Stephen Hawking: "Most dangerous time for our Planet" because We aren't listening to our Betters

Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking. By NASAOriginal. Source (StarChild Learning Center). Directory listing., Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scientist Stephen Hawking wants to find a way to convince people to stop voting for Trump, and to start listening to people like him again, to save the planet from climate change and national borders.

This is the most dangerous time for our planet

Stephen Hawking

We can’t go on ignoring inequality, because we have the means to destroy our world but not to escape it.

As a theoretical physicist based in Cambridge, I have lived my life in an extraordinarily privileged bubble. Cambridge is an unusual town, centred around one of the world’s great universities. Within that town, the scientific community that I became part of in my 20s is even more rarefied.

And within that scientific community, the small group of international theoretical physicists with whom I have spent my working life might sometimes be tempted to regard themselves as the pinnacle. In addition to this, with the celebrity that has come with my books, and the isolation imposed by my illness, I feel as though my ivory tower is getting taller.

So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.

What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.

The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.

The consequences of this are plain to see: the rural poor flock to cities, to shanty towns, driven by hope. And then often, finding that the Instagram nirvana is not available there, they seek it overseas, joining the ever greater numbers of economic migrants in search of a better life. These migrants in turn place new demands on the infrastructures and economies of the countries in which they arrive, undermining tolerance and further fuelling political populism.

For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.

Read more:

See, if we don’t start listening to our betters again, elite globalists like Stephen Hawking, we fools will destroy the world.

389 thoughts on “Stephen Hawking: "Most dangerous time for our Planet" because We aren't listening to our Betters

    • Knowing what is in a black hole via a theory cannot feed and school someone in Ethiopia nor tell us what is actually in the black hole. Reducing rent seeking via big government, dictators, corruption, education without outcome or need, money printing and financial scamming will help poor people as the world will be able to afford the time and funding to achieve it. Such poor may well be in a suburb next door to Cambridge.
      People who claim to fix things (real or not) that can destroy our planet are invariably elitists. If they make constant claims or receive awards to show their superiority without empirically delivering a result or even an incremental success they cannot expect any reasonable person to pay them attention. They only degrade the awards they receive.
      Today’s elitist may well be the cause of poverty. Not the solution.

      • +1
        I stumbled on this article yesterday. As soon as I read “ocean acidification”, I lost all respect for Stephen Hawking.
        “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
        ― Epictetus
        Oxford is an echo chamber and the most susceptible to seduction by “arguments from authority”. See Theophilus Painter and the mysterious 24th chromosome.

      • Of course, as there are about seven different models for black holes and none of them really fit the observed Universe, his black holes could very well not exist. Big Bang physicists pointedly ignore these details and talk about black holes as a given. So, why is it that all red shifting of light observed from other stars and galaxies is due to recession/Doppler effect and that black holes are completely driven by gravity, which also red shifts light? They pointedly ignore that a star’s or galaxy’s gravity can also red shift light, making the Doppler effect irrelevant, and only let gravity do this at black holes. When gravity is taken into account, quasars become object localized to specific galaxies and appear to be produced by galaxies.
        When red shift by gravity is allowed, the Big Bang becomes a flawed model and the many band aids that have been applied to the model start to show. The observable Universe does not support the Big Bang. In addition, quantum mechanics also rejects the Big Bang and black holes. Einstein rejected black holes, Oppenheimer rejected black holes, and now even NASA is saying they do not exist.
        So, we are supposed to believe a scientist who clearly should understand the real science behind CO2’s supposed role in our climate? Is he ignorant of this area of science? Or should be assume that he knows the truth and is pushing the globalist agenda, being a global socialist himself?
        It would be hard, after so many years of “studying” the failed Big Bang model, to admit to being wrong. How to untangle one’s mind from the fantastical dark matter, dark force, and dark energy that were invented to make this model work. There’s a billion dollar industry built around trying to find and understand dark things that do not exist. Dark Physics is not needed with a Steady State Universe (the model that preceded the Big Bang model) and virtually everything we observe can be explained with science that we already know. Dark Physics simply evaporates, being the phantasm that it is.
        Big Bang “theory” is now a scam just like the billion dollar industry that pushes Lipitor and statin drugs, aiming to lower our blood cholesterol while having no effect on heart disease at all, even with the resulting lowered cholesterol. However, as liver toxins designed to poison cholesterol biosynthesis by the liver, statins cause liver failure and liver cancer as well as fatigue, weakness and dozens of other side effects. Do they really think our livers make cholesterol to hurt us? Cholesterol is indeed a healing chemical that our body uses to heal damage caused by our high carbohydrate/high polyunsaturated oil diet. We should heed the implications of the real world observation that males with high cholesterol tend to live longest.

      • Geoff @December 3, 2016 11:52 pm:
        To your excellent comment I would add only that the ‘pure science’ communities are actually harming themselves by throwing in with the rent-seeking elitists. They would, in the long run, be more secure if voluntarily financed by a broad range of private supporters, and those supporters would have much greater means to do so absent all the statist impediments to wealth creation. Also, getting away from single point of funding, so to speak, would substantially reduce vulnerability to consensus driven, self-reinforcing error cascades – which by no means afflict only climate science.

      • Perhaps I am reading Hawking incorrectly but I think he is making an appeal to his fellow elites to not dismiss The Contemptible out of hand but to listen to our concerns. He does lose the argument ending with the climate change and ocean acidification as givens that we should all muster behind.

      • Higley,
        Black holes have been observed, so they do indeed exist. And not just via the gravity waves created by their collision, as recently, but directly, thanks to spin:
        Not to mention gravity lensing observations or the behavior of objects in the vicinity of a black hole, which allows inference as to mass.
        Nor does the existence of black holes require the Big Bang Theory, although it too is well supported by observations.

      • A few years ago, Hawkins did an interview in which he worried that if we don’t stop releasing CO2, the Earth will turn into another Venus.
        Hawkins is a perfect example of someone who is an world class expert in one field, and a world class idiot in all other fields.

      • higley7: Not sure where you are going with that red shift by black holes. Any mass would have some red shift for light from or passing its surface. Outside the mass, the gravity is not somehow increased for a black hole. The gravity will be the same as for any such mass as though it comes from the center of mass. It is a matter of how close you can get to that center of mass without entering the mass itself as to the effects seen. No reason to discard the useful Doppler shift.

      • “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.”
        Richard Feynman, another Nobel Prize winner

      • Malcolm
        My comment aligns with yours.
        “…reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism.”
        Yeah well, Dr Hawkins, perhaps there is something else going on.
        It is the coastal bubble people who are projecting their prejudices on the deplorable. I note that crude populism is what the elite calls it, it is not the deplorables who say that. The elite media is trying to define their opposition rather than listening to them. It is so unfortunate this continues following the election where it caused the media to think they could “create” the result they wanted.
        The upside is that the realization they are deeply disconnected from ordinary people is sinking in.

      • I agree. I call them the Parasite Class. They live off the wealth created by others. They create no wealth. If it were that they just sucked the wealth from others, that may not be a threat, but a large part of this Parasite Class are wealth destroyers. Stopping climate change, what an absurd use of those words, is the cover for “negative growth” and “de-industrialization”, which is wealth destruction. Just the way the old clergy lived off the toil of others, this new clergy does as well in the new monasteries we call universities.

      • Hawkings convinced everybody decades ago that black holes had to have a singularity at the center. Then he says he had to spend a decade convincing everybody that he was wrong. Now, IIR, he is trying to convince other physicists that there are no black holes in the classical sense of having an event horizon.
        This is all theoretical stuff based on no evidence. On what basis should I accept anything he has to say politically or with respect to earth science where he is swimming in the same waters as the AGW crowd.

    • And in a way it is beyond tragic. Hawking has been off his ivory tower, in my eyes, for quite some time but for him to plunge this deep is a little heartbreaking but far too common. I think T. Sowell discusses this in his book, Intellectuals and Society.

      • Hawking has been off his ivory tower, in my eyes, for quite some time …
        Right you are.
        Now I had been an admirer of Stephen Hawking for many years but that admiration began to fade about thirty (30) years ago and has pretty much degraded to ZERO, zilch, nada, none during the past ten (10) years.
        And it is all because Hawking has forsaken his once great mental attributes of common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions ……. to become part n’ parcel with/to the socio-political lefty-liberal socialistic mindset of Academia.
        Such as, to wit:
        Quoting from above: Stephen Hawking

        The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, …..

        Horsepucky on his claim that automation decimated traditional manufacturing jobs.
        It was labor’s demands for yearly increases in wages & entitlements ….. and government’s demands for yearly increases in taxation and compliance to/with “new” rules & regulations …… that forced manufacturers to automate their manufacturing or production facilities.
        Still quoting Hawking:

        … and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes,

        Such silliness, ….. probably because Hawking has been drinking far too much of the “AI Kool Aide” being offered to him. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) that they are referring to will NEVER come to pass in their lifetimes.
        If they don’t understand what animal intelligence actually is, …… how it is nurtured ……. or how it functions, ……… they can’t very well reproduce it in an electronic controlled device.
        Quoting Stephen Hawking from his AI link:

        Hawking was speaking at the opening of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (LCFI) at Cambridge University, a multi-disciplinary institute that will attempt to tackle some of the open-ended questions raised by the rapid pace of development in AI (artificial intelligence) research.

        And just what is …… “the rapid pace of AI development” ….. that they are talking about their research has achieved?

      • Theoretical physicist? Is that another term for Dreamer? All the action is in his head. This is not meant as an insult, but as a possible explanation. I have worked with people of focused brilliance. In a certain area of science they had few equals. When they found themselves out of their area of brilliance basic concepts seemed to elude them. I have worked with such people, which has brought me to the conclusion that intelligence is often directional. In short smart here, not so much there. One should not discount cases of the big head (Ego).

      • Flyover Bob, my experience is the same. The only explanation I can think of (other than: 1) cynical corruption for money; OR 2) blackmail….. Hey! Maybe that letter is a cry for help!!!!) is that the sometimes ludicrous failure to think rationally/logically by those who are very brilliant in some areas of intelligence is that their success in those areas caused mind-choking Pride.
        “Knowledge puffs up… .” I. Corinthians 8:1.

      • Samuel C Cogar, December 4, 2016 at 6:14 am
        You and Stephen are both right and wrong. His statement regarding automation is correct, your statement about union demands driving wages beyond all reason is also correct. Where you are incorrect is the jobs lost due to those union demands were going away as automation was becoming an economically viable option. Union action made the people economically non-viable sooner. Stephen made the common mistake of labeling the effect as the cause.

      • Does hawking even know that “decimated” means reduced to one-tenth? Where are his supporting statistics?

      • Fly over Bob — I disagree with that sentiment, too. Increases in automation do not “cost jobs”. This is the same fallacy discussed over a hundred years ago during the industrial revolution. Back then, it was assumed that the improvements in automation made it impossible to have full employment ever again. They were wrong.
        Any technology that increases the productivity of one hour of labor, creates jobs. There may be some significant perturbations in the economy as this shift takes place — but after the dust clears, there should be more jobs.
        What costs jobs is ways the government policies make one hour of labor more costly than it would otherwise be. The most obvious example is employer provided health insurance. Since this is tied directly to hiring, then industry has a significant incentive to hire employees in other nations. Other costs include excessive regulations and policies — in our case, these policies favor financial manipulation over production gains.
        The effect of labor is much more difficult to gauge. During the 1970s, labor became too powerful — these costs drove manufacturing away. Now, outside of government employees, the effect of labor is negligible. It would be easier to argue that the power of corporations over labor is a more significant factor at repressing job creation.
        The government’s role shouldn’t be to favor one over the other. Their role should be to ensure a free and fair exchange of goods and services (including labor.)

      • Pop Piasa — Does hawking even know that “decimated” means reduced to one-tenth?
        With all due respect: decimated means reduced by one-tenth.

        • The problem is that it means both senses. Steven Jay Gould had an expostion on how the usage had changed, from the old Roman punishment of execution of a tenth of a mutinous legion to reduced to one tenth. He was a historian of science, and did read Latin, so. . .

      • He “climbed” off his ivory tower many years ago when he started endorsing products (how much CO2 does a Jaguar put into the air) and appearing on TV shows (the recent episode of “The Big Bang Theory” comes to mind). I’ve been wondering for many years how much of that miracle talking computer and well controlled wheelchair is him, and how much of it is somebody treating us to a high-tech version of “Weekend at Bernie’s”.

      • I don’t recall who first said it, but if there’s artificial intelligence, there’s also got to be artificial stupidity.
        One suspects, given the paucity of the real first and the prolixity of the real second, that artificial stupidity is what should really caution us.
        Case in point: climate models. In this case potentiated by real stupidity.

