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, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30982875

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.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
429 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 16, 2016 12:16 am

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
Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 12:43 am

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.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/brian-cox-and-lunar-phases.html

Greg
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 1:09 am

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
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 1:55 am

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.

Broadie
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 3:27 am

Greg
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.

EricHa
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 7:49 am

comment image
https://www.tescoplc.com/news/blog/topics/bumper-british-cherry-crop/

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
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 8:39 am

@ 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.

Pete
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 11:13 am

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.

Reply to  Jay Hope
August 17, 2016 1:47 am

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.

Reply to  Jay Hope
August 18, 2016 4:52 am

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.

Reply to  Jay Hope
August 18, 2016 1:43 pm

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
Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 1:15 am

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
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 1:41 am

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

Griff
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 2:16 am

“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
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 3:08 am

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?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
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!

JohnKnight
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 4:22 am

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 ; )

MarkW
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 6:37 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 6:38 am

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
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 10:23 am

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
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 1:35 pm

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.

Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 16, 2016 8:35 pm

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.

Ken
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 17, 2016 12:24 am

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
Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 17, 2016 12:33 am

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.

Reply to  Brian J in UK
August 17, 2016 5:48 am

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
FEDERAL
Affordable Energy Solutions – Climate Change
Aged Pension Increase
Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development)
Apprenticeships Scheme
Asset Sales & Leasing
Citizens Initiated Referendum
Economics & Tax Policy
Employment
Euthanasia
Family Law: Child Support Scheme
Firearms & Gun Control
Halal Certification
Home Ownership for young Australians
Housing
Ice Epidemic
Identity Proof – Taxpayer Funded Services
Illegal Immigrants & People Smugglers
Immigration
Islam
Manufacturing
Medicinal Cannabis
Multiculturalism
New Zealand Citizenship
Primary Industries
Product Labelling – Assisting Australians to Buy Aussie Made
University Students’ Allowance
Voting – Minimising Fraudulent Votes
Water
STATE
Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development)
Asset Sales & Leasing
Apprenticeships Scheme
CSG Mining
Halal Certification
Housing
Nurses to be trained in Hospitals
Medicinal Cannabis
Politicians – Reductions
Water
These policies will be refined, developed and expanded to help Malcolm be reelected in three years time

Nigel S
Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 4:57 am

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

George Tetley
Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 7:41 am

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

Karlos51
Reply to  George Tetley
August 17, 2016 9:45 am

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 !

Reply to  George Tetley
August 17, 2016 10:02 am

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
Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 12:11 pm
Hlaford
Reply to  Richard Howes
August 17, 2016 3:47 pm

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

TedM
August 16, 2016 12:16 am

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

Jack
Reply to  TedM
August 16, 2016 12:48 am

Malcolm Roberts was the project leader for The Galileo Movement. http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

Reply to  TedM
August 16, 2016 2:56 am

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
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 3:23 am

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.

1saveenergy
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 3:52 am

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

Menicholas
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 5:18 am

Tony Heller categorically does not reject what you said he rejects.
Here is a post if his from last week.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/microwave-oven-deniers/

Vince
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 6:24 am

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

TA
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 8:20 am

“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.

oeman50
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 8:38 am

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
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 10:27 am

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
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 1:17 pm

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.

mschillingxl
Reply to  ceist8
August 16, 2016 1:26 pm

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

Bill Treuren
Reply to  ceist8
August 17, 2016 12:35 am

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

Brett Keane
Reply to  ceist8
August 17, 2016 12:50 am

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

Reply to  TedM
August 19, 2016 11:31 am

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

Mark T
August 16, 2016 12:18 am

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.

Reply to  Mark T
August 16, 2016 9:04 am

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
August 16, 2016 12:19 am

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
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 16, 2016 8:49 am

No! Please!

John
August 16, 2016 12:19 am

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.

climanrecon
Reply to  John
August 16, 2016 5:27 am

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.

oeman50
Reply to  climanrecon
August 16, 2016 8:44 am

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
Reply to  climanrecon
August 16, 2016 2:52 pm

[snip policy violation -mod]

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  climanrecon
August 16, 2016 11:40 pm

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

Reply to  climanrecon
August 19, 2016 11:16 am

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
Reply to  John
August 17, 2016 10:48 am

NO HE’S THE IDIOT SON OF BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY!!

GregK
August 16, 2016 12:24 am

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.
However..
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
and
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/
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 ?

Greg
Reply to  GregK
August 16, 2016 1:18 am

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.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 1:20 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 6:24 am

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
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 8:34 am

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.” http://business.financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 10:58 am

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
michael

Bulldust
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 5:35 pm

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.

