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

[Helden]

What experiments were done to prove man-made climate change is real?

For one atmospheric measurements of CO2 concentrations (that correlate with the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels)
Followed up followed up by isotopic measurements of those CO2 concentrations showing atmosphere enriched in lighter C12 isotope - a distinct signature of fossil fuel carbon isotope ratio
Third the temperature anomaly matching the CO2 concentrations

Please quote the concluding statements from any of those peer reviewed papers that "disprove" AGW..

 

[Helden]

No thanks. I'll continue to post the facts. In regards to the amount of CO2 produced by humans, it is as I said:


Water vapor, the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect.

Increase in CO2 causes increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of global temperature. Increase in CO2 - > increase in T - > increase in water vapor - > increase in T (positive feedback loop)

Let me guess, you thought water vapor was an independent variable?

 

[Starman]

I didn't say they are wrong, I am saying that you are moving goal posts.

You think providing multiple sources is moving the goal posts? Do you even know what moving the goal posts means?

This btw is known as a strawman argument.

Question answered. You don't. A straw man argument and moving the goal posts aren't even remotely the same thing. Then again, what did I really expect from someone who thinks verbs and adjectives are the same thing?

A straw man argument is when you misrepresent someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Moving the goal posts means that you demand that your opponent address more and more points in addition to the initial argument.

I think I've kept the debate remarkably on track, as we are still discussing whether or not a tax break is a subsidy. The definitions of tax break, subsidy, and pecuniary aid are central to this discussion, especially for someone as linguistically challenged as you, so I certainly don't think that providing dictionary definitions for the terms we are discussing can accurately be described as moving the goal posts, nor as a straw man argument.

Providing multiple sources to verify one's argument is also not a straw man argument, nor is it moving the goal posts.

I understand that facts and common sense are very frustrating to you, and only serve to undermine your fallacious claims, but that's just something you are going to have to learn to deal with. My advice is to stop being such a dishonest, insecure, emotional little bitch. This, more than your low I.Q., is the primary reason why you've found yourself in this embarrassing predicament, where having lost a debate, you simply just shout "straw man!", "moving the goal posts!", "logical fallacy!" like some kind of retard leftist with Tourette's Syndrome.

 

[Starman]

For one atmospheric measurements of CO2 concentrations (that correlate with the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels)

Measurements are experiments?

Followed up followed up by isotopic measurements of those CO2 concentrations showing atmosphere enriched in lighter C12 isotope - a distinct signature of fossil fuel carbon isotope ratio

Same question as above.

Third the temperature anomaly matching the CO2 concentrations

Humans emit less than 4% of all CO2 that is released into the environment annually.

Additionally, though CO2 is the primary contributor to greenhouse gases, it is not the only one. When you factor in other contributors, humans end up accounting for less than 1% of total green houses gases.

As for humans directly contributing to "climate change", again, if that were true you wouldn't have so many failed climate models, and you wouldn't have agencies like the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA having to "revamp" the data in order for it to reflect your initial predictions.

Please quote the concluding statements from any of those peer reviewed papers that "disprove" AGW..

One, you're either playing semantics to muddy the water, or you're a mental midget who can't keep his arguments straight. You didn't ask for papers that "disproved" your fanatical religion. You asked for peer-reviewed articles that didn't believe in anthropological global warming.

Two, if the authors of those peer-reviewed articles don't consider humans to be the cause of global cooling / global warming / climate change, I think I did what you asked. Don't get mad at me because you got what you asked for.

Let me guess, you thought water vapor was an independent variable?

Let me guess, you thought water vapor was man-made?

Keep wasting your time on a subject you deemed to be a waste of time. You're doing a magnificent job.

 

[Helden]

Measurements are experiments?



Same question as above.



Humans emit less than 4% of all CO2 that is released into the environment annually.

Additionally, though CO2 is the primary contributor to greenhouse gases, it is not the only one. When you factor in other contributors, humans end up accounting for less than 1% of total green houses gases.

