JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Brian Cox thinks 17,000 employees at NASA always produce perfect graphs. NASA employees disagree. Who to believe?

The key moment making headlines from the Q&A “Science Weak” episode — Brian Cox shows a temperature graph. Malcolm Roberts said the GISS temperature data has been “manipulated”. The Particle Physics Genius’ reply was argument from incredulity:  gushing, gratuitous astonishment spread over six attempts to form a complete sentence:

By who?    NASA?   The people the…  Hang on a minute.   No, no, see this is quite serious.    But can I just – just one thing. NASA, NASA…     The people that landed men on the moon?

In a blink of reductio ad absurbum, Cox sweeps aside a potentially useful discussion about thermometers near car-parks, airports, skyscrapers, and mysterious 1,200 km homogenized smoothing. In its place he gives cheap theatrical tricks. Follow his thought to its logical conclusion — everything that NASA does (or presumably will ever do) must be 100% correct. NASA becomes an apostle of the holy order. He treats the brand name as untouchable, but NASA is not just Neil Armstrong and a Big Step, it’s an agency with 17,000 employees. But hey, none of them have ever produced a manipulated graph.

Since experts matter (so Cox tells us) let’s ask the experts — like say, Buzz Aldrin, Charles Duke and Harrison Schmitt — three guys who actually walked on the moon, or another 47 scientists and astronauts that helped them get there.  They’re all skeptical. They wrote to NASA to protest at the lax standards of GISS:

“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Walter Cunningham circled the moon on Apollo 7,  and as one of the men who helped earn NASA it’s brand name, he now says trust in NASA and science has been abused.

Then there are a guys like Roy Spencer and John Christie who didn’t just work at NASA, they won prizes there — and in climate research. To this day, in an enduring mystery GISS (the Goddard Institute of Space Studies) doesn’t use satellites to measure temperatures, but Spencer and Christie do. Using Cox logic, these guys outrank him, he ought be rushing to copy their views… but they are skeptics. In the last 20 years the UAH graph looks quite different to the GISS graph — though it’s more true to say that even the GISS graphs look different to the GISS graphs, as they transform year after year. Amazing how the thermometer readings are still changing 30 years later. (BTW, even the pause is there in the UAH graph. Thanks Ken. Not that it matters whether it still is — the models were already proven wrong).

Things got so far from a science discussion Cox even asked Malcolm Roberts if he believed that “men landed on the moon”. Cox was either fishing for irrelevant ad hominem attack points or it suggests that Cox has read  more on climate psychology than on the climate. Being a particle physics guy perhaps he was fooled by studies with only ten anonymous internet responses. Psychology is a bit outside his expertise.

See him flash The Graph at 4:30 on this video.

Cox takes on the role of conversation vandal (with Lily-the-future-PhD-in-eco-something as the backup “the debate is over”). He dumps logical fallacies in, trades on his own media gloss and does his best to stop an open-minded, rational discussion. The ABC fosters this sort of interaction, like a twitter conversation with cameras. Linda Burnley’s “proof” was that people shouldn’t go swimming at Maroubra in August. Like that’s meaningful. (Poms have been coming to Perth and swimming here in July since forever…) Neither Cox, Jones, Hunt or Lily scoff or laugh at that comment. They could’ve done the full Scoff-Scorn and Riotous-Laughs, but …meh… wrong target.

One day Cox will understand cause and effect:

Here’s the most important point in the whole last twenty years of debate — credit to Malcolm Roberts for hammering it home. We need empirical evidence, and we need “cause and effect” links.  So here is Cox finally pressed to give his Big Empirical Evidence declaring that climate models are useful:

“Let me just – all right, I’ll just give you one snapshot. So, I took a snapshot of the different bits of evidence for 2015. So global ocean heat content highest on record in 2015; global sea level highest on record in 2015, 70 millimetres higher than that observed in 1993; global surface temperature highest on record, El Nino something like 10 to 40% contribution to that; tropical cyclones well above average overall, as you said and even the anecdotal data. …

…. So the point is you go evidence, evidence, evidence, arctic continue warm, sea ice extent low, artic land surface temperature in 2015, 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit above 1981’s 210 average.

 All of that would happen no matter what caused the warming. Cox hasn’t even thought this one through at a baby basic level. If the solar wind changed clouds and warmed the world, the seas also rise, the ice also melts, blah blah blah. Same for magnetic fields changing cloud nucleation. Same for UV solar cycle changes shifting jet streams and altering cloud formation.

O’but it’s hot says Cox. It’s hot!  Yet correlation is not causation. It’s fallacy after fallacy.

And some people call this man a “renown” scientist. Embarrassing.

See Eric Worrall at Watts up too: .Climate Clash: Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts Owns TV Physicist Brian Cox

Anthony Cox at the ClimateSceptics: Malcolm Roberts and the ABC

The Q and A episode.

H/t to Helen D for the transcript and the “Science Weak” line.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (122 votes cast)
Brian Cox thinks 17,000 employees at NASA always produce perfect graphs. NASA employees disagree. Who to believe?, 9.5 out of 10 based on 122 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hrpuchb

541 comments to Brian Cox thinks 17,000 employees at NASA always produce perfect graphs. NASA employees disagree. Who to believe?

  • #
    AndyG55

    Brain Cox will look back at this, and refer to it as his “Bill Nye” or “Suzuki” moment.

    An incredibly poor performance from someone ranked as “professor”.

    596

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      My takeout was that particle physics must actually be pretty straightforward if this nuff nuff is an esteemed chap in the field. Is he the Tim Flannery of particle physics and really should just stick to that field?

      This little hatchet job on Malcolm Roberts (who gets no plaudits from me for being a One Nation type) reminds me of the gutless sliming of Ian Plimer as a “denier” via an overhead listing vaccination, flouride and the Holocaust as common matters of ‘denial’ and then included climate change. It was performed by whatsisname, that Nobel Laureate in microbiology, at Melbourne Uni some years back with David Karoly sitting in the background. What you had was two Melbourne Uni professors ganging up to publicly slag another Melbourne Uni professor by some gutless backstabbing with no right of reply at the time. Surprise surprise, Tony Jones was the host of that also as I recall.

      175

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        Found this in Graeme Blundell’s column at last Saturday’s Oz:-

        “It’s intriguing to wonder which sceptic from the government will sit alongside this ever so charming verbal assassin who has little trouble explaining the universe to idiots.”

        Says it all really. If you can ‘explain the universe to [[snip] them]’ you have them ready to sell them just about anything.

        [Editorial discretion applied.] AZ

        21

    • #
      Albert

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/
      A good graph of Solar flux vs sealevel here

      Brian Cox said sealevel is rising faster, yet the world’s sea level expert finds that not to be true, it rises about 10 cms per century with ups and downs all the way

      131

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Yes, but Cox relies on published research and data, not blogs.

        836

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Oh, good grief, it’s not just a blog, it’s a guest post on a blog written by Willis Eschenbach….

          533

          • #
            RobK

            CT,
            I invite you to watch Prof. Salby’s recent presentation. Prof Salby link. It is about an hour or so but he is able to show the disconnect; how there is little anthropogenic in AGW. It is well worth a watch even if some parts seem a bit slow, he does put it all together in the end. It uses IPCC data and he is qualified in the field.

            223

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I would bet dollars to donuts that you will get no response from Craig on that point. In his eyes, what you suggest is a heresy.

              173

              • #
                AndyG55

                It is published in videos.

                Gees, even you have heard of it.

                Just because it hasn’t been published in some AGW controlled anti-science journal is neither here nor there.

                You really don’t understand ANYTHING about real science, do you.

                It isn’t about where it is published it is if the science can be back up by REAL DATA.

                Salby does just that…

                The Climate alarmist only have models.

                REAL DATA is NOT their friend

                In fact, it seems that many climate scientists have never even met REAL DATA.

                Sort of like you, Craig.

                22

            • #
              Craigthomas

              And Salby has published this nonsense where exactly, presenting his data and his methods?

              35

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Get a new suit. That one looks like it’s from Ireland circa 1920.

            52

        • #
          AndyG55

          Real data, from tide gauges shows that sea level is rise has been steady at around 1.4 – 1.8mm/year for some 100 years +

          And it is still around 1.4 -1.8mm / year

          There has been NO ACCELERATION, hence NO HUMAN INFLUENCE.

          That is what REAL DATA shows.. and again.. real data is something Craig just CANNOT face.

          274

          • #
            sophocles

            real data is something Craig just CANNOT face.

            ergo, when we apply IPCC logic and analysis, Craig is a denier.

            201

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              That is the nature of this debate. Black is white, day is night, and computer model output is treated as being superior to impirical data.

              Brian Cox presented a conclusion in the form of a graph, and then proceeded to use that graph as if it were a series of observations.

              111

              • #
                AndyG55

                Interesting that there was no sign at all of the 1998 El Nino on that graph.

                Totally flattened to a straight trend line, just like the 1940′s Tom Wigley peak.

                Whatever homogenisation / adjustment / fabrication they are using, it sure gets rid of anything resembling real data.

                103

          • #
            Craigthomas

            Andy repeats once again an untruth about sea level rise when I have pointed him numerous times towards trying to understand the basic maths you need to discern what an acceleration is.
            NOAA, using the actual data, demonstrate the sea level over the past 22 years is rising at twice the rate of the 100 year record.
            I’ve also pointed out to him that over the past 5 years, the trend is closer to 10mm per year.
            Andy persistently refuses to learn how an acceleration can be calculated, let alone recognise global sea level data any more recent than 2011.

            26

          • #
            Albert

            The real data from trusted sources also showed a drop in sealevel twice from 2011, but it continues up as normal
            Why did Brian Cox mention a high temp at Dubai when any spot temp on Earth makes NO difference to global average
            Why are we talking ‘climate’ when climate means 30 to 60 years
            Any changes we see are ‘weather’ and it remains inside all known extremes of the past 2 centuries
            Brian Cox rejects the ‘scientific method’ and accepts ‘consensus’, how can he be called a scientist ?

            00

        • #
          Rob JM

          I’m guessing Brian Cox didn’t bother reading the latest IPCC report where they stated the following about the status of the settled science.

          “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” IPCC AR5 WG! SPM pg 16 footnote.

          The greatest irony is that the graph Brian Cox showed disproves CAGW because the Observed Rate of warming is insufficient for dangerous warming of more than 2deg C once the the pre WW2 warming is attributed to natural cause as per above report pg 17

          “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to
          2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings
          together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this
          period. {10.3}”

          Half a CO2 doubling has only produced 0.5 deg C of warming (much less if you include cloud changes)
          And don’t try and use the BS excuse of warming hiding in the ocean as that also falsifies a theory that relies exclusively on atmospheric positive feedbacks! (that clearly cannot occur in the ocean)

          153

        • #
          RobK

          CT,
          “Yes, but Cox relies on published research and data, not blogs.”
          He did use published graphs but Malcolm Robert’s argument was that they are a deception. The first graph showed temperature anomalies. The y-axis is in fractions of a degree C. The x-axis covered over one hundred years. That graphic is zoomed right in to beyond the accuracy of the recording instruments of the earlier times. The graph is composed of data that had been adjusted(much justifiably, but not all adjustments recorded, which is bad science). Then the data is selected and adjusted for continuity. Then 1600 or so stations are selected to represent some mystical global average over time. After all this the graph shows wiggles of fractions of a degree. It is a farce.
          The CO2 graph is well handled by Prof Salby. Again, Cox misrepresented the data because his graph didn’t actually connect rising CO2 to an anthropogenic cause but he implied that it did and in frustration threw the papers at Roberts. This is a poor response to a scientific discussion. Cox should know better.

          243

          • #
            Ross

            RobK : We know, we know. The data is corrupted! We know this because Malcolm Roberts says it is!
            He also says we are under the spell of an international conspiracy of bankers to create a one world socialist government. We aren’t sure why they would want to do this. They just do. Malcolm has the data! (snicker).
            Honestly, the mans an A grade, tin foil hatted crank! Sorry Jo but these are the ‘maddy’ things he actually spouts!
            Why would you listen to anyone with nut job thinking like that? Unless of course you’re an A grade, tin foil…..
            [I am not about to publish this. It has no scientific merit, and consists of nothing but ad hom comments. -Fly]

            Ross is doing a good job of being a conversation vandal. Makes my point… – Jo

            79

            • #

              Ross, Malcolm didn’t get the chance to say why he thought the temperature data was corrupted. Cox directed the conversation to irrelevant “bread and circus” theatrix and keep it away from actually investigating whether Malcolm could make a credible case.

              234

          • #
            bobl

            Rob, (Jo if you’re reading). The Cox data was the pause buster conflation of North Pole assumptions, ocean surface temperature and surface temperature. It is the worst of the worst data set and it’s a “model”

            Once the temperature is adjusted or has disparate datasets merged it stops being data and becomes a MODEL. If the parameters of the model are wrong, then the output is wrong.

            Cox was also wrong about the source, it was NOAA not NASA, and they didn’t put any men on the moon.

            So Malcolm Roberts, remember this when you see that chart, and any other temperature chart based on a so-called homogenised data set, that these are model outputs, and if the model is wrong the output data is wrong. In this model, Karl et al, aligned the argo data to the unknown biases in ship draft temperature measurements to end up as usual cooling the past according to his model (guess) of what the bias might be in ship draft measurements. Henceforth I am calling these modelled temperature datasets. There isn’t anything real or defensible about them. That in fact goes for UAH and RSS they are models of temperature although UAH and RSS are probably simpler models. Balloon’s might be the least modelled?

            172

            • #

              Thank you Bobl. I did not realize it was that bad. Karl et al.

              Exotic adventures in global data to unfind “the Pause”, by Karl in 2015

              My post at the time:

              Ross McKitrick points out that to get the new NOAA sea surface data they added 0.12 °C to the buoy readings, to make them more like the ship data. That magic number came from Kennedy et al. (2011) where the uncertainty was reported as (wait for it) 0.12 ± 1.7°C. (Which is like saying there is definitely one apple here, give or take 17 apples. So this is what 95% certainty looks like?). Worse, that uber-extremely-uncertain-number was supposed to be used to adjust the ship data down so it was closer to the buoys. The authors felt the buoys were more accurate than bucket-from-ships. Even Karl et al paradoxically agree (have cake, eat cake), saying that because the buoy data is better, it should be weighted higher. In this fashion, the best data can get adjusted the most, to make it more like the bad data, then it can count for more. This is Double-Good-Science! Thanks to Ross McKitricks comments on Karl et al 2015 for details (1K PDF).

              21

              • #

                How sure are you that it was the Karl et al graph?

                20

              • #
                bobl

                Very late reply Jo sorry, maybe you should have e-mailed. I’m pretty sure it was a Karl ET-AL derived chart because of the missing pause.

                I can’t be certain but I think it’s 97% likely it’s a Karl et al derived chart.

                01

            • #

              bobl,
              The satellite measurements of narrow band radiance of way over yonder somepthing, like O2 seem to be quite repeatable in whatever the hell they are measuring. It is the idea that this is the temperature of somepthing, somewhere, that is the whole crock of sh*t!
              All the best! -will-

              01

        • #
        • #
          cohenite

          Thommo says:

          Yes, but Cox relies on published research and data, not blogs.

          Where’s your empirical evidence for that fanciful statement Thommo?

          103

          • #
            Craigthomas

            See the link provided in the article you are commenting on, wherein one May witness Cox doing precisely as I describe.

            16

        • #
          David Smith

          No, he relies on concensus and the idea that correlation defines causation.
          That’s just pants.

          112

          • #
            David Smith

            “Implies”, not “defines”.
            Typing too quickly…

            50

          • #
            Craigthomas

            The physics of absorption, the isotopic analysis of CO2, and the known facts of carbon accounting provide the causation, as accepted by every science academy on the planet.
            You need to improve your study – a good start might be to apply greater scepticism towards stuff you read on blogs.

            27

            • #
              AndyG55

              Remember that your host’s other half wrote the Australian carbon account software.

              Pretty sure his knowledge is several MAGNITUDES more than any of your feeble efforts.

              You need to actually START your study.. back in primary school.

              And please, do try to learn something this time, you are embarrassing yourself. !

              71

            • #

              Craig, yet you obviously don’t read this blog which agrees with you completely about the physics of absorption.

              What “known fact” about carbon accounting?

              If you mean the incidental correlation of human emissions from 1979 – 1999 to warming, So what? The correlation does not hold for warming in 1880 nor in 1920, nor for cooling from 1945-1975. Nor for last 15,000 years of the Eemian.

              This is all baby basic stuff. Are you seriously this far behind the real debate?

              21

        • #
          Steve

          Wrong. Cox relies on Government grants and fat cheques from the BBC.

          Don’t rely on peer reviewed papers. The peer review/referee process is broken. Read Betrayers of the Truth by Broad and Wade. It has got a great deal worse since then and is especially bad in climate psedoscience because of the money. Cox is a disgrace to his profession and I look forward to his downfall.

          123

        • #
          ATheoK

          Most of those graphs Cox presented are not from ‘published’ research.

          A lot of those graphs looked to be sourced from the worst and most unreliable climate blogs.

          Since Cox used consensus science to educate himself regarding climate, he is an extremely disappointing physicist as part of that panel.

          Basically, Cox admitted total ignorance about any of the graphed data. Making him completely unfit for defending any of them.
          I would have loved Brian Cox explaining the ocean heat content graph reason’s for using joules. Allegedly, physicists are taught proper uses of terms to describe work, heat, etc.

          When pressed about scientific rigor, Cox relied upon argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), argumentum ad populum (Popular opinion), and as Jo points out, reductio ad absurbum (reduce to absurdity, or perhaps better understood in reverse as elevate an absurdity as support).

          Disappointing Dr., er, Mr. Brian Cox!!

          81

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Yes, but Cox relies on published research and data, not blogs.”

          From his performance on Q&A.. No he doesn’t

          He is totally at the TWIT call.

          84

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Cox is a charlatan, promoted because he’s a pretty boy.

      143

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        We have no direct evidence of that.

        Although, considering the observed audience reaction, and his response to the audience reaction, there is certainly some evidence of correlation.

        61

        • #
          turnedoutnice

          Plenty of evidence; he is a fanatical supporter of IPCC pseudoscience. As any professional can easily work out, it is based on a basic error made by R D Cess in 1976 and a modelling paper by GISS in the same year which used ‘negative convection’ in a 1-D model to overcome that basic error.

          That basic error is to claim 40% extra energy into the atmosphere than reality, the result of claiming that the difference of surface radiant exitance and OLR heats a clear atmosphere radiatively. Using 2009 Trenberth data, it is 94.5 W/m^2 (157.5 W/m^2 global clear sky atmospheric greenhouse factor’ – real 63 W/m^2 net surface IR). 94.5/238.5 = 40%.

          This breaches the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is a subsidiary argument which reinforces this: Cess claimed OLR/surface exitance is Earth’s emissivity, but there is parallel surface convection and evapo-transpiration. Furthermore the -18 deg C OLR emission claim assumes that OLR has unity emissivity – totally inconsistent! Reality is that the radiative surface of the planet varies from the surface to ~20 km depending on wavelength; in other words for all except the atmospheric window and non self-absorbed H2O wavelengths, the real surface ceases to exist because it is not an optical heterogeneity.

          It has to be offset by what Hansen admitted in 2000 was a ‘fudge’. The first fudge was negative convection, which does not exist. The present fudge is a Kirchhoff’s Law approach; better hidden in modelling complexity.

          To repeat; any person who accepts this physics is behaving unprofessionally, and is an advocate for fake science.

          52

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I was referring to your comment, that he was “promoted because he’s a pretty boy,” by obliquely referring to the camera shots of his predominantly female fan club.

            “Sigh;” Some people just can’t “do” subtlety.

            41

            • #
              Mari C

              I don’t think Cox is particularly pretty. Could be an “in” joke I am not seeing as it SWOOSHES over my head, but… Cox looks a bit unfinished, his features don’t match, and his mouth (and lips) are just weird.

              From what little I know of him he’s none too bright, despite the paperwork he’s attained.

              31

              • #

                I think Brian’s stint at CERN was to help identify the very first Technicolor Boson known as the “CRAYON”. He would keep them lined up orderly on his desk, while trying to stay inside the lines! :-)

                63

            • #
              turnedoutnice

              OK! mea empathy failure!

              10

          • #

            “It has to be offset by what Hansen admitted in 2000 was a ‘fudge’. The first fudge was negative convection, which does not exist. The present fudge is a Kirchhoff’s Law approach; better hidden in modelling complexity.”

            To me this seems like a deliberate violation of Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal electromagnetic radiation.

            “To repeat; any person who accepts this physics is behaving unprofessionally, and is an advocate for fake science.”

            I agree wholeheartedly! This was intentionally done to improve the return on the natural gas investments of Hanson and Gore!
            All the best! -will-

            62

  • #
    • #
      Albert

      For 5 decades I’ve seen warm winters and cool summers, it’s cyclical but cyclones are on the decline

      170

    • #
      handjive

      HE’S won three world championships and fought off a great white shark live on TV, but until now Mick Fanning had never surfed with icebergs.

      The pair found themselves in freezing conditions surfing glacier waves, floating on chunks of ice surrounded by sea lions and towering mountains.

      50

      • #
        Albert

        You jest surely, Al Gore said at least 2 times the Arctic would be ‘ice free’ by 2013 and as it was still 50% ice in 2013 he no longer makes predictions

        102

  • #
    Doonhamer

    Brian Cox is an excellent Scottish actor.
    This other upstart is a failed pop band member, with enough spare cash to get qualifications in an undersubscribed hobby profession. He suits the BBC because they believe he is cute enough to appeal to their target audience and never rock the accepted consensus in science, politics, sexual matters, and every other field he dips his dainty toe into.

    546

  • #
    AndyG55

    “So, I took a snapshot of the different bits of evidence for 2015.

    So global ocean heat content highest on record in 2015;

    Unknown, in-measureable before 2003., Even now still pretty much unmeasureable.

    Probably, and very thankfully, some increased ocean heat since the LIA.

    global sea level highest on record in 2015, 70 millimetres higher than that observed in 1993;

    Now that is just rubbish. Sea levels have been rising steadily since measurements began
    Somewhere between 1.5 and 2mm/year. And have certainly been higher in the past.
    The rock shelves along much of the NSW coastline prove that.
    There is NO anthropogenic signal in sea level rise.

    global surface temperature highest on record,”

    Only in a much “adjusted” data set, during a major El Nino, after some very beneficial warming out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

    So basically.. a load of anti-science propaganda misinformation, as expected.

    505

    • #
      AndyG55

      Might add, the sea level rise in Sydney Harbour, at Fort Denison, has been a pretty stable 0.65mm/year for over 100 years.

      No acceleration, no CO2 ocean warming signature..

      Same as basically every other tide gauge in the world.

      436

      • #
        Albert

        While watching the Olympics, I’ve noticed Rio has a beautiful beach still above sealevel and not 20 metres under water as some experts predicted

        133

        • #
          Bulldust

          You lie… you weren’t looking at the beach but the bikini-clad volleyball players :p

          171

          • #
            sophocles

            Well, the beach volleyball players weren’t 20 metres under water either. So what does it matter if Albert was watching sand and waves or something else? His point about none of the beach being under water still stands.
            I thought what little beach volley ball I did see looked quite good. :-)

            71

        • #
          John of Cloverdale WA Australia

          Albert, I was there (Rio)in 1979, and the coastline still looks similar to me. So does Wylie’s tidal baths in South Coogee, Sydney, where I learnt to swim in the mid 1950′s. I will leave my tales about the Rio women and night life for another time.

          72

      • #
        Dennis

        Port Arthur in Tasmania too, not surprisingly.

        82

      • #
        Scott

        But the tide gauge in Sydney Harbour is sinking and has been for 200 years at least

        52

        • #
          Craigthomas

          Rubbish. No such subsidence has been measured. Where did you get that incorrect tidbit from? Didn’t occur to you to be sceptical?

          27

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor Craig, doesn’t know that Fort Denison had to be underpinned about 10 or so years ago.

          Again, the abject IGNORANCE we have all come to expect.

          62

          • #
            Craigthomas

            Nothing to do with subsidence. As I said no subsidence has been measured at Fort Denison.
            Prove me wrong with some empirical evidence.

            25

            • #
              AndyG55

              ROFLMAO.. Craig asking for empirical evidence.

              That is bizarre in the utmost,

              considering he has NEVER provided any,

              and has no idea what it even means !!!

              52

            • #
              AndyG55

              https://s19.postimg.org/f6lwc2tmb/sinking.png

              Craig wears YET MORE EGG. !!!

              (I hope they are not battery hens)

              measured sea level rise at FD = 0.65mm/year..

              crustal velocity = -0.4mm/year

              Sea level rise at Fort Denison = 0.25mm/year (table is only to 1dp)

              REAL DATA, REAL MEASUREMENTS.. do you comprehend, little AGW toady ?????

              Don’t you EVER get tired of showing yourself to be a MOROÑ, Craig

              (the tild on the N is to avoid the auto-moderator)

              52

              • #
                Craigthomas

                That’s not a measurement from Fort Denison, Andy.

                Do you think you can get your act together one day and post something sensible?

                25

              • #
                AndyG55

                Do you thing that you could go and get an education so you might one day comprehend something.

                You think Sydney doesn’t include Fort Denison….. really ???????

                You have just proven, yet again, your BLATANT IGNORANCE.

                This time not only of geography, but also of the geology of the Sydney region.

                12

    • #

      You have to fight bogus graphs with real ones, like those from Dr. Humlum. To Brian Cox we can and should say this: “You show us a graph where the past history is different today than GISS reported it a year ago, and different again from 5 and 10 years ago. Why should we believe this one any more than the other ones?”

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/gotcha-graph-from-giss/

      103

  • #
    Keith L

    I am becoming more disgusted by the day with these celeb ‘scientists’. Cox is educated and knows as well as anyone what crap the whole AGW hoax is and yet he is prepared to go along with it for personal gain.
    In the past we have had scientists who have been willing to suffer terrible fates to protect the truth and this preening fop cannot even bring himself to tell the truth.
    Ocean heat content? So he believes that each ARGO buoy can measure and average of 300,000 cubic km of sea water and report back with an accuracy of 0.01C.
    What a clown.

    476

    • #
      AndyG55

      I once had some other clown try to tell me that the ocean heat content was “measured” back in 1955.

      Quite bizarre. !

      266

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Cox is educated and knows…’

      I don’t believe he’s being disingenuous, its more like 97% ignorance on the subject of climate change. There are a lot of bright people out there from other disciplines who haven’t taken the time to study the issue, yet they respect and trust those scientists to know what they are talking about.

      That is why we find so many educated and professional people who fall into line on climate change, while the slightly less educated see the king has no clothes and laugh uproariously.

      385

      • #
        Keith L

        Well you are more generous than I am in giving him the benefit of the doubt.
        You do not have to be an expert in climate anything to know that a graph going up does not tell you about the cause.
        Also, he MUST/SHOULD have asked himself how heat content of the oceans are being measured and wondered how it is possible to do so to an accuracy of 0.01C.

        142

        • #
          el gordo

          Keith he is deluded, along with millions throughout the world.

          152

        • #
          Bushkid

          I’m with you Kieth L, I no longer believe that any of these supposedly higher educated people really do “believe” in the CAGW hoax. If supposedly “ordinary” folk like us can look at things calmly, sceptically and logically and realise the numbers literally don’t add up, and see how the data has been fudged and manipulated to reflect the desired trend, then they can too. The only question remains what to call them, and how to get them into a court of law to answer fraud charges.

          For Cox to actually utter the “97% of climate scientist agree” rubbish was gobsmackingly jaw-on-the-floor astonishing. I mean, how can he possibly not know it’s bunkum?

          For him to talk about sea level rises when any school kid (well, those of my era anyhow, it’s probably not even taught now) knows that the tectonic plates that we live on are constantly on the move up, down and sideways is equally bizarre. Even the Australian coastline is rising and sinking at different rates all in all directions, without the encouragement of being on the Pacific Rim or any other fault lines! That information is only a few mouse-clicks away for any enquiring mind.

          I guess the problem is we’re a bit short on enquiring minds these days.

          131

          • #
            graphicconception

            I mean, how can he possibly not know it’s bunkum?

            Easy, he has never checked.

            41

          • #
            el gordo

            Bushkid they brainwashed themselves to such a degree that they cannot extricate, even if they have a suspicion that they might have got it wrong.

            Global cooling will come as a huge shock and the Klimatariat will scurry to rectify their misguided belief system. Some might live in fear of litigation, but most will fall back on the Nuremberg Defence to save their careers.

            Cox knows nothing about real climate change.

            21

    • #

      I suspect that Cox is a bit like Flannery. Perhaps at one time genuine about what he did but then saw where the money was coming from, realised that whatever he thought or said would be ignored, so why not just follow the money and be looked upon as a good guy. It’s not as if he’ll ever have to plead Mea Culpa, as with Flannery and his predictions.

      294

      • #
        BunyipBill

        I don’t think Flim Flannery has ever issued a ‘Mea Culpa’ for any of his failed predictions. What he has done is to move (got the sack) from a highly paid government (taxpayer) funded job whipping up “climate change hysteria” to a highly paid job in the ‘private sector’ doing the same thing.
        If Flim Flannery were to ever issue a Mea Culpa his lucrative sinecures would likely come to a grinding halt. Indeed, I don’t think any AGWist has ever stated so much as an element of doubt about their failed models/predictions let alone issue an outright Mea Culpa.

        173

        • #

          None of them would ever admit to having been wrong, let alone admitting that they created undue hysteria. They would simply fall back on the age old excuse of ‘All the evidence pointed that way, it would have been remiss not to take action.’

          I wonder how these predictors of catastrophe and those who act upon those predictions, would play the game if their future wealth were directly connected to their predictive abilities. Flannery would be a poor man and not a Green politician that could live without welfare.

          81

          • #
            Another Ian

            bemused

            Continuing the theme of that old drinking song around the cookie jar

            “What me? Couldn’t be!”

            10

  • #
    CheshireRed

    Notice how alarmists aren’t even interested in contrary evidence or claims offered by sceptics? If Cox (or the other panellists) had any sort of open mind then the moment Roberts made a VERY serious allegation, that of data manipulation, Cox should’ve been all over it. (‘I’d really like to see your evidence, that’s a very serious allegation and if true a complete no-no and maybe even a game-changer’) He wasn’t. Having said he wasn’t even aware of such claims he immediately rubbished them! Whatever that approach is, it’s not impartial science.

    423

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I alwatys bring upt he Vostok Ice Cores…..yes its one of many things you can use, but upsets the warmists no end….especially as it covers teh last 100,000 years.

      If anyone can think of a better one-stop bit of science to prove the point, I’d be open to that….thoughts welcome….

      152

      • #
        Analitik

        If you’re referring to the 800 year lag between the rise in CO2 levels vs temperature, be prepared for the more educated warmists to present the recent paper by Frederic Parrenin in 2013 where he models the migration of CO2 up through the ice core creating a mismatch between the age of methane and CO2 at any given depth.

        I found the paper contained many assumptions and suppositions but it may be that all ice core modelling is like this – I don’t know enough to be able to judge.

        https://epic.awi.de/32547/1/parrenin2013s_accepted_all.pdf

        11

  • #
    • #
      ROM

      .
      Ilma @ # 7

      .
      Thank you very much for that link and its list of 143 climate scientists, many of them very prominent climate researchers, all of whom have listed their specialties in the various disciplines associated with research into the global climate and the factors that drive it and any changes in the climate.
      .
      International climate science coalition
      .
      The Climate Scientists’ Register

      “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”
      .

      Click on country name in the following list to see endorsers from that nation: Algéria (1 endorser), Australia (8), Bulgaria (1), Canada (16), Denmark (1), Estonia (1), Finland (1), France (1), Germany (4), Greece (1), India (3), Italy (3), Luxembourg (1), Mexico (1), New Zealand (6), Norway (5), Poland (3), Russia (5), South Africa (1), Sweden (8), United Kingdom (6), United States of America (64).

      Following are the 143 names along with each climate scientist’s climate related research specialty listed.

      103

      • #
        ROM

        Addendum to post # 7.1

        The full list of those scientists are at this link

        41

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Shame all you have is a petition signed by a very small number of people with either little or zero published science to back their opinions, rather than any actual empirical evidence.

        730

        • #
          ROM

          I’m astonished!

          YOU appear to be really and truly almost completely ignorant of the range of science at every level that is being published by scientists everywhere today including some of the highly regarded climate scientists listed there aren’t you Craig Thomas!
          And those papers are coming from right across the whole spectrum of climate science and now increasingly from solar science and its effects on the climate.

          And by your comments and attitude you have shown here, you really are completely disinterested in even trying to expand your knowledge of the climate science that is being done today and how even the warmist scientists are shifting in their understandings of the factors affecting the global climate and how even warmist scientists are now publishing articles on the failures of the climate models and their predictions for the increase in global temperatures over the past couple of decades.

          I really shouldn’t be surprised as it comes from somebody who can’t even describe in his own words how his belief in his version of “Climate Change” is even firmly identifiable and different to the “Natural Climate Change” that has always been a part of the Earth’s entire climate history going back over three billion years.

          Of course only believers in cults never ever shift their beliefs in the inevitability of the predictions of their cult beliefs coming to fruition.

          276

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Craig just gave you a red one for your correct riposte.

            84

            • #
              RobK

              And I accidentally gave him a green one with the slip of the thumb as I was scrolling. I think you are being silly with that remark Craig.

              52

            • #
              craig thomas

              That pile of rubbish wasn’t good enough for any thumb, not even a red one.
              Wasn’t me.

              (I’ll give El Gordo a red thumb, his stuff is bad enough to be good, that’s about it.)

              ROM is still banging on about “solar theories”, even though every single one of them has either been shot down in flames for poor maths, or has made global cooling predictions that haven’t happened.

              38

              • #
                el gordo

                (I’ll give El Gordo a red thumb, his stuff is bad enough to be good, that’s about it.)

                Hmmm … I’ll take that as a compliment comrade.

                ‘…made global cooling predictions that haven’t happened.’

                All our cards are on the table, 2017 is the starting point.

                92

              • #
                AndyG55

                EGG.. omelettes..

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                “them has either been shot down”

                You have NEVER shot down anyone with anything.

                A limp lettuce at most, with EGG dribble all over it. YUCK !!!

                92

        • #
          James Murphy

          Have you just discovered how to use the term ‘empirical evidence in a sentence? Next, hopefully, you’ll learn what it actually is, and maybe have the brain power to realise that adjusted data (with no traceability, or history of the adjustments) is not empirical data.

          111

        • #
          Peter C

          The curious thing is that Brian Cox was so poorly prepared for what was clearly going to be a contest about the AGW theory.

          EVIDENCE

          “Let me just – all right, I’ll just give you one snapshot. So, I took a snapshot of the different bits of evidence for 2015. So global ocean heat content highest on record in 2015; global sea level highest on record in 2015, 70 millimetres higher than that observed in 1993; global surface temperature highest on record, El Nino something like 10 to 40% contribution to that; tropical cyclones well above average overall, as you said and even the anecdotal data.

          A snapshot of different bits of evidence in 2015 was clearly not going to cut it. His temperature graph was not attributed and was immediately challenged by Roberts. Ocean heat content is meanlingless rubbish and his claims about sea level rise and tropical cyclones are both wrong and easily shown to be wrong. Cox must realise that (I think). As for anecdotal data!

          You would think that Brian Cox would become an instant skeptic when he considers the weakness of the evidence which he has presented.

          171

          • #
            Dave in the States

            His temperature graph was not attributed and was immediately challenged by Roberts. Ocean heat content is meanlingless rubbish and his claims about sea level rise and tropical cyclones are both wrong and easily shown to be wrong. Cox must realise that (I think). As for anecdotal data!

            You would think that Brian Cox would become an instant skeptic when he considers the weakness of the evidence which he has presented.

            He knows that is not necessary with his scientifically illiterate, target audience. It is nothing more than a shameless hit and run smear attempt. Intellectual honesty and scientific integrity apparently mean little to these people.

            81

            • #
              ROM

              Maybe with 284 comments on this post I might have missed this somewhere in another comment here.

              Brian Cox on the ABC program with Malcolm Roberts used a NASA GISS graph to try and illustrate the supposed and claimed rise in global temperatures particularly over the last couple of decades.
              .

              HOWEVER the NASA GISS graph displayed and promoted by Cox during the program has had the very prominent and very substantial temperature spike from the 1998 Super El Nino , a spike that is one of the most prominent features of every temperature graph of the last couple of decades, was removed and almost completely obliterated in the graph displayed by Cox.
              .

              Brian Cox quite possibly quite deliberately used a false and deliberately misleadingly and grossly fictitious and ” adjusted” NASA GISS graph to try and enforce his own and the ABC’s bigoted intolerance for anybody who dares to question their own deeply biased and bigoted “climate change” increasingly cultist like ideology.

              In short it appears that Cox has quite deliberately supplied and displayed false and deliberately corrupted data in an an attempt to destroy another persons, an Australian voter elected Senator’s reputation at that, that person, Malcolm Robert’s crime in Cox’s and the ABC’s eyes for being Roberts is a skeptic who does not conform to and accept the ABC and Cox’s ideologically biased beliefs on the global climate.

              Cox in this case together with the ABC could in fact be [ criminally ? ] guilty of deliberately using false information in an attempt to discredit and destroy another person’s reputation and standing in society.

              103

        • #
          Glen Michel

          What a silly pest you are Craig.Do you really think that sceptics are doing this for a lark(joke) – we do it because this alarmism can’t be left unanswered.Consider that the overwhelming majority of us believed in man-made warming from “greenhouse gas”emissions at the outset.Further enquiry dictated otherwise. You’re way behind mate or irretrievably brainwashed(or brain dead)

          213

          • #
            TdeF

            Actually I do not believe it, but it is like Climate Change. Climates change. So what? Yes, there is always some warming from gas but not very much from CO2. No one thinks so, not even the proponents of the theory. The infrared absorption bands are wrong. Water vapour is the major cause of reflection both in and out of the planet, as you can tell on a cloudy day or clear night. Only if heating produces steam which traps CO2 can anyone even come up with a workable theory and that is simply not happening. There is no hot spot.

            My main concern is this absurd and unjustified attack on CO2, the basis of all live on earth but really a political attack on Western democracies and without foundation in any science I know. The very idea that industrialization increased CO2 is so absurd. That is near impossible on simple physical principles of equilibrium which underpin all chemistry and from C14 measurements this has not happened, but when people talk Global Warming/Climate Change they mean man made CO2 causing a rapid increase in temperature. No part of that is true.

            Craig and similar acolytes rant on about published science. You can publish all you like. It does not make it true.

            Most importantly, the fallacy that 17,000 NASA scientists prepared a single graph is just funny. Of course they didn’t but particle physicist Cox has no more idea about CO2 than he has about global warming.

            As an aside, what has come from particle physics? Nuclear physics gave us nuclear power, X rays, radiation treatment, isotope tracing in diagnostics and even the bomb which has given us 75 years of relative peace for the first time in history. So Brian, what has your lot done to improve the planet? Global Warming, the least scientific theory in a lifetime, more religion than fact.

            112

          • #
            craig thomas

            I don’t know what you are on about, Glen.

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is incontrovertible physics.
            CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last couple of centuries, this is a measured, incontrovertible fact.
            The increased CO2 has come from fossil fuel and land use, ie, human activities, that is a known checmical fact due to isotopic analysis.

            All you have left is sensitivity, hence all these “global cooling” predictions.
            The vast majority of science points at a sensitivity of 3 degrees, and likewise rules out anything anywhere near 1 degree, let alone below it.

            Your host occasionally tries to help you stop embarrassing yourselves by trying to bring you back onto sensitivity, which is the only aspect of the physical facts of global warming that you can rationally be sceptical about.
            It seems some of you are immune to that message of reason and continue to spout nonsense which is categorically wrong in the face of the science that demonstrates these facts.

            211

            • #
              AndyG55

              Eggs.. do you need any more ???

              Keep asking

              51

            • #
              TdeF

              “The increased CO2 has come from fossil fuel and land use, ie, human activities, that is a known checmical fact due to isotopic analysis.”

              No, the exact reverse is true. There is virtually no old CO2 in the air. Where did you get this idea? I would love to see it, because from C14, radio carbon dating, you can prove this is rubbish. High school stuff.

              101

              • #
                Craigthomas

                Tdef has no idea.
                C14 has nothing to do with it.
                It is the ratio of C12 to C13 which demonstrates conclusively where the atmospheric rise is coming from.
                More study, less ignorant opinion. Please.

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                “More study, less ignorant opinion. Please.”

                Yet IGNORANT, BASELESS opinion is all Craig has EVER produced.

                Maybe a just little bit of study when he was in his teens would have helped fill in the yawning chasm is his comprehension and understanding.

                52

              • #
                Craigthomas

                So… Nothing to add them, Andy?

                What do you think of Tdef’s unfortunate confusion/ignorance over attribution of CO2 source via isotopic analysis?
                Did you know he was wrong, or will you also thank me for teaching you something you didn’t know?

                14

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              Craig,

              Here is an assist to your thinking.

              It is well known that heating water causes it to expand, see its coefficient of thermal expansion (except for a small exception near 4 deg).
              This is an analogy to saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (early scientists detected heat from IR spectral experiments).

              So, if global temperatures increase, sea level should rise, other things being equal.
              Analogy, GHG in the atmosphere should cause the air temperature to rise.

              Observation, sea level can rise faster than predicted from thermal expansion.
              Observation, air temperature can rise faster than predicted from GHG effects.

              Not all is equal. Sea level can rise faster than expected because of melting land ice.
              Analogy, not all is equal, air temperatures can rise faster than predicted , because of natural variation.

              Attribution of sea level rise between thermal expansion and melting land ice is hard. Also, there are several more perturbing effects.
              Analogy, attribution of air temperature changes to GHG or natural variation is hard. Also, there are several more perturbing effects.

              Conclusion. Nobody can yet claim there are accurate figures for sea level rise.
              Analogy. Conclusion, nobody can yet claim there are accurate figures for GHG heating of the air.

              You can see that, expressed this way, the case for GHG does not rest alone on the laboratory observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is involved in a complex process, some of which seems to enhance the heating effect (like postulated positive feedbacks) and others seem to reduce its effect (such as low cloud in the air).

              It is the properties of the whole process that matters. It is not simply the case that GHG are present in the air and increasing. There are some scenarios, such as over the Antarctic, where more GHG in the air is postulated to lower the air temperature.

              The GHG theory is not complete until all of the processes are quantified and weightings given to the participation of each.

              Do you get this? Care to comment?
              Geoff. (Scientist).

              122

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Geoff Sherrington.

                “The GHG theory is not complete until all of the processes are quantified and weightings given to the participation of each.”

                Correct, but irrelevant in this context. The scientific theory of AGW is established science. Very rarely is a scientific theory considered complete, to expect it to be so is called the Nirvana Fallacy.

                I do not believe you are a scientist. But you can show me to be wrong by providing references to your publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

                Twinotter — list your own first since you think it matters — Jo. Sherrington is 1000 times the scientist you will ever be.

                17

              • #
                Craigthomas

                I don’t see how Sherrington can be a scientist when he fallaciously asserts that a Theory has to be complete to be true.
                This isn’t just wrong, it would be jaw-droppingly wrong if it was coming from a scientist.

                Consider the Theory of gravity – is it complete? Of course not, nowhere near. But it’s true for two reasons: it conforms with observed facts, and scientists have had a go at it for a few hundred years without disproving it.

                15

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Consider the Theory of gravity-is it complete? Of course not, nowhere near.

                In what areas is it lacking, Craig? And what experimental results or observations would be required to “complete” it?

                To say that it is true because it confirms with observations, is not valid, since it could only appear to be true, due to confirmation bias. You need to set up experiments in such a way that that confirmation bias cannot be a factor.

                To say that it is true because it has not been disproved, does not exclude the possibility that there may be an experiment, or a mathematical procedure, or an observation, somewhere in the galaxy, that would disprove it. The concept of proving a negative leads into a logical fallacy. If you don’t understand the rules of logic, how can you understand the rules of science?

                Or don’t they teach science freshmen about logic these days? Perhaps it is too hard, for their fragile little brains.

                20

            • #

              craig thomas August 18, 2016 at 6:42 pm

              “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is incontrovertible physics.”

              CO2 is used in greenhouses to improve plant growth. This is horticulture never physics. Troll!!
              It was fraudulent ‘labeled’ Greenhouse Gas by James Hanson NASA Goddard, specifically to induce the public into believing that such was only some bad residue from burning ‘COAL’ as heat source. Coal was the only significant competition for stationary power production, to his and AlGore’s sizable investment in the production of natural of ‘natural’ gas. (PROFIT) There is absolutely no physical reason for such a label.

              “CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last couple of centuries, this is a measured, incontrovertible fact.”

              A very nice recovery from the little ice age. We all hope such will continue to 800ppm. What is your suggestion for helping that along? Seems like most countries are taking the hint and constructing more coal fired plants. Good for them and us.

              83

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘All you have left is sensitivity, hence all these “global cooling” predictions.’

              The lukewarmers are aware of sensitivity, but the Denialati believe carbon dioxide makes things grow better and is essentially benign in every other respect.

              20

        • #
          graphicconception

          Well, you could look at the graph on NOAA’s web site that shows the adjustments they have made to the raw data:

          From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

          Note how the adjustments alone account for most of the recent temperature increases.

          81

          • #
            graphicconception

            Oh dear. My attempt to embed a graph failed. Look at the chart titled: “Difference between raw and final USHCN datasets” on the following page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

            Apologies.

            40

            • #
              craig thomas

              Remind us what BEST found when they studied this issue?

              Also, please note, that graph appears to use some kind of archaic mediaeval system of temperature measurement – it’s not in Celsius.

              17

              • #
                AndyG55

                Craig admits he does not understand Fahrenheit.

                Nor how to convert it.

                Again with the IGNORANCE.. scrambled this time.

                91

              • #
                AndyG55

                And BEST are one of the foremost in the AGW scam,

                run by a LIAR who pretended to be a skeptic and his rabid extremist daughter.

                “Regional expectations” used to adjust data… seriously ?????

                61

        • #
          Ross

          I like you a lot Craig. Stop using published science!

          38

        • #
          David Smith

          But the CAGW have no empirical proof, do they CT

          31

          • #
            David Smith

            Aargh, I can’t write! Let’s try that again:
            But there is no empirical proof of CAGW, is there CT?

            51

            • #
              craig thomas

              What? Apart from the physics, the chemistry, the maths and the observations, you mean? No none at all.

              27

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Apart from the physics, the chemistry, the maths and the observations,”

                NONE of which you can actually comprehend.

                All of which you ignore.

                You have NOTHING but EGG on your face, and you KNOW it !!!

                92

              • #
                bullocky

                Craig,
                David was asking for the ‘empirical proof’, not your opinion. These are fundamentally different quantities. Other readers may also be interested in the ‘empirical proof’.

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                “the physics, the chemistry, the maths and the observations”

                Produce some of yours.. so we can all have a laugh.

                Every time you have tried you have been EGGED. :-)

                41

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Craig,

                Quoting Bullocky:

                Other readers may also be interested in the ‘empirical proof’.

                I would certianly be interested in seeing some (any) empirical evidence from Craig. But none is ever forthcoming, is it, and that is because he doesn’t have any.

                I actually doubt that he knows what the word “empirical” means. He also uses the words evidence, and proof, as if they were interchangable, so he doesn’t understand the difference there, either.

                My conclusion is that Craig Thomas doesn’t understand science. That leads me to the questions surrounding why he is here. Applying Occams Razor, I suspect he is a school kid, using a photograph of his father, in uniform, as his avatar. Or, alternatively, and in keeping with his demonstrably low IQ, he might be a PR wonk who is way out of his depth.

                I would be delighted if Craig could present some real evidence to the contrary.

                10

        • #
          tom0mason

          Craig,
          I could be worse they could rely on consensus and inaccurate models.

          81

  • #
    Bartender

    His career would be at risk if started to tell the truth. The likes of David Bellamy et al who had been resigned to the BBC’s dustbin of history is not so appealing for a bright man of his caliper and a promising career to match. How would he earn a living if he did? And, you wonder why he avoid debates.

    564

    • #
      Annie

      Tried to give you a green thumb but it won’t show up, further attempts tell me duplicate vote but still saying 0!