      • Trapped in Davis
        I’m a big fan of big bang. I think Hawking took a little step off the tower, allowing some humor with his “character”. Of course I’ve had to suck it up a little with appearances by Nye and DeGrassi. However, the best guest is and always will be Newhart.
        Any case, what I wonder is, Hawking, having spent all the time and effort to study and understand the equations/theories, does this embed a confirmation bias? And if I use any more commas in a poorly structured sentence will it cause a black hole?

      • “””””….. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing …..”””””
        Well it’s a bit late to be discovering that.
        I thought that Henry Ford already showed how ” manufacturing ” could make goods available much more efficiently than could the handiwork of traditional craftsmen.
        All that has happened to change that is that the wide availability of computers has enabled better organization of the manufacturing processes. The result is not only lower costs and higher productivity, but vastly improved product consistency.
        Computerized Robots, don’t know about Monday mornings or Friday afternoons.
        A recent ” Economist ” article decries the lower productivity in some Chinese factories; I believe a 35% lower rate than Western factories is mentioned.
        The quality hasn’t suffered from that. But the Chinese simply cannot afford to have 95% of their people unemployed. So they can tolerate a lower productivity, to keep moe persons gainfully employed.
        If you took your shiny new Caterpillar bulldozer tractor to Mexico to help them fix their roads, it would likely get rejected at the border.
        But if you arrived with a semi trailer loaded with shiny new shovels; well now you really have something they can use to fix the roads, because they have plenty of people who know how to use a shovel, and far fewer who can run a bulldozer.

      • Flyoverbob -December 4, 2016 at 7:29 am

        Samuel …….. You and Stephen are both right and wrong. His statement regarding automation is correct, your statement about union demands driving wages beyond all reason is also correct. Where you are incorrect is the jobs lost due to those union demands were going away as automation was becoming an economically viable option.

        Flyoverbob, I spent 30+- years of my working career directly involved in Design Engineering and Manufacturing of computers and their peripheral devices.
        Steven Hawking has spent 60+- years, ….. or about 90% of his lifetime, ….. in pretty much seclusion on a college campus …… dreaming about “how the universe probably works”.
        And ps, …… Flyoverbob, …… automation only becomes a “viable option” when the “cost-of-production (doing business)” increases to the point that there is very little to no “profit” to be made from the sale of the “goods” produced.
        Employment in bituminous (coal mining) peaked at 705,000 men in 1923, falling to 140,000 by 1970 and 70,000 in 2003.
        F-o-b, ….. how much would a “ton-of-coal” cost today …. if there were still 705,000 coal miners employed …….. and all of them demanding circa 2016 Union wages and entitlements?

      • I find it interesting when people disparage AI and automation developments. Not like we’ve had powerful computers for all that long, but relatively complex tasks are already being automated. Besides, not like the average manufacturing job requires remarkable skills, so many are subject to automation. Likewise much white collar work.
        I haven’t even touched on self-driving vehicles. The disruption that will caused by the latter is enormous, just by itself. I don’t see why people will be allowed to drive themselves, except in extraordinary circumstances, within a couple decades, as the vast majority of human drivers will be significantly inferior to the automated ones.
        You don’t have to be a wide-eyed futurist to see that massive disruption is coming soonish (next couple decades), and there aren’t enough gig-jobs to go around after that.

      • @ Bulldust – December 5, 2016 at 4:55 pm
        There is a big, big, big, BIG difference between AI development and automation developments.
        And that BIG difference is akin to …… creating a computer “modeling program” for a self-driving vehicle ……. and creating a computer “modeling program” for correctly predicting climate change for several years in the future or for correctly forecasting weather conditions for several weeks in advance. Or even something far less complicated like correctly predicting the actual path of a mid-Atlantic hurricane approaching the East coast of the US.
        So stateist: Bulldust …………

        I haven’t even touched on self-driving vehicles. The disruption that will caused by the latter is enormous, just by itself.

        I agree with your above but not for the same reasons you are thinking.
        Four (4) or five (5) “self-driving” vehicles on less traveled streets or roads ….. or in heavy multilane-traffic will probably do just fine. But as their numbers begin increasing and approaching the 30% to 50% of all vehicles travelling in said “heavy multilane-traffic” ………. then the “traffic flow” will quickly become disrupted and slow down to “snail’s pace” if not a complete “STOP”.

      • Sam: I have no idea why you are comparing AI with climate modelling … I went nowhere near the topic. Also, what evidence do you have that self-driving cars would halt traffic in general? We have plenty evidence showing humans do (even on a simple circular circuit), but none that automated vehicles will … I simply don’t follow your line of reasoning. I am more interested in AI development in areas which suit computers. Watson becoming the best diagnostic oncologist, or Google AI trouncing the world’s best at Go, etc. These aren’t mere tricks or gimmicks, these are significant advances.

      • @ Bulldust -December 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm

        Sam: I have no idea why you are comparing AI with climate modelling … I went nowhere near the topic.

        Bulldust, you are exactly right, ….. “ you went nowhere near the topic”, ….. and that is why you are exactly wrong about and/or with you “thinking n’ reasoning” concerning the potential development of AI.
        And I wasn’t actually “comparing” AI with climate modelling, but on the contrary, I was trying to get you to comprehend the FACT that the creating of a computer based “electronic” Artificial Intelligence System (AI) is at least ten (10) times more complex of a task than the development of a Climate Modelling Computer Program that can actually hindcast or forecast earth’s climate.
        Bulldust also askith:

        Also, what evidence do you have that self-driving cars would halt traffic in general? We have plenty evidence showing humans do (even on a simple circular circuit), but none that automated vehicles will … I simply don’t follow your line of reasoning.

        Bulldust, iffen 40% or 50% of the vehicles in this picture of LA traffic were automated “self driving”, ……just what the ell do you think would happen with the “traffic flow”? To wit:
        Source link:

        I am more interested in AI development in areas which suit computers. Watson becoming the best diagnostic oncologist, or Google AI trouncing the world’s best at Go, etc. These aren’t mere tricks or gimmicks, these are significant advances.

        Shur nuff, Bulldust, ….. those are significant advances, …….. but significant advances in microprocessor speeds, …… significant advances in the “word size” that the microprocessor can function with, …… significant advances in the quantity of easily accessible “on-line” data storage, …… significant advances in the design and use of computer algorithms, etc., etc., ……… but little to NO significant advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
        Bulldust, the prima facie definition of “intelligence” and/or “Artificial Intelligenc” is: “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

      • “See, if we don’t start listening to our betters again, elite globalists like Stephen Hawking, we fools will destroy the world.”
        YOU Pitiful Fool!
        Grow the F UP!!!

      • (I know, folks . . but the Lord is my Shepard . . ; )
        Well, I’ve never had any problem posting, J McClure . .

      • A response, from down here below, Mr. Hawking et al
        I’m a human man
        but you treat me like a mule
        I’ve got a hair trigger
        and you’re callin’ me a fool
        I’ve got twenty twenty
        and you’re acting like I’m blind
        I’m a hunter to the bone
        there ain’t nothin’ I can’t find
        I’m a human man,
        but you do no know my name
        I walk beneath the sun
        saw you comin’ as you came
        You’ve got reason for the reasons
        for the reasons that you give
        You walk beneath the moon
        where the shadow creatures live
        I’m a human man
        But you cannot hear my voice
        Just the echoes of the echos
        of your long forgotten choice
        You called the darkness holy
        and crowned the silence king
        But nothing is revealed
        when you bow before this thing
        I’m a human man
        but you only see a ghost
        A flickering disturbance
        within the in within your host
        Like mirror facing mirror
        keeping light itself in chains
        By your hollow dreaming
        human man dream self disdains

  1. With scientists fearing that sea levels could rise at up to 0.01mm per week, it’s the quadruplegic who will be the hardest-drowned by climate change.

    • Goudsmit Kramers! You really know the way to accelerate a Wheeler-chair!
      Thus I’ll pass you this medal ‘for the masterpiece of polite scolding’

    • And all the while he is saying they haven’t been lying to me, have they? Not for money surely! blaach, I just vomited!

  2. I think the space aliens beamed him (Hawking) up already. He’s talking via an avatar. Like Obama, his speeches contain lots of first person, i.e. no understanding of the hinterlands, fly-over country, the working stiff paying bills on a job that might end tomorrow, the single mom trying to keep her kids in school and fed. Humanity is an abstraction to the Hawking, the Global elitists, the gubment climatist scientists who feed from the trough.
    Here on Planet Earth, truth still matters. Go F yourself Hawking boy.

      • IMLO, ….. it was a dastardly mistake on your part to associate the scientific brilliance of Attenborough ………. with the socialistic Academic ignorant mimicry of Hawking.

      • The two should not be equated. I cannot believe this quote by Hawking: “So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone.”
        He really thinks Brexit and Mr Trump’s election are aimed at him? Wow he is way out of touch with reality and has the biggest ego I have encountered.

      • No Sam Kogar, Attenborough insists, these days, on spouting AGW dogma more regularly than Old Faithful, in Yellowstone, spouts hot water.

      • Ray Boorman – December 4, 2016 at 6:15 pm

        No Sam Kogar, Attenborough insists, these days, on spouting AGW dogma more regularly than Old Faithful

        I checked, …… you are right, …….. my BAD, ……. and I apologize for my hastily posted remark.
        Without first checking, I was assuming that the “badmouthing” of David Attenborough was a result of his publicly stated opinion in agreement with Elaine Morgan’s Aquatic Ape Theory of human origin.
        Read more here:

  3. He needs to get out more and see the world as it really is, not as it might look from the streets of Cambridge.

    • …where, in Hawking’s words, “I feel as though my ivory tower is getting taller”. I really doubt there’s any orogeny happening in Cambridge at all.
      His brainless acceptance of “global warming” destroys any other academic accomplishment he may have attained.

      • Hawking uncritically drank the 97% consensus koolaid, as Lew-boy hoped his science contemporaries would.
        During my thesis/doctorate work, I had no time to question or investigate climate science alarmist claims. I simply accepted them, because I did not want to or invest the time to investigate it or suspect fellow “scientists” would lie blatantly about it (CO2 AGW hypothesis).
        Today, I have taken the time investigate the climate change “science.” I have determined that Climate Change claims are mostly lies or unsupported projections. Climate change is driven by a hustle for grant money by the climatists. The true goal is power to the global socialists. That must end. Now.

      • indeed Rocky Road. His intellectual credibility was blown completely, when he admitted he believed that.

      • @Joel: Your story parallels my own almost to the letter. Quite a revelation is it not when you first begin to appreciate the yawning abyss of deceit, corruption and voodoo pseudoscience opening up before your astonished gaze like some monstrous vista from a Hieronymus Bosch painting?

      • I spent 8 years, 2002 to 2010, examining every claim by the warmists and never found a climate change claim that was not a lie, misrepresentation, and altered or cherry-picked data. Along the way I found the real temperatures records and discovered that the big reason not one of the claims was true was that the planet was not warming. Warming effects are simply impossible, if we are not warming. We easily have no warmed since 1997 and have not warmed in any significant way in the atmosphere since 1988. Indeed, the upper proposal troposphere, where the warmist model requires there to be a “hotspot,” has been gently cooling for 30 years. Junk science is what it is and can usually be proven wrong in multiple ways. It is only the faith warmists have in their model that prevents them for listening to the real science. That or they support this junk science because of their socialist/ world government agenda.

  4. Dr. Hawking,
    I assure you that I did not have your opinions in mind when I supported Trump.
    George Soros’, maybe.
    But I’m glad to stick it to you, just the same.

  5. As much as I admire him, he’s just being goofy. I get wholesale email offers of solar panels in the range of $0.30 per watt, and first run panels below $0.50 per watt now. At these prices solar works for almost everyone. And prices continue to drop. We couldn’t stop the transition to renewables if we tried!

    • Hawking had his day.
      Like Einstein, his best science work was early adulthood.
      Since then… not so much. Actually.. none.
      Science is sans compassion. It is Spock from StarTrek.
      Humanity is all about compassion. The Dr. McCoy.
      Trying to mix the two leads to false compassion.
      The Captain must pick the rational and the emotional response.
      That is why our elders do better at humanity, and the youngsters do better at science. And Hawking should return to Vulcan.

      • Like Einstein, Hawking has apparently determined that because of his knowledge of theoretical physics, he is also the best choice to run the planet. Einstein’s social science opinions were as unbelievably naive as his concept of the physical world was brilliant, and reading them today, one feels embarrassed for him. Hawking’s not far behind.
        Maybe it’s because these “celebrity scientists” are so used to questions from the press – “Dr X, now that you’ve plumbed the secrets of the atom, what do you think we should do about world hunger?” I guess both the human impulse to reply to friendly questions, and the flattery of one’s ego leads one to begin to believe his own press clippings, I dunno. But “genius” is always limited in scope as well as focus. Horowitz’ genius was just as patent as Einstein’s (or Hawking’s) yet I wouldn’t expect a virtuoso concert pianist to save the world – even with UNESCO funding.
        In the end, it’s the media’s fault for perpetrating this myth of all-knowing “genius.” And ours for swallowing it – along with anything else they publish – without question.