Graham
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 6:47 pm

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

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 7:41 pm

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
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 7:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 12:03 am

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 fr.ng 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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 2:44 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 4:04 am

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
Reply to  Greg
August 18, 2016 10:56 am

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  GregK
August 16, 2016 5:05 am

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.

Resourceguy
Reply to  GregK
August 16, 2016 8:34 am

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
Reply to  GregK
August 16, 2016 11:14 am

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.

Reply to  GregK
August 16, 2016 1:48 pm

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

Reply to  stewgreen
August 16, 2016 1:55 pm

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
Reply to  stewgreen
August 17, 2016 3:14 pm

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.

Jack
August 16, 2016 12:26 am

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

Sudz
August 16, 2016 12:27 am

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
August 16, 2016 12:30 am

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?

pbweather
August 16, 2016 12:31 am

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
Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 1:44 am

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

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 5:15 am

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

Mark
Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 9:22 pm

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
Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 2:59 am

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

Robert from oz
Reply to  richard verney
August 19, 2016 3:54 pm

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
Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 7:43 am

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.

Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 8:10 am

“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.

DonM
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 16, 2016 2:33 pm

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?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 16, 2016 5:08 pm

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?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 16, 2016 5:09 pm

Fake name? That argument is about 2 years out of date. Everyone knows Steve Goddard is Tony Heller because he stated this himself: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 16, 2016 8:47 pm

“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.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 18, 2016 12:04 am

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?

Resourceguy
Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 8:37 am

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
Reply to  pbweather
August 16, 2016 11:09 am

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.
michael

Brett Keane
Reply to  pbweather
August 17, 2016 1:03 am

pbweather
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….

pbweather
Reply to  Brett Keane
August 17, 2016 3:01 am

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.

August 16, 2016 12:42 am

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
August 16, 2016 12:43 am

I’m at a loss, why would displaying this …
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
… 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
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 12:49 am

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
Reply to  Tim Hammond
August 16, 2016 1:03 am

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
Reply to  Tim Hammond
August 16, 2016 1:06 am

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.

Greg
Reply to  Tim Hammond
August 16, 2016 1:35 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Tim Hammond
August 16, 2016 10:38 am

MASSIVE trend difference..
Get over it.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
August 19, 2016 11:21 am

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…..

AndyG55
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 12:53 am

GISS is very much NOT real.comment image

DWR54
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 1:34 am

AndyG55
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: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.43/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/offset:-0.10/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/offset:-0.43/plot/rss/from:1998/trend:-0.10

Greg
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 1:40 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 2:23 am

“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.

DWR54
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 3:43 am

Greg
“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): http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.43/plot/rss/from:1998/offset:-0.10

DWR54
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 3:59 am

AndyG55
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.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 16, 2016 10:39 am

MASSIVE trend difference.. Get over it.
GISS is FUDGED. !

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 12:54 am

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!

Jack
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 1:09 am

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.

DWR54
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 1:16 am

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: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/to:2016/mean:60/plot/gistemp/to:2016/mean:12
Why did you use a chart that ends a year early, by the way?

AndyG55
Reply to  DWR54
August 16, 2016 2:25 am

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

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
August 16, 2016 4:01 am

“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? 🙂

mwh
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 2:49 am

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.

Reply to  mwh
August 17, 2016 12:22 am

@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?.
ARGHH!

Reply to  mwh
August 19, 2016 11:27 am

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…..it makes you weep.

wyzelli
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 3:41 am

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

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 4:53 am

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

TA
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 8:45 am

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.

ironicman
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2016 6:52 pm

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

Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 17, 2016 12:37 am

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?

Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 17, 2016 11:18 pm

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.

Simon
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 17, 2016 11:54 pm

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.

August 16, 2016 12:57 am

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  plazaeme
August 16, 2016 5:40 am

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.

TA
Reply to  plazaeme
August 16, 2016 8:49 am

” 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.

Reply to  TA
August 16, 2016 8:44 pm

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..

Reply to  TA
August 19, 2016 7:23 pm

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.

catweazle666
Reply to  TA
August 20, 2016 4:10 pm

“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.

Reply to  plazaeme
August 16, 2016 5:17 pm

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.

Reply to  plazaeme
August 16, 2016 8:40 pm

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

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 18, 2016 12:16 am

Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
“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.

Simon
Reply to  plazaeme
August 17, 2016 11:56 pm

Lying about what. Tell me one lye to told?

charles nelson
August 16, 2016 1:02 am

The Warmists here are squealing like little piggies right now!

Simon
Reply to  charles nelson
August 17, 2016 11:57 pm

And the D team Arn’t?

Mark - Helsinki
August 16, 2016 1:02 am

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

Greg
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 16, 2016 1:45 am

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

Exactly.
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.

Gamecock
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 16, 2016 4:15 am

10-4. I too thought of NdGT.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 16, 2016 8:31 am

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.

Reply to  Jay Hope
August 16, 2016 9:35 am

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
August 16, 2016 1:03 am

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
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 16, 2016 8:08 pm

– 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!

August 16, 2016 1:06 am

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

Voltron
August 16, 2016 1:09 am

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.

AP
Reply to  Voltron
August 16, 2016 4:58 am

8 years ago

Jimmy Haigh
August 16, 2016 1:10 am

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

charles nelson
August 16, 2016 1:12 am

charles nelson
Reply to  charles nelson
August 16, 2016 1:13 am

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

1saveenergy
Reply to  charles nelson
August 16, 2016 4:04 am

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

Ivor Ward
August 16, 2016 1:16 am

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.

August 16, 2016 1:17 am

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

mickgreenhough
August 16, 2016 1:19 am

I have sent a copy of  http://www.theeuroprobe.org/210/  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: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk 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 WordPress.com | 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” | |

August 16, 2016 1:27 am

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.

Katjuska
Reply to  cephus0
August 16, 2016 9:48 am

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

Reply to  cephus0
August 16, 2016 5:35 pm

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.

Ken
Reply to  cephus0
August 16, 2016 10:05 pm

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.

Simon
Reply to  Ken
August 17, 2016 11:58 pm

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

Reply to  cephus0
August 17, 2016 12:30 am

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!

August 16, 2016 1:32 am
August 16, 2016 1:33 am

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.

AP
Reply to  cephus0
August 16, 2016 4:51 am

as will we all

Reply to  cephus0
August 16, 2016 5:36 pm

Cox ignored the references to Dr Feynman.

Reply to  isthatright
August 17, 2016 8:20 am

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

Reply to  chaamjamal
August 16, 2016 3:26 am

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
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012-discussion.html

Reply to  chaamjamal
August 16, 2016 4:30 am

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…

August 16, 2016 1:43 am

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.

Reply to  DVan
August 16, 2016 8:37 pm

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

August 16, 2016 1:49 am

About time someone brought down this Mancunian twerp!

Greg
August 16, 2016 1:57 am

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
Reply to  Greg
August 16, 2016 5:30 am

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

Simon
Reply to  Greg
August 18, 2016 12:01 am

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.

August 16, 2016 2:16 am

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.

AP
Reply to  James Schrumpf
August 16, 2016 4:47 am

Agree

rtj1211
August 16, 2016 2:41 am

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…….

CheshireRed
August 16, 2016 2:42 am

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?

CheshireRed
Reply to  CheshireRed
August 16, 2016 2:46 am

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.

Bushkid
Reply to  CheshireRed
August 16, 2016 3:28 am

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.

August 16, 2016 2:46 am

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

Matt Smith
August 16, 2016 3:10 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Matt Smith
August 16, 2016 6:46 am

Hey Matt, looked in the mirror, lately?

J. Camp
Reply to  Matt Smith
August 16, 2016 8:07 am

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.

TA
Reply to  Matt Smith
August 16, 2016 8:57 am

Anger management seems to be in order.

DonM
Reply to  Matt Smith
August 16, 2016 2:56 pm

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

Fraizer
Reply to  DonM
August 16, 2016 7:50 pm

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

August 16, 2016 3:13 am

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!!”

Griff
August 16, 2016 3:19 am

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…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37091391

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Griff
August 16, 2016 5:23 am

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

Reply to  Griff
August 16, 2016 9:51 am

Griff
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?

Reply to  tomo
August 16, 2016 8:34 pm

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

Simon
Reply to  tomo
August 18, 2016 12:07 am

Tomo
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.

Reply to  tomo
August 18, 2016 12:12 am

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

Reply to  tomo
August 18, 2016 12:15 am

Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
“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.

Hugs
Reply to  Griff
August 17, 2016 4:08 am

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.

graphicconception
August 16, 2016 3:21 am

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

Simon
Reply to  graphicconception
August 18, 2016 12:08 am

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
August 16, 2016 3:24 am

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

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Jeffrey Hall
August 16, 2016 1:52 pm

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.

graphicconception
Reply to  Jeffrey Hall
August 17, 2016 5:09 am

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.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Reply to  graphicconception
August 17, 2016 8:18 am

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…
1) USHCN is NOT THE WORLD
2. This data ( version 1) isnt even USED BY ANYONE

August 16, 2016 3:34 am

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
NASA.
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 ?

co2islife
Reply to  fredcehak
August 17, 2016 5:59 am

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

Simon
Reply to  co2islife
August 18, 2016 12:11 am

The data is not adjusted by Nasa.

