posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:28 PM
originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
The point is, Stephen Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist. He doesn't know anything more about anthropogenic climate change than any
other reasonably well-educated person on earth. And this particular claim is laughably alarmist.
It's not his speciality subject, but that's obvious. The point is that he is more likely than pretty much anyone else to have a better understanding
of the science involved in climate change modelling. Science is a way of thinking, which is common among the various scientific fields (hence being
named after the Latin word 'scienta' meaning 'knowledge').
I'm not sure what a good analogy might be, to illustrate what I'm driving at here. Perhaps a very rough version might be having the ability to read
music - which is common to all instruments alike - but only being able to play the trumpet. So you understand the sounds that should be produced by
(say) a violin, even if you can't actually pick up a violin and play it yourself.
Think of it this way. You have two competing contractors to build you a new house. Neither of them is a builder by profession. One is an architect and
the other is a plumber. Which one gets the job, and why?