By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The news has become stranger since the climate policy debate has decoupled from the IPCC. Ludicrous claims of certain doom and nightmarish futures splash across the headlines, seldom with rebuttals (climate scientists are complicit in their silence). This one-sided flow of “news” will shape public opinion slowly but surely, creating support for bold measures by President Clinton. Activists are panicking the public for political gain.
“I think looking at grief is quite appropriate, as I believe we are facing human extinction”
— Comment by a reader on the FM website.
“The more immediate danger is runaway climate change. A rise in ocean temperatures will melt the ice caps and cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
— Nobel laureate physicist Stephen Hawking on “Good morning Britain on NBC News’ U.K. news partner, ITV News in May 2016.
This was reported as “Earth DOOMED by climate change which could burn us alive, warns Stephen Hawking” by Sean Martin in The Daily Express, 31 May 2016.
We have heard this before. The BBC hinted at it last year; Hawking has said it before. There is no support for this in the IPCC’s reports and little (perhaps none) in the peer-reviewed literature. There are papers clearly saying the opposite, such as “Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates” by Colin Goldblatt el al, Nature Geoscience, August 2013 — Gated. See the press release here. Excerpt…
“The so-called `hothouse’ climate of the Eocene is the most useful constraint for anthropogenic change. With the solar constant 1% less than today and a few thousand ppmv CO2, the mean temperature was 10 K warmer than today. With CO2 and temperature both higher then than we expect in the foreseeable future, this implies that an anthropogenic runaway greenhouse is unlikely.
“…As the solar constant increases with time, Earth’s future is analogous to Venus’s past. We expect a runaway greenhouse on Earth 1.5 billion years hence if water is the only greenhouse gas, or sooner if there are others.”
While peer-reviewed analysis is good, it is obvious that Earth cannot become Venus in any policy-relevant time. See the NASA fact sheets for Venus and for Earth. They explain that…
- Venus is closer to the Sun. Venus is aprox. 0.72 AU distant from the sun (72% of Earth’s), with a total solar irradiance (TSI) almost 2x that of Earth.
- Venus has a denser atmosphere. The pressure on Venus is 93x that of Earth, the equivalent of almost 1 kilometer under the ocean. This is probably the largest factor causing its high temperature.
- The clouds of Venus are mostly sulphuric acid (not water vapor) — a powerful greenhouse agent.
- The atmosphere of Venus has nearly 3000x more CO2 than Earth’s atmosphere. Venus is 96.5% CO2 by volume vs. 380 per million for Earth (0.038%). Goldblatt el al say that with CO2 at 30,000 ppm Earth would have “no stable temperate climate.” That would require burning 10x more than Earth’s estimated fossil fuel resources.
A bizarre, even fun example of our mad news media
“Humans? In 2300? At the rate we’re going odds are there WON’T be many of them and the ones that are there will be far too busy trying to survive to bother over history, other than to curse us.”
— Comment by Bruce J. at the website of Brad DeLong (Prof Economics, Berkeley).
Take a look at “When Did the End Begin?” by Robert Sullivan in New York Magazine — “A scientific debate that’s oddly amusing to entertain: At what point, exactly, did mankind irrevocably put the Earth on the road to ruin?” The title is irrelevant to the article, which discusses dating the point at which the “Anthropocene Era” began, if the designation is approved. That is, when human impacts are the predominate force shaping Earth. It does not imply the beginning of the End Times.
Sullivan gives us the real-world version of an incident in Berkeley Breathed’s great “Bloom County” comic strip. It is not funny when played out in real life.
Bedfellow: “Hello, Bloom Beacon! This is Senator Bedfellow! What’s with this headline? … There’s no story, just a headline!”
Milo: “Which headline?”
Bedfellow: “The big headline on the front page!” ‘BEDFELLOW: THE SECRET LIFE OF A WIFE-SWAPPING ATHEIST’”
Mile: “Oh, that’s just a typo.”
