Michael Crichton BTFO climate fags https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0 How will /sci/ ever recover?

File: 255 KB, 772x486, crichton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:30:47 2020 No.12305866 [Reply] [Original]

Michael Crichton BTFO climate fags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0

How will /sci/ ever recover?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:33:03 2020 No.12305872 >>12305866 leftypol trannies aren't /sci/ they are invaders trying to push their commie agenda. /sci/ is a right wing board and we don't believe in this stupid shit except an occasional low information fear porn cuck

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:41:44 2020 No.12305887 >>12305872 /sci/ believes in global warming.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:54:01 2020 No.12305908 >youtube video >random author Seems legit

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:57:12 2020 No.12305916

>>12305908
>surgeon educated from Johns Hopskins
>genius, multi millionaire
>published
makes you look literally retarded

>youtube video
not arguing in good faith, kys tranny and never come back to this board, jannies should perma ban faggots like you who are clearly arguing in bad faith

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 17:58:21 2020 No.12305918 >>12305916 Funny how none of those credentials include "practicing climate scientist" isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:01:09 2020 No.12305924 >>12305916 >published Not in the scientific sense. Also his books suck ass, and the movie adaptations are even worse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:02:39 2020 No.12305927 >>12305918 Where are your "practicing climate scientist" credentials? >>12305924 >one of the most read authors of all time >movies are top grossing movies of all yah you are a fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:04:27 2020 No.12305929 >fading SCI-FI author tries to stay relevant by spouting pseudoscience How the mighty have fallen

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:05:33 2020 No.12305931 >>12305927 >movies are top grossing movies of all Lol, no. The only "top grossing" movie based on a Crichton book is Jurassic Park and it was still bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:05:36 2020 No.12305932 >>12305927 I'm not the one questioning/denying established science here.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:11:42 2020 No.12305942
File: 2.67 MB, 414x322, joker4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12305931
you are an idiot, I would bet both of nuts chopped off with a rusty spoon you couldn't even name 5 things on this list
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls031014515/

>>12305932
>established science
Oh yah you are legit retarded

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:15:07 2020 No.12305948

>>12305931
>can't even name books or movies from one of the most successful authors of all time
>just trust me bro I know what I am talking about in the other things I say here though
There should be some kind of test to keep people as stupid as you off this board

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:18:12 2020 No.12305955

>>12305942
Bruh, I've read a bunch of Crichton's books and seen all of the film adaptations. They suck more than Bradbury's writing. Fun concepts that pass the time, but the delivery is garbage.

>science bad
Did you know that bullets are great for headaches? Try it out! What are you afraid of, it's not like you're a doctor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:19:16 2020 No.12305959 >>12305948 "Top grossing" is a pretty small list for Crichton. One movie and one TV series total in fact.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:21:50 2020 No.12305964

>>12305866
He's just wrong. The Sun's variation is much too weak to explain the warming. The warming effect from increased CO2 is directly observed and accounts for the vast majority of warming. Almost every expert on this topic disagrees with him. He presents no evidence or argument, just incorrect claims.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:24:44 2020 No.12305969 >>12305959 >>12305929 >>12305924 >poisoning the well ad hom So you admit you can't refute his arguments? If you can't attack the arguments attack the man? Got it

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:26:14 2020 No.12305971 File: 1.16 MB, 316x200, joker2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12305964 >Almost every expert on this topic disagrees with him. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=76a42c483f9f

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:26:35 2020 No.12305973 >>12305969 I admit that I didn't waste my time watching the video. Are you admitting that his books are garbage and he's not qualified to speak on the topic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:27:37 2020 No.12305975 >>12305964 >He presents no evidence or argument, just incorrect claims Literally you, nothing in your post is true, you dont even understand the basics

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:30:16 2020 No.12305982 >>12305872 what is this meme word salad trying to say

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:31:52 2020 No.12305985

>>12305887
>science believes

Shut the fuck up, retard.

>>12305908
> disregard every scientist that uses youtube
Okay, I'll start with the posci fags at CERN.

>>12305918
>97 percent of SCIENTISTS agree!
But they never tell you what kind of scientists are agreeing do they?

>>12305932
>denying established science
Well duh, science is falsifiable afterall.

>>12305964
CO2 doesn't cause heat. It insulates. Like how a cooler will insulate your ice.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:35:53 2020 No.12305996 >>12305985 >CO2 doesn't cause heat I didn't say it does, I said it causes warming, aka an increase in heat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:38:01 2020 No.12306004 >>12305985 >scientist Lol Micheal Crichton is not a scientist. Let me link you to some episodes of Captain Planet instead of making my argument with facts and evidence https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs https://youtube.com/watch?v=IO9XlQrEt2Y

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:43:06 2020 No.12306017
File: 38 KB, 562x570, 1594642931057.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12305996
>CO2 doesn't cause heat
>I didn't say it does, I said it causes warming, aka an increase in heat.

So you don't want a spoonfeeding, but rather a teaspoon feeding? You get a mulligan, no more (you)'s after this though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:43:45 2020 No.12306020 >>12305985 >But they never tell you what kind of scientists are agreeing do they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

>>	sage and report Wed Nov 4 18:44:05 2020 No.12306021 Stop feeding him you idiots, he's an incredibly obvious troll.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:44:31 2020 No.12306023 >>12306004 >a piece of paper makes you a scientist Oh, well I guess neither was Copernicus or Newton or Tesla or Pasture or Archimedes or Pythagoras either. lol you arent a scientist, in the trash you go

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:44:42 2020 No.12306025 Imagine not being a tenured Theoretical Physics professor and thinking your opinion on anything matters.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:44:57 2020 No.12306026
File: 662 KB, 1080x1061, 1594317131225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306004
>Lol Micheal Crichton is not a scientist.
I never said he was. Why do you feel the need to mention it?

>Let me link you to some episodes of Captain Planet instead of making my argument with facts and evidence
Well okay, you have fun being dumb or whatever it is you're doing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:47:01 2020 No.12306030 >>12306020 >wikipedia. You know better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:47:56 2020 No.12306032 >>12306023 >An author is the same as a published scientist The absolute state of /sci/. Are you aware that all of those scientists have made scientific publications that were recognized by their peers as such, or are you being dishonest?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:48:16 2020 No.12306033 >>12306025 99% of nobel prizes in science went to people who aren't scientists. Very strange

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:49:18 2020 No.12306037 >>12306032 >or are you being dishonest? No you are just an idiot and probably suffer severe autism

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:50:17 2020 No.12306039

>>12306026
>I never said he was
You certainly implied it when you compared a hack author to a scientist at CERN.

>Well okay, you have fun being dumb or whatever it is you're doing.
Go watch the videos and you'll understand. You can't argue with those kinds of facts.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:51:55 2020 No.12306044

>>12305971
>1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
I already explained, almost all climatologists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming. If you want to know what specifically they agree on you can look at the studies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

>“Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is an egregious case of putting words in someone else's mouth. He didn't say 97% of papers he surveyed endorsed the consensus, he said that 97% of papers that took a position endorsed the consensus. The author of your article is disingenuous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:51:55 2020 No.12306045 >>12306033 any science that is not physics is not actual science. For example, biology is just observation, but biophysics is a science. And chemistry is just a subset of physics

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:52:22 2020 No.12306046 >>12306039 >one of the most successful authors of all time >hack you are the hack stop posting here, you are a liar and a retard go back to discord tranny

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:52:51 2020 No.12306049 >>12306037 Lol so you genuinely didn't know that everyone on your list of scientists had published their scientific works and that Michael Crichton doesn't have any scientific works? Why are you here?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:54:01 2020 No.12306051

>>12305975
>Literally you
What can be presented without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

>nothing in your post is true
Wrong.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

>you dont even understand the basics
Nice projection.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:55:03 2020 No.12306057 >>12306017 Is this supposed to be a response? Substanceless posts like yours just scream insecurity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:55:31 2020 No.12306059 >>12306046 >Crichton isn't a hack Take your opinions to /lit/ and see what they tell you. He certainly isn't qualified to even intern at CERN.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:56:05 2020 No.12306060 >>12306030 What is wrong with wikipedia? >inb4 it's just random people on the internet So are you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 18:57:48 2020 No.12306067 >>12306049 Archimedes and Pythagoras published their scientific works but m,ichael crichton who literally wrote an entire book on fake climate science isn't published? You are literally retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:00:25 2020 No.12306074 >>12306067 That's exactly what I'm saying. Do you understand what a "scientific work" is or what "publication" means in a scientific sense? Writing a sci-fi novel does not make you a scientist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:02:06 2020 No.12306075 >>12306074 Nothing anyone writes makes them a scientist you massively retard imbecile. Holy fuck you are legit retarded. I rarely find people as thick as you even here and that's saying something

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:04:08 2020 No.12306081 >>12306074 Not him but just so we are on the page you claim Archimedes and Pythagoras have published scientific works? You can't be this stupid

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:06:44 2020 No.12306086 >>12306075 >Imagine being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:07:46 2020 No.12306089 >>12306081 Uh huh. Does "Archimedes principal" or "Pythagorean theorem" ring a bell?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:07:46 2020 No.12306091
File: 207 KB, 512x512, 1570715387884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306057
Is this supposed to be a response?
How do I respond when the post was a distinction without a difference? It would be like trying to reply to a sniveling cunt who retorts "no the sky isn't blue, it's light blue!". Cool story bro, say something of use next time. So do you want your mulligan or??

>Substanceless posts like yours just scream insecurity.
Well give me some substance to talk about other than a distinction without a difference, kthx.

>>12306039
>You certainly implied it when you compared a hack author to a scientist at CERN.
When did I do that? I am just going off the logic of that poster who believes that people who make and watch youtube videos are not legit. So that includes all the popsci bullshit that CERN puts out, such as dancing to a SHIVA statue like a bunch of polarized morons.

>Go watch the videos and you'll understand. You can't argue with those kinds of facts.
You think I'm arguing? What am I arguing? I'm posting facts and asking questions, silly.

>>12306060
>What is wrong with wikipedia?
Do they publish their works based on their "wikiuniversity", or is it just a bunch of jannies who work for free that confirms what's written on their website?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:12:11 2020 No.12306102

>>12306091
>When did I do that?
Right here
> disregard every scientist that uses youtube

You can spout all the disingenuous bullshit you like, but Crichton will not suddenly become as credible as an intern in a CERN video and the two cannot be compared.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:13:35 2020 No.12306109

>>12306091
>How do I respond when the post was a distinction without a difference?
Oh really? So what is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?

>Well give me some substance to talk about other than a distinction without a difference, kthx.
I already did, see >>12305964. Your response was a non sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:15:18 2020 No.12306117 >>12306091 >Do they publish their works based on their "wikiuniversity" How does this answer my question? You haven't even said that the wikipedia article is wrong. What exactly are you whining about?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:23:12 2020 No.12306143
File: 509 KB, 440x330, GALOKAY.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306102
>Right here
>I am just going off the logic of that poster who believes that people who make and watch youtube videos are not legit
>>12305908
You don't need a teaspoon, you need a babyspoon.

>You can spout all the disingenuous bullshit you like
>asking questions is disingenuous

>>12306109
>Oh really? So what is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?
Where does the heat come from if CO2 just insulates it?

>>12306117
>How does this answer my question?
They're not accredited. It's written by random schucks on the internet, as you yourself implied here:
>>12306060
>inb4 it's just random people on the internet
>So are you.

You answered your own question.

>You haven't even said that the wikipedia article is wrong. What exactly are you whining about?
What does any of that matter? All that matters are the facts. Whether I think wiki is wrong or not is irrelevant because it's not a credited source of information. It comes from randoms. For all you know I wrote the article.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:25:55 2020 No.12306154

>>12306089
link me the publications, I'll wait

The Pythagoras theorem was in the Vedas which is 1000's of years older than Pythagoras. Just because you have been told they "published" it doesn't mean they actually did. Also don't think people are too stupid to see you moving the goal posts back and forth to fit your narrative. Most people believe the actual author of Shakespeare's work was in fact Francis Bacon.

My point was, and I am sure you aren't as obtuse as you are making out to be, was that you have no logical consistency in what you are saying and you are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit it.

Universities and "scientific publications" have only been around a few hundred years and the vast majority of scientists, around 99.99999999% them would be disqualified as "scientist" based on the bar you are attempting to set which is in fact just a gate keeping mechanism and has nothing to do with science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:26:04 2020 No.12306155 >>12306143 >>I am just going off the logic of that poster who believes that people who make and watch youtube videos are not legit That's disingenuous. A random author is not logically comparable to a scientist. Why lie if you're not wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:28:15 2020 No.12306163 File: 204 KB, 494x397, look.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306060 >What is wrong with wikipedia? >digital graffiti is a reliable source

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:30:00 2020 No.12306167 >>12306154 >Most educated reliable scholars believe while the mass sea of retards such as yourself have no clue there is even any controversy on the topic

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:31:37 2020 No.12306170

>>12306155
>That's disingenuous.
Why? Is his logic is flawed and youtube is okay to use? Or only the youtube videos that are published by particular people?

>A random author is not logically comparable to a scientist
>A random homeowner is not comparable to a handyman
No, but they both can still use a fucking hammer. Science is a tool, not a belief system. They don't eat matzo or drink Jesus juice bro.

>Why lie if you're not wrong?
And when you're "not even wrong" you""don't even have to lie"!

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:33:03 2020 No.12306176

>>12306154
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Surviving_works
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras#Attributed_discoveries

It doesn't matter that someone else discovered the theorem independently, the important point is that they published works that advanced their field. Publication is the most definitive indicator for whether or not someone is a scientist.

>Universities and "scientific publications" have only been around a few hundred years
Absolute nonsense

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:42:38 2020 No.12306206 >>12306176 link me a pdf of the publication. 4th time I asked

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:44:18 2020 No.12306208 >>12306176 >attributed discoveries >literally proves my point in his own post but too stupid to know it Oh boy you are a special kind of stupid

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:44:45 2020 No.12306213

>>12306170
You know exactly what makes your comparison disingenuous and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Anything posted by CERN will have a scientific basis supported by published evidence and will probably have links to the studies and evidence they cite. Youtube is not a repository of scientific knowledge, and a sci-fi author is not in any way qualified to speak on a scientific subject.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:46:08 2020 No.12306216 >>12306206 >>12306208 >books aren't a publication >you are a special kind of stupid The irony

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:51:24 2020 No.12306228
File: 79 KB, 1090x562, Pythagoras.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306216
Ok well one of us has argued in bad faith, moved goal posts and made a post that literally said verbatim the point the other poster made and it wasn't me so we will let anons decide for themselves who is the imbecile here. The same two glowniggers and trannies have shillled this entire thread and I have nothing more to say to you so go post your blacked threads on /pol/ now and stop shitting up this thread with your pilpul nonsense

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:57:49 2020 No.12306241 Hi, I'm not familiar with this person. What are his credentials?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 19:58:00 2020 No.12306242 >>12306228 Great, so Pythagoras isn't a scientist and neither is Crichton. Can we agree on that, or do you want to argue more about what constitutes a scientist and then claim I'm moving the goal posts?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:01:12 2020 No.12306249

>>12306059
>appeal to majority fallacy
Not how this works. Operationally define "hack". His books sold 150 million copies, he has multiple NYT bestsellers and made billions of dollars in movie franchise profits. So tell me. What is a success in your metric? Now I agree financial success is not the only metric as the masses of humanity are borderline retarded and even the Star Wars hot garbage made billions but they aped a successful franchise to do it.

