Denier Destroyed on Aussie TV. Crowd Goes Wild

August 19, 2016

Twitter has been lit up this week following the exchange on the Australian television show “Q and A”, between Professor Bryan Cox and a right wing legislator Malcolm Roberts.

Climate denier Roberts attempted to refute NASA data by appealing to the non-scientist blogger who calls himself Steven Goddard, leaving the audience notably unimpressed.

News.com.au:

ONE of the world’s most accomplished scientists clashed with a climate change denier from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party on Monday night. The result? Captivating television.

British physicist Professor Brian Cox and newly-elected Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts went head-to-head over climate change science on the ABC’s Q&A program.

Viewers knew the showdown was coming long before it started. Mr Roberts has previously questioned the legitimacy of claims that humans are responsible for a warming planet. He’s even called for a royal commission into climate science.

Mashable:

Then Cox pulled out a graph showing a rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the air, which is currently at its highest levels in 650,000 years.

“So the question essentially, first of all, are those two things correlated, and secondly, do we understand the physical mechanisms — and we’ve understood those since the 19th century,” Cox said.

That wasn’t good enough for Roberts, who wanted to focus on the spike in temperatures during the mid-1930s to 1940s. “Yeah, the 1930s and ’40s were warmer than the current decades,” he claimed.

Except they aren’t, as illustrated by Cox’s finger-pointing.

aussie_qana.gif

So then Roberts took aim at the source of the data on the graph: NASA. “The data has been corrupted, and we know the 1930s were warmer than today,” Roberts said.

“What do you mean by corrupted? Corrupted,” Cox shot back.

“It’s been manipulated,” Roberts claimed.

“By who?” Cox asked.

“…by NASA,” Roberts said, to the crowd’s hilarious exasperation.

The charge of “data fraud” was all too much for NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who took to twitter to express his frustration.

gavin1

gavin2.jpg

The climate denial myths that Denialist Roberts promotes, have been handily taken apart in two of my recent vids.

First, the “no warming in…(pick a number) years” canard, (which has really gotten pretty ragged with 2 record warm years in a row and a third underway) is a favorite of Far right US Senator Ted Cruz. I asked 4 scientists to weigh in on the deception here.

Finally, the idea that “NASA has fudged the data” is put to rest by scientists who actually understand temperature data and how it is used, here.

 

25 Responses to “Denier Destroyed on Aussie TV. Crowd Goes Wild”


  1. […] Source: Denier Destroyed on Aussie TV. Crowd Goes Wild | Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]

  2. Magma Says:

    I just watched Roberts’ performance in full instead of short excerpts. What an arrogant, ignorant, lying buffoon. He memorized his parroted denier memes quite well though.

  3. Lionel Smith Says:

    “Steve Goddard has shown…”

    Nuff said, if this is Roberts’ source.

    Richard Feynman is rolling listening to his name being called in vain by this wilfully ignorant make-weight of a political opportunist.


  4. Unreal. This particular denier could seem quite credible to the uninitiated/science ignorant.

    Makes me want to bash denier heads together when I think of what we/our descendants will be dealing with in the coming years/centuries.


  5. […] more! Do visit Peter Sinclair’s Denier Destroyed on Aussie TV. Crowd Goes Wild (19 August), especially for last two the videos addressing the climate denial myths that Belfry […]


  6. “Denier” is meant to smear those who debate AGW fraud.

    Showing a dodgy graph still doesn’t prove that man is causing the warming.
    Consensus of government funded organisations agreeing on a topic isn’t science.
    The IPCC saying that there is a 95% CHANCE that C02 is causing warming isn’t SCIENCE either. Its a calculated GUESS.

    Compulsive namecallers: nutter, conspiracy theorist, anti-semitic, denier — trying to censor through denigration.

    Got no evidence? Can’t hold a rational discussion? Just call people names — smear them.

    The Branch Carbonian Cult
    Adapted from Jim Guirard in American Thinker (2009)
    The Anthropogenic Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic ”belief” system than on objective climate science.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      “Denier” is meant to smear those who debate AGW fraud.

      But do read Shawn Otto’s The War On Science. Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It and discover why your world view is distorted.

      See my response to Master Bates.

      Now do explain, drawing on accredited scientific research, how or why a graph was ‘dodgy’ but do specify to which graph you are referring.

      Yes, I know DNFTT the response is more for any lurkers.

      ‘Taxed Enuff Already’, until you area needs federal aid because of some extreme weather event, I guess you would be darned glad some paid their taxes then.


