Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Malcolm Roberts and ABC's QandA

Anthony Cox

Malcolm Roberts and Q & A

The recently elected senator, Malcolm Roberts was invited onto Q & A. Q & A is the ABC’s premier current affairs program. Like the rest of the ABC it is implacably pro alarmist. So at first blush having a declared sceptic on this program would seem to indicate some balance by the ABC.

Unfortunately, this was not so. On the rest of the panel were 4 devout alarmists. Linda Burney clearly was out of her depth and contented herself with scorning and insulting Malcolm Roberts.

Lily Serna, the described mathematician, gushed and fluttered her eyes at professor Brian Cox, surrounded herself with hyperbole and moral platitudes and Greg Hunt was his usual unctuous self.

Brian Cox shows a graph that shows
of causation by man's CO2 emissions
The real revelation was professor Brian Cox. Some assumed Brian Cox would present a reasonable viewpoint. This was quickly contradicted by his first speech on climate change. The facts were shocking he said. In fact, they were so shocking he said shocking again.

Not one word that come out of Cox’s mouth had any verisimilitude. The temperature was rising, and not just rising but accelerating he said. Malcolm quickly referred to the Central English Temperature [CET] record and the verified temperature pause and data corruption.

The word corruption enraged Cox who at this early stage was producing graphs of temperature and CO2 quicker than James Hansen gets arrested. Jones piped in with another glowing description of Cox’s prestige as a premier scientist and Lily gushed in Cox’s direction.

So it went with the usual ABC balanced audience consisting of dangerously intelligent young people, according to Greg Hunt, laughing vigorously at Malcolm at every opportunity and calling professor Cox a legendary scientist. And Hunt embellished Cox’s arguing from authority and consensus with examples of his government’s support of consensus such as the Paris accord debacle.

Generally, Malcolm was diminished at every opportunity. It often became absurd with Burney concerned with sinking islands and young people swimming in August.

One cannot do justice to every cliché of alarmism which was trotted out by the alarmists on the panel. Every one of these clichés can be dealt with and repudiated with just minimal recourse to facts and figures. The myths of alarmism are listed here.

The take away point from the Q & A is the abysmal ignorance of the general public and the political class which allows people like Cox getting away with outrageous falsehoods. Cox was not selected for nothing to appear on this program. He is photogenic and fluent and charismatic. Frankly it didn’t matter what he said because he said it with such panache and charm he could have been reading the directions to change a light bulb. He is after all an ex pop star. (see below -Ed)

That is why it is so important that Malcolm Roberts is now in parliament. For years he has been bashing his head against the brick world of money, vanity and ideology which is alarmism. Now he has a cache of authority by his election. What he should do now is arrange for some of the world’s leading climate scientists who can match the likes of professor Cox to come to Australia and give talks at parliament under his auspices. People like Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Ryan Maue and Ross McKitrick and in Australia Stewart Franks, Peter Ridd and Mike Asten. Prominent sceptics need to be supported and given exposure. If Malcolm can achieve that he truly will be a success.

All in all Malcolm did well. He said some great things none better than what he said about education and the difference between teaching kids what to think rather than how to think. The Q & A set up was a failure and it will be interesting to see if he is invited back to the ABC.
- - - - - - -

Editor's Addendum

Brian Cox was in two bands - d-ream and Dare.

Perhaps his support for the falsified Man made global warming hypothesis can be explained by the Dare Song - We don't need a reason.


  1. Excuse me, "gushed and fluttered her eyes"? All comments should be polite, what about your article? You say Linda "contented herself with scorning and insulting", it's not like you rise above it. I came here to shed some of my "abysmal ignorance", as you eloquently put it, about climate scepticism, but now I feel quite put off.
    The first article I read is just a lot of whining and no discussion about the arguments made on the program. Tch.

    1. You obviously avoided all the links in the text or you wouldn't be doing "a lot of whining."

    2. http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/brian-coxs-incompetence.html

    3. Following on from Anonymous above:

      A quote from Brian Cox - saying science shouldn't be too-o-o precise.

      "Scientists are doing the public a disservice in their attempts to communicate certainty in climate change science, often giving a “false sense of debate” by being overly precise."


  2. I don't think there is any chance of unbiased reporting on Q&A as the ABC is so far left its not funny. I'm surprised any conservative politician would bother to go on the program because they are on the outer from the get go. Malcolm Roberts did ok but was stitched up to be made look bad by the leftist filth. The sooner the ABC is privatized the better.

