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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!”