Conclusion
“There will be no successor civilization. … Our planet had ONE shot at building a sustainable industrial civilization, and we humans f***ed it up, big time.”
— Comment by Redwood Rhiadra at website of Brad DeLong (Prof Economics, Berkeley).
A battle consists of phases. Both sides muster their forces, seize advantageous positions. Victory comes to the side that breaks through their foe’s lines. Then begins the pursuit phase, as the losers are chased away or destroyed.
Climate alarmists have followed this formula in the climate public policy debate. They built commanding positions in academia, the news media, ngo’s (such as foundations and the major science professional associations), and the relevant government agencies. With the funding and power so gained, they attack — abandoning the scientists of the IPCC (once called the “gold standard of climate science). Their articles are cheered and echoed by scores of organizations. Dozens of glitzy (well-funded) websites staffed by professionals propagate their messages, as do a flood of books and films.
Now they use their commanding position to say almost anything, however bogus, which pushes their message of climate doom. This campaign will reshape public opinion. For more information see Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate.
“This one-sided flow of “news” will shape public opinion slowly but surely, creating support for bold measures by President Clinton.”
I’m more optimistic. People are getting tired of being lied to by “experts”. The classic example was last month’s Brexit vote in the UK. The vast majority of the economic “experts”, all of the broadcasting media, most of the print media and the leading political parties all told us that it would be a catastrophy if we voted to leave the European Union. The answer was a two fingered gesture and a vote to Leave.
You can fool people for a while, but then reality kicks in.
Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey says that the stabilisation of the ozone hole along with natural climate variability were significant factors in regional cooling phase in Antarctic Peninsula
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/a-recent-pause-in-antarctic-peninsula-warming/
“The more immediate danger is runaway climate change. A rise in ocean temperatures will melt the ice caps and cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
— Nobel laureate physicist Stephen Hawking on “Good morning Britain on NBC News’ U.K. news partner, ITV News in May 2016.
Wow – that’s embarrassing.
Hawking is a genius.
But it does show how a little knowledge ( outside his field ) can be dangerous.
He may be a “genius”, but wrt climate, he’s an idiot. Furthermore, the man has an ego the size of a dinosaur, which allows him to believe that his “genius” in say, physics is transferrable to all other spheres of knowledge.
Hey Bruce! Science now covers so many extensive areas that even a genius physicist cannot understand every area. My guess is that Hawking — like most people, even scientists — has based his conviction on the opinions which other people have espoused to him. I doubt that he has done any extensive study on his own in the matter. It would be very interesting to listen to a conversation between Hawking and Freeman Dyson on the likelihood of CAGW.
As a leading authority on climate change my great concern for the future is the accidental creation of a black hole from ultra dense human excrement in the sewer system, causing me to be sucked through my toilet some morning with very little warning. Please do not flush any “peer reviewed” climate studies!
The reference from Nature Geoscience mentioned in Larry Kummer’s post is dated 28 July 2013. But later that year, 12 Dec 2013 , Nature published the following:
-“Increased insolation threshold for runaway greenhouse processes on Earth-like planets”-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7479/full/nature12827.html
The editor’s summary (the paper is paywalled) reads:
-“The Sun is gradually increasing in brightness on a geological timescale. This could lead eventually to a ‘runaway greenhouse’ effect on Earth, a state that occurs when a planet absorbs more energy from the Sun than it can radiate back to space. The oceans would evaporate and the climate would warm to Venus-like temperatures. Jérémy Leconte et al. use a three-dimensional climate model to show that the threshold for the initiation of a runaway greenhouse is considerably higher than that previously estimated by simplified one-dimensional models. A crucial factor is cooling caused by changes in atmospheric circulation that more than offset cloud-induced warming.”-
Even Goldblatt , as you say , admits that anthropogenic effects are unlikely to produce a runaway effect , yet the media ignores Lecomte , but is later obsessed by an incautious and indeed totally unbelievable comment from Stephen Hawking .
