Climate Change: Professor Brian Cox clashes with sceptic Malcolm Roberts - BBC News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Professor Brian Cox has verbally sparred with a newly elected Australian politician who believes climate change is a global conspiracy. The British physicist behind BBC's Wonders of the Universe was a guest on the adversarial panel show Q&A. Also on the Australian TV show was senator-elect Malcolm Roberts from the anti-immigration One Nation party. The celebrity scientist was dumbfounded by Mr Roberts' claim that climate change data was manipulated by Nasa.
Please subscribe HERE bit.ly/1rbfUog
Islamic State's 'Most Wanted' • 'ISLAMIC STATE'S' MOST...
World In Pictures • WORLD IN PICTURES
Big Hitters • MUST SEE VIDEOS
Just Good News • Just good news
This is a BBC programme, therefore must be viewed with several handfuls of scepticism.
Brian Cox is literally a physicist, I assure you you can trust him
a professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science.
Vs
A literal politician with no scientific background who worked in the Australian coal industry.
And you want to be skeptical of the scientist and the news network?
How could i forgot that humans caused the ice age, of course humans are responsible for climate change.
I never trust the BBC. Carefully selected panel. Carefully selected audience.
@@AlanCurtis-t6vlet me show you how dumb you are. You literally didn’t checked the credentials of the scientist on the panel and took into consideration that most of not all scientists agree with him. It’s like you guys just don’t wanna believe them so you will look up for any reasons to double down your stupid arguments.
How can you claim "absolute consensus", when right before you there's a scientist who disagrees?
It's quite easy.
You can still say there's absolute consensus on the radiator keeping an engine cool, even if there's an insane mechanic outside who insists they don't keep an engine cool.
You're very much allowed to disagree with experts, you just need to know more than they do.
@@thejackbancroft7336science doesn't work by consensus it works on evidence/experimentation and is a method which imperfect self corrects slowly over time. Consensus is a political term. There are many of your so called scientific consensuses (bad theories) in history that have proven totally incorrect, clock work newtonian universe, miasma, aether and fixists in geology to name but a few. Not forgetting of course Galileo who no doubt you'd have call a conspiracy theorist for disagreeing with the well established consensus of supposed experts that earth was at the centre of our solar system.
@@thejackbancroft7336 They should bring Dr. Curry in one of the top climatologists in the world, he would be smashed to bits. She is the most well known sceptic , but no one debates her, not even for laughs, its very weird and strange, and she actually wants to debate she said it in interviews. Strange.
@@badtuber1654
I emailed Judith Curry in 2018 to confirm her views on climatology. She maintained "I've never said that climate change is a hoax, but I know orders of magnitude more about climatology than Greta Thunberg"
That's obviously true. And you would not disagree with that.
That means that your own authority that you chose, conceded that climate change was not a hoax 6 years ago.
So your own choice of authority admits that it's not a hoax.
Are you gonna pull another authority that you don't understand out of your ass? Or are you going to consider the possibility that you may have been wrong?
@@thejackbancroft7336 based
Why have you muted out all the responses given by the sceptic?
We all know why!
To conserve brain cells
@@stevep4383 definitely, why are these people even invited, it's already too hard to convince the society about climate change, and these morons make the job even harder.
@@stevep4383are your braincells Disposable use?
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Dissent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
- Attempts to connect this comment to illogical and unsupported narratives such as 'flat earth'.
Its like arguing with the religious.
Or an Atheist
@@tracer0017 if show something to atheist he will change his views
@@Prat-zi1ou Liberal or Conservative?
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Dissent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
- Attempts to connect this comment to illogical and unsupported narratives such as 'flat earth'.
It is quasi-religious.
Dear Brian- could you include in your evidence all the climate predictions based on ‘scientific consensus’ that have been consigned to ideological land fill sites.
There's been a consensus on this for more than half a century. If you're talking about a coming Ice Age in the 1970s, that was never agreed on by the experts but was merely promoted heavily in the nedia.
Dear Brian could you tell us how many degrees were marked on the graph was it a few or was it the full number on a thermometer
@@apostatereacts The coming of an Ice Age was taught in schools.
@@brizziefritz4794 Not only in schools, but was touted by Carl Sagan and other big mouth, I mean uh top scientists. The CO2 theory of the " greenhouse effect" has been thoroughly disproved, but the greenies haven't got the news. CO2 rises following a warming, not before.
So no weatherman can predicted an accurate forecast for more than a few days but the Climate crazies know what will happen in 100 years😅😅😅
That's because climate is easier to predict than weather. "Oh you can't accurately predict if it's going to warmer or not a week from now, then you can't say it will be colder in winter"
Its absolute madness but this is the way they can control people!
@@erwinheisenberg8821 that's such a lazy analogy, winter is not a climate. Climate is the average temperature in a certain area measured during the span of at least 40 years. So yes, you've got to have an idea about weather if you're going to predict climate based on the weather, or vice versa
We can't accurately predict weather because there's so much data to go through and simulate. With the climate however, we know that human activity can change it because it's a very simple concept, but there's nothing humans can do to change the weather next week. They're 2 separate systems of issue.
I tried to follow the science, but I found none, so I followed the money and found the science.
Luv it!
keep that tin foil on nice and tight
@@stevep4383 I don't have to as I know the people pushing the green scam are getting very rich, have to you seen the tide gauge in Sydney harbor, 114 years of continuous records on the most stable continent in the world, I bet Obama looked ay it before he bought his beach front mansion. maybe you should check it out.
@@bigboy9693 Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Such a compelling argument. Overwelming scientific consensus or 'some guy' from Sydney who's looked at a tide gauge. Tough choice
@@stevep4383 Hopefully you will still be around when all this 'Climate Change Caused By Anthropological Co2 Emissions' is 'Debunked'!
But, from what I've read when past declarations have been 'Debunked' ('The Sun Revolves Round The Earth',.....'Travelling on a train faster than 15MPH will cause asphyxiation'), etc, etc, your (As always) ilk will disappear like the mist in the morning Sun! Lol!
If you think Cox is talking sh*t…. Your right
You’re*
@@brandonszpot8948
A correction that would actually afd something to col's point would be "[unscientific total] sh*t"
But you do your grammar thing and carry on believing graphs with arbitrary starting points and that "scientific consensus" is part of the scientific method.
@@gnoelalexmay Like all those computer models. Even a high school computer student knows the result is only a reflection of the information you put in. Funny how the computers seem to always give the answers that attract the big grant money, isn't it?
@@gnoelalexmayyou can see the correlation of temperature with carbon dioxide very clearly. You can see how it goes up during the Industrial revolution, and recently with the developing world. The rise in such a short space of time, perfectly correlated, is no coincidence.
@@HenryLobber
I don't want to make assumptions, but in case you aren't aware (as I wasn't until a couple years ago, and would have totally shared your opinion), there are some "Inconvenient truths" around the CO2 hypothesis that are pretty crazy...
1. M Mann's "hockey stick" graph was fraudulent (made up of two separate data sets)
2. Historically, the correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 involves temperature rising first followed by rising CO2 - about 800 years later. (This blew my mind when I found out)
3. The level of atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution was _extremely_ low, and was affecting plant growth (which has improved greatly over recent decades due to rising CO2).
It took me a while of trying to make sure it wasn't just BS, and to get my head around the craziness of the narrative control - but having experienced "TheScience" during the C19 event, I knew it wasn't unfeasible.
Once you have a sceptical eye, there are some very credible experts (including many lifelong environmentalists) that find the narrative pretty absurd.
