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

Professor Brian Cox has verbally sparred with a newly elected Australian politician who believes climate change is a global conspiracy. The British physicist behind BBC's Wonders of the Universe was a guest on the adversarial panel show Q&A. Also on the Australian TV show was senator-elect Malcolm Roberts from the anti-immigration One Nation party. The celebrity scientist was dumbfounded by Mr Roberts' claim that climate change data was manipulated by Nasa.
Please subscribe HERE bit.ly/1rbfUog
Islamic State's 'Most Wanted' • 'ISLAMIC STATE'S' MOST...
World In Pictures • WORLD IN PICTURES
Big Hitters • MUST SEE VIDEOS
Just Good News • Just good news

[@leew1598]

"Show me the Evidence!' (He's shown the evidence) .......'The evidence has been corrupted!'

[@SteveFusionX]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg Guess what?? The "climate" has always changed.. since the dawn of time. With or without our co2 output. We've had ice ages and we've had a global, medieval warm period.

[@VexylObby]

A dog always moves, especially when you kick it.

[@SteveFusionX]

Hamad you cant prove that. tell me what caused the ice ages before? What caused the medieval warm-period?? There were no cars, planes or factory's yet the climate massively changed - far more than it is right now. Your theory is based purely on politics, not science. It's based on fear-mongering and brainwashing that kids have endured all through school and university. Research the globalist agenda. That's all this is. About creating global laws - to fight the "climate" and to fight other crap such as terrorism. (which they can never win at) These are bogey-men ideas to TAX the gullible public.

[@SteveFusionX]

Hamad I'm not a republican. Stop clutching at straws and changing the subject. Still waiting for you to explain what caused the ice ages and what caused the global medieval warm period. wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

[@user-wl1uz5sb9f]

are you a scientist or a weatherman? or just plain idiot that wanks way too much on the inernet?

[@kvuppal1]

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

[@justintype1495]

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

[@apostatereacts]

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.

[@gregmoore167]

The good ole hockey stick graph!

[@r.westerling4280]

🎯

[@criticalbiker1273]

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

[@r.westerling4280]

🎯

[@brettb9194]

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

[@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

[@ossealey8995]

This hasn't aged well has it Brian ?

[@apostatereacts]

Why not?

[@lekarzkto]

How? It's aged very well.

[@ranbyhall-ourlifetimeadven2816]

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

[@apostatereacts]

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.

[@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. 😳😂🤣

[@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.

[@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😅😅😅

[@rmapcynan1039]

I don't agree with Malcolm Roberts, however...! When the audience applaud enthusiastically after Brian says 'I brought the graph', I have to say, so what? We don't know what the X and Y axes are. The graph could say anything, and it is very easy to create a graph that misrepresents data. So simply applauding because someone holds up a graph that they couldn't possibly see from a distance, could not possibly interpret, is lunacy. This isn't a discussion about climate change, its TV entertainment.

[@killerjg]

That is way he threw it so he can have a read.

[@deborahweisz377]

Ah, someone using critical thinking which is the basis of all science!

[@blafsko1521]

It's been a year and you're still right. And it's also remarkable how the video was edited to cut the voice of scientist.

[@Elite7555]

They applaude because he was prepared and Roberts was not.

[@jordyboy321]

Hes an idea. Considering the graph is one of the most produced pieces of evidence on climate change, why dont you go and do some research instead of dismissing it because you dont know what I means?

[@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.

[@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

[@apostatereacts]

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. 😂

[@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.

[@apostatereacts]

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.

[@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/

[@reasonableguy9090]

BBC + Brian Cox + a graph on a piece of paper. 😂

[@Elite7555]

@Peter Do you really want to talk about how Cox deceives people while you yourself are at it? The issue of global warming (I repeat: GLOBAL WARMING) has nothing to do with a local heat event a hundret years ago. It is true that the hottest years on record were in the last two decades. And the span between heat records becomes shorter and shorter.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

That's not CO2, that's the amount of money he's spent on Botox.