Hawking has access to the best science archives and science brains on the planet and he should have been aware of the ongoing disputes surrounding the issue of clouds wrt AGW.
Those in powerful positions should consider carefully what they say, given the manic nature of modern journalism.
Mike,
“But later that year, 12 Dec 2013 , Nature published the following:…”
I don’t understand your “But”. Lecomte agrees with Goldblatt, as does most of the p-r literature (which is, as you note, ignored by clickbait-hungry news media. Here is Lecomte’s bottom line:
Here’s a link to a open version of Lenconte (2013).
I will say only one thing, to these guys.
Please keep going in explaining climate of our Earth, by implying the “effectiveness” of such understanding of the situation and its science by comparison with Venus, Mars or whatever, but please keep it wider, and not selective on a cherry picking medium, widen it please, at least at the minimum of considering and including Europa too, a glacial body, more similar to Earth in principle than any other planet or moon in this solar system, lots of Ice there , supposedly made up of H2O.
The actual science, the physics and the hypothesis explaining the Earths climate will fail to explain the Europa, even when it still stands there and challenging our “science” and understanding, regardless, to a point that it will make the meaning of the “goldilock” zone not that meaningful at all.
And further more it will show that relying in Plank’s low to estimate or calculate the actual effect of radiation in the climate variation is like contemplating the efficiency and the success of a sniper towards a fly or a mosquito pestilence……
No matter how good a sniper cold be or considered, still his efficiency and success towards flies and mosquito is very near to Zero,,,,, the Occam’s razor…..
The way the Plank’s law, is used and abused in “climatology” will fail totally with Europa, in a very strange way….. !
cheers
The “habitable zone” guesstimates are based on quite simple defining characteristics of solar output and planetary distances. The prospect of Europa or similar moons being friendly to life outside of the basic zone of habitability is dependent on warming provided by gravitational interaction with the very large planet it (or they) orbit. “There are more things on Heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamed of in your (or my) philosophy.”
Whiten, put down the bottle, take a few aspirins, and get some rest.
Tomorrow you can perhaps explain what five commas in a row mean.
And try to speak in coherent sentences next time, eh wot?
IPCC got a truly amazing theory – imagine that mankind pulled the earth out of the Little Ice Age – long before we really started to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Notice that there are virtually no natural forcing in their theory:
http://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/SPM/thumbnail/FigSPM-05.jpg
This one should be easier to read I guess.
No mention of water. Must have used it all to make IPCC kool-ade!
There is absolutely no explanation as to why CO2 would increase in a cyclical manner before temperatures, nor is there any explanation as to why or how CO2 would decrease before temperatures to send us back into an ice age. This AGW theory doesn’t even begin to explain the ice age cycles.
The important thing for warmunists is to stay on message. Whatever fights they might have amongst themselves, their messaging must be united. Since leftists are such strong advocates, and practitioners, of censorship it should come as no surprise that no one will step forward to criticize even the wildest of wild claims.
For instance, a Yahoo link to an article entitled “The Deeper Reason Many Intelligent Progressives and Independents Will Not Support Hillary Clinton”
goes to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/editors-note/note.html?new
Don’t bother going to it, it says “Editor’s Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post.”
What’s that line from “Raiders of The Lost Ark”? “Wiped clean by the wrath of God”.
“Humans? In 2300? At the rate we’re going odds are there WON’T be many of them and the ones that are there will be far too busy trying to survive to bother over history, other than to curse us.”
They may be cursing us in 2300, not for creating more than the green allotment of CO2, but rather for needlessly impoverishing a large percentage of the human race and simultaneously limiting prosperity to those socialist elites who run the bureaucracies which keep energy use minimal limiting food and impede upward mobility.