As for humans directly contributing to "climate change", again, if that were true you wouldn't have so many failed climate models, and you wouldn't have agencies like the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA having to "revamp" the data in order for it to reflect your initial predictions.



One, you're either playing semantics to muddy the water, or you're a mental midget who can't keep his arguments straight. You didn't ask for papers that "disproved" your fanatical religion. You asked for peer-reviewed articles that didn't believe in anthropological global warming.

Two, if the authors of those peer-reviewed articles don't consider humans to be the cause of global cooling / global warming / climate change, I think I did what you asked. Don't get mad at me because you got what you asked for.



Let me guess, you thought water vapor was man-made?

Keep wasting your time on a subject you deemed to be a waste of time. You're doing a magnificent job.

Ah sonny boy.. you are just regurgitating the top 10 climate change deniers cliche excuses now aren't you? Jumping from one to another without giving either any significant thought.. spouting some amateurish insults in between the lines.. like a spiteful child. Don't insult me and everyone else reading this by pretending you haven't already predetermined what the answer should be and then started your usual road down Confirmation Bias boulevard... I remember why your arguments look so copy and pasted.. because you've been doing this shit for years on Sherdog, spouting out the same arguments, having them rebutted.. shutting up for a while, waiting until most people forgot about it, then coming back and restarting this cycle all over again. You even yourself admitted to copy / pasting your own posts.. so you have this dribble saved somewhere, with all the embedded codes, ready for a Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.. Sad.

I still haven't let you off the hook for 30,000+ spice girls scientists thing, a nonsense petition that got debunked the very same year it came out. Don't for one second believe you are off the hook for that one

As far as your complete lack of misunderstanding of how climate works, here is the quick rundown:

1. Humans emit less than 4% of all CO2 that is released into the environment annually - Umm.. OK? The problem isn't who emits more, the problem is who emits the extra that isn't accounted for by oceanic CO2 uptake, the terrestrial CO2 uptake (rainforests predominantly), and as recently discovered semi-arid region of the southern hemisphere. When the system is in equilibrium, the smallest offset could have very serious consequences.. especially when the offset is increasing at this rapid pace. Its the amount of CO2 that matters.. not what percentage it takes up in the atmosphere.

2. Humans end up accounting for less than 1% of total green houses gases - Once again.. not the %.. it's the amount that matters. When you set up a series of samples for say dna analysis using microplates, you use a specific pipette, with plastic tips. The pipette is designed to accurately dispense very small, precise amounts, down to and even lower than 1 microliter.. and yet still after every sample, despite the tip looking completely void of any substance.. YOU CHANGE THE DAMN TIP.. Why? Because even the smallest contamination of sample by a handful of micro particles would completely offset the measurement. This analogy is expanded to a far grander scale when talking about the atmosphere and the energy balance of the planet.

You are yet to provide me with quotes from those articles I posted where the authors apparently conclude that the temperature increase (that is well known and documented by the way.. not just by the "evil corrupt NASA", but by climate agencies all over the world..), those temperatures are not attributed to by the increased addition of fossil fuel based carbon into the atmosphere... Instead it was YOU who proceeded to muddy the waters with semantics over whether measurements are experiments or the difference between "disproved or disagreed"... You know instead of arguing semantics, you could have actually provided me with some quotes from those papers supporting your stance, it would at least give me an indication that you attempted to read them first... But alas arguing semantics is ALL you appear to be doing in this thread as evidenced by your conversation with Viva...


Maybe take a break and come back in a few months, in the hope that I'm banned, because while I'm here.. I'll be around to call you out on your bullshit....



Good day sir, don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Starman]

Ah sonny boy.. you are just regurgitating the top 10 climate change deniers cliche excuses now aren't you?

Just the facts, Snivellus.

Don't insult me and everyone else reading this by pretending you haven't already predetermined what the answer should be and then started your usual road down Confirmation Bias boulevard...

