On September 9, 2016, Quadrant Online published the following open letter from Graham Woods to Brian Cox. Grahan Woods is an Australian PhD.
“Dear Brian,
I’d appreciate your response to this email, which deals with your recent appearance on the ABC’s Q&A program.
First, I want to make it clear that, where you’re concerned, I’m not a ‘vexatious invigilator’. My wife and I (each with an earned PhD) have watched most of your TV programs, and have been struck by their intellectual clarity and your unassuming personal style (as well as by your BMI: we’re high-level wellness devotees). With that said, we both have serious misgivings about your recent appearance on Q&A.
No pronouncement that enjoys an audience has zero social consequences, and the more prominent the pronouncer the more significant the consequences are likely to be. Your recent Q&A appearance brings that out well. You were treated like a science guru, both by the audience and by compere Tony Jones, and it’s inevitable that what you said will affect the opinions of hundreds, probably thousands, of people.
You might disagree, but I’d argue that your authority carries a responsibility: a responsibility to ensure that your audience (whether that’s one person or thousands) is not misled by your pronouncements. It’s difficult to evade the conclusion that, on this recent occasion, you didn’t live up to that responsibility.”
The letter continues with detailed arguments. From the Quadrant article, it appears that Brian Cox did not respond.
Full letter here: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/09/open-letter-alarmist-shill/
For those that do not know Brian Cox, he is a brilliant TV presenter of science, who has brought an interest in science and the wonder of the world and of the universe into many people’s lives [well, that’s my opinion, anyway].
Graham Woods’ letter challenges Brian Cox on his (Brian Cox’s) recent appearance on the Australian TV panel program Q&A. It is [again, in my opinion] an excellent letter, polite and carefully reasoned, that points out the flaws in Brian Cox’s statements and arguments on Q&A, in particular the fact that he took part in “the attempted ‘credibility destruction’ of a person who had obviously been set up to be ambushed” and his statement that “The absolute – absolute – consensus is that human action is leading to an increase in average temperatures.“. The letter is well worth reading in its entirety.
Graham Woods’ letter goes on to “help people understand what sort of world they’ll inhabit if fossil-sourced substances are taken off the menu.”.
One of the things that struck me about Graham Woods’ letter is how difficult it is for individuals to stand up against the mainstream in any field, and in particular in science. Brian Cox, from a position of scientific authority, can have a high impact with a very few simple but incorrect statements, yet it takes pages of detailed argument to even begin to refute them – and then it is far too easy for all those pages of arguments to be ignored. (Anthony Watts would be well aware of this, of course – years of argument and evidence on WUWT, even though they have an amazingly wide audience, have so far simply been ignored).
One of the ways that Brian Cox tried to evade responsibility for his statements was highlighted by Graham Woods: “Your implicit invitation, that people do their own research, is disingenuous: you know, as well as I do, that most people won’t do their own research, and that many are simply not capable of it. The vast majority of the world’s public look to respected spokespersons such as you to instruct them about what they should think and believe. You have a profound duty of care to instruct them even-handedly and fairly; I believe you failed in that duty on the recent Q & A.“. Well, I have a Mathematics background, and not only do I try to check anything that is said by anyone on either side of the argument rather than just accept it, but I have attempted to do my own research. I have been honoured – and fortunate – to have some of it published on WUWT. I would like to add my support to Graham Woods by supplying links to it here. [I am not a Quadrant Online subscriber, so I can’t post them there]. If anyone knows Graham Woods or how to contact him, please forward this article to him. I would like him to know that he has support, and to provide him with supporting arguments from a different angle.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/08/inside-the-climate-computer-models/
and the four-part series:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-1/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/27/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-2/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/01/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-4/
If Graham Woods is not already familiar with WUWT, then simply bringing WUWT into his line of vision may also be very helpful.
###
Mike Jonas
September 2016
Mike Jonas (MA Maths Oxford UK) retired some years ago after nearly 40 years in I.T.
The very fact Cox had a NASA / GISS temperature graph with him – to flourish at the desired moment like a magicians rabbit out of a hat, shows he was primed. The show wasn’t there to hold a fair hearing, it was simply a partisan hit piece.
We know that Brian Cox has sold his scientific soul to the AGW deviI, because he appears on the BBC. And you CANNOT appear on the BBC unless you are a fully paid up member of the AGW snake-oiI s c a m.
If Cox was a true scientist and voiced a few doubts, as did Prof David Bellamy, he would be out of the front door faster than weasel sh1t off a shovel. And in explanation for those accross the pond, Prof Bellamy was the nation’s best loved botanist, and someone who truly cared for the environment. But even that could not save him.
Why the BBC sacked David Bellamy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html
R
Brian Cox? Gee I thought it was an article about Oasis reforming.
Cox, pretty boy plonker.
Wow, such a clever boy you are. Did you think of that all yourself?