The Benevolent World Government of Green Worldopia declares 2300 the 1st World Freedom day! No longer will people be forced to constantly choose! Whether or not to travel, what to eat or even what to believe. There’s nothing to eat, no transport except for the leaders and they’ll tell you what you can believe.
You need to intone deeply when you say that date…like so:
https://youtu.be/WiuaaJVcxSk
Hawking has to me become a big disappointment. Thought he was supposed to be an excellent mathematician and using those skills puverise the consensus. What gives?
To paraphrase another Noble Prize winner — Richard Feynman — a scientist commenting outside his expertise is just as dumb as the next guy.
Dumber. But what is the next guy commenting outside his expertise? Should I just shut up because my expertise is definitely not the reason why Mars is cold and Venus hot?
I suspect it may have something to do with that million-mile wide continuous thermonuclear explosion up there in the sky…you know, that big hot burny-thingamahoozit.
The problem with countering wild claims of future climate-induced catastrophe is that usually some degree of technical or scientific detail is needed. This turns off both the reader–viewer and the editor. I have tried. Wild unsubstantiated claims are easier to publicize. This highlights the shallowness of our public media.
They have become more adept at making their predictions post-dated until long past their own lifetime is over.
400 ppm vs 960,000 ppm and 1 atm vs 90 atm. The difference is 20,000 fold. Venus has that much more CO2 in its atmosphere.
Now, of course 2x CO2 is the same as 20,000x CO2, give or take four zeroes. We might reach a Tipper point. I believe Stephen Hawking when he speaks ex cathedra. /sarc
“ex cathedra”
Hugs, yes, you ARE being funny here. (i confess, i LAUGHED!) But, please, no gimp jokes, eh? Anthony himself has a disability and i’m not sure that he would appreciate your kind of humor here…
“They’ll” win this aurgument because denying science, denying reality doesnt make it not so. 1 + 1 is 2. Basic laws of physics comply with the “commanding position” of the 97% of enviroscientists that follow the scientific method. Be skeptical of whether a fish tank needs an aerator all you like. Your gold fish are gonna sufficate without it.
“The news has become stranger since the climate policy debate has decoupled from the IPCC …’.
==========================================
This is just cherry-picking some ludicrous examples of over-blown news reporting in order to make the IPCC appear reasonable.
The news has not become “decoupled” because AR5 is full of unsubstantiated alarmist claims, speculation and ruinous remedies:
‘Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions, global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 to 4.8°C with a range to 7.8°C when including climate uncertainty.’ (AR5 WG3 SPM p. 8)
‘Heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, and water scarcity pose risks in urban areas for people, assets, economies, and ecosystems (very high confidence)’. (AR5 WG2 SPM)
‘Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability’. (AR5 WG2 SPM p. 6)
‘More severe and/or frequent extreme weather events and/or hazard types are projected to increase losses and loss variability in various regions and challenge insurance systems to offer affordable coverage’. (AR5 WG2 SPM)
‘Some unique and threatened systems, including ecosystems and cultures, are already at risk from climate change and the number of such systems at risk of severe consequences is high at 1.6°C’. (AR5 WG2 SPM)
‘With increasing warming from today, some ecosystems may be at risk of abrupt and irreversible changes’. (AR5 WG2 SPM).
‘Several components or phenomena in the climate system could potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear changes, and some are known to have done so in the past’ (AR5 WG1 Chapter 12)
‘Temperature increases in excess of about 1 degree C above pre-industrial [are] projected to have negative effects on yields for the major crops (wheat, rice and maize) in both tropical and temperate regions’. (AR5 WG2 final science draft, Chapter 7, p.3)
‘Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts’. (AR5 WG2 SPM p. 14)
‘Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks. Multiple lines of evidence relate climate variability to these forms of conflict’. (AR5 WG2 SPM p. 20)
‘A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors. [CURRENT RATE OF EXTINCTION IS 100 x NATURAL BACKGROUND RATE: S. Pimm, Science, May 2014.] Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change’. (AR5 WG2 SPM p. 14)
‘Within this century, magnitudes and rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0,and 8.5) [i.e., all scenarios except the best-case RCP2.6] pose high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands.’ (AR5 WG2 SPM)
‘Should a sizeable fraction of this Arctic frozen carbon be released as methane and CO2, it would increase atmospheric concentrations, which would lead to higher atmospheric temperatures. That in turn would cause yet more methane and CO2 to be released, creating a positive feedback, which would further amplify global warming.’ (AR5 WG1 FAQ 6.1)
‘Pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels…
would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century.’ (AR5 SYN SPM Headline Statements).