His graph doesn't go back to 1659. There are thermometer records from 1659-present for Central England. Shows many 1C rise and falls in the 18th and 19th centuries, and a 2C rise in average temperature from 1690-1730. Great that Cox got told that consensus is not science. It is not. A consensus is never overturned by a consensus!
Source: your ass
A temperature reading on one part of the planet does not = the global temperature. Scientific consensus is backed up by empirical evidence, any evidence to the contrary of human induced climate change has failed to pass the most basic level of scientific scrutiny.
Still waiting for the Maldives to be under water. How many years have they been peddling that nonsense?
Well you should wait a little more, a lot of good predictions done in 1980s by fossil fuels corps are becoming true. So maybe this year's heat cycle has caused your brain to seize but hopefully you will get through it.
@@megalodon6108 what would make you think it is nonesense?
It's expected to be under water 80 years from now. Sea levels have been rising one inch per decade, Maldives are 1 meter above sea levels, so it will take a long time before they are under water, but it WILL happen if temperatures continue to rise.
6.5 years later and the world is still not on fire
What are you an idiot
Australia would like a word.
Didn’t age well huh?😂
Erm the last year having 42 c in Britain was not normal. Our entire country got shrivelled to dry brown. 6.5 years later, it has warmed our northern home faster than we predicted.
@@garethlawton5278 How do you define 'not normal''? You're basing it off of 130 years of climate data. That is absolutely nothing. Total nonsense. Humans taking their lifespan for the lifespan of the planet.
It didn't reach 42°C. It peaked at 40.3°C. Barely stayed above 40°C for a couple of minutes.
" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former "
And if you haven't figured out that the entire mainstream media is bought and paid for and is basically a perception programming operation you definitely fall within the category of the former.
Talking of human stupidity, this idiot flew thousands of miles to ironically say our co2 emissions is warming the planet! Stupid people don't grasp irony sadly.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they argue with you, then you win....
@@arbanaskocudo NO! Then they try to assasinate you. Recent events prove that.
BBC + Brian Cox + a graph on a piece of paper. 😂
@Peter Do you really want to talk about how Cox deceives people while you yourself are at it? The issue of global warming (I repeat: GLOBAL WARMING) has nothing to do with a local heat event a hundret years ago. It is true that the hottest years on record were in the last two decades. And the span between heat records becomes shorter and shorter.
That's not CO2, that's the amount of money he's spent on Botox.
@Peter. According to Prince Charles, we have only 10 years to save the planet. If people want to talk about deceit, the climate change activists could do themselves a favour and stop repeating that hysteria every decade.
Didn’t Al Gore say Manhattan would be underwater by 2020? 😂😂
@@reasonableguy9090 These alarmists and doomsday cultists posing as credible scientists really do need to fuck off and let the rest of us live our lives. My grandparents and parents were weary of their lies in 90s, we're now into the 2020s.
@Peter Youre confusing things here, and I dont blame you, takes quite a lot to get behind it, but allow me to explain.
First of all, the "peak days" are not all that important. Whilst the number of them grows as the climate gets warmer, they are not the most problematic factor (even though, for us humans, they mean an increase in fatalities due to heatstroke). What is of staggering importance is the overall increase of temperature, which may deplace seasons or change them, causing famines and other nasty things in the immediate future.
What's also important is humidity. For instance, in death valley, with sufficient water present, a relatively athletic person would be totally fine at 53 degrees C, whereas, in the Iranian city of Bandar-E Mahshahr, somewhere in 2015, 100.000 people were on the brink of dying because the temperature had risen to 46 degrees C, and that, coupled with the humidity present (which was about 50%), which keeps humans from being able to sweat properly, was very, very, very dangerous indeed.
So please, be careful. Absolute numbers dont always mean much. There's a lot of contexts to take into account here.
Its raining in London today, same as the last 6000 years.
Okay?...
It's pronounced londonstan
@@TheMassacreOfTheBanuQurayzahQu it's normal
Oh dude, I bet you take off your shoes and socks to count to 20......
@@ceeemm1901 I bet you are gullible
A lecture from Prof Brian Cox, whose carbon footprint is horrendous.
as opposed to yourself, who can't afford to travel. LOL
My God, he almost threw his handbag at MR!
@@jaykay789
Poverty shaming. How progressive.
@@trackdusty You have a handbag? OK, who cares.
Things can only get better
Disappointed in you brian Cox, I thought you were more than that. ‘You can’t argue with the consensus’ 🙄
What did you expect, he's one of those meaningless pop scientists who are hailed as brilliant people because they go around on TV explaining sCiEnCe to simpletons like the ones in the audience, filled with enthusiasm and fake benevolence a la ''science is fascinating and everyone can do it!''.
Just another slimly shill working for the net zero fraudsters. He’ll be judged I. The end don’t worry
What he means is that no reputable scientist can present empirical data that conflicts with the results of studies carried out the majority of Climate Scientists. Their data and study results all confirm the existence of Climate Change.
What do you think is consensus? It's results replicated by thousands of researchers across the globe. What does you expect he say to a person who argue that "consensus isn't science" he is just playing with words and saying data is corrupted. Did he bring the uncorrupted data or some evidence NO?
@@user-vt4hd8hb4v yeah as if the other person is full of science. He is just playing with words and saying data is corrupted, he doesn't have anything to backup his claims. Besides the actual scientists are conducting research and don't have time to deal with this BS. 97% have published research supporting climate change known facts.
What year does the graph start? 1880? Not really showing the whole picture now are you Brian?
There are dozens of reconstructions of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels going back tens of thousands of years. They all show unprecedented warming correlated with soaring CO2 and other greenhouse emissions since the Industrial Revolution.
the start of the industrial revolution - when humans started emitting all it's carbon dioxide. We have temps going back 100's of thousands of years thanks to ice core sampling to confirm this rise over the past 200 years.
7 years later and the grey head scientist was a real hero.
The others are all clowns.
Malcolm Roberts?!! You must be off your feckin’ rocker, you idiot!
LMAO a politician trying to tell a scientist what science is. 😂🤣
Yeah you right scientist novadays are useless. 50 ya scientists said that ice age is coming.
@@kurwamacjebanapizda no they didn't say the ice age is coming a magazine did because they didn't have anyone competent to relay what scientist were doing.
@@3ron
Actually there was 2 groups with different predictions. One group predicted a warmer climate and another group predicted cooler climate. Most funny is that heading the “cooling” group was James Hansen who late became the spearhead of the global warming movement and the infamous man behind IPCCs climate gate(the tree ring false studies)
And btw. A scientist using words like consensus is probably lying. The hockey stick graph have been debunked numerous times. NOAA and NASA are known for “adjusting” the data to fit into their models, especially their temperature messurements that’s mostly homogenized.
he was an engineer
@@Purwapada
I talked my old teacher and he said, the cooling thesis were wide spread. It was forwarded by The American Meteorological Society and backed by NASA, CAS and even the CIA. And it was based on the same principles that todays models are based on. I then asked him if he trust the models, I think he’s still laughing. Brian Cox is a shill for the alarmists, he even call Michael Mann and James Hansen eminent scientists😂
“Where is the evidence?”
“Right here”
.....
“no”
If you ask 2x2=? And I respond 5 and show you a paper with the #5... you accept that?
@@taturayyour theory suggest that everything ever written is therefore opinion.
@@taturay What an absurd rebuttal, it's not the fact that it's on paper that makes it solid evidence. The source of the data presented is not contested, except from flat hearth level of conspiracy theory.
Are you also claiming that all the available data has been corrupted by the NASA? A space agency that relies greatly on fuel to achieve its job... Why would they do that? Where is your evidence for that? Why should anyone believe that?
