get these crazies off my back.
- peter-m80 1y agoUSA :facepalm: