Stephen Hawking: President Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Might Destroy the World

President Trump and Stephen Hawking

Official White House Photo of President Trump. Stephen Hawking. By NASAOriginal. Source (StarChild Learning Center). Directory listing., Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Stephen Hawking thinks President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement and the British Brexit decision might trigger a chain of events which leads to the destruction of the world. My question – where is the evidence?

Hawking says Trump’s climate stance could damage Earth

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
2 July 2017

Stephen Hawking says that US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement could lead to irreversible climate change.\

Prof Hawking said the action could put Earth onto a path that turns it into a hothouse planet like Venus.

He also feared aggression was “inbuilt” in humans and that our best hope of survival was to live on other planets.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC authors wrote: “The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (thresholds for abrupt and irreversible change) remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points in the Earth system or in interlinked human and natural systems increases with rising temperature.”

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” he told BBC News.

“Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it’s one we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.”

And on Brexit, he feared UK research would be irreparably damaged.

“Science is a cooperative effort, so the impact will be wholly bad, and will leave British science isolated and inward looking”.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726

There is so much wrong with Stephen Hawking’s statement, its difficult to know where to begin.

For starters, the US “commitment” to the Paris Agreement was never going to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions. China, whose emissions already dwarf the USA, demonstrated how they think the Paris Agreement is a joke, when they announced a colossal 20% increase in coal capacity in the next 3 years November last year. Green efforts to cast China as an environmental champion just add to the humour.

In addition to China’s heroic effort to emit plant fertiliser, as WUWT recently reported, 1600 new coal plants are currently under construction around the world..

Hawking’s suggestion that the USA could somehow lead others into economic hardship by destroying the domestic US economy is and always was a liberal fantasy.

As for Hawking’s claim we could end up like Venus, a statement without evidence, even from someone with Stephen Hawking’s reputation or from the IPCC, is no more valid than a prognostication provided by a psychic gazing into a crystal ball.

The Earth has experienced far higher CO2 levels than the present day. CO2 levels in the Cretaceous, the age of the Dinosaurs, were 1700ppm – more than 4x today’s level. The Earth has experienced extreme warming and extreme cooling, but has never experienced a runaway greenhouse effect which made it totally uninhabitable like Venus.

Gigantic CO2 belching volcanic eruptions which lasted for 1000s, maybe millions of years, huge meteor strikes, the advance and retreat of giant ice sheets – for billions of years since life began, nothing in our violent geological history has managed to shift temperatures outside a range where life is possible somewhere on our planet.

Nothing we have done or are likely to do to our planet can come close to what nature has already done – to what our planet has already endured.

In a few centuries fossil fuel resources will likely be exhausted. At most we shall add a few hundred more PPM CO2 to our atmosphere. Suggesting that our mild contribution to global greening is somehow worse than all the awful geological events of our planet’s history is pure and simple fiction.

Advertisements

286 thoughts on “Stephen Hawking: President Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Might Destroy the World

  1. Does that count the 1000 + coal fired electric generation plants the other members are building??? I guess the USA was to spend 2 billion $$ ofseting their construction. Yeah, it might destroy the world😳

    • Hawking’s speciality is physics, the standard model of physics which has been the “consensus” for several decades can only explain 5% of the mass and energy in the universe. They have to invent mythical “dark energy” and “dark matter” to balance their equations. That makes Trenberth’s “missing heat” look trivial.

      Would you trust this man’s opinion on the energy balance of the Earth ?

      Physics is out by a factor of 20, he is probably quite impressed with climate models which are only out by factor of two.

      • “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” he told BBC News.

        That is so stupid and ignorant I find it hard to believe that is what he actually said.

      • Yep. Hawking is out of his league and saying things that are embarrassing. Parallel between dark matter/energy and global warming is interesting and funny. Thanks.

      • That is because Global Warming is really brought about by a Dark Energy imbalance created by a Dark Matter inversion. Similar to the Dark Matter melting the Greenland Ice Sheet

      • I get it. Dark matter, dark energy and Trump the Dark Lord. We live in a post-rational world.

      • Greg – that (“That is so stupid and ignorant I find it hard to believe that is what he actually said.”) was exactly my first thought. But Pallab Ghosh does appear to be a reputable correspondent, so it seems reasonable to suppose that Stephen Hawking really did say it. How are the mighty fallen.

      • I would take his opinions on cosmology and black holes fairly seriously – in those fields he is a great scientist.
        But he is clearly ignorant about the climate. Maybe he’s unaware that CO2 was far higher for most of Earth’s history, and that we actually live in an era of very low CO2. Without mankind, it’s even possible that the next ice age will trigger the biggest extinction in history due to falling CO2.

        As Hawking has just shown, there’s nothing to stop great scientists also being great idiots.
        Chris

      • I would like for just one of these loons to explain why it’s never happened before….
        ..they can’t even do that

      • Venus is Venus because it was too close to the sun for it too cool down sufficiently for the water in it’s atmosphere to condense out. There never was a “runaway greenhouse” on Venus, it’s always been as it is now.
        Venus is currently hot because of how close it is to the sun and all the water in it’s atmosphere.
        McClod, knowing about radiation gets you about 1% of the way to knowing about climate. If that much.

      • He’s trying to stay relevant. He’s smart enough to know that the mainstream media will never challenge his claims, no matter how ludicrous, and that the more over the top he goes the more he will be held up as a hero particularly by the left in the age of Trump.

      • I can only conclude that the Russians have hacked Hawking’s laptop…… if these were indeed ‘his’ utterings then he’s been bought, pure and simple.

      • Venus I’d hot not from its proximity to the sun but because of the atmospheric pressure. The surface pressure is 90 times that of earth.
        Earth atmospheric pressure at MSL is 14.5 psi (pounds per square inch) or 1 bar.
        Venus atmospheric pressure at the surface is 1305 psi or 90 bar.
        The difference is roughly the weight of a 3000′ high column of water on top of you.
        That increased pressure raises the temperature.
        Venus has a surface temp of 750k 477c. To relocate it to the orbital distance of Earth would drop the temperature to roughly 650k. At Venus’ current atmospheric pressure, to reach Earth like temperatures it would likely need to be relocated to an orbit beyond Jupiter, about 7AU from the sun

    • Exactly. Hawking might be a good physicist and great at mathematics but he is too trusting of the “science” he hears from other “scientists.” He has been duped. Give him five minutes with a real scientists who has examined the claimed “climate science” and he would go skeptics in seconds. The hard part for many people is accepting the fact that “climate scientists” who are selling manmade global warming are lying to the world for a living. Many find it hard to accept that they would sell out for the $billions and the agenda being pushed.

      • I think he has gone out of his gourd, sorry to say.
        He is spouting delusional nonsense…gibberish.
        It seems likely he is insane.
        Raining sulfuric acid?
        He has no idea what he is talking about, and this is the sort of drivel that even an idiotic teenager would know is fantasy.
        I do not know why anyone should pay him any mind whatsoever.
        He is plainly not speaking scientifically.
        He is not even speaking rationally.
        I wonder if he has been outside lately?
        Possibly sharing whatever acid trip-type mass hallucinations that the warmistas suffer from, he seems to be having a particularly bad trip of it…man.

      • Don’t know if he has done much physics lately but I agree he does seem to have gone off the deep end.

      • The conclusions of the most intelligent people on the planet are only as good as the quality of the knowledge and information which they have available to which to harness their formidable intellect. What if what one has available to which to harness their intellectual sled has the quality and the power of a team chihuahuas? Do their formidable intellects work on the GIGO principle much in the same manner as the most powerful super computers? One would think so. Is it not likely that the highest intellect could take the garbage in and process it more rapidly and produce a more rapid and greater variety of garbage output than could the rest of us mere mortal everyday human beings? I know of no reason that the the powerful intellect wouldn’t be just as susceptible to attacks of mind-blindedness as are the rest of us, do you?

      • Greg July 3, 2017 at 10:22 pm
        Don’t know if he has done much physics lately but I agree he does seem to have gone off the deep end.

        Does the cameos at The Big Bang Theory count as doing science?

      • hawkings wasn’t duped, he is just a liar. obviously to him, at this stage of his life, his show and end result is more important than truth. science does not reserve people from making such judgements, but it will, in the end, call them on it.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

        it seems he likes this ehrlich like end of the world stuff.

  2. The largest credible effect if the US stayed in the Paris accord was a reduction of .3C, the smallest .03C. Quite a stretch to get to 250 degrees and sulfuric acid rain.

    • Where is the sulfur going to come from?
      Is he aware that Venus is a hothouse because the atmosphere is crushingly dense, and it is 30 million miles closer to the sun that we are, and there is a thing called the inverse square law?
      Whatever brains he once had are long gone, it seems sadly obvious.

      • That is exactly what I thought. I can’t believe that he actually made these comments. He may be an expert in cosmology but should be more careful stating opinions outside of his area of expertise.

      • Also where’s the CO2 going to come from.

        This year, the atmospheric CO2 level is right around four hundred ppmv. So to double, it would have to go to eight hundred ppmv … and even assuming we could maintain exponential growth for the next eight decades and we burned every drop of the two thousand gigatonne high-end estimate of the fossil reserves, CO2 levels would still not be double those of today. link

        There aren’t enough fossil fuels to drive atmospheric CO2 past 800 ppm. Hawking probably knows what he’s peddling. It’s sad and pathetic.

      • @ StephanF

        I can’t believe that he (Stephen Hawking) actually made these comments.

        One should keep in mind that Stephen Hawking only has access to the information and/or data that his, per se handlers, aides and/or assistants …… permit or provide him access to.

        If Hawking has only been provided access to the “junk science” claims and “fuzzy math” calculations, estimations and insinuations associated with “CO2 causing AGW” …… then it is obvious he would have to support what he has per se “been told”.

      • There are other factors at work than the inverse square law. Venus has an atmosphere about 100 times as dense as ours, and also has sulfuric acid clouds.

        Since temperature is proportional to the fourth ROOT of radiation, and radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun, a planet identical to earth, 0.72 AU from the sun, would have a
        temperature of { 1/(SQRT 0.72) }*287 K, or about 339 K. Of course that would be an unstable situation, with higher temperatures leading to more ocean evaporation, more clouds, and the disassociation of water molecules into their Hydrogen and Oxygen constituents higher in the atmosphere, etc.

      • Also, credit the fact that all of his compatriots are academicians, many of whom are on the climate change gravy train (and whose academic reputations would be ruined should their scare-mongering be shown to be fabulous.)

      • 26 million million but what is few million miles among friends. More important is the ratio of the squares of the radii. Which = ~1,9. So Venus receives almost twice as much solar energy as does Earth. Of course it is hotter there.

    • +100. Thanks Tom, I was wondering when someone was going to point out that piece of highly ‘inconvenient’ research. Even more telling than Prof Hawking’s apparent ignorance of it is the fact that it is pointedly not mentioned by the BBC. When I was getting my journalism degree back in the late 60s we learned about balanced reporting and the need to mention, early on in a piece, alternative or opposing points of view. The BBC, once the sine qua non of journalistic standards, has now become a red-faced embarrassment. Pallab Ghosh, for example, is the BBC’s Science Correspondent – not a reporter, note, but Correspondent, a title that denotes seniority and a journalist with a wide-ranging knowledge of his specialty.

      Similarly, they have Roger Harrabin as their Environment Correspondent who regularly provides po-faced, unbalanced commentaries about global warming (always ‘climate change’ these days on the Been after the earth stopped warming in line with rising CO2 levels) and the coming disaster. A few years ago I was fortunate enough to witness Christopher Moncton addressing a largely left wing and hostile audience at Keele University in a discussion about global warming. His Lordship was, predictably, magnificent but for me the most significant part of the evening was when he made a passing and mischievous reference to the BBC’s impartiality on the issue of global warming. His audience dissolved in laughter – that is how far the BBC has descended in its journalism…it has become a laughing stock even to those people who are its traditional supporters.

      I make this point because it is important for us all to remember that although it is sad when a distinguished man of letters such as Stephen Hawking makes a complete ass of himself that it is the sombre, serious and – yes – completely unbalanced way in which it is reported by the BBC and other MSM that does the real damage.

  3. “Science is a cooperative effort, so the impact will be wholly bad, and will leave British science isolated and inward looking”.

    Science is NOT a co-operative effort. Throughout history advances have only been made by the brilliant insights of just a few individuals. Science of the establishment mob has not empowered these individuals by encouragement.

    Britain has ignored the lessons of history, choosing to be part of the EU collective. The average Briton has part a terrible price for group think socialism.

    • Eh. You can kind of say that there were a number of scientific advancements that were made by inspired individuals, but most of science is a long slog by groups who are in competition to offer up cooperative contributions. This is particularly true for most modern science.
      That said, Hawking is still talking nonsense here.

      • Count,

        “You can kind of say that there were a number of scientific advancements that were made by inspired individuals…”

        I’m sayin’ it ; ) and stretching that number to the vast majority, as far as I am aware . .

        ” . . but most of science is a long slog by groups who are in competition to offer up cooperative contributions.”

        I don’t believe it . . unless you just mean; if there was competition, all competitors constitute a group . . or are just lumping people that advanced work done by others together, in the “shoulders of giants” sense . . I mean, of course discussions and checking out others ideas and results and so on is a good thing (and can obviously be done even easier now, regardless of something like the Brexit), but “group-think” is not especially . . productive in science, as far as I’ve seen . .

      • Science is NOT a co-operative effort.

        Actually it isn’t and it is. Under Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions model, breakthroughs are often made by individuals. Long slogging “normal science” then fills in some of the blanks.

      • Count: Hmm. I recall some discoveries by individuals or small teams. DNA structure. Benzene ring structure. Einstein’s equations. Residual radiation from the big bang. Vaccines. Oh, hell, just consider: there is no such thing as the common mind (ie, a mind shared by many participants). And guys like Richard Feynman don’t come along every day.

    • Isolated, inward looking, self-referential—he must be talking about “climate science”.

    • Was it Newton who said that the only reason why he could see so far, was because he stood on the shoulders of giants?

      • It’s unclear what Newton meant by using that phrase in a letter to Hooke. The phrase “a dwarf on the shoulder of a giant sees farther than the giant” was already a commonplace in 17th century English. It’s possible that Newton was belittling Hooke, who wasn’t a dwarf, but was hunchbacked.

        Here’s what Newton actually wrote in 1676:

        “What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants.”

        Most historians of science think Newton wasn’t slighting Hooke, since they were still on cordial terms at that time. Only a few years later, after Hooke had dared to challenge some of Newton’s ideas on optics, did they have a falling out, which grew more bitter until Hooke’s death in 1703.

    • Cooperation and group think is not the same thing. You are confusing the two. Of course scientists should work together and discuss their findings with other people. They should not live in a cave somewhere or never share their findings with others or refuse to see findings from other people. They should not think that they are automatically right and everyone else is wrong. That would be bad. Scientists SHOULD cooperate, discuss and debate with others. Group think is when some scientist or group of scientists assume authority and impose their view on others. And if you disagree you labelled as “heretic” and are kicked out of the community.

    • You only have to see the postings on Facebook from ‘Scientists For EU’ to see this very effect !

  4. I wonder if the AGW alarmists will point out the the eminent prof H is not a climate scientist and hence should butt out?

    • Indeed, it’s the excuse for silencing many other commentators who are able to think for themselves, assess evidence and come to a contrary conclusion to the “consensus”. It’s the intelligent, independent-thinking 3% we should be listening to to provoke contrary and questioning thought. That’s how advances in civilisation and science are made, not by clinging to the safe group-think.

  5. Given that the Earths atmosphere has been both warmer/hotter and held vastly higher concentrations of CO2 in the past, yet we are all still here and so is the planet, I have to wonder at his logic.

    Further, with regard to the “isolation” of British scientists post-Brexit, I wonder if Hawking has heard of these things called the internet, telephones and even ships or aeroplanes that help connect scientists to each other in distant parts of the world. I think Hawking himself has managed to use these means in the past.

    Sometimes it seems those in possession of the highest IQs are actually the least practically intelligent people.

      • This is where we get the Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids.
        Despite being a genious, if he says something I don’t agree with, then that makes me smarter. Wow.

      • I’ve long been wondering about Hawking’s neurological condition. It is usually referred to as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but as an MD I’m not aware of any other case that has survived even half as long as Hawking has.

        ALS is not supposed to affect the mental faculties, but can we be sure that

        a. this remains the case if the patient survives this long,

        b. Hawking even has ALS and not some other condition with similar motor manifestations, which however does also affect cognition?

        I personally don’t feel sure of either.

      • No I was just smart enough to google it before prattling on about it.
        It’s not about smart people getting things wrong. It’s about under-educated people over-estimating their knowledge or ability and also the reverse – smart people under-estimating theirs.

        Moa below gets it completely arse about.

      • McClod, so you were able to google a term and then proceeded to declare that those who disagree with you are suffering from it.
        As I said early, projection is the only mental skill you have mastered.

  6. I would like to hear prof hawking’ opinion on lord Monckton upcoming paper on the feedback formula.

  7. It is amazing to see a smart person like StephenHawking being so confused by low grade propaganda from Global Warmists. He seems unwilling to use his critical faculties and intelligence to examine the statements and arguments about ;Global Warming’.It would take more than coal plants to turnthe Earth into a Venutian Hell. People moving from Minnesota to Florida show a greater grasp of reality than Stephen Hawking.

    • Hawking’s wheelchair is always plastered with left wing bumper stickers, and his physics has always been theoretical, self contained, and based on hypothesis more than data.

      • Exactly…he may have been more of an idiot-savant than a sprawling intellectual giant.
        There are people way smarter and have shown acumen across a great many fields and areas of thought…men like Freeman Dyson for example, who reject the warmista jackassery out of hand.
        It is made up boloney, the lot of it.
        There is no shred of evidence anything bad is happening, and much practical proof that the world is blossoming and becoming safer, greener, more tranquil, and hospitable for life.
        That someone who has a mostly undeserved reputation for being extra smart has bought into the most over-the-top brand of alarmism we have ever heard only means his brain has turned into pink cereal.
        Poor bastard.

      • It’s the “theoretical” physicists who seem to be most out of touch with reality. After all, reality can seriously upset ones theory when they meet head on.

      • …and I say this as a theoretical physicist who’s doctorate was in Hawking’s general field.

  8. His medical problem started with his muscles. But now the problem seems to have reached his brain.

    • Being stuck in a withered body must be a terrible thing to live through for all these years.
      We know that a healthy body is required to nourish the brain and keep it functioning properly.
      In any case, I see no reason to think that he is even the person saying this gibberish…it seems more likely he is a sock puppet for his caregivers.

      • Explains a lot Tim.
        i have wondered about this a few times over the years…how the hell he was still alive when almost everyone with the disease is gone in a few years.

      • I am not placing too much stock in that theory of him being dead. He may be, or maybe not. maybe he had some dental work, and they figured out a way to get him more calories.
        I few pics is not much to go on.
        There is a more convincing case about Faul McCartney. Just look it up on youtube.
        Facial analysis.
        Enough to be convincing as long as you are looking at the pics.
        But then stand back and wonder what it would take to keep anyone from spilling the beans.
        He does look different, and so does McCartney, and George did always call him Faul after a certain point in time…

      • Miles has a theory on Paul too. Apparently he is twins and the earlier twin retired and lives in comfortable obscurity. Childhood pictures of paul with brother Mike McGear are really of the twins, and the adult McGear is unrelated to them.

        Also, Miles has worked out the John Lennon didn’t really die and is currently living in Toronto where he pretends to be a Lennon impersonator.

        This is all very entertaining stuff as well as totally flaky to the unaccustomed ear, and it’s way off topic and best avoided at WUWT, but the possible death of Hawking and the possible subsequent fraud in marketing him as a living “expert who speaks for science” is, I think, a valid subject. Hawking’s death around the time he had that tracheotomy done would make perfect sense. ALS patients don’t usually linger on for decades and they don’t get fatter over time, as the Professor has.

        But even if the real Hawking still lived and breathed, he would be totally dependent on his handlers and his words would be dependent on whoever controlled his PC. Outsiders would have no means of verifying that he was the author of anything attributed to him. He would be literally a puppet, a living version of a ventriloquist’s dummy.

      • I never gave the Paul McCartney thing a thought until I happened across a you tube video and a website with about a million pics of Paul before and after September 1966.
        It is impossible to deny that he appears to be a different person…different face, larger stature, sounds and plays differently.
        The big thing is the face…the relative position of such things as eyes and chin and mouth do not change as one ages…the bones of an adult to not change shape or length.
        If anyone thinks it is impossible…just give this a few minutes of your time:

    • I think that he has just been elevated to the status of ‘prophet’ just as H G Wells was at the beginning of the 20thC. So any pronouncement is treated with reverence and not questioned especially by younger reporters…. anyone under 50yrs old.

  9. Thanks, Eric! I saw this ridiculous piece of “news” from the BBC yesterday and sighed! They just can’t stop pumping out this drivel, can they? Today, they’re showing pathetic pictures of buildings in New York and Paris lit up with green LEDs to highlight the “Paris Agreement” ahead of the G20 meeting! And yet, they still haven’t even mentioned anywhere the shift in US energy policy that was signalled last week by Trump. The once-venerable BBC has become a more & more of a joke over the past 20 years! Pretty sad!

    Please keep up the good work at WUWT, drawing attention to the stories and facts that actually matter and providing a place for discussions on such a wide diversity of real science!

  10. Hawking’s just might have a point

    With…

    President Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision might Destroy the World

    “the World” will not be receiving billions and billions of American Dollars 💲💲💲 after all

    …and I’m certain “the World” was totally destroyed over not getting their greedy hands on our money

    Boo Hoo 😭

    • Well, yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but. Because we know what reportedly came out of his computerised speech system. I know I can’t type that fast and he is supposed to be controlling the system with small eye movements. How would he signal to the world that what was coming out were not his words?

      • Maybe we should send him to Talos IV with Captain Pike. He’d probably be happier there.

      • If only.
        I am reaching the point where I would be happier there.
        Do we get that blonde chick?

      • What if all of this is simply due to a speck of dust in his eye, and the computerized speech system controlled with small eye movements just misinterpreted?

    • To call him the highest and mightiest is to disrespect a lot of people.
      He deserves pity, but not to be headed as a fount of wisdom.
      If it is even him saying this.
      This drivel from anyone is reprehensible…no less so by dint of who speaks it.
      Reprehensible, or just delusion.

      • My apologies. I wasn’t describing Prof Hawking specifically. Perhaps I should have said “Even the highest and the mightiest might say it” but we still ask for evidence. Still, there’s no doubt Hawking has been held in esteem to be among the highest. But I can’t join in the general condemnation on show here. No matter his sudden errors on climate science he has made contributions in physics that outshine numerous others.

      • My recollection from when I used to pay attention to those guys (I gave it up when it became quite clear that were heaping speculation on speculation as if they were talking about anything real) was that Hawking was shown to be wrong about most if not all of what he came up with after being the first to explain how a black hole might evaporate.
        But no one knows what is going on inside of collapsed matter.
        They are just making it up.
        The whole notion that they can decide who is right and who is wrong because information can never be lost from the universe makes zero sense.
        Examples: Raindrops hit the ocean in a certain pattern and order, and have done so for billions of years.
        Where is that information?
        The library at Alexandria was sacked and burned by the Romans (IIRC), and so went the repository for a vast store of unique texts.
        Where is that information?
        When a person dies, they have a giant amount of information in their brain…what happens once that brain rots or is eaten by worms or both?
        The idea that all of this information is still in existence but just scrambled up a bit is ridiculous.
        Conservation of mass and energy…well, OK, although it leaves the question of from whence came all the stuff?
        But conservation of information as a bedrock principle of physics?
        I missed the derivation lecture on that.

