My Girlfriend's Brother Doesn't Believe in Climate Change

[VivaRevolution]

Do you disagree? You think it's possible to give someone something they already own?

Do you often go get one of your father's old hammers out of the garage, gift wrap it, and give it to him on his birthday?

Do you go get an old tie and give it to him again on Father's Day?

I'm seriously having a hard time understanding how you can be this stupid. How can the the government, or anyone, give/furnish/supply someone with something that never belonged to the government?

What is it that was always theirs?

Because I have clearly stated, I am not talking about money.

The pecuniary aid is lowering their tax rate. Relating to money. The tax rate is the aid.

 

[Starman]

What is it that was always theirs?

Their income.

Because I have clearly stated, I am not talking about money.

The pecuniary aid is lowering their tax rate. Relating to money. The tax rate is the aid.

You can continue to play semantics as much as you want. You are, in fact, arguing that the government can subsidize a company by allowing them to keep more of their own money. That is an inherently illogical position to take. You can't furnish/give/supply direct aid to anyone by "giving" them something that was never yours and always theirs.

 

[Helden]

Source?



Source?

Are these fake too? Is Patrick Moore, PhD in Ecology and, B.Sc. in Forest Biology, former president of Greenpeace, not a reputable source?

What about Richard Lindzen, a Harvard educated atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He was also a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks." Is he not a reputable source?

What about Fred Singer (an atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia); Eigil Friis-Christensen (a Danish geophysicist); John Raymond Christy (M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences and a climate scientist at the University of Alabama); and Roy Warren Spencer (B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin)? Are they not reputable?

What about Ivar Giaver, a Norwegian-American physicist and professor of biophysics who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973?

What about William Happer, a Princeton educated physicist who specializes in atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy? He is currently a Professor of Physics at Princeton University, and also served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H. W. Bush administration. Are those credentials not enough?

















Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#10f038f94c7c

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming
https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

Climate Change: No, It's Not a 97 Percent Consensus
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists have admitted that their forecast computers exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.

They have conceded to the reality of the global warming ‘pause’, which has seen no significant increase in warming for the last two decades, and concede that their computer models did not predict it. They have also admitted that they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world have been as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why

One of the IPCC's own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, accused IPCC reports of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said these facts, confirmed by the IPCC, show that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the IPCC's report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.

What's most puzzling to me is how the Left can continue to blindly and arrogantly proclaim that "the science is settled" and that you have "overwhelming consensus." Neither claim is true.

Ughh.. here we go again, so much bullshit copy pasted from a denialist webpage presented as "facts" (I swear I've seen your exact post before, in the exact same layout... let me see if I can find where you copied it from)

Maybe try having an original thought for once.. you named like 10 scientists, that I don't have time to individually cross check and act like thats some evidence. Half of them you quoted completely out of context (once again pure partisam dishonesty from you)... You dont actually care what the facts are, you have decided what the conclusion is and proceeded to google search for your confirmation bias. And yes, Patrick Moore is full of shit.

Your links arent actual peer reviewed studies of anything.. just opinion pages written by "climate skeptics".. like that 40% of scientists denying AGW one.. (your 30,000 claim got destroyed so now you are switching to 40%)

What is the point of even arguing with you? You dont care for facts, as long as the conclusion is what you prefer rather than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community

You cherry pick things like "Antarctic ice grew" completely ignoring the fact that Greenland ice shrunk and its a well known fact that we are at a net loss of ice globally.. So how can I discuss anything with you or even treat you with respect when you show such blatant, unapologetic dishonesty?

 

[Buck Swope]

throat fuck him?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Their income.

Cool, because the government isn't giving them aid in their income, they are giving them aid in lowering their tax rate.

Glad that we could clear up how clearly a tax break is a subsidy.

 

[Starman]

Ughh.. here we go again, so much bullshit copy pasted from a denialist webpage presented as "facts" (I swear I've seen your exact post before, in the exact same layout... let me see if I can find where you copied it from)

You are right, I did copy it... from myself. The last time this argument came up.