Reply to  co2islife
August 18, 2016 12:30 am

Actually NASA GISS does make adjustments.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
“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
August 16, 2016 3:38 am

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
Reply to  David S
August 16, 2016 9:01 am

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
August 16, 2016 3:41 am

According to Yahoo News, Cox did very well. It’s just that [SNIP] like Roberts refuse to believe facts.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/physicist-explaining-climate-change-skeptic-030641735.html?nhp=1

Reply to  Jeannette Fine
August 16, 2016 5:54 pm

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.

Reply to  isthatright
August 17, 2016 8:16 am

“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

cd
August 16, 2016 3:52 am

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.

August 16, 2016 3:57 am

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.

cd
Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 4:23 am

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.

cd
Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 4:25 am

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.

cd
Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 4:45 am

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.

gnomish
Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 6:27 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 10:56 am

“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.

Reply to  goddinho
August 16, 2016 9:05 pm

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

lawrence13
August 16, 2016 3:59 am

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?

mattski1967
August 16, 2016 4:02 am

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

General P. Malaise
August 16, 2016 4:08 am

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

1saveenergy
August 16, 2016 4:24 am

@ 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. (:-))

AP
August 16, 2016 4:26 am

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.

pbweather
Reply to  AP
August 16, 2016 4:48 am

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.

cd
Reply to  AP
August 16, 2016 4:52 am

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.

Mark
Reply to  AP
August 16, 2016 9:37 pm

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.

AP
August 16, 2016 4:33 am

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.

Reply to  AP
August 16, 2016 10:15 am

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….

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 16, 2016 4:43 am

I’ve had it with Cox. The hint at moonlanding denial was disgraceful. And his awe for “consensus” shows that he has lost the plot.

cd
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 16, 2016 4:49 am

I think Cox is of the notion that scientists must not be questioned. He reacted the way he did because Malcom Roberts challenged him, and Cox hadn’t scripted his thoughts for the rebuttals which could have been much stronger (see above comment) which would’ve floored Cox. I think Cox’s attribution point toward then nearly floored Cox who ended up arm waving and waffling around the point. In short, his evidence wasn’t evidence for what he purported it to be and he was caught on the bounce.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 16, 2016 8:32 pm

Huh. cox appealed to experts
malcom appealed to a fake named ding dong who was kicked off this site

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 17, 2016 8:13 am

“At what point in the video did Cox appeal to experts?”
Ding dong. he appealled to Goodard.. a non expert.
It was too funny
Cox appeals to Experts
Malcom cries, But Goddard says..
Even more funny he appealled to feyman, the sure sign you lost your marbles

August 16, 2016 5:11 am

It matters not that Cox and the panel may have “won” the debate, or that the audience laughed disparagingly at Malcolm. Nor does it matter, that most of the media will cast Malcolm as a denier (or possibly worse). But it does matter that Malcolm got his message out clearly and confidently on the national stage. That the debate is not over and that there is much to question. I am looking forward to seeing more and more of Malcolm Roberts pointing out that the “Emperor has no clothes”. There will be more and more people waking up in Australia and start questioning the AGW orthodoxy. Popcorn anyone?
As our Prime Minister said not that long ago, ” it’s an exciting time to be an Australian.” It certainly is Malcolm. It certainly is.
RGB

August 16, 2016 5:15 am

The models significantly diverge from the measured temperature. How can Cox have confidence they can be used to model 2050-2100? He just didn’t answer that basic question. And that’s only on a global scale. If climate change is going to be dangerous it will be dangerous locally. Is he seriously suggesting that a local climate 50-100 years hence can be modelled? That’s a disgrace. How could he have confidence in any mitigation plans being worthwhile?
He quoted temperature in the middle east as becoming more extreme, but that’s only because from
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=89
“The former highest official temperature on Earth, held for 90 years by ‘Aziziya, Libya, was de-certified by the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) in January 2012 as the record for the world’s highest surface temperature. (This temperature of 58 °C (136 °F), registered on 13 September 1922, is currently considered to have been a recorder’s error.”
Just one of many examples of “past records being cooled”.

David Harrington
August 16, 2016 5:20 am

What an absolutely infuriating 19 minutes that was, the group think and sheer f**ing stupidity on that panel was jaw dropping. Gob smacked and so disappointed with Brian Cox.