[@reasonableguy9090]

@Peter. According to Prince Charles, we have only 10 years to save the planet. If people want to talk about deceit, the climate change activists could do themselves a favour and stop repeating that hysteria every decade. Didn’t Al Gore say Manhattan would be underwater by 2020? 😂😂

[@abloogywoogywoo]

@@reasonableguy9090 These alarmists and doomsday cultists posing as credible scientists really do need to fuck off and let the rest of us live our lives. My grandparents and parents were weary of their lies in 90s, we're now into the 2020s.

[@generalerica4123]

@Peter Youre confusing things here, and I dont blame you, takes quite a lot to get behind it, but allow me to explain. First of all, the "peak days" are not all that important. Whilst the number of them grows as the climate gets warmer, they are not the most problematic factor (even though, for us humans, they mean an increase in fatalities due to heatstroke). What is of staggering importance is the overall increase of temperature, which may deplace seasons or change them, causing famines and other nasty things in the immediate future. What's also important is humidity. For instance, in death valley, with sufficient water present, a relatively athletic person would be totally fine at 53 degrees C, whereas, in the Iranian city of Bandar-E Mahshahr, somewhere in 2015, 100.000 people were on the brink of dying because the temperature had risen to 46 degrees C, and that, coupled with the humidity present (which was about 50%), which keeps humans from being able to sweat properly, was very, very, very dangerous indeed. So please, be careful. Absolute numbers dont always mean much. There's a lot of contexts to take into account here.

[@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'.

[@kayakMike1000]

There is no consensus.

[@pingu4238]

If the evidence doesen't agree with you, it must be false.

[@reallife7375]

It has be corrupted thats the thing!!!! kzbin.info/aero/PL-fZHN5imids889-f2SgovdG_WHABhItJ

[@jamespyke6764]

@@reallife7375 Yes corrupted by the coal mining manager Roberts and other FF employees. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2OufXqnebh0oNE

[@reallife7375]

@@jamespyke6764 We all know that death is inevitable

[@jamespyke6764]

@@reallife7375 We all know that death is inevitable so speed up the process. Ok you first. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a2OufXqnebh0oNE

[@abloogywoogywoo]

@@jamespyke6764 Coal Industry is DEAD compared to what it used to be in the 20s and 30s. Yet, they're still saying CO2 from coal is higher than ever. Not sure if I smell coal burning.... but I do smell BULLSHIT, from liars.

[@TheMindfulMatrix]

Correlation does not infer causality from purely statistical viewpoint. One could correlate rise in global temperature to some random variable that does not prove that variable causing the rise. We do not yet have enough data to draw conclusions on it.

[@dinachoueiry6073]

Yea man. You go go tell the truth. I don’t understand science BUT I will use my science to prove the science of majority of scientist. That they are wrong. I am special that’s why. I know more then everyone’s data. The science is wrong. You know why? Because I got this science data here that says so. 🥴🥴🥴😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡 And also this 15 year old KZbinr told me so. Also the world is flat

[@terbospeed]

Don't take your vaccine, vote for Trump, buy a truck, praise jebus

[@shreddedhominid1629]

"We do not yet have enough data to draw conclusions on it." Yes... yes we do, what the fuck are you talking about?

[@sonofsomerset1695]

That graph only goes back to 1880, ice cores have shown the Earth has been far hotter in the past nothing to do wity human activity, so that graph is starting from a level that was already low historically and was always likely to rise toward the normal temperatures of the Earth.

[@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.

[@user-sn2dq4hw1r]

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

[@Propraj]

@@user-sn2dq4hw1rlet 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.

[@BornAgainCarnivore]

They laugh, but they have no clue.

[@Elite7555]

Which is why they laugh. Appears to be a vicious circle.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

They are the brainwashing universities' finest.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

@Peter I'm going to start ignoring you Peter if you can't or won't understand satire.

[@jamespyke6764]

@@abloogywoogywoo Just like you ignore science and reality I guess. Lucky you got your FF masters to think for you aah. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r328oq1_nc2HbNE kzbin.info/www/bejne/amSZZKCpadSardk

[@badtuber1654]

@@abloogywoogywoo brainwashing universities

[@paddylenox-conyngham6326]

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

[@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

[@jptdsbet13]

yes, ah, that graph says it all

[@chattigre]

The funniest thing in the world is us arguing with global warming. The globe wins in this scenario.

