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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
@ Greg’s comment of:
That is a correct impression to be touting, …… just be sure to explain it is the “temperature of the ocean waters” that you are touting as the culprit responsible for the rising CO2.
Two points made by Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts are baffling:
1) There’s only consensus but where’s the evidence?
The consensus is that when climate scientists independently study the evidence, they agree with each other!
2) The graph of temperature against year doesn’t rise EVERY year.
It’s quite plausible that the graph will be spikey – that’s a very common observation in many natural systems. Just because we get less rain this year than last doesn’t mean it will always fall. However, if over several decades, there is a trend, we can see this despite of the year by year fluctuations.
Just suppose the climate scientists are wrong – the Earth will not suffer as a result. If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all. Why take such a massive risk?
There’s nothing wrong in having differing views provided you change them when the evidence is overwhelming.
Interesting that Cox initially describes his second graph as showing emissions, and then catches his mistake and changes it to concentrations.
I hadn’t watched this – it provides ample evidence as to why watching this show is a waste of time. The format is outnumber a dissenter and then ambush them; never let them follow up a point; allow the designated ambusher to talk over the top and then curtail any points that look like they might score.
M.Seward – thanks for identifying the graph. Dodgy as! As Roberts pointed out, it suppresses the 1998 temperature to elevate 2015. Do you have a link where a copy can be obtained?
I have no liking for Roberts (his politics are nationalist and isolationist), but he was calm and had the better of Cox – though cognitive dissonance was on display in responses to it. Cox seemed ignorant of key points, like the ‘warm champagne’ effect of warming oceans producing CO2.
And Pete at 11.13am:
‘Just suppose the climate scientists are wrong – the Earth will not suffer as a result. If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all. Why take such a massive risk?’
As an IPCC expert reviewer on ‘key vulnerabilities’, I would have to say that is about the most ridiculous comment I have read on this blog. Read some economics – eg Richard Tol, and understand how your prescription further impoverishes those currently poor for the benefit of future generations who will be several times more wealthy.
Pete you made a rather ridiculous statement, “If the climate scientists are right, and the vast majority have believed if for many years, our comfortable lives are going to change for the worse and other less fortunate people will have no future at all.”
1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a “climate scientist”.
2. Then please produce the comprehensive survey of every such scientist that supports this position.
E=mc2 is incomplete, or a special case in a body’s inertial frame of reference, that is, its momentum is zero. As nothing in the universe is not moving, you could even argue it is not correct. Brian has a better understanding of the frame work and genisis of special and general relativity than any physics undergraduate I know. I’m not qualified to rate his knowledge higher.
Brian 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.
‘he does not do science any longer’. Did he ever ‘do science’?
“Just for the record, it’s now mid August here in the North of England. We have just had our first decent summer day of hot sunny weather this year”
Its global warming Brian, not just round your house….
The temps in Alaska have been a new record this year; there’s a cyclone blowing over the arctic ice…
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!
We’ve had a goodly streak of not too hot summer days here in North Central California, right when it usually gets very hot, most days , Griff . . you might want to factor that into your global assessment of weather/climate trends, but hey, it looks like a kinda hot spell is settling in, so don’t make too much of it just yet. Could catch a late season surge of global warming still, but so far we’ve been spared and then some, it seems.
Stay cool my friend ; )
On the other hand, according to Griff, the recent flooding in Louisiana is proof of global warming.
What a hypocrite.
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.
Oh right, I didn’t realise it was just the temps around Alaskan houses that prove CAGW
Brian, it has hardly been the all record breaking summer that the MetO will declare in the south-east either. The odd day of real heat but the rest feel average or given the way the heat drops off in the evening, below average. I have moved to a rural area now but I wasn’t exactly in surburbia before so I don’t think that has made the difference. Last summer was the same. And wind…on most sunny days there was a strong breeze that kept it cooler.
All that missing heat must have collected in Central Florida. It’s Hot, Hot, Hot down here.
Or up here for our Aussie friends.
Disclaimer: This should not be construed as an endorsement of AGW.
I’m not an alarmist but to be fair Brian J, the climate boffins have never said that increasing average global temperatures would result in warmer weather everywhere on the globe. I remember reading a while back that one possibility (underline possibility) was that the Gulf Stream could shift a few degrees resulting in GB and Northern Europe to become much colder rather than warmer due to climate change. Are they right? How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist. I’m just saying that scepticism is good but we can’t ask the alarmists for hard evidence and in the same breath make statements unsupported by facts or the public record (peace…just sayin’…)
I was under the impression that cherries were about due at or not long after the longest day!
Maybe the UK is cooling to generate a highly valuable late season crop that attracts a premium, climate change and the dividends.
I am replying to Aynsley K above. Do not misjudge Malcolm Roberts politics. Pauline Hanson was a late starter when the election was called. She looked around for honest persons who could assist and give some credibility. I suggest Malcolm joined so he could get his message about the truth of changes to climate and the need to be realistic about energy. If you look at the policy of One nation on science and energy it will be obvious that Malcolm had a large input if not writing the whole. He was hopeful that Pauline would get in and then be some influence in Parliament. I am sure he did not expect to be elected himself but with the interviews he has had on TV and Radio (all concerning science and energy) he has already achieved a great deal. Malcolm also has a Master of Business (MBA) from an respected US University. He will bring a lot of common sense to economic policy in Parliament. As an engineer he knows more about climate changes than any so-called climate scientist after all thermodynamics and heat transfer are engineering subjects and mining engineers have some background in geology., mathematics and statistics.
One Nation has a wide range of policies as below
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
Stewart, I don’t know what DMI graph you are looking at, but check this out:
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-great-arctic-cyclone-of-2016-after-four-years-a-summer-sequel
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850
Yes, Minitrue fades it at exactly the critical moment, what a surprise!
Mr Cox,
I like your hat, my question to you is, what is inside?
ermagherd the Cox-lovers are going ballistic over at Gizmodo au site .. it’s a feeding frenzy of appeals to authority and inductionism trumping scientific principles.. I’ve always felt standing back from such an echo chamber is offering tacit approval, and their are genuine young readers there who could benefit from a perspective other than that of ‘the consensus’ but I’m ready to abandon them and admit defeat !
Ermahgerd, the Cox-lovers are going bonkers over at Gizmodo Aus – it’s a festival of appeals to authority, hero worship and inductionism trumping scientific reasoning. I know I shouldn’t step into the mud, but ignoring this sort of thing seems like providing tacit approval, especially when there are honest and decent young minds reading garbage justified by consensus and actually applauding the likes of CluelessCox . Unfortunately for every promotional opportunity they get, their influence grows and more young minds are sucked into the vortex of group think. I hope the likes of Cox live to truly comprehend the damage they’ve done and I hope he feels ashamed.
This is how the Guardian reported it:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts?CMP=soc_567%3FCMP%3Dfb_gu
Well, if it is in Gruniad, you know exact opposite is true.
Yes Eric and add to your comments that Malcolm Roberts has expertise in atmospheric gasses and Brian Cox does not.
Malcolm Roberts was the project leader for The Galileo Movement. http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php
Roberts own webpage.http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Personal%20declaration%20of%20interests.pdf
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.
He is in good company, ICAN standard atmosphere with wet and dry lapse rates was developed without any ‘greenhouse effect’. But then that atmosphere model is used for safety related calculations not for obtaining funding.
So do we assume ‘ceist8’ is on your birth certificate ??
Tony Heller categorically does not reject what you said he rejects.
Here is a post if his from last week.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/microwave-oven-deniers/
1saveenergy makes a good point. You should really think before you type, otherwise, you might end up looking like a hypocrite.
“The blogger with the fake name who reject the physics of the greenhouse effect.”
Funny, I read that website just the other day and Tony was lambasting those who rejected CO2’s greenhouse effect.
Steve Goddard revealed his real name as Tony Heller some time ago and all his current posts are under that name. He also lambasts those who declare there is no greenhouse effect, he is not a sky dragonner. So your post is complete BS.
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”
You might try searching through Steve Goddard’s (Tony Heller, not a secret name) site before making false assertions. He does in fact believe in the greenhouse effect and has argued until blue in the face about it with some of the commenters before dropping the subject last year for the second time. BTW, he was outed through attacks on his children by the kind of people you apparently like to hang with. Leftist scumbags.
“So do we assume ‘ceist8’ is on your birth certificate ??” – 1saveenergy
That is the funniest thing I’ve seen online today!
is that even an effect and if so without reverting to Authority show us all.
ceist8
August 16, 2016 at 2:56 am: ceist8, so what are those physics?
But Brian Cox dresses up like Paul MccArtney so that changes everything. Doesn’t it?
He’s a paid shill. Of course he’ll make the same mistake again. Just like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he’s more TV personality than scientist.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson… There is another Wonk. The guy with no concept of scientific history, no concept of the scientific method, and with a limited grasp of the current state of science. Oh, and a True Believer in CAGW (never mind the facts).
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.
No! Please!
Brian Cox is not the sharpest too in the box and often shows his ignorance of science when asked in public? He is just typically, a poor BBC presenter who gets his job because the BBC management thinks they are watchable!
As a physicist, I think Brian Cox is just an embarrassment.
He is only an experimental particle physicist, not a theorist, and has probably never written even one paper without hundreds of co-authors. It would be very easy for a good-looking guy with little brain to get to where he is now at.
Anyway, what is sure is that he lacks integrity, being a TV celeb does not give you carte blanche to spout about things outside your field of expertise.
He is not the only physicist who thinks that he because he has a PhD, he is wise in all matters physics. I ran across one a few years ago who taught at a small college and was ready to get into a big argument with me about “global warming” at a cocktail party. He was also a particle physicist but he though knew more about climate because he had a PhD.
[snip policy violation -mod]
He’s actually an entertainer, he doesn’t have a particle physics day job and does not thing to advance the field, as mumbo jumbo as it is
One thing I have noticed 20 years after graduating with a degree in Physics with Astrophysics from a top UK University and working in IT for nigh on 17 years is that an awful lot of Testers I have worked with are a helluva lot smarter than most of the Graduates and Professors I encountered at Uni. Cox is a fine example of how you can become a professor in a hard science with very limited intellectual capacity and absolutely no idea about what science actually is. His performance in this debate is nothing short of gob-smackingly dumb. I never understand why no one, confronted with any of the mickey mouse graphs that these idiots show doesn’t ask them about the missing error bars. One of the most fundamental things drummed in to us at Uni was the importance of capturing errors and displaying them clearly on all graphs, no matter how trivial. The fact that the temperature anomalies year on year are an order of magnitude less than the error margins in the measurements themselves would surely give even the dumbest fanatic pause to think…though I know the IQ levels among those at these type of debates is depressingly low.
NO HE’S THE IDIOT SON OF BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY!!
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 ?
He also guffawed when Sen. Roberts pointed out that the climate record has been adjusted multiple times to cool the past and warm the recent record. This is undeniable fact.
Cox’s riposte is that this is the same NASA which managed to land on the moon. WTF ?? So they did something very impressive about half a century ago and thus everything they have done since is beyond question.
The man is a total fool, and has forgotten whatever scientific principals he ever learnt.
But, heck, he’s a TV personality now, not a scientist. He’ll probably be wearing a silly now tie soon.
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.
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
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
I pointed out the letter at Jo Nova’s site … had Cox responded with “But are they climate experts?” Roberts could have applied the coup de grace “Are you sir?” Check and mate.
That would be scientific “principles”, Greg. Otherwise, good point.
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!
I guess Cox didn’t know that 49 former NASA scientists (including 2 ex directors), and 7 former Apollo astronauts, sent a letter, in 2012, to NASA’s Head Administrator, Charles Bolden, disputing NASA’s view, that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while ignoring empirical evidence which calls the hypothesis into question. They added that NASA relied too much on questionable climate models in predicting future climate.
Greg @ 1:18 am I tried to absorb the whole vid but that one really stood out, as a kid I watched the whole Apollo project and it’s undeniable success. For Cox to “lean” on that 60 year old history ( I doubt he was even born yet) to justify AGW made me sick, the graphs he threw across the table like a petulant child to try and “make his point” was a 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.
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.
Rotfl. Another point. It is the astronauts that landed on the Moon, rather than the rare people who support the faked Moon landing conspiracy.
The man is not a fool. He is a very mediocre scientist but one who realised that the way to get on is to use the techniques which he learnt as a pop performer to further his career in academia. Pop stars depend on mass followers and the only way to get a mass audience in TV today is to support all the views, not just the climate consensus views, espoused by the left of centre robots who dominate that section of the media world.
also VERY notable is the fact they had a collection against Malcolm Roberts
and refuse outright to ever get other scientists in Aus who DO hold sceptical views
ie Ian plimer would have been an ideal support
but ABC refuses to give him ANY airtime at all ever.
That hardly even counts as doing homework. If he does not even know that tropical storm frequency is down, then he is a complete joke.
Greg, sorry to advise that 2 Weeks ago that Their ABC announced that they would no longer be providing transcripts from most of their shows. Save for the primary current affairs interviews. They have not removed any transcript – they had no intention of putting it up.
@GregK well the transcript is there now ..Here’s a screenshot
http://www.stewgreen.com/travel/2016/images/cyclonesincreasingsayscox.jpg
After Brian waffles on we get
Actually he transcript shows that actually Malcolm is then not let back in to say something more
There’s a problem with all this that the older generation really has the responsibility to address. I will give an example.
I am over 65 years old and I have lived for some 62 years in the same place, the Puget Sound area of the state of Washington. I have seen weather and know what to expect. With the exception of the Urban Heat Island effect making slight changes due to population growth–nothing has changed! And even when I was a child, I could notice in wintertime that the temperature in my home town was not so cold as the temperature out in the rural areas of the county. It was an easily generalized observation.
So, if anyone was to peddle the CAGW claptrap to me, I would ask them if they have seen it in their life, because I sure haven’t seen it in mine. When will we assert that lifelong experience trumps any bogus graph-making? (I recall August weather in the 70s, in my college years, when the temperatures were in the 90s and we were all stupefied by the warmth. Now, it is not so bad…but the month is not over.)
To be sure, this argument is reserved for those who can stand higher than their opponent, age-wise–but there should be plenty of us, and age does not mean our wits and tongue are dull.
Not the way it is being reported here especially by the warmists. They say Cox had no answer to the graphs. The ABC of course with their warmist stacked panel are immensely proud of themselves but as usual their pack attack could not best Roberts, who also happens to be a Senator now. He has called for an inquiry into the CSIRO warming division and openly called it a scam.
Notice how Jones the compere comes in to save Cox at about 5.38 onwards
Brian Cox may be intelligent but he’s not as good as he thinks he is. Anyone who relies on “consensus” as an argument is a fool.
The fact that CO2 is good and some other pollutants are problematic needs to be discussed.
Yet when presented with the evidence, he waves it all away because NASA are manipulating the figures to show warming when there isn’t any, and warming actually stopped in 1995, apparently…. At least Cox pointed people to the academy of sciences report on climate change, and encouraged them to read it, acknowledging that a a short adversarial format like Q&A doesn’t allow for an in depth look at the actual science.
Roberts simply dismisses all the evidence as manipulated, and dismisses the consensus as meaningless.
I mean, are we all suppose to become experts in climate change so that we never have to rely on the consensus of experts?
I am not sure Malcolm Roberts did well at all. When Brian Cox showed that graph, he (Roberts) missed the opportunity to ask him if he had seen the raw data graph and Hansen and Lambs graphs etc. He also missed the opportunity to show or refer to other global data sets like satellite temps. I know it was a biased panel and audience, but in my opinion he did not get his message across clearly and was made to look a fool at times to the uninformed watcher. Also referring to Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) in any debate immediately opens you up to ridicule because he has been easily shown to be wrong on many issues and is also stubbornly refuses to admit his mistakes.
I agree, pbweather. He missed a lot of opportunities, and could have been better prepared.
Me too would agree to that.. it is not only the matter what was said (and what was missing), but how it was received by the audience.. does anybody here really things that Roberts drove the point of the changing trend over the years for different GISS versions home to that laughing audience?
There are always moments in such debates were you wonder, if a specific point would have make a difference…
For example asking this mathematician if a change of the reference period generate a new trend in the temperature data (it does and differently for the different sets, the choice of reference period is arbitrary)
Or making the point, that a spike in temperature like we had end 2015 and beginning of 2016 contradicts the models sharply, which basically minimize the natural contribution.
Last not least the correlation in the latest scenarios, that the more alarming the scenario is, the worst it correlates with the recent real temperature trends
Yes. If Roberts’ wants to retain his credibility he probably needs to rehearse two or three deadly points that are easily understood and not vulnerable to easy rhetoric. He might also be armed with two or three deadly questions with which to return fire. For example ‘Do you know how the 97% figure was derived?’ Put the ball back in their court with only one way for them to hit it. Experimentation will determine the best questions, and the best deadly points. Political games are not won by immense knowledge, but by hammering particular points of vulnerability, and not letting your opponent talk about anything else. He might also slip in references to JoNova and WUWT, etc., to give viewers somewhere to get extra info.
We all make mistakes, but Steve Goddard has also highlighted many interesting and relevant points.
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 .
I noticed that also. But against the overwhelming stacked audience and panel, he didn’t have a lot of opertunities to get his point across. I am always amazed at the agw crowd at their solution to a problem that isn’t provable. Extreme amounts of money and wasted time to attempt to control a miniscule trace gas that they believe is the most dangerous challenge humanity has today. It has been much higher in the past and yet here we are.
“Also referring to Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) in any debate immediately opens you up to ridicule because he has been easily shown to be wrong on many issues and is also stubbornly refuses to admit his mistakes.”
Yes. Imagine this.
you have two skeptics.
Skeptic number 1, has worked tirelessly for years to make an important scientific point
about micro site bias. he has collected data, and has actually PUBLISHED his results , code and data. he uses his real name.
Skeptic number 2. Never publishes. Makes wild claims about all the data being manipulated. Was banished from this site for refusing to admit a clear mistake. uses a fake name.
Which skeptic does the guy quote?
The fake named guy of course.
Here is a clue for you guys.
When we did our temperature reconstruction we also did a version where we used NO DATA that
NASA GISS uses.. none zip zero.. we only used stations that are NOT USED by NASA.
Guess what?
Same answer
The bottom line is this.
1. Anthony Watts has a clear defensible scientific hypothesis about Bias in the records
That is a hypothesis he can test and publish about. Its a claim we can all discuss without
insulting people or questioning peoples honesty.
2. Goddard has a smear that he repeats over an over again. Its a smear that is not open to
falsification or verification. he claims NASA corrupts all the data. So we use NON NASA data and get the same answer. Does this change anyones mind? Nope.. they have to believe someone is cooking
the numbers.
So there you have it.. One skeptic trying to actually do science and a second just peddling conspiracy theories. Who do you think gets the ink? And to make matters worse, folks in the science community
will continue to associate these two skeptics. Sorry but that’s life..
I would make an analogy to radical forms of religion… but you all understand the point already.
I’m a bit confused.
So, it doesn’t matter what data is used … different data in & same output (or “answer”, as you phrased it).
What was the question, and what was the answer that you were looking for?
What the significance of Tony Heller using a “fake name”? How does using a nom de plume affect the credibility of a writer or invalidate their work? There is a long tradition of not publishing academic work critical of establishment dogma under one’s real name that goes back at least as far as Copernicus. Should his heliocentric theory be consigned to the dustbin because it was published anonymously?
Fake name? That argument is about 2 years out of date. Everyone knows Steve Goddard is Tony Heller because he stated this himself: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/
“Fake name? That argument is about 2 years out of date. Everyone knows Steve Goddard is Tony Heller because he stated this himself:”
Tell Malcom, he is the one appealing to the authority of goddard.
here is a clue.
NASA doesnt adjust data.. they ingest NOAA data.
Amazing, Mosher actually learned how to respond to a comment.
Why is it surprising that a politician would use Heller’s pseudonym, which is also the name of his blog?
That pretty well sums up debates, i.e. missed opportunities and hit and run verbal tactics with deflections. It might as well be another planet compared to how science process works in methodical process and error checking.
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
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….
Brett, I have first hand knowledge of Tony Heller’s inaccuracies and stubborn refusal to admit error as does Anthony. He once posted on twitter an old WW2 picture of a pacific island and compared it to a recent one claiming that the island had grown not shrunk as per science and media claims. I proved to him that the photo’s he posted on twitter were of two different islands and he did not post a retraction or admit error, but just went silent. It may be that some of his claims are true or warrant further investigations but until he stops putting out blatant BS claims and when called out on them never admits his error then no one will take him seriously.
Cox’s TV special output has gotten increasingly fey and filled with lame gimmicks with each new series. Unless he starts to do his homework and offer up verifiable evidence he’s toast….
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?
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…
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.
I mean, really, in a short show like Q&A how much detail can you get into beyond pointing to the consensus of the experts, and noting that the guy who disagrees with them gets his information from people like Goddard.
Yes, this perverse attitude shows that they are not primarily concerned about what happens to “the planet”. It is more important to them to be right. Only once they have been proven right and the world has been forces bow down and accept whatever they say we should do, would they consider LESS climate “catastrophe” as good thing.
In the meantime they will applaud as much melting ice, fictitious temperature records and rising sea levels as they can get their hands on. This is why it is a growth industry.
MASSIVE trend difference..
Get over it.
Which of course flies directly in the face of what Feynman said in his Caltech address about how a scientist with integrity should behave.
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
I like to quote it back to all ‘climate scientists’. I suspect many of them actually don’t know who Richard Feynman was…..
GISS is very much NOT real.
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
It’s anamalies, so what’s the difference? The point Andy was making is just the same. GISS is rising far faster than the satellite record. That said, they are not measuring the same thing.
The main thing is that GISS have been rigged by “correcting” daytime SST using NMAT which is scientifically unjustified and blatant manipulation.
“Why did you offset both data sets by the same amount?”
I didn’t.
I offset GISS and its linear trend to the same starting point.
Trouble understanding?
Cannot see that that the trend Gavin has created is FAR, FAR greater than reality?
Oh dear..
Back to primary school for you.
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
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.
MASSIVE trend difference.. Get over it.
GISS is FUDGED. !
Possibly because people in Australia have respect for our scientific experts, and are sick of hearing them get slagged off by someone who thinks they are all part of a corrupt conspiracy, and instead listens to someone with real credibility, like Goddard!
Just the usual lefty crowd who cheer anytime they think they have won a point in a debate. Doesn’t matter if it black being called white.
Chris Hanley
That’s not the chart Cox showed. The chart you show is out of date, stopping at 2014, even though the annual GISS data now extends to 2015. Adding 2015 makes a substantial difference both to the annual data and 5-year smooth: 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?
So even more “adjustments” on the one Cox showed.
Thanks for the verification. 🙂
You really are not very good at this, are you.. 🙂
“So even more “adjustments” on the one Cox showed.”
______________
If by adjustments you mean up-do-date data rather than data that’s a year out of date, then yes.
“You really are not very good at this, are you.. :-)”
______________
You mean not very good at spotting people who post out of date data sets? 🙂
The incredible thing is that a ‘scientist’ such as Cox would misrepresent something so thoroughly. I like him he presents science so well, but on this issue – incredibly disappointing. He made the most basic error of representing ‘anomaly’ as temperature. The senator could really have blown him apart with that one but was unable to see the graph clearly from where he was sitting especially when it was thrown on the floor. Such bad science and when the woman on the left started with I want to appeal to the young people in the audience and waffled on about her visit to the beach – I just think this is hopeless.
I cant have a conversation with my children over it as they think I dont know what I am talking about – they have all had 15 years+ of brain washing and will not even discuss the possibility – I am wrong and they are right – all the scientists say so. Talk about conspiracy – it would be much more relevant to ask Cox if the sun goes round the earth as his knowledge on the subject bears resemblance to the orthodoxy of the Inquisition of that time.
Brian Cox jumps on the blinkered climate non science bandwagon – what a shame.
@mwh, I have the same problem, my “kids” now in their mid 30’s are exactly the same . I can’t get a word in edge ways.
” they have all had 15 years+ of brain washing and will not even discuss the possibility – I am wrong and they are right – all the scientists say so”
That statement they make? It nearly every time sends me over the edge and always my last question is : CAN”T you think for YOURSELVES?.
ARGHH!
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.
The most interesting thing about that (dodgy) chart is the climate period that came just before it… The Little Ice Age…
So we have an anomaly graph that does not show the baseline period. What good is that?
That Hockey Stick graph makes it look like the Alarmists are winning the argument. That’s why they shriek.
The whole purpose for creating the Hockey Stick graph was to make it look like the temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and hotter over decades. And it does. It is a false representation of reality, but it does the job for the Alarmists.
‘…wild delighted shrieks and applause from members of the audience…’
Not quite ‘rent a crowd’ but not far removed.
Sane, reasonable people want something to be done, like what happened with acid rain, or ozone depletion or any other example of politicians following the advice of respected science.
Deniers, carbon shills all, are blocking action on the greatest danger faced by humanity. Of course we cheer when one is put back in his place.
You really don’t get that?
All Malcolm had to ask when cox held up that graph was – what is the change in temperature from the starting point to the end? I cannot tell you how many people see this graph and miss the decimal point on the vertical axis, thinking the increase is +8-10 degrees.
And bring a graph like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg
I think you will find they were laughing at the stupidity of a man who goes on national television and says the 1940’s were warmer than today.
Malcom Roberts was brave and had some good info. As his point about CET. He lacked a good graph to show it.
Where he was utterly destroyed was when he tried to use Steve Goddard’s nonsense. It is absolutely irrelevant whether NASA corrected the USA temperatures. There is no way you can win a debate based on a NASA conspiracy. No way. Goddard is doing great damage to skeptics. You can see it all the time.
Brian Cox was useful. It is easy to show he was consciously lying.
Damage to skeptics?
By de.ostrati g how the temperature records are being altered with no justification?
By proving that they have manipulated the historical data so that the temperature record matches the CO2 graph?
Tony works tirelessly to expose the warmista fraud.
We should all do so much damage.
” It is absolutely irrelevant whether NASA corrected the USA temperatures. There is no way you can win a debate based on a NASA conspiracy. ”
Roberts should have brought some big blowup copies of the Climategate emails with him. Ask Cox to explain them. Let’s see if the audience laughs then.
You know after climategate I got emails from right wing think tanks in Washington DC asking me
if I could help them Switch the storyline of climategate to be about NOAA instead of CRU.
I explained to them that there was nothing about the NOAA temperature adjustments in the emails.
I suppose releasing those emails from skeptics asking me to help them smear NOAA would
be quite embarassing….
too funny that they thought I ws a skeptic merely because i wrote about climategate..
