Skeptics respond to Stephen Hawking's climate claims: Hawking is 'silly', 'wacky & bizarre', 'complete nonsense', 'sad'
Via Daily Caller: Climate Scientist Zeke Hausfather: "A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease)."
Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: "Stephen Hawking's wacky and bizarre opinions on climate change (e.g. Earth becoming Venus) pollute policy debate."
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer on Hawking's Venus comparison: 'Complete nonsense...no reputable climate scientist would claim such a thing...This is partly why the public makes fun of scientists. Sad.'
Professor and environmental activist Bjorn Lomborg: "Stephen Hawking being silly. No risk of climate runaway to Venus. US Paris cuts were just 0.2% of needed to 2°C."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: (remarkably Morano’s only has an undergraduate degree in political science, but his climate views are more scientifically accurate than Hawking’s views! Go figure.) Morano: 'Wasted IQ...Hawking is hawking nonsense on climate...Hawking has been hawking this comic routine about Venus and Earth since at least 2007...Hawking is hawking bullshit on the UN Paris Pact...Hawking descends into utter scientific nonsense about climate change.'
"Al Gore has come into you fellas business, Charlie Munger said. "He has made $3 or $400 million in your business. And he's not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he coaxed through Harvard with a gentleman's C. But he had one obsessive idea that global warming was a terrible thing and he would protect the world from it," he explained. [Note: Gentleman's C is defined by Urban Dictionary as "A grade given to a student (traditionally with wealthy parents) instead of a failing grade."]
Morano on marchs' treatment of skeptics: It reached absurd levels when I went to get coffee at the hospitality table, everyone greeted me cheerily, but then a man came up and said “You know he is a climate denier.” The mood of the volunteers changed immediately after I was "outed." [“I've been "outed! I wasn't even "in"! “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” - Seinfeld TV episode]Just as I was reaching for the creamer, a lady picked up the box of creamers and recoiled back so that I could not have it for my coffee. It appeared for a moment that the People’s Climate March was going to take a stand and deny a “climate denier” cream for his coffee and refuse me service. I responded: “You are really going to deny me coffee creamer” because I am a skeptic? She then relented and allowed me two creams for my large coffee. Incident avoided, coffee enjoyed.
The banner, reading “The Science is NOT Settled.” was under constant assault with marchers who refused to allow the message of climate skepticism to be seen. Many marchers either blocked the sign, harassed the people holding or ran into it with their bodies, all in an attempt to silence any skeptical message. Many marchers grabbed the banner and tried to take it down to the ground and physically stood in front of it to prevent anyone from reading the message...At one point one of the marchers challenged the driver of the truck to fist fight. Other marchers repeatedly gave the middle finger to the banners.
"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."
Apparently absent in Chris Wallace's show preparation was the fact that the UN IPCC's "95%" claim is nothing more than guesswork and has no statistical basis whatsoever. Even Reuters news service recognized this in a 2013 article. Reuters explained that the UN IPCC’s 95% confidence of human causation of global warming was "based on a discussion among the authors," not a scientifically sound statistic. Lord Christopher Monckton called the 95% claim "no more scientific a process than a show of hands." "The IPCC’s pretense that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence," Monckton wrote in 2013.
To Cut' Climate Money', First GOP Must Find Where Obama Stashed It
'Obama aides spread money across the government to elude cuts'
Goal was to make 'programs hard to disentangle'
Obama 'integrated climate programs into everything the federal government did'
Bloomberg News Features Climate Depot: "The Trump Administration needs to defund the entire apparatus of the climate change federal funding gravy train," said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "In order to dismantle the climate establishment, agencies and programs throughout the federal government need to be targeted."
"The climate funding has spread to almost every aspect of the federal government with sometimes wacky results," said Morano, who doubts global warming and runs the website climatedepot.com. He cited one example of a Department of Transportation query about the link between climate change and fatal car crashes.
Harvard Mag: These are all important questions—but even they ignore a central certainty that no one appears to be addressing: what Dan Schrag calls “climate change’s dirty little secret.” “Even if we could become carbon-neutral tomorrow,” says the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, “the climate will keep changing for thousands of years, the ice sheets will keep melting, and the seas will continue to rise.”
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "So now an allegedly esteemed Harvard professor admits that controlling the climate is futile. Are we supposed to be surprised at this 'secret' that climate skeptics have always known? Even the climate activists will now have to concede that the climate will not stop changing if we refuse to enact the UN Paris pact and the Green New Deal."
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, points out that “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor [CO2], is as misguided as it gets. It's scientific nonsense."