Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Who Is Claes Johnson, and Why Should We Care?

{{Corrections have been made to the below. Additions are contained within double-squigglies, and removals are struck through. –RTF}}

  Claes Johnson is a professor of applied mathematics at the “Royal Institute of Technology”,[1] Sweden. This university is abbreviated “KTH” in the Swedish language, and so that is how this blog will refer to it in abbreviated form.

  Johnson is, by all accounts I have read, a brilliant and accomplished scientist. However, he has become somewhat notorious of late with some of his extremely controversial theories of physics, including of the alleged planetary “greenhouse effect”. Johnson asserts, as I understand it, that this alleged phenomenon is not real and that the persistent belief in it by many scientists is the result of either confusion about certain physical details, or deliberate deception, or a combination of both. Regarding these assertions of his, I am inclined to agree with him. He is probably correct.

  I will be taking more time, a lot more time, to try to explain why my belief about this is justified, in subsequent posts and articles.

  But first, I want to provide a little background about Johnson.

  I myself first encountered his work about a year ago, last December. Since then, I have engaged in a rather large amount of inquiry and debate on the internet in an attempt to ascertain the validity of his physical theories and hypotheses.[2]

  In the last approximately six months, Johnson has published, in English, a very large volume of work on his new physical theories and hypotheses on his two blogs. Each of the two blogs contains information regarding the theories that cannot, to my knowledge, be found at the other. Thus, it is important for anyone who is interested to examine both of the blogs. As of now, most of the information is on the old blog, However, Johnson has indicated that he wishes to transition to his new blog, Therefore, he is not posting much new material on the old blog at this time.

  However, he has written or begun a large number of books on various aspects of his new theories and hypotheses, and as far as I know these are only linked to from the old blog at this time. For the serious student of his work, these are required reading. I myself have not yet read all of them, but I intend to as soon as possible.

  A cautionary note: Johnson is not a Christian, and some of his work (including the books) contains extremely grave very deliberate expressions of idolatry. So they are not suited for the casual Christian inquirer. One must heavily brace oneself before plunging in, if one does choose to plunge in. Some of the work also includes strong denouncement of Christianity by connecting a state-sponsored and ugly form of Christianity with the general body of the faithful. If also contains denial of the existence of Hell, mockery of the idea that the existence of Hell is rational and believable, and an attempt to place Jesus alongside various non-Christian spiritual leaders as an equal of sorts. All of this must be rebuked.

  But … this having been said, Johnson’s beliefs about Christ, Christianity and the Kingdom of Heaven notwithstanding, I believe that there is much in this theories that is {{many of these theories are}} probably true, and since he is presently the only scientist who is presently articulating these theories in a thorough, meaningful and insightful way, he still deserves recognition for this. We must be careful not to try to throw out the good with the bad. And yes indeed, God can provide us with a mixture of good and bad together in one source of information. We have all fallen short, and that is no excuse for rejecting the legitimate accomplishments of any person.

  I will have much more to say in the near future about Johnson’s work, but for now my time is required elsewhere. Thank you, reader, for your time this morning!

  Please feel free to leave a comment or question.



1 The name is in quotes due to the use of the word “royal”.

2 I do indeed ascribe to some of Johnson’s ideas the word “theory”. This is not a casual decision. I will have more to say about the extent to which I believe some of Johnson’s ideas withstand testing, and thus in my opinion merit the label of a “theory”.


4 responses to “Who Is Claes Johnson, and Why Should We Care?

  1. claesjohnson 2011/12/27 15:06 at 15:06

    Hi Richard,

    What makes you believe that I am not Christian. As far as know I do not discuss religion or religious beliefs in any of my work. I try to stick to science. So what are you referring to?


    • Richard T. Fowler 2011/12/27 17:55 at 17:55

      Hello Claes,

      I must tell you, in all honesty, that it was neither my expectation nor my desire of entering into a religious disagreement with you when I began posting comments about your work, nor when I began posting comments on your blogs, nor when I started this blog. I did not expect these things. When I read your Dr Faustus book, I found certain things that took me by surprise, primarily because I could not see how they were especially relevant to the new physical theories that you have been promoting. In part, these items are a function of your many-minds hypothesis, with which I am generally not comfortable (with the caveat that I don’t yet fully understand it).

      But I knew that I had to comment, simply as a warning to other readers, because I was referencing your work, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for everyone due to some of its spiritual claims. I myself prefer not to go into great detail about those claims.

      If you consider yourself a Christian, please feel free to correct the record, either here and/or elsewhere. For what it is worth, I consider your faith to be very different from mine, and at odds with some elements of the Bible. But again, since this is a public discussion we are having, I do not consider that matter to be of the utmost importance in public discussion of the truly scientific aspects of your work. The matter is important, yes, but it is not the most important matter for the purposes of public discussion.

      It has been, and still is, my hope that this blog can develop more into an expression of areas where I and others agree with you. But since I found the items that were faith-related and at odds with what God teaches in the Bible, and since I was commenting about the book and referring people (however few of them there might be!) to it, I had to provide the caveat. Hopefully you can understand.

      To reiterate, since you state you do not discuss religion as far you know, I strongly disagree with this statement, but I never intended to offend you; I had believed that, if you happened to see these words, that you would agree with them. I am sorry if I’ve given you any offense, and again it was not my intention to cause a disagreement, but I really had no choice, once I had decided that I had to comment about that book and other related aspects of your work.

      It is my intention to comment some more about your work on this blog, but I have been taking a short break because, as I suggested over at your blog, I am still having difficulty following all the core elements of your energy-related work. Math is, unfortunately, not something I have had a lot of education in, and calculus in particular has given me a lot of grief, but I continue to struggle to improve my understanding of math including calculus, because I actually do find it of great interest and also very edifying to my mind, my heart, and my soul. I believe (I am sure you would agree) that mathematics has been and will continue to be a great source of revelation about the universe (or universes, yes I do believe there are multiple ones, but only one which fully embodies God’s original Will and Plan) and our role in it/them.

      I appreciate your comment, and I hope I have not unduly ruffled your feathers with my references to Christianity and my expressions of faith, here and at your blog. I hope we can continue to have productive conversation on matters of science. I would observe that when discussing cosmology, there is an inevitable overlap with faith and religion, whether or not people are willing to admit it. I readily admit it myself, and it doesn’t bother me. And I have a science degree, so I consider myself a scientist, though not a professional one. But in my experience, most scientists are not so ready to admit to the overlap between cosmology and religion. It is my hope that you are more like me in that regard, because there is absolutely nothing anti-science about such an admission. Nature, to be properly described by science, demands an acknowledgement of at least the existence of the supernatural; and furthermore, there is nothing anti-science (or non-scientific or outside-the-bounds of science) about scientists admitting that they don’t know something about the universe. Nothing prevents speculation within science; I see it all the time, and hardly anyone ever complains — unless God enters the equation, and then, sometimes, things get uncomfortable … or scientists get uncomfortable. (After all, scientists are human beings, too!)

      Let us not fall into the enemy’s trap of believing that science is not allowed to have views or ideas about the supernatural; for the existence of the supernatural is implicit in everything science tries to accomplish. There’s nothing to be afraid of, if our heart is in the right place!

      – Richard


  2. silver price 2012/12/12 10:59 at 10:59

    The “irony” comes in when the Wedge uses Science’s own self-correcting mechanism to force into scientific theories an hypothesis that is inherently not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Post a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: