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

Malcolm Roberts on Q & A : 1 skeptic against 6 who believe the consensus

On the Eastern side of the country the new skeptical Senator, Malcolm Roberts is on Q & A.

Monday, 15 August 2016

As usual it is 6 against 1 the skeptical views that 54% of Australians share. Glaciers will form in hell before the ratio on the ABC would run 1:6 the other way. For Groupthinkers it’s very important that the group discussing a “controversial” topic agrees with each other. This neutralizes any damaging effects of hearing a lone voice put forward counter arguments.

John Cook has sent in a Question about empirical evidence.

Cook points at “less heat escaping to space” – Jo says –this doesn’t mean anything. We assume he means less heat escapes at certain frequencies (which he should have said). Sections of the outgoing spectrum are missing (e.g. Harries et al), which shows that CO2 is stopping some outgoing radiation and is a greenhouse gas (and we knew that already), but it doesn’t show that overall extra heat is staying in the system. The heat absorbed by CO2 is probably just rerouting out from other wavelengths (say, for example through emissions from the dominant greenhouse gas — water vapor). Indeed 28 million radiosondes suggest this is happening. The water vapor emissions layer is falling (not rising as the models predicted with the “hot spot”). We live on The Water Planet — the climate is driven by clouds, humidity, and our oceans — changes in these swamp the tiny effect of a trace gas. [This paragraph was edited for clarity, see notes below*]

The rate of warming in the 1980s peaked at the same rate that the globe warmed at in the 1920s and the 1880s (0.16C per decade). Ask Phil Jones. All that CO2 did not make any difference to the peak rate of global warming per decade. After World War II temperatures fell as CO2 rose. In the ice cores there are many examples of warmer temperatures causing CO2 to rise, and no clear examples of the opposite.

Since the year 2000 humans have put out 30% of all their CO2 and there is nothing to show for it.

I predict Brian Cox and Lily Serna will smile knowingly and talk about a “consensus”. Brian Cox may say the phrase “basic physics”.

As an honours student Lily Serna modeled pesticides feeding into the Great Barrier Reef.

“Using the existing CSIRO model the aim of my project is to develop an understanding of how pesticides move through the Fitzroy Estuary system in order to mitigate impacts on the Great Barrier Reef in light of predictions about climate change. The model also aims to describe the impact of increased or decreased pesticide usage on this fragile environment.

According to Wikipedia “Serna intends to complete a Ph.D. in environmental science”

iview

For other viewers, theoretically, if you can find it, the show should appear on iview (sorry for overseas readers, I don’t know if that plays for you. Though  hear the “Modify Headers” App for Firefox may work for Ex-pats if they use their Australian IP).  Last weeks episode includes PJ O Rourke.

Twitter Feed Q& A

UPDATE There are video’s with these tweets but you’ll need to use the Twitter link.

Is there evidence a human element is involved in climate change? @ProfBrianCox responds #QandA https://t.co/oaB9b9pUEk  — ABC Q&A (@QandA) August 15, 2016

We’ve had a pause in warming & NASA corrupted data, says Malcolm Roberts. @ProfBrianCox examines the graphs #QandA https://t.co/HTNk4Bzrk1  — ABC Q&A (@QandA) August 15, 2016


Former environment minister Greg Hunt says constant dialogue is better:

ABC Q&A ‏@QandA  21m21 minutes ago

This constant dialogue, testing policy & getting feedback is the best system, says @GregHuntMP #QandA

Which is why he tries to shut down BOM inquiries, so he can get the best feedback…

UPDATE: Brian Cox is arguing from incredulity, “the idea that NASA…” he says aghast at the thought they might not be 100% correct — he just can’t believe they could be wrong. He argues from authority. He shows the latest graph from … probably GISS. He does not show the latest graph from UAH satellites, which much more accurate, regarding the pause, and very different showing that 1998 is very similar to 2016.

Answer to Cook edited: Talking about total joules (as I did initially) doesn’t make the issue clearer, because Cook’s statement is too undefined to start with. All forms of warming cause the planet to release more radiation in toto. Cook said “less heat escapes to space” (which begs the question “less than what?”) — so a lot of people would interpret that as “total heat” coming off the planet, which isn’t true and is not helpful either. To that point, I said: “No one is accurately measuring the total joules coming off the whole planet, and even if they did, we don’t have accurate data from years past to compare it with. In other words, Cook is misrepresenting the results. ” The problem with talking about total joules is cause and effect. Even if we had accurate information it wouldn’t help us know what caused the warming. To know the cause we need to know the fingerprint, the missing hotspot, the spectral changes. And that is what Cook was talking about the last time he used the phrase “less heat escapes to space“. Hence my reply now responds to that point. ]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (88 votes cast)
Malcolm Roberts on Q & A : 1 skeptic against 6 who believe the consensus, 8.4 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hsjxw74

358 comments to Malcolm Roberts on Q & A : 1 skeptic against 6 who believe the consensus

  • #

    In very few years, Brian Cox has mutated from a decent presenter of science into a smug BBC luvvie. He’d be better off going back to playing in an indifferent band.

    Pointman

    817

    • #

      Will never watch his docos again, just like Attenborough’s. In fact his physics docos lack imagination, are long and boring. Physics is in shambles and is definitively not settled. How come that this individual who is not an expert in atmospherics supports the idea of settled science in climate?
      Q&A? can,t stomach that show even if we have “our man” there, obviously is a set up for an ambush.

      718

      • #

        Brian Cox does indeed come across as an arrogant overeducated idiot that has never himself acomplished anything that may be considered useful.

        588

        • #
        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          But certain members of the audience were positively swooning over him. And when he magicked out his graph … well, you could feel the adoration from here. But it ain’t science in’it?

          21

          • #
            AndyG55

            Several of the trolls here are also swooning over him.

            But it really was an incredibly poor showing from the person who purports to be a “professor”.

            Zero science… all waffle and propaganda.

            45

            • #

              Some people “can do”. It is those that “can not do”, that profess.

              47

              • #
                BL of CQ

                Like that, Will.
                “Those that can – Do;
                Those that can’t – Teach;
                Those that can’t teach – Consult.” (something I saw somewhere that may have been connected with Consulting Engineers Australia).
                To which may I suggest:
                “Those that can’t consult – Profess.”

                10

      • #
        Anton

        What do you mean by shambles? I’m a research physicist (and a skeptic of dangerous global warming), and what I see is controversy and uncertainty at the research frontier. That’s why it’s the research frontier, right? It’s a lot further on than it was 100 years ago. We can predict the magnetic moment of the electron correctly to 12 decimal places; how’s that? If you want a shambles, look at predictive economics.

        80

        • #

          As Physics is taught today, thermal radiative flux is considered a thermodynamic heat transfer proceeding in opposing directions even with no temperature differential. Never as a unidirectional electromagnetic flux proportional to the difference in radiance! You cannot get into any more physical shambles than that. All of western academia in shambles. There simply is no science, no education there. Can you even explain to anyone what “the magnetic moment of the electron correctly to 12 decimal places” might possibly mean to that person?

          67

          • #
            Anton

            I can make the point that a prediction of physics has been made to 12 decimal places and verified experimentally. If you don’t find that impressive, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

            Your comments about radiation give insufficient detail to critique properly, although I’d ask: why should those properties of a body that determine its radiative capabilities depend on incoming radiation?

            50

            • #
              Reed Coray

              Anton, IMO Will confuses “heat” and “electromagnetic radiation”. If you Google heat physics, you’ll find people use different “wordings” to define “heat.” I like the definition: “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object
              [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html].
              Using that definition, if two objects “A” and “B” are at the same temperature, although there will be electromagnetic radiation propagating both from “A” to “B” and from “B” to “A”, there is no “heat” flow between objects because “A” and “B” are at the same temperature.

              It’s true that electromagnetic radiation can be the “vehicle” for heat (e.g., if the objects exist in a vacuum and are at different temperatures), but the existence of electromagnetic radiation from object “A” to object “B” is not a sufficient condition to claim heat flows from “A” to “B”.

              In any event, if you continue your discussion with Will, good luck. In my opinion Will has an unusual way of viewing electromagnetic radiation in opposing directions.

              30

              • #

                Reed Coray August 17, 2016 at 4:39 am

                “Using that definition, if two objects “A” and “B” are at the same temperature, although there will be electromagnetic radiation propagating both from “A” to “B” and from “B” to “A”, there is no “heat” flow between objects because “A” and “B” are at the same temperature.”

                Do you have any source, besides yourself, that can claim if two objects “A” and “B” are at the same temperature, although there will be electromagnetic radiation propagating both from “A” to “B” and from “B” to “A”. I just want to have your source for such nonsense. The last folk that used such was Pierre Prevost in 1791 until his idea of the “fluidic caloric” was trashed by both Plank and Boltzmann. Thank you.

                16

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Will,

                I’ve broken my own rule–I am responding to your question.

                Do you have any source, besides yourself, that can claim if two objects “A” and “B” are at the same temperature, although there will be electromagnetic radiation propagating both from “A” to “B” and from “B” to “A”. I just want to have your source for such nonsense.

                OK. Here’s the answer to your question. My source is Max Planck: “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, translated by Morton Masius, page 6, item 7 [https://archive.org/stream/theoryofheatradi00planrich#page/n5/mode/2up]

                “But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle). A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”

                60

            • #

              I ask a simple: “Can you even explain to anyone what “the magnetic moment of the electron correctly to 12 decimal places” might possibly mean to that person?”

              And you cannot answer! You only want me to be impressed by some insane claim of precision of that that has little or no possible meaning.

              “why should those properties of a body that determine its radiative capabilities depend on incoming radiation”

              I did not claim any incoming anything. I only said that Maxwell’s equations preclude the existence of thermally induced EMR flux in opposing directions at any and all frequencies.

              16

              • #
                Anton

                Of course I can explain what the magnetic moment of an electron is. I didn’t bother because it was not the point. The point is that you said physics is a shambles, to which I countered by pointing out that postwar theories of physics, namely quantum electrodynamics and electroweak unification, can predict a certain property of the electron to 12 decimal places; that experimentalists can measure it to comparable accuracy; and that the two agree. Here are three questions:

                * Are you aware of any other measurement of a nonvarying quantity that has been confirmed to such great accuracy?

                * Do you find this impressive?

                * Would you like me to explain what the magnetic moment of the electron is?

                Whatever else you may wish to reply, please include unambiguous Yes/No answers to these. After that we can discuss radiation.

                50

              • #

                Anton August 17, 2016 at 9:12 pm

                “Of course I can explain what the magnetic moment of an electron is.”

                Please do so in terms that are physical not theoretical.

                “I didn’t bother because it was not the point. The point is that you said physics is a shambles, to which I countered by pointing out that postwar theories of physics, namely quantum electrodynamics and electroweak unification, can predict a certain property of the electron to 12 decimal places; that experimentalists can measure it to comparable accuracy; and that the two agree.

                Perhaps that was your point, My point is that you seem to have only theoretical nonsense of no physical/practical value.

                “Here are three questions:
                * Are you aware of any other measurement of a nonvarying quantity that has been confirmed to such great accuracy?”

                Yes!
                PI is known to at lease 2 million digits, still a constant, still irrational

                “* Do you find this impressive?”

                No!
                Doing optics design by hand, use of 12 digit log tables was common in the 1940s. Current computer optimizers regularly use 20-30 digits of precision. After fabrication, such precision is regularly validated via interferometric or Fourier transform optical methods.

                * Would you like me to explain what the magnetic moment of the electron is?

                Yes!
                Please include why you think such can be of some physical/practical value/use!

                “Whatever else you may wish to reply, please include unambiguous Yes/No answers to these. After that we can discuss radiation.”

                OK! Please also answer the question I asked of Reed Coray above. You both seem to have the same misunderstanding of the present complete distinction between an electromagnetic field strength and electromagnetic flux, especially with regard to quantum electrodynamics and thermal (wide-band) EMR.

                16

              • #
                Anton

                If you don’t find accord to 12 decimal places between theory and experiment impressive then I’m not going to waste my time explaining the details. I suggest that you are in an anti-scientific minority. I am willing to apologise for changing my mind about explaining it. Pi is not measured by experiment, but *calculated*, which is not the same thing at all.

                50

              • #

                Anton August 17, 2016 at 10:55 pm

                “If you don’t find accord to 12 decimal places between theory and experiment impressive then I’m not going to waste my time explaining the details.”

                Gee I am sorry! I am now quite impressed your hole-ness!! PLEASE tell us all much more of your vast wisdom.

                “I suggest that you are in an anti-scientific minority. I am willing to apologise for changing my mind about explaining it.”

                OK than do not; as you obviously do nat know how to explain anything to any lesser being.

                “Pi is not measured by experiment, but *calculated*, which is not the same thing at all.”

                I suppose that the 16th digit variance in one third order conic constant from that of a spherical surface really/physically does not validate the 21th digit of PI your honor!

                06

              • #
                Anton

                People resort to insults when they run out of arguments.

                60

              • #

                Anton August 17, 2016 at 11:34 pm

                “People resort to insults when they run out of arguments.”

                Yes don’t you! Some unsure of their own position, couch that as your offense to me; such as I’m not going to waste my time! :-(

                16

              • #
                Anton

                O, let the reader decide.

                40

              • #

                joanne,
                I hope this was the correct place for #1.1.2! :-)
                I would be delighted if you, AZ, Brad Keyes, and of course Senator Roberts, would critique and offer suggestions for improvement. Please do not ask for my initial intent. I truly do not know!

                Anton August 18, 2016 at 12:11 am
                “O, let the reader decide.”

                All the best! -will-

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Just got curious here, of what use is it to argue the number of known digits of Pi? No matter how many you calculate, that very next digit that you didn’t attempt to calculate could be the beginning of a repeat of the sequence of digits that come before, all 2 million plus of them, and suddenly Pi is a whole different animal which can be represented as the ratio of two integers, possibly quite large integers but nevertheless integers, throwing the world of mathematics into a spin in the process.

                So isn’t it convenient that Pi can be proven to be an irrational non repeating decimal fraction without going through calculating 2 million plus digits or more?

                I know most of you are familiar with this proof but some may not be, so I included a reference to it. And it leads right into this, I always wondered why so much effort was expended on the computation way beyond any useful precision when we can be sure it’s irrational. Was the calculation itself irrational? ;-)

                The calculation is impressive but the reason for doing it is much less so. Of course, given Lambert’s proof, maybe calculating it out to 2 million digits was the better deal after all. My head aches again just looking at Lambert.

                00

              • #
                Reed Coray

                More breaking my own rules. You wrote:

                I only said that Maxwell’s equations preclude the existence of thermally induced EMR flux in opposing directions at any and all frequencies“.

                Maxwell’s equations do no such thing. Maxwell’s equations deal with electromagnetic radiation independent of the source of that radiation. In free space (e.g., propagating through a vacuum between objects) Maxwell’s equations support the simultaneous propagation of multiple electromagnetic waves in any and all directions. Once propagating through free space, electromagnetic radiation doesn’t know or give a whit what the source of the radiation was–a radio antenna or electrons vibrating on the surface or in the interior of an enclosure.

                [Source: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_20.html, Equation 20.27 and subsequent text--"Thus the most general solution of the three-dimensional wave equation is a superposition of all sorts of plane waves moving in all sorts of directions."]

                Associated with each plane wave is a Poynting vector, S, in the direction of propagation. Irradiance is the radiant flux (power) received by a surface per unit area. Irradiance is equal to the time-average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface. Thus Maxwell’s equations (a) support simultaneous plane waves propagating in opposing directions, (b) associated with each plane wave is a Poynting vector, and (c) associated with each Poynting vector is a flow of energy per unit time (i.e., power) in the direction of the Poynting vector.

                [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance

                How you conclude that “Maxwell’s equations preclude the existence of thermally induced EMR flux in opposing directions at any and all frequencies” is a mystery.

                60

              • #

                Roy Hogue August 18, 2016 at 5:48 am

                “Just got curious here, of what use is it to argue the number of known digits of Pi?”

                I guess the whole thing comes down to ‘verifying’ that the next digit of PI so calculated results in a better approximation to PI. A side point is that the first location in the decimal continuation of PI of every combination (string) of digits of length 8 or less is known. All strings of 9 digits are still being worked on by somebodies computer otherwise twiddling thumbs! :-)
                Not particularly scientific, only curious. Organizing those locations into some sort of progression will likely be left to the roaches when they become top predator!

                16

              • #

                Reed Coray August 18, 2016 at 10:06 am

                WJ (“I only said that Maxwell’s equations preclude the existence of thermally induced EMR flux in opposing directions at any and all frequencies“.)

                RC “Maxwell’s equations do no such thing. Maxwell’s equations deal with electromagnetic radiation independent of the source of that radiation. In free space (e.g., propagating through a vacuum between objects) Maxwell’s equations support the simultaneous propagation of multiple electromagnetic waves in any and all directions.”

                You might also wish to disclose who brainwashed you into accepting such interpretation.

                Maxwell’s equations describe the electromagnetic field strength at any external location from any potential emitter. That field strength is the vector cross product of the ‘in phase’ components of two orthogonal electric and magnetic fields B × H. This resolves into electromagnetic field strength orthogonal to both B and H. The EMR field strength is not a Coulomb potential, but a Yukawa potential decreasing as 1/r². Normalizing this into fourspace gives the space invariant term “radiance” in W/m²·sr, from projective geometry. Radiance is the term given to the Poynting vector. This Poynting vector from some direction within some field of view is what many with intent to confuse is erroniously called ‘radiation’. The vector summation of all Poynting vectors at each frequency a any point in space results on the single Poynting vector at each point and frequency. This Poynting vector has the name radiative flux. That flux in turn can be the average summation of many Poynting vectors each at a different frequency. That summation is what is used for wide band thermal EMR flux. Without such careful interpretation phase array radars could never work. Your superposition theorem still appears to work but is sloppy thinking and has never been demonstrated for thermal EMR.
                All the best! -will-

                16

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Will, To my statement:

                Maxwell’s equations do no such thing. Maxwell’s equations deal with electromagnetic radiation independent of the source of that radiation. In free space (e.g., propagating through a vacuum between objects) Maxwell’s equations support the simultaneous propagation of multiple electromagnetic waves in any and all directions”,

                you responded with:

                You might also wish to disclose who brainwashed you into accepting such interpretation.”

                If you read my email, I did disclose “who” brainwashed me into accepting such interpretation. The “who” was

                http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_20.html

                a series of lectures given at Cal Tech. In the paragraph following equation (20.27) the lecture includes the following text:

                Again, since the equations are linear, we may have simultaneously as many plane waves as we wish, travelling in as many different directions. Thus the most general solution of the three-dimensional wave equation is a superposition of all sorts of plane waves moving in all sorts of directions.

                I guess the Cal Tech faculty is in the business of “brainwashing” its students.

                70

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Will, I’ll assume you made a “typo” type error. The Poynting vector, S, is proportional to the cross product of the electric field E and the magnetic flux density field B, not the cross product B x H, where B is the magnetic flux density and H is the magnetic field. In free space the B and H field vectors are parallel so that their cross product is zero everywhere.

                70

              • #

                Reed Coray August 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm

                “Will, I’ll assume you made a “typo” type error. The Poynting vector, S, is proportional to the cross product of the electric field E and the magnetic flux density field B, not the cross product B x H, where B is the magnetic flux density and H is the magnetic field. In free space the B and H field vectors are parallel so that their cross product is zero everywhere.”

                My apologies Reed,
                I should have checked! There is still some serious confusion on the internet. In his original work John Poynting’s ‘vector’ was the cross product of E × H The electromagnetic field strength vector. The vector summation of all of those Poynting vectors at one frequency yields what John called the Poynting “flux” still a single ‘vector’ of flux. Sorry for any confusion! :-( I wonder who changed the name.
                Anyhow what got me started on this is that if there were a opposing equal thermal radiative power transfer with no difference in thermal potential, radiative or not, that would define a perpetuum mobile of some kind. Such is not accepted for any other kind thermodynamic ‘heat’ transfer. Also I consider thermal EMR flux to always be spontaneous. I have never been able to detect any opposing flux, my failure for over 40 years.
                All the best! -will-

                16

              • #

                Reed Coray August 19, 2016 at 4:13 pm

                “If you read my email, I did disclose “who” brainwashed me into accepting such interpretation. The “who” was
                http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_20.html

                I have now read your reference and find absolutely no error in it. There is also no error when considering multiple flux vectors at different frequencies. Superposition is as noted. A phased array radar can beam steer in two directions by two different “chirpings” at two ‘polarities’.

                What Dr. Feynman seems not to cover is the combination of multiple sources of electromagnetic field strength at the same frequency! This is exactly the case of thermal EMR.
                There is always a ‘surround’ at whatever temperature that MUST influence both magnitude and direction of resultant flux in each and every direction, and at each and every frequency.
                All the best! -will-

                06

              • #

                Reed Coray August 19, 2016 at 4:13 pm

                “If you read my email, I did disclose “who” brainwashed me into accepting such interpretation. The “who” was
                http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_20.html”

                BTW Reed,
                Did you read and understand the very last paragraph in your reference? Dr. Feynman always did suck in folk like that for more! He was almost as good as “The Donald” is now! :-)

                06

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Will,

                If you have a bullet travelling from West to East, the velocity vector of the bullet points East. If you have a bullet travelling from South to North, the velocity vector of the bullet points North. If you simultaneously have a bullet travelling East and a separate bullet travelling North, you don’t have a bullet travelling North-East.

                The situation for electromagnetic waves is similar–not identical, but similar. It’s true that bullets don’t obey the superposition principle so that two bullets cannot simultaneously exist at a single point, but electromagnetic waves do obey the superposition principle so that the electric and magnetic field vectors from two electromagnetic waves can simultaneously exist at a single point. Thus if you have a plane electromagnetic wave travelling from West to East, the Poynting vector points East and you have energy propagating East–think of a laser pointed East. If you have a plane electromagnetic wave travelling from South to North, the Poynting vector points North and you have energy propagating North–think of a laser at the same frequency pointed North. Depending on the relative strengths of these waves, at a point where the laser beams cross, the vector sum of the Poynting vectors is somewhere in the North-East quadrant; but energy is not flowing in that direction–i.e., if you are in the North-East quadrant (but not on either the West-East axis or the South-North axis) facing the point in space where the laser beams cross, you don’t have to shield your eyes.

                50

              • #

                Reed Coray August 20, 2016 at 1:56 am

                “Will, If you have a bullet traveling from West to East, the velocity vector of the bullet points East. If you have a bullet traveling from South to North, the velocity vector of the bullet points North. If you simultaneously have a bullet traveling East and a separate bullet traveling North, you don’t have a bullet traveling North-East.”

                I am truly amazed Reed,
                You seem to be now ‘thinking’ in a manner that ‘allows’ my own thinking to be full of sh*t. If the two bullets with same mass and identical but orthogonal velocities do indeed intersect and congeal at some point and time the physical result is very likely a two bullet mass with root(2) velocity and the only precise vector PI/2 from both original velocities. At some later instant of time it is likely detonation.
                Reed now try to ‘think’ of the result with absolutely no mass only power (flux). This is EMR! Consider frequency, phase, polarity. Mass momentum and relativistic EMR can nowhere be compared! More later if you are interested.
                All the best! -will-

                14

              • #

                Reed Coray August 20, 2016 at 1:56 am

                “If you have a plane electromagnetic wave travelling from South to North, the Poynting vector points North and you have energy propagating North–think of a laser at the same frequency pointed North. Depending on the relative strengths of these waves, at a point where the laser beams cross, the vector sum of the Poynting vectors is somewhere in the North-East quadrant; but energy is not flowing in that direction–i.e., if you are in the North-East quadrant (but not on either the West-East axis or the South-North axis) facing the point in space where the laser beams cross, you don’t have to shield your eyes.”

                Reed,
                Would you please stop with your mass-inertial BS of EMR! There simply no EMR waves nor any power/energy propagating in any direction/time until all local EMR field strengths are properly evaluated. Then in zero proper time power is transfered according to the instantaneous evaluation of EM field strength for each frequency. Your inane concept of ‘energy’, some accumulation of power over time by mass, as sensible heat, is never ever involved!
                All the best! -will[-

                04

              • #
                Reed Coray

                It was a mistake on my part to compare bullets in motion with electromagnetic radiation. As Will correctly points out, if equal-mass, equal-speed bullets one travelling north and one travelling east “congeal” at a point (i.e., the collision of bullets is inelastic), then yes the congealed mass will move north-east at a speed equal to one over root 2 of the original speed of each bullet. For an elastic collision (conservation of kinetic energy), after the collision the bullets won’t have the same velocity vector. But for either collision type, comparison of moving bullets to electromagnetic wave propagation is at best poor, and at worst completely irrelevant. For that I apologize. I do, however, stick to my statement

                If you have a plane electromagnetic wave travelling from West to East, the Poynting vector points East and you have energy propagating East–think of a laser pointed East. If you have a plane electromagnetic wave travelling from South to North, the Poynting vector points North and you have energy propagating North–think of a laser at the same frequency pointed North. Depending on the relative strengths of these waves, at a point where the laser beams cross, the vector sum of the Poynting vectors is somewhere in the North-East quadrant; but energy is not flowing in that direction–i.e., if you are in the North-East quadrant (but not on either the West-East axis or the South-North axis) facing the point in space where the laser beams cross, you don’t have to shield your eyes.

                Will, I’m going to be out of pocket for about two weeks; so don’t take the lack of a response to any future comments you make on this topic as anything but the lack of the means to respond.

                30

              • #

                Reed Coray August 20, 2016 at 2:24 pm

                “Will, I’m going to be out of pocket for about two weeks; so don’t take the lack of a response to any future comments you make on this topic as anything but the lack of the means to respond.”

                OK!one suggestion: While on your travels, you may get to ask some one, who has actually done it,

                What happen if you combine a 10 watt Argon-ion laser, beam expander, and corner reflector; then turn on the laser?

                All the best! -will-

                00

              • #
                Anton

                Will,

                Rereading our exchange, you consider it an insult to yourself when I said that “I’m not going to waste my time…”. First, I made no comment on your character, which is generally what is meant by an insult. (You, in contrast, waxed sarcastic about my “vast wisdom”.) Second, what I wrote was: “If you don’t find accord to 12 decimal places between theory and experiment impressive then I’m not going to waste my time explaining the details.” I stand by that: in context of your extraordinary assertion that physics is a shambles, it is a waste of time for me to explain the magnetic moment of the electron to anybody who is unimpressed by an accord of theory and experiment to better than one part in a million million with no known error. Please say why this does not impress you.

                As far as your exchange with Reed Coray goes, I’d chime in (to both of you) with the following comments:

                (a) the Poynting vector is a subtle thing. If you superimpose one plane emag wave on top of an identical onethen you might naively expect the energy transport to double. In fact it quadruples, because the electric and magnetic fields both double and the magnitude of the Poynting vector is proportional to their product. The physical explanation is that you have to work four times as hard to generate a wave of twice the amplitude. It is insightful to consider this fact by looking at the motion of charges inside the transmitter.

                (b) Feynman in his lectures and Coray above are both correct that the linearity of Maxwell’s equations means waves propagate through free space without influencing each other. Coray is also correct that the waves have no ‘memory’ of how they got there; Maxwell’s equations are differential equations so that what happens at a point depends only on what goes on in its immediate neighbourhood. Two black bodies a finite distance from each other do indeed each radiate with the characteristic black-body spectrum, but each element of area in each body can be considered as an independent radiator, so that the resulting radiation is incoherent; and at a point between and some distance from the bodies this incoherence implies that everything cancels out except any net radiation.

                50

              • #

                Anton August 21, 2016 at 5:28 am

                So you will not let the others decide!!

                “Will,: in context of your extraordinary assertion that physics is a shambles, it is a waste of time for me to explain the magnetic moment of the electron to anybody who is unimpressed by an accord of theory and experiment to better than one part in a million million with no known error. Please say why this does not impress you.”

                Such precision is routinely achieved in the production of optical components. Your claims of your precision are but claims. To get even an rms answer over 10^25 individual electrons must be evaluated. Where are you keeping these electrons for retest? At what temperature? Are they all happy? What is the half-life of an electron? Ddo each and every one have the same magnetic moment to twelve significant digits by measurement? Your seem to be a perfect example of why physics is a shambles

                “(a) the Poynting vector is a subtle thing. If you superimpose one plane emag wave on top of an identical one then you might naively expect the energy transport to double.”

                Why are you going on an on about waves when the discussion twixt Reed and I is whether any thermal EMR flux (waves) are ever generated in the presence of a equal or greater opposing normalized field strength (Poynting vector, per Poynting) at that frequency.

                “In fact it quadruples, because the electric and magnetic fields both double and the magnitude of the Poynting vector is proportional to their product. The physical explanation is that you have to work four times as hard to generate a wave of twice the amplitude. It is insightful to consider this fact by looking at the motion of charges inside the transmitter.”

                You have ‘looked’ at the motion of charges inside a surface of solid nickel? Why are you doubling both the E and H fields to get twice the magnitude of Poynting vector or Poynting flux? It appears you have much less concept of fields v.s. flux than Reed does.

                “(b) Feynman in his lectures and Coray above are both correct that the linearity of Maxwell’s equations means waves propagate through free space without influencing each other.”

                Only if at different frequencies, else they may never even be generated.

                “Coray is also correct that the waves have no ‘memory’ of how they got there; Maxwell’s equations are differential equations so that what happens at a point depends only on what goes on in its immediate neighbourhood.”

                Has the source field vanished? Even Dr. Feynman casts doubt on that if you read the very last paragraph of that same lecture.

                “Two black bodies a finite distance from each other do indeed each radiate with the characteristic black-body spectrum, but each element of area in each body can be considered as an independent radiator, so that the resulting radiation is incoherent;”

                You or no one else can demonstrate that such ever happens! You again are a good example of why physics is a shambles, you have no science only belief!

                “and at a point between and some distance from the bodies this incoherence implies that everything cancels out except any net radiation.”

                There is no cancellation as no exit flux is ever generated by the surface absorbing the now limited flux from the higher temperature emitter.

                04

              • #
                Anton

                “Such precision is routinely achieved in the production of optical components. Your claims of your precision are but claims.”

                The precision production of optical components is impressive, but it does not involve the testing of any theory of physics. The claims are not mine; I simply reproduce them. For the relevant experiment, see:

                Rym Bouchendira; Pierre Cladé; Saïda Guellati-Khélifa; François Nez; François Biraben (2010). “New determination of the fine-structure constant and test of the quantum electrodynamics”. Physical Review Letters. 106 (8): 080801. arXiv:1012.3627

                For the calculation, see:

                Tatsumi Aoyama; Masashi Hayakawa; Toichiro Kinoshita; Makiko Nio (2012). “Tenth-Order QED Contribution to the Electron g-2 and an Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant”. Physical Review Letters. 109 (11): 111807. arXiv:1205.5368v2

                “To get even an rms answer over 10^25 individual electrons must be evaluated. Where are you keeping these electrons for retest? At what temperature? Are they all happy? What is the half-life of an electron? Ddo each and every one have the same magnetic moment to twelve significant digits by measurement? Your seem to be a perfect example of why physics is a shambles”

                The electron is believed to be stable and if you disagree then please provide some evidence. Every measurement of the electronic magnetic moment gives the same value to within experimental error, and any particle that didn’t would not be considered an electron. Do tell me how to define the happiness of an electron.

                It is not only the radiation I referred to that is incoherent, but I concede to you in the generation of abusive rhetoric.

                40

              • #

                Anton August 21, 2016 at 5:28 am

                “Maxwell’s equations are differential equations so that what happens at a point depends only on what goes on in its immediate neighborhood.”
                In conjugate spacetime Maxwell’s equations are integral equations involving this universe and several others!
                Have you any evidence for your insane claims?

                04

              • #

                Anton August 21, 2016 at 7:06 am

                “The precision production of optical components is impressive, but it does not involve the testing of any theory of physics. The claims are not mine; I simply reproduce them. For the relevant experiment, see:”

                This Earth needs no more theories of your insane physics! Earthlings need only to learn how to survive upon this Earth, in spite of insane physicists!
                You now admit that you have done nothing except to blindly refer to the effort of others.

                “Do tell me how to define the happiness of an electron.”

                I suppose a happy electron would be the first one that gets to kick your nuts off from your entire body!
                ALL THE BEST! -will-

                04

              • #
                Anton

                “I suppose a happy electron would be the first one that gets to kick your nuts off from your entire body!”

                So that’s your idea of a physics argument. I’m glad that readers here can see the standard of your reasoning. For the record, let me state that such comments do not cause me to constrain my replies in any way.

                Any differential equation can be recast in integral form upon bringing in boundary conditions, but not every integral equation can be reduced to a differential one. Maxwell’s equations are differential and consequently propagation of a wave depends only on local field conditions.

                “Have you any evidence for your insane claims?”

                If you specify which claims and rephrase the question without the word “insane” then I’ll respond.

                30

              • #

                Anton August 21, 2016 at 6:06 pm

                “If you specify which claims and rephrase the question without the word “insane” then I’ll respond.”

                My most dear Kiddie-troll-bot,
                I refuse to obey your conditions! My question was deliberately posed as intended. All but you understand my scarcastic question.

                02

              • #
                Anton

                I understood it perfectly well. My comment was intended to deflate your sarcasm. The reader may judge this correspondence for himself.

                00

              • #

                Anton August 27, 2016 at 4:02 am

                “I understood it perfectly well. My comment was intended to deflate your sarcasm. The reader may judge this correspondence for himself.”

                Now you intentionally insult any that may drop by. Referring to such as ‘the reader’, such must be at low class, as compared to ‘his Excellency, the esteemed Anton’! :-(

                00

            • #

              Reed Coray August 18, 2016 at 2:33 am

              Will,

              “I’ve broken my own rule–I am responding to your question.”

              Thank you!

              WJ: (“Do you have any source, besides yourself, that can claim if two objects “A” and “B” are at the same temperature, although there will be electromagnetic radiation propagating both from “A” to “B” and from “B” to “A”. I just want to have your source for such nonsense.”)

              “OK. Here’s the answer to your question. My source is Max Planck: “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, translated by Morton Masius, page 6, item 7 [https://archive.org/stream/theoryofheatradi00planrich#page/n5/mode/2up]”
              That is from the translated preface or introduction of Planck’s paper.

              But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle). A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.

              In all of the rest of that same paper Planck trashes such opposing flux and replaces that with a differential ‘potential of radiative emission’ that eventually allows such differential radiative emissive ‘flux’. Please go read the translations to Russian, then to Chinese, then back to englatch!

              06

              • #

                OH look-at all the red thumbz. I gets dem by expressing my view as an equal opportunity bigot, without regard to race, religion, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation. Anybody got attractive priced on travel to da Orient?

                14

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It’s (the research fronter is) a lot further on than it was 100 years ago.

          That is true. A century ago we had to send a generation of young men overseas to die on our behalf, to prove we were right, and “those we argued with” were wrong.

          Now we can remotely split the atom anywhere we want on the globe, at any time of our choosing, and do it all by remote control.

          Ain’t progress wonderful?

