Climate Clash: Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts Owns TV Physicist Brian Cox

Malcolm Roberts (Left, source One Nation Website), Brian Cox (Right), source Wikimedia

Malcolm Roberts (Left, source One Nation Website), Brian Cox (Right), source Wikimedia. By cellanrProf Brian Cox, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Despite a hostile audience and a panel stacked with climate advocates, One Nation Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts did a credible job of holding his own, when questioned about his climate skepticism.


My favourite Roberts quote at 4:02 in the excerpt:

I’m absolutely stunned that someone [Brian Cox] who is inspired by Richard Feynman, a fantastic scientist who believes in empirical evidence, is quoting Consensus.

Brian Cox attempted to embarrass Roberts with a copy an unnamed “Global Land Ocean Temperature” graph. Unfortunately for Cox, Roberts has expert knowledge of climate datasets. Roberts challenged the validity of the graph on the basis that it showed 1998 as being significantly cooler than 2015/16, and challenged Cox to provide details of the dataset, and the original unadjusted temperature records.

In my opinion Brian Cox came across as arrogant and unprepared – he obviously thought he would effortlessly trample Roberts with the help of some half baked assertions, an appeal to his authority as a “Physicist”, and a sympathetic audience. I doubt Cox will make the same mistake twice.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Poor old Brian – theatrically lingering on awe in aviator shades for loadsa (taxpayer’s) money while studiously swerving the big difficult unanswered questions and hand waving about dark matter / energy which are closer to his specialty than fiddled temperature records……
Mind you the BBC report the encounter a bit differently … – no surprise that eh?

Jay Hope

Mr Cox has a tendency to go in unprepared and is often thrown by the simplest of questions, frequently giving the impression that he doesn’t know as much as he pretends. For example, the classic moment when he argued with a student that E=mc2 was incorrect, a debate that appeared on youtube before it was swiftly removed. The link below illustrates another wonderful gaff by the esteemed prof where he makes a mistake so elementary that one of his first year students at Manchester uni (funny how he apparently only teaches first year) could have corrected him.


Cox is completely incompetent. He starts off with two graphs which means he must have selected and printed off “evidence” in preparation. He shows a temp. graph of the 20th c. and CO2 proxy what seems to cover at least the last four interglacials. He then says the question is : are they correlated?
He seems to be inspired by Al Gore’s “Convenient Untruth” which misleads about the correlation but Cox did not even produce graphs of similar periods to offer for comparison. He clearly does not have the first idea about the climate record or the meaning of the word correlation.
There is correlation on the scale of 100,000 years which his graph showed but it is not the one he wants to suggest. When Senator Roberts said that temperature caused CO2 rise Cox laughed, little realising his own ignorance.
However, it seems that sen. Roberts is relying too much on unpublished ideas of Murray Salsby and may be under the impression that recent CO2 rise can be explained by temperature rise. Though that is certainly partially true, it is a highly contentious idea that is a major component of recent CO2 rise and he would be better avoiding making that claim.
Sen. Roberts clearly knows a lot more about climate science than Cox does. One of the most informed opinions I have ever seen from a politician. Kudos.

M Seward

Just the fact he came to the show with the graph tells you there was some degree of setup. Q&A has form in this area so it was no surprise at all when John Cook got a prerecorded question in. Just another metric of the deliberate attempted stitch up.
This same show has serious form in the gutless ambush of any non PC guest. Itgot caught badly last year with a young “Islamist” nutter dribbledick who was invited on to set up a gotcha question when he had previously put some of the most disgusting, violent and sexist comments on his facebook/twitter record (I forget which). These included (pack?) rape of certain, named female journalists. Such is the ‘political correctness mobius strip at Q&A.
As it happens Senator Roberts has an honours degree in engineering (I assume mining or related) so he is hardly uninformed about temperature, data, issues of accuracy, mathematics, statistics, basic physics and chemistry etc.
And then we have TV boy Cox putting up his graph he just happened to have prepared beforehand, apparently the GISS set they ‘adjusted’ in the lead up to Paris. What a bloody joke.


Poor Coxie was taken out by friendly fire. The mathemetician Lily Serna let fly against people using and cherry picking numbers and graphs after Cox had done just that. Unfortunately Malcom missed the opportunity to sink the boot in, he was in a very difficult position, not dissimilar to an Orwellian barnyard meeting where every comment was greeted by baying and bleating.
Why Lily has not read the likes of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and their contributors is a statement of the depths of her zealotry. I believe she is one of those brains destined for wrapping in alfoil and dying in a bunk next to a Mars bar.


comment image

Fans of British cherries, take note – this year’s fruit is bigger and juicier.
The superb quality is down to a milder winter and wetter spring, so the cherries were left to grow on trees for longer, giving them a chance to become even sweeter than usual. These UK-grown cherries are plump with a wonderful glossy skin, and burst with juice as soon as you bite into them.

Love them cherries

Samuel C Cogar

@ Greg’s comment of:

and may be under the impression that recent CO2 rise can be explained by temperature rise.

That is a correct impression to be touting, …… just be sure to explain it is the “temperature of the ocean waters” that you are touting as the culprit responsible for the rising CO2.


Two points made by Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts are baffling:
1) There’s only consensus but where’s the evidence?
The consensus is that when climate scientists independently study the evidence, they agree with each other!
2) The graph of temperature against year doesn’t rise EVERY year.
It’s quite plausible that the graph will be spikey – that’s a very common observation in many natural systems. Just because we get less rain this year than last doesn’t mean it will always fall. However, if over several decades, there is a trend, we can see this despite of the year by year fluctuations.
Just suppose the climate scientists are wrong – the Earth will not suffer as a result. If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all. Why take such a massive risk?
There’s nothing wrong in having differing views provided you change them when the evidence is overwhelming.

Interesting that Cox initially describes his second graph as showing emissions, and then catches his mistake and changes it to concentrations.
I hadn’t watched this – it provides ample evidence as to why watching this show is a waste of time. The format is outnumber a dissenter and then ambush them; never let them follow up a point; allow the designated ambusher to talk over the top and then curtail any points that look like they might score.
M.Seward – thanks for identifying the graph. Dodgy as! As Roberts pointed out, it suppresses the 1998 temperature to elevate 2015. Do you have a link where a copy can be obtained?
I have no liking for Roberts (his politics are nationalist and isolationist), but he was calm and had the better of Cox – though cognitive dissonance was on display in responses to it. Cox seemed ignorant of key points, like the ‘warm champagne’ effect of warming oceans producing CO2.
And Pete at 11.13am:
‘Just suppose the climate scientists are wrong – the Earth will not suffer as a result. If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all. Why take such a massive risk?’
As an IPCC expert reviewer on ‘key vulnerabilities’, I would have to say that is about the most ridiculous comment I have read on this blog. Read some economics – eg Richard Tol, and understand how your prescription further impoverishes those currently poor for the benefit of future generations who will be several times more wealthy.

Pete you made a rather ridiculous statement, “If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all.
1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a “climate scientist”.
2. Then please produce the comprehensive survey of every such scientist that supports this position.

E=mc2 is incomplete, or a special case in a body’s inertial frame of reference, that is, its momentum is zero. As nothing in the universe is not moving, you could even argue it is not correct. Brian has a better understanding of the frame work and genisis of special and general relativity than any physics undergraduate I know. I’m not qualified to rate his knowledge higher.

Brian J in UK

Brian Cox is now a “media personality”. He does not do “science” any longer. He has been totally captured by the “media” and now makes his living doing TV documentaries – er – dumbed down documentaries, for the great unwashed. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and who butters it. He has to be a “consensusist” or he’ll be back to the lab at uni doing some real work. Who’d want that after being a major media darling with all the perks that come with that? I used to be a fan but IMHO he has totally sold out and I no longer watch his programmes or bother to read his quotes or his books. Typically ABC stacked the panel with AGW enthusiasts plus one person of dissenting view, as do all the rest of the media organisations with programmes of this kind.
Senator Roberts did well, doing what all of us of the “prove it to us with hard evidence” view must do – that is keep on challenging the AGW’ers to come up with the hard evidence that increasing CO2 is simultaneously causing the entire gas volume of the atmosphere and the entire liquid volume of all the oceans to warm up at a rate that is “unprecedented”.
Just for the record, it’s now mid August here in the North of England. We have just had our first decent summer day of hot sunny weather this year. Up to now it’s all been long sleeved jumper weather and we’ve had the central heating on several times recently – in mid-summer! No sign of GW here – would that there was. I was really fired up by the prospect of widespread grape growing and wine production in my native Yorkshire but unless we can make wine from Brussels Sprouts (a winter crop for the uninitiated) its fat chance!! We’d love a bit of GW up here but there’s absolutely no sign of it and my gardening friends are for the second time in two years crying in their – not warm – beer.

