Posted on 07/28/2011 4:01:05 PM PDT by kathsua
Hawking is a theoretical physicist. When he talks about climate change he’s as smart as Al Gore.
Well, like Jackie Chan he does his own stunts.
Can’t think of one good thing that Hawking has done. He’s self serving.
Hawking is a militant atheist rube.
Hawking probably thinks the Polar bears are dying off, too, rather than thriving....oh wait, isn’t there an actual scienticist who studies these bears in a bit of trouble about that....can any of these people be trusted for anything?
He is brilliant at what he knows, theoretical physics (and of course all the sub categories that build to that). Like many people, when you step out of your area of expertise, your knowledge is really a reflection of who you learned from. Statements of his on things like the climate or theology are based on his belief not his education.
In other words, if you need to know the structure of subatomic particles and how they interact with other particles, or if you need to know the full mathematical equations for what happens when a star goes nova, he is your man. If you need to know how a 1/10th degree change in temperature changes the blooming of the yellow-snot corn flower, he is only as knowledgeable as the sources he cites.
Science is “the new hotness”. Even your shampoo is now “scientifically formulated”. Any craptacular field of study is now called a “science” - most are not. Climate, for example, is not exactly subject to the scientific method because we don't have a “control” Earth that we could use for an actual scientific study.
Second point....
Expertise in one field of study doesn't necessary carry over into other fields of study, but the narrower the field of study the more likely the expert is to think it does.
Considering the field of expertise Hawking is in, only another physicist would be competent to assess if he is “overrated” or not.
Hawking's support for the global warming myth raises doubts about his knowledge of physics.This isn't a news flash -- he's been in that camp, or following it, for a good while now.
I know nothing about Hawking but when people fawn all over people in wheelchairs, I get suspicious. I guess I’m just not a nice person!
Like most British scientists, he fits into the crackpot category.
So then greenhouses DON’T heat up and get hotter than the surrounding air temperature? Because they sure do.
I know this says they don’t do it by trapping infrared radiation, but certainly the greenhouse inside is heated by the sun, and the heat energy stays within the glass structure (to a greater degree than if it were in the open air) and the greenhouse gets a lot hotter inside.
I believe reference to the “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor for what the glass does around a greenhouse.
Further, if the author wants to prove Hawking is wrong on global warming that’s one thing.
For the author to assume this must mean Hawking is wrong or mediocre on theoretical physics, without the author understanding theoretical physics at least as well as Hawking, is unfounded.
He’s self serving.
Agree. (many)People in wheel chairs are afforded creedence where none is deserved. Had a camp counselor at Boy Scout camp who reminds me of Hawking. The guy was an arrogant know-it-all who actually knew very little. We tangled - I lost. “He’s in a wheel chair fa crisakes...”
Whattya gonna do
Response: Probably, when compared to Maxwell, Thompson, Cavendish, Fermi etc. But the real issue, as always in 2011, outrageous utterances draw attention, sells soap and thus increases sales.
Stephen is a flaming liberal. He suffers the same disease of all liberals, political correctness. Hawking has even taken the leftist approach to his own Physics, when, after he and Roger Penrose came up with mathematical support for a sigularity at the beginning of our universe, he bowed to the leftist demands to not support anything which might even remotely lend credulity to the Genesis account of creation. I lost respect for Hawking a long time ago.
1. Just because real greenhouses don't primarily work on the basis of the greenhouse effect doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect is not a real phenomenon.
2. The R.W. Wood experiment is not a test of the greenhouse effect.
3. Undoubtedly experimental science has considerably advanced in the last 102 years.
One-trick pony?
Thats hilarious !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.