wrote in message
oups.com...
The Gaia theory of Earth is a fakery and a ludricous theory and any
scientist who claims themselves as a scientist should never accept the
Gaia theory.

The Gaia hypothesis is actually regarded as a series
of hypotheses, best described by Kirchner's Spectrum
of Gaian Hypotheses ... from Weak to Strong:

These hypotheses are as follows, the comment at the end
reflects an approximate indication of the measure of
support from the scientific community.


INFLUENTIAL
The biota has a substantial influence over certain aspects
of the abiotic world. This hypotheses is supported.

CO-EVOLUTIONARY
The biota influences the abiotic environment, and the latter
influences the evolution of the biota by Darwinian processes.
Debated

HOMEOSTATIC
The interplay between biota and environment is characterized
by stabilizing negative feedback loops. Debated

TELEOLOGICAL
The atmosphere is kept in homeostasis not just by the biosphere,
but in some sense _for_ the biosphere. See "Daisyworld"

OPTIMIZING
The biota manipulates its environment for the purpose of creating
biologically favorable conditions for itself. Skeptical

Further, with context, see:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html


And I should not be starting a discussion of serious
science by starting it with the Gaia theory, but the reason I do so is
because, if the Gaia theory had any truth to it-- it would now be
saying that the planet Earth would be increasing in cloud formation all
over the globe and thus decreasing Global-Warming. But reality shows us
otherwise that as Global Warming increases that this planet cloud cover
is decreasing.


The Gaia hypotheses for example consider timespans
such as the 2.5 billion years commencing from the very
formation of the planet, during which the % of carbon
dioxide was replaced by a % of oxygen by means of
primitive photosynthetic plankton, allowing the subsequent
evolution of aerobic life.

Geological timescales.

Our "reality" to which you refer above is less than the
blink of an eye in the life of the planet.


....[trim]...

Has any meteorological data base kept track of clouds for the past 30
years which could provide clues and answers as to the diminishing of
cloud formation over the interior states of the USA.

Your rainfall data should go back a fair way, but I'd hazard
that it has already been extensively analysed to determine if
there exists any signature and/or cycles of change evident in
it.




--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au