August 16, 2016 5:31 am

I started watching this–and was amazed that the “proof” of AGW, as offers by a physicist, is a rise in temps (via the recent El Nino.) But this is all about the culprit. Yes, temps have risen since 1850. But many of us would argue that it’s due to heightened solar activity. The physicist simply uses circular logic– does;t offer proof.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Steven Capozzola
August 16, 2016 6:51 am

” Yes, temps have risen since 1850. But many of us would argue that it’s due to heightened solar activity.”
—————————–
Many of us would ask you for proof of that statement. Good luck with that.

JohnH
Reply to  Steven Capozzola
August 16, 2016 8:20 am

One of the mistakes that skeptics often make is speculating about what has caused the rise in global temperature since the 19th century. It’s the same error, in the opposite direction, that alarmists make.
We don’t know all of the factors that influence global temperature, we haven’t begun to accurately quantify most of them, and we have no idea how they interact and influence each other. Pointing to CO2, solar activity, ocean currents, land use changes or clouds with a definitive assertion that any one of them can explain how Earth’s temperature changes is scientifically unsupportable. Skeptics are better served by pointing out that global temperatures began increasing for unknown reasons well before CO2 levels increased significantly. According to the IPCC, sea levels rose as fast or faster between 1920 and 1950 than they did from 1980-2010. Also, while Karl et al was cited by alarmists as “busting the pause”, the study also found that the rate of temperature increase from 1950-1999 was identical to the trend from 2000-2014 (1.1C/century). Skeptics don’t have to offer their own explanations for these facts. It’s enough to point out that inconsistencies in theory vs. observation disprove that theory, regardless of whether there’s a valid competing hypothesis that can be brought forward. Sometimes we learn that we just don’t know.

Reply to  JohnH
August 16, 2016 11:15 am

Thanks, John. Points well taken.

tony mcleod
August 16, 2016 5:45 am

I think a lot of it is because the global temperature is refusing to go down. Must be incredibly frustrating.
I wish they would, but they just aren’t.

ECB
August 16, 2016 6:14 am

I saw Cox win handsomely. This video confirms what the audience believes.. Ie, that consensus is the only way to judge the issue.
In the old days, the audience would have demanded “off with his head”. (Roberts)

Bob Kutz
August 16, 2016 6:15 am

Brian Cox is the just the new Bill Nye.
Since Bill went off the deep end and has proven to anybody paying attention that he a) doesn’t really ‘get’ the science and b) is in the bag for big climate, he’s no longer particularly useful in convincing people of the urgency.
So . . . bring in the next dupe; Brian Cox. (Or Neal DeGass Tysone, though he has shown some signs of having figured it out and heading for the exit.)
Want to read something indicative of the abject alarm, not over global warming, but that this cause has ‘jumpedf the shark’? Read Bill McKibben’s piece from yesterday. ‘The enemy has eaten up 20 bazillion square kilometers in the arctic, the western antarctic ice shelf is in total collapse, 3.5 degrees of warming by 2100, western drought, western wildfires, ZIKA!!! Run for your lives . . . ‘ Yes, his tone is just about that comical. He literally blames any and everything wrong in the world today on CAGW. Without any reference to evidence and some statements that defy logic, he tries to make the case that serious changes need to be forced on the world’s population, over their objections if need be.
These people are in a frenzied panic that is wholly unsupported by any scientific evidence.

JohnWho
August 16, 2016 6:24 am

The original question asked by a audience member, “is there a human element in climate change?” was never answered. Merely showing that the climate is changing is not proof of a buman element.
I believe most skeptics believe there is a human element in climate change and human CO2 emissions MAY be contributing somewhat to the element, but the amount of that contribution appears to be very small if discernable at all.
Showing that it warms somewhere or the sea level is rising somewhere or a hurricane forms somewhere (or even a Polar Bear does anything anywhere) is not proof that human CO2 emissions are the cause.
We here recognize the consensus, appeal to authority, and other misdirections, but I suspect many, including those in that audience, do not.

CheshireRed
Reply to  JohnWho
August 16, 2016 6:45 am

JohnWho – August 16, 2016 at 6:24 am
+1 John.
Just because something is happening (when is something NOT happening somewhere?!) doesn’t prove causation & correlation, nor does it automatically mean it’s human-caused, human-contributed or that a human fingerprint is even discernible – or prove that it will somehow only be ‘bad’.
It does reveal bias and propaganda, though.

Brian right
August 16, 2016 6:40 am

[snip -language, and generally just too stupid to print -mod]

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Brian right
August 16, 2016 10:09 am

Wow, what an amazingly cogent and rational argument. Give yourself a gold star. Now run along.