    • We couldn’t stop the transition to renewables if we tried!
      EXCELLENT! That being the case, governments can just cancel the subsidies, feed in mandates and other artificial supports for renewables. A small surcharge on renewables would, of course, be in order to pay for back up power to be available. So glad to hear that renewables are so cost effective that they can pay their own way!

      • But…but how would the political class reward their contributors?
        It should be obvious by now, especially after eight years of Obama, that “crony capitalism” is the new, improved, compassionate and above all ELITIST capitalism we’ve been waiting for!

      • It’s that new form of solar energy that gives you 10KWm^-2 instead of only 1 KWm^-2.
        We just have to figure out how to tap into the original gravity source of solar energy. That is what is running the universe; not thermo-nuclear fusion.

    • “We couldn’t stop the transition to renewables if we tried!”
      What about the batteries?
      Why is electricity so expensive the poor can’t afford it when using renewables?

      • You are right–the batteries are the problem. I have 2 solar homes, one grid tied and one not. The one that is not is a constant drain because the da** batteries are so sensitive–lost them 3 times to moron men (my apologies to all the non-moron men) who thought they understood electricity and “tweaked” the system to work better and blew up the batteries. One was an electrician! Fortunately bonded so I got new batteries, but the point is–everything works pretty well BUT the battery situation–not that they cost so much (they do) but that you lose them too easily. In ten years I’ve replaced batteries 3 times–it should have been once. Systems should not, can not, be this complicated that men can’t figure it out and turn one knob wrong and I lose my batteries. Once that is overcome, then we can talk about renewables being viable. (the men weren’t morons–I believe that the systems are so complicated that a man who can keep a 1990 ford truck running with duck tape and bailing wire (which is a total mystery to me) should be able to handle a battery setting. It is inherently the fault of the solar systems, not the guys who have tried to help. And in particular, the batteries hooking into the system.)

    • I have two solar panels on my lobster boat – to keep the batteries charged while at anchor. Through careful measurements, I have found that they do not work at night.

      • You need to contact the Spanish authorities. I have heard that they have a version that do work at night.

    • Greg,
      All we would have to do to stop the renewables is to end the subsidy paid by the common folk via taxes.
      How out of touch with reality can anyone be not to realize that fact.

      • A thought on language–“subsidy” has a technical definition, of direct payments to an operation. Loosely, there is a tendency to include in the term the rules like mandatory purchase/priorities given to “renewables”, which are probably a larger expense to ratepayers than true subsidies, and disrupt the functioning of the grid rather more.

    • Greg,
      What? There will be no transition to renewables. Flux at the rate output by our Sun just produces electricity that costs more, and people will not waste their money.
      I think you must be in the photovoltaic industry, sales manager maybe. Your understanding of Supply and Demand could use some work.

    • Greg,
      The problem with renewables is that nameplate ratings and actual production are very different. My 3.12 kw system maxes out at 2.2 kw midday in late June and early July. It is barely half that right now. Shorter days mean that daily production is around 6 to 6.5 kwh compared with peak production of 22 kwh in June and July. These numbers are for days with minimal cloud cover, and thus are not as high every day.
      My point is that renewable nameplate production must be reduced significantly to match up with reality.

      • Perhaps you forgot to point your panels towards the sun. Nameplate energy or power levels assume that you know that the energy is coming from the sun, so that’s where you need to point the normal to your PV cells.
        If you point your PV cells towards other stars than the sun, you don’t get as much power from them.

  6. “Our Betters”? Is Hawking kidding?
    Hawking needs to compare his first plea (that of “We can’t ignore inequality”) with his claim that we need to heed the will of “our Betters”!! Boy, if that doesn’t demonstrate abject hypocrisy, I don’t know what does.
    So get off your high-horse, Hawking. Besides, you might not like Trump, but he’s got a successful track record as a builder and employs thousands of people. What have you built and how many people do you employ?

    • The elites consider themselves “Betters” because they basically see the People as a mindless herd of sheep, to be lied to and directed to whatever pens they want. And for the most part the “Betters” are right and able to direct the herd where ever they want, which gives them a massive sense of superiority. What Hawkings forgets is that here in the United States we have constitutional concepts called “separation of powers” where the People are constitutionally equal or greater than the “Betters”, and we have this other concept called “consent of the governed” which means the People don’t have to listen to the “Betters” and submit to their nonsensical lies. When push comes to shove the People can replace the “Betters” so it actually behooves the “Betters” to listen to the People, not the other way around.

      • You mean you’re not fooled by this double-talk, Scott?;
        “What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.”
        Did you notice he’s actually doing exactly what he said would be a terrible mistake? . . !
        Better get you onto some psychotropics or something ; )

    • Hawking never used the word “betters”, Worrall did as a way to manipulate simple minded people into hating Hawking.

      • Eric didn’t say he used that word, Andrew, and if you think it’s inappropriate, please make an actual case, rather than just act like non-elites (he did use that word) are not allowed to summarize as we see fit. just as Mr. Hawking did . .
        You yourself just did that, to Eric, accusing him of trying “to manipulate simple minded people into hating Hawking.” He never said any such thing . . but you clearly felt you has a right (which I agree you do) to express what you made of the things he did say . . Consistency matters, don’t you think?

      • I don’t hate Hawking, Andrew. I think he’s a lazy scientist who doesn’t have the energy to critically study climate.
        And please, don’t project your own simplemindedness onto others–it makes you look lazy, too!

      • Hawking didn’t need to use the term ‘betters’. I am intelligent enough to understand what he said along with the way he said it. Are you calling me simple-minded? I am, after all, one of the ‘deplorables’ and I will proudly confess to voting for Trump. I am also watching very intently as not only global warming alarmism comes tumbling down, but also as the Big Bang Universe and all its mythical black holes implodes into electrical streams of Burkland currents.

      • But he did talk about elites, and how they have an obligation to thwart the will of the electorate.
        That sounds a lot like “betters”, just not using that word.

  7. The consequences of this are plain to see: the rural poor flock to cities, to shanty towns, driven by hope. And then often, finding that the Instagram nirvana is not available there …

    If the damn rural poor would just give up on looking for the “Instagram nirvana”, everything would be wonderful. They should stop complaining and just accept their lot …

    • I accept my lot. I will never be a private jet gazillionaire like Soros, Clinton, Steyer, Obama.
      But I will not go quietly into the night. No matter how much Jon Podesta, Tom Steyer, or George Soros would like me to. I will fight their sorry dishonest ilk until my last breath.
      Call me me Deplorable. Call me Le Miserable. Those become badges of honor.

    • Well, it’s this damned new*, utterly unforeseen flight of rurals to the cities that appears to be the culprit!
      * Since about the Fourteenth Century

      • Funny that we who live in the country think too many folks are moving out of town. He displays the urban antilog to my rural confirmation bias

    • “Instagram nirvana” — My thoughts went to:
      Arugula-gate, when in Iowa, Obama asked, “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately? See what they charge for arugula?”

      • Fun Fact:
        We all know President Obama has come in for some flak for identifying as Biracial and then—when pressed on which two races he identified as—responding simply Black and Biracial. But did you know that Professor Cornell West, the semi-retired Vice-Chair in Semi-Black Semiotics at West Cornell, confirms that this is a perfectly valid combination of answers given by a growing demographic, whom he dubs Arugulan-Americans?

      • Chuck knows more ways to make an body building exercise machine out of string and rubber bands than anybody else. Doesn’t matter if you just sit on your butt or lie down face up or down; there’s a new do it for all of your mussels, machine made out of string and rubber bands with a dish to slide on and it all folds away under your bed where the chamber pot used to be. And just four easy payments of $49.99 ;but if you call now we will make the first payment for you.
        But wait; there’s more. Call in the next 15 minutes and we will double your order; just pay separate shipping and handling, and we will send you the rubber bands in a different package.

  8. Whew! That was really out there. So he imagines that all those non thinking types are sinking into worthless oblivion because all the wonderful inventions will make people obsolete, except of course those at the pinnacle. My God! All those flocks of worthless rural dregs of humanity hoping to find a shanty town. So they are supposed to work together to do what? Wipe his ass? Did he really write that stuff? FYI smart guy, mobs with pitch forks and torches have been offing high and mighty types for centuries. Has nothing to do with Instagrams and a lot to do with messing with freedom.

      • Prolly shot it till they got a take where the ashes made it through his scene . . They knew about making art back then . . not just elitist propaganda . .

      • it’s a trick.
        you stick a needle in the cigarette so the ash can’t break off.
        nobody in the room can take his eyes off the ash, waiting for it to fall.
        keeps the board members mesmerized while the competitor does his dog & pony show-
        then you do yours and that’s all they remember.

    • Aye I think so too now.
      Too late for Sweden I suspect. they’ll just have to jump to the chapters titled “Insurrection”.

      • The EU can survive the pound-denominated UK leaving. But the exit of a Euro zone country, especially a big one like France or Italy, will spell the end, IMO.
        And good riddance.
        I suppose a rump EU based upon Germany and its client states could muddle through for a while.

  9. That is just too sad, but it shows that someone with Hawking’s qualifications in his field of expertise isn’t necessarily knowledgeable in other areas such as economics and climate.

  10. Hawking is right about the dangers of “the rise of artificial intelligence,” but probably not in the way he means.
    Just look at the fake-intellect cult of deGrasse Tyson, the myth of Brian Cox’s widom, or any other symptom of the recrudescence of punditolatry.
    Who are we to deny the toxicity, or at least obnoxiousness, or this cultural decline?

    • Hawking, and deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox are more examples of people who can be really smart in one subject, and really ignorant in another.

    • … the dangers of “the rise of artificial intelligence,”

      A significant reason I’m a programmer and APL language implementer is to be a creator , not a subject of such tek . I learned APL to have the tools to have a glimpse of an understanding of how brains work . Now I have the tools to understand and implement any AI . ( Personally , wirelessly programmable hearing aids optimally mapping frequency and intensity auditory space would be an interesting marketable project now possible . )

  11. Stephen, you should stick to your area of expertise, which is NOT climate. Then, again, you are of the age where dementia and Alzheimer’s are a possibility.

  12. Hawking, wheelchair and mute bound for decades, does not understand or relate to today’s humanity. His mental picture is grounded in the late 1960’s. A period of social upheaval, hippy culture, Beatles, etc.
    His feeding tube, his catheter have been managed by the poor working-class schleps keeping his ass alive for 30+ years.
    He should keep to pure theorethetical science of singularities and time-gravitation. His understanding of humanity is invalid.

  13. I had a lot of respect for Stephen when he was rational. Forgiving his health condition which is NOT dementia or alzheimer’s, he has been drawn to the alarmist side. A brilliant mind now wasted.

  14. Watts, You have done a good job up to now as an advocate for science. But presenting without comment logically incoherent comments of this kind from Worrall together with the thoughtless response from your readers will damage your reputation.

    • How so?
      When a person (Hawking or anyone else) makes a trite claim like “ocean acidification” which is patently false, they earn all the criticism they garner. For a scientist to describe a liquid at 8.1 -8.3 pH as acidifying shows a complete lack of rigor.
      Words are important. His choice of phrases lessened his credibility.
      Further, his claim of “elite” is self-serving and qualitative. What is he elite at? Is he an “elite” historian? Does he have keen insight into the causes of economic failure in Cambodia, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece? Does he understand the impact of mass immigration on a borderless collection of nation-states?
      The Brexit vote was a powerful assertion of sovereignty against a government body in Brussels that no longer recognized individual states as having rights. It was a vote for freedom, and should be hailed as such. What this election cycle demonstrated is that starting with the Magna Carta, through the French Revolution, and embodied in the Constitution:
      The affirmation that government is of, for, and by the people.

    • No it won’t. Hawking is quite fond of making stupid statements but here he doesn’t get the pass most people accord him because of academic achievement or infirmity or age or celebrity or whatever else. It enhances the reputation of this site as being somewhere where the truth is brokered no matter who is doling out the bovid ordure.

    • Lecturing Stephen Hawking about science. That about tops it Rog.
      Watts must surely, at least occasionally, guffaw into his keyboard.

      • Well I am quite sure that Hawking would not have the respect in the scientific community that he enjoys without making sure that the principles, that Feynman illustrates in the video, were respected meticulously during his career.
        Its one thing for real science it seems and another thing for politicized science.

      • The left has always wished for “science” to be much more of a religion, where someone like Al Gore could become a secular pope and make ex-cathedra pronouncements that all must respect and obey.
        Science has NO ranks of nobility, no grants of privilege. Anyone who pertains to speak for “science” is only as credible as there latest pronouncement, and when they say things as idiotic as Stephen Hawkings just said, then they are through.
        And there are always some people who were once very good, who lose what they had and become nothing but embarrassments to their profession. Stephen Hawking is now the Colin Kaepernick of the scientific world. Yeah, he had his day, but now – get the hook, and yank him off the stage. He’s through.

