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.
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)