You're right. I think the very best way to demonstrate my open-mindedness is to start a debate just the way you did, by announcing that there is no debate, the science is settled, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

I remember why your arguments look so copy and pasted.. because you've been doing this shit for years on Sherdog, spouting out the same arguments, having them rebutted.. shutting up for a while, waiting until most people forgot about it, then coming back and restarting this cycle all over again.

I only ever posted one other time on this forum about climate change. I wasn't "rebutted" then, nor was I "rebutted" now. Just subjected to the frothing fury of fanatical leftists who go apeshit whenever someone questions their religion.

You even yourself admitted to copy / pasting your own posts... so you have this dribble saved somewhere, with all the embedded codes, ready for a Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.. Sad.

I don't have it saved anywhere, but maybe I should. I actually just went back and copied it from the thread. The great thing about being in command of the facts is that you don't have to go back and "revamp" the data when it turns out to be wrong.

I still haven't let you off the hook for 30,000+ spice girls scientists thing, a nonsense petition that got debunked the very same year it came out. Don't for one second believe you are off the hook for that one

Okay, post the list of 30,000 names and tell me which ones are fake and which aren't. I've got no problem with that.

You are yet to provide me with quotes from those articles I posted where the authors apparently conclude that the temperature increase (that is well known and documented by the way.. not just by the "evil corrupt NASA", but by climate agencies all over the world..), those temperatures are not attributed to by the increased addition of fossil fuel based carbon into the atmosphere... Instead it was YOU who proceeded to muddy the waters with semantics over whether measurements are experiments or the difference between "disproved or disagreed"... You know instead of arguing semantics, you could have actually provided me with some quotes from those papers supporting your stance, it would at least give me an indication that you attempted to read them first... But alas arguing semantics is ALL you appear to be doing in this thread as evidenced by your conversation with Viva...

I tried to get through that wall of text. I really did. Could you maybe break it up into paragraphs or something? The aborted ellipsis is particularly confusing. Is it an ellipsis? Are you trailing off and not finishing your thought? Is it really just a period, and you somehow think two make the statement more emphatic than if you just used one?

Seriously, I'm not being mean. Re-type that shit up and try again.

Maybe take a break and come back in a few months, in the hope that I'm banned, because while I'm here.. I'll be around to call you out on your bullshit....

I won't be going anywhere. Any time you feel like wasting more of your time by telling me what a waste of time it is for you to waste your time on a subject that is a waste of your time, feel free.

Good day sir, don't let the door hit you on the way out

I won't. I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

Show him this guy. If he has any integrity whatsoever then he will have no choice but to admit that he was wrong. If he is a conservative then chances are he will just double down on the science denialism.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

Okay, post the list of 30,000 names and tell me which ones are fake and which aren't. I've got no problem with that.

ok, here you go!

 

[VivaRevolution]

Measurements are experiments?



Same question as above.



Humans emit less than 4% of all CO2 that is released into the environment annually.

Additionally, though CO2 is the primary contributor to greenhouse gases, it is not the only one. When you factor in other contributors, humans end up accounting for less than 1% of total green houses gases.

As for humans directly contributing to "climate change", again, if that were true you wouldn't have so many failed climate models, and you wouldn't have agencies like the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA having to "revamp" the data in order for it to reflect your initial predictions.



One, you're either playing semantics to muddy the water, or you're a mental midget who can't keep his arguments straight. You didn't ask for papers that "disproved" your fanatical religion. You asked for peer-reviewed articles that didn't believe in anthropological global warming.

Two, if the authors of those peer-reviewed articles don't consider humans to be the cause of global cooling / global warming / climate change, I think I did what you asked. Don't get mad at me because you got what you asked for.



Let me guess, you thought water vapor was man-made?

Keep wasting your time on a subject you deemed to be a waste of time. You're doing a magnificent job.

Yes, when you change which definition you are using based on the argument. That is the definition of moving goal posts.