Jay Hope

‘he does not do science any longer’. Did he ever ‘do science’?


“Just for the record, it’s now mid August here in the North of England. We have just had our first decent summer day of hot sunny weather this year”
Its global warming Brian, not just round your house….
The temps in Alaska have been a new record this year; there’s a cyclone blowing over the arctic ice…

Stewart Pid

Griff once again picks a cherry and trots it out as proof of AGW.
How about these cherries Griff …. DMI temps in the arctic below or at the average almost the entire summer and now down below freezing much earlier than average?
Does it prove there is no AGW … certainly not but it puts your warmer than average in context of just weather vs climate. A big low pressure system in the arctic in August is mentioned for what reason? So you can scream the ice is melting if the low blows all the ice out of the arctic like in 2012.
Surely you can do better!


We’ve had a goodly streak of not too hot summer days here in North Central California, right when it usually gets very hot, most days , Griff . . you might want to factor that into your global assessment of weather/climate trends, but hey, it looks like a kinda hot spell is settling in, so don’t make too much of it just yet. Could catch a late season surge of global warming still, but so far we’ve been spared and then some, it seems.
Stay cool my friend ; )


On the other hand, according to Griff, the recent flooding in Louisiana is proof of global warming.
What a hypocrite.

Alan Robertson

Poor Griff, protests against an anecdote and then offers one as proof of his agenda. Time for you to switch to a new screen name Griff, as you’ve destroyed your own credibility with every post you’ve made.

David Smith

Its global warming Brian, not just round your house….
The temps in Alaska have been a new record this year;

Oh right, I didn’t realise it was just the temps around Alaskan houses that prove CAGW

Gerry, England

Brian, it has hardly been the all record breaking summer that the MetO will declare in the south-east either. The odd day of real heat but the rest feel average or given the way the heat drops off in the evening, below average. I have moved to a rural area now but I wasn’t exactly in surburbia before so I don’t think that has made the difference. Last summer was the same. And wind…on most sunny days there was a strong breeze that kept it cooler.

All that missing heat must have collected in Central Florida. It’s Hot, Hot, Hot down here.
Or up here for our Aussie friends.
Disclaimer: This should not be construed as an endorsement of AGW.


I’m not an alarmist but to be fair Brian J, the climate boffins have never said that increasing average global temperatures would result in warmer weather everywhere on the globe. I remember reading a while back that one possibility (underline possibility) was that the Gulf Stream could shift a few degrees resulting in GB and Northern Europe to become much colder rather than warmer due to climate change. Are they right? How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist. I’m just saying that scepticism is good but we can’t ask the alarmists for hard evidence and in the same breath make statements unsupported by facts or the public record (peace…just sayin’…)

Bill Treuren

I was under the impression that cherries were about due at or not long after the longest day!
Maybe the UK is cooling to generate a highly valuable late season crop that attracts a premium, climate change and the dividends.

I am replying to Aynsley K above. Do not misjudge Malcolm Roberts politics. Pauline Hanson was a late starter when the election was called. She looked around for honest persons who could assist and give some credibility. I suggest Malcolm joined so he could get his message about the truth of changes to climate and the need to be realistic about energy. If you look at the policy of One nation on science and energy it will be obvious that Malcolm had a large input if not writing the whole. He was hopeful that Pauline would get in and then be some influence in Parliament. I am sure he did not expect to be elected himself but with the interviews he has had on TV and Radio (all concerning science and energy) he has already achieved a great deal. Malcolm also has a Master of Business (MBA) from an respected US University. He will bring a lot of common sense to economic policy in Parliament. As an engineer he knows more about climate changes than any so-called climate scientist after all thermodynamics and heat transfer are engineering subjects and mining engineers have some background in geology., mathematics and statistics.
One Nation has a wide range of policies as below
Affordable Energy Solutions – Climate Change
Aged Pension Increase
Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development)
Apprenticeships Scheme
Asset Sales & Leasing
Citizens Initiated Referendum
Economics & Tax Policy
Family Law: Child Support Scheme
Firearms & Gun Control
Halal Certification
Home Ownership for young Australians
Ice Epidemic
Identity Proof – Taxpayer Funded Services
Illegal Immigrants & People Smugglers
Medicinal Cannabis
New Zealand Citizenship
Primary Industries
Product Labelling – Assisting Australians to Buy Aussie Made
University Students’ Allowance
Voting – Minimising Fraudulent Votes
Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development)
Asset Sales & Leasing
Apprenticeships Scheme
CSG Mining
Halal Certification
Nurses to be trained in Hospitals
Medicinal Cannabis
Politicians – Reductions
These policies will be refined, developed and expanded to help Malcolm be reelected in three years time

Nigel S

Yes, Minitrue fades it at exactly the critical moment, what a surprise!

George Tetley

Mr Cox,
I like your hat, my question to you is, what is inside?


ermagherd the Cox-lovers are going ballistic over at Gizmodo au site .. it’s a feeding frenzy of appeals to authority and inductionism trumping scientific principles.. I’ve always felt standing back from such an echo chamber is offering tacit approval, and their are genuine young readers there who could benefit from a perspective other than that of ‘the consensus’ but I’m ready to abandon them and admit defeat !

Ermahgerd, the Cox-lovers are going bonkers over at Gizmodo Aus – it’s a festival of appeals to authority, hero worship and inductionism trumping scientific reasoning. I know I shouldn’t step into the mud, but ignoring this sort of thing seems like providing tacit approval, especially when there are honest and decent young minds reading garbage justified by consensus and actually applauding the likes of CluelessCox . Unfortunately for every promotional opportunity they get, their influence grows and more young minds are sucked into the vortex of group think. I hope the likes of Cox live to truly comprehend the damage they’ve done and I hope he feels ashamed.

Richard Howes

Well, if it is in Gruniad, you know exact opposite is true.


Yes Eric and add to your comments that Malcolm Roberts has expertise in atmospheric gasses and Brian Cox does not.


Malcolm Roberts was the project leader for The Galileo Movement.

Yes TedM, Malcolm Roberts learned everything he knows about atmospheric gases from “Steve Goddard”. The blogger with the fake name who reject the physics of the greenhouse effect.

Ian W

He is in good company, ICAN standard atmosphere with wet and dry lapse rates was developed without any ‘greenhouse effect’. But then that atmosphere model is used for safety related calculations not for obtaining funding.


So do we assume ‘ceist8’ is on your birth certificate ??


Tony Heller categorically does not reject what you said he rejects.
Here is a post if his from last week.


1saveenergy makes a good point. You should really think before you type, otherwise, you might end up looking like a hypocrite.


“The blogger with the fake name who reject the physics of the greenhouse effect.”
Funny, I read that website just the other day and Tony was lambasting those who rejected CO2’s greenhouse effect.


Steve Goddard revealed his real name as Tony Heller some time ago and all his current posts are under that name. He also lambasts those who declare there is no greenhouse effect, he is not a sky dragonner. So your post is complete BS.

David Smith

who reject the physics of the greenhouse effect.

I think you meant to say, “while he doesn’t reject the physics of the greenhouse effect, he hasn’t signed up to the irrational hysteria of you, Griff, Mann, and co”

Ernest Bush

You might try searching through Steve Goddard’s (Tony Heller, not a secret name) site before making false assertions. He does in fact believe in the greenhouse effect and has argued until blue in the face about it with some of the commenters before dropping the subject last year for the second time. BTW, he was outed through attacks on his children by the kind of people you apparently like to hang with. Leftist scumbags.


“So do we assume ‘ceist8’ is on your birth certificate ??” – 1saveenergy
That is the funniest thing I’ve seen online today!

Bill Treuren

is that even an effect and if so without reverting to Authority show us all.

Brett Keane

August 16, 2016 at 2:56 am: ceist8, so what are those physics?

But Brian Cox dresses up like Paul MccArtney so that changes everything. Doesn’t it?

Mark T

He’s a paid shill. Of course he’ll make the same mistake again. Just like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he’s more TV personality than scientist.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson… There is another Wonk. The guy with no concept of scientific history, no concept of the scientific method, and with a limited grasp of the current state of science. Oh, and a True Believer in CAGW (never mind the facts).

