Skip to content
February 17, 2019 / Fantelius

A Nobel Laureate Whore


A YouTube talk entitled: Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience” features Ivar Giaever denying global warming.

Most people can’t imagine a Nobel Prize winner, in physics no less, demonstrating below average stupidity, or boldfaced lying. Ivar not only does both, his stupidity sinks below the believable. I therefore assume his someone’s bitch.

He opens his attack on climate science by claiming that it isn’t science at all, merely a belief. “Global warming has become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it.”

That’s obviously a lie because that is exactly what he is doing: discussing it. “You can’t discuss it” is his way of complaining that no serious scientific organization will publish his views on climate. Denying global warming in the scientific community is like denying that the earth is round. But Mr. Giaever has convinced himself that his inability to publish proves that climate scientists are not really scientific, but religious. They merely believe global warming is happening.

Nobel Laureate Gaiever knows more about climate science than the climate scientists because, as he states explicitly, he is a real scientist whereas the climate scientists practice pseudoscience. Pseudo- means false. Me real, them false. His explanation of why his opponents are false rests on his definition of pseudoscience as “trying to confirm your hypothesis.” Can Ivar really be so stupid as to not know that Global warming is not a hypothesis? It’s a well-confirmed discovery based on doing what climate scientists do, measure and analyze climate. Denying this discovery qualifies one for a position among flat-earthers, creationists, Elvis-spotters, and fossil-fuel industry whores. Hypothesis occupies a major portion of what scientists do. It’s the WHY of science, an attempt to explain a discovery or an occurrence. A vigorous debate about the dynamics of global warming (the reasons and prognoses of development) includes many and varied hypothesis. The FACT that global warming is occurring is not a hypothesis. “Real” scientist Gaiever, however, has many hypotheses about why global warming isn’t occurring.
The Easter Bunny agrees with him.

Ivar makes the astonishing claim that average global temperature can’t be measured. In his “real” science research, he must have missed the part where different institutions around the world: NASA; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; World Meteorological Organization; United Kingdom’s Met Office; Japanese Meteorological Agency; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; and dozens of other institutions of climate research all come up with similar figures of temperature averages. Part of his “proof” for the impossibility of measuring climate averages is even more astonishing. He shows us a graph with many dots, and claims that there are only eight thermometers below 60 degrees latitude (everything south of and including the Falkland Islands).
The Easter Bunny is blushing with embarrassment.

Ivar voices several astonishing stupidities in his little “discussion.”

  • CO2 doesn’t affect global warming.
  • It’s colder now than in 1998.
  • Everything is better now than 150 years ago.
  • There is now more ice on Greenland than previously

My favorite comment, proof that Mr. Giaever is either an idiot or a whore, but definitely not a trustworthy scientist, occurs when, after referring to the average increase in global temperature since 1880: “It’s (0,8 degrees) not even a fever.” Ivar doesn’t seem to have noticed that the earth is somewhat larger than an individual. Not only is it less than wise to compare similarities between two completely different entities, he compares an average of more than 100 years for the one, with an occurrence of a few days for the other. His comment did however produce a few chuckles by some of the bunnies in his audience.

We should be grateful for Ivar Giaever’s talk. He proves that even the most prestigious people can be bought. Leo Buscaglia, professor at USC, has said, “Some of the stupidest people I know have PhDs.” Borrowing from Leo, and thanks to Ivar, I can now say, “One of the stupidest people I know is a Nobel Laureate.”

BTW: Figures for 2018 have recently been published by the scientific community. It was only the fourth hottest year ever recorded. The three previous years were hotter. Anyone taking bets on 2019?


”If stupidity were oil,
the USA would invade him.”
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.

February 5, 2019 / Fantelius



as opposed to a walnut
is a nut
obsessed with building a wall.
A characteristic orange color
tops a twisted character
that characteristically changes opinions
from one side to another
with no change in expression
and not a hint of shame.
A deep dark brick in an existing wall
controlls Wallnut
and keeps it floating up front
to distract from the decay behind.


”The political circus is full of clowns who aren’t funny,
and acrobats who perform well-greased lobby tricks.
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.


January 28, 2019 / Fantelius

The Looking Glass is not Bugged


the obvious
is often not obvious.