One staggers under the sheer weight of this load of baloney! To quote Bob Ucker,”Just a bit outside”!
Hey, quite denigrating baloney!
I would call it hogwash, but even most pigs do not have that much crap all over them.
Everything you quote is from the AR5 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was rewritten to satisfy NGOs and third-world governments looking to grab some dough from first-world countries over one week in Yokohama during September 2013, if you will recall.
Many of the real scientists who actually contributed to the full 3000-page AR5 objected strenuously to many of the SPM’s statements, which ran counter to the full AR5 WG2 report.
Judith Curry discusses the draft of the full report:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/30/ipcc-ar5-wg2-report-draft-spm/
Dr. Tim Ball discusses the SPM:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/i-hope-the-ipcc-is-correct-about-warming-because-cooling-is-a-bigger-problem/
Dr. Ball quotes official IPCC reviewer, David Wojick:
What you say might well be true but as is often said the IPCC ‘has no scientists’, it is a policy-making body; Larry’s piece is about IPCC policy and the reportage which even at its most bizarre form is not far from what is claimed and recommended in the reports.
Warmists are convinced that added atmospheric CO2 is making the air warmer which allows more water vapor which further warms the air. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that added water vapor absorbs more terrestrial thermal radiation warming the air but it took a gazillion dollar experiment to reveal it to NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html. And then they erroneously decided that the added water vapor must have been caused by added warmth from added CO2.
A simple analysis using existing data easily demonstrates that the measured temperature trajectory since before 1900 is nearly perfectly matched (better than 97%) with no need for significant influence from CO2 http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com.
Apparently NASA got cause and effect backwards. Instead of warmer air allowed more water vapor it’s more water vapor has caused warmer air. IMO coming years will show the effect on low altitude clouds and average global temperature to be self-regulating..
The English transported convicts to Australia most crimes were petty , when the CAGW fraud finally gets exposed for what it is lets round up the warmist lying “scientists” govt officials and various media and send the to the ice free Greenland for the rest of their lives .
So they can lie on the beach sipping coconuts .
Robert,
You might find this of interest: “Imagine the horrific fate of the losers after the climate policy debate ends“.
That is a ridiculous argument. The real threat the earth faces is the coming ice age, that is a near certainly. Building wind and solar farms leaves us totally unprepared for the real threat we face. CO2 has NEVER caused catastrophic global warming, even at 7000 ppm. An ice age is an almost certainty.
Climate change has literally been proven beyond a doubt to exist, so it is no longer an opinion. The facts are that the last year that the world was colder than average was 1976. Since then, every single year has seen rising temperatures on a steady basis. Sure, we have time…it’ll be a LONG, LONG time from now before anyone alive today sees anything noticable beyond hotter summers and milder winters. This, however, does not change the fact that eventually, we will have a huge problem. And to play Devils advocate, let’s I’m 100% wrong (along with the entire scientific community) and climate change is, for the most part, a myth. Would it be the worst thing in the world to work for cleaner air and oceans anyway? Shouldn’t we attempt to curb pollution, especially in the form of CO2 emissions as much as possible anyway? I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that no one in the history of the world has ever been upset over clean air.
Believing that CO2 is a pollutant is profoundly uninformed.
Summer,
“Climate change has literally been proven beyond a doubt to exist,”
Does anyone disagree? History is the story of climate and weather, over all time horizons.
