Stephen Hawking and Venus

Stephen Hawking

Nobel Prize Physicist Professor Stephen Hawking made an interesting declaration about President Trump.  It appears that the only thing saving the planet is an accord that is, in reality, a wealth redistribution scheme.

From US News:

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” Hawking told the BBC, in an interview published Sunday. “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

While many people consider Stephen Hawking one of the world’s most intelligent men, basic physics is working against him.   In an article from Luboš Motl in The Reference Frame, it appears that Hawking’s proclamations have many scratching their heads:

Wow. Now, every intelligent 10-year-old kid must know why this possibility is non-existent, why the statement is nonsense. Some scientists including Roy Spencer have pointed out how absurd these Hawking’s statements were from a scientific viewpoint.

But lots of the scientists who have paid lip service to the lies about the so-called global warming or climate change in the past have remained silent and confirmed that their scientific dishonesty has no limits. I despise all the climate alarmists who know that statements like that are absurd but who hide this fact because a lie like that could be helpful for their profits or political causes. You know, what these jerks and the people who tolerate these jerks’ existence haven’t quite appreciated is that it is only lies that may be helpful for them.

Of course, the environmentalists are all over this as proof that Trump is dangerous and that we are one step closer towards global armageddon.

It should be fairly obvious that Hawking has fallen into the pit of “Scientific Consensus”.   He’s throwing another stone in the wall between the scientific method and government sponsored science.  And with his credentials, it’s a pretty big stone.

President Eisenhower spoke about how this kind of nonsense is dangerous as a society:

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Regularly, we hear about how scientists were wrong in both their prediction of the future and their understanding of nature itself.  Climate science is no different.

Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data­sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

Despite the whines of the political left, Trump has enabled more scientists hiding in the shadows to come out and start to speak up about the problems with this consensus.  And this is what is needed to keep science moving forward.

It’s becoming more and more evident that the certainty of danger from CO2 emissions is much more a myth and a result of political activism by scientists who have chosen to stand by their false predictions than actual science.   I wonder how scientists in the future will view this nonsense when what was supposed to happen didn’t.

It is unfortunate that someone like Hawking has chosen to wade into the political discussion with predictions that do not stand up to established scientific facts.  And it’s precisely these kinds of statements that tend affect your credibility for the future.


4 thoughts on “Stephen Hawking and Venus

  1. Well, you may be raging against the whirlwhind, you are raging.
    I agree; science is not about consensus. Science is about indefatigable perseverance against all comers; crackpots and wizards. If you can’t bring your data to the table, then you’ve got nothing. NOTHING.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. WTF? Hawking forgot that Venus receives about 2x the energy from the Sun as the Earth does? Or did he “forget” it, in his rush to make a convenient lie?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.

    But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.

    Over 9,400 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.

    Step right up, bring science, I did.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (LinkedIn)—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s