      94

      • #
        Annie

        Shown up now!

        64

        • #
          michael hart

          The funny bit is that the regular house ‘downvoter’ troll even voted you down that that comment.

          112

          • #
            Keith L

            He is a weird one. I can set my watch by him. I wonder whether he even bothers to read the posts or whether he just clocks on an does his noble duty.

            54

            • #
              ROM

              Damn! And here I thought Lurch, my pet but apparently illiterate and low intelligence palsied red thumbed box pusher was loyal and would come out of the back of its cave to give me a guaranteed red thumb with every comment I posted.

              Ably assisted at times by its equally intellectually challenged palsied red thumb mate, Lurchalotta to give me two red thumbs so helping me up the voting scale into the 10 vote plus, pink territory.

              And now I find them both spraying their palsied red thumbed affections around to any and every commenter who might come by.

              64

          • #
            Annie

            Really funny…It must have an auto red thumb facility.

            42

        • #
          Yonniestone

          That’s enough coffee for you Annie :)

          20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Bartender! Was can we do about the !@#$% predictive texter?

      21

    • #
      TdeF

      This is the BBC. Life all leftist organizations, they are haters. They hated Jeremy Clarkson out of the business. He was on a warning for counting off camera eeenie, meenie, minie, mo. Racist apparently. Now they are 50 million pound in the hole, but morally superior for getting petrol heads off the BBC. If Brian Cox even started to talk sense, he would be history in a minute. Like all scientists, he needs the job. What would a particle physicist know about meteorology? Nothing. Or as much as Tim Flannery.

      51

      • #
        TdeF

        This is the BBC. Like all leftist organizations, they are haters. They hated Jeremy Clarkson out of the business. He was on a warning for counting off camera eeenie, meenie, minie, mo. Racist apparently. Now they are 50 million pound in the hole, but morally superior for getting petrol heads off the BBC. If Brian Cox even started to talk sense, he would be history in a minute. Like all scientists, he needs the job. What would a particle physicist know about meteorology? Nothing. Or as much as Tim Flannery.

        51

      • #
        bobl

        A particle physicist aught to know the basics of Thermodynamics and Entropy, and thus shouldn’t believe that heat dissipated in the ocean to become 1/10000 th of a degree rise can somehow lurch back into the atmosphere as 3 degrees of warming. Our ocean moderates temperature it does NOT store it ie – it can only warm the lows, it only COOLS highs. A physicist that can’t do thermodynamics – a first in my experience.

        Nor do I think that any physicist that thinks that a spectral line for a molecule will get broader with concentration as the no-saturation version of physics favoured by the climastrologists say is worth listening to. I’m just a lowly Engineer and I can tell that is crapola.

        Cox, do the math yourself instead of accepting other’s judgements, you are accepting Pseudo Science at it’s worst.

        He should also have some idea of Henry’s law, but Pooh-poohed it when Malcolm brought it up. Very little resemblance to a Physicist that I can see.

        61

  • #
    PeterC

    I wonder where Brian Cox is getting his facts from?

    70mm sea rise since 1993 seems extreme to me. That might be from the special tide guage on a sinking island in the North Sea.

    Also his psychology of skeptics ideas. He just needs to hang around the BBC for that but he is a Professor at the University of Manchester. Didn’t our old friend Lewandowski go to Manchester?

    213

    • #
      ROM

      He doesn’t need facts.
      Few of the climate change catastrophe faithful ever need facts to support their beliefs and ideology and to promote their man made catastrophic climate change ideology.

      It has always been so with these types of compulsive fear mongers all the way down through the history of mankind and it won’t change very soon for when the Climate Change meme has been done for in the years ahead, they will have to to satisfy yet again their own compulsive fear driven prejudices and find yet another Fear inducing cause to again blindly follow and promote in an effort to gain adherents so as to again justify their power, positions and privileges as the Leaders of the Faithful.

      82

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Well, those are the facts, in fact it’s more than 70mm now:
      http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

      (Of course, if anybody has empirical evidence that NASA is wrong, I’m sure they will share it with us).

      523

      • #
        James Murphy

        On the satellite data 1993-present plot, can you please tell us what happened around 2010-2011 to cause the dip in sea-level? Was that due to humans, or was it natural variation?

        Can you please indicate the component attributable to natural variation, and that which is due to human activity? – based on the “Ground Data 1870-2000 plot, and/or the satellite plot. Your choice.

        I see you’re still parroting the phrase ‘empirical evidence’ at every opportunity…. it just confirms your ignorance, and your ability to repeat keywords – so please, keep it up.

        143

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          That dip had a whole paper published about it.

          Very interesting read it was, too.

          Are you saying you missed it?

          417

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘Are you saying you missed it?’

            Sir … sir …it rained so much on a large island in the SH that it produced a dip.

            131

          • #
            RobK

            …and the acceleration of sealevel rise with rising CO2 is? Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. Are you implying CO2 is to blame Craig?

            61

            • #
              craig thomas

              That’s odd, here on planet Earth, the long-term trend was of sea level very slowly dropping prior to the effects caused by global warming causing a more recent sharp rising trend to start about 150-200 years ago.

              I wonder – which planet was Rob referring to?

              Also, I wonder, should we send him to Taiwan?

              113

              • #
                AndyG55

                1.4mm/year or thereabouts is NOT a sharp rising trend.

                In most places it is barely discernible.

                I doubt anyone today can point to somewhere with obvious sea level rise.

                101

              • #
                bullocky

                Craig, I see you’ve taken Ross’s advice not to use published science!

                101

          • #
            James Murphy

            You failed to answer a couple of very straightforward questions.

            You can’t even quote the author, title, or publication? I guess as well as knowing nothing of science, you also know nothing of how to supply a reference.

            I’ll ask again. Maybe you struggled a bit with some of the larger words or the 4 digit numbers?

            On the satellite data 1993-present plot, can you please tell us what happened around 2010-2011 to cause the dip in sea-level? Was that due to humans, or was it natural variation?

            Can you please indicate the component attributable to natural variation, and that which is due to human activity? – based on the “Ground Data 1870-2000 plot, and/or the satellite plot. Your choice.

            41

            • #

              not too hard to start with this paper and follow the paper’s that cited it for more detail

              Boening, C., J. K. Willis, F. W. Landerer, R. S. Nerem, and J. Fasullo. 2012. The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell. Geophysical Research Letters 39, L19602, doi:10.1029/2012GLO53055

              30

        • #
          tom0mason

          james,
          I find it strange how satellite data is good enough to measure sea level but not good enough to measure global temperature.

          Satellites measuring variations in the planet’s gravity normalized to a known subsidence point shall give us sea level.
          And few thermometers scattered here and there coupled with massive statistical adjustments will show us something about global temperatures.

          Seem almost like they don’t want to find the correct data for each.

          41

          • #
            craig thomas

            Seems almost like you reject data you don’t like in favour of ideas for which there is no empirical evidence.

            39

            • #
              AndyG55

              “of ideas for which there is no empirical evidence.”

              You mean “global warming”?

              There is in fact NO “global” warming.

              There is some REGIONAL El Nino forced warming that feeds through to the “global” data set.

              The ONLY warming is in regions affected by El Ninos.

              The areas that have not been directly affected by El Nino and natural ocean oscillations are NOT warming.

              REAL DATA (which we know you can’t comprehend) shows that:

              1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

              2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

              3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

              4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

              5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

              6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years

              7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

              8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

              9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

              10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

              11.Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.

              12. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

              13. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling

              14. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

              That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

              There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.

              The ONLY real warming has come from regional ElNino and ocean circulation effects.

              And even your own childish attempts at graphs using WFTs shows that the ONLY way you can get a warming trend is by using those El Nino steps.

              173

            • #
              tom0mason

              Seems almost like you reject any method not blessed by the UN-IPCC. Do you only blindly repeat the consensus view. Why is that? Can you not think outside UN-IPCC box?

              In real science the truth is found by investigating a problem from many angles. By that means reliable knowledge, or at least greater insight to the problem, is revealed.

              Maybe you should read how for many years NASA knew that the sea level measurements from satellites were not accurate. Well, they finally admitted it and have tried to fix it.

              Like you I’ll not give references — you can find them for yourself.

              71

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Craig,

              I am a bit embarrassed to ask this question, but I noticed that you use the word, “Empirical,” quite a lot. It is obviously important in “science,” so I looked it up in a dictionary. Do you know what I found? You will laugh at this … the dictionary, defines “empirical” as, “a. Based on, guided by, employing observation and experiment rather than theory; used because it works, or is believed to”; “b. Derived from or verifiable by personal experience.”

              Given that quite precise definition, Craig, and considering that we are discussing the whole of the climate on a continual basis, how can you we possibly get observations about all of it, without being everywhere, at the same time? Similarly, how can we possibly mount controlled experiments on the entire climate? Can you see the problem?

              I don’t believe that we have the technology to monitor the entire planet continuously. I suspect that “empirical science” is probably confined to the laboratory, and doesn’t have much meaning elsewhere.

              10

            • #

              Craig,

              you keep talking about Empirical evidence,which you obviously do not understand because most of the AGW conjecture was built on unverified climate modeling constructs to year 2050,2100 and even 3,100 (yes it is in the IPCC report).

              Climate Models are built on assumptions, guesses and some data,Omit known climate processes and the Sun,which are not testable at all.You can not call it empirical since it is not verified.

              Definition of Empirical Evidence:

              “Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

              This means the 100+ Climate models to year 2100 as published in the IPCC reports are worthless.They are not subject to falsification therefore not scientific at all.

              You can not observe and test what has not yet happened!

              Meanwhile you continually imply most skeptics do not accept the basic greenhouse effect of the CO2 molecule,this is false because most skeptics have long accepted a small warm forcing effect.

              You also write idiotically: “Consider the Theory of gravity – is it complete? Of course not, nowhere near. But it’s true for two reasons: it conforms with observed facts, and scientists have had a go at it for a few hundred years without disproving it.”

              Yes that is because it meets The Scientific Method paradigm, meaning it has been tested many times and survived.

              But the Full AGW conjecture utterly fails such a test because you can’t test modeling constructs that runs far into the future!

              The Theory of Gravity was once a conjecture,then it became a hypothesis and now a Theory. AGW has not reached the level of Hypothesis, because it is not testable, therefore it should either be modified or thrown into the burn barrel.

              00

      • #
        Glen Michel

        70mm ? The thickness of your skull more likely.

        66

      • #
        ROM

        Sigh! How often do I have to suggest that you do a good search of the published papers , peer reviewed if you insist, on a subject before you come here with your poorly researched and intellectually rigid warmist claims.

        0.3 mm of that NASA claim doesn’t even exist. It is added to compensate for the geostatic rebound of the planet’s crust as the earth’s surface continues rising after the great ice sheets finally finished melting some 12000 years ago.

        That estimated number of 0.3.mm/ year adjustment added to the sea level rise annually is to supposedly compensate for the expanding ocean basins and is a completely guessed at theoretical figure that purports to show what the sea level would have been if there hadn’t been a rebound of the global crust after the ice sheets melted.
        But even then the NASA sea level satellite derived numbers are still very wrong according to some research, some of which is very recent.

        An analysis of the global tide gauge data shows that sea level rise is decelerating due to what is becoming apparent, that there is a long duration oscillation in sea levels of a number of long period cycles, one such cycle being about a 60 year long cycle.

        Quite some time ago I had a link to a NASA satellite conference presentation which was discussing the various ways in which the satellite engineers could provide the corrections for their sea level measuring sensors and technology to make those satellite measurements conform to the tide gauge data.
        And there from engineers who could’nt give a damn about sea levels, they just wanted their first choice in science, satellite technology to be correct, were discussing a satellite technology advance to give a correction down to where the tide gauge data was showing of around as quoted by those engineers, a 1.5mm/ year sea level rise.

        So if you want to look at some real per reviewed science that uses Tide Gauges that are actually sitting in the oceans waters to see what those Tide Gauges are actually measuring then a couple of papers out of a good list for perusal ;

        SeaLevel. info;

        A couple of papers from this site out of a number listed;

        Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks
        [quoted ]

        The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56±0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration.

        The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long term behaviour.

        While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the Southern Indian Ocean.

        Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected.

        Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration.

        On shorter time scales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50 to 75 years and of about 25 years.

        &

        Coastal research’

        RESEARCH PAPERS
        Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

        Abstract
        Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise.
        To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years.
        Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed.
        In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.
        To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

        124

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Er….a 6-year-old document. Your sole source that you have chosen to justify your pre-conceived notion?

          How about you,
          a. Rely on multiple sources
          and
          b. don’t ignore progress in research represented by many more recent research that has since been published.

          You *do* realise that if you add in the missing data which your 2010 paper doesn’t cover, you get a 10mm/year sea level rise?

          Now *that* is an inconvenient fact…

          923

          • #
            el gordo

            The impact of ENSO is given no credit and the plateau in temperatures has also been significant.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html

            131

          • #
            el gordo

            Also this abstract by P J Watson.

            Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?

            ‘The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions.

            ‘These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time.

            ‘The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.’

            143

            • #
              craig thomas

              4 sites, and *only* when using the 1940 starting point.

              Any other starting point for those 4 sites shows acceleration. The Nobel Prize-Winning expert in something or other, Graham Lloyd, has misled you into thinking Watson was saying something other than what Watson was saying.

              Meanwhile, NASA uses global data, not local.

              210

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Meanwhile, NASA uses global data, not local.’

                If sea level falls in the eastern Pacific and rises in the west Pacific for an extended period of time, will the satellites pick it up and adjust or does someone back at NASA HQ do that?

                61

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                craig thomas

                >”NASA uses global data, not local.”

                NASA (or AVISO, ENVISAT etc) sweeps ocean surface in absolute terms. Local tide guages are relative terms.

                Either way no acceleration. Meehl et al (2016) concede no acceleration in global sea level.

                And no acceleration or human “fingerprint” in the Pacific Ocean from satellite data:

                ‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
                H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)
                http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024/meta

                Answer: No.

                >”4 sites, and *only* when using the 1940 starting point. Any other starting point for those 4 sites shows acceleration.”

                Really Craig? Are you sure? You appear to be new at this.

                Here’s 40 high quality sites (scroll down) from around the world for you starting with 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

                ‘Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends’
                http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=680-140

                No human “fingerprint” in any of them and recent rates are less than mid 20th Century.

                For chuckles:

                500-041 Mumbai/Bombay, India
                http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=500-041

                131

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Should be:

                [Fasullo] et al (2016) concede no acceleration in global sea level.

                40

          • #
            AndyG55

            “you get a 10mm/year sea level rise”

            roflmao..

            What a LOAD OF RUBBISH !!

            105

          • #
            ROM

            Ok! Craig Thomas. Over to you!

            As you have continually failed to provide any links to science papers that might support your claims, lets see a link that supports your 10 mm a year sea level rise rise claim

            If you can’t provide a link or links supporting your claim or start troll dodging all over again well that really proves a point doesn’t it.

            174

          • #
            el gordo

            ENSO remains an enigma and the Walker Circulation needs closer scrutiny.

            ‘The tropical Pacific has featured some remarkable trends during the recent decades such as an unprecedented strengthening of the Trade Winds, a strong cooling of sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern and central part, thereby slowing global warming and strengthening the zonal SST gradient, and highly asymmetric sea level trends with an accelerated rise relative to the global average in the western and a drop in the eastern part.

            ‘These trends have been linked to an anomalously strong Pacific Walker Circulation, the major zonal atmospheric overturning cell in the tropical Pacific sector, but the origin of the strengthening is controversial.’

            Hadi Bordbar et al 2016

            104

          • #
            sophocles

            Craig: you claim 10mm pa sea level rise. Prove it.

            Or are you just opening your mouth to change to your socks?

            93

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Prove it.”

              Do you hear the wind in the trees, the ticking of a clock?

              CT seems to have swallowed his sock ! ;-)

              41

          • #
            mike m

            “… if you add in the missing data which your 2010 paper doesn’t cover, you get a 10mm/year sea level rise?”

            Yeah Craig, let’s see a link or anything else that comes close to supporting 10mm/year, THREE times more than the worst claimed by the climate doom cabal (who add in post-glacial rebound which NOBODY will ever experience at a coastline anywhere on earth). PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

            http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2016_rel3/sl_ns_global.png

            62

          • #
            tom0mason

            Craig,

            Er….a 6-year-old document… /blockquote>

            6 years or 600 years…
            Truth has no age — it just is.

            Truth does not rely on a consensus of acknowledgement nor volumes of papers written about it.
            Truth is truth recognized or not.

            And the truth about climate is that we know too little to give any very accurate assessment.
            If you think otherwise tell me within a year when the hottest day will occur in Darwin and what the temperature will be (± 0.5°C), in the next 30 years.

            Maybe you should go back to the start and try again.

            61

            • #
              tom0mason

              Mods

              Is it possible to close the blockquote I have erroneously edited above?

              Thanks.

              20

            • #
              craig thomas

              Oddly, somebody or other was indeed claiming that he could predict that Solar Cycle 24 would cause (for reasons not properly explained) that the temperature in New hampshire would drop by 2 degrees.
              Needless to say – *he* wasn’t a scientist, because that would be a very odd thing for scientists to predict. Your demand that they should is even odder.

              110

            • #
              tom0mason

              Craig,
              “Needless to say – *he* wasn’t a scientist,…”

              Oddly Einstein was not a scientist, just a failed student working as a patent clerk, but with a very good understanding of mathematics and a clear imagination for the possible. A scientific theorist, a logician, and a great thinker on scientific matters.

              No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

              Albert Einstein

              The theory that CO2 could significantly heat the atmosphere was, with a verifiable experiment, debunked. Professor R.W. Wood’s ‘Experiment on the Greenhouse Effect’ in 1909 effectively established that the theory of CO2 heating the atmosphere was wrong. [Please note that for his day Professor Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR (Infrared) and UV (Ultraviolet) photography.]

              At the time of Wood’s experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.

              Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn’t absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)

              Later experiments (investigations of CO2 laser) proved this theory, revealing that a molecule cannot emit a photon unless it has first been raised to a specific “excited state”. The lifetime of these excited states is typically measured in micro-seconds or milli-seconds.

              Experiment and theory are in concert here. That is unless, Craig, you don’t think Niels Bohr or Professor Wood are able scientists, or that CO2 laser work as specified.

              So Craig can you prove otherwise with a verifiable experiment?

              91

          • #
            James Murphy

            Craig Thomas – You appear to be suggesting that we should base relevance and quality of work on its age more than anything else.

            In my work as a scientist, I often use reference materials which are anywhere from months to decades in age. Are you saying this is not what I should be doing, and that anything older than 6 years is obsolete?

            Do you, for example, suggest that the pivotal paper; “Magnetic Anomalies Over Oceanic Ridges” by Vine and Matthews is obsolete an should be scrapped? It was published in 1963, so, assuming your maths skills ar cup to it, you may be able to determine that this is more than 6 years old.
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v199/n4897/abs/199947a0.html

            Do you suggest that the work by Michelson and Morley (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) from 1887 should be removed from the collection of human knowledge?
            http://www.ajsonline.org/content/s3-34/203/333.citation
            and via public domain here:
            https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

            Perhaps we should also forget about the work by Watson and Crick (1953); Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v171/n4356/abs/171737a0.html

            Are you stupid, or is it a joke?

            81

            • #
              AndyG55

              In 1905 a guy called Albert something-or-other wrote a little paper about his relatives, or something like that.

              We obviously should ignore that one, too.

              61

      • #
        Scott

        They are not facts. The error from satellite observations is much more than 5mm.
        On the linked page the two graphs don’t align – satellite 87 mm rise in 25 years – CSIRO shows about 20mm in that period. This is based on the Sydney Gauge – the only one with that length of history which is sinking at 0.65mm per year – 13mm in 25 years??
        (And Fort Denison has moved 2m North in this period)

        62

        • #
          Craigthomas

          Gosh, a single station doesn’t show the same thing as the global average.

          I wonder why that would be?

          412

          • #
            AndyG55

            Real data, from tide gauges shows that sea level is rise has been steady at around 1.4 – 1.8mm/year for some 100 years +

            And it is still around 1.4 -1.8mm / year

            There has been NO ACCELERATION, hence NO HUMAN INFLUENCE.

            That is what REAL DATA shows.. and again.. real data is something Craig just CANNOT face.

            113

            • #
              Craig Thomas

              Which Gauges, Andy?
              How about Port Kembla? Is that one included in your vague assertion? Because it shows 2.6mm/year, so I know you have ignored it.
              What does the “real-world” gauge at Broome say, since it was installed in 1991? Any idea? would 8mm/year shock you? Darwin? Portland? Have you actually *looked* at the real-world data, or just been reading nonsense on blogs?
              Esperance shows 5.5mm/year

              In fact there are very few gauges that show the kind of numbers you mention. Which would indicate you’ve been doing some cherry-picking. Naughty boy.

              210

          • #
            tom0mason

            Craig,

            How is sea level measured from satellites, and how is the satellite data related and standardized (correlated?)to the sea surface?

            41

            • #
              Craig Thomas

              I imagine if the professionals doing this work have made any mistakes, then a relevant correction will be made when somebody can successfully point out to them where they’ve gone wrong.

              On the other hand, vague accusations on blogs might do the trick, you never know, but I guess it will have to, if that’s all you’ve got.

              410

              • #
                bullocky

                Craig, you should avoid this sort of thing;

                ‘I imagine if the professionals…’
                and
                ‘ On the other hand, vague accusations on blogs ….’

                Readers may gain some insight into your methods.

                82

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Readers may gain some insight into your methods.”

                LIES, DECEIT, INNUENDO…..

                NEVER any REAL DATA.

                72

              • #
                tom0mason

                Craig,
                With that comment you would appear to be diverting attention from some actual ignorance.
                I imagine a near professional like you could find and explain the relevant information with ease.
                Or are you going to prove me wrong on that too?

                Maybe you feel above mere lowly people like me to actually give references, quote real science, and explain it to show that you understand it, so enabling you to counsel others on these references’ merits and deficiencies.

                141

              • #
                AndyG55

                Any of Craig’s attempts at anything resembling real science can be ripped to shreds in a few minutes with REAL DATA.

                As shown above with his DECEIT on the Port Kembla, Broome etc tide charts.

                142

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Craig Thomas

                >”I imagine if the professionals doing this work have made any mistakes, then a relevant correction will be made when somebody can successfully point out to them where they’ve gone wrong.”

                You can “imagine” Craig, or you can check the facts. The “experts” simply splice absolute (satellites) to relative (tide guages). There is no “correction”. Easy to see in a graph with an overlap:

                Church (2008)
                http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif

                Obviously a TG-Satellite splice that neglects the continuing TG data is bogus.

                And the steeper satellite trend is simply due to the start date of the satellite data i.e. they start at a dip and miss the higher data immediately prior and back to 1940.

                In other words, the 3.4 mm/yr satellite trend is a complete miss-representation of global sea level trends

                The recent Fasullo et al paper rationale is fatally flawed due to the start date of the satellite data. So much for “experts”.

                101

              • #
                tom0mason

                Craig,
                Our host’s husband Dr. Evans, Roy Spencer, and Dr. Tim Ball all have expertize in climate matters and all do not subscribe to the AGW theory as propagated by the UN-IPCC.
                These people individually have pointed out some errors in this popular theory.
                So Craig given your bona fides on the subject you saying they are mistaken? Have you explained to them where they have errors?

                81

              • #
                AndyG55

                Craig keeps rabbiting on about “credentials”

                Come on Craig… do you need more face-egg.

                41

          • #
            Mari C

            How many stations would that take, Craig? How far apart on which coasts? Do we try to measure the rise and fall of the on-coastal waters? How do we know if we are measuring actual rise/fall or just wave action way out there? Sinking land, rising land, atolls growing up higher, getting covered over, ground down, recycled – how do we ensure what is being measured all around the globe isn’t something other than sea level? And then – oh my, and then – how do you tell the fisherman who’s dock is 3 meters above 6 inches of water that hey, the Global Average says the sea level is really .6 meter higher than your dock – without getting tossed in the muck?

            How many thermometers would make a global average? Given that a -local- average isn’t even achievable most times, how would a -global- average – of anything, really – be achievable? In just a 10 mile radius around my place of employment the temperatures can vary around six degrees F on the same day at the same time – sometimes more. Freeway, parking lot, dry-stubble fields, forests, rivers, creeks, lakes, housing developments. You name it, it alters the temperature measurement. The add in clouds, unseen water vapour, other gases and particulates, declination of the sun, etc., and then tell me – how do average all that and get something that actually makes even on a local basis? Much less GLOBAL? Sheesh.

