Professor Brian Cox exposes & destroys One Nation's Malcolm Roberts - Q&A full episode 15/8/2016 

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

Climate change chat kicks off at 11:30

Omg the dumb hurts... Malcom is the definition of denial. I wonder if he "believes" in electrons or other facts within physics.

Props to Prof Brian Cox for not just tableflipping

Justin Beiber joke failed, Almost as hard as this guy trying to sound remotely informed.

A politician arguing SCIENCE with a professor of particle physics... Really?!

Malcolm: "Brian Cox stop appealing to authority! Now here's a quote from Feynman which suits my agenda:..."

Roberts is the type of guy whom lies to his lawyer, pays for his services, then ignores his advise. There's a guy there who's much smarter than you telling you the deal and you're arguing with him.

Unbelievable. Both Cos and Roberts look at the same graph, and Roberts goes "see that peak? It's the same as now.". No, no it's not you blind fool!

Incorrect accusation of 'appeal to authority'. Climate scientists are a legitimate authority on climate.

Watching Malcolm Roberts deny climate change is like watching a colour blind person call blue, red

If they ever remake Jaws, Malcolm Roberts should be the Mayor in it.

Not even close to a fair fight. In order to make this a realistic debate on climate change, then I think there should be 99 climate scientists against Malcolm Roberts.

Professor Cox has become one of my favorite speakers when it comes to science.

This Malcom guy keeps saying there's no empirical data that proves cause and effect. That is a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science itself. Empirical data can never "prove" cause and effect, that goes back to David Hume. That is why the scientific method exists. So what the fuck is this guy talking about?

Well done to the bloke that Tweeted "Things can only get better" LOL

Malcolm not only seems to be refusing to believe that humans burning fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, but he also seems to be refuting the idea that increased Co2 (from any source) contributes to global warming. I think Brian Cox could have taken him through the *empirical* data in minute detail and Malcolm would still refuse to accept the validity of his reasoning. I'm not an Ozzie. What does he get out of this?

LOVE Prof. Brian Cox! He speaks with such passion, its infectious! x

A fine example of McCarthyism isn't Mr Roberts. It is so much easier to accuse and then back-peddle later knowing that the damage has been done and the seed of doubt has been planted. I think the one thing Brian failed to touch on but managed to with the time explanation, was that even if the outcomes of the models were wrong it does not mean that the data was wrong, simply that they don't have it all figured out yet and should definitely keep trying. Many things in this world are still miles out of our understanding and to throw the baby out with the bathwater is just stupid and ignorant.

Could someone please explain how these bloody RU-vid conversation threads work;so I do not keep getting my post/comment repeated in the same place?

You go to ten doctors because you're not feeling well, eight say you have an serious bacterial infection and prescribe a round of antibiotics. Two doctors say you're fine, just a common cold, do nothing. What are you going to do? Obviously you take the antibiotics. Isn't this situation kind of the same choice?

11:10

is this Malcolm roberts guys serious? its like he is living in the wrong century

I mean no offence Australia, but what's up with your politicians 😂

by reading the comments below, I must congratulate the Aussies on their rationalism. There is some hope down under :)

Coxy is a fucking legend !

basically what they're saying is "my sponsors advise me not to believe your data"

Just finished watching this And how polite is this show . I am used to Brian Cox as a guest on Question Time in England . QT is normally shouting and bad mannered MPs . And all sorts of audience booing . But this Australian show is just so calm and lovely compared to ours

"For Australian voters, the nightmare of electing Roberts and One Nation to the senate has just begun." www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/malcolm-roberts-leaves-nasa-'flummoxed'-with-q&a-climate-claims-20160815-gqt9a4.html

I have nothing against allowing climate denialists on broadcast media, for the sake of balance. But, also for the sake of balance, they should get 3% of the airtime on broadcast media that those who agree with the consensus view get. All in the name of journalistic balance.

Kudos to whoever is in charge of selecting the tweets to come up on the screen.