Are you saying he was bad at character development? Had plot holes? How about bad grammar? What makes Michael Crichton a hack and appealing to a 4chan board, which itself just as /sci/, full of hacks, isn't an argument

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:02:11 2020 No.12306255

>>12306213
>You know exactly what makes your comparison disingenuous and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
What? Care to elaborate on that or is this another "the sky is ackshually light blue!" statement?

>Anything posted by CERN will have a scientific basis supported by published evidence and will probably have links to the studies and evidence they cite.
Which is why it would be much more wise to post that published evidence instead or relying on a middleman full of random yarbos to do it for you.
>Youtube is not a repository of scientific knowledge
I agree. So why do scientists use it? Why does CERN use it? In fact CERN seems to have uploaded quite a few videos, very nice and polished and well filmed too. Although as I look through them all I notice that I don't see very many scientific experiments being performed. Why, you'd think they would use a video uploading platform to share some of their discoveries or experiments/ data to the world, but it seems that they're more interested in describing what they are supposed to be doing. I would have confused if for a construction company because I see more concrete being poured than I see "atoms" being collided.

>and a sci-fi author is not in any way qualified to speak on a scientific subject.
Oh I see, it's like how a catholic isn't qualified to be a bishop just because he believes in Catholicism? What qualifications do I need to observe and test the empirical world?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:05:40 2020 No.12306264 >>12306249 It's not about success, it's about quality of writing which is subjective. Go tell /lit/ that Crichton is a great writer and see what they say. He's definitely not /sci/ material.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:08:43 2020 No.12306276
File: 9 KB, 196x257, Hanz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306264
>point out his appeal to majority fallacy
>makes exact same fallacy
>apes my point and tries to pass it off as his own
>still no argument
>t.
wew lad, I thought I witnessed a special kind of stupid last time, but you won

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:10:19 2020 No.12306280 >>12306143 >Where does the heat come from if CO2 just insulates it? The Earth. Can you answer this simple question: What is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:10:38 2020 No.12306284 >>12306264 anon I have news for you, you aren't /sci/ material

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:11:06 2020 No.12306286

>>12306255
Are you as stupid as you're pretending to be?

>Which is why it would be much more wise to post that published evidence instead or relying on a middleman full of random yarbos to do it for you.
Which is what OP did and what you're defending. Did you watch the videos I posted?

>So why do scientists use it?
It's called "science communication" and it's been around for decades if not centuries.

>Oh I see, it's like how a catholic isn't qualified to be a bishop just because he believes in Catholicism?
No, that's politics, not science.

>What qualifications do I need to observe and test the empirical world?
Publish something that stands up to peer review. You don't need a degree to do that, just peers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:11:21 2020 No.12306289 >>12306143 >They're not accredited. Why would they need to be accredited? >It's written by random schucks on the internet So you need to be accredited?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:12:17 2020 No.12306292 >>12306276 >Subjective qualities can be quantified Are you a CS major?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:14:34 2020 No.12306295 >>12306292 I was a computer science professor lad. I imagine I am the only "actual scientist" in this thread

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:15:08 2020 No.12306296

>>12306143
>You answered your own question.
My question was, what is wrong with wikipedia? How does this answer the question?

>What does any of that matter?
It matters because instead of refuting the claim, you attacked the source.

>All that matters are the facts.
Then why are you attacking the source instead of refuting the facts it gives?

>Whether I think wiki is wrong or not is irrelevant because it's not a credited source of information.
Credited for what? You're not actually saying anything. If lacking "credit" is a valid refutation then all of your posts are refuted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:15:38 2020 No.12306297 >>12306295 >computer science professor >actual scientist Pick one and only one

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:16:10 2020 No.12306301 >>12306163 >digital graffiti is a reliable source Do you have a reliable source that shows it's not a reliable source?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:17:38 2020 No.12306307

>>12306264
>something is subjective but I will make an objective judgement that what they do is "hack" based on my appeal to majority fallacy
I really don't even know what else to say here to someone as stupid as you are doing these kinds of mental gymnastics. There is something wrong with you my man

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:19:22 2020 No.12306310
File: 422 KB, 871x716, wikiedit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306301
If you thin wikipedia is the least bit realizable on ANY topic that has even a modicum touch of political implications you are an idiot and I am not going to waste my time tutoring someone this mentally retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:21:28 2020 No.12306313 File: 189 KB, 375x250, bueno.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306297 >seething mentally retarded incel freshman flunkie

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:21:51 2020 No.12306314

>>12306310
>If you thin wikipedia is the least bit realizable on ANY topic that has even a modicum touch of political implications you are an idiot
Do you have a reliable source that shows it's not a reliable source? Do you have an argument or are you just going to whine about the source without even doing a single thing to refute what it says? Pathetic retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:24:33 2020 No.12306321 >>12306314 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QfHdcMeEc

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:25:54 2020 No.12306324 >>12306307 There's no "mental gymnastics" about it. Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective? My opinion is that Crichton is a hack, and I believe that opinion will be upheld by the denizens of /lit/. Care to prove me wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:26:56 2020 No.12306325 >>12306313 Are you projecting or just seething because you know I'm right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 20:36:11 2020 No.12306347 >>12306321 OK, so that's a no and you're full of shit. Thanks for playing, retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:18:04 2020 No.12306421 File: 35 KB, 233x217, CRYING.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306347 >>12306325 >>12306324

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:19:02 2020 No.12306424 >>12306421 Not an argument. Did you want to post another youtube video?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:30:06 2020 No.12306445

>>12306296
>what is wrong with wikipedia?
And you answered it with your assumptions of what I would have answered with. It is written by random people, it's not a source.
>It matters because instead of refuting the claim, you attacked the source
Wikipedia is not a source, it provides other particular sources and excludes/expurgates others. It's not an attack, it's a fact.
>Then why are you attacking the source instead of refuting the facts it gives?
Because the facts are expurgated by the rules and writers of Wikipedia, meaning it only provides you with the ones they give. Which makes them not a reliable source of information for anything. This is why most academia does not allow you to quote it or put it in a citation.
>You're not actually saying anything. If lacking "credit" is a valid refutation then all of your posts are refuted.
What "credit" do I need to ask questions?

>>12306280
>The Earth.
Indeed! And the sun, which is where the earth gets/initially received its heat from.

>Can you answer this simple question: What is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?
You just answered it. The earth is what caused the heat, not CO2. CO2 is an insulator, it doesn't cause anything just like the fiberglass or spray foam insulation in your house doesn't cause anything. It remains unchanged which gives it the property to "insulate" in the first place.

>>12306289
>Why would they need to be accredited?
They don't need to be, just as I don't have to take what they say as true.

>So you need to be accredited?
If you make a claim and can accurately explain it and why it's true then no, also preferably some empirical evidence to back it up. I don't see how wikipedia can fall under this category though since all it does is re-describe and record the parts that the editor wants to include while excluding others at the same time, which is what a religion does with books that "no-no words".

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:40:50 2020 No.12306470

>>12306445
>It is written by random people, it's not a source.
How does that make it a non-source?

>Wikipedia is not a source, it provides other particular sources and excludes/expurgates others.
So what was excluded that was relevant to the article? You're dangerously close to actually dealing with the substance of the article.

>Because the facts are expurgated by the rules and writers of Wikipedia, meaning it only provides you with the ones they give. Which makes them not a reliable source of information for anything.
How does that make it an unreliable source? Can you show me how the article is unreliable instead of just assuming it is?

>This is why most academia does not allow you to quote it or put it in a citation.
This isn't an academic setting.

>What "credit" do I need to ask questions?
You don't, you apparently think you need "credit" to make arguments.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:46:17 2020 No.12306478

>>12306445
>They don't need to be, just as I don't have to take what they say as true.
You don't have to take what anybody says as true, you can look at their evidence and argue against it. But you can't do that so instead you whine about nothing.

>If you make a claim and can accurately explain it and why it's true then no, also preferably some empirical evidence to back it up.
That's exactly what the wikipedia article I posted did. Are you done with this tantrum yet?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 21:52:44 2020 No.12306486

>>12306445
>Indeed! And the sun, which is where the earth gets/initially received its heat from.
What is your point? Are you not able to follow the argument or are you just spouting random non sequiturs in the hope that it will be forgotten?

>The earth is what caused the heat, not CO2.
Again, the question was "What is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?" The Earth isn't causing the heat to increase. Without CO2 increasing it would absorb the same energy (not just heat) and radiate the same amount of heat. This is very simple stuff, yet you are either incapable or unwilling to understand it.

>CO2 is an insulator, it doesn't cause anything just like the fiberglass or spray foam insulation in your house doesn't cause anything.
They cause the heat in your house to increase. See what happens when you take them away if you don't believe me. You literally have no argument beyond some bizarre semantic game that you can't even win.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 4 22:08:34 2020 No.12306532 File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306445 >insulators don't insulate

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:15:49 2020 No.12306624

>>12306470
>How does that make it a non-source?
because it's not a source. It cites sources.

>So what was excluded that was relevant to the article?
Whatever wasn't included.

>So what was excluded that was relevant to the article?
You'll never know, it's up to the editor to provide that information.

>How does that make it an unreliable source?
Expurgation is specifically designed to cover/hide and exclude sources and information. Any more unreliable than that it would become a parody.

>Can you show me how the article is unreliable instead of just assuming it is?
It is not the source of information that it redescribes. It does not provide all the date/information. You're asking me to chase shadows.

>This isn't an academic setting.
"Yes"

>You don't, you apparently think you need "credit" to make arguments.
Oh okay then. What arguments? I'm not talking about credit for an argument, I'm talking about credit by being empirically true and proven. Preferably using a scientific experiment.

>>12306478
>You don't have to take what anybody says as true, you can look at their evidence and argue against it
If they have evidence of it being true then there wouldn't be anything to argue over.

>But you can't do that so instead you whine about nothing.
That would require Wikipedia actually being a definitive source of truth/facts/knowledge. It isn't. So there's nothing worth arguing over. Perhaps a source of redescriptions, but that doesn't mean anything.

>What is your point?
That CO2 doesn't cause warming.

>Again, the question was "What is the the difference between CO2 insulating and CO2 causing heat to increase?"
It's a loaded question. CO2 doesn't cause anything. That's why it insulates so well. The best insulators

>heat in your house to increase
>increase

It doesn't make heat/cooling. It PREVENTS heat/cooling from being LOST.

>>12306532
I said it doesn't cause anything/remains unchanged. The best insulator is a vacuum so "you're not even wrong!"

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:25:44 2020 No.12306635

>>12306624
>It cites sources.
How does that make it a non-source?

>Whatever wasn't included.
Such as? How does it invalidate the article?

>You'll never know, it's up to the editor to provide that information.
It's up to you to provide an argument why the article is wrong. But you won't. Keep whining.

>Expurgation is specifically designed to cover/hide and exclude sources and information.
You haven't shown that anything is being hidden, so what is your point?

>You're asking me to chase shadows.
No, I'm asking you to make an argument.

>It is not the source of information that it redescribes. It does not provide all the date/information.
How does that make the article unreliable?

>What arguments? I'm not talking about credit for an argument, I'm talking about credit by being empirically true and proven. Preferably using a scientific experiment.
The argument that started this pointless back and forth. The one you're doing everything possible to avoid. The wikipedia article discusses and cites several studies of the scientific consensus. But you can't deal with that. Fuck off already if you have nothing to say.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:33:01 2020 No.12306651

>>12306624
meant to quote
>>12306486
at the bottom. Let me elaborate more.

>They cause the heat in your house to increase. See what happens when you take them away if you don't believe me. You literally have no argument beyond some bizarre semantic game that you can't even win.

The only thing that causes the heat in your house to increase is a heat source, such as a furnace/fireplace/heatpump. Set it to "70 F" and that's what it outputs. Adding insulation does jack shit to increase the temperature because it's not a heatsource. All it does is create a barrier that PREVENTS the heat from leaving the house. It does the same thing in the summer when you air condition your house. It PREVENTS the cold air from escaping, but it itself does not cool.
The only thing that would happen if you took the insulation out of your house is the hot/cold air would escape faster, which will result in everything but the heat-source changing temperature.

So when you say or imply that "CO2 causes warming" not only are you not correct, but it shows that you don't even understand what CO2 or any inert gas that insulates actually does. It INSULATES. That means it INSULATES the cold parts too. Which is the reason why Venus has one of the coldest north/south poles in the solar system, even colder than our own.

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:39:36 2020 No.12306660
File: 3 KB, 275x183, shadow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306635
>How does that make it a non-source?
"Yes"
>Such as?
You tell me? Or ask the wiki editor?
>How does it invalidate the article?
Why do you still believe it's valid?
>It's up to you to provide an argument why the article is wrong
It's a description. But if you insist.. "The sky isn't blue, it's light blue!"
>You haven't shown that anything is being hidden
>Show me what isn't there
Holy shit you actually want me to chase shadows.
>No, I'm asking you to make an argument.
"No" is my answer. I think I've made that clear.
>How does that make the article unreliable?
It does not provide all the date/information. Like, what more explanation do you need? If you show up to work 70 percent of the time are you a "reliable employee"? No that's ridiculous.
>The argument that started this pointless back and forth
WHAT ARGUMENT?
>The one you're doing everything possible to avoid.
Oh that one that doesn't exist. Keep chasing that shadow!
>The wikipedia article discusses and cites several studies of the scientific consensus
"yes"

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:48:26 2020 No.12306667
File: 56 KB, 645x729, d27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306624
>I said it doesn't cause anything/remains unchanged.
One has nothing to do with the other, and insulators do cause something, they cause insulation! How dumb are you?

>The best insulator is a vacuum so "you're not even wrong!"
How does this respond to anything I said? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Anonymous Wed Nov 4 23:50:34 2020 No.12306670

>>12306624
>If they have evidence of it being true then there wouldn't be anything to argue over.
You're not making an argument, you're just avoiding the evidence.

>That would require Wikipedia actually being a definitive source of truth/facts/knowledge.
No, it would require you to be incapable of countering a fucking wikipedia article.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:05:57 2020 No.12306698

>>12306624
>That CO2 doesn't cause warming.
Nothing you've said shows this. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between heat and change in heat. Heat originates as energy from the Sun, change in heat is either due to change in energy from the Sun or change in energy leaving Earth. Current warming has been determined to be primarily caused by less energy leaving Earth due to the greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions. What is your argument?

