I do not know who David Suzuki is, but reading his article, it is clear that he do not learn enough. He simply think that something from the google search is a fact. Chemtrails denier disinformation webpage is unfortunately at the top of google search.
Here is David Suzuki article (Posted by Izora Woods in facebook chemtrails kill group):
Conspiracies fuel climate change denial and belief in chemtrails
Denying chemtrails is usual, but claiming to have credible source with false information show that David Suzuki is a victim of chemtrails denier disinformation (I hope he is not a supporter). The article mention:
"I'm a scientist, so I look at credible science — and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They're condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air."
What is credible about that? That is obviously wrong.
Credible science said this:
LEOTC Project, Minister of Education, the Royal Society of New Zealand, The Kiwi Kids Cloud Identification Guide
"Contrails are formed when particles from aircraft jet engines mix with the water vapour in the air. The water vapour condenses and freezes around the particles causing long white trails across the sky."
He is not credible because he did not use credible source. Garbage in, garbage out. Note the word particles. He OMITTED that. The article also mention:
"But what interests me is the connection between climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. Why do so many people accept a theory for which there is no scientific evidence while rejecting a serious and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that can be easily observed and for which overwhelming evidence has been building for decades?"
Consider this fact:
Emissions trading in international civil aviation by Öko-Institut e.V. Institute for Applied Ecology
"In a Special Report of the IPCC (1999), climatic impact was investigated and compared for three periods of observation (1992, 2015 and 2050). In the case of CO2, not only were aviation emissions at these points in time considered, but also the emissions that have accumulated since 1950. With contrails, on the other hand, only emissions from 1992, 2015 and 2050 were considered on account of their short retention time. It turned out that, for all periods of observation, the radiative forcing of contrails is greater that that of CO2. This can be attributed to the fact that the sensitivity effect of contrails is more intense than the accumulation and growth effects of CO2."
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), Providing Access to NASA’s Technology, Research, and Science, Soot and Sulfuric Acid Aerosol from Aircraft: Is There Enough to Cause Detrimental Environmental Effects?
“Aerosol from aircraft can affect the environment in three ways: First, soot aerosol has been implicated to cause long-term ozone depletion at mid-latitudes in the lower stratosphere at a rate of -5% per decade. This effect is in addition and unrelated to the polar ozone holes which are strongly influenced by heterogeneous chemistry on polar stratospheric clouds. Second, the most obvious effect of jet aircraft is the formation of visible contrails in the upper troposphere. The Salt Lake City region experienced an 8% increase in cirrus cloud cover over a 15-year period which covariates with an increase in regional commercial air traffic. If soot particles act as freezing nuclei to cause contrail formation-heterogeneously, they would be linked to a secondary effect to cloud modification that very likely is climatologically important. Third, a buildup of soot aerosol could reduce the single scatter albedo of stratospheric aerosol from 0.993+0.004 to 0.98, a critical value that has been postulated to separate stratospheric cooling from warming.”
It is clear that contrails have high potential in destroying weather and climate. Anyone concerned with climate change should be concerned with contrails. We should be concerned that a man like David Suzuki do not understand this.