      • We all know Isaac Newton’s fame in physics and mathematics.
        Less well known is that he wrote pages and pages of stuff on metaphysics. Drivel.
        Hawking has the right to be nonsensical.

      • Classic appeal to authority.
        On science, Hawkins can’t be wrong, therefore anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong.

  15. So Hawking is not a real scientist at all it seems.
    He buys into the ocean acidification nonsense, overlooks that food production is increasing due to CO2 fertilization, and has fallen for climate alarmism hook, line, and sinker.
    Shame, although I have thought for some time his ideas have been given more attention than they merit.

    • A theoretical physicist that doesn’t understand a logarithmic scale. You would think he could realize it is theoretically, mathematically, and scientifically impossible for the oceans to measure below 7.0 on the pH scale.

  16. Didn’t we just endure 8 years of “our betters” ?
    No thanks Steve. The world has suffered enough under the “intellectuals “.

  17. Funny he is someone who uses theory for a living commenting on others who use theory for a living .

  18. The guy is a waste of time and grant money….. Black holes, dark matter, neutronium in Neutron stars… all untestable, unfalsifiable and non observable. Gravitational, Mathematical fudge factors for theoretical cosmological models that don’t work without them and will never lead to anything, because you cannot test it nor apply it nor use it. It’s not science. He’s not science.
    We pay a lot of money to keep them in clover. We get fairy tales in return.

  19. Everyone.
    Hold on. What articles are you reading compared to the one SH has at The GIGGLE.
    It ends with…
    ‘We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.’
    If it is Elitism on Steroids you want then we in Australia have a doozy going down at the moment.
    Eric would you in particular or Brad at CN as well check this out as I am getting only partial info about the funding.
    Search for Fabian Dattner. Homeward Bound. Antarctic Leadership and Science get together.
    It involves about 77 Aussie women, and a few overseas people, of generally Scientific ilk, each paying (20,000 of the 30,000 to 35,000 US Cost) to hire a vessel and go to the Antarctic for 20 days or so and engage in leadership and sciency activities. Its web details are big whingy on this lack of female leadership in science and beyond.
    Note that Its Auxiliary Support List has Madam Figueras and Franny Armstrong of 10:10 Splattergate fame (exploding heads of dissidents) as connected plus Jane Goodall and Dr Sylvia Earle, both attendees at Paris Cop 21. The travellers Scientific credentials are thick with either Climate or Sustainability.
    So I am wondering if its Leadership and Science learning trumpeting isn’t just a masquerade to go there and parrot all the horror of Climate Armageddon. And return as Climate Heroines or should that be heroes now.
    My main concern is what is the long term purpose of this Homeward Bound Campaign and where is all the extra funding coming from..I have titled this …Snow White and her 77 Sisters of Western Caucasian Princess Privilege Tour of The Antarctic…Schoolies On Ice Escapades for Lady Sciency Nerds. It is not a diversity festival for sure and certain! More like The Greens again.
    If they can drum up all the massive dollars for such a campaign well and good but I want to know if the Taxpayers have coughed up a motza of dollars for what is actually a holiday of a lifetime for people who are already very, very well off by any standards.
    Would really appreciate it if some bods with the know how to check this out do so.
    Note that without Fossil Fuels (as all here will be shouting) this Project would have to take place in Fabian Dattner’s backyard.Those red jackets to ward off hypothermia? Do they have Fossil Fuel written all over them!
    Apologies for taking the post a way off the proper track.

    • That would be Fabian Dattner who years ago featured on television commercials for her fathers fur trade business. The Fabian Datner whose father was a right wing MI5 agent and whose brother has views which are further right than those of Attila the Hun.

    • Look on the bright side – they might do a Shackleton and spend a couple of years stuck in the pack ice.

  20. You’ve got to remember that Stephen Hawkings is totally helpless, there were once reports that he had been abused by one of his carers…my guess is that he dare not condemn the Warmist Hoax…otherwise next time he needs the bathroom…..
    (black humour)
    Ooops… sorry are you allowed to say ‘black’ humour these days?

  21. THING ONE:
    Will artificial intelligence (AI) replace middle class jobs?
    One of the most time consuming lawyer jobs is researching precedents. There is now an AI called ROSS which does that much more quickly than a human. link The result may be that we will need many fewer lawyers.
    The worry about AI replacing jobs is justified. We’ll see what actually happens.
    For years, people have been trying to replace teachers with computers. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen until there is some kind of game changing breakthrough. Could that happen? Eventually it will. How soon? A year, a decade, a century, longer? We don’t know.
    At least Dr. Hawking didn’t blame Donald Trump’s victory on racism. He’s right that the working people feel betrayed by the politicians. The Democrat party claims to represent working people. In fact, it stabs them in the back every time it gets a chance. link

    • I think one reason more teachers have not been replaced by Computers, or at least had their jobs made a lot easier by them, is that they have the strongest union in the world.

      • If someone had already found the magic formula to replace teachers with computers, it would have been done somewhere already and we’d know about it. It’s something we’ve been working on since the beginning of computers and it hasn’t panned out yet.
        Computers can change how a teacher does his work but I can’t see any evidence that they actually make it much easier. Some individual things are, indeed, easier but having computers in the classroom also complicates things enormously. I think it’s a wash.
        Once they do find a way to automate teachers out of existence, just watch their unions cease to matter. Remember the air traffic controllers? link

      • The big sticker in replacing human teachers with computers, is that they’re teaching human children. We’re social animals. Children will require a social milieu to properly learn.
        Computers will augment human teachers. Computers will supplant human teachers when computers become human (or humans deteriorate into computers).
        By the way, I’m not worried about AIs replacing human workers. That trend will signify the increasing wealth of our societies. In extremely wealthy societies, humans freed of drudge labor will turn to their personal creative outlets, and be paid for their expression. I see the likelihood of an explosion of creativity among humans free to pursue their innate talents.

      • “Children will require a social milieu to properly learn.”
        Yes. it’s called a family. Teachers are a poor substitute.
        Schools exist to indoctrinate kids to do what they’re told. That’s the last thing we need in a post-industrial world.

      • Actually computers already can replace teachers. I know of a number of homeschool families that are computer based curriculum.

      • I read a science fiction story a few years back, in which all manual labor had been replaced by robots and automation.
        In this story, personal worth was no longer measured on how much stuff you could accumulate, since everything was essentially free.
        Personal worth was determined by competence, and competence was measured by the assessment of your peers.
        Don’t know that it could actually work, but it was something worth thinking about. Especially since automation is here to stay and no amount of sabotage (read up on the root of the word) will stop it. So we’d better figure out how to deal with it.

    • My senior year in high school, I was required to take a course called Fundamentals of Punctuation. Class was taught by “Programmed Learning,” textbook named “English 2600.” I plowed through the whole thing the first week, handed zero-error worksheets to Mr. Hintz Friday half-way through the 55 minutes. He said not one word to me the whole week.
      Last year an attractive young cocktail waitress asked me to do her College Algebra homework for her, on the Internet. Took me about three hours to do her semester’s work for her. Professor said not one word to me.
      Traditional subjects can easily be taught by automated instruction. The problem is getting a grade distribution. And, yes, teacher’s unions bitterly oppose such methods.

      • You can indeed run automated courses. How much algebra did your waitress learn?
        For engineering programs there is a requirement that students use knowledge in a context other than the one in which it was originally learned. (Could the student use the concepts learned in the context of an RLC circuit to analyze an automobile’s suspension; in other words, mass, spring, damper?) Machine learning is woefully inadequate for that.

    • The thing with automoation, is that it allows you to make things cheaper., the result is that less work is needed in order to afford the products that are now being made via automation. If government wasn’t working so hard to keep stuff expensive, the resulting drop in prices would be of benefit to everyone.

  22. I admit with reluctance and rare candor, that Prof. Hawking is a *better* theoretical physicist than I.
    Also a better shill.

  23. I have a certain admiration for people like Stephen Hawking. He made a series of bets with physicists at Caltech, and iirc, lost them all. He proposed four laws of black holes, at least one of which turned out to be falsified by his own calculations. He p*ssed all over Higgs and tried to discredit him, only to have CERN prove that Higgs was right. He’s made a career out of mostly getting things wrong, and long ago ditched science for the worlds of mass media entertainment and political advocacy.
    He’s in the same class as Bill Nye and Paul Erlich. He most likely surpasses both of them in celebrity as well as money earned. Gotta admire a guy achieving that from a wheel chair.

    • For all his intelligence (real or imagined) he hasn’t figured out that the greatest threat to both mankind and the environment is that seething mass of humanity gathering around his ivory tower. Arrogant academics should keep in mind we are first and foremost “social animals”. Black holes are not related to solutions of social problems.

  24. A couple of thoughts.
    1. He is right about living in a bubble. He has little idea how we avergae Joe Schlubbs get on.
    2.”The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing”- does he fancy a job on a production line or is he OK to keep making use of the results of the hadron collider experiments, for example?
    3. He did well at physics and should stick to it.
    4. As far as I know, however, he has not yet produced a quantitative model of the climate and so I do not know what he is basing his predictions on.
    5. He needs to reacquaint himself with the scientific method.

    • does he fancy a job on a production line or is he OK to keep making use of the results of the hadron collider experiments, for example?
      Or, for another example, speech synthesizers operated by a single cheek muscle.

  25. “So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone.”
    What an ego! Does Hawking really believe that when people think “elite,” the first thing they think of is Stephen Hawking? He must really live in a bubble.
    A movie I saw showed him working on his early theory for years, finally publishing it and getting awards and recognition for it, and then eventually coming to the conclusion that it was wrong. How long will he cling to the theory of climate change before realizing it is wrong too?

  26. But – who gets to determine who our “betters” are?
    “A thousand pictures can be drawn from one word
    Only who is the artist
    We got to agree
    A thousand miles can lead so many ways
    Just to know who is driving
    What a help it would be”

  27. Hawking used to be worth listening to, like back in 1980s, but then he started rabbiting on about alien invasions and other claptrap. Since then I’ve had little time for his twittering. Now he’s joined forces with Brian Cox, another physicist I once respected. Both have lost their way. I suspect they know which side their bread is buttered on, ie., play the game or lose your air time. I suspect they know the BBC and the lamestream media will shut them down. Very sad.

    • I read the full article to which you linked. Hawking makes it clear that he is one of the “elites” and without the guidance of him and the rest of the “elites”, humanity is doomed. Eric’s “listening to our betters” rather understates the man’s arrogance.
      He’s no different than Paul Erlich. Repeatedly wrong, yet he somehow clings to his celebrity status while enriching himself and wailing away at the plight of the poor.

  28. I am confused. Whose opinions should I believe — those of Hawking or Madonna????
    Oh! Wait! They have the same opinions!!!
    Eugene WR Gallun

  29. I’ve heard of Hawking, but could someone please tell me what he has contributed to society and science other than theoretical “deep thought”.

    • I believe the technical term for the sum total of his contributions to the lot of humanity is “bupkis”.
      But since he has been doing it for so long, it may now add all the way up to bupkis squared.

      • That’s the conclusion I had come to.
        A load of unprovable and unproven conjecture
        No wonder he accepts the AGW thought bubble.
        Hawking supporters.. Give us something !!!

      • Mosh, Griff, Toneb and the other alarmist self-worriers……
        come on.. surly you must have something

      • When I think about it, yeah, there is a void in a place of his actual contribution. Unlike Einstein, his deep thoughts were amended far too many times to stand for anything seriously scientific.

      • “Mosh, Griff, Toneb and the other alarmist self-worriers……
        come on.. surly you must have something”
        They don’t work on Sunday

  30. There’s a clear divide in the way climate is viewed between the pragmatists who have worked in real-life occupations and theoretical ivory tower “thinkers”.
    Hawkings is one of the few who had very little choice in the matter. And whilst it is predictable that he’s an alarmist, there’s very little he could have done about it.

    • Why predictable? He has a brain like everybody else. He prefers to follow MSM and refuses to think outside his own speciality, even though he has the capacity to do so. He deserves all the ridicule he gets.

    • “… theoretical ivory tower “thinkers”.
      Sans spectacles, my first take was “theatrical” ivory tower..
      Blessed subconscious mind.

  31. Article not complete, thanks for sharing the source. The conclusion reads:” We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.”

    • “to learn the lessons of the past year”
      That could be good or that could be bad. It depends on what kind of lesson Hawking is talking about learning. Does he think the Elites should figure out how to keep running things, or does he mean the Elites should bow to the will of the People?
      The human race will survive if the Ivory Tower Elites bow to the practical People. The Elites wouldn’t do it voluntarily. Now they are going to do it involuntarily. They should get used to it, and all of us will get along better.
      The People know what they want and what they are doing, evidenced by their votes. And now that Trump is in, the Peoples’ hold on power will only increase, and Elite power will decrease, although they will fight it every step of the way. But, they fought it every step of the way this time, and they lost, and their position is even weaker now.