Malcom Roberts is the reason why Brian Cox doesn't think humanity is capable of dealing with climate change

one brain cell senator

At last One Nation has an intelligent politician in Malcolm Roberts. His logic is the equal of Brian Cox even though they may disagree on the empirical evidence over climate change. Should be more like him in government.

today's fun fact: we have enough ice on earth to make a square mile of it go to the moon 32 times

Tara from 60 Minutes did an investigation on the refugees on Naru Island which was shown a few months ago on television. The families appeared in good health with freedom to roam the island at will. All of the children went to school each day and were free to go to their friends houses or the shop whenever they pleased. Work was available for the adults and they were welcomed by the Naru people.The refugees that were filmed in cages stated that they were being kept in these cages and they showed 60 Minutes where their protest photo's took place, it was a steel type farm gate that could swing back on itself and with the wire of the fence behind it; it gave the illusion that these refugees were in a wire cage when they actually weren't, the gate had nothing over the top and no one could be held in it as it wasn't sealed.60 Minutes asked one of the male refugees what the problems were at Naru and he said "l don't like it", when 60 Minutes asked him to explain he said "l want to go to Australia", Tara said "so you don't really have a problem here you just want to go to Australia?" And he said "Yes, go to Australia".The houses that Australia provided for them are 3 bedroom homes and appear to be of pretty good quality, they were given new kitchens with all new appliances, they are given food and clothing, money, mobile phones and cigarettes.There are dozens of houses on Naru for these refugees and when 60 Minutes were there one of the refugees had burnt his house to the ground because he wanted to go to Australia.Tara again asked a female refugee "What is your problem with Naru? And she said "l want to go to Australia".So after seeing that interview l now believe these refugee's are abusing their children in an effort to get off the Naru Island and over to Australia, therefore, perhaps the abusers need to be deported to another accepting country (depending of course on the abuse that has taken place) otherwise they may need to be imprisoned on Naru.Watch the 60 Minutes program to see for yourselves before you start commenting on a topic you may not know about.

Mr Roberts really should learn that there's 'appeals to authority' and then there's 'deferment to the experts'. Also, 'arriving at a consensus' is not an 'argumentum ad populum' logical fallacy either.

I think Malcolm is a feminist.

I read a book by Brian Cox in which he stated that politicians should make all the decisions and the people just have to accept it, this is how it came over to me, funny how certain people who are in a professional job are different from the majority.

I've just done a really smelly fart.

Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of doubt"

Brian Cox should surrender his degree, just on the basis of stupidity.

Everyone make sense. The problem is the hockey stick graph that professor Cox holds up. The IPCC AR1 showed a graph that included the medieval warm period and the little ice age (no hockey stick). In 1995 Keith Briffa published a article in the journal Nature that said the the medieval warm period didn't happen. Later graphs by the IPCC, NOAA, NASA now show flat graphs with a jockey stick end. Are they right?

The newspapers of the twenty-first century will give a mere 'stick' in the back pages to accounts of crime or political controversies, but will headline on the front pages the proclamation of a new scientific hypothesis. Nikola Tesla

hmm except it seemed brian was on the backfoot the whole way flummoxed and being irrational. It seems by your title your choosing what you want to believe instead of being objective.

Consensus isn't science.

These Australian panellists seem much more composed than their British Question Time counterparts.

Five weaknesses in Brian Cox's argument: 1. Correlation does not prove causality. Factor A might move largely in tandem with factor B, but that does not necessarily prove that A causes B. B might be causing A, and/or other factors C D and E might be driving them them both. This can easily create the false appearance of causality, especially when numerous different factors are trending upwards over time. 2. Cox has left out other factors. For example, he has left out water vapour, which accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gas, whereas carbon dioxide accounts for only 3%. He has also left out other significant drivers of global temperatures such as the Pacific Diurnal Oscillation effect. 3. The data shows that, even if the the earth is warming overall (which is open to some debate), it is not warming evenly. In particular, it is definitely cooling in most of Antarctica. This is hugely important in its implications for sea level change. The melting of the Arctic ice cap, even if it were to occur, would have NO impact on sea levels. Water expands as it freezes into ice, and it contracts when it melts from ice back into water. The effect of the melting of floating sea ice on sea levels is zero. You can confirm this for yourself with a simple experiment; take a glass of water with ice cubes in it and watch the unchanging level of the water as the ice cubes melt. Sea levels can only be affected by global warming if the ice that is sitting on top of land masses such as Antarctica melt and/or slide off into the sea; the evidence is that this is not happening, in fact the opposite is the case. 4. Cox has not provided sound evidence of the socio-economic costs of global warming, even if it were to occur. There would in fact be many benefits as well as costs if global warming were to occur. Parts of the Arctic Ocean would become navigable to shipping, cutting the transport costs and times of many goods. Some crops would grow better in certain places. Warmer temperatures would mean more evaporation from the oceans resulting in higher rainfall, some of it falling on farmland where we want it. And the wonder of the Great Barrier Reef would extend southwards into waters that were previously too cool for tropical corals to grow in. 5. Cox has completely disregarded the socio-economic costs of the "remedy" to climate change that is typically advanced by the alarmists: trashing the global economy through the banning of many of the energy, transport and manufacturing technologies (such as using almost a ton of coking coal to smelt each ton of steel) that we rely upon to provide food, clothing and shelter to people.

The girl's face at 1:00:28 is priceless. "I didn't ask you... you old weirdo."

Holy captioning BATMAN! Did the person that captioned this speak English?

Is there actually any explanation to the rise in world temperatures in the 17th century?

I cannot believe that with such strong evidence and opposition of his views, Malcolm still denies climate change..... *cough$* Never getting my vote!

To ask an expert is not the right direction, it is the people with the experience who should be heard. This procedure has not been allowed to have a voice, because of the past antiquated education system still is in charge, not intelligence.

Does anybody know what the story was with CO2 increases being caused by the temperature rises? I wanted to hear more about this 'theory'

Is Roberts for real? My god, we've got some weirdos over here in the UK but I think we must bend to you Aussies for the silliest. There is argument on global warming, but they depend on believing the stats and arguing from them. We've got Dianne Abbot so perhaps I was being harsh on Roberts. But then, who would want to be classed alongside her, which is where I'd put Roberts, at least on a good day for him. I despair of politicians. What the likes of Roberts are doing is punishing the coming generations.

Anyone else want to see a rap battle between Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts?

these " " " scientists " " " say "are we still haveing this conversation"

Cox has the naivete of a child. Yes Brian the Easter Bunny exists.

Brian even says "You can never get any sense on programs like these that are Adversarian" haha so true. and not only adversarian.. also 'australian'

I was very annoyed by the conversation in general, but one thing that I was particularly annoyed by is how Malcolm Roberts kept saying that he keeps hearing "consensus" and that "consensus is not science". I was surprised that the panelists like Brian Cox didn't clear this point up, and it worries me that people might agree with this. Lily Serna brought up a good point that the job of politicians is to take the information they are given by advisors and decide how to use that information to develop policy that will benefit the interests of the nation or on a global political scale. That advisory scaffolding is built a lot like a triangle, the way I see it, where the area of the triangle is indicative of how much scientific evidence is communicated. At the top of the triangle, or hierarchy, are the politicians, and at the bottom are the scientists. Climate scientists are the ones who are trained to - and perform - the studies, model development, model testing, data collection and data interpretation. Being at the bottom of the triangle, they have to deal with a vast amount of empirical evidence that is not appropriate to give to the top of the triangle for various reasons. These reasons include the fact that politicians are not trained or equipped to deal with the data (a side note that I am extremely unenamoured by the lack of scientists in parliament), nor do they have the time to deal with that data because they have a tonne of other issues and decisions that they have to make. It is therefore the job of the advisory structure to condense that information down to a digestible, succinct format that is meant to drive the creation of policy. Part of that information condensing is the fact that scientists are at a consensus that there is a major human element to climate change. What that consensus means is that thousands of scientists have looked at the data, processed it, and all come to the same conclusion that the human element exists. The word "consensus" is built upon a backbone of empirical evidence, which Malcolm Roberts claims he is looking for, but by dismissing the "consensus", he is dismissing the condensed package of information that is delivered to someone like him, who should be driving the creation of policy to deal with that information. I really hope people do not take his claim at face value without considering the background and the backbone of the evidence that is presented.

"Fully, completely, and absolutely" lol 2:00

Who's delusional grey haired grandad is on this panel arguing the MIGHT BRIAN COX!!!

I want where this information where the consensus has been "debunked," because the papers I read late as 2014 and 2015 and there was no "debunking," but rather focused on how the consensus was reached.

democracy clearly doesn't work. How does someone like this get such an influential job?! How isn't scientists the ones advising policies

Only way to solve the Asylum problem is by creating a whole independent city and then place all the Asylum seekers and illegal migrants in that city. Every country in the world should donate large sums of cash to build this city. We just need to find a place where we can build this refugee city.

At 27:40 Brian Cox, the supposed scientist, pretty much just openly denied Henry's law when he says that CO2 changes are not the result of temperature-change and calls it a deception. Of course CO2 changes lag temperature-changes; *the solubility of CO2 is temperature-dependent* and the oceans release CO2 when they warm and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere when they cool and they contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere and so small changes in ocean temperature will control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is what you see happening in the ice-core data and is why CO2 lags temperature-changes. The ice-core data shows on average an 800-year lag and the CO2 is also lagging temperature-changes today. See the peer-reviewed paper “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum et al (2012).

All Cox did was shut down the discussion. No one should be concerned about a Royal Commission. THAT is the place for getting to the facts.