            61

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          It’s interesting isn’t it, that they do not show you a close-up of the tide gauge data for the same period the satellite “data” is available. So you can’t easily compare the picture from the high-tech method with the picture from the old-fashioned method.

          I’ve digitised the 1986-1999 CSIRO tide gauge data shown on that NASA page using a graph digitiser program as accurately as I can. Here is the output.

          Year Height
          1985.952 166.667
          1987.030 171.053
          1987.677 173.684
          1988.323 176.316
          1988.971 178.070
          1990.266 180.702
          1991.563 180.702
          1992.214 178.070
          1993.081 174.561
          1994.159 178.947
          1994.374 180.702
          1994.804 184.211
          1995.666 188.596
          1995.882 188.596
          1996.745 191.228
          1997.829 187.719
          1998.474 192.105
          1998.905 194.737

          The trend is 1.73mm/year. The ground truth. And that was during the fastest warming 25 year period of the 20th century.
          It’s 3mm/year if you exploit the Pinatubo cooling and use 1993-1999 only.
          Still nowhere near the NASA 3.9mm/year or Craig’s bizarro-world 10mm/year.

          Craig Thomas says:

          You *do* realise that if you add in the missing data which your 2010 paper doesn’t cover, you get a 10mm/year sea level rise?

          So 12 years was too short a period for saying global warming had paused but a mere 6 years is long enough to get an accurate measure of sea level trend? That’s barely two El Nino cycles, ya muppet.

          What “missing” data is that, Craig? Even NASA’s data says only 4.5mm/year since 2010. Would that be the “missing” data that even NASA’s satellite record in 2016 doesn’t cover? Maybe Craig will find his “missing” sea level data the same place Trenberth found his “missing” heat. Hehehee.

          102

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            And yet what you’ve just posted here bears no relation to the real world analysis performed on the real-world data using the time periods mentioned before.

            Why does your data stop in 1998? That was almost 30 years ago. How does your little exercise in Excel address in any way shape or form the analysis of the data that includes the most recent 25 years that you seem to want to ignore?

            (1998 is 18 years ago,not almost 30) CTS

            17

            • #
              AndyG55

              Good thing he does stop in 1998.

              Recent tide data shows sea levels DROPPING in the last couple of years. (For the last 5 years around the USA coastline.)

              Thanks for point that out, by the way. :-)

              “most recent 25 years that you seem to want to ignore?”

              You mean the period of rising trend of the natural oscillation, that your tried to use elsewhere, and got severely egged on?

              The data that now shows sea level dropping around the USA and in the places you cherry-picked because of their short term data.?

              Foot out of mouth, Craig, wipe that egg off, and get ready for the next lot. ;-)

              112

            • #
              bullocky

              Craig, you’ve posted an unsubstantiated claim followed by dependent questions. This travesty of the scientific method should be addressed as a matter of priority.

              71

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              That’s exactly my question, Craig. Why does the NASA chart that you linked to stop in 1999 when so much more tide data is available?
              You didn’t link to a very useful source.

              Also, Excel was not involved, your predilection to assume has caught you again.

              101

            • #
        • #
          Dave in the States

          They are not facts. The error from satellite observations is much more than 5mm.

          Correct. NOAA claims an uncertainty of +/- 4mm, but the physics of radar simply doesn’t allow for such finite measurement with such accuracy.

          51

      • #
        bobl

        Oh Shock, Oh Horror, 70mm, run for the hills, FIFTY YEARS to get just 1/2 of a besser brick rise in sea level, which would take just a layer of sand 3 GRAINS high per year to defeat.

        I’m an engineer, sea level rise of 70 mm in 50 years is a trivial non-problem, a pile of dirt just one meter high would defray this problem for 714 years. Ooh, scary hey – booga-booga!

        122

      • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        From CT’s initial link come this graph

        https://s19.postimg.org/5vd60z4ab/CSIRO_tide_data.png

        180mm in 120 years = 1.5mm/year

        How much EGG is there on CT’s face, YET AGAIN

        Eggs by the dozen !!

        52

      • #
      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Craig Thomas.

        “(Of course, if anybody has empirical evidence that NASA is wrong, I’m sure they will share it with us).”

        I would like to see that “evidence” too – it would be interesting.

        13

        • #

          Why Harry? You have never analyzed a data set. You don’t know what evidence is. Prove me wrong…

          Skeptics have discussed the empirical evidence for years.

          31

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I wonder where Brian Cox is getting his facts from?”

      Maybe CT was his advisor..

      It really was a totally ABYSMAL showing for a so-called “professor”

      116

    • #
      Jim Poulos

      No, Rom, that’ll be the ‘Tide Gauges’ at Cocoa Beach Realty… specially adjusted to have large chunks of water front equity devalued waiting for the more astute purchaser.

      73

    • #
      graphicconception

      “Manchester?” It was Bristol but you can have him back in Oz as soon as you like. :)

      30

  • #

    off-topic: Australia and her taxpayers should get something for her multi-millions $ sent into US Democratic Party coffers/charities/scams: https://balance1010.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/spraying-aluminum-etc-across-skies/
    -regards from california

    81

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The people that landed men on the moon?

    The NASA people who put men on the moon had the right incentive. Their failures were going to be public and spectacular. Apollo 13 was no picnic for the astronauts or mission control and the scientists and engineers who backed them up. They pulled off nothing short of a miracle, even taking into account the good luck that the failure of an O2 tank happened at the most fortuitous time possible. How would today’s NASA/GISS people come up with a way to make Command Module CO2 scrubber cartridges fit Lunar Module scrubbers using only the tools and materials the astronauts had on board and come up with it fast, with detailed instructions to send to the astronauts? Let’s not mention 100 other details that had to be figured out and gotten right the first time and also in a hurry.

    I don’t think they have the right mindset to even get started.

    And that’s the whole problem. Today’s NASA doesn’t do anything that’s in the public eye as the lunar program was. Their screwups aren’t highly visible or spectacular. So a spacecraft crashes on Mars or fails once there. No big deal to most of us. No live TV, little or no news coverage at 5:00 PM and no big deal.

    In both cases the incentive to get it right is in direct proportion to the personal and organizational loss of face or other personal impact when they get it wrong. That’s pretty much the way we humans are, have been all along and probably always will be. So give them the right incentive and they’ll get it right… …right incentive as in audit their work and fire those who can’t keep it honest. The taxpayers deserve no less.

    And even with the best of incentives they eventually got things wrong and blew up a shuttle on launch and burned up another on reentry — 2 absolutely preventable problems. Surely GISS has a job that’s not nearly as tough as rocket science. What is their problem?

    181

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And I do understand that mistakes will be made and we need to allow for them. But wait a minute. GISS is no simple mistake. And when you make them you have to learn from them. :-(

      132

    • #
      Albert

      I read in the media that NASA now consults the UK scientist who was correct in predicting the ‘coldest winter in 100 years’
      NASA and the UK Met Office predicted a warm winter. NASA is not perfect and many of their scientists, more highly qualified than Brian Cox do not believe the alarmist propaganda

      153

      • #
        PeterS

        and many of their scientists, more highly qualified than Brian Cox do not believe the alarmist propaganda

        I bet most of those scientists who don’t believe the alarmist crap are afraid to speak out in the public arena for fear of their careers. Funny how people like Brian Cox can go on public media and preach their crap as though it’s proven and factual, yet when someone of equal or higher standing tries to speak the truth they are shunned or hounded down by the media in general. So much for honesty and integrity by the media or the government (in this case both since the ABC is funded by the government).

        173

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I read in the media that NASA now consults the UK scientist who was correct in predicting the ‘coldest winter in 100 years’

        That sounds like a good step. I was beginning to think they consulted the tea leaves in the bottoms of their cups after finishing their lunch. ;-)

        That’s not particularly heartening to hear for me though since I can remember the NASA that could hold its head high in the company of anyone anywhere. But still, if there’s someone who knows something useful why not learn from him?

        41

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          My only PhD contact in NASA, an “expert” on atmospheric CO2, told me that he believes that David Evans is a charlatan, because the Guardian said so.

          30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            The Guardian then? Well that settles it. They are the last word, the experts on everything. Just ask them and they’ll tell you so.

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I am firmly convinced that god must love the self righteous. He must love them above all others. After all, he made so many of them.

              20

    • #
      ROM

      Not well known is that when the two moon astronauts in the moon lander were getting out of their pressure suits in the lander, one of them caught one of those little push buttons that are used to reset electronics everywhere of which the Moon lander module had dozens of on a board mounted head high in the lander.
      Something in a suit caught on a button that activates the switch and pulled it out of the switch and it rolled off and disappeared.

      Not a good situation to be caught in a few hundred thousands of kilometres from home with a critical push button switch that was now apparently unusable.

      Somebody either in the Lander or in mission control came up with that old fix, just take the ink tube out of a pen which the astronauts had one of and use it to activate the switch.

      It obviously worked and the USA became the first nation ever and therefore the only nation that can ever lay claim to the fact that its citizens became the very first of all of mankind in all of history, past present and future, to be the first to ever set foot on another world in space.

      It is a “first” that can never be repeated or challenged ever again in the entire future history of mankind.

      120

      • #
        ROM

        #11.3 was in reply to Roy Hogue @ # 11

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        It is a “first” that can never be repeated or challenged ever again in the entire future history of mankind.

        And yet some still claim it wasn’t a landing on the moon at all but a production put together on some sound stage somewhere. Ignorance always seems to be its own reward.

        Go figure!

        20

    • #
      Another Ian

      Roy

      As things went down hill.

      A comment I heard about a bloke who got a job on the electronics edge of aerospace in this era.

      “When I got the job my ambition was to get a ride on the shuttle. when I found out what was going on my ambition was NOT to get a ride on the shuttle”

      60

      • #
        ROM

        John Glenn; The First American to go into an Earth orbit.
        He did three orbits of the Earth before splash down some 800 miles SE of Cape Canaveral;

        John Glenn quotes.

        “I guess the question I’m asked the most often is: “When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?”
        Well, the answer to that one is easy.
        I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.”
        John Glenn
        &

        As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind – every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder.”
        John Glenn

        70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …when I found out what was going on my ambition was NOT to get a ride on the shuttle

        Ian, ROM,

        My father worked for a long time in airplane manufacturing down on the factory floor where the parts were fabricated and he had numerous horror stories about mistakes made and things passed through that shouldn’t have been. You couldn’t have gotten him aboard an airplane if his life depended on it. But I had no hesitation to get in a small plane and learn to fly it. By the time something flies for the first time, all the manufacturing problems are long gone. The trouble comes when you start to maintain and modify the machine or you become lazy and complacent about safety. That’s where trouble comes in. There have been exceptions but by and large my father’s view of airplanes was too narrow for him to understand the whole picture. The space shuttle and before that, the lunar project were that way with only one notable exception that I know of, the mistake to use pure O2 at one atmosphere pressure. That got 3 good men killed before anyone could do anything about the fire.

        I’ll give you one caveat though. When bureaucrats start making rules about how something must be designed — the modern washing machine is a good example — things quickly go downhill because form starts to matter more than function. If you cannot design for function — to use all the water necessary to do the job — you must come up with something that forces it to do the job with less water. And it provably doesn’t work. God help us if the rule makers start designing airplanes — or spacecraft.

        For the same reason, pilots hate the noise abatement restrictions imposed on operations around airports. When you’re forced to reduce power or required to make turns too close to the ground while under reduced power you give up the very thing you don’t want to give up, your ability to climb quickly to higher altitude. Power and altitude are safety. There is that much engine power for a good reason. It’s necessary to fly safely in all circumstances, especially right after takeoff.

        70

        • #
          Another Ian

          Why the Concorde was the safest passenger plane around airports – highest power to weight if you didn’t worry about the noise.

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And (unfortunately) if you never ran into metal parts of some other airplane on the runway that would take out a tire and probably puncture a fuel tank in the process. That was a bad day for aviation.

            But at $10,000 per seat New York to Paris, it was never a viable passenger airplane, simply a symbol of national pride, no matter what it represented as an aviation and engineering accomplishment.

            But that one crash is the only incident the Concord ever had that was serious enough to make news. I saw it when it landed at LAX years ago and it was a magnificent bird.

            30

        • #
          tom0mason

          Roy,
          You may find this engineers view interesting.

          Engineer Burt Rutan argues that engineers take a different approach to the problem than scientists (climatologists) do, and it is valuable to compare and contrast them. He produced a detailed writeup (6.6 Mb PDF) about it if you’re interested in moving beyond appeals to authority into substantive arguments.

          I think it is a mistake to put too much emphasis on job titles.

          30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I know Rutan well enough to know he’s always got his eyes on solving the real problems and isn’t distracted by nonsense. Otherwise he couldn’t have accomplished what he’s managed to do.

            The pdf file is long and I saved it to go over at leisure. But just scanning it I can see that he makes the same basic arguments that have been made here over and over again.

            Job titles are fine if the guy in that job knows what he’s talking about. But of course, there’s the problem of defining exactly what qualifications you need in order to be called a climate scientist. And where’s that definition? We don’t seem to have it.

            40

  • #
    • #
      Peter C

      I read the article in the Daily Mail and found it more balanced than I expected. Brian Cox seems to present as bombastic and intolerant. Roberts presents as making sensational and disturbing allegations (which might have some truth in them).

      Over all a very good report for Malcolm who is trying to get exposure on the obscure issues of AGW.

      “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about”. Oscar Wilde

      123

      • #
        Peter C

        The Age by comaprison did not memtion the program except for one letter to the editor.

        The writer of the letter thought that having 1 skeptic on the program (against 6 alarmists) was way too many skeptics. Tony Healy of Balwyn North misquotes Malcolm Roberts, who (as far as I know) did not declare that there was an international conspiracy. Tony did take in Malcolms declaration that the climate facts had been manipulated and names thousands of scientists, NASA, the CSIRO and the BOM. Thanks Tony!

        92

      • #
        Carbon500

        I find myself wondering – is Brian Cox a ‘climate scientist’? This veneration of ‘climate scientists’ always amazes me. A proper debate with Cox and a scientist who holds contrasting views isn’t likely, of that I’m sure.
        Does temperature define climate anyway? Of course not.

        31

    • #
      Rick Will

      I posted this on the previous thread as well. If you go to the comments on this report it appears Brian Cox is not well regarded in the UK. This particular comment gave me a new word and as well as an interesting link:

      “What does a stupid physicist and astronomer know about climate?? As a climate scientist, I can tell you that Brian Cox is wrong, and should stick to pontificating on telescopes. Do a search for images of ‘blink comparator temperature graph’, both for local and global temperature records. There has been massive manipulation of the temperature data, that ALWAYS makes the recent temperatures warmer – funny that. So much so that in the climate industry the data is now known as a tamperature record, not a temperature record.”

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

      181

      • #
        graphicconception

        … it appears Brian Cox is not well regarded in the UK.

        Maybe we should invent a new phrase in the good professor’s honour? For example: Making a Cox up!

        41

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I really think that the Q & NOT_A outburst was very emotive – anyone daring to question why the warmists insist in thowing “virgins” into open active volcanoes should be yelled at hysterically….it really has become a joke now…..they need drumming out of the regiment….

      142

  • #
    Frank

    Jo
    Brian was responding to Mal’s data manipulation claim not simple mistakes, this being in line with Mal’s dataless global conspiracy lie.

    Attacking NASA citing a tiny minority as evidence is not scientific. NASA is only one of many institutions that concur on the reality of AGW, are you going to provide evidence of fraud for each of them ?, did they all collude to fudge by the same degree?

    Mal loves empirical evidence but only if it fits his world view. Brian isn’t the first scientist to shove data under his nose only to see it ignored.

    (Oh please, you love to bring up bogus arguments into the board,try responding to actual statements instead, otherwise Mods are going to wonder if you read past the first paragraph of Jo’s post) CTS

    613

    • #
      Frank

      Fly,

      Standard comeback – ‘no, you provide the evidence’ demand.
      As I’ve told Jo before , the scientists globally have done their job and reached a consensus, go argue with them ; so far, zero results. My shoving data under your nose as Brian did to Mal obviously would mean nothing to you , I would only be shown more cherry picked ‘evidence’. Your’s is the outrageous claim and so far your alternate universe has produced only excuses and attacks without evidence.

      This is why you languish in the ether.

      519

      • #

        You want our money, you provide the evidence, OK?

        As for you “shoving data” – you have not, and dont, and appear not to know what data is. Nor does Cox. He waved a graph, and when Malcolm asked him which group produced it, Cox dodged, didn’t answer. Malcolm apparently wanted to discuss that dataset.

        What Cox did was mere theatre masquerading as “science”. Malcolm was the the scientific one in the room…

        PS: As long as you keep replying to your rants/baiting/trolling that were not worth publishing, your replies and mine will end up at the bottom of the thread orphaned.

        314

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…done their job and reached a consensus …’

        There is a consensus among climate scientists that the pause in temperature is real and they admit massive model failure, Cox is talking through his hat.

        121

        • #
          Dennis

          The British Met Office released a statement to media that was not sent out until a day before Christmas 2012, the statement was about global warming had “stalled” during 1998.

          Of course a footnote indicated that global warming would return in the future.

          As it always has done after natural Earth cooling Cycles, I add.

          62

      • #
        Gary Sheehan

        The only “consensus ” among scientists re climate science is that it all about politics and nothing to do with climate, and that if you jump on the band wagon you can enjoy a BIG payday!

        142

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          There is a consensus among sceptical scientists and engineers, that the so-called Climate Scientists (as distinct from Atmospheric Physicists, and Climatologists) are talking through a hole in their collective hat.

          Climate Science has no evidence other than computer games, where nobody wins. Would somebody please pass a hat around, to shout the climate worriers, a years’ rental for a “Whack-a-Mole” arcade game?

          At least then, we we might get some respite from the bovine byproducts.

          22

        • #
          EyesWideOpen

          I think we need to create a new urban lingo for ‘cherry picking’.

          We can call it ‘bristle cone pine picking’, immortalizing Michael Mann for many centuries to come!

          I’d like to see people like Malcolm Roberts, in these Q&A ‘debates’, bring up Michael Mann more often, because the hockey schtick was the Icon of choice for the UN IPCC reports, making it to the front page, until being quietly dropped from being ‘smoking gun’ to being more of an embarrassing ‘murder weapon’ dumped in a lake somewhere unceremoniously.

          What happened to that infallible Bristle Cone Pine data set (Icon) that was so appealing to Brian Cox’s pantheon of semi-deified and ‘qualified’ peers last decade? … simply roll out a new Icon … nothing to see here … no need to even state who produced the graph this time, or why NOAA is about as ethically questionable as the SEC or the IRS in recent politicized conduct.

          00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Look at the graphs Frank look at the graphs.

        And you Frank being a scientist immediately ask which graphs?

        And now comes the problem because the graphs which I refer you to are a little inconvenient Frank and little too explicit; can you handle that Frank?
        It is very easy to find graphs depicting the last 5 ice ages or so. These have occurred at intervals of approximately 100000 years and superimposed graphs are available against time showing temperature data and carbon dioxide levels.
        These graphs show conclusively that temperature rises and produces a corresponding increase in carbon dioxide levels as that gas is gently expressed from the oceans BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.

        The globe warms because of the orbital mechanics which repeats itself over and over and over.

        You would think that a “scientist” like Brian would know that; but then again it might be a very expensive mistake for him to remove those blinkers.

        He may look cute and cuddly to warmers but to most scientists he cuts a very sad and compromised figure.

        KK

        42

      • #
        AndyG55

        “‘no, you provide the evidence’”

        You quoted it wrongly

        His comment to you was…


        “‘ you provide NO EVIDENCE’”

        63

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Frank #69

        >”As I’ve told Jo before , the scientists globally have done their job and reached a consensus, go argue with them ; so far, zero results.”

        We’re arguing Frank. They have a whole lot of explaining to do.

        The IPCC AR5 WGI “assessment” did NOT address the IPCC’s own climate change criteria in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution so of course they could contrive an attribution statement unrelated to actual assessment findings.

        Read about their omission here:

        ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?’
        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

        In respect to ocean heat they make attribution by speculation. After 25 years and 5 reports they have no science to support their anthro ocean warming attribution. They only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. But in Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean, they could not find said “air-sea fluxes” i.e. no evidence but attribution anyway.

        >”My shoving data under your nose as Brian did to Mal obviously would mean nothing to you…”

        GISTEMP is not “data” Frank. The GISS series is a long way removed from “raw” data. First NCDC “adjusts” the raw GHCN data. Then GISS “adjusts” the NCDC “adjusted” raw data using their climate model (yes we have the evidence of that).

        The GISS “adjustments” are totally different to BEST “adjustments” for the same station (and vice versa).

        Worse, in the Arctic (in particular), South America and elsewhere, GISS makes up “data” when no actual raw data exists. In the Arctic they extrapolate out into the Arctic Ocean from land stations. That’s not “data” Frank.

        And Brian Cox seems to forget (if he ever knew) that NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) provides satellite platforms for temperature monitoring that contradict GISTEMP.

        Plenty of evidence that GISS “adjustments” to DATA are bogus. An Iceland case study is a good place to start with this search:

        nasa giss iceland adjustments reykjavik
        https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?complete=0&hl=en&gws_rd=cr&ei=2Fe1V9bXBsKx0gTO-Z6ABg#complete=0&hl=en&q=nasa+giss+iceland+adjustments+reykjavik

        Start reading Frank.

        142

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          “Frank #69″ – should be Frank #78 (or something)

          Not sure what happens to comment #s down here in the bilge.

          50

          • #
            Analitik

            MODERATORS, PLEASE fix Frank’s original post, whatever it contains, and release it from moderation so this stupid chain of responses collapses to its proper location.

            [I wish it was that easy Analitik, when a post is removed rather than snipped or edited, WordPress screws up the linking. As far as I know, it will never be properly threaded even if the original post is restored. I for one, have advocated and lobbied the other Moderators to NEVER remove a post and instead just snip the guts out. Unfortunately, some others find value in saving the offending comments and accepting that the thread will be screwed up forever. I am sorry that this defect exists in WordPress. ]ED

            41

    • #
      ScotstsmaninUtah

      Frank ,
      you seem to hold NASA in high regard perhaps too high. if you have ever worked on an American program which is goverment funded you would quickly learn that not being a team player will get you ousted faster than you can say “pink slip”

      NASA is not a eutopia of highly educated men and woman all getting together to discuss science , it is about getting a job done, and most important of all NASA gets its directives from Washington.
      All other considerations are off the table , and in some cases that includes the truth if it affects current and future funding.

      Unless you have actually worked in America on a Government funded program I very much doubt that you will understand the pressure these folks are under.

      As for Cox producing a temperature graph on Q&A claiming that it represents what the whole of NASA climate scientists think is an appalling act of manipulation.

      The integrity of the graph he presented on Q&A is in question because as a scientist he should have been able go quote the exact dataset used in its construction.

      It is “horse manure” by any other name buddy !

      31

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Lily Serna says: “You don’t get your architect to read your medical charts”.

    Not as a rule, you don’t. But there are parts of your medical charts which an architect would understand.

    It has long been my observation that in the public service at least, and no doubt also in some big business operations, employees protect their own patch by never putting a toe into somebody else’s patch.

    In this scenario, you soon find that there is nobody who knows how all the patches fit together.

    91

    • #
      MudCrab

      Well coming from an engineering background, mainly mech design but I have dipped in and out of civil over the years, you try not to get your architect to read or touch anything.

      The moment you do let your guard down you discover that one of them has moved an internal load baring wall in order to make a bathroom bigger without telling anyone.

      Why? The bath unit they wanted wouldn’t fit in the room.

      So yes, Lily is correct, but only because architects need constant supervision.

      160

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The absolute worst thing you can do is let an architect design the car park or internal road network, or any outdoors pedestrian area at all, not to mention signage and line marking. They don’t have a clue.

        91

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Architects are by essence creative people, and having creative people in my own family I would agree – yes, they do need constant supervision…..

        70

      • #
        tom0mason

        MudCrab,
        You may enjoy seeing the civil engineering here as they alter a site to fit in a new structure.