          10

          • #

            Hey RW,
            Can we please ship all Researchers to the Afghanistan Tora Bora Federal Correctional Institution (ATBFCI) for re-indoctrination/brain-washing! We all have plenty to do just searching for the truth in the first place! :-)

            06

        • #
          mark

          predictive economics.

          …and there you go, Anton. Human induced mayhem classified as a “science” It isn’t science and it isn’t a process that can be analysed. The past has no effect on future events in economics. To say otherwise is Keynesian!

          On Mr Roberts, hope he is thick skinned. The next three years is going to be one “gotcha” attempt after another.

          20

    • #
      RoyFOMR

      In general I’m an avid follower of science documentaries but I really can’t stomach any presented by Brian Cox and that’s despite me being attracted to the subject matter.

      With his 1000-yard stares as he contemplates the Meaning of Life, the Universe or, more likely, just himself interspersed with dramatic picture angles and over-loud music I can barely suffer more than a couple of the 55 minutes or so available for the broadcast.

      I find him both unwatchable and unlistenable so even subtitles offer no relief.

      576

      • #
        john karajas

        Totally agree with you Roy.

        If he is an example of how a scientist can be corrupted by becoming a TV celebrity maybe there ought to be a time limit on any individual scientist performing in that role.

        496

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … there ought to be a time limit on any individual scientist performing in that role

          My emphasis.

          There is a time limit. It approximates to the half life of a mayfly.

          He can either perform for the camera, and the audience, and the cute young person operating the teleprompter, or he can talk about boring old science, and the search for accuracy and truth, that science entails.

          203

      • #
        Robdel

        He is mutating into a Carl Sagan.

        132

      • #
        Ian

        One of the approaches of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming is to attack the person saying things they don’t like rather than addressing the points being made. This as you probably know is an ad hominem-attacking the man. Your criticisms of Brian Cox and those of other commenting here are just ad homs with no attempt to show his comments are incorrect. Far better to note that a paper published in Nature in February 2016 (Fyfe et ai) claims that the rate of warming during the period 1972 to 2001 was 0.17 degrees C per decade which is significantly greater than the 0.113 degrees C per decade seen from 2000 to 2014 despite the continuing increase in CO2. Had Malcolm Roberts put that point to Brian Cox it might have caused Cox to think a bit more about brandishing his graphs and perhaps even have given the partisan audience a few moments of thought. If climate science is to advance ad hominems are definitely not the way to achieve that advance.

        413

        • #
          Bulldust

          From the small clip I saw Roberts handled himself well considering the insinuated ad hom attack by Cox (suggesting he might be a moon landing denier) and another panellist telling him to shut up. In light of that, a rational viewer might have been very unimpressed by the dismissive “correct thinkers.” They were appealing to a very low common denominator.

          What Cox is completely failing to grasp is the corrupting effect of massive politics and the associated funding. That and little factoids such as the former head of GISS being an anti-fossil fuel activist. Unbiased? Not so much. Toss in for good measure what a few of the living moon walkers think of AGW and I think Cox might be back tracking a little.

          I don’t mind Cox in general, but experts such as him always look silly when they dabble in fields totally unfamiliar and unresearched by themselves. I am assuming this and giving him the benefit of the doubt … anyone who had done serious research into climate science couldn’t for a picosecond think that the field was settled and subject to 100% consensus. Such comments demonstrate ignorance of the state of the science.

          354

          • #
            TdeF

            If Cox had read any work by Robert Carter or Ian Plimer, he would know that the whole business is political and about money, not science. Science can be a matter of opinion or view but the truth is not. The world is not warming, despite desperate attempts to make it seem to be warming, hottest days etc. In fact the global temperature, strange animal that it is, seems to be amazingly stable when you would expect more natural variation. Most importantly, as lifetime climate scientist Prof Murry Salby concluded, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and he paid for that with his career. Anyone else who dares speak out is retired.

            354

            • #
              TdeF

              Also a particle physicist such as Cox is as far removed from day to day temperature, weather, meteorology, physical chemistry, heat transfer and exchange and weather and geology as any scientist could possibly be. His world is all advanced mathematics. Nothing he studies can be seen or touched or smells or is involved in sea level or tectonic plate movement, bushfires or floods or even tornadoes. If I had to pick the most appropriate discipline after meteorology itself, I would pick geology. A geologist earns his living by being expert in the earth’s history and the oil is about understanding what happened to plants hundreds of millions of years ago.

              Brian Cox is as distant from the subject as Sir Paul Nurse, geneticist. I would prefer another Nobel Prize winner, physicist Ivar Gaiver. who is just perplexed at the whole make believe situation as most serious scientists. However as science is not generally a business for independent income earners, they have to keep quiet in big companies and governments, all awash with green money.

              314

              • #
                Bulldust

                Malcolm missed a perfect opportunity to raise the letter from NASA staff protesting unsubstantiated GISS claims in public releases:

                http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html

                Had Cox then responded that they weren’t climate experts, Roberts could have finished with “Are you a climate expert?” Check and mate.

                263

              • #
                TdeF

                Great letter.
                I do not understand by NASA and the Royal Society and our very own CSIRO are even involved in the weather as a research topic, except that there is a lot of money in it. CSIRO does what it is told by the minister who is directed in turn by the Prime Minister, but why? Why not stick to NOAA and BOM and actual meteorologists?

                Why did the world ever need an InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change without any proven and real expectation that Governments could or did control the weather? Why not for example the InterGovernmental Panel on Preventing Evolution?

                191

              • #
                TdeF

                Sorry why not by. It is hard to think my fingers misheard but clearly that is the case. Phoenetic fingers. Comedians.

                91

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          You may have a point there, Ian. However, should you look at the programme, or read the transcript, you will note that, right from the very start of his answer, Brian Cox does not answer the question. He evades it totally, and just wanders off on a tangent, obviously giving the answer that he is scripted to answer, not for the question. Oh, and there was not one jot of science in anything that he said.

          70

      • #
        Bulldust

        Roy – maybe try the mob from Sixty Symbols on Youtube. I always find them entertaining and informative. So far I haven’t noticed any politics in their presentations:

        https://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols

        102

        • #
          Bulldust

          LOL nothing anti-CAGW … the red thumbs are getting pretty random these days… They don’t like Sixty Symbols now? No, really? You guys have zero cred.

          60

        • #
          RoyFOMR

          Thanks for that, Bulldust. I’ve had a quick scan of your link, added it into my favourites, and look forward to delving into their content when time gets freed up.

          30

        • #
          James Murphy

          You have good taste! There are a couple of occasions where global warming gets a mention, but i agree, generally their videos stay on topic, and are apolitical (barring some discussions about education and research funding, and a couple on ‘brexit’).

          I also noticed that the (Australian) film maker was recently given an honorary doctorate from the university of Nottingham for his years of efforts, and numerous informative science related youtube channels. I consider his work, or more to the point, the people he interviews, to be genuine, and straightforward science communicators – people talking about their own areas of expertise, and unashamedly admitting when they are wrong, or that they just don’t have all the answers.

          Generally, as well as being interesting, they make me wish I could speak with such confidence and ease about my work, although maybe I do because other people seem convinced I know what I’m doing.

          01

    • #
      Analitik

      I enjoy most popularised science shows but Brian Cox has never impressed me as doing much more than presenting the findings/opinions of others in a hand wavy, non-quantitative manner, usually with the aid of computer animations.

      I’ve given up watching his shows due to the lack of depth in the content.

      163

      • #
        James Murphy

        I guess there’s not much depth, because they have to stay within the grasp of people who aren’t knowledgable, or have little more than a passing interest in the subject matter, and we all know what the education system is like for STEM subjects…

        I have to admit I found his ‘stargazing live’ series to be pretty good, still lacking the depth I’d like to see personally, but aside from the pre-recorded bits, a far cry from the well rehearsed and heavily scripted documentaries which cover the same tedious ground as many others.

        I wish I could remember the names of them, but (probably +/-20 years ago) there was a great series on the geology of the UK and Ireland, and an already ancient French series about what I seem to recall was a husband and wife team of volcanologists wandering around, perhaps unsurprisingly, looking at volcanos and talking to other people about volcanos. Then, that’s just me, once a geologist, always a geologist…

        11

    • #
      Jim Poulos

      Brian Cox got plenty of applause from the audience.

      I think that the Catastrophic Climate Change Crowd is a death cult.

      100

    • #
      Athelstan.

      Mr. Cox is a product of post modern education and dedicated to group-think and he is thus incapable of allowing the shock of individual thought into his space, like all of his ilk it therefore disburdens growing a self, the mettle of an inner character.
      Indeed, the very idea of setting oneself apart from the Hive, is total anathema.

      Lumpen, frightened boy man, what else would he say mewl on about?

      40

    • #
      Ross

      Wow. Just Wow.
      If I was a Climate Skeptic, I’d be writing to Senator Malcom Roberts and BEGGING him to please, PLEASE, shut the hell up! Personally, I CAN’T WAIT for his next ‘performance’.

      Not a big help to the cause, was he?

      Any …ANY scientific evidence that contradicts his ravings is ‘currupted’. Stock answer. Every time. It was simply embarrassing.
      Even graphs that he quotes to support his arguments are quickly ‘corrupted’ when shown to totally contradict his ‘findings’.

      Brian Cox tore the poor sap to pieces. I ALMOST felt sorry for him. Exposed and alone.
      Seriously…Watch it and wince.
      I can’t believe Jo would go anywhere NEAR this. Watched it and panicked, perhaps.
      Just stunning.

      ————————
      Dear Ross, if only you could come up with one single argument instead of vacuous bluster. Nothing but Fakola Scoff CAPS, Scorn CAPS, Indignation CAPS? Concern trolling too? Pretty desperate. Roberts didn’t show any graphs. Did discuss one corrupted dataset by GISS and you have…. no answer. — Jo

      55

      • #
        Yonniestone

        The people you admire are the ones most adept at spreading subversive propaganda to the end of enhancing their status amongst other delusionists?

        Really sums up your immoral fibre.

        42

      • #
        AndyG55

        The more you look at it, the more you realise what an incredibly weak showing it was from Cox.

        The best this so-called “professor” could manage was a graph of highly manipulated temperature data, and a call to a fabricated consensus.

        Evidence.. ZERO !! … Just like the trolls here… no wonder they admire him.

        56

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Not a big help to the cause, was he?”

        Massive worldwide coverage of the NASA “adjustments” and the UN world government agenda. Mentioned in every report I have seen.

        Well played Malcolm Roberts. :-)

        65

      • #
        bullocky

        Ross; ‘Exposed and alone.’

        At 6 alarmists versus 1 sceptic, Ross is owned by the ABC.

        42

    • #
      Albert

      http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/
      A former NASA scientist laughs it off, it’s all a joke to him

      12

  • #

    Story from Upers,
    The scandahoveans in the upper peninsula of Michigan USA. Some went to Hell for not being nice. Satan was having fits because they were all having such a great time. Turned off the heat, turned on the cold. No change, still celebrating! Why oh why, he demanded! Ya sure you betcha! Dis proves dat da Detroit Lyons yust won da Super Bowl! :-)

    612

    • #
      • #

        Annie,
        It remains more likely that Hell freezes over than the Lyons winning a Super Bowl!

        102

        • #
          David Smith

          Still haven’t got a clue as to what you’re talking about or how it relates to the subject matter of the post.

          130

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            ‘Cook points at “less heat escaping to space” ‘, ….. and goes on to say “These are just a few of the unique human fingerprints”. There is no visible human fingerprint at all in that data. In fact our problem is that there are no fingerprints in that data at al until John Cook’s mates homogenise it. May I say that that is why they homogenise it?

            Time to look at what is John Cook’s field of expertise? How does his expertise find a link there when there is no link? The answer surely lies in the nature of John Cook’s field of “expertise”.

            293

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              And I ask again, why does noaa’s tidesandcurrents stop reporting the Fort Denison tide gauge from about 2010? Could it be they don’t like “bad” news?

              https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=680-140

              244

              • #
                PeterPetrum

                Thanks Ted, that has been snipped and archived. I look forward to my next meal with my daughter’s in-laws, who are pleasure sea racing people and true believers in “global warming”

                93

              • #
                PeterPetrum

                Thanks Ted, that has been copied and archived. I look forward to my next meal with my daughter’s in-laws, who are pleasure sea racing people and true believers in “global warming”.

                51

              • #
              • #
                Albert

                My local boat ramp shows no rapid increase in sea level over many decades nor have I heard about millions of commercial jetties been raised anywhere on Earth and millions of beaches been restored with sand.
                If they want us to panic, surely they should be show us the proof
                Tasmania has a mean sea level mark etched in stone, the level from 170 years ago is the same as today.

                10

            • #
              delcon2

              It seems John Cook got his Phd in a Cornflakes box,where most”Climateers”get theirs.

              276

              • #
                Ian

                Jon Cook hasn’t got a PhD from a cornflakes box or anywhere else. He is researching in the area of cognitive psychology on how people think about climate change

                181

          • #

            David Smith August 16, 2016 at 1:20 am

            “Still haven’t got a clue as to what you’re talking about or how it relates to the subject matter of the post.”

            From joanne’s post:

            As usual it is 6 against 1 the skeptical views that 54% of Australians share. Glaciers will form in hell before the ratio on the ABC would run 1:6 the other way.

            14

        • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      For those of you who do not speak yankish, and are not familiar with the mores and tribal beliefs of that piece of land known as Amerika, my analysis is that a rare and mysterious event has occured, with a sports team from the town of Detroit, actually managing to win some competition, apparently associated with bowling.

      50

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Would that be on the channel which according to its own publicly is watched by only 43% of the public for 10 minutes a week? Their definition of a viewer.

    245

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yes. Overfunded and irrelevant…….

      Cue Dicky Knee whip sound…..

      222

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Hey random red thumb guy, only one thumb? I feel cheated….

        Do I have to opely ( and deservedly ) mock the Left and the UN more than normal to get more? ( I mean its a given , but hey…you ahve to poke the bear sometimes…)

        104

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Excellent….. Thanks random red thumb guy, I didn’t even have to mention the UN is a communist organisation and fatally flawed and useless….. Bravo….

          81

          • #
            AndyG55

            Nor did you have to mention that the ABC is a TOTALLY BIASED far-left wing parasite on the Australia tax-payer.

            Heck from all accounts, some 70% of their announcers vote Green/Communist. !

            71

          • #
            Annie

            The trolls have gone off duty for the night. I wonder when the next shift comes on?

            32

  • #
    john karajas

    Question for Brian Cox and Lily Serna. How come the coral reefs of the Late Devonian Canning Basin flourished in a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide was 2,000 ppm, 5 times higher than it is today? Why wasn’t there any runaway global warming during this period or acidification of the oceans?

    658

    • #
      john karajas

      Looks like the red thumbers don’t like my Inconvenient Truth.Come on red thumbers, I defy you to prove me wrong. Trouble is, I know more about the Canning Basin, in particular, and about geological history, in general, than you do.

      196

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Then there is the joke about the reason for our Kiwi brethren migrating to W.A . They think that the Canning stock route is an annual event!

        112

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          When I visited Perth, people kept on telling me that Perth has a Mediterranean climate. This raised a number of questions for me:

          a) How did Western Australia manage to get a Mediteranean Climate, without the peoples of the Mediterranean noticing that it was missing?

          b) How did they get it over the equator, without it overheating?

          c) Where do they keep it, when it isn’t being used?

          d) Does having a Mediterranian climate, explain why the Western Australian cricketers bat and bowl, with the same level of expertise as the Italians?

          e) I could go on, but I won’t … cute rats though … very friendly.

          162

          • #

            a) “How did Western Australia manage to get a Mediterranean Climate, without the peoples of the Mediterranean noticing that it was missing?”

            They were all busy with one of those World War thingies!

            b) “How did they get it over the equator, without it overheating?”

            Maersk refrigerated ship. Through Suez. :-)

            c) “Where do they keep it, when it isn’t being used?”

            They just hang it out to dry! Keeps changing though, something ’bout 97% CO2!!

            34

      • #
        James Murphy

        John, I thought it had been established that for those “looking in” at the work of scientists and engineers, expertise is a great hindrance to free thinking, and true understanding.

        Knowing nothing about a subject enables one to keep an open mind – and we’ve all seen just how open some minds are, seemingly dwarfing the largest void i the universe.

        Sadly, unless my memory and/or geography fails me, I haven’t had the pleasure of experiencing ‘proper’ Canning basin rocks (though have worked on wells in the surrounding basins), but who knows what the future holds.

        23

    • #
      Albert

      In the rainforest the co2 will be normally double the highest shown on graphs and they exist perfectly if we don’t chop them down

      00

  • #
    greggg

    They stacked the audience more than usual too. Plenty of brainwashed kiddies.

    357

    • #

      I flicked past and heard one of them say something along the lines of ‘I just want to tell the young people in the audience..’ and then she dribbled some personal accounts to a sea of awestruck young impressionable faces. Of course she directed this to the kids.

      Cox is not a scientist. He may hold science qualifications but he like many (looking at you, Not-a-doctor Karl K) have no idea of the underlying philosophy of falsifiability and chant factoids and utter phrases like ‘the science’ and ‘science tells us’.

      The philosophy of science needs to be taught in all disciplines that profess to be sciences, otherwise you’re just wheeling out technicians who have memorized what they’ve been taught and may or may not know some technical processes.

      Cox got my goat a long time back though when he was chanting the big bang mantra as though it were fact and not theory. I admit I did this too when I was a student of physics – but I don’t expect this of people who have the eye of the public on them. It took me many decades to unravel the ‘facts’ I’d been taught and to see the flaws in Einsteinian physics emerge and since then it’s made me cringe when I hear them ramble about theoreticals as though they were real things – it actually reminds me of priests talking of gods, something that’s actually more acceptable to me even as an atheist given the setting and audience to whom priests speak.

      174

  • #

    Parts of the show are available in the Twitter feed..

    It’s probably better in small doses…

    346

    • #
      Rick Will

      This is a link to the ABC qanda 15th Sept, which I presume anybody can access:
      http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm
      There is a sidebar that gives the start time for each question.

      Malcolm Roberts presented quite well however a losing battle in this forum. It would take some clever thinking to make a lasting point in this situation. The overwhelming view on Social media is that Malcolm Roberts is a dill – a nitwit making ridiculous statements that contradict the knowledge and expertise of a great scientist. An example of how it is viewed:
      http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/particle-physicist-professor-brian-cox-mocks-one-nation-climate-change-denier-malcolm-roberts/news-story/b6e11a59cc39b6ea96ea89377da239a7

      112

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Take heart….eventually the whole mess will collapse…all we have to do is keep poking at it with facts and it will fall over….

        Case in point – while dropping my car for a service in I started talking with a late 20 something head mechanic about why no one has built a decent turbo flat 6 for the average family guy…his comment was you can wring a lot of out of a small motor ( read : green ). My comment was the climate change was complete nonsense ( gasp from the audience…) , and were being hamstrung by nonsense rather then enjoying our capacity as humans….well you could have cut the air with a knife…..but I refuse to back down as the truth is the truth, even if your enemy teaches it….

        It will take a while of relentless pounding. I find tradies are more open to truth as they work with reality. Middle australia is a scared mass that huddles in the corner scared witless with a mortgage and precarious financial situation on the line and too scared to upset the apple cart….which probably is why they dont push back against the Big Lie. Maybe I’m wrong….

        175

        • #
          Rick Will

          Responsibilities breed conservatism. A family person with mortgage for housing and kids to feed cannot buck the system. It is confident young people with little to lose who are the rebels that spawn creativity. This group only need a prod to question what is accepted by conservatives.

          At the other end of the scale older people, free of mortgage and kids, will question accepted givens if they have the curiosity to look.

          162

          • #
            el gordo

            The youngsters have all been brainwashed through the education system and MSM, they will need more than a prod.

            We need to develop three minute nugget vids for utube, a serious tone with satirical underpinnings. There is little time left, so it maybe necessary to crowd fund the exercise.

            144

            • #

              Something I’ve wanted to do is start with a set of three simple greenhouses with controlled CO2 levels on concrete slabs. Include CO2 and temperature monitors and set them up with atmospheres of 1. the existing 0.04% CO2 level ; 2. a 0.1% CO2; and my favourite – one at 0.018% CO2 with the aid of CO2 scrubbers.

              Use sterile synthetic soil so that there’s no organics contributing to the CO2 levels and fertilize with a normal hydroponic solution – use a cross section of C3, C4 and CAM photsynthesizing plants..

              Begin by showing the lush, prolific growth in a heightened CO2 atmosphere, cut to the current one with obviously reduced growth rates – then finally the low CO2 one with the dead apple trees, stunted dead tomatoes and proliferating crab grass.

              and don’t forget to show them the thermometers ;)

              134

              • #
                Hat Rack

                Make that five simple greenhouses Karl. No. 4 greenhouse with no plants and normal air, and No. 5 greenhouse with no plants and CO2 at 1000 ppm

                “and don’t forget to show them the thermometers”. Yessiree.

                The fact of the matter is that the average person, me included, does not understand OLR, RF, W.m-2, etc. and ERF was a British truck named after Edwin Richard Foden. However, we can read a thermometer and can understand a simple presentation.

                133

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘…start with a set of three simple greenhouses with controlled CO2 levels…’

                Time lapse to squeeze it into three minutes.

                40

              • #
                Ted O'Brien.

                Karl, HR & eg.

                You would surely find that this and much more has been done a great many times in industry R&D. Much of that info would be freely available.

                20

              • #
                sophocles

                Pay a visit to the CO2Science website and have a look through whatever papers they have available (Lots of them!). Then there is the book: The Many Benefits of CO2 Atmosphere Enrichment Dr Craig D Idso, Dr Sherwood B Idso. You might be able to get a copy through your local library or you can buy one. See the above website for purchase details.

                I have managed to read about half the book, so far, and it has been particularly enlightening. It’s very interesting.
                CO2 dangerous? Only if that’s all there is!

                00

            • #
              Mari C

              Anime. Short, loud, graphic artsy bold LINES and random kanji. Plants in ichiburkos are dying, some rebel with his mom’s van drives by, tire flattens, van idles, plants POW burst with life, kids scratch heads, some CO2 demon flips out of nowhere and the plants start dancing, !!! appears above all human heads.

              Etc.

              00

  • #
    Malcolm

    Maybe it’s my poor eyesight but did Brian Cox show that shameless CO2 graph from Al Gore’s movie? The one which goes back in time? Despite his overuse of the words empirical and data Roberts comfortably held his head above water. I wonder if the ABC will fact check Cox’s claim of acceleration in the main climate metrics.

    447

  • #

    Hi Jo,
    Unfortunately I missed the first half, but I do feel the Absolutely Fabulous Senator was slightly out of his depth.
    However, I think he still won some hearts out there in the alleged “always balanced” Q&A. audience and viewers.
    I hope he goes from strength to strength, and I will be phoning him in the next few days to echo my sincere thoughts here.
    As usual Jo, Keep up the Scintillatingly-Great work you do.
    Thanks again,
    Warmest of regards,
    Reformed Warmist of Logan

    294

    • #
      James Murphy

      I too, wonder at the claims of a ‘balanced’ audience, but as usual, they trot out similar percentages each week. This time:
      Audience: Coalition 40%, ALP 34%, Greens 13%, Unspecified 10%, Other 3%

      115

      • #
        Annie

        I wonder what the ‘Unspecified’ and ‘Other’ categories actually consisted of?

        20

        • #
          James Murphy

          People too afraid to nail their political colours to the mast? People who don’t think their political allegiance is a relevant piece of information to give away in order to be in a TV show audience…

          Or maybe it’s just the ABC knocking 13% off Labor and Greens to make it look more “balanced”.

          I’m curious to know just how they go about this polling process, and if they reject audience members based on their political persuasion (or lack of definition) in order to get such an apparent blend. I wonder what persuasion one would have to pretend to be in order to maximise the chances of getting into the audience..?

          21

  • #
    richard ilfeld

    There is in this levity a serious question (sorry).
    We are afflicted by a media dominated by liberals/progressives/statists.
    Essentially, people who are better and smarter than the rest of us and therefore demand the right to manage our
    lives for us at our expense.

    Clearly, there is another channel for information, much less formal, of which this blog is a part. I no longer subscribe to my local paper, which is part of the leftist echo chamber, but have helped Jo out with Chocolate on a couple of occasions. THE REST OF YOU HAVE TOO, RIGHT?

    We have to consider tho, whether the minority of us who consider ourselves thoughtful, and seek out information to at least balance bias (including my friends on the left who are open minded), what the consequences are of letting the ‘mainstream’ media dominate the conversation and condition us and our children.

    Take a few moments to consider who, in public, you and I have been much more politically correct and constrained in our expression. Is this courtesy and sensibility, or mind control through fear.

    Let me give an example. Once, When teaching broadcast journalism at a college that shall remain nameless, I tries to deal with the difference between bias and prejudice. If 20% of an identifiable population is aggressive or violent , and you encounter a random individual of that population, is avoidance a reasonable bias against the 1 in 5 chance of a bad encounter, or an unjustified prejudice. What justifies a presumption of one or another by a third party (a journalist). What justifies judgement on the part of someone not exposed to the risk (0 chance of a negative outcome) making a judgement of the person who certainly has personal knowledge of or has suffered a negative outcome? Are you exhibiting bias, or prejudice, if you report identical acts differently depending on externally observable characteristics of the individuals involved.

    The language in the example above was far more circumspect that I used in the classroom. Actual races and examples from the news were used, including TV clips. Even 30 years ago, the content was challenged as racist and bigoted, but successfully defended on the grounds that compared documented activities was a reasonable way to help students learn to make critical and independent judgements.

    If one cared about ones continued employment, this presentation could not be given today, and would be globally condemned as promoting racism.

    The identical absolutism is, of course, rampant in climate, where skepticism is portrayed as anti-environment. One can hardly read an article today on any topic regarding industry of any sort without a nod to the “global warming implications”. This has become as ubiquitous as the required homage to political leadership in every communication in an autocracy.

    Yes, perhaps 61% of the population is skeptical. But if even the skeptical incorporate restraints on our public expression, over time the skepticism will erode. A generation that sees good times turning bad is easy to outrage. Many of us remember cheap, reliable power, for example. Some of us are old enough to remember our grandparents telling us how life changed when electricity first came to our homes.

    But 61 % skepticism does not seem to be stopping the forces that are denying this life changing experience to a billion and half people, and reducing the ability of countless others to create easier and more productive lives for themselves with cheap, plentiful power.

    1 skeptic of 6 may be an improvement for the taxpayer funded ABC, but is calling this progress in a battle a sign that the forces for freedom and ground truth are losing the war?

    225

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I’d suggest that if 3 out of 5 people ( ^1% ) are sceptical, then no, we are winning the war. Its the end result thats important. If the mass mediais saturated with The Big Lie but it has no real penetration beyond 39% then thats not a majority.

      As such, I find posing questions about Teh Big Lie like “hey if Climate change was real, wouldnt temps create a runaway situation whereby every year gets hotter and hotter and eventually the planet will be un-inhabitable? But this year has been a really cold winter, and so was last year…..” This stops people and basically forces them to think about whats in front of them regardless whats put through the echo chamber…..

      Anotyher one “Hey they want to send more carbon taxes to go to the UN to protect the planet, but so far we we havent seen runway warming, so its waste of money ( high taxes fire up australians…) if there is no problem” – at thsi point they are shown the UN as a collosal waste of money *and* a cost they have to bear for no benefit….

      Once you show people they are being stiffed financially for no benefit and the cost of living is going up and there is no problem, they will fire up. And all you have done is tell the turth…..job done…. and its all done in the pub or at a cafe having coffee……women have a big part in this…..they influence their families….convincve them, job done…..

      124

  • #

    1 against 6 was too much scepticism, according to one “scientist”, Katie Mack.

    https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/765164041098567680

    https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/765164432389386240

    She seems to be having a bit of a temper tantrum on twitter.

    254

    • #
      James Murphy

      They have the temerity to call themselves a scientist, but actively demonstrate their inability for objective thought, and their desire to shut down any views with which they disagree.

      Why should I trust their alleged work in ‘astrophysics’ if this is the way they behave…?

      225

  • #
    James Murphy

    If you can’t watch it via iView, then it should be available without having to circumvent iView geoblocking:
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm

    Previous editions are also available this way, although I think it takes a day or so for the content to be available.

    92

  • #
    philthegeek

    Watching Qanda now. Hmmmmm……Roberts getting pwned. Should have let Monkton go on instead. Roberts went straight to conspiracy theory. FAIL.

    153

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Roberts went straight to conspiracy theory.

      Nope. Show me in the transcript anywhere that Roberts implied a conspiracy. I say he didn’t. His opponents (and you) all assumed he was alleging a conspiracy because it is their favourite punching bag, but in rebuttal Roberts himself pointed out that he had never mentioned anything about a conspiracy. He said NASA specifically had altered that particular graph. If the graph was the GISS version of history Roberts may have been correct.

      The major error that Roberts did make, which I predicted yesterday would happen, is that he said human activity had made no difference to CO2 levels. This was “flat out wrong” as Cox said. Oddly enough Roberts almost got away with it because the topic soon changed to some other related issue. A couple of seconds of gasping exasperation from Cox but no substantial counter-argument. They could have absolutely nailed Roberts on this point but it didn’t quite happen. A close shave for Roberts and by association the climate skeptics of Australia.
      So there’s still time to educate the guy and salvage something out of this senate seat.

      175

      • #
        philthegeek

        Doing the “NASA is falsifying data thing” comes across as conspiracy. That’s [[snip] foolish looking] and very different from saying they have got it wrong because……

        He played it poorly and made himself look [[snip] foolish]. Roberts had “KICK ME PLEASE MAY I HAVE ANOTHER KIND SIR” written all over his forehead.

        So there’s still time to educate the guy and salvage something out of this senate seat.

        He does look a bit like a puppet seeking someone to pull his string yeah? But i prefer my elected reps to be a little more their own people and not be [snip].

        [Editorial discretion applied. If you avoid the words that tend to be personal attacks or inflamatory I won't be sniping you. Thanks.] AZ

        717

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Andrew

        >”The major error that Roberts did make, which I predicted yesterday would happen, is that he said human activity had made no difference to CO2 levels. This was “flat out wrong” as Cox said.”

        Actually highly debatable.

        Human emissions have been dead flat for the last 3 years but atmospheric CO2 level GROWTH has been at a record rate.

        The record growth rate is due to El Nino – NOT to human emissions.

        Similarly in the 2008/9 economic recession (GFC). Human emission growth went negative but atmospheric CO2 growth remained positive.

        Obviously a disconnect between human emissions growth rates (positive, flat, negative) and the atmospheric CO2 growth rate (positive only).

        213

        • #
          el gordo

          Good argument Richard, a simple graph would illustrate your words even better.

          60

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            el gordo

            >”a simple graph would illustrate your words even better”

            Can’t give you one simple graph but here’s 4 graphs. First 2 are the respective data, second 2 are the respective growth rates.

            Global energy-related CO2 emissions ["decoupling"]
            http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/29DWYXTrZh_6lsyFrYt7KwgL4io=/fit-in/1200×9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F27448%2Fco2emissionsdecoupling.png

            Recent Global Monthly Mean CO2
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png

            Fossil Fuels Emissions Growth Rates
            https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/slide12.png?w=639&h=479

            Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

            Illustrates the disconnect/decoupling as good as any presentation I can think of.

            101

            • #
              Analitik

              I’m sure the CAGW crowd would spin it as being due to the “tipping point” being reached and the world now in the runaway CO2/temperature phase.

              I wonder how they can explain how the world got into the “goldilocks” holocene state if it’s such a borderline metastable state?

              00

          • #
            Ross

            El Gordo. How simple do you want the graph to be? I mean the good senator certainly struggled with some pretty basic ones. Sorry, but you should really look elsewhere for a credible advocate.
            Roberts is more concerned with the ‘International global conspiracy of bankers to make us a one world government’ . True! Just ask him. Once he gets going, you won’t shut him up!

            22

            • #

              As usual Ross, you have no facts, no science, no argument. Just Indignation! Scoff! Scorn!

              Science by ad hom denigration. Ross is worried people might be listening to Malcolms requests for evidence that “Ross” can’t provide.

              71

              • #
                AndyG55

                BBC are now airing Malcolm’s comments about NASA’s data manipulation and the UN pursuing one world government.

                A MASSIVE win for Malcolm. :-)

                71

              • #
                Frank

                JO,

                Ross was only quoting Mal, that’s not an ad hom.
                Mal’s had data shown to him many times but not being a scientist, he can’t recognise it.
                Are you OK with his conspiracy theory then ?

                (Frank,are you trying to convince us of your stupidity? You have not presented any intelligent argument here.Your tiresome Authority and Qualification fallacies are stupid and boring) CTS

                22

              • #

                Frank the Ad hom was the way “conspiracy theories” are used to denigrate someone asking science questions. It’s a pointless distraction that has nothing to do with teh climate science question. Indeed the only reason to raise these off topic issues is because you want to avoid discussing evidence and denigrate someone who is.

                If only you had evidence you wouldn’t need to talk about irrelevant “Conspiracies”.

                30

        • #

          so pouring water into a pool at the same rate makes the water level rise. What shape are the walls of the pool?

          35

          • #
            AndyG55

            We are not “pouring” any CO2.

            Human contributions are small compared to nature’s contributions.

            And plant life is LOVING that small increase, be it from human or natural contributions.

            And it has been shown MANY times that there is NO CO2 SIGNATURE in real temperature data, or sea level rise…

            or in anything EXCEPT plant growth.

            176

            • #
              Analitik

              Tony Heller differed about CO2 having no effect on temperature in a recent realclimate.com post

              52

              • #
                Analitik

                sorry realclimatescience.com

                22

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor TH still thinks there is a blanket out there somewhere. !

                He’s great on showing up the fudging in the temperature data and in bringing historic truths to the fore,

                .. but a blanket… that cools the Earth’s surface… seriously ???

                45

              • #
                Analitik

                Where did the cooling come in? Tony was saying the increase in CO2 would increase temperature.

                43

              • #
                AndyG55

                You mis-understood me.

                Yes, TH thinks the “blanket” warms the surface, whereas the main action within the atmosphere is to actually cool the surface.

                69

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              Andy

              >”Human contributions are small compared to nature’s contributions.”

              Lost in just the uncertainty of the gross flows.

              75

          • #
            el gordo

            The key point is that CO2 is still out gassing from the oceans and its pure hubris to think we can do anything about it.

            The warmists will counter with the argument that human induced CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a thousand years and …

            66

            • #
              AndyG55

              “that human induced CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a thousand years …. ”

              Which of course means that the natural CO2 must also remain for a thousand years.

              Live with it, and let the world flourish !!! :-)

              118

              • #
                el gordo

                Yes I agree, but they will say the world’s carbon dioxide concentration is teetering on the point of no return.

                To which I’ll reply, that’s good news.

                73

              • #
                AndyG55

                “but they will say the world’s carbon dioxide concentration is teetering on the point of no return

                If it ever drops back to 280ppm again.. IT WILL BE. !!

                The world absolutely MUST WAKE THE **** UP before CO2 levels start to drop to that subsistence level again.

                56

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          The record growth rate is due to El Nino – NOT to human emissions.