Actually he is a very fine scientist. Read his wiki page. He may be a pretty boy (all in ones taste I suspect), but he is no plonker.
In response to JK’s comment at 5:43 am. Yes, I agree that making negative aspersions on the “experts” is not likely to get them to read or listen. However, your suggestion that a long time constant to reach equilibrium might explain the factor of 2 apparent exaggeration in climate sensitivity is inconsistent with the recent 18 year hiatus/slowing in temperature increase. If there is a long lag for warming to appear as CO2 increases, then since CO2 has increased monotonically (after seasonal variations are averaged year by year), we should still be seeing a monotonic increase in T. Then shouldn’t the experts be jumping on board the skeptic bandwagon now? This post is not to get those who will never change to change, but to reinforce the arguments on the skeptic side, based on reason.
A better phrase than “monotonic” would be “increasing with curvature upward” for CO2, which for a time matched the increase in T [see Al Gore].
rogertaguchi writes:
IF
‘there is a long lag for warming to appear as CO2 increases’
THEN
‘since CO2 has increased monotonically (after seasonal variations are averaged year by year), we should still be seeing a monotonic increase in T.’
I have to admit I’m having difficulty following the implication from premise to conclusion. It seems to me that the so-called “experts” talk about many sources of variation on longer than seasonal timescales. For example, there is the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, volcanic cooling (e.g. post-Pinatubo), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. I haven’t checked, but I believe that these terms are referenced by the IPCC, they are not just terms used by skeptics.
It appears to me that if the “expert” theory is that such forced and unforced variation exists then other things constant a LONGER lag for CO2 driven warming to appear would make it MORE likely to produce pauses from variation. At least in the “expert” theory it looks like a SHORTER lag for CO2 driven warming would make it LESS likely to produce pauses from variation.
Why is this? Using arbitrary figures to illustrate the direction of the argument:
Suppose “expert” theory claims there is 3C warming over 100 years = 0.3C per decade (LONGER lag) and that other sources of variation produce fluctuations of +/- 0.3 degrees. Then we would not be too surprised if there was a pause of 10 years (i.e. 0.3C warming driven by CO2, with variation for that decade out of phase at -0.3C).
Suppose “expert” theory claims there is 3C warming over 10 years = 3C per decade (SHORTER lag) and that other sources of variation produce fluctuations of +/- 0.3 degrees (other things constant, same as previous case). Then we would not be too surprised if there was a pause of 1 year (i.e. 0.3C warming driven by CO2, with variation for that year out of phase at -0.3C).
‘This post is not to get those who will never change to change, but to reinforce the arguments on the skeptic side, based on reason.’
Well of course if your motive is not to change anyone’s mind then it doesn’t much matter if you base your arguments on reason or not.
I was more concerned with the case where you were concerned to convince people. I wasn’t worried about making negative aspersions or saying experts are wrong, and I wasn’t arguing that you were wrong. I was pointing out that the statement that many experts had failed to do your calculation, presented without evidence, would put off many informed observers since on the face of it the “experts” are familiar with that calculation. You would need to support a statement like that better.
HELLO BRITS ==> Can someone over there supply the details to counter this article in the NY Times:
Welcome to Carlisle, the British City With a Climate Change Bull’s-Eye.
A brief essay would be nice.
Not a complete answer, but very relevant :-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/what-the-authorities-wont-tell-you-about-the-floods/
Although this article refers to the River Derwent in Cumbria, it applies equally to the River Eden in Carlisle, which is also in Cumbria and receives it’s water from rain falling on the Cumbrian fells. On a similar note, failure to dredge the River Parrett in Somerset was also a major contributory factor for the serious flooding which occurred there a few years ago.
This article from the same website suggests that there is no long term upward trend in rainfall in England and Wales.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/long-term-rainfall-trends-in-england-wales/
Hi Kip I’m not up to an essay but Paul has written extensively on it
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Carlisle+flood+site:https:%2F%2Fnotalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com%2F
Beat me to it ☺
Hi Kippax, can’t supply an essay but see if these help any
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/the-cumbrian-floods
http://www.geography.org.uk/resourses/flooding/carlisle
It’s also worth noting that carlisle is on the confluence of the 3 main rivers in the areal and sits on their flood plains.
Hope this helps
You may need to follow the links on the geography site ( click resources then floods then carlisle case study)
It has this to say: Carlisle has a history of flooding with flood events recorded as far back as the 1700s. In recent years there have been significant floods in 1963, 1968, 1979, 1980, 1984, and recently in 2005. And now of course the most recent one.
THANKS BRITS ==> I’ll try to get something together in the next couple of days from your suggestions. Your provided links confirm my suspicions.
One can always count on citizens of the Empire!