I can produce graph as well. Is that count ?
@@georgepoz1789 I guess you mean "does that count?"
Well, it depends on the source of your graph. If your graph data is from a serious source and its matching other data from all around the world, I see no reason to doubt of its validity. Unless, of course, if you can present solid evidence for doing so...
Do you have solid evidence to distrust the temperature data that have been collected for all those years? Or are you just making up stuff out of your arse?
The climate grift is well explained in 'Climate the Movie: the Cold Truth', currently on Ivor Cummins channel. The BBC should be dismantled for its lack of questioning on such an important topic and joining in with upping the hysteria. Covid Mk 2.
The cast of scientists that appear in that movie have been shunned by the international scientific community. Not to mention that none of them are climate scientists- get a plumber to fix your sink, not a builder.
@@flareonscreen You said it all NOTHING. WELL DONE
Brain Cox has obviously ignored the many Jordan Peterson interviews with the Top Climate Scientists in the world, like Dr Richard Lindzen who assures us, there is No Climate crisis .
Brain's graph is like Brain himself A JOKE
Lindzen is not a top anything. He's a fraud paid by the fossil fuel ibdustry to lie to the public. As for Jordan Peterson, he's a crank with no authority on this aubject whatsoever. 😂
Richard Lindzen is no top climate scientist, also funded by fossil fuel money
Said the YT joke troll. 🤦♂️
at least you guys have the decency to sit down and talk about it. such panels with both opinions are rarely held in the US
Exactly Americans have a tendency for shouting matches when they don't agree with eachother.
@@iceomistar4302
There plenty of talks in America about the subject. Every country in the western world is now hysterical about the subject to the point that anybody who has concerns is shouted down.
@@bighands69 Agree 100%, they can’t handle the truth. They only ever mention the worst of the three models created by the same institution. This is akin to getting three insurance quotes and going with the most expensive one because you can then whinge about how much you had to pay! I wish people would wake up. Brian Cox has fallen into the same trap as Einstein, working for the system against the people! So how smart is he, to choose money over reality whilst perpetuating mis truths.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Dissent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
- Attempts to connect this comment to illogical and unsupported narratives such as 'flat earth'.
@@doobidoo095 Can’t really argue with any of that comment! Careful though, you could be labeled a racist. 😳😂🤣
The good ole hockey stick graph!
🎯
it's just politics and corruption nothing else
That's right. All the LIES and DISTORTIONS told by FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SHILLS for Big Oil Big Coal Big Gas and all the CENSORSHIP that those industries IN CAHOOTS WITH BIG GOVERNMENT have forced against renewable energy & electric cars. All the POLITICAL BIAS is in favor of continuing to do nothing against the status quo.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 The fossil fuel industry supports openly climate change politics, as they are set to get billions from new carbon taxes to cover their losses while the west is de-industrialized and industry is moved to China and India.
Frater Deus Est Veritas how do carbon polluters directly benefit from carbon taxes?
@@theultimatereductionist7592 ok but i didn't ask for a essay
Oh, now we know, thanks. Now let mommy have her computer back.
Consensus is due to money, it’s paid for therefore not valid
It's actually the climate science deniers who are all bought and paid by fossil fuel companies, as has been well-documented for decades. These powerful corporations don't want to damage their profits by reducing emissions, so they hire fake experts to spread doubt and confusion and delay any action to regulate them.
Most of scientific community has reached the consensus that the earth is round and they have been rejecting the geo-centric model put forth by many clerics and flat earth theories put forth by some very credible researchers.
Yea, poor fossil fuel interests - no money at all to combat climate change science! :( what will BP and Exxon ever do
@@cazman182 As if no climate "skeptic" ever arrived at a lecture or other public event in a high-performance sports car, wearing a designer suit due to the $$$ he was being paid by an oil or gas-funded think tank or policy institute. Nah, they're all brave crusaders for truth and scientific integrity 😆
@@vipultawde6350 No. There was consensus on the geocentric model. In fact, all major advances in science were against consensus. Galileo was against it, Einstein was against it, it's as if consensus should have no place in science. Using it to legitimize man made climate change is down right suspicious.
As much of a fan I am of Brian Cox. He is kinda demonstrating his ignorance of this stuff.. I mean absolute consensus? Whipping out a graph? There is plenty of graphs out there that conflict with the data and is pointing towards behaviour of our planetary glacial cycles of heating and cooling. Yes we are contributing to it but the sheer arrogance of these people is unbearable, to suggest we are the sole things responsible like we Godlike in the Universe.. He should know better but its understandable as its not really his area.
People need to stop thinking it's a politicians responsibility. They dont care! Companies need to fund this.
My God, he almost threw his handbag at MR!
It hardly takes Godlike powers to ruin a home, that's some really foolish thinking. I'm an idiot, and yet I could easily blow up my home, if I decide to go messing with my boiler, which is why it's illegal. We have the power to kill a vast amount of life on this planet and create a nuclear winter. Do you deny physics because you'd rather believe humans didn't have this ability? I wish we didn't have this power either, but hiding under the bed, like a frightened child, isn't going to make the monsters go away.
Ha ha ha ha ha
hahahahahah
Just do a modicum of research you complete and absolute plank.
Agreed. Enjoyed his stuff, but he is no open minded scientist
Malcolm Roberts the smartest man in the room.
Why are we here? this was 6 years ago
@@joshadsett4835 Yes good question its probably about the same time when Greta Thunberg twitted that “Climate change will wipe out all of humanity" in five years time.
And since this time, CO2 has gone up, temps have gone up. Any idea why? Malcolm is not smart enough to know yet he's been told.
@@scottekoontz its alarmist and like i am a catholic, I think sin ruins the world, an emerging pseudo religion says co2 ruins it, but plants love it, I love to breathe it out, and the yields feed hungry children in Africa. Its been much higher in the earth's history, and we managed to survive.
Only if he visits your house.
I remember hearing all this doomsday crap as a child.
It's almost comical now.
How did they manage it without computer models.
@@iancampbell6925 manage what? To make a load of nonsense predictions?
@@JwayT Everything appears as nonsense if you don't understand it. If you can't speak japanese does that make the langauge nonesense ?
@@Quickb3n Got some predictions for me then?
@@JwayT I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Leave it to the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.
As I sit here today for the second year running where it was 6 degrees yesterday at the end of April, and here we have Cox showing a graph which selected 1979 after 30 years of cooling.
Why didn’t he show the full 100 years?
There are dozens of reconstructions going back tens of thousands of years. Google Images might help you. 😂
@@apostatereacts the Vostok ice core data tells exactly what the relationship between temperature and co2 is. In fact all geological samples say the same, co2 lags temperature by 1200 years, and 12000 for inception.
The Lord of climate alarmism Al Gore deliberately misled people in his science fiction film by putting temperature first.
It’s second, and lags.
Unbelievable… I used to think Brian Cox was a scientist….
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Dissent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
- Attempts to connect this comment to illogical and unsupported narratives such as 'flat earth'.
@@doobidoo095 It must be the less sun. That's it!!!! Less solar irradiations means more warming. By jove you've GOT IT, science aliterate!
Nah, just a puppet for the globalists.
Agreed. Right when Brian showed two graphs together to infer carbon emissions is the cause to that rise in temperature I knew he left science at home.
He, better than anyone else, should know correlation does not mean causation. That’s basic statistics.
He is. You are just too wound up in politics to actually accept it.
In this age of record high tempratures, find me a record low one in say, the last 5 years.
I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the phrase "absolute consensus".