Steven Mosher, I doubt very much that you have any such email from skeptics asking you to switch stories and smear NOAA. You would have happily “embarrassed” such skeptics well before now if that were so.
“You know after climategate I got emails from right wing think tanks…”
No you didn’t.
Before Climategate, nobody had even heard of you, and outside a couple of blogs, not many have since.
Stop making stuff up.
Tony Heller is literally scaring the willies out of the alarmists. And at the same time, he’s making Anthony look very moderate and reasonable and grown-up by comparison. I see this as a win-win situation for both these muckrakers and a clear benefit for the skeptic cause.
NOAA adjusts the data….. jesus christ at least get the conspirators right
Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
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.“
Lying about what. Tell me one lye to told?
The Warmists here are squealing like little piggies right now!
And the D team Arn’t?
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
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.
10-4. I too thought of NdGT.
I don’t think Cox knows anything at all. He’s just a mouthpiece, IMO. He might as well be an actor, just repeating someone else’s stupid lines without giving it much thought. I feel sorry for his first year students at Manchester.
Cox is not too bothered about the words put into his mouth by the scriptwriters of his TV epics – that’s for certain. They even fade him out when he actually gets onto arithmetic 🙂
Loadsa money courtesy of TV Tax and BBC Enterprises theft does lead to an inflated self regard. I wonder if Brian is self funding on his mission down under? – I doubt it.
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
@Mark – Helsinki
“Has anyone ever seen such a stacked debate, literally it was everyone vs 1 guy, and none of them made even one coherent factual argument.”
Yes – any Monday night just tune into Q&A. Same “format” every week!
Roberts did well to call out Cox’s ‘moon trick’ smear tactic.
I was wondering when this would be addressed on here. I woke up this morning to the usual trumpeting about how a skeptic got ‘schooled’ and made a laughing stock in national TV, including folks suggesting he didn’t believe in the moon landings because he mentioned NASA fudges data. I can’t watch Q&A for the health of my television, but I’m glad to see there is a counter-narrative here. I imagine it would be very difficult to debate on national TV, and climate science is a wide ranging topic.
Oh and also, at the end of the write up on the ABC’s website, they couldn’t leave out the fact that Roberts has worked for a coal company. Conspiracy is only one-sided, apparently.
8 years ago
Cox, like that de Grasse bloke, has an inflated opinion of his own intelligence and importance.
Nu Labour (Tony Bliar’s party) used this as their election Theme Tune…
You literally couldn’t make this s*it up!
Brian Cox, the grin with village idiot attached –
Loud, flashy, repetitious, low skill level, no substantive content;
both musically & scientifically
I think Mr Roberts should have pointed out that the graph spans 120 years but only 1 1/2 degrees and that it started at the end of a period well known as the little ice age. Half the increase occurred before the IPCC says that our emissions were harmful. Even though it is patently obvious that the 1930’s have been artificially cooled you cannot dent the zealots with a claim that their information is wrong as that has been sent down from on high by the Great Lord Gore and the archangel Hansen. When you directly challenge their numbers even after they have “adjusted” them it leaves them with nowhere to go.
fundamental weaknesses in the AGW argument exposed for all to see. all we have to do is insist on empirical evidence.
go malcolm
I have sent a copy of 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” | |
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.
I find it so weird that anyone would say “I pray for sense and reason”. That is an oxymoron in itself
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.
What a sophomoric show. I would have expected such a show to delve into the key issues of climate change. Instead, the panel and the audience spent their time bullying and heckling. Their minds are made up. No room for science there.
I wish Feynman were alive to witness that. He might have enough clout to get some air time with the MSM and fry that bunch of numbskulls.
“Instead, the panel and the audience spent their time bullying and heckling”
A bit like the audience here then.
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!
no evidence that warming is related to fossil fuel emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870
Also Cox seems to be operating under the delusion that James Hansen landed men on the moon. Always thought that Cox was an idiot – much like his tv colleague Lawrence Krauss – and both of them reveal their deep and abiding lack of any real scientific understanding outside of their chosen specialisations. The pair of them are buttock-clenchingly embarrassing ambassadors of physics and will in the course of time be buried without trace.
as will we all
Cox ignored the references to Dr Feynman.
“Cox ignored the references to Dr Feynman.”
Rightly so. Appealing to Feyman isnt science.
no evidence that changes in atmos or oceanic CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
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
Jamal Munshi,
For the nth time: the relationship between two variables in cumulative values may be spurious, but detrending does remove any real cause and effect if there is little variability in one variable and a lot of variability in the other one, while both show an increasing trend and variability is only small around a huge trend…
SImply add two independent trends together: a slope without variability and a sinusoid without a trend. The sum of both is a sinusoid with a trend. If you detrend the result, there is obvious no correlation between the sinusoid and the trend which caused the trend in the sum of both…
Panels like this always make the embarrassing error of believing that our planet was at ‘optimum climate’ in the 18th century. Not long ago, Cox would have proudly held up Mann’s graph – now one of the most discredited artefacts in science.
Cox, as if we didn’t know, is a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside. The methodology used to collect the evidence he produces, the analysis of the evidence or the conclusions are not important to him. He chooses his props from a target righ environment to confirm his political bias.
Genuine science bows to no authority, Brian, and it is not based on consensus; that’s the job of politics. Advances in science are not made by consensus: advances are made by the brave paddling upstream. If a theory does not agree with validated evidence, then the theory must abandoned and reconstructed. If the predictions, projections, scenarios, or whatever you want to call them are wrong, the science is wrong. It’s scepticism that underpins science, not the cosy comfort of consensus.
The house of climate cards will eventually collapse, but until then, the world’s poorest people – the ones Cox and his ilk claim to champion – will be denied life saving energy and continue to die in their millions. If Cox wasn’t a watermelon, he would be celebrating the lack of climate sensitivity. But his is. So he won’t.
It’s high time these people were publicly challenged to a series of live expertly moderated global televised debates. If the science is settled, and if CAGW is the deepest threat to our planet, they should welcome it, but it will ever happen. They has far too much to lose.
“Genuine science bows to no authority” So Malcom’s appeal to steve goddard failed in your eyes?
good argument..
About time someone brought down this Mancunian twerp!
You see the mess the bedwetters get themselves into when they try to debate with someone who has half an idea what they are talking about?
Mann and Schmitt are right: you should NEVER debate with sceptics, a very dangerous practice.
It’s like playing chess with a pigeon, he’s just going to shit on the board then strut around like he won.
You are right. He had half an idea…. but he needed more I think. He was made to look out of his depth in anyones book.
Senator Roberts missed an opportunity to point out that correlation is not causation when Professor Cox held up the two graphs. He should have hammered on the point that the Central England data set from the late 1600s shows faster warming than the most recent, and that the period from 1910 to 1940 had warming just as fast, both obviously without human influence. If those periods can demonstrate natural warming at that rate, why should we assume that increased CO2 is causing this current warming?
I don’t believe that point can be made too often or emphasized too much. The Senator asked for empirical evidence that human influence was causing the warming, and Cox only showed evidence of the warming. He should have called attention to that point immediately. When Cox showed the plateau on the chart that was the recent pre-El Nino pause and got his big laugh from the audience, Senator Roberts should have pointed out that during that pause (whose existence Cox did not deny) CO2 continued to rise unabated, yet temps did not rise correspondingly, and why was that?
Most of the alarmists’ creed now presumes the cause of the warming and emphasizes the warming alone. We need to keep dragging them back to make them provide evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming, which is impossible to do when all of the world’s historical temperature records are taken into account.
Agree
I’m afraid Cox let becoming a ‘media personality’ go to his head. It probably went to his bank balance too you see.
There’s money to be made as a ‘science personality’ now. It’s a fine balance between being scientifically rigorous and intelligible to the general public.
I”m not sure how much money there is to be made being a Physics Professor and a climate skeptic, however.
Nothing like dissing your colleagues’ funding streams for making you unpopular in academe, the Royal Society and other places of scientific old-boys-clubbery…….
Wasn’t that second graph with the HUUUUGE CO2 spike shown by Brian Cox from Gervis et al? How can that piece of junk be held up as ‘evidence’ of anything?
It’s also nothing short of astonishing that Brian Cox (and people of his ilk) are ‘unaware’ of alleged data manipulations and adjustments that completely skew the debate.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that they’re not “unaware” of the alleged (or actual) data manipulations, nor of the fallacy of the “97% consensus” (consensus for goodness sake, from supposed scientists!!!! I can barely credit that Cox actually referred to Cook on that, it’s headshakingly stupid and ignorant!) It’s the 21st century, we have this internet thingy now, the information is all over the place, there’s no excuse. They do know, yet still they pedal the lies. The only question is – Why? I’d like them to answer that one, truthfully.
Malcolm Roberts appealed to the blog “Steve Goddard” as his authority. Nuff said.
Roberts came over as a fcuktard nutjob. Like most of the pathetic fat american middle aged males on this blog 🙂
Hey Matt, looked in the mirror, lately?
I know it’s not advised to feed the troll, but I’m guessing Matt just used up his daily allotment of critical thinking brain cells. Why do the trolls with nothing to say think posting their stupidity for all to see will impress. And where are the young people that used to distrust the government? The world is backwards.
Anger management seems to be in order.
Mr. Smith,
Will you elaborate as to why you use “tard” as an insult?
So if you teach mentally challenged children, and one of them is late for are you a allowed to call them a little tardy ?
Life of Brian (Cox)
Man in audience : I think it was, “Blessed are the model-makers”!
Man’s wife: What’s so special about the model-makers?
Man: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manipulator of climate data.
Chair: [reading prepared statement] “We, the People’s Front of Climate Alarm, brackets, official, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom. ”
Brian: [holds up a graph]
Chair: “Your testimony will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the planet from the hands of the capitalist aggressors, including those concerned with energy, medicine, roads, housing, education, agriculture, transportation and any other capitalists contributing to the welfare of humans of both sexes and hermaphrodites…”
Brian: [holds up second graph] “I am the Climate Messiah!”
Green Panellist: “Yes, you are the Climate Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few”.
Brian: [to the audience] “Look, you’ve got to follow the model! The model has spoken and you should surrender all free thought to the model! You’ve got to stop thinking for yourselves! You’re not individuals!”
Audience: [applauding and howling in unison] “We’re not individuals!”
Brian: “You’re all slaves to the model! The model has spoken!”
Crowd: [in unison] “Yes, we are all slaves to the model!”
Man on panel: “I’m not…”
Crowd: [howls of laughter] “Heretic!! Stone him!!”
So when the esteemed Senator comes up with allegations that Nasa faked the data in the interview and when you hear that asked earlier this month if he still believed the UN was trying to impose a worldwide government through climate change policy, Mr Roberts answered: “Definitely”, people still give this man credibility?
It is not good enough to take one bit of this confrontation and claim Cox got taken to the cleaners without addressing the credibility of someone who is alleging fraud and advancing conspiracy theory…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37091391
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
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?
NOAA does the adjustments.
not NASA.
ding dongs..
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.
Yawn, all Malcolm had to do was ask Cox if the data was adjusted. Most people are unaware any adjustments have been made.
Looks like Mosher is wrong again. NASA GISS does make adjustments.
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.“
Not the UN, but some people in a high position inside the UN have been openly doing that.
I loved the clip. Cox just doesn’t know does he?
Doesn’t know what. That he is talking to a guy who makes stuff up? I think he does, which is why he looked so incredulous.
Ummm..any of you have advance degrees in science?
Stupid question. There are a lot of PHD’s commenting on this website on both sides of the debate. Many more just choose to read the articles and comments without commenting. It is the expertise shown here that causes it to be one of the most heavily trafficked science sites on the internet.
Not me, but I did look at the NASA web site and they have a chart that shows how much they distort, sorry, adjust the temperature readings they get that just happens to make things look warmer now and cooler in the past.
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
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
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 ?
@fredcehak, is the data adjusted or not? If it is, Brian Cox didn’t even understand the basics.
The data is not adjusted by Nasa.
Actually NASA GISS does make adjustments.
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.“
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.
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.
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
The link to Gavin Schmidt’s Twitter feed getting all righteous about his team being accused of fraud is priceless. I do not believe that I ever said that the GISS team was committing fraud. I did not hear Roberts saying that either. I do know that James Hansen adjusted temperatures so that older temperatures were cooler and later temperatures were warmer. He did this more than once. The problem is not only that he adjusted temperatures, but also that he over wrote the earlier data with the adjusted data. Whether this is fraud or not is something a court would need to decide. I never saw any scientific proof by Hansen or his team that justified their adjustments. I saw excuses and rationalizations for the adjustments, but no scientific proof.
“I do know that James Hansen adjusted temperatures so that older temperatures were cooler and later temperatures were warmer.”
err no he didnt
get the code. I did.
Hansen does not adjust the temperatures.
He IMPORTS data from NOAA.. NOAA adjusted data.
ding dong
Cox was not owned at all. Cox got emotional betraying his rather irrational attachment rather than a rational, objective scientific position. Cox showed ignorance on a number of issues.
Malcom Roberts did a good job toward the end making the attribution case which Cox did not have an answer to apart from some arm waving. But that was about it. When people treat scientists as priests of the truth you end up with what happened in the clip; everything Malcom said could be dismissed.
Personally, Maclom could have taken him apart:
1) In terms of the records he should have made the case about adjustments for temperature pollution from things like UHI effect (a structural error that cannot be solved statistically).
2) He should also have highlighted the divergence between the global records and that NASA is the outlier.
3) He could have also highlighted Cox’s poor skills as a scientists when interpreting data. The ice-core to modern day record mixes data with different resolutions so you get aliasing in the palaeo-record (and smoothing) so that peaks like the modern day are lost.
Problem is- he looked like he knew, and played it perfectly to his crowd. That audience wasn’t interested in any other point of view and Cox was playing to the home team. I don’t agree with Mr Worrall that Roberts ‘owned’ Cox. I think Cox won- unfortunately.
It 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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
He didn’t win anything because he talked like a goofball pushing tortured claims without scientific merit.
A couple of years back a fellow Hi Fi fan, mate of mine emailed me to say that Brian ‘pretty boy’ Cox was also a hi-fi nut and had just tweeted boasting about his valve amplifier. I re tweeted Mr Cox pointing out that he was a well known AGW protagonist and he should know that although valves do have a very sweet lush sound they also burn up most of their wattage in serious amounts of wasted heat. I also pointed out that ironically as a sceptic I couldn’t justify the waste . He pathetically tweeted back saying that he only used renewable electricity sources of the national grid.Yeah right Brian.
Okay a small thing , but it does sum up the hypocrisy of these people. Brian ‘pretty boy’ Cox is the pin-up of the BBC and they send him on the BBC tax income AKA a licence fee, to all four corners of the globe . Cox himself is such a believer in catastrophic climate change that he prepared to fly anywhere in the world to get the message across that human caused C02 needs to be stopped. Have these people no shame?
There’s an awful lot of ad hominem butt-hurt on this thread to be honest…
“consensus” ..it is one of the trigger words of progressives and liars …well I see that I repeated myself.
@ 2.46 min Brian Cox says “absolute consensus” !!
: absolute = total, complete, supreme :
The Cupid Stunt.
Cox is a legend in his own mind.
I would say Cox is a d!ckhead…but that would be unkind…so I won’t. (:-))
Unfortunately I do not share your assessment. I think that even though Cox and the rest of the panel and audience were extremely rude, Roberts came off second best.
Roberts needs some media training, urgently.
He was far too polite, and of course the ABC (global warming groupthink central) let Cox ramble on for half the show, whilst Roberts only got in a few words here and there.
Roberts needs to recognise that this battle has to be fought without claims that NASA has fudged the data, even if they have.
Take along your own charts, Malcolm, showing the unadjusted temperature data, the sea level and the model temp predictions.
Explain how the ice cores can not capture spikes in CO2 due to diffusion in the firn.
Explain the heat island effect, the siting problems with temperature stations in urban areas and at airports.
Explain how CO2 is a poorly mixed gas and how the highest concentrations are above non industrialised areas.
Use simple historical examples: for example Hannibal invaded Italy by taking elephants over passes in the Alps now covered by glaciers. Vine street in London is named because…
Defend your own qualifications. As a mining engineer, I studied physics, chemistry, mathematics, statistics, earth sciences, and computer modelling at university level and apply them in my working life every day. As did you I presume. These disciplines are at the core of climate science, which is a multidisciplinary field.
Finally, give up on the stuff about corrupted data. It may be true, but it is inadmissible in the court of public opinion. Focus on the correct data sets. Get the warmists to explain why RSS and weather balloon data is wrong. Get the warmists to explain why the Central England temp data is wrong. Get them to explain why your evidence is wrong.
Agree totally he definitely needs some media training. He may have an important message to get across, but he did not do it here on the QandA. He needs to drop radical ideas like “humans have not caused CO2 rises” and references to dodgy Steve Goddard claims etc. Also back up claims with graphs like Cox did.
I suspect Brian Cox has never looked at any climate observation data at all, but rather just repeats the consensus mantra from his fellow model loving academics. I also suspect many other scientists take climate scientists opinions as gospel without checking the data. Why would they? They have their own research to do and if the consensus around the research centre coffee table or conferences is all about AGW being true and dangerous, then why check? In fact they are probably afraid to check for fear of stepping on a colleagues toes. I am sadly one of those who just listen to others opinions around that coffee table or conferences without checking any of the claims, but now I have. I find it astonishing some of the claims being made without any solid observed evidence to back it up. Not all mind you. Some of the science is sound, but there is a hell of a lot that is flakey as hell.
No I noted that Roberts was allowed to ramble when he was caught off-guard and cut short when he was making good points. I think Cox didn’t cover himself in glory though. He did sound like he was waffling at times – that can’t be good for his image as a serious scientist. Cox’s arguments were mantra-like. The other guests only offered platitudes.
Yes, and expect only to be allowed one or two spaces of just a few seconds to make the killing points, and expect to be shut down. Media training essential. Roberts may be an engineer, and thus broadly, a person of science, but he is against rhetoricians who have no regard for science. He needs to learn the methods of their craft so that he is doubly armed – with science plus the art of argument – while they have only the art of argument.
He was too polite. Tony Jones (the “host”) is well known for his interruptions -so much so that one Aussie blog has a game every week called “interruption lotto” where people who frequent the blog site guess on the number of interruptions for that week’s show that Jones will make. Usually in the order of 50-100 interruptions.
It’s only ever the conservatives who get interrupted, and usually as they are about to make a salient point. Jones has it down to a fine art.
gosh … now that is a shock….not.
It takes a special skill to deal with that sort of thing – I always enjoyed the presence of satirist PJ O’Rourke on the BBC since he loosened the bowels of goons like Jones and usually skewers them neatly and leaves them speechless 🙂
Sad to say the tactic is now to give (quarantine?) O’Rourke his own program when he wanders across the pond….
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.
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.
Huh. cox appealed to experts
malcom appealed to a fake named ding dong who was kicked off this site
“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
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
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”.
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.
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.
” 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.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
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.
Thanks, John. Points well taken.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
[snip -language, and generally just too stupid to print -mod]
Wow, what an amazingly cogent and rational argument. Give yourself a gold star. Now run along.
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
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/
…As I’ve said before, when the climate STOPS changing, THEN I’ll start worrying !
@Eric Worrall
Was anyone watching the show? What was the viewing share?
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.
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.
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.
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
I see that you signed your name at the bottom (whatamoron). Good for you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funny how the adjustments shown in this NOAA graph closely resemble the claimed warming.
One of my favourite NASA graphs. Thanks for that Jeff, I had misplaced the http address.
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..
Raw data?
Forrest RAW DATA SHOWS MORE WARMING
Tthis whole “balanced” 5 against 1 (host included) charade reminds me of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
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.
Hi guys. I would stress the point of the one against the mob. It is unfair.
“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!”
” I doubt Cox will make the same mistake twice.” Quite right, next time he will make some new mistakes.
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.
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.
I know that temps are rising according to all the vast areas of estimated temp data.
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?.”
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.
This is a correct approach.
except it precisely correlates with c02
Well, both are generally increasing, but CO2 has been steadily increasing while the temp still fluctuates, pauses, etc.
Cary,
Really? You think CO2 and temp don’t run together? What do you make of this then?
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
“except it precisely correlates with c02”
No, it does nothing of the sort, as you damn well know.
Everyone on that panel, with the exception of Mr. Roberts, revealed himself or herself to be a deeply silly person. Islands sinking? Really? I think she meant atolls. And even there Willis E. has explained that what she said is absurd. Appeals to authority? Consensus? And then of course, the gaggle of youthful nitwits in the audience. And this panel is comprised of “experts” we are supposed to defer to? What a pack of clowns. And Cox! Talking about cyclones? He’s a fool. I’ve talked with chemists and physicists in the U.S. and the sadness I have to report is that many of them are as ignorant about climate change as the average ditch digger (no offense to ditch diggers). The herd instinct, another name for consensus, is real. “Paris conference was such a shining moment.” Good Lord. Any scientist, most especially that absurd math woman, who insisted on hiding behind authority and tried to use said authority to tell Mr. Roberts he was an ignorant fool to question the bosses, is not a serious scientist. Makes me think of that stupid remark of Kevin Trenberth’s when he refused to give up his data. The logic she used is the logic people like her employ to discredit men like Steve McIntyre. Ugh. If this is the best the funded mob can do, they may be in trouble indeed.
The absurd maths woman is a ditz who reveals answers on a quiz show.
So on the panel we had two entertainers masquerading as scientists and an applied scientist masquerading as a politician, two politicians masquerading as humans and a biased pannelist masquerading as an impartial host.
Exactly where did “Roberts Own” anyone. He allowed the host and the hippie to bully him at will…
What a load of rubbish. Malcolm Roberts made himself look like a total dick!
I’ll take reality TV over this. Bring back the Kardashian reruns.
No one could have presented effectively in this sort of phony panel discussion, with 5 (self-righteous, self-indulgent, uninformed) loonies, and a packed audience of the like-minded shouting down one moderate voice of reason. We should applaud is gladiatorial effort, but the senator was doomed.
I agree with the need for debates between scientists and other scientists, which have fair moderation – and they can bring all the graphs and video of polar bears they like.
There’s a reason why Richard Lindzen scores points – and in my view, wins – panel discussions and debates on this topic. He refuses to be bated by emotionalism, and sticks to the facts, including the fact that “there is no study that shows that 2 degrees warming will make the world more dangerous.” (and) “It’s like a bunch of children who lock themselves in the dark closet and scare themselves with stories.”
What the [pruned]?
“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”
And he succeeded totally. They totally ridiculed the senator.,I was impressed how polite he was—they did not even let him ever finish a statement.
Note to self: bone up on on the 49 former astronauts and NASA scientists who have been critical of NASA’s climate research. He should not have let them have that laugh at his expense about him probably being a “moon landing denier”
Held his own??? What drugs are you on? He looked like the idiot he truly is and by claiming he “owned” Cox, you look no smarter
Its grotesque; to invite a alarmist scientist but not a scientist on the other side of the debate.
This does give the impression that this media tried their best to make Malcolm look wrong.
He did an ok job, but obviously, a scientist from both sides of the debate would have lived up to journalistic standards and ethics. And Cox would have been run over.
I repsect Brian Cox for his effort to being science to the common public. He didnt argue well against this senator. However he is right, the graph he presented is a combination of many studies, nicknamed the hockey stick chart. The chart changes depending on which studies are included. However each study still indicates an anthropogenic influence on global increases in temperature. It is anthropogenic full stop. If you dont agree look at solar system harmonics and techonic evidencial influence. Yes climate does change naturally but the rate of change at the present in too extreme for it not to be human influenced.
It’s hard to know whether to laugh.
In all sincerity, Derrick, I never understood the arguments of people like Ferdinand Englebeen, which claim to know the dividing line between how much CO2 the Earth produces, how much humans produce, and which then extrapolate how much the human-caused part of that mix actually results in an increase in temperature.
My gut feeling is that this is NOT known with any great accuracy at this time, but perhaps you can explain this balance, and give the level of sensitivity we should use in modeling its impact. You seem very certain about things. Perhaps you would fill out with some specific details some of Mr. Cox’s insinuations about Climate catastrophe, such as the whopper about how Middle Easterners would certainly need to move if temps cross a certain (oft-changing) threshold.
Engelbeen (sorry… mangled the “el” out of that).
No Derrick,the “hockey stick” paper is garbage that did away with decades of published science and history that showed clearly the existence of the MWP and the LIA periods.That it was worldwide
It has been shown to be garbage by the NAS and the Wegman report.By Andrew Montfort and his book the Hockey Stick Illusion and MCKitrick/McIntire who published the paper showing serious flaws in the use of data and the misuse of statistical methods.
The chart he presented is from the WORST temperature datset of GISS. Why didn’t he use the more accurate Satellite data,in fact why do warmists stay away from Satellite temperature data so much,could it because they don’t support your AGW conjecture?
The point that Malcolm Roberts got in at the start, in the face of the badger-baitingly Vishinsky-esque partisan AGW mob, was a strong one – that the CET (and other sources) show a larger warming in the 17th century than the 20th century warming. He should have stuck to that point when Cox flourished his 20th century chart. He could have said that the 17th century would have almost the same graph, and why? No industry, no CO2 rise. Repeat the point every time recent warming is mentioned.
The most important point was missed – climate is always changing. The Holocene has seen nearly 20 such warming episodes. Why is the latest one special?
In such an officially sanctioned public lynching one will have the chance only to make one major point, needing repetition if it is to be remembered. It needs to be the right one. But it was a brave effort from Malcolm Roberts.
” that the CET (and other sources) show a larger warming in the 17th century than the 20th century warming”
Except… the 17th century data set was very unreliable and was only for one tiny area of the planet. Hardly worth hanging an argument on.
Prof. Brian Cox’s Ketamine shame http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/prof-brian-coxs-ketamine-shame.222217/.
A Google search for; “prof brian cox” + ketamine; gives 172 hits and there’s also this extract under +activist from this Interview: http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892
It’s simple, I like Brian Cox… you’re all doomed!!!
Fantastic satire, thanks man! Needed a laugh today.
I hope next time Roberts brings at least two of his own graph printouts, one showing temps from the last 100 years showing before/after manipulation and another showing models used by the IPCC over the last thirty years with projection vs reality.
That’s Mosher’s point. It makes little difference. Both show warming.
He fails however because the warming rate is well blow the several times published temperature projections from the IPCC. NONE of the data sets even garbage GISS reach the minimum .20 C per decade rate.