>CO2 doesn't cause anything.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation coming from the Earth and radiates some of it back to Earth. How is this not "causing anything?" Again, your bizarre and wrong semantics don't help you escape the simple fact that CO2 is warming the Earth.

>It doesn't make heat/cooling
I didn't say it does, I said it causes warming. You already admitted as much by calling it an insulator. If all you can do is misrepresent the argument, you have no argument. Care to try again?

>The only thing that causes the heat in your house to increase is a heat source
No, the heat source is producing the same amount of heat with or without insulation. Thus it cannot be the cause of the increase in heat. I'm sorry you are so delusional that you need to completely misrepresent how causality works. Take your meds.

>Adding insulation does jack shit to increase the temperature because it's not a heatsource.
But that's wrong, you fucking retard. Adding insulation will certainly increase the temperature because it prevents heat produced by the heatsource from leaving. Are you retarded? You are literally arguing that insulators don't insulate, even though you admitted before that CO2 "insulates."

>All it does is create a barrier that PREVENTS the heat from leaving the house.
Yews, which increases the temperature. Retard.

>It PREVENTS the cold air from escaping, but it itself does not cool.
Preventing cold air from escaping is cooling the house. Retard.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:07:34 2020 No.12306700
File: 725 KB, 500x450, 1595527692550.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12306667
>One has nothing to do with the other
One causes the other. Remaining unchanged causes nothing to happen.

>and insulators do cause something, they cause insulation
Isolation. Just so we're not going in circles here.

>How does this respond to anything I said?
What does a vacuum do? It insulates, isolates. But is it an insulator?
>yes
No! Because it is not something at all. So yes, "insulators do not insulate" in this case is correct, hence "you're not even wrong".

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:12:51 2020 No.12306708 it always amazes me how stupid the climate denial crowd is on here. No one who believes what they're peddling is true actually has so jump through this many hoops to avoid actually having a conversation.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:17:44 2020 No.12306723

>>12306670
>You're not making an argument,
I only told you that like 3 times now and you feel the need to point it out?
>you're just avoiding the evidence.
What evidence? You linked me a wiki article. How about the actual source for the claim?

>No, it would require you to be incapable of countering a fucking wikipedia article.
Again, that would mean I would have to humor you in believing that it's a viable source of information when it clearly isn't. Why would I waste my time?
>Well because it's wikipedia!
is really the only "answer" you've given me.

>>12306698
>Nothing you've said shows this.
Oh course not, what I said was a description of what occurs.
>You seem incapable of understanding the difference between heat and change in heat
And you seem to be incapable of understanding that an insulator does not cause a change in heat. The fucking heat source does. That's why there's a "High" and "low" setting on your thermostat that tells the heatsource to change.
>Heat originates as energy from the Sun, change in heat is either due to change in energy from the Sun or change in energy leaving Earth.
Yes
>Current warming has been determined to be primarily caused by less energy leaving Earth due to the greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions.
Well give me a proper source that shows that then
>What is your argument?
What is yours? This implies that an insulator actually causes heat, when in reality it does not.
>CO2 absorbs infrared radiation coming from the Earth and radiates some of it back to Earth. How is this not "causing anything?"
The earth is causing it. The insulation is insulating/isolating it. It doesn't cause anything.
>Again, your bizarre and wrong semantics don't help you escape the simple fact that CO2 is warming the Earth.
When you yourself said the heat came from the earth. Any more contradictions you'd like to add?
>I didn't say it does, I said it causes warming.
It doesn't. It insulates. A heater causes warming. What is the disconnect here?
1/2

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:21:08 2020 No.12306729 >>12306723 So basically this guy is saying that the earth is warming up because god forgot to recallibrate the thermostat on the sun after we dumped a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere? Damn he smart

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:22:55 2020 No.12306731

>>12306651
>It INSULATES. That means it INSULATES the cold parts too.
No it doesn't. Not all insulators operate on the same principles. The insulation in your house works by preventing thermal transfer in both directions. The greenhouse effect lets all energy from visible light into Earth's atmosphere, but that energy is turned into heat when the Earth absorbs and radiates it back. So greenhouse gases are a one way insulator for visible sunlight. It lets the energy in but not out.

>Which is the reason why Venus has one of the coldest north/south poles in the solar system, even colder than our own.
Please explain how the greenhouse effect makes Venus's poles colder.

Once again, you completely fail to grasp what you're discussing. You're spouting non sequiturs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:26:07 2020 No.12306737 Global warming or not Can we agree that the pollution is total shit and address that for the time being

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:28:01 2020 No.12306743 >>12306737 AGW deniers will also tell you it's fine to drink roundup so probably not.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:28:03 2020 No.12306744

>>12306698
>You already admitted as much by calling it an insulator.
An insulator isolates. It doesn't hat you fucking moron.
>No, the heat source is producing the same amount of heat with or without insulation
What I mean is if you changed the temp then the heatsource would raise the temp, not the insulation. But you're right, if it wasn't changed then it would produce the same amount
>Thus it cannot be the cause of the increase in heat. I'm sorry you are so delusional that you need to completely misrepresent how causality works
You're just rephrased what I said. I specifically clarified that insulation doesn't increase or cause heat, learn to read.
>But that's wrong, you fucking retard.
YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID SO IN YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT.
(you):"Thus it cannot be the cause of the increase in heat"
(Me) Adding insulation does jack shit to increase the temperature because it's not a heatsource.
is saying the same fucking thing!
>Adding insulation will certainly increase the temperature because it prevents heat produced by the heatsource from leaving
I don't get it man, you are contradicting yourself every other sentence now and it's getting annoying. This is what happens when you go shadow chasing for a fucking argument. Unfuck yourself.
Add all the insulation you want, the temp will NEVER go above "70F" if your heat source is set to "70F".
>which increases the temperature.
No. Nothing will increase the temperature except the heatsource increasing the tempurature of its output.
>Preventing cold air from escaping is cooling the house. Retard.
No, it's prevention. The air conditioner cools your house. Does insulation now heat and cool?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:30:51 2020 No.12306751 >>12306744 I'm a little lost, could you tell me how your house analogy applies to the earth? Does the sun have a thermostat someone forgot to mention?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:31:36 2020 No.12306752

>>12306660
How does that make it a non-source?

>You tell me?
No, you're the one who made the claim.

>Why do you still believe it's valid?
Nothing you said put it into question. Avoiding the question won't help you.

>It's a description. But if you insist.. "The sky isn't blue, it's light blue!"
What does this have to do with the article?

>Holy shit you actually want me to chase shadows.
No, I want you to make an argument instead of making up flaws that aren't there. You have only yourself to blame for making claims you can't justify.

>"No" is my answer.
Then stop posting, retard. You lost.

>It does not provide all the date/information. Like, what more explanation do you need?
What relevant data/information is missing?

>If you show up to work 70 percent of the time are you a "reliable employee"?
So 30% of the information is missing? Use your words like a big boy. If you can't even describe what's missing, how do you know it's missing?

>WHAT ARGUMENT?
>>12306020

>"yes"
So your claim that "they" never tell you what kind of scientists are agreeing is wrong?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:37:15 2020 No.12306765

>>12306700
>One causes the other. Remaining unchanged causes nothing to happen.
If insulation remains unchanged, then remaining unchanged causes the temperature of a house to be colder or warmer. So your claim is immediately disproven.

>Isolation.
No, insulation.
>in·su·la·tion
>noun
>the action of insulating something.

>What does a vacuum do? It insulates, isolates. But is it an insulator?
Yes, by definition.

>No! Because it is not something at all.
I don't care if you consider it "something" or not, it's pure semantics. The fact is, vacuums cause insulation.

>So yes, "insulators do not insulate" in this case is correct
Doesn't follow. Semantic gibberish.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:38:18 2020 No.12306766 File: 42 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306708 I've cornered this deniertard into literal contradictions >insulators don't insulate!

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:43:14 2020 No.12306781

>>12306731
>No it doesn't.
>has never used a thermos for a cold drink

>Not all insulators operate on the same principles
They isolate. Not all block the same stuff but they all share the same action. Prevention and isolation.

>Please explain how the greenhouse effect makes Venus's poles colder.
That's not what makes it colder. It's the insulation preventing the cold from leaving. I fail to see what else is insulating it that causes the poles to be that cold.

>Once again, you completely fail to grasp what you're discussing
But it's still an insulator. I'm not wrong.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:43:23 2020 No.12306782

>>12306723
>I only told you that like 3 times now and you feel the need to point it out?
I feel the need to point it out every time you post so that everyone can see you can only spout schizophrenic sophistry.

>What evidence? You linked me a wiki article. How about the actual source for the claim?
The claims are cited in the article. You are having a tantrum over nothing. Grow up.

>Again, that would mean I would have to humor you in believing that it's a viable source of information when it clearly isn't.
You don't have to humor me, you can explain why you think it isn't. So far you have utterly failed to show anything wrong with it. Retard.

>>Well because it's wikipedia!
>is really the only "answer" you've given me.
I didn't answer anything like that. Answer to what?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:55:23 2020 No.12306803

>>12306723
>Oh course not, what I said was a description of what occurs.
Yes, an incorrect description. I already posted direct observation of the opposite: >>12306051

>And you seem to be incapable of understanding that an insulator does not cause a change in heat.
It does, by definition.

>The fucking heat source does.
No, the heat source is producing the same amount of heat with or without insulation. Thus it cannot be the cause of the increase in heat. I'm sorry you are so delusional that you need to completely misrepresent how causality works. Take your meds.

>That's why there's a "High" and "low" setting on your thermostat that tells the heatsource to change.
If you don't change the setting then how can the temperature change when you add insulation? Does the heat source magically know there's insulation around it and it produces more heat? NO, you fucking moron. The heat source produces exactly the same amount of heat. The temperature change when you add insulation comes from less heat escaping purely from the insulation blocking thermal transfer. This is not up for debate, it's basic logic. TAKE YOUR MEDS SO YOU CAN THINK LOGICALLY, SCHIZO.

>Yes
So you agree that CO2 reducing heat leaving Earth causes the temperature to increase. Good, I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.

>Well give me a proper source that shows that then
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

>What is yours?
I'm not going to accept your avoidance of basic questions. Answer the question.

>This implies that an insulator actually causes heat
No, insulators cause a change in heat. You already tried misrepresenting my argument this way and you got caught, remember?

>The earth is causing it.
How?

>The insulation is insulating/isolating it. It doesn't cause anything.
Insulating it is causing heat to increase. Schizo.

>When you yourself said the heat came from the earth.
That doesn't mean the Earth is causing the change in heat.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 00:56:11 2020 No.12306804

>>12306752
>How does that make it a non-source?
By virtue of it literally not being a fucking source you dense clod.

>No, you're the one who made the claim.
By virtue of it literally not being a fucking source is why they don't include the information "absence of information is absent". Tell me where to find it, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe it's next to the shadow?

>Nothing you said put it into question.
That's not a reason. We're not talking about me, we're talking about you and your need for Wiki.

>Avoiding the question won't help you.
It's a loaded question. "It's not a valid source" is why, that's why I asked you why you think it is.

>What does this have to do with the article?
It's a description. It's "not even wrong" like the "light blue sky" isn't even wrong.

>No, I want you to make an argument
"No"

>You have only yourself to blame for making claims you can't justify.
I can cite wiki if you'd like
Terms of use
1. Our services:
a. We do not take an editorial role: Because the Wikimedia Projects are collaboratively edited, all of the content that we host is provided by users like yourself, and we do not take an editorial role. This means that we generally do not monitor or edit the content of the Project websites, and we do not take any responsibility for this content. Similarly, we do not endorse any opinions expressed via our services, and we do not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any submitted community content. Instead, we simply provide access to the content that your fellow users have contributed and edited.

So even according to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a valid source.

>Then stop posting, retard. You lost.
I never lost anything nor did I gain.

>What relevant data/information is missing?
ask the editor.

>If you can't even describe what's missing, how do you know it's missing?
Exactly! That's what expurgation is for!

>>12306766
They isolate.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 01:09:22 2020 No.12306823

>>12306723
>It doesn't. It insulates. A heater causes warming.
A heater can cause warming. Insulation can cause warming. Schizo. Causing warming is not the same as making heat. You can make more heat or prevent heat from leaving to increase the amount of heat. Basic fucking logic you can't grasp. Schizo.

>An insulator isolates. It doesn't hat you fucking moron.
Is this supposed to be English?

>What I mean is if you changed the temp then the heatsource would raise the temp, not the insulation.
No, adding insulation changes the temp without the heatsource doing anything to change the temperature. Schizo.

>You're just rephrased what I said. I specifically clarified that insulation doesn't increase or cause heat, learn to read.
>YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID SO IN YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT.
Oh god, the irony. That's not what I said. Insulation does increase heat. I said a heatsource producing the same amount of heat does not change the temperature when you add insulation, the insulation does. LEARN HOW TO READ OR BETTER YET, TAKE YOUR MEDS.

>(you):"Thus [the unchanged heatsource] cannot be the cause of the increase in heat"
Learn how to read.

>I don't get it man
I know.

>Add all the insulation you want, the temp will NEVER go above "70F" if your heat source is set to "70F"
You fucking retard. That would mean the heat source is decreasing to account for the warming from insulation. I said the heat source is producing the same amount of heat, not a thermostat. Fucking hell, you're dumb. Again, what don't you understand about this? There are two factors: heat produced and heat escaping. Either can cause change in temperature.

>Nothing will increase the temperature except the heatsource increasing the tempurature of its output.
Wrong, insulation does. You really should take your meds.

>No, it's prevention.
Prevention that is a cause of cooling.

>Does insulation now heat and cool?
It can do either. Retard.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 01:29:27 2020 No.12306843

>>12306823
>Insulation can cause warming
No
>Causing warming is not the same as making heat.
Okay, explain the difference if you wouldn't mind?
>You can make more heat or prevent heat from leaving to increase the amount of heat
>prevent heat from leaving to increase the amount of heat
What the fuck is this? A law of thermodynamics workaround? 70 degrees does not magically turn into 71 or anymore than 70! Insulation only prevents it from going down!
>Basic fucking logic you can't grasp.
There's no logic to it! It's pants on head retarded, you have no clue what you're talking about.
>Is this supposed to be English?
Heat. Stop nitpicking and focus for a change.
>No, adding insulation changes the temp without the heatsource doing anything to change the temperature
You're wrong. It's not a heat source. It INSULATES/ISOLATES the heat source. It doesn't create heat whatsoever. What part about this don't you understand?
>I said a heatsource producing the same amount of heat does not change the temperature when you add insulation, the insulation does
It doesn't increase the fucking heat you dumb motherfucker. It PREVENTS IT FROM BEING LOST. The fucking temperature will NEVER CHANGE unless the heat source becomes hotter to do so.

