Professor Brian Cox has verbally sparred with a newly elected Australian politician who believes climate change is a global conspiracy. The British physicist behind BBC’s Wonders of the Universe was a guest on the adversarial panel show Q&A. Also on the Australian TV show was senator-elect Malcolm Roberts from the anti-immigration One Nation party. The celebrity scientist was dumbfounded by Mr Roberts’ claim that climate change data was manipulated by Nasa.
Islamic State’s ‘Most Wanted’
World In Pictures
Big Hitters
Just Good News
source
49 Comments
NOTHING STOPS what's coming. It's too late. Plan accordingly
What was the "absolute consensus" prior to Einstein, Newton, Madam K., and evey titan whom shoulders we stand? Science isnt about agreeability. It is about peeling back layers for a deeper understanding. My problem with climate change? There are no mavericks challenging the status quo.
What qualifications does he have in meteorologist
The climate changes 4 time a year. They're called SEASONS. Now here's a thing. Get a full glass of water, put an Ice cube in it. Does the water spill over? NO!! Because it is displacing the ice as it melts. That's why even when the polar ice caps melt, the sea levels remain THE SAME. Cox is a tosser. He won't conform to his master's narrative because it will lose funding, it will destroy the electric car industry, and all of the hugely funded and lucrative financial funding the take from, and they don't want that being made known.
cox should go into space and stay there, hes an idiot and knows Nothing about climate science😊the graphs both long and short term show100% that Co2 follows temperature…sunspots are the cause ..there at a peak right now in 11year cycle(2025)🎉
Scientific consensus is when the vast majority of scientists agree what is the correct interpretation of data. Which means you can always find a small minority of scientists who disagree. Having scientific consensus should be enough to consider climate change a high risk. We don't need 100% of scientists to agree.
Just search for the video "How do we know that climate change is caused by humans" by Sabine Hossenfelder
The scientific consensus is built upon evidence
https://youtu.be/YTCkM1jSDt4?si=jl4b7DDD9orCkLlc
Humans have very little to do with climate change. Such arrogance to imagine that we can damage the planet since we are a closed system. What changes the climate is something so much bigger that humanity… were people driving cars before the ice age? Or was the mini global warming during the Shakespearean period a bad thing? Or didn't it result in the Renaissance and the enlightenment and huge leaps in exploration? Slavery got eradicated 100 years later in much of the western world…. climate change isn't brought about by humanity driving cars.
Someone has a gun up his ass and a million dollars in his back pocket…
Consensus Coxhead!
97% of climate scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
No wonder all scientists agree, those that dont lose all funding.
There you go, piece of paper with lines on it. You can't dispute that. What!
Complete BS. Trying to make money and power is there true goal.
"I brought a graph!" A cherry-picked graph that starts in 1880 and shows warming since about 1975. The longer warming trend started 300 years earlier, in about 1675, so there has now been about 350 years of saw-toothed warming since the bottom of the "Little Ice Age," and people have only been releasing enough CO2 to even possibly have a measurable warming effect since about 1950.
Cox has no theory of what caused the 300 years of warming before 1975. None of the consensoids do. So much for the theory that "CO2 is the biggest climate control knob."
But there IS a competing theory. Did you know that here was an 80 year "grand maximum" of solar magnetic activity (sunspot activity), from about 1920 to 2000? And did you know that in the mid-1970's, before the most recent warming began, the leading theory of climate change was that it is driven by the level of solar magnetic activity?
That came with the publication with Jack Eddy's collation of the data in his 1975 Science article "The Maunder Minimum." His solar-climate theory easily explains post 1950 warming. From 1950 to 2000 solar activity was at some of the highest average levels in the observational and proxy records. According to the solar-climate theory, that causes warming.
The solar theory also explains not just the previous 300 years of warming, but the 400 years of cooling before that.
You can verify for yourself in a few minutes that from 1275 to 1675 the average sunspot number was about 40, while from 1675 to the present day the average SSN has been about 80. Low SSN causes cooling. High SSN causes warming.
(Just do an image search for Leif Svalgaard's graph "a millennium of decadal sunspot numbers," and eyeball the sunspot number levels before and after 1675.)
So the last 750 years all fit very nicely with the solar-climate theory. In contrast, the CO2 theory has no explanation for the cooling going into the Little Ice Age, and it can't even possibly explain any measurable amount of post Little Age warming until 1950.
Roughly speaking, that is 10x as much evidence for the solar-warming theory as for the CO2-warming theory (750 years vs 75 years). CO2 has some warming effect, but the evidence says it is small, and any modest amount of warming is unambiguously beneficial. We should want more of it, not less.
Warming is the minor benefit of additional CO2. The main benefit is that additional CO2 is pulling life on earth back from the brink of CO2 starvation.
CO2 is the beginning of the food chain for all life on earth, and that food chain came perilously close to collapsing during recent glaciations. Atmospheric CO2 fell 90% over the last 170 million years, from 2500-3000 parts per million to 250-300ppm, getting as low as 180ppm during the last glaciation.
If it dropped just another 30ppm, to below about 150ppm, most photosynthesis would have stopped and the planet's food chain would have collapsed, wiping out all higher life forms.
That almost happened! 30ppm is about a tenth of a percent of how far CO2 had already fallen.
It looks like mankind came along just in the nick of time to start releasing some of the trapped carbon and prevent all higher life on earth from going extinct. They don't tell you that do they?