Patrick MJD

I did not see the show not a fan of Q & A due to their bias in all subjects esp climate change. It is all over the alarmist mead here in Aus and comments are I would say 90% alarmist. Cox should go back to playing rock music.

Alan the Brit

No! Please!


Brian Cox is not the sharpest too in the box and often shows his ignorance of science when asked in public? He is just typically, a poor BBC presenter who gets his job because the BBC management thinks they are watchable!
As a physicist, I think Brian Cox is just an embarrassment.

He is only an experimental particle physicist, not a theorist, and has probably never written even one paper without hundreds of co-authors. It would be very easy for a good-looking guy with little brain to get to where he is now at.
Anyway, what is sure is that he lacks integrity, being a TV celeb does not give you carte blanche to spout about things outside your field of expertise.


He is not the only physicist who thinks that he because he has a PhD, he is wise in all matters physics. I ran across one a few years ago who taught at a small college and was ready to get into a big argument with me about “global warming” at a cocktail party. He was also a particle physicist but he though knew more about climate because he had a PhD.

Paul Morgan

[snip policy violation -mod]

Mark - Helsinki

He’s actually an entertainer, he doesn’t have a particle physics day job and does not thing to advance the field, as mumbo jumbo as it is

One thing I have noticed 20 years after graduating with a degree in Physics with Astrophysics from a top UK University and working in IT for nigh on 17 years is that an awful lot of Testers I have worked with are a helluva lot smarter than most of the Graduates and Professors I encountered at Uni. Cox is a fine example of how you can become a professor in a hard science with very limited intellectual capacity and absolutely no idea about what science actually is. His performance in this debate is nothing short of gob-smackingly dumb. I never understand why no one, confronted with any of the mickey mouse graphs that these idiots show doesn’t ask them about the missing error bars. One of the most fundamental things drummed in to us at Uni was the importance of capturing errors and displaying them clearly on all graphs, no matter how trivial. The fact that the temperature anomalies year on year are an order of magnitude less than the error margins in the measurements themselves would surely give even the dumbest fanatic pause to think…though I know the IQ levels among those at these type of debates is depressingly low.

Carbon BIgfoot



The ABC had a link to the transcript of the program on its webpage but has since removed it.
In the transcript Brian Cox clearly refers to an increase in tropical cyclone frequency.
Oh dear Brian..
While a small point it suggests that he did not do his homework and even the esteemed Brian Cox was relying on opinion rather than facts.
This is one of the points that Malcolm Roberts was trying to make………that opinion rather than fact is being used to support arguments.
97% anybody ?


He also guffawed when Sen. Roberts pointed out that the climate record has been adjusted multiple times to cool the past and warm the recent record. This is undeniable fact.
Cox’s riposte is that this is the same NASA which managed to land on the moon. WTF ?? So they did something very impressive about half a century ago and thus everything they have done since is beyond question.
The man is a total fool, and has forgotten whatever scientific principals he ever learnt.


But, heck, he’s a TV personality now, not a scientist. He’ll probably be wearing a silly now tie soon.

Alan Robertson

The space exploration side of NASA still accomplishes remarkable feats, such as the Mars landings and the ongoing Hubble project. The political face of NASA is typical of what one has come to expect from a bureaucracy. When the politicians get the upper hand, spectacular failings are the consequence.

Patrick B

Not expecting Sen. Roberts to know this, but a better response to Cox’s “land on the moon” comment would be to point out seven of the Apollo astronauts and a number of the Apollo engineers still alive issued a letter to NASA complaining about it’s support for an unproved climate model. Sen. Roberts could have told him “no, it’s not the same NASA.”

Mike the Morlock

Anyone who is handed the NASA appeal to authority routine, may choose the respond with the observation that NASA’s Astronauts are reduced to hitch-hiking rides from the Russians, due to their funding being diverted and misappropriated.
As a Yankee this stings, but it puts things in perspective


I pointed out the letter at Jo Nova’s site … had Cox responded with “But are they climate experts?” Roberts could have applied the coup de grace “Are you sir?” Check and mate.


That would be scientific “principles”, Greg. Otherwise, good point.

Alan Ranger

And NASA’s JPL is today as far removed from that hijacked sheltered workshop GISS as the Earth is from the Moon! NASA is gleaning enormous funds to “research” what makes the Earth’s climate tick, while GISS similarly soaks up public money to say that this very same science is “settled”. WTF indeed!

John of Cloverdale WA Australia

I guess Cox didn’t know that 49 former NASA scientists (including 2 ex directors), and 7 former Apollo astronauts, sent a letter, in 2012, to NASA’s Head Administrator, Charles Bolden, disputing NASA’s view, that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while ignoring empirical evidence which calls the hypothesis into question. They added that NASA relied too much on questionable climate models in predicting future climate.

Greg @ 1:18 am I tried to absorb the whole vid but that one really stood out, as a kid I watched the whole Apollo project and it’s undeniable success. For Cox to “lean” on that 60 year old history ( I doubt he was even born yet) to justify AGW made me sick, the graphs he threw across the table like a petulant child to try and “make his point” was a insult ! ( I am going to have a hard time falling asleep because of an angry mood) but I really hope the children in the audience review the evening , oh forget it they are to self fring satisfied.

If that was an ‘adjusted’ GISS graph Cox was waving about, labelled as surface temperatures, Roberts should have countered by asking why a NASA agency was preferring surface readings and sea surface proxies to satellite data – the only true global data measured in the same manner everywhere.


Not expecting Sen. Roberts to know this, but a better response to Cox’s “land on the moon” comment would be to point out seven of the Apollo astronauts and a number of the Apollo engineers still alive issued a letter to NASA complaining about it’s support for an unproved climate model. Sen. Roberts could have told him “no, it’s not the same NASA.”

Rotfl. Another point. It is the astronauts that landed on the Moon, rather than the rare people who support the faked Moon landing conspiracy.

Solomon Green

The man is not a fool. He is a very mediocre scientist but one who realised that the way to get on is to use the techniques which he learnt as a pop performer to further his career in academia. Pop stars depend on mass followers and the only way to get a mass audience in TV today is to support all the views, not just the climate consensus views, espoused by the left of centre robots who dominate that section of the media world.


also VERY notable is the fact they had a collection against Malcolm Roberts
and refuse outright to ever get other scientists in Aus who DO hold sceptical views
ie Ian plimer would have been an ideal support
but ABC refuses to give him ANY airtime at all ever.


That hardly even counts as doing homework. If he does not even know that tropical storm frequency is down, then he is a complete joke.

a happy little debunker

Greg, sorry to advise that 2 Weeks ago that Their ABC announced that they would no longer be providing transcripts from most of their shows. Save for the primary current affairs interviews. They have not removed any transcript – they had no intention of putting it up.

@GregK well the transcript is there now ..Here’s a screenshot

After Brian waffles on we get

MALCOLM ROBERTS: That is correct but you have to base it on empirical evidence.
TONY JONES: Just before you come in, Malcolm, I’m going to interrupt because I want to hear from the Science Minister

Actually he transcript shows that actually Malcolm is then not let back in to say something more

Michael J. Dunn

There’s a problem with all this that the older generation really has the responsibility to address. I will give an example.
I am over 65 years old and I have lived for some 62 years in the same place, the Puget Sound area of the state of Washington. I have seen weather and know what to expect. With the exception of the Urban Heat Island effect making slight changes due to population growth–nothing has changed! And even when I was a child, I could notice in wintertime that the temperature in my home town was not so cold as the temperature out in the rural areas of the county. It was an easily generalized observation.
So, if anyone was to peddle the CAGW claptrap to me, I would ask them if they have seen it in their life, because I sure haven’t seen it in mine. When will we assert that lifelong experience trumps any bogus graph-making? (I recall August weather in the 70s, in my college years, when the temperatures were in the 90s and we were all stupefied by the warmth. Now, it is not so bad…but the month is not over.)
To be sure, this argument is reserved for those who can stand higher than their opponent, age-wise–but there should be plenty of us, and age does not mean our wits and tongue are dull.


Not the way it is being reported here especially by the warmists. They say Cox had no answer to the graphs. The ABC of course with their warmist stacked panel are immensely proud of themselves but as usual their pack attack could not best Roberts, who also happens to be a Senator now. He has called for an inquiry into the CSIRO warming division and openly called it a scam.
Notice how Jones the compere comes in to save Cox at about 5.38 onwards


Brian Cox may be intelligent but he’s not as good as he thinks he is. Anyone who relies on “consensus” as an argument is a fool.
The fact that CO2 is good and some other pollutants are problematic needs to be discussed.

