5 thoughts on “The Case For Blunders”

  1. For several days I’ve had the most entertaining back-and-forth with a warmist in a subthread there, over his claim that isaac Newton’s advances in artillery slaughtered countless people.

    That was followed by his claim;

    Newton’s [artillery] tables so greatly increased the accuracy of British artillery as to in effect create the British Empire, spreading a tiny island nation’s influence to conquer a dominion on which the Sun never set.

    That was accompanied by the oddest accounts of British naval supremacy ever penned, and eventually led to the claim that Newton thought of his three laws of motion because he was trying to figure out how to use his cannons to launch objects into orbit (which is 45 years backwards). His latest diatribe in the subthread is:

    Plato’s blunders of science — practically the entirety of his Natural History — so held back human advancement in medicine, botany, physics, chemistry, virtually every field of human understanding of the world, poisoned the well of learning more than a millennium.

    I always wondered what happened to Cliff Claven after he retired from the US Postal Service and Cheer’s closed. Now I know. He plagues Judith Curry.

  2. An odd duck indeed. At first, the slagging of things British made me suspect a Lyndon LaRouche connection (“the Queen of England is a drug kingpin” and suchlike). But LaRouche and his acolytes, alas, also regard themselves as ardent Platonists, so the Plato-bashing doesn’t fit.

    1. My assumption is that he got Plato confused with Aristotle and ran with it, just as he confused Newton and Galileo on artillery.

      But it does point to something else that may have happened with CAGW, which is that they recruited the stupidest people imaginable as their henchmen, because they don’t care about truth, accuracy, or ethics, they just send out true believers without regard to knowledge and intelligence as long as the faith is strong.

      1. On a side note, my left shift key is failing (rendering sums and averages a form of cruel torture),.

      2. So that means, according to one of our forum participants, that the people promoting CAGW are really conservatives and we should accept them?

Comments are closed.