          The ENSO index and the MEI are standardised to the long term baseline to allow strength comparisons between years. The 2015/16 El Nino MEI peaked at 16% less than both the 1998 and 1983 El Ninos, but you believe it caused a record high CO2 accumulation rate in 2015. That does not follow.

          The disconnect between ENSO index and CO2 growth is because the CO2 is affected by industrial output, temperature, and biosphere fluxes, which all vary separately. Blaming any one of those three factors entirely for a single year’s record high is simplistic.

          The trend, however, is a different story. Attributing the trend to a single factor is possible when one of the three factors is the largest net contributor every year since 1962.

          Human emissions have been dead flat for the last 3 years but atmospheric CO2 level GROWTH has been at a record rate.

          You are claiming that if the CO2 rise was caused by humans then we expect atmospheric CO2 rates of change to be proportional to relative year-on-year CO2 emissions growth rates. This shows you do not understand the topic you are trying to criticise. Actually we would expect CO2 rate of change to be a constant fraction of our CO2 emissions, if all other factors were constant.

          When the human emissions are constant but the surface temperature increases due to El Nino (as it did in 2013/14/15), the warmer ocean slows down the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, allowing the CO2 to accumulate at a faster rate. A combination of Henry’s Law and carbonate buffering.

          Similarly in the 2008/9 economic recession (GFC). Human emission growth went negative but atmospheric CO2 growth remained positive.

          The 2009 decrease in human emissions accompanied by CO2 accumulation in the air could be again explained by the emissions decrease being very slight at just -5% and 2009 being warmer by 0.18 degrees than 2008 was.

          Obviously a disconnect between human emissions growth rates (positive, flat, negative) and the atmospheric CO2 growth rate (positive only).

          Yes, we wouldn’t expect any different as the two types of figures are not even comparable, because the integral of a relative growth rate is a ratio and not a delta amount.
          You can rejoin the discussion when you’ve passed high school level calculus.

          The fact that twice as much carbon is artificially injected into the atmosphere each year than the observed rate at which atmospheric carbon is accumulating proves by conservation of mass that there is a net sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere into the biosphere (with welcome effects) which also disqualifies nature as being a net emitter.

          It’s debatable only as a moot for teaching newbies. The conclusion follows from conservation of mass and is therefore unimpeachable.

          40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think part of the problem is that when we expose ( not attack ) NASA for getting into bed with The Big Lie, we get accused of being tin foil hat people. The ugly reality is that we have to keep showing people the science, and letting people know that the relaity is that , yes. govt depts *can* be told to lie and do.

        The cred of these large organizations is now in the balance, because they know that once the public questions it, they are done for. So they stack shows like Q & NOT_A with CAGW apologists ( read “seagulls” ) who are nothing more than trained attack dogs.

        Big stakes play….

        94

      • #
        Ian George

        El Gordo
        This is probably the data he was talking about.
        The first is the GISS data up to the time Breibart was eluding to.
        http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg
        Then came the ‘adjustments’.
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
        Note the number of years over 0.6C that weren’t there before. If Mal had those, he would have shot Cox down immediately.

        52

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        I’m not sure that you watched the same programme that I did; Cox completely avoided the question, and just spouted an awful lot of non-scientific waffle. Not once did he refer to any evidence that the present “climate change” was caused by human activity, only stating what most of us already know and accept – the global temperature has altered somewhat, and the climates have changed a little, much as they have done for the past… oooh… 4,500,000,000 years, give or take a few months. What’s new?

        Also, since when has science relied upon “consensus”, a concept that he clung to?

        31

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yeah,it’s unfortunate that Roberts is “unpolished” and comes across as a weirdo type.No doubt he has his head around the subject but it’s always going to be difficult to articulate your point in these type of arrangements.Why bother going on if you’re going to get flustered.

      132

      • #
        el gordo

        Glen I agree that Malcolm Roberts shouldn’t talk to anyone on climate change until he learns to articulate better.

        All he had to say was that NOAA and NASA ignore balloon and satellite data, preferring to use the corrupted ground stations instead.

        136

        • #
          Ross

          El Gordo. Agreed. Roberts was embarrassing.

          14

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Roberts was embarrassing.”

            To Cox, he certainly caused a LOT of embarrassment.

            Cox ended up looking like a Norwegian Blue.

            51

          • #
            AndyG55

            Brian Cox is meant to be a professor, but the best he could manage was a graph of fabricated temperature data, and a call to a fabricated consensus.

            An extremely poor showing, he should be highly embarrassed.

            If he had worn a natty bow-tie, he would have been mistaken for Bill Nye.

            61

          • #
            bullocky

            Ross; ‘El Gordo. Agreed. Roberts was embarrassing.’

            Your embarrassment seems to stem from being a supporter of Cox. He will be disappointed.

            20

    • #
      handjive

      Roberts getting pwned. How?

      Cox throwing useless papers at Roberts does not constitute a “pwn”.

      It was like a burning bush handed the papers to Cox on his way down the hill to the ABC.

      Roberts asked for empirical evidence, yet, Cox couldn’t produce any., despite knowing this and time to prepare.

      Instead of a consensus of paper, Cox could have selected the one quote, the one page out of all that garbage he threw at Roberts.

      Quite rightly, it ended up on the floor, and Cox without his props, floundered.

      215

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Oi turned off the replay when Cox held up the GISS graph to squeals from the audience.Pop star stuff.Nonsense show for inner-city IT types.Silly educated people who haven’t been beyond the pale.

        204

    • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    > “Which is why he tries to shut down BOM inquiries, so he can get the best feedback…”

    Yes Jo. In politics, as in climate science, they are only interested in positive feedback. ;-)

    194

  • #
    Get Real

    Is this the same ABC that had a science quiz on its news site? Out of curiosity and smelling a political rat I clicked on an answer, any answer, and received this response……

    “Which energy form is NOT ultimately derived from solar energy?
    a Nuclear power
    b Coal
    c Wind power
    d Biofuels.

    Incorrect. Wind energy is created by the movement of air to even out temperature differences in the atmosphere, cause by uneven heating from the Sun.
    Coal is compressed, concentrated and stored plant energy.
    Biofuels are based on energy from the sun captured by plants through photosynthesis and stored in the carbon bonds that make up their tissues.
    Nuclear power plants use a process called nuclear fission, a chain reaction where uranium atoms are split to release extraordinary amounts of energy.”

    ABC science indeed!

    123

    • #

      Although not solar energy directly, Nuclear fission still uses matter created in a star so it is also a form of fossil fuel and therefore solar in nature. Hydrogen fusion on the other hand would not be from the sun but of the sun. We cannot escape it – IT IS THE SUN that provides all that makes this world liable for us.

      82

      • #
        Analitik

        Fission results from the creation of higher atomic number elements in the gravitational collapse phase of a supernova so they are not create from solar energy.

        42

      • #
        Bob

        Perhaps we need a bumper sticker: “Solar IS Nuclear!”

        50

        • #
          Analitik

          I looked into having one made a while back with a logo of a yellow sun with rays and the radiation symbol in the disc. My mate warned me my car would get trashed (possibly by him).

          10

  • #
    handjive

    Re Education, Roberts quote: “Teaching them what to think, not how to think.”

    And the sound of tumbleweeds tumbling as that sunk in.

    Score one: Roberts.

    185

  • #
    handjive

    I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
    ― Richard Feynman

    “In matters of science, the humble reasonings of one individual are more valuable than authority of 1,000″
    Galileo

    153

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Cook:

    “Satellites measure less heat escaping to space”

    As Jo says, less than what? But satellites are NOT measuring less [radiation] escaping to space.

    Here’s the graph of OLR

    Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The thin blue line represents the monthly value, while the thick red line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to the running 3 yr average. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif

    There’s no CO2-consistent downward trend in that graph Mr Cook. There SHOULD be if climate change theory was valid. CO2 radiative forcing (RF) at 400ppm was theoretically 1.9 W.m-2, total ERF (including solar) was 2.33 W.m-2 in IPCC AR5 but the earth’s energy imbalance was only 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless (IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2).

    The IPCC ignore this inconvenient disparity. Read about that here:

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

    127

    • #
      AndyG55

      Pity that graph doesn’t extend to now.

      I suspect we would see a spike in OLR in Jan, Feb 2016 as the Earth tries to balance itself to the less active Sun.

      89

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Andy >”I suspect we would see a spike in OLR in Jan, Feb 2016 as the Earth tries to balance itself to the less active Sun.”

        Minimal forcing at TOA so far and a less active sun just means less energy in and less energy out i.e. the earth’s energy imbalance will probably just remain as is.

        Any 2015/16 spike in OLR will be due to El Nino heat release: ocean => atmosphere => space. “Heat trapping” greenhouse gasses are not “trapping” this heat, contrary to theory (they don’t “trap” diurnal heat either).

        The greater solar forcing (by far) is surface solar radiation (SSR). The IPCC threw out out SSR (of course – see next comment) because it doesn’t fit their RF theory at TOA.

        Atsumu Ohmura (2009) found SSR alone (net 12 W.m-2) accounts for most (0.66 C) of 20th century warming:

        ‘Observed decadal variations in surface solar radiation and their causes’
        Atsumu Ohmura (2009)
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011290/full

        ”The magnitudes of the variation are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively.”

        Net SSR forcing 1920s – 2005: +12 W.m-2.

        Now compare that to the IPCC’s table of TOA forcings 1750 – 3005:

        FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750).
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html

        SSR is conspicuously absent because all those forcings are applicable at TOA – SSR at surface.

        TSI forcing at TOA is only about +0.1 W.m-2 1750 – 2005 (ludicrous in itself)
        SSR forcing at Sfc is estimated +12 W.m-2 1920 – 2005.

        SSR is 120 times greater than TSI at TOA.

        Hence the ocean heat miss-attribution by the IPCC and climate science generally.

        102

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        >”The greater solar forcing (by far) is surface solar radiation (SSR). The IPCC threw out out SSR (of course – see next comment) because it doesn’t fit their RF theory at TOA.”

        For assessment of SSR in respect to surface temperature we go to the AR4 Technical Summary (TS):

        Technical Summary
        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html

        TS 2.6 Surface Forcing and the Hydrologic Cycle

        “The instantaneous radiative flux change at the surface (hereafter called ‘surface forcing’) is a useful diagnostic tool for understanding changes in the heat and moisture surface budgets and the accompanying climate change. However, unlike radiative forcing, it cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change. Net radiative forcing and surface forcing have different equator-to-pole gradients in the NH, and are different between the NH and SH. {2.9, 7.2, 7.5, 9.5} “

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-6.html

        >”However, unlike radiative forcing [RF], it [‘surface forcing’] cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change.”

        So they throw out the “key” surface warming agent (”The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface [SSR] is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate” – Romanou et al 2007) because it doesn’t fit their RF paradigm.

        The “key” ‘surface forcing’ agent they threw out is far greater than any RF forcing agent at TOA.

        This is not an “assessment”, it is self-justification of their fatally flawed RF “concept”. Which explains why their subsequent attribution is a miss-attribution i.e. false.

        103

  • #
    Marshy

    Malcolm is on the right track, but needs some polish. For example, he uses the term “empirical evidence” when most average punters don’t really know what that means – perhaps an explanation of the term would be helpful. In addition, rather than just stating that NASA has corrupted temperature records, which does make him seem a little batty, adding a brief explanation of the concept of “homogenisation” and how it magically always cools the past and warms the present, and NEVER the other way around might add more credibility to his arguments.

    134

    • #
      el gordo

      On a show like Q&A there is no time for a brief explanation, he must be prepared to speak in simple language so that everyone understands him.

      On this blog we toss around stuff that would go over the head of the average punter. Malcolm should get out more and talk to zombies to hone his argument, become a wordsmith.

      113

    • #
      handjive

      When Cox held up the first graph, Roberts said to see Steve Goddard, akaTony Heller @realclimatescience for NASA manipulation.

      Roberts also pointed to the 1930-40 spike and cooling in the melee of the shouting of consensus that followed.

      134

    • #
      Albert

      ”Cooling the past and warming the present and never the other way around”
      I remember Marble Bar still holds the world record heatwave, 160 days in 1923/24 in the days when heatwaves were a minimum of 4 consecutive days over 100F
      Today’s heatwaves are at least 2 days at 90F or above, no wonder they are increasing, the new formula guarantees it

      The temp ”anomalies” used by NASA and others can be deceptive if the past data is ”adjusted” down.
      Using the actual temp will alert us to any change

      113

      • #
        Steven Fraser

        Yeah… Central US daily highs have trended downward since the mid 1930′s, in some places, 10F.

        10

  • #
    Peter C

    BASIC PHYSICS OF A RADIATIVE ATMOSPHERE

    Cook points at “less heat escaping to space” – Jo says –this doesn’t mean anything. We assume he means less heat escapes at certain frequencies (which he should have said). Sections of the outgoing spectrum are missing (e.g. Harries et al), which shows that CO2 is stopping some outgoing radiation and is a greenhouse gas (and we knew that already), but it doesn’t show that overall extra heat is staying in the system. The heat absorbed by CO2 is probably just rerouting out from other wavelengths (say, for example through emissions from the dominant greenhouse gas — water vapor). Indeed 28 million radiosondes suggest this is happening. The water vapor emissions layer is falling (not rising as the models predicted with the “hot spot”).

    Jo explains the “Basic Physics” in a nutshell.

    Brian Cox,(School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester) fails to understand.

    113

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      [Jo] >”The heat absorbed by CO2 is probably just rerouting out from other wavelengths”

      At high tropospheric altitude the entire air mass radiates to space at T^4.

      At low altitude and high density there is about 1 billion times more chance that a CO2 molecule will TRANSFER energy by collision with non-IR absorbing molecules e.g. nitrogen and oxygen, than by radiating a photon.

      The CO2 molecule is already energized at ambient temperature due to air mass, gravity, pressure etc. Extra energy is simply TRANSFERRED either by collision or radiation. CO2 is therefore a very effective energy TRANSFER medium.

      Actually a COOLANT by definition, refrigerant code R744.

      The radiative heat TRANSFER process is passive i.e. the already energized molecule intercepts and absorbs a photon and is energized further but emits a photon thereby returning to the initial state of energization.

      CO2 is therefore NOT a “heat trapping” gas, it is simply a passive heat TRANSFER medium.

      114

      • #
        AndyG55


        “CO2 is therefore NOT a “heat trapping” gas, it is simply a passive heat TRANSFER medium.”


        Well stated, Richard.

        Just another surface cooling conduit.

        84

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Jo

    >”I [Jo] said: “No one is accurately measuring the total joules coming off the whole planet, and even if they did, we don’t have accurate data from years past to compare it with”

    But we do have literature (Murphy et al (2009) – see below) that gives the cumulative theoretical total Joules 1950 – 2004 that IPCC radiative forcing theory (RF – man-made climate change theory) says SHOULD have accumulated in the earth system.

    Comes to 1700 ZetaJoules 1950 – 2004 (Zeta = 10^21) and includes solar forcing.

    Problem #1: Only 10% of that 1700 (170) actually heats the earth’s surface (e.g. ocean heat rise – OHC).

    Problem #2: Once about 100 ZetaJoules attributable to solar is subtracted there’s only 70 left out of 1700 attributable to GHGs.

    Problem #3: It is impossible for GHGs to be an ocean heating agent because there is no net OLR/DLR flux at the earth’s surface in the earth’s energy budget. The only net downwards radiative flux is solar SW. Net longwave (LW) radiation at the surface is (-ve)52.4 W.m-2 i.e outgoing LW.

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 Observations:Atmosphere cited the Stephens et al earth’s energy budget here:

    Earth’s energy budget – Stephens et al (2012) Figure1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    The IPCC, after 25 years and 5 assessment reports, has no proven anthropogenic ocean warming mechanism. They only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. They didn’t find them in IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean.

    In other words, the IPCC make ocean warming attribution-by-speculation.

    # # #

    Factoid: the NODC OHC anomaly in ZetaJoules (200 ZJ) sounds like a big scary number:

    Global Ocean Heat Content
    https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    But remember, it’s an anomaly. The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1,600,000 ZetaJoules.

    That’s a lot of “Hiroshima bombs”. Steve Easterbrook – “one zettajoule is about the energy that would be released from 200 million bombs of the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima”. So 1.6 million x 200 million = 320,000,000 million “Hiroshima bombs” of heat in the ocean.

    Question: What is the source of the total ocean heat 1,600,000 ZetaJoules?

    # # #

    ‘An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950’
    D. M. Murphy, S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, T. Wong (2009)
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/full

    There is obviously a massive discrepancy between theoretical forcing and actual earth heating. Murphy et al describe the discrepancy as “striking”:

    [38] A striking result of the Earth energy budget analysis presented here [Figure 6 below] is the small fraction of greenhouse gas forcing that has gone into heating the Earth. Since 1950, only about 10 ± 7% of the forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation has gone into heating the Earth, primarily the oceans.

    Murphy et al (2009)Figure 6.
    Cumulative energy budget for the Earth since 1950
    . (a) Mostly positive and mostly long-lived forcing agents from 1950 through 2004. (b) The positive forcings have been balanced by stratospheric aerosols, direct and indirect aerosol forcing, increased outgoing radiation from a warming Earth and the amount remaining to heat the Earth. The aerosol direct and indirect effects portion is a residual after computing all other terms.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2009JD012105/asset/image_n/jgrd15636-fig-0006.png?v=1&s=1d48ee59aed4b059a12eea9575028e88a7b134ce

    122

  • #
    Robdel

    The imbalance in the makeup of the panel has almost always been that way. It is the reason I no longer bother to watch QandA. Besides I have to watch my blood pressure.

    173

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Tony Jones has a certain ……how do I put it? Well,I’m sure someone somewhere has been tempted to snot him.