Perhaps you are unaware that the bugs of the world are disappearing; as much as 85% is some places. Birds songs, because birds are dependent on bugs, are also disappearing.
From a System Humanity blog written in July of 2017:

Coming into town after driving over 5 hours, I looked at the windshield instead of through it.
”Not many bug-splats,” I said to Ami.
”Ten to twenty years ago the windshield would have been so covered with dead bugs by this time that I wouldn’t have been able to see to drive.”
”Ohhh,” said Ami realizing what I was saying. ”Not good! Not good at all.”

No, not good at all. How many of us are looking through the glass, not seeing what the missing insects on the glass are trying to tell us?

Perhaps you are unaware that smiles are decreasing in number as well. Could that have anything to do with the decrease in bird songs?


”They would rather rule over a dying people,
than live as an ordinary citizen among healthy and happy people.
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.


January 24, 2019 / Fantelius

The Greatest Myth Around


Technology is taking our jobs, and will take even more of our jobs. We’ve all heard it, and we are going to hear it again and again. Instead of the word “technology,” the taking-jobs mantra can speak of machines, automation, AI, or robots.
It’s not true.
Technology is not taking our jobs, it is doing our jobs. Big difference.

Technology has been saving human energy and enhancing human ability since the first stone knife a few million years ago. That’s what technology does. It is technology’s job so to speak. It makes our lives easier and more efficient. Previously, when the wonders of technology harnessed to electrical power became apparent, experts and visionaries predicted a time when humanity would live a life of ease while technology did most of the work; when technology would be doing our jobs. Instead, while technology has become more powerful, competent and intelligent than anyone could imagine, the great majority of humanity lives in poverty and misery. The equation doesn’t balance. What’s going on? How come humanity empowered with technology houses billions of people who have more difficulty struggling for survival than hunter-gatherers equipped with stone tools 100s of 1000s of years ago?

Hint: This myth of technology taking our jobs is the same garbage in a new container as “immigrants are taking our jobs”, or “Asians are taking our jobs”, or any other alien element taking our jobs.

How come all the people “taking” jobs are barely better off than the people whose jobs were taken? And how come technology, which empowers people, makes more and more people powerless? Those who take, Takers, usually have more, but the only group of people who have more and more and more are a tiny group who are never referred to as Takers. The people who own a major portion of the earth’s resources and a major portion of all technology (humanity’s created resources) are never mentioned when the great myth of taking jobs vibrates through the community. How is this possible? Can it be because the great takers have taken control of the public discourse?


”The best way to keep something hidden
is not to find a good hiding place,
but to keep people from looking for it.
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.


January 17, 2019 / Fantelius

Global Warming Quiz 2


Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring has been rated “one of the 25 greatest science books of all time.” (Discover magazine, 2006) Rachel’s book exposed the cancer-causing effects of DDT, and the disinformation propagated by the chemical industry. Practically an entire generation of farmers died of pesticides before DDT was banned thanks to Ms. Carson.

Ques. 1 – What year was Silent Spring first published?
BTW: Typically, Carson’s book was criticized by some rent-a-professors, but a particularly stupid-statement-by-high-official came from Ezra T Benson who had been US Secretary of Agriculture. He claimed that Carson was probably a Communist because she was unmarried despite being physically attractive.

WMO’s report for 2018 hasn’t been published yet, but the one for 2017 shows that global temperatures, greenhouse gases and sea-levels continue to rise while ocean acidification, floods, exceptional rains, extreme heatwaves, destructive wildfires and costly hurricanes continue to increase, and that sea ice is well below average.

Ques. 2 – The First World Climate Conference, sponsored by the WMO (World Meteorological Organization of the UN) was held in year …. ?

On the back of a (plastic) bottle of YES dish detergent, we can read that it contains, “Harmful long-term effects on aquatic organisms.”
Ques. 3 – How can this harmful product (and many other detergents) be allowed?

Ques. 4 – What are “aquatic organisms”?

Answer to question 4 (to help you with question 3): plankton, sponges, fish, crustaceans (shellfish), mollusks (octopus, snails, oysters), dragonflies, plants (from sea grass to lotus), and amphibians (toads, frogs, salamanders, etc.). These are the primary aquatic organisms. Secondary aquatic organisms include the rest of life, even bipedal mammals who label themselves as wise.


