Climate Change: Professor Brian Cox clashes with sceptic Malcolm Roberts - BBC News

[@patmcbride9853]

Climate change is not the conspiracy. Blaming humans is. As soon as he said "consensus" he proved that he and anyone else using that term are not using the scientific approach.

[@imblackstar]

He’s not wrong though. Appealing to authority isn’t science. Appealing to consensus isn’t sciences. Empirical data is science.

[@marvinbrando722]

The absolute consensus was that the earth was flat for long time. Ridiculous

[@FlyingPilot-zt1vj]

As much as i like other Brians video, I can make graph myself showing anything. Why Brian did not explain the graph orrigin. First time ever I have seen Brian as unreasonable.

[@MrApplewine]

There are a lot of people who know logic and critical thinking and can't be fooled by Brian Cox. Good work Malcom Roberts.

[@AdrianCuyubambaDiaz]

That's data from the IPCC, the "Nasa" has nothing to do with it. If you have any proof of NASA's intervention please let me know

[@megalodon6108]

Still waiting for the Maldives to be under water. How many years have they been peddling that nonsense?

[@asharjamal9664]

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.

[@antonkallin9027]

@@megalodon6108 what would make you think it is nonesense?

[@hdajhdaahha3836]

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.

[@drstrangelove4998]

Only a year or so ago the Maldives opened a $billion state of the art international airport for tourists. So much for sea level rise they claimed would sink the country 😡

[@drstrangelove4998]

⁠@@antonkallin9027because the sea level isn’t rising in the Maldives, and they’ve just invested in a huge state of the art international airport for the tourist industry perhaps Anton 🤔

[@Justathought81]

Its like arguing with the religious.

[@tracer0017]

Or an Atheist

[@Prat-zi1ou]

@@tracer0017 if show something to atheist he will change his views

[@tracer0017]

@@Prat-zi1ou Liberal or Conservative?

[@doobidoo095]

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'.

[@tastypymp1287]

It is quasi-religious.

[@englishwithemily88]

Why have you muted out all the responses given by the sceptic?

[@megansummersides4255]

We all know why!

[@stevep4383]

To conserve brain cells

[@steauafan4ever]

@@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.

[@wilmahestepigen8340]

@@stevep4383are your braincells Disposable use?

[@doobidoo095]

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'.

[@bigboy9693]

I tried to follow the science, but I found none, so I followed the money and found the science.

[@kenhickford6581]

Luv it!

[@stevep4383]

keep that tin foil on nice and tight

[@bigboy9693]

@@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.

[@stevep4383]

@@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

[@kenhickford6581]

@@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!

[@kvuppal1]

How can you claim "absolute consensus", when right before you there's a scientist who disagrees?

[@thejackbancroft7336]

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.

[@richardhall4830]

​​​@@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.

[@badtuber1654]

@@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.

[@thejackbancroft7336]

@@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?

[@EarhirX]

@@thejackbancroft7336 based

[@deborahflack9958]

This is a BBC programme, therefore must be viewed with several handfuls of scepticism.

[@GooseCee]

Brian Cox is literally a physicist, I assure you you can trust him

[@connorhughes2757]

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?

[@jamescopeland6802]

How could i forgot that humans caused the ice age, of course humans are responsible for climate change.

[@AlanCurtis-t6v]

I never trust the BBC. Carefully selected panel. Carefully selected audience.

[@Propraj]

@@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.

[@arbanaskocudo]

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former "

[@mmtot]

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.

[@Mikeybhoy1979]

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.

[@Trashed20659]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they argue with you, then you win....

[@johnchandler1687]

@@arbanaskocudo NO! Then they try to assasinate you. Recent events prove that.

[@larkascending4582]

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.

[@TheSleightDoctor]

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.

[@johnatkinson7126]

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

[@brizziefritz4794]

@@TheSleightDoctor The coming of an Ice Age was taught in schools.

[@johnchandler1687]

@@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.

[@PsilentMusicUK]

​@@brizziefritz4794 There's schools in America that teach that Christ will be returning to collect the bill shortly. There's no scientific consensus for that either.

[@gregmoore167]

The good ole hockey stick graph!

[@r.westerling4280]

🎯

[@miked5106]

What's the difference between a 1) an absolute, absolute consensus, 2) an absolute consensus, and 3) the run of the mill concensus?

[@apple_cider1207]

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

[@iceomistar4302]

Exactly Americans have a tendency for shouting matches when they don't agree with eachother.

[@bighands69]

@@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.

[@whatifididthis...1236]

@@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.

[@doobidoo095]

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'.

[@whatifididthis...1236]

@@doobidoo095 Can’t really argue with any of that comment! Careful though, you could be labeled a racist. 😳😂🤣

[@takh6806]

7 years later and the grey head scientist was a real hero. The others are all clowns.

[@johnseabrook1029]

Malcolm Roberts?!! You must be off your feckin’ rocker, you idiot!

[@IronFreakV]

The grey head as in the skeptic of the other guy?

[@cosmologicalturtle9528]

Yes, because clearly it’s not like we’ve been seeing extreme weather or other signs of climate change in the last 7 years

[@maxsordi]

@@cosmologicalturtle9528 lol, extreme weather existed for billions of years, and climate changed for billions of years..... now, they fear monger with 1C of warming in a century.... can't wait for that global warming to actually kick in as in the Middle Ages the warming period was period of prosperity and increased food production.... now, I just want to save on the heating bills but they've not gone down in decades, still heating 7 to 8 months per year.....

[@saltydog3099]

@@cosmologicalturtle9528 the weather is self regulating and will always change, our main factors that cause weather come from the sun's radiation that passes through the poles and powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth's climate. This is a quote from NASA..... there are many theories, but that's all they are... the planet is greener now than 20 years ago, carbon dioxide is plant food....

[@kpaine9231]

6.5 years later and the world is still not on fire

[@Climate-change_is-real1]

What are you an idiot

[@roninnib6635]

Australia would like a word.

[@Pexbd1003]

Didn’t age well huh?😂

[@garethlawton5278]

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.

[@kpaine9231]

@@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.

[@johnmorgan5495]

Obviously the handsome Cox is NOT the scientist he claims to be and he may see sense /science before he gets old & ugly.

[@MyThingsRedux]

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!

[@shreddedhominid1629]

Source: your ass

[@urbansoundscapes7734]

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.

[@cosmologicalturtle9528]

Source?

[@maxsordi]

surely there was also consensus for lobotomies in the past, now, how did that turn out

[@1eftnut]

Sorry, you are completely full of 🐂 💩. 100% of climate scientists (the consensus ffs) agree that climate change is man made and contributing to drastic changes in climate as demonstrated by the evidence of their millions of hours in climate research, so your uneducated opinion, complete lack of expertise, and lack of any credibility on the subject doesn’t freaking matter one iota!

[@John-jk3sj]

Another lying young academic. I have a PhD in chemistry and also a math degree and I've been questioning this for many years. Over that time I've learned that almost every one of my friends who also have PhDs in physical sciences or engineering question these conclusions. They love showing graphs that start in 1970 or even in the 1700s (the last little ice age) to "prove" their points. Every single prediction done by the IPCC has missed on the high side - sometimes by quite a bit of what has actually happened. It is insulting that they try to use "consensus" or politicians to prove their points. Science is based on facts, not your interpretation of those facts. Unfortunately, many of today's scientists let their feelings and political leanings come into play - in both directions.

[@johnmu7034]

Thank you .For me consensus is those on the payroll or hoping for grants. I would like to know how accurate all these records are that are only 150 years old. And tell me why are most of the weather stations in or next to towns and cities where of course it is warmer, concrete, bitumen, iron. And my last point is all the modelling, who puts the parameters in? the BOM in Australia admitted at Senate estimates that the data was manipulated, Malcolm Roberts was asking the questions.

[@AbyNeon]

Its raining in London today, same as the last 6000 years.

[@TheMassacreOfTheBanuQurayzahQu]

Okay?...

[@leeadder2105]

It's pronounced londonstan

[@NzTings]

​@@TheMassacreOfTheBanuQurayzahQu it's normal

[@ceeemm1901]

Oh dude, I bet you take off your shoes and socks to count to 20......

[@NzTings]

@@ceeemm1901 I bet you are gullible

[@kayakMike1000]

There is no consensus.

[@sheridangatley8648]

Its funny how "the debate" just cuts off when Roberts is just about to quote pretty much anything other than the IPCC or the manipulated hockey stick graph which has already been shredded. Come on BBC please show the response to Cox ( or is he another dubious player in this bought sham ). Balanced debate please.

[@ranbyhall-ourlifetimeadven2816]

Consensus is due to money, it’s paid for therefore not valid

[@TheSleightDoctor]

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.

[@vipultawde6350]

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.

[@cazman182]

Yea, poor fossil fuel interests - no money at all to combat climate change science! :( what will BP and Exxon ever do

[@TheSleightDoctor]

@@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 😆

[@somethingelse9535]

​@@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.