August 16, 2016 7:19 am

I hope old Coxie doesn’t become the last warmist in town.
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289&Itemid=2

August 16, 2016 7:22 am

Who do you think said the following: “I always regret it when knowledge becomes controversial. It’s clearly a bad thing, for knowledge to be controversial.” A severe man of the cloth, perhaps, keen to erect a forcefield around his way of thinking? A censorious academic rankled when anyone criticises his work? Actually, it was Brian Cox, Britain’s best-known scientist and the BBC’s go-to guy for wide-eyed documentaries about space.
Full article http://www.thegwpf.com/brian-cox-is-wrong-on-science-climate-controversies/

Marcus
August 16, 2016 7:23 am

…As I’ve said before, when the climate STOPS changing, THEN I’ll start worrying !

H.R.
August 16, 2016 7:41 am

@Eric Worrall
Was anyone watching the show? What was the viewing share?

observa
August 16, 2016 7:43 am

Malcolm was on a hiding to nothing given the venue and the media savvy of our budding new David Suzuki. Cox used all the same old appeals to emotion which suits the attention span of the Twittering classes. It was never going to be a rational discussion over scientific evidence but I’ll give the Senator credit for trying, but in future he needs to pick the battleground.
Given the brainwashing that goes on from the nursery through to tertiary education nowadays, I doubt we’ll ever win with rational science debate. Where we will win is with their policy prescriptions that lack scientific rigour and are doomed to fail, like wind power has in my State of South Australia and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They can’t even get a consensus on the recipe at COP knees-ups which is the most telling refutation of their new world order. That must frustrate the Hell out of them, that they can win the emotional debate but when it comes to implementing their policies, the emotion switches off completely for the punters. They’ll happily take solar feed-in subsidies and the like, but that’s as far as the emotional appeal stretches where any real sacrifice is concerned. Then it’s all hard nosed rational self interest with the odd feelgood Earth Hour tokenism. Appeals to emotion have their definite limits.

PJ
August 16, 2016 7:59 am

I disagree with the headline about Roberts “owning” Cox. Roberts was absolutely correct, and should have “owned” Cox, but clearly no one in the audience, or panel, saw that. You don’t own an argument if no one in the audience gets your point. Cox’ comeback with it being NASA, the group that lands people on the moon was typical.
No one was swayed by Roberts’ excellent points. No one in the audience or panel is indicating they are going to reconsider or re-evaluate their own convictions. The panel and audience gave no indication that they thought the responses made by Cox and others were insufficient to prove what Roberts had to say was false.
My concern with the skeptic approach is that they point out solid evidence that clearly refutes the nonsense put out by the CAGW group – but then pat themselves on the back for having disproven this CAGW nonsense and think it is time to move on. Clearly objective evidence is necessary, but much more needs to be done – we are dealing with a cult/dogma that ignores objective evidence, not embraces it. Further, they are bringing their dogma into our schools at young ages, etc. They know that the CAGW side will win by attrition in the next generation if the don’t convert everyone in this generation.

August 16, 2016 8:15 am

Celebrity scientists wheeled out by the T.V. are the same as the “news” presenters and “documentary” makers. IE, willing do whore themselves out to obtain that celebrity and have the right opinions for their paymasters. Anyone who gets a show on T.V. should be treated with the utmost suspicion by default and have to earn respect like anyone else. Cox demonstrated beautifully in this clip that he is no man of science, which is probably why he tried to be a pop star first.

Matt
August 16, 2016 8:17 am

I think I’ll put my money on the scientist….not the politician. To suggest that the latter knows more on this topic than the former is laughable.
For this politician to suggest that NASA has fiddled with climate change data is ludicrous .. if that’s not unfounded slanderous nonsense nothing is.
How dare he push his own political agenda on such an important topic.
His comment on nature being the greatest historical cause CO2 is true..
..it’s called the Permian Extinction.
Or did that not happen either??
#whatamoron

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Matt
August 16, 2016 9:53 am

I see that you signed your name at the bottom (whatamoron). Good for you.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Matt
August 16, 2016 1:05 pm

I see we have stepped on your area of worship. We have insulted your priests and your church, who we all know are beyond reproach. NASA fiddling data? Boy, next thing you know it’ll be the White House, or some prestigious university, or some other untouchable institution which no one is allowed to question.
‘Unfounded’ and ‘slanderous’? Actually, we’ve got quite a lot of founding, and a lot very open manipulation of data – coincidently, that always seems to prop up the government’s case. Of course, that’s just what’s been pried out of government and academia when they haven’t been refusing FOI demands from congress.
Of course, it helps when those that are responsible for making sure those laws are upheld are primarily responsible for breaking them.
And they get a lot of support from people who have made it their livelihood.
Or their biggest fund-raiser.
Let’s see, last count… how many trillions are various governments talking about charging us for air?
Or did that not happen either?
I guess there are a lot of presumptions that need to be in place to support your world view. Certainly a lot of willful blindness and pig-headed arrogance.

