Going to be really an interesting August and even if it doesn't pan out to be "superconducting" the theory is one that leads to more structural investigations into crystal structures that "might".
I have a friend that worked for years at CSH.
Watson is an ... interesting ... chap.
Good at bringing in the money, though.
It's amazing how we can be quite forgiving of people that make money. Maybe there's an [ig] Nobel prize for me, if I can figure out why.
Have a great day!
Note the "hard science" qualification -- obviously the Peace and Literature prizes have a controversial history, but disregard those for the moment.
Most recently, Nordhaus, whose work on which the award was based is an absolute travesty.
As with the Peace Prize, the nominations and selection are strongly political.
Bad maths modeling, insipid correlative relation, ignoring of tipping points, etc., etc.
Addressing the shifted goalposts in your "by Keen's math" follow-up: if you're referring to the "rational function" introduced before the fourth-to-last paragraph, note what the context is:
A model that only applies in conditions where it is not needed, when you don’t have an alternative when it is needed, is worse than useless. ... This can easily be illustrated by replacing Nordhaus’s quadratic with a very similar one that does have tipping points.
And Keen specifically chooses a tipping point of +4°C, based on the paper Nordhaus himself cites and Nordhaus's admission that business as usual (BAU) would lead to a +4°C temperature rise by 2100.
The equation also fits observed data.
The point isn't to demonstrate that this is the correct equation, but to show that on the same basis as Nordhaus used to choose his own modeling function, very different results can be demonstrated.
Which Keen makes more than abundantly clear:
Contrary to Nordhaus’s assertion that caution is needed “when using [his model] for large temperature increases”, his model is unreliable for temperatures that are well within the levels on which he has made pronouncements about what global warming will do to GDP.
It just struck me that both the red and blue traces in the last graph he presents, where he arbitrarily(?) adds another term to the math, are so ridiculous as to not be worth further consideration. If there's a more subtle point, like I said, I'd need to re-read to find it. Either that, or the author needs to bring his lede up front and center. Demonstrating that one bit of math is bad by making up another equally bad one doesn't carry the point as effectively as he was probably hoping it would.
[1]: "The man who almost faked his way to a Nobel Prize" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64&list=PLAB-wWbHL7...
(Though I'm not aware of any poorly-supported hard-science Nobels to date.)
It's not going to work here, but similar efforts have confused attribution in the past.