RE: chemtrails over a populated icey area with no farming activity
Condensation trails are a well known phenomena that could persist for hours. A chemtrail, however, would diffuse very quickly - otherwise it would fail in its specified objective.
The first image you posted above is a Boeing 777-240/LR. This is the original source of the image - http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-777-240-LR/855967/L . You have uploaded a photoshopped one with "Hazmat" etc added. Using barrels of water to test airplanes a standard industry procedure to simulate the movements of people. There are literally thousands of such photos, not why the conspiracy theorists chose to photoshop this one, especially as this one's easily traceable. The second image is a completely separate aircraft; a probe on research aircraft N701BN to sample the atmosphere.
Please do the bare basic of research. Confirmation bias is dangerous. Don't believe anything on the internet - only peer reviewed scientific papers. Here's a good collection of them - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta;jsessionid=3E64663199CA75E8F69625258B8A9278.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
peer reviewed science papers are an echo chamber. and scientists arent paid enuough to do proper science.
also peer reviewed papers always have a fudge factor. also WHO paid for the paper matters. i saw nowhere in that paper who paid for it. its important.
also the sample size of experts is too damn small! are you kidding?! 50 experts out of thousands?edit: also what makes them experts? theyre expertise was not listed in the paper.
It seems very much like you haven't read that analysis or any of the papers it links to. It also seems like you have made up your mind, so I'll cease from engaging you any further.
I'll leave you with this page which cites hundreds of sources that'll provide some evidence - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails
Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single ounce of evidence from you - just disconnected images showing different things.
I hope you can leave aside your confirmation bias and accept the evidence; not through random internet websites but peer reviewed papers. Good luck.
the iop science link only has references paid by the government or owned by the government.
it does not make sense to ask the government "are you doing this" and then say "ok" when they make an ellaborate "not guilty" plea. that paper from iopscience has way too much fudge factor. i dont like fudge thanks.