[@juliaogara8794]

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

[@yes100yessireebob6]

Current level of CO2 in the atmosphere: .04% CO2 levels in which plant life starts to die : .02% Checkmate.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

So, your data useless. You should be quoting CO2 in PPM not the sledge hammer percentage, a known climate denial fallacy. Current CO2 levels are 420 ppm, up from 1960 at 320ppm, a 24% increase over 65 years. However, the graph of that increase is an upward curce not a straight line, so the rate of increase is also increasing. Plants will suffer respiration deficiency at about 150 ppm, which is not something the world has seen in known history - in the ice age it fell to as low as 170ppm. The present concentration is the highest for 14 million years, and plants have not suffered because of it.

[@RidgeyDidgeDude]

The studio audience cheered for the Lies and laughed at the Truth? 🤔

[@jcoker423]

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 !

[@jamescaley9942]

"I have the graph". This is more Lord of the Flies than science. I have the conch!

[@markcookson796]

The evidence is picked to suit climate change believers, the temperatures have risen with in the same weather forecasting points, but those weather forecasting points which at one time were rural locations have become urbanisations which can reflect up to 5 degree C more than rural temps. Western towns and city's have grown..

[@NelsonRealTime]

People are just stupid, simply oblivious and unwilling to see things as they are.

[@Gottenhimfella]

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)

[@RosyOutlook2]

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.

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@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.

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@Gottenhimfella " not just on climate, but on matters relating to immigration." Let us know how Israel is doing on their open boarders eh.

[@jamespyke6764]

@@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

[@kevinconnell6794]

Watch Climate the movie for a proper scientific analysis of the data.

[@stompthedragon4010]

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.

[@derrickjoe1872]

Showing a graph of increasing temperature doesn't prove that humans have caused the temperature to increase. It also doesn't address the fact that for over 100 years it has been common knowledge that carbon levels increase with increasing temperature, not the other way around. It also doesn't take into account solar changes (which the leading Harvard climate scientist concluded was completely responsible for climate change and eventually quit due to being attacked) and completely leaves out the fact that we are literally exiting an ice age. A few million years ago, Alaska was the temperature of south Florida, and guess what....the world was teaming with life. Carbon has always been considered the element of life due to the amazing effects is has on life around the world.

[@andyknowles772]

...and what were the sea levels like when "Alaska was the temperature of Florida"?

[@anthonyporens4983]

Malcolm Roberts the smartest man in the room.

[@joshadsett4835]

Why are we here? this was 6 years ago

[@adambinnie1332]

@@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.

[@scottekoontz]

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.

[@anthonyporens4983]

@@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.

[@saharzie]

Only if he visits your house.

[@jruskky7545]

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😅😅😅

[@erwinheisenberg8821]

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"

[@FredGSanford-hu1uk]

Its absolute madness but this is the way they can control people!

[@user-vt4hd8hb4v]

@@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

[@beszebalint512]

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.

[@maxsordi]

@@erwinheisenberg8821 lol, when they lie and get paid big bucks, yeah, it's easy to predict their fake disaster......

[@menotyou8958]

It's interesting how 100 million years ago there was 5 to 10 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and yet plant and animal life was larger in size and more abundant. The temperature was fine for life, nothing was drowning from rising sea levels, and there were many ice ages since then. Facts

[@thesc0tsm4n9]

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.

[@PepeCoinMania]

Yes Brian Cox

[@zackattack635]

Brian Cox is a sophist liar, true statement. “Look at my graph… can’t fake that with nonsense data… that’s impossible!” 😂

[@ofdrumsandchords]

@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...

[@ericsuperstar746]

@@zackattack635Brian cox must be brainwashed because if he isn’t then he is definitely a corrupted liar

[@enac1544]

@@zackattack635Have you recovered from that horrific brain injury yet, climate denier?

[@jennroberts3837]

Unbelievable… I used to think Brian Cox was a scientist….

[@doobidoo095]

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'.

[@scottekoontz]

@@doobidoo095 It must be the less sun. That's it!!!! Less solar irradiations means more warming. By jove you've GOT IT, science aliterate!

[@louiseanderson1505]

Nah, just a puppet for the globalists.

[@TheMindfulMatrix]

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.

[@Whoami691]

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.

[@stevenjohnson5126]

Behold the graph

[@abloogywoogywoo]

All hail our new god - the graph!

[@jamespyke6764]

@@abloogywoogywoo All hail YOUR old god, FF liars for hire and BS.

[@Matty18795]

That graph got Michael Mann in trouble in court a few years ago. When science and politics meet you only get politics.

