>>12308204And 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 overBecause 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 sourceOkay, 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?