Philip Schaeffer

Yet when presented with the evidence, he waves it all away because NASA are manipulating the figures to show warming when there isn’t any, and warming actually stopped in 1995, apparently…. At least Cox pointed people to the academy of sciences report on climate change, and encouraged them to read it, acknowledging that a a short adversarial format like Q&A doesn’t allow for an in depth look at the actual science.
Roberts simply dismisses all the evidence as manipulated, and dismisses the consensus as meaningless.
I mean, are we all suppose to become experts in climate change so that we never have to rely on the consensus of experts?


I am not sure Malcolm Roberts did well at all. When Brian Cox showed that graph, he (Roberts) missed the opportunity to ask him if he had seen the raw data graph and Hansen and Lambs graphs etc. He also missed the opportunity to show or refer to other global data sets like satellite temps. I know it was a biased panel and audience, but in my opinion he did not get his message across clearly and was made to look a fool at times to the uninformed watcher. Also referring to Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) in any debate immediately opens you up to ridicule because he has been easily shown to be wrong on many issues and is also stubbornly refuses to admit his mistakes.

Jay Hope

I agree, pbweather. He missed a lot of opportunities, and could have been better prepared.

Laws of Nature

Me too would agree to that.. it is not only the matter what was said (and what was missing), but how it was received by the audience.. does anybody here really things that Roberts drove the point of the changing trend over the years for different GISS versions home to that laughing audience?
There are always moments in such debates were you wonder, if a specific point would have make a difference…
For example asking this mathematician if a change of the reference period generate a new trend in the temperature data (it does and differently for the different sets, the choice of reference period is arbitrary)
Or making the point, that a spike in temperature like we had end 2015 and beginning of 2016 contradicts the models sharply, which basically minimize the natural contribution.
Last not least the correlation in the latest scenarios, that the more alarming the scenario is, the worst it correlates with the recent real temperature trends


Yes. If Roberts’ wants to retain his credibility he probably needs to rehearse two or three deadly points that are easily understood and not vulnerable to easy rhetoric. He might also be armed with two or three deadly questions with which to return fire. For example ‘Do you know how the 97% figure was derived?’ Put the ball back in their court with only one way for them to hit it. Experimentation will determine the best questions, and the best deadly points. Political games are not won by immense knowledge, but by hammering particular points of vulnerability, and not letting your opponent talk about anything else. He might also slip in references to JoNova and WUWT, etc., to give viewers somewhere to get extra info.

richard verney

We all make mistakes, but Steve Goddard has also highlighted many interesting and relevant points.

Robert from oz

Criticism of Malcolm is a bit lame , I wonder how you guys would fare given the same circumstances eg hostile stacked audience and panel .
Give him a break as its his like only that will help expose the CAGW fraud .

J. Camp

I noticed that also. But against the overwhelming stacked audience and panel, he didn’t have a lot of opertunities to get his point across. I am always amazed at the agw crowd at their solution to a problem that isn’t provable. Extreme amounts of money and wasted time to attempt to control a miniscule trace gas that they believe is the most dangerous challenge humanity has today. It has been much higher in the past and yet here we are.

“Also referring to Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) in any debate immediately opens you up to ridicule because he has been easily shown to be wrong on many issues and is also stubbornly refuses to admit his mistakes.”
Yes. Imagine this.
you have two skeptics.
Skeptic number 1, has worked tirelessly for years to make an important scientific point
about micro site bias. he has collected data, and has actually PUBLISHED his results , code and data. he uses his real name.
Skeptic number 2. Never publishes. Makes wild claims about all the data being manipulated. Was banished from this site for refusing to admit a clear mistake. uses a fake name.
Which skeptic does the guy quote?
The fake named guy of course.
Here is a clue for you guys.
When we did our temperature reconstruction we also did a version where we used NO DATA that
NASA GISS uses.. none zip zero.. we only used stations that are NOT USED by NASA.
Guess what?
Same answer
The bottom line is this.
1. Anthony Watts has a clear defensible scientific hypothesis about Bias in the records
That is a hypothesis he can test and publish about. Its a claim we can all discuss without
insulting people or questioning peoples honesty.
2. Goddard has a smear that he repeats over an over again. Its a smear that is not open to
falsification or verification. he claims NASA corrupts all the data. So we use NON NASA data and get the same answer. Does this change anyones mind? Nope.. they have to believe someone is cooking
the numbers.
So there you have it.. One skeptic trying to actually do science and a second just peddling conspiracy theories. Who do you think gets the ink? And to make matters worse, folks in the science community
will continue to associate these two skeptics. Sorry but that’s life..
I would make an analogy to radical forms of religion… but you all understand the point already.


I’m a bit confused.
So, it doesn’t matter what data is used … different data in & same output (or “answer”, as you phrased it).
What was the question, and what was the answer that you were looking for?

What the significance of Tony Heller using a “fake name”? How does using a nom de plume affect the credibility of a writer or invalidate their work? There is a long tradition of not publishing academic work critical of establishment dogma under one’s real name that goes back at least as far as Copernicus. Should his heliocentric theory be consigned to the dustbin because it was published anonymously?

Fake name? That argument is about 2 years out of date. Everyone knows Steve Goddard is Tony Heller because he stated this himself:

“Fake name? That argument is about 2 years out of date. Everyone knows Steve Goddard is Tony Heller because he stated this himself:”
Tell Malcom, he is the one appealing to the authority of goddard.
here is a clue.
NASA doesnt adjust data.. they ingest NOAA data.

Amazing, Mosher actually learned how to respond to a comment.
Why is it surprising that a politician would use Heller’s pseudonym, which is also the name of his blog?


That pretty well sums up debates, i.e. missed opportunities and hit and run verbal tactics with deflections. It might as well be another planet compared to how science process works in methodical process and error checking.

Mike the Morlock

Not just that but on the subject of data manipulation he should have inquired if the Cox’s graph was based on the “Carl manipulation’s and is he (Cox) aware that there are U.S. Congressional investigations on going of both NASA and NOAA form their part in the altering on the temperature record.

Brett Keane

August 16, 2016 at 12:31 am: Steve Goddard is worth a truckload of those who slander him. But the chihuahua attacks you refer to are proof he is on target….


Brett, I have first hand knowledge of Tony Heller’s inaccuracies and stubborn refusal to admit error as does Anthony. He once posted on twitter an old WW2 picture of a pacific island and compared it to a recent one claiming that the island had grown not shrunk as per science and media claims. I proved to him that the photo’s he posted on twitter were of two different islands and he did not post a retraction or admit error, but just went silent. It may be that some of his claims are true or warrant further investigations but until he stops putting out blatant BS claims and when called out on them never admits his error then no one will take him seriously.

Cox’s TV special output has gotten increasingly fey and filled with lame gimmicks with each new series. Unless he starts to do his homework and offer up verifiable evidence he’s toast….

Chris Hanley

I’m at a loss, why would displaying this …
… prompt wild delighted shrieks and applause from members of the audience, presumably those who believe that the planet is headed for a climate catastrophe?
Are there any psychiatrists tuned in?

Tim Hammond

That is the strangest thing about Alarmism – surely any sensible, unbiased person wants the claims to be wrong?
It has always amazed me that the Alarmists spend so much time trying to prove they are right rather than wrong. It’s almost as if they want us to have to change our economies and societies…

Philip Schaeffer

Nah, it’s just that you have failed to understand why they were applauding. In the age of people like Trump, people have become sick and tired of ideological warriors who spew bile and write off the opinion of experts as being a big conspiracy. We’ve seen how things have gone in the US and want none of it.

Philip Schaeffer

I mean, really, in a short show like Q&A how much detail can you get into beyond pointing to the consensus of the experts, and noting that the guy who disagrees with them gets his information from people like Goddard.


Yes, this perverse attitude shows that they are not primarily concerned about what happens to “the planet”. It is more important to them to be right. Only once they have been proven right and the world has been forces bow down and accept whatever they say we should do, would they consider LESS climate “catastrophe” as good thing.
In the meantime they will applaud as much melting ice, fictitious temperature records and rising sea levels as they can get their hands on. This is why it is a growth industry.


MASSIVE trend difference..
Get over it.

Which of course flies directly in the face of what Feynman said in his Caltech address about how a scientist with integrity should behave.

It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

I like to quote it back to all ‘climate scientists’. I suspect many of them actually don’t know who Richard Feynman was…..