“I have a graph” everyone cheers and claps
Jesus Christ
"I have a graph"
Everyone: Wow A GRAPH! This must be true
Definitely true don't you dare question anything
"Look at this photograph." - Nickelback
It’s still true, proven by tens of thousands of independent studies globally. But hey keep trying to argue and look stupid.. :/
Such as?
It's always funny watching apolagetics use fallacies and then outright lie to try and pull the wool over people. just stop lying and own up.
Yes Brian Cox
Brian Cox is a sophist liar, true statement. “Look at my graph… can’t fake that with nonsense data… that’s impossible!” 😂
@zackattack635 He's not a liar or a sophist, but I agree that showing this graph is not a very good strategy.
It's like explaining the shape of the Earth to flat-earthers with pictures taken by a satellite. They won't accept them just like you think this is nonsense data. There is no debate about the elevation of global temperature.
That's where it gets complicated for idiots. This global warming doesn't have any natural explanation, hence...
@@zackattack635Brian cox must be brainwashed because if he isn’t then he is definitely a corrupted liar
@@zackattack635Have you recovered from that horrific brain injury yet, climate denier?
The fact the the audience laughed when it was pointed out that NASA had manipulated the data shows how brainwashed they were. 😂
Agreed. We all know that there is no "manipulation" of data, especially since all agencies from all countries starting with raw data and using their own algorithms obtain the same end results. This includes satellite data.
Not sure why people are brainwashed into thinking data has been manipulated. They should try raw data and see where that gets them. Hint: A steeper warming trend.
@@scottekoontz just like the data about Covid WAS manipulated. Now the manipulators are trying to backtrack and blame other factors. If you don’t believe that data gets manipulated then keep towing the party line 👍
What you are spouting is the same BS that oil companies are trying to convince everyone of - so that we ignore the problem. They don't want people to believe in the science, because then they lose their business. Be a Big Oil shill if you want, but you can't deny the overwhelming scientific evidence 🤡
As usual with the BBC.
Why would NASA in particular be able fool the thousands of scientists worldwide when many of those scientists are out gathering their own data? You have to have a really poor understanding of how the world works think that NASA could do this. It utterly ridiculous.
What puzzles me is why the alarmists can’t put together a convincing argument after 50 years of investigation and huge grants, whereas the sceptics, who get no grants, can and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
What do you mean by that?
Because they don't need arguments - They have facts on their side. Meanwhile negacionists try to appeal to emotions, that's why they sound convincing, because humans are very easy to manipulate.
@@d0minat0r980 Watch this ua-cam.com/video/-peWWeRV71Y/v-deo.html
@@anonkasper7937 just summarize it.
@@d0minat0r980 No summarizing that's how fake news gets pushed.You have to look at the whole video and ask questions yourself
"I have the graph". This is more Lord of the Flies than science. I have the conch!
Okay, but why am I watching an astrophysicist debating a politician on climate change? Why aren't I watching two climatologists debate climate change? It's amazing how willing people are to listen to someone who has strayed way out of their field just because they happen to agree with them. This debate happened, neither side were qualified in the subject of the debate, so what?
First of all there is no such thing as climatologists in terms of science. What there is atmosphere physicists and atmosphere chemists.
Malcolm Roberts is labelled as a politician when in fact he is an engineer, scientists and researcher. His knowledge on the topic is just as viable as any of the self proclaimed Climatologists.
Yeah, a polly who is also an engineer giving a hiding to a 'science is done' populist academic
@@bighands69You've only approached one side of the question....
@@tastypymp1287 I still think that Brian Cox is by far one of the smartest people there is in todays world. He knows his stuff about space and the universe. 🙂
@@iguiste23 Not really. You're too much of a fanboy to understand why.
Well if there is a graph printed on A4 paper it must be true. I'd like to know what data is on the graph, for example what length of time is the graph data showing. I recently seen one curtsey of the BAS which shows the last 60 years 🤣. Juat a thought shall we add a few thousand years to the graph so we can get a nice chunk of data.
Well if there are 1,000s of peer reviewed papers with the same graph from various methods from various approaches and a wide variety of sciences, then it really is true. If blooms are earlier, ice melting, permafrost thawing, migrations towards the poles and higher elevations... it must be true.
@@scottekoontzjust check out Tony Heller for the real data
A graph that only goes back 200 years lol 😆
That’s when the bulk of anthropogenic climate change began yes. We have data from ice cores, tree rings, fossils and even sediment which detail roughly the average temperature on earth for millions of years. And guess what. When we zoom in on those spikes in temperature they occurred due to natural causes before humans existed or had any significant impact. And we can see that it took place over thousands even hundreds of thousands of years. That’s the issue it’s not only the magnitude or the cause but it’s also the speed of change which as all data shows is not natural.
Trust me climatologists discovered most of these natural mechanisms and they understand them better than anyone else. That’s why their experts. And when almost 100% of all experts in a scientific field agree we take it as fact. For example there are some scientists who believe that parapsychology is a real thing. But the majority of them recognise the the fact it isn’t. So when we do see a large consensus like this in science it’s amazing to see
@@Neofelis131
at this point in time humans produce 2% to 3% of total CO2 which is also a natural gas and also known as the gas of life...Earth is the greenest it's ever been since we have been able to photograph from space.
Earth creates 97% to 98% of total CO2.
CO2 In eaths atmosphere is currently 0.04%.
The most abundant green house gas that reglates earths temps is water vapour.
So tell me how the little impact humans have will stop the climate from naturally changing again and again? TAXES will not stop natural climate change.
The sun's activity has much greater impact than what humans do. One day the sun will ingulf the earth...what then?
The climate of earth is a huge combination of interplanetary systems.
C02 levels were high and stayed high because the Earth was more volatile for very very long periods that's is why it took along time to reduce naturally.
There are also alot of top senior scientists who challenge alot of ideas but in todays climate they get shot down and ridiculed for free thought and free speech and are cancelled....that's not science.
Dr Malone, Dr yeadon, Dr McCullough perfect examples.
Cherry picking at its finest and user-qy…you are gullible. “I trust the experts and their consensus” is the most lazy of retorts.
@bigb3n011
Yes sheep are Gullible ... The people who blindly follow the man made climate cult and disregard "the science" that proves them wrong. 🤣
Watch Climate the movie for a proper scientific analysis of the data.
I was just looking for it. They don't want it to pop- up. I can access it through a link I was given. FB is censoring it. So is yt.
Why is it so difficult to find a scientist that specialise in climate change.
We have all seen the graph that shows the climate is getting warmer everyone agrees with it. What we need is an expert in this field to tell us why its getting warmer. Brian Cox is not in this scientific area. History has shown us that the real scientific geniuses have all been skeptical and not the 94% who agreed with each other.
You mean like the original group of people who hypothesized climate change early on in the 50's despite people not thinking it was possible?
Not mention any the fact climate scientist that goes on air usually gets several death threats from big oil stooges. The most persecuted activist group globally is environmentalists.
@@JP-sm4cs Yep, 'death threats' here we go crying over conspiracy theories again.
@@techo61 www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats
www.digitalspy.com/tv/reality-tv/a27315070/springwatch-chris-packham-death-threats-shooting-campaign-good-morning-britain/
Climate activists in Bangladesh get fired upon with live ammunition.
Bruno Manser mysteriously disappeared after uncovering the palm oil scandal.
Claire Newcastle Brown has to seek refuge in London after the Malaysian government sends thugs to harass her.
Us climate scientists threatened with treason.
Chris Packham (UK naturalist) gets Crows by nooses outside his house.
So much for freedom of speech...