Warmists continually fail to understand why the small warming trend destroys their AGW conjecture and they absurd far into the future modeling scenarios.
“Warmists continually fail to understand why the small warming trend destroys their AGW conjecture and they absurd far into the future modeling scenarios.”
You consider this small?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
I think I see our problem.
Sunsettommy – ‘zactly.
“He fails however because the warming rate is well blow the several times published temperature projections from the IPCC. NONE of the data sets even garbage GISS reach the minimum .20 C per decade rate.”
.2C isnt the minimum.
The models run a little bit hot, maybe .05C per decade hot.
you can think of them as providing an upper bound.
Fact remains… its warming since 1896 when warming was first predicted.
harkin1,
That was my thought while watching the video.
Cox won hands down. Why? Because Roberts was unprepared, and Cox was.
The public is not up to speed on the subject. So, what to do?
Roberts should have had his own charts ready. He should have had the dozens of statements available from numerous physicists, ‘climatologists’, and others in the hard sciences regarding the ‘Pause’, and trying to give 60 or 70 different explanations for why global warming stopped for so many years. He could have had a long list of scientists who disagree with the runaway global warming scare. But just telling people what you think doesn’t win debates.
Visual aids are the most effective tactic with an audience like that. Cox had his NASA charts. Roberts could have shown how NASA diverges from satellite data, and from most other data sources. He could have shown the audience the non-corellation between CO2 and temperature. Roberts could have shown a chart showing the abject failure of 90+ climate models versus reality. He could have had other charts like this one handy:
But Roberts had nothing except his opinion. He was right, but that doesn’t win hearts and minds. He lost the debate because he expected the public to understand. They don’t; they have to be shown, not told.
And people like Roberts had best demand that they pick half the audience. Obviously, this was a heavily Cox-friendly audience. That’s like a lawyer allowing the opposing lawyer to pick the jury.
These debates can be won. It’s not hard; I have a folder full of debates that were won by skeptics against people like Cox. But going into a venue like this and expecting people to understand what you’re saying is a fool’s game. The public is like a bunch of children. You can’t just tell them. You have to show them.
I hope Roberts learned a lesson here. He came unprepared, and he didn’t understand his audience — critical errors on his part.
dbstealy said:
“He could have had other charts like this one handy:”
Yeah, but then he’d be guilty of the same deception you are, pretending that the fact that a large enough scale makes the warming hard to see also means that the warming doesn’t matter. Now you can argue that the warming doesn’t matter, but your graph does nothing to support that argument. To do that you need to specify how much warming would matter, and compare it to how much warming we’ve had, and are likely to have in the future. The answer will be the same regardless of the scale of your graph.
DB
I’ve sad this before but Ill say it again. I think you have a problem with scale on this graph. You see with graphs like this you need to use numbers on the sticky up axis…. oh never mind.
Fine use simple degrees, which is how just about everyone looks at temperature.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s400/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg
Phillip Schaeffer said:
Now you can argue that the warming doesn’t matter, but your graph does nothing to support that argument. To do that you need to specify how much warming would matter, and compare it to how much warming we’ve had, and are likely to have in the future.
As usual, the climate alarmists don’t understand the Scientific Method. Here’s how it works:
What you and the rest of the alarmist crowd are saying is that current observations of global T indicate AGW. For the umpteenth time: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on you folks. You need to support your AGW hypothesis with more than baseless assertions like that.
But since there’s nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening, your side uses tiny tenth- and hundredth-degree wiggles to try and support your belief system. You like those scales because they weren’t available a century or more ago, thus they cannot be compared with today.
NASA posts global temperature data since the 1880’s. The chart I posted above is produced using their data. So the only way to compare earlier temperatures to “how much warming we’ve had” recently is by using one-degree scales for the time frame in question.
Since the only apples-to-apples comparison that can be made is by using the same scale, that’s what I posted. You cannot refute it by using current instruments, because they didn’t exist back then. But if you won’t abide by the Scientific Method, you wouldn’t use tenth-degree scales even if they existed during the MWP, because they would show that nothing unusual is happening now. That’s made clear when consistent charts are used.
Next, you want it specified “how much warming would matter, and compare it to how much warming we’ve had, and are likely to have in the future.” See your problem? You cannot produce what you assert using tenth-degree chart scales, so you’re just speculating.
To be credible, we have to use the same metrics for comparison. That requires a one-degree axis, since that’s all that is available for this time frame. That’s what I posted. Since your job is to try and credibly defend your alarming hypothesis, you must be consistent; baseless assertions are only opinions. Since you don’t have the measurements you believe in, your opinion is that you know that the tiny wiggles of centuries ago are smaller than now, and you understand what the future will bring. That’s not science, that’s just hand-waving.
But by using the only consistent scales, everyone can see that the NASA chart above indicates nothing to be worried about. As you wrote: “The answer will be the same regardless of the scale of your graph.” I agree. The chart I posted confirms that nothing unusual is happening.
And as usual, Simon founders on the same data. Since he cannot refute the data posted, he also hand-waves: …you need to use numbers on the sticky up axis…
What’s the definition of a ‘sticky up axis’? That’s just more deflection. But as usual, I have more charts that contradict Simon’s unalterable belief:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
I have more such charts. Just ask, and I’ll post them.
Next, I know both sides of this interminable debate play ‘gotcha!’ when someone uses a regional chart instead of global T. But the CET is the oldest consistent temperature record in existence, and the 2nd Law says that one region cannot be substantially different from the rest for hundreds of years. So here is the Central England record:
Finally, I notice that Poptech posted a chart using a different dataset. That also shows there is nothing to worry about, since global T has fluctuated by tens of whole degrees in the past—over only a couple decades. What’s been observed over the past century is only unusual in its lack of variability; a “Goldilocks” century, which we are very fortunate to be in.
Alarmists look at our good fortune, but they always manage to find something that scares them. No matter how often the points made by skeptics are repeated, alarmists fall back on their eco-religion. There are reasons for that which I won’t go into now, but Simon is a casebook example. And that’s also why Marcott et al charts give eco-religionists such a thrill:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Of course, the Marcott chart is completely bogus. It’s in the alarmist crowd’s catechism, so they use it. But contradicting Marcott is the Real World.
Which one should we believe? Mother Earth? Or Marcott? Because they cannot both be right.
The data set I used was the same one Cox used – NASA GISS. Just scaled to how the average person looks at temperature.
To see what the original “Right Stuff” NASA engineers found on climate see The Right Climate Stuff
.
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
“Physicist” Brian Cox appears unfamiliar with the actual evidence, the scientific method, and how the climate models actually compare with the evidence in the “anthropogenic signature” of the mid tropospheric tropical temperatures. e.g., See John Christy Feb 2nd 2016 testimony.
they look pretty good
No they don’t, and they certainly don’t make the case for CO2 driven warming. CO2’s increase is linear, temperatures follow steps related to ENSOs. Your chart shows flat temperatures between 1980 and 1996, then a step up spike due to an ENSO, and then flat temperatures between 1997 and 2015, and then another ENSO spike. CO2 doesn’t cause ENSO’s, CO2 and IR between 13 and 18µ won’t warm the oceans. If you can’t tie CO2 to ENSO, there must be another reason for the warming. It is that simple.
“Steven, when were the model projections made? If they were all made in 1980 you are right that they look pretty good. If they were retrofitted then the test will be what they project for the next 20 years.”
They are AR5 projections.
hansens projections from the late 80s look just as good
Callendars projections from the 1930s with a simpler model also look good.
who knew?
We knew in 1896 that adding c02 would warm the planet and the data support that.
here forrest
Hansen.. 1981 predictions..
Spot on
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/crystal-serenity/
Hiding the divergence? By shifting the baseline 10 years forward from 1979? Contrast dramatic divergence of models vs satellite & balloon data using the 1979 baseline over the ENTIRE satellite era.
Stephen Mosher
Comparing model predictions from 1979 to 2015 versus all satellite and balloon evidence shows a clear 300% divergence.
Climate Predictions vs Data 1979-2015
Hansen’s ’88 miss predictions
Even after fitting to historic temperatures, AR5 / CMIP5 models are all running hot – unable to accurately predict future temperatures.
Actual temperatures by satellite and balloon measurements are running below even Hansen’s 1988 prediction of stopping ALL anthropogenic CO2.
See: Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?
Temperatures vs Hansen’s ’88 predictions
See Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove the Null Hypothesis of AGW?
Fig. 3 Temperatures vs Hansen’s ’88 predictions
Possibly already shown: https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?t=40
Cheers, Mark
*************************************
My favorite part was when Malcolm responded to the withering attacks and repeated interruptions by politely waiting for his turn to speak and then driving a bus through his opponents logical fallacies. Cheers, mate, nicely done!
I don’t know how you could characterize the Senator as “owning” Brian when, in your own words, the senator “did a credible job of holding his own”? Sounds a bit contradictory to me. I listened to the entire discussion and thought quite the opposite was true. In case anyone is interested, the entire broadcast is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jguarSWDcrM and is entitled “Professor Brian Cox exposes & destroys One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts – Q&A full episode 15/8/2016”. I guess “owning” and “destroying” is a matter of perspective just like decisions to remain inside a burning building depend on how high or how hot the flames are and if the data support the conclusion that the building is, in fact, on fire, the smoke and flames leaping from the top floors notwithstanding.
Roberts did incredibly well given he was up against it. He said some undeniably false things.
…. 40’s were warmer than today.
…..we are still pausing. ( I mean for goodness sake this July is the hottest month in the modern record)
But, you have to respect a man who can hold it together in the face of a hostile audience like that.
As for “owning Cox” well that is just nonsense. Roberts came across as a passionate amateur who really didn’t know his stuff, but kept his chin high. Fancy quoting Goddard though? No one quotes Goddard who wants to be respected in this field any more. And I can’t believe (and he called on it by Cox) that Roberts trotted out the idea that the CO2 increase is a result of temp changes. We have know for quite some time now that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. And yet here he is trying to convince people on national television that this increase is somehow not us. Was fun watching it though. Been a while since we had a good debate like this on TV.
One month doesn’t make it the hottest year, even if it were the hottest month, which it is not ( before all the adjusting)
This year is almost certain to be the hottest in the temp record. Every one of the first seven records. That is hard to beat.
The whole problem in my view, is that we sceptics, Malcolm Roberts included, are approaching the debate in the wrong way. If one of us is lucky enough to get a spot on a national TV show, then we have to make the most of it. Trying to ‘educate’ the audience with facts about this or data about that, is just a waste of that valuable opportunity. The debate is not about the facts. People don’t care about the facts. They care about the emotions. That is why the warmists love to use terrifying graphs, and scary doomsday scenarios, and pictures of poor drowning poley bears. That grabs the audience because of the emotions. And then we think that the best way to counter this is by explaining the intricate details of competing data sets? ZZZZZZZ. There is only one way to go, and that is to fight fire with fire, propaganda with propaganda, and emotion with emotion. If we can take that approach, and still be truthful, then we can beat these idiots at their own game.
I hate to agree. Arguing data is a complete waste of time. The Alarmists don’t concern themselves with the phony data displayed in the ground measurements and Hockeystick, they use the adulterated charts to make their points. They are the ones altering the data and creating the deceitful charts to make their case. How can you possibly win by arguing data when your opponent simply makes up or alters the data to fit their case? You can’t. They will immediately call you a conspiracy nut. We need to put the argument into cost and benefits. Pulling 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere costs society x# of schools and hospitals, drives up your utility bill x$. John Christy does a great job of that in a video below.
It’s pretty testing being on camera and coming up with concise comments even when you know your subject inside out.
Cox does a good job of explaining science matters to the lay-man. I disagree with his ideas about the Coriolis effect causing the intensity of typhoons but that’s just how science works, – one person makes a comment and others add or subtract bits of information and “the body of knowledge” nibbles forwards.
Eric Worrall, you’ll also notice that Brian Cox was very nervous during this debate. For example when he was holding the graph up his right hand was visibly shaking. He’s clearly not had this kind of conversation where people don’t accept his wisdom out of hand.
The thing that shocked me instantly when he held up the graph is that it’s only the last part of the temperature record and not the long term ice core data which shows many periods warmer. It’s like he’s a total new comer to researching this.
He also didn’t know about the charges against NASA GISS fabricating the data.
Richard Feynman would have been all over NASA GISS for their making up of data.
If and when Brian Cox were to actually see and get what people like Steven Goddard have shown he could change his mind… potentially. I’d love to see Brian Cox and Steven Goddard have a conversation about this issue, not a debate but an actual let’s vet the science conversation. That could be very interesting.
My money would be on Marc Morano and Old Coxie boy. Nothing better than watching that smile on Morano’s face as her listens and dishes it out- priceless.
How deluded are you all? There is no way Mr Roberts came off as anything else but a loon, and it is only on these bizarro pages where the opposite of reality is hugged tightly to wounded ego’s that you would find any other comment to the contrary.
Nyk Holt
“it is only on these bizarro pages where the opposite of reality is hugged tightly to wounded ego’s that you would find any other comment to the contrary.”
But…. you know when you come here you will read the other argument, so you can’t be that surprised. For the record I don’t think he came across as a loon, more as someone who was just not going to budge.
It’s that refusing to budge thing that makes Mr Roberts come off as a loon. Asks for evidence, is given evidence, denies the evidence is evidence. He also (mis)uses the word ’empirical’ like a mantra.
That’s a mental health issue.