Nice strawman argument. Always a good distraction to toss in a thread.
@Summerpig:
No one in clear mind is doubting climate changes. It’s been changing for billions of years. But if you want me to subscribe to your cult of gross exaggerations, perverted science, and mass deceptions, my only response is my middle finger raised up high.
you won that debate handily.
notice there is no more argument?
you were cogent, concise – even eloquent and addressed the pertinent matter with great perspicacity.
if everybody followed your example, this b.s. would be over fast.
I like it when warmists claim we are doomed. We,ve passed the point of no return. That the damage is irrevocable. Why? Because if that’s the case we can stop throwing money away trying to fix it. The sooner people realise that it’s too late to do anything if they are right and not worth doing anything if they are wrong the sooner the world can concentrate on real problems like health , poverty , terrorism etc. Recognise the futility of trying to change the climate and do something worthwhile with our resources.
Bjorn Lomborg was good on this in his book: “Let’s Cool it” (??) must reading for every thinking person.
Humankind – across the board — is an expedition into the unknown and that’s axiomatic. We are where we are and we know not what’s round the next peninsula. We can’t stop and reverse track whence we’ve been ‘cos where we are is better than before, and the extrapolation thereof offers even better in terms of improving the World’s ills.
The Alarmists are a side-bar to the march of progress for mankind. I vote for more-of-the-same, which is better ‘everything’ to do with the health & welfare of Humankind.
Where’s *your* vote?
P.s. It just occurred to me — an amateur, armchair philosopher! — that every generation has had its angst about the next, and prescriptives for fixing what our generation sees is wrong going forward. This is an eternal process, the melting-pot comprising a spectrum from Doomsdayers, Hysterics, Alarmists/ChickenLittle-ists, Middle-Roaders/Pragmatists/Realists (me!!), thro’ to the lowest-of-low mannipulators whose primary aims are benefitting their narrow, self-claimed “professional” position, personal wealth and prestige, grabbing any news-worthy cause that advances both.
I hope you’re right, Ross. I have always thought that it is a race between economic progress with associated enlightenment and economic collapse with attendant war, disease and ignorance. Progress means we will manage to develop the capability of getting materials from recycling, space or the oceans and our population will level off. We could collapse to a point where economic activity will not support research or innovative industrial endeavour and the whole world becomes hungry and ignorant. I think of Dickens’ children, Want and Ignorance, from A Christmas Carol. That was a warning to the richest country in the world as cheap energy (coal) was beginning to transform the world. What if they banned coal 150 years ago?
You fools don’t understand. Just this year, just right now have the alarmists achieved their goal of total message control. Before this skeptics ruled the narrative for decades. Decades!
You, in the back, stop laughing. It’s serious this time! Woe be unto us! If only we had heeded Larry’s advice and tested the models against data.
Nothing has changed in years. The new
sovietenviro man has had the commanding heights in academia and the popular press for decades. The fact that Paul Ehrlich can show his face in public proves my point. This piece is just doom mongering about doom mongering.If you want something *new* to worry about, then I suggest you look at the imperial presidency and an unaccountable bureaucracy. The EPA has grown into an uncontrollable monster. There’s your doom, not the long-lost battlegrounds of Penn State and the Columbia School of Journalism.
Don’t “Happy”, be “Worried”.
Those hungry for ultimate POWER will hitch themselves to any useful-looking ‘train’ in pursuit of it.
Al Gore?
@Tsk Tsk,
You think it’s time for us fools to start taking things seriously ?
Where you been, the fools been taking it seriously for years.
I’m not sure you understand.
It’s pretty clear from the literature that there is a steady increase in global temperatures. Just because the poor use of the Earth to Venus imagery for climate change has grown does not mean it is not a concerning issue. This issue should be on the front of news outlets to keep people cognizant of the issue.
