Climate change extremism will do this great country of ours enormous harm

[AProudLefty]

Then do it. Officially remove yourself from what little conversation you have.

How does one remove oneself from one's conversation?

[BattleofHodow]

Capitalism does not destroy wealth. It creates wealth.

Wealth is no longer expanding for the USA, but rather for China.

[anonymoose]

Yup. It's the old 'Hate America' crap all over again.

Yes, this sells very well to the left. Imagine if there was a real existential threat to the country like when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Half the country side would with the Japanese.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. Your problem. Inversion fallacy.

fallacy fallacy. You fail to address the facts.

You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. You are again denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy only applies to a closed or isolated system. Anyone can step outside on a sunny day and see that the Earth is not a closed system since it receives energy from the Sun. When a system is receiving energy from another system entropy can be reduced.

You cannot compare two different system as the same system. False equivalence fallacy. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface...ever.

When one system is receiving energy from another system than neither system is a closed or isolated system so you can not say entropy applies to only one system. Equilibrium is what in your estimation? Can equilibrium change if any other factors change?

WRONG. ALL surfaces are considered. The land, the oceans, the air, etc. You cannot pick and choose surfaces. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Please explain how you can included all parts when radiation in the S-B law defines radiation as watts per meter squared. Meters squared can never be the same thing as meters cubed. If you include the land as a surface then you can't claim S-B only applies to the system as a whole since S-B clearly states that radiation is based on the temperature of the surface where the radiation is occurring. A steel ball that is 300 degrees on the inside and 400 degrees on the surface will have the exact same radiation as a steel ball that is 500 degrees on the surface and 400 degrees on the outside. The only difference is how quickly one cools over time as compared to the other. At the moment they both have an exterior temperature of 400 degrees they will both have the same radiation.

Radiation can only be stated as watts per meter squared. Any attempt to do otherwise is a violation of the S-B law. It is you that is violating the law by trying to define the earth as a single black body but then not restricting yourself to the squared meters that make up the exterior of the black body.

Math errors: Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to specify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to specify boundary. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to public margin of error value.

Gobbledygook. what raw data did I fail to use? What math error did I make? What variance did I fail to specify? What margin of error did I fail to calculate? What boundary did I fail to specify? What random number did I use? You failure to specify any of what you claim proves you are talking out of your ass and know nothing about the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You deny statistical mathematics.

You have failed to show were I used statistical mathematics let alone where I denied it.

You are now denying probability mathematics as well. It is not a casino.

You have failed to show were I used probability mathematics let alone where I denied it.

Base rate fallacy. Math errors: use of delta as base. Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Use of probability math as statistical math. Attempt to predict using probability. Attempt to predict using statistical math. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to publish margin of error in the summary.

Lot's of garbage from you with no support of your claims. Show where I used delta as a base. Show were I used any random numbers. Show where I sued probability math or statistical math. Show where I predicted anything. Show where I did a calculation let alone failed to include a margin of error. Your nonsense is nothing but nonsense.

You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and statistical and probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

My using the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws correctly is not denial. I used no math in my answer so your claims about denial are ridiculous until you show what math you think I used.

Such is your religion.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Fallacy fallacy - You are unable to show any errors on my part so have resorted to simply claiming I used a fallacy without providing any evidence.

Some simple things where you have failed when it comes to your claims.
Entropy always increases in closed or isolated systems. The Earth is not a closed or isolated system since it constantly receives energy from the Sun and constantly radiates energy.
Stefan-Boltzmann deals with radiation from a black body. Radiation can only occur on the surface of the body and is expressed in watts per meter squared. Your attempt to include the oceans, land and atmosphere will claiming the Earth is a body violates S-B.
You claim I used math but did not point to my math or point so specific errors in my math. Correcting faulty math is easy. One need only show the errors in the calculations. Your failure to correct any calculations point to your claims being false.

[gfm7175]

How does one remove oneself from one's conversation?

One walks away from it. (in this case, making use of the ignore feature)

[AProudLefty]

One walks away from it. (in this case, making use of the ignore feature)

I circle back to it.