Maybe try having an original thought for once.. you named like 10 scientists, that I don't have time to individually cross check and act like thats some evidence.

If you don't have time to cross-check, how do you know if it is true or not?

As for your claim of evidence, evidence of what? I made no claim except that there is no consensus. There isn't. Never mind the fact that there is no such things as a consensus in science, and even if there were, it wouldn't make the claim true.

Half of them you quoted completely out of context (once again pure partisam dishonesty from you)...

How are the videos quoting them out of context? It's the scientists themselves who made those videos. If anything I quoted isn't true, prove it.

You dont actually care what the facts are, you have decided what the conclusion is and proceeded to google search for your confirmation bias. And yes, Patrick Moore is full of shit.

Why is he full of shit? What did he say that was wrong or untrue?

Your links arent actual peer reviewed studies of anything.. just opinion pages written by "climate skeptics..."

There are plenty of peer reviewed studies from scientists who don't agree with your mythical "consensus." And whatever form their argument is presented in does not matter. You still have an obligation to prove them wrong if you are going to claim that they are wrong.

But you're right, the work of highly credentialed scientists obviously can't stand up to your rigorous standards of a graph you found on the internet.

Like that 40% of scientists denying AGW one.. (your 30,000 claim got destroyed so now you are switching to 40%)

No, the 30,000 "claim" didn't get destroyed. You said the list was shit, fake, etc... but provided no evidence for that claim.

As for the "40% of scientists" number, again, I didn't make that claim. I simply posted the article. If it is false, it's up to you to prove it. Tell me why it is false.

What is the point of even arguing with you?

I don't know. You're the one who wasted your time by coming in here saying what a waste of time it was for you to waste your time arguing. And then proceeded to prove what a waste of time it was by wasting even more of your time wasting your time.

You dont care for facts, as long as the conclusion is what you prefer rather than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community/

There is no "over-whelming majority" in the scientific community. That's a load of shit. There is an overwhelming majority of media, leftist politicians, and dumb college kids who believe in global cooling / global warming / climate change. And you all seem to think the only evidence you need is the claim "an overwhelming majority of like-minded idiots agree with me!"

You cherry pick things like "Antarctic ice grew" completely ignoring the fact that Greenland ice shrunk and its a well known fact that we are at a net loss of ice globally.. So how can I discuss anything with you or even treat you with respect when you show such blatant, unapologetic dishonesty?

I didn't cherry pick anything. I posted the arguments of highly credentialed scientists who disagree with your wild theories. You don't just get to claim that everyone you disagree with is "full of shit". You have to disprove their arguments. If you can't, or won't, then STFU already.

 

[Starman]

Cool, because the government isn't giving them aid in their income, they are giving them aid in lowering their tax rate.

You can't give someone direct pecuniary aid unless you actually give them something, money or otherwise. Not taking is in no way the same as giving. Do you disagree?

Glad that we could clear up how clearly a tax break is a subsidy.

The only thing we cleared up is your vicious assault on common sense, and the complete inability to tell a verb from an adjective.

 

[Helden]

This autistic screeching is getting tiresome
You post the article regarding an already debunked bullshit petition that included fake names, names of scientists that never existed as well as fucking spice girls
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

That petition got debunked the same year it got published.. Yes, the 30,000 scientist argument did get destroyed, you are just reaching now



Do you understand that the 10 scientists you mentioned, half of them know nothing about climate science.. like Ivar Giaever who did literally zero research into the subject and predominantly worked on superconductors. His opinion is not backed up by anything and who gives a shit? There are scientists who still deny evolution.. I don't care for opinions, I care for scientific facts. I challenge you to find me a hand full of peer reviewed papers challenging AGW

 

[VivaRevolution]

You can't give someone direct pecuniary aid unless you actually give them something, money or otherwise. Not taking is in no way the same as giving. Do you disagree?