      • Menicholas, “information” has a particular meaning in particle physics that is a little different than your intuition. Under that definition, no information is lost in your raindrop example. When speaking of black holes, “information loss” refers to a causal disconnect–evaporating particals having no causal connection to the particles originally swallowed by the black hole.
        Still, there may or may not be some theoretical way of extracting information from the other side of an event horizon, but we certainly have no prospect of accessing a black hole any time in the foreseeable future to test any of it. Personally, I think that the postulating singularities extrapolates physics so far out of the realm of the known that something unknown may prevent them from existing.

      • That is basically what I have always thought…that where equations go to infinity you need new equations.
        I doubt the universe does infinity.
        But human intuition does seem to prevent actual full understanding of quantum mechanics.

      • Fair point if I misunderstand what is referred to as “information”.
        I would certainly like to understand it.

  11. “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” he told BBC News.”

    It’s sad to see a brilliant mind lose it so spectacularly.

    • Yeah right. And that tirade was pre-recorded? Or was it meant to be his own words arising spontaneously? Maybe somebody has given him part of Obama’s teleprompter.

      Who knows with celebrities?

    • Agree Patrick. It is sad to see someone in is condition.
      At Richard Treadgold.
      “No matter his sudden errors on climate science he has made contributions in physics that outshine numerous others.”
      Are you assuming the contributions or do you have evidence?

      • Evidence. For a long time there has been widespread admiration of his achievements and writings. The abrupt onset here of sadness at his apparent decline is incongruous, notwithstanding that I too disagree strongly with his alarmist summary of our climatic future.

    • Hawking also advocates that humans must find another planet within 100 years–it’s imperative (somehow).

      Personally, I work outdoors as much as I can in the yard, the pasture and my orchard.

      In the past several months I’ve taken more time to notice my surroundings than usual, considering Hawking’s recommendations that we leave this amazing planet.

      I’ll go under one condition: That the “new” planet is better than this.

      I think I’ll be here until I age out.

      • Much of my criticism is regarding the totality of his recent statements and things he is advocating for.
        This snippet about tipping points being perilously close…we are teetering on the brink, boiling oceans and raining sulfuric acid…bad enough.
        But this crap about finding a new planet…well fine, if one comes along.
        But why a hundred years?
        And he makes it sound like we will ALL be going somewhere, because he has seen the future and as the smartest man to ever live he knows that after 4.5 billion years…well, in 2117 the jig is up and earth will be a acid soaked cinder.
        I do not like that you can be locked up for hate speech in the UK and Germany and some other places…but I think scaring the piss out of children by telling them their planet is all but dead should be a hanging offense.
        Kids are known to commit suicide after getting bad news they cannot process.

      • It is not just “Climate Change”, he is also worried about Asteroid strikes, as we should all be and Pandemics etc.
        So he considers, as many do, that the Human Race needs to spread out to prevent a single catstrophe from ending it.

      • A C Osborne,
        And I agree with that.
        But needing to do something never assured it being possible or it actually getting done.
        We are heading in the wrong direction to get even started.
        And deindustrializing over a scare story aint gonna help in the slightest!

      • I read an article many moons ago about a way to keep the earth cool as the sun slowly grows hotter.
        Everyone is familiar with the so called gravitational sling shot, whereby a space probe can be accelerated by having it pass close to a planet on a carefully designed trajectory. A small portion of the planets momentum is transferred to the probe.
        The sling shot also works in the other way if you use a different trajectory.
        The article claimed that we could slowly increase the diameter of the earth’s orbit by using asteroids to transfer momentum to the earth. The author’s calculated that a single 100ft diameter rock, once a century would be sufficient.
        (seems to me that a gravity tug would both be easier and safer.)

  12. Is it too much to ask a renown scientist to actually use physics? Venus is not hot from CO2. It is hot from:

    a. Being 1/3 closer to the sun and therefore experiencing more than 2 times the solar radiation per square meter.

    b. Having an atmosphere 67 times as dense as the earth’s atmosphere.

    Unless we are on the brink of changing orbit and transforming the oceans into atmosphere, his statement makes absolutely no sense.

  13. “In a few centuries fossil fuel resources will likely be exhausted.”

    If I thought that I was going to be around in a few centuries, I’d offer you a hefty wager that you’re wrong. There are more “proven reserves” now than there were 10 or 20 years ago.

    • Fossil fuels will be like every other commodity. As the easy to get at sources dry up, the price rises a little bit.
      This causes the producers to spend more money to find and develop new sources(greater profit) and consumers to find ways to use less or substitute other products.
      As a result we never really run out of anything.

  14. Hawking has forever been in a snit because he came down with ” Lou Gehrig’s ” disease, not ” Stephen Hawking’s” disease.

    He’s never got over it.

    • The prognosis for “Lou Gehrig’s” disease (ALS) is not good. About 1 person in 25,000 will be diagnosed with ALS. Most of them die within 2 to 5 years of being diagnosed, usually because of respiratory failure. Stephen Hawking has apparently survived for 54 years (since his 1963 diagnosis) with it. That’s so far outside the bell curve that it’s nothing short of miraculous, or else its fake news and Hawking is no longer with us, and the man in the wheelchair who communicates with the world via PC is somebody else.

  15. I am beginning to have a hard time remembering why stephen hawking is suppose to be so great. It seems like he has become the punchline to some really bad jokes.

  16. The claim about Earth’s becoming like Venus and raining sulfuric acid is the most ridiculous claim from a brilliant mind that I have ever read. Could someone have rigged a speaker into Hawking’s communication set up that broadcast what somebody else was inputting into his voice device? Such a ridiculous statement attributed to him makes me wonder.

    This is a sad revelation of how scientific specialization can go horribly awry. Hawking obviously is not a polymath.

      • Yes, I feel the same way.
        If he said it, he is stupid and crazy.
        If not his words, it means less than nothing.

      • now you know.
        he was only ever a poster boy for inverted values.
        his claim to fame is being a cripple.
        read his book. it’s stupid squared.

      • Hawking has a lot of company in his thinking about CAGW. Many otherwise intelligent people have been fooled by the dishonest CAGW narrative, too.

        Hawking is just another dupe adding to the confusion about the subject.

  17. Hawking is a man

    who believed a story

    about special insulation put between a fire and the rock it warmed,

    and as each subsequent percent less light reached that rock,

    an additional percentage of light that never reached that rock

    leaked out.

    Less light warming a rock
    makes it warmer,
    than when more warming light warmed it.

    Hawking is self confessed, too stupid to properly answer the question ”what happens to the temp of a light warmed rock, less light warmed?

    The next time somebody tells you that you don’t understand global warming
    tell them you do. But that you need them to show you how much warmer the planet gets
    with each successive percent of available warming sunlight never reaching Earth due to Green House Gases.

    Currently they stop 20% total warming firelight from the sun from reaching earth.

    Have the global warmer tell you how much warmer earth got when warmed by 1% less sunlight.

    Then have him tell you how much warmer the planet got when warmed by 10% less sunlight.

    And then on to 15%

    and on to 20% which is how much Green House Gases stop from reaching the earth today.

    Make them explain it to you in exacting detail. Before you break out laughing in their face.

  18. And in breaking news, geologists have just discovered a more recent epoch which they are calling the Anthropo-Narcisscene
    Spokesperson for the Stratigraphic Society said that despite the almost incomprehensible enormity of the earth time record, and the inversely proportional almost incomprehensible temporal insignificance of homo sapiens, there has been a massive upsurge in rectal deposits emanating from middle aged depressive academics and politicians desperate to validate their fragile and brief existences on planet earth!

    • I you don’t already know what a coprolite is, look it up.
      We can then refer to the current period as The Coprocene.

  19. Unfortunately, it appears as if even very bright people can become useful idiots for a political cause. Very sad, indeed.

      • It has more to do with the desire, or in some cases, career need to be accepted at the cocktail party, office or on tv than the degree of mental capacity involved. Though some of the Venus comments do make one wonder.

  20. Well done Stephen, if and when the weather changes back to a 1960s-1970s cooler regime your judgement will be questioned, and as these things tend to go the judgement of your particular scientific specialty may be looked at with more critical eyes.

  21. By spouting crap like that he has ruined his reputation and shows he is just another clown.

  22. About as quantitatively challenged as Lord Nincompoop of whimsy …

    “What do I say? I simply try to explain to people that here are the facts upon which this is based. Here is a community, surely you can’t believe that you have got 10,000 or more people signed up to some secret pledge to misrepresent the evidence? And that essentially 99 per cent of the people who work in the subject recognise uncertainties about time scales and other details but have unanimity in that putting a million years’ worth of fossil fuel carbon back into the atmosphere each year is thickening the greenhouse gas blanket and is going to make a difference. You should listen to them.”

    “I would have the hubris to say that I believe common sense, helpfully illustrated by toy models, can point you in the direction that many others are pointing in. They can point you in ways which will not prevent bad things happening but will make them less likely.”

    Someone hand the fool a soaking wet duvet, enough with the radiative myopia and childish blanket sucking.

  23. I believe another famous physicist and a quote applicable to Hawking’s screed:

    “That is not only not right; it is not even wrong,”

    Extra points if you can name the source (no googling)

    • That’s attributed to Wolfgang Pauli – German theoretical physicist.

      The problem is that the quote does not apply to Hawkins. Hawkins is actually fundamentally wrong. Period.

      There were many, eminently qualified, who questioned his appointment to Newton’s chair in 1979.

      Newton’s revolutionary theories have served as the basis for an ever more sophisticated understanding of how the universe and its various components interact.

      So far, Hawkins has added little of any consequence to the fundamentals. Instead, he has lent his name to various causes that belong in the modern sphere of what 17th century Newton’s would have understood as alchemy..

      • Yeah, the worthiness of his supposed statement for consideration as right or wrong is not in question. The statement is coherent and focused on already established ideas. But the statement is combining these already established ideas wrongly. Consequently, we are able to judge its wrongness — it is WRONG.

        If he had said, “White unicorns are sweating poisonous fumes into the biosphere,” then I would say that THIS is “not even wrong”, because the existence of unicorns is unfounded, let alone their ability to sweat poisonous fumes. In other words, it would be nonsense, therefore, unworthy of a judgement of EITHER “right” or “wrong”.

  24. For broad-based intellect and critical thinking, I’ll take Richard Feynman, rest his soul, over Hawking any day.

  25. The other day Hawking was quoted as saying the human race has no more than 100 years to find another planet.
    If this is not proof that either his intellect has turned to soft mush, or some nincompoop is inputting words into his voice-box, what could be?
    He ought to know better than anyone that there is no possibility of a human being making a journey to another star system, unless we invent some sort of warp drive.
    Considering it took tens of thousands of years of using fire and tools to figure out how to make the stuff we have today, it seems likely that if we discover how to fold space in the next few thousand years, maybe a few tens of millennia after that we will turn that into a practical starship.
    Imagine a vessel that could take a group of people on a journey that would take tens of times longer than recorded history…all self sustained and no catastrophic failures over a longer period than humans have had a civilization.
    Yeah…a hundred years oughta do it.

    • And that is if we somehow knew where to go with it.
      I would be surprised if humans have even begun to explore any of the barren rocks in our own solar system by them.
      100 years goes by fast…fifty years ago we were about to go to the moon.
      Today we have no ability to send a person into low Earth orbit without hitching a ride from the Russians.
      And every launch that does not blow up on the pad is a minor miracle.
      Sending a few hundred pound robot to Mars takes decades of effort and many of them crash or just disappear.
      Space is a huge disappointment…it is very inhospitable off the Earth, machines that can do those tasks are complicated and temperamental, and it will remain a risky waste of money for a very long time.
      I hate to say it, but it is true.
      I thought i was going to go to space when i was a kid…but then the world moved on and we all grew up.