        40

  • #

    I watched for eight minutes and 19 seconds till I could stand no more of Big Smug. After the delighted shrieks over a graph of which nobody could see any details and the giggly stunt over moon-landing skepticism I could take no more. As I switched off, the smirking Cliff Richards imitator was holding up some coloured picture nobody could really see and getting cheers and applause…for holding up some coloured picture nobody could really see. All while having a manboy giggly fit, something female viewers of the ABC seem to find a bit of a turn-on, judging by the talentless ABC comedians.

    It’s becoming impossible to distinguish activism and lobbying from reportage and science. Government of the people, by the ABC, for the technocrats must perish from the Earth, and soon.

    And let’s learn from the media’s boosting of the Turnbull Spring. Never again elect a leader who quivers and pleads in the presence of the ABC harpies. In fact, let’s look around for a real bloke or real woman who is a real adult and doesn’t even watch or listen to such manipulative slop. Because real adults don’t.

    333

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      There is no reportage these days. The word Reporter needs to be changed to Repeater.

      It’s either insulting activism, or a government funded persuasion attempt (fear or insult, whatever works).

      151

  • #
    Harry Buttle

    NASA put man on the moon. they also cremated 3 Astronauts on the pad and blew up one shuttle going up and one coming down (killing all on board in both cases). their failures tend to be as spectacular as their successes.
    Lets never forget that they also ran a probe into Mars because they forgot to do the conversion between Metric and Imperial units.

    280

    • #
      GeneDoc

      Indeed. But the guys who put men on the moon are long retired from NASA. Some have tried to get some traction on the skeptical side in the CO2 AGW climate debate, but sadly without much effect:
      http://www.therightclimatestuff.com

      140

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      These incidences were my first thought as well.

      It seems that Brian Cox is either too young to remember, too ignorant to know, and too lazy to check, before opening his big gob.

      163

  • #
    Albert

    Interesting, on Google, ”NASA corrupts climate science” gets 7,190,000 hits

    132

  • #
    PeterS

    I’ve lost all respect concerning NASA ever since the Challenger disaster where they tried to cover up the fact they were warned by engineers not to launch. I wouldn’t even trust NASA to tell me when the Sun is going to rise and set let alone their official status on man-made climate change.

    141

  • #
    Ruairi

    A skeptic, well armed with the facts,
    Can expose silly warmist attacks,
    From the consensus view,
    That a theory is true,
    If they loudly proclaim it in packs.

    221

  • #
    Chris of Hervey Bay / in Florida

    I was at the Kennedy Space Center last week, spent all day there.
    Back in the 60′s, NASA did some pretty fancy work. Well worth a visit.

    Calling in to Kitty Hawk on the way back to PA., to complete the circle.

    Wright Brothers to the Moon !

    50

    • #
      Another Ian

      Chris

      I have a copy of Flying magazine July 1989, which was 20 years after the moon landing.

      Gordon Baxter’s article “Moonstruck” (page 38) concluded with the suprising discovery that Johnson Space Centre in 1989 didn’t recognise the names of Armstrong. Collins and Aldrin.

      (The article can be brought up via the net but I don’t have the link – only the paper version)

      40

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    Strange, isn’t it, how the media will only bestow ‘celebrity’ status on preachers from the warmist side? I can’t think of a single high-profile sceptical expert to whom the media grants equally unbounded worship and unfettered access to cameras and microphones.

    181

    • #
      john karajas

      The media is not normally interested in dry factually-based scientific debates (with the exception of medical issues and air crash investigations). Media is interested in:
      -sensationalism
      -schmaltz
      -sex
      -sex
      -sex
      -sport
      It’s all about bums on seats
      Oh, to salve their consciences, there’s virtue signalling

      31

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Channel Nine also went down the sensationalism route. Ridiculing Roberts was the flavour of the day.
        http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/08/16/01/36/one-nation-senator-accuses-nasa-of-manipulating-global-climate-data
        That byline is anonymous. There is nobody at channel nine who was prepared to put their own name to that article.

        It could have worked in our favour if they’d used a full quote, except that they don’t even repeat the source that Roberts cited, so they present this manipulation allegation as though it were Roberts making the whole thing up by himself.

        Jo likes to say the media is the problem. The media is one part of the problem, and the media are no less gifted than this audience. It’s a lack of critical thinking and an attraction to sensationlism – on both sides.

        21

  • #
    Willy

    Thought it a bit rich when Brian accused Malcolm of cherry picking, irt the 18-20 year pause. Then goes on to cherry pick an el nino year with his hottest, highest, most etc’s eva point!

    152

  • #
    ROM

    Take the public broadcasting media such as the ABC, BBC, the American version which I can’t recall immediately plus most of the European versions of public broadcasting and the entire catastrophic Global Warming /Climate Change meme , cause and ideology would just collapse overnight as their major propaganda outlets would be shut down.

    With that would go the so called and so far grossly inefficient and economically and socially destructive Renewable Energy as the sole reason for its existence which is fed exclusively by the fears deliberately generated by the climate activists, scientists and alarmists about global warming and the undefinable Climate Change would also be removed as the Climate Change ideology collapsed through its lack of large publicly/ tax payer funded propaganda outlets being eliminated.

    132

  • #
    John in Oz

    Call me a conspiracy theorists, but….

    Was the audience, which consisted of a large number of school children, specially chosen so that the claim to be ‘thinking of the future of the children’ fell on highly receptive ears?

    104

    • #
      James Murphy

      If there were a lot of children, presumably not of voting age, then I wonder how they arrived at these figures…? Were children asked (told) to identify with a political party?

      Audience: Coalition 40%, ALP 34%, Greens 13%, Unspecified 10%, Other 3%

      the mind boggles really, but it is the ABC, so underhanded tactics are possible.

      74

      • #
        BunyipBill

        The QandA audiences are always cherry-picked as are the audience questions. One of the questions asked when requesting to be in the audience is “What is your political leaning? – Lib/Lab/etc” and you are required to submit your question to the producers before midday on the day of the show.
        Now far be it from me to suggest that ABC are adjusting their audience’s political demographic or that there a number of audience members would alter their political preference for personal reasons, but, I can say that those selected to ask a question are given a card with the (appropriately reworded) question on it and told to sit in a certain area of the venue. Tony Jones of course has a list of the questions and the order in which they will be asked.

        94

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          “…suggest that ABC are adjusting their audience’s political demographic…”

          Interesting statement. This is what the Delphi Method is all about.

          You ask everybody a question and get them to write down their answers on paper.
          You collect the answers.
          You then tell the audience what the most common answers were.

          This way;
          You can persuade the audience into believing their beliefs were heard.
          You can change their acceptance of something because you tell them everybody else has also accepted it.
          You effectively shut down decent. And you can never let them see those pieces of paper again, else the sham will be revealed.

          41

    • #
      Albert

      Let’s not forget the school children most probably had global warming terror taught to them from kindy onwards

      103

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        ………and who could forget this bit of choice warmist snuff p0rn:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

        The reality is that this is what they would do to all of us, if they could…..talk about the ultimate Pass-Ag leftist “smile” through bared & snarling teeth….

        51

        • #
          Albert

          I had forgotten the porn, it was all propaganda that proved wrong, yet they still promote it and all weather today is translated as ”climate”

          31

      • #
        Yonniestone

        A lapse in core subjects is bad enough but in another 10 years they won’t know who they are or how they were procreated!

        21

  • #
    Liberator

    The people that put man on the moon back in 69 are NOT the same people that are at NASA now. Different people, different ideals different, objectives and they certainly are not trying to put man back on the moon. So that comment is not a fair comparison. It’s like those who show America to be one of the few countries that don’t have metric and then have them come back and say but yeah we put man on the Moon and we didn’t have metric – so what? Seems NASA are leaving Moon and Mars manned missions to private enterprises. NASA is hardly National Aeronautics and SPACE administration nowadays – a few probes here and there is about it.

    81

  • #
    Sean

    So nice of Mr. Cox bringing up NASA of the 60′s that put men on the moon. But the NASA of the new millennium didn’t bother to run up the chain of command about foam from the external tank striking a ceramic leading edge shuttle on launch in the loss of Columbia. The NASA of the new millennium could not build a new human rated launch vehicle in 10 years that looked much like the Apollo rockets built 2 generations ago. NASA is a agency whose mission is to preserve the agency.

    102

    • #
      James Murphy

      It’s true we’ve gone backwards with manned spaceflight. the ISS is a triumph of engineering, and whatnot, but still, it’s in a ridiculously low low-earth-orbit, and a lot of the know-how, and knowledge for long duration missions came directly from the Soviets via Salyut and Mir.

      71

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, and apparently NASA no longer has the capability to build the Saturn V rocket because they failed to document it properly.

      Amateurs

      103

      • #
        Another Ian

        IIRC the plans were supposedly ordered destroyed – you’re right either way

        30

        • #
          ROM

          It goes even further than that with NASA and the Moon landings.
          The original video shots from the Moon Lander of Armstrong and Aldrin getting out of the door and climbing down the steps of the lander to set foot upon the moons surface by NASAl were recorded on tape in Mission control as it was the technology back in 1969.

          A second camera, a TV camera was used to film the monitor on which the landing and the two astronauts were being displayed whilst being recorded on the video tape.
          From reports the actual video of the landings and astronauts as seen on that monitor were of quite good quality.

          The big roll of the Moon Landing video tape was then stored in NASA’s filing system somewhere for some time but quite extraordinarily there were no special arrangements made to ensure that the tape on which the landing was recorded would be very carefully preserved so as to be around to be seen by all of mankind for far into the future.

          A tech in a hurry one day was looking for a roll of tape to record some other low value data on something else somewhere else.
          So he saw that ordinary roll of tape in its can with something about the Moon on it which by then was old hat and said that will do and went and taped over the whole of that one and only record of one of the most extraordinary historical events in the entire history on mankind.

          The very low quality first Moon landing videos you see today are all taken from the recordings of the TV camera that was focused on the monitor in Mission Control.

          30

        • #
          Analitik

          It was deemed during the late ’70s that the Space Shuttle was to be THE launch vehicle for NASA. To ensure this would eventuate, the blueprints for the Saturn series of rockets were destroyed so there could be no possibility of cancelling the Shuttle. They also coined the term “big dumb booster” to boost public appeal for the “reusable” spacecraft.

          The legacy of all this is that American astronauts now have to hitch rides on Russian launchers

          40

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    From what I gather, everyone employed in a teaching capacity in British academia is a “professor”, these days. It’s a bad habit, introduced from the United States. The simpering Brian Cox was one of the first to claim his professorial status.

    62

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: CNS News: Penny Starr: Meteorologist: ‘This Heat Wave Is Child’s Play Compared to 1930s’
    Meteorologist Joe Bastardi says the current heat wave in most parts of the U.S. – which tied the 135-year-old record temperature in Washington, D.C. on Saturday – is “child’s play compared to the 1930s.”…
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/meteorologist-record-breaking-heat-wave-childs-play-compared-deadly-summers

    following is referenced on the homepage as: “The IPCC prepares for the ‪#‎climate‬ report to end all reports…”:

    16 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: UN science panel debates 1.5C as climate records fall
    Scientists to explore emission pathways that could lead to lower levels of global warming with IPCC study due in 2018
    An investigation into the dangers posed by temperature rises above 1.5C opened on Monday with a top UN official branding it the “yardstick” on which efforts to tackle global warming will be based.
    Nearly 100 government officials and scientists are in Geneva this week for the launch of the two-year study, which is under the control of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Its findings will form the “scientific basis” of a global stocktake in 2018, when the climate plans of 195 countries will be assessed at a UN meeting, said IPCC chair Hoesung Lee.
    “It will be the yardstick on whether countries are doing enough,” the South Korean economist told an opening meeting of invited experts…
    TWEET: Gavin Schmidt: July data are out, and what do you know, still 99% chance of a new annual record in 2016…
    READ ALL
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/16/un-science-panel-debates-1-5c-as-climate-records-fall/

    41

  • #
    Albert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8
    A real climate scientist, a must view

    11

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    As usual Jo your comments re Monday nights Q&A program are brilliant as ever.I say this without wanting to patronize you; indeed your words & argument speak for themselves. Also full marks to Malcolm for having the guts to face up to a loaded panel of poorly informed individuals, each with their own self interested agenda. Anyone watching would have to have been impressed by Malcolm’s coolness and his demenour in the face of the usual derisionary commenting. Not one sound argument or piece of evidence from any one of them.
    Geoff W

    103

  • #
    pat

    veteran restaurant critic Simon Thomsen (Fairfax, News), adds another “climate celebrity” to the Q&A mix:

    17 Aug: BusinessInsiderAustralia: Simon Thomsen: JK Rowling just high-fived a Melbourne astrophysicist on Twitter after she pwned a climate change troll
    Dr Katherine (Katie) Mack is a theoretical astrophysicist who explores the universe in a way that makes your brain implode into a black hole. She got her PhD at Princeton, and is currently working in the School of Physics at University of Melbourne.
    Many Australians are still gobsmacked by Monday night’s QandA on ABC TV, where One Nation senator-elect Malcolm Roberts demanded “empirical evidence” of climate change, only to insist that NASA was part of a global conspiracy to corrupt the data when fellow panelist and English physicist Professor Brian Cox produced it…
    As the (Q&A) debate unfolded, Mack was one of the thousands who joined the national QandA conversation by tweeting about it as @AstroKatie (LINK).
    Then her comment attracted the attention of a Texan conservative who felt compelled to point out the failings in Dr Mack’s education…
    Right up until the point when the Usain Bolt of novelists decided to join the race and share the moment with her nearly 8 million followers…TWEET TWEET TWEET TWEET
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/jk-rowling-just-high-fived-a-melbourne-astrophysicist-on-twitter-after-she-pwned-a-climate-change-troll-2016-8

    for more, link to @AstroKatie where, today, the buzzwordy, self-described “connoisseur of airplane food” Katie says:

    “Getting ready to take off for Perth to chat science with @ProfBrianCox & @robinince! This is gonna be awesome.”

    never mind that carbon footprint, Katie & co.

    30

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Craig Thomas August 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm · Reply Well, those are the facts, in fact it’s more than 70mm now:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (Of course, if anybody has empirical evidence that NASA is wrong, I’m sure they will share it with us).

    With 50 years of data..are you that simple ?
    Brings rubber knife to gun fight..and tries for some obscure virtue signalling..
    No problems..glad to help..
    its so scary you are now off the grid and sold the car..?…thats got to hurt tiger..:)
    1/Pretending that the satellite matched it..to make your job easier..it doesnt..but fact dont matter right.? Its the narrative that counts.
    50 years of data..wow.
    source http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    2/Sea levels are LOCAL..are you following ?

    “Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”

    Pub and peer blah blah..that ur mantra right :)
    http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

    fort denison..run for the hills
    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/65_high.png

    Nasa adjustments here
    http://andrewgelman.com/2010/03/29/no_problem_well/

    “and shows that sea levels around Australia were from about 1 to 2.5 meters higher than the present 7000 years ago during the Holocene”

    Pub and peer reviewed
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112003423

    I asked Watkins the CSIRO tidal expert about historic sea levels in Australia how he would separate natural (eecck.the horror word) sea rises with holocene..and he said he did not know..
    How any of these monkeys can tell anything with less than 50 years..NASA said is..so it must be true..see link above..

    110

    • #
      Peter C

      Good work Drapetomania.

      I was going to reply but you beat me to it and and you answer is better.

      I could add that Craig’s own reference gives the tide guage record credited to the CSIRO where the sea level rise is 130mm over 100 years. So he has answered his empirical evidence question with his own web reference!

      51

      • #
        Craigthomas

        Good work……if you have an appetite for word salad.
        If anybody can translate DraPetomane’s post into something approaching rational coherence, that would be most impressive.

        Meanwhile, amusingly, somebody reminds us that SLR over 100 years at 130mm contrasts with SLR over 23 years at 70mm.
        What is a word we can describe the ratio between those two numbers…….
        Could it be….. Acceleration?

        Ever heard of petards?

        215

        • #
          RobK

          That’s not a valid conclusion Craig. The satellite data and the tide gauge data are each essentially linear (as referenced in peer reviewed papers above). It is not a case of pasting one ontop of the other, sorry. The petard is all yours.

          121

        • #
          mike m

          Now explain to us about how catastrophic SLR acceleration on Tuvalu is causing mass migrations.

          101

        • #
          AndyG55

          Craig is again saying that he does not comprehend… DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE

          Real data, from tide gauges shows that sea level is rise has been steady at around 1.4 – 1.8mm/year for some 100 years +

          And it is still around 1.4 -1.8mm / year

          There has been NO ACCELERATION, hence NO HUMAN INFLUENCE.

          That is what REAL DATA shows.. and again..

          real data is something Craig just CANNOT face.

          112

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Andy:
            The Spartans blocked the pass of Thermopylae with 300 men. During WW2 some classics trained Poo Bah suggested the Allied forces stop the German invasion at that point. Unfortunately it turned out that the “pass” was 6 miles wide during high tide, and no use as any sort of stopping point.
            The first edition of Lyell’s Principles of Geology in the 1830′s featured as its frontpiece a picture of The Temple of Semiris with marble columns showing barnacle damage 6-8 feet above the then water level.
            Check out the position of some Roman ports in the UK and try to use them as justification for any sea rise. A few years measurements with a new system and no calibration is no cause for alarm; as the position of houses belonging to various climate alarmists indicates.

            81

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Ever heard of petards?”

          How many do you own ?

          31

  • #
    pat

    speaking of teaching…and the fear of one man in the “objective” NYT:

    16 Aug: NYT Learning Blog: ***Katherine Schulten: An Invitation to Share Ideas: How Will You Be Teaching Election 2016?
    How will you approach an election in which one of the candidates has been condemned by many senior officials of his own party because he “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being”? …
    For all of Hillary Clinton’s issues as a candidate, Donald J. Trump offers a classroom challenge most have never before encountered.
    This spring, a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the Trump campaign “is producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom.”…
    In a post for WBUR’s Cognoscenti site, “Teaching Trump: Rethinking Civic Education In Turbulent Times,” Mike Kalin argues that “Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric, and his history of demonizing marginalized groups, obligates teachers to reconsider their beliefs about how to approach civic education.”…READ ON
    http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/an-invitation-to-share-ideas-how-will-you-be-teaching-election-2016/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0#more-171084

    LinkedIn: Katherine Schulten
    Summary: Since 2006, I have been editor-in-chief of The New York Times Learning Network, a free blog about teaching and learning with Times content. It is consistently ranked first on the Teach100 list of education blogs, and in 2013 won the WAN-IFRA World Young Reader Prize for Enduring Excellence…
    In all the roles I’ve had in 25+ years in education, however – whether as a blog editor or as an English teacher etc…my focus has always been on finding creative ways to build literacy communities…
    Previous:
    Freelance Writer and Editor
    WGBH; Time Magazine Education Program; Scholastic; Oxford Press; More
    January 1992 – June 2007 (15 years 6 months)
    • Wrote 13 teaching guides for teaching with for use with WGBH films of literary classics
    • Won the Distinguished Achievement Award from Association of Educational Publishers twice, the Clarion Award for Women in Communication, and the APEX Award for Publication Excellence for the WGBH teaching guides.
    • Written or edited curriculum materials for Time Magazine Education Program; Scholastic; Oxford Press; Kaplan K-12; WNET New York; the NYC Writing Project; English Journal; and The New York Times…ETC
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/katherine-schulten-b479a54

    20

  • #
  • #

    That the ABC, BBC and the wider alarmist community present people like Brian Cox as high level experts on climate change speaks volumes about the dubious nature of their supposed science. Brian Cox has repeatedly made provably wrong claims involving basic physics which would be inexcusable for a teacher of high school physics.

    132

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    The two independent graphs he holds up could be any trend to any scale he might choose.

    Global temperature is inversely correlated to global slave ownership. Bring back slavery, reduce global temperature.

    Sea level rise is correlated to the number of Green politicians and members of ENGOs (Greenpeace etc). Outlaw Green parties and ENGOs worldwide and save low-lying islands.

    113

    • #
      Craigthomas

      So there was a massive peak in warming in the mid-19th century?
      No.
      Your hypothesis is therefore nonsense.
      Now prove CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

      314

      • #
        el gordo

        There was huge heat spike in 1878-79.

        Carbon dioxide and water vapor are both greenhouse gasses, as you know CO2 won’t warm air saturated with H20.

        151

        • #
          mike m

          Right. Water vapor is a condensing gas, thermally reactive, buoyant and perhaps the second largest driving factor of weather behind solar heating itself. Its true affect on ERB is virtually impossible to model so climate scientists downplay its role, avoid admitting its predominant role as a GHG and use fudge factors to represent it in their climate models.

          121

      • #
        AndyG55

        Define “greenhouse gas” and in your own words explain how you think CO2 can cause warming an atmosphere that is controlled by convection and conduction.

        Yes CO2 is used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

        Yes CO2 is a absorptive/radiative gas.

        Now trot off and do some basic research about re-emission times vs the time of collision with other molecules, in the lower atmosphere.

        Bless us with your great IGNORANCE yet again, Craig.

        102

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          I think one of the things that many people believe is the commercial glasshouse operators add CO2 in order to enhance temperature. This seems to have slipped into everyday thinking.

          CO2 is added BECAUSE temperature and humidity have increased as a result of convection, refraction through the glass and the elimination of “draughts” or cooling breezes. The elevated temperature and humidity in a greenhouse results in faster plant growth and the lack of CO2 then becomes a limiting factor.

          One would not seek to raise the temperature of a greenhouse by adding CO2. It would be more commercially viable to do this more directly by – for example – heating the glasshouse. I live near to a number of large glasshouse operations that use geothermal sources to heat the glasshouses.

          31

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Craigthomas – explain this.

        Overnight plants respire and give off CO2. Local concentrations of CO2 over actively growing crops can reach 1200ppm in the early hours of the morning. And yet the local temperature just after first light is the coldest of the day – in fact temperature often declines in these circumstances.

        Later that same day, the crop will have absorbed most that CO2 and given off oxygen and the local CO2 concentration will have fallen sometimes as low as 100ppm (at which point the plants are starving) but at the same time the local temperature is maximum for the day.

        Now, if I was a CO2 molecule intent on incinerating the planet, I would want to get it done while I had lots of mates around.

        43

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Golly gosh. Co2 doesn’t generate heat, the Sun does. I thought everybody knew that?

          47

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            CO2 trails temperature by about 800 years.

            Therefore CO2 is a product of temp, not a cause of temp.

            102

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Co2 doesn’t generate heat”

            Wow.. a first CORRECT statement form CT..

            Perhaps he is learning !!………. NAH.. not a chance.

            And CT, its CO2 , not Co2… but I’ll accept that as a typo rather than IGNORANCE.

            82

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            You avoided the problem. I would really like you to explain how CO2 (a greenhouse gas) behaves in the scenario I presented. I would like you to tell me how this observation from real life can exist at the same time that I am being told that CO2 is responsible for global temperature increases and climate change.

            Don’t be scared, because if you cannot explain that piece of reality, then you can always say that the theory does not fit the observations, therefore the theory is wrong.

            91

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        “Now prove CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.” No reputable paper has been published in physics that proves it it or the theory is even correct, its just conjecture. Several have been published which do the opposite, including an experiment which disproves the existence of back-radiation.

        21

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        craig thomas

        >”Now prove CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.”

        Why do we need to do that? We all know CO2 is an IR absorbing AND emitting gas. Like WV, distinct from oxygen and nitrogen which are not.

        But CO2 does not “trap” energy Craig. The molecule is energized due to air mass, gravity, pressure, etc, absorbs a photon of radiation, emits or collides, and is back to initial state.

        Therefore CO2 is simply a passive energy TRANSFER medium. A coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744.

        More important are the problems with the CO2 “warming” conjecture:

        1) The theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA (1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing) is ineffective. The earth’s energy balance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static.

        2) CO2 is only a bit player in DLR (346 W.m-2 on global average). The CO2 component is only 2 – 3% of total DLR. And then we are only looking at the CHANGE within that 2 – 3% over the last 65 years. So minor as to be negligible, total DLR changes are far greater.

        3) Net LW at surface is OLR (-52 W,m-2 on global average) i.e. a cooling flux.

        4) DLR is not a surface heating agent. Ocean penetration is only a maximum of about 100 microns (about the thickness of a human hair).