      112

    • #
      Albert

      Did you notice Brian Cox came prepared with dodgy graphs and he threw them across the room when the Senator wasn’t accepting them

      94

      • #
        Angry

        Brian Cox……
        Very mature and professional.
        NOT!
        More like a kindergarten child who can’t get their own way !!!!

        40

    • #

      the panel was about science week not climate change. They had a person from the government (minister responsible for science) and the opposition, an independent/minor party member and 2 science communicators. How many people did you want on the panel?

      66

  • #
    Bowman

    This Q&A is repeated at A.B.C. 10.00 a.m. Wednesday.

    30

  • #
    Ruairi

    If the A.B.C. had their way,
    A skeptic would ne’er have a say,
    But if one must appear,
    It’s made more than clear,
    That consensus rules their Q and A.

    230

  • #
    GrahamP

    From today’s Australian;

    Fellow panellist Greg Hunt, the Minister for Industry, Innovation & Science, said the government takes the advice from “the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the Department of the Environment, Department of Industry, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet” who “all have very similar views that you’ve had an increase in CO2”.

    “I respect the right of people to have their different views but we don’t make our policy on that,” said the former Minister for the Environment. “Our policy is that it’s real and it is important, and it is significant.”

    An therein lies the problem. Until someone with a shred of self respect and integrity from the BoM and CSIRO etc speaks up and advises the Minister of an alternate view of CC then nothing is going to change IMO.

    173

    • #
      Dennis

      Did Hunt admit to being one of the Abbott Government Cabinet who voted against due diligence (independent auditing) being conducted at the BoM following management admission to the Minister responsible that errors and omissions had been discovered relating to climate change media releases by BoM personnel?

      94

  • #
    Albert

    Brian Cox said sea level has been rising, actually it dropped sharply in 2011 rose again and dropped again and rose again, rising about 10 cm per century. All coast line that I visit shows no increase in sea level, nor have any of the millions of wharves and jetties been raised and the Barrier Reef has not been covered, it’s still there

    Brian Cox also said cyclones have increased, NOT TRUE, they have dropped to about 2 per year. I studied Aviation Meteorology 4 decades ago and every day since, when I was younger the frequency of cyclones was about 5 to 6 per year

    Brian Cox also said sea temps are rising. It has been an el Nino year with very high ocean temps, that’s why our winter is still warm but next year should return to normal

    Linda Burney said something about people swimming in August. My observation is winter normally gives us a few days of summer and summer gives us some days of winter.

    I have not seen the extremes of weather from the past 2 centuries visit anywhere on Earth

    The question for empirical evidence was treated as a joke, they (the left) all laughed. You can forget science if empirical evidence is not essential

    Does NASA corrupt data ? Sure, they are reliant on Government funding and that comes with demands on Government policy support. I’ve noticed past temp data has been reduced to show today’s uptrend

    There are many Atmospheric Scientists like Richard Lindzen, NASA scientists, Nobel Laureates and thousands of others with Phd’s who share my view. Sure co2 is a greenhouse gas but ALL the models are wrong and Brian Cox seems a [[snip] very wrong] to me.

    [Editorial discretion applied.] AZ

    155

  • #
    Fivestarr

    Brian Cox is one of the new breed of stand-over scientists the climate-change religion is beginning to roll out. Judging by the reaction he’s getting he’s doing more for the skeptic cause than their own. He comes across as an aristocratic know-it-all every time I’ve seen him, just the type of bloke average Aussies love :O)

    124

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    THe mere fact that John Cook got in an anti sicial media question is your proof that the show was a deliberate stitch up. I did not even bother to watch it past the intros. I actually did not realise Malcolm Roberts was even on the panel I tined out so quickly.

    83

  • #
    Rick Will

    One good aspect of this appearance is that Malcolm Roberts is becoming newsworthy. That will create more opportunities.

    He needs to hone his sound bite on climate change. Very simple message – man made CO2 has no observed link to climate change.

    From that point the complexity of the discussion has to suit the audience. The ONLY pertinent question is the accuracy of the models that connect CO2 to global warming. Everything else is a side issue. It does not matter if the globe is heating or cooling. It does not matter if the temperature data is corrupted. It does not matter if there is some banking cabal that aims to profit from Climate Change.

    His evidence beyond that point must come from an authoritative source. He should not be giving his opinion but the findings/admissions of authorities that has formed his understanding that current climate models are flawed. There is plenty of evidence that shows climate models are flawed and the best evidence comes from the climate modellers. The starting point is the large disparity between the various climate models. Dig deeper and the forecasts for things like cloud cover within the various models vary widely from what is observed.

    If he can sow seeds of doubt about the accuracy of the climate models then he will undermine the foundation of AGW.

    Maybe he could organise a session with David Evans, CSIRO modellers and the BoM modellers to give him a better understanding of the models and why they are so poor at predicting actual observations.

    The question of increasing atmospheric CO2 not being linked to man made emissions needs to come from an authoritative source rather than his own view. Supporting this is bound to be much more difficult than showing the flaws in climate models.

    122

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Very simple message – man made CO2 has no observed link to climate change’ and its my melancholy duty to inform you that global cooling has begun.

      Time to go on the attack.

      124

      • #
        Tony of South Yarra

        Good idea El G. ;-)

        82

        • #
          el gordo

          G’day mate, it seems like years. I miss your sparkling dry wit and as we are at a pivotal point in history I would appreciate seeing you here regularly. You have an interest in paleo history and could help fill in the ranks.

          We could also chat about art on the weekend open fred, frozen Thames and the like.

          60

      • #
        Len

        Sounds like Bob Menzies.

        10

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      The delicious irony is that people like Malcolm Roberts can hold their own against a pack attack like QA because typically the pack just sneers, insults and plays their big card of resorting to ‘experts’. What they don’t seem to get is that they would not know or be able to determine just who is an expert or who has material expertise. Most people with common sense or just a healthy skepticism (two sides of the same coin methinks) see an ad hominem pack attack for what it is and discount the ‘evidence’ of the pack accordingly. That is the basis of the jury system in many respects, the judgement ofreasonable men and women. Methinks Malcolm Roberts sounds a better witness to many people than does Brian Cox or Tony Jones let alone John Cook et al

      What a particle physicist would necessarily know about the science governing the climate (the real science mot ‘climate science’) I am not sure. He should know a fair amount but to go to a temperature anomaly gragh (by who GISS/HADCRUT? or ‘the models’ and one he had ‘prepared earlier’ no less ) LOL – and this show wasn’t a stitch up!! As for a ‘science communicator, whach is what Cox really is, a marketable product, himself, is what he is spruiking.

      158

    • #
      scaper...

      I believe Malcolm can hold his own in any company. Gee, don’t watch the ABC crap and maybe, just maybe…luring the warmists into a false sense of superiority?

      The game is in the early stages. Ever played contract Bridge? A heads up.

      81

    • #
      philthegeek

      One good aspect of this appearance is that Malcolm Roberts is becoming newsworthy. That will create more opportunities.

      what? opportunities for him to look like a idiot? Best thing he can do is just STFU on climate, keep a low profile for a while, and hope people forget last night.

      14

  • #
    Rob

    Lilly Serna shone as the mathematically gifted “barrel girl” on “Letters and Numbers”.
    What a pity she has turned to the Dark Side. I guess associating with SBS will do that.

    103

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re NASA GISS “adjustent” to GHCN data in GISTEMP.

    This refers to GISS “adjustment” beyond homogenization using their climate model output. Numerous examples from around the world, particularly Iceland and South America by my favourite for here in NZ is Gisborne Aero.

    There is a progressive cumulative adjustment in 0.1 increments adding to 0.7.

    [If "Not found" see note below]

    GISS raw monthly data
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_14_0/station.txt

    GISS adj monthly data:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_507932920000_13_0/station.txt

    See metANN column at far right of the data sheets.

    At 1963 the cumulative adjustment is 0.7
    At 1968 the cumulative adjustment is 0.6
    At 1972 the cumulative adjustment is 0.5
    At 1975 the cumulative adjustment is 0.4
    At 1980 the cumulative adjustment is 0.3
    At 1982 the cumulative adjustment is 0.2
    At 1986 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
    At 2001 the cumulative adjustment is 0.1
    At 2002 the cumulative adjustment is 0.0

    There is no valid reason for adjustments of this nature (there is no homogenization required for Gisborne Aero). And there is no resemblance to the BEST adjustments to the same station: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157058

    For some reason the GISS Gisborne Aero data sheet URLs return “Not found”. Deleting “http://” works for the adjusted data, but for the raw data start at this page:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    Select “after removing suspicious records” and then “Download monthly data as text”

    I would point out that over the GISS period of Gisborne Aero dataset adjustments of which there appear to be about 7 in total 1962 – 2002, BEST make no adjustments whatsoever over that period.

    114

    • #
      ROM

      Richard C @ # 30

      Judith Curry on her Climate Etc blog had a post in 2015 which was all about adjustments to the global temperature record.

      There were some 2,100 comments on this one blog item, I read the first thousand, most of them quite horrified that such industrial scale changes to long standing observed data should be both done to the original data and then accepted by the climate science industry with complete equanimity and no thought to the future consequences of such an act.

      As I can no longer access her site until I get a browser [ or computer ] that can access the https: [/ 2 ] sites I can’t give you the URL for that “Temperature and anomaly adjustment” post.

      Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher, Mosher in fact got very uptight in his defence of the adjustments in that climate Etc post.

      Hausfather far less so when they both admitted straight out that the historical temperatures that were recorded ever since the beginnings of the 20th century ARE being changed on an almost daily basis and towards a cooling bias in the historical data in almost every case giving the impression that the planet is warming since the pre WW2 periods when current temperatures are compared to the posted and “adjusted” historical temperatures.

      Norwegian Proff Ole Humlum on his site Climate4You has in fact two graphs from both the NCDC and GISS of the changes in January 1915 and the Jan 2000 temperature anomalies that have been adjusted by GISS and the NCDC down through a period of 4 years.

      Beginning with the changes made to the Jan 2015 and Jan 2000 temperature anomalies in May 2008 and then showing how the Jan 2015 and Jan 2000 temperature anomalies have been “adjusted”, Jan 1915 down and Jan 2000 up and by how much those anomaly values have been adjusted through each 4 monthly interval by the NCDC and GISS beginning May 2008 until July 2016.

      It really is quite horrifying to think that this is the almost completely corrupted standards of a climate science upon which so much wealth has been lavished and so much societal disruption has been created and so many of the lower earning sectors of the population have been so heavily penalised financially and economically, ultimately to no measurable or perceivable benefit at any level to either man or beast or to the planet other than the elites in climate science, the renewable energy industry and the political, business and highly compensated activists in the green environmental camp.
      .
      To access these GISS and NCDC graphs; Climate4you > Global temperature [ LH menu ] > scroll down to Temporal stability of global air temperature estimates

      121

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        ROM

        >”Judith Curry on her Climate Etc blog had a post in 2015 which was all about adjustments to the global temperature record.”

        That was this post:

        ‘Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data’

        Posted on February 9, 2015 | 1,178 Comments

        by Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather, Steve Mosher

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

        # # #

        A number of those 1,178 comments are mine starting here:

        richardcfromnz | February 10, 2015 at 9:19 pm |
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673431

        Scroll down and you will get to my Gisborne Aero comment which has more detail than above here at JoNova:

        richardcfromnz | February 10, 2015 at 4:30 am |
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673431

        As you can see Paul Homewood is on to much of this and the comment is cross-linked to his relevant blog post:

        ‘Cooling the past in New Zealand’
        by Paul Homewood
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/cooling-the-past-in-new-zealand/#comment-37569

        That comment is in turn cross-linked to Climate Conversation Group ‘Temperature Records’.

        Scroll down further to BEST vs BOM Australia adjustments:

        richardcfromnz | February 10, 2015 at 6:48 am |
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673035

        Other links in following comment but that’s all that’s useful for now.

        Those Climate Etc threads sure take some wading through. That one in particular.

        40

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Engaging Zeke Hausfather (BEST).

          I started at the following link with a case study of the 1971 break PUERTO CASADO, Paraguay:

          richardcfromnz | February 11, 2015 at 7:17 pm |
          https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673768

          Zeke replied but totally inadequately. So I addressed Zeke again with this:

          richardcfromnz | February 12, 2015 at 4:56 am |

          Zeke, this would apply directly to BEST would it not?

          ‘Circularity of homogenization methods’

          by David R.B. Stockwell PhD, October 15, 2012

          [Very long case omitted including a revisit to PUERTO CASADO]

          https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#comment-673897

          Zeke did not reply.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            Zeke and his buddy Mosher troll WUWT with mis-information.

            Mosher are nothing but frontman for the BEST scam.

            Mosher has zero scientific qualifications, he has been employed as a frontman/entrepreneur all his life…

            … yet he was hired as a “consultant” by BEST.. says it all really.

            Hire a CON-ARTIST to front a CON.

            I refer to that pair as “The DODGY BROS”

            Aussies will know the reference. ;-)

            52

          • #
            ROM

            Thanks Richard C [ NZ ] and you are way, way out in front of me technically and probably in a lot of other ways as well.

            Another location that points up the stupidity of the radical adjustments and homogenisation and the so obvious flaws in the NCDC and GISS’s algorthims and one you are no doubt very familiar with is the situation with the Icelandic temperatures.

            Paul Homewood of the Not a lot of people Know That site has delved into the GISS and NCDC “adjustments” to the Icelandic temperature records, adjustments which really p***** off the Icelandic Met Organisation when they were told those further “adjustments” had been made to their already adjusted and homogenised temp data which was done on the basis of a very long history of local knowledge of each Icelandic station..
            They hadn’t known their very carefully recorded and already homogenised and adjusted data had been further and completely incorrectly adjusted and its accuracy corrupted by the NCDC’s and GISS’s further spurious adjustments.

            Which of course was then fed into the climate models for the Arctic and so help produce the modelling based claim that the Arctic was warming at a very rapid rate and all the ice would disappear.

            Another completely failed climate model based prediction was thus created only to become another quite spectacular failure as Nature refused to dance to the catastrophe tune of the modellers and activists .

            Paul Homewood’s site; GHCN Adjustments In Iceland[ 2012 ]
            &

            The Official Iceland Temperature Series [ Feb 2015 ]

            Euan Mearns of the Energy Matters blog site also has a long go at the adjustments to the Iceland temperatures by the NCDC and GISS.

            Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland Feb 2015

            40

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              ROM

              Yes, Iceland’s capital station is a classic GISS/NCDC workover. Good to have Paul Homewood’s documentation to go back to.

              Hard to beat given the Icelandic Met’s reaction.From what I recall Chief Met sent a “please explain” letter to GISS. No reply that I know of.

              00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >Good to have Paul Homewood’s documentation to go back to.

                And Euan Mearns. I think he looked at the Southern Hemisphere in detail too.

                00

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    Malcolm Roberts spoke convincingly on the ABC Q&A program last night. My question was on the short list, but answers to other questions took so long they didn’t ask me once the topic changed. However we will NEVER change the world with arguments about correlation of CO2 and climate: we have to go back to the ground roots and expose the errors in Hansen’s original application of physics. Because the physics was wrong, nothing that follows is right and any correlation, even if it did exist, would not prove wrong physics to be right. The laws of physics prove Hansen wrong.

    Malcolm should not be put off by the arrogance of some scientists like Cox – I’ve dealt with more than a thousand such people in the many thousands of comments I’ve posted on climate blogs.

    But we have to defeat this scam, and we HAVE to do it with physics that they can’t deny. If you had one electric radiator that raised an object to 350K would 16 such radiators raise it to 700K? Absolutely not, but that’s what you would calculate if you compounded the radiation and used the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Yet that is PRECISELY what is implied can be done in the NASA energy diagrams. They add about twice as much back radiation to the solar radiation, making it as if the Sun were three times as powerful. They do this because Hansen never realised that what I have explained about “heat creep” is the real answer to his dilemma.

    The main problem is that Climatologists simply don’t have sufficient background in the very specialised fields of physics that are relevant, namely thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer – fields in which I have done extensive post-graduate study and research, and written two papers and a book in my retirement, all linked from my website http://climate-change-theory.com where I strongly suggest readers watch my 43 minute video presentation of the ground-breaking science I have been first in the world to explain.

    The other problem is that physicists don’t take much interest in the climate change debate. They do their PhD’s and specialise in narrow fields like particle physics, and just assume climatologists got it right. They also tend to forget some of the basics of thermodynamics that they were taught back in second and third year physics. And they are also on the back foot because they have little knowledge of planetary temperature data and matters pertaining to climate.

    Cox was just plain assertive and hopefully many viewers will have seen beyond his arrogant remarks. The comment about NASA putting men on the moon was laughable: it is the NASA energy diagrams which are so blatantly wrong because they imply that totally different fluxes of radiation (solar and atmospheric) can just be added mathematically and the sum used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine the Earth’s surface temperature.

    I’d really like to teach Malcolm Roberts and others some of the basics of my hypothesis which is absolutely ground-breaking “first in the world” stuff. The best place to start is my 43 minute video presentation linked from http://climate-change-theory.com and, if you can memorise the points made in that, then you will have a far better chance of influencing Parliament. If I’d been on the panel I could have tied Cox in knots: at least I gave him a copy of my question and my website address after the show.

    Doug, I let this through as a one off. Don’t take it to mean more than that. – Jo

    511

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Doug. You wrote

      If you had one electric radiator that raised an object to 350K would 16 such radiators raise it to 700K? Absolutely not, but that’s what you would calculate if you compounded the radiation and used the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.

