🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 18, 1:20 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Moon, soot and biology running itself amok in more nasty ways than
> mere flatulence.  Mother Earth herself is actually cooling off from
> the inside out (so that's not at fault).

> "2 knockdown arguments againt human caused Global warming?"http://groups.google.com/group/cam.misc/browse_frm/thread/7761a34a979...
>
> Apparently "cam.misc" operates within its very own MI cloaked topic
> and/or client selective robo stealth moderation mode, though it's
> about what you'd expect of most anything UK that believes they're
> extra special folks with such extra tight butt-cracks, that perhaps
> they don't have to share squat if they don't want to.
>
> In spite of their perceived reluctance as to share and share alike,
> I'll offer up a perfectly valid third reason for global warming, or at
> least of what I believe is mostly responsible for a good 75% of it, if
> not representing as great as being worth a 90% GW factor.
>
> For starters, 300 PPM in CO2 simply isn't providing a sufficient cause
> and affect, that's being continually mainstream touted as the GW holy
> grail.  

   The best argument is nuclear winter.
   Global Warming (not politically-corrected
   enforced as Climate Delta on the FM band)
   is the first sure example of a bio-system
   that shows that entropy not only
   is impossible to overcome, it's
   impossible in three mutually
   inconsistent ways).
   Thermally,
   heuristically,
   and meta-mathematically).