There is no way this deluded gentleman should represent anything, or anyone, and least of all, the very last person we should be listening to in regards to something as massively important as our response to the challenges of climate change.
He is a good example of a politician. Like Trump in many ways. If you are confident and quick you can get away(for a while anyway) spouting rubbish. You have to hand it to him, that although he had few cards to play, he threw them on the table in a bluff that would have most people wondering if he did know what he was talking about. I’d like to think he was misinformed, but knowing what I know about Hanson and her party, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Reading the medias take on the whole thing it’s obvious he fooled very few. A bit like Trump as I say.
Interestigly Mr Roberts assumes that empirical evidence should take precedence above all other scientific evidence. Clearly Mr Roberts learnt nothing from Descartes. The senses can not always be trusted and as such we must appeal to a higher authority, thought. Sadly you can’t perceive thoughts in themselves, I guess this means that that just like global warming, they don’t exist.
And the empirical evidence is saying… we are warming and man made CO2 is causing a big chunk of that warming.
“I could sit here and read out figures until I’m blue in the face,” Prof Cox said.
That is the crux of the matter, there are none so blind as those who cannot see!
Can anyone explain to me why among the well funded ‘Climate realist’ camp, the money is spent on pointless garbage like WUWT, and paying shills to publish and republish zombie arguments, and no one from that camp is willing to finance an independent project researching climate. Mind you, the only time that happened, it didn’t go well. Watts still hasn’t eaten his hat!
Put your money where your mouth is!
[???? .mod]
My respect for Brian Cox has been destroyed and my vote for Greg Hunt will at the next election go elsewhere.
Cox is no authority. Feynman is no authority. In any event, anybody who agues by citing authority is not using his brains, only his memory. Cox is a member of that celebrity-scientist fraternity of nitwits that does ‘science’ by means of mass-media induced mass-hysteria, just as the LHC Team with their Higgs boson nonsense and the LIGO-Virgo Collaborations with their gravitational waves from merging black holes drivel.
Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO’s Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v4.pdf
Yes what you quoted was said. The article is not even slightly representative of what really happened. Although I am a scientist and not trained in fiction analysis.
Wow! It’s as of we watched two totally different debates! I notice you’ve not linked to the video 9f the confrontation, Dr Brian Cox wiped the floor with Malcolm Roberts.
Even the temperature spike in the 1940’s – WW2, lots of bombs being dropped etc.
I dont know much about climate change, but I would of asked the following questions to brian.
1) Where did the graph come from source?
2) Where was the temp measured?
3) What is it being compared to (time period)?
4) Does the graph show adverse peaks as compared to long periods of temp?
instinctively I dont like Brian Cox. He seems to lack imagination.
Over to you John Christy …
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9R1ElVuyEpo
Wow!!! What a beatdown. Dr Christy did an outstanding job of concisely and clearly putting everything into a nice talking point video. Outstanding.
I completely agree. Dr. Christy is the scientist I’d choose every time to argue our case. You’ve probably listened to it, but if not, go to Alex Epstein’s ‘Power Hour’ site and listen to his interview with JC. In fact, also the Tim Ball, Pat Moore and Judith Currey ones.
If you can’t get enough, there’s another fantastic podcast interview with Matt Ridley on EconTalk.
Chris Hanley on August 16, 2016 at 12:43 am
I’m at a loss, why would displaying this …
… prompt wild delighted shrieks and applause from members of the audience, presumably
_________________________________________
Could it be because said audience was
– professional cherry picked
– professional briefed
– professional trained
whilst ‘our experts’ hyperventilate math and phys onto papers,
pretend they always knew it right,
but won’t stand any layman.
Brian Cox appeared to be unaware that the NASA data had in fact been altered. If he was aware that the data had been altered, than his faux ignorance proves his guilt. Either way, it either proves they are trying to be deceitful, or they are truly ignorant as to the integrity of they data they are relying on to reach conclusions. Brian Cox is either a liar or an idiot, but either way, neither is good. Lastly, what they needed as the satellite data. Relying of altered ground data proves they are trying to be deceitful.
All data is adjusted. It is essential to normalise the data where instrumentation has changed. I always wonder why those spending vast amounts of money on publicity refuse to invest that cash into gathering data of their own. That is how to disprove warming, not a lot of hot air such as can be found in these posts.
Tell me why these “scientists” use a graph at such exaggerated scales? My thought is to con the idiot into thinking the rise in temp is in whole degrees. At a distance as typically shown by that graph the temp rise ist at 10 degs.
To me if this graph was done at a relative scale many would say “is that all” and turn their backs on AGW.
Does anyone deny climate change these days?
I thought an obvious question back at Cox was, “How much have we influenced the rise, how many 10ths of that 1 degree rise is because of us”?
As for CO2 levels. The worlds crop harvests have never been bigger.
The gain in crops has more to do with new strains of crops yielding larger tonnages rather than increased atmospheric CO2. The contribution of greenhouse gases to warming is about 0.6 Wm-2. I leave it to you to find out how much energy interest that represents.
They very fact that people seem to be unaware that the data is in fact altered in mindblowing to me. I work in the financial field. If someone went back an published the Dow with different members in it to make their performance look better they would be behind bars. If in fact climate scientists are using data that they are unaware is altered, then their conclusions are meaningless. GIGO. In any real “science” if in fact the fundamental data is altered it would be well published. Once again, in the financial world if you change a benchmark it has to be disclosed to your clients. Why are there no ethical standards in science today?
Can you explain how they have been adjusted?
co2islife
I’m with Neo… co2islife, do you understand why they adjust the data and do you also understand what Mosher (who has been part of one the most (if not the most) comprehensive studies ever undertaken) has been saying for quite some time now? That is, if you use the raw data you get more warming. So take your pick, which data do you want to hang your hat on?
The “More Warming” part, you talk of, is in the raw data observed in the past…
Simon what you said reminded me of a joke…
The Irish economy collapsed today when two Irish builders were left confused after they showed up for work one morning and their boss said “there’s two shovels take your pick”.
The real tragedy is that Brian Cox is now aware of the possibility that the data has in fact been altered. Anyone truly seeking the truth would look into the claims. I doubt he will because I’m pretty sure he is already aware of the data manipulation, but either way, once he learned the truth he would take action to correct his statements. You will never see Brian Cox correct himself of address the altered data in any future events. That is proof of the willful deception put on by the climate alarmists. No way will they stop the gravy train. Brian Cox can only work in academia, those who can do, those who can’t teach. He teaches garbage, and he knows it. Here aren’t many real jobs in the real world for deceitful propagandists.
This skeptic funded project looked at whether the temperature data was reliable….
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The organization registered to a house in Berkeley California and completely unaffiliated with UC Berkeley?
ooh burn!!
This is from a posting above. This is the problem we face. The truth means nothing when you have unethical people being paid huge dollars to be unethical. These people are fighting for their livelihoods, not the truth. They are getting well paid to perpetrate this fraud. There are no jobs in the real world for these kinds of unethical people.
HOW is that unethical????? nearly every scientist has to lobby for funding in the public sector. It’d be a crime if money was just handed out for bogus research, but instead they have to write grant applications and lobby for the validity of what they are researching. If they find that something bad is happening, let’s think of an example, oh, how about AIDS as an example, they find treatment for it and understand how it is passed etc etc, yet you have the Catholic church being anti-contraception. Lobbying for the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of a horrible virus seems a valid cause, as against out-dated religious crap.
I’ve been convinced since week 1 of my investigation into climate change that any physicist who touts the theory is either: (1) ignorant, (2) incompetent, (3) insane, or (4) dishonest. I have been assuming Cox was dishonest. But after Q&A, I see I have done him a disservice. He simply hasn’t put in the effort to investigate this issue. If he had, he would know there is no disagreement about greenhouse theory, no disagreement that the planet warmed since the little ice age, no disagreement that CO2 has gone up. So he is ignorant. He may also be incompetent. He apparently simply doesn’t know that the disagreement is over whether water vapour multiplies the CO2 warming. He is a scientific flyweight, either through incompetence or simple bone laziness in not studying a topic he intends to tour the planet pontificating about. But dishonest? No, he seems to really believe the mush he is presenting.
Ron
If you are going to accuse Mr Cox of being ignorant, can i ask that supply a link for the peer reviewed paper that supports what you are saying. Till then you are just spouting hot air, and we all know we have enough of that.
Not a paper but a clear exposition of Cox’s incompetence:
http://motls.blogspot.fr/2014/09/brian-coxs-incompetence.html#more
Simon, you can find a similar argument in this peer-reviewed paper.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/095830506778644198
This squiggly line on my piece of paper proves climate change is real and the only way to fix it is to tax everyone and give all the money to the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Problem solved. All that money given to the Rockefellers and Rothschilds will magically fix climate change.
No the squiggly line was to show that the pause is well over.
No, sometimes a squiggly line is just a squiggly line.
Dr. Ole Humlum provides the context and graphs to compete with the GISS distortion.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/gotcha-graph-from-giss/
Except the problem for Dr Humlum is that while he tries disarm GISS as being inaccurate, GISS is only one of many data sets that show substantial warming at the moment. NOAA, Hadcrut, Nasa, Japanese Met service, they all show the same level of warming. So really his argument is just playing in the puddles while the tsunami arrives.
Simon you didn’t mention RSS and UAH datasets, which are the platinum standard of temperature measures, truly global and sampling in the lower tropsphere where global warming theory says the effect will bemost pronounced. Those two are the only peer-reviewed datasets, since results are examined by both warmists and luke-warmists. RSS and UAH show a definite plateau since the 1998 El Nino. Let’s see what they say going forward after the 2015-2016 El Nino.
“which are the platinum standard of temperature measures,”
No they are not. They don’t take into account ocean warming where 80% + of the warming is going. They also adjust their data (which is fine but if you are going to criticise adjustments be consistent) and they have been known to have significant problems in the past.
Essentially the entire panel, excluding Robert’s, asked the audience to trust the experts … take our word for it. Robert’s should have responded that he doesn’t want the audience to take his word for it; he wants them to fact check him. Have temperature records been altered? We’re the 30 and 40’s warmer in early temperature graphs? Was 1998 approximately equal to 2015? Are the models accurate? Does temperature drive CO2?
Be critical thinkers
Being spun as victory for Cox. Roberts should have brought the satellite data with him and charts showing how the past has been cooled and the present and recent times heated. Visual aids rule on TV.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/physicist-explaining-climate-change-skeptic-030641753.html?nhp=1
I must admit I’m not sure we watched the same show. When Cox showed strong evidence to back his argument, Roberts claimed the evidence had been corrupted by NASA. Now that is really a council of despair to think that NASA would risk such idiocy in a conspiracy of experts. In such a debate anyone can reject anything by saying “it’s corrupted” when confronted with hard data.
I also see the headline suggests Cox was ‘Owned” by Roberts. It’s not a phrase we use in the UK but I’m told it means overwhelmingly defeated. But on reading the article it is then claimed that ‘He held his own’ which suggests something different.
I had always thought this site acknowledged climate change, but disagreed about its causes, rate and impact. Roberts seemed to be undermining that stance as far as i could see.
Yes – and any poster here who does not condemn at least Roberts assertions that climate change is part of an UN plot to bring about a globalist government also undermines the science based position – acknowledging climate change, but disagreeing about its causes, rate and impact.
In fact I’d say unproven allegations about faking data also do that (we have had skeptic funded investigation into the validity of surface temperature data by the Berkley Earth project – you may not like their conclusions, but we cannot say no one has looked at the data from a sceptical viewpoint…)
An alarmist pushing theories of conspiracy here, what a surprise… Reality!! Data IS adjusted. Can you see the difference at all?
I’m staggered at the amount of rubbish i read on this. Global warming is real. It’s backed by scientists and their evidence. They never claim to be gurus of everything and the ongoing impacts, but it IS real. I’m not sure if there is a preference for conspiracy theories etc here, but there is a lot of comments being basic regurgitating of rubbish. You may as well stand up and state that the earth is flat, that the sun orbits the earth or that evolution is another conspiracy. And comments that Brian Cox is spending his time on tv shows and not doing ‘experiments’ and the like adds no credibility to your arguments. He spends his time doing this because he gives a fuck about the future of our planet for his children, grand children etc.Sure, WE are not going to die because of global warming, but our descendants might if we listen to bullshit coming from people like Roberts and refuse to take any action. This is not a black art, this is scientific fact. And to those supporting the One Nation party, congratulations on surviving this far in life. Maybe we should re-introduce he white Australia policies, fund coal mining more than we stupidly do already, ban renewable energy, and just to ensure people know how fucked up Australia is getting, invite Donald Trump to become Australian PM and build a wall around the country. There are things we can fix, but the choice of ignorance is apparently not one of those things. Fraud? You people are the frauds of what was once the lucky country.
I actually thought this was a hoax website, still actually not sure lol but what were you watching ? Lol are you really suggesting that every global scientist in many many countries as Brian Cox points out have all came to the same conclusion are lying and it’s some sort of global conspiracy haha what planet are you people on lol
If $25,000.00 in a one-time grant to one skeptic from one conservative think tank forever contaminates ALL skeptics and ALL people who do not accept the religion of CAGW (and the millions that it will kill each year, the billions of innocents that its policies condemn to years of living shortened lives in squalor and filth and disease) ..
Then how many government-paid scientists and government papers published in government-granted bureacracies can you with 92 billion in research monies?
