I've heard of similar things. For example, this guy sending air, water, and sugar.

As long as you have the right safety labels, there shouldn't be a problem. The guy in the above link screwed up with the "Rocket Fuel" label.

If they were sending a mill, why did they say "It's a machine for making guns"? IT could have been labeled as coming from "GG Machine Works", and if they needed a declaration of contents it's just "a CNC machine."

I can't even think of the countless things I've shipped. Usually I'm only asked on International shipments for the customs declaration. If I explain what's in them, it's too complicated, so they just put "computer parts" or "tools".

I've received some things that surprised people, like ammunition (legally marked and shipped as such, handled by UPS), a truck front axle, and all kinds of weird smaller things.

There is pretty good historical evidence of what did happen when a big volcano blew out lots of ash and particles. Mount Tambora for example, that had an eruption in 1815, and the following year, 1816, became known as "the year without a summer", because of this. There is no good reason to expect a significantly different outcome from filling the atmosphere with other similar particles. It will become colder.

On the other hand, this does argue for the possibility that the system can behave somewhat predictable, with negative feedback as it were, within a smaller range of excitations, like varying the speed of an aircraft as long as it runs faster than stall speed. But once driven past some inflection-point that we can expect to be there, given that the system is chaotic, all bets will be off.

Still, this suggested solution seems to be worse than the problem. The possible increased temperatures and CO2 will just make for better growth conditions for all kinds of plants, of which many are food for animals which in turn are eaten by humans. Less sunlight, less heat, less CO2 and there will be less foliage, then eventually less food available. How can that good for anything?

And finally, back in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a lot of argumentation about acid rain, caused by partculate pollution from coal-fired plants, where the sulfur was precipitated as acid. Countries have managed to put a stop to this kind of pollution, though there are still localized problems with particulate pollution in cities. And now there are someone arguing that this sort of thing actually could be worthwhile in an attempt to halt a perceived warming process?

This is supposed to "reverse" the climate change? As in making it essentially perpetually cloudy? This sounds nothing so much like a nuclear winter, though without the nukes...

How something like that is going to reverse anything, now climate being that chaotic as it is doesn't easily move forwards or backwards along some line, like a car or animal does. It will change it, sure. Probably to the nuclear winter-like conditions, as if that were anything better than today's situation. Or maybe this would also keep heat in, so we would get what is essentially a runaway greenhouse... now wasn't that what was supposedely the problem initially?

This is just wrong on so many levels...

Hey Bill. Kindly go fuck yourself. Seriously. If you believe (and apparently you do), that only Ivy League universities can provide any education of merit, then you really are more of a mindless tool than I suspected.

QFT. Consider how well the Ivy Leaguers mismanaging the executive branch of the government are doing as further proof of the uselessness of credentialism.

He's using climate change as an example to demonstrate his point. (A near-unanimous consensus among scientists maintain that climate change is happening and is a serious problem; over 50% of the US population disagrees. This demonstrates that the US population is largely science-illiterate or science-hostile.)

O RLY? (The Google link should bypass their paywall.) In addition to "consensus" being inherently unscientific (was Copernicus "science-illiterate" when he proposed his heliocentric theory of the solar system when the consensus view was in favor of a geocentric theory?), there is much to suggest that the "97%" number is as overcooked as most of the recent temperature records have been.

And with that pile of hooey, I'm signing off. Your last batch of replies have destroyed what remaining shred of entertainment value our dialog had retained. Lord have mercy on you, sir.

Yeah, yeah.

Not even a listener.

Yours.

Hey, great way to edit a quote so that you can take it any way you want to go! You and damn_registrars are of a piece. I'm completely disgusted and losing interest in the conversation.

Hey, wait: you're on defense here. Get back to defending your going-in position: "The female predates the male".
You're all finger-waggy about me changing the subject, avoiding questions, and so forth. Petard, hoist owner.

While falling short of a No True Scotsman, it's fair to say the KKK is hardly mainstream Christianity. The rejection of David Duke & ilk points to the fact the KKK or any other supremacist is almost a false flag operation, to the extent they fancy themselves Christian.
However, it's a useful discussion in the light of the question of Islam, and how you manage the unavoidable truth that, for any sufficiently large organization (sacred or profane), somebody is going to go off message somewhere.

Smitty, you just keep pasting them subjects to the goalposts, and moving them along evasion courses.

How myopic is that? I'm actually far more concerned about (a) individual development along the maturity curve and (b) wisdom transfer to the next generation.
Since you've rejected the concept of the Gospel, you may not grasp the point of Matthew 4:8.

You blow off the concept of absolute Truth; you opt for a purely materialistic analysis of life; you pour cynicism on all attempts to model anything above the pure carnivore level: you really can't be shocked when everything goes pear-shaped. And I mean "you" in the general, second-person sense here. I'm not offering any accusation against this Journal's owner.