Friday, August 8, 2014

False Logic

I love challenge. Obviously man DO change climate (he builds cities, clears forest, dries up water bodies, small or as big as Aral sea and Chad lake, etc.), so This WAS a challenge.
But i did it.
Here’s the proof.
0) we must ” prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
1) formal logic is part of scientific method. Using it is fair play.
2) formal logic teach us that, if a logical frame includes a false sentences as an axiom, then it contains absolutely every sentences, whatever absurd. For instance, since i am not Christopher Keating, in an axiomatic set that includes the sentence “I am Christopher Keating”, the sentence “I am queen of England” is also true (despite the fact that I am not queen of England in reality, of course)…
So to prove that “that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, despite man-made global climate change occurring in reality, we can (and we must : there is no other way to do) prove that we work in some contradictory frame.
3) maybe someone could find that some kind of “real” proof, relative to the real world, is required. Actually, the way the challenge is stated just prevents it. The challenge is formal, or it simply doesn’t exist. For the scientific method is not a way to prove facts (Newton did not “prove” that apples fall of trees, Einstein did not “prove” that Mercury perihelia would advance, etc.). The scientific method is a way to construct and discriminate between theories about facts, and to make prediction about facts that are not already known (so that we can tell good theories from bad ). The way the challenge is framed implies that “man-made global climate change” is only a theoretical construction, not a fact that can be observed with a proper apparatus, and then discussed. Since we cannot dismiss the challenge, we must take it “as is”
4) our formal frame includes the following axioms
rule 1. [Christopher Keating] will award $30,000 of [his] own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
rule 5. [Christopher Keating is] the final judge of all entries
5) Christopher Keating is just a man. Men do mistakes, can be deceived, or self-deceive themself, and even lies, etc. Accordingly, anone knows that rule 1. IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE. We all know, and Christopher Keating knows, that as of today any of the following can happen :
* Christopher Keating awards the money to a flawed proof, that actually doesn’t prove the point;
* Christopher Keating doesn’t award the money, despite a valid proof being presented;
* Christopher Keating is prevented by circumstances to complete the process as he would have wished (whether awarding or not the money ), for whatever reason beyond his will.
* and many more
6) This prove the formal frame set by Christopher Keating is flawed beyond remedies, so that anything can be true in this frame, including “we proved, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
My trick is obivously only formal, but that cannot be a surprise, since the challenge requires it to be, having the form of a rhetorical trick itself.
But at least my trick is logically (so scientifically) valid
The bottom line : a proper challenge is relative to something real, with a definition clear enough to prevent bad arguments, that can and will be obvious to anyone in some near future without it being already obvious. A soccer competition can support a challenge. Whether climate change occurs (what do you call a climate change ? what is “climate”, to begin with : for instance is a El nino condition a climate, and a La nina condition another climate — so that switching between these qualifies as climate change ? or are they both part of a single climate, so that such a switch does not qualify as climate change ? ), and whether it is man’s deed or not, cannot.
And if you issue such a bad challenge, you lose. That’s why I won.
best regards


Your logic is fatally flawed, you provided no scientific evidence and you did not employ the scientific method.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.


  1. According to this paper
    http://adsabs.harvard.ed/abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W the carbon dioxide concentration is a little higher at low altitude. The difference difference is 8 parts per million at most. The measurements in this experiment went up to 13 kilometres.
    This experiment was done in 2002 when the average concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was around 30 parts per million less than they are now. In some locatiions and seasons there was very little altitude effect on the concentration, so in the atmosphere the carbon dioxide is quite well mixed.

  2. Hmm. No sources eh? I'm willing to bet that if the room from your video had a ceiling fan on, the CO2 would very quickly disperse out of the glass. You guys keep making these wild, baseless claims; bad enough by themselves. But the "logic" that comes from them is laughably worse.

    Let's pretend that CO2 lingers around sea level: so what? According to you, this means that the CO2 is "not changing the pressure or thickness of the atmosphere, thus not causing any global warming."

    What? Who is arguing that the greenhouse effect is caused by pressure? And why would low hanging CO2 not change pressure, but well mixed CO2 would?

    This whole part, "There is no mechanism to "trap" anything. The atmosphere holds a certain amount of heat, but it will always stay at equilibrium, with excess heat radiating back to space."

    How? Why? What is the mechanism for this?
    Unless you can provide even cursory evidence for your claims, they are lies.

    When Keating makes a claim, he explains the mechanism and cites a source. This is from "A Scientific Examination of AGW,"

    "But, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb IR radiation and then reemit it in a random direction. As a result, some is going up and some is going down. If the downward radiation reaches the surface (instead of being absorbed by another molecule) then the surface will absorb the IR photon and this will keep it from cooling down as quickly as it would without the atmosphere."

    So, either you can disprove this very well understood phenomenon and collect your Nobel prize, or maybe, you know, stop lying to people over the internet.