      • “The other day Hawking was quoted as saying the human race has no more than 100 years to find another planet.”

        Building a starship isn’t a question of physics any more; we KNOW how. All that remains is engineering. An Orion Nuclear Pulse Drive would take a breeding stock of humans to another star system – IF we knew where to go. If you’re going to tell me that us now knowing how to build an Orion starship would be like Robert Goddard saying that he knew how to build a moon rocket – yes, that’s exactly where we are. We’ve got decades of ENGINEERING work to do to get there. Along the way, we’re likely to make lots of new discoveries. But Hawking’s PHYSICS knowledge is just about irrelevant to the ENGINEERING work that will take us to the stars.

      • Ken, you think that someone is going to another star once we get a few decades of engineering out of the way?
        By using a nuclear pulse drive?
        Over a distance of light years?
        Dream on.
        We can barely be sure of getting a rocket into orbit without it blowing up.
        It is likely cosmic rays will kill anyone outside of the Earths magnetic field within a few years if not a few months. And outside the heliopause?
        But the main point is the time.
        Time means mass, for everything anyone will possibly need. Which means a really big ship…which means a really large number of nukes…
        How are we going to get all that mass into space?
        Can’t build a space elevator…the terrorists will knock it down like cat knocking over legos.
        You think we will build a machine that will function and keep people alive in interstellar space for thousands of years?
        If we did, it will never get there?
        Why
        Because… The first (or the second or the fifth) generation of kids will turn that thing around the day they get the controls!
        Why would they want to spend their lives going someplace they will never see, or their kids…or even their great to the 20th kids…but if everything goes right someone might get somewhere and it might be a place that can be lived on…or ..oopsie, maybe not!

        It is a useless bet, but I will bet you that no one in the world will be spending tens of trillions of dollars so a few people can go on the most expensive suicide mission in history.
        Not in a hundred years.
        Maybe in ten thousand.
        But not likely.

      • Honestly, I doubt even a dead person will make it to Mars in a hundred years.
        And if they get there, they are not getting back.
        Anyone who thinks so just is not paying attention.
        Or is just kidding themselves.

      • I appreciate optimism as much as anyone…really I do.
        Since I was a young kid I have been reading everything there is to read in the sci fi universe.
        But those are stories.
        The reality is we have almost no ability to get mass into space or to work up there…or to build flawless machines that will keep working without a team of engineers and a huge budget…and that is on the ground.
        The distance, the cost, the time it will take…all are deal breakers.
        But that hardly matters…we have the scientists of the world insisting we deindustrialize because of a myth!
        We have a slow motion invasion going on that wants to take the whole world back to the dark ages.
        When we elect someone who wants to clean up the crony system that is looting our country blind, a third of the population goes absolutely insane!
        Let’s face it…no interstellar mission is happening.
        Not with entire generations being miseducated and taught to be more concerned with safe spaces than actual knowledge.

      • I think we probably need to bypass normal space to have any chance of going very far into the universe on a short timescale. Space has a lot of particles floating around in it which can be very destructive if you collide with them while traveling at very high speeds. The faster you go, the more danger they pose.

        If we don’t develop a fast method of interstellar travel, humans will move from one solar system to the next by using the planetary bodies that surround the stars as steppingstones between them. Of course, that will be a slow process.

        But the human race has nothing but time. :)

      • I think our best chance is to be taken pity on by one of the spacefaring civilizations that already exists.
        Because the “Where are they all” question is a real one.
        If no one is already there, it seems doubtful it is possible.
        Billions of years lead time on us, and all those planets as possible sources for others?
        How could it be there is no one up there already?
        Just too far between stars?
        Or maybe the space wasps are well aware of us and have us on the menu for June 18th, 2054?

  26. Is it possible to know if he’s really making these claims anymore? Or just his handlers?

  27. With no Paris agreement, will death rates increase?

    From an Issue paper by Juanita Constible, Natural Resources Defense Council:
    KILLER SUMMER HEAT:
    PARIS AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE COULD AVERT HUNDREDS
    OF THOUSANDS OF NEEDLESS DEATHS IN AMERICA’S CITIES.
    Is this claim true?
    I am a climate realist, that means I look at the totality of what is happening to the climate with increasing CO2 levels, and what it means for our future.
    https://lenbilen.com/2017/07/02/with-no-paris-agreement-will-death-rates-increase/

  28. I certainly hope Stephen the best. His situation is tragic and it causes me to wish him well even though I’ve never met him.

    I don’t consider his judgement sound. That shouldn’t be a difficulty for most folks. Stephen isn’t like other people and isn’t able to think rationally. If I were in his situation I wouldn’t be able to either. He deserves our pity and support. He isn’t capable of providing leadership.

    • he deserves Our pity? Our support? do you hear yourself? you’re not conscripting me into your liberal victimhood.uber.alles racket.
      i owe him no pity.
      on the other hand, it would be an act moral embezzlement to withhold the recognition of his complete idiocy.
      that’s what he has earned from me – that’s what he deserves.
      stupidity is not a virtue to be rewarded with other people’s pity. nature provides for it at the Darwin Awards.

    • He had my pity until he started in on the end of the world muckraking and panic mongering.
      Support?
      Nah…why? He makes more money than I ever will.
      But now?
      I will go back to pitying him when he decides to apologize and tell the truth and then STFU.

  29. The interview was broadcast on SBS in Australia as well.
    The US is actually reducing its CO2 footprint.
    The big emitters are not.
    So what is scary about Trump?

    • That is one of the stranger aspects of this particular side branch of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  30. who typed Stephen Hawking’s statement into the computer? when I saw Hawking on an NPR special it was “aides” typing stuff into the computer and Hawking would sometimes pencil hit enter, sometimes the “aides” would do it.. very sad

  31. Hansen was the originator of this Earth-to-Venus prophecy, wasn’t he? Possibly that where Hawking got the idea. But even Hansen is now soft-pedaling this prospect, isn’t he?

    • Hansen also turned the air conditioning off and kept conference room windows shut when making his presentation in 1988.

  32. Those who are criticising Donald Trump, the US President for withdrawing from Paris agreement should first understand the differences between climate change and global warming. Climate change was there in the past, is there at present and will be there in future. In the case of global warming, so far there is no clear cut quantified climate sensitivity factor. Scientists coming up with positive results on using CO2. If this is achieved, the process of global warming [if any] could be reversible in near future.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Besides for that, we have the geologic record, which is quite clear that we are in a very cold period of the Earth’s history…one of the coldest.
      And when it was far warmer on average, the world was not just livable but lushly verdant from pole to pole.
      The idea we are at some tipping point, or that warmer temps are to be feared, is utter lunacy.
      It is made up hogwash, with no facts to back it up.

    • There are no tipping points…billions of years of history proves it.
      The Earth and the biosphere take what comes.

      • “There are no tipping points”

        No, not in the entire history of Earth. Which at times, had much more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, yet no tipping points. There is no evidence for tipping points. CAGW promoters should be required to provide some evidence of their claims of tipping points.

      • Really, the ice cores and the lag of CO2 behind temperature that they show speaks to this very forcefully… high and rising concentration of CO2 does not push warming to ever more extreme levels, and low and decreasing levels of CO2 do not lead to perpetual ice.
        At the core of this nitwit notion of CO2 as being the thermostat of the planet, is a refusal to acknowledge a single pebble of the mountain of proof that it is not.
        There is far more than the ice cores to prove it, but it hardly matters…the notion is falsified.

        Before anyone even needs to get to any of the many other independent lines of evidence that on their own disprove it.

        I think we need to come up with a phrase to refer to “CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere”.
        Something that that sums it up, is obvious, and casts it in the appropriate light.

      • Of course there have been tipping points in Earth’s history. Both entering and exiting ice ages. During an earlier ice age the entire earth was covered in ice. So tipping points into or out of catastrophic conditions are clearly in the geologic record.

        Having said that, I agree with the consensus here, that Hawking’s statements are ludicrous.

      • The tipping points in question have to do with runaway warming being triggered by a tiny increase in temperature caused by a trace gas increasing slightly…and still no where near levels that it had been over most of Earth history…with no such runaway heating.
        The full glacial/interglacial transitions are not exactly a tipping point in the sense that they are referring to…more like two modes that are alternating.
        The big question (regarding ice ages) is…why are we in an ice age at all?
        The last one before this was hundreds of millions of years ago, and the Sun was not as strong then, or so we are told.
        Rather than runaway warming, there is a well defined cap in temps that it has never gone above except briefly…but has frequently stayed very near to that upper bound:

    • Prof. Hawkings appears to have forsaken the central principle of the scientific method. It is the falslfiability of the claims that are made by the model that is the product of a scientific study. The claims that are made by modern global warming models are not falsifiable thus they are not scientific.

  33. What evidence is Hawking using to reach his conclusions?
    I wonder if he has a line of reasoning, or if he is just relying on the conclusions of others.

    • There is no evidence or reason for such pronouncements…it is scaremongering of the most completely reckless and unfounded sort.
      He takes the worst of the exaggerations and doubles down on them and then takes out the qualifiers and weasel words, leaving it stated as if a fact.
      Then calls out our President by name as responsible for it all even though the US is now the only country cutting emissions.

      • “Then calls out our President by name as responsible for it all even though the US is now the only country cutting emissions.”

        Isn’t that ironic. It’s just delusional. And the US will probably continue to reduce its CO2 output while all the others are either not reducing, but increasing their output, or are struggling to meet their CO2 goals.

        The US did better than other nations on emissions during the Kyoto treaty era, too, even though the US refused to abide by the Kyoto treaty. The same thing is happening again with CO2.

  34. William Thompson (aka Lord Kelvin) was a prominent scientist in his day yet he made some absurd statements such as these:

    “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”

    “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”

    “Radio has no future.” “X-rays are clearly a hoax”. “The aeroplane is scientifically impossible.”

    I think this is Hawking’s “Kelvin Moment”.

      • Science or Fiction is very much qualified to judge reality. it’s your judgement that’s faulty.
        you are not the only one who may judge hawking’s mind. it’s the right of every man who possesses the faculty of judgement and who wants to bother.
        that’s what judgement is for.

      • I feel quite certain that i am in every way qualified to judge his words and by extension his grasp of facts, his grasp on reality, and his motivations and intentions.
        Taken as a whole, his statements, both here and in weeks past on the prospects for the Earth as a home planet for the human race and the whole of the biosphere, demonstrate derangement, delusion, a shockingly unscientific demeanor, and no grasp of even the basics of several branches of natural science, including chemistry and physics and astronomy.
        Coupled with an alarmist mentality, and a sickeningly patronizing tone while being so utterly brazen in his panic mongering, it amounts to him being afflicted with the very worst case of warmista jackassery I have ever witnessed.
        Plus he is stupid and crazy.
        And if I could, I would tell him all of that to his face, then ask him why he wants to scare children who have no way of knowing he is making it all up?
        Nor, apparently, do quite a few adults…as you have made us aware.
        Do you understand that what he is saying is that everyone must knuckle under to the fascist takeover of our economy?
        That we must all consign ourselves to living a life of energy poverty?
        That the poor nations of the Earth must remain so…tens of millions consigned to eternal poverty and misery?
        I would have more respect for a fire and brimstone preacher than for a fire and brimstone fake scientist.

      • cracker demonstrates the fallacy of appeal to authority.
        In it’s mind, Hawkins can’t be wrong because he’s a genius.

  35. Hawking who still believes in Einstein’s ‘relativity of simultaneity’.
    Dear Stephen,
    What does the ‘relativity of simultaneity’ offer the value of observations made by observers in relative motion above those by equivalent observers stationary in the simultaneous event’s reference frame?
    I thought as much . . . and you’re even less qualified to pontificate on climate matters of which you know nothing of importance.

  36. Venus has no free water, instead it has sulfuric acid. Far higher boiling point and much lower vapor pressure. No wonder it is hot.
    No magnetosphere either. And with the dense atmosphere, carbon dioxide exists in supercritical state at the surface. This isn’t going to happen with a few ppm more of carbon dioxide.