      Your declaration “Absolutely not” is too strong. Object temperature in the presence of “electric radiators” depends on many things–the temperature of the radiators, the absence/presence of conduction and/or convection between the radiator and the object, the viewing geometry (i.e., the object’s appearance as viewed from each radiator, and the radiator’s appearance as viewed from the object). Take the case of a spherical object in a vacuum with a black body surface and a radiator whose radiating surface visible to the object is (a) a small circular portion of a sphere whose center is concentric with the spherical object’s center, and (b) at a uniform temperature. Picture a hollow, evacuated sphere (no possibility of thermal conduction and/or convection to/from objects interior to the hollow sphere) whose (a) center is coincident with the spherical “object’s” center, (b) whose inner surface everywhere acts like a black body, (c) whose inner radius is large compared to the radius of the spherical object, and (d) whose inner surface temperature is everywhere zero Kelvin except for a small circular region that is at a non-zero uniform temperature T. If the temperature, T, of the radiating region of the sphere’s inner surface is such that the energy-rate-equilibrium temperature of the spherical object is everywhere 350K, then adding 15 identical, non-overlapping circular regions of temperature T on the inner surface of the hollow sphere (i.e., each of the 16 non-zero temperature regions of the radiates energy to the spherical object at the same rate), then I believe the temperature of the spherical object will be 700K. What temperature do you think the object will be under the 16-identical radiator conditions described above?

      60

  • #
    Frank

    Mal has no scientific training and can only bang on about ‘empirical evidence and data’ supported by cherry picking. When an actual scientist tells him the global consensus IS based on data, he doesn’t understand and goes back to cherry picking.

    Mal then sinks deeper when he states that NASA and others have fiddled data causing Brian to lose composure and assume he might be a Moon landing denier too.

    Pity he didn’t get time to repeat his conspiracy views on the UN and the cabal of banks but he did manage the old howler of the 97% climate scientist consensus being really only 0.03%.

    Fun times ahead watching Mal disregarding the empirical evidence.

    Malcolm has more qualifications than Frank-the-anon. And he knows what the scientific method is. More than Cox… – Jo

    1120

    • #
      AndyG55

      Trouble is, there is a massive amount of evidence that temperature data from the past has been ” adjusted” downwards.

      http://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

      Tom Wigley even said that they should get rid of the “inconvenient” peak from the 1940′s..

      AND THEY HAVE. !!

      And Frank, it is a pity that you have NEVER been able to produce one iota of this “evidence” you say there is.

      Tick, tock !!!

      177

    • #
      AndyG55

      “old howler of the 97% climate scientist consensus”

      Yep, now that is a REAL howler, isn’t it !!

      Talk about statistical FABRICATION !!

      156

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “Malcolm has more qualifications than Frank-the-anon. And he knows what the scientific method is. More than Cox… – Jo”

      That sounds suspiciously like an Appeal to Authority to me…

      The advice given by the Q&A panel was listen to the experts. Professor Brian Cox has scientific qualifications, Senator Malcolm Roberts does not.

      [Hmm ... "The advice given by the Q&A panel was listen to the experts." That sounds suspiciously like an Appeal to Authority to me... -Fly]

      89

      • #

        Exactly Twinot. You make my case for me. Thank you.

        115

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Jo Nova.

          “Exactly Twinot. You make my case for me. Thank you.”

          Well you and Senator Roberts might consider a right-wing non-science blogger such as Steve Goddard as your authority. Most would prefer to use scientists who have earned their academic credentials.

          46

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Professor Brian Cox has scientific qualifications”

        In a field totally unrelated to climate.

        He may as well have a doctorate in arts or something.

        94

    • #
      handjive

      Re: Cherry-picking

      Growing tips: Cherries need a cold climate and well-drained soil. The best time to plant them is in winter, when they are bare-rooted.
      . . .
      Think about it, Frank. As long as we have cherries to pick, the world is not getting warmer.

      6/7/2016: Record May cherry crop for Northwest

      8 Mar 2016: Australian cherry growers export bumper crop to China via the trade through Hong Kong

      27 June, 2016: Cherry bounty concerns farmers
      “The U.S. Department of Agriculture released the 2016 Michigan Cherry Production Forecast late last week, a document that forecasted Michigan’s sweet cherry crop could hit 21,000 tons, a 32-percent increase from the June 2015 forecast.”

      61

  • #
    pat

    can’t watch Q&A. it’s about as credible as The New Republic which is only read by “progressive” insiders.

    novel-length & totally in-credible – read as much as u can.
    “she” wins!

    15 Aug: New Republic: A World At War: We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
    By Bill McKibben
    The next president doesn’t have to wait for a climate equivalent of Pearl Harbor to galvanize Congress. Much of what we need to do can—and must—be accomplished immediately, through the same use of executive action that FDR relied on to lay the groundwork for a wider mobilization. The president could immediately put a halt to drilling and mining on public lands and waters, which contain at least half of all the untapped carbon left in America. She could slow the build-out of the natural gas system simply by correcting the outmoded way the EPA calculates the warming effect of methane, just as Obama reined in coal-fired power plants. She could tell her various commissioners to put a stop to the federal practice of rubber-stamping new fossil fuel projects, rejecting those that would “significantly exacerbate” global warming. She could instruct every federal agency to buy all their power from green sources and rely exclusively on plug-in cars, creating new markets overnight. She could set a price on carbon for her agencies to follow internally, even without the congressional action that probably won’t be forthcoming. And just as FDR brought in experts from the private sector to plan for the defense build-out, she could get the blueprints for a full-scale climate mobilization in place even as she rallies the political will to make them plausible. Without the same urgency and foresight displayed by FDR—without immediate executive action—we will lose this war…
    https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii

    the new owner of TNR:

    Wikipedia: Win McCormack
    He is chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon’s President’s Council and a member of the Obama for President Oregon Finance Committee. McCormack was also chosen as Alternate Delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention…
    McCormack and Carol Butler hosted a fundraising dinner for Hillary Clinton in August 2015.
    In February of 2016 McCormack purchased The New Republic from previous owner Chris Hughes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_McCormack

    71

    • #
      James Murphy

      I think Bill McKibben is agitating to mobilise like Germany did in WWII – by setting up an awful lot of camps for people he doesn’t like.

      11

  • #
    Transport by Zeppelin

    Q&A! I know why I will never watch this poor excuse for informative TV. Nothing but a cog in the ABC proaganda machine.

    My question is, why on Earth did Malcolm Roberts agree to appear on a social engineering project that target hits non conformist

    122

    • #

      A politician needs an audience

      65

    • #
      philthegeek

      why on Earth did Malcolm Roberts agree to appear

      Maybe he’s not a very bright boy? I mean…..no one could have seen it coming surely???

      52

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        philthegeek.

        “Maybe he’s not a very bright boy? I mean…..no one could have seen it coming surely???”

        Politicians can’t resist free publicity is my guess, he must have realized he would be owned by Professor Brian Cox. He may not have realized the program would go viral around the globe – I think the ABC have removed the location blockers on this one, people from overseas have told me they can see the video on the website. And it has been copied to youtube. So now if anyone Googles Senator Malcolm Roberts ABC Q&A will pop up.

        43

  • #
    pat

    smoke and mirrors:

    15 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: The clean energy companies way outperforming fossil fuels
    Clean200 index guides investors towards climate-friendly firms like Philips, Tesla and Xinjiang, which collectively provided annual returns of 22% over the past decade
    Enter the Clean200 (LINK), an index of firms worth at least US$1 billion apiece that are profiting from the low carbon transition…
    The rankings are based on data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance…
    Andrew Behar, CEO, As You Sow, report’s co-author: “The list is far from perfect, but begins to show how it’s possible to accelerate and capitalize on the greatest energy transition since the industrial revolution.”
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/15/the-clean-energy-companies-way-outperforming-fossil-fuels/

    15 Aug: ABC: Tesla removes ‘autopilot’ from China website after Beijing crash
    Tesla has removed the word “autopilot” and a Chinese term for “self-driving” from its China website after a driver in Beijing who crashed in “autopilot” mode complained that the carmaker overplayed the function’s capability and misled buyers…
    Both terms previously appeared several times on the site.
    Instead a phrase that translates as “self-assisted driving” is used…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/tesla-removes-autopilot-from-china-website-after-crash/7736470

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Just a few points about Q&A.

    Brian Cox couldn’t be more wrong.
    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the slight warmming since the end of the LIA.
    The Eemian IG temps were much higher and SLs were many metres higher than our temp today.
    Also the Holocene climate optimum had SL about 1.5 metres higher than today. And temps were higher as well.
    The so called drowning islands lie is nonsense. Most of the islands have increased in size over the last 40 years.
    The Lloyd study found that the average variation in temp per century over the last 8,000 years was about 1 C.
    And HAD 4 shows just 0.8 C warming in the last 166 years or about 0.5 C a century.
    Even the much adjusted GISS data shows just 0.7 C rise per century since 1880.
    The Concordia Uni study shows just 0.32 C warming per centrury in the last 216 years.
    Gre Hunt is stupid to endorse the fra-dulent COP 21 agreement. Even Dr Hansen called it BS and fra-d and using more bird mincers and fryers will not change anything by 2040 or 2100. But it will waste 100 trillion $ by 2100 and perhaps reduce temps by an unproven 0.5 to 0.17 C. IOW no measureable difference at all.
    To finish, using Nick Stoke’s data there has been no stat significant warming in the satellite temps for over 22 and 23 years.

    123

    • #
      Neville

      I should add to the above that satellite data shows that the SP region has been cooling since Dec 1978.
      Two new PR studies have found that the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling for at least 18 years. And a new NASA study has found temps from the bottom of Greenland are about 10 degrees higher than surface temps.

      74

  • #
    Another Ian

    Slightly different tangent – not only in Queensland

    “the-distortions-and-mistruths-about-land-clearing-just-keep-on-coming”

    http://www.beefcentral.com/news/the-distortions-and-mistruths-about-land-clearing-just-keep-on-coming/

    62

  • #
    pat

    inconvenient truths:

    15 Aug: DesmogBlog: Stephen Buranyi: Exclusive: Councils Across England Have Slashed Climate Change Staff After Funding Cuts, Analysis Reveals
    Data from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests regarding the number of dedicated staff working solely on climate change in 38 councils – representing over ten percent of principal councils in England – shows more than half have cut climate and sustainability positions since 2011.
    Some, including cities such as Southampton and Nottingham, no longer have any staff working directly on climate issues…
    “I would suggest that the whole carbon agenda no longer exists at the local level” said another employee who has worked on environmental policy in local government for over a decade. He said carbon tracking initiatives he had proposed had failed to move past council, and his work was now entirely dependent on providing cost savings first…
    One former climate officer from southern England claimed that some councils were so understaffed they were even failing to complete their mandatory greenhouse gas emission monitoring reports to DECC, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (now the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, or BEIS)…
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is now working with just one-third of the core staff it had in 2006…
    Elizabeth Wilson, Reader in environmental planning at Oxford Brookes University: “This government certainly won’t fund anything to do with climate change,” she added. “We’re not really doing anything to prepare for the future.”
    http://www.desmog.uk/2016/08/15/exclusive-councils-across-england-have-slashed-climate-change-staff-after-funding-cuts-analysis-reveals

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Damning with faint praise?

    Paywalled to me but the current headline at

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

    calls him “Brian Roberts”

    32

  • #
    pat

    no austerity cuts for the CAGW jet-setters…as yet!

    14 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Crib notes: UN science body to discuss 1.5C climate target
    A look ahead to the week in ***climate politics.
    Forget Rio, Geneva is where the world’s most important record will face a critical test this week.
    Around 85 climate scientists will be in Switzerland to discuss work on the UN’s IPCC 1.5C report.
    The study is expected to detail the impacts of warming to this level, and outline greenhouse gas pathways to ensure global average temperatures don’t smash through 1.5C for good.
    The report is due in 2018…
    UK prime minister Theresa May is currently on hols hiking in the Swiss Alps, where she may observe the fast retreat of European mountain glaciers.
    Back home Stephen Cornelius, WWF-UK climate chief says her government should demonstrate its commitment to the Paris deal and avoiding 1.5C by ratifying the pact now…
    Thrilla in Manila?
    Staying with 1.5C, expect a report this week from the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) (a group of 50+ small and developing countries) on why efforts to avoid that level of warming makes economic sense…
    The CVF is meeting in Manila to celebrate the Philippines handing on the CVF baton (it’s the Olympics we can get away with these puns) to Ethiopia…
    Keep your ears peeled (or blocked) if (Philippines President) Duterte rocks up…
    ‘Historic” flooding in Louisiana: 3 dead and thousands rescued.
    Here’s a snippet from the BBC’s coverage: ”This is a flood of epic proportions,” JR Shelton, the mayor of Central City told The Advocate newspaper. “When we talk about floods now, we’ll talk about the great flood of 2016. everything else pales in comparison.”
    Trump watch…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/14/crib-notes-un-science-body-to-discuss-1-5c-climate-target/

    30

  • #
    Analitik

    They seem very slow in putting up the transcript for these shows. The questions presented were typically shallow
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm

    Here’s last week’s QANDA for the US election with the transcript finally up.
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4494335.htm

    22

  • #
    pat

    haha…we’re the clever ones, says Hannam:

    16 Aug: SMH: Peter Hannam: Malcolm Roberts leaves NASA ‘flummoxed’ with Q&A climate claims
    It probably takes a lot to faze Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, but the outlandish views of Malcolm Roberts, the newly elected One Nation senator, can do it from half a world away…
    Roberts wasn’t to know it but NASA’s regular monthly readings on global temperature were just hours from being released.
    A glance at the chart below released overnight suggests herculean efforts would be needed to make the 1930s look warmer than any recent decade, let alone the current one. Note too the prediction for this year…
    Meanwhile, Schmidt, the climate modeller who is also the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was clearly following the live Australian debate on Q&A.
    In rapid succession, Schmidt fired out a dozen tweets, bemused by the claims of manipulation…
    Other data out on Monday from the Japan Meteorological Agency – no doubt corrupted too, in Roberts’ musings – echoed NASA’s results…
    For Australian voters, the nightmare of electing Roberts and One Nation to the senate has just begun.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/malcolm-roberts-leaves-nasa-'flummoxed'-with-q&a-climate-claims-20160815-gqt9a4

    30

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    I enjoyed it so much I watched it twice. To be honest I thought Senator Roberts would do better than that, I guess a panel is not his strength.

    It is now getting airplay overseas. It will be interesting to see how the blogs will respond.

    1114

    • #
      Dennis

      I am not a fan of Q&A but used to watch it years ago. I lost interest because of presenter Tony Jones talking over panelists, refusing to let them make their points and allowing other panelists to go on the attack against the token conservative or two on the panels.

      121

    • #
      Frank

      Harry,

      He got quite a spanking , though some may see it as a badge of honour.

      Why do you think he would have performed better ?, he knows nothing about the topic.

      45

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Frank.

        “He got quite a spanking , though some may see it as a badge of honour.”

        Spanking? He was flayed alive then pegged out to die!

        If I was going to be a climate change denier, I would have presented the satellite data set and avoided the Conspiracy Theory.

        22

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The phrase being used in the UK, is “Kangaroo Court”, because it was four against one, with a hung jury. The Brits do so like it to be a fair contest. Unless it is an Ashes test match, of course.

      120

    • #
      AndyG55

      “A member of the audience asked Prof Cox to address Mr Roberts’ request for proof of a human element in climate change.

      “I could sit here and read out figures until I’m blue in the face,” Prof Cox said.

      “The absolute, absolute consensus ……

      Brian Cox… zero evidence produced, falls back on the fabricated consensus argument…

      Very sad science from Cox…… Most embarrassing.

      People are picking up on this lack of any evidence, and starting to laugh.

      A NORWEGIAN BLUE… a dead parrot, nailed to his perch !

      33

    • #
      bullocky

      Harry Twinotter; ‘It is now getting airplay overseas’

      It’s a pity it was such a rigged format (6 pro-CAGW versus 1 sceptic and a matching audience). Australia may be regarded poorly in this light. Malcom Roberts’ creditable performance may not redeem our fortunes.

      10

  • #
    pat

    16 Aug: Australian Academy of Science: Press Release: The Science of Climate Change
    On this week’s episode of the ABC’s Q&A, Professor Brian Cox drew from the Australian Academy of Science’s ‘The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers’ during discussion…
    The science of climate change: Questions and answers’ was prepared by a working group of nine members co-chaired by Dr Ian Allison FAA and Professor Mike Raupach FAA FTSE. The document was also reviewed by an oversight committee of eight members chaired by Professor John Zillman AO FAA FTSE.
    (LINK) Read The science of climate change: Questions and answers
    https://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/science-climate-change

    15 Aug: Newsweek: Michael Slezak: Climate Change Chaos From Ocean Heatwaves Could Change Our Understanding of Global Warming
    (This story originally appeared on The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration)
    First seabirds started falling out of the sky, washing up on beaches from California to Canada. Then emaciated and dehydrated sea lion pups began showing up, stranded and on the brink of death.
    A surge in dead whales was reported in the same region, and that was followed by the largest toxic algal bloom in history seen along the Californian coast. Mixed among all that there were population booms of several marine species that normally aren’t seen surging in the same year.
    Plague, famine, pestilence and death was sweeping the northern Pacific Ocean between 2014 and 2015…
    http://www.newsweek.com/marine-heatwaves-climate-change-global-warming-490539

    15 Aug: Nature World News: Monica Antonio: Consequences of Climate Change: Flying Cockroaches Invade NYC as Heat Wave Intensifies

    30

  • #
    Ally

    I can only ever watch Q&A in parts as any real debate is always drowned out by name calling and catty laughter. Linda Burney drove me spare with her slow, almost slurred speech and constant tutting and murmuring when others spoke, particularly when Malcolm spoke her interjections just fed the predictable conjecture of the room.

