curryja
Claes has some serious credentials
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/He is widely published and cited in applied mathematics.
Apart from his misunderstanding on this particularly topic, I can’t understand is why he would be hanging out with the skydragon group, and why he would pull a stunt like quoting me out of context after explicitly calling him on it here.
This kind of behavior is really destroying his credibility. Ignoring or insulting such people doesn’t make them go away. Identifying the flaws in their argument and then seeing them demonstrate untrustworthy behavior is the way to diminish any credibility they have.
N/T
ReplyDeleteThe good thing is: she's about halfway there...
ReplyDelete--cynicus
Claes Johnson has an engineering background to begin with, before the mathematics. Something about that (engineering) background (seemingly) makes people highly skeptical of climate science, especially anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Ironically, those same engineers are (generally) very enthusiastic with respect to geo-engineering "solutions" to AGW. Fascinating.
ReplyDeletePS: I used Claes' book on finite elements years ago - good, straightforward book...
[Posted by: Donald Oats]
"...I can’t understand is why he would be hanging out with the skydragon group..."
ReplyDeleteB-b-but it's a knowledge frontier, Judith! And you're defending the party line of the consensus!
Eli --- Did you break your keyboard or just spill something on it?
ReplyDeleteHi Rabbit, your animal colleague, KC pig (not to be confused with KFC chicken, although KC pig is also a chicken little), has gone out of closet today, too. Isn't it great? ;-)
ReplyDeleteIdiocracy was on the telly and I was reading that thread during the commercial breaks. I got kinda mixed up what was the movie and what was the thread. Some extremely bonkers guys over there. Though I guess there are some normal ones as well.
ReplyDeleteDon't understand the title, but then there are many things I do not understand.
ReplyDeleteNice to see that Judy isn't quite entirely bonkers, and that the Big Bunny is free to commit ad paperem. Otherwise, that train wreck of a thread made my brain hurt
ReplyDeleteDavid, I think Eli's point is that similar comments have been made about JC herself. But also, that thread is a bit of a hall of mirrors.
ReplyDeleteSteve Bloom wrote:
ReplyDelete"Nice to see that Judy isn't quite entirely bonkers."
What? This post of Judy shows IMO exactly the opposite, namely that she has gone entirely bonkers, because she is - aside from promoting stupid claims otherwise - doing there exactly that, what she objects against mainstream climate scientist: She is saying, that Claes is a nut, that the science is settled about CO2 being a greenhouse gas (what he denies) etc...
So, we have the following:
1) She usually complains that mainstream science doesn't take the weird denier's... oops, umm... plausible skeptic's ideas seriously, because they say, that the science on that topics is settled (meaning, that there is so much overwhelming evidence to support the mainstream opinion, that you need a bit more than just a weird hunch or long ago debunked claims, to overthrow such solid scientific findings). And Judith doesn't like such oppression of idiocy and hates consensus opinions.
2) She now takes certain weird denier's... oops, umm... plausible skeptic's ideas *NOT* seriously *herself*, because she says the science is settled on certain topics like CO2 being a greenhouse gas, and persons claiming otherwise (like Claes) are idiots (where she is right). So, she is playing the consensus card.
You say, that this is a good sign? I say, this is only a sign that shows, that it really starts to get schizophrenic inside Judith's head...
Hence, the blog post title "Mirros, we need mirros" because Judith strongly needs a mirror to look at herself, how she is playing the consensus card, e.g. doing exactly that, what's otherwise one of her main points of critique on mainstream climate science.
My senses are beginning to spin...
ReplyDeleteTake too Lumo's and see double in the morning.
ReplyDeleteWho is the jerk called Motl?
ReplyDeleteI see he has libeled Charles Monnett on other denialist blogs - hopefully he is based in the US so Monnett can sue him a new one...
@ IA, there may be doubts about whether Lumo's mind is even on this planet, but his physical body resides in Czech Republic.