    • Cecile,
      I didn’t know that there were any elites living in Hollywood. While many of them think that being attractive and being able to memorize the lines in a script somehow give them special insights on politics and science, I’m afraid that they a legends only in their own minds. They are confusing being rich with being intelligent.

  32. “climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans”
    Almost amazing to think that someone supposedly as intelligent as this man could talk such crap. I wonder if he has actually studied any raw data or just believes his intellectual mates

    • I wonder, given the advanced state of his disease, if he is simply a prop being exploited by his handlers.

      • Hunter asks: “I wonder … if he is simply a prop being exploited by his handlers.”
        I’ve shared that opinion myself or many years. I’ve never understood the media worship the man seems to attract to begin with since he’s never made a significant contribution to his field. He made what reputation he has popularizing some subjects in theoretical physics, a job he isn’t even all that good at when compared to men like Ilya Prigogine.
        Hawking has no way to communicate without assistance. he’s completely dependent on his “staff” for everything, which guarantees co-operation. I’m convinced he’s a media creation used as a puppet to lend credibility that same media gave him. A fake in other words.
        It’s impossible to take his pronouncements as something an educated scientist would say or write.

  33. Hawking, you may be bright is your little and in practical terms unimportant field, but in the real world you are an ignorant an undereducated academic. If you want people to listen then you cannot tell them the case is proved. You have to prove it over and over again in the face of the most hard line questioning available. You cannot expect intelligent and practical people to accept that first testing people to believe in a case where the judge jury prosecuting council are all pre tested to have found the case proven and any defence is disallowed because they are not qualified since they have not passed an exam to say the case is proven makes any sense at all.
    You must allow engineers who are far more qualified than any mere untrained academic to examine and verify that every single measurement station will stand up to quality control standards appropriate to the sort of spending that is demanded based on the science. That means it must be done not just to average commercial but to life critical standards as they is what is claimed to be the consequence. As it stands the enclosures themselves for sub degree accuracy do not pass the quality control standards demanded by a major pound chain in the UK when verifying their product’s quality. More so when you add in the way that the clean air acts and the changes in paint used have each altered the temperature characteristics of the Stephenson screen to a greater extent than the claimed warming.
    Add to that the failure to compare the top quartile and the bottom quartile of the changes and prove there is no regional or localised cause for the variation makes it all so suspect it is not longer science it is pure guesswork.

  34. The Ivory Tower crowd are some of the most abusive around. Look how they treat kids in America. They tell them everyone needs to get an education in science. Yes, science is the way to improve the world and achieve personal greatness.
    But they don’t tell you that over half of all college graduates in science can’t find a job doing science as a career. They don’t tell you they are bringing in over 1 million foreign students to fill the same positions. If you decide to ignore the lack of jobs and pursue advanced science training, they don’t tell you there are more than 5 applicants for every available slot. They don’t tell you that over 800,000 graduate school and training positions are given to foreigners while Americans are displaced. They don’t tell you that if you get in your salary is set by the Ivory Tower crowd at the NIH and NSF, and that even with a college degree you will only be paid $11 per hour, with no retirement benefits, no overtime, no 401k, no COLA, and zero job security. If you ignore that an graduate with a PhD, your salary is again set by the Ivory Tower crowd at the NIH and NSF, at only $18 per hour, again with no overtime, no retirement, and zero job security. If you complete postdoctoral training, you have a 6% chance of landing a tenure track faculty position. If you re-up for another postdoc with no overtime, no retirement, and no job security, you get another 6% chance of landing a tenure track faculty position.
    The jobs are flooded by foreigners, and the politicians who urged you to make science your career now say that we need the best and brightest from all around the world, so keep the planetary floodgates open at all levels, from college to grad school to postdoc training, to private industry.
    In China they pay a graduate student $50 per month, they pay a new PhD $100 per month. This is the Ivory Tower’s idea of equity and fairness, a global Thunderdome style market where a handful of elites lord over millions of science serfs.

    • Brutal but accurate. Thanks. I have very close family members stuck in the Academic plantation system. What is interesting is how self policing the Academic plantation system is.

    • Graduate students kick off at about $400 a month in China. It’s not that bad. Cost of living is lower in China. They can move up to about $1000 a month in 18 months or so. I work in a university here. I keep in touch with my ex-students. I’ve been doing it for about 12 years. I would check my sources of information if I were you.

      • I was commenting on the last paragraph:
        ‘In China they pay a graduate student $50 per month, they pay a new PhD $100 per month. ‘

      • My source of information was from an article about ‘Science in China’ that came out in 2009. Perhaps they have instituted some modest reforms since then. However you have to admit that even placing American students in direct global competition with people making a tiny fraction of the salary will necessary suppress US wages.
        More galling is that the lions share of the money funding these US graduate programs and labs come directly from US taxpayers. Do you think China has Americans beating down the door to get $2 per hour? No, and if an American applied they would be told the positions were reserved for native Chinese students. They understand the benefits of educating their own, unlike America.

      • KTM
        I wasn’t actually disagreeing with your comment I don’t know enough about the ustasian education system and prospects for graduates to comment. I was just, in a kindly fashion, suggesting that you might update your information. China is a very complex place (it’s why I like it here). Most westerners make great assumptions based on MSM, Chinese and global.

    • You make valid points, especially around immigrants (in this case legal ones) being used to suppress wages of citizens. Your figures are somewhat out of date but in any case, students need to figure out what the actual situation is accordingly and take some responsibility for their own career paths. Relying upon what the “elites” tell them is troublesome.

      • Found the article I was thinking of.
        Science in China: 30 years on. Cell. 2008 Aug 8;134(3):375-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.07.035.
        “Some scientists in China, however, worry that this program will further deprive domestic faculty of talented graduate students. “I am puzzled by this program. The best undergrads can go abroad on their own, without government help,” Rao says. “Funds should be better used to support graduate students in China whose pay is too low.” Soon after their return to China last year, Yi Rao and Yigong Shi drafted a letter and gathered signatures of more than 50 professors, calling on the government to raise stipends for domestic graduate students, the majority of whom receive less than $50/month, lower than the urban minimum wage. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has agreed to the suggestion, and government ministries are believed to be discussing detailed plans for its implementation.
        The shortage of talented graduate students is compounded by an acute shortage of postdocs. “The biggest problem for top scientists who have returned is the lack of postdocs,” says Zhinan Yin, an immunologist recently recruited from Yale University to be Dean of the School of Life Sciences at Nankai University in Tianjin. The standard salary for postdocs in China is about $300/month. Even though they may supplement base pay with grants, compared with compensation in the US (and coupled with the desire of domestic PhDs to gain research experience abroad), “the US is clearly at an advantage,” notes Yin. Xiongli Yang of Fudan University agrees, “All the PhDs I train go abroad to do postdocs.” To address the problem “China must increase postdoc pay drastically,” emphasizes Yin.”
        Less than $50 per month for grad students, even lower than the Chinese minimum wage. $300 for postdocs, so not -quite- as bad as I remembered.

  35. There are no betters amongst humans. Rather what can be advanced are policies that actually work to improve affairs instead of reducing the overall wealth that has allowed us to escape the brutal shortness of life that has been mankind’s lot for much of his existence.

  36. I got news for him, We The People have a social contract called the Constitution that governs our laws, so if his ideas are so much better, then let him and his friends convince us to change it.
    But elites don’t go the legal route of change because they always lose arguments because their ideas aren’t better. So they break oaths of office, violate our laws, steal our property, and invade our country with “refugees” whom they’ll have an easier time controlling.
    And so it goes…

  37. “awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.”
    but no evidence that cutting fossil fuel emissions will do anything to attenuate any of these .

  38. He admits to being in a rarefied environment of people who think they are elites yet thinks this means he can tell the plebs what to do. Seriously deluded. Also the most dangerous type of nannying fussbucket around. Read C S Lewis who wrote that the robber baron isn’t always nasty as he can be staited but the nannying fussbucket is never satisfied and always interferes.

      • That’s it really, and maybe the idea that borders should be open to all immigrants including those with ill will who would bring on the tyranny that made them is not such a bright idea.

  39. About eight years ago some 100+ Nobelists signed an open letter about the urgency of the global warming problem. These are Hawking’s peer group–the ones he feels tribal affiliations with. They’re probably mostly worse than he is.
    Long ago someone scientific bigshot said the you couldn’t find a wacky cause the wasn’t endorsed by at least a half-dozen Nobelists.

    • Hawking, the Pope, 100 Nobel prize winners….
      These people are just so stupid they get taken in by actual science…?

      • You give it away when you call on the Pope – just like we have been saying all along, you warmists demand that your case be taken on purely Religious grounds.
        And the Nobel committee has pretty permanently beclowned themselves once they gave Obama a preemptive award. What would you think if they were to award Donald Trump a Nobel Peace Prize today? But that’s exactly what they did for Obama.

      • I notice you totally avoid answering this question, Griff… empty as usual, hey. !
        ” Could someone please tell me what he has contributed to society and science other than theoretical “deep thought”.”

      • And while Christians are being extirpated in the Middle East and Africa, the Pope is strangely silent on that issue.
        It is beyond bizarre and well into the realm of the surreal.
        What can be the explanation?
        The one that explains the facts most completely would be that he is not at all what he claims to be.

  40. i heard he was “unwell” in italy at some do, and was taken to hospital
    so maybe his opinion/work/whatever wont matter soon anyway
    being blunt

  41. Hawking still breathes, still thinks. He is no student of hope, trapped as he is. Still, hope is there for him. He needs only turn his thoughts to the experience of James Lovelock and seek his own epiphany.

  42. “And then often, finding that the Instagram nirvana is not available there, they seek it overseas, joining the ever greater numbers of economic migrants in search of a better life.”
    They should build the better life at home like our forebears did. Limiting energy because of the AGW cause along with corrupt regimes in poorer countries who often get misguided support for palaces and Mercedes from the west, are the real barrier they face.

  43. The problem with most of the elitests is that they don’t bother to learn real history. That history they do learn is very focused in their own field or science and not world history in the general sense. If Hawking had bothered to learn the real history of humankind he would know that we live in a very peaceful time with relatively little social unrest. That we are producing more food per capita than ever and the world population in general is living to a much higher standard than ever before. We are more ecologically aware and concerned than we ever have been. And that our condition as humans has been improving during his entire life time and before. He has no accurate frame of reference because he has never sought to gain one. His letter is a prime example of arrogant ignorance but he will never understand that.

  44. I wonder how much of what is attributed to Prof. Hawking is actually produced by him and not by the group of people who are dedicated to caring for his every need. That said, theoretical physicists don’t have a great track record in social and political issues. Besides, I heard last week that Hawking decided that the real existential crisis facing the world is actually obesity. I think the only surprising thing raised in the statement attributed to Prof Hawking here is how much it reveals that he is capable of self reflection of the reality that people who live in extreme bubbles seldom actually get it right.

  45. Hubris.
    Corinthians: “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

  46. Why does the media praise every single line that comes out of this guy’s robot? I don’t find him very bright, in the last couple of years he’s only made some lame predictions and childish theory in the same level with Kaku etc

  47. Hate to break it to you Dr Hawking, but, when I was considering for whom to vote, I didn’t think about you or your Cambridge ‘elites’, not even once. Also, I’m sorry to have to inform you that it isn’t all about you. Shocking revelation for you I’m sure.

  48. “For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.”
    Yes, we should work together. Since the Elites lost the election, they should be asking the winners what the winners want them to do. When they do that, we will all work together to solve our problems.
    If they don’t do that, then the winners will do it on their own.

  49. My take on this and Stephen Hawking in particular, is that my life has not materially been affected by the fact that he wrote, and I read, ‘A Brief History of Time’. However, my life will most certainly be affected, in fact, already has, by the scientists and politicians who have lumbered my country with the most expensive and least efficient means of power generation – and all on the back of a hypothesis!

  50. As with many of the self-styled elite, Hawking in in the metaphoric bubble, of mostly having contact with affirmations of their own elite status. Unless one has the desire to confirm one’s dearly held beliefs, it is so easy to only pay attention to that which agrees with your prejudice. After all, the good people you know agree with that world-view, and it is only those socially unacceptable people raising doubts. Why should you read something by a d e n i e r?
    That sort of intellectual laziness bit the political elites with Brexit and the election of Trump, who very well could have not known anyone who voted on the other side. In both cases, the supposed elites still cannot really belive it happened.

  51. Interviewer: Mr. Hawkins, is there anything in the universe you do not understand? What mystery do you find most intriguing, and why?
    HAWKING: Women. My PA reminds me that although I have a PhD in physics, women should remain a mystery.