If your suspicions were of stupidity then you are right. Most of our rivers were regularly dredged for the last few hundred years. Sometime in the 90s the UK Environment Agency decided they would stop dredging to protect wildlife. They even added large rocks in places to slow the flow of water. However when we get flood conditions as we often do this caused the rivers to burst their banks and all the wildlife they were expecting to protect were washed into fields and houses and were killed.
I know you are interested in Carlisle but you might be interested in the ancient city of York. York is built at the confluence of two rivers, the Ouse and the Foss https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/York/@53.9547949,-1.0794856,15.08z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4878c340e19865f1:0x4774ab898a54e4d1!8m2!3d53.9599651!4d-1.0872979?hl=en When the Ouse is in flood it can backup into the Foss so a barrier was built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Foss_Barrier which can be lowered to close off the Foss. The idiots built the control room below the level of the usual flood waters. On 26 December 2015 the Ouse was in flood and instead of closing the barrier they decided it was best to leave the barrier open in case the control room got flooded and they couldn’t open it again. So a few hundred houses in the centre of York were flooded.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14188665.EXPLAINED__Why_we_raised_the_Foss_barrier_on_Boxing_Day___Environment_Agency/
A suggestion for anybody who finds him or herself in a discussion like the one on ABC. Just ask the alarmists what they think is the right temperature for the Earth. They must know because they claim that how it was is better than now. But they can’t tell you because nobody really knows if there exists such a thing as the “right” temperature and even if it exists what it is. In all the tens of thousands papers in the climate literature there’s not one with that number in it.
A child can understand that if you don’t know what the right temperature for the Earth is then you can’t claim that a) warmer == bad or good, or b) colder == bad or good or c) staying put == bad or good. Which invalidates the warming scare on all points.
The real answer is of course that there is no such thing. The Earth’s atmosphere and the biosphere are adaptive systems and will adjust to whatever comes along. It has done so in the past, it will do so in the future.
One thing I enjoyed about the full Quadrant article is the Cox-introduced evidence that temperature has risen in the last 100 years, starting at a time near the end of the so-called “Little Ice Age”. Now one thing that should be guaranteed by something known as the end of the LIA is that temperatures would rise else we can hardly call that time the end of the LIA. If not a rise in temperature what else would herald the end of that bitter period? Just as the LIA was natural variation so too is the consequence of that episode ending.
I watched part of the debate on TV (I can hardly ever find time to sit and look at that box for any length of time). Sensible scientists should never deign to debate controversial science on that media. Here it is all a matter of handsome appearance, of charm, of wittiness, of clever setting out populist opinions. Real science is far too dreary a business for the great unwashed – who really only ever watch television to be entertained. You don’t ever further real science by “debating” anything on television. It can never be a real sort of debate – it always becomes a sort of circus where entertainment is the main purpose. The climate-sceptic viewpoint will only eventually “win” when (and if) climate refuses to warm as much as the alarmists expect it to. Then people will look back to the “debate” and see it for what it was.
Was this “polite and carefully reasoned” letter sent with a filename containing the phrase “alarmist shill”? If so, that would seem to cancel a lot of politeness.
It always helps to read the OP. You might learn something makes comments like yours unnecessary.
As if politeness is a virtue exuded by the alarmists. I have been called anything between “a relic from the dark ages” (my favourite, incidently), a flat earther, a danger to humanity, a fascist, a denier, a shill for big oil, and a few more of those. No Peter, “shill” is rather tame in my opinion.
OK; I’ll go along with the multiverse thing, as long as the Physics stay the same. Boy; that just means there is an awful lot to be skeptical about.
On the plus side, I’d have to thank Brian C. for motivating me to finally gather my thoughts on the media’s role in the Climate Change consortium as co-conspirators in the Merchants of Fear. I’ve been lazy as of late. Not good.
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=790
While I was up, it seemed like a good time to delete the unwatched episodes of his programs from the VCR. I feel a bit better now. Carry on.
-the old man ‘imself
I’ve seen several shows featuring Brisn Cox and I’m not a fan. Scenery is beautiful but his biased scripts ruin the message and the show!
Being trained as an engineer, I know there are seldom “perfect” solutions. You have to make trade-offs to achieve an acceptable solution! He always seems to blame humans for ills of this world! Won’t watch his propaganda any more! Wonder what he thinks of cyano bacteria changing composition of Earth’s atmosphere 3+ billion years ago!
I love The Infinite Monkey Cage podcast, but know Cox is a bit of a nutter on topics with a political angle. So it’s not surprising that he is so dismissive of any non-alarmist position, nor that he would participate in an ambush of a “heretic.”
+1 for I love The Infinite Monkey Cage podcasts http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snr0w/episodes/downloads (I think radio isn’t limited to UK download) but his recent TV series is just pretty vids with no edutainment meat. After watching the ABC thing he is a twat. As mentioned above he might be being groomed to take over when Attenborough leaves off. Remember Attenborough used to be a sceptic until he saw what happened to Bellamy.