  3. Even NASA can tell you that CO2 is not well mixed at the same altitude.
    But you think CO2 is perectly mixed up and down?
    As for atmospheric pressure, yes temperature and pressure are related. You might want to learn about
    Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT
    Hint: T stands for temperature and P stands for pressure.
    But for the real test, just look at Venus. The atmosphere is 97% CO2, yet at the point at which the atmsopheric pressure is similar to earth, the temperature is also similar to earth.

  4. You've successfully shown that there are differences in CO2 density based on latitude. There is absolutely nothing there about mixing by altitude. But again, what would it change?

    I am familiar with the ideal gas law, but it is a different concept than the green house gas rerouting of IR radiation. If we use your theory then the red parts on your globe are what, more dense?

    If we use Keating's theory, the red parts indicate a higher probability of IR radiation being intercepted on its way to space. And look, it just so happens that the reddest parts are where we have our harshest deserts. Hmmm...

  5. Not even close. The red parts are over major cities and places that burn a lot of oil. Australia has some of the harshest, and nothing red there.

  6. Wow, it's pretty hard to argue with that map, especially your point about Australia. (Do you see how this whole "change your opinion based on the facts" thing works?)

  7. What are you actually trying to claim, that CO2 is causing there to be deserts?
    It doesn't even matter. Man Made Global Warming has been proven false at every level. Greenhouse Theory is just one of its failings. My particular challenge to Keating which he would not address, is that the ice cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland do not represent continuous growth. What look like 100,000 year cycles are really just the remnants of 1/3 of a much larger cycle. It has been cooling for 80,000 years. See my blog if you want to know more.

  8. No, I no longer claim that CO2 causes deserts, you proved me wrong. Now, prove the greenhouse effect wrong. Prove one other "level" of greenhouse theory wrong.

    Better yet, stand by your original post and please explain to me your comments on atmospheric equilibrium or gas mixing.

    If you could prove even a little of what you say, you'd be drowning in science pussy. They'd throw Nobels and grants at you. Iceman would be known as the person to have solved the biggest problem of the 21st century.

  9. I am letting you rant on as you wish, but you are lying when you say I did not address your submission to my challenge. I not only showed why your submission was not valid, I then had to address the same issue over and over with your comments. i read your blog and you do not have a single iota of scientifically valid evidence and I showed you why that is true. So, what you can say, without lying, is that I addressed your claim and you reject the science I used to disprove your hypothesis, which no one else will accept, either.

  10. How about just answering a simple question which I believe was in one of my first posts: If the earth actually did shoot out of an ice age as depicted in the ice core record, it would have been the most significant climatic event of the last 100,000 years. And all of the various ice core studies would show it and they would match and there would be a consensus. But they don't. Some show it to have started 20,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. While others it looks like it started 18,000 years ago and ended 11,000 years ago. While Richard Alley claims it occurred over less than 10 years. While still another Danish team drilling in Greenland claims it occurred in just 1 single year and even pegged the year. So which is it? What is the consensus? When did this event occur? When did it start and how long did it take? And where could all of the energy necessary to heat the earth by 12 degrees C in such a short amount of time come from? Do you suppose the sun was going supernova over that period and suddenly stopped and returned to gradual cooling? This you never addressed.

  11. Great information shared. If your looking for best IT park India, it park, private it park, office space in wardha, office space in it park then you can contact us.
    Thanks for sharing.

  12. Please note the scale. The graphic looks dramatic but the red is 380 ppm while the blue is 365 ppm. That is a difference of less than 5% between the highest concentration and the lowest.

  13. No, they aren't. They are over the areas with the lowest vegetation, which is exactly what is expected.

  14. Listen, I answered all of your questions and have been as civil as possible. You are obsessed with this idea of yours, even though I have shown it to be completely invalid scientifically. Now, you have a choice. You can make rational, civil comments here, go away, or be blacklisted.

    And, just one more comment about your crazy claims - it is to be expected that proxies from different areas will show different start and end dates for the ice ages. Ice ages aren't some monolithic event that happens the same everywhere and at the same time. Different places will experience different events at different times and this will be reflected in any proxy, including ice cores.

    Please, read some science literature on the subject instead of just coming up with these hypothesis.

  15. At Taylor Dome Antarctica, it looks like the ice age ended about 15,000 years ago while it looks like it ended at Vostok (1,000 miles away) about 10,000 years ago. So you're saying the ice age can end in one place with a temperature rise of 12 degreees C, but at a different location 1,000 miles away it could remain in an ice age for another 5,000 years? Sure, that makes perfect sense.

    "Please, read some science literature on the subject instead of just coming up with these hypothesis."

    Kindly direct me to such literature. I'm just trying to understand the "consensus" and march along to the beat.

  16. I provided proof that water vapor cools the planet, but you must have negated that like all of the charlatan IPCC pseudo-scientists. I analyze data and relay what it tells us, not make up things to destroy the coal industry so we all have to pay more for power to satisfy the greedy global warmers.

