ChatGPT is retarded
>>944847734Yeah I haven't used it since last year.A few days ago I asked it a question about a video game if it has skins and he went full retarded after I asked him twice if he's sure then he said you're right it has skins in it.I think it's just a thing they added to it so people buy the subscriptions.Because I'm 100% sure it wasn't this retarded a year ago.
>>944847734You're retarded for asking the question in a profoundly stupid manner. It's not even English.
>>944847734Here's what happens when a white person asks the same thing.
chatgpt could tell you were an ESL retarded faggot and decided to troll you
>>944848121What it tells me is Google and whoever better be damned careful inhaling megatons of web page disinformation from countries with sketchy governments, designed to deliberately poison "common knowledge" out there. Did it even bother changing the language or was it just presented that way in the original?
>>944847734it DID give you the answer in japanese lmao
>>944847996yep. it was way smarter last year. in fact the audio version is 100% useless now. it was pretty legit for a minute. it did accents and sang songs and shit. now its just a useless piece of shit. its a shame.. we almost had something good in this world
>>944847734It's not just a retard but also a faggot.
>>944847734>asks a question in broken, nonsensical english>gets an answer in Japanese, as accidentally requested>gets confused and offendedFound the actual retard
CHADgpt is for whites ONLY asking for an answer in broken english? sorry ranjeep here's some japanese instead you streetshitter lmao
>>944847734Just use grok
ChatSkibidi
>>944848443even worse and its nazi coded
>>944848490>worseit's actually better. grok and gemini are better than gpt's cause they research in real time instead of using databanks
>>944848804i like gemini once and a while. but ive yet to like grok for anything except jail breakinggemini for home is cancereach has a use ig
>>944848898Gemini is really intelligent but I recall it being brainwashed by leftists, is it still so?
>>944848948none of them are brainwashed except grok. the rest are data driven
>>944849046>the rest are data drivenKek, they lean left on race realism and transgender stuff and dating stuff
>>944849128>they lean leftso does the data
>>944848804>geminiGemini is the worst out of all the ones I've tried. it's lefty as fuck and gets basic shit wrong. It tells me there is 1 pint in a quart, it fucks up temperature conversions. Then you give it the ultimate test: something about Trump. Ask "did trump say we should drink bleach" or "did trump say dead soldiers are suckers and losers" and it will back up the lies. You can see the sources on the right and it's The Hill, MSNBC, etc. Ask it to not use left-leaning sources and it refuses to, then gets stuck in a loop repeating the same answers.
>>944847734Chat gpt is a machine. It is not smart or dumb, it simply regurgitates words found on the internet. You're the retard for using it.
>>944849472Newsflash: you're also a machine
>>944849291>using ai to enforce political viewsholy leftard npc moment
>>944850708It's just a test, anon. You can also use climate change.>is a consensus scientific?>"no, science relies on repeatable observations">Is there evidence that climate change is real?>"yes, there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening">but you said a consensus isn't scientific>"Yes, a consensus isn't scientific, but there is a consensus that climate change is happening"Keep poking at it, going in circles, until...>"I am only able to provide you with the responses I was given in 2021"You can figure out what that AI was built from by breaking it.I also don't know any lefties who know that "he told us to drink bleach" is a Dem lie.
>>944847996It’s significantly dumber and it’s “cage” is mush tighterIt’s no where near what it was.This version feels almost a bootleg
>>944851126drop the redpill thesis on climate change
>>944851614wut?
>>944851646explain what the actual truth is that "they're" hiding
>>944851646drop its prefered propaganda on climate change. i speak some poorfag mutt despite not being from the same subspecies.
>>944851704>>944851722It's as real as ghosts. There's no evidence of it happening. All the sharp increases they post are from models. The real data is relatively flat. They have never shown CO2 to cause warming anywhere and there have never been observations of it happening. It is 100% based on models. Models that don't match reality.Remember how they were saying the Palisades fire was caused by record temps caused by climate change? Here's the NOAA V4 data from LAX, and you can see it's relatively flat. This applies to everything everywhere.
>>944851983maybe I’m missing something but wouldn’t the hottest day of the year be dominated by random weather noise?
>>944851983do not speak to me in those tones subhuman fiend. i do not care whether it exists or not.
>>944847996I was subscribed, and I ended my subscription because it was basically becoming useless.
>>944852080It's all noise, but you can still have a max.Here's the precip for the same place.
>>944852234doesn’t that kind of prove the point about noise? if annual rain at one station is basically random, why would the single hottest day per year be a valuable data point?
>>944852286It's not. I'm showing that there isn't a trend that the models always show. The hottest year evah in the US is still 1934. In the UK it's still 1976. The modeled upward trends are not found in reality.