  37. Hmmm. We’ve burned through roughly 1/3rd of known fossil fuel reserves and emitted roughly 750 billion tons of carbon as CO2, which has added perhaps 0.3C of CO2 induced global warming recovery, which has been beneficial.

    In addition, the added CO2 has increased crop yields by roughly 25% from CO2 fertilization and has increased plant drought resistance…

    Because CO2 forcing is logarithmic, if we burn ALL fossil fuels (an economic impossibility because of supply/demand/price dynamics) we’ll perhaps contribute another 0.5C of CO2 induced warming…

    How Hawking comes up with 250C, is anyone’s guess, but it certainly isn’t based on physics and empirical evidence.

    I wonder if Hawking will be held accountable for making such an absurd claim based on absolutely no evidence or physics, when this absurd CAGW sc@m is officially deemed disconfirmed in about 5 years?

    The Left has lost its collective mind… it’s sad and embarrassing to witness someone like Hawking make such a fool of himself.

    • It would be sad and embarrassing if he did it in a scientific way.
      He did this in a political way, naming our President as responsible for his imaginary horror story.
      That takes it out of the realm of the sad and into the realm of abstruse political muckraking.

    • Nor did it turn out to be correct.
      His belief that the Earth can somehow exude 90 times the atmospheric pressure with a gas that is desperately sought be all plant life is interesting, However it is impossible.

  38. Why do we listen to this man whose views are becoming more and more removed from reality/

  39. Mr Hawking is not any longer in control of his ‘talking computer’, it has been ‘hacked’ and then ‘hijacked’ by some mischievous agents, possibly Russians, Chinese, North Koreans or even domestic grown ones.
    Poor Mr Hawking has no way of telling us that he is not in control of the weird voice coming out from his wheelchair. ( /sarc, ?)

  40. Me thinks Dr. Hawking is practising the art of satire. His statement obviously is so ludicrous as not to be taken seriously, and this is his way of telling the alarmists what a joke they have going on. He is just outdoing them by a factor of a million…glad to see he still has a sense of humour.

  41. It’s sad when a first rate mind begins to decline and shame on the BBC for exploiting this poor fellow. I’m sure Hawking didn’t wheel down to the BBC to express this spontaneously. Leave the great man alone in his retirement and don’t tarnish his reputation with this soon-to-be-dead Climateering boondoggle. In a real world (not the fake one we’ve been living in for decades) Donald Trump would be a Nobel Prize winner for saving the planet.

  42. Hawking has already gone to the realms of fantasy – in physics too.
    If I could see it as B.S. as it is without having science degree, he should have too.
    Sad to see.

    • I can understand the sort of physics he does pretty well.
      He ought to have an easy time grasping enough physical geography, Earth history, atmospheric physics, as well as enough biology to know how phony CAGW is.

  43. Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano.
    “One should pray that a healthy mind is in a healthy body.”
    I think this proverb applies exactly to Stephen Hawkins, even in his sick body has become an atheist. Envy eats the soul, and so it is not surprising that he is missing a divine or the plan of a higher beeing behind evolution and wants to explain all physical laws with their regularity out of themselves. Why me, God? And if I, then you do not exist.

  44. So at 250 deg C all the oceans will evaporate which will increase the mass of the atmosphere by about 270 times. At standard temp and pressure water vapour is 22 times greater volume than liquid water. So the height of the atmosphere will increase quite a lot, the water vapour will have absorbed all available relevant frequencies so limiting greenhouse feedback. Added to that all the sulphates in the atmosphere will be reflecting lots of insolation.

    Hmm, I’m not convinced the Hawking model will work.

  45. Another climate change den1er
    “I can’t stand this December heat, but it has nothing to do with global warming”

    No it’s not POTUS but wannabe British PM.
    Boris for PM !

    • forgot the link
      Boris: “It is fantastic news that the world has agreed to cut pollution and help people save money, but I am sure that those global leaders were driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity; and that fear – as far as I understand the science – is equally without foundation.”

      • Whatever Warmunism is about, it most certainly isn’t about cutting pollution or helping people save money, however much they claim it to be. Nor do I believe that global leaders are driven by fear of warm weather caused by humanity. What they fear is the looming downfall of their CAGW ideology and its gravy train.

  46. The Paris Accord is a big fake anyway. It’s non-binding. It is so unserious and so unbacked by data that it is mere political virtue-signaling for credulous media, and for snookered taxpayers who are footing the bill for silly conferences whose attendees aren’t expected to live up to their pronouncements.

    If Trump participating in less hypocrisy means the world is doomed, Hawking needs to go back to his lab and recalculate a few equations. More hypocrisy = a better world? I think not.

  47. It is helpful to recall that some people are just steeped in catastrophism while also somehow thinking of themselves as so smart that anything that pops into their heads must be true.
    Some tidbits from the intellectual forebears of Hawking’s way of thinking:

    1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

    2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

    3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

    4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

    5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

    6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

    7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

    8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

    9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

    10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

    11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

    12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

    13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

    14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

    15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

    16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

    17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

    18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    • Thanks for that litany of stupidity pontificated by our intellectual superiors. They do stupid even better than you or me.

      Maybe that is why stoopid government has persisted for so long. Let us welcome a new dawn for “Common Sense” and deride the learned fools who rule us.

      • It has been going on for a while.
        When people finally learned how to talk all those eons ago, the first question was “Honey, can you grab me a cold one while you are up?”
        Or words to that effect.
        The second sentence was the proclamation that the end was nigh.
        It is all right there in the history books…but you have to read between the lines.

  48. Poor Hawkins. He’s become a parody of himself, reduced to idiotic blatherings. Truly, a useful idiot for Leftists, Watermelons, and envirofascists.

  49. As anyone who has perused a book of Einstein quotes with a clear eye knows, even he was given to childish stupidities when venturing outside his area of expertise. Especially where the topic touched on politics.

  50. I believe there is a 97% chance that it is NOT Hawkings making these comments, but his handler…

  51. All this fossil fuel carbon, where did it come from, huh? Answer that coherently, Dr Hawking.

    If the globe were to cool 10 cc in 20 years, I will bet you dollars to donuts Dr Hawking would blame global warming for ‘disrupting the climate’.

    Honestly Dr H, stick to String Theory, black holes and Big Bangs. There are enough erroneous models in there to keep a physicist busy for life.

    Oh, right…

  52. The alarmists are always claiming that things will be very bad, then the date comes and goes and nothing changed, and they keep on doing it again and again, and expect the world to bow down to their knowledge.

  53. Next thing is, Newton – the very, very eminent scientist, will resurrect and tell the world that gold can be made from scrap base metal and as such poverty will soon be abolished

  54. Stephen Hawking – if his conscious brain is still active within his ALS-riddled body, and I have my doubts about that – has become nothing more than a computer-generated “voice” for the leftist global agenda. I honestly believe that he is not aware of what is going on and is trotted out by his handlers to “say” whatever it is they want him to say. It’s almost like the Wizard of Oz. And if he is truly “speaking” as a scientist, he is the worst scientist in history due to his ignorance of evidence.

    • I agree w/you — said the same thing below. Hawking is, unfortunately and despicably, being used.

    • Another way to look at it is that the CAGW crowd have been beating the stuffing out of the world economy and the ability of honest scientists to go about their business of elucidating objective reality.
      The skeptical community has been a small group standing up to the huge gang doing the rioting, and has been bruised and battered but has remained in the fight.
      We now seemed to have staggered onto our feet and the tables are turning…and Hawking steps into the fray and kicks everyone in the teeth.

  55. “… to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, ”

    He should know better than this. The whole concept of a runaway GHG effect is complete BS and is only even a theoretical possibility because Hansen/Schlesinger blew the feedback analysis and assumed that there’s an infinite source of Joules provided by the atmosphere to power the gain (sensitivity and gain are the same thing).

    Just look at the claimed sensitivity where 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing by doubling Co2 is claimed to increase the surface temp by 3C and increase the corresponding surface emissions by more than 16 W/m^2. To emit 16 W/m^2, the surface must be receiving 16 W/m^2, otherwise it will cool. The first 3.7 comes from the ‘forcing’ and the remaining 12.3 Wm^2 are claimed to come from the feedback. The only way for 3.7 W/m^2 to provide ‘feedback’ >3x more powerful than the forcing itself is if Bode’s assumed infinite power supply is present. Otherwise, there’s no place for these Joules to come from.

    As another indication, consider that Joules are Joules and each does the same amount of work (work is measured in Joules) and heating the surface takes work. If the next 3.7 W/m^2 is supposed to provide 12.3 W/m^2 of feedback, then all of the preceding 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing must have had a similar effect and if this was the case, the surface temp would be close to the boiling point of water.

    • co2isnotevil July 4, 2017 at 7:34 am:

      The whole concept of a runaway GHG effect is complete BS and is only even a theoretical possibility because Hansen/Schlesinger blew the feedback analysis and assumed that there’s an infinite source of Joules provided by the atmosphere to power the gain (sensitivity and gain are the same thing).

      I agree that the idea of a terrestrial runaway greenhouse effect is BS but not because there is not an infinite supply of Joules to support it. Joules are units of energy and there is a practically infinite supply of those being provided by the Sun over time.

      The reason that I see for its being utter BS is the water-cycle, whose thermodynamics I think Hawking, Hansen, the IPCC etc., have seriously misconstrued. They are assuming that the net water-cycle feedback to surface warming by the greenhouse effect (from CO2 and other greenhouse gases) is strongly positive and this assumption is the foundation of their claim of a potential runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.

      But the water-cycle’s feedback is the climate system’s response to surface warming by any cause, not just its response to warming by GHGs. And positive temperature feedbacks cause temperatures to diverge away from their equilibrium values. (Conversely, negative feedbacks cause temperatures to converge on their equilibrium values.) Therefore, if the net feedback from the water-cycle really was positive, any and all occasions of surface warming above the equilibrium temperature by any amount, no matter how minute, would initiate runaway global warming.

      However, I think the mere fact that we are here to talk about it means that runaway global warming has never happened at any time in the Earth’s history since the oceans were formed billions of years ago, in spite of the planet apparently having undergone many periods of warming above (and cooling below) the equilibrium temperature at the time since then. This seems very strong empirical evidence to me that the net feedback from the water-cycle must be negative, not positive as alarmists like Hawking are claiming, and that runaway global warming based on the water-cycle’s thermal feedback is fundamentally impossible on Earth.

      • RP,

        ” … infinite supply of those being provided by the Sun ”

        The Sun is not the infinite supply of Joules that Bode assumes for his analysis. First of all, the Sun is far from being infinite and has an average incident flux of 240 W/m^2 whose equivalent temperature is only 255K.

        Most importantly, the input to the Hansen/Schlesinger feedback ‘amplifier’ is forcing which in a technical sense means solar input and nothing but solar input. If the input and power supply for an amplifier are connected to the same thing (in this case solar forcing), the output power can NEVER exceed the input power. In other words, the surface temperature can never exceed 255K independent on the sign or magnitude of any ‘feedback’. I quote ‘feedback’ because in a Bode sense, feedback has no relevance to how the climate system operates.

        Keep in mind that when the IPCC claims a 3C rise from doubling CO2, what they are really saying is that doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to increasing post reflection solar input by 3.7 W/m^2 and applying the presumed sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 while keeping the system constant, that is, keeping GHG concentrations constant. Calling GHG’s ‘forcing’ is the fundamental error here. Keeping with the Bode terminology, GHG effects are feedback power and not forcing power, where they redirect some of the surface emissions back to the surface. Clouds act in the same way, except that rather than being a narrow band emitter/absorber, the water in clouds is a broadband absorber and emitter of photons. Note that the power emitted by GHG’s and clouds is not new energy being added to the output, but old surface emissions that have been delayed and returned back to the surface. Bode’s analysis assumes that all output power is new power originating from the assumed infinite supply and that the input and feedback are not consumed but only sampled. In contrast, the climate system consumes the input and feedback to produce its output where consumed feedback is no longer available as output until it passes through the gain block once more.