Soot (white or black) on the other hand has a measured degree
> of GW potential via global dimming and of certain thermal retention
> factors, and otherwise our extremely massive and nearby moon simply
> can't avoid taking up the vast bulk of those GW credits.
>
> Apparently the holy grail of our moon's L1 is still fully hocus-pocus
> rated, meaning that it can't be honestly discussed in most any context
> without taking on a serious butt-load of flak.  However, my notion of
> moving our salty moon into Earth's L1 simply doesn't get any crazier
> or any less flak worthy, or does it?
>
> I honestly do believe that's what it's going to take, in order to
> drastically moderate this ongoing GW situation that's only getting
> more soot polluted and thus global dimmed by the day, is by way of
> moving that primary root cause of GW further away, and otherwise by
> simply utilizing such a nifty placement on behalf of creating a
> literal spot of badly needed shade.
>
> Of what's totally crazy are those notions of educating common folks
> into appreciating the regular laws of physics, and thus accepting upon
> the best available science, as for such an accomplishment would become
> the ultimate demise of most religions, as well as having uncovered our
> mutually perpetrated cold-wars for what utter contrivances they
> actually were, and as you and I should know better, that we simply
> can't have that sort of truthful outcome, can we.
>
> As for my asking silly questions, like any of these following, is
> usually the same as asking for yet another Usenet butt-load of
> trouble, or simply more of the same lethal loads of mainstream flak as
> being tossed our way without so much as a stitch of remorse.
>
> How much h2o does our atmosphere hold?  (I've heard it stated as worth
> 50e12 tonnes)
>
> How much applied energy is our atmospheric gravity-forced tide worth
> these days?
>
> Is our badly soot polluted atmospheric pressure going up, or is it
> going down?
>
> Wouldn't those nifty little diatoms (if given half a chance) once
> again manage to save our CO2/GW polluted day?
>
> How much applied energy does having that massive and nearby moon
> zipping around Earth manage to transfer into our badly failing
> environment (including of what's well below our two dumbfounded left
> feet, that wich also includes the ongoing demise of our
> magnetosphere)?
>
> Unfortunately, most Usenet folks (including myself) are not happy
> campers, especially those of us having since realized just how badly
> snookered and summarily dumbfounded we've all been taken through the
> infomercial cleaners, of having our intellectual clocks cleaned by way
> of whatever the mainstream status quo had within their silly Old
> Testament mindset, as to do to the rest of us village idiots what they
> did to one of their own kind if need be.  Perhaps that's also why I'm
> still having a tough time of saying what I mean to say.
>
> Such as all the flak others and I've taken over those few sorts of
> perfectly honest notions, as fully intended in order to once and for
> all fix what's happening to our frail environment that's unavoidably
> going GW postal on us, that's for the most part taking place in spite
> of our environment having also received as much ongoing human
> contributed global warming that has essentially gotten more than a
> little out of control.  The seriously weird if not next to impossible
> notion of moving icy little Sedna into Earth's L1 would likely become
> slightly more than sufficient, with shade to burn (sort of speak).
> However, moving our existing and obviously no longer so icy moon into
> Earth's L1 would become a whole lot better, and obviously offering us
> soot producing heathens loads of spare shade to burn, not to mention
> having reduced the moon's orbital worth of gravitational trauma and of
> extensively moderating those pesky tidal forces (inside and out) by a
> good reduction factor of nearly 16:1.
>
> With that pesky moon relocated into Earth's L1, I believe that at the
> most we'd end up with is roughly half again as much as the existing
> solar tidal energy to deal with, by which we could all live with that
> modus 24 hour tide as we greatly benefit from the more than sufficient
> degree of solar isolation.
>
> Remember, that as far as we know of, as for our having any absolute
> certainty, we've only had that somewhat salty moon of ours since the
> last ice age this unusually wet and salty planet will ever see, and
> we've also been a little extra seasonal tilted ever since having
> survived that initial lithobraking encounter.  Going back 15,000 BC
> and there's simply no such moon to behold, as well as having a nearly
> monoseason Earth and obviously as having much less ocean and of hardly
> any tide to deal with.  Even as of 12,000 BC remains as somewhat moon
> iffy, though highly intelligent souls had in fact been somehow
> managing to exist/coexist upon this badly traumatised planet
> (apparently they were all highly dumbfounded heathens or otherwise of
> a biologically blind species of humans, because at the time and
> especially of before then, as such they simply could not see or having
> otherwise appreciated that absolutely nearby and extremely vibrant
> looking moon of ours).
>
> Of course, folks here within this mostly Old Testament faith-based
> Usenet land of naysayism, of what's mostly based upon their one and
> only Earth and of their all-knowing naysay hypology and infomercialism
> that's usually mainstream promoted in order to look as though it's of
> good physics and replicated science, that's unfortunately nearly all
> hocus-pocus based upon their skewed conditional laws of physics that
> favors anything NASA/Apollo, and/or of that which supports their
> notions that we're the one and only worthy intelligent souls within
> this entire universe, whereas such they are not buying into any of
> this truth worthy crapolla because, I'm afraid that it seriously rocks
> their silly faith based good ship LOLLIPOP.
>
> Trust me, it's actually not my fault if those pesky regular laws of
> physics and of the best available of independently replicated science
> are of what's not being allowed, especially banished if such honest
> physics were intended as to apply whatever understandings on behalf of
> appreciating our unusually massive, nearby and somewhat salty moon, or
> much less on behalf of appreciating anything whatsoever that pertains
> to Venus.  Apparently our GW fiasco is still officially sequestered as
> some kind of a 100% terrestrial thing, that's somehow not having been
> caused by way of anything big-energy contributed, and even though
> Earth's core has been cooling off, apparently there's something other
> of a weird faith-based form of those extra special conditional thermal
> laws of hocus-pocus physics taking place, that which entirely excludes
> any of those pesky regular laws of physics, or of otherwise having
> merely excluded upon whatever the best available science has been
> telling us otherwise.
>
> Needless to say, I do not buy into the all terrestrial GW thing, any
> more so than having bought into the sun getting itself so much hotter
> and then so much cooler each and every 100,000 some odd years, or that
> Venus is even all that technically insurmountable, nor do I believe
> that our moon is supposedly nothing worse off than a passive guano
> island like environment.  In other words, I have a few problems with
> what the mainstream status quo wants all the rest of us village idiots
> to beieve.
> -
> Brad Guth