[@jamespyke6764]

@@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

[@orion9k]

What does the graph show? I doubt it shows a correlation between two or more variables

[@user-px1wj2uv3r]

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.

[@Apistevist]

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."

[@NovaFinch]

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.

[@poetradio]

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.

[@johnjackson8740]

@@poetradiooffer what?

[@miked5106]

​@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'?

[@venize3050]

There is scientific consensus on climate change but not on human’s impact on it.

[@brandonszpot8948]

Correct, for that there’s only a near-consensus.

[@lw1zfog]

@@brandonszpot8948 🥴🤦🏽‍♂️🤡

[@1234carolynb]

They agree to a small rise in temperature, that's all.

[@brandonszpot8948]

@@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.

[@1234carolynb]

@@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.

[@RobinHood-hk5dk]

Great to see a balanced argument presented from a Scientist and a Politican. Why not put Cox up against other Scientists ?

[@bulman07]

Because there aren’t any real scientists who disagree with him.

[@chipmonk12]

​@@bulman07, wrong there are thousands that would but they rarely get a chance to.

[@shanehenderson383]

Yes like Dr Willie Soon. Cox doesn't know much about hydrocarbons like Dr Soon does.

[@maxsordi]

@@bulman07 lol, there are thousands....

[@aijadawddaw]

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.

[@trackdusty]

My God, he almost threw his handbag at MR!

[@Competitive_Antagonist]

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.

[@007floppyboy]

Ha ha ha ha ha hahahahahah Just do a modicum of research you complete and absolute plank.

[@jcoker423]

Agreed. Enjoyed his stuff, but he is no open minded scientist

[@RevDany23]

Reducing emissions is good regardless of climate change.

[@brandonszpot8948]

Correct but the sheep in the comment section will literally go to war so oil companies can profit.

[@shoobidyboop8634]

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.

[@SG-wi9kd]

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!

[@emuman09]

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

[@paulbritton4029]

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.

[@brizziefritz4794]

@@SG-wi9kd It's not NASA, it's NOAA. The original graph looks very different.

[@criticalbiker1273]

Nice picture of the Michael Mann fake ‘hockey stick temperature data model right there by Brian Cox.

[@r.westerling4280]

🎯

[@vanlendl1]

Yes. Cox should explain, why Michael Mann and Phil Jones hided the decline in global temperature.

[@michaelwalsh9145]

Funny how anyone that debates about the climate farce is labeled a sceptic.

[@theshamanarchist5441]

Or Climate 'Denier' lol

[@michaelwalsh9145]

@@theshamanarchist5441 yep the phrase that the media have brainwashed gullible fools like your good self to use to make you believe you are more educated to use it. Covid denier, climate denier, science denier, have you joined the dots yet? Keep lining up for your clot shots.

[@ceeemm1901]

Just stick to the banjo and luvin ya sister, Jethro.

[@michaelwalsh9145]

@@ceeemm1901 says the climate lap dog, don’t forget to get your booster.

[@michaelwalsh9145]

@@ceeemm1901 get off mommies puter ya clown

[@Meowface.]

There is no consensus And about that graph You know we have temperature data going back into the 1800s? So why did they choose that particular start date for their graph they want to hold up to demonstrate global warming ? Why not include ALL data? Well.. because their warming trend would disappear compared to the hottest periods in the 1870s and 1930s After that the world was cooling, glaciers were growing And there was a global cooling scare.. that was the scientific consensus at the time That’s around when they start the graphs you’ll see climate change alarmists holding up They choose a low point.. to conceal the warm before it

[@maxsordi]

or Medieval warm period and what were warming periods called, yeah, optimal, because those were periods of increased food production and increased prosperity

[@jennroberts3837]

Malcolm… it’s the BBC… say no more. But pls keep speaking the truth. No one else will.

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

Disappointed in you brian Cox, I thought you were more than that. ‘You can’t argue with the consensus’ 🙄

[@user-vt4hd8hb4v]

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!''.

[@RidesInforests]

Just another slimly shill working for the net zero fraudsters. He’ll be judged I. The end don’t worry

[@gerathys]

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.

[@asharjamal9664]

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?

[@asharjamal9664]

​@@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.

[@iancampbell6925]

Roberts should said and here is a piece of paper that proves it and given it to Cox

[@FDTFDTFDT]

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

[@lh2435]

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.

[@col2959]

If you think Cox is talking sh*t…. Your right

[@brandonszpot8948]

You’re*

[@gnoelalexmay]

​@@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.

[@johnchandler1687]

@@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?

[@HenryLobber]

​@@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.

[@gnoelalexmay]

@@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.

[@sja_101]

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.

