Is there any point to this?
"Their calculations did not match the actual measurements. "
No.
The actual measurements did not match the model.
So they explained why.
This is how science works.
To call the 67 citations of this work: "It seems that they cited it that many times in order to show and warn others not to be as stupid as you." Is quite possibly the most stupid thing I have read on this board,
and I have read a whole lot of stupid things here.
Tell you what, prove your point. Find one of those citations and show me the quote that says RL's work was wrong.
As for the rest.......
""Of course there are, and everyone including RL knows that."
That may be true but none of you know how much radioactive molecules there are in the atmosphere and if that quantity has increased since 1947. "
You admit you were wrong, and then change the subject. Not usually a good tactic in a scientific argument.
As for the rest, I'm still not sure why you think an extremely heavy element persists in the atmosphere.
[1]What I was hoping to get was intelligent discussion on the possibilities, even from the "what if" view point about this subject.
[2]What I got was insults, infantile attempts at suppressing my views, and generally all types of stupid remarks.
[3]What I most likely will get is the satisfaction of saying SO WHAT when your grand children (or great grand children) are suffering from the global changes.
[4]It seems to me that you are thinking with RL's brain, don't you have thoughts of your own?
1. You've had plenty of intelligent discussions from people with more science smarts than me, from at least : alcaray, RL, et and Tom. Apologies to anyone I missed.
2. You got insults, mostly from RL, when you failed to take on board any of the facts placed in front of you.
3. Good luck with that.
4. Is this what you say to everyone who disagrees with your theory? If so, you are not exactly provong yourself to be open minded.......