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

[VivaRevolution]

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.

A tax break is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by the government. This is an accurate statement.

 

[Starman]

A tax break is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by the government. This is an accurate statement.

No it isn't. Becuase a tax break isn't money. It's a law.

 

[no fat chicks]

@Starman please refute this video. It's short and covers most of the claims you make.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Damn, @Starman is dominating this thread three or four liberals at a time! Excellent work good sir.

 

[Starman]

@Starman please refute this video. It's short and covers most of the claims you make.

I will be happy to refute it, but let's set some ground rules first. I've seen this video posted several times already and would just like you to answer beforehand what this youtuber's educational background is, and why you think it qualifies him to speak on this issue. This is not a trick question, by the way. I'm not setting you up. I just want an honest answer before we begin, because it will determine what sources are considered valid or not, and save us all from wasting each other's time.

 

[Starman]

Damn, @Starman is dominating this thread three or four liberals at a time! Excellent work good sir.

Haha, thank you. I don't dream of changing anyone's mind at all, though of course it is a hope. Rather, I just enjoy watching them trip over mental hurdles and twist themselves into pretzels.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

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.



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.



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.



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.”

Who on that list is a climatologist? Why should we care about that list any more than we should care about what celebrities say?

The difference between me and the non climatologists you presented is that I'm just parroting what those in the field of climatology have found.

Here is why you never trust the daily mail.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

This other Ewert guy could publish his findings and win some kind of prize... But instead he is just going to whine publicly without subjecting his "analysis" to peer review. Worst of all he's a geologist not a climatologist. Why is it that you guys have such a hard time finding a climate scientist that will confirm your beliefs with actual evidence?

49 former NASA people vs everyone else in the scientific community.... Seems legit.

History is repeating itself. When we were warned about the ozone degradation you degenerate muppets cawed on and on about your conspiracy theories and science denialism. You were wrong then just like you are now. You are just a herd of useful idiots marching to some Piper's tune, nothing more.

 

[Jarl the Sagan]

Damn, @Starman is dominating this thread three or four liberals at a time! Excellent work good sir.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

 

[VivaRevolution]

No it isn't. Becuase a tax break isn't money. It's a law.

And this law is related to money, which is the definition of pecuniary.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Damn, @Starman is dominating this thread three or four liberals at a time! Excellent work good sir.

Lol

 

[Starman]

And this law is related to money, which is the definition of pecuniary.

No, it isn't the definition of pecuniary. I've already explained this to you. Pecuniary is defined as money. Merriam-Webster defines pecuniary as money in its primary definition.

The secondary definition includes the phrase "related to money" because, as the website rightly explains, money is not the only thing which can be used as a trading commodity. These other commodities can be cows, camels, seashells, etc...

What they stress, however, is that regardless of whether or not it is money or "related to money", it must include physical ownership.

This is why things like a tax break, a grocery store coupon, or your Kroger plus card cannot be defined as pecuniary aid.

To be a subsidy the government has to take something from one person or business and give it to another. The thing they take can be money (coins or bank notes) or something related to money (such as gold, silver, jewels, cows, camels, seashells, etc... ). It doesnt matter, as long as it is a trading commodity that was privately owned.

What it cannot be, however, is a tax break. A tax break is not a trading commodity, nor can it be privately owned. It cannot be taken from one person and given to another.

You can continue to vomit out the same nonsense over and over again. You cannot not change the facts. And no, you cannot change dictionary definitions.

It is impossible to subsidize someone with their own money.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No, it isn't the definition of pecuniary. I've already explained this to you. Pecuniary is defined as money. Merriam-Webster defines pecuniary as money in its primary definition.

The secondary definition includes the phrase "related to money" because, as the website rightly explains, money is not the only thing which can be used as a trading commodity. These other commodities can be cows, camels, seashells, etc...

What they stress, however, is that regardless of whether or not it is money or "related to money", it must include physical ownership.

This is why things like a tax break, a grocery store coupon, or your Kroger plus card cannot be defined as pecuniary aid.

To be a subsidy the government has to take something from one person or business and give it to another. The thing they take can be money (coins or bank notes) or something related to money (such as gold, silver, jewels, cows, camels, seashells, etc... ). It doesnt matter, as long as it is a trading commodity that was privately owned.

What it cannot be, however, is a tax break. A tax break is not a trading commodity, nor can it be privately owned. It cannot be taken from one person and given to another.

You can continue to vomit out the same nonsense over and over again. You cannot not change the facts. And no, you cannot change dictionary definitions.

It is impossible to subsidize someone with their own money.

No it doesnt, and the fact that you have to write novels to explain simple definitions is the proof of that.

 

[silicavaginitis]

To a liberal,to question climate change makes you an idiot but to them a man thinking he is a women is normal.
Think about that.....

 

[no fat chicks]

I will be happy to refute it, but let's set some ground rules first. I've seen this video posted several times already and would just like you to answer beforehand what this youtuber's educational background is, and why you think it qualifies him to speak on this issue. This is not a trick question, by the way. I'm not setting you up. I just want an honest answer before we begin, because it will determine what sources are considered valid or not, and save us all from wasting each other's time.