>(you):"Thus [the unchanged heatsource] cannot be the cause of the increase in heat"
>Learn how to read.
It doesn't.
>That would mean the heat source is decreasing to account for the warming from insulation. I said the heat source is producing the same amount of heat, not a thermostat. Fucking hell, you're dumb. Again, what don't you understand about this? There are two factors: heat produced and heat escaping. Either can cause change in temperature.
Insulation does not cause warming. It prevents warmth from escaping.

>Prevention that is a cause of cooling.
Prevention is not a cause of anything. It's to hinder/cease. You're saying that preventing something causes something. It makes no sense.

>It can do either.
It does neither

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:01:17 2020 No.12308204

>>12306781
>>has never used a thermos for a cold drink
Not all insulators insulate both ways.

>That's not what makes it colder.
Then you're not showing CO2 isn't causing warming.

>But it's still an insulator.
And its not causing cooling. You're wrong.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:18:16 2020 No.12308240

>>12306804
>By virtue of it literally not being a fucking source you dense clod.
I'm asking you how it's not a source and you just repeat it's not a source over and over. You lose.

>By virtue of it literally not being a fucking source is why they don't include the information "absence of information is absent".
This is called a circular argument.

>Tell me where to find it, your guess is as good as mine.
Retard, if you claim the article is missing so much information that it's misleading, it should be easy for you to give an example of what's missing. But we both know that you're just making shit up with no basis, which is why you can't.

>That's not a reason.
You assume I'm answering your question when you refuse to answer mine. I see no reason to question the article because you have given no reason to question it.

>We're not talking about me, we're talking about you and your need for Wiki.
We're talking about your baseless claim that the article is unreliable.

>It's a loaded question.
No it's not. You should be able to explain your claims.

>"It's not a valid source" is why
I'm asking you why you think it's not a valid source. I don't think you even believe that it's not valid, you're just trying to avoid basic facts.

>It's a description.
What is?

>So even according to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Nothing you quoted says Wikipedia is not a valid source. Try again.

>I never lost anything
You lost the moment you tried to make claims without any basis.

>ask the editor.
You're the one who made the claim.

>Exactly!
So you don't know anything is missing. Why did you lie?

>That's what expurgation is for!
Is Wikipedia the only source of information available to you? Either there are other avenues of information which you can cite to refute the Wikipedia article, or no such information exists, in which case you have no basis for claiming otherwise. You disproved your own argument.

>They isolate.
Non sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:22:37 2020 No.12308253 File: 890 KB, 280x210, charltonheston.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12305866 >Michael Crichton Are you fuckin serious?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:34:41 2020 No.12308294

>>12306843
>No
Yes.

>Okay, explain the difference if you wouldn't mind?
Doing great from escaping is causing warming without making heat.

>What the fuck is this? A law of thermodynamics workaround?
Heat entering and leaving a system IS thermodynamics you fucking moron.

>70 degrees does not magically turn into 71 or anymore than 70! Insulation only prevents it from going down!
Adding insulation without producing more heat causes the temperature to go up. Schizooooooo.

>There's no logic to it!
You are delusional. It's basic logic a 5 year old could understand.

>Heat. Stop nitpicking and focus for a change.
Insulation causes warming. Doesn't matter how you try to reword it, you can't change this basic fact.

>You're wrong. It's not a heat source. It INSULATES/ISOLATES the heat source. It doesn't create heat whatsoever.
I didn't say it was. No matter how many times you try to misrepresent what I said, it won't work. Dumb schizo.

>It doesn't increase the fucking heat you dumb motherfucker. It PREVENTS IT FROM BEING LOST.
PREVENTING HEAT FROM BEING LOST INCREASES THE HEAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE YOU GODDAM SCHIZO

>The fucking temperature will NEVER CHANGE unless the heat source becomes hotter to do so.
It does and this is directly observed, you lose. If the heat source produces the same heat but less heat leaves due to insulation then the temperature is increased without the heat source increasing. You've already admitted as much.

>Insulation does not cause warming. It prevents warmth from escaping.
Preventing heat from escaping causes warming. You're contradicting yourself again, schizo.

>You're saying that preventing something causes something. It makes no sense
It makes perfect sense. Your bizarre, arbitrary, contradictory semantics don't.

>It does neither
It did both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:37:27 2020 No.12308305 >stopping heat from escaping Earth doesn't cause the temperature to increase Can anyone who isn't mentally ill explain to me why this /pol/tard is spouting nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 13:38:51 2020 No.12308310 File: 1.86 MB, 340x204, joker.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12308253 >you Are you?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:10:42 2020 No.12308625

>>12308204
And its not causing cooling.
No shit. It's an insulator. The lack of sun at a pole is what results in the cooling.
>Then you're not showing CO2 isn't causing warming.
It doesn't. The sun and planet do.

>>12308240
>I'm asking you how it's not a source and you just repeat it's not a source over and over
Because it's not, even in it's own words. You never had an argument worth arguing over
You:
"read this wiki, take this seriously. Refute what it says"
Wiki:
"Do not take us seriously".
It negates itself. To argue with you over it is a complete waste of time because by default you were never right nor had a case in the first place. Go cry about it while you cope.
>This is called a circular argument.
I can't argue nor discuss the absence of information. It is absent. There is nothing circular because there is literally nothing of substance to begin with.
>We're talking about your baseless claim that the article is unreliable.
It's not baseless. It's based on wikipedias own words you dumb faggot.
>No it's not. You should be able to explain your claims.
Told you like 5 times that an insulator doesn't cause heat. A heater does.
>Nothing you quoted says Wikipedia is not a valid source
Okay, now you're just being disingenuous by playing dumb. Talk to yourself
>So you don't know anything is missing.
And you'll never know. It was expurgated. Retard. It's like asking the FBI "hey what's behind these censored bars?" Only in this case it's more like you're asking a non FBI agent the same question.
>Why did you lie?
I didn't. Wiki expurgates information by virtue of not being the actual source of that information. It would be one thing if it were an actual, backed up source by a scientific community/journal/group, but it isn't. It's not even a library, its a librarian.
>Is Wikipedia the only source of information available to you?
Why do you say this when I've been insisting that it's not a source whatsoever?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:12:52 2020 No.12308631 >>12305866 Yeah ok. He's just some author. I on the other hand am a uni student hanging out on /sci/. I think we all know who knows more about the climate

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:22:55 2020 No.12308653 >>12305866 His final point is very salient; people in the West are increasingly choosing narrative over rigorous empirical analysis.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:24:07 2020 No.12308658

Climate deniers are trolls atp

Crichton's their boy though, because he's dead, been dead for years. They have no respect for other's work, evidence, or print words in a dead man's mouth. That's how fucking low brow these knuckle draggers are.

Climate denial is an /x/ tier, flat Earth troll belief. Stop feeding the trolls. Mods, do your fucking jobs. So sick of this shit

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:27:35 2020 No.12308675
File: 56 KB, 750x716, 1573864784008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12308240
>Either there are other avenues of information which you can cite to refute the Wikipedia article, or no such information exists

>It doesn't exist unless it's in a wikipedia article
You're an idiot. Also I don't have to refute an article that refutes itself. It refutes itself by the fact that the foundation is that any yahoo who owns a keyboard and has the ability to describe can write it.
Its own terms of service literally states that it does not guarantee accuracy or truthfulness.
It's unscientific. I'm not arguing over a polished turd. I'm disregarding it. Go cry about it, nerd.

>Non sequitur.
It's the barrier. It isolates (the thing) being isolated. Insulation isolates.

>>12308294
>Yes.
No.
>Doing great from escaping is causing warming without making heat.
I don't even. Can you put that into a coherent sentence please?
>Heat entering and leaving a system IS thermodynamics you fucking moron.
Entering and leaving yes. Magically coming out of an inert matter is another thing entirely. It doesn't make heat you stooge, it insulates it. It means "to protect", "to prevent loss".
>Adding insulation without producing more heat causes the temperature to go up.
You're wrong dipshit, it prevents it from being lost. I'm not reminding you of this fact again.
>Insulation causes warming
So my ice melts faster in a thermos?
>I didn't say it was.
You're fucking gaslighting. I'm done with you.
>PREVENTING HEAT FROM BEING LOST INCREASES THE HEAT .
No. It prevents it from being lost.
>Your bizarre, arbitrary, contradictory semantics don't.
You're gaslighting or in a severe psychosis.

>>12308305
>somehow, for some reason, a heater that only puts out a max temperature of 70 degrees is going to somehow put out more than 70 degrees.
>somehow, for some reason, an insulator (which is not a heat source) will turn that 70 degrees into more than 70 degrees
You have a billion dollar idea right here if you can somehow manage to explain this horseshit.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:30:42 2020 No.12308687

It always amazes me how retarded the AGW doomers are. They end up getting stuck on their twisted definitions a half post into the discussion and keep arguing over them for 20 posts because their entire argument hinges on semantics, then it always falls back to ad hominem or argument from authority or majority.
I wish I had become a climate scientist. You just need to repeat the party line and you're set for life. No methodology or process are required, all faults are ignored, you're like royalty of old.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:32:18 2020 No.12308693 >>12305908 >Random author He wrote Jurassic Park, you retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:34:01 2020 No.12308700 >>12308693 why should I listen to a man who literally believes dinosaurs still exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:35:50 2020 No.12308705 >>12308700 Why should I listen to a man who literally believes a tiny increase in an inert trace gas that makes all plant-life grow better will turn the planet to cinders?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:41:58 2020 No.12308738 >>12308705 The science is settled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:53:36 2020 No.12308791 >>12308738 So it's ready to marry and have kids now?

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 15:55:45 2020 No.12308800

>>12308791
It's like the poop in the water treatment plant kind of settled.

The shit is finally at the bottom of the sedimentation pond so the non-joke part of atmospheric sciences can start its long journey of rehabilitating itself to something not governed by politics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 16:20:35 2020 No.12308900 >>12306314 Please provide a reliable source you aren't mentally retarded first to save us all a lot of time please because I have serious doubts

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 16:29:48 2020 No.12308920 >>12306264 >handful of NEETS vs 150 million copies sold (actually 200 according to kikepedia) and multiple NYT bestsellers fuck you cant even do an appeal to authority fallacy correctly. I guess you are my man for climate change expertise however

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 16:31:28 2020 No.12308927 >>12308920 appeal to majority

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 18:47:37 2020 No.12309476

>>12306242
You: he made publications (that don't exist) that contributed to his field

In reality: actually this is highly disputed and can't even be proven and in fact looks completely wrong. There is no actual "publication" you are just claiming people believing he did it is equal to a publication (lol wut???)

You: Forget what I just said, I take it back he wasn't a scientist

You are one shady slimy faggot. You should go into media, politics, or used car sales and leave the science to people who aren't retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:00:21 2020 No.12309512 >>12308625 >No shit. It's an insulator. Non sequitur. >The lack of sun at a pole is what results in the cooling. What causes the lack of sun? >It doesn't. The sun and planet do. How? You can't even answer this simple question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:03:25 2020 No.12309525 >>12308625 >The lack of sun at a pole is what results in the cooling. Didn't you argue before that the lack of something isn't a thing and therefore can't cause things to happen? Your schizophrenic gibberish isn't even self-consistent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:04:03 2020 No.12309528 >>12308927 97.7% of the scientists agree that jurassic park is a better movie than climate politics is science t. Tom Cuck, head of hard science psychology department and therefor a scientist

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:10:37 2020 No.12309545

>>12309528
If you're refering to John Cook and his cooked consensus papers he's

>Australian former cartoonist and web developer, John Cook,[1][2][3] who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016

He's not a head of anything and his papers predates his PhD, he couldn't tell the weather forecast from the climate and also he's not doing science, he's doing propaganda.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:29:35 2020 No.12309595

>>12308625
>Because it's not, even in it's own words.
Yet again you fail to answer the question. It's because there is no answer, your claims are baseless.

>Wiki:
>"Do not take us seriously".
Nothing you quoted said that. More bullshit, what a surprise.

>I can't argue nor discuss the absence of information. It is absent.
This makes no sense. We don't know who won the American presidential election yet. The information is absent. But here I am talking about it. You claim information is missing from the article but you don't know anything is missing. You're full of shit.

>There is nothing circular
You just argued that it's not a source because it's missing information and you know it's missing information because it's not a source. That's the definition of a circular argument.

>It's not baseless. It's based on wikipedias own words you dumb faggot.
Nothing you quoted shows the article is unreliable.

>Told you like 5 times that an insulator doesn't cause heat.
And I told you every time you tried to misrepresent the argument that way that insulators cause heat to increase.

>And you'll never know. It was expurgated.
Retard, you're contradicting yourself again. You can't both not know information is missing and know information is missing. Choose one.

>It's like asking the FBI "hey what's behind these censored bars?"
It's more like you claim invisible unicorns exist but can't provide any evidence for them because they're invisible. Then how do you know they exist? Your argument is self defeating.

>I didn't.
You did, first you said the article is missing information and then said it's impossible to know that. One of these is a lie.

>Wiki expurgates information by virtue of not being the actual source of that information.
You mean you can compare the source to the wikipedia article? You spent the entire post crying about how it's impossible to know what info is missing and now you're saying it's as simple as looking at the source. Fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:31:56 2020 No.12309601 >>12309528 kek

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:36:48 2020 No.12309612

>>12308625
>Wiki expurgates information by virtue of not being the actual source of that information. It would be one thing if it were an actual, backed up source by a scientific community/journal/group, but it isn't. It's not even a library, its a librarian.
So Michael Crichton is not a source and this thread is refuted. Good job.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:55:37 2020 No.12309675 >>12308625 >Why do you say this when I've been insisting that it's not a source whatsoever? Because you claim Wikipedia supposedly not giving you information means the information is unobtainable. Fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 19:56:39 2020 No.12309680 >>12308653 People like Crichton.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:08:15 2020 No.12309699

>>12309512
>Non sequitur.
It's an insulator, it insulates and isolates cold/heat sources. It does not create them.

>What causes the lack of sun?
>causes the lack
>cause
>lack
which is it?

>How?
by being a heat source.

>>12309525
>Didn't you argue before that the lack of something isn't a thing and therefore can't cause things to happen?
Yes. When nothing happens you obviously aren't going to get heat.