Dear Brian Cox, I believe Al Gore was the first carbon trading billionaire

Go here: www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php

at 25:00 she accidently said 'dealing with cock, climate change'

He's right, science isn't done by consensus. It's done by scientists, not politicians. If Roberts believes there's a conspiracy he should prove it. You know "empirical data".

These politicians are total scum.

2007 "Polar caps will be gone in 5 years" Al Gore 2016 Polar caps have increased in size since 2007 I think Al Gore may have exaggerated

Why aren't dudes like Brian steering the ship? We as a civilization have devolved.

The US oil industry has been FULLY aware, since the 1960s, of the relationship between CO2 emissions and Global Warming... By the 1960s, the CO2 problem was gaining wider scientific recognition, especially as President Lyndon B. Johnson's science advisers and leading experts brought it to the attention of the White House in 1965. "If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur," SRI scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins wrote in their 1968 paper to API. "Changes in temperature on the world-wide scale could cause major changes in the earth's atmosphere over the next several hundred years including change in the polar ice caps."

Thanks for uploading this :)

Wow! Appears to me Brian cox graduated by remembering what they told him in class. Maybe he should have done his own tests???

It's too bad they couldnt invite the Giant Barrier Reef as a guest talker... because it can't talk... as a result of being fucking DEAD!

johnny willy Wonka Depp , explains the Oompa Loompa's standard cosmology

One point missed here is if there were a conspiracy to tamper with the data. Who is to say it is for the opposite reason than argued. That heating is occurring more rapidly than is being disclosed.

I can see Brian's brain working so fast his voice can't keep up with it. The man tells it like it is and he's the first one to say "we don't know" if they don't know the answers. Politicians always seem to have an answer regardless.

Ugh, why did she interrupt at 19:10?

I'm not familiar enough with Australian domestic politics (being a bloody no-good seppo); but when someone gives you a look like that guy at 4:02, you're probably talking bollocks.

You can deny something all you like, but if it's true (you know. like science.) it doesn't matter what you think. Our climate is changing at an incredible rate and the longer we neglect it, the more intense the change will become. The ironic part is that all the people who are denying the science for the money are the ones who will have to pay the most when they are finally forced to reconcile and make the changes they've been fighting so fervently.

We've been on the planet 3 mins and suddenly we know all about the climate.

All I can suggest here is for your audience to research Milankovitch cycles - which is the relationship of the distance of the Earth to the Sun (our local star) and the correlation of gravitation on the earth's orbit by other planets in orbit around the sun which effects the direct amount of radiation and the amount of energy that falls on the earths surface. This calculation (which is well proven) gives an accurate formulation of the surface temperature of this planet in the past/present/future - form your own opinion see these links for more info - www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Basic physics quiz for climate alarmists 1. Due to convection, does heat a. rise b. sink c. hide & play go seek 2. Does the atmosphere act like panes of glass or a real greenhouse? a. Yes b. No c. I don't know, but it sounds good 3. Venus is hot because a. Greenhouse gases b. Pressure c. Carl Sagan said GHGs 4. If you shine an infrared heat lamp on a bucket of water [or blow hot air from a hair dryer on the top of the water], will the water temperature a. Rise b. Fall c. Stay about the same 5. Does heat flow from cold to hot? a. Yes b. No c. Only in a computer model 6. Can entropy decrease without work input? a. Yes b. No c. Only in the fabled AGW "hot spot" 7. What is the maximum additional that a body 0.09C warmer can heat a colder body? a. 0.09C b. 3C c. whatever an IPCC model says 9. If temperature increases, outgoing radiation from a body a. increases proportionally b. increases exponentially to the 4th power of temperature 10. Is a real greenhouse warmer because of a. limiting convection b. "trapping" radiation 11. Does AGW theory require an increase or decrease of entropy? a. Increase b. Decrease 12. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to adiabatic greenhouse gases a. True b. No, only solid blackbodies 13. If the atmosphere was the same mass, but without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be an iceball a. True b. False 14. The temperature of all the planets can be calculated using the basic physics of AGW theory a. True b. False 15. If you put a larger heat sink on your microprocessor, will the temperature of the microprocessor a. Increase b. Decrease c. Stay the same 16. Which is steeper, the wet or dry adiabatic lapse rate, and what does that imply? a. Wet lapse rate with the presence of the greenhouse gas water vapor is steeper, therefore presence of the primary greenhouse gas water vapor causes warming b. Dry lapse rate without presence of greenhouse gas water vapor is steeper, therefore presence of water vapor causes cooling c. What's the adiabatic lapse rate? 17. According to AGW theory, CO2 is responsible for 20% of the 33C "greenhouse effect." Assuming this is true, it would imply CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C after all feedbacks despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels. Therefore, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels after all feedbacks may be calculated as: a. 0.33C = ln(2)*[.16/ln(1.4)], 9 times less than claimed by the IPCC. b. 3C as claimed by IPCC computer models 18. According to climate scientists, greenhouse gases are emitting 333 W/m2 of "back-radiation" to the Earth. If a solar cooker is pointed at the night sky, does the concentrated 333 W/m2 of back-radiation cause the temperature of the focal point of the solar cooker to a. Increase b. Decrease c. Stay the same 19. The base of the troposphere on the planet Uranus is 320K, considerably hotter than on Earth [288K], despite being nearly 30 times further from the Sun. This is due to a. Greenhouse gases b. Pressure c. SUVs 20. If the Earth's atmosphere was 100% nitrogen [instead of 78% presently], what would the base of the troposphere be compared to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun [255K]? a. Warmer b. Colder c. The same temperature as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun [255K] 21. The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 320K at 100 bars pressure, despite the planet only receiving 3.71 W/m2 energy from the Sun. By the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a 320K blackbody radiates 584.6 W/m2. Greenhouse gases amplify the energy from the Sun 157.5 times by: a. Violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics b. The temperature at the base of the troposphere is due to the ideal gas law PV=nRT, where pressure from gravity and atmospheric mass raise the temperature at the base of the troposphere from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of 89.94K to 320K, regardless of the atmospheric mixture of greenhouse gases c. What's the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? 22. Can the net heat flux be +150W/m2 from a cold body at -15C [atmosphere mean temperature] to a +15C warm body [Earth]? a. No b. Yes, by violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics c. Yes, in a computer model