AP
Reply to  Matt
August 16, 2016 3:36 pm

The “politician” is actually more qualified to speak on these matters than the “scientist”.
As a mining engineer, he would have studied at tertiary level, and used in his everyday working life: physics, chemistry, atmospheric gasses, computer modelling, mathematics, statistics, and geology. What better preparation for understanding climate science?

RobbertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Matt
August 16, 2016 11:29 pm

Matt
Your comment is requested in regard the following study and that we can now state that Antarctica is not ‘melting’ but gaining Ice. It is from your favourite appeal to authority in NASA and is a consensus.
‘NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses’
From NasaTV Website.Oct. 31, 2015.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008… Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study…
Comment is also required of Griff who responded above with…Its global warming Brian, not just round your house…
Well if your house is sorta around The Antarctic Griff you have a problem
Just to ensure the ‘Consensus’ on this topic I shall further cite British Antarctic Survey.
…The Antarctic Peninsula, among the fastest warming places on Earth last century, has since cooled due to natural swings in the local climate…
British Antarctic Survey’s (BAS) lead author John Turner….Since about 1998, local air temperatures have fallen about 0.5 degree Celsius a decade, roughly the rate at which they had previously been warming since about 1950…
That Antarctica place really needs a good talking to and maybe Matt and Griff could lead the way and go on Q & A and label it The Denier Continent. It really is a worry when the coldest place on The Planet just won’t cooperate and go along with The Consensus.
Just to repeat the Consensus. Antarctica is colder and gaining more ice smack bang in the middle of our terrifying GLOBAL Warming Meltdown. NASA and British Antarctic Survey say so!
Next weeks lesson. Karl (2015) and The Obsolete Sea Engine Intake Bucket Water Temperature Versus the Modern Water Buoys Temperature Fiasco. Please note that this lesson will only be shown on The Comedy Central Channel.
The most blatant fiddle of data in Climate Studies from The retiring director of… NOAA.

RobbertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Matt
August 17, 2016 12:05 am

Matt
Your comment is requested in regard the following study and that we can now state that Antarctica is not ‘melting’ but gaining Ice. It is from your favourite appeal to authority in NASA and is an actual data consensus.
‘NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses’
From NasaTV Website.Oct. 31, 2015.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008… Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study…
Comment is also required of Griff who responded above with…Its global warming Brian, not just round your house…
Well if your house is sorta around The Antarctic Griff you have a problem but it ain’t Global Warming.
Just to ensure the ‘Data Consensus’ on this topic I shall further cite British Antarctic Survey.
‘…The Antarctic Peninsula, among the fastest warming places on Earth last century, has since cooled due to natural swings in the local climate…
British Antarctic Survey’s (BAS) lead author John Turner….Since about 1998, local air temperatures have fallen about 0.5 degree Celsius a decade, roughly the rate at which they had previously been warming since about 1950….
That Antarctica place really needs a good talking to and maybe Matt and Griff could lead the way and go on Q & A and label it The Denier Continent. It really is a worry when the coldest place on The Planet just won’t cooperate and go along with ‘The Consensus.’
Just to repeat the actual data consensus. Antarctica is colder and gaining more ice smack bang in the middle of our terrifying GLOBAL Warming Meltdown. NASA and British Antarctic Survey say so!
Next weeks lesson. Karl (2015) and The Obsolete Sea Engine Intake Bucket Water Temperature Versus the Modern Water Buoys Temperature Fiasco. Please note that this lesson will only be shown on The Comedy Central Channel.
The most blatant fiddle of data in Climate Studies from The retiring director of… NOAA.

cd
August 16, 2016 8:22 am

MSM is going crazy over this and they obviously do not share the opinion expressed in the title. This has given the warmists essentially a sound-bite that for the initiated, just showing warming, that will be used time and time again.

cd
August 16, 2016 8:25 am

I honestly think that AGW was dying naturally anyway. Most folk couldn’t give a shit, only the chattering classes wanting to show their enlightened credentials role this out every now and again. I’m now starting to think that skeptics and websites like this are, inadvertently, helping to keep the whole thing going by supplying the activists the opportunity to conflate issues and muddy the water.

Joel Snider
August 16, 2016 8:49 am

What’s amazing is if you get on Yahoo, you will see this spun as Cox schooling a ‘denier’ – along with a praise for a ‘twitter-burn from an astrophysicist’ to a ‘climate troll’.
Controlling the message, anyone?
The advocacy is total, and getting much nastier. Considering they were already comparing us to Holocaust deniers and suggesting modern Nuremberg trials, that’s saying a log.