Science educator. Communicates simple scientific concepts. Your turn.

 

[Starman]

Who on that list is a climatologist?

112 specialize in Atmospheric Science, 39 in Climatology, and 343 in Meteorology. Many, many more specialize in other fields that have some relation to climate change research. You can find a more detailed list of their credentials here: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Why should we care about that list any more than we should care about what celebrities say?

I'm not saying you should. I don't think you have to be a climatologist to have an informed opinion. Otherwise nothing YOU say should matter, because YOU'RE not a climatologist either. If everything were just left up to an appeal to authority, neither side can claim victory as long as two authorities on the matter are opposed. And finally, the idea that scientific fact is determined by "consensus" is anti-science itself. Consensus has no scientific validity.

Unlike the left, I think the debate should be based on the argument a person is making, and not on their "qualifications". This is one of the great weaknesses of the Left, and the reason why you can't win debates. Your only response to anything is "well, I don't have to respond because he's a racist." Or, in regards to climate change, "I don't have to respond to that argument because it was made by someone who doesn't have a degree in climatology." And finally, when you do get a well-reasoned argument from a person educated in the appropriate field and who fits all your other arbitrary standards, you'll just say, "He's an idiot" or "Why should I listen to anything he says when 97% of the scientific community disagree with him, science denier! Consensus! The science is settled! Boys can be girls if they FEEL like it!"

Now to answer your question directly, why should we trust those people? You shouldn't trust anyone. You should be doing your own research. But if you're asking why I think the information provided by these people is a better place to start than with the angry rantings of celebrities, it's simply because their education and work experience is more in line with the topic. Not that I don't think an actor who majored in theater might not have a clue. They may do. It just isn't the best place to start, in my opinion. Nor is youtube. Just my opinion.

The difference between me and the non climatologists you presented is that I'm just parroting what those in the field of climatology have found.

For the last several pages I provided an extensive amount of data from climatologists and scientists in related disciplines who also disagree with your "97" (a claim that has been debunked numerous times.) Go back and read it. It might give you something new to parrot.

Here is why you never trust the daily mail.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

This other Ewert guy could publish his findings and win some kind of prize... But instead he is just going to whine publicly without subjecting his "analysis" to peer review. Worst of all he's a geologist not a climatologist. Why is it that you guys have such a hard time finding a climate scientist that will confirm your beliefs with actual evidence?

49 former NASA people vs everyone else in the scientific community.... Seems legit.

You're proving my earlier point. You don't attack the argument, you attack the person making the argument. That is a very, very, very weak tactic. What you are essentially saying is that you have no facts to combat what they are saying. If what they are saying is untrue, that should be very simple to prove.

In regards to the NASA employees, they aren't arguing against your religion. It was a joint letter to NASA blasting their agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence that calls their theories into question, as well as "revamping" their data after initial satellite readings showed no warming for the last 20 years.

You can read the full text here, if you're actually interested in debating instead of just trying to force your religious dogma onto "climate heretics."
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

 

[Starman]

Science educator. Communicates simple scientific concepts. Your turn.

Let me give everyone a bit more context, so that we have very clear rules for how this debate is going to proceed. The youtuber you are citing has a degree in Engineering Physics, not climatology or any other discipline related to the field.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of his claims, nor his ability to put together a persuasive argument. I simply want to set the ground rules: are you okay with accepting arguments from people who do not have degrees in climatology or any other form of environmental science?

And do you give your word that you will only debate the claims from these sources, and not attack the sources themselves?

Do you agree that counter-arguments such as "Well he doesn't have a degree in this...", "He said this completely unrelated thing, which means I don't even have to try and refute his claims", and other non sequiturs have no place in a debate?

 

[Starman]

No it doesnt

What do you mean no it doesn't? I said you can't subsidize someone with their own money. What the fuck does "No it doesn't" even mean? No what doesn't, nimrod?

and the fact that you have to write novels to explain simple definitions is the proof of that.

I have to write novels to explain definitions because you're too fucking stupid to even understand the difference between a verb and an adjective. You think "no it doesn't" is a persuasive rebuttal to "you can't subsidize someone with their own money."

Here is your dictionary definition, nimrod. Please point out where the term TAX BREAK appears under ANY of the definitions, or how it logically even could!

 

[no fat chicks]

Let me give everyone a bit more context, so that we have very clear rules for how this debate is going to proceed. The youtuber you are citing has a degree in Engineering Physics, not climatology or any other discipline related to the field.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of his claims, nor his ability to put together a persuasive argument. I simply want to set the ground rules: are you okay with accepting arguments from people who do not have degrees in climatology or any other form of environmental science?

And do you give your word that you will only debate the claims from these sources, and not attack the sources themselves?

Do you agree that counter-arguments such as "Well he doesn't have a degree in this...", "He said this completely unrelated thing, which means I don't even have to try and refute his claims", and other non sequiturs have no place in a debate?

His credentials aren't needed since he's citing research done by others. . .

 

[Starman]

His creditentials aren't needed since he's citing research done by others. . .

You can't even spell credentials. Nevertheless, who is he citing?