The political grandstanding takes away from this. Q&A and similar programs are much better when the politicians are limited, they never seem to be able to turn off their need to bring in their bullshit.

Oh my god Australian politicians are the absolute pits... just really the worst. I don't know if I could have spent another minute listening to all the sanctimoniousness punctuated with saccharine-sweet garbage. “You know, I just think that all people really care about each other" *vomits violently*

When ice melts, the sea level drops; because water takes up less volume.

Just a couple of extracts from an article I read. Link below. "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main heat-trapping gas..." "We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources." www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#

The graph goes UP! It goes UP without a question! And it correlates with industrialization, motorization and the rise of air traffic. How can you look at this and say "Well there was one year where it went down so its all not true." If you draw an average line there is an undeniable trend over decades.

The egg came first. The parents had not evolved into true chickens yet. Therefore the egg came first.

I have to say, it's all much more polite than in the UK. Some pretty horrible people with ulterior motives have made things really nasty over here.

What harm can it do if we just accept the fact that global warming is being influenced by human activity and act on it? I think the outcome would be positive even if we find the figures to be incorrect. We only have the one planet so we should look after it.

Came for the title then saw LILY SERNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Miss Letters and Numbers

we can't even agree on the shape of the earth or the existence of gravity with everyone on the planet, how the hell are we all going to vote on the most well informed and best solutions for our survival and society. We need education

Misleading title -- should be "One Nation's Malcolm Roberts exposes and destroys Brian Cox"

Just a biochemistry grad here. I work in a lab in Southern California and I have no political agenda. I care about the earth and do yoga :). But I must say I was disappointed in Brian Cox here. The older guy with white hair was making valid observations about the graph Mr. Cox was presenting and was written off with an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority is regarded as a fallacy because it does nothing to inform. Mr. Cox should have explained why the graph peak in the 1940's was there. But he avoided explaining the peak data. Everyone I work with not do this. They would discuss the data. They would not appeal to authority. That's a ridiculous thing for a scientist to do. But then again, I work with real scientists who create things that people's lives depend on.

People who do not believe in climate change need to pick a place in the world they have been to many years ago, be it their own country or another country, and visit it in the same month as they did last time. I went to Cancun in Mexico over 10 years ago and it was like stepping off the plane into a wall of humidity and warmth so much so that it was extremely uncomfortable to breathe. Today I went outside in my backyard in Canada and the same humidity and warmth that I experienced in Cancun all of those years ago was exactly comparable to that of Cancun ten plus years ago. I have seen diminishing returns for snow over the past few years and this year there was none at all. What happens in ten more years? Twenty? Canada is known for being cold and it is so humid that all I can think of is moving somewhere colder.