It is sad and fucking hilarious that now you start posting about pecuniary again, when the definition you just tried to use for subsidy doesn't say anything about pecuniary.

As I said, when this started. You don't have a point to make, you have a shitty and dishonest debate tactic, known as build strawman, move goal post.

Tell me if this sounds familiar. You build a strawman, I tear it down and once I have successfully shown the flaw in your strawman, you just move goal posts to a new strawman.


A tax break is a subsidy, I have clearly shown that.

 

[Starman]

ok, here you go!

That video doesn't say the names on the list are fake, it says some of the people on the list don't have degrees in meteorology.

The problem I have with this argument is that the Left doesn't criticize Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio or their shitty global warming propaganda films. They trot Bill Nye out on CNN and everywhere else to push their pseudoscience on gender, climate alarmism, and so on. You make little memes of his bullshit and post them all over your fakebooks.

But when real, actual scientists that are highly decorated like Richard Lindzen come out and shit all over your false religion, y'all say "well that shit don't count, the science is settled, consensus!" When NASA cooks the books on their climate change data and get called out by 49 of their OWN PEOPLE for it, you completely ignore it. "Consensus!" "The science is settled!" "Men who were born with dicks can be women if they FEEL like it, you science deniers!" The hypocrisy of the Left has no equal in human history.

 

[Starman]

Yes, when you change which definition you are using based on the argument. That is the definition of moving goal posts.

One, that is not the definition of moving the goal posts.

Two, I listed multiple sources. I didn't change the meaning of the word, nimrod. Both dictionary definitions mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

It is sad and fucking hilarious that now you start posting about pecuniary again, when the definition you just tried to use for subsidy doesn't say anything about pecuniary.

LOL. Are you stupid? This is literally what I posted, nimrod.

Are any of those definitions wrong? Do you think the definitions contradict each other? Do you object to people using multiple sources? Help me understand your confusion.

Subsidy: a grant or gift of money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subsidies

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

Are you fucking stupid or what? The first definition says "a grant or gift of money", which is what PECUNIARY means, nimrod. Money! That's what I've been fucking trying to tell you, and you're too damn stupid to understand it.

Pecuniary aid is when the government takes money from a person or business and gives it to another! How many fucking times do you have to be told this?

And the second definition, which I ALSO INCLUDED, is the same one I've used from the beginning. You're just an ignorant turd who can't seem to figure out what the fuck a word is even when you've got the dictionary definition in your face.

BOTH definitions of subsidy are right, because they BOTH SAY THE SAME THING! A subsidy requires the government to take money from someone and give it to someone else! That's the fucking definition!

As I said, when this started. You don't have a point to make, you have a shitty and dishonest debate tactic, known as build strawman, move goal post.

How the fuck is posting dictionary definitions dishonest? How is posting dictionary definitions moving the goal posts? How is posting dictionary definitions a straw man argument?

You are literally the absolute densest person I've ever met. How the fuck can one person misunderstand the definitions to so many words, especially when I've given you the dictionary definition for them all!

Tell me if this sounds familiar. You build a strawman, I tear it down and once I have successfully shown the flaw in your strawman, you just move goal posts to a new strawman.

It does sound familiar. It's the same cop out you've used repeatedly because even you can't debate the dictionary.

A tax break is a subsidy, I have clearly shown that.

You've clearly shown you wish that were true, and you've equally shown you have absolutely zero understanding of the economy, and lack the comprehension skills of even a 3rd grader.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

That video doesn't say the names on the list are fake, it says some of the people on the list don't have degrees in meteorology.

The problem I have with this argument is that the Left doesn't criticize Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio or their shitty global warming propaganda films. They trot Bill Nye out on CNN and everywhere else to push their pseudoscience on gender, climate alarmism, and so on. You make little memes of his bullshit and post them all over your fakebooks.