  3. The crescendo of bias was best illustrated by the audience, and panel reaction to the magical production of graphs that caused instant response of clapping and cheering when they had no idea of content.
    Malcolm Roberts did and called Cox out on it resulting in an asing blustering ignorant response by a man of very limited climate knowledge.Well done Robert

    1. It is a pity that Malcolm Roberts did not refer to the Ftyfe paper published in February which compared observations and models assessments of temperature from the period 1900 to 2014. Hr did this by assessing 15 year rolling decades with 30 year and 50 year comparisons also. Fyfe unlike Thomas Karl (a NOAA scientist) showed that the rate of temperature rise in the period 1972 to 2001 at 0.171 degrees C per decade was significantly greater than the 0,113 degrees C per decade seen for rate of rise from 2000 to 2014 indicating a hiatus in the rate of temperature . Karl in a comparison from 1950 to 2012 showed the rate of temperate rise in the the last decade was not significantly different from previous decades and claimed there had been no hiatus. The assessments made by Fyfe seem to be tighter than those of Karl. In addition as a result of Karl's paper NOAA went back and altered temperatures. Had Roberts presented Cox with these data Cox may have been a lot less smug

  4. My emails to brian.cox@manchester.ac.uk ...

    Dear Brian

    I passed you a copy of my Q&A question last night and links to my website http://climate-change-theory.com and my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where I have offered a reward of $10,000 for the first to prove my hypothesis substantially wrong and produce a counter study to mine that showed water vapour cools. If the IPCC were right about the greenhouse gas water vapour doing most of "33 degees of warming" with an average concentration of just over 1%, then we should expect rain forests with 4% water vapour above them to be at least 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts at similar latitude and altitude.

    I can detect that you have not studied the climatology texts such as Pierrehumbert's "gold standard" book used in climatology "Atmospheric Physics 101" courses - about the only physics they ever learn.

    I strongly recommend you read my peer-reviewed paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" (2013) linked from my website as it will blow your mind.

    Below is a copy of my review of the Q&A program that I have emailed to over 100 politicians and teh physics departments of major universites throughout Australia, as well as to the Q&A team. See also Joanne Nova's climate blog which is the most popular one of its kind in Australia, where 54% of the population are climate skeptics, not that this proves anything I would agree.

    Douglas Cotton

  5. and ...

    So you worship NASA do you Brian Cox? There's still a AU $10,000 reward to prove me wrong.

    Hi Brian (Cox) [copied to members of PSI - Principia Scientific International et al]

    Below is a question I submitted for yourself which was rejected by the ABC Q&A program as it obviously tied them in knots, as it would have yourself. I'm interested to see if you reply here.

    Doug Cotton
    author of the book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" on Amazon ...
    (awarded a scholarship by the Physics Dept of Sydney University in the 1960's)

    NASA "Energy diagrams" show Solar radiation being boosted by about twice as much radiation from our atmosphere, and they imply that the total can be used to explain the Earth's surface temperature*. But physics tells us that two different fluxes like that cannot be added to determine some combined warming effect, so I'm wondering how they justify this tampering with the laws of physics?

    * In detail, see such a diagram on the 'PSI errors' page on my website http://climate-change-theory.com and note the net "energy" into the surface is (324+168-102) = 390W/m^2. Then use Stefan-Boltzmann to deduce that the blackbody temperature (for uniform flux with a Planck function from a single blackbody source) is indeed 288K - about the mean surface temperature. In fact variable flux from a closer Sun with a mean of 390W/m^2 would produce a mean temperature about 10 degrees colder. But the atmospheric radiation should not have been included. All the radiation in any direction between the cooler atmosphere and the warmer surface does is to cause heat transfer out of the surface and to have a cooling effect on the surface and warming effect on the atmosphere. You MUST know that you cannot add just the input radiation from the atmosphere (overstated at 324W/m^2 anyway) to the solar radiation of 168W/m^2 for use with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. The Planck functions barely overlap just for starters, so how would you get a temperature based on a peak frequency as per Wien's Displacement Law? Radiation just doesn't work like that. It gets pseudo-scattered by warmer targets. It's energy becomes part of the outward "quota" of radiation by the warmer target. Electrons are raised through quantum states and immediately fall back emitting an identical photon. The energy never becomes kinetic energy, because if it did then it could escape by conduction, for example, and the Second Law would have been violated. (See my 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" linked from the 'Evidence' page of the above website.) If one electric bar radiator can raise an object to 350K, will 16 such radiators raise it to 700K? Yes or no? If you agree "no" then you implicitly agree that the whole IPCC radiative forcing conjecture is based on fictitious, fiddled physics.

