Here you are begging the question. You disagree with the conclusion because you disagree with the conclusion, but somehow this isn't denial. 1 logical fallacy, mwha ha ha!

It is not a logical fallacy, because I have not constructed a logical argument against the evidence that pertains to Global Warming.

It is a logical fallacy. You reworded a conclusion as an argument to support that conclusion.

It's formally known as the petitio principi fallacy, aka begging the question. RI called it right, and you're guilty of it. Further, by simply denying that the evidence supports the global warming hypothesis without cause you are committing the a priori fallacy at the same time. That makes you doubly half-witted, i.e witless. Commit three at the same time and you'll be deep in the hole.

Your posts are collections of logical fallacies, many of them in lame combinations, and you're really not very good at any of them.

In order for a logical fallacy to exist, one must construct a logical argument pertaining to a specific set of data.

That's not true. The logical fallacy of apriorism avoids logical argument by dismissing inconvenient facts. The red herring is a logical fallacy because it uses irrelevant material to prevent a conclusion which would otherwise be reached in its absence.

Several logical fallacies, like these, are ways of avoiding or circumventing logical argument, rather than requiring it. The argumentum ad baculum fallacy, for example, is merely the threat of force, and doesn't even pretend to be reasonable.

Here you are begging the question. You disagree with the conclusion because you disagree with the conclusion, but somehow this isn't denial. 1 logical fallacy, mwha ha ha!

It is not a logical fallacy, because I have not constructed a logical argument against the evidence that pertains to Global Warming. You don’t understand what a logical fallacy is, because you see logical fallacies where there are no logical arguments presented: I never dismissed the evidence that supports the Global Warming narrative.

This is just one example, the rest are similar in substance. You see logical fallacies where there is no engagement. In order for a logical fallacy to exist, one must construct a logical argument pertaining to a specific set of data. I have never done so. That is why I mocked your “logical fallacy” list – it is meaningless. You are shouting at windmills.

You're confusing a low energetic state with thermodynamic equilibrium. That's wrong. A system can be in a high energetic state and still be in equilibrium.

Is a block of wood in thermodynamic equilibrium? How about when it is burning? How about when it's finished burning?

According to your definition, the block of wood is only in thermodynamic equilibrium when it has finished burning. And yet, it is also in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is not burning. Equilibrium is synonymous with "stable state", not, as you say, "lowest available energetic state".

Is a rock, balanced on top of another rock, balanced? By definition, the rock is balanced. But your definition claims that it is not, simply because it could fall. According to your definition it still wouldn't be in "equilibrium" after fall because it is still possible to dig a hole and make it fall some more.

You're way too easy. But then, Dr. Map has already shown you to be wrong several times with other examples.

Not that you'll ever admit it.

You don't answer legitimate questions. You ignore them because you don't want to admit that you've been proven wrong and try to cover it up with long-winded speeches. That's dishonest. Not only have you been proven wrong over and over again, but you've proven yourself to be dishonest, over and over again.

I don't get Paul Krugman any more.

That's because you have no more understanding of economics than you do of thermodynamics. Krugman is constrained by political considerations, lest he be smeared. Not that the obvious would be so to a hamster-brain like yourself.

Dyson at least deserves to be smeared. He's the guy who thinks polar bears are thriving, even though they're rightly expected to be nearly extinct in the wild in a few years.

Dyson has been widely excoriated for his insistence on the feasibility of the Dyson sphere, which has been shown time and again to be a preposterous bit of idiocy, if only because it would be provably prone to destruction from gravitational forces alone.

ecosystems, being collections of various life forms, naturally resist a tendency towards thermodynamic equilibrium, a condition colloquially known as death.

Senseless. You don't even understand the definitions of the words.

Oh, right. You're the guy who thinks batteries charge themselves.

You didn't answer the question, you ignorant cretin. Let's try this again.

Well, a charging battery is certainly a system and it is just as certainly not tending towards equilibrium.

It's not a system, you idiot. It's only part of the system. What did you do with the battery charger, moron? Isn't that part of the system?

Speak up junior, I haven't got all day to waste on you.