GISS is very much NOT real.comment image


Why did you offset both data sets by the same amount? This makes each set refer to a different base period and so is bound to distort their relationship. Also, you need to offset the trends by the same margins as the data, otherwise you get further distortion.
As explained in the WfTs notes, you need to offset each data set to the same ‘base period’; not by the same value. For instance, to offset both to the 1981-2010 base period you need to calculate the average anomaly in each set for the period 1981-2010 then deduct this from the respective data set. This will of course result in a different value for each data set.
In the case of GISS, the current 1981-2010 average is 0.43, so you enter -0.43 in the ‘offset’ box. For RSS the 1981-2010 average is 0.10; so enter -0.10 as the offset. Both data sets are now correctly aligned to the same base. Now add the same offsets to each respective trend.
A fair comparison between GISS and RSS since 1998 then looks like this:


It’s anamalies, so what’s the difference? The point Andy was making is just the same. GISS is rising far faster than the satellite record. That said, they are not measuring the same thing.
The main thing is that GISS have been rigged by “correcting” daytime SST using NMAT which is scientifically unjustified and blatant manipulation.


“Why did you offset both data sets by the same amount?”
I didn’t.
I offset GISS and its linear trend to the same starting point.
Trouble understanding?
Cannot see that that the trend Gavin has created is FAR, FAR greater than reality?
Oh dear..
Back to primary school for you.


“It’s anamalies, so what’s the difference?”
There are substantial differences between the representation Andy shows and the chart that compares the two on a like-for-like basis. For example, in Andy’s chart RSS is shown as being below GISS since the peak in 1998. In fact, as the like-for-like chart shows, RSS was warmer than GISS for a large part of the early 2000s and it responded with greater warming than GISS during the 2010 El Nino.
At a monthly level RSS responded equally as strongly as GISS to the latest El Nino, beating its previous monthly record in 1998 (not obvious from the smoothed data):


Re: “Why did you offset both data sets by the same amount?”
“I didn’t. I offset GISS and its linear trend to the same starting point. Trouble understanding?”
Okay, my mistake. But why did you offset GISS and not RSS? How did you arrive at the figure of -0.25 for GISS? Which base period did you use and why did you not apply that same base period and offset to RSS? If you don’t use a like-for-like offset you will still end up with distorted data.
All the surface data sets show statistically significant warming since 1998. The trend in GISS is similar to those in the other surface producers: +0.17 C/dec (HadCRUT is +0.13; NOAA is +0.16).
So the disagreement isn’t between GISS and RSS, it’s between satellite measurements of the lower troposphere and surface measurements.


MASSIVE trend difference.. Get over it.

Philip Schaeffer

Possibly because people in Australia have respect for our scientific experts, and are sick of hearing them get slagged off by someone who thinks they are all part of a corrupt conspiracy, and instead listens to someone with real credibility, like Goddard!


Just the usual lefty crowd who cheer anytime they think they have won a point in a debate. Doesn’t matter if it black being called white.


Chris Hanley
That’s not the chart Cox showed. The chart you show is out of date, stopping at 2014, even though the annual GISS data now extends to 2015. Adding 2015 makes a substantial difference both to the annual data and 5-year smooth:
Why did you use a chart that ends a year early, by the way?


So even more “adjustments” on the one Cox showed.
Thanks for the verification. 🙂
You really are not very good at this, are you.. 🙂


“So even more “adjustments” on the one Cox showed.”
If by adjustments you mean up-do-date data rather than data that’s a year out of date, then yes.
“You really are not very good at this, are you.. :-)”
You mean not very good at spotting people who post out of date data sets? 🙂


The incredible thing is that a ‘scientist’ such as Cox would misrepresent something so thoroughly. I like him he presents science so well, but on this issue – incredibly disappointing. He made the most basic error of representing ‘anomaly’ as temperature. The senator could really have blown him apart with that one but was unable to see the graph clearly from where he was sitting especially when it was thrown on the floor. Such bad science and when the woman on the left started with I want to appeal to the young people in the audience and waffled on about her visit to the beach – I just think this is hopeless.
I cant have a conversation with my children over it as they think I dont know what I am talking about – they have all had 15 years+ of brain washing and will not even discuss the possibility – I am wrong and they are right – all the scientists say so. Talk about conspiracy – it would be much more relevant to ask Cox if the sun goes round the earth as his knowledge on the subject bears resemblance to the orthodoxy of the Inquisition of that time.
Brian Cox jumps on the blinkered climate non science bandwagon – what a shame.

@mwh, I have the same problem, my “kids” now in their mid 30’s are exactly the same . I can’t get a word in edge ways.
” they have all had 15 years+ of brain washing and will not even discuss the possibility – I am wrong and they are right – all the scientists say so”
That statement they make? It nearly every time sends me over the edge and always my last question is : CAN”T you think for YOURSELVES?.

Criticial thinking is something that takes years to acquire.In today’s world I feel sorry for the youth. Few of them have time to take off their earphones and stop staring mindlessly at their portable gadgets to actually bother to think about something and begin to question it. This is one of the reasons the corruption we see in modern science across the board, not just in Climate Science, has been able to flourish and grow. The feminisation of our society has also had a big role to play. It’s no coinicidence it was the dumb bint who introduced the ludicrous anecdotal evidence about going to the beach… makes you weep.


The most interesting thing about that (dodgy) chart is the climate period that came just before it… The Little Ice Age…

Tom in Florida

So we have an anomaly graph that does not show the baseline period. What good is that?


That Hockey Stick graph makes it look like the Alarmists are winning the argument. That’s why they shriek.
The whole purpose for creating the Hockey Stick graph was to make it look like the temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and hotter over decades. And it does. It is a false representation of reality, but it does the job for the Alarmists.


‘…wild delighted shrieks and applause from members of the audience…’
Not quite ‘rent a crowd’ but not far removed.

Sane, reasonable people want something to be done, like what happened with acid rain, or ozone depletion or any other example of politicians following the advice of respected science.
Deniers, carbon shills all, are blocking action on the greatest danger faced by humanity. Of course we cheer when one is put back in his place.
You really don’t get that?

All Malcolm had to ask when cox held up that graph was – what is the change in temperature from the starting point to the end? I cannot tell you how many people see this graph and miss the decimal point on the vertical axis, thinking the increase is +8-10 degrees.


I think you will find they were laughing at the stupidity of a man who goes on national television and says the 1940’s were warmer than today.

Malcom Roberts was brave and had some good info. As his point about CET. He lacked a good graph to show it.
Where he was utterly destroyed was when he tried to use Steve Goddard’s nonsense. It is absolutely irrelevant whether NASA corrected the USA temperatures. There is no way you can win a debate based on a NASA conspiracy. No way. Goddard is doing great damage to skeptics. You can see it all the time.
Brian Cox was useful. It is easy to show he was consciously lying.


Damage to skeptics?
By de.ostrati g how the temperature records are being altered with no justification?
By proving that they have manipulated the historical data so that the temperature record matches the CO2 graph?
Tony works tirelessly to expose the warmista fraud.
We should all do so much damage.


” It is absolutely irrelevant whether NASA corrected the USA temperatures. There is no way you can win a debate based on a NASA conspiracy. ”
Roberts should have brought some big blowup copies of the Climategate emails with him. Ask Cox to explain them. Let’s see if the audience laughs then.

You know after climategate I got emails from right wing think tanks in Washington DC asking me
if I could help them Switch the storyline of climategate to be about NOAA instead of CRU.
I explained to them that there was nothing about the NOAA temperature adjustments in the emails.
I suppose releasing those emails from skeptics asking me to help them smear NOAA would
be quite embarassing….
too funny that they thought I ws a skeptic merely because i wrote about climategate..

Steven Mosher, I doubt very much that you have any such email from skeptics asking you to switch stories and smear NOAA. You would have happily “embarrassed” such skeptics well before now if that were so.


“You know after climategate I got emails from right wing think tanks…”
No you didn’t.
Before Climategate, nobody had even heard of you, and outside a couple of blogs, not many have since.
Stop making stuff up.

Tony Heller is literally scaring the willies out of the alarmists. And at the same time, he’s making Anthony look very moderate and reasonable and grown-up by comparison. I see this as a win-win situation for both these muckrakers and a clear benefit for the skeptic cause.

NOAA adjusts the data….. jesus christ at least get the conspirators right

Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
“Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. [NASA] GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.


Lying about what. Tell me one lye to told?

charles nelson

The Warmists here are squealing like little piggies right now!


And the D team Arn’t?

