ZenMode
Well-known member
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
Is Climate Change Possible Redux
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
Since, according to you, neither dictionaries nor any other source define words, give me your definition of "health" that describes a state of existence that is static/unchanging.
Litmus
Verified User
9 of 10 cardiologists say climate change is scientism.
Into the Night
Verified User
False equivalence fallacy.
What is changing? There is no unit for health.
Attempted proof by false equivalence. False equivalence fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
Into the Night
Verified User
Certainly his!
Into the Night
Verified User
Not according to me. No dictionary defines any word. Words are not defined that way, and that is not the purpose of a dictionary.
There is value or unit of 'health'. There is nothing that can 'change'.
It is the same with 'climate'.
Into the Night
Verified User
I know!
ZenMode
Well-known member
"What is changing? There is no unit for health."
There doesn't need to be a single measure for health to change.
Give me a definition of health that describes a state of being that doesn't change.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No... You need to describe how health changes, but you have yet to provide any quantifiable unit for health.
Life isn't a video game in which there can be 'hitpoints' (also commonly referred to as "health" or "health points").
Daylight63
Verified User
Wow. You are trying SO HARD to sound intellectual here but failing miserably.
You do realize you are arguing that health cannot change here. Just remember and say it out loud to yourself so you can see how utterly stupid it actually sounds.
Get a non-Neurodivergent friend to help you understand this key and critical point.
Yes it is. It very much is. Almost by definition.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I already have. A 20 year old with no injuries, diseases or medical issues of any kind is healthier than a 90 year old with kidney failure, rheumatoid arthritis and who is minutes from death from terminal cancer.
Do you disagree? If you do, then I'd love to hear your definition/description of health.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
There is no unit of measure for health. Health cannot change.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Please provide your definition/description of "health" that is a static state of existence.
Thanks.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no 'measure of health'. There is not 'unit of health'. There is no 'unit of climate' either. Your word games won't work.
The topic is 'climate'. Go learn English. I have already answered your question. RQAA.
Into the Night
Verified User
Heh. Some people apparently haven't figured that out yet!
Into the Night
Verified User
Assumption of victory fallacy.
Yes he does. So do I. Your word games won't work. Climate cannot change.
Mantra 1a. Lame.
Mantra 1d. Lame.
Void definition. Void argument fallacy. Go learn English. The definition of 'health' hasn't changed since the 1590s, when it first appeared in the English lexicon. The definition of 'climate' hasn't changed since the late 14th century either.
Health cannot change.
Climate cannot change.
Neither has any value that can 'change'. BOTH are subjective descriptions, nothing more. There are no objective values associated with either.
Daylight63
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope. You have defined nothing. You are attempting a redefinition fallacy.
Nope. They are just two different descriptions of 'health'. Health cannot change.
RQAA.
Into the Night
Verified User
Mantra 1a. Lame.
Into the Night
Verified User
As is typical, members of the Church of Global Warming (who are leftists) are going for word games, projections, and insults. They have nothing.
They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to create energy out of nothing purely by it's existence. This of course ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. Since there is no work, 'U' is zero, and E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.
They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to reduce entropy by somehow 'trapping' heat (which is not possible), and that a colder gas in the atmosphere can somehow heat the warmer surface. This of course ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) there 'e' is 'entropy' (or available energy to produce work), and 't' is time. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or trap heat. This equation defines the concept of 'heat' and gives it a direction. Energy always dissipates. It never gathers on it's own. You have to put work into it, which itself is an expenditure of energy!
They continue to believe the a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to trap light or try to say it is a one way gate for energy (a humunculus fallacy). This of course ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity' that can only be measured by accurately the temperature of the radiating surface, and 't' is temperature in deg K. All frequencies of light are considered in this equation. There is no 'frequency' component in the equation (it can actually be generated from Planck's law by integrating all frequencies of light combined). There is no sequence. You cannot set aside this law for any length of time. Everything above absolute zero radiates light due to its temperature! That includes carbon dioxide or any other Magick Holy Gas. You cannot trap light!
They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to create energy out of nothing purely by it's existence. This of course ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. Since there is no work, 'U' is zero, and E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing.
They continue to believe that a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to reduce entropy by somehow 'trapping' heat (which is not possible), and that a colder gas in the atmosphere can somehow heat the warmer surface. This of course ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) there 'e' is 'entropy' (or available energy to produce work), and 't' is time. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or trap heat. This equation defines the concept of 'heat' and gives it a direction. Energy always dissipates. It never gathers on it's own. You have to put work into it, which itself is an expenditure of energy!
They continue to believe the a Magick Holy Gas has the capability to trap light or try to say it is a one way gate for energy (a humunculus fallacy). This of course ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity' that can only be measured by accurately the temperature of the radiating surface, and 't' is temperature in deg K. All frequencies of light are considered in this equation. There is no 'frequency' component in the equation (it can actually be generated from Planck's law by integrating all frequencies of light combined). There is no sequence. You cannot set aside this law for any length of time. Everything above absolute zero radiates light due to its temperature! That includes carbon dioxide or any other Magick Holy Gas. You cannot trap light!