As I have now written a detailed answer to the question about the charging car battery that addresses many of your points, I will simply post it for your consideration.

To resolve the apparent paradox about the entropy of a charging and discharging battery, I am going to expand the system to include two water tanks at different elevations, the upper one of which is full of water, a turbine-generator that can be reversed to be a motor-pump, a pipe from one tank to one end of the turbine-generator, and a pipe from the other tank to the other end of the turbine-generator. Electrical wires connect the turbine-generator to the fully discharged battery. The tanks are sized so the potential energy of the water in the filled upper tank matches the energy storage capacity of the battery. Friction and resistance losses will be taken to be zero, so no heat will be generated. Not incidentally, the whole system of the battery, tanks, pipes, wires and turbine-generator is isolated.

Now we will let all the water from the upper tank flow through the turbine-generator and into the lower tank. The electricity generated fully charges the battery. Next we will configure the turbine-generator to function as a motor-pump. When this is done the battery discharges running the motor that pumps all the water from the lower tank back up to the upper tank. To preempt the objection that this is a perpetual motion machine, let me interject that I have stipulated that there are no friction or resistance losses. This is an idealized, fully reversible process, a concept which is commonly used in thermodynamic analysis.

We can see that with the water tanks on one side and the battery on the other side we have the thermodynamic analog of a seesaw. When the upper tank is full the water is as far from hydrostatic equilibrium with the lower tank as it can be. In this system it is in a state of minimum entropy. While the water is flowing into the lower tank it is approaching a state of hydrostatic equilibrium, its entropy is increasing and it is doing the useful work of running the turbine-generator. On the battery side, the electrical energy from the turbine-generator is charging the battery, moving it away from chemical equilibrium and decreasing its entropy.

When the battery is fully charged it is as far from chemical equilibrium as it can be and is in a state of minimum entropy. As it discharges it approaches a state of chemical equilibrium, its entropy is increasing and it is doing the useful work of running the motor-pump. On the tank side, the water is being pumped from the lower to the upper tank, moving it away from hydrostatic equilibrium and decreasing its entropy.

Note the beautiful symmetry in the thermodynamics of this idealized, reversible system. Energy, of course, is conserved. That's the first law of thermodynamics. But we see that, no matter which direction the reversible system is moving, an entropy change on one side of the system is balanced by an opposite entropy change on the other side of the system. The entropy of an isolated, reversible system is conserved. This is not the second law of thermodynamics. I stipulated that friction and resistance losses would be taken to be zero. This idealization cannot apply to any real physical system. So no real isolated physical system is reversible which rules out perpetual motion machines.

If the entropy of an isolated, reversible system is conserved but no physical system can be reversible, then we come to the second law of thermodynamics which simply states, in the context of this example, that the entropy of our isolated system can only increase. That means that friction and resistance losses will eventually dissipate the battery until the battery is fully discharged and the water is all in the lower tank. Both the battery and the water will be in their highest entropy states, states of equilibrium. What about the first law? Where will all the original energy go? In a word, heat. Those friction and resistance losses generate heat. The resulting increase in thermal energy will balance the decreases in potential energy and chemical energy in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.

The qualification that the second law applies to isolated systems can now be fully appreciated. This qualification simply means that when the entropy of a system does decrease, the entropy of a system somewhere else has to increase and that the increase will be inevitably more than the decrease (in magnitude).

Finally, let's return to that troublesome statement: "The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that any system, including ecological systems, will always tend towards equilibrium." As I look out my window I see a tree that is converting water, carbon dioxide and light into the polysaccharide commonly known as cellulose. The local system of tree, ground, and air is moving away from chemical equilibrium and its entropy is decreasing. But with the second law, I confidently know that the entropy of a system somewhere else is increasing to more than compensate the entropy decrease. And where is that other system? It's 93 million miles away at the center of the solar system. Thermodynamically, the sun is a radiative energy source whose increasing entropy ultimately sustains all of the localized decreasing entropy systems we call life. And ecosystems, being collections of various life forms, naturally resist a tendency towards thermodynamic equilibrium, a condition colloquially known as death.