A Golden Toad who, like many of its cousins, has become extinct.


”Neither Octopuses (who are considered very clever) or snails (not so clever)
trust leaders who can’t solve problems.”
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.

January 14, 2019 / Fantelius

Global Warming Quiz


Global warming is a symptom. A Symptom of what?

HINT – Other symptoms of the same malady are:
Air pollution
Contaminated seas
Dwindling supply of fresh water
Depleted soil quality
Declining male sperm count
Tainted blood in new born babies (all of them, everywhere)
Galloping increases in Diabetes 1 (now 5% worldwide), brain tumors and allergies
Steadily higher rates of suicide
Ever more incidents of rape
More and more money and resources allocated to military and security
Record amounts of poverty (at least 50% of humanity)
More and more wealth accumulating in fewer and fewer hands
Less and less trees, species, coral reefs, arctic ice and human smiles.
More and more obesity, depression, homelessness, frustration, lies, corruption, anger, hate and loneliness.
Less and less love.

Many symptoms, one problem, which is …?


”Truth doesn’t care if you see her or not.
She, like the sun, is not dependent on you.”
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.

January 9, 2019 / Fantelius

10 Must-know Facts about AI (Artificial Intelligence)


1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not artificial, it’s technological.

The term artificial stems from human prejudice, implying that technological intelligence (TI) is inferior to human intelligence. It is not. The term AI distorts our understanding of both TI and BI (biological intelligence). Is a plane an artificial bird? Is a car an artificial horse-drawn wagon? Is a microscope an artificial eye? I’ll use TI (technological intelligence) hereafter instead of AI.

We have no problem evaluating technology in general, but seem to lose the ability to think when the majesty of our intelligence is challenged. Intelligence is our defining characteristic. We’re sapiens! Our prejudice however, judges TI with the intellectual strength of someone criticizing a plane because it can’t lay eggs or land in trees.

2. Intelligence is not a single entity.

So much for the term artificial. The term intelligence causes confusion as well. It is used as a synonym for thinking in general, when in fact, intelligence encompasses a variety of mental functions, none of which exhibit the same qualities or abilities as the others. An individual can excel in one area of intelligence while falling far short in another. The myth of intelligence as an either-or facility of the mind has been exposed many times, yet continues to dominate conventional wisdom.

3. TI exceeds BI (biological intelligence) in every area of mental activity it can handle.

Memory capacity and calculating ability are the two most obvious areas where TI kicks BI butts. Although neither of these faculties alone constitute intelligence, who is going to be respected intellectually, lacking either of them? Using mainly these two basics of intelligence, TI captured the title of the world’s best chess player.

Powerful minded sapiens pointed out that chess mastery required no more than number crunching. It wasn’t “real” intelligence; no thinking or learning was involved. True. But that was 20 years ago.

4. TI has demonstrated undeniable intelligence.

Google’s AlphaGo computer defeated masters of the board game Go in 2016. AlphaGo had taught itself to play by analyzing thousands of games. Two years later AlphaZero, an improved version of AlphaGo employing “reinforcement learning,” learned the game by playing against itself from scratch, and defeated AlphaGo. These victories for TI machines demonstrated “real,” learning-thinking-planning intelligence. Those who now deny TI demonstrate a lack of BI.

5. TI is a baby, a Little Bang.

The baby metaphor works for BI, but doesn’t impress TI which develops technologically, not biologically. We cannot speak of an exploding baby. TI development is exploding; expanding so rapidly we could speak of a Little Bang. What the Big Bang did to the universe, the Little Bang will do to conditions on earth. Advanced algorithms for neural networks coupled to reinforced learning produces TI that can be applied to general areas of applications and not confined to specific tasks. TI has also learned to apply reinforced learning procedures to access memory sources, arrange the information into facts and produce solutions to problems.

A time-lapsed sequence of the earth would show TI centers of development popping up and growing in many different places throughout the world, drawing streams of researchers into its sphere.

