/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14507209
>Yes, because of your wilful ignorance or delusion.
"CO2 rises due to temperature according to the same graphs posted saying the opposite". Prove me wrong.

>The article I gave you has plenty of non-quantitave explanation. Did you not read it or are you just ignoring it on purpose?
I'm ignoring it because of the reasons Wikipedia has explained in their terms of use.

>Where does it say it's not a source?
I screencapped it, but you can read it yourself on their terms of service. I wouldn't want to use only my self as a source after all.

>It simply says the host is not responsible for the content.
Which means I can make it up as I go along and have no accountability for it.

>The same is true for everything you read on this website,
Or any other that isn't an actual scientific experiment/reputable source. Ultimately these sources are just academic groupthink, but it's at least a starting point for investigation. Wikipedia is literally mostly one random schmoe. It's kind of funny actually, it reminds me of that twilight zone episode "Hocus Pocus and Frisby" where a bunch of aliens abduct a spastic moron country boy because he lies about wealths of knowledge he claims to know. They believe all thebullshit stories because he's "genuine" when telling them and because they don't understand the concept of yarnspinning/lie-story telling.
He even looks like him.

>Otherwise, attacking the source is not an excuse for remaining ignorant of basic physics
I'm not attack a source because wikipedia is not a source, at least in their own words.