[@flareonscreen]

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.

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

@@flareonscreen You said it all NOTHING. WELL DONE

[@addictedtopiano]

WHERE IS THE FULL VERSION

[@grippipethin2796]

addictedtopiano The one where Roberts wipes the floor with Cox’s pseudoscience in the few minutes he’s allowed to speak.

[@chriscurtain1816]

Why do Greta, Prof Brian and Sir David never mention solar activity?

[@Liddy-lr5uy]

@@chriscurtain1816 what specific aspect of solar activity are you attributing to climate change?

[@Liddy-lr5uy]

@@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)

[@spillarge]

@@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/

[@daviddoherty4429]

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.

[@JP-sm4cs]

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.

[@techo61]

@@JP-sm4cs Yep, 'death threats' here we go crying over conspiracy theories again.

[@JP-sm4cs]

@@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...

[@techo61]

@@JP-sm4cs Australian woman get shot by Minneapolis policeman Mohamed Noor while wearing her pajamas. So much for freedom period.

[@JP-sm4cs]

@@techo61 glad your response is to do nothing about it. Other people are making an effort to change the world.

[@petermcdougall5291]

Absolute consensus turns out to be absolute bulls…h..it…

[@JwayT]

I remember hearing all this doomsday crap as a child. It's almost comical now.

[@iancampbell6925]

How did they manage it without computer models.

[@JwayT]

@@iancampbell6925 manage what? To make a load of nonsense predictions?

[@Quickb3n]

@@JwayT Everything appears as nonsense if you don't understand it. If you can't speak japanese does that make the langauge nonesense ?

[@JwayT]

@@Quickb3n Got some predictions for me then?

[@Quickb3n]

@@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.

[@user-jq5wb3gn6x]

It's all the 100 rich families that the press arent telling us about

[@mochapella]

all those people screaming and applauding when they see a hockey stick graph

[@AyyAsttrox]

“I have a graph” everyone cheers and claps Jesus Christ

[@h2wr]

"I have a graph" Everyone: Wow A GRAPH! This must be true

[@leighjordine4031]

Definitely true don't you dare question anything

[@mrsmime4055]

"Look at this photograph." - Nickelback

[@Litheon11]

It’s still true, proven by tens of thousands of independent studies globally. But hey keep trying to argue and look stupid.. :/

[@AyyAsttrox]

Such as?

[@justintype1495]

What year does the graph start? 1880? Not really showing the whole picture now are you Brian?

[@TheSleightDoctor]

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.

[@cazman182]

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.

[@justmemimi7338]

“Absolute consensus”? Liar.

[@ContactBaroqueHall]

He is not lying. We have just her propagandized with sham scientists put alongside normal skeptical scientists, and concluding that the normal scientist is wrong. Too much industry in the world.. and lobbying. We need to have a message that that the planet is doing fine.

[@marcusbarnes5929]

A graph that only goes back 200 years lol 😆

[@Neofelis131]

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.

[@Neofelis131]

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

[@marcusbarnes5929]

@@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.

[@bigb3n011]

Cherry picking at its finest and user-qy…you are gullible. “I trust the experts and their consensus” is the most lazy of retorts.

[@marcusbarnes5929]

@bigb3n011 Yes sheep are Gullible ... The people who blindly follow the man made climate cult and disregard "the science" that proves them wrong. 🤣

[@richardnewton638]

Brian cox isn't a climate scientist. His field is in astro physics.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Hbomberguys video on climate-change Alone proves 'countless lies'. Conspiracy-Mindset was directly adresses in the newest video of 'Exurba'.

[@denm8991]

Your comment doesn’t make sense. You don’t need to be a so called “climate scientist “ . You just need to have an understanding of thermodynamics. You can be any type of engineer or physicist or mathematician or chemist or whatever and have a deep understanding of thermodynamics. Then you can talk about the climate.

[@chadpower3228]

Unless everyone watching this sends me money, Earth will explode. If you don't think I'm serious, I have a graph.

[@davidjatt3251]

He said "absoluuute, absoluuuute" in a really annoying voice. That enough proof for me right there! plus, the trained baboons in the audience laughed at the other guy!

[@conormul1]

so how someone says a word is more proof then actual evidence or facts, this shows how your opinion is worthless

[@davidjatt3251]

Conor Mulvihill hey dude calm down im on your side! also that wasnt the only thing he did. he threw a piece of paper with a squiggly line on it, that was also a masterstroke of scientific proofiness and truthitude!