August 16, 2016 9:22 am

BRIAN COX: “I mean, the idea that NASA and, presumably – I should say to people, by the way, that the Australian Academy of Science have done a brilliant – you can never get any sense on programs like this. They’re adversarial and things, but this, the science of climate change, the Australian Academy of Science’s report is superb. I brought it, because I’m going to come and give it to you in a minute so you can have a read. But that’s very good if you want to see the – but the point is that the accusation that NASA, all the Australian, the Met Office in the UK, everybody is collaborating to manipulate global temperature data is quite a…”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
This graph really tells you everything you need to know about temperature adjustments.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 16, 2016 9:22 am

Funny how the adjustments shown in this NOAA graph closely resemble the claimed warming.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 16, 2016 8:29 pm

TOO FUNNY!!!
That is not the data ANYONE USES ANYMORE..
Really funny..
Cox appeals to the authority of experts
malcom appeals to the authority of Goddard
And None of these clowns actually knows anything about the real data.
here is a clue
The RAW DATA for oceans and land show MORE WARMING..

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 17, 2016 8:09 am

Raw data?
Forrest RAW DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING

Ron Cohen
August 16, 2016 9:27 am

Tthis whole “balanced” 5 against 1 (host included) charade reminds me of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Ken
Reply to  Ron Cohen
August 16, 2016 5:09 pm

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.

August 16, 2016 9:40 am

Hi guys. I would stress the point of the one against the mob. It is unfair.

Bernie
August 16, 2016 10:22 am

“Sea levels are rising!”
“Oh, and should sea levels not be rising?”
“Well, they are rising way too fast!”
“How fast should they be rising?”
“We don’t know that, but we know they are rising too fast!”
“If we don’t know how fast sea level should be rising, how will we know when the global warming problem has been solved?”
“They should be rising at something below 3 mm per year. They were at 2.5 mm/year just a few years ago!”
“But were they not a 3.3 mm/year just a few years before that?”
“Yes, but there is some natural variability!”
“How much natural variability is there; doesn’t global warming increase variability too?”
“Do you believe men walked on the moon? Do you believe in evolution? Venus is really hot!”

August 16, 2016 10:28 am

” I doubt Cox will make the same mistake twice.” Quite right, next time he will make some new mistakes.

Steve Fraser
August 16, 2016 10:49 am

AP: Extending your list a bit, I think there are some other tactics that would work as well, but require some anticipation of the opponent’s talking points and graphics.
For example, when the temp anomaly chart shows up, it is not necessary to refute it at first as Fabricated. It is a far better tactic rhetorically to make your opponent defend his own chart. The easiest place to do that, is in the first 60 years of it.. The 1880 to 1940 period.
Point out that the first period contains ia temp change from 1898 to 1908, and ask the opponent to read the numbers for the high and low years, and not the rolling average. Answer: just a bit above –.1 to just above -.5, a span of -.4 degrees C. So far just what the chart says. Now to make the point with a question, ‘What caused that -.4C change in temperature?’
While the opponent may try a volcano dodge, or refer to the LIA, the answer is still natural variation.
Then, do the same for the swing from 1908 to 1940, the swing is up from -.5 to just about .3 in 32 years. In other words UP .8C The question: what caused that?
The summary that can be made is that wide changes in temp occur naturally, and can occur fairly rapidly over decades, and can stay fairly constant, too.
This is one of the reasons that I am skeptical about global warming claims which say, with 95% confidence, that humans are responsible for more than half of the warming. Nature teaches us in the beginning of the 20t century that she is quite capable of doing it all herself, and looking back farther into history, shows us periods of both very warm and very cold in the last 3000 years.

Cary
August 16, 2016 12:28 pm

Neither Cox nor Roberts ever answered the original question about what component of warming is man made. Roberts and all skeptics should embrace that warming is happening, so temperature is going up, records are being broken, etc., etc., but we don’t know how much is man caused and it isn’t correlating with CO2 rise.

Reply to  Cary
August 16, 2016 12:44 pm

I know that temps are rising according to all the vast areas of estimated temp data.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Cary
August 16, 2016 1:59 pm

Lord Monckton often asks skeptic audiences, scientific or not, to raise their hands if they believe we are in a warming trend. Invariably, the response is overwhelmingly yes. The question that sparks debates is “how much?.”

Reply to  Ernest Bush
August 16, 2016 2:11 pm

the question should be – is the change in environment leading to an increase in temps.
The WMO flag up in a paper that the climate may not be changing but microclimates are.

Tim
Reply to  Cary
August 16, 2016 9:09 pm

This is a correct approach.