Mark - Helsinki

I used to respect Brian Cox, but given that video’s contexts, he’s just another dG Tyson, TV scientist who produces nothing. Of course I have little respect for his field, particle physics, much mumbo jumbo non science.
Cox knows tho.. that to even cast doubt would see his bookings dry up, he’s an entertainer now, not a scientist


Cox knows tho.. that to even cast doubt would see his bookings dry up, he’s an entertainer now, not a scientist

However, he does look like he actually believes all the CAGW hype, though he clearly has made no effort to look into the science of climate. He is astoundingly ignorant of the basics. He probably get most of his ideas from The Guardian.


10-4. I too thought of NdGT.

Jay Hope

I don’t think Cox knows anything at all. He’s just a mouthpiece, IMO. He might as well be an actor, just repeating someone else’s stupid lines without giving it much thought. I feel sorry for his first year students at Manchester.

Cox is not too bothered about the words put into his mouth by the scriptwriters of his TV epics – that’s for certain. They even fade him out when he actually gets onto arithmetic 🙂
Loadsa money courtesy of TV Tax and BBC Enterprises theft does lead to an inflated self regard. I wonder if Brian is self funding on his mission down under? – I doubt it.

Mark - Helsinki

Has anyone ever seen such a stacked debate, literally it was everyone vs 1 guy, and none of them made even one coherent factual argument. I would love to debate Cox but as of yet he hides on twitter, refusing to back even one of his claims. ROFL

Alan Ranger

@Mark – Helsinki
“Has anyone ever seen such a stacked debate, literally it was everyone vs 1 guy, and none of them made even one coherent factual argument.”
Yes – any Monday night just tune into Q&A. Same “format” every week!

Roberts did well to call out Cox’s ‘moon trick’ smear tactic.


I was wondering when this would be addressed on here. I woke up this morning to the usual trumpeting about how a skeptic got ‘schooled’ and made a laughing stock in national TV, including folks suggesting he didn’t believe in the moon landings because he mentioned NASA fudges data. I can’t watch Q&A for the health of my television, but I’m glad to see there is a counter-narrative here. I imagine it would be very difficult to debate on national TV, and climate science is a wide ranging topic.
Oh and also, at the end of the write up on the ABC’s website, they couldn’t leave out the fact that Roberts has worked for a coal company. Conspiracy is only one-sided, apparently.


8 years ago

Jimmy Haigh

Cox, like that de Grasse bloke, has an inflated opinion of his own intelligence and importance.

charles nelson

charles nelson

Nu Labour (Tony Bliar’s party) used this as their election Theme Tune…
You literally couldn’t make this s*it up!


Brian Cox, the grin with village idiot attached –
Loud, flashy, repetitious, low skill level, no substantive content;
both musically & scientifically

Ivor Ward

I think Mr Roberts should have pointed out that the graph spans 120 years but only 1 1/2 degrees and that it started at the end of a period well known as the little ice age. Half the increase occurred before the IPCC says that our emissions were harmful. Even though it is patently obvious that the 1930’s have been artificially cooled you cannot dent the zealots with a claim that their information is wrong as that has been sent down from on high by the Great Lord Gore and the archangel Hansen. When you directly challenge their numbers even after they have “adjusted” them it leaves them with nowhere to go.

fundamental weaknesses in the AGW argument exposed for all to see. all we have to do is insist on empirical evidence.
go malcolm


I have sent a copy of  to Cox and Monbiot with a £10 bet that they can find nothing in it that is incorrect. So far after several years I have had no response. Mick Greenhough
From: Watts Up With That? To: Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2016, 8:01 Subject: [New post] Climate Clash: Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts Owns TV Physicist Brian Cox #yiv9147545447 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv9147545447 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv9147545447 a.yiv9147545447primaryactionlink:link, #yiv9147545447 a.yiv9147545447primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv9147545447 a.yiv9147545447primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv9147545447 a.yiv9147545447primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv9147545447 | Eric Worrall posted: “Guest essay by Eric WorrallDespite a hostile audience and a panel stacked with climate advocates, One Nation Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts did a credible job of holding his own, when questioned about his climate skepticism.https://www.youtub” | |

Poor Senator. Up against a panel and audience of brainwashed dogmatist. To cap it all the sheer rude, interrupting, shouting-down ignorance of the tv buffoon Cox. Roberts kept his good humour through the ordeal-by-stupid extraordinarily well.

Agreed. Lilly was exceptionally poor as well. Only a true believe could be so condescending to somebody better qualified to comment than herself. As for the “think of the children” woman and the government minister, all I can say is that I pray for sense and reason.


I find it so weird that anyone would say “I pray for sense and reason”. That is an oxymoron in itself

Not so Katjuska. Wanting sense and reason to prevail over ignorance and superstition is entirely a matter of faith. It is entirely the same as believing in the power of the scientific method to reveal truths about the universe..

Her arguments sadly are so typical of those warmist zealots. She overwhelmed the audience with anecdotes and emotion, but not a bit of empirical data. I would certainly like to know how she determined that the Pacific islands that she visited were sinking. Cox discussed the huge increase in tropical cyclones, which simply does not exist. Cox also stated that the model hindcasts work well, but failed to mention that such hindcasting accuracy comes at the expense of annual tuning, without which they would fail and after which, their forecasting still does not work.

Both Lilly and Cox are well trained to play an audience, they both make me ill. The dishonesty is appalling! The “For the kids” argument was especially disgusting!


What a sophomoric show. I would have expected such a show to delve into the key issues of climate change. Instead, the panel and the audience spent their time bullying and heckling. Their minds are made up. No room for science there.
I wish Feynman were alive to witness that. He might have enough clout to get some air time with the MSM and fry that bunch of numbskulls.


“Instead, the panel and the audience spent their time bullying and heckling”
A bit like the audience here then.

Also Cox seems to be operating under the delusion that James Hansen landed men on the moon. Always thought that Cox was an idiot – much like his tv colleague Lawrence Krauss – and both of them reveal their deep and abiding lack of any real scientific understanding outside of their chosen specialisations. The pair of them are buttock-clenchingly embarrassing ambassadors of physics and will in the course of time be buried without trace.


as will we all

Cox ignored the references to Dr Feynman.

“Cox ignored the references to Dr Feynman.”
Rightly so. Appealing to Feyman isnt science.

chaamjamal says: no evidence that changes in atmos or oceanic CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions
I have studied your papers and find your approach is interesting because the rationale is similar to that for cointegration in econometrics. The conclusions are also similar. However, your approach is easier to understand and apply.
Based on an econometric technique called polynomial cointegration analysis an Israeli group concluded, “We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”
Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012

Jamal Munshi,
For the nth time: the relationship between two variables in cumulative values may be spurious, but detrending does remove any real cause and effect if there is little variability in one variable and a lot of variability in the other one, while both show an increasing trend and variability is only small around a huge trend…
SImply add two independent trends together: a slope without variability and a sinusoid without a trend. The sum of both is a sinusoid with a trend. If you detrend the result, there is obvious no correlation between the sinusoid and the trend which caused the trend in the sum of both…

Panels like this always make the embarrassing error of believing that our planet was at ‘optimum climate’ in the 18th century. Not long ago, Cox would have proudly held up Mann’s graph – now one of the most discredited artefacts in science.
Cox, as if we didn’t know, is a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside. The methodology used to collect the evidence he produces, the analysis of the evidence or the conclusions are not important to him. He chooses his props from a target righ environment to confirm his political bias.
Genuine science bows to no authority, Brian, and it is not based on consensus; that’s the job of politics. Advances in science are not made by consensus: advances are made by the brave paddling upstream. If a theory does not agree with validated evidence, then the theory must abandoned and reconstructed. If the predictions, projections, scenarios, or whatever you want to call them are wrong, the science is wrong. It’s scepticism that underpins science, not the cosy comfort of consensus.
The house of climate cards will eventually collapse, but until then, the world’s poorest people – the ones Cox and his ilk claim to champion – will be denied life saving energy and continue to die in their millions. If Cox wasn’t a watermelon, he would be celebrating the lack of climate sensitivity. But his is. So he won’t.
It’s high time these people were publicly challenged to a series of live expertly moderated global televised debates. If the science is settled, and if CAGW is the deepest threat to our planet, they should welcome it, but it will ever happen. They has far too much to lose.

“Genuine science bows to no authority” So Malcom’s appeal to steve goddard failed in your eyes?
good argument..

About time someone brought down this Mancunian twerp!


You see the mess the bedwetters get themselves into when they try to debate with someone who has half an idea what they are talking about?
Mann and Schmitt are right: you should NEVER debate with sceptics, a very dangerous practice.

tony mcleod

It’s like playing chess with a pigeon, he’s just going to shit on the board then strut around like he won.