        So at any level, surface to TOA, the CO2 “warming” conjecture doesn’t stack up.

        91

  • #
    Albert

    I find it hilarious that the IPCC rules out the effect of the sun, it’s like a fire investigation ruling out the effect of heaters and candles, LOL

    102

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      ..because the Sun isn’t increasing the amount of radiation it sends our way.

      Something else is causing the warming. Not the Sun.

      312

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        So you believe that CO2 generates its own internal heat…? hmm

        91

      • #
        AndyG55

        TSI is not the only indicator of solar energy, you child-minded prat.

        92

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        What band of radiation are you referring to, Craig?

        111

      • #
        Albert

        It seems either the Sun is warming the climate or the climate is warming the Sun, take your choice !

        81

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        “because the Sun isn’t increasing the amount of radiation it sends our way”
        And yes its due to downturn on the Solar cycle and thats why we are probably entering into a second LIA!
        Mate, theres only ONE heat engine that powers the atmosphere and thats the Solar output. Possibly some addition from Earths internal heat but small in comparison. Try turning the Sun off..i think we’d turn to ice just like Pluto!.

        51

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Or it could be that Craig has dug himself into a hole. I suggest that the strategists at Catastrophe Central have told him not to mention the sun (“the source of all our power”), and especially not mention the effects that the eleven year cycle of electromagnetic radiation has on the growth rate of plants, and hence on the food chain. Pumping CO2 into glasshouses is the least of it.

        41

        • #
          AndyG55

          Craig is aimlessly wondering..

          No-one with ANY intelligence could be guiding him.

          But we are talking about AGW cultists.. so… maybe.

          32

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Craig Thomas

        >”..the Sun isn’t increasing the amount of radiation it sends our way.”

        The IPCC contradicts you Craig. They have a TSI forcing at TOA. Least case and totally inadequate (0.1 W.m-2) but a forcing nonetheless.

        But they throw out surface solar radiation (SSR) that they term ‘surface forcing’. Ohmura (2009) found a net SSR change of 12 W.m-2 just from 1920 (+12 -8 +8). That’s a massive change in solar energy at the surface.

        But the big problem is that Murphy et al (2009) totaled all the theoretical forcing at TOA, GHGs+TSI+aerosols, 1950 – 2004 and it came to 1700 ZetaJoules. Except they could only account for 10% absorbed by the earth system (170 ZJ).

        After TSI forcing is accounted for (100 ZJ) there’s only 70 ZJ left out of 1700. TSI plus SSR fluctuations easily account for the earth system warming e.g. OHC. There is no need to invoke GHGs.

        81

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”The IPCC contradicts you Craig. They have a TSI forcing at TOA. Least case and totally inadequate (0.1 W.m-2) but a forcing nonetheless.”

          Shapiro et al (2011) came up with 6 W.m-2 solar change since the LIA:

          ‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’
          A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro, and S. Nyeki (2011)
          http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf

          The IPCC AR5 WG1 assessment does not have a solar chapter. Instead they have a tiny contra-solar section that hangs on a CO2-forced model exercise which was already wrong vs observations at 2010 (Jones, Lockwood, and Stott 2012). They discard the Shapiro et al study (natch).

          Co-author Mike Lockwood is also a contributing author to WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. I have Mike on email record saying he “did not understand” Shapiro et al methodology.

          71

      • #
        greggg

        …except that it’s cooling lately, at least in part because of less solar activity.

        21

  • #
    Bob

    Did ABC make mistake engaging Cox? He allegedly explained to 6 years old kid on radio that Moon sometimes looks like banana because of Earth shadow.
    What do you make of “…Brian Cox is just a ‘rock star’ who happens to promote physics”, or “…Brian Cox wrote lots of wrong things about locality in quantum mechanics and the Pauli principle”? See here: http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/brian-cox-and-lunar-phases.html and here: http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/brian-cox-misunderstands-locality-pauli.html ?

    132

    • #
      John of Cloverdale WA Australia

      Thanks for the links, Bob. And Cox calls himself a professor of Physics. Right up there with Robyn (100m) Williams and Tim (the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams)Flannery.

      52

  • #
    pat

    the once-respected(?) Sci-Am, & first-time Sci-Am writer, Hetherman, choose not one, but two of the shameless adults exploiting children via lawsuits in the name of CAGW to debate imaginary “collective grief” & their concern for children:

    16 Aug: ScientificAmericanBlog: Margaret Hetherman: Are We Feeling Collective Grief Over Climate Change?
    The idea is highly controversial, but at least one psychiatrist is convinced that we are, whether we know it or not
    Mourning is personal, but as a species, could it be that we are making our way through the stages of grief as outlined by the late Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross?
    Psychiatrist and climate activist ***Lise Van Susteren, M.D. doesn’t necessarily think so. She points out that the Kubler-Ross framework was a response to people who hear devastating news and feel personally very involved, extremely vulnerable and know that the diagnosis is essentially inescapable.
    “That’s not where most people are with climate,” Dr. Van Susteren states. “It takes a long time for some people to lay down the sense within that something is true.”
    Yet she speaks of a collective anxiety that is insidious, even if we haven’t managed to connect all the dots.
    “There isn’t the slightest shred of doubt in my mind, that everyone on some level is anxious, deeply anxious, about climate change,” the forensic psychiatrist says…
    Denial
    Denial has been rampant since the earliest years of climate change awareness…
    Dr. James E. Hansen, renowned climatologist and former Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan speaks to the matter of timescale…
    Sitting across the table from the 75-year old scientist, it becomes rapidly clear that his greatest concern is for future generations. That, he says, was the point in writing his book, Storms of my Grandchildren.
    ***It also inspires his participation as guardian for future generations in a current landmark federal climate change lawsuit against the government for failing to protect children’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property — a case that ***Dr. Van Susteren has collaborated on as well…READ ON
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-we-feeling-collective-grief-over-climate-change/

    reminder, Lise Van Susteren is the sister of Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren.

    Wikipedia: Lise Van Susteren
    In 2005, she sought the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate in Maryland…
    She has worked as a consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency conducting psychological assessments of world leaders, as an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Department of Psychiatry…
    In September 2006, Vice President Al Gore trained Van Susteren at The Climate Project to educate the public about global warming. She was named to the Board of Directors of The Climate Project in 2009…
    In 2011, Van Susteren collaborated with “Our Children’s Trust” in a lawsuit against the federal government for breach of its fiduciary duties to preserve and protect the atmosphere for children and future generations…

    given Lise has a history with CIA, it’s not surprising to find her on VOA:

    Sept 2015: Voice of America: Deborah Block: Activist Says Climate Change Affects Bodies, Brains, Too
    While the pope is in Washington, addressing the U.S. Congress on September 24, a “Moral Action for Climate Justice” rally will take place on the National Mall to address the climate crisis.
    One of the organizers, Washington psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren, said climate change affects not only the planet and our bodies but also our brains, causing a host of psychological problems.
    People who don’t believe in climate change are denying what is “profoundly disturbing to them,” she said…
    She saw global warming leading to “an uptick” in domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse, adding that higher temperatures would also set in motion “more crime and suicides.”
    Van Susteren said that counselors and first responders “are not even close” to being able to handle the post-traumatic stress from people “losing their homes from flooding or from being burned down and farms being wiped out from tornadoes.”…
    And if that isn’t enough, she said, “there are also fears about future disasters”…
    http://www.voanews.com/a/activist-says-climate-change-affects-bodies-brains/2969773.html

    30

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yeah see heres that emotive collective brain fart nonsense the Left just so love…..”collective grief”….good grief….

      Whats next? Crying everytime someones mows the lawn?

      21

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    NASA is not the NASA of the 60s

    There seems to be a culture among climate scientists that the quality and accuracy of their work is dependent on the achievements of those who have worked for NASA 50 years ago.

    NASA has gone through many culture changes within the organization itself and so have their subcontractors who provide components and systems for their various programs.
    It is no longer the same insitution that brought us the Apollo moon landings.

    RockwellCollins (Apollo mission subcontractor) for whom I worked for 7 years is certainly not the same as it was in the 60s.

    Using the name NASA to qualify your work is very misleading indeed

    182

  • #
    Philip Mulholland

    Jo,

    Historical correction from the “I was alive and awake at the time” department.
    You say:-

    Walter Cunningham circled the moon on Apollo 7

    ,
    The purpose of Apollo 7 was to test the LEM docking process, so while it is true that Walter Cunningham was a lunar module pilot, he did not however circle the moon on that mission. Apollo 7 never left earth orbit, it was Apollo 8 that first circled the moon.

    100

  • #
    Goudron

    “Since experts matter (so Cox tells us) let’s ask the experts — like say, Buzz Aldrin, Charles Duke and Harrison Schmitt — three guys who actually walked on the moon, or another 47 scientists and astronauts that helped them get there. They’re all skeptical. They wrote to NASA to protest at the lax standards of GISS”

    I checked out your citation. None of the 47 NASA scientists is a climate scientists….and not qualified in that area of expertise. So when you say “Let’s ask the experts” you simply haven’t!

    512

    • #

      Goudron, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. There is no “special” science for the climate. Same for stats and maths.

      Experts in science are those that can predict the natural world (y’know, before things happen). Climate scientists are mostly failures.

      234

      • #

        you are saying that because they are astronauts or physicists of renown they have acquired the ability to “predict the natural world”? That is so funny it could go viral. These guys should get themselves mountain tops to sit upon.

        34

        • #

          Renown counts for nothing. Predictions and observations are the only test. Some scientists/engineers predicted exactly the right conditions to produce planes that fly, vehicles that reach pluto, phones that can pinpoint your location to a few meters and reproduce the sound waves from your mouth in the right ear on the other side of the planet. Others find minerals 1.2km under rocks and others made machines that find a few cancerous cells deep in a body without a cut.

          Then there are guys who predicted Antarctica would warm, the upper trop would heat up, that the world would warm by at least 0.2C minimum per decade for the next three decades. Those guys predict BBQ summers and get washed away.

          NASA earned its reputation the hard way, and the immature b-grade science of “climate” failures is burning through it…

          103

      • #
        Albert

        The ‘science of climate change’ is a political weapon that has nothing to do with science.
        As we all know the climate always changes and ‘deniers, skeptics’ were the first to know

        42

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Goudron, any person skilled with mathematics, engineering, geology, hydrology, material science of any sort, is in a good position to assess the logical feasibility of the science. In engineering it’s called “back of an envelope assessment”, sometimes it’s called a “pub coaster assessment”.

      I don’t have to be a climate scientist to read about and understand a paper on ocean sea levels. After reading said paper, I’m in a good position to say “it’s nonsense” or “I agree with it”. Either way it’s simply an agreement or disagreement. There are papers out there that say everything under the sun, and other papers that say 90% of them are wrong.

      What you are claiming is called a logical fallacy, specifically “an appeal to authority”. Please do a quick search on the words “logical” and “fallacy”, and understand what those two words mean.

      Appeal to authority does not prove correctness and is not evidence. Even a piece of evidence, is only a piece of evidence for that time and location. This is why it needs to be reproduced by other people using other procedures. The more that correlate with the same conclusion and the same values, the more we can trust it. Nothing more and nothing less. Also look up the word “trust”.

      31

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        It really doesn’t matter what your opinion of the paper you read is.

        What matters is whether subsequent papers build on the first one, or prove it wrong.

        A paper that has not been debunked is therefore authoritative, regardless of your opinion about it.

        312

        • #
          bobl

          It may be Authoritative Craig but it might be (and often is) WRONG. For example there are several papers on Antarctic Ice Loss that attribute western shelf ice loss to Global Warming. I have written to three of these authors complaining that the energy balance doesn’t add up – IE that the amount of melting that they claim requires absorbtion of heat energy far exceeding that supplied by CO2 reemission. One group claiming that 30 Watts per square meter of melting was due to AGW, with a global footprint of just 0.6W per square meter. This is Cox’s looney science.

          All three authors agreed that they had ignored energy, no author retracted their article. These papers were WRONG in attribution of the effect to global warming, the effect was IMPOSSIBLE given the energy – melting WAS due to something else. All three Authoritive papers were WRONG in that they claim something that breaks the law of conservation of energy.

          This is the BIG elephant in the room in climate science, most of the claims to not stack up for energy they claim an effect occurs – WITHOUT movement of ENERGY (Work)in order to have their cake and eat it too. A renowned physicist like Cox aught to instinctively know that you can’t do that!

          132

        • #
          AndyG55

          You really have ZERO idea about what peer-review is all about , do you.

          And furthermore , you have shown that you have absolutely ZERO intention of ever finding out.

          So I will tell you. And FFS LISTEN for a change.

          Peer-review is purely and absolutely the reviewers saying they think a paper should be entered into the scientific literature.
          It is absolutely ZERO guarantee of accuracy or of correctness.

          153

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          That is not entirely true, Craig. The authoritativeness of a paper relies on the number of citations it has received, inside the discipline, and also the number of references to it, made from outside the discipline.

          Climate science is slightly interesting in that regard, because it appears to be much more self-referential than most other fields of physics.

          91

      • #
        Frank

        You attack qualifications ( along with peer review, consensus, etc ) because of the drought of them amongst the deniers.
        If 97% of skeptics were climate scientists you’d be holding up their’ qualifications with glee and have a strong argument.

        You need to get a lot more credible people onboard.

        314

        • #

          Not at all. If we bothered to have a “qualifications” battle skeptics would win. Skeptics outrank believers easily. They have nobel prizes that are physics prizes, not “peace” prizes. They walked on the moon. They got satellites to read temperatures around the world. They won prizes in atmospheric science. Skeptics outnumber believers (we can name more scientists than you can).

          And then there are a 1000 papers plus we cite.

          We don’t bother to beat you at this game because it’s pointless. A fallacy is a fallacy. The popularity or talent of skeptics, and their lack of funding (no conflict of interests, unlike most believers) makes skeptics scientific angels, but it’s not science to argue from authority or popularity, or prizes, or by lack-of-funding.

          183

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Jo Nova.

            “Not at all. If we bothered to have a “qualifications” battle skeptics would win. Skeptics outrank believers easily”

            Really? So you did a survey then – may I see the method and results?

            21

            • #

              You are being disingenuous Harry.

              You know we can name 31,500 scientists, including hundreds of professors, scores of NASA scientists, 2 Nobel Physics prize winners. You can’t beat that. But you will bore us with the pretense that climate science requires magical different qualifications to every other scientific specialty. I’m only replying for the sake of onlookers.

              42

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                “I’m only replying for the sake of onlookers.”

                Yes, that does indeed sum up my feelings as well. There is little intellectual honesty in this blog, and my time is better spent elsewhere.

                And I notice you avoided answering my question.

                Hmmm, The Oregon Petition. The climate change denial “consensus” study. Not a survey. Debunked for years. Basically a fraud.

                “In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample “of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.

                Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community”

                14

              • #

                The Petition Project was done twice. You are still talking about the first version – barely dragging out 15 year old superseded points, and repeating your ancient scared Guild of Scientological-climatoid experts. In skeptical science, the same laws apply across all the sciences. Only in climate do you need “special” training to read the crystals.

                In any case peer reviewed surveys show 66% of geo’s and engineers are skeptics. There’s tens of thousands of people right there.

                92

              • #
                Carbon500

                Harry: who gives the proverbial monkey’s cuss whether there’s a consensus, whether 97% of scientists agree, what Professor Cox thinks, or who signed the Oregon petition or not?
                I’ve lived in the UK for 67 years, and the climate has not changed. All the fuss about minor temperature changes of fractions of a degree is ridiculous. We’ve had warmer winters, colder winters, plenty of rain, winter storms, hot summers, cooler summers and so forth – all perfectly normal variations over the years. We’re told that the pre-industrial era (pre 1750) level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280ppm, and is now just over 400. That’s roughly a 43% increase in CO2 – remember that it’s a trace gas into the bargain. So why has there been no climatic Armageddon? The computer models have been shown to be badly flawed – look at the graphs comparing reality with the models which John Christy of UAH has prepared and presented to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in February of this year – and read what he has to say about climate ‘science’.
                What branch of science has placed such faith in computer models as the climate change industry, and then failed to acknowledge that the models don’t work when confronted with reality? Look closely at the Central England Temperature Record – in 1750 it was 9.7C, in 2015 10.3C, with plenty of variations over the years. Fractional temperature variations do not define climate. Where is the supposed danger we all face? In 1900, a hurricane famously devastated Galveston, in Texas. Other hurricanes struck or came near in 1919,1932, 1941, 1943, 1949, 1957, 1961, and 1983. These days, this would of be twisted as claimed evidence of extreme events due to CO2 – yet if memory serves me well, Christy has also pointed out that there has been no increase in hurricane frequency. The real world does not match the claims of the climate scaremongers. Open your mind to that possibility and do some reading about the real world outside computers!

                21

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Harry, give us all a break. You cannot accept the weight of 97% of a mere handful of scientists who say climate change is happening and then in the same breath reject the weight of over 30,000 equally well qualified scientists who say it’s not happening.

                You swallow the former and reject the latter yet both have the same justification you use to accept the former, the wight of numbers, the argument from authority, the argument from credentials, the argument with no validity in either case because it is fallacious. And if the weight of numbers was actually something you believed useful to determine the truth, then the Petition Project should win, not the IPCC and its hangers on because it has the weight of thousands more qualified scientists than the IPCC.

                You may not both have your cake and eat it too. It will not work and your inconsistency is so obvious that I’m surprised anyone here will give you a minute’s thought. I’m surprised that Jo will give you the time for so much as a one line response. And you will be rejected until you can talk about the evidence that shows climate change is manmade or at least manmade in sufficient magnitude to be significant. Until then you have no case. Your voice is just noise and you shouldn’t have the right to comment here because you have nothing to say. You just waste our time.

                42

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                And frankly, Harry, you’re missing the whole point that we “deniers” (your term, not ours) have been making. All we ask for is some credible evidence, you know, that stuff made out of actual observation of experimentation or measurement that can be repeated by anyone who cares to try and shows the same thing every time. In other words, you make a claim that the Earth is heating because of human activity. We make no claim that it is not. We simply do not see evidence that supports you so we ask you for your evidence. We want to see it. In short, we ant to follow the scientific method of investigation. But you miss the whole point and deliver not the slightest bit of evidence, just fallacious arguments and nonsense. If you could deliver real evidence, we could recognize it easily enough. But you just miss the point.

                In fact, you wilfully miss the whole point. The burden of proof is yours, not ours and you need to get busy and prove your case honestly with real evidence, not theories, not doctored data, not thermometers put where they have no chance of measuring the actual temperature.

                We don’t claim anything. You do. You need to support your claim, not tell us that there’s no more room for debate, the result is in and climate change is a fact.

                Harry, my degrees are in computer science and I know better than to fall for what you’re pushing. You lose. I don’t win because I have nothing at stake. But you do and you lose.

                42

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Roy Hogue.

                ” mere handful of scientists ”

                Lying by omission? Don’t you mean publishing climate scientists? And how any of the climate scientists disputed AGW?

                I pity you climate change [snip]. You have to lie and BS in your attempt to find ANY evidence against AGW.

                [Useless Harry, full circle back to using the "D" word.] ED

                03

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Harry,

                You still have your head up your anatomy where the sun never shines. Maybe that’s why you can’t see that I don’t need evidence to disprove AGW. I don’t even need to disprove it at all. You need evidence that stands up under critical examination in order to prove it. You make the claim that it’s happening and the burden of proof is yours.

                So Harry, where is your evidence? So far we don’t see it. Maybe it’s time to jerk your head back out into the sunshine, son, get your eyes and your whole head working for you again.

                01

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Roy Hogue.

                You can start by reading the studies that show evidence for AGW. Try the studies referred to in the consensus study by Cook et al. Or go read the IPCC AR5 reports. Or go read the Skeptical Science blog if you are short on time.

                (Try making your own comments,in your own words,about the topic in front of you) CTS

                00

              • #
                tom0mason

                Harry Twinotter

                There is no proof it is not just natural climate variation. Indeed the absolute limits of natural variations have not been properly codified. But we do know that it is a lot more than is currently seen.
                There is however plenty of unjustly used assertions, supposition, and groundless theory buried within AGW and the UN-IPCC papers to gloss them with a stale slime that appears, at first sight, to be scientific respectability.

                As for consensus study by Cook et al…

                McComas, William, “Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know….,” Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.

                TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE:

                Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof

                The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993).

                The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue.
                Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that “all swans are white. ” However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist’s mind to change are issues worth exploring.

                ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯[My bolding]

                So just because many people believe something is, does not make it true. Scientifically it must be both pass the proof test through independent validation and verification, and fail the falsification test. So far AGW theory fails on both counts.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Even sinks to quoting “surveys” from Scientific Propaganda America.

                Did they publish any of Cook and Lewy’s work, or back it in any way?

                … that would show you how much honesty there is in that piece of now-worthless rag.

                03

        • #
          AndyG55

          There was a thread ages ago where bloggers on this site gave their qualification.

          It was a LONG thread and covered basically EVERY aspect of anything to do with climate science several times over.

          142

        • #
          tom0mason

          Frank, it’s an old quote but for you it’s worth repeating…

          “It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation.”

          Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

          81

          • #
            AndyG55

            Mind if I repeat that?

            “no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation”

            63

            • #
              AndyG55

              Actually, better this way…


              “NO HUMAN CLIMATE SIGNAL HAS YET BEEN DETECTED THAT IS DISTINCT FROM NATURAL VARIATION”

              93

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            tomomason.

            But what makes you think Bob Carter is correct?

            00

            • #
              tom0mason

              Bob Carter is correct?
              In stating the obvious, yes!

              But if you know of a human climate signal, distinct from natural variation, has been detected show the evidence, as the scientific community and the wider public await you.

              21

              • #
                tom0mason

                In answer to Harry Twinotter at #99

                Bob Carter is correct?
                In stating the obvious, yes!

                But if you know of a human climate signal, distinct from natural variation, has been detected show the evidence, as the scientific community and the wider public await you.

                31

        • #
          bullocky

          Frank; ‘..along with peer review, consensus, etc ) because of the drought of them amongst the deniers.’

          Pal review, anti-science consensus and ad hominem attack.
          Your own credibility is zero, Frank.

          20

      • #
        greggg

        In the real world people who can’t think for themselves listen to ‘experts’.
        ‘An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.’ – Nicholas Butler.
        Who decides who is an expert? MSM?

        31

  • #

    Thanks for this. The Guardian claimed that Cox demolished climate scepticism, but, to my amazement, having watched the video, I find that that isn’t true.

    Just one quibble:

    “Poms have been coming to Perth and swimming here in July since forever…”

    Poms swim in the English Channel on New Year’s Day.

    132

    • #
      ROM

      Considering what is happening in Calais in northern France with all those UK bound so they thought, North African and middle eastern types beating up motorists, smashing cars and raping women and numerous sundry other very serious crimes, [ BBC reporting ] the Poms with that nice wide Channel there and winter coming up, a very bad cold winter according to a lot of weather models for what they are worth, so now with Brexit you are in a darn good position now to say to the rest of the western Europeans .
      Well you wanted it
      You allowed it
      Now you’ve got it.
      So you can keep it.

      71

      • #
        graphicconception

        Yes, it is coming time to remember some of those old (apocryphal?) newspaper headlines:

        Fog in Channel – Europe Isolated

        80

    • #
      mike m

      “The Guardian claimed ….. I find that that isn’t true.”

      In other news, the Pope is Catholic!

      40

  • #
    davo1952

    Did anybody else pick up Cox’s blooper when he said the error bars for Global Warming modelling are narrowing ?

    Complete BS !

    If you look at the IPCC’s AR4 to AR5 from 2009 to 2014 you will see the error bars for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Factor (ECS) have in fact widened, and at the same time the lower limit of the ECS had lowered.

    Despite the headlines “Global Warming getting worse ” , and they say scientists have increased confidence in this -”the IPCC’s own numbers say the complete opposite.

    112

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    For those that read icecap.us..heres the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU) to Tony Hellers demolishing of NASA and showing up their deliberate [snip] data manipulation. Maybe Brian should look at this .Tony has a BS in Geology and Masters in Electrical engineering, and done more research into this [snip] than they had hot dinners i bet.

    Also Einstein said if the experiment or data doesn’t agree with your theory its plain WRONG, regardless of WHO your name is. In the case of the ‘standard climate model’ its plain wrong.

