Category Archives: academic fallacy

Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century

This is in response to my previous post. The title comes from a paper published in Nature Communications and highlights that the current climate models used for predicting the future global temperatures are inaccurate by at least a factor of two:

Prospects for a prolonged slowdown in global warming in the early 21st century

And the following paper shows one possible reason why. The CO2 released into the atmosphere is reabsorbed by plant life here on Earth. The rate of absorption is actually much higher than any previous models accounted for. In fact it is early hard evidence proving that CO2 is not a pollutant, rather it is a fertilizer necessary for plant life. Despite the formations of our concrete jungles and deforestation there has actually been an overall increase in actual green space activity on Earth.

In other words Global Warming, either natural or otherwise, may actually prove to be very beneficial to all life on Earth. This puts the Global Warming alarmists like this nutcase  in a position of explaining themselves why they are complete liars when they claim that their models are unarguably accurate and pristine predictors of the future. Ha! What a butthead. It looks as if they will have to go back and reprogram the models with more current parameters, whoops.

Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake

If you read the papers, the authors are very careful to insert a caveat that they still  believe in human caused climate change to show reverence and appease the high priests of the global warming, errrrr… excuse me, climate change agenda. Its kind of like genuflecting and showing the sign of the cross when entering a church.

President Elect Trump – Why Climate Change Is No Longer A Political Issue Outside The US

****************************** Update **************************************

Due to the concerns of the author of the article highlighted in this post, I removed the actual article while keeping all of the comments intact, which are not protected by copyright laws in any way. I also provided a link to the blog page so you can read the current state of the article and it’s comments, for how long it lasts. Trump Hysteria Article

I also corrected a few grammatical errors, enjoy.


Trump and the Hysteria of Climate Change

The PDF file above is a copy of an article that was posted on The article itself is nothing new, it is simply is a complete rehash of the hysteria of global warming that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by several reputable sources. The article is also the typical knee-jerk reaction of leftist liberals unable to cope with the election of President-Elect Donald Trump. The comments section is where the action is. The PDF is actually spliced as I had to, because the author was actively deleting comments as this exchange progressed. I think that I was able to retrieve most if not al of the pertinent deleted comments.

I simply refute the basic notion that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not, nor has ever been, proven scientifically. The author and several others make vain arguments against mine, but in the end no one was able to give either the proper correlation calculations thus proving the difference between natural causes of AGW from those causes that may, or may not be caused by human activity. Nor could they explain why CO2 lags behind global temperatures proving that CO2 cannot be the cause of Global temperatures here on Earth. Effects can not occur before causes, which is a basic physical law in our universe. These are just two of the basic cruxes as to why they cannot legitimately make the claim that AGW is caused by human activity.

I will agree that I was a little dogged in my pursuit but the arguments went exactly as I expected. Attack the messenger, avoid the argument at all costs, and then to finally censor the arguments and replace with false allegations. No one would give any explanations as to why they wouldn’t or couldn’t respond with anything but false circular arguments or assuring me that they would address the issue in a future article while burring my comments in a subterfuge of non pertinent and nonsensical comments. During my pursuit the author simply started deleting my comments that put him in a poor light, while making me out to be some degenerate bogeyman without being able to defend myself, he would simply delete those as well.

I warned him that he was acting very predictably and that his belief in AGW had more to do with his politics than anything scientific. His blood was, unfortunately, boiling too vigorously to act with reason.

Liberalism 101:

  1. Shoot the messenger, avoid, at all costs, the content of the argument.
  2. Censor, and or punish, both the argument as well as the arguer.

Enjoy, it may be entertaining or enraging, depending on which side of the AGW debate you fall, which is also pretty much the same thing as to which side of the political fence you favor.

*************** Update 12-06-2016 *********

The author has followed up with a ridiculously long winded article trying to refute my arguments,


Here is my comment to him:

“Wow! I knew it would be a painfully long winded article but, again, zzzzzzzz. The first thing that I notice is that you regularly reference the IPCC as a source for your data. I thought that it was common knowledge that most, if not all, of their data has been proven highly biased and thoroughly compromised. Ever hear of Climate-Gate? You know what they say; Garbage in, Garbage out.

Secondly, your assertion that you can predict the future with any level of absolute certainty is so ridiculous that it is laughable. There is no way that any model can accurately predict all possible outcomes of the real data, which does not exist prior to it happening. For instance we may be struck by a rogue asteroid five years from now, now where would the accuracy of today’s model be then? Zero.

So then, how much wealth would have been lost implementing punitive measures against fossil fuels based on that model? Many, many TRILLIONS of dollars. Wealth that could have been applied to offsetting the mass destruction that would follow that asteroid strike. You can’t predict, with any absolute certainty, the future of anything, let alone the Earth’s climate. If you are so good at predicting the future then, please, could you tell me what next weeks lotto numbers will be? Again, I assert that those that do make predictions of the future are simply, at best, dubious liars and/or shameless charlatans.