Billy,
” This issue should be on the front of news outlets to keep people cognizant of the issue.”
You are missing the point. Lies don’t help. The more important the issue, the greater the need to stick with the facts.
“Nobel laureate physicist Stephen Hawking on “Good morning Britain on NBC News’ U.K. news partner, ITV News in May 2016.”
I can’t possibly be the only person on Earth that recognizes a man who is tied to a wheelchair, exists on artificial life support and speaks through machinery is likely clinically depressed and not someone you should pay any attention to concerning the survival of the human species? Are you all mad?
Maybe some of his physics is OK, perhaps useful. As a cultural leader, no. Prognosticator? Nt a chance.
What, pray do tell, is useful about a mess of handwaving over whether or not black holes can evaporate.
And who says information cannot be lost from the Universe, anyway?
” All these memories will be lost, in time, like tears in rain.”
Where is the information on the size, shape and positional arrangement of the raindrops which fall in the ocean, stored?
I tell you where…no-where.
That’s where.
Like the information stored in my brain after I die.
Talk about hogwash!
I couldn’t have said it better. You have a gift for poetic expression (and old SF movies…)
Read* David Deutsch’s ideas on a typical place in the universe compared with those of Steven Hawking.
*David Deutsch on Infinity and Infinite Knowledge.
Venus is an awful analogy. A far better one is Mars. It has a thinner atmosphere but a greater CO2 ppm. There is no water vapor, so you can better control for other GHGs. What you find is that Mars has extreme temperature swings between day and night, demonstrating that CO2 does little to trap heat.
BTW, I’m still waiting on someone to explain how 1.6W/M^2 of 15 micron IR can warm the oceans. H2O saturates the absorption at that wavelength all the way up to 3km according to Modtran. Don’t we have to first explain why the oceans are warming before we blame CO2?
According to the geological record, CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm, and has NEVER caused CAGW if the past 600 Million years. CO2 has a natural OFF switch in its absorption. The marginal radiation absorbed decreases logarithmically. Regardless of the sun’s output, CO2 absorbs outgoing IR, not incoming visible light. Daytime temperatures are determined by visible light, so the cooler sun argument doesn’t hold when combined with the diminishing absorption of CO2.
Speaking from the aspect of someone who is not all that well schooled was originally taken in by the CAGW meme / religion I am amazed at why we don’t spend our efforts pointing out the simpler easier to understand easier to prove to the layman science .
My point being the lie about how the oceans are becoming more acidic , now you don’t need a PHD in yuk to understand that a ph of 8.1 is not acidic and it’s a long way from being acidic .
So if they’re lying about this what else are they trying to hide .
Our BOM and your equivalent have been systematically changing past historical temperature recordings from a warmer past to a cooler past in order to claim hottest ever .
I’m sure there are other examples but easy to prove easy to explain and in their words the truth is undeniable .
Catch them out on the small things and more and more sheeple will change back to people .
No one yet has been able to counter me on the acidity argument and its made people realise if their lying about this what else are they lying about .
What else are they lying about?
Everydangdiggitydogthing they can think of.
BTW, a PhD in yuk sounds more useful that whatever the warmista chuckleheads been studying on.
The laughs are more predictable.
While I feel for Hawking’s devastating medical problems, I maintain my belief that no sane, competent physicist who investigates this issue can honestly claim to believe in CAGW. Too much in the way:
1. no hotspot
2. less upper atmosphere H2O, not more.
3. more radiation to space, not less.
4. 4.3 billion years of stable climate (not unchanging, just stable without any runaway) despite meteor strikes, supernova explosions, and supervolcanoes, to name three.
The theory simply isn’t credible. But “believing” it is necessary to be a media darling. Much more sympathy for Hawking’s need to be a media darling than for the rest of the pack, but them’s the facts.
Well, why not breakout the tinfoil and recall Hawking speaks through a machine? Hard to know what he really thinks? You could be listening to SkyNet for all you know…