>>12309595
>your claims are baseless
my claim is based on what wiki says. So you're once again telling me that wiki is baseless, yet you contradict yourself still.
>Nothing you quoted said that.
To much light from the gaslighting has blinded you
>This makes no sense. We don't know who won the American presidential election yet. The information is absent. But here I am talking about it.
To no use. What a waste of time...
>You claim information is missing from the article but you don't know anything is missing
It doesn't have all the information. So obviously it lacks it. I know this because it literally is not the original source of the information. Some janny editor isn't actually doing the fucking experiments or recording the data.
>You just argued that it's not a source because it's missing information and you know it's missing information because it's not a source
It's a fact. It's not a reliable source. It itself says this.
>That's the definition of a circular argument.
It's redescribing their own description of what they are...
>And I told you every time you tried to misrepresent the argument that way that insulators cause heat to increase.
They don't cause heat to increase. End of discussion you fucking moron. Get it through your thick skull. If they did then every HVAC technician would be out of a job/business.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:18:29 2020 No.12309729 >>12309476 Honestly, I don't care about Pythagoras and you were the person who brought him up. Are you asserting that Crichton is a scientist? Because that's the crux if this argument, no matter how you want to obfuscate.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:28:56 2020 No.12309756
File: 219 KB, 1125x1115, 1602998202869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12309595
>Retard, you're contradicting yourself again.
I'm not acknowledging wiki as a source because they expurgate information.
>You can't both not know information is missing and know information is missing. Choose one.
"No". This is the dilemma wiki forces upon you when you take what it has to say as true. That's why I ignore it completely.
>It's more like you claim invisible unicorns exist but can't provide any evidence for them because they're invisible
Wiki has tons of articles about shit that doesn't actually exist.
>Then how do you know they exist?
How do you know they don't exist? Oh right, because you would have to look at some actual empirical evidence and perform an experiment to prove so. Which wikipedia doesn't do, nor do they publish such works. They REDESCRIBE them, for simpletons like yourself.
>first you said the article is missing information and then said it's impossible to know that.
It is missing information, because it's not the source of said information. It's impossible to know that because they don't tell you what they left out. The explanation I guess is because they're simply re-describers.
>You spent the entire post crying about how it's impossible to know what info is missing and now you're saying it's as simple as looking at the source.
Yes. Meanwhile you've spent countless posts knowing and agreeing with this sentiment and yet for some stupid asinine reason still insist that I use this piece of shit site that tells me they can't assure the accuracy/truth of anything posted.
You could have told me to look at 4chan archive post and it would have meant the same thing as "go look at wiki". That's why I say "no fuck that go to the actual source". Dumbass.
>>12309612
>So Michael Crichton is not a source and this thread is refuted.
"Yes". I never said he was a source by the way.

>>12309675
>means the information is unobtainable
From Wikipedia* yes. Because they leave it out obviously. Sorry if I didn't clarify that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:33:28 2020 No.12309764 >>12309729 that was my first post in this thread schizo take your meds

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:34:40 2020 No.12309769

>>12308675
>>It doesn't exist unless it's in a wikipedia article
You must be illiterate, that's the opposite of what you quoted. I said that either there is other information or there isn't.

>Also I don't have to refute an article that refutes itself.
How does it refute itself?

>It refutes itself by the fact that the foundation is that any yahoo who owns a keyboard and has the ability to describe can write it.
If that refutes the article then you're saying your own posts refute themselves. It's another self-defeating argument.

>Its own terms of service literally states that it does not guarantee accuracy or truthfulness.
What guarantees your accuracy and truthfulness? Lack of a guarantee is not a guarantee of the opposite. You are fundamentally illogical.

>It's the barrier. It isolates (the thing) being isolated. Insulation isolates.
So what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:44:10 2020 No.12309793 >>12309764 Then read the thread. Don't be surprised when you're posting anonymously and your identity is assumed because you responded to a long chain of posts.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:45:09 2020 No.12309798

>>12309769
>How does it refute itself?
By the fact it was written on a site that refutes whatever the editors write as written in their terms of service which you keep ignoring.

>If that refutes the article then you're saying your own posts refute themselves.
No. The fact that I'm writing on a Taiwanese basket weaving forum does. "Only a fool would take posts here seriously", only on wikipedia in comes in the form of a terms of service that includes a plethora of lawyer warnings. You don't have to take what I have said seriously at all, I could care less what you think.

>It's another self-defeating argument.
It's not an argument. It's the truth. Believe it or don't, I DON'T CARE.

>What guarantees your accuracy and truthfulness?
Not gookmoot or our glowing friends, that's for sure.

>Lack of a guarantee is not a guarantee of the opposite.
No. It's just the lack of a guarantee. Which is why it's unreliable and also why I ignore it.

>So what?
So I answered your question. The one you lost track of.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 20:55:44 2020 No.12309830

>>12308675
Keeping heat from escaping is causing warming without making heat. You are in denial of basic reality.

>Entering and leaving yes. Magically coming out of an inert matter is another thing entirely.
Physics is not magic, CO2 absorbs and radiates heat. "Inert" is irrelevant here because we're not talking about a chemical reaction.

>It doesn't make heat you stooge,
I never said it did. Every time you attempt this idiotic misrepresention of me it further cements your retardation.

>You're wrong dipshit, it prevents it from being lost.
Preventing heat from being lost increases the temperature. You lose, moron.

>So my ice melts faster in a thermos?
Insulation causing cooling in stone situations doesn't counter it causing warming in others. Nice sophistry.

>You're fucking gaslighting
Then quote where I said insulation is a heat source. You're the one putting words in my mouth, being obtuse, making semantic arguments, and misrepresenting the argument.

>No. It prevents it from being lost.
Which increases the heat. You have no argument. Take your meds.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 21:02:41 2020 No.12309845

>>12308675
>>somehow, for some reason, a heater that only puts out a max temperature of 70 degrees is going to somehow put out more than 70 degrees
A heater puts out heat, not a tempurature, schizo. The temperature is not only dependent on the heater, it's also dependent on how much heat leaves the system. This is extremely basic thermodynamics you can't seem to grasp. I suggest you take your meds.

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 22:44:19 2020 No.12310060

>>12309830
>Keeping heat from escaping is causing warming without making heat. You are in denial of basic reality.
You're an idiot. The only thing that CAUSES heat is a heat source. Retard.
>Preventing heat from being lost increases the temperature
No. It maintains the temperature being outputted. Idiot.
>Which increases the heat.
>increase
No. It maintains.
>Insulation causing cooling
It doesn't cause cooling. It insulates it
>Then quote where I said insulation is a heat source
">PREVENTING HEAT FROM BEING LOST INCREASES THE HEAT (in the atmosphere)."
When speaking of insulation preventing heat. You're essentially saying insulation is increasing the heat by proxy of it preventing it's escape, which is patently absurd. Only the heater does that. The insulation does not increase the heat, nor does it increase the temp. It prevents the heat from being LOST and THAT'S IT.
>wah wah blah blah I'm confusing you cause you're misusing "temp" and "heat".
Guess what? The amount of insulation doesn't matter when it comes to either. Temperature is a quantitative measure of hot and cold. Insulation still doesn't produce heat. So it doesn't change the temperature. It prevents the temperature from changing in the first place. Idiot. But don't let me stop you from sperging out over it some more.

>>12309845
>A heater puts out heat, not a temperature, schizo.
Now you're being a sophist.

>The temperature is not only dependent on the heater, it's also dependent on how much heat leaves the system
>leaves
So insulation doesn't increase the temperature. Or the heat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 5 22:59:23 2020 No.12310081 >>12309793 stfu slimy cock sucker dont tell me what to do

Anonymous Thu Nov 5 23:55:36 2020 No.12310178

>>12310060
Alright. Imagine a room where a certain amount of heat comes in.
That room has it's widows open so heat inside can escape, you are inside and you measure is temperature. Now close the windows and fill the room with gas that traps the heat inside; now measure the temperature, it will go up because the heat can't escape that easy.
That's what other anons are saying, if more heat comes in that it comes out shit gets hotter. No one is saying that CO2 is generating any heat.
I really don't know how else to explain it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 08:08:15 2020 No.12310928 File: 71 KB, 600x769, c62.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12308687 >All this projection

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 08:14:23 2020 No.12310945

>>12308705
>a tiny increase
Compared to what?

>in an inert trace gas
How is it being inert relevant? What prevents a trace gas from having a large effect? You're not actually saying anything.

>that makes all plant-life grow better
Source?

>will turn the planet to cinders?
Who said that?

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 08:23:53 2020 No.12310968

>>12309699
>It's an insulator, it insulates and isolates cold/heat sources. It does not create them.
I disc by day anything to the contrary. Non sequitur.

>which is it?
Which is what? What causes the lack of sun?

>by being a heat source.
The Sun is sending the Earth less energy, it's at a grand minima. This should be causing cooling, not warming. Your answer makes no sense. The greenhouse effect is increasing due to CO2 emissions and this is causing more heat to build up on Earth even though less heat is entering the system. You lose.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 08:26:09 2020 No.12310974 >>12309699 >Yes. When nothing happens you obviously aren't going to get heat. So is heat not leaving Earth "nothing happening?"

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 08:37:16 2020 No.12311005

>>12309699
>my claim is based on what wiki says
How can your claims be based on what the wiki says if it's not a reliable source??? Shocking. No your claim isn't based on anything the wiki said, nothing the wiki said shows the article is wrong.

>To no use.
The use is showing you your argument makes no sense.

>It doesn't have all the information.
What relevant information is missing?

>I know this because it literally is not the original source of the information.
So what relevant information does the original source have that it doesn't? I guess you've abandoned your claim that it's impossible to show what information is missing, since now you claim it's in the source.

>It itself says this.
Where? And how can you cite an unreliable source?

>It's redescribing their own description
Ah but that description must be missing information from the original source, so I can just ignore it.

When you make up arbitrary rules for sophistry they eventually come back to bite you.

>They don't cause heat to increase.
They do, I already showed you direct observation of CO2 doing exactly that. Keeping heat from leaving = more heat on Earth. You have no argument. You will just try the same non sequitur ignoring causality or try to misrepresenting my argument again. Retard.

>If they did then every HVAC technician would be out of a job/business.
How so?

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 09:07:12 2020 No.12311065

>>12309756
>I'm not acknowledging wiki as a source because they expurgate information.
What info has been expurgated and how is it relevant?

>This is the dilemma wiki forces upon you when you take what it has to say as true.
No, this is the dilemma you put on yourself by not arguing consistently. You don't have to take anything it says as true. You could try to refute anything it says, but you won't. If you claim that it automatically refutes itself then so do your posts.

>Wiki has tons of articles about shit that doesn't actually exist.
Do you have a reliable source for that claim?

>How do you know they don't exist?
I don't need to, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

>Oh right, because you would have to look at some actual empirical evidence and perform an experiment to prove so.
LOL no, you would have to provide empirical eviscerated they exist. I don't have to do anything until then.

>Which wikipedia doesn't do, nor do they publish such works. They REDESCRIBE them, for simpletons like yourself.
The description is for you, you're the one who didn't understand the consensus studies.

>It is missing information, because it's not the source of said information. It's impossible to know that because they don't tell you what they left out.
So it's impossible for you to read the source? Are you illiterate? Retard, you're not making any sense. Time to take your meds again.

>Meanwhile you've spent countless posts knowing and agreeing with this sentiment
LOL no, again you are misrepresenting me saying that either A or not A must be true for saying that A is true.

>yet for some stupid asinine reason still insist that I use this piece of shit site that tells me they can't assure the accuracy/truth of anything posted.
I'm not insisting you use it, I'm insisting you provide an argument if you think the article is wrong.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 09:11:23 2020 No.12311074

>>12309756
>You could have told me to look at 4chan archive post and it would have meant the same thing as "go look at wiki".
I could have, and then you could have argued against it, which is what I'm doing right now. If Wikipedia can be dismissed because it's Wikipedia then your own posts can be dismissed as easily. So you're saying all of your posts are presumed wrong?

>That's why I say "no fuck that go to the actual source".
The wiki article cites it's sources. So again you're complaining about nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 09:36:11 2020 No.12311110 >>12309756 >From Wikipedia* yes. Because they leave it out obviously. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. So then you CAN tell me what information is missing from the article that makes it wrong. Wow, imagine that.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 14:23:26 2020 No.12312065

>>12310178
And the heat comes from where? Not the insulation that's for sure. That's why when you open the window and let it get cold, it's going to stay cold and the temperature isn't gonna change until the heat source gets turned back on.
>if more heat comes in that it comes out shit gets hotter.
If you let it get cold yes. But it's only going to get as hot as the heat source allows. It's only getting hotter because the heater is making it that way. The insulation is PREVENTING the heat from leaving.

>>12310974
If the temperature is "70 degrees" because that's the heaters max output, that's all you get. You can put all the insulation you want on it, it's never going past "70" until you get a better heater.
>but it's not leaving
And it's not going up to "71" if you add more 70 degree output from the heater.

>>12311005
>How can your claims be based on what the wiki says
Because I'm quoting the wiki
>if it's not a reliable source???
It isn't.
>No your claim isn't based on anything the wiki said, nothing the wiki said shows the article is wrong.
The terms of service says it's not reliable because the terms of service encompasses all articles.
>The use is showing you your argument makes no sense.
It makes sense, it's just of no use because you're insisting on disputing the facts instead accepting them as what they are.
>So what relevant information does the original source have that it doesn't?
Why bother with wiki when you can get all of that info from the original source?
>Where?
Stop playing stupid, I've outlines it multiple times.
>And how can you cite an unreliable source?
You can cite whatever you want.
>Ah but that description must be missing information from the original source, so I can just ignore it.
Sure
>When you make up arbitrary rules for sophistry they eventually come back to bite you.
LOL, I don't care if you take me seriously. I'm posting on 4chan you fucking moron.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 14:40:43 2020 No.12312119

>>12311005
>They do, I already showed you direct observation of CO2 doing exactly that. Keeping heat from leaving = more heat on Earth.
It's like saying that you get more m&m's if you eat them slower. Ridiculous. The heatsource is still the sun and earth you dunderhead.

>You have no argument.
YES. I have facts though and empirical evidence.

>You will just try the same non sequitur ignoring causality
You're ignoring the cause of the heat by insisting that an insulator makes more or claiming that the retention of loss is the generation of more. It's a contradiction. I would "non sequitur" you back, but that's a description. I'd rather explain why you're wrong and why you don't make sense over and over instead of dsimply repeating "you're wrong!, non seckweter" over and over like a weenie.

>How so?
Because then no one would buy air conditioners or heaters. They would stuff their walls with R-30 to conjure up/ geomance all the heat that you seem to believe is created by an insulator.

>>12311065
>What info has been expurgated
>show me the unknown thing
"I can't"

>You don't have to take anything it says as true
"YES"

>You could try to refute anything it says, but you won't. If you claim that it automatically refutes itself then so do your posts.
Yes.

>Do you have a reliable source for that claim?
I guess not, since wiki is not a reliable source afterall.

>I don't need to, the burden of proof is on you to show it.
I never made the claim though

>LOL no, you would have to provide empirical eviscerated they exist. I don't have to do anything until then.
I still never claimed a unicorn exist though.

>The description is for you, you're the one who didn't understand the consensus studies.
That's what I just said, you just turned it around on me. Are you saying I'm right?