For the third point, I notice that you don’t provide the supporting data for many of your graphs. As such, by simple inspection, I can see that there are numerous points on your graph where the temperature vs. CO2 levels are presented such that the CO2 lags behind the temperatures. Often there are significant CO2 rises without temperature rises.

For example look at your “Years Before Present” graph of the Milankovitch’s curve. If you draw a vertical line centered on the point where the last temperature rise occurs you will plainly see that the Sun’s energy rose prior to the temperature graph. More importantly you can also plainly see that the CO2 plot rises AFTER the temperature rises.

This clearly shows the causality chain, the Sun caused the temperature increase, which in turn caused the CO2 levels to rise. In other words CO2 does NOT cause temperature fluctuations in our Earth’s atmosphere as Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists insist. Effects do not precede causes in our physical universe. CO2 fluctuations are an effect of temperature fluctuations, which in turn, are an effect of the fluctuations of the Sun’s output.

I’ve been doing this for twenty-five years now and you have brought nothing new to the discussion here, nothing but the same old tired and fallacious Sophistry. This is the exact kind of sloppiness that can be found everywhere in global warming alarmists arguments. Your arguments are certainly no exception. Again, I nominate you for the Sophist of the Year award.”

********** Update 02-08-2016 ****************************

Yet another of my replies after again, after being accused of trolling 🙂

There is a lot of information and a lot of disinformation available to you. You cherry pick the data that supports your view, data that has been widely proven to have been thoroughly corrupted. Then you immediately disregard the numerous studies that discredits your view. I would not call that honest in any way, whatever antonym I choose does not change these simple facts. I’m sorry for you if it offends you.

Like I said in the first exchange in your previous post, the only way to move forward is to throw out all of the studies and start over completely from scratch under the careful scrutiny of both sides of the argument. unfortunately the UN and IPCC refuse to allow any arguments from any skeptics anymore so, by default, they can no longer be considered to be properly applying the Scientific Method anymore.

Here is a link to over 30,000 scientists against human caused global warming who signed such a petition, 97% consensus? I think not:
I’m sure that you can easily find numerous propaganda sources attempting to discredit this initiative, cherry pick away.

Here is another interesting paper from Burt Rutan, a very respectable scientist and engineer, the first person to put a civilian man into space, he won the X-Prize for it. He also designed the first aircraft to fly around the world nonstop without refueling.

The AGW science simply is not settled

************** 12-10-2016 *************************

Now he locked me out from commenting, every time his argument goes south he can’t take it. What a coward! Tis is my comment to someone who was arguing that only climate experts are qualified to comment on climate change.

“Your argument sounds very seductive, although it falls under the category of an appeal to authority philosophical logical fallacy. This is especially true when many so called “scientific climate experts”, working in numerous institutions, have been caught red-handed hyperbolizing and even outright lying about climate change, both to its data, to its causes, as well as to its effects. Remember the best models available to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth authors have all been proven wrong. We were supposed to currently have an ice free arctic by their best faulty model predictions.

According to your logic, the only qualified people to discuss the flat Earth, would have been flat earthers. As Burt Rutan pointed out, in a link in one of my replies above, scientists are often times very wrong without any substantial consequences. When engineers are wrong people often die.

I agree with you that the same type of cross checking and verifications between many disciplines would be necessary as well as rigorous testing and verifications would be necessary if we were to ever actually produce a believable, provable, duplicatable model. This is currently not being accomplished in climate science, there are a lot of leaps of faith occurring in climate science today. In fact Many of the so-called leading agencies, cited by most AGW alarmists, are closed shops. They are not accepting any studies or arguments from anywhere but from themselves. Not at all very scientific, they are certainly not practicing any good engineering methods.”

Now that wasn’t bad enough to censor was it?



Making Carbonless Fuel From Water

Here is a slow motion video cracking (electrolysis)  of water (H2O) into its constituent elements Hydrogen and Oxygen. A great carbonless fuel if someone ever figures out how to crack it more efficiently. The electrode is in saltwater and the electrodes have a potential of 12V drawing a current of 2A.

Just collect the hydrogen and compress it into a cylinder and wall-a! A carbon free emission automobile. Too bad it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than you can possibly get out of it. It would be an act of insanity to do something like that, oh… wait a minute… that is also true for ethanol production for use in automobiles. ;-{

********* update 2014-09-17 ***************

After an extensive debate on YouTube a commenter decided to delete all of his comments that exemplify the ridiculousness and irrationality of how an idealist (liberal) argues. He obviously has been so humiliated that he had to remove the evidence of his stupidity. Here is a link to a copy of most of the exchange before he deleted it:


The bottom line is that this post displays the academic fallacy in that the academic and scientific communities have been nearly completely silent in that nearly all “green” energy sources cannot now, nor will ever be able to, produce wealth. Instead they consume wealth, as well as polluting more when you consider their entire processes, which is why they nearly all require government subsidies and artificial punitive penalties on those from which wealth can be created, mainly from fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources.