The only thing we cleared up is your vicious assault on common sense, and the complete inability to tell a verb from an adjective.

They are giving a lower tax rate. How many times do I have to say this?

 

[Starman]

They are giving a lower tax rate. How many times do I have to say this?

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. Tax breaks aren't "Direct pecuniary aid." Direct pecuniary aid is when the government takes money from one person or business and gives it to another. Taking less money from you is not direct pecuniary aid.

You are stretch your argument beyond all reason when you say a tax break is direct pecuniary aid. A lower tax rate just means they are limited on how much money they can legally take from you. Not taking something is in no way the same as giving something. Your assault on common sense should be a felony.

Have you figured out the difference between a verb and an adjective yet?

 

[Helden]

I could only stand watching first 5 minutes of Patrick Moore:
His arguments: CO2 is responsible for life therefore CO2 is good... if I have to spell out the stupidity of this argument for people, then there is no hope left for them
He then proceeded to talk about Milankovich cycles completely failing to explain the current CO2 conversations being WELL ABOVE anything observed in the ice core data
Finally he decided to blatantly lie about not seeing a significant warming the the last 20 years, which is just blatantly false
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally/

So yeah, Patrick Moore is full of shit

So is Richard Lindzen:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

 

[VivaRevolution]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. Tax breaks aren't "Direct pecuniary aid." Direct pecuniary aid is when the government takes money from one person or business and gives it to another. Taking less money from you is not direct pecuniary aid.

You are stretch your argument beyond all reason when you say a tax break is direct pecuniary aid. A lower tax rate just means they are limited on how much money they can legally take from you. Not taking something is in no way the same as giving something. Your assault on common sense should be a felony.

Have you figured out the difference between a verb and an adjective yet?

The dictionary called once again, and wants you to know how wrong you are.

We have clearly established that.

Once again.

Subsidy - to direct pecuniary aid, furnished by the government to a private entity.

Pecuniary - related to money

The government furnished pecuniary aid, in the form of a tax break.

That statement correctly uses the dictionary definitions, and you have no rebuttal, but to insist that the money is theirs, so it can't be given. I rebut, I'm not talking about money or income, I am talking about a tax rate, which is related to money, the literal definition of pecuniary.

Now, go ahead and state like some kind of bot that has malfunctioned, that the government can't give money that isn't the governments, one more time......

 

[Starman]

The dictionary called once again, and wants you to know how wrong you are.

We have clearly established that.

Once again.

Subsidy - to direct pecuniary aid, furnished by the government to a private entity.

LOL. Wrong. Every time I think I've made some headway with you in the English department, you go and muck things up again with something stupid like that. (This is also goes back to my comment about the Left's war on words, and you cannot win the debate without redefining words.)

Subsidy does NOT use 'direct' as a verb, but as an adjective. The verb and adjective mean very different things, so please get your facts straight.

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

Pecuniary - related to money

Wrong. Again. Get your definitions straight, please.

Pecuniary: consisting of or measured in money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pecuniary

Pecuniary: of or relating to money
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pecuniary

Pecuniary comes from the Latin word pecunia, which means "money." Both this root and the Latin 'peculium', which means "private property," are related to the Latin noun for cattle, pecus.

Though pecuniary as an adjective can mean "related to money", it still refers to the money itself in some way. "Apple has a pecuniary advantage over some of their smaller competitors", for example.

You are stretching the word beyond all recognizable meaning when you attempt to conflate a tax break with pecuniary aid. As I said previously, you cannot help someone by giving them something they already had.

The government furnished pecuniary aid, in the form of a tax break.

No, they didn't. Which is why even the people who agree with you called you an idiot. If you will go back to the earlier argument, you will see where the people who happened to agree with you admitted that it wasn't technically a subsidy, which is why they used terms like "indirect subsidy" and "negative tax subsidy." Because they understood what you do not, namely that a tax break in itself does meet the definition of subsidy/direct pecuniary aid.