How many governments and international bankers and money funds can you buy for 31 trillion in carbon futures trading each year?
How many liberal government politicians can you buy for 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes each year?
You scoff at conspiracies, but send tens of thousands of government-paid bureaucrats and “scientists” and politicians to 25 years of international global CAGW conferences to DO EXACTLY THAT “CONSPIRACY” in public and in the open!
When did every global scientist in many many countries sign a petition coming to the same conclusion?
Pushing theories of conspiracy, on a site which the majority of its readers and its host are clearly not partial to is a low dig, but funny! it’s a shame that more cartoonists and wannabe comedians don’t do what they’re best skilled at doing, serving food at McDonalds or what ever local fast food, low paid job is going.
Brain Cox thinks 0.8 degree C warming in 130 years is alarming and catastrophic. What’s the word for that? Ah yes – idiot. Go back to playing key boards Cox. Your science is worse than your laughable musical talent
Global warming did this to my hair!! – Brian Cox (climate scientist wannabe)
All of the climate hysteria centers around an alleged 0.7 C degree rise in the Earth’s average temperature of 16 C over the last 150 years. That temperature is 289.15 K. K stands for Kelvin degrees above the temperature of space, absolute zero. A 0.7 degree change on that scale is a 1/4 of 1% difference in the Earth’s temperature. Wake me when you detect a problem.
The Earth’s ability to regulate it’s temperature is astonishingly consistent. Weather is what results as the poles warm and the tropics cool in a constant attempt to equalize global temperature. That mechanism is working extremely well, don’t ya think.
You are absolutely correct in saying “The Earth’s ability to regulate it’s temperature is astonishingly consistent.” Malcolm Roberts mentioned Tony Heller, a man who has done a great deal to reveal the corruption in the data sets which are largely controlled by the Ministries of Truth in US and GB with I suspect a good deal of collaboration taking place. Heller has revealed the historical data and shown how the past has been cooled and the present is being warmed. That graph produced by talking head Cox is the infamous Michael Mann “hockey stick” tend line that has largely been discredited. The ignorance in that audience is breathtaking in its scope. We need more Malcolm Roberts to speak out on this corruption of science.
Are you nutters paid to come up with this crap or are you just on crack ? You have to be a completely insane imbecile to think there is no climate change you just need to have lived a while and look out the window to witness the changes never before seen in our lifetime, you just need to see the effects around the world, you’d have to be an idiot to think fossil fuels and pollution have no effect, and you’d have to be an arsehole to reject the scientific evidence again from all around the world not just the US and UK and instead believe the funded by the oil companies experts and those trying to sell conspiracy books, Brian Cox made that guy look like the liar he is and only the brain dead could try and explain away otherwise, that’s the reality
[Approved “as-written” to show the extremes that climate extremists actually reach. And, of course, it is only the Skeptics who believe in conspiracies, right? .mod]
I had no idea you could witness a +0.8 degree C, over 150 years change in climate since the end of the little ice age by looking out your window. That must have taken some serious patience.
Well you’ve just evidenced your stupidity by assuming I’m 150 years old perhaps that mindset is why you are so ready to believe the impossible, just as the impossibility of pollution having no effect on the climate, not often someone proves themselves an idiot but thanks for confirming my point xxx
CO2 is not pollution, you do realize that?
Brian Cox is the quintessential C8’er! C8 is elegant shorthand for Cash Crop Caucasian Caused Catastrophic Carbon Climate Change. He and other C8’ers are busy farming the government for $$ on a false but profitable theory. C8 . . . a silly name for a silly game. Malcolm Roberts on the other hand, was able to rattle off his two key points about that graph relating it to the El Nino years which are obviously manipulated out of existence. He shows what is needed to combat the lunacy of C8 proponents.
I can not believe people still think that climate change is not real. I can not believe that you can not understand the simple science that is presented to you in clear terms but instead rely on unqualified people making baseless assertions. Professor Brian Cox showed a calm and clear thought process while the whack job of a one nation moron showed that he is part of the alfoil hat brigade. To say that he owned the argument shows that you failed to even begin to understand the argument.
Linda, can you provide the name of a skeptic who does not believe the climate changes?
Unqualified? I take it you are new to this debate?
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics Summa Cum Laude, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Thesis: “An investigation of the general circulation associated with extreme anomalies in hemispheric mean atmospheric mass“), University of Illinois (1987); Science Master, Baptist High School, Nyeri, Kenya (1973-1975); Departmental Fellow, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (1983); Senior Research Associate and Instructor, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1987-1989); Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1989-1991); Alabama Assistant State Climatologist (1989-1991); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); NASA Technical Innovation Award, Marshall Space Flight Center; Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-1995); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1995-1999); Expert Contributor, Climate Observations, National Academy of Sciences (1995); American Meteorological Society Special Award (1996); Expert Contributor, Satellite Observations for Climate National Research Council (1997); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1999-Present); Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Expert Contributor, Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Distinguished Alumnus, Science and Mathematics, California State University, Fresno (2007); Distinguished Professor, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2008); Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1995, 2007); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007, 2013); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
“I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” – John R. Christy
Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chairman, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-2012); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-2007); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2012-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)
“A number of studies point to sources other than greenhouse gases as explanations for the modest warming trend of the late 20th century.” – Patrick J. Michaels
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laudem, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-2013); Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2013-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); ISI Highly Cited Researcher
“Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.” – Richard S. Lindzen
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1979); Ph.D. Meteorology (Thesis: “A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit“), University of Wisconsin, Madison (1981); Member, Marine Observation Satellite (MOS-1) Validation Team, JAXA/NASA (1978-1990); Chairman, Hydrology Subgroup, Earth System Science Geostationary Platform Committee, NASA (1978-1990); Research Associate, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1981-1983); Assistant Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1983-1984); Member, Science Steering Group for the Tropical Rain Measuring Mission (TRMM), NASA (1986-1989); Visiting Scientist, Universities Space Research Association, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-1987); Member, Subcommittee on Precipitation and Winds, Earth System Science Committee, NASA (1986); Technical Advisor, Global Precipitation Climatology Project, World Meteorological Organization (1986-1992); Space Scientist, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1987-1997); Member, TRMM Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, NASA (1987-1991); Marshall Space Flight Center Director’s Commendation (1989); Member, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, NASA (1990-1992); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); Member, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA (1991-1994); U.S. Science Team Leader, Multichannel Microwave Imaging Radiometer Team, NASA (1992-1996); American Meteorological Society Special Award (1996); U.S. Science Team Leader, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-E, NASA (1996-present); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1997-2001); Contributing Author, IPCC (1992, 1995, 2001); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
“As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade.” – Roy W. Spencer
Poptech
Since you are so keen on listing achievements by people, here are the achievements of the man many have vilified here (Prof Cox). Only a fool could fail to see that he is no fool….
“Cox has received many awards for his efforts to publicise science. In 2002 he was elected an International Fellow of The Explorers Club and in 2006 Cox received the British Association’s Lord Kelvin Award for this work.
Also in 2006 he was awarded a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (an early-career research fellowship scheme). A frequent lecturer, he was keynote speaker at the Australian Science Festival in 2006, and in 2010 won the Institute of Physics Kelvin Prize for his work in communicating the appeal and excitement of physics to the general public.[64] Cox was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the Queen’s 2010 Birthday Honours for services to science.[8][65]
On 15 March 2011, Cox won Best Presenter and Best Science / Natural History programme by the Royal Television Society for Wonders of the Universe. On 25 March 2011, Cox won twice at the Broadcasting Press Guild Awards for ‘Best Performer’ in a non-acting role, while Wonders of the Solar System was named best documentary series of 2010.[66][67]
In July 2012, Cox was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Huddersfield.[68] Later that year, he was awarded the Institute of Physics President’s medal by Sir Patrick Stewart, following which he gave a speech on the value of education in science and the need to invest more in future generations of scientists.[69]
On 5 October 2012 Cox was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Open University for his “Exceptional contribution to Education and Culture”.[70] In 2012 he also was awarded the Michael Faraday Prize of the Royal Society “for his excellent work in science communication”.[71] He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2016.[9]”
I will point out that ALL of those “awards” were GIVEN him BY the fans and organizers of the various events BECAUSE OF his PERFORMANCES and ACTING abilities to ENTERTAIN people, and (more important) to ENTERTAIN PEOPLE and GET PAID WELL for that entertainment and the successful repetition of words and ideas written by OTHER people to ENTERTAIN people. They are no more credible as scientific documentation of original thought, original theories OR the credibility of those words that he says than an Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. Or the nightly TV news.
That he is an ENTERTAINER who has gotten grants and fellowships for presenting popular topics about physics to other physicists and to societies – NEEDED if these other physicists are to get the year-to-year funding from politicians and their year influx of new physics students! – does not make him anything but an entertainer.
Simon, you reading comprehension problems are not surprising. The false claim made by Linda was that skeptics rely on unqualified people for their scientific positions. I irrefutably demonstrated that this is not true. You then list a bunch of awards Cox has received including one for “acting”.
Cox fancy himself a great physicist, a legend in his own mind. Wake up from your delusion Cox! You’re a pathetic showman. Learn from truly great physicists Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Linda, if you are interested in actually understanding skeptic arguments I suggest watching this video:
It was clever by Cox prompting the global mean temperature chart from 1970 to 2016.
?w=776
Provided M.Roberts should have prompted
Except Cox’s graph was global, yours is not. And as I understand it, Richard Alley is the architect of your graph and he is a firm advocate for addressing the dangers climate change poses.
There is no CO2 Control Knob.
Seems there are a lot of posties here venting their spleens at the thought that an elected representative is prepared to ask questions about “settled science”. Why do you think he doing that? Could be that all predictions and projections are based largely on assumption computer models. Or maybe Michael Mann’s “proof” has been discredited and no longer use by the IPCC. Or maybe there *IS* evidence that various, supposed impartial agencies like the BoM and CSIRO, have actually been exposed as “fiddling” with the “data”. And many seem to be Australian. Australians are always bad losers. And if “believers” are right, what do you have to lose through some form of rational investigation and debate if you have nothing to hide?
All Malcolm Roberts had to do is to state the fact that CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its [100%] Prediction Failure and that it’s not the Skeptics problem in explaining Climate Change to point out anymore than that. Roberts should have brought official Data-Based Graphs and Images to support this fact, noting that in real Science even one incorrect uniquely posited empirical prediction related in this case to increasing CO2 levels, throws doubt upon the whole of CO2-Climate Change.
But be generous and let Cox show just one correct Prediction. If he goes to his manufactured 1st graph, then ask him about the rest. For example, can he make the rate of SLR increase, the Antarctic lose ice mass, the Hot Spot appear, and ACE increase since 1950?
That should keep Cox busy, and diverting especially to Consensus which Roberts should say is “where the Climate Scientists have to go since their CO2-Climate Change Science hasn’t got Prediction right yet!”
Roberts should show the Audience the content of the Oregon Petition signed by ~30,000 Scientists, just to try to beat them at their own Consensus game and establish CO2 as Plant Food critical to all life. And he should also name some well-known Skeptical Scientists who don’t believe in CO2-Climate Change. Ask if Al Gore is even a scientist. Or Pachauri.
Roberts could also quote the CO2-Climate Scientists’ own IPCC’s AR5 on its failure to correctly predict the lack of an increase in Severe Weather – Hurricanes/ACE in particular – and that it instead predicted an increase of these events. And he could throw in the quote from the TAR stating essentially that the Climate cannot be predicted due to its multi-factored Chaotic influences, including unknowns.
Most of all and especially as an elected Representative before a loaded “debate”, Roberts should have come with a take-home handout to the Audience and Press covering these and many other facts, noting that the question of a Conspiracy is far secondary to failure of CO2-Climate Change Science to make correct Predictions. Get the Pitchforks out later.
Hang on a minute! Let’s considering carefully Cox’s arguments shall we? In response to the question for evidence that man is responsible for global warming, he response by saying “well yes, and I could sit here and read out figures ’till I’m blue in the face, actually, interestingly, it’s getting more worrying if you look at the temperature measurements now. 2015 and 2016 have been quite shocking . . . , surface temps and ocean temps. First few months of 2016 have been pushing above the average . . . “ Now, you can read too much into individual years because the graphs, they’re actually spiky. Moderator states that it is suggested a 1.5 degree increase by 2024 is in the cards now. Cox responds: “That’s a prediction of the models; but, actually the early months of 2016 have already shown that.
How intellectually dishonest can one be? 2015 and 2016 period was a strong El Nino Year. After saying you can’t look at spikes in the temp records he holds up that anomaly as proof that the models are correct! He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. Very disingenuous. Then Cox goes on about “shocking predictions and their resulting “refugee problems”! So he has just blamed Middle Eastern Refugee problem on Global Warming. And, nobody checks him on this claptrap.
Then he goes on: “So how do you respond on very short timescales? One of the things you do is you move. This is now a clear global problem. So, I emphasize this is the same answer as the answer to the last question I think, this is now a clear global problem. The absolute absolute consensus is that human action is leading to an increase in average global temperatures. Absolute consensus. You may try to argue with that but you can’t. So, how do you respond to it.
So Cox, based on an El Nino temperature spike he’s claimed that there is global warming and man is responsible for it. No evidence what so ever has been offered. Mere assertions in exaggerated terms is all this Ministry of Truth minister has spewed, no substance what’s so ever. But, it get’s better.