But when real, actual scientists that are highly decorated like Richard Lindzen come out and shit all over your false religion, y'all say "well that shit don't count, the science is settled, consensus!" When NASA cooks the books on their climate change data and get called out by 49 of their OWN PEOPLE for it, you completely ignore it. "Consensus!" "The science is settled!" "Men who were born with dicks can be women if they FEEL like it, you science deniers!" The hypocrisy of the Left has no equal in human history.

It shows that the petition itself is fake. It's just the fee fees of a bunch of people who have no experience in the field.

"The left" isn't some amorphous blob. Leo and Gore have the right to say what they want and interpret science how they want, they however do not respect the science whatsoever. This is at best a non sequitur.

Please source your claim that NASA "cooked the books".

 

[VivaRevolution]

One, that is not the definition of moving the goal posts.

Two, I listed multiple sources. I didn't change the meaning of the word, nimrod. Both dictionary definitions mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING.



LOL. Are you stupid? This is literally what I posted, nimrod.



Are you fucking stupid or what? The first definition says "a grant or gift of money", which is what PECUNIARY means, nimrod. Money! That's what I've been fucking trying to tell you, and you're too damn stupid to understand it.

Pecuniary aid is when the government takes money from a person or business and gives it to another! How many fucking times do you have to be told this?

And the second definition, which I ALSO INCLUDED, is the same one I've used from the beginning. You're just an ignorant turd who can't seem to figure out what the fuck a word is even when you've got the dictionary definition in your face.

BOTH definitions of subsidy are right, because they BOTH SAY THE SAME THING! A subsidy requires the government to take money from someone and give it to someone else! That's the fucking definition!



How the fuck is posting dictionary definitions dishonest? How is posting dictionary definitions moving the goal posts? How is posting dictionary definitions a straw man argument?

You are literally the absolute densest person I've ever met. How the fuck can one person misunderstand the definitions to so many words, especially when I've given you the dictionary definition for them all!



It does sound familiar. It's the same cop out you've used repeatedly because even you can't debate the dictionary.



You've clearly shown you wish that were true, and you've equally shown you have absolutely zero understanding of the economy, and lack the comprehension skills of even a 3rd grader.

If it means the same thing, then why can't you explain what exactly is incorrect about this statement?

"The government furnished direct pecuniary aid, through a tax break."

What word by its definition is wrongly used?

I predict you will move goal posts, or build another strawman, or a combination of the two, as a response. NotSurprisedDiaz.GIF

 

[Starman]

If it means the same thing, then why can't you explain what exactly is incorrect about this statement?

"The government furnished direct pecuniary aid, through a tax break."

I can, and have, many times.

What is incorrect is that you erroneously believe that government not taking money from a business (tax break) can somehow be classified as a subsidy (taking money from one business or person and giving it to another business or person.)

What word by its definition is wrongly used?

The fact that you added a second clause to your personal definition that does not exist in the actual definition:

Subsidy: a grant or gift of money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subsidies

Where in either definition does it include the words "tax break"?

I predict you will move goal posts, or build another strawman, or a combination of the two, as a response. NotSurprisedDiaz.GIF

I will do neither. I will continue to do what I've done since you claimed you would "destroy" me, and specifically asked for this debate -- I will explain simple, textbook definitions from the dictionary until you're able to figure it out. I'm not holding my breath, though. You don't even know the definition of a verb or an adjective, much less a subsidy or a tax break.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I can, and have, many times.

What is incorrect is that you erroneously believe that government not taking money from a business (tax break) can somehow be classified as a subsidy (taking money from one business or person and giving it to another business or person.)



The fact that you added a second clause to your personal definition that does not exist in the actual definition:

Subsidy: a grant or gift of money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

Subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subsidies

Where in either definition does it include the words "tax break"?



I will do neither. I will continue to do what I've done since you claimed you would "destroy" me, and specifically asked for this debate -- I will explain simple, textbook definitions from the dictionary until you're able to figure it out. I'm not holding my breath, though. You don't even know the definition of a verb or an adjective, much less a subsidy or a tax break.

Pecuniary - relating to money - tax break is relating to money.

