Sunday, 21 August 2016

Brian Cox vs Malcolm Roberts QandA analyzed by 1000Frolly (UPDATED)

1000Frolly analyses statements made by prof Brian Cox on "our" ABC's QandA.

At 8:40 for instance, Tony Jones says: "What would happen if we reached 2%?"

He probably meant a temperature rise of 2ºC???

Scaremonger Cox replies: "There are some shocking predictions....."  "Absolute Absolute consensus!" (Consensus is not a scientific term, Brian. It is a political term. Ed)

1000Frolly then points out that Brian Cox brought out an entirely fraudulent GISS graph and continues to annihilate Brian Cox' "evidence" whilst also pointing out some minor blemishes in Malcolm Robert's case.

Perhaps 1000Frolly is being a little pedantic when he says that Malcolm is wrong referring to NASA when he actually means GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) Actually GISS is an arm of NASA and mostly is written NASA:GISS. (Brian also referred to NASA and not NASA:GISS.)

1000Frolly points out that millions are dead because of "climate action" - in particular ethanol is mandated in many countries; depleting food supplies and forcing up the price of food.

Malcolm says: "The models have all been proven wrong - hopelessly wrong."
Brian: "Well, no. You cross check them with the past and they do quite nicely."

Brian, do some research. You are out of your field. The models failed to predict the past.

Although Brian Cox says the opposite, CO2 is not the cause but the effect of both changes in sea surface temperature and changes in air temperature.

#IPCC #agwHoax #QandA


  1. An extract of an analysis of the QandA transcript might be of interest. Words per talk by each panel member: Greg Hunt 44, Linda Burney 41, Malcolm Roberts 24, Lilly Serna 72, Brian Cox 45.

    Percentage of Total Words spoken by Panel Members: Greg Hunt 19%, Linda Burney 19%, Malcolm Roberts 19%, Lily Serna 7%, Brian Cox 36%.

    Empirical data doesn't lie. Brian Cox was given favour on how long he spoke while Malcolm Roberts was stopped from completing his point more often than other panel members.

  2. He was cut off almost every time. Hopefully the audience saw this too. Every time Malcolm was set to let rip, he was cut off or a new question came up. We should ALL be sending in complaints to the ABC on the shabby treatment Malcolm Roberts received. I sent mine last week.

  3. Yes, good point that consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political term.
    Wikipedia mentions "scientific consensus" - which would be equally wrong. Obviously, something is either supported by science or not.

  4. The real reason that the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is wrong relates to the Second Law process of entropy maximization which they completely ignore, but which does away with their whole warming by "33 degrees" contention. There's more at

  5. Well done on your excellent website, Australian Climate Skeptics!

    Actually, Doug Cotton is right; I did miss one important point during this video, that the 33c claimed as the 'greenhouse effect' is wrong too.
    Most, if not all of this difference between the black-body temperature and the observed lower troposphere temperature is really due to adiabatic auto-compression.
    This is what keeps Venus hot as well. Prof. Cox's claims here are wrong too.

  6. I have updated and re-posted this video here;


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!