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.
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.