ReplyDeleteTo continue on J Bowers comment:
ReplyDeleteAnd he is a Professor at Charles University, which means he is basically immune from anything short of felony charges, and even then he'd probably get off. You can't sue a Doktor Professor! For extra immunity, he's buddies with President Klaus. The two continue the fight to apply the rigorous, empirical standards of their own fields (string theory and macroeconomics) to fringe, Bolshevik notions like radiative transfer.
The way I see it...
ReplyDeleteShorter Curry: Claes Johnson is using the wrong communications strategy. [Fine print: I never actually said that he's wrong, although I'm more than happy to give you the impression that I did.]
-- frank
Curry treats the planet as if it's a great big departmental meeting.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Davis
Further indication that part of the denialist strategy is to goad sensible people into despondency by overloading the sense of irony. Too bad for them a sense of humor renders such efforts impotent.
ReplyDelete"serious credentials"
ReplyDeleteI think that means a Defense against Dark Artists Impressions diploma from Oral Hogwarts College of Climatological Knowledge
Offtopic, still shocking:
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere cost up to $893 in economic damage—more than 12 times the government's highest estimate. from
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/carbon-dioxide-emissions-cost-economy-underestimated
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
ReplyDelete@David Benson
Offtopic, still shocking:
In 2010, one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere cost up to $893 in economic damage—more than 12 times the government's highest estimate. from
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/carbon-dioxide-emissions-cost-economy-underestimated
What an outright falsehood. Please Mr. Benson, explain how this was calculated. This is akin to somebody who wants to sue because they got lung cancer, attributing it to smokers. The only thing "shocking" about this is that you believe it. You do realize it is impossible to quantify the damage you are talking about, correct?
@Eli
I like Claes Johnson, don't agree with everything he says. That said, your side has pushed a completely false notion that global warming is based on...basic physics and obviously this is a massive simplification. The earth does not have a true greenhouse effect. You can call it a greenhouse-like effect but the atmosphere is not contained by giant glass dome, which is what Kevin Trenbirth would like us to believe. Furthermore, the Klausius Kapeyron (probably spelled it wrong) is pretty much obsolete. It is important and can be used for studying climate but we are entering a more advanced understanding of the atmosphere, and as the mighty Dr. Lindzen said, "Klausius Kapeyron tells us nothing"!
Dr. Cicerone response: cough cough. Sorry, that's why we only come out once a year, you own us so hard Richard.
@Ray Cadbury : it is well known that the atmosphere is not subject to the gravity well and thus can extend infinitely in spaaaaaaaaaaace, thus making the matter transfer the main way to transfer heat, instead of say radiative transfert. And it is well known that spaaaaace is full of phlogiston, and therefore there is a lot of heat loss through conduction.
ReplyDeleteDid I miss anything ? Do you care to explain me why radiative transfert is not the main heat loss thus rendering the greenhouse analogy moot ? Will you dare convert someone to your truth ? Or will you once again cower and bring ad hominem/I didn't say that/look a crow in the sky ?
Bratisla
I think it would be best if nobody responded to any posts by said "Jay Cadbury" as being a sock puppet he is just trolling you..
ReplyDeleteHarvey.
I'd suggest banning him, but he'd only re-register as Dr. Kay (then Dr. El, then Dr. Em, etc.) Cadbury PhD (and bar).
ReplyDeleteHarvey --- Right.
ReplyDeleteLumo is a visionary, much as Jeanne d'Arc and Lady McBeth were.
ReplyDeleteDr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
ReplyDelete@Bratisla
I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
"Do you care to explain me why radiative transfert is not the main heat loss thus rendering the greenhouse analogy moot ?"
I was simply making the point that more heat is escaping into space. As far as your point about the atmosphere extending infinitely, that doesn't even matter because again...it is still not contained by a giant glass dome. Second, if you believe that, I guess you can make the argument that co2 is staying in the atmosphere because it's everywhere. Nice logic.
I though cladistics was the study of fashion.
ReplyDeleteOh yes. I hope she's not closely related to Haskell B. Curry...
ReplyDelete