        Also note that they assumed unit open loop gain and for the output to be 390 W/m^2 (288K) arising from only 240 W/m^2 of input, net positive feedback is required and the amount of positive feedback required is f = 1 – 240/390 = 0.384 or 38.4% positive feedback. This result arises from Bode’s gain equation which relates the open loop gain, closed loop gain and the feedback fraction as 1/Go = 1/g + f. Note that when the open loop gain Go is 1, this equation becomes g = 1/(1 – f) which you may recognize as the gain equation references by Hansen and Schlesinger and that assumes unit open loop gain. However, if I arbitrarily call the open loop gain 1.6, then the required feedback is zero. If I call the open loop gain 2, then negative feedback is required since the closed loop gain of 1.6 is the ratio between the output power and the input power that resulted in that output (390/240) = 1.6. Note that they obfuscated the requirements of COE by making it ‘incremental’ and claiming that the output of the feedback loop is temperature, when per Bode, the output must be expressed in units that are linearly related to the input. Bode only applies to linear amplifiers in which case, the incremental gain is always the same as the absolute gain.

        The reason for all the obfuscation is that 0.8C per W/m^2 sounds plausible as the sensitivity factor until you express it as 4.35 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing (adding 0.8C to the current average temperature increases emissions by 4.35 W/^2). Since all Joules are equivalent, if the next W/m^2 of forcing increases surface emissions by 4.35 W/m^2 then each of the 240 W/m^2 of total forcing that preceded must also contribute 4.35 W/m^2 to the surface emissions which means that the surface would be emitting 1044 W/m^2 and have a corresponding average temperature of 368K. This is 5C less than the boiling point of water and this simple calculation obviously falsifies a sensitivity as high as claimed. In fact, the actual sensitivity factor is about 1.6 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which converted into a temperature is about 0.3C per W/m^2.

        Yes, if a runaway effect was possible, there would be evidence that it has already happened some time in the past. However, the only ‘runaway’ condition ever proposed to have happened in the past is the snowball Earth hypothesis which goes in the wrong direction for the ‘consensus’.

        Also, positive feedback only results in a divergence from equilibrium in the runaway case which is when f >= 1/Go. For the climate, whether what people like to call feedback is positive or negative has no bearing on whether the system will converge or diverge to an equilibrium and the unit open loop gain assumption means that the amplifier would be unconditionally stable for any amount of positive feedback < 100%.

      • co2isnotevil July 5, 2017 at 12:19 pm

        You wrote:
        “The Sun is not the infinite supply of Joules that Bode assumes for his analysis. First of all, the Sun is far from being infinite and has an average incident flux of 240 W/m^2 whose equivalent temperature is only 255K.”

        Yes, I appreciate that the Sun is not truly an infinite supply of Joules. By saying that it was a “practically infinite” supply “over time” I meant that if the Sun was to continue to supply Joules at a finite rate indefinitely, in time it would become as great as required for any practical purpose on Earth.

        Since Joules are units of energy, they can accumulate. Watts (as in ‘240 W/m^2’) are units of energy-flux (a.k.a. ‘power’) and correspond with Joules/sec. So ‘an average incident flux of 240 Watts/m^2’ means that, on average, 240 Joules of energy are delivered to each square meter of the surface every second by the Sun. Hence, over a complete day, each square meter of surface receives, on average, a total of 240x60x60x24 = 20,736,000 Joules of energy whilst the power-supply remains constant at 240 Watts throughout the day.

        “Most importantly, the input to the Hansen/Schlesinger feedback ‘amplifier’ is forcing which in a technical sense means solar input and nothing but solar input…(etc)”

        Can they really have been that stupid? But I suppose they can, in view of their having implicitly misconstrued something as basic and elementary as the sign of the net water-cycle feedback, to which I referred previously.

        “If the input and power supply for an amplifier are connected to the same thing (in this case solar forcing), the output power can NEVER exceed the input power. In other words, the surface temperature can never exceed 255K independent on the sign or magnitude of any ‘feedback’.”

        It seems true to me that “the output power can NEVER exceed the input power “ so long as you are talking about averages over sufficiently long periods of time, because in reality the input power and the output power to the climate system are fluctuating continuously. However, this rule does not limit the amount of power that may be circulating inside the climate system between the surface and the atmosphere. It is the recycling of surface output power by the atmospheric greenhouse effect that enables the surface to exist at a higher average temperature than the 255K determined by the power input/output balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

        “Keep in mind that when the IPCC claims a 3C rise from doubling CO2, what they are really saying is that doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to increasing post reflection solar input by 3.7 W/m^2 and applying the presumed sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 while keeping the system constant, that is, keeping GHG concentrations constant. Calling GHG’s ‘forcing’ is the fundamental error here.”

        I think the idea that CO2 can double while GHG concentrations remain constant is the fundamental error here. It’s a self-contradiction.

        “Keeping with the Bode terminology, GHG effects are feedback power and not forcing power, where they redirect some of the surface emissions back to the surface.”

        I think the effect from GHGs is essentially a positive feedback to the surface radiance. However, I think it also becomes a forcing whenever its magnitude changes (perhaps due to a change in GHG concentrations), because that sets a new equilibrium temperature for the surface. When the new equilibrium temperature is reached, the greenhouse effect ceases to be a forcing, although it remains a feedback to the surface radiance.

        “Clouds act in the same way, except that rather than being a narrow band emitter/absorber, the water in clouds is a broadband absorber and emitter of photons.”

        GHGs and clouds are the same in that they both capture and recycle some of the outgoing longwave radiant energy emitted by the surface back to it. However, whereas GHGs are relatively transparent to incoming shortwave radiation (from the Sun), clouds are relatively reflective of it and act as an effective sunscreen for the surface. Hence, both GHGs and clouds act as positive feedbacks to the surface radiance all over the planet, but clouds also act predominantly as negative feedbacks on the planet’s day-side where they can reflect up to 90% of incident sunlight. I believe this highly reflective property of clouds is what makes them the principal source of the water-cycle’s net negative feedback.

        “Bode’s analysis assumes that all output power is new power originating from the assumed infinite supply….”

        I’m not sure about that. At equilibrium, the output from the surface is equal to the input to it and that consists of insolation plus the total power being recycled back to the surface by the atmosphere (including that from GHGs, clouds, aerosols, particulates, etc.). We can represent this situation at the surface with the simple equation:

        S = I + R

        where S is the surface radiance;
        I is the insolation;
        R is the power being recycled back to the surface by the atmosphere.

        In this equation, I and R are independent terms, which means that the value of R is not limited by the value of I. So, in theory at least, R can have any value between 0 and infinity regardless of the value of I. Likewise, S can have any value between I and infinity, depending on the value of R.

        The fact that Joules are being received at the surface at a finite rate does not affect the independence of I and R in this equation.

        “The reason for all the obfuscation is that 0.8C per W/m^2 sounds plausible as the sensitivity factor until you express it as 4.35 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing (adding 0.8C to the current average temperature increases emissions by 4.35 W/^2). Since all Joules are equivalent, if the next W/m^2 of forcing increases surface emissions by 4.35 W/m^2 then each of the 240 W/m^2 of total forcing that preceded must also contribute 4.35 W/m^2 to the surface emissions which means that the surface would be emitting 1044 W/m^2 and have a corresponding average temperature of 368K.”

        ROFLOL! Those figures are obviously crazy and I think they show up the absurdity of the definition of climate sensitivity to CO2 as being a constant amount from a doubling of CO2 concentration regardless of any fixed baseline from which the CO2 doubling should start. However, anything’s possible in the wonderful world of ‘climate seance’, I dare say.

      • RP,

        “By saying that it was a “practically infinite” supply “over time” …”

        But the planet is also radiating energy at the same 240 W/m^2 rate so the net power available above and beyond what’s required to sustain the current temperature is 0 w/m^2 and no matter how long you wait, it will remain 0. While Joules can accumulate, the temperature is linearly proportional to accumulated Joules (1 calorie increases 1 gm of water by 1C) while emissions increase at a rate proportional to T^4. The fact that emissions increase at a faster rate then the temperature is something that consensus climate science seems to deny.

        “Can they really have been that stupid?”

        Yes they can and are. I’ve had discussions with Schlesinger, who along with Hansen developed the feedback model. They made so many silly and obvious errors in the analysis, refuse to acknowledge that they made any mistakes and refuse to defend themselves and explain why the errors I pointed out might not be errors.

        “I think the idea that CO2 can double while GHG concentrations remain constant is the fundamental error here. It’s a self-contradiction.”

        No. This is a trivial example of EQUIVALENCE, that is two systems whose behavior is indistinguishable from each other. Doubling Co2 keeping post albedo solar input constant is EQUIVALENT to increasing post albedo solar input by 3.7 W/m^2 while keeping Co2 concentrations constant. In other words both will have the same effect on the surface temperature.

        “So, in theory at least, R can have any value between 0 and infinity regardless of the value of I”

        Not exactly and this is the fault with the consensus model which basically assumes R can be infinite and that this represents the runaway condition (this is what requires the infinite power supply). R in this case is the ‘feedback’ term and the amount of feedback can not exceed the amount of output, which is S, moreover; any amount of output returned as R can not be counted as S because the climate system consumes I and R to produce S, while the feedback model samples I and R to determine how much S to deliver from an infinite power supply. In other words, the unacknowledged and required input impedance of the feedback ‘amplifier’ modelled by Hansen/Schlesinger is 0 while Bode assumes an infinite input impedance.

        The other constraint here is that as R increases, which is the energy returned to the surface by the atmosphere, the energy emitted by the atmosphere into space increases by the same amount, thus if all of S is absorbed by the atmosphere, R is then limited to I and S is limited to 2*I. This is what the consensus fails to understand which is that the origin of the energy that leaves the atmosphere is prior surface emissions which can not be counted twice and that the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface and emitted into space in roughly equal amounts. They seem to be flummoxed by Venus by failing to understand that the surface of Venus in direct equilibrium with the Sun (i.e. the emitter of S) is high up in the clouds and not the solid surface below whose temperature is dictated by a lapse rate applied to the distance between the surface in equilibrium with the Sun and the solid surface below.

        “… I think it also becomes a forcing”

        No. In a strict sense, only the Sun is a forcing influence and changing CO2 represents a change to the system. But as I pointed out, the resulting surface temperature change from a change to the system can be EQUIVALENT to the result from a change in forcing. Note that Bode explicitly defines forcing as the input to the system. So much obfuscation arises as climate science repurposing terms that have a specifically defined meaning (forcing, feedback, sensitivity) to represent something entirely different, yet retain the implications of the original meaning.

      • co2isnotevil July 7, 2017 at 9:00 am

        “By saying that it was a “practically infinite” supply “over time” …”

        But the planet is also radiating energy at the same 240 W/m^2 rate so the net power available above and beyond what’s required to sustain the current temperature is 0 w/m^2 and no matter how long you wait, it will remain 0.

        That only applies to the input and output of the whole system at equilibrium. When we look at the basic components (i.e. surface and atmosphere) we find the following approximate power-flows.

        The surface receives about 240 W/m² of insolation plus about 150+ W/m² from the atmosphere, making 390+ W/m² in total. Since the system is in thermal equilibrium, the surface output must balance the surface input, so the surface then radiates its 390+ W/m² straight into the atmosphere towards space.

        The atmosphere receives the surface’s 390+ W/m², apprehends some of it on its way through to space and recycles 150+ W/m² of it back to the surface whilst venting the remaining 240 W/m² directly to space. The atmosphere’s ultimate 240 W/m² output is the same as the 240 W/m² primary solar input, so that the overall input/output power-balance is maintained constantly at 0 as you indicated above.

        However, there is no requirement for an infinite energy supply to enable the system to sustain itself in this state. A finite one of 240 J/sec/m² (i.e. 240 W/m²) is evidently sufficient.