[@pendleeldnep]

Wrong. Time Doctors offer better value on this measure of expertise. What better humour than being presented with an invoice for time spent understanding what changes over time. Now all we need to understand is which of those changes is important - government is much like an out of control ego obsessing with the future because of the past - this type of thinking is exactly what brought us these alleged problems - and we never will have a 'consensus' on whether problems are really problems. Exactly how many humans and at what point in time are they a problem?

[@mider9996]

I’d love to hear solution, maybe go back to the Stone Age?

[@budbud2509]

Does it ? When u are prepared to manipulate the data u can prove anything u want WTFU Now look at these graphs , brian cox is a sham who does not study his subject . kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqWydXyInc2JbpI

[@BigDuke6ixx]

@@mider9996 the answer is a mass die off of humans, which will happen.

[@Apistevist]

I hate when people say the Earth wins if we're gone. The Earth is a rock and we're the only sapience to ponder experience and I find the sentiment to be anti-sapience and anti-Human. We matter far more than the Earth. So fuck the original commenter. That being said, there are 5 big solutions. I favor a solar shade inside of L1, this project would be immense but we're very capable of it and would give us high control over sunlight reaching Earth and where it goes + ~35 Terrawatts of constant power (Currently the entire world on average uses ~15TW. We could transmit this energy to the Moon for Fusion fuel production and manufacturing for example.@@mider9996

[@megalodon6108]

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

[@firstgenchevelleman]

What should the temperature be?

[@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.

[@legacy1830]

@@scottekoontzjust check out Tony Heller for the real data

[@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

[@user-nf7wj1qb2n]

That graph 😂

[@user-xy9vi7hs2q]

😂😂😂😂

[@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?

[@apostatereacts]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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?

[@iancampbell6925]

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

[@EqualEquanimity]

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.

[@orion9k]

The graph doesn't show a correlation between two or more variables. If I'm not mistaken, that graph he's flashing is the classic data on 'co2 measured in icecaps over thousands of years' release over time, but it's not showing a direct correlation (or more importantly, a causation), between human activity and global warming. Hit me with statistical analysis, if I'm wrong🤓👌

[@franciscos.2301]

I disagree, I think it's the chart of the models Vs NASA's global temperature. Regardless, it's bogus anyway.

[@anonkasper7937]

@@franciscos.2301 Watch this kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6HIiIqbh7tqZ7s

[@Neofelis131]

Yes you are very wrong lol. The graph he showed was the “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index” and it shows a directly proportional relationship between time and temperature anomalies. True it doesn’t show the cause for this increase in temperature but it does illustrate that the earth is warming which was the point of contention. Now what climatologists do is they take that data and they say oh I wonder what could be causing this exponential increase in average temperature? So they form a hypothesis and make a prediction and then test those ideas. Keep in mind these climatologists who are advocating for climate change discovered most of earths natural processes. And that’s exactly where they looked first. And looking at all known natural processes and constructing the data they found it was not significant enough to account for the change we are observing. So reluctantly they looked at human based causes. And they saw a directly cause and effect. But they didn’t want to believe it because well money and energy depends on that so they kept looking. The worlds best climatologists they did their absolute best to argue against climate change and test for any other possible cause. Sadly they never found one. And that’s when the data became more open and known and when climate change became a big thing in discussion. Look at the data yourself. It’s all publicly available on google scholar.

[@miked5106]

​@@Neofelis131EXPONENTIAL increase in temperature? which planet are you referring to?

[@Neofelis131]

@@miked5106 The one we call home. And yes exponential. Keep in mind that doesn’t mean a temperature increase of 5 or god forbid 10 degrees. It’s only around 0.8 degrees Celsius, but it’s all relative and the graphs in question is best described as exponential, most certainly not a linear increase. Hence why I used the term. Look up “exponential graph” and “linear graph” for a better idea. This is by far the most common pattern we see regarding temperature within our global climate systems, relatively stable and well balanced range of highs and lows and then a drastic increase around the time of the Industrial Revolution. I’d also recommend looking up “Has the global climate warmed exponentially.”

[@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

[@Lipo]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the phrase "absolute consensus".