    61

    • #
      Glen Michel

      To be fair Linda is coming from way back in the pack.Being a victim helps in left wing circles though.

      11

  • #
    pat

    A MUST-READ:

    16 Aug: Australian: Judith Sloan: Renewable energy target: emissions down, not in a good way
    Read my lips: Australia won’t meet its renewable energy target by 2020. In fact, it won’t get within cooee of the 33,000 gigawatt hours of electricity generated by defined renewable sources as negotiated by former environment minister Greg Hunt.
    And to think that Labor considered a target of 45,000GWh was achievable by 2020 — what a joke…
    By looking at the price of renewable energy certificates that underpin the RET, we also know the market doesn’t think the target will be met. The (large-scale) certificates are trading around $86, which is close to the maximum allowable cap.
    So what this means is the energy companies will end up simply buying RECs at the cap price and pass this through to wholesale electricity prices. In turn, retail prices also will rise even though there will be a huge shortfall in physical investment in renewable electricity generation. We will be paying for nothing.
    To be sure, there will be some new investments — even more wind farms in South Australia (pause for laughter) and one or two in Victoria.
    But the large energy companies are coming to the realisation that wind farms can be more trouble than they are worth. So a solar project in Queensland could eventuate, but don’t count on any significant wind farm investments in NSW or Queensland…
    The irony is that just as most of the rest of the world has hit peak renewables and is heading in other directions (new efficient coal-fired electricity plants are being built in Germany), we are still bound by the inefficient and inequitable RET…READ ALL
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/renewable-energy-target-emissions-down-not-in-a-good-way/news-story/82d973e0249f5069d013f420b922ac66

    16 Aug: WA Today: Emma Young: World-first trial lets WA residents sell their own excess solar power
    The technology behind virtual currency ‘bitcoin’ has enabled Perth to launch a world-first trial to let people with solar panels sell their excess electricity to each other, not back to the grid.
    Jemma Green, Research Fellow at Curtin University’s Sustainability Policy Institute, is chairwoman of start-up Power Ledger, whose eight-week ‘virtual’ trial underway at National Lifestyle Villages in Busselton.
    ‘Blockchain’ software will show residents of 10 homes what would happen if they were to trade their electricity with their neighbours, how much they would make and how it would work.
    A similar virtual trial is being conducted in New York, but the company’s imminent ‘real’ trial with 80 homes in a second South West location, actually doing the transactions and moving the electricity, will be a world first, Ms Green says…
    At the moment Synergy pays seven cents per unit to people who sell their excess energy back to the grid. But if people then needed to buy more energy they still had to pay 26 cents per unit.
    The trials will enable people to swap, sell or gift those units for somewhere between those two amounts…
    http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/worldfirst-trial-lets-wa-residents-sell-their-own-excess-solar-power-20160815-gqt423.html

    60

    • #
      Rick Will

      I was surprised to see such a candid and sensible view on renewables in the Australian. I have not followed Judith Sloan so a reporter to keep in mind. The comments section also has some interesting views. Malcolm Roberts gets a thumbs up there regarding his view on government accountability.

      16th August 2016 “Senator Malcolm Roberts” gets 419k Google hits. Will be interesting to see how his star rises! Influence requires visibility and he is already making solid progress on that measure.

      70

  • #
    pat

    best read in tandem with Judith Sloan’s Australian piece:

    16 Aug: ABC: Phil Staley: Latest wind farm approval could trigger a renewable energy surge
    The north Queensland man helping lead the production of Australia’s second largest wind and solar farm in South Australia said Queensland will soon see similar projects emerge…
    ***David Blake (DP Energy Australia) said Australia was starting to catch up with the rest of the world…
    Mr Blake who lives on the Atherton Tablelands said he was expecting wind farm developments closer to his home.
    “We’re certainly looking at some projects locally. I’d prefer not to disclose too much at this moment but this is my home and I’d love to see something closer to home so watch this space,” he said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/more-wind-farms-on-the-way-for-queensland/7736056

    30

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: BBC: Conor Macauley: Renewable energy: Experts investigate whistle-blower’s ‘green heating fraud’ claim
    Experts have begun checking whether businesses which took advantage of a lucrative green energy scheme have been defrauding the system.
    A whistle-blower claimed some clients intended to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds in subsidies.
    The plan involved installing wood boilers to heat empty buildings.
    Auditors said the scheme, which had been over generous and open to potential fraud, left taxpayers with a bill of at least £150m over five years.
    The Department of the Economy said it had no plans to publish an internal review of how the scheme had been run…
    A separate independent audit has been commissioned by the economy minister, Simon Hamilton.
    It is expected to report in the Autumn…
    ***It was part of a Northern Ireland Executive initiative to meet renewables targets…READ ON
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37084957

    20

  • #
    pat

    whoa! we should all pay for South Australia’s renewable energy folly!!!!

    16 Aug: Adelaide Advertiser: Anthony Penney: COAG must come to the party on SA power price fix
    (Anthony Penney is Executive Director, Industry and Government Engagement at Business SA)
    BUSINESS SA represents a broad church of businesses across the state and energy costs are an increasing concern, even for many businesses where they have not historically been an expensive input.
    This is no surprise given the average small business electricity bill has doubled in a decade, largely driven by higher network costs and since mid- 2015, higher generation prices….
    Add to this the difficulty some households are facing paying their electricity bills and the negative flow-on impact to consumption.
    If you can’t pay to keep your fridge on, you’re hardly going to go out and buy a new one…
    Businesses can’t just absorb these additional costs and pass them on, whether that be through domestic or international prices…
    The fact that South Australia generates more than 40 per cent of its energy needs from renewable sources is a positive outcome ***for the whole nation as it strives to meet its 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.
    When the COAG Energy Council meets next this Friday, it must collaborate to ensure that as Australia transitions to a low-carbon future, ***that costs fall proportionately across the nation and that the investment drivers for new renewable generation in any given state reflect the impacts on the broader volatility in each state’s network and what it means for prices paid by each state’s consumers…
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/coag-must-come-to-the-party-on-sa-power-price-fix/news-story/2a4120b173a9aa2165344b639018e817

    50

  • #
    Dennis

    Re Australian Broadcasting Commission, the good news is that right now preselection of candidates to be appointed to the ABC Board of Directors is underway, at last the opportunity to change direction.

    41

  • #
    AndyG55

    Great post at NoTricksZone !!

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/15/abundant-scientific-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-made-up-concept/#sthash.avAfxEVV.dpbs

    abundant-scientific-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-made-up-concept

    106

    • #
      Dennis

      The British Met Office chose the last days before Christmas 2012 to release to media a statement announcing that global warming had “stalled” during 1998, no doubt their climate change personnel hoped most news outlets would ignore the announcement.

      The release footnote claimed that global warming was certainly going to restart in the future.

      91

  • #
    Graham

    So sad that science has become such an uncritical club. Could the physicist Brian cox please rely less on consensus and more on maths:

    According to the IPCC, less than a third of the rise in CO2 since 1750 is attributable to human causes. 21% of the increase is due to fossil fuel burning and cement production, plus a further 10.3% from changes in land use. This means that the vast majority (almost 70%) of observed CO2 increases in the last 275 years are natural in origin. This is what the numbers from the IPCC state, although funnily enough you don’t see this in the summary for policy makers.

    Follow my logic:
    IPCC WG1 AR5: The Physical Science Basis Chapter 6 page 467 states the following
    Average CO2 concentration in 1750 = 278 ppm vs 390.5 ppm in 2011: That’s a 112.5 ppm increase

    On the same page it goes on to state that human output of CO2 between 1750 and 2011 was 555 Petagrams (1 x 10^15 grams). Why on earth they felt Petagrams was a suitable unit to switch to is beyond me, unless to deliberately obfuscate. Regardless, 375 Petagrams is attributable to fossil fuel and cement production and 180 for changes in land use.
    It further states, that of this total emitted since 1750, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere today being in total including land use: 2.4*10^17 grams .

    According to NASA, the dry mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.1*10^18 kg (About 5 million Petagrams, but lets stick with scientific notation for now!). This is 5.1*10^21g

    By weight (not volume): this is 75.47% N2, 23.19% O2, 1.28% Ar, and about 0.059% CO2. The respective masses of these gasses in grams per mol is in order: 28.02; 32; 39.94, 44.01. So we can now figure out the number of molecules of each gas in the atmosphere (in Mole) being the mass percentage times the total mass (5.1*10^21g) divided by the molar mass. I’ve done the math for you:
    N2 = 1.37*10^20 mols
    O2 = 3.70 * 10^19 mols
    Ar = 1.63*10^18 mols
    CO2 = 6.86*10^16 mols

    Total number of molecules in the atmosphere is therefore ~1.76*10^20 times Avogadro’s number = a lot. but just going with mols, you can see that the molecular composition of the atmosphere is what we’re more used to seeing, 78% N2, 21% O2, 0.9% Ar, 390ppm CO2. so the maths checks out. Now onto humanity’s contribution.

    Our total CO2 output since 1750 that remains in the atmosphere according to the IPCC above is 2.4*10^17 grams. Divided by CO2′s molecular mass of 44.01 grams per mole, gives us 5.45*10^15 mols CO2.

    As we calculated above, the total Mols of stuff in the Atmosphere is 1.76*10^20. 5.45*10^15 / 1.76*10^20 = 31 parts per million. Of every million molecules in the atmosphere, according to the IPCC, 31 of them are due to our emissions since 1750.

    BUT! Total CO2 has increased by 112.5 ppm during this time. If 31 ppm is due to humanity, then what is driving the other 81.5 ppm increase?

    Given that global CO2 emission growth is tapering off, yet Mauna Loa observations continue to rise, I think it’s pretty clear that much larger natural processes are occurring.
    Even if the tenuous link between a trace gas and catastrophic or other warming was as compelling as the consensus argue (It’s not) the leap between that and our contribution is even greater still…

    112

  • #
    Trev

    Brian Cox’s graph was an ocean and land heat index not temperature data – danger Will Robinson, how is the ‘index’ generated?

    Prof Cox also said because we are looking into the future we need models. I have heard him use this argument before. Well we will always be looking into the future and there the models will never be falsifiable – therefore they are not scientific. How have the models done in the previous two decades, well NASA said 0.2 degrees per decade – no pause mentioned. So the models are doing very poorly.

    I have heard Cooks argument re less heat escaping and concur less heat than what, how is it measured, how long has it been measured and I just love how we use heat now. Well we don’t measure heat we measure temperature – this is a slight of hand.

    162

  • #
    Bob

    Q&A, or “qanda” = “Questions And No Decent Answers”!

    70

  • #
  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    On radio the other day I heard a woman describe Brian Cox as “The thinking woman’s Viagra”.
    Must be a word association thing, mixing Brian with Brain and Cox with the plural of something sexual.
    Geoff.

    30

  • #
    handjive

    2015 report: The science of climate change by The Australian Academy of Science

    Thanks to commentator pat above for the link, here is the ‘report’ Cox threw at Roberts.

    Via a summary of Q&A by the ABC has this quote on “the pause”:

    Round 1: A pause in global warming

    Professor Cox:

    “I brought the graph.
    “Let me tell you where the pause is.
    The pause that’s often quoted, if you take this point here, which is about 1997, I think, and you ignore 2015-2016.
    You can choose that point and you can draw a slightly straighter trend line on there.

    But that’s a misunderstanding.”
    ~ ~ ~
    What the report says:

    Box 2.2: Has climate warming recently stopped?

    “According to most estimates, the rate of average surface warming has slowed since 2001, despite ongoing rises in greenhouse gases.”
    Some models predict that, when the current slowdown ends, renewed warming will be rapid.

    > Did Cox even read this before he threw it? He didn’t quote it.
    . . .
    As Roberts said, “”We’ve had a pause in this so-called warming for now 21 years, depends how you measure it, 21 years.”

    NASA 1990 : No Global Warming – Surface Temperature Record Should Be Replaced By More Accurate Satellites

    31

  • #
    pat

    Hannam called Cox a “rock star”, BBC call him a “celebrity scientist”. on this rare occasion, BBC is allowing comments. almost 500 so far, & plenty unimpressed by Cox and in favour of scepticism:

    16 Aug: BBC: Professor Brian Cox clashes with Australian climate sceptic
    The celebrity scientist was dumbfounded by Mr Roberts’ claim that climate change data was manipulated by Nasa…
    Mr Roberts has previously claimed that the United Nations is using climate change to lay the foundations for an unelected global government…
    When asked earlier this month if he still believed the UN was trying to impose a worldwide government through climate change policy, Mr Roberts answered: “Definitely”…
    Science Minister Greg Hunt was also on the show and was asked to clarify the government’s position on climate change…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37091391

    10

  • #
    You're kidding me

    1 presenter, 5 panelists. Even a lowly arts student knows you can’t get 1 against 6 from those numbers.

    51

  • #
    Equipoise

    I quite like Brian Cox. I’m nearly sixty and can still pull young women. Even though he isnt’t quite Feynman he’s still pretty good for kids that might think that there is a universe that welcomes every mistake. He doesn’t know shit in spite of everybody knowing that a glass box filled with CO2 will get hot when irradiated.

    10

  • #
    • #
      Rick Will

      It is worth reading the comments on the Daily Mail report. It seems Brian Cox is not particularly well regarded in the UK. This comment gave me a new word!

      “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.”

      21

  • #
    Angry

    Brian Cox got the E = mc² equation wrong in a first year lecture !!!

    http://thetab.com/uk/manchester/2015/11/20/brian-cox-got-the-emc-%C2%B2-equation-wrong-in-a-first-year-lecture-16156

    What a dumass this character “brian cox” is!!

    31

  • #
    Jay-sen Phang

    keep on ridiculing the warmists, satirising the science and patting yourselves on the back climate skeptics. dont be concerned about the pressing environmental issues and measurable data that is evident to those of us who participate in real observations and life experiences. Make sure you criticise those brain washed kiddies and communist grown ups while you are at it too becuase if they are wrong you must be right. play the outnumbered underdog card whenever applicable and crowd together under your collective fact proof umbrella to wear out the storm of adulterated scientific consensus and international governmental conspiracy.
    But, please play no part in our consensus based politics or authoritative science. feel free to extract yourself from my society at anytime soon.

    (You failed to make a coherent comment about the blog post) CTS

    23

    • #

      Jay-sen,

      It’s exactly because I worry about the poor, the sick and environmental degradation that I have to speak up. Cheats are stealing money from the people.
      Anytime you want to discuss the data feel free. We discuss facts here, do you have any?

      42

    • #
      AndyG55

      “But, please play no part in our consensus based politics “

      Oh so its “YOUR” consensus politics is it..

      The very far left wing socialist totalitarians.

      Please remind me what percentage the Greens and communists got in the last election. ;-)

      43

    • #
      AndyG55

      “keep on ridiculing the warmists”

      Ok, if that is your wish :-)

      43

    • #
      AndyG55

      “dont be concerned about the pressing environmental issues ”

      We are FAR more concerned about REAL environmental issues than most alarmists are.

      The rabid destruction of bird life by wind turbines, for one,

      not to mention the devastation cause to forests by biofuel plantations.

      There are MANY environmental issues that need to be laid fairly at the feet of the alarmist scammers and hypocrites.

      43

    • #
      sophocles

      , satirising the science …

      Wrong. We satirise the pseudo-science . There is a lot of real science discussed here.

      11

  • #
    Goudron

    Love the personal attacks on Brian Cox – I think that’s ad hominem isn’t it? But would love also to see some peer reviewed ‘empirical data’ from those opposing the consensus…..hell will freeze over before then I s’pose.
    [You are probably right. Hell will indeed freeze over before you will see some peer reviewed 'empirical data' proving that something did not happen. The reason for that, is that it is impossible to prove a negative - to prove that something does not exist - it is a logical fallacy, you see, and it is generally used by people who have little, or no, grasp of logic. But thank you for contributing -Fly]

    22

  • #
    ScotstsmaninUtah

    Climate Skeptics are like the 101st Airborne Division – always surrounded

    Malcolm Roberts was definitely surrounded in this battle, but I liked his calm and honest responses. He reminds me of the guys in the 101st Airborne , always surrounded by the enemy, but so used to being outnumbered it’s normal :D

    Brian Cox and Lily Serna are presented to viewers as a professional physicist and Mathematician however they do both sound a lot ;like Bill Nye in their presentations.

    Cox’s “over the top” reverence for NASA-GISS is very disturbing, this is not a good attribute to have as a scientist.

    Jo thanks for posting

    21

  • #
    Bob

    Jennifer Marohasy’s comments on that Q&A:

    “Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures”

    http://ipa.org.au/news/3544/brian-cox-confused-on-more-than-global-temperatures

    21

    • #
      Rick Will

      If this statement from Marohasy:
      “But interestingly – beyond experiments undertaken by a chemist over 100 years ago – there is no real proof beyond unreliable computer simulation models.”
      is referring to Arrhenius then I believe it is incorrect. He did not do any experimental work on CO2 sensitivity. He simply used the experimental work of others to postulate the temperature sensitivity of various concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. His paper is no more than number crunching.

      11

  • #
    Ron Palmer

    I saw this Cox fellow on the Q&A program trying to win an argument by throwing papers at Senator Roberts. Childish tantrum like behaviour, Jones as the Moderator should have thrown Cox out, disrespectful and dumb. Cox is a clown

    01

  • #
    Bob

    Delingpole on the Q & A episode:

    “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/

    01

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The audience already knew the answer

    Having watched Q&A and listened to Cox’s argument concerning CO2 and the way Cox presented a graph , plus the way the audience hooted and cheered at Cox indicated that for them they all know about the Eart’s climate system.

    No amount of evidence will sway this …..

    00