A tax break is pecuniary.

 

[Starman]

It shows that the petition itself is fake. It's just the fee fees of a bunch of people who have no experience in the field.

No, it's a mixture of people who have academic credentials in the area and people who don't. It's no different than those on the Left who believe in this hokum.

"The left" isn't some amorphous blob.

Yes it is. You're like a have of retards sharing a communal brain. You take the brain out of the vat and wear it like a hat when it's time to speak, and return it when you're done. You're like zombies, only stupider.

Leo and Gore have the right to say what they want and interpret science how they want, they however do not respect the science whatsoever. This is at best a non sequitur.

It's no different than you saying a scientist who hasn't majored in meteorology doesn't count. Did you major in meteorology? If not, I reckon you probably better STFU too then.

Please source your claim that NASA "cooked the books".

Already did, about two pages ago. But why would I expect you to actually read what anyone has said before you respond. I mean, it's almost like you have an agenda or something. But that couldn't be? After all, the Left is well-known for their openness to new ideas.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

“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.”

 

[Starman]

Pecuniary - relating to money - tax break is relating to money.

A tax break is pecuniary.

You conveniently left out the rest of the definition -- direct pecuniary aid. A tax break is not direct pecuniary aid. Direct pecuniary aid means the money has to be given directly to the person or business by the government.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

 

[VivaRevolution]

You conveniently left out the rest of the definition -- direct pecuniary aid. A tax break is not direct pecuniary aid. Direct pecuniary aid means the money has to be given directly to the person or business by the government.

No it does not, because the definition of the word pecuniary, clearly states it does not.

 

[Starman]

No it does not, because the definition of the word pecuniary, clearly states it does not.

Pecuniary is not the definition for subsidy. Pecuniary defines the type of direct aid that a subsidy is -- a direct pecuniary aid, or more simply, monetary aid.

I wasn't aware that even the definition of money was challenging for you, or more specifically, the term "relating to money." But I should've have learned by now not to overestimate your ability to comprehend even the most basic vocabulary.

What exactly is money?

Well, money is most commonly defined as: a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

This is why most definitions for pecuniary simply refer to it as money:

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

What you've attempted to latch on to here is the secondary definition: of or relating to money

The reason you've done this is because the primary definition already proves quite clearly what pecuniary means (money.)

So why does the secondary definition say "relating to money"? What does that mean?

The reason why Merriam includes the secondary definition "relating to money", is because money cannot be defined simply as coins and bank notes, as there are other trading commodities in use in the past and now.

The etymological roots of "pecuniary" explain why Merriam includes the term "relating to money."

"Pecuniary first appeared in English in the early 16th century and comes from the Latin word pecunia, which means "money." Both this root and Latin peculium, which means "private property," are related to the Latin noun for cattle, pecus. In early times, cattle were viewed as a trading commodity (as they still are in some parts of the world), and property was often valued in terms of cattle."

When Merriam uses the term "relating to money", they are referring to trading commodities that might be used in place of coins or bank notes. Some examples include cattle, or even stock options. What they all have in common, however, whether they are money or related to money, is that they are private property.

Your erroneous and/or dishonest attempt to continuously try to conflate tax laws with money has to stop.

The definition "relating to money" does not refer to tax breaks. It refers to private property.

Which leads, again, to my argument all along: the government can't subsidize someone with their own money.

Subsidy: a grant or gift of money
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

Pecuniary: (1) consisting of or measured in money; (2) of or relating to money (i.e. private property that can be used as a trading commodity)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pecuniary

Money: any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/money

Show me anywhere, in any of these definitions, where "tax break" is given in the definition, listed as a synonym, or found on a list of related words.

I'll save you the time. It isn't. Because a tax break isn't a subsidy. It isn't pecuniary aid. it isn't money. It isn't private property. It is a law. It is a law the forbids the government from taking money from a person or business. This is why it by definition can't be a subsidy, because a subsidy requires the government to take money from a person or business and give it to another person or business.