[@chrisdaniels6899]

Crikey they're still wheeling out the old hockey stick graph is that all they got?

[@area51z63]

why not start the graph at 22,000 years ago when the glacial maximum began to end

[@aarongooding8441]

Why does he laugh when NASA is mentioned? They are a player in this issue... "According to NASA, since 2000 sea level has risen by 2.4 inches. While that may not seem very significant at first glance, imagine how much water is required to raise the global ocean level by 2.4 inches. Just the hydrological significance of moving that much water to the sea is significant."

[@techo61]

When you say 'player in the issue' do you mean playing for government funding?

[@joemilinovich6749]

oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[@joemilinovich6749]

Yes they have risen.

[@joemilinovich6749]

@Peter what scientists said the ocean level hasn't risen? One thing at a time. Prove yourself since you are spouting statistics. What scientists?

[@joemilinovich6749]

@Peter learn the difference between weather and climate. But hey you still haven't showed me which scientists said the ocean level hasn't risen. Yet you spout it has. You crack me up

[@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!

[@jaymorris3468]

Brian Cox who said there is no such things as UFOs

[@petermcdougall5291]

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

[@user-jq5wb3gn6x]

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

[@TroyaE117]

A lecture from Prof Brian Cox, whose carbon footprint is horrendous.

[@jaykay789]

as opposed to yourself, who can't afford to travel. LOL

[@trackdusty]

My God, he almost threw his handbag at MR!

[@Competitive_Antagonist]

@@jaykay789 Poverty shaming. How progressive.

[@scottekoontz]

@@trackdusty You have a handbag? OK, who cares.

[@Elldeeve]

Things can only get better

[@covingtonrace1]

Consensus????? Cox knows science does not have a consensus.

[@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.

[@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

[@apostatereacts]

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

[@leonardmccannon3136]

@@apostatereacts if you were following the debate actively and knew at least some of the better known dissenting opinions, then you wouldnt bother to pose this question as stated. Incidentally, the 98% you speak of is itself a misnomer. The claim that 98 % scientists agree that increases in CO2 adds to temperature in climate is a trivial claim. Why? Well, what is not asked is how much CO2 creates meaningful changes to the climate. The changes may be trivial, and their is no explanation of how other forces affect the climate in countervailing ways. The best efforts to "model" this relationship by the climate " experts" across time has been an epic failure by any standard. That's the world where the 98 % has resided for decades now.

[@apostatereacts]

@@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

[@RevengeToPutler]

Can someone remind me what R2 values for the graph are?

[@mmcclean8791]

A graph starting from? What year?

[@3ron]

LMAO a politician trying to tell a scientist what science is. 😂🤣

[@kurwamacjebanapizda]

Yeah you right scientist novadays are useless. 50 ya scientists said that ice age is coming.

[@3ron]

@@kurwamacjebanapizda no they didn't say the ice age is coming a magazine did because they didn't have anyone competent to relay what scientist were doing.

[@kruse8888]

@@3ron Actually there was 2 groups with different predictions. One group predicted a warmer climate and another group predicted cooler climate. Most funny is that heading the “cooling” group was James Hansen who late became the spearhead of the global warming movement and the infamous man behind IPCCs climate gate(the tree ring false studies) And btw. A scientist using words like consensus is probably lying. The hockey stick graph have been debunked numerous times. NOAA and NASA are known for “adjusting” the data to fit into their models, especially their temperature messurements that’s mostly homogenized.

[@Purwapada]

he was an engineer

[@kruse8888]

@@Purwapada I talked my old teacher and he said, the cooling thesis were wide spread. It was forwarded by The American Meteorological Society and backed by NASA, CAS and even the CIA. And it was based on the same principles that todays models are based on. I then asked him if he trust the models, I think he’s still laughing. Brian Cox is a shill for the alarmists, he even call Michael Mann and James Hansen eminent scientists😂

[@IbnBahtuta]

It is not just Earth that is heating up. Check out the rest of our solar system. Are we to blame for that as well?

[@raverdeath100]

absolute bollocks i'm afraid.

[@sclair2854]

What do you mean? The rest of the solar system hasn't been heating up, and the sun is actually going into lower output atm

[@OshZosh]

You are correct. It was a Russian scientist that discovered it, too. "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." from National Geographic, Feb 28, 2007.