It is now hard to watch a wildlife programme on the BBC without having CAGW rammed down your throat. And then you get reports like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3784545/Sir-David-Attenborough-Brian-Cox-s-TV-nature-shows-putting-viewers-science.html where they try to suggest that people are put off science because the programmes are reaffirming their belief in God. What bullshit, attendance at churches has never been lower. It is the new religion of CAGW that is putting people off science and in the opposite way they are suggesting.
Here he is making a considered and analytical judgement on a horse storey:
The title guarantees that the “alarmist shill” won’t read the letter.
Brian Cox is better at keyboards than at climate science.
And better dressed.
“Things can only get better”
Brian – you need to edit this to “things can only get worse!”
The madness will stop only when the globe returns to much colder weather.
Graham Woods wrote a nice polite letter but the if ever there was someone who knew exactly what he was doing it was Brian Cox. Elsewise why the fake (?) graph that excluded the ’97 El Nino. It was an insidious, deceitful nauseating performance.
I’ve now sat through Brian Cox’s snide and sarcastic bombasts twice, the second time to dig out the single most impressive bit of incompetence of the entire snarky tirade:
“You cross check them into the past they [the models] do quite nicely.” – Brian Cox
This starts at just the right place: https://youtu.be/LxEGHW6Lbu8?t=10m50s
Cross check them into the past? They were parameterized to match the past! The problem is that once a simulation is run, from the point in time of the parameterization forward they diverge from the actual future data, and quite badly.
What kind of physicist would come up with that drivel? I think what is needed here is an interjection of reality from a few of the giants on whose shoulders Cox should be trying to stand upon. Here’s three: Enrico Fermi, Freeman Dyson and “Johnny von Neumann”:
“In desperation I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, “How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?” I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, “Four.” He said, “I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” With that, the conversation was over.”
From “A meeting with Enrico Fermi: How one intuitive physicist rescued a team from fruitless research” by Freeman Dyson
http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/537/ZP_Files/fit_an_elephant.zp53864.pdf
Cox waxes eloquently over how well the models are made to fit the past, but I suspect von Neumann could take the number of parameters thrown at the general circulation models and draw an animation of Carmen Miranda dancing the Fandango if that was what was desired.
DATA NOT EVIDENCE
I saw the program and it struck me that the skeptic failed to sell his message by just repeating ‘where is the evidence’ or perhaps it was ‘show me the evidence’.
Cox showed one of those standard graphs where the temperature goes up and up and the audience applauded.
This was a chance for the skeptic to say: that’s not evidence, that’s computations.
In other words the term ‘evidence’ can be unclear as computations are indeed used as evidence for a belief, and the audience certainly didn’t know any better, so it would be much better to demand the data.
Then say why are they hiding the data?
If things are so bad why do they hide the data?
If they hide the data then things aren’t really desperate.
We know we mean ‘data’ by the term ‘evidence’ but others often don’t appreciate that the term ‘temperature anomaly’ negates any claim to being data or evidence.
We can push the point by saying data or evidence is what goes into the computer, computation by hidden programs is what comes out. It’s not data.
And why refuse to share the algorithms [see above paragraph]?
I mention all this because of the number of times I’ve seen people saying the graphs are evidence.
Maybe it’s time to push the ‘show me the data’ line, it’s harder for the true believers to fudge that one.
Well, Malcom Roberts has made his first speech in parliament:
“It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-calls-for-ausexit-from-monster-united-nations-in-first-speech-20160913-grfojm.html
There ya go.. all sorted. We can all go home now.
He is half right and half wrong.
Upward convection does cool the surface but downward convection reduces cooling of (or one could say warms) the surface. It does it by recovering kinetic energy (heat) from convectively available potential energy (CAPE in meteorology) during the descent along the lapse rate slope.
Thus in the downward phase the warming effect of the reduction in the rate of surface cooling is ADDED to continuing insolation beneath both rising and falling columns and so has to be ADDED to the effect of that continuing insolation thus raising surface temperature above the S-B expectation for the entire globe.
The radiative theory is therefore mistaken because the warmer surface is due to convective overturning and not DWIR.
The effect of any DWIR is neutralised by adjustments to convective overturning as confirmed here:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
The adjustments are caused inevitably as a consequence of density variations in the vertical and horizontal planes all around the Earth. Such density variations inevitably involve changes in lapse rate slopes and therefore the size and location of cells of convective overturning (high and low pressure).
Observed weather is the thermal stabilisation process in action.
In the spirit of fair play, here’s a critical assessment of Malcolm Roberts statements on climate change…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/debunking-malcolm-roberts-the-case-against-a-climate-science-denier
I hope this is not redundant, the Q&A program that the open letter was triggered by, can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jguarSWDcrM