CO2 is still at semi-starvation levels. The truth-
what we should be telling children-is that by burning fossil fuels we are saving life on earth.Of course we should not burn fossil fuels unnecessarily. Our entire electrical grid should already be powered by fail-safe nuclear fission. Using oil and gas only for transportation and other portable power would be the perfect energy mix.
show me the experiment that demonstrates the core premise of mann made global warming that doubling CO2 from present 420ppm to 840ppm raises a parcel of airs temp 2.7F to 8.1F
science is not a consensus sport
97 percent of all environmental scientists agree to more funding next year
The sober Senator Malcolm Roberts is right against the self-satisfied Professor Brian Cox.
Of course this clip is nicely edited but Brian Cox looked foolish in this debate. He didn't answer Malcolm Roberts' questions nor did he properly address Malcolm Roberts' concerns.
The hockey stick was based on manipulated data….
How is it Cox can be so smart and so profoundly ignoreant…. NO CLIMATE CRISIS….. HUMANS DID NOT DO IT…
Scientific Consensus is not something like a bunch of random people voting for something. Its thousands of researchers presenting similar results across the globe. If data is wrong more people would have been able to prove that however most of rsearcher agree on fundamental things about climate change like human influence.
More click bait. Statistics can easily be manipulated, and we know that climate activists always exaggerate and lie. Every home and hotel in Florida that is along the coastline and has been there for 50 years or longer is still there. I know, I live there.
THE GRAPH IS CORRIPTED DATA
The arbitrary starting point is a political convenience.
The heat island effect is a powerful confounder.
Natural variation, including the influence of the sun, changes in the magnetic field are underplayed.
All research dollars are trying to PROVE man-made climate change.
Science is never done !
The idiots sucking up to Cox is pathetic. Even more pathetic that he plays to them.
Get Cox up against Patric Moore.
No chance
Follow the money! Bet that smart ass kid's getting paid for pushing that disinformation. Any person going against the official party line gets canceled; no grants and not published. Any "science" that can't be questioned isn't science. He should've shown the yearly temperature graph from 1918 compared to 2018. Except for small daily differences they are almost identical with no rise in temperature.
It's 2024 and the planet is cooler now and oceans have not risen.
What a the Hell was the point of publishing that? Utter waste of my (or indeed, any) intelligent person's time, wherever you sit on 'man-made' climate change…
Smug and snarky never wins an argument
I’ll say what my funder tells me to say, all captured
7 years later and the grey head scientist was a real hero.
The others are all clowns.
here we are 7 years later and there is no climate change and i bet you that we will reach 2040 and there will still be nutjobs that will claim that the end is near and climate will wipe us all out …. bla ..bla … blabla. Its funny how the USA claims it cares so so so much about the climate but Joe Biden made America reach the all time high in oil production :)) …. the BS just wrights itself. Tell you what, i know when the climate change will end … when Russia will no longer sell 1 single barrel… all of this BS with climate change was, is and will be for geopolitical reasons.
https://youtu.be/mcCmVYyXaAs?si=bcyvSQtNVmbgEZdC
Link shows human made climate change is VERY questionable. Btw Cox is NOT a climate scientist.
Learn about geology.. you obviously are not a geologist.
My question. Not arguing. Agreeing. What can I do as one person. To change this? If I can’t, then there should be laws based on science.
Ugh……I agree. But I’m so tired. And I’m getting old. Everyone with the worst opinions seem to love forever and force their opinions.
I just want to get older and die. People don’t have that option. And it’s sad.
Shits going to get very dire in the next few decades. Wars won’t be about territory or religion or oil.
All future wars will be over water.
I did in the past believe Brian Cox but recently I’m not sure he is genuine. I think like a lot of TV personality’s he has been bought over. He still hasn’t addressed the ufo questions either before or after the US government in 2021 came out and admitted it had covered up the truth all along.
Just watch “Climate” the movie and listen to people much more intelligent than Brian Cox
https://youtu.be/_kGiCUiOMyQ?si=Oi-BCbO_HDAyF_IV
The solutions are a farce. If i keep hearing excuses as to why nuclear isn't a viable solution, then I will continue to blow or the message.
We're toast.
Malcolm Roberts had the more logical argument. Challenges to theories must be refuted with facts, not just saying there is a concensus.
Climate change is the liberal religion.
And graphs showing crime has gone down since Biden is a lot of lies. Police not reporting to the FBI DOES NOT PROVE CRIME IS DOWN. IT MEANS CRIME IS NOT BEING REPORTED. WE KNOW ITS UP BECAUSE WE SEE IT.
SAME WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. DATA IS HOGWASH
The IPPC has stated there is no extreme to any of this. Look at the real charts and see the data not modelling crap.
I don't always like to tone polish, but these attitudes of humans are ones of the problems. This is not a discussion. They just push their belief to others. If they have no room to listen to other opinions, they are not qualified to discuss anything. This won't solve any problem.
I used to like Cox, but to blandly state the science has “Consenus”..utter BS, Prof Clauses Nobel Laureate Physics 2022, calls Climate Science is Pseudo Science. A Graph is NOT science
Brian Cox is a hot head! He's been telling people that the universe is 13.5 Billion years old. Now the James Webb pictures has proved him wrong. It's more like 26 Billion years old. So what I'm saying is first, Brian is not always right! Secondly, science & data changes constantly. And third, yes the climate change Data has been altered and manipulated. There is a YTuber climatologist that explains this subject & have the original data to prove it to be false. He has images from 1982 compared to 2023 that shows no ice melt or temperature changes that warrant global warming. Brian Cox is just another mouth piece to push this climate crisis agenda. Don't listen to him & don't listen to me. Do your own research & that includes finding sources from non govt. paid & funded researchers & look at what real climatologists has to say & their evidence.