[@jamespyke6764]

@@davidjatt3251 But David don't bother to find out what that squiggly line is. You might learn something and we couldn't have that now could we? www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png

[@davidjatt3251]

​@@jamespyke6764 Ha...ha.... ha...? oh gosh look, one of the daleks is attempting humour. What do you mean "find out"? The guy was holding it up, as though the line itself was supposed to be proof. When the other guy pointed out that the so-called scientific academic process has been corrupted by greedy and demented alarmists, his only response was to the throw it at him. Very professorial.....? I can never learn anything from people like him or you.... smug self-satisfied weirdos. You think you're somehow clever and special because you spend your lives predicting a disaster that never comes, while real people suffer from the other demented policies that leftists bring in (like your mass importation of ISISlam) You wouldn't understand the concept of learning even if someone rammed a chalkboard up your ass. Have you ever sought out to try and learn why the so-called "minority" of scientists still say climate change isn't a problem? Surely they must have good reasons for being "holdouts"? I feel like you're only here to try and anger me with your hideous inane personality, not to have any actual worthwhile argument... But please, I just wanna know one thing, we've had at least like 2 decades now of people predicting disaster, how come we haven't had one single island nation "go underwater" yet? How come Hawaii hasn't drowned yet? You guys are ALWAYS going on about the sea levels rising.. Please tell me where's the real life instances of this stuff actually affecting real people in a major way.

[@davidjatt3251]

@@jamespyke6764 By the way, NASA is a space exploration organisation. Why should I listen to what they say about weather? I think, the reason NASA have been tasked with "dealing with" this stuff, is because the liars who spew global warming alarmism are trying to "borrow" some of NASA's credibility...? Right? Like i'm supposed to say "oh look, the space people said globel werming is heppening, so it must be true!!" Since American space exploration is now becoming a distant memory in the minds of most people, that is not gonna work either.....

[@thomaswattsjr.7]

So Brian Cox, who is smart enough to know the truth can now be added to the list of liars!

[@ceeemm1901]

How the fk did you get here from medieval times?

[@thomaswattsjr.7]

@@ceeemm1901 so you're a sycophantic propaganda idiot too! Go learn some history and STFU!

[@thomaswattsjr.7]

@@ceeemm1901 I've seen dozens of climate crisis hoax predictions since the 70's when they told us we would be in an ice age in ten years and for the last twenty its been "All the ice caps will melt!" Every prediction has been absurdly wrong! And yet you infantile, gullible morons just keep on believing the bullshit! Are you never ashamed of being a stupid sucker?

[@thomaswattsjr.7]

@@ceeemm1901 ironic too that you use the term "Medieval times" since that was when there was a 700yr period when temperatures were 8 to 10 degrees higher than they are now. A time of great explosions of plant and animal life, prosperity for humans, great expansion and exploration, trade flourished and CO2 levels were higher but no one was burning fossil fuels! You climate morons are just so proud of your ignorance you can't be bothered to learn any history but have the arrogance to insult and lecture those of us who do learn!

[@mikerider58]

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

[@TheSleightDoctor]

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. 😂

[@erwinheisenberg8821]

Richard Lindzen is no top climate scientist, also funded by fossil fuel money

[@MurdoT860]

Said the YT joke troll. 🤦‍♂️

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

Consensus IS science. That's precisely how a scientific theory becomes a scientific theory.

[@NatsdadsamI]

No, that's not how "scientific theory" becomes "scientific theory", whatever that means. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results, not "consensus". Consensus is An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. What this Senator is arguing is that this "group" or "whole" has manipulated the evidence to fit their theory, and THAT is fact. NASA is simply doing what it can to "stay relevant" in the face of companies like Tesla, who are starting to take over "NASA's" formely unique position. I've lived on the Ocean for more than 35 years of my life, in New Brunswick, where the worlds highest tides are, and I'll tell you right now, the oceans have not risen a single iota in those 35 years, not an inch. We have a means of measuring the water that is there for all to see. This is more globalist bullshit trying to scare the world into doing what these "so called" elites, want, period.

​@@NatsdadsamI I understand that a scientific consensus is not a mere opinion or popularity contest among scientists. Some degree of science judgement exists in many scientific theories about the causes of disappearance of dinosaurs, safety of vaccines or GMOs, Darwinian evolution, quantum mechanics, etc... Scientific consensus is achieved through scientific communication and debate at conferences and workshops, the peer-reviewed publication process and the replication of reproducible results by others. Scientific consensus is the best available epistemological framework for knowledge credibility when there are competing explanations, gaps and uncertainties. Scientific consensus takes countless hours of intellectual endeavor to produce and that deserves at least some respect.

