From previous post.
Davin L. --- Let me put it this way. Why is it that we don't tolerate pseudoscience like Johannes posts concerning radioactive decay, but we SHOULD tolerate sloppy logic, inconsistent premises, red herrings, ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments? Why is it OFFENSIVE to insist that we don't?

Johannes --- I agree with you that the 'tolerance level' should be consistent toward ALL the postings that are made here. (Flame board excluded)
As for "pseudoscience concerning radioactive decay", my premise is based on the FACT that radioactive decay imparts kinetic energy to the surrounding molecules, if this was not so, then the nuclear power plants would not work and the Earth's core would be much cooler. Also it is a FACT that many of the nuclear power plants have had catastrophic failures that have released large quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere.
The question and conjecture then was: Is the radioactive material, that has been 'released' into the atmosphere from various 'man made sources', combining with natural energies and accelerating some of the atmospheric molecules into space?
IF such a phenomenon CAN or IS occurring, then it can be used to explain various global changes that have occurred since the advent of nuclear power.
The responses that I received from some 'pot heads that have been boiling dry' was that the sun's energy is much greater than that of the nuclear power.
I would never dispute such a stupid statement, that is an obvious fact that any five year old kid should know, but that knowledge in NO WAY alters my original question or conjecture.
Some of the people here seem to have no comprehension of certain subjects yet they think that their understanding of all subject matters is superior to anyone else's.
In all fairness I must say that there are many intelligent people posting here and even the 'boiling pot heads' have some redeeming qualities in their own field of expertise.