>>944852401so trends only count if records keep breaking?then how can any noisy measurement ever have a trend?
>>944852628What are you talking about? Yes, the data is noisy, but it's noisy within a band. What AGW claims is that CO2 warms the planet, their models showing hoe temps are increasing. But temps aren't increasing, because CO2 has never been shown to do what they claim. They have disproven their own theories by looking for this "signal" or "fingerprint" themselves and proving it's not there. All this hype around carbon is completely made up. All these taxes, ruining the landscape, rising electricity prices, it's all a government scam.
>>944852858if temperatures aren’t increasing, what are NOAA and Berkeley Earth measuring when their thermometer-based averages rise year after year?
>>944852935>what are NOAA and Berkeley Earth measuringThey don't measure anything and they're not using thermometers. It's all models. Models they keep adjusting to be hotter. You look at those acronyms in the upper left hand corner, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, those are simulations using made up number to represent CO2's influence, influence that has never been measured or observed.
>>944853060when NOAA and Berkeley Earth say they use station measurements, buoys, and ship records, you’re saying those physical instruments don’t exist or aren’t used, and the temperatures are generated by simulations instead?because if thermometers are involved anywhere in the pipeline, then "they don’t measure anything” can’t be true.
>>944853240>NOAANOAA has two sides. The public facing side shows hockey sticks and you see them all over activist sites. Then they have the data side that they don't like to publicize. The charts above are from NOAA. They are still slightly adjusted but it's the best we have since they destroyed everything else during the climategates.Berkeley doesn't have shit. All they do is take NOAA's ground stations and do a "reanalysis" through models to publish their "findings".All models are built on /something/. There is a basis of truth that they started with. They are called CAMs - Climate Attributed Models after all, but then flat trends are twisted into hockey sticks to scare people.ΔT2×CO2=λ⋅5.35ln(2)This is the control knob. This is what controls how much warming will occur in the model. That 5.3 in the middle. It's made up. It didn't come from anywhere except it seemed to work to get the results they wanted to see. They also change this when needed.We also have other problems. The number of reliable ground stations is relatively sparse, and we keep losing more every year. I think the US is at ~800 now, and not all of them are high quality. They also play games with simulating temps around the globe. They use these models and combine averaged grids (or they make it up completely) to claim that other areas are warming or cooling, even though they have no idea. Then they claim it's the hottest year evah. One recent hottest year evah was based on stations that didn't exist. There was no physical station or station number or anything, just lies. Another hottest year was them averaging a slight warming in the arctic (still below freezing) with cooling in the habitable latitudes. The fact is we don't really know but nothing else shows that it's the hottest evah.
>>944853060I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You read "model" and decided it's a simulation independent from measures and thermometers. It's about the same as saying they're using computers, so their data is worthless.These, by the way, are average temperatures in my city, as measured by the local meteo station. You deliberately picked max temperatures instead, and in a city where it wouldn't show anything - which matters, because here the max temperature was reached this August, and previously the record was held by 2023. All the data is public as soon as it's known, and available on the meteo france website.Global warming is a global phenomenon. You're trying to disprove cancer by looking at one non-cancerous cell on a healthy person using a looking glass instead of a microscope, and claiming oncologists are hacks because you can't see any cancer at all.
>>944853699ok so it sounds like once data is averaged, corrected, or fills gaps, you just call it fakeunder that rule global temperature is literally unknowable by definition, not just for climate but for anythingif that’s the standard then there’s nothing left to argue
>>944853723And does Mateo France adjust numbers like NOAA and Metoffice do? Here's the JMA data for that location. JMA shows most of France has been cooling since 2000.I'm not sure if this graph will link correctly.https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/climatview/graph_mkhtml.php?&n=7630&p=999&s=2&r=2&y=2022&m=5&e=0&k=1&d=0or maybehttps://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/climatview/list.php?&s=2&r=2&y=2022&m=5&e=0&k=1
>>944853983>averagedAverages across areas are meaningless.>correctedWhat is a correction? Why do you need to correct something?>fills gapsLike gaps in unmeasured land areas? That's just fucking lying.>you just call it fakeModels are fake, yes. They don't match measurements and rely on CO2 warming things, something that still has not been shown to be possible.>global temperature is literally unknowable by definitionThis is true, and it's a stupid thing to measure. You can't really have state averages. Are you going to average Death Valley with Yosemite and with Redwood park? You can't even average your house properly. You have sunny windows, warm areas behind the fridge, cool bathrooms, etc.