  17. I don't believe it; I know it without question. I gave you proof that water vapor is cooling, but you ignored that data. I guess you and Corey below when the sun is shining and a cloud goes overhead and shades you, you two feel cooler. Ask a 5 year old if he feels warmer or cooler! You also ignored my proof that CFCs destruction of ozone is what caused the warming. I am an old chemical engineer. Engineers analyze data all of the time so what we design works, I have found that physicists in many cases are not that scientific! You all subscribe to Einstein's premise that photons have no mass during travel through space, but they do have mass before they leave an electron and again have mass when they hit and are absorbed by another electron. They should call them Houdinis if that is the case - sheer stupidity saying that photons have no mass. The Chinese have data to show that light has momentum. Momentum is the product of the mass times the velocity of an object.

  18. Is it warmer or hotter on day with high humidity? Ask a five-year old.

    I believe you when you say you are an old chemical engineer. Old enough to have apparently forgotten science. If you would do a little more studying and a lot less insulting you would find the answer to your issues. You do not need to go to China to find the momentum of photons. Any introductory textbook on relativity discusses this. I have taught in class many times. And, photons are packets of energy. Mass and energy are interchangeable (again by Einstein). But, photons do not have mass. It would take an infinite amount of energy for any mass to travel at the speed of light.

    I am sorry you cannot accept that there is no scientific basis for your submission, but that is the fact. Here is the reality, your claim is a false one.

    I would hope the people in the coal industry would admit what is going on and come out as advocates for change. The fact is, people are becoming more and more aware of the true facts on this issue and will turn on the individuals and industries that worked so hard to deceive them. If you guys bothered reading history and had any sense, you would get on the winning side now while you can. Ask the tobacco industry about this.

  19. Ah, yes. When you have no science to support you resort to insulting thousands of international scientists. Always a good strategy.

  20. I gave you proof that it is cooler on humid days which you ignored. It is cooler but with higher humidity evaporation is not as great so you could feel warmer. Do you know the difference between the two?
    Are you warmer when a cloud goes over and shades you on a sunshiny day, you didn't answer that. You never answer my questions directly - because you can't !!!!!
    You know nothing about light either, you can't have momentum without mass. What did Einstein makeup about this?
    You should follow Newton he was a smart dude, Einstein was not! Someone asked Newton, "Prove God Exists! He said, "Look at your thumbs that should be enough proof!"
    All of the people promoting global warming from CO2 are either charlatans or stupid. The world hasn't warmed any since 1998 but CO2 from the oceans warming as a result of the Medieval Warming Period has increased some 50 ppmv. You don't know enough science to know you have to look at correlations to see effects. Wow!

  21. But the people analyzing the data have to be smart enough to see it. You never commented at all about the data I presented from Dr. Travis or Brehmer did. Just ignore it and you think it goes away. I don't think so Tim!

  22. This is what it has always been about.

  23. Wow!, is right. You have left the realm of reality. And, actually, if you check, I answered your query about the clouds, which you never addressed. Clouds provide negative feedback during the daytime by reflecting sunlight, but they provide positive feedback at night by trapping IR radiation. I also pointed out that clouds are not water vapor, but are condensed water. Why didn't you address either of those, Bob? Maybe it's because you have left all science behind and only see what you want to see.

    Here is a fact of life you better get use to - coal is destroying the environment and harming the health of people all over the world while lowering their standard of living. There will be more and more regulation and taxes on your industry, and there should be. The fact that you go and make these insane claims while calling thousands of international scientists "charlatans or stupid" only serves to illustrate the point.

    You have become a troll and you can take your bias and insanity somewhere else.

  24. Condensed water in the form of clouds works as a negative feedback during the daytime as it reflects sunlight but as a positive feedback at night as it traps heat. You don't realize that water molecules are still molecules whether they be in the form of ice, water or vapor. If a cloud goes over at night do you feel a warming effect - you should because it is still condensed water right? Oh you forgot the same atmosphere that blocks the sun in the day (twice as much energy from the sun than from the earth to the atmosphere) blocks the radiation from the earth. If we are trapping all this heat even during the day, why doesn't the clouds warm the earth during the day?. According to you it should. Once again showing the fallacy of your arguments.

  25. Bob, your comments have become so silly that I am just going to delete them in the future (and have already deleted some). But, this was so stupid that I have to comment. Water in the form of a gas behaves extremely differently than water as a liquid. Please, just take the first look at a physics textbook before you speak. Would you expect water as liquid and water as ice to behave the same? And, what happens to all of that latent heat that water vapor gives up when it condenses to a liquid? Remember? That 1000 Btu per pound that it absorbed when it became a gas? And, yes, if it is cloud covered at night you feel a warming effect, a very great one in fact. And, yes, the clouds do trap heat and warm the surface during the day, but the cooling effect from reflecting sunlight is greater than the warming effect.

    So, you are done. I am blacklisting you, so don't come back.