>So it's impossible for you to read the source?
No. I would rather read it "the source" is what I'm saying. And that's not on wiki.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 14:48:09 2020 No.12312157

>>12311065
>I'm not insisting you use it,
And I'm insisting you don't use it.
>I'm insisting you provide an argument if you think the article is wrong.
And I am saying "No".
I can't because I won't/don't use wikipedia. Both as a source for arguments or of facts. You're asking me to make an argument out of ignorance. I can't because I literally cannot do so. If I did I would be talking out of my ass, I'm not going to do that.
>Well just do it then and come up with an argument!
"No"
>>12311074
>I could have, and then you could have argued against it, which is what I'm doing right now. If Wikipedia can be dismissed because it's Wikipedia then your own posts can be dismissed as easily. So you're saying all of your posts are presumed wrong?
They are as reliable as wikipedias articles.
>The wiki article cites it's sources
>but then it tells you at the same time in its terms of service that this may be inaccurate.
Well a broken clock may be right twice a day, but I'd rather have a clock that's right most of the time.
>>12311110
>So then you CAN tell me what information is missing from the article that makes it wrong. Wow, imagine that.
No I actually can't. Because again, I don't use wikipedia as a source of information/facts/other sources. Someone else might be able to help you with that, but it won't be me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:04:17 2020 No.12312236 >>12305887 >science >believes the level of retardation is already beyond recovery

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:08:09 2020 No.12312253 File: 84 KB, 640x380, gg_looks_disgusted_at_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12306020 >science >consensus pic related

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:09:31 2020 No.12312261 >>12305918 My crystal ball says you're a faggot. This will remain a fact untill you can produce your fortune telling credentials.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:10:12 2020 No.12312268 >>12312236 /sci/ *accepts global warming as fact There, you happy? Stop being a faggot about semantics.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:23:07 2020 No.12312324

>>12312268
>Stop being a faggot about semantics
>semantics: the branch of linguistics concerned with meaning
>so let's stop discussing the fucking meaning of things. let's focus on what? the fonts and background color?
the absolute state of the intellectual situation

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:27:05 2020 No.12312340 >>12312324 >/sci/ - Linguistics and Philosophy Also linguistics is not a science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:29:34 2020 No.12312355 >>12305866 Reported to YouTube. You can't lie on the internet and expect your content to remain. YouTube will remove this video for spreading dangerously false information.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:30:50 2020 No.12312357 >>12305918 Funny how the only way to be considered a practicing climate scientist is to first agree to the climate beliefs of one particular ideology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:34:04 2020 No.12312375 >>12312357 It's almost like the science is consistent and nobody who understands it can find any flaws.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:44:51 2020 No.12312404 >>12312375 That level of consistency only happens in IFLS!, not in real science. Thanks for letting us know you're part of the Rick & Morty school of imaginary science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:53:31 2020 No.12312435 File: 80 KB, 680x577, 1578131436226.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:55:00 2020 No.12312441 >>12312404 Which part of climate science is wrong or inconsistent? My guess is you have no idea and have never studied it

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:57:10 2020 No.12312449 >>12312340 now you want to discuss about semantics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 15:58:43 2020 No.12312452 >>12312435 which supports how fucking wildly the climate is changing

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:00:20 2020 No.12312454 >>12312253 The big difference between the homeless schitzo under a bridge and our boi GG is evidence, and if this thread is any indicator you're a whole lot closer to living under a bridge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:01:51 2020 No.12312458 >>12305866 Judging according to quality of video, it's waste of time to watch it... How can you even know how much temperature raise? Do you know when precise thermometer was invented?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:07:24 2020 No.12312482 >>12312441 >Which part of climate science is wrong or inconsistent? the cultish one, when it stars arguing about beliefs and appeals to authority. also the numerical modelling fetish

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:18:13 2020 No.12312529 >>12312454 consensus people tend to do very well. I'll agree with you on that. gg on the other hand, was financially broke and very very close to live under a bridge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:19:19 2020 No.12312534 >>12312529 >entirely missing the point The evidence genius, where's yours?

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:25:28 2020 No.12312553

The climate has never been constantly changing. The climate is a lie. It hasn't been getting recorded since the realization of a temperature gauge. There is absolutely no scientific way to prove there is a climate. Science isn't real. Reality isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:26:03 2020 No.12312556 >>12312452 kek. amazing cope.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:33:28 2020 No.12312586

>>12312556
Anon, one shoddy prediction 20 years ago doesn't change the fact that global warming exists ans is threatening us. Global warming of this level has never been seen before in Earth's history, we have no reference point at all, literally 0 whatsoever. The fact that we've been able to predict the increases in hurricanes, droughts and fires at all is a pretty good indicator we know what we're doing. Even Australian textbooks 10 years ago talked about the lengthening of their fire season.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:34:18 2020 No.12312587 >>12312435 I guess this is why the stopped talking about 'climate cooling' and then 'global warming' and moved towards 'climate crisis' and 'emergency'. no need to be right even on the sign of the derivative. just the 'the times they are a-changin'

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:37:52 2020 No.12312600

>>12312587
>climate cooling
Nobody of repute has talked about this. There was a push by gasoline companies (I'm assuming) to get that into the media during the 70s, but all of it was pretty much baseless lies. Global warming has lead to a climate crisis on the Earth, an emergency. In the 50s there was global warming, but it had not escalated to a full crisis by that point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:45:31 2020 No.12312625 >>12312587 ironically the only people talking about cooling are AGW denier shills who have actually been wrong about every prediction. Claiming legitimate climate science has been wrong in the past is pure projection.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:46:29 2020 No.12312630 >>12312482 So you have no idea and have never studied it. Isn't it amazing how exactly I called that? Maybe go read a book instead of shitposting.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:52:40 2020 No.12312647

>>12312454
>The big difference between the homeless schitzo under a bridge and our boi GG is evidence
Have you ever actually read the history on Galileo past the immensely abridged and overdramatised version given in class and on TV? Because there actually is in fact zero difference between them. Whether you consider that to be a positive or negative thing doesn't really matter, it still applies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 16:57:18 2020 No.12312663 >>12312630 of course you are so right. on this as on everything else

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:01:24 2020 No.12312676 >>12312663 Did you have a real argument, or did you just want to keep whinging?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:09:24 2020 No.12312702 >>12312625 Why did Glacier National Park have to change their signs about climate change if climate science is never wrong about predictions?

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:18:30 2020 No.12312719
File: 1.47 MB, 3828x1728, observations must be wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12305866
Very Based takedown of "consensus science" as if such a thing exists or even would matter if it did.

I agree with his critique of climate models.
First of all, there is no single consensus model, putting a lie to the "scientific consensus" myth, which is no more than a political bullying meme to try and socially pressure skeptics.

Second, the many different models out there vary wildly in outcome and on average have performed very poorly (as predicted) in measuring future climate temperature change. The people that push for an end to discourse because "the science has been settled" can never seem to explain why since their models don't actually predict correctly 10 years of change, why should we assume that their predictions of 100 years of change will be correct.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:18:53 2020 No.12312720 >>12312702 >>12312586 > Global warming of this level has never been seen before in Earth's history, we have no reference point at all, literally 0 whatsoever.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:22:34 2020 No.12312730

>>12312625
>pointing out that within living memory climate scientists have drastically reversed their claims about future predictions of the climate is pure projection
how so? Its purely to point out that the idea of "climate science" is an incredibly new idea and that it lacks validity in its track-record for predicting future climate change.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:30:36 2020 No.12312752

>>12312587
>>12312600
>>12312625
>>12312730
Global cooling is actually a real thing, but the magnitude is much smart than global warming. It's predominantly caused by increased cloud cover from particulate pollution blocking sunlight and so it's more accurately referred to as "global dimming". It's mostly not a problem, but several countries reported a decrease in their sunlight over the course of a decade or so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:31:26 2020 No.12312754 >>12312458 judging according to quality of post you are a waste of time and retarded. Go shart in another thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:31:38 2020 No.12312756 >>12312752 >smart Smaller*

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:33:21 2020 No.12312763 >>12312268 /sci/ accepts you are retarded as fact so into the trash you go

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:34:28 2020 No.12312767 File: 233 KB, 504x450, schizo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12310928 >it's a /pol/ conspiracy >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:35:46 2020 No.12312771 >>12312720 That does not answer the question about why Glacier National Park had to change its signs. Are you saying that climate science might be incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:37:09 2020 No.12312778 >>12312763 I always consider it a victory when my opponents resort to ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 17:39:25 2020 No.12312783 >>12312771 No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:07:58 2020 No.12312850

>>12312752
we all know that the globe can cool, you retard.
the point people are making is that climate scientists just a few decades ago reached a totally opposite "scientific consensus" of global cooling as opposed to the current "consensus" of global warming.

Also several countries is not global, you retard.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:19:03 2020 No.12312876

>>12312850
>the point people are making is that climate scientists just a few decades ago reached a totally opposite "scientific consensus" of global cooling
Scientists have never claimed that, or if they did they were paid off. I mean, maybe they considered the possibility for a second, but it never got anywhere because it's wrong.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:20:24 2020 No.12312880
File: 388 KB, 591x484, climate change 1911 popular mechanics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12312850
>the point people are making is that climate scientists just a few decades ago reached a totally opposite "scientific consensus" of global cooling as opposed to the current "consensus" of global warming.

A conspiracy 110 years in the making

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:24:28 2020 No.12312888
File: 14 KB, 500x285, 1970s_papers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12312850
>the point people are making is that climate scientists just a few decades ago reached a totally opposite "scientific consensus" of global cooling
They didn't though, global cooling was always a fringe viewpoint. Thanks for clarifying that your point is wrong.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:24:46 2020 No.12312890

>>12312850
Is your reading comprehension just shit or something? It is a real thing that is currently happening, but it's magnitude is dwarfed by global warming. Both are real and happening, and I think you misread whatever pop-sci news article you're referring to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:25:31 2020 No.12312892 >>12312767 >>it's a /pol/ conspiracy Who are you quoting?

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:31:43 2020 No.12312914

>>12312876
>>12312880
>>12312888
"Global cooling" isn't about a net cooling effect, it's a measurable cooling effect that is caused by particulate pollution forming clouds and blocking sunlight. The net effect is still warming and the more accurate term for it is global dimming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:45:44 2020 No.12312946

>>12312914
In theory it'd be a last resort option if global warming gets too bad, just spray some aerosols and get some borrowed time to transition away from fossil fuels. Otherwise it's kind of irrelevant to the problem at hand, I feel like people talk about it to create misinformation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 18:55:15 2020 No.12312974 >>12312946 That would really fuck up crop output. I'm pretty sure most people that bring it up misread something about it once and decided it "debunks" climate science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 19:10:58 2020 No.12313058 >>12312914 >"Global cooling" isn't about a net cooling effect Then how is it "a totally opposite 'scientific consensus'" to global warming?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 19:14:16 2020 No.12313068 >>12312404 Exactly, only a slim majority of scientists think the Earth is round, evolution is real, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 19:16:32 2020 No.12313076 >>12313058 It's not. The guy you were arguing with was just as incorrect as you, which is why I responded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 19:17:50 2020 No.12313082 >>12312435 If you actually read the report, it's talking about the worst case scenario. But I know /pol/tards can only read the headline of clickbait.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 21:03:40 2020 No.12313420
File: 859 KB, 500x281, 1510974405972.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12312719
>First of all, there is no single consensus model, putting a lie to the "scientific consensus" myth
Huh? The consensus wouldn't be a single model, it would be many different models coming to the same conclusion, that increasing CO2 emissions are the primary cause of current warming and that warming will continue if emissions continue.

>which is no more than a political bullying meme to try and socially pressure skeptics.
All scientific evidence pointing to a particular conclusion is not a meme or bullying. It's reality knocking at your door.

>Second, the many different models out there vary wildly in outcome
Really? So how many predict cooling?

>on average have performed very poorly (as predicted) in measuring future climate temperature change.
Wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>The people that push for an end to discourse because "the science has been settled"
I don't push for an end to discourse, I push for an end to the long debunked lies that get repeated over and over again by deniers.

>can never seem to explain why since their models don't actually predict correctly 10 years of change, why should we assume that their predictions of 100 years of change will be correct.
If you can't predict the weather two weeks from now how do you know it will be cold next winter? Factors that determine the climate over the short term and long term are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 21:07:09 2020 No.12313429 >>12313076 No, global cooling is global cooling. It was always a fringe viewpoint.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 21:09:23 2020 No.12313433

>>12312914
Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.

Anonymous Fri Nov 6 21:50:09 2020 No.12313522

>>12313433
>Reference: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Concensus
So not about a real thing.

Meanwhile, that cooling effect exists, and is caused by aerosols and particulate pollution. Go pull up the IPCC data and look for the little blue bar. That's global cooling/dimming, and it's miniscule in comparison to global warming.

From the wiki:
Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates or aerosols, such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming has been attributed as the leading factor in the 1984 Ethiopian famine by reducing heating at the tropics which drives the annual monsoon, or ‘wet season’.[2]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 21:52:34 2020 No.12313526 File: 92 KB, 410x441, radiative_forcing_agents_present_IPCC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12313429 Then what are these blue bars? IPCC isn't exactly "fringe"

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 22:57:07 2020 No.12313669 >>12313522 Nothing you said contradicts what I said. >>12313526 Not global cooling, which refers to a fringe theory that global warming would be reversed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 23:02:12 2020 No.12313675 >>12312876 >Scientists have never claimed that, or if they did they were paid off. What? Paid off by who?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 6 23:20:02 2020 No.12313711 >>12305866 Yes, he is right. What must be waged is a great irredentism of the urban hellscapes and concrete hives of the libtard bugpeople

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 01:23:05 2020 No.12313921

>>12313669
>Nothing you said contradicts what I said.
That's because we're talking about the same thing, except you're getting hung up on some pop-sci hype about the topic from the 70's.

>Not global cooling, which refers to a fringe theory that global warming would be reversed.
Oh really? What's the opposite of warming? Could it be COOLING? Is this effect local? Could it be GLOBAL?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 01:36:17 2020 No.12313955 >>12313921 Not even that guy but you are just wrong, don't pretend to be stupid on top of that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 01:40:25 2020 No.12313967

>>12313955
Sure, kid. 4-20% dimming wasn't reported by several nations, Ethiopia's monsoon season wasn't totally fucked, the measurable cooling effect doesn't exist, and aerosols and particulate pollution weren't found to be the cause. I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're clearly much better versed on the topic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 01:46:45 2020 No.12313981 >>12313967 The globe isn't cooling kiddo

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 01:58:10 2020 No.12314004 >>12313981 Of course not, the magnitude of the warming is too large in comparison. That doesn't mean there's not a global cooling effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 04:22:40 2020 No.12314251 File: 74 KB, 539x960, BL9pQ0wx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12312587 the climate goys are all over you for pointing out their scam lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 06:46:25 2020 No.12314451 >>12305872 >Dat grammar >Dat projection >This shitposter == everyone's opinion You are bottom barrel /pol/ zoom . Back to your shitbox.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 07:11:35 2020 No.12314486
File: 98 KB, 1024x700, 1_58aKfoSmb_hj4zFz0Egt6g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12312065
>And the heat comes from where? Not the insulation that's for sure.
Yes, no one is disagreeing with that.
>That's why when you open the window and let it get cold, it's going to stay cold and the temperature isn't gonna change until the heat source gets turned back on.
The heat coming from outside is gonna stay the same in the room. If the windows are open is going to be cooler. Yes.
>If you let it get cold yes. But it's only going to get as hot as the heat source allows.
Yes
>The insulation is PREVENTING the heat from leaving.
Yes.