Malcolm Roberts points out that the record does not support the wild eyed assertions of the minister. The minister wipes out two paper graphs, to much acclaim by the clapping seals, and claims one to be the rise in temperature. He mentions the pause. Can I just tell you where the pause is, the pause that’s often quoted. “If you take this point here which is 1997 I think and you ignore 2015, 2016, you can choose that point and you can draw a slightly straighter trend line (he uses “straight” when he means flat or horizontal, but, hey, whose noticing these little flubs when you’re telling a really big whopper of a lie that appeals to the clapping seals.) for that’s a misunderstanding there, the question is, does that rise? And also secondly because I brought another graph, is it correlated to that, which is the graph that shows CO2 emissions . . . You see that peak there! where it goes fly’n up! The question is, are those two things correlated and secondly do we understand the physical mechanisms? We’ve understand that since the 19th century. Zing! The minister goes! To Roberts: “I’ll give you a lesson if you want!” (because I’m so great at presenting this claptrap.)( After all he is the minister.)
Now, Roberts points to the fact that 1998 and 2016 are El Nino years. Here we’ve had the minister speaking for about 5 minutes and then the moderator interrupts Roberts (I was going to pause here) just as Roberts is getting to making a critical point. Then the stupid moderator (also from the Ministry of Truth) says, Malcolm, you’re hearing the interpretation from a highly qualified scientist and you’re saying you don’t believe it. So the clapping seals are uproariously laughing. Of course Roberts is correct in his assertions in saying the 1930’s are much warmer than no.
Then Cox does his best to diminish Roberts by asking if he believes NASA landed a man on the moon. . . It goes down hill from here. The mathematician says the debate is over. I don’t know how a lay person can look at graphs and come to any conclusions, . . . YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to question the Ministry of Truth. Roberts correctly points out that I’ve heard consensus, appeals to authority . . . Brian you showed me temperature but no one has shown me cause and effect. We need evidence that demonstrates and proves cause and effect. Then Linda Burney, another Ministry of Truth minister, pops into the debate by holding up an anecdotal weather instance as proof of GW (I call it C8) and visiting sinking islands in the Pacific she blames on GW without any evidence of such. See how these people are pulling stuff out of there dark and remote nether regions to make a case for GW. No one but Roberts is willing to talk about facts. Oh, you say, but Cox had those two 8.5×11 graphs as empirical evidence. Well those were were not serious evidence at all. The size alone tells you they were not meant for serious discernment.
Brian Cox then asks what will our climate be like given that C8 is happening (C8 – Cash Crop Caucasian Caused Catastrophic Carbon Climate Change)(Cash Crop because government scientist are farming their governments for grant money which is made available because that’s what the political agenda is) “The way you do that is to model the climate” (never mind that the models are wildly inaccurate in predicting anything because we don’t fully understand the mechanisms driving climate. For those interested in further instruction on this I suggest viewing Bill Gray’s video on ocean currents. Bill was the man that developed Hurricane forecasting but could not get any funding to research C8 because he didn’t believe in the causation.
William M. Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU)
Cox, after saying “given that we understand the physical mechanisms of warming . . . “ This is a bald face lie and is demonstrably untrue. If we did, the models would be spot on. They’re not and we certainly do not understand the physical mechanisms. Based on his false assertion Cox then states, that modeling is the only way you can make determinations about the future. And, you make these determinations on temperature measurements and CO2 levels. “Now that’s the only way to make a prediction about the future, there is no other way!
I beg to differ with the Minister, but the best way to predict is to look at what has happened in the past. I know that in summer the weather is hot so I predict it will be in the future based on past experience. I know day follows night as it always has in my life; so, I know there’s a good chance of the pattern continuing. This has nothing to do with modeling. Nothing whatsoever. Now, Cox, a true Minister from the Ministry of Truth when challenged on the accuracy of the models says: “Well know, . . . they do quite nicely.” This is demonstrably false. A quick search will show this. Cox says the question is if you don’t model it, how can you answer the question? Roberts says we need to look at the empirical evidence and it shows that CO2 levels follow temperature change. Cox responds: “that is flat out wrong, it’s a deception, it’s flat out wrong, flat out incorrect, he’s wrong. Notice how emphatic the minister is?
Cox responds about taking a “I took a snapshot of different bits of evidence for 2015, global ocean heat content, highest on record in 2015, global sea level highest on record in 2015 70 mm higher than 1993 global surface temperature highest on record, El Nino 10-40 percent contribution to that, tropical cyclones well above average overall. As you said even the anecdotal data. . . the point is you go evidence evidence evidence . . . but the point is, the key point is . . . the only way to try to formulate policy is to build models. Well Cox is simply breathtaking in the scope of his propaganda.
NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Posted on April 25, 2016 by tonyheller
NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.
1983: 1983_Hansen_etal_2.pdf 2016 :Sea Level
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-25065924.png
As CO2 has increased, the number of hurricanes hitting the US has plummeted.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screenshot-2016-02-25-at-04.22.54-AM.png
HURDAT Re-analysis
the ocean temperature record is too short:
Argo is a system for observing temperature, salinity, and currents in the Earth’s oceans which has been operational since the early 2000s.
This panel was not really meant to impart information. It’s purpose was purely to indoctrinate all those beautiful young people sitting in the audience.
Why would the number of US hurricane strikes be the relevant figure? Why would you limit the counting to just specifically that? Wouldn’t the number of cyclones and hurricanes worldwide be the most useful measure?
Philip Schaeffer,
Yes, the global hurricane count is the best measurement.
That measurement also debunks the CAGW false alarm:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
P. Schaeffer asks:
“Wouldn’t the number of cyclones and hurricanes worldwide be the most useful measure?”
Yes:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
Thus, another false alarm is debunked by observing reality.
So far, not one alarming prediction has ever come true. No exceptions.
When every scary prediction that was made based on the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare has turned out to be wrong, can you explain for us why any sane person would still believe that hypothesis is valid?
All Malcolm Roberts had to do is to state the fact that CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its Record of [100%] Prediction Failure and that in real Science it’s not the Skeptics problem in explaining [or predicting by “Models”] Climate Change to point out anymore than CO2-Climate Change has failed. And that all real Science is based upon Skepticism and all real Scientists are Skeptics. He did most of that.
But Roberts should have brought official Data-Based Graphs and Images to support this fact, noting that in real Science even one incorrect uniquely posited empirical prediction related in this case to increasing CO2 levels, throws doubt upon the whole of CO2-Climate Change. Quote Einstein on this point, which also rejects Consensus.
Perhaps Cox was influenced only by “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”?
But be generous and let Cox show just one correct Prediction. If he goes to his manufactured 1st graph, then ask him about the rest. For example, can he make the rate of SLR increase, the Antarctic lose ice mass, the Hot Spot appear, and ACE increase since 1950 [A trap because the AR5 has admitted that it hasn’t].
That should keep Cox busy, and diverting especially to Consensus which Roberts should say is “where the Expert Climate Scientists have to go since their CO2-Climate Change Science hasn’t got Prediction right yet!”
Roberts should show the Audience the content of the Oregon Petition signed by ~30,000 Scientists, just to try to beat them at their own Consensus game and establish CO2 as Plant Food critical to all life. Does Cox really want to starve Plants? And Roberts should also name some well-known Skeptical Scientists who don’t believe in CO2-Climate Change and cite the NIPCC in also scientifically rebutting CO2-Climate Change. Ask if Al Gore is even a scientist. Or Pachauri or Green Peace.
Roberts could also quote the CO2-Climate Scientists’ own IPCC’s AR5 on its failure to correctly predict the lack of an increase in Severe Weather – Hurricanes/ACE in particular – and that it instead predicted an increase of these events, including Droughts and Precipitation. And he could throw in the quote from the TAR stating essentially that the Climate cannot be predicted due to its multi-factored Chaotic influences, including unknowns.
Most of all and especially as an elected Representative before a loaded “debate”, Roberts should have come with a take-home handout to the Audience and Press covering these and many other facts, noting that the question of a Conspiracy is far secondary to failure of CO2-Climate Change Science to make correct Predictions.
Get the Pitchforks out later.
Agree with all you say. Roberts should have known he was before a hostile audience and that the Minister from the Ministry of Truth was a panel member. The time disparity between Cox and Roberts is remarkable. Cox gets to blather on while Roberts gets pulled up short by the moderator. People that unmask the C8 charade must come prepared to the fight.
Cox’s great skill is as a communicator. Love or hate him he is able to explain complex things in a way that lay people can understand. Roberts should have known this, been far better prepared and not so naive.
As has already been stated it’s actually remarkably simple to question the validity of man-made global warming because the data we now have just doesn’t support the theory. Put simply, why is it that global temperatures have hardly risen despite greenhouse gases continuing to do so dramatically? Clearly, the computer models on which the whole basis of AGW is built are failing while the physics behind greenhouse gases, which might seem straightforward in the laboratory, are anything but in the complex real world.
Even the most ardent AGW advocates are having to accept this, though many refuse to do so, which is why they’re now having to turn to the ridiculous “hottest years on record” argument, which has no sound statistical basis whatever; and that’s not even mentioning the impact of El Nino.
Roberts should have put this to Brian Cox and emphasised that no matter what NASA might claim the basic evidence supporting AGW simply isn’t strong enough to justify the enormous sums being spent, which would be far better utilised helping people cope with natural climate change.
Cox is communicator. But, the deck was stacked for him. The moderator’s bias in time allotment alone was beyond the pale. My other point, he assumed as true that which is in dispute, man made climate change. Then without giving his opponent a chance to examine the graph he whips that out and pretends it’s settled science.
No, Cox did anything but “explain complex things in a way that lay people can understand.” In fact he did just the opposite. He pushed the lie. the BIG LIE. He propagandizes with aplomb as any Minister does from the Ministry of Truth.
We as thinking discerning people must call out these liars and point out their deceptions. Cox is the worst kind of prevaricator. He supposedly has a PhD, and as such he is to hold up the pursuit of knowledge above self-interest. Instead he has sold out for money. He is intellectually dishonest, the gravest sin of an academic all; in my humble opinion of course lest I be held liable for defaming Mr. Cox. I don’t want to be like Mark Stein who was sued by little Mikey Mann, the man who gave C8 prevaricators their hockey stick. You know, the one Cox whipped out to great amusement of the clapping seals.
An article for all to read http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ and if you disregard is as wrong your just ignorant and don’t understand science.
In other words, the science is settled?
Cox is no different from many academics, Patrick, especially given he works for the BBC whose position is very much in support of AGW. Ultimately, he’s human and isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds him. I exchanged emails with a professor of mathematics at the University of London some time ago asking him about a programme he’d done on the BBC that supported AGW.
He’s a Bayesian statistician and I questioned why he hadn’t used this expertise to make the point that the theory behind AGW needed updating given the latest evidence, which is what a Bayesian statistician should do. We had a very good exchange of emails and in the end I put it to him that given the latest evidence the argument for AGW was pretty much dead. He agreed! Yet just a few months earlier he’d been on the BBC saying the exact opposite. In summary, he’d just gone along with what the producer wanted him to say.
Here is the irony. The very people who should be questioning the evidence for AGW, ie scientists such as Cox (and, yes, he does have a genuine PhD although I’ve been told he’s not popular with his fellow academics at Manchester who see him doing little science and a lot of TV), are the very ones saying “It must be true because NASA says so” without actually looking carefully at the evidence for themselves. Yet they’ll appear on TV saying how good science requires evidence-based rigour!
Unfortunately, AGW ceased being a scientific issue some time ago and is now mainly about politics. However, that won’t change unless and until people such as Cox can be persuaded to look properly at the evidence and then talk openly about it because his communication skills are invaluable; and that’s where Roberts really missed a trick. He must have known the odds would be stacked against him and really should have been far better prepared.
Mark, interesting insight. And it doesn’t surprise me. In fact it confirms what we know and say, science is being corrupted . . . well actually this stopped being science long ago. Instead it’s long been a political agenda intiated by Maurice Strong who saw it as a perm ant funding source for the UN among other objectives. The naught and paid for NOAA, NASA and academic meteorologist are tools of the leftist agenda. Bayesian statistics! Been a long time since I took probability theory and statistics. But for sure the meme is hear people are peddling withered under scrutiny long ago. Antarctic ice at record levels in recent years, Greenland gaining ice, melting of the Arctic for 2016 slowing down substantially, etc. when the regime refused to fun Bill Grays climate research the jig was up.
“The bought and paid for NOAA, NASA . . .” and “But, for sure the meme here, that people are peddling, withered under scrutiny long ago.” Also, “When the regime refused to fund Bill Gray’s climate research the jig was up.”
It was painfully obvious Brian Cox was blase’ in his expectation and responses,pretty arrogant,absolutely chopped by Malcom Roberts.a lesson in not just humility but blindly accepting opinion and rhetoric…GOLD
Dr Brady buries Prof. Brian Cox’s statements that #NASA does not make mistakes re: #climatechange https://youtu.be/F4SEthQ5ClY
Really a shame that Cox was allowed to cheat by bringing in printed graphs.
If Roberts had only been allowed to show Goddard’s evolution of the official reported NASA temperature records over time, it would have been absolutely devastating. Instead Cox just smirks and laughs and says “NASA!” over and over again, then asks if Roberts thinks they faked the Moon landing too.
What’s really galling is that Cox either knows what that graph looks like and is being breathtakingly dishonest, or doesn’t know and is therefore too ignorant to have any opinions on the matter, let alone scoffing at people who do know.