I learned that from Psaki.

[gfm7175]

I circle back to it.

I learned that from Psaki.

[Into the Night]

Yes, along with everything that YOU say to HIM. He seems to have horrible memory issues. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who instantly forgets what he says and instantly forgets what he hears...

Oft times in the same post!

I love using these monkey emojis... they fit the actions of the liberals on here quite well...

Except that liberals often speak evil, and many things they hear they consider evil.

[Into the Night]

Wealth is no longer expanding for the USA, but rather for China.

It is expanding in both, but much slower in China.

[Into the Night]

fallacy fallacy. You fail to address the facts.

Lie.

Entropy only applies to a closed or isolated system.

Correct. That simply means the system chosen must remain consistent. You cannot consider any energy source or energy sink outside the system.

Anyone can step outside on a sunny day and see that the Earth is not a closed system

Yes it is.

since it receives energy from the Sun.

The Sun-Earth-space system is another system. It is also closed.

When a system is receiving energy from another system entropy can be reduced.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink that is outside any system. Entropy can never be reduced. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again and making a false equivalence fallacy.

When one system is receiving energy from another system than neither system is a closed or isolated system so you can not say entropy applies to only one system.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside a chosen system. You are trying to compare two different systems as if they were the same system in a false equivalence in order to try to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Equilibrium is what in your estimation? Can equilibrium change if any other factors change?

Irrelevant.

Please explain how you can included all parts when radiation in the S-B law defines radiation as watts per meter squared. Meters squared can never be the same thing as meters cubed. If you include the land as a surface then you can't claim S-B only applies to the system as a whole since S-B clearly states that radiation is based on the temperature of the surface where the radiation is occurring. A steel ball that is 300 degrees on the inside and 400 degrees on the surface will have the exact same radiation as a steel ball that is 500 degrees on the surface and 400 degrees on the outside. The only difference is how quickly one cools over time as compared to the other. At the moment they both have an exterior temperature of 400 degrees they will both have the same radiation.

Gas has a surface. The radiating surface is each molecule of the gas.

Radiation can only be stated as watts per meter squared. Any attempt to do otherwise is a violation of the S-B law. It is you that is violating the law by trying to define the earth as a single black body but then not restricting yourself to the squared meters that make up the exterior of the black body.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You are attempting to remove the emissivity constant.

Gobbledygook. what raw data did I fail to use?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

What math error did I make?

RQAA.

What variance did I fail to specify? What margin of error did I fail to calculate? What boundary did I fail to specify?

Attempted force of negatived proof fallacies.

What random number did I use?

RQAA.

You failure to specify any of what you claim proves you are talking out of your ass

Already did. RQAA.

and know nothing about the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a system) and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is emitted light in watts per square area (in a gas it's the area of each molecule), 'C' is a natural constant (converting the relation to our units of measure), 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity' or how well the surface radiates as opposed to reflects, expressed as a percentage against an ideal 'black body' (emissivity of 100%), and 't' it temperature in deg K.

All systems in the observable universe, including the entire observable universe, is closed. The system chosen must remain consistent. You cannot compare two different system as if they are the same system. No energy source of sink from outside a chosen system may be considered.

You have failed to show were I used statistical mathematics let alone where I denied it.

You didn't use statistical math, but you claimed a value that can only come from a statistical summary. You also failed to declare the margin of error, as is required by statistical math. You also tried to make a prediction with it (not possible). RQAA.

You have failed to show were I used probability mathematics let alone where I denied it.

You didn't, but you claimed a probability, which can only come from probability math, and tried to make a prediction with it (not possible). RQAA.

Lot's of garbage from you with no support of your claims. Show where I used delta as a base.

You tried to claim a 'warming' with no base. RQAA.

Show were I used any random numbers.

When you quoted them.

Show where I sued probability math or statistical math.

You didn't. That's my point. You just claimed values without using the math required to generate them.

Show where I predicted anything.

Already did. RQAA.

Show where I did a calculation let alone failed to include a margin of error. Your nonsense is nothing but nonsense.

RQAA.