Sorry but throwing an exorbitant amounts of money to the “Big Government” research industry will not spontaneously produce a Mr. Fusion in which we can run our time traveling automobiles on empty beer cans an banana peels.

It Takes a Village to Raise an Idiot


The following quote is one of the most profound paragraphs that I have ever read, perhaps in my entire life. It was published in 1928 and expresses the very thing that is wrong with our contemporary society, particularly with the millennial generations hyperbolized sense of entitlement and the over emphasis on the collective versus the individual, i.e., communism, socialism, and the so called “social justices” as well as “Common Core” and simply generic contemporary idealistic democratic liberalism.

To be fair it also explains why unchecked or unregulated (Laissez faire) capitalism is also inherently immoral. Any established collective social structure, be it communistic or capitalistic, essentially takes on the same mentality of a cornered animal when stressed, and, will therefore do whatever it takes, unethically or immorally, in order to grow or survive.  This is why some form of transparent and robust system of checks and balances, that can actively purge and expel corruption, needs to be maintained without impunity for the corruptors. This is exactly why the current political system in the United States is hanging on by a single thread, the corruption has gone uncontrollably wild. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Santa Clause entitlement big government policies of both democrats and established republicans are killing the USA! The most dangerous enemy is within.


Note that it is one very long continuous paragraph from a long lost time when the attention span of the average persons were much longer than that of the collective twits that we seem to have devolved into. This is opposed to the “skulls full of mush” coming out of today’s public education system; they, on the other hand, communicate in very short one or two line paragraphs. Doubt me? Then just travel the web, especially in the social media realm and you will be hard pressed to see anything but one or two line paragraphs. Twitter even restricts its content thus encouraging and catering to this devolution into an ADHD riddled (de)generation.

This one single paragraph brilliantly predicts the inevitable outcome and the absurdity of the notions that it takes a village to raise a child, instead, it more correctly exemplifies that indeed it takes a village to raise an idiot, which to those who buy into the former nonsense is perfectly acceptable and indistinguishable (and probably intentional) from the latter, thus the exceptionally brilliant and accurate coinage of the terms “skulls full of mush” and “low information voters” by Rush Limbaugh.

For those of you with ADHD who would rather listen than read here is a link to an audio mp3 file of the quote converted into speech:

For the development of personality, then, strict differentiation from the collective psyche is absolutely necessary, since partial or blurred differentiation leads to an immediate melting away of the individual in the collective. There is now a danger that in the analysis of the unconscious the collective and the personal psyche may be fused together, with, as I have intimated, highly unfortunate results. These results are injurious both to the patient’s life feeling and to his fellow men, if he has any influence at all in his environment. Through his identification with the collective psyche he will infallibly try to force the demands of his unconscious upon others, for identity with the collective psyche always brings with it a feeling of universal validity – “godlikeness” – which completely ignores all differences in the personal psyche of his fellows. (The feeling of universal validity comes, of course, from the universality of the collective psyche.) A collective attitude naturally presupposes the same collective psyche in others. But that means a ruthless disregard not only of individual differences but also of differences of a more general kind within the collective psyche itself, as for example differences of race. This disregard for individuality obviously means the suffocation of the single individual, as a consequence of which the element of differentiation is obliterated from the community. The element of differentiation is the individual. All the highest achievements of virtue, as well as the blackest villainies, are individual. The larger a community is, and the more the sum total of the collective factors peculiar to every large community rests on conservative prejudices detrimental to individuality, the more will the individual be morally and spiritually crushed, and, as a result, the one source of moral and spiritual progress for society is choked up. Naturally the only thing that can thrive in such an atmosphere is sociality and whatever is collective in the individual. Everything individual in him goes under, i.e., is doomed to repression. The individual elements lapse into the unconscious, where, by the law of necessity, they are transformed into something essentially baleful, destructive, and anarchical. Socially this evil principle shows itself in the spectacular crimes – regicide and the like – perpetrated by certain prophetically inclined individuals; but in the great mass of community it remains in the background, and only manifests itself indirectly in the inexorable moral degeneration of society. It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of the individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when he is acting alone for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. (Senatus bestia, senatores boni viri). Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded, and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality. Our admiration for great organizations dwindles when once we become aware of the other side of the wonder: the tremendous piling up and accentuation of all that is primitive in man, and the unavoidable destruction of his individuality in the interests of the monstrosity that every great organization in fact is. The man of today, who resembles more or less the collective ideal, has made his heart into a den of murderers, as can easily be proved by the analysis of the unconscious, even though he himself is not in the least disturbed by it. And in so far as he is normally “adapted” to his environment, it is true that the greatest infamy on part of his group will not disturb him, so long as the majority of his fellows steadfastly believe in the exalted morality of their social organization. Now, all that I have said here about the influence of society upon the individual is identically true of the influence of the collective unconscious upon the individual psyche. But, as is apparent from my examples, the latter influence is as invisible as the former is visible. Hence it is not surprising that its inner effects are not understood, and that those whom such things happen are called pathological freaks and treated as crazy. If one of them happen to be a real genius, the fact would not be noted until the next generation or the one after. So obvious does it seem to us that a man should drown in his own dignity, so utterly incomprehensible that he should seek anything other than what the mob wants, and that he should vanish permanently from view in this other. One could wish both of them a sense of humor, that – according to Schopenhauer – truly “divine” attribute of man which alone benefits him to maintain his soul in freedom.