@@JP-sm4cs Australian woman get shot by Minneapolis policeman Mohamed Noor while wearing her pajamas. So much for freedom period.
@@techo61 glad your response is to do nothing about it.
Other people are making an effort to change the world.
Professor Cox is wrong
lol cuts the handle off the "hockey stick" oh and a wee note from the UN that's sure to increase credibility 😂
Unless everyone watching this sends me money, Earth will explode. If you don't think I'm serious, I have a graph.
People are just stupid, simply oblivious and unwilling to see things as they are.
The problem for nations like Australia and the US is that they will progressively become the focus of considerable global resentment as things worsen. In the case of Australia they are compounding it by being such dicks to their nearest neighbour to the east, not just on climate, but on matters relating to immigration. Given that their neighbour is underpopulated and (until recently) charitably disposed to their ANZAC and CER cousin, it's the nearest thing they have to a liferaft. Given the deteriorating relationship driven almost exclusively one-sidedly, the former cuzzies are likely to be told to piss off when they want to avail that liferaft (and will no doubt, _heavy sigh_ , board it by force and effectively sink it)
Yes I'd say people like you are stupid, you can't discern the difference between a scam climate change and seven decades of weather and climate modification, and you watch msm, because they're not propoganda are they . Na they're the truthtellers.
@@Gottenhimfella bring it on we refuse to pay a carbon tax as the weather and climate is engineered so that the IPCC and their conies can profit in the trillons from their fomented Greta Thunbergs & Extiction rebelloons are not enviormental protests, they are engineered consent operations for the UN and World Bank, Bank of England can't demand a new system, they need a social movement to demand it they may snow you, but we're not all stupid.
@@Gottenhimfella " not just on climate, but on matters relating to immigration." Let us know how Israel is doing on their open boarders eh.
@@RosyOutlook2 Hahahaha those profiting are those AGW deniers and the Fossil Fuel industry and their $5.3 trillion a year taxpayer funded billionaire welfare scam. 10x more in billionaire welfare each year than the entire RE sectors net worth. 10x more to cause the problem than fixing the problem. You deniers really do live in the upside down world. On the other hand IPCC authors are not paid. Deniers for hire can become millionaires doing no research but by simply righting BS in their spare time. Greta donate her money also.
www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378
Malcolm… it’s the BBC… say no more. But pls keep speaking the truth. No one else will.
And Cox calls himself a scientist, " Look here's a graph, you cannot argue with this graph"? WTF. SHOCKING!!!
He literally is a scientist. The guy he's debating is an Australian politician.
Climate change deniers listen to politicians and political commentators instead of scientists. That's the problem.
He is a theoretical physicist (mathematician) holding up a temperature graph claiming it is indisputable proof of a man-made climate crisis for goodness sake@@FDTFDTFDT
@@FDTFDTFDT Politician fund climate science. Climate Scientist work for politicians.
@@grahamtaylor3583 There are thousands of other graphs like it online if you want indisputable proof you moron.
@@paulsmith1981 Fossil fuel lobby groups fund political campaigns and are big donors. Politicans work for the fossil fuel industry by spewing anti-scientific bullshit.
"Concensus" means that NO OTHER VIEWPOINT will be permitted.
No but in the case of a well researched topic, a consensus among experts would probably imply a evidence based consensus. Especially on a highly political topic.
@TheMassacreOfTheBanuQurayzahQu what is amazing is that the hypothesis violates basic laws of physics and they all know it. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Earth radiates any meaningful level of LWR in the presence of the atmosphere!
The whole concept is flawed and easily proven.
@@miked5106 What laws of physics are being violated?
What do you mean "in the presence of the atmosphere"? Shortwave can travel through carbon more easily than longwave. The shortwaves which are emitted by the sun then hit the ground and gets transformed into longwaves. It then gets reflected upwards where it now can more easily interact with carbon.
@@miked5106 Did you graduate from highschool?
Viewpoint: NASA corrupted the data
The graph doesn't show a correlation between two or more variables. If I'm not mistaken, that graph he's flashing is the classic data on 'co2 measured in icecaps over thousands of years' release over time, but it's not showing a direct correlation (or more importantly, a causation), between human activity and global warming. Hit me with statistical analysis, if I'm wrong🤓👌
I disagree, I think it's the chart of the models Vs NASA's global temperature. Regardless, it's bogus anyway.
@@franciscos.2301 Watch this ua-cam.com/video/-peWWeRV71Y/v-deo.html
Yes you are very wrong lol. The graph he showed was the “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index” and it shows a directly proportional relationship between time and temperature anomalies. True it doesn’t show the cause for this increase in temperature but it does illustrate that the earth is warming which was the point of contention. Now what climatologists do is they take that data and they say oh I wonder what could be causing this exponential increase in average temperature? So they form a hypothesis and make a prediction and then test those ideas. Keep in mind these climatologists who are advocating for climate change discovered most of earths natural processes. And that’s exactly where they looked first. And looking at all known natural processes and constructing the data they found it was not significant enough to account for the change we are observing. So reluctantly they looked at human based causes. And they saw a directly cause and effect. But they didn’t want to believe it because well money and energy depends on that so they kept looking. The worlds best climatologists they did their absolute best to argue against climate change and test for any other possible cause. Sadly they never found one. And that’s when the data became more open and known and when climate change became a big thing in discussion. Look at the data yourself. It’s all publicly available on google scholar.
@@Neofelis131EXPONENTIAL increase in temperature? which planet are you referring to?
@@miked5106 The one we call home. And yes exponential. Keep in mind that doesn’t mean a temperature increase of 5 or god forbid 10 degrees. It’s only around 0.8 degrees Celsius, but it’s all relative and the graphs in question is best described as exponential, most certainly not a linear increase. Hence why I used the term.
Look up “exponential graph” and “linear graph” for a better idea.
This is by far the most common pattern we see regarding temperature within our global climate systems, relatively stable and well balanced range of highs and lows and then a drastic increase around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
I’d also recommend looking up “Has the global climate warmed exponentially.”
Malcolm Roberts talks logic and common sense…….audience laughs at him.
Cox holds up a scrap of paper with some scribble on it…….audience cheers.
😂😂
Cox shows data...the ozzie attempts to spout logical fallacies... learn to understand real evidence versus moronic blow hards...lastly this 7 years old...spend some time outside and you will see with your own eye Cox was right.
@@yutyuiiu
“Real evidence” 😂
As opposed to “artificial” evidence ?
At one time , and for centuries , the idea of GERMS was laughed at by the top “scientific” thinkers.
But today, we shut down the entire planet because a computer model told us GERMS are spreading 😂
“REAL” indeed ✌️
logic 🤡
Bad science to say absolute consensus and you can’t argue....
Agreed.
Climate change is still a real problem.
@@LeafsdudeOn the contrary, the hypothesis has a fatal flaw. The Earth's surface can't radiate any meaningful level of LWR in the presence of the atmosphere. With no LWR for CO2 to absorb there is no CO2 driven Greenhouse Effect.
@@miked5106 "The Earth's surface can't radiate any meaningful level of LWR in the presence of the atmosphere."
[Citations Needed]
@@miked5106 Firstly, the Earth's surface radiates longwave infrared radiation (LWR) as a result of being heated by solar energy. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, any object with a temperature above absolute zero emits radiation. The Earth's average surface temperature of approximately 288 K (15°C) means it continuously emits infrared radiation.
Secondly, the presence of the atmosphere does not prevent the Earth's surface from emitting LWR. Instead, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, water vapor, and methane, absorb this radiation and re-radiate it in all directions, including back towards the Earth's surface. This process is known as the greenhouse effect and is well-documented by both empirical measurements and theoretical models.