That statement correctly uses the dictionary definitions

No it doesn't, because pecuniary refers to money (i.e. physical property), not tax codes.

and you have no rebuttal, but to insist that the money is theirs, so it can't be given.

Correct.

I rebut, I'm not talking about money or income, I am talking about a tax rate

Which is why you are wrong.

I am talking about a tax rate, which is related to money

No. A tax rate is the legal limit the government is allowed to take from you. They aren't providing direct pecuniary aid because they aren't giving you anything.

the literal definition of pecuniary.

Wrong. It is not the literal definition of pecuniary. The phrase 'tax break' is not in the literal definition, nor is it listed as a synonym, nor as a related word. You are simply making shit up at this point.

Now, go ahead and state like some kind of bot that has malfunctioned, that the government can't give money that isn't the governments, one more time......

Government can't give money that isn't the government's.

 

[Starman]

Do you understand that the 10 scientists you mentioned, half of them know nothing about climate science.. like Ivar Giaever who did literally zero research into the subject and predominantly worked on superconductors. His opinion is not backed up by anything and who gives a shit? There are scientists who still deny evolution.. I don't care for opinions, I care for scientific facts. I challenge you to find me a hand full of peer reviewed papers challenging AGW

I put no more stock in opinions found in "peer reviewed" papers than I do any other medium, as they are just as rife with manipulation as any other form of media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shes-peer-review-ring/?utm_term=.f30991f0ca4a

Nevertheless, it is an easy task that would only take several minutes for anyone really serious about learning.

Does a Global Temperature Exist?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
https://www.scribd.com/document/904...perature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

I could only stand watching first 5 minutes of Patrick Moore

The video is only 5 minutes long.

His arguments: CO2 is responsible for life therefore CO2 is good... if I have to spell out the stupidity of this argument for people, then there is no hope left for them.

That's not what he said. Try watching it again.

He then proceeded to talk about Milankovich cycles completely failing to explain the current CO2 conversations being WELL ABOVE anything observed in the ice core data
Finally he decided to blatantly lie about not seeing a significant warming the the last 20 years, which is just blatantly false
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally/

So yeah, Patrick Moore is full of shit

There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. It's been well documented. And the only way your side has been able to argue against it is by ADMITTEDLY "revamping" the data.

Here is NOAA, trying to justify such tampering. They're trying to explain how their own data showed no significant warming from 1998 - 2012.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Of course it's a real beauty of an excuse, isn't it? It's not that the data was wrong, it's just that they didn't know how to read THEIR OWN FUCKING DATA!!!

But guess what? After they made some "calibrations", why, that shit came out just the way they originally predicted it to (except only a lot cooler.)

Here's another beauty of REVAMPED DATA proving they were right all along:

Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Because it isn't that y'all were wrong, you were just too fucking stupid to understand your own fucking data. I mean, that's real fucking science isn't it? You make a prediction, and then when the data doesn't substantiate your claim, you don't change your opinion based on the evidence. No! That would be downright unscientific. Everyone knows the honest and scientific thing to do is to keep "adjusting" and "revamping" the "biases" in your data until, voila, that shit comes out looking just the way you predicted all along! Fucking GENIUS!

Here's another fucking beauty: "Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC..."

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632

If the science is "settled" why the fuck are all of your climate models wrong, and why do you have to go back and fudge your data in order for it to support your preconceived notions?

When you get hack institutions like NOAA shitting out reports that show significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records, it sends up a big fucking red flag to anyone with half a brain.

Fuck, you guys are idiots. Groups like NASA busted for tampering with the data (http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/) is why 49 of their own fucking employees blasted them publicly for their bullshit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html):

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” the group wrote. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

But yeah, you sit there and keep talking about a consensus and how "the science is settled." Don't come in here with your fanatical proselytizing, while at the same wasting my time commenting on how it is a waste of time for you to be wasting so much time debating a subject you deem a waste of time.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You can't give someone direct pecuniary aid unless you actually give them something, money or otherwise. Not taking is in no way the same as giving. Do you disagree?