[@sclair2854]

Oksanna Zoschenko The sun is going into lower output. What mars data? We have scarcely any longterm climate studies on mars. A planet with different year cycles, gravity, atmosphere and periodic planet wide dust storms. The same article was widely criticized by the scientific community for being ludicrous. Abdussamatov doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect at all. (I wonder how he explains Venus). He also while simultaneously believing the sun is to blame for increased temperatures, now believes we are beginning a mini ice age.

[@raverdeath100]

Oksanna Zoschenko and if you follow up you find that he was recording spikes after a martianwide sandstorm. he was wrong. so why are you believing a scientist who has contradicted himself on Total Solar Irradiance - first he claims the sun is heating Mars and Earth, and then he says we're heading for an ice age because the Sun is cooling. oh, and he's yet to provide any observable evidence.

[@hoostra7202]

Consensus? One should always question science.

[@gitmoholliday5764]

it's just politics and corruption nothing else

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

That's right. All the LIES and DISTORTIONS told by FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SHILLS for Big Oil Big Coal Big Gas and all the CENSORSHIP that those industries IN CAHOOTS WITH BIG GOVERNMENT have forced against renewable energy & electric cars. All the POLITICAL BIAS is in favor of continuing to do nothing against the status quo.

[@fraterdeusestveritas2022]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 The fossil fuel industry supports openly climate change politics, as they are set to get billions from new carbon taxes to cover their losses while the west is de-industrialized and industry is moved to China and India.

[@czimmy9114]

Frater Deus Est Veritas how do carbon polluters directly benefit from carbon taxes?

[@penginator88]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 ok but i didn't ask for a essay

[@ceeemm1901]

Oh, now we know, thanks. Now let mommy have her computer back.

[@jamescaley9942]

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

[@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

[@luxither7354]

928 out of 928 peer reviewed study has nothing on my idea that it's still HOT OUTSIDE.

[@miked5106]

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

[@phillipjohnson1459]

Here look at the graph what a joke

[@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. 🤣

[@vascoribeiro69]

The graph...ahahah

[@col2959]

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

[@brandonszpot8948]

You’re*

[@justmemimi7338]

“Absolute consensus”? Liar.

[@user-km3hv8qo9p]

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.

[@aus822]

“Where is the evidence?” “Right here” ..... “no”

[@taturay]

If you ask 2x2=? And I respond 5 and show you a paper with the #5... you accept that?

[@Bailey03_C]

@@taturayyour theory suggest that everything ever written is therefore opinion.

[@IronFreee]

@@taturay What an absurd rebuttal, it's not the fact that it's on paper that makes it solid evidence. The source of the data presented is not contested, except from flat hearth level of conspiracy theory. Are you also claiming that all the available data has been corrupted by the NASA? A space agency that relies greatly on fuel to achieve its job... Why would they do that? Where is your evidence for that? Why should anyone believe that?

[@georgepoz1789]

I can produce graph as well. Is that count ?

[@IronFreee]

@@georgepoz1789 I guess you mean "does that count?" Well, it depends on the source of your graph. If your graph data is from a serious source and its matching other data from all around the world, I see no reason to doubt of its validity. Unless, of course, if you can present solid evidence for doing so... Do you have solid evidence to distrust the temperature data that have been collected for all those years? Or are you just making up stuff out of your arse?

[@kvuppal1]

You can't prove a point by throwing a graph at someone anymore than I can prove the existence of God by flinging the Bible at you.

[@jupeterczech1340]

I've not replied to the others, just a 👍but yours is ACE and sooo true!!!👍👍👍UK

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@DanielPierce]

I’ve heard consensus, yeah exactly, consensus of scientific papers that are written as a direct result of doing the science and getting the answers...

[@thomaswoodworth7644]

The Hocky Stick Graph was wrong, 20 year temp hiatus, sea gauges show no signs of rising seas. Was there anything the scientist were right about?

[@frostedlambs]

@Anthony Timmers who is paying them then? Big oil pays for scientists you think they're warped perspective would be respected a bit more if it held weight, we dont know exactly what will happen but how can you say that all the incects and all the toxic chemicals being put out arnt harmful, we have had more of an impact in the last 100 years compared to thousands of years and you think that does nothing?