  52. What a huge ego! I thought he was all about science and admired the fellow. I even read his papers in the 70’s before he was so well known. Clearly, all he can think about is himself and his importance as an “elite member of society”. This is currently true for most of the elite. This is becoming a huge unforeseen fascist problem – one we now face in the West – dominated by an elite that “knows” what is best for the little people and even the whole planet (what hubris – I can hear them say “let them eat cake” in the interests of furthering whatever planet saving goals they dream of)! These rich and powerful elitists supported by their grovelling media (who constantly bolster appeal to authority) don’t even realize that it is NOT what is best (whatever that means) that protects or ensures continued success of our civilization; what matters most is mutual respect & consideration for the aspirations (mostly food, shelter and comfort) of each and everyone of our fellow citizens!

  53. I seriously doubt Stephen Hawking can actually communicate at this level anymore, and hasn’t been able for some time. His “statements” are really coming from his handlers, whoever they are.

  54. I haven’t read every reply in this thread, but surely somebody has noticed that Hawking is saying that his extreme isolationism from what is going on in the world makes him an expert on what is going on in the world.

  55. I’ve gotta say, after reading and re-reading Hawking’s words, that his ramblings are those of an old, possibly senile fool. He’s babbling, only to conclude that “our species needs to work together”. Huh? One can only suppose that he’s hinting at some sort of World Government, with the “elites” (like Hawking) in charge. Or something. Who knows? Does Hawking even know what he’s going on about? I doubt it.

    • Be very skeptical when the left offers to “work together” or that we are “stronger together” what they really mean is that the left will get to work forcing their opponents to submit to the lefts demands. There is no compromise from the left, no working together. Only FORWARD!

  56. If this is really what he thinks, he seems to have replaced the scientific method with a massive dose of virtue signaling. If you really want to stop fossil fuel use (which probably wont stop climate change, BTW), then be elite enough to get that controlled fusion thing going!

  57. TRUMP Mission #1: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, a despicable deplorable thumb in the eye of the establishment and elites. Now it’s Schadenfreude time!. Pwsssst! Ahh. The pause that refreshes.

  58. Stephen Hawking is hardly an authority on these matters. To be honest he is more famous for his book and his disability as much as anything else. There are other excellent theoretical physicists who hardly get a mention. He hasn’t won a Nobel Prize for example.

    • I’d argue that Trump at this stage, having answered a phone call, is more deserving of a Nobel Prize than Obama ever was.

    • If Hawking radiation be discovered while he’s still alive, he would probably merit a Nobel, at least in the eyes of its Scandinavian socialist awarders.
      However, he got the idea for “Hawking” radiation from a Mexican-American-Israeli and two Russian physicists.
      Up to three people can share a Nobel, so maybe the committee would split it. The hyphenated American is still alive. Dunno about the Russians.

      • Just checked. The Belarussian Zeldovich is dead, but the Russian is still alive. Guess I should have said Soviet rather than Russian. Hawking visited them in 1973, when I was also back in the USSR.

      • Yes, I heard the Israeli fellow worked it out first. It is hard to ignore the brilliance of Jewish scientists.

      • Jester,
        The late (as I now know) Zeldovich was also Jewish. It was he and his then grad student Starobinsky who also gave Hawking the idea, along with Mexican-American-Israeli Bekenstein.
        The mathematical calculations for Hawking radiation were done by his then grad student Don Page, an American-Canadian Evangelical Christian.
        If a Nobel were to awarded while all were alive, only three of the four physicists Hawking, Starobinsky, Bekenstein and Page could receive it, according to the Prize rules.

  59. This article brings this quote to mind:
    I’d rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the telephone book than the Harvard faculty – William F. Buckley
    That goes for Cambridge faculty too.

  60. US will meet emissions targets regardless of Trump’s policies – Al Gore
    Former presidential candidate says ‘it’s too early to write off’ Trump
    US greenhouse gas emissions are likely to fall irrespective of the pro-coal policies of President-elect Donald Trump, who may still surprise the world by embracing global action to limit climate change, former vice president Al Gore said.
    Gore, a climate activist who will lead a 24-hour televised marathon on December 5-6 about global efforts to limit rising temperatures, told Reuters that companies and US states would cut emissions despite Trump’s doubts that warming is man-made.
    “Business alone, along with states, will almost guarantee that we meet the reduction targets (set by US President Barack Obama) regardless of the policies the new president ends up adopting,” Gore said in a phone interview.

  61. Sorry, Stephen, but much as I admire your work and the truly heroic courage in putting up with (and standing up to) your illness, once you step outside your own area of expertise your opinion is no better that that of any other intelligent person.
    The ivory tower, in which by your own admission you have spent your entire adult life, is almost as much a closed community as a Trappist monastery, the fundamental difference being that while monks take vows that include Obedience, which almost by definition implies humility, academics are the flip side of that coin with something close to a vow of Arrogance.
    While monks “feed off” each others’ humility, academics feed off each others’ conviction of their own importance and their own superiority until they become convinced that on any subject their views are inevitably right and their pronouncements to be treated as the wisdom of Solomon.
    For no other group in society is the advice “you should get out more” relevant.

  62. Hawking’s stature as a physicist is good, but not that of Einstein. When Einstein was offered a prominent position in politics (the Presidency of the new State of Israel), he respectfully declined because he knew he was not right for the job. Hawking seems to be trying to make himself politically prominent.
    At least he recognizes that he lives in an ivory tower.
    What he fails to recognize is that the ‘equality’ he thinks we should all have is a birthright for which we all must fight, not a blessing handed down from on high by those deluded enough to believe they know what’s best for everybody else, without knowing everybody else. We secure that birthright by rejecting the social engineering efforts of those who egotistically think of themselves as our betters.

  63. In immediately post-Brexit Britain we were treated to the vision of these ‘elite’ academics temporarily shedding their virtue-reflecting politically correct skins to reveal the revolting creatures within. How they howled about ‘this is what you get when you let ignorant peasants vote!’. They know that only they have the intellect to be trusted with the vote and it’s merely an unfortunate quirk of deomocracy that vile populism is allowed to thwart the wishes of the self-elected elite. My revulsion for leftist infested academia is fast approaching an event horizon.

  64. Mr. Hawking’s list of concerns only has one legitimate item in it: ‘the decimation of other species’ . I don’t see the others as even a tiny, tiny, tiny issue well into the future.

    • IMO modern humanity has not caused the extinction of ten percent of the species with which it has shared the planet for some 200,000 years. It did contribute to wiping out the Pleistocene megafauna, but while massive, they weren’t a large share of total species diversity, counting only multicellular organisms, ie plants, fungi and animals.

  65. Read one of his books. Not much impressed by unprovable theories of multiple dimensions, etc. Does not believe in intelligent design or God in spite of the obviously fine tuned physics required for the very existence of our universe but does believe in AGW. One needs to consider at least the possibility that the answer is more than unprovable statistical chance including the possibility of an unprovable Planner. But then AGW is unproven as well while he believes it is proven. Read a couple of books on Einstein. There is no possible logical comparison of the two individuals.

    • On the Assumption of Design (2003) Theology and Science 2(1), 109-130.
      Abstract: “The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.

    • Jim,
      The God hypothesis is completely untestable by falsifiable predictions made upon it, hence not scientific. Multiple universe theory (including higher dimensions) does make testable predictions, and some evidence, as yet not very convincing, for it has been observed. So it is scientific.
      ID is likewise anti-scientific and furthermore easily shown false. Not a shred of evidence supports the conjecture and all the evidence in the world is against it.
      Plus, just punting by calling some structure irreducibly complex (IC) runs counter to the whole scientific enterprise, which is to try to understand, via the scientific method, how nature works. The evolution of microbial flagella, considered IC by Behe, has in fact been elucidated by his colleagues interested in science rather than religion. He really missed the boat on that one, besides being publicly humiliated at trial in the Dover case.
      Whether we are just very lucky to live in a universe with laws that allow the development of elements higher than hydrogen, stars, planets and life, or an infinite number of universes exist, so ours necessarily does, science can’t currently answer conclusively. But we can say without doubt that the God hypothesis is at best unscientific, since, as noted, it can’t be tested experimentally.
      Also “proof” isn’t really the standard in science, as in math. The test in science is falsifiability and confirmation. And repeatability of results.

    • Since there were two anti-Intelligent Design comments above….
      this is only for BALANCE and is NOT to continue the discussion of the theory of Intelligent Design. This is solely to simply present, without further comment, the counter-argument for anyone interested in an excellent video lecture about it.
      Dr. Stephen Meyer, “Signature in the Cell” (2011)

      Caveat: there are already TWO very able anti-Intelligent Design comments above, one quite lengthy and one with a link to a lengthy document. This counter-balancing comment (along with Jim G1’s brief remark), I hope, is the end of the discussion on this thread. If others keep adding to the anti-ID side, it will create a situation where we who see the logic and evidence for ID as compelling will feel a reply would only be fair play.

      • Janice,
        If you want to try to defend the garbage of ID, please do so in your own words. This drivel has no place on a science blog.
        Of course it’s up to our host, but IMO no pack of lies about ID should be allowed here. If the “Slayers” are disallowed, whose arguments at least are based upon science, then anti-scientific ID-supporting comments should certainly not be permitted, since there is no scientific basis whatsoever for creationism.
        Every creationist comment on this blog only provides ammunition for climate alarmists who, rightly it appears, charge skeptics with anti-scientific opinions about the incontrovertible fact of evolution.
        ID isn’t science. It’s false religion.

      • Janice,
        Since my reply is in moderation, just let me add that there is no logic or evidence supporting ID. It is a matter of federal law in the US that ID is not science. It’s rightly against the law to teach it in public schools as science. For the good and sufficient reason that it isn’t. It’s a pack of lies, old creationist vinegar in new bottles.
        A federal court ruled to this effect based upon the testimony of the originator of ID and his leading supporters and that of the world’s top biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and scientists working in every relevant discipline.
        You can read here for yourself the Christian, Republican judge’s basis for finding ID to be religion, not science:
        You can also read all the testimony in the case, in which the hatcher of ID, Behe, was forced to admit under cross examination that evolution is a fact. His side was also hilariously humiliated when it was shown that their ID text was copied directly from a creationist text previously declared unconstitutional to use in public schools, again based upon the testimony of real scientists, not the paid liars of the Discovery Institute.
        ID can be taught in religion courses, but not as science. Because it manifestly is not.

      • Readers,
        Please note the (to me) bizarre attempt to get Mr. Watts to literally ban any comments that display any skepticism whatsoever about Evolution, on the grounds that climate alarmists will somehow convince . . some clan of influential “elite” imbeciles or other, that if any commenters holds a given opinion, all hold that same given opinion;
        “Every creationist comment on this blog only provides ammunition for climate alarmists who, rightly it appears, charge skeptics with anti-scientific opinions about the incontrovertible fact of evolution.”
        Why, one wonders, would anyone care what someone so stupid as to believe that if one skeptic has doubts about this or that idea, they all must? Such people would have to grotesquely ignorant about humans to believe such a thing, it seems to me, anyway . .
        And, what happened to skepticism being an intrinsic part of scientific thinking? How could it be “anti-scientific” to have less than absolute/unquestioning faith in this particular theory . . yet be “anti-scientific” to have absolute/unquestioning faith in other theories? WTF is so special about this theory, that the whole scientific approach must be turned on it’s head to . . protect it from any challenge?
        It’s an utterly useless theory, in the material world sense, as far as I can tell. No patents, inventions or technologies depend on or stem from it . . it’s just a philosophical/world-view thing. It’s great for justifying domination by a few “elites” over the rest of the species, no doubt, and the elimination of undesirables of various sorts, but not much else, it seems to me.

      • Hi Janice 🙂 The important thing is that, personal beliefs aside, we all share approximately 100% of the same humane values.
        We just arrive at them from different starting points. They all come down to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all share this, can live together amicably, and give our loyalty to the society that recognizes our freedom and individual worth.
        All the rest is just frosting.

      • JohnKnight
        December 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm
        That’s not what I said at all. Discuss the fact of evolution all you want, but not the preposterous lies of creationism and ID.
        Sadly, the criticism of CACA spewers that its opponents also d@ny the fact of evolution is one of their few valid claims.
        Creationism/ID is not science. It’s not even unscientific. It’s anti-science, without any basis whatsoever in objective reality.

      • JohnKnight, “[Evolution is] an utterly useless theory, in the material world sense, as far as I can tell. No patents, inventions or technologies depend on or stem from it . . it’s just a philosophical/world-view thing.
        All of medical technology depends on Evolutionary Theory, John. Evolutionary Theory organizes how researchers think about the biology of medical testing and medical advances, tells them where to look for research direction (such as in the genetic basis of diseases and cures), and how and why medical systems work (or don’t work).
        All of plant breeding, genetic modification of plants, and all of chemical/biological weed control, depend on Evolutionary Theory.
        The overwhelming success of sexually reproducing animals over parthenogenetic reproducers is explicable only within Evolutionary Theory.
        All of the appearances and disappearances of species over Geological time are inexplicable except in light of Evolutionary Theory. The genetic similarity of apes and humans is a mystery apart from Evolutionary theory.
        Evolutionary Theory is far from useless. Apart from science, it is at the bottom of a huge technological enterprise.