The only thing we cleared up is your vicious assault on common sense, and the complete inability to tell a verb from an adjective.

See what I mean about people with nefarious motives finding ways to purposefully misunderstand you?

 

[Starman]

See what I mean about people with nefarious motives finding ways to purposefully misunderstand you?

Yes, sir. I'm not bothered by it, though. I find it pretty funny, actually.

 

[VivaRevolution]

LOL. Wrong. Every time I think I've made some headway with you in the English department, you go and muck things up again with something stupid like that. (This is also goes back to my comment about the Left's war on words, and you cannot win the debate without redefining words.)

Subsidy does NOT use 'direct' as a verb, but as an adjective. The verb and adjective mean very different things, so please get your facts straight.

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.



Wrong. Again. Get your definitions straight, please.

Pecuniary: consisting of or measured in money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pecuniary

Pecuniary: of or relating to money
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pecuniary

Pecuniary comes from the Latin word pecunia, which means "money." Both this root and the Latin 'peculium', which means "private property," are related to the Latin noun for cattle, pecus.

Though pecuniary as an adjective can mean "related to money", it still refers to the money itself in some way. "Apple has a pecuniary advantage over some of their smaller competitors", for example.

You are stretching the word beyond all recognizable meaning when you attempt to conflate a tax break with pecuniary aid. As I said previously, you cannot help someone by giving them something they already had.



No, they didn't. Which is why even the people who agree with you called you an idiot. If you will go back to the earlier argument, you will see where the people who happened to agree with you admitted that it wasn't technically a subsidy, which is why they used terms like "indirect subsidy" and "negative tax subsidy." Because they understood what you do not, namely that a tax break in itself does meet the definition of subsidy/direct pecuniary aid.



No it doesn't, because pecuniary refers to money (i.e. physical property), not tax codes.



Correct.



Which is why you are wrong.



No. A tax rate is the legal limit the government is allowed to take from you. They aren't providing direct pecuniary aid because they aren't giving you anything.



Wrong. It is not the literal definition of pecuniary. The phrase 'tax break' is not in the literal definition, nor is it listed as a synonym, nor as a related word. You are simply making shit up at this point.



Government can't give money that isn't the government's.

Pecuniary can't mean a tax break, because my feelz say so.

That is what your post translates to.

 

[VivaRevolution]

See what I mean about people with nefarious motives finding ways to purposefully misunderstand you?

Are you kidding me?

Join in here, please.

I have clearly made the case that a tax break is a subsidy.

If you want to argue about wether taxes are theft, I am open to that conversation.

But to insist a tax break isn't a subsidy is fucking absurd, unless you can explain to me how your tax rate is not related to money.

 

[Starman]

Pecuniary can't mean a tax break, because my feelz say so.

No, pecuniary can't mean a tax break because pecuniary has to do with money. Tax Breaks have to do with law.

You can't give someone something that was already theirs.

That is what your post translates to.

No, this is what it translates to -- government can't give someone something that isn't government's.

 

[Starman]

Are you kidding me?

Join in here, please.

I have clearly made the case that a tax break is a subsidy.

Made the case to whom? Even the people who agree with called you an idiot, and were at least honest enough in their deceit to admit that tax breaks cannot be defined under the traditional definition of subsidy. It's why they use terms like "indirect subsidy" and "negative tax subsidy."

If you want to argue about wether taxes are theft, I am open to that conversation.

You spelled 'whether' wrong again. That's the second time I've corrected you. Stop it.

But to insist a tax break isn't a subsidy is fucking absurd, unless you can explain to me how your tax rate is not related to money.

A tax break is a law that prevents the government from taking your money.

A subsidy is when the government takes your money and gives it to someone else.

Can you really not see the difference?