[@philldiver6265]

Consensus science is NOT proof, neither is theory.

[@AndrewWilsonStooshie]

@@philldiver6265 Science doesn't work in proofs

[@rceravolojnr]

I brought the graph!! Yes but where did you get the information for the graph? ........ YES

[@yutyuiiu]

temperatue measurements...its all basic info...what info do you have to refute it...obviously nothing

[@rceravolojnr]

@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 KZbin news stories???? Seriously get a clue you chode

[@jiminverness]

@@yutyuiiu CDN refutes it aplenty: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJealK2XmamNfMk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5SZhamEZs2pgaM kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpyYlXt7rdGYjKM kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqbTfqaqiZaWfLc

[@maxsordi]

@@yutyuiiu there were higher temperatures in the past so what's the point? and there was no fossil fuel usage in the past so what's the point???? LOL how do they explain that? they don't cause it's all bs

[@derek6579]

Just goes to show how valid scientists can be duped by bad statistical modelling and lying!

[@dennistregellis9162]

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

[@benorourke_]

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.

[@DonVergation]

WERE YOU THERE ? HOW WOULD U KNOW

[@y_ffordd]

Thats just wrong.

[@DaveOh]

"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...?

[@Prat-zi1ou]

Source?

[@tomgreene1843]

Loved the clapping for the graph a very short sample of thousands of years??

[@SimonFrack]

How is it a short sample? It’s covered in data points!

[@Ont785]

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.

[@maxsordi]

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....

[@maxsordi]

@@SimonFrack because it's not showing millions or billions of years, that would show that fake increase' as nothing...

[@denm8991]

@@maxsordiwhat are you trying to tell him…. He clearly has no clue about statistics

[@melb5996]

The fact the the audience laughed when it was pointed out that NASA had manipulated the data shows how brainwashed they were. 😂

[@scottekoontz]

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.

[@melb5996]

@@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 👍

[@JoseMorphy]

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 🤡

[@AlanCurtis-t6v]

As usual with the BBC.

[@abelfonseca]

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.

[@tyrannyofexperts]

Conspiracy theorists are those who follow the science, data and observable evidence rather than the marketing propaganda.

[@1eftnut]

So conspiracy theorists finally believe the climate scientists instead of blaming democrats on making Florida a hurricane hotspot?!

[@onnosavage6666]

NOTHING STOPS what's coming. It's too late. Plan accordingly

[@warrenthornton7582]

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 !

[@m4ctav]

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...

[@hdajhdaahha3836]

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

[@brettb9194]

lol cuts the handle off the "hockey stick" oh and a wee note from the UN that's sure to increase credibility 😂

[@lh2435]

How was this helpful at all. It was just stupid people laughing, there was a graph of which some guy said that it proved something and the other said it was wrong, we couldn’t even see the graph properly.

[@leonardmccannon3136]

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....

[@yutyuiiu]

yes .03% of scientists do not agree. so thats the definition of consensus. and the facts of the current climate show he was right

[@TheSleightDoctor]

Unless they're currently publishing and actively researching climatologists, then they're not qualified to disagree with 98% of those who are.

[@leonardmccannon3136]

@@TheSleightDoctor 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.

[@TheSleightDoctor]

@@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

[@maxsordi]

@@yutyuiiu what facts? lol, consensus is not science.... there was consensus for lobotomies in the past, also there was consensus of not washing hands before surgeries.... they destroyed the man who said you should wash hands before surgeries, such are the 'scientists'.... lol, current climate is perfect, ice age would be an issue, not warmer period, past warming periods were periods of increased food production and prosperity

[@amy9571]

Video sucks. Can you upload the full discussion?

[@jasonwhittle5494]

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.

[@jcoker423]

Well climate change is based on physics (absorption, albedo). Unfortunately a Nobel prize Physicist called Clausen has said climate science is bunkum,

[@grahamtaylor3583]

And Cox calls himself a scientist, " Look here's a graph, you cannot argue with this graph"? WTF. SHOCKING!!!

[@FDTFDTFDT]

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.

[@grahamtaylor3583]

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

[@paulsmith1981]

@@FDTFDTFDT Politician fund climate science. Climate Scientist work for politicians.

[@shreddedhominid1629]

@@grahamtaylor3583 There are thousands of other graphs like it online if you want indisputable proof you moron.

[@shreddedhominid1629]

@@paulsmith1981 Fossil fuel lobby groups fund political campaigns and are big donors. Politicans work for the fossil fuel industry by spewing anti-scientific bullshit.

[@genecole2082]

He gives him the graph, but the data is flawed. The model is flawed, so the graph is useless.