Greenhouse gases are effective at absorbing and emitting LWR because their molecular structures allow them to interact with infrared radiation. CO2, for instance, has vibrational modes that resonate with the wavelengths of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. When CO2 absorbs this radiation, it temporarily retains the energy, then re-emits it, some of which returns to the Earth's surface, warming it further.
Therefore, the Earth's surface does indeed emit meaningful levels of LWR, and greenhouse gases like CO2 play a crucial role in absorbing and re-emitting this radiation, contributing to the warming of the planet. This greenhouse effect is fundamental to maintaining the Earth's energy balance and supporting life as we know it.
@@miked5106 Total crap. I say that as a physicist. Any gas can both absorb and radiate heat.
It's funny when he throws the graph, but if the graph (data) is what's being called into question, then it's meaningless. Entertainment vs Argument.
Idiot claims that the data is fraudulent because it doesn't agree with his beliefs. "Give me data" "Okay, here" "No, not that data, that's illuminati data."
The only people calling it into question are paid by oil companies or are blindly following the shitheads who are paid by oil companies because they say what people like you want to hear.
Well, the conversation was already degenerated by the senator's childish comments. To say scientific consensus is not science is bad faith. What would satisfy him? To pore over the thousands of research papers actually demonstrating consensus? I think Cox was at the point of saying here's the simplest form I can offer, and if he wants more than that he'd have to do his homework beforehand like a big boy. The literature is out there after all.
@@poetradiooffer what?
@poetradio there are a myriad of factors that influence average temperatures. To suggest CO2 is the main driver has not been proven. Cox stated that there is "Absolute Consensus" is laughable. he embarrassed himself. btw, since when is a 1 degree increase in temperature in 175 years 'climate changing'?
Why does he laugh when NASA is mentioned? They are a player in this issue...
"According to NASA, since 2000 sea level has risen by 2.4 inches. While that may not seem very significant at first glance, imagine how much water is required to raise the global ocean level by 2.4 inches. Just the hydrological significance of moving that much water to the sea is significant."
When you say 'player in the issue' do you mean playing for government funding?
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Yes they have risen.
@Peter what scientists said the ocean level hasn't risen? One thing at a time. Prove yourself since you are spouting statistics.
What scientists?
@Peter learn the difference between weather and climate. But hey you still haven't showed me which scientists said the ocean level hasn't risen. Yet you spout it has. You crack me up
There is scientific consensus on climate change but not on human’s impact on it.
Correct, for that there’s only a near-consensus.
@@brandonszpot8948 🥴🤦🏽♂️🤡
They agree to a small rise in temperature, that's all.
@@1234carolynb You wish. The consensus is as follows:
All climatologists recognize that over the last one to two-hundred years, average global surface temperatures have made a hard break from their typical rate of change (it’s worth noting that this is confirmed more and more every year, as average temperatures continue to rise at unprecedented rates).
There’s a near-consensus as to the cause as well. This sudden spike in average global temp coincides with (lagging only slightly behind) the period of human history wherein humans began burning fossil fuels as their primary source of energy. The well understood phenomenon known as the Greenhouse Effect is functionally the only sound explanation for this, and as such a near consensus has been established as to the causal link between fossil fuel emissions and increasing surface temperatures.
@@brandonszpot8948
I hate to disappoint you, but there are many, many real scientists out there who disagree with everything you wrote. Lucky for anyone driven to know the truth instead of propaganda, the TOM NELSON podcast on youtube has hosted about 300 of them so they can present their data. Some had worked with the IPCC and can explain how we only get the politically correct version of the data, rather than the scientifically correct version. It's a real eye-opener and quite confronting when you go into it thinking you already think you understand climate change. You'll also come away with a good understanding of just how corrupted by the grant system and political interests this field of science has been, right from the start. If you're passionate about this subject, and I can tell you are, you will find the Tom Nelson channel to be life-changing and that's not an exaggeration. Hope you check it out!
PS By the way, there is no such thing as consensus and if anyone says there is, they're talking politics, not science and I don't care who they are. Science is an ongoing exploration based on data as it comes to light, not a destination.
wow, this aged well.........I used to respect Brian Cox. 🙄
Ever notice how climate change alarmists always start their historic temperature graph around the late 1800s to early 1900s? That’s because the period ending in the early 1900s and beginning around 1300 AD, was the coldest timeframe of the last 10,000 years which is why it’s commonly is referred to as the “Little Ice Age”. Naturally by the early 1900s mountain glaciers and the polar ice sheets had grown to their maximum extent since the end of the last great ice age, which of course caused sea levels to drop accordingly.
If the temperature graph was extended back a few thousand years it would show that our current temperatures are not at all abnormal. Ice core data from Greenland in the Northern hemisphere and Antarctica in the Southern hemisphere indicate the Mediaeval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the Roman Warm Period (0-500 AD) and the Minoan warm period (1500-1100 BC) were all eras of the Holocene when the global climate was 1-2°C warmer than today. These were all time periods when human civilization thrived.
Sea levels rise and fall. They always have. They always will, regardless of CO2 levels. Examples; the famous Battle of Thermopylae was only possible because the sea level was several meters higher at that time. The famous "Hot Gates" pass has expanded from about a hundred meters in 480 BC to more than a mile wide today. Hannibal's invasion of the Italian Peninsula over the Alps wouldn't be possible today because his route is currently obstructed by multiple impassable glaciers.
Commercial green houses commonly inject additional CO2 into the growing environment because optimal CO2 levels for plant growth is 1000 to 1200 parts per million, which is roughly 3 times the current atmospheric CO2 level. Main stream media, including Wikipedia does their best to white wash, obscure and diminish these facts but anyone who cares to actually "follow the science" can verify my examples by looking at the actual Greenland and Antarctic ice core data, and reading the actual scientific literature on the topic.
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is diminishing on a logarithmic scale. Up to 100 PPM, CO2 is very effective as a greenhouse gas. At 280 PPM (CO2 level in 1960) or 430 PPM (CO2 level in 2023), its effect is about the same. If CO2 levels were more than doubled to 900 PPM overnight it would only be capable of raising the earth’s temperature about by 1.2 °C
clintel.org/carbon-dioxide-has-reached-a-point-of-diminishing-returns/
BRILLIANT REBUTTAL.
This is amazing stuff. Why don’t you take this, and get it published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
I suspect the reason is because it’s bollocks, you’re harvesting spurious information from dodgy websites, and no reputable journal would touch stuff like this with a barge pole.
Honestly, ‘medieval warm periods’. These are old, long dead arguments. What next? Greenland is called Greenland because it used to be green?
Clintel is a pseudo-science organisation, set up in opposition to the climate change consensus and funded by bad faith actors, extreme right politicians and the fossil fuel lobby. It is simply not a credible source on this issue.
Mate... a youtube comment trying to invalidate global scientific consensus around the issue... really?
This is how you solve a problem:
1. Consider there might be a problem
2. Put your smartest and brightest mind to figure out if there is a problem
3. Figure out how to tackle it.
We have done it, no scientist on the planet disagrees and you are here talking about mountains and logarithmic scale... please, just listen tot he smart people. Or go to uni, then do a amsters, then get a PhD and do your own research.
the temperatures themselfes are not abnormal, but the rise is. if you look at all the graphs, the temerature used to change over huge periods of time, often hundreds and thousands of years. and we are aiming for what now? 5°C within 100 years?
Consensus is pretty feeble proof. Before Copernicus there was an absolute consensus about the Sun revolving around the Earth.