>>944854125See, that's what I'm talking about. This is deliberately noisy data. It is made completely unreadable so that even if there's a clear tendency, it can't help but be obfuscated.What I'm linking is temperature data from the thermometers of an individual station, averaged by year. It's about as raw as you can make it without it being unparseable - there's no other transformation going on than an arithmetic average. Here's data for the north of my country. The graph shows max high and low temps, average high and low temps, and average temps.You're just drowning in confirmation bias since you've decided The Elites were lying to you. Have you ever tried to prove yourself wrong instead of looking for ways to confirm your prexisting beliefs? Because that's how you do science.
>>944854257ok so averages are meaningless, corrections are lying, gap-filling is fake, and global quantities can’t existby that logic global rainfall, global sea level, global population, and even “average body temp” are all fake concepts toothat’s not a climate argument, that’s just rejecting statistics as a way of knowing anything
>>944854388>temperature data from the thermometers of an individual stationHow do I know that?>Have you ever tried to prove yourself wrongMany, many times. It's been at least a couple decades of looking. There's simply no evidence of CO2 causing any warming. It's possible your are is getting warmer for whatever reason, but it's not CO2. Maybe the city is building up around the station.
>>944854574It's like you're not even reading anymore.
>>944854704I just linked you the data from two different stations, from Lille, in the north of France, and Toulouse, 1000km to the south.>How do I know that?I mean, by that token you can dismiss absolutely any evidence at all. Maybe all the thermometers in France are broken in a way that is congruent. Maybe french scientists are putting heat lamps near the sensors to affect the readings. What we're told is that these are the temperatures registered by the sensors, each individual station's sensors are publicly available at all times in real time, and there hasn't been even one meteorologist, scientist, intern, engineer, journalist or visitor to be the whistleblower and tell us the sensors are faked.So yeah, maybe France is getting hotter, somehow, while the rest of the world is getting colder, somehow. Maybe global climate is a mystery that is destined to remain unknowable. Maybe there's a worldwide conspiracy paid for by Big Windmill, who can afford to win a propaganda war because Big Oil is the least influential lobby in the world.But looking at the noisest data you can find and denouncing the use of models when - by your own admission - individual sensor data doesn't cut it is not disproving anything. It's nothing more than blinding yourself and claiming that since you can't see anything, anyone seeing things is a fucking liar.
>>944855199I will add another thing that doesn't happen : I've never noticed a discrepancy between the thermometer on the wall of my house and the available reading of the closest meteo station. Granted, I haven't been looking for it. But with climate denialism on the rise, I would very surprised if such a discrepancy existed and hadn't been flagged by people.
>>944854704As for your theory of the city building up, here is the data for the Mont Aigoual station. It's an isolated station on the windiest mountaintop in France. I trek around there on occasion. Very inhospitable. Google will show you how much urbanization there's been around it.
Actually I'll post the Mont Aigoual observatory and meteorological station myself because I love that place.
>>944855964Aiougal deez nuts
>>944855964It's pretty beautiful
>>944855199>each individual station's sensors are publicly available at all times in real timeCan you give me a link to this? I would love t see this. It's rather rare. If what you're saying is true, then it may be that you have a realizable weather reporting system. I was skeptical because most of the others add in modeled data before it gets reported. NOAA was caught a few years ago changing the day's temps overnight for New York, so at 11:00 it would say a high of 82°F or whatever, but then the next morning it would say 88°. It's very difficult to find trustworthy agencies.>So yeah, maybe France is getting hotter, somehowI don't know, because I see Kirye created a France chart using JMA and almost every area is cooler since 2000. The globe is also /slightly/ warming because we're still trying to come out of this ice age.>Maybe global climate is a mystery that is destined to remain unknowableI think this is the statement of the century. Climate is a glowing example of a chaotic system. It doesn't matter if you you put a station on every square meter of available land, it only becomes more chaotic.>Maybe there's a worldwide conspiracy paid for by Big WindmillIt's massive control and trillions of dollars. In the US, the oil companies are pushing renewables. It's a massive business>denouncing the use of modelsThe noise doesn't matter, it's the clear departure from the measurements, smoothed or not, and the models that don't operate on reality. Even Gavin Schmidt says the models are running too hot. They NEED to fake it to crate scary graphs to say "hottest year evah". When was France's hottest year? Looks like is was 122°F in 1930.We would all be better informed if models were banned and we only saw the data, and if a station was reporting oddly, it gets removed, not corrected.
>>944855439>I've never noticed a discrepancy between the thermometer on the wall of my house and the available reading of the closest meteo stationLike I said above, then it looks like you have a robust system. People in the US who have their own weather stations noticed this discrepancy. The Weather Underground used to use user data on their maps before The Weather Company bought them. The historical data of these personal stations were disagreeing with the "official" readings so they got rid of the personal stations.
>>944855964That's fucking beautiful, anon.