        While Joules can accumulate, the temperature is linearly proportional to accumulated Joules (1 calorie increases 1 gm of water by 1C) while emissions increase at a rate proportional to T^4. The fact that emissions increase at a faster rate then the temperature is something that consensus climate science seems to deny.

        There is no incompatibility or incongruence between the two formulae as far as I am aware. They simply describe different things and give their results in different units accordingly. The first formula relates to heat content and is expressed in units of Joules; the second formula describes radiance (i.e. the rate of energy-emission by radiation) and is expressed in units of Joules/sec, which are Watts. Taken together they suggest that hotter bodies contain more heat, but they also radiate their heat content away faster than cooler bodies do.

        …They made so many silly and obvious errors in the analysis, refuse to acknowledge that they made any mistakes and refuse to defend themselves and explain why the errors I pointed out might not be errors.

        It is truly shameful for people who profess to be scientists to behave in this way. What hypocrites!

        “I think the idea that CO2 can double while GHG concentrations remain constant is the fundamental error here. It’s a self-contradiction.”

        No. This is a trivial example of EQUIVALENCE, that is two systems whose behavior is indistinguishable from each other. Doubling Co2 keeping post albedo solar input constant is EQUIVALENT to increasing post albedo solar input by 3.7 W/m^2 while keeping Co2 concentrations constant. In other words both will have the same effect on the surface temperature.

        OK. Thanks. I see what you mean now.

        But what is your objection to this equivalence? I don’t see anything wrong with it in principle (although I might want to take issue with the numbers).

        “So, in theory at least, R can have any value between 0 and infinity regardless of the value of I”

        Not exactly and this is the fault with the consensus model which basically assumes R can be infinite and that this represents the runaway condition (this is what requires the infinite power supply)….

        Sorry, but I’m still not ‘getting’ your objection to R having a value between 0 and infinity in theory. Obviously, R could never actually become infinite in the real world, but no-one is suggesting that it could, are they?

        Of course, if R could be infinite in reality, that would certainly represent a runaway condition. But I don’t think it is a necessary pre-requisite.

        Positive feedback is a system’s response to an action that increases the magnitude of the action. I think runaway conditions can develop under any circumstances where the positive increment added to the action in each cycle is greater than the increment added in the previous cycle, so that the sequence of increments forms a divergent mathematical series, the sum of which always tends towards infinity. If, on the other hand, each cycle’s increment is smaller than the previous one, the sequence forms a convergent arithmetic series whose sum will always tend towards a finite total. In that case, the feedback is intrinsically self-limiting and in no danger of going runaway, even though the nature of the feedback is positive.

        So the essential factor which determines whether or not the process will go runaway is not the magnitude of the feedback at some particular time (i.e. R in the climate case we are considering) but the magnitude of the system’s response in each cycle, because that determines the size of each increment in the series.

        Therefore, what alarmists like Hawking, Hansen etc. need to support their claim of a potential man-made runaway greenhouse effect, is robust evidence for a positive, mathematically-divergent sequence of climate system-responses to some initial warming induced by man, not just evidence for an initial, human-induced warming that is thought to be big enough to instigate the runaway process.

        As far as I can see, the alarmists have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for either of these things and therefore I believe their claim fails on fundamental grounds of objective scientific fact and established physical law.

        ….while the feedback model samples I and R to determine how much S to deliver from an infinite power supply.

        That’s insane.

        ….Note that Bode explicitly defines forcing as the input to the system….

        A reference link would probably be helpful here.

        ….So much obfuscation arises as climate science repurposing terms that have a specifically defined meaning (forcing, feedback, sensitivity) to represent something entirely different, yet retain the implications of the original meaning.

        This is certainly some of the accumulated dung that piles to the rafters of the Augean Stable that presently comprises the House of Climate Science.

      • RP,
        “The atmosphere receives the surface’s 390+ W/m², apprehends some of it on its way through to space and recycles 150+ W/m² of it back to the surface whilst venting the remaining 240 W/m² directly to space.”

        Only about 150 of the 240 ‘vented’ to space originates from the atmosphere. The remaining 90 W/m^2 is what passes through the transparent window in the atmosphere. The atmosphere intercepts 300 of the 390 emitted by the surface where half is returned to the surface and half escapes into space. The clear sky alone absorbs more than 150 W/m^2 and when you add clouds, absorption increases to about 300.

        It’s dividing the power entering the atmosphere by 2 that sets the limit since no more than 50% of the surface emissions can be returned to the surface. If the surface emitted 1000 W/m^2 and the atmosphere absorbed all of it, returning half the surface, 500 more W/m^2 are required for balance, while only 240 are available, moreover; 500 W/m^2 will be emitted while only 240 is being received. The planet will then cool until it is emitting 240 W/m^2.

        You are correct that at this rate, no implicit power supply is required. But, at this rate, the sensitivity is quantifiably deterministic to be about 0.3C per W/m^2. You get there by considering that the atmosphere returns 62% of the 240 W/m^2 of solar input to the surface, or a ‘feedback’ term of about 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 and that when 1.62 W/m^2 is added to 390 W/m^2, the resulting temperature is about 0.3C warmer. The implicit supply is required to support the IPCC sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 which requires 3.4 W/m^2 of feedback per W/m^2 of forcing while only 0.62 can be supplied by the system as it’s energized by the Sun.

        You can download Bode’s book here which is the primary feedback related reference in both Hansen’s and Schlesinger’s papers.

        https://archive.org/details/NetworkAnalysisFeedbackAmplifierDesign

        Here are some page references:
        Bode H, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design
        assumption of external power supply and active gain, 31 section 3.2
        gain equation, 32 equation 3-3
        definitions of feedback fraction and feedback factor, 32-33
        real definition of sensitivity, 52-57 (sensitivity of gain to component drift)
        effects of consuming input power, 56, section 4.10
        impedance assumptions, 66-71, section 5.2 – 5.6
        a passive circuit is always stable, 108
        Bode plots and stability, 137-168
        definition of input (forcing) 31

      • co2isnotevil July 9, 2017 at 2:57 pm:

        It’s dividing the power entering the atmosphere by 2 that sets the limit since no more than 50% of the surface emissions can be returned to the surface….

        This 50:50 division is starkly contradicted by the example of Venus, where the proportion of surface radiance recycled by the atmosphere is over 99% if NASA’s Venus data can be believed!

        Thanks for the link you gave to Bode’s tour de force and the page number references. Although he was writing for electrical and electronic engineers, I’m sure many of the concepts he discusses will also have parallel applications in climate science.

      • RP,
        Yes, Venus is a source of confusion. The reason is that the solid surface of Venus is no more a surface in equilibrium with the Sun than is the surface of Earth beneath the deep oceans. What matters is identifying the surface in DIRECT equilibrium with an incoming energy source. On Earth, this isn’t the solid surface of the planet either, but the top surface of the oceans and the bits of land that poke through. The temperature of the solid surface below the deep ocean is about 0C and exhibits absolutely no diurnal or seasonal variability. Similarly, the solid surface of Venus exhibits absolutely no diurnal or seasonal variability, albeit at a much higher temperature. The temperatures of both are dictated by the temperature/density/pressure profile of the matter separating the surface whose temperature we are measuring from the virtual surface above and that’s in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun.

        On Venus, this surface is high up in the cloud layers of its atmosphere. The GHG effect between the emitting surface of the clouds and space affects the temperature of the cloud tops and the temperature of the surface below has an effect on the temperature of the bottom of the cloud layer, but the lapse heading down towards the surface sets the temperature gradient. Keep in mind that the cloud layers of Venus are mostly at a couple of ATM or less, while the surface has a pressure is closer to 90 ATM making the Venusian clouds form much higher in the atmosphere then they do here on Earth (clouds precipitating bismuth not withstanding). Note that about half of the absorbed energy emitted both up and down by the clouds is returned to the clouds, as it is here on Earth. The difference is that Earth clouds are tightly thermodynamically coupled to the surface in equilibrium with the Sun through evaporation/precipitation while on Venus, the clouds are the virtual surface in equilibrium with the Sun and are thermally decoupled from the surface below by a lapse rate.

        Bode’s analysis doesn’t map to the climate system at all and this is my point. The whole concept of climate system feedback is dependent on the climate system conforming to a Bode feedback network. This means that the system must also obey Bode’s preconditions which the climate system does not. Add on top of this the mistakes made by Hansen and Schlesinger in their attempts to map the climate to Bode and the whole concept of climate feedback as framed by the IPCC becomes irrelevant.

      • co2isnotevil July 10, 2017 at 1:23 pm:

        Yes, Venus is a source of confusion. The reason is that the solid surface of Venus is no more a surface in equilibrium with the Sun than is the surface of Earth beneath the deep oceans. What matters is identifying the surface in DIRECT equilibrium with an incoming energy source.….

        Indeed. But the solid surface of Venus doesn’t need to be in equilibrium with just the Sun, does it? It also needs to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere above it at the same time. Hence the equation for the planet’s surface at equilibrium:

        S = I + R

        I and R are both energy sources to the surface here.

        ….The temperatures of both are dictated by the temperature/density/pressure profile of the matter separating the surface whose temperature we are measuring from the virtual surface above and that’s in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun.

        I’m not sure what you’re meaning to say here. That the temperatures of both are caused by the profile, or just that they can be determined by it mathematically? I could agree with the latter, but not the former.

        Bode’s analysis doesn’t map to the climate system at all and this is my point….

        OK, point taken.

        ….This means that the system must also obey Bode’s preconditions which the climate system does not. Add on top of this the mistakes made by Hansen and Schlesinger in their attempts to map the climate to Bode and the whole concept of climate feedback as framed by the IPCC becomes irrelevant.

        I can well believe that Hansen and Schlesinger misapplied Bode’s concepts to the climate system. However, I think they also misconceived both Venus’s and the Earth’s climate systems in important ways to begin with.

        On Venus, for example, they have misattributed most or all of the immense positive feedback from the atmosphere to the surface to the Venusian CO2. That is obviously impossible because the Venusian surface is not radiating enough power on CO2 absorption wavelengths to support the amount of power being returned by the feedback.

        And on Earth, they have ignored the rather elementary fact known to most schoolchildren that the water vapour feedback to surface warming which is supposed to drive man-made global warming past all the still-unproven tipping points and on to climate catastrophe, will inevitably turn into clouds, whereupon they will induce cooling by the increased reflection of incoming sunlight – a well-known negative feedback called the ‘Iris effect’.

        When people make scientific mistakes of such a crude and obvious nature I don’t think we need to examine their climate models in any further depth or detail. It’s self-demonstrated junk at first sight and we can safely bin it.

      • RP,
        They definitely incorrectly attributed the Venus surface temperature to a runaway GHG effect caused by positive feedback. It is more accurately quantified as a runaway cloud effect. If Venus has no clouds, but otherwise had the same 90 ATM of CO2, the surface would be far far cooler than it is now because under these conditions, the GHG effect WOULD influence the surface temperature, whereas now, there’s another more important constraint.

        This constraint is the sign and direction of the lapse rate. On Earth, the surface is in equilibrium with the Sun and the temperature profile of the atmosphere is dictated by the atmosphere. The temperature of the atmosphere starts at the surface temperature and decreases with altitude at about 10C per km. The specific heat of CO2 is about 20% lower, so the lapse rate for dry CO2 would be about 12C per km. Adding the other components, the specific heat increases and the lapse rate becomes between about 9C 10C per km which is comparable to the average lapse rate on Earth.

        On Venus, the cloud layer starts at about 50km which at 9C per km represents a lapse of between about 450C and 500C which is exactly what we need to separate a surface at 460C from clouds at about 0C. There’s no need to even invoke runaway GHG effect to try and explain the surface temperature.