— C.G. Jung, Phenomena Resulting from the Assimilation of the Unconscious, Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, Collected Works Vol. 7


Optical Lens Resolution Math

Apparently I ruffled a few feathers asserting that LP/mm is an inappropriate measurement for the evaluation of optical lenses, let me explain. As alluded to in previous posts the industry standard for measuring the resolving capabilities of wide ranging types of mediums is Line Pairs per Millimeter (LP/mm) and only makes sense for certain types of equipment like scanners. For optical lenses this standard unit of measurement simply does not make any sense from the standpoint of giving the photographer any real practical information about the resolving power of their lenses.

Manufacturers who do provide MTF graphs, which are usually scaled in LP/mm, are normally giving this information in a single graph for different positions of the lens, for instance the best resolution normally is in the center of a projected image and the resolution normally falls off towards the edges. This information is useful for the comparisons of differing lenses. For instance the Nikon 400mm lens the graph is nearly perfectly horizontal indicating very high quality lens with very little resolution change across the entire profile of the image. The actual numbers in this case are basically meaningless, the real information is the shapes of the plots.

However when trying to compare absolute resolution of one lens to another or one focal length to another this standard measure is entirely inappropriate and I will show the reasons why. The explanation involves some simple math namely geometry and some very basic trigonometry. Fortunately the conversion of LP/mm to an angle is is the same as for the conversion of focal length to the coverage angle for different focal length lenses and sensor sizes. In other words the method can be reduced to a simple formula such that the numbers can easily be plugged into a calculator.

Here is a simple diagram that shows a top down diagram of a typical subject-lens-sensor and the geometric labels.


The angle  \alpha = 2*\theta and in order to use the right triangle relationships the following formula in its simplest form is used:

\alpha = 2*arctan(\frac{\frac{s}{2}}{f})

Where \alpha is normally measured in radians, to convert this angle to degrees it needs to be multiplied by 180/pi. then to convert this angle to arc-seconds it must be multiplied by 3600.

For example a lets say a we are using a 35mm film and a 400mm lens then

5.01degrees = 2*arctan(35/2/400)*180/3.14159

is the angle that is covered with the 400mm lens by the 35mm film.

For another example lets calculate the angle of two pixels of a D3s camera sensor using a 400mm lens, the pixel width is 8.45 micro-meters. (this is the minimum angular resolution using the above configuration)

8.7 arc-seconds = 2*arctan(0.0169/2/400)*180/3.14159*3600

Now lets evaluate the measured resolution of two lenses at two different distances. Lets say the industry standard specification was 30 LP/mm for a 400mm lens using the standard Koren chart photographed at the specified distance of 400mm*52 = 20.8 m and for our other test an 800mm lens is used so the target distance would be twice that of the 400mm lens or 41.6m. Using the same target the chart would be projected at the same size onto the camera sensor. Lets say, for this example, that they both measured 30 LP/mm resolution on the image sensor. One might conclude that these two lenses possessed comparable resolution qualities. That assumption would be exceptionally wrong, lets calculate: (one line pair = 1/30mm – 0.0333mm)

for the 400mm lens     17.2 arc-seconds = 2*arctan(0.0333/2/400)*180/3.14159*3600

But for the 800mm lens (400mm lens with a 2.0x teleconverter) the angular resolving power would be twice that of the 400mm lens for the same 30 LP/mm resolution measurement:

8.59 arc-seconds = 2*arctan(0.0333/2/800)*180/3.14159*3600

So for two different lenses that provide identical resolution as measured in LP/mm the actual angular resolution is NOT THE SAME!!!!! Additionally with the longer distance used to measure the 800mm lens the dispersal of light caused by the additional atmosphere and dust between the target and lens would result in additional resolution losses. In other words:


The ONLY way to evaluate different lenses is to use charts photographed at IDENTICAL distances and conditions, both with lighting as well as atmospheric conditions.

Happy Independence Day.