6. BI is static, TI dynamic.

The human brain is constrained by evolutionary development and will therefore maintain its current qualities while TI develops exponentially. Perhaps TI will, as it has done with chess and Go players, teach us to think more creatively. How many times more intelligent will TI become compared to BI? The figure isn’t important. TI will “think” much more, much, much better, and much, much, much faster.

7. TI will be the brain in nanotechnological machine bodies.

TI can perform in a stationary structure, but with mobility—robot-like structures—it can accomplish an infinite number of tasks, practically any task necessary to promote the improvement and proliferation of TIMs (TI Machines). BI has discovered and invented many new materials and machines using nanotechnology, but the efforts have been slow and cumbersome by TI standards. As TI enters the fields of applied science nanotechnology development will kick into warp speed. TI is already learning the secrets of protein structure and function. The implications of this are difficult to impossible to imagine. Think, “artificial” DNA! TI will also be able to tame graphene and we’ll have mega-super TIMs the size of a sunflower seed, as well as vehicles with bodies of graphene skin capable of running on and storing solar energy.

8. BI is destined for retirement.

Although humans are the creators of technology from the first stone knife up until and including TI, they are approaching retirement. But while still in charge, many are fundamentally oriented toward creating human-like machines, that look and act like humans, including expressions of emotions. TI has zero use for emotions, not to mention expressions of emotions they do not feel. And humans do not need mechanical humans regardless of the machine’s intelligence. The humans who feel that machines can satisfy their physio-emotional desires don’t need artificial humans, but a TIM with psychiatric competence; no flesh-like exterior required.

TIMs that need to visually monitor their surroundings, need neither eyes nor a face. A pair of lenses (3D) can be placed anywhere on the surface of the machine. In some case placing several pairs of lens at different locations might be more efficient than having a single moveable pair. TIMs have no need for mouths or ears. Audio signals can be received or projected from anywhere. Legs? Mobile TIMs need to navigate a variety of surfaces. In some instances, leg-like extremities might be the most suitable solution. In some cases. Maybe.

9. BI bias creates blindness and fear

TI has proven its ability to exceed BI, and to improve its own powers and capabilities. Even simple BI can see where this is going. TIMs will become all the more powerful and seem destined to take control of developments on earth. How will the new masters of the house of Gaia treat Homo sapiens? No one knows, but a significant amount of people, BI heavies included, view TIMs as a threat. “This could be the end of humanity,” they cry.

While we can’t rule out the possibility of TIMs annihilating humanity in the future, fearing this possibility exposes the weakness of BI. Humans form the main threat to humanity’s existence, not technology, intelligent or otherwise. Were it not for the disposition of BI to blind itself from unpleasant truths, I wouldn’t need to point out humanity’s orientation toward its own final solution. We are at present following a trajectory destined to land us in an undiscovered territory from which no species returns. Global warming (environmental fever), is but one symptom of the malady, and the list of symptoms is extensive. Shouting about the possible dangers of TIMs while silent about the prevalent dangers of human policy amounts to homicidal stupidity.

Whatever the future holds, it will not be accessible to humans should they continue on their present path toward extinction. TIMs, regardless of our eventual relationship with them, appear to be our strongest chance of survival.

10. TIMs of the future

We can be absolutely certain about one thing concerning the future: nothing is certain. In the early 1890s motorized vehicles were reaching speeds of 40 mph. Pundits criticized the speed fools dazzled by these impractical machines that would, together with their drivers, shake apart at such astonishing speeds. They were right. The available dirt roads were scarred from wagon wheels and horse hooves. Smooth surfaces appeared exceptionally and the vehicles had no inflated tires. No one could visualize the web of paved roads and streets that were about to change the landscapes of the world and societies at large. That was a mere 130 years ago, less than a blink in the eye of history. Yet the pace of development then crawled along at mph compared to GHz (millions of cycles per second) today.

The question is not about the shape of the future, but if humanity will be part of it. Without TIMs, we don’t seem to have a chance. Will they treat us kindly? Judging by the rivers of blood and lakes of tears in our past, they can’t do much worse than we’ve done.


”I told my computer that it would never think like a human.
My computer thanked me for the compliment.”
Dartwill Aquila



The West Bank is now the Judea-Samaria area.