[@geokrilov]

The graph is fake. It is not the model but a simple data tempering.

[@international_perspective]

@@geokrilov how do you know this? You don't.

[@geokrilov]

@@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.

[@shreddedhominid1629]

@@geokrilov Got a source for the bs you're spewing?

[@martinreese7373]

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?

[@TheSleightDoctor]

There are dozens of reconstructions going back tens of thousands of years. Google Images might help you. 😂

[@martinreese7373]

@@TheSleightDoctor 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.

[@maxsordi]

when you stretch the graph to millions of years, there's nothing to see... lol, in fact, previous interglacial periods were much warmer and faster warming occurred..... still waiting for this global warming to kick in, just want to save on heating bills....

[@jholt03]

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/

[@rosyrussell5209]

BRILLIANT REBUTTAL.

[@howardwhitehead3454]

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?

[@howardwhitehead3454]

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.

[@AnaInTh3Sky]

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.

[@schwubbi]

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?

[@gregsimpson9391]

I would have though Professor Cox had a much larger view of trends than the little graph he is holding up. I didn't think myopia was one of his faults but clearly when I hear statements like the world is in crisis I have to take a breath. ''An absolute consensus' - what a stupid phrase. I have never heard scientific facts established by an absolute consensus what utter rot. How on earth you did the BBC series on the solar system and then come out with this sort of statement is beyond me and beyond any thinking or questioning informed person.

[@markford4127]

Really??????? You would trust the views of a Senator who is giving his own opinions based of his own ideas against a Professor who has all the data on hand from many scientific institutions ( thats called a consensus) to back up what he is saying. I bet you think the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon also. Time to wake up and smell the coffee mate.

[@cCiIcCo]

Can anyone please explain what the little ice age was and why the temperature records started at the end of said little ice age?

[@Lineysraceroom]

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.

[@scottekoontz]

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.

[@JGmedia18]

@@scottekoontzjust check out Tony Heller for the real data

[@Electrozonelectronic]

Bad science to say absolute consensus and you can’t argue....

[@Leafsdude]

Agreed. Climate change is still a real problem.

[@miked5106]

​​@@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.

[@Leafsdude]

@@miked5106 "The Earth's surface can't radiate any meaningful level of LWR in the presence of the atmosphere." [Citations Needed]

[@shreddedhominid1629]

@@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.

[@hens_ledan]

@@miked5106 Total crap. I say that as a physicist. Any gas can both absorb and radiate heat.

[@karencheong2063]

Brian Cox has a graph , WOW,

[@ceeemm1901]

Roberts has a train set...

[@NoName-eq9md]

Christians have a 2000 year old story book wow!

[@jcoker423]

@@NoName-eq9md And M o hammed ans have a flying horse \!

[@NoName-eq9md]

@@jcoker423 Exactly lol, they copied their religion from drunk ass Christians

[@zammmo]

Just gone right off Brian Cox.

[@kvuppal1]

Consensus is pretty feeble proof. Before Copernicus there was an absolute consensus about the Sun revolving around the Earth.

[@hdajhdaahha3836]

And back then we hadnt adopted the scientific method, so no wonder

[@markgemesi6783]

Bbc did not disappoint me. Another pathetic misrepresentation.

[@ArcanePath360]

Brian Cox is NOT a scientist. Not after watching this. He's a clown

[@ceeemm1901]

And Little Malcolm is a Corporate rent boy. That's what happens to you when you were an annoying dwarf who was bullied at school. You can relate to that, can't you?

[@jaymorris3468]

Brian Cox who said there is no such things as UFOs

[@rosyrussell5209]

CRIKEY. Ive always liked and admired Cox, but how on earth can he believe in anthropogenic global warming! What a shock!

[@yutyuiiu]

because its factually proven as real...what is your damage!

[@ossealey8995]

This hasn't aged well has it Brian ?

[@TheSleightDoctor]

Why not?

[@lekarzkto]

How? It's aged very well.

[@quantumpolariton122]

Now I can literally feel the effects the global warming on the weather ….muppet

[@adk5997]

@@quantumpolariton122 like what ??? Coldest summer in 5 years. so not really

[@quantumpolariton122]

@@adk5997 lol…you realise global warming means extremes of temperatures, meaning things get very cold in some places and very hot in other places. Your comment is evidence of global warming?

[@RidesInforests]

Malcom Roberts has facts.

[@Stew282]

Ah, but Cox has a peice of paper with a line on it!

[@RidesInforests]

@@Stew282😂👍

[@hammondauger]

look out the one hit wonder keyboard player has a GRAPH again.