That's kinda what the greenhouse effect is. Earth isn't as hot as all the rays coming in from the sun because it radiates heat back to space. CO2 makes it harder for the heat to go back, therefore temperature increases here on earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 07:14:09 2020 No.12314492 >>12305872 HOLY FUCKING BASED

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 08:44:10 2020 No.12314623

>>12313921
>That's because we're talking about the same thing, except you're getting hung up on some pop-sci hype about the topic from the 70's.
No, I was talking about global cooling, you then responded as if global cooling was not net cooling, when by definition it is. Stop posting.

>Oh really? What's the opposite of warming? Could it be COOLING? Is this effect local? Could it be GLOBAL?
Are you retarded? Saying that global dimming could be described as "global cooling" in some context does nothing to justify your attempt to tell people that global cooling is not what it's defined to be. Your post was wrong both in the context of the discussion you were responding to and by definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 08:45:31 2020 No.12314625 >>12314486 Don't bother, you're arguing with a schizo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 08:49:57 2020 No.12314635 >>12314251 2021 /pol/ is going to kill us all

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:05:30 2020 No.12314663

>>12309798
>By the fact it was written on a site that refutes whatever the editors write as written in their terms of service
Saying the article could be wrong is not a refutation. Your posts could be wrong, does that refute them?

>The fact that I'm writing on a Taiwanese basket weaving forum does.
So your posts are refuted. Good job retard. Thanks for admitting CO2 causes warming.

>It's not an argument. It's the truth.
It has a premise and a conclusion, sure looks like an argument to me. It's also false since the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

>No. It's just the lack of a guarantee.
So it's not a refutation.

>So I answered your question.
What question retard? You reamsponded to the fact that insulators insulate with a non sequitur: "they isolate." This does nothing to refute that they insulate.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:13:24 2020 No.12314679

>>12305866
wow a 30 year old youtube video you sure BTFo'd the IPCC good job

>>12305916
>surgeon
a human butcher wow much smart
>multi millionaire
wow elites make money hard
>published
as if LMAO

jesus christ lawyers and md's are some of the dumbest people I know, it's like their training drains them from any basic scientific and humanistic knowledge whatsoever, I once listened to my liver doctor rant about how global warming wasn't real because muh Earth's axial tilt, I once listened to my lawyer rant about how we should've been a monarchy, jesus christ

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:31:00 2020 No.12314699

>>12310060
>You're an idiot. The only thing that CAUSES heat is a heat source.
Again, I'm taking about causing warming not "causing heat." What does that even mean anyway? The Earth turns energy into heat, CO2 turns energy into heat. Is that "causing heat?" Presumably by "causing heat" you mean the Sun sending energy to Earth, but the energy from the Sun relevant to the greenhouse effect is visible light, not heat. And incoming energy is only half of the equation determining the amount heat on Earth. The other half is how much energy leaves. You already know this, so stop playing dumb.

>No. It maintains the temperature being outputted. Idiot.
Temperature is not output, energy is. Please explain this to me. The Sun is sending less energy to Earth now, yet the temperature is increasing. How is this possible if the energy going in is the only factor causing the Earth's temperature change?

The Sun is not a thermostat, it doesn't care how much heat the Earth is losing. It doesn't adjust to make up for more insulation in Earth's atmosphere. More greenhouse effect -> less heat lost -> higher temperature. You lose, moron.

>No. It maintains.
So more Co2 = less change?

>It doesn't cause cooling. It insulates it
The insulation causes cooling. Without the insulation the temperature would be higher.

>">PREVENTING HEAT FROM BEING LOST INCREASES THE HEAT (in the atmosphere)."
That doesn't say insulation is a heat source. You lied.

>You're essentially saying insulation is increasing the heat by proxy of it preventing it's escape, which is patently absurd.
How is it absurd?

>Only the heater does that.
I already showed how not just the heater does that. You lose.

>The amount of insulation doesn't matter when it comes to either.
Then why do we use insulation?

>Insulation still doesn't produce heat. So it doesn't change the temperature.
You don't need to produce heat to change the temperature. Heat is both being produced and lost. You lose.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:32:58 2020 No.12314704

>>12310060
>Now you're being a sophist.
I'm not, the Sun is not a thermostat, it doesn't produce a specific temperature for Earth. Your argument is fundamentally wrong.

>So insulation doesn't increase the temperature. Or the heat.
Less heat leaving the system increases the temperature and heat. You lose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:34:18 2020 No.12314706 >>12305918 This. Crackpots might get accepted on /pol/, but not here on /sci/. Fuck off OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:34:53 2020 No.12314707 >>12305866 Why do people care? Humanity need a reset. This is the ultimate blackpill.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:37:01 2020 No.12314716
File: 566 KB, 1386x3270, 1307270074626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12305964

This.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

>In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:40:55 2020 No.12314728 >>12314679 >I once listened to my lawyer rant about how we should've been a monarchy BASED.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:43:06 2020 No.12314731

>>12312065
>If the temperature is "70 degrees" because that's the heaters max output, that's all you get.
The heaters max output is a certain amount of heat, not a temperature. Let's say you have a house with no insulation and you crank up the heater to its max output, x units of heat. The house is losing y units of heat due to conduction, convection, and radiation. So the amount of heat in the house is x-y. Now add insulation that reduces heat loss by 1 unit. The amount of heat is now x-y+1. Wow! The amount of heat increased even though the heater is at its maximum output! How is this possible??? Dumb schizo.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 09:56:30 2020 No.12314771

>>12312065

>If the temperature is "70 degrees" because that's the heaters max output, that's all you get. You can put all the insulation you want on it, it's never going past "70" until you get a better heater.

Holy shit, you are dumb. No wonder you deny science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 10:21:31 2020 No.12314838 >>12314679 >>12314728 >>12314716 seething samefag hack

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 11:04:01 2020 No.12314953 >>12305866 They killed him for this FYI.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 12:09:23 2020 No.12315093

>>12314623
>global cooling was not net cooling, when by definition it is
Any global cooling effect is by definition global cooling, it does not have to be a net effect.

>Saying that global dimming could be described as "global cooling" in some context
They're synonymous. The same in every context. Some news article from the 70's doesn't change that.

>your attempt to tell people that global cooling is not what it's defined to be
Were you looking in the mirror when you typed this?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 12:20:38 2020 No.12315122

>>12315093
>Any global cooling effect is by definition global cooling,
Retard, you claimed global cooling isn't one thing, it's something else, even though it was clear from context (and clear if you had bothered to look up the term) that we were discussing the first thing. Doesn't matter how much equivocation and semantics you bring in., that's not what we were talking about.

>They're synonymous.
Then why do they have two separate wikipedia pages?

>The same in every context.
How can they be the same when one is a net cooling and the other is not?

>Some news article from the 70's doesn't change that.
There's nothing to change.

>Were you looking in the mirror when you typed this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.

Stop posting retard, you're just embarrassing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 12:28:02 2020 No.12315139 >>12305927 t. never read a single Crichton book. Go be a leert shit stain somewhere else

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 12:30:18 2020 No.12315144

>>12315122
>Retard, you claimed global cooling isn't one thing, it's something else
When did I claim that global cooling wasn't a measurable cooling effect caused by aerosols and particulate pollution? That's what it is. The fact that it's not the dominant forcing is irrelevant.

>Then why do they have two separate wikipedia pages?
Probably because some autist like you sperged out and made another page for 50 year old hype.

>How can they be the same when one is a net cooling and the other is not?
Put two pots on the stove on medium heat and blow on one until both boil, then tell me why it takes longer to boil when you blow on it. Here's a hint: it has something to do with heat.

>Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
That conjecture became irrelevant when the magnitude of the warming dwarfed the cooling. It's still a real effect caused by aerosols.

>Stop posting retard, you're just embarrassing yourself
You're so close to self-awareness

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:01:04 2020 No.12315198

>>12315144
>When did I claim that global cooling wasn't a measurable cooling effect caused by aerosols and particulate pollution?
Retard, where did I say you claimed that?

You said
>"Global cooling" isn't about a net cooling effect
When it both by definition and the context of the conversation it is. Now stop posting, your autism is showing.

>Put two pots on the stove on medium heat and blow on one until both boil, then tell me why it takes longer to boil when you blow on it.
If you blow on one but not the other then they aren't the same. Try again. How can they be the same when one is a net cooling and the other is not?

>That conjecture became irrelevant
Irrelevant to what? If someone says "first the consensus said global cooling and now they're saying global warming, therefore I won't listen to them" then it's certainly relevant that the consensus never said that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:13:53 2020 No.12315226

>>12315198
>Retard, where did I say you claimed that?
>Retard, you claimed global cooling isn't one thing, it's something else
When were my claims inconsistent with reality? Is there or is there not a measurable cooling effect caused by aerosols and particulates forming clouds and blocking sunlight?

>When it both by definition and the context of the conversation it is.
By definition, any cooling effect that is global in scale is global cooling. I can accept that the context of your posts excludes global dimming, but only because I'm sure you didn't know it existed.

>If you blow on one but not the other then they aren't the same
You almost have it anon. Now, is a system with just warming the same as a system with warming and cooling? Is the dominant forcing the only forcing, or do both contribute to the net effect?

>Irrelevant to what? If someone says "first the consensus said global cooling and now they're saying global warming, therefore I won't listen to them" then it's certainly relevant that the consensus never said that.
This is what I'm hearing:

>Early climate scientists knew about and measured both warming and cooling on a global scale
>The cooling was found to be caused by aerosols and to interact with the hydrologic cycle
>But the magnitude of the warming was larger
>So the aerosols stopped cooling and don't affect the hydrologic cycle anymore
>Because the Earth isn't cooling
>Only the crazies think aerosols and particulate pollution affect the climate
>There was never any consensus otherwise.

It's asinine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:18:45 2020 No.12315239 >>12315226 >When were my claims inconsistent with reality? The conversation being about global cooling and not global dimming is reality, you dense retard. This is a complete waste of time. Enjoy your autism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:21:28 2020 No.12315242 >>12315239 >The conversation being about global cooling and not global dimming is reality, you dense retard They're the same thing, you dense retard. Enjoy your myopic and incorrect views of climate change.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:24:47 2020 No.12315253 >>12315242 They're not the same, since, as you already admitted, one occurred while the other did not. One is a net affect while the other is not.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:38:11 2020 No.12315304

>>12315253
Your ancient hype about a new ice age is something that never occurred and had no consensus. The cooling effect caused by aerosols is a real, measurable, and widely accepted facet of climate change. The terms global dimming and global cooling are interchangeable because they describe exactly the same thing. The net effect on the system is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:42:05 2020 No.12315315 >>12315304 >Your ancient hype about a new ice age is something that never occurred and had no consensus. Where did I say it did? Learn how to read. >The net effect on the system is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:50:10 2020 No.12315328 >>12315304 the globe can't be warming and cooling at the same time kiddo, you are way over your head here.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:54:08 2020 No.12315336

>>12315315
>Where did I say it did?
Nice reading comprehension. I'm saying that's the only aspect of this conversation I agree with.

>Irrelevant to what?
The terminology and existence of a global cooling effect.

>>12315328
See
>>12313526
What are those blue bars?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 13:57:05 2020 No.12315339 >>12315336 They are radiative forcing factors. The globe isn't cooling.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:01:05 2020 No.12315349

>>12315336
>I'm saying that's the only aspect of this conversation I agree with.
So you're agreeing that global cooling and global dimming are different?

>The terminology and existence of a global cooling effect.
Since global cooling refers to a net effect, it certainly is relevant.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:14:16 2020 No.12315384

>>12315349
>So you're agreeing that global cooling and global dimming are different?
Reading comprehension definitely isn't your forte. I agreed that climate scientists never formed consensus about a net cooling effect, not that only a net cooling can be considered global cooling.

>Since global cooling refers to a net effect, it certainly is relevant
Except that it doesn't refer to a net affect at all. It refers to a cooling effect on a global scale from the effects of aerosols and particulate pollution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:15:37 2020 No.12315388 >>12315339 I never said it was. The net effect of the warming dwarfs the cooling. That's why the bar at the bottom is red.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:20:28 2020 No.12315408 >>12315384 >not that only a net cooling can be considered global cooling. Listen here sport, if the globe isn't cooling, it's not global cooling. You don't know what the words you are trying to use even mean.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:20:56 2020 No.12315411

>>12315384
>Reading comprehension definitely isn't your forte. I agreed that climate scientists never formed consensus about a net cooling effect
I never said you disagreed about that, I'm asking you if you agree that global cooling and global dimming are different.

>not that only a net cooling can be considered global cooling.
You can consider whatever you want, both the context of the discussion and the definition make your response nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:26:00 2020 No.12315421 >>12315408 >Listen here sport, if the globe isn't cooling, it's not global cooling. Except that it is. That's why there's blue bars on that graph. Go read through the thread.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:30:18 2020 No.12315436

>>12315411
>I'm asking you if you agree that global cooling and global dimming are different.
They are the same thing. They are a cooling effect on a global scale caused by aerosols and particulate pollution.

>the context of the discussion
The context of the discussion you were originally having is that he was wrong about a consensus on net cooling and you were wrong about a global cooling effect. You've been arguing that the hysteria is the effect since then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:33:46 2020 No.12315457 >>12315436 >They are the same thing. Then why did you say global cooling never happened but global dimming did?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:35:50 2020 No.12315466 >>12315421 The image doesn't call those bars "global cooling", you have been wrong the entire thread on this point, it's time for you to go to bed.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:56:20 2020 No.12315523

>>12315457
>Then why did you say global cooling never happened but global dimming did?
Again, I didn't. I said there was no consensus that the Earth was experiencing a net cooling effect, not that there was no cooling effect. Global cooling is global dimming. It happened and is still happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 14:58:17 2020 No.12315528 >>12315466 It doesn't call the red bars "global warming" either, that doesn't mean that's not what they represent.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:02:03 2020 No.12315539

>>12315528
The red bars don't represent global warming either, they represent what the graph says they represent which is radiative forcing, the net effect of which is a change in temperature which is called global warming when it's warming and global cooling when it's cooling.
It was a good try though champ, keep it up and you will learn English one day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:12:23 2020 No.12315570 >>12315539 Those forcings are global warming and cooling effects and they add up to a net warming or cooling effect. The fact that the forcing is measurable demonstrates the existence of the effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:16:08 2020 No.12315582 >>12315570 That's not how words work little fellar

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:26:44 2020 No.12315617 >>12315582 That is exactly how words and the climate works. In fact, without that cooling effect the Earth would be warming faster.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:34:29 2020 No.12315634 >>12315617 In b4 in a warming reference frame the globe is actually staying the same temperature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:34:38 2020 No.12315635 >>12315523 >Again, I didn't. You did: >Your ancient hype about a new ice age is something that never occurred and had no consensus. >Global cooling is global dimming No, global cooling didn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:37:16 2020 No.12315644 File: 58 KB, 600x600, 1_0pqxMxqo50hvgQvKD7WavQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] So many posts ITT.... And yet so few things said.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:41:04 2020 No.12315654

>>12315635
That's some pretty terrible reading comprehension. I'm very specific in that sentence.