You are right. He had half an idea…. but he needed more I think. He was made to look out of his depth in anyones book.

Senator Roberts missed an opportunity to point out that correlation is not causation when Professor Cox held up the two graphs. He should have hammered on the point that the Central England data set from the late 1600s shows faster warming than the most recent, and that the period from 1910 to 1940 had warming just as fast, both obviously without human influence. If those periods can demonstrate natural warming at that rate, why should we assume that increased CO2 is causing this current warming?
I don’t believe that point can be made too often or emphasized too much. The Senator asked for empirical evidence that human influence was causing the warming, and Cox only showed evidence of the warming. He should have called attention to that point immediately. When Cox showed the plateau on the chart that was the recent pre-El Nino pause and got his big laugh from the audience, Senator Roberts should have pointed out that during that pause (whose existence Cox did not deny) CO2 continued to rise unabated, yet temps did not rise correspondingly, and why was that?
Most of the alarmists’ creed now presumes the cause of the warming and emphasizes the warming alone. We need to keep dragging them back to make them provide evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming, which is impossible to do when all of the world’s historical temperature records are taken into account.




I’m afraid Cox let becoming a ‘media personality’ go to his head. It probably went to his bank balance too you see.
There’s money to be made as a ‘science personality’ now. It’s a fine balance between being scientifically rigorous and intelligible to the general public.
I”m not sure how much money there is to be made being a Physics Professor and a climate skeptic, however.
Nothing like dissing your colleagues’ funding streams for making you unpopular in academe, the Royal Society and other places of scientific old-boys-clubbery…….


Wasn’t that second graph with the HUUUUGE CO2 spike shown by Brian Cox from Gervis et al? How can that piece of junk be held up as ‘evidence’ of anything?


It’s also nothing short of astonishing that Brian Cox (and people of his ilk) are ‘unaware’ of alleged data manipulations and adjustments that completely skew the debate.


I’m increasingly of the opinion that they’re not “unaware” of the alleged (or actual) data manipulations, nor of the fallacy of the “97% consensus” (consensus for goodness sake, from supposed scientists!!!! I can barely credit that Cox actually referred to Cook on that, it’s headshakingly stupid and ignorant!) It’s the 21st century, we have this internet thingy now, the information is all over the place, there’s no excuse. They do know, yet still they pedal the lies. The only question is – Why? I’d like them to answer that one, truthfully.

I don’t know the source but the scale of his CO2 graph and his temperature graph were massively different. Had his temperature graph been on the same scale the history of ice ages on geological time scale would have been evident and Cox’s point lost.

Malcolm Roberts appealed to the blog “Steve Goddard” as his authority. Nuff said.

Matt Smith

Roberts came over as a fcuktard nutjob. Like most of the pathetic fat american middle aged males on this blog 🙂

Alan Robertson

Hey Matt, looked in the mirror, lately?

J. Camp

I know it’s not advised to feed the troll, but I’m guessing Matt just used up his daily allotment of critical thinking brain cells. Why do the trolls with nothing to say think posting their stupidity for all to see will impress. And where are the young people that used to distrust the government? The world is backwards.


Anger management seems to be in order.


Mr. Smith,
Will you elaborate as to why you use “tard” as an insult?


So if you teach mentally challenged children, and one of them is late for are you a allowed to call them a little tardy ?

Life of Brian (Cox)
Man in audience : I think it was, “Blessed are the model-makers”!
Man’s wife: What’s so special about the model-makers?
Man: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manipulator of climate data.
Chair: [reading prepared statement] “We, the People’s Front of Climate Alarm, brackets, official, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom. ”
Brian: [holds up a graph]
Chair: “Your testimony will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the planet from the hands of the capitalist aggressors, including those concerned with energy, medicine, roads, housing, education, agriculture, transportation and any other capitalists contributing to the welfare of humans of both sexes and hermaphrodites…”
Brian: [holds up second graph] “I am the Climate Messiah!”
Green Panellist: “Yes, you are the Climate Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few”.
Brian: [to the audience] “Look, you’ve got to follow the model! The model has spoken and you should surrender all free thought to the model! You’ve got to stop thinking for yourselves! You’re not individuals!”
Audience: [applauding and howling in unison] “We’re not individuals!”
Brian: “You’re all slaves to the model! The model has spoken!”
Crowd: [in unison] “Yes, we are all slaves to the model!”
Man on panel: “I’m not…”
Crowd: [howls of laughter] “Heretic!! Stone him!!”


So when the esteemed Senator comes up with allegations that Nasa faked the data in the interview and when you hear that asked earlier this month if he still believed the UN was trying to impose a worldwide government through climate change policy, Mr Roberts answered: “Definitely”, people still give this man credibility?
It is not good enough to take one bit of this confrontation and claim Cox got taken to the cleaners without addressing the credibility of someone who is alleging fraud and advancing conspiracy theory…


well the UN IS trying to get a one world government
and they admit it clearly..and climate is the most recent excuse used
priorly they have used a range of others.
so Griff..maybe YOU better reread their agenda

do you deny that NASA has been adjusting the datasets remorselessly upward ? – and without supplying the rigorous methodology for that adjustment? I mean really…. have you looked at what has been indisputably done and the explanations proffered ??
It is very instructive to look at the treatment (or rather lack thereof) of OCO-2 CO2 mapping from NASA whilst they simultaneously are still pushing the model simulations that OCO-2 shows to be fantasy?
Prof Cox is actually not doing himself any favors by indulging in this sort of advocacy – it’s like a dentist or a podiatrist holding forth on brain surgery. Perhaps he can do some programs on particle physics?

NOAA does the adjustments.
not NASA.
ding dongs..


So have you read what Mosher just wrote? Nasa don’t adjust the data. Hello… Are you there? So it appears that was another thing Roberts made up/got wrong/didn’t know.

Yawn, all Malcolm had to do was ask Cox if the data was adjusted. Most people are unaware any adjustments have been made.

Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
“Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. [NASA] GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.


the UN was trying to impose a worldwide government through climate change policy

Not the UN, but some people in a high position inside the UN have been openly doing that.


I loved the clip. Cox just doesn’t know does he?


Doesn’t know what. That he is talking to a guy who makes stuff up? I think he does, which is why he looked so incredulous.

Jeffrey Hall

Ummm..any of you have advance degrees in science?

Ernest Bush

Stupid question. There are a lot of PHD’s commenting on this website on both sides of the debate. Many more just choose to read the articles and comments without commenting. It is the expertise shown here that causes it to be one of the most heavily trafficked science sites on the internet.


Not me, but I did look at the NASA web site and they have a chart that shows how much they distort, sorry, adjust the temperature readings they get that just happens to make things look warmer now and cooler in the past.

Too FUnny
A) that is NOAA…… NOAA… Not hansen… Not NASA… NOAA. look at your fricking LINK
B) That is USHCN version 1…. version 1…
2. This data ( version 1) isnt even USED BY ANYONE

Was I watching the same show?
Malcolm insists on data which Brian patiently explained to him is the basis for the consensus which Malcom insists is 0.3 % being hidden by the global
conspiracy which includes
On top of this is his repeated assertion that a cabal of prominent banking families (wink , wink ) is behind it all.
And you seriously think he owned Brian ?

No Fred. I don’t think you were watching the same show. The rest of us were watching the show in the video linked at the top of the article.


@fredcehak, is the data adjusted or not? If it is, Brian Cox didn’t even understand the basics.


The data is not adjusted by Nasa.

Actually NASA GISS does make adjustments.
“Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. [NASA] GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.

David S

Irrelevant of the data the misleading graphs still don’t explain to me why a 1.5 degree increase in temperature in 100 years is a problem. Even on a steady weather day the temperature ranges between 4-6 degrees as a minimum. I just can’t believe there are people gullible enough to believe that a rise of 1.5 degrees is the pointer to a global disaster. The dishonest and deceitful way that warmists argue is actually quite embarrassing.

J. Camp

Does anyone have a graph of temperature highs and lows for… lets say the last hundred years that shows the trend line? I would be interested to see how that looked compared to the very short graph only showing a couple of degrees on the top. I would guess it wouldn’t look all that scary. All the talk is about the hot side and historically over time the temperature goes up and down. It is so obviously a political issue.

Jeannette Fine

According to Yahoo News, Cox did very well. It’s just that [SNIP] like Roberts refuse to believe facts.