My using the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws correctly is not denial.

You are denying each of these laws. I have given to you yet again.

I used no math in my answer so your claims about denial are ridiculous until you show what math you think I used.

RQAA.

Fallacy fallacy - You are unable to show any errors on my part so have resorted to simply claiming I used a fallacy without providing any evidence.

Attempted negative proof fallacy (proof by void).

Some simple things where you have failed when it comes to your claims.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Entropy always increases in closed or isolated systems.

WRONG. Entropy can also stay the same. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics which I again provided above.

The Earth is not a closed or isolated system

Yes it is.

since it constantly receives energy from the Sun and constantly radiates energy.

The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system.

Stefan-Boltzmann deals with radiation from a black body.

WRONG. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law I have given to you yet again. RQAA. You are trying to eliminate the emissivity constant.

Radiation can only occur on the surface of the body and is expressed in watts per meter squared. Your attempt to include the oceans, land and atmosphere will claiming the Earth is a body violates S-B.

You can include the oceans. It has a surface. You can include the atmosphere. It is a gas. ALL of it radiates. Indeed, one claim of the Church of Global Warming is that CO2 is radiating light back to the surface, warming it (violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics). You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas....ever. You might as well try to make hot coffee using ice.

You claim I used math but did not point to my math or point so specific errors in my math.

RQAA.

Correcting faulty math is easy. One need only show the errors in the calculations.

Math is more than arithmetic dumbass.

Your failure to correct any calculations point to your claims being false.

Attempt of negative proof fallacy.

You cannot change the laws of physics by eliminating or adding terms to the equations. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. All systems are closed, even the system of the entire observable universe.

If you choose Earth as the system, you cannot consider any energy source (like the Sun) or any energy sink (like space) outside that system. In that system, variations in temperature will tend to a uniform temperature. Entropy increases.
If you choose the Sun-Earth-space system, you cannot consider any energy source (like the stars) or any energy sink (interstellar space) outside that system. In that system, you can consider a temperature of the Earth caused by the interaction between the Sun and space surrounding Earth, but measuring what it is becomes the problem. It simply is not possible with the equipment we have, nor is it possible to construct the equipment required to even begin a statistical analysis of this type. Further, statistical math cannot predict. Entropy increases.
If you choose a refrigerator in a house as the system, you cannot consider any energy source (like a power plant or the fuel for it), or any energy sink (such as weather outside) outside that system. The refrigerator reaches room temperature. Entropy increases.
If you choose a refrigerator-power plant system (and the fuel for the power plant), entropy increases. You cannot compare the refrigerator-power plant system as the same system as the refrigerator and house alone.
You cannot compare the Earth as a system with the Sun-Earth-space system.

[cancel2 2022]

.
The earth is a closed system because only energy is naturally transferred outside the atmosphere. ... All systems inside the Earth, on the other hand, are open systems as both energy and matter can be transferred between the systems and their surroundings.

https://realizeengineering.blog/2014...oes-it-matter/

[cancel2 2022]

.

[gfm7175]

Except that liberals often speak evil, and many things they hear they consider evil.

Valid point. Even with the "see no evil" monkey, liberals often see evil all around them, even where there isn't any (yet their own evils get swept under the rug).

My reasoning behind the monkey emojis is rather based in the "face value" graphics themselves... liberals oft have their hands over their eyes and ears , pretending to not know things, pretending to not see things, wishing to keep the truth suppressed (shhhhhh!)

[Into the Night]

Valid point. Even with the "see no evil" monkey, liberals often see evil all around them, even where there isn't any (yet their own evils get swept under the rug).

My reasoning behind the monkey emojis is rather based in the "face value" graphics themselves... liberals oft have their hands over their eyes and ears , pretending to not know things, pretending to not see things, wishing to keep the truth suppressed (shhhhhh!)

If you consider 'evil' to be the truth, it fits.

[Into the Night]

Seriously you need to get up to speed, it's happening already.

https://ammpower.com/

Nope. Not happening yet. Proposals for projects are not completed projects. NONE of these projects proposed are vehicles.