Which is all bluster to cover the fact that you are unqualified to have an opinion if you cannot relate "chemtrails" to known and observed properties of contrails. Common courtesy is one thing, but it is not true that all opinions are equally creditable. "Chemtrail" advocacy is marked by ignorance of the relevant atmospheric physics, and absence of any evidence. (Supposition is not evidence.)
Which is all bluster to cover the fact that you are unqualified to have an opinion if you cannot relate "chemtrails" to known and observed properties of contrails. Common courtesy is one thing, but it is not true that all opinions are equally creditable. "Chemtrail" advocacy is marked by ignorance of the relevant atmospheric physics, and absence of any evidence. (Supposition is not evidence.)