The link to Gavin Schmidt’s Twitter feed getting all righteous about his team being accused of fraud is priceless. I do not believe that I ever said that the GISS team was committing fraud. I did not hear Roberts saying that either. I do know that James Hansen adjusted temperatures so that older temperatures were cooler and later temperatures were warmer. He did this more than once. The problem is not only that he adjusted temperatures, but also that he over wrote the earlier data with the adjusted data. Whether this is fraud or not is something a court would need to decide. I never saw any scientific proof by Hansen or his team that justified their adjustments. I saw excuses and rationalizations for the adjustments, but no scientific proof.

“I do know that James Hansen adjusted temperatures so that older temperatures were cooler and later temperatures were warmer.”
err no he didnt
get the code. I did.
Hansen does not adjust the temperatures.
He IMPORTS data from NOAA.. NOAA adjusted data.
ding dong


Cox was not owned at all. Cox got emotional betraying his rather irrational attachment rather than a rational, objective scientific position. Cox showed ignorance on a number of issues.
Malcom Roberts did a good job toward the end making the attribution case which Cox did not have an answer to apart from some arm waving. But that was about it. When people treat scientists as priests of the truth you end up with what happened in the clip; everything Malcom said could be dismissed.
Personally, Maclom could have taken him apart:
1) In terms of the records he should have made the case about adjustments for temperature pollution from things like UHI effect (a structural error that cannot be solved statistically).
2) He should also have highlighted the divergence between the global records and that NASA is the outlier.
3) He could have also highlighted Cox’s poor skills as a scientists when interpreting data. The ice-core to modern day record mixes data with different resolutions so you get aliasing in the palaeo-record (and smoothing) so that peaks like the modern day are lost.

There is a saying among barristers that there are always three sets of submissions, the one you planned to make, the one you made, and the one you should have made. The third set is always the best.

Problem is- he looked like he knew, and played it perfectly to his crowd. That audience wasn’t interested in any other point of view and Cox was playing to the home team. I don’t agree with Mr Worrall that Roberts ‘owned’ Cox. I think Cox won- unfortunately.

It depends on how you measure winning and losing. Cox won the propaganda. Roberts won the science.


It was a political show. It isn’t about science neither is AGW. AGW is a political movement more than anything Cox just didn’t like the fact that a lowly layperson would not take has word as Gospel.

Yes CD, but have a look at what you say immediately below which to my mind is what I wrote above in different words.


Forrest I don’t think he won the argument on scientific grounds but then neither did Cox. It just left doubt in Cox’s credibility which was the reason he reacted as he did – he did not like his “authority” being questioned.

Sure CD. I call that winning the science. YMMV.


“Cox won the propaganda. ”
Don’t be too sure.
The points Malcolm made about NASA “adjustments” and UN one world government are being aired around the world.


Agree almost entirely but I think Malcom did do enough to leave some doubt, in at least some of the more rational in the audience, as to Cox’s authority in this area.


well, duh- it was no debate.
it was an auto da fe.
there is no debate. there is a tar baby. engage and be quagmired.
the correct response to all of it is FOF.

He didn’t win anything because he talked like a goofball pushing tortured claims without scientific merit.


A couple of years back a fellow Hi Fi fan, mate of mine emailed me to say that Brian ‘pretty boy’ Cox was also a hi-fi nut and had just tweeted boasting about his valve amplifier. I re tweeted Mr Cox pointing out that he was a well known AGW protagonist and he should know that although valves do have a very sweet lush sound they also burn up most of their wattage in serious amounts of wasted heat. I also pointed out that ironically as a sceptic I couldn’t justify the waste . He pathetically tweeted back saying that he only used renewable electricity sources of the national grid.Yeah right Brian.
Okay a small thing , but it does sum up the hypocrisy of these people. Brian ‘pretty boy’ Cox is the pin-up of the BBC and they send him on the BBC tax income AKA a licence fee, to all four corners of the globe . Cox himself is such a believer in catastrophic climate change that he prepared to fly anywhere in the world to get the message across that human caused C02 needs to be stopped. Have these people no shame?

Have these people no shame? I’ve seen no evidence of any shame.


There’s an awful lot of ad hominem butt-hurt on this thread to be honest…

General P. Malaise

“consensus” is one of the trigger words of progressives and liars …well I see that I repeated myself.

It is interesting to see their Australian Broadcasting Corporation trumpeting how Cox triumphed. The announcement of great victories for the cause is all that propaganda requires.
I thought that given the limited opportunities afforded to Roberts he did pretty well. It’s hard to make a point when constantly being interrupted and denied the opportunity to respond to questions put to him. There was never a chance that he could correct THAT much stupidity and groupthink in one go.
More than anything the moral of the story is that science will prevail in the end but not until the alarmists and opportunists have had their way with it.


He was too polite. Tony Jones (the “host”) is well known for his interruptions -so much so that one Aussie blog has a game every week called “interruption lotto” where people who frequent the blog site guess on the number of interruptions for that week’s show that Jones will make. Usually in the order of 50-100 interruptions.
It’s only ever the conservatives who get interrupted, and usually as they are about to make a salient point. Jones has it down to a fine art.

gosh … now that is a shock….not.
It takes a special skill to deal with that sort of thing – I always enjoyed the presence of satirist PJ O’Rourke on the BBC since he loosened the bowels of goons like Jones and usually skewers them neatly and leaves them speechless 🙂
Sad to say the tactic is now to give (quarantine?) O’Rourke his own program when he wanders across the pond….


@ 2.46 min Brian Cox says “absolute consensus” !!
: absolute = total, complete, supreme :
The Cupid Stunt.
Cox is a legend in his own mind.
I would say Cox is a d!ckhead…but that would be unkind…so I won’t. (:-))


Unfortunately I do not share your assessment. I think that even though Cox and the rest of the panel and audience were extremely rude, Roberts came off second best.
Roberts needs some media training, urgently.
He was far too polite, and of course the ABC (global warming groupthink central) let Cox ramble on for half the show, whilst Roberts only got in a few words here and there.
Roberts needs to recognise that this battle has to be fought without claims that NASA has fudged the data, even if they have.
Take along your own charts, Malcolm, showing the unadjusted temperature data, the sea level and the model temp predictions.
Explain how the ice cores can not capture spikes in CO2 due to diffusion in the firn.
Explain the heat island effect, the siting problems with temperature stations in urban areas and at airports.
Explain how CO2 is a poorly mixed gas and how the highest concentrations are above non industrialised areas.
Use simple historical examples: for example Hannibal invaded Italy by taking elephants over passes in the Alps now covered by glaciers. Vine street in London is named because…
Defend your own qualifications. As a mining engineer, I studied physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics, earth sciences, and computer modelling at university level and apply them in my working life every day. As did you I presume. These disciplines are at the core of climate science, which is a multidisciplinary field.
Finally, give up on the stuff about corrupted data. It may be true, but it is inadmissible in the court of public opinion. Focus on the correct data sets. Get the warmists to explain why RSS and weather balloon data is wrong. Get the warmists to explain why the Central England temp data is wrong. Get them to explain why your evidence is wrong.


Agree totally he definitely needs some media training. He may have an important message to get across, but he did not do it here on the QandA. He needs to drop radical ideas like “humans have not caused CO2 rises” and references to dodgy Steve Goddard claims etc. Also back up claims with graphs like Cox did.
I suspect Brian Cox has never looked at any climate observation data at all, but rather just repeats the consensus mantra from his fellow model loving academics. I also suspect many other scientists take climate scientists opinions as gospel without checking the data. Why would they? They have their own research to do and if the consensus around the research centre coffee table or conferences is all about AGW being true and dangerous, then why check? In fact they are probably afraid to check for fear of stepping on a colleagues toes. I am sadly one of those who just listen to others opinions around that coffee table or conferences without checking any of the claims, but now I have. I find it astonishing some of the claims being made without any solid observed evidence to back it up. Not all mind you. Some of the science is sound, but there is a hell of a lot that is flakey as hell.


No I noted that Roberts was allowed to ramble when he was caught off-guard and cut short when he was making good points. I think Cox didn’t cover himself in glory though. He did sound like he was waffling at times – that can’t be good for his image as a serious scientist. Cox’s arguments were mantra-like. The other guests only offered platitudes.


Yes, and expect only to be allowed one or two spaces of just a few seconds to make the killing points, and expect to be shut down. Media training essential. Roberts may be an engineer, and thus broadly, a person of science, but he is against rhetoricians who have no regard for science. He needs to learn the methods of their craft so that he is doubly armed – with science plus the art of argument – while they have only the art of argument.