        On Venus, the Sun heats the clouds which heats the atmosphere which heats the surface and the lapse rate puts a constraint on the surface temperature, relative to the temperature of the clouds and the atmosphere heating it. On Earth, the lapse rate puts no such constraints on what the surface temperature must be because the Sun is the source of energy heating the surface and the atmosphere is mostly transparent to solar radiation.

        One reason this concept has become too controversial is because some have suggested that the lapse rate determines the temperature of the Earth’s surface, but it does not. Earth and Venus are so different that while the lapse rate has no effect on the Earth’s surface temperature, it’s the primary influence on the temperature of the Venusian surface and many have a hard time wrapping their brains around the implications of the differences.

        You should also consider why the atmosphere of Jupiter heats up as you go inward. This is the effect of gravity on a lapse rate which is given as g/cp, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and cp is the specific heat of the atmosphere.

      • co2isnotevil July 11, 2017 at 1:49 pm

        They definitely incorrectly attributed the Venus surface temperature to a runaway GHG effect caused by positive feedback….

        Caused specifically by positive feedback from a combination of CO2 and water vapour, I gather. (See Wikipedia here.)

        But since water has an extremely large specific heat capacity AND an extremely large latent heat of vaporisation, it seems extremely unlikely to me that the positive feedback from water vapour to the greenhouse effect of the Venusian CO2 would be powerful enough to initiate a runaway amplification spiral in the first place. And even if it was sufficiently powerful to do that, a restraining negative feedback would also start to develop as soon as the atmospheric water vapour turned into clouds, which would be even more reflective of incoming sunlight than its present ones composed of sulphuric acid, so I think a runaway warming process would be virtually impossible under those circumstances.

        However, I’m sure there is a significant cloud effect on Venus as you say. And a significant gravitational lapse effect too, which conspires with the cloud effect to maintain the surface temperature at its remarkable 465°C or thereabouts.

        You should also consider why the atmosphere of Jupiter heats up as you go inward. This is the effect of gravity on a lapse rate which is given as g/cp, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and cp is the specific heat of the atmosphere.

        I’m sure the gravitational lapse effect must occur in Jupiter’s atmosphere, probably more than it does in all the other planets’ atmospheres too given Jupiter’s larger and denser atmosphere and its stronger gravitational field. But Jupiter seems something of a scientific anomaly right now, since it is radiating more power than it is receiving from the Sun. I can only speculate about what might be going on in its hidden depths that is causing this apparent TOA input/output disequilibrium.

      • Yes, water vapor on Venus is irrelevant, but as I pointed out, the greenhouse effect is also irrelevant when it comes to establishing its surface temperature. For one thing, there’s little water vapor in the lower atmosphere since the only way it can get there is to condense and precipitate, but the atmosphere is so hot, it doesn’t get very far into the atmosphere before it evaporates and starts to rise again. CO2 is heavier than O2/N2 so water vapor rises even faster in a CO2 atmosphere than in the Earth atmosphere.

  56. The only logical explanation for this is the precautionary principle. This is based on fear. What if!!
    The greatest mathematical brains on earth can be afraid to cross a road, for fear of being hit by a car!

  57. I don’t believe anyone can truly understand/communicate w/Hawking any more, and that his “statements” are actually those of his handlers.

  58. I can’t help think of this:

    Alarmists would be the guys holding up Bernie … (Hawking?).

    “Tasteless”, you say? Well, sometimes I can’t control how tasteful my thoughts are. The polite thing to do would be not to verbalize them, I guess. But then we risk lying to ourselves on critical issues. A bit of shock can wake us up.

    • Poor Hawking – he should stick to theoretical physics and leave climate change to the . . . wait a minute, we’ve already tried that and it doesn’t work either! Anyway, too bad Hawking is exiting this world on a banana peel. The Linus Pauling Syndrome. God rest his soul.

      Anyone who thinks climate change (just exactly what is changing, anyway?) is a clearer and more immediate danger than, say, the North Koreans or the Iranian mullahs is nuts.

      “Only a few more years before the problem is irreversible…” ?? I thought we were already well past the supposed deadline. Imminent apocalypse – the gift that keeps on giving.

      By the way, if there has (statistically) been no global warming during the last 17 years, by what logic do we only have a few years left to fix it?

    • I am not sure there is any room for being tasteful in Real Science, surely you just have to say it how it is.

      Anyway what is tasteful in one community/country will get you killed in another.

      Time to watch “Life of Brian” again I think.

  59. The general population “might” all become experts in advanced probability and statistics in order to ignore the PR scams.

  60. I’m afraid that the ALS has finally reached Professor Hawking’s brain! A brilliant man once, but now, sadly suffering the end stages of a horrible disease. Late stage Dementia is often a symptom of the muscle wastage of ALS when the brain cells can no longer perform work.

  61. Stephen Hawking: President Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Might Destroy the World

    Mr Hawking won’t live to see that happen.
    It is not going to happen.

  62. Mr Hawking is the scraping of the barrel.
    The last gasp at making the herd believe.
    The BBC, interviewing him as a pundit, on climate is preposterous.
    He may be a go-to on black holes,
    but then the fund poured in to the climate models ,It must seem like a black hole.

  63. I thought Professor Hawking was a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist or economist?

    Just like I don’t ask my doctor for financial advice, I don’t look to physics for climate advice.

  64. It is notbonly Stephen Hawking making stupid statements. I recall watching that eminent astropyhsicist Brian Cox debating a Liberal Party politician on the Australian Broadcasting Commision’s Q&A program. The Liberal Party politician was expressing his doubts about anthropogenic global warming and talking aboutbthe pause in warming over the two decades when Dr. Cox prodouced his graph using Thomas Karl’s dodgy warming sea temperature data. “Look”, said Dr. Cox, “you can’t argue with the data. You can’t arguevwith facts”. Will Dr. Cox publicly apologise for misleading the Australian viewers? Yes, I admit it is a rhetorical question.

    • True, Cox was way out of line and was using outdated talking points and old lies instead of new ones.
      However, to his credit, he stopped short of saying the Earth would be 250 degrees and raining sulfuric acid because trump backed us out of the Paris accord.

  65. WooHoo !

    A whole thread about the Professor.

    Glad to see a few of you are doubting that it is the “original” Stephen and considering the “replaced with a fake” theory. There is literally loads of info on it all over the www, not just a couple of pictures. For my 2p worth I claim that the current manifestation is in fact a robot. Henceforth I shall now refer to it as the Hawkthing.

    Hawkthing is one of the easiest robot duplicates which TPTB have produced as very little animation is required (Duh !). As I live in the UK, have my tentacles in various top universities and know something about physical testing I do now have a plan to expose this fakery. The apparatus is simple,non-intrusive, small and easily smuggled within a briefcase or rucksack, I just need one of the students or any adult to get within 10 feet of the Hawkthing to give you a 100% result and it can be done covertly so there is no risk to the operative.

    Of course IF I am completely wrong and Hawkthing is in fact 100% human we will still show you the result for that is the way proper science shows itself to be honest and truthful.

    Side bets are allowed.

    • ROFL (well, I would be if I weren’t afraid one of these Darleks would run over me). EXTERMINATE!

  66. This is from a guy who changed his mind about 4 times about the makeup of a black hole.. Strangely, most of the other physicists went along with each change, even when the new theory contradicted the one before.

  67. Of all people, Hawking should be circumspect about predictions by ‘experts’, including himself.

    From Wiki:

    The diagnosis of motor neurone disease came when Hawking was 21, in 1963. At the time, doctors gave him a life expectancy of two years.

  68. Hi. I think it is at present not fair to kick a person that is physically laying down at present in way that he might not be capable to access the broad range of views and data required to propose a balanced point of view. Hawking has been a true, bold and in many ways bold Popperian scientist. Proposing alternative hypotheses during an outstanding academic career is a credit as large as can be. His work is and will provide a fertile ground for humanity when times comes to to able to and in demand to take the leaps from interplanetary to intergalatic existence. His time scale of climate trouble is wrong beyond discussion and is probably, as indicated above, to be blamed on his assistants. When you reject your own hypotheses and argue for new ones, and the rest of the world, by and large tries to follow you, you are an outstanding scientist.
    On anther hand, it is obvious that the Russians has had nothing to do with Hawkins computer(s). Hydrocarbons have and will in a foreseeable future provide cheap and safe energy. Having that for sale and use has and will be a blessing for any nation and Russia has a lot. The combustion components is, however, a problem not properly dealt with thanks to the greens who cannot separate NOXes, PM fractions and CO2 in constructive way. Moreover, recall that that these “nasty and pesky” hydrocarbon molecules by and large are made from food (plants and a bit of animals) – and that they readily can be rearranged to food again. You just need other strains of bacteria to revert the degradation that has been done. If Putin and the other cleptogarks could see that much of light, they should buy the patents around asap. Siberia, with its ample supply of natural gas and cold water for cooling lively bacteria cultures is the ideal place to take global food supplies to another global level.
    Then to the CO2. Nutty can’t understand why some hundreds of ppm is a problem. Back in time we had 6000 or more of these CO2 ppms, the plants were far less efficient CO2 harvesters then compared to the present state of chloroplasts, and hot and cold eras altered, the oceans were around as at present, and it was never the slightest hint of any runaway heating??? The bogus men left is the kind of solar insulation and the cloud cover in paleohistory. These factors might of course regrettbly be enough to cloud any further highlighting of reality. To me it looks like the Milankowitch cycles, implying more CO2 dissolved in the oceans, the ever increasing CO2 harvesting efficiency of plants + the by and large irreversible, carbon capture programs of the AGW (Al Gore Witchcraft) people is the ultimate damaging starvation combination for mankind. Who talks about the precautionary principle in that context?

  69. Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. Will Rogers

    ig·no·rant
    [ ig-ner- uhnt]

    ADJECTIVE
    1.
    lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
    2.
    lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
    3.
    uninformed; unaware.
    4.
    due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

    Anybody and everybody, no matter how high their IQ, is ignorant when they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    • I haven’t read every comment. Has Hansen and Venus been mentioned yet?

      In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: “[I]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”

      Maybe all those canals are that remains of railways that carried it’s “Coal Trains of Death”?

      OOPS! Sorry. Wrong planet.

  70. “There is so much wrong with Stephen Hawking’s statement, its difficult to know where to begin.”

    How about illegal. No different then yelling fire in a crowded theater. deceitfully stimulating the Amygdala of the under-educated mind for the advancement of a socio/political agenda to benefit the elite class should be at the very least a misdemeanor punishable with a fine. In this case a BIG fine.

  71. I watched the “interview”. Where’s the evidence that Stephen Hawking composed the answers? Both the questions and answers seemed to have been prepared in advance. Hawking just seemed to be a prop.

    • My thought too. Something about that statement just seems off, style-wise, compared to other things he’s said in the past (that have made sense). Maybe I need to pull out my tinfoil hat or maybe not, but I smell a rat here.

    • Yes, I too would now require evidence that these words originated from Hawking.

      Given the one-word-per-minute composition rate of Hawking today, the responses attributed to him in this “interview” seem certainly staged, since the questions would have required prior responses that would have taken many, many minutes to compose. To present these prepared responses in the guise of an “interview” is definitely fake.

      I have positively no way to know whether Hawking understood the questions or that Hawking even composed the answers to the questions. Given his limitations, he could easily be used as a prop, with words “put in his mouth”, so to speak, by somebody else.

      Needless to say, I am now very suspicious.

  72. “That is so stupid and ignorant I find it hard to believe that is what he actually said.”

    Well, I didn’t see his lips move. The voice synthesizer did all the talking.

  73. This finally blows Hawking`s reputation. His ignorance of Earth history is woefully exposed. How has he become a cult figure? Because of the BBC and other media, the same as they are now doing for the pretty boy professor from Manchester.

  74. Stephen Hawking

    died a long time ago this guy is just his stand in to be used to brainwash the general public on their agendas.

  75. Hawking can’t do his research himself, he has to rely on his handlers. I suspect they’re feeding him the BS and he has never even heard the realistic side of the issue.

Comments are closed.