And back then we hadnt adopted the scientific method, so no wonder
Here look at the graph what a joke
There is Absolute, ABSOLUTE evidence and you cannot argue. I’ve heard fanatical born again Christians talk just like that. Frankly, I am sorely disappointed with Professor Cox.
Which isn't the same, because their evidence doesn't prove anything. But claims about the physical world are falsifiable. We can measure the rise of CO2, we can measure our output, we can measure the energy imbalance it creates, we can research past events, we can use statistics to solidify our findings etc etc. All of which has been done. Don't compare it to some bible nuts.
It's hard to take seriously anything you are told when an astronomical scientist suddenly becomes an expert on climate change. Brian Cox says that the Pacific Ocean is the remnant of when an asteroid hit the earth and formed the moon. I heard that in primary school 55 years ago. It made sense then, but can easily be disproved. Prof Cox, Greta and Sir David never mention solar activity. They don't mention that CO2 is just 1/25 of 1% of the atmosphere. They don't tell us how the CO2 produced by all the other animals on the planet compares with man made industrial emissions. Let's have a debate with all the relevant evidence.
There is no consensus.
A graph is only a picture form of numbers. Statistics are only a way of visually demonstrating your own particular idea. Without actually seeing the raw data used, all the pictorial forms mean absolutely zilch
im a surfer.
in the mid eighties we were told in aussie schools;
told 30cm sea level rise by 2000 amd a metre by 2020.
im still seeing the same high and low tide marks at my local surf breaks in sydney.
ps. the media in the last 5-10 years have been talking about massive ice melts.....
all of the melted glacier ice from the artic, greenland, antartica and mountain glaciers where has it gone....?
its just diappeared?
‘rAsCisT !’ 😂
The “sea level” isn’t the same everywhere. You look old enough to understand that the oceans aren’t a cup of water, but complex physical systems. Some places have seen ocean levels drop, like in the case of your Aussie town. However, the average *global* sea level is rising, and the rate at which it’s rising is increasing.
@@markbph2336And yes, there has been a significant loss in arctic ice sheets. The rates of melt are, like that of sea levels, increasing with time.
@@brandonszpot8948 luckily they are still also staying well away from Al Gore’s beachfront properties, purchased with the profits from his ‘Inconvenient Truth’
That graph only goes back to 1880, ice cores have shown the Earth has been far hotter in the past nothing to do wity human activity, so that graph is starting from a level that was already low historically and was always likely to rise toward the normal temperatures of the Earth.
not over the time range of 200 years sorry
cox came off second best and was shaking as his BS fell apart too bad they do not show the complete thing
nah he had the crowd from before he entered the building. He knew he would have the laughs and claps based on his rehearsed actions. Once you have the crowd you can say almost anything with 100% support.
The data presented in the graph by Brian Cox is manipulated by NOAA, to "correct" for UHI. It's no secret. Brian Cox doesn't even know the provenance of the data he's throwing around. What a clown.
I am a data analyst and I was unable to find the source data that corroborates this, I wrote to NASA, and in fairness they responded after a couple of months, however the only data I received was a basic pictorial graph. The source of the data was not published, the modelling assumption was not fully disclosed, the measurements methods not disclosed, measurement calibration, error bars, natural statistical variations, objective evidence for anthropogenic cause, evidence of being able to reverse the trend (if true) through various mitigation activities.
In short I find it difficult to believe that NASA engineers (the ones who build spacecraft) would work with this quality of data.
I am a natural pessimist, however I have a very high confidence that there models and predictions are fallacious. It’s really not as bad as what they are saying. Remember this statement!
Lol only online would someone call Brian cox a clown. You would piss yourself if you had to debate him. His PhDs arnt made up you know
He has allowed emotion to cloud his thinking and continued research it would seem. If he were truly following the dictats of science, Brian Cox would be validating his data to the nth degree instead of jumping on the bandwagon, but then - maybe he is one of those receiving grants and incentives for staying that side of the fence. Great shame - I used to respect this guy. Kudos to the guy calling out supposed NASA data - he is the one exposing himself to ridicule in search of sharing the truth.
@@SG-wi9kd It's not NASA, it's NOAA. The original graph looks very different.
He gives him the graph, but the data is flawed. The model is flawed, so the graph is useless.
The graph is fake. It is not the model but a simple data tempering.
@@geokrilov how do you know this? You don't.
@@international_perspective look in the way this graph which is a "hokey stick" blade - was made.
And you'll see. But you don't want to see.
@@geokrilov Got a source for the bs you're spewing?
Consensus????? Cox knows science does not have a consensus.
WHERE IS THE FULL VERSION
addictedtopiano The one where Roberts wipes the floor with Cox’s pseudoscience in the few minutes he’s allowed to speak.
Why do Greta, Prof Brian and Sir David never mention solar activity?
@@chriscurtain1816 what specific aspect of solar activity are you attributing to climate change?
@@grippipethin2796 which point did he use that wiped the floor with Cox? I saw the full version and it was beyond embarassing (not on Cox's part)
@@Liddy-lr5uy Cox lied to the audience. It is not unanimous amongst scientists.
Here is the truth; www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/
I’ve heard consensus, yeah exactly, consensus of scientific papers that are written as a direct result of doing the science and getting the answers...
The Hocky Stick Graph was wrong, 20 year temp hiatus, sea gauges show no signs of rising seas. Was there anything the scientist were right about?
@Anthony Timmers who is paying them then? Big oil pays for scientists you think they're warped perspective would be respected a bit more if it held weight, we dont know exactly what will happen but how can you say that all the incects and all the toxic chemicals being put out arnt harmful, we have had more of an impact in the last 100 years compared to thousands of years and you think that does nothing?
@@thomaswoodworth7644 so your saying the predictions were wrong but the data was right
@@thomaswoodworth7644 sea level has risen 20cm since the 1980s
@@thomaswoodworth7644 they show massive signs of rising.... a quick googl2e search shows your wrong
Actually, Roberts is right! Cox's data is dodgy!
Roberts missed his calling in life...as a cockroach.
@@ceeemm1901 Mmmm. Mega lefty. Okay: Fun fact: 12,000 years ago you could walk to Tassie. 8,000 years ago you could walk to PNG. We are comng out of an ice age. We Archaeologists know this. Cox fails to mention this, Stopping Global warming is like trying to stop a 1 km long Freight train with a 12 volt fan.
@@williamblack7813 bro really came back to comment reply over a year later just to spout bs
@@williamblack7813 Wow and hundreds of thousands of climate scientists completely overlooked that ...and the fact that the water level at my beach goes DOWN twice a day! You're a genius, like Lord Mounkton!....BTW, MAGA lefty is an oxymoron. Those fat pricks don't have a sharing bone in their lipid laden bodies....
@@williamblack7813 Lefty? What;s Leftism got to do with planet warming? New natural hot age after an ice age-not unless the egyptians made snowmen instead of sandmen. And yes stopping global warming is hard, so is trying to stop world hunger? What's your point? You've made three unrelated, poor, non-evidence based statements that a simple google will rectify. Just because you are scared and know there is something wrong with the world, does not mean that this cause is the issue. Stop reading Breitbart, it's not even good enough for Wikipedia anymore.
"consensus"? All studies bought and paid for.
So decades of studies being bought? And no studies proving otherwise? And this is happening at the global scale?
🧐🤡
What a failure for Cox
Behold the graph
All hail our new god - the graph!
@@abloogywoogywoo All hail YOUR old god, FF liars for hire and BS.
That graph got Michael Mann in trouble in court a few years ago. When science and politics meet you only get politics.