    • The physics of how greenhouse gas concentrations affect the Earth’s energy balance has been understood long before the technology existed to measure the global average surface temperature. The IPCC’s calculated guess is not that that there’s a 95% chance that CO2 is causing warming. The statement is “It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

  7. metzomagic Says:

    People like Roberts can genuinely believe the nonsense they’re spouting, due to that nasty combination of Dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias. Of course, they could be smarter than that, and willfully deceiving their audience. Hard to tell unless you really know the person, or there is ‘prior form’.

    Not being an Aussie myself, I can’t really tell whether Roberts is lying, or just a useful idiot. But this ‘sovereign citizen’ stuff smacks of him being a lizard man conspiracy theorist type/few slices short of a loaf.

    • Mike Male Says:

      A long history in the fossil fuel industry. This is his first attempt in politics. If it weren’t for our screwy voting system where people can be elected to our upper house with a small percentage of votes he’d still be a nobody shouting at clouds. Whether Roberts is lying or an idiot is irrelevant. Here in Australia there has been a large polarization in our politics similar to what is occurring elsewhere in the world and Roberts is one of those on the far far faaarrrr right. He is the ultimate fringe-dweller. He is just intelligent enough to know his voter base but on the whole he’s a moron much like those who voted for his party. Education is the problem. Fix that and these morons disappear. For those who haven’t seen it and to be honest, I haven’t watched Peter’s clip (once was enough) the part where Cox says to him, “NASA? The people who put man in the moon? You do believe that happened?” (or words to that effect) was priceless and sums him up perfectly.

      • Tom Bates Says:

        Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the moron? Morons usually cannot argue the facts, they simply call people names and throw things. Roberts could be wrong, the people who voted for him could be wrong, and yes some of those people could be morons. However the average voter is just like you so unless you are a moron, they and you simply have a different take on the world. Calling them morons will not change their mind.

        You might attempt to explain to them why Cox nice graft is correct when the number of plugs to make it up varies from 66 percent currently to over 90 percent back in 1880. You might explain to them why Barrow Alaska, to take one example, was 5.1 degrees cooler in 1902 than this last october. You might explain to them why Giss took the actual temperature and threw it out putting in one of those plugs with a higher temperature. Perhaps people just do not understand why scientists would plug a fake temperature. Most would not understand why Mann, for example, threw out 80 years of one of his proxies and used a single tree in Siberia as another to prove the world was warming from mans activities. They need to be shown why changing the data is okay and using a single tree is okay to make claims. They simply do not understand how academia works.

        To make sure they understand explain to them why trees grew under currently melting glaziers in 1000 AD in Alaska and the same happened 4000 years ago in Europe. While you are at tell them all that melting is raising the ocean 3 inches in 100 years at Sidney and at Johnston Atoll while 4 inches in France. Melting and ocean rise are connected. They will be surprised to learn trees grow under ice for one thing and their beach front home is going to be underwater in 1500 years.


        • Bates, you are such a pathetic liar that it’s, well, (to be redundant) pathetic!

          It’s clear to the regulars that you don’t have a shred of integrity — so they are probably getting quite bored with my requests for you to retract one of your lies.

          But new visitors my not fully appreciate how dishonest you are. I consider it my duty to bring them fully up to speed regarding your honesty (or, more correctly, the lack thereof).

          So here is, for the tenth time at least, my request for you to retract a lie that I called you out on *months* ago:

          ############

          Tommy-Poo,

          In an earlier comment thread, you made this claim — do you remember it?

          …and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.

          I proved you wrong by showing that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594

          When you continued to post here without retracting that completely false claim, I followed up here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/28/bill-maher-on-trump-energy-policy/#comment-84709

          You also ignored that second request to retract your claim.

          And a third.

          And a fourth.

          And a fifth.

          And a sixth.

          And a seventh.

          And an eighth.

          And a ninth.

          So I’m following up with yet another request (this one is at least the tenth). Will you admit that you were wrong about NASA and how it processes temperature data?

          Every time you show up here, I will ping you about this.

          Every. Single. Time.

          And I won’t stop until you acknowledge that you were wrong.

          (Actually, I don’t really expect Bates to man up and admit that he was wrong; I’m simply using him as an example of how deniers are utterly and completely incapable of admitting error, even after they tell the most egregious whoppers).


        • OK, I decided that I have been much too polite to Bates here. This post is my attempt to rectify that error on my part.

          From Bates’ post above:


          You might explain to them why Giss took the actual temperature and threw it out putting in one of those plugs with a higher temperature. Perhaps people just do not understand why scientists would plug a fake temperature.

          Bates is still regurgitating his stupid lies about the NASA/GISS global temperature results. In on-line discussions here and elsewhere, I have repeatedly shown to Bates and others how the NASA/GISS results can be confirmed with raw temperature data (i.e. no NASA/NOAA adjustements) using programming techniques typically taught to first-year programming students