      • It’s like this:
        AGW Theory: I can’t think of another reason, so it must be CO2
        ID Theory: I can’t think of another reason, so it must be god.

      • Pat,
        That’s it in a nutshell.
        Both fantasies are anti-scientific because they refuse even to look for the actual explanations of natural phenomena.

      • ID, ie creationism, is less scientific than wiccan or voodoo, since sympathetic magic can at least give patients false hope.
        ID is anti-scientific for, among a host of other good reasons, it can’t and doesn’t make falsifiable predictions.
        Its only “prediction” is that there should be “irreducibly complex” structures. But of course there aren’t. The pathetic attempts of Behe to find such structures only put on full display how lame is ID.

  66. Steven Hawking’s comments are quite reasonable – I don’t think the characterisation of his article is fair.
    From what I know of the sort of people in university administration in the UK, if he spoke up as a climate skeptic they could well retaliate against Hawking with physical abuse.

    • I suspect your are right. There is no other position he could take without being ostracized within academia. OTOH, he could grow a set of balls.

  67. Hawking, like so many of his peers, is simply out of his depth when he begins to opine about matters moral, political and economic. He mentions living in a bubble, but doesn’t see the downside to being so cloistered. What he writes here could have been written by a high school senior. Hawking should be ashamed. I tuned him out a long time ago on matters outside his immediate specialty. On such matters his mind is as pedestrian as they come (think Obama or the Pope, when they leave the reservation).

  68. The many commenters are being too hard on Hawking. He got the most important part right. It must be difficult for him to write at all and some exaggeration to make his point is understandable.
    “….There is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.
    What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
    The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.

  69. I think your headline is extremely misleading and most replies have focused on your misrepresentation not what he actually wrote.
    He starts by saying that the elites have become disconnect from the bulk of society, he acknowledges that some of them are over-rewarded and goes on to write “Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.”
    Granted he is unclear on how to bring society back together and he is deluded enough to think that climate change is a threat. However, he does recognise there are problems with the self proclaimed elites and that the rest of society has reasons to be unhappy.

    • Noticed the same thing, in Hawkings defence, he is not talking to us taxpayers, he is addressing his fellow inmates.
      The message has to be intelligible to the listener or communication is impossible.

  70. Proof positive that education at an elite university means next to nothing. I wonder how much his alma mater charges their students these days to indoctrinate them with transparent, pathetic nonsense?

  71. Hawkings is secure in his point of view, that of the intellectual elite . . . they know best, let them rule. Plato would be proud. But long ago we decided we should all be treated equally, the weak and the strong, the rich and the poor, the smart and the dumb, the elite and the hoi polloi. Moreover we came up with a way to implement that idea, the democratic representative republic. People would all have the liberty to run their own lives but for questions concerning groups of people we would elect representatives, every man getting a vote. So we have cities, counties, states and the nation as a whole each with their own locally elected and/or appointed (by duly elected officials) people to run things at that level. It has worked marvelously for going on three hundred years. Not that people have not tried to seize power and assume dictatorial power even at the highest levels but you can only do that by using force (virtually impossible with police and military composed of patriotic citizens) or by a ruse in which someone or some group of people convince everyone else to voluntarily give up their freedom for some greater good. Man made global warming (ACGW) is the current ruse. The scientific evidence for it or any damage warming might do is non-existent and yet intellectual elites (Hawkings) treat it as though there is absolute proof of it. Mere people have to accept it (hey, scientists say it’s so) and politicians instinctively know this is their ticket to much greater power so they jump on it. Ah, but there’s the democratic representative republic thing still in place and we’ve just witnessed a rejection of the whole ‘Do As We Say’ scheme together with all its quirks. That plus an impending very cold winter is like to knock ACGW into a cocked hat. Score one for the Constitution, reality and the native common sense of the common man.

    • John G,
      You said, “…democratic representative republic…”
      I think it would be more accurate to say a Constitutional Republic where the representative legislators and Electoral College members are elected democratically.

      • I need to correct what I said: The Electoral College members are directed democratically by the electorate on how to vote for the president. Thus, like the legislators, they are representatives for the People’s will.

      • I agree my phrase is a bit redundant and I’m leaving it to the reader to conclude the argument is based on the U.S. Constitution. I could have just said that we don’t do things based on appeal to authority no matter how august that authority might be but then I wouldn’t have been able to make a speech.

  72. I do respect Mr Hawking a lot. However there are two things that he and his fellow elites could do for our planete. First admit that climat science is not settled. Second conceive and proceed with an experiment that could produce empirical data describing anthropogenic co2 effects on global temperature. That is where they are good at and where we expect them to teach us.

  73. It would be good to remember that Steven Hawking is a THEORETICAL physicist, not an experimental physicist. As such, he has a gifted imagination that he augments with his knowledge of physics and math. He lives a cloistered life in a world of ideas. He literally does not live in the real world that 99% of the rest of us inhabit. Being gifted does not automatically mean that you have common sense or that your ideas and theories are correct, especially when your physical limitations prevent you from encountering the world in the same way that most of us do. Metaphorically speaking, Hawking LIVES in the same kind of bell jar that is used to prove the greenhouse effect, without the benefit of being able to test for all of the extraneous variables that exist outside the jar.

  74. At least he prefaces his remarks with admission of the privileged, rarefied, bubble community of elites. Beyond that, he is leveraging all of that rarity to comment and implore on topics that he has no background in. He is in fact equivalent to all the other sage princes speaking from behind the walls, fences, and parapets to those who are being asked to submit to more sacrifice and redistribution for the globalized admin cause. No thanks. I know a flawed advocacy-reach effort when I see one. And this one is more flawed than usual.

  75. Listening to scientists.
    Hearing Scientists.
    Abiding scientists.
    I am inclined to abide by scientists carping about politics. If Stephen Hawking wants to discuss his errors wrt the loss of information in black holes, the big bang etc, then I am indeed curious.
    Borrowing the ladder of scientific prowess and scientific popularity to practice economics, politics and religion has its flaws. On these matters he is babbling, if in fact is is he who is talking. So I tune out when Hawking ventures out of his area of expertise.

  76. He is probably more ignored than he realizes. His best selling book A Brief History of Time has been described as “the most unread book ever”. Purchased by the same elites, and other assorted pseuds & poseurs, merely to be placed on their coffee tables to impress guests. I hope it is better than his apparently lame understanding of the chemistry of aqueous carbonate buffers.

  77. Does this mean he is going to use his position to evaluate Mann’s model, data, proxies, statistical methods, and assertions anytime soon?

  78. First, who is “we”? I think – I’m sure, it wasn’t written to common folks like us – -opps, like me. (Sorry, I had a momentary attack of groupism.) Find in his missive everywhere he says “we.” Clearly, that is not “these two electorates.” And note how he is ignoring the majority that didn’t vote! Didn’t at all or didn’t vote the way the way HE thinks they should have, be it here or in Britain. That’s not on purpose, that’s by default. In his mind, (I suspect) THEY are NOT part of HIS ivory tower click either. I doubt he sees them as being as smart as he and his click are, even though they voted the “right” way. Therefore, I too think the title is wrong. (No offense Eric.) I think it should have been, “Most dangerous time for our Planet” because “we” elitist aren’t getting the facts (as “we” elitist KNOW them to be) across to the folks.
    Second, he falls on his elitist petard by writing in an amazingly illogical way, particularly for someone that one would expect to be nothing but logical. What does “ignoring inequality” have to do with “means to destroy” anything? And then, not to be able escape that which is destroyed? Isn’t destruction of something the ultimate “escape” of it?
    Yes, illogic abounds BUT, that is not to say his fellow “elitists” are not “getting” the message therein. Read his title again: “Most dangerous time for our Planet” How? Why? Because WE (elitist) are not getting the “facts” to the common folk. WE need to be more “humble” to make THEM understand that it is one world and THEY all need to come together – and think like WE do. Which of course IS the ultimate of illogical beliefs.
    Hey, Mr. Hawking, it’s NOT about getting a pint of humility down at the local pub, it’s about understanding humanity, stupid. There are 7 billion+ humans on this planet and not two of us are the same. Every one of us “sees” our existence differently. THIS is the essence of the US Constitution. Though we be different, we all have the same rights AND responsibility to not usurp those rights.
    So Mr. Hawking, you want to bring the world “together,” start by acknowledging that fact then go preach that message to those that are hell bent to take those rights away, including those here in the US that “think” they know better and that have already corrupted their duty and oath to the common folks. This is NOT a matter of “feelings” Mr. Hawking.
    In other words, Hillary didn’t lose because of a flawed message, campaign, candidate, etc. She lost because she got out foxed by master of strategic messaging in the places where it was needed, that message being the alt-left socialists, MSM, Democrats and one-worlders are corrupt, both spiritually and factually! And now they are doubling-down on that corruption. So it begs the question; is YOUR message part of that corruption, Mr. Hawking?

  79. I’ve never visited this site before, I only did so to hear what Hawking had to say! I’m not surprised to see that the contributors to its comments section are just as mathematically and scientifically illiterate as the rest of humanity! What morons!

    • Hey I made it through differential equations and I two years of physics.
      That was a LOT of reading, I can assure you.

  80. How come people have allowed themselves to be conned by this buffoon for so long? He has brought nothing of much use to mankind and now is so deluded he thinks he is capable of giving political advise. It really does beggar belief!!!.

      • No he means Hawking.
        I’ll ask the question none of the Hawking worshipers seem to want to answer.
        “Could someone please tell me what he has contributed to society and science other than theoretical unproven / unprovable “deep thought”.”

  81. “So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me, as much as anyone ……. this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.”
    No Mr. Hawking, it was not surely aimed at you. In fact both votes had nothing to do with you at all. Don’t over-think it. Brexit voters simply did not want to be part of the EU and Trump voters did not want what the Democrats were offering. It was not a cry of anger by people who felt abandoned either – it was simply voters voting for what they wanted. The only people who were surprised by the results were those who thought the media were telling the truth about those campaigns.

  82. President Eisenhower warned against people like Hawking in his farewell speech. In addition to the famous warning about “the military industrial complex”, he warned against the “danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.

  83. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is some very small number if not zero. It is a total waste of time and resources trying to solve a problem that Mankind does not have the power to solve. Extreme weather events are part of the current global climate and if we did manage to stop climate change we would still have extreme weather everts and sea level rise so what is the point? We should also be aware that the previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today. Our current interglacial period will eventually end but such may be several thousand years away and the transition may occour very gradually. With the transition to the next ice age sea levels will lower but ice sheets will form where none are today. Mankind does not have the power to change it.
    There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Rather than waisting time and resources on trying to solve problems that we do not have the power to solve we need to be solving problems that can be solved, like Mankind’s out of control population. Before the fuel runs out, Mankind must switch to alternate sources of energy and reduce our population so that alternate forms of energy will be sufficient. If Mankind does not control his own population then Nature will, catastrophically.

  84. “As a theoretical physicist based in Cambridge, I have lived my life in an extraordinarily privileged bubble. ”
    I don’t care how smart Mr. Hawking is, he still can’t see Forest for all those deplorable trees right in front of him. The man identifies the problem, then goes on to ignore it. Reinforcing Einstein’s Axiom: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
    “For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. ”
    Sure, now that the Leftist E.litist U.topians are out of power and are losing control, now L.E.U.’s make calls “to work together”. Well I say to them, ForGetAboutIt. We are going steamroll over you, undo all the Socialist, Communist, Fascist actions, and Make America Great Again.

  85. Dec·i·mate
    verb: past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated
    1. Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. “the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness” drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something). “plant viruses that can decimate yields”
    2. Historical: kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers or others) as a punishment for the whole group.
    Origin: late Middle English: from Latin decimat- ‘taken as a tenth,’ from the verb decimare, from decimus ‘tenth.’ In Middle English the term decimation denoted the levying of a tithe, and later the tax imposed in England by Cromwell on the Royalists (1655). The verb decimate originally alluded to the Roman punishment of executing one man in ten of a mutinous legion.[1]
    So the meaning of decimate (current meaning) in the original post, “The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing”. Is correct. Meaning many jobs have been lost not one in ten.
    Climate Heretic
    [1] Google “decimate meaning”

  86. I think this is a classic case of Will Rogers’ folksy wisdom.
    “Everybody’s ignorant…only on different subjects.”
    He may be (have been?) brilliant in his field. But he’s not commenting on his field here, is he?
    This resembles those actors and actresses who are very, very good at acting but there opinions on a subject are given weight because “I acted in a Holiday Inn Express last night”.
    (I remember Meryl Streep testified before Congress a decade or so ago about Alar used on apple trees. Her expertise? She had played a farmers wife in a movie.)
    A reputation earned and deserved in one field, at one time, does not make one an expert in a different field.
    PS Deserved respect as an expert would be to the one who added something to the field but was later shown to be off a bit. Or even flat out wrong. And welcomed the correction. If, instead, they cling to the error, are they still an “expert”?