@@Matty18795 No it didn't you lie again. But yes when your politics meet YOUR "science" all you get is politics and lies.
thinkprogress.org/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick-e7ce8c3a2384/
And that graph was also a completely different graph. That graph is also confirmed by every organisation studying climate.
woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/best/plot/rss/plot/uah6
What does the graph show? I doubt it shows a correlation between two or more variables
You can't prove a point by throwing a graph at someone anymore than I can prove the existence of God by flinging the Bible at you.
I've not replied to the others, just a 👍but yours is ACE and sooo true!!!👍👍👍UK
Nice picture of the Michael Mann fake ‘hockey stick temperature data model right there by Brian Cox.
🎯
Yes. Cox should explain, why Michael Mann and Phil Jones hided the decline in global temperature.
Roberts should said and here is a piece of paper that proves it and given it to Cox
He can't because he literally doesn't have data to prove otherwise. He's also not a scientist. He's an Australian politician.
A politician, not a scientist, is representing the climate change deniers... And you guys are eating it up because he's telling you what you want to hear
In this clip he hardly says anything. I am not eating up anything. I came to get some answers and left again because there were none.
all those people screaming and applauding when they see a hockey stick graph
why not start the graph at 22,000 years ago when the glacial maximum began to end
I have that graph. It was hotter during the medieval times than now.
There is an absolute, absolute absolute consensus - except for all the academics and researchers who don’t agree.
Oh but , show me the graph again....
yes .03% of scientists do not agree. so thats the definition of consensus. and the facts of the current climate show he was right
Unless they're currently publishing and actively researching climatologists, then they're not qualified to disagree with 98% of those who are.
@@apostatereacts if you were following the debate actively and knew at least some of the better known dissenting opinions, then you wouldnt bother to pose this question as stated.
Incidentally, the 98% you speak of is itself a misnomer. The claim that 98 % scientists agree that increases in CO2 adds to temperature in climate is a trivial claim. Why?
Well, what is not asked is how much CO2 creates meaningful changes to the climate. The changes may be trivial, and their is no explanation of how other forces affect the climate in countervailing ways.
The best efforts to "model" this relationship by the climate " experts" across time has been an epic failure by any standard.
That's the world where the 98 % has resided for decades now.
@@leonardmccannon3136 I know all the dissenting voices thanks, and none of them are actuvely publishing climatologists. Most of them have neen exposed as fake experts working for fossil fuel-funded think tanks and policy institutes
Real shame is that Brian has not gone into the data omissions lacing in the spurious graph he held. Another brilliant misuse by BBC of a physicist out of his expertise!
Cox is a legend in his own mind. When the Romans attacked Britania 55 BC the Co2 was over 1000 parts per million, now it is 408 pts per mil
This is just palpably false. Over the last few hundred thousand years, the level of CO2 has changed in a cyclical pattern between ~200-300ppm, but only recently has that number skyrocketed above 400ppm. Academic consensus is that it's driven by humans, and any credible institution will affirm that.
WERE YOU THERE ? HOW WOULD U KNOW
Thats just wrong.
"Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less." Where did you get that figure...?
Source?
Loved the clapping for the graph a very short sample of thousands of years??
How is it a short sample? It’s covered in data points!
There was no data for the past few thousand years… it’s extrapolated.
The trick is to chograph, and then ask for more but government control over the people.
billions rather of climate changes, warming and cooling, wonder who caused those changed, a few decades back they were saying another ice age was coming due to human activity, well, that didn't happen, Al gore's prediction of no snow and highways under water never happened either....
@@SimonFrack because it's not showing millions or billions of years, that would show that fake increase' as nothing...
I brought the graph!! Yes but where did you get the information for the graph? ........
YES
temperatue measurements...its all basic info...what info do you have to refute it...obviously nothing
@yutyuiiu ahh yes because I'm a goverment paid public servant who has access to this data and uses my time to debunk 5 Min UA-cam news stories???? Seriously get a clue you chode
@@yutyuiiu CDN refutes it aplenty:
ua-cam.com/video/vf7czadDZFg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ac6TvN1hvKA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Lk5dHExleVA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/8upMstT1cFU/v-deo.html
The earth temp is. Changing ..but its not due to human activity...its a natural cycle
There have been those cycles but if you look at the data it is know going off the chart like nothing that has been before.
What should the temperature be?
A physicist who crops up as a scientific expert on every topic with a sharp sweater and trendy hairdo. As usual the BBC chosing its ‘experts’ based on recognisable faces and oratory skills. Not much different from how we chose political leaders I guess. But this debate has nothing to do with science.
Well climate change is based on physics (absorption, albedo). Unfortunately a Nobel prize Physicist called Clausen has said climate science is bunkum,
Brian Cox who said there is no such things as UFOs
Was that the hockey stick graph? Turned out that was discredited..... ironically for Mr Cox.
Can you cite a link please?
Source then. Prove it
How was it discredited?
@@abelfonseca Manns hockey stick graph has been rebuted. You can google it
I used to quite like cox until I saw him behaving like this, embarrassing
This hasn't aged well has it Brian ?
Why not?
How? It's aged very well.
Now I can literally feel the effects the global warming on the weather ….muppet
Brian really let his slip show when he actually brings out the ‘hockey stick’ debunked years previously
yes, ah, that graph says it all
I've watched a lot of programes on weather forecast saying its been the hottest summer on record what a load of rubbish. I'm 75yrs old when I was 12yrs back at school summer holidays when going down the coast you could not walk on the beach the sand was to hot. The heat haze when looking along a road I haven't seen that yet since I sSc12yrs old. The tar on the road would melt and run down the road we used to get stick and muck around get it on our clothes summer knights after tea you could light a candle and the flame would not flickrr or garden fires lottmens the smoke would go up like a strate as anything. I find at k light I. 2023 after a hot day it gets very cold it didn't do that when I was 12yrs old so where is climate change its rubbish. All the hot countries are still getting same heat. England are getting to much rain and wind we didn't climate change means in summer it gets hotter I've never seen that yet in winter the snow when I was 12yrs old it would be 4ft high I had to dig out from front door I've never seen that yet and the sow would be around for over two months lying never seen that yet since I was young so where is climate change I can't see it. Take this summer we had week look at to day it's very cold now and windy thunder storm forecast for next week we would get thunder nearly every day but no rain where is clamate change I can't see it its load of rubbish
Just gone right off Brian Cox.
The studio audience cheered for the Lies and laughed at the Truth? 🤔
Educate yourself.... look up Nazis, Communist, Maoists when the students would denounce their teachers, parents that blk was white etc.
And you think we are any different? An autistic teenager who flunked school addressing the UN?
Sorry the Educate yourself insult was taken from the woke handbook.
As a parent of 5 (five) I'd have many a disagreements with my children, but in the end they'd be told they could argue with me when they had 10+ years more experience - ie house, kids and saving gelt !
For every Climate change/global warming/Climate alarmist view thrust on you ask them to explain why the planet was much warmer between 950AD and 1300AD ! :) The climate change nonsense is done !
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
It wasn't that warm...
It wasnt.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years#/media/File%3A2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
Cox is on the take
He is a star gazer.
You're a brave man Malcolm going on that biased left wing show that fills the audience and panel full of lefties.
Great to see a balanced argument presented from a Scientist and a Politican. Why not put Cox up against other Scientists ?
Because there aren’t any real scientists who disagree with him.
@@bulman07, wrong there are thousands that would but they rarely get a chance to.
Yes like Dr Willie Soon. Cox doesn't know much about hydrocarbons like Dr Soon does.