@Srinath The most salient thing I observe is that your words don’t have nearly the sting they would if they were backed by psychic currents which you no longer generate! @Miguel’s post was thus far more effective at using the same type of approach — ie not evaluating the arguments but making an appeal to groupthink authority — than yours.
I’m reminded of what Vineeto wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 (emphasis added):
VINEETO: However, should a newly free person abandon the pure intent to become fully free and thus become complacent and entrenched within the shadow identity of their social guardian they would be thinking and acting similar to their former self, but without the fierceness of the instinctual passions – like a toothless tiger. Then the very idea to have this newly established identity abdicate can produce some strong resistance. It’s a matter of one’s metal, I suppose.
V List D Alan
In any case as there’s no critique of the arguments there isn’t much to discuss. However, as to:
There’s no need to delve deeply into the math or physics of these matters. All you have to do is observe that a cold thing never heats a hotter thing that it is being heated by — if you stand next to a fireplace you don’t make the fire hotter, if you boil water on the stove the pot doesn’t make the stove hotter, if you stand next to a cold wall the wall doesn’t make you hotter.
Then you have to understand that the greenhouse effect is described to be that the cold atmosphere is heating its heat source - the Earth - by +33C.
Then you just put two and two together and see that they’re describing a physically impossible phenomenon!
What about your total experience of never having witnessed a cold thing heat a hot thing?
Cheers,
Claudiu