>No, global cooling didn't happen
It did, and a bunch of Ethiopians starved because their hydrologic cycle was completely fucked. It's still happening, which is why it's measurable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:43:36 2020 No.12315664 >>12315634 Wouldn't that imply that the past is cooling?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:59:27 2020 No.12315717 We cannot measure all the ocean's temperature, and even all the air temeperature. It's better behaving like dog can bite you, despite he won't. There's no planet B.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:08:30 2020 No.12315746

>>12315654
>That's some pretty terrible reading comprehension. I'm very specific in that sentence.
You specifically said global cooling didn't happen.

>It's still happening, which is why it's measurable.
So you think the Earth is cooling overall? Because that's what global cooling means. To use your own argument: Cooling overall is the same as global cooling.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:26:12 2020 No.12315831

>>12315746
>You specifically said global cooling didn't happen.
No, I specifically said there was no scientific consensus about a new ice age.

>So you think the Earth is cooling overall?
Are you denying the cooling effect of global dimming? Because that's what this comes down to. It's a global phenomenon that cools the system. The fact that the Earth is still warming demonstrates that global warming is the larger effect and also means that it would be larger without that cooling. Remember blowing on the pots? Both still boil, one just takes a little longer.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:09:03 2020 No.12316098

>>12315831
>No, I specifically said there was no scientific consensus about a new ice age.
Non sequitur. You also said that it never happened.

>Are you denying the cooling effect of global dimming?
No, now answer the question.

>Because that's what this comes down to.
No, it comes down to you failing to understand what a phrase means even though it's clear from context and clear if you had looked it up. Keep posting semantic garbage, it doesn't affect that simple fact.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:23:00 2020 No.12316364

>>12316098
>You also said that it never happened.
I *only* said that never happened. This is exactly what I mean about your reading comprehension.

>No, it comes down to you failing to understand what a phrase means even though it's clear from context and clear if you had looked it up.
The irony.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:24:02 2020 No.12316366 >>12316098 >>12316364 Oh yeah, and see any of my previous posts for the answer to your question.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:56:43 2020 No.12317213

>>12314486
>CO2 makes it harder for the heat to go back, therefore temperature increases here on earth.
Alright, so now the question is.
"how hot will the sun make us. Not "how hot will the CO2 make us". The CO2 is only capacitizing what the sun can output.

>>12314663
>Saying the article could be wrong is not a refutation.
nor a confirmation

>So your posts are refuted.
as are wiki's.

>It has a premise and a conclusion,
No, it's me requoting wiki's own foundational premise. Which is "we're not accurate but we can try", more or less.

>So it's not a refutation.
It's not refutable, because it's not scientific. It's a redescriber.

>What question retard?
See? You lost track. Go unfuck yourself, I have better things to do.

>>12314699
>Again, I'm taking about causing warming not "causing heat."
>blah blah I'm ignoring the point that the heat/warming is caused by things that actually warm and heat other things. Something that has energy, unlike a insulator which insulates energy and ideally remains inert
Whatever.

>The Sun is sending less energy to Earth now, yet the temperature is increasing. How is this possible if the energy going in is the only factor causing the Earth's temperature change?
Increasing where? I'm cold as fuck right now.

>The Sun is not a thermostat,
No, but it does control whether or not there even is a tempurature to measure.
>it doesn't care how much heat the Earth .
Yes
>It doesn't adjust to make up for more insulation in Earth's atmospheres losing.
Yes
>So more Co2 = less change?
Yes.
>The insulation causes cooling
No.
>Without the insulation the temperature would be higher.
In some places that have direct sun yes. Like on mercury. However that also means you get even colder temperatures, like you see on the dark side of mercury. The disparity in temp would be higher.
>How is it absurd?
It's not increasing the heat, it's decreasing the disparity.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:07:50 2020 No.12317236

>>12314699
>I already showed how not just the heater does that. You lose.
Well an insulator doesn't raise the temperature is all I'm saying.

>Then why do we use insulation?
To prevent heat from being lost. It doesn't increase it, it prevents it from being lost.

>You don't need to produce heat to change the temperature
I guess not, but to raise it you need a heat source of some sort.

>Heat is both being produced and lost
..yeah, by the fucking heater, not the insulation.

>>12314704
>I'm not, the Sun is not a thermostat,
Such a sniveling sophist that you immediately take the analogy too far. Not reading or responding to the rest of your shit post, go fuck yourself.

>>12314731
>The heaters max output is a certain amount of heat, not a temperature.
Wow! The amount of heat increased even though the heater is at its maximum output!
Okay, does the temperature increase then? If not then, WOW, you still have 70 degrees!

>>12314771
>Holy shit, you are dumb. No wonder you deny science.
Because it's falsifiable?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 15:46:37 2020 No.12319048 >>12316366 You didn't answer the question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 15:49:43 2020 No.12319060 >>12316364 >I only said that never happened. "That" being global cooling right? But I thought global cooling is "the same" as global dimming, which you said did happen. How confusing.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 15:57:07 2020 No.12319108

>>12317213
>nor a confirmation
So it's not refuted as you claimed. Thanks.

>as are wiki's
No, that's refuted since you said it.

>No, it's me requoting wiki's own foundational premise.
It's you drawing a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise you paraphrased.

>Which is "we're not accurate but we can try", more or less.
More misrepresentation.

>It's not refutable
Them why did you claim it's refuted?

>It's not refutable, because it's not scientific
Doesn't follow. Descriptions are either accurate or inaccurate.

>See? You lost track.
There is no question. Every time you get BTFO you project. You're fucking pathetic.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 16:10:12 2020 No.12319154

>>12317213
>>blah blah I'm ignoring the point that the heat/warming is caused by things that actually warm and heat other things.
It's not, I already explained this and you have no response.

>Increasing where? I'm cold as fuck right now.
So you don't understand how averages work? Is this a troll or are you actually mentally ill?

>No, but it does control whether or not there even is a tempurature to measure.
And how is that relevant? Is the Sun in danger of disappearing?

>>So more Co2 = less change?
>Yes
Wrong, retard.

>>The insulation causes cooling
>No.
Wrong, retard.

>It's not increasing the heat, it's decreasing the disparity.
By Increasing the heat. Dumb semantic schizo.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 16:18:44 2020 No.12319187

>>12317236
>Well an insulator doesn't raise the temperature is all I'm saying.
All you're saying is incorrect.

>To prevent heat from being lost.
Why would we care about heat being lost if it doesn't cause the temperature to change?

>It doesn't increase it, it prevents it from being lost.
Preventing it from being lost increases heat.

>I guess not, but to raise it you need a heat source of some sort.
We akready have one.

>..yeah, by the fucking heater, not the insulation.
The heater doesn't lose heat, the house does. The insulation prevents heat from being lost by the house, which causes heat to increase. You lose.

>Such a sniveling sophist that you immediately take the analogy too far.
I corrected the analogy. There is no thermostat.

>Not reading or responding to the rest of your shit post
Because you know you're wrong.

>Wow! The amount of heat increased even though the heater is at its maximum output!
Wow! So you about that the retarded lie you've been repeating throughout the thread is wrong! Amazing!

>Okay, does the temperature increase then?
Yes! Did you not pass elementary school physics? Or maybe you aren't old enough?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 16:22:16 2020 No.12319197 If CO2 was an insulator it would insulate the earth from the sun and we'd get cooler as the heat escapes into the deep ocean. /sci/ is retarded as usual.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 18:15:04 2020 No.12319538 >>12319048 >>12319060 I have answered the question so many times that you asking must be a joke. >"That" being global cooling right? No, "that" being a consensus that the net effect would be cooling. The global cooling effect is existent and ongoing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 18:26:20 2020 No.12319583 >>12319197 why are the people on this board so stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 18:28:34 2020 No.12319592 >>12319583 You're here so why don't you explain why?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 18:35:25 2020 No.12319608 >>12319197 >If CO2 was an insulator it would insulate the earth from the sun Do you understand what the greenhouse effect is? Because if you did you would not ask such a moronic question.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 18:45:13 2020 No.12319638

>>12319538
>I have answered the question so many times that you asking must be a joke.
You answered the question both ways, since you claim global cooling both isn't happening and is happening. I'd like you to clarify which one you actually believe.

>No, "that" being a consensus that the net effect would be cooling.
So the new ice age did happen or didn't happen? Can you just answer the question instead of trying to deflect by talking about a consensus?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 19:10:15 2020 No.12319714 File: 57 KB, 688x430, Guenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12319592 so are you so obviously you are too stupid to understand the explanation so why even ask? Because you are stupid that's why. Nice symbiotic circle isn't it

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 19:18:22 2020 No.12319757

>>12319108
>So it's not refuted as you claimed
Wikipedia made the claim
>No, that's refuted since you said it.
What someone says is irrelevant to refuting something.
>It's you drawing a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise you paraphrased.
So wiki's conclusion doesn't follow it's own premise? I agree since it both posts info and at the same time negates it by not being able to confirm what's being posted.
>More misrepresentation
Whatever, the terms are there for you to interpret.
>Them why did you claim it's refuted?
I posted facts that prove it refutes itself. I never claimed anything.
>Doesn't follow.
Wiki doesn't test anything
>Descriptions are either accurate or inaccurate.
Which is exactly what makes them useless.
>There is no question.
And now you just forgot entirely. Why post at all?
>>12319154
>It's not, I already explained this and you have no response.
The ultimatum I gave about the sun and earth causing both makes it irrelevant.
>So you don't understand how averages work?
What does an average have to do with anything? The heater still puts out 70 fucking degrees. The "Average" will never go past 70.
>And how is that relevant?
It means that ultimately an insulator doesn't cause heat or is a heat source. It prevents it from leaving.
>Wrong, retard.
But that's what an insulator does.
>Wrong, retard.
So don't put ice in your thermos and see if your water gets cold. Retard.
>By Increasing the heat.
No. By preventing the heat from leaving. If the heater goes to 70, the more insulation you add then the more likely the room will REMAIN 70. Change it to 80 and the thermal equilibrium will reach that.
>>12319187
>All you're saying is incorrect.
Then tell me what the average heat output of an insulator then? No heat, no change in temp.
>Why would we care about heat being lost if it doesn't cause the temperature to change?
It doesn't at the source, but if you care to increase that magnitude then you need an insulator at the perimeter.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 19:24:01 2020 No.12319780
File: 3.60 MB, 480x354, 1566444222291.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12319187
>We akready have one.
So stop letting the heat out of the house and close the window Timmy!

>The heater doesn't lose heat, the house does.
YES

>The insulation prevents heat from being lost by the house
Which is what I've said countless times now.

>which causes heat to increase
So dumb. No. It prevents it from being lost, as you just said. There is no "increase" in the 100% output coming out of the fucking heater! There is this disconnect here where you think that not losing something is gaining something. No. It's not the stock market. It's not an investment. If you have something and give it away, you don't magically get more of that something. How fucking stupid are you?

>I corrected the analogy.
That stupid apparently. Disregarding the rest of your pointless gibberish.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 20:11:44 2020 No.12319955

What the fuck is this thread.

300+ posts of arguing with climate change deniers and schizos.
Looks like most threads in /sci/ that get any traction have /x/-tier topics or are pure bait. Why do you retards waste your energy arguing here? Just ignore dumb shit like this thread.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 21:00:57 2020 No.12320076

>>12319757
>Wikipedia made the claim
It didn't, you did.

>What someone says is irrelevant to refuting something.
You claim that who says something automatically refutes it.

>So wiki's conclusion doesn't follow it's own premise?
The conclusion you made up doesn't follow.

>I agree since it both posts info and at the same time negates it by not being able to confirm what's being posted.
The citations confirm it.

>I posted facts that prove it refutes itself. I never claimed anything.
Why are you lying?

>Wiki doesn't test anything
Non sequitur

>Which is exactly what makes them useless.
That's an inaccurate description.

>And now you just forgot entirely.
What did I forget? It should be simple to quote yourself if it's so obvious that there was a question. Every time you fail to do so confirms you're projecting your failures onto others.

>The ultimatum I gave about the sun and earth causing both makes it irrelevant.
You must be delusional if you think an ultimatum that contradicts basic physics makes basic physics irrelevant.

>What does an average have to do with anything?
What does an average have to do with the average global temperature increasing? Tough question.

>The heater still puts out 70 fucking degrees.
Literal gibberish. This has already been explained to you and you admitted insulators cause warming. There is nothing more to discuss other than your deep deep insecurity.

>It means that ultimately an insulator doesn't cause heat or is a heat source.
Oh, still trying this pathetic misrepresentation? You lose, again.

>But that's what an insulator does.
Nope, more CO2 causes warming.

>So don't put ice in your thermos and see if your water gets cold.
What are you talking about moron? Putting ice in your water is not adding insulation. Putting water with ice in your thermos is adding insulation to it and makes it colder than it would be out of it.

>No. By preventing the heat from leaving.
Preventing heat from leaving is increasing heat. Loser.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 21:05:24 2020 No.12320087

>>12319757
>If the heater goes to 70, the more insulation you add then the more likely the room will REMAIN 70.
No, the temperature will go up if you add more insulation, because less heat is leaving. The temperature is a result of the heater inputting heat and heat leaving the house. You already understand this, you're just shitposting.

>Then tell me what the average heat output of an insulator then?
Gibberish.

>No heat, no change in temp.
There is already heat.

>It doesn't at the source
Irrelevant, we care about what happens to the temperature of the house, not the heater. Dumb schizo.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 21:18:58 2020 No.12320143

>>12319780
>So stop letting the heat out of the house and close the window Timmy!
Why would I care about letting less heat out of the house if it doesn't cause a temperature change?

>YES
So all of your posts are wrong. Thanks.

>Which is what I've said countless times now.
Yes, and countless times you've failed to understand what it means.

>So dumb. No. It prevents it from being lost, as you just said.
Preventing heat from being lost increases heat. You lose.

>There is no "increase" in the 100% output coming out of the fucking heater!
I never said there was, mentally ill retard!

>There is this disconnect here where you think that not losing something is gaining something.
There is indeed a disconnect, between your defective brain and reality. Less heat leaving Earth means more heat on Earth. No matter how many times you try to rephrase this, it doesn't change.

>That stupid apparently. Disregarding the rest of your pointless gibberish.
Because you know you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 21:20:25 2020 No.12320147 >>12319757 >>Wow! The amount of heat increased even though the heater is at its maximum output! You lose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 21:21:28 2020 No.12320149 >>12319780 >Wow! The amount of heat increased even though the heater is at its maximum output! You lose.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math