[@frostedlambs]

@@thomaswoodworth7644 so your saying the predictions were wrong but the data was right

[@frostedlambs]

@@thomaswoodworth7644 sea level has risen 20cm since the 1980s

[@frostedlambs]

@@thomaswoodworth7644 they show massive signs of rising.... a quick googl2e search shows your wrong

[@davidculhane4388]

Where is the rest of the clip? Why don't they show his explanation for how the data has been manipulated like maybe showing the millions of years of a wildly-fluctuating climate and how the human influence is subtle?

[@thomasgt9933]

Honestly do not know how I would compose myself

[@joviac1435]

@@anonkasper7937 Agreed, that video should be taught in the school curriculum, WORLD WIDE Its jam-packed with top-shelf scientists the mainstream ignore, instead heralding Michael Mann’s data-less hockey stick graph as the bees-knees. Let it be known the IPCC has since dropped the hockey stick Even the IPCC realised what Michael Mann should do with his hockey stick!

[@NeoShaman]

Fanatics, not scientists, says you can't argue.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Just like fanatics, not scientists, say you can't argue with lawyers or judges or this RELIGIOUS BELIEF that "one should not represent oneself in court". BULLSHIT. Nobody has any legal obligation to show up in court.

[@NoName-eq9md]

I'd rather have a scientist talk me down than fanatics who believe Jesus can walk on water and the earth was made in 6 days.

[@EqualEquanimity]

The climate change denier is an Australian politician. They couldn't find a scientist for the debate?

[@Mikeybhoy1979]

​​@@EqualEquanimityWhere did he deny climate change wasn't happening as it always has? Plus, if co2 emissions is warming the planet, why did Professor Cox fly to Australia?😊

[@supermassvanity]

Is the first year on the graph the 1800's?

[@johntatman8182]

We're smart enough to recognize that we're the problem but we're not seeing the solution

[@jannops]

Maybe you and the climate cult are but not the rest of us.

[@NoWay1969]

May not always be the case, but it is in the preponderance of the cases. When all the smart people in the room disagree with you, it probably means you're not very smart.

[@SolvingTornadoes]

Malcolm was the only one here who actually understands science.

[@NoWay1969]

@@SolvingTornadoes He's on a panel with Brian Cox. Try again.

[@SolvingTornadoes]

@@NoWay1969 LOL. If there was any doubt that Cox is a moron it was completely eliminated here.

[@SolvingTornadoes]

LOL. In your case this most certainly is true.

[@SolvingTornadoes]

@@NoWay1969 Exactly!

[@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...

[@leemollison7508]

wow, this aged well.........I used to respect Brian Cox. 🙄

[@buntun3670]

the arrogance makes it too obvious he is on script, the old guy is right - he is just appealing to authority.

[@jjourz612]

Professor Cox is wrong

[@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.

[@user-bz4sy3gj4o]

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....

[@user-bz4sy3gj4o]

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

[@1grfield]

That graph is not in proper perspective. Looks like a large change when it is actually a small change and well within norms.

[@Hff19927]

We were told at school in the early 2000’s that is we didn’t stop using spray on Wales would be under water in 2020

[@jennroberts3837]

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

[@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'?

[@gillharris6967]

Malcolm Roberts said he would only believe Empirical Evidence, not consensus. The definition of Empirical Evidence is: "Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines". Brian's graph is the result of Empirical Evidence.

[@priestharis1565]

But temperatures have risen in the past and ices have melted in the past ... before bad humans even existed

[@amy9571]

Video sucks. Can you upload the full discussion?

[@mrpixel3579]

it's just another way to tax you wake up.

[@Matty18795]

Look at Tony Heller twice as fast

[@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!

[@WELLBRAN]

The earth temp is. Changing ..but its not due to human activity...its a natural cycle

[@monashsq4001]

There have been those cycles but if you look at the data it is know going off the chart like nothing that has been before.

[@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?

[@staffankarlsson1428]

If a scientist uses the word "consensus" for the status of a science he doesn't know what science is!!