    81

    • #
      Mike M.

      As Tony points out in so many words, engineers produce stuff that has to work, everything is “mission critical” when designing a microprocessor per his example. Climate science is just the opposite – nothing is “mission critical”. You can make mistakes of almost comic proportions, announce results in the vaguest of terms and continue to promise the certainty of your convictions with little or no challenge among your peers because they are all doing the same thing.

      111

      • #

        Mike,
        As an engineer I produced many stuff that did not work. To any engineer this is called learning! This learning is way way more impressive than any brainwashing at academia! In the commercial world almost all your peers try very hard with actual hands on teaching/learning so you can avoid the harsh “bend way over and kiss your young a** goodbye” type learning.
        All the best! -will-

        01

  • #
    TdeF

    I guess my point is that Brian Cox argues 17,000 people produced one graph.

    71

  • #
    GregS

    Uh……isn’t NASA the same agency that refused to listen to a “non-scientist” who warned that the temperature had fallen below freezing the night before a shuttle Challenger was scheduled to launch?

    Engineers, who were not scientists, and managers, who were definitely not scientists, at Morton-Thiokol warned NASA that low temperatures could compromise the seals on the shuttle boosters.

    We all know the result.

    151

    • #
      tom0mason

      Indeed GregS,

      I would add –

      For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
      Upon identifying the reason for the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and his demonstration using immersion in iced water to show that O-rings grow brittle when cold.
      — Richard P. Feynman

      Concluding remark in Feynman’s Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. In (Jan 1987).

      21

  • #

    “…. So the point is you go evidence, evidence, evidence, arctic continue warm, sea ice extent low”

    The AMO and Arctic warmed recently only from 1995 onwards, driven by increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation. Rising CO2 should increase positive NAO (IPCC), so is not the cause. What fits the bill is the decline in solar wind strength since the mid 1990′s.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

    http://snag.gy/PrMAr.jpg

    41

  • #
    Cpt Seahawks

    qanda transcript:
    LILY SERNA: Well, first of all, I cannot believe we’re still having this conversation. I feel like we should be moving on and discussing how we are going to create mitigation processes, how we’re going to create adaptation processes. I think that, as far as I’m concerned, the conversation is over. The second thing I want to say is that there is overwhelming consensus with climate change scientists that this is real. These are scientists who have studied in this particular area for many years in their particular field. I don’t know how a layperson can go and look at graphs and come to their own conclusions, because you’re potentially leaving yourself open to cherry-picking information, like a particular year was down, in coming to false conclusions. This is all taken into account with experts who have studied in this field. You don’t ask your architect to read your medical charts, just as you don’t ask your accountant to perform surgery on you. These are all experts in their field and they advise us on what is real and what is not real and, as far as I’m concerned, where politics comes into play is how to implement their advice.

    Lily Serner, wow. The actual transcript:
    “Um well first of all, I cannot believe we’re still having this conversation. Um I I feel like, er it, we should be moving on and discussing how um we are going to um create mitigation um processes, how we’re going to um create adaption processes um I think that th th / As far as I’m concerned the conversation is over. Um. Th the second thing I wanna say is that there is overwhelming consensus um with climate change scientists that this is real um I don’t know how a lay person can go and and look at graphs becaz and and come out with their own conclusion becoz um your … potentially ah leaving yourself open to um cherry picking information like a particular year was down and coming to the false conclusions. This is all taken to account with um experts who have studied in this field. You don’t ask your architect to read your medical charts just as you don’t ask your accountant to perform surgery on you these are all experts in their field and thee advice is on what is real and what is not real and ah as far as I’m concerned th th th where politics comes into play is how to implement their advice.”

    Yes I have been asked why I bothered, but it was hypnotic.

    131

  • #
    Mike M.

    Cox’s manipulation, his highlighting of NASA’s space program ~60 years ago as some sort of “proof” of their good intentions just made me want to puke. In fact, the difference between their moon mission of the 60′s and their climate “mission” today ought to make it abundantly clear what the problem is with them and other such government scientific bureaus around the world today.

    Hoping Cox reads this, tell us Brian, what was the stated mission for NASA back in the 1960′s? Simple huh Brian? It was basically as JFK stated at Rice University September 12, 1962, “go to the moon”: ( http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm )

    ” … But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. “

    So Brian can you now tell us what EXACTLY is NASA’s “goal” in climate science? Can you state what there is to “win”? Can you state even ONE THING that could serve as just a milestone in climate science as qualified evidence that the mission is “on track”?

    The path for the moon mission was easy to state – anyone could point at the moon back then and answer, “Whatever gets us THERE.” … and they would be correct! The milestones back then were made of concrete, each step to develop, test, refine and finalize the design/fabrication effort and protocol to reach that singular GOAL.

    Brian, can you state the GOAL of climate science? NASA and their foreign counterparts are all being given money to STUDY climate; what is the goal in studying anything Brian? Is there some “end point” to knowledge that you are not telling us about?

    Our governments have all rushed to give these science bureaucracies a BLANK CHECK to keep “studying” climate science. Dare I say, more specifically, they are being paid to “study the problem of” man-made global warming.

    There is no definable goal in that “mission” is there Brian? It virtually GUARANTEES that there is not one scientist in any government agency around the world or one receiving generous grants likely to declare that “no problem exists” because … people like you are paying them to study one.

    How many people would turn down the opportunity to play with expensive computers, have comfortable offices and collect generous salaries including generous benefits and pensions to “study” the idea that, say, “humans extincted unicorns”? Suddenly, “evidence” of the existence of unicorns would abound, there would be those pesky “fingerprints” that humans “might have had” something to do with their disappearance and every published paper would point to something justifying the familiar “need for further study”.

    I’m certain you’d be one of the first in line to get that job Brian because you are dishonest and we could see it in your giddy chuckling and other such mannerisms of your animated replies to perfectly valid questions. You are mocking the truth in order to preserve your relevance and notoriety, you sold your soul for celebrity status. You are no longer a scientist Brian, you have become just another apparatchik for the socialists.

    131

    • #
      TdeF

      The moon program was the platform for ICBM development for the Russians and the US alike and the consequences were amazing, particularly the rapid development and miniturization of electronics and tracking and technology which underpinned satellites. Recently the Chinese have been putting men in space to show they can? The Russians remain convinced the US Space Shuttle was a bomb delivery platform which once buzzed low over Moscow. We could not imagine a world now without GPS or mobile phones in the middle of the ocean, but all this was to come after the 1960s. Of course there was a point in the moon project.

      However there is no upside for Global Warming, except the diversion of vast amounts of public money into engineering projects which make little sense like windfarms and solar farms. These make as much logical sense as the Pyramids of Egypt or Stonehenge or the Easter Island statues. They do provide a huge government exercise for vast projects which are not war, an almost useless but necessary diversion in times of peace. The proponents of these farms care little that they are fundamentally and commercially senseless, but think of the thousands of beautiful churches, monasteries and convents built across Europe which make no sense at all without religion but underpinned European society socially and economically for two thousand years. All the money went into churches. Perhaps one day tourists will visit old windfarms just to marvel at the religion and think of a time long ago when the blades actually turned sustainably.

      80

      • #
        mike m

        “The moon program was the platform for ICBM development for the Russians and the US alike and the consequences were amazing, particularly the rapid development and miniturization of electronics and tracking and technology which underpinned satellites. ”

        Yes. Right there you have alluded to one important similarity between the moon program and NASA’s CAGW nonsense – the perception of the existence of a threat that would be mitigated or countered by the program. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki plus a slew of atomic bomb tests after those proved that the threat of nuclear war was very real and it was indeed a major reason to fund the moon program.

        But for CAGW they not only had to convince everyone that the tiny “extra” amount of CO2 from human fossil fuel combustion somehow contributes to a significant amount of warming, they absolutely also had to convince us that that “C” exists, that warming is bad thing, a threat putting us all in danger.

        For some time now I’ve been convinced of the opposite, that more CO2 and warming are tremendously good for life on the planet whether one necessarily has much to do with the other or not. The scientific evidence that that position is correct is becoming increasingly difficult for the alarmists to ignore or counter plus people are becoming fatigued by their litany of false model based “promises” of future catastrophic climate “disasters” that have not come true.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          Not sure that they had to convince anyone. Vast numbers of people want to believe

          - the world is horribly polluted and getting worse
          - the world will drown soon
          - the world is rapidly heating uncontrollably
          - people who drive cars and eat meat are responsible
          - democracy is also responsible allowing the rich to prosper while oppressing the poor
          - industrialization is destroying the world and we should go back to nature, wood fires and the like but keep the iPhones and twitter
          - we must all pay and suffer, especially the rich countries with their selfish consumer lifestyles and McDonalds
          - Carbon is black and black is bad, in a non racist way
          - CO2 is not really invisible. All smoke is CO2 especially from chimneys
          - CO2 is the real problem, an evil polluting industrial pollutant also produces by cars and planes
          - coal is made from carbon and has double the CO2 output per ton of everything else (not true)
          - polluters must pay. This was the final year joint topic for the Australian Environment Minister, ” A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay.”
          - sun, wind, tides are natural. Natural is good. Home birth, natural medicines, natural energy like natural gas.
          - nuclear is even worse
          - batteries need to be bigger.
          - science will provide all the answers and make everything work
          - taxes fix everything
          - governments are rich and can afford anything

          So who needs actual facts? They confuse people. Especially graphs.

          81

          • #
            mike m

            FYI – Many excellent counterpoints to those preposterous claims, especially the economic ones, are found in Alex Epstein’s book Moral Case for Fossil Fuels as his data shows: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

            As for the popular alarmist misrepresentation of CO2 as “carbon”, I nail them by pointing out that, by weight, there is over 2.5 times more oxygen in CO2 than carbon so if they are going to mistakenly refer to the molecule by only one of its elements shouldn’t that element be “oxygen”?

            71

            • #
              TdeF

              Great article. Great graphs. Exactly what people either do not want to hear or do not understand. Seriously, many people cannot read graphs. They are graph haptics.

              These people believe what they are told because they cannot digest the facts. Others lack a sense of direction, really.
              That is why a famous if inappropriate physicist like Cox is such a great find for the BBC. Particle physics is very impressive but could not be more removed from the real world. Besides, where else would he get a job like this? Expert in everything and prepared to say NASA should know the facts but NASA is not 17,000 people. It is just a few and they want to survive and be paid next week, just like Brian Cox.

              51

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think what happens it eh MSM “prime the pump” by making people depressed, then up the pressure by pushing unrelenting gloom and doom at people.

            Eventually, people just want it to stop, so by providing an “ethnic cleansing” of evil pro-fossil fuels and all those who support them, it neatly ties up the whole precieved mess…..

            If youw ant to fix the issue, speak scientific truth, and tell people to watch much less tv and their “smart” phone a lot less….once you cut off a lot of the propganda feed, a lot of the problem will go away…..

            41

            • #
              TdeF

              I was distressed to see millenials hosting an Olympics show.
              Like Wow. All shallow commentary and approved twitter phrases.
              You won’t believe stuff. Zingers.
              The same in the media, why Bolt should be angry at …
              Everything except the plain news, just zero content shallow commentary by non sports people.

              We get the same in the news, not the news, just random stuff and people agreeing with each other that whatever entered their consciousness that second was the most important thing in the world, for that second. It is like commentary by fish with their 8 second memories.

              No wonder the MSM are having such a field day. It is all about people agreeing with each other and going Wow. I doubt these reporters or their reader would be interested in graphs and facts and science. So, whatever. Parents pay the carbon tax anyway and the government has oodles of money.

              51

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                I was watching the update from rio ( or some such ) and was appalled…I didnt collective realize navel gazing was an olympic sport.

                30

      • #
        Another Ian

        TdeF

        Don’t forget the Corningware sales

        30

  • #
    tom0mason

    OT,
    Meanwhile Britain goes ahead with the Hornsea Two project for their own ‘World beating’ green dream…
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/worlds-largest-windfarm-receives-planning-go-ahead

    Britain has affirmed its place as number one in the stupidity stakes!
    Yes the evidence is clear with the utter idiocy of giving the go ahead to create the world’s largest folly in the shape of an offshore windfarm, called Hornsea Project Two.

    The Government is making £100s of millions of financial support available (aka other people’s money) for ruinous electricity grid system degeneration with the consent of Parliament, sending a clear signal to tricksters and conmen everywhere — the UK is open for crony-capitalist business dealing.

    90

  • #
    Harry Passfield

    Ah yes, NASA, who landed a man on the moon, but then hadn’t the nous to check that a UK uni had not confused imperial and metric measurements: RIP Beagle.
    That said, NASA is to NASA GISS as Rolls Royce is to British Leyland.

    91

  • #
    Yan

    Walter Cunningham didn’t circle the Moon on Apollo 7, he circled the Earth. (Along with Wally Shirra and Don Eisele).

    Besides this little mistake, I wouldn’t trust NASA’s or NOAA’s graphs if my life depended on it.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T somewhat but after reading

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/17/exposed-climate-crusader-california-governor-jerry-brown-took-huge-sums-of-money-from-big-oil/

    No wonder there is never any cheques coming to CAGW sceptics – there’s none left.

    51

  • #
    pat

    another CAGW “rock star”/”celebrity” story of gross hypocrisy:

    17 Aug: Hollywood Reporter: Gary Baum: Leonardo DiCaprio, the Malaysian Money Scandal and His “Unusual” Foundation
    On the evening of July 20, under a tent at a vineyard in St. Tropez brimming to his specifications with booze, billionaires and babes, Leonardo DiCaprio was preparing to host one of the glitziest charitable events of the year: the third annual fundraiser for his Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation. Earlier that same day, under far less glamorous auspices half a world away, the U.S. Department of Justice was filing a complaint with the U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles that suggested the recent Oscar winner is a bit player in the planet’s largest embezzlement case, totaling more than $3 billion siphoned from a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund called 1MDB…
    And much like the gala in St. Tropez, with its expressions of one-percenter excess ostensibly in support of saving the environment (guests helicoptering in to dine on whole sea bass after watching a short film about the dangers of overfishing), a closer look at the LDF itself raises questions about its ties to the 1MDB players as well as the lack of transparency often required (or offered in this case) for the specific structure the actor has chosen for his endeavor…
    At the July 20 event in St. Tropez, where tickets started at $11,778 (10,500 euros) DiCaprio greeted a roomful of approximately 500 partygoers, including oligarchs (Dmitry Rybolovlev), supermodels (Naomi Campbell) and plenty of fellow A-listers, among them Bono, Charlize Theron, Tobey Maguire, Robert De Niro, Scarlett Johansson, Jonah Hill, Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett and Arnold Schwarzenegger…
    The 1MDB saga has been Hollywood-tinged from the start. Tim Leissner, the Goldman Sachs banker who brokered the deal that set everything in motion, is Kimora Lee Simmons’ husband. (He since has left the firm.)…
    According to the LDF, the July 20 gala raised more than $45 million in funds for global conservation efforts. Yet the organization would provide no documentation to THR to support these and other claims. Due to its unorthodox structure, the LDF is not obligated to disclose any specifics about its donations and repeatedly has been critiqued in recent years by Inside Philanthropy for its opacity as a prominent celebrity charity…
    That one of the most powerful figures in Hollywood — whom United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2014 designated as a U.N. Messenger of Peace, with a special focus on climate change — has been sainted by his professional and social circles for his globe-trotting do-gooding may have permitted him to operate with comparatively little scrutiny so far…
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/leonardo-dicaprio-malaysian-money-scandal-920199

    ABC/Fairfax/Guardian love this mob.

    70

  • #
    Analitik

    University of Melbourne, geologist Mike Sandiford (head of the farcical “Melbourne Energy Institute”) at The Converation has offered bore hole temperature profiles as empirical evidence for CAGW and wants to take on Malcolm Roberts.

    https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

    What do people think about this as “proof”? At a glance, it seems credible but I don’t know enough about the subject and google doesn’t seem overly helpful.

    22

    • #
      AndyG55

      Well gees, we had some heating out of the Little Ice Age, which was, (as his graphs shows) the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

      THANK GOODNESS.

      Unfortunately that has now plateaued.

      This guy has NOTHING that could possibly support the CAGW farce..

      and certainly nothing to point to human produced CO2 having anything to do with this NATURAL and HIGHLY BENEFICIAL WARMING

      52

      • #
        Analitik

        That was my first thought but then he has that hockey stick developing in the right edge for the mean of the 95% confidence region for the modelled temperature history for the Tynong bore

        42

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I think he is a bit optimistic about temperatures 15 metres down. Some years ago when I was looking at underground housing it was standard for 6 metres of earth to be the limit for seasonal variation to be detected. And the Earth has warmed over the last 300 years if you think that the Little Ice Age was world-wide and the increase in solar activity caused warming, but of course true believers think the sun doesn’t vary and, despite all the peer reviewed papers, that the Little Ice Age only happened in Europe and New England and it didn’t end until 1850.

      I notice he claims Fourier as a believer when Fourier specifically ruled out a greenhouse effect “unless part of the atmosphere crystallises without changing its optical properties”.

      32

      • #
        Analitik

        The references to Fourier in the article are purely for modelling heat flow through the earth, IMO, which is proper use of his equations. From memory, they were used to estimate the age of the earth back when geology was the cutting edge science of the time.

        I’m not defending this “proof” for CAGW but I like my ducks lined up before wading in to battle.

        Mike Sandiford is one of the few Australian geologists that I know of who is on the CAGW side. Too bad Bob Carter is no longer around to critique this “evidence”

        31

        • #
          Rick Will

          The simple questions to ask are:
          1. Does your trend infer heating over the last 500 hundred years?
          2. If so, what caused the heating in the pre-industrial era before there was substantial increase in CO2?

          There is reasonably solid evidence that the energy content in the earth climate system has been increasing for the last 150 years or so as the slow rise in sea level is a reasonable proxy for the stored energy, due to thermal expansion of water and melting of land ice. Sea level has been rising on average according to the best available evidence.

          There is no evidence to indicate that the rise in sea level is accelerating, which it would need to be showing if atmospheric CO2 was contributing to the energy input as it has been rising steadily.

          31

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Just noticed this this morning:

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-dodgy-academic-journals-publishing-antivaxxers-and-other-crappy-science-20160817-gquu3z.html

    which then links to this :

    https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/

    Not being familair with a lot of these journals – can anyone say whether this is a “pre-emptive strike” against any journals that might publish sceptic papers?

    I notice the MSM page uses an emotive punch ( “those evil anti-vaxxers” ) to attampt to set the stage …..

    31

  • #
    pat

    original headline:

    Plug power gaps ‘or business will walk’
    The Advertiser-9 hours ago

    now:

    18 Aug: Adelaide Advertiser: Cameron England: Business leaders ask Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis for inquiry into SA’s electricity supply system
    THERE are calls from the business community for an independent inquiry into energy prices in SA while the Australian Industry Group warns 10 planned interconnector outages over the next month could add up to $220 million to the state’s power bills…
    The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) chief executive Jason Kuchel has also warned that high prices over the long term could lead to capital investment being delayed or even companies moving interstate or offshore which was “a real possibility”…
    BHP Billiton head of corporate affairs Simon Corrigan told the Global Maintenance, Upper Spencer Gulf Industry Conference in Port Pirie yesterday that a new interconnector was needed urgently.
    “Over the last 12 months electricity prices in South Australia have been on average more than 50 per cent higher than prices in Victoria, and there have been days where prices are 10 times higher,” he said.
    “But it is important not to characterise this challenge as being about fossil fuels versus renewables. Instead the challenge we are facing is much more about finding the right balance of intermittent and base load power sources, while meeting our carbon reduction targets”…READ ALL
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/business-leaders-ask-energy-minister-tom-koutsantonis-for-inquiry-into-sas-electricity-supply-system/news-story/878860688f3831a77d395b5fb986f19e

    not necessarily RET-related!

    18 Aug: Australian: Sid Maher: Power cost shock for 1000 businesses, with bills to double
    About 1000 businesses face up to a doubling of electricity bills under a tariff shake-up by regional NSW power distributor Essential Energy in a move that will intensify pressure on state and federal ministers to tackle rising power costs.
    Essential Energy last month wrote to industry groups to inform them about 1100 customers who used more than 160 Megawatt hours of power in the past 12 months would be moved to an electricity tariff that could have dramatic impacts on their bills.
    The worst affected firm in dollar terms will see its power bill rise from $181,500 to $347,000…
    Essential’s manager network regulation, Natalie Lindsay: “A demand-based network tariff provides a more efficient pricing signal of the costs associated with building and maintaining a network with a ­capacity reserve that can support customers’ differing, and often intermittent, peak demands.”…READ ALL
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/power-cost-shock-for-1000-businesses-with-bills-to-double/news-story/92587181d153ab1fe757ce0fad613d82

    60

  • #
    pat

    whatever…

    17 Aug: Reuters: Alister Doyle, OSLO: After scorching heat, Earth likely to get respite in 2017
    In a welcome break, a new annual record is unlikely in 2017 since the effect of El Nino – a phenomenon that warms the eastern Pacific and can disrupt weather patterns worldwide every two-seven years – is fading.
    “Next year is probably going to be cooler than 2016,” said Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. He added there was no sign of a strong La Nina, El Nino’s opposite that can cool the planet…
    “If 2017 is cooler, there will probably be some climate skeptics surfing on this information,” said Jean-Noel Thepaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service at the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
    “The long-term trend is towards warming but there is natural variability so there are ups and downs. The scientific community will have again to explain what is happening,” he told Reuters…
    “One thing that the scientific community needs to be careful about is that they are not gearing up for a new ‘hiatus’ event,” said Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Energy Research in Oslo…
    Scientists are meeting in Geneva this week to sketch out themes for a report about the 1.5C goal that was requested by world leaders at the summit for delivery in 2018.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures-idUKKCN10S1DM

    30

  • #
    pat

    whatever…

    16 Aug: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: World’s biggest offshore wind farm approved despite RSPB warning over ‘unnecessary’ bird deaths
    The Hornsea Two wind farm would see up to 300 turbines built 55 miles offshore and could generate up to 1.8 gigawatts of power, enough to power about 1.6m homes…
    The RSPB said the planning approval for Hornsea Two was “devastating” as the turbines would be directly in the flight path of gannets and kittiwakes that nest in protected wildlife areas between Flamborough Head and Filey Cliffs, resulting in the “unnecessary death” of hundreds of birds.
    “This wind farm, in combination with other offshore wind farms in the North Sea, poses an unacceptable level of threat to these species as well as potential effects for guillemots, razorbills and puffins,” it said…
    The Hornsea project also faced environmental concerns over its impact on harbour porpoises, after the environment department proposed including the entire 115 square mile area of the proposed wind farm within a vast new Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for the species…READ ON
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/16/worlds-biggest-offshore-wind-farm-approved-despite-rspb-warning/

    16 Aug: UK Express: Stuart Winter: Thousands of birds ‘under threat’ from world’s biggest wind farm planned for Yorkshire
    Gwyn Williams, RSPB’s head of reserves and protected areas, said: “Each year, hundreds of thousands of birds flock to the cliffs between Flamborough Head and Filey Cliffs in a mesmerising seabird spectacle.
    “The importance of this site, not just to Yorkshire but to the UK, has been recognised and the site is designated as a Special Protection Area by the Government…
    “We are now even more concerned for the future of the Flamborough to Filey seabirds if the developers of the Hornsea zone bring forward their next two phases.”…READ ON
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/700679/Thousands-of-birds-under-threat-from-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-planned-for-Yorkshire

    20

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 16 Aug: BBC: (Brian) Cox: There is ‘absolute consensus’ on climate change (Q&A Video)
    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 ABC’s adversarial panel show Q&A.
    Also on the Australian TV show was senator-elect Malcolm Roberts from the anti-immigration One Nation party.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37092490

    21

  • #
    thingodonta

    My take on this is more education.

    Philip Cox is a physicist, who deals in a mostly exact science. There is a history and tendency within those in this field to be very poor at understanding the politics of uncertainty, and within uncertain science, when they step out of their field.

    Someone once said of Klaus Fuchs, who worked on the atomic bomb and freely gave nuclear secrets to the Russians, that they had never met such a brilliant scientist who was so naive when it came to politics.

    Philip Cox was incredulous when it was suggested that climate scientists would manipulate data to suit their pre-determined biases, but this sort of thing is common within uncertain scientific and other fields.

