You seem to be looking for a slightly misleading representation of what the "greenhouse effect" actually means to go on an irrelevant tangent about whether or n

You seem to be looking for a slightly misleading representation of what the "greenhouse effect" actually means to go on an irrelevant tangent about whether or not CO2 and methane cause global warming. If you ignore the term "greenhouse" and just think about the physical process by which the Earth's temperature changes, you will see that what I said is much more accurate than your silly interjection about what greenhouse means. I am sure you understand that the Earth is not in any sort of thermal equilibrium, but you keep saying that. It's like you just ignore the Sun, which is what drives the whole process, and only consider what would happen if you had a solid and a gas under thermal equilibrium, and then changed the gas, which is completely irrelevant to how atmospheric temperature changes depending on the contents of the atmosphere (and assuming changes in Sun radiation are neglibigle). I really think you're intentionally trying to murk the waters to troll us all.