  6. Very sad. In my view Brian Cox and others were guilty of ganging up and bullying Malcolm Roberts as his views differ from theirs. Throwing documents as Cox did shows disrespect and Tony Jones should have shown the guts to throw him off the show, anyone who threw papers at anyone else in one of my meetings would be thrown out, it is disrepectful and bullying. And the brainwashed audience how sad

    1. Yes indeed Jack. And even more disrespectful when considering the utter baloney that was printed on the documents that the childish little twerp Cox threw at him. Not only disrespectful to Malcolm, but to anyone who was stupid enough (CAGW brainwashed and biased enough) to watch the show and I don't mean that disrespectfully, (you obviously watched the circus that it was, yourself).
      I just have my own personal little bias - against the Australian Socialist Government's main propaganda facility - the ABC: I now refuse to watch any of its TV channels, including SBS and NITV, or listen to any of their trashy radio stations with their 'trendy lefty' (left-wing indoctrinated) presenters. I always cringe whenever they mention their favourite topic: the AGW / CC HOAX, which probably constitutes at least 50% of their (left biased) content nowadays.
      I quit watching the ABC, let alone that circus 'Q&A' about 2 years ago when I couldn't stomach anymore of their sickening LIES, where they use programs such as Q&A, as podiums to broadcast their biased left-wing beliefs and Socialist propaganda to the already indoctrinated public from.
      The ABC is now an essential part of the Australian government's new totalitarian order and that's why it will never be sold to a private operator, despite the proposal to privatise it being discussed for at least the past 25 years... If it ever is sold off, it will only be to someone with some 'unholy alliance' to the Socialist government with an interest in the CAGW scam, 'renewable' (scam) energy and of course, demonizes coal and all forms of REAL energy.

      It's frightening when you look at what's happening, right here in Oz and think about it for a while... Then realise what it all means and what they're up to.

      The only bright side I can see is that when they are ramping up the hysteria by bringing in ignorant, unscientific media personality FOOLS such as Brian Cox, too peddle more of the same nonsense, as they're doing now, it can only mean they're worried. In fact I think they're desperate and on the verge of panic.
      They know more and more sheeple are questioning the CAGW / CC narrative, simply because none of their bizarre catastrophic predictions have happened, nor even look remotely likely to happen.
      Therefore, now is the time to 'put the boot in': Senator Malcolm Roberts must never give in to these Socialist zealots and of course, NOR SHOULD WE!

      Malcolm Roberts is in my book a TRUE hero, akin to David in the David and Goliath story. He IS (unlike his opposite: Mr Tim Flim-Flam-Flannery) worthy of accolades such as Australian of The Year.

    2. The audience was a mindless group of performing seals; clapping their fins at every rude comment.

      Notice the complete silence when Brian Cox said, the models are wrong but we have to keep trying?

      He admits their so called evidence is wrong but makes the excuse of, what else can we do but keep on trying.

      What annoys me is they are willing to disrupt everything for their faith in the idea that one day they just might make the models work.

      It is not science, but faith

  7. "He admits their so called evidence is wrong but makes the excuse of, what else can we do but keep on trying.

    What annoys me is they are willing to disrupt everything for their faith in the idea that one day they just might make the models work.

    It is not science, but faith"

    Yes Brian and keep trying as you must, whilst needlessly wasting BILLIONS of dollars of taxpayers money to fund the bizarre SCAM that it all is, to fill the pockets of your heartless, Stalinist leaders in the UN.

    You're a disgusting, over-rated and overpaid piece of s**t!
    Go back to the BBC sewer, where you belong and take your primed (and probably well paid), moronic, indoctrinated lefty Q&A audience with you and spin some more high quality, frightening, alarmist yarns for The Guardian while you're there.

  8. I find it hilarious that there are so many gullible people like Brian Cox who are bluffed by the lie that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about the gravito-thermal effect which, now in the 21st century, has been tested with experiments and supported by valid physics and evidence from throughout the Solar System. And yet you believe Loschmidt was wrong and so you have to invent a "greenhouse" conjecture as an alternative explanation for the tropospheric temperature gradient, even though your "explanation" ignores the laws of physics. And if you want to know what I'm talking about and apply for the reward of AU $10,000 for proving me wrong, then the place to do it is here: https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

  9. My "heat creep" hypothesis (based on physics that was known about in the 19th century) and the greenhouse hypothesis are mutually exclusive: if one is correct then the other is false. Mine is supported by copious evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. In over three years nobody has proved the physics wrong or produced counter evidence, despite there being a reward of thousands for the first to do so. Is the reward genuine? Yes, because when my 2013 paper has been on-line for five years without being faulted, that will be the time (when I have more time in retirement) to get more reviews and commence the huge class action by major companies against the government. So I genuinely want to know if it is wrong. Keep watching the comment thread at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com.


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