    He also showed the Greenspan fallacy, that organisations and institutions are generally good at self or internal regulation. Greenspan thought banks would be able to properly supervise themselves, so he didn’t really believe in external regulation; after the GFC he was “deeply shocked” that this simply does not happen in practice. Data gets hidden from supervisors, personal self-interest takes over, risk and fraud is dumped on ‘externalities’ until the system itself collapses, and people at the top are too busy making money to know what is really going on. It is human politics, and if effects banks, governments, and yes, even scientific agencies.

    This problem of human bias and self-interest in the context of institutions is so deep and so strong that one could argue:

    -democracy was invented to regulate government excess and distortion,
    -the stock market was invented partly to regulate business excess and distortion,
    -science (whereby one has to actually experimentally show what one is saying, and which has to be repeatable and falsifiable-climate science seems to exist at the very fringe of this standard methodology) was invented, at least partially and initially, to regulate religious excess and distortion.

    But what regulates science? At the moment it relies on internal regulation through peer review and academic regulation, but ‘internal regulation’ doesn’t work in banks, doesn’t work in government, doesn’t work in religion, and often doesn’t work in science either, particularly within uncertain fields which have a political context. People like Philip Cox need to at least be made aware of the depth of these issues.

    Something also needs to be done to better regulate institutionalized scientific distortion and excess, since it can’t be voted out like in a democracy, and isn’t subject to market correction like within a business, but what the solution is is not clear to me.

    42

  • #
  • #
    pat

    ***the writer is: Piers John Sellers, OBE is a British-American meteorologist, and a NASA astronaut…Before joining the astronaut corps, Sellers worked at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on research into how the Earth’s biosphere and atmosphere interact. This work involved climate system computer modeling and field work utilizing aircraft, satellites and ground support input. (Wikipedia)

    17 Aug: New Yorker: Piers Sellers: Space, Climate Change, and the Real Meaning of Theory
    (***The views expressed in this piece are personal and do not reflect the policy of NASA)
    I used to be an astronaut, a spacewalker on the International Space Station…
    The global community of climate scientists, endorsed by their respective National Academies of Science or equivalents, is solid in attributing the warming to fossil-fuel emissions. Humans are the cause of the accelerating warming. You can bet your life—or, more accurately, your descendants’ lives—on it…
    Climate-change deniers in the United States have done a first-class job in spreading confusion and misinformation…
    The science behind the predictions made by these climate models is not always easy to explain, and this prompted me to think more about how scientists communicate what we know to the wider community…
    Climate models are made out of theory. They are huge assemblies of equations that describe how sunlight warms the Earth, and how that absorbed energy influences the motion of the winds and oceans, the formation and dissipation of clouds, the melting of ice sheets, and many other things besides. These equations are all turned into computer code, linked to one another, and loaded into a supercomputer, where they calculate the time-evolution of the Earth system, typically in time steps of a few minutes…
    But theories are abstract, after all, so it’s easy for people to get tricked into thinking that because something is based on theory, it could very likely be wrong or is debatable in the same way that a social issue is debatable. This is incorrect…
    But, in reality, ninety-seven per cent of working climate scientists are in the “for” camp (i.e., recent climate change is real, and is a result of human activities), and only three per cent are “against.”…
    http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/space-climate-change-and-the-real-meaning-of-theory

    20

  • #
    pat

    about the writer: Rhett Allain is an American associate professor of physics at Southeastern Louisiana University and the author of the Wired magazine science blog Dot Physics. (Wikipedia)

    17 Aug: Wired: Rhett Allain: What climate chnge skeptics aren’t getting about science
    Isn’t it great when people get together to reasonably discuss ideas? Sadly, this recent BBC clip isn’t that. It features highlights of a climate change conversation between physicist Brian Cox and Australian politician Malcolm Roberts…
    Why is this still up for discussion?…
    But I think some of the points that Roberts raises are important to discuss in regard to the nature of science.
    Roberts contends that science shouldn’t be based on consensus but rather empirical evidence. Let’s look at these terms as they relate to science…
    Climate science also is difficult to measure. How do you know the temperature of the Earth? You can’t measure it directly. You can’t take a giant thermometer and stick it up the Earth’s butt to find out if it has gotten warmer. Instead you must use many indirect measurements obtained via many different methods to estimate the temperature. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best available. With this, science always includes uncertainty in its measurements. But scientists are confident that the global temperature is rising, just as they are fairly sure about the mass of an electron…
    Science is all about models…READ ON
    There is indeed a scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that it is the result of human activity…
    http://www.wired.com/2016/08/climate-change-skeptics-arent-getting-science/

    10

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming
    A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years.
    “U.S. Programs Global Warming Grants U.S. Programs became engaged on the global warming issue about four years ago, at George Soros’s suggestion,” reads a leaked OSI memo…
    It’s unclear what year the memo was sent, but the Gore co-founded Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) was established in 2006 and lasted until it became The Climate Reality Project in July 2011. In 2008, the Alliance launched a $300 million campaign to encourage “Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” The Washington Post reported…
    ***“This budget item also allows for the renewal of U.S. Programs’ long-standing support of the Energy Action Coalition, which is the lead organizer of the youth climate movement in the U.S., the memo reads…READ ALL
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-push-aggressive-us-action-on-global-warming/

    found this the other day. from the George Soros Open Society leaks – re Grant for Energy Action Coalition :
    https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://soros.dcleaks.com/fview/USA/docket-iii-global-warming-eac-write-up.pdf

    docs can be accessed from the link below – but not simple. u can do searches.

    http://soros.dcleaks.com/

    funny how little interest or no interest at all the MSM has in the Soros leaks!

    30

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: Climate Depot: Marc Morano: Serial arsonist behind California wildfires caught as Gore blames ‘global warming’
    Al Gore Blames Deadly Louisiana Floods On Global Warming — Just As New Studies Debunk His Claim
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/08/17/serial-arsonist-behind-california-wildfires-caught-as-gore-blame-global-warming/

    16 Aug: UK Express: Jon Austin: CLIMATE CHANGE SHOCK: Global warming happened LONG before man started burning fossil fuels
    THE debate over man-made climate change has been turned upside down following the discovery there was a catastrophic Antarctic sea ice shrinkage more than 100,000 years ago… when mankind was still in loin cloths
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/700632/CLIMATE-CHANGE-SHOCK-Global-warming-happened-LONG-before-man-started-burning-fossil-fuels

    17 Aug: Daily Caller: Eric Owens: Farmer’s Almanac crushes dreams of global warming zealots with “ICE COLD WINTER” forecast
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/farmers-almanac-forecasts-ice-cold-winter-in-2016/

    40

  • #
    Gary Sheehan

    NASA, is just another Government organization and therefor subject to the usual pitfalls of any bloated bureaucracy. Plenty of examples of NASA’s brilliance and also their short-comings in the record. O rings and Ice damage are but two that come to mind in the catastrophic category. Just keep in mind NASA spent an enormous amount of time and money working out how to get ball point pens to write in space so astronauts could write their reports etc! The Russians used pencils!

    51

    • #
      Another Ian

      Gary

      A question – did this end up on the market as the Parker ball point pen?

      If so it is a boon to crossword fanciers – it will write upside down, so you can lie in bed with the crossword held on your raised knees and write

      40

      • #
        ROM

        .
        From ; Physics.org.

        Is it true that NASA spent thousands of dollars developing a space pen, whereas the Russians just took a pencil?

        ——–

        As with most urban myths, there is a tiny grain of truth in this claim, but NASA weren’t as spendthrift as some might like to think. NASA did start to develop a space pen, but the costs soon spiralled and when the agency came up against public opposition the astronauts reverted back to using pencils.

        However, at around the same time, Mr Fisher of Fisher Pens had also started developing a pen that would work in weightless conditions using his own money. Fisher’s pen had a pressurised ink cartridge which worked in weightless environments, in extreme temperatures and even underwater.

        Presented with a fully developed pen, NASA managers agreed to equip the Apollo astronauts with Fisher’s space pen. And the Soviet Union soon followed, supplying their cosmonauts with the pen at the end of the 1960s.

        30

  • #
    scaper...

    Malcolm on The Bolt Report tonight. His take on the Q & A rabble.

    Podcast available later.

    32

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T but important news in Qld

    “Billy Gordon shoots down Palaszczuks draconian tree laws”

    http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/4106470/billy-gordon-shoots-down-palaszczuks-draconian-tree-laws/?cs=4785

    40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    When I reach the end of my life I will have the great satisfaction of knowing that I have lived my life to the full and have developed an understanding of science and that part of human Endeavour to a level that few others have been capable of doing.

    I know and understand this because I am a scientist.

    This contrasts with my feelings about professeur Brian Cox and his performance in the q and a program.

    Watching his juvenile performance in the company of such political luminaries and lightweights as Linda Burney, the Mathematician and GHunt made me feel extremely sad.

    A very theatrical performance masquerading as science.

    Sad day for science.

    92

    • #
      Sane Canadian

      May I shake your hand, Sir.

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        And may I thank you Mr Sane.

        My concern about Brian Cox is that he has not shown a duty of care to either his own reputation or to his incredulous viewers.

        When I first heard about Global Warming I did what most scientists do, I assumed that the media was misrepresenting the issue by omitting certain qualifiers.

        After some effort to tease out the claims it became obvious that there were NO qualifiers and a complete absence of any “boundary conditions” to help define the problem to the point that it made
        engineering sense.

        In my poem “If” in earlier posts I assessed the claims of human involvement by using well known “warmer” data.

        It took 5 minutes.

        Sadly Brian Cox has not done even the most basic assessment of the problem and comes out looking like an uneducated lackey of modern politics.

        KK

        10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Very interesting, note he is shaking, watch his right hand as he holds up the (phoney) temperature graph (faked by NASA). Something fishy with his comments way out of line for a so called physicist.
    This guy I dont agree with anyway hes a Big Bang man, sorry another wrong theory made by ‘concensus’. Bad science. So Dick Feynman is his mentor? Also I have heard Feynman talk hes was a lovely man, would never have made statements like Cox made. Cox should feel ashamed following such rubbish as AGW. Whos paying his way?

    52

  • #
    Another Ian

    For Troll Central

    “Prof Brian Cox: Gorgeous Lips; Lovely Smile; Crap Scientist”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/18/prof-brian-cox-gorgeous-lips-lovely-smile-crap-scientist/

    41

  • #
    Toppie

    Jo : (at Jo Nova August 18, 2016 at 1:46 pm · Reply)
    Just found your site.

    I couldn’t believe the performance of this Cox fellow. What an intellectual cheapskate and immoral debater/arguer. I mean, is he for real ? When did he lose his brains ?

    And then we have the Chairman …


    and the … audience.

    Words fail me.
    No, wait, they don’t. Liars, tricksters, ignorami, refugees from a sold-out pop concert. You get the idea ?

    72

    • #
      bobl

      Tony Jones (The so-called Moderator of Q&A) who actually laughed at his conservative “Guest” is a full-on greens party supporter that uses his taxpayer funded position to try to hurt conservatives despite the ABC having a charter to be balanced.

      To avoid scrutiny of his flagrant bias, Aunty ABC puts Q&A under the Entertainment division (despite the fact it is clearly a current affairs/news show that for example plays on their News 24 channel) thus avoiding the News Editor who is more or less balanced (less rather than more – but heaps more than Tony Jones)

      22

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Where was the graph from the paleo climate that shows the earth was considerably warmer when ‘Sue’ the T-Rex was around than is now? infact Now is the coolest earth has been for about last 300+ million years http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. Breitbart article is great, Cox is a BBC patsy and crap scientist.

    31

  • #
    TdeF

    For Craig and all the Craigs

    Man and Other, the five minute argument

    M: I came here for a good argument!
    O: AH, no you didn’t, you came here for an argument!
    M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
    O: Well! it CAN be!
    M: No it can’t!
    M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    O: No it isn’t!
    M: Yes it is! ’tisn’t just contradiction.
    O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
    M: Yes but it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t’.
    O: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn’t!
    O: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn’t!
    O: Yes it is!
    M: No it ISN’T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
    O: It is NOT!
    M: It is!
    O: Not at all!

    51

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    That ‘debate’ was truely disgusting display of total arrogance by Cox. Cox ..”OH no NASA – read GOD in science data – cant possibly be fiddling the data”. Well sorry Prof Cox NASA has been proved to be falsifying data (instructed by the US Congress most likely) that would stand up in court of law as our US cousins would say. So put that up your pipe upstart Cox.

    31

  • #
    pat

    18 Aug: Sky News: Malcolm Roberts stands by climate claims
    Senator Roberts sparked social media outrage…
    However, the Senator has stuck by his claims, saying there actually is a 20 year ‘gap’ where the planet didn’t warm up, and data from NASA is a ‘fabrication and manipulation’.
    ‘The original data from around the world shows the 1930′s (is) warmer than the latest warming period,’ he said. ‘They’ve cooled the earlier temperatures and that then shows a warming’.
    Mr Roberts also told Sky News he believed he performed well on the panel, especially as he was the only climate change denier.
    ‘I’m getting many congratulatory notes saying “keep going mate”‘.
    However, NASA was not as impressed…
    GAVIN TWEET, GAVIN TWEET, GAVIN TWEET, GAVIN TWEET
    Malcolm Roberts is a former coal engineer…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/08/18/malcolm-roberts-stands-by-climate-claims.html

    17 Aug: Reuters: Henning Gloystein: After years of pain, coal becomes one of the hottest commodities of 2016
    Less than a year after the coal industry was declared to be in terminal decline, the fossil fuel has staged its steepest price rally in over half a decade, making it one of the hottest major commodities.
    Cargo prices for Australian thermal coal from its Newcastle terminal, seen as the Asian benchmark, have soared over 35 percent since mid-June to more than one-year highs of almost $70 a ton, pushed by surprise increases in Chinese imports…
    The price recovery is an unexpected boon for miners, who were hit hard by a years-long downturn, and stands in sharp contrast to previous calls by Goldman and the International Energy Agency (IEA), who said last year that coal was in terminal decline.
    As a result of China’s surprise move, Goldman said there was now “support (for) global prices for the foreseeable future.”…
    Coal has also been garnering support from Asian industrial powerhouses Japan and South Korea, while demand remains firm in India, Vietnam and the Philippines…
    The biggest winners are those with mines in Australia, thanks to the high average quality of its coal…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-coal-markets-idUSKCN10S0MT

    30

  • #
    ROM

    Craig Thomas , Frank, Ross and sundry other warmist trolls that regularly make cameo appearances around here make for a good study on the motives that drive the whole alarmist climate change thing.

    One that srikes me and I have posted on it elsewhere, is that nowhere have our alarmist trolls demonstrated they know what they believe in by describing in their own words what the observable and measured differences are between their ideology based “Climate Change” and the ordinary aeons old “natural climate change” that all life has always contended with and which has been one of the great driving forces for the evolution of life to this day.

    The warmists trolls included the ones that appear around here whenever their troll roster indicates they should either in singles or in groups, now appear to be living in their version of a climate science world that would over time appeared to have become a very limited and two dimensional version of climate science.

    It is a world where climate science is flat in all directions with no changes in degree, the up and down, the varying indegree and amounts, the third dimension, abnd where no changes to the science are now allowed allowed .

    Then there is the fourth dimension, that of time.

    The alarmists are rigidly fixated in that one position on the science of the climate for what now seems is for all time.
    There appears to be no regard for the fact that science including todays climate science, is constantly changing, usually in fits and starts in any one discipline, over highly variable periods of Time as Time rolls ever onward.

    For the climate alarmists aka our trolls, nothing is allowed to change in climate science nor is any change even of a minor nature allowed from it seems around the time of Copenhagen conference of 2009 when the climate alarmist science nostrums were apparently finally set in concrete for all time in the minds of the alarmists if we are to take the climate alarmist trolls and their posturings here as evidence of that development.

    Science, including climate  science, is always moving on and always changing and always modifying its research and its current beliefs as new research comes to hand.
    Hence as I posted in one of Jo’s blog posts a couple of posts ago
    But with the current crop of climate alarmists as typified by the, some of the climate modellers, those one would think with the highest vested interests in claiming their climate models are infallible, some still do despite very, very substantial observed scientifically based evidence that their models are c*** , are now admitting and even publishing as I posted previously that the models are a very long way indeed from being able to predict the global climate or most aspects of that climate.

    And THAT is a very important development as every single prediction [ outside of "opinion" of some climate related development, opinion which is worthless,]
    that has ever been made that is claimed to have a scientific base comes from climate modelling.

    If the climate modellers themselves are admitting and even publishing in peer reviewed papers some of the serious problems with the climate models, then EVERYTHING that has been predicted or will be predicted by the models is basically worthless. and it is worthless because there are so many multitudinous factors interlocking and inter relating with one another across this planet when it comes to climate, just one wrong item in the models assumptions can negate the complete model based claim and prediction.

    Meanwhile despite climate scientists with a vested interest in their climate science research activities coming right out and admitting that all is very far from well in climate science research and in the conclusions so far reached, the alarmists trolls who appear here and apparently no longer accept any advancement in climate science research at any level which is NOT acceptable to the alarmist trolls if it throws even the slightest shadow of doubt upon the troll’s own beliefs and catastrophic climate ideology just continue on still believing in their own timeless and tiny intellectual scientific vacuum.

    There is a silver lining to the activities of the alarmist trolls here, in fact there are a couple of silver linings.
    As the science of the climate moves inexorably forward and most of the old beliefs and scientific nostrums on the climate are modified and discarded, the alarmist, trapped and fixated alarmist trolls will be seen as ever more dated and out of touch and so become just a minor irritating back water of no relevance any more to any discussion or scientific or blog debate on the climate.

    And the second silver lining is that the trolls appearing here are probably doing the skeptics quite a good turn by constantly throwing up quite baseless accusations ad homs and comments with NO scientifically based content.
    Which for any thinking lurker and I suspect there might be quite a number that regularly pop in for a look at whats current here on Jo’s blog , must start to raise some questions and doubts about both the science and the motives of the alarmist trolls.

    The skeptics here I note have been replying and countering those alarmist trolls vaporous and baseless posturings,[ I can't describe the alarmist troll's as "commenting",] with comments and quotes from scientific papers and data and from scientifically orientated and motivated sites and have generally in a lot of cases replied to the alarmist troll’s baiting with level headed and considered comments that more often than not in this thread have been based on science from various and multitudinous sources.

    For any lurkers and I suspect there might be a lot of lurkers here on Jo’s site, the presentation of scientifically based facts by the skeptics here including the way in which the science has changed from previous climate science understandings in older periods, can only further educate and go some way towards convincing the lurkers who may be quite rightly unsure of the real truth and real science behind all the claims around climate science, that the skeptics and Jo’s site is being much more honest and flexible in ascertaining the real facts behind the research into the climate than the two dimensional flat, no longer changing or able to change in content or time, rabidly fixated psuedo climate science of the alarmist trolls.

    63

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      The “Craigs” are doing us all a favour in that they prompt good clear scientific responses that constitute a “response encyclopedia” that we can all use in our discussions with those who are uncertain.

      Thank you Craigs.

      KK

      00

  • #
    Analitik

    OT- Wind turbines in a Melbourne school!!!

    The St Louis de Montfort Primary School in Aspendale has lodged a planning application with the Kingston Council to install wind turbine towers as part of their “sustainability centre ”

    http://baysidenews.com.au/2016/08/17/ill-wind-turbines/

    WTF????

    51

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Senator Roberts needs to produce his evidence that NASA fakes the GISTEMP data set. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    22

    • #
      Harry Passfield

      And, by the same token, Cox needs to show his proof that CO2 (just the man-made bit) is causing 2016 to be the hottest evah.

      53

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Harry Passfield.

        “And, by the same token, Cox needs to show his proof that CO2 (just the man-made bit) is causing 2016 to be the hottest evah.”

        Professor Brian Cox did present some of the evidence on ABC Q&A, and spoke briefly about other lines of evidence. He also mentioned several reports which go over the evidence.

        Meanwhile Senator Malcolm Roberts did not present any evidence for his Conspiracy Theory about NASA.

        01

        • #

          Harry Twinotter August 19, 2016 at 9:06 pm

          “Meanwhile Senator Malcolm Roberts did not present any evidence for his Conspiracy Theory about NASA.”

          Sir Twin[snip]otter,
          Senator Roberts presented true evidence of the CABAL for world domination! Check the roster of “Council on Foreign Relations” for a complete list of members of the Cabal!

          [Mentioning "conspiracy theory" can put you into moderation, mostly because most such discussions are time and space wasters. Since you quote Harry Twinotter I have no hesitation to approve this. But a word to the wise... And even Harry deserves to have his name used correctly.] AZ

          01

    • #
      AndyG55

      1. Nearly 50% of the GISS data is marked “E”

      2. The “adjustments” have an R² of 0.98 with CO2 rise. How is that even possible !!!!!

      3. Past GISS graphs from MANY sources show very different past temperatures.

      13

  • #
    Carbon500

    Has anyone ever seen Craig Thomas or Frank produce any figures or arguments of their own?

    32

    • #
      AndyG55

      Nope..

      Not going to happen

      Rabid cherry picking, like the last 5 years of the mal-adjusted Colorado sea level anti-data, while ignoring the NEGATIVE TREND in the tide data he actually suggested we look at…

      That is about the best you can expect.

      33

    • #
      AndyG55

      …. And Harry and Frank have emphatically proven that they don’t even know what REAL DATA actually is.

      It is an anathema to them.

      33

  • #
    Sane Canadian

    HELP!

    On faceplant; the so-called scibabe (usually a sane advocate for science) has this under discussion. Unfortunately, the majority there are all true believers. We rational people could use some help there. Anyone up to taking on the fruitbats using science in the way it should be used?

    https://www.facebook.com/scibabe/posts/831835106953266?comment_id=831860746950702&reply_comment_id=832593823544061&notif_t=share_reply&notif_id=1471539638949600

    01

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Sane Canadian.

      Ha ha the climate change [snip] are getting creamed on that Facebook page.

      Whatever part of the fossil fuel industry is sponsoring Senator Roberts, they should ask for their money back. He made such a sterling stuff-up that I am beginning to suspect he is a Green industry plant. He may be about to switch masters.

      [Useless Harry, full circle back to using the "D" word. Go back to school and learn something would you please?] ED

      01

      • #

        If by “creamed” you mean teenagers swearing and mocking a lot, “congrats”. That’s winning. If you mean a scientific discussion, you’ll have to point me to it. I can’t see one single valid point there. But there is a lot of smug backpatting.

        Scibabe doesn’t appear to know what science is. But she would make a good cheerleader.

        I think she mistakenly thinks “science” is whatever a scientificy committee says. It’s her religion.

        Keep lying to yourself about the imaginary fossil fuel funding. You need to believe that don’t you? That’s your excuse for not looking at any of his arguments. Fool yourself.

        11

  • #

    The mysterious 1,200 km homogenized smoothing is not temperature record manipulation in my opinion, it is a clever hybrid of Thermological Gerrymandering mixed with Absentee and Multiple Voting Fraud; if we consider weather stations to be voters. Each voter gets to vote in every electorate within 1200km, and for instance, 95% of Africa gets Gerrymandered by the safe coastal electorates, and de-Nile valley.

    I’d like to see a summary of all weather stations in the GISS data set that were decommissioned over time, and whether the majority were from cooling or more stable areas (un-safe electorates … too conservative politically thermologically)

    This is all quite clean and legal in political science; which is what ‘climate science’ has become; Physics .1%, Statistics 9.9%, Politics 90%.

    Politics is a little bit like Western U.S., Bristle Cone’s in the weighting department, and judging by Brian Cox’s rhetoric, has anyone checked whether he has a Political Science degree, or an actual Physical Science degree?

    It could be that Cox just mixed them up when he applied for Uni, accidentally studying the wrong science … or maybe he just sold his soul for career progression and an automatic ethics waiver from every ‘liberal’ (left wing) rag in Oz, including the ABC.

    I do hope that people like Cox end up as janitors (at best) when the fraudulent narrative of Thermageddon is outed as a super-criminal enterprise. No offense to janitors – an honest profession to be sure … but less well paid!

    Frederic Bastiat said it best for financial and political evolution:
    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

    The ABC is the CON-science, of a new type of national ‘morality’, and Cox is just one of the political pundits selling his opinions as science news.

    10