    • My “PS” was poorly worded. I didn’t mean to imply by “Deserved respect as an expert” is only due to those who were wrong and admit it. I meant those open to admit and welcome any added understanding.
      Without humility, what we have are a bunch of, as soon as they are crossed, Mad Scientist.

  87. We do have serious issues on the surface of this planet, that do need to be addressed. In over 4 1/2 billion years the climate has changed lots of times.
    What part of that change in recent times is natural or man made, has not yet been made clear to me.
    We have a global immigration crisis or problem on three or more fronts. hmmm I wouldn’t want to live in China or India either. Just saying..
    Stephen Hawking shares some concerns that we should all at least think about.
    “””For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.”””
    I did like this Carlin video, mostly, that someone had posted above.
    The first 2:24 I didn’t much care for. But the “Planet is Fine,” bit is hilarious starting at 2:24……but real. Try it Dr. S. just for a hoot…he does mention sunspots and GCR….

  88. “…how the elites react.”, OMG, the complete arrogance.
    Two most dangerous things in the world after, “an idea” Stupid people in large groups, i.e. Rioters in Seattle, LA, NY, and people who think they have all the answers.
    So, it seems that at both ends of the intellectual spectrum think the same. One, what does that say about them? Second, what does say about the rest of us?
    One possible answer is that we are not willing to all either too dictate how we live.

  89. He is one of the most intelligent people ever but has fallen for the AGW scam just like a lot of people. Smart people are the easiest people to con just ask any scam artist.

  90. That essay by Hawking reads more like the ravings in a junior college common room that a scientist, however, as the expression egotism at the expense of impartiality, this comment has no equal:
    “So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely aimed at me,”

  91. On second thoughts I knew Clinton would lose a week before the elction The reason? Celebrity endorsements.
    Ed Miliband at the UK general election– endorsed by Russell Brand very publicly. Result? Total failure, despite good signs BEFORE the high profile endorsement.
    Remain in Europe publicly endorsed by Bob Geldoff. Result? Unexpected failure
    Clinton – suddenly endorsed by Madonna, Lady Gaga.. VERY publicly. Suddenly loses majority in the polls.. Result? Trump gets in, with the added bonus of stating that he just has himself and not these celebrity endorsements.
    I think left of centre makes the fatal error of accepting celebs. That’s like a brain surgeon looking to the taxi driver for advice and support in his operating theatre, and I’m afraid that’s the point where he loses credibility.
    The difference with Donald Trump is that when he appears on TV for entertainment, he is very much endorsing them, than them appearing to be in the driving seat

    • Spot on P Wilson !
      Mr. Obama also did us a big favour by telling us we would be “at the back of the queue” too !
      We Brits knew full well that the folks in the U. S. A. do NOT use that expression: they say “line up” (not queue) and so we knew his visit was a “set up” by the unelected European Union Corporation.

  92. I’m sorry if it has been discussed above, but everything Hawking says is moot. Guy McPherson says humanity will be extinct in ten years due to climate change and nothing can be done to stop it. Super! Can we stop talking about it now?

  93. Stephen Hawking – Earth could become like ‘sister planet’ Venus due to global warming

    Hawking may be smart, but he takes me for an idiot.

  94. Whoa! Based on an initial scan of this thread (I have only so much time) I think we are misreading Mr. Hawking. The key phrase is this:
    “What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.”
    He is commenting on how the ELITES should react, and he is saying that IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THEM to reject the votes as bogus, and attempt to nullify “the choices they represent.”
    It is a warning and a caution directed against himself his own fellow-travelers. So he accepts some of the enviro-bolshevism, so what? That is not part of his essential message. He is profoundly disabled and we should cut him some slack for not being able to scan the universe for error.
    I am ambivalent toward Stephen Hawking over other matters, but please do not put words in his mouth.

    • Michael J. Dunn December 5, 2016 at 11:28 am

      Whoa! Based on an initial scan of this thread (I have only so much time) I think we are misreading Mr. Hawking. The key phrase is this:
      “What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.”
      He is commenting on how the ELITES should react, and he is saying that IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THEM to reject the votes as bogus, and attempt to nullify “the choices they represent.”

      Mmmm … I think you mistake his words for his deeds. He says we should not “reject these votes” … but he truly doesn’t seem to understand what’s going on.
      For example, he THINKS he understands why the proles are rioting:

      The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing,

      But despite saying we should take them seriously, HIS SUPPORT FOR GLOBALISM REMAINS UNABATED!! All he’s doing is saying “yes, I understand your concerns, but you plebians are wrong, and besides, your betters have decided on globalization so you better get used to it.”.
      Not only that, but in the US at least, the issue is NOT “automation of factories”. That’s a liberal spin on what is going on. Out in the real world, the factories still exist, but they and the jobs have been moved somewhere that a man is willing to work for a bowl of rice per day and a dry place to sleep. THAT is what people are upset about, not Hawking’s fantasies about them objecting to automation.
      You think we are misreading Hawking. I think you are misreading him. He is NOT saying that the votes of the millions are correct, he’s saying the elites shouldn’t ignore them … and he also obviously thinks they are not correct.
      His solution?
      Why, clearly, since as you and he both say “IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THEM to reject the votes as bogus”, the solution is for some member of the elite to tell us just why we were wrong. He’s not ignoring us, that would be a “terrible mistake”. He’s not rejecting our votes as being bogus.
      Instead, he’s paying attention to us by patiently explaining to our feeble minds why we were fools to vote the way we did … I guess he figures maybe if he says it again real slow and using simple words, we’ll get it this time.
      I recommend that everyone read the book “How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. The answer to the first part is “protective trade barriers made countries rich”, and the answer to the second part is “free trade is why poor countries stay poor”. I was a huge free-trade advocate until I read that book, and I did a 180° turn on the spot … when the fact change I change my opinions. From the blurb:

      In this refreshingly revisionist history, Erik S. Reinert shows how rich countries developed through a combination of government intervention, protectionism, and strategic investment—rather than through free trade. Yet when our leaders lecture poor countries on the right path to riches they do so in almost perfect ignorance of the fact that our economies were founded on protectionism long before they could afford the luxury of free trade. How Rich Countries Got Rich… will challenge economic orthodoxy and open up the debate on why self-regulating markets are not the best answer to our hopes of worldwide prosperity.

      That’s the part that the elites don’t get, and yes, that includes Steven Hawking …

      • A terrible mistake to “attempt to nullify the choices they represent.” Who doesn’t get what?

  95. I agree with Michael Dunn. Good for Stephen Hawking. I disagree with him on some things (his atheism is baffling from someone of his intelligence) but what he is saying here is right and (in his position) courageous. He is warning the liberal elites not to dismiss Trump voters as deplorables or Brexit voters as unschooled xenophobes. Any academic with a lesser reputation would have been torn to shreds for spoiling the approved story line.

      • As deemed by atheists. Been there, done that, for 40 years. A big mistake. All you need to be a sociopath is to be an atheist (cf. Ted Bundy).

      • After being excommunicated by the Mormons, Ted Bundy gave his religion as Methodist.
        But then multiple murderer and rapist Bill Clinton, whose psychological profile and childhood experiences match Bundy’s, claims to be a Baptist.
        Mao and former Georgian Orthodox choir boy Stalin were ostensibly atheists, but Hitler was a Catholic turned pagan. Their mass murders however pale in comparison with the Catholic Spanish and Portuguese in the Americas, even allowing for the time factor. Not to mention the Christian-motivated Taiping Rebellion, in which an estimated 30 million Chinese died.
        It’s totalitarian belief which kills, whether motivated by religion or ideology. The true believer in any kind of belief system is a killer waiting to be set free.

      • Dear Chimp,
        Glad to see you do not dispute my statement that the mental superiority of atheists is merely a self-aggrandizement.
        As for Ted Bundy, what you say may be true (I looked up the same Wikipedia article), but trivial and irrelevant, much as he might have donned camouflage. He was never a practicing Mormon and he was a Methodist only in his childhood by insistence of his parents. Clearly, his career was based on the conviction that there is no good and evil, but only what one prefers, which is the core attraction of atheism.
        But the statements about Bundy, Clinton, Hitler and Stalin are sophistic distractions, because the logic is still that atheism is adequate as a path to sociopathy. You haven’t shown otherwise. The possibility that there might be additional paths does not disprove that this path is good enough.
        Mao and Stalin WERE atheists, as their history demonstrates. And also Hitler, whose life I have studied in some detail. (Himmler and his crowd were the Thule Society cultists.) Hitler killed at least 3 million Jews and non-Aryans. Stalin is credited with numbers ranging from 30 million to 100 million. Mao is thought to have killed over 100 million during the Great March. I am quite willing to add those killed by Japanese conquest prior to and during World War II.
        I haven’t heard about the Taiping Rebellion or who was responsible for any deaths. So what? It does not disprove my point about atheism.
        Your final paragraph is a wonderful example of mental fluff. Who can argue? But you don’t deal with what causes a person to think he can be God over another person. Atheists are strongly attracted to that position, because they are interested in filling the power vacuum (insofar as they think there is no God). Ordinary murderers also qualify, as they let their emotions or ambitions become God in place of God.
        So, taking refuge in the notion there is no God (and setting yourself up for any flight of tyranny that tickles your fancy), you take the position that “belief systems” are the enemy of society. One of those “belief systems” is the conviction that there is an objective distinction between good and evil, truth and falsehood. We get that from Christianity, of course, but it is indispensable to the conduct of science. It is the absence of a belief in (and respect of) God that opens the doors to depravity, falsehood, taking advantage of one’s neighbor, and general arrogance.
        This brings us to an insight attributed to G. K. Chesterton, along the lines of: “It is not that an atheist believes in nothing. It is that he is apt to believe in anything.”

    • John Hardy,
      Please think carefully about this;
      “Whatever we might think about the decision by the British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by their leaders.”
      How come it’s not just people, like him, who see things differently than him? What’s with the “cry of anger” crap, and why would it not apply equally well to those who voted like he did? And, who are these “commentators” that render “Whatever we might think about the decision…” moot? Same ones that totally missed the boat(s) in terms of how the public was going to vote?
      I tire of my supposed betters telling me I’m not qualified to make a perfectly rational, non-angry decision, about what is best for my country. The implication seems clear to me; If you don’t vote for what the political/media establishment instructs, it must be because you see them as your perpetual “leaders”, who abandoned you. Nope, wrong, I see them as corrupt A-holes (at the top end, at least) who are not my leaders, certainly not in any permanent sense.

      • “Cry of anger”? “Abandoned by their leaders”? Yep, I think so. It was for me, in part. So, don’t criticize him for getting the truth straight on this.
        Your upset seems to be that he has made his lot with the liberal side of the political spectrum. It is truly a mistaken side, but what are we supposed to do? Shoot them all? Emulate their intolerance by outlawing their opinion? You have to realize that, in his position, he is totally dependent on a socialist environment. He literally cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds him. What else are we to expect? Let it go. He is trying to pay attention. This is the indispensable prerequisite to having an open mind.

      • Michael,
        ‘“Abandoned by their leaders”? Yep, I think so. It was for me, in part.”
        Really? Who were you following, and when did they abandon you?
        It seemed to me that it was many of our Government employees that betrayed us, and many in the “mass media” who misinformed and manipulated us.
        “Your upset seems to be that he has made his lot with the liberal side of the political spectrum.”
        Oh no, it makes no difference to me who thinks some special “commentators” they happen to be a follower of, for whatever reason, can grant them a sort of license to slander millions of people. This “cry of anger” stuff is extremely patronizing and insidious stuff, in my ear. It’s really the aspect Mr. Worrrall highlighted, that I find somewhat troubling.
        And, the idea that I have “leaders” without my consent, like we were living in North Korea or something . . Not a good way to speak of public servants, they already have plenty of temptation along those lines, it seems to me ; )

  96. Steven Hawking: nobody is elite. This is purely a conceit. There are potential theoretical physicists downtrodden in the gutters of the third world. Your great fortune was that your corporal challenges were late arriving. Theirs arrive at birth and never leave.
    Besides, you really aren’t that good. The recent black hole stuff is interesting, but it is all intuition. Intuition is good. Very good sometimes, but unless it is testable it is simply shamanism. The truly brilliant intuitions can be reduced to 3 term equations…

  97. Ever notice that the liberals almost always choose as their pitch-men/pitch-women/pitch-persons those for whom we are supposed to feel sorry?
    “Awwww…let’s give ’em a break. They’re so disadvantaged…!”
    Nice work if you can get it.
    I think they should just draw up a religious charter and declare AGW to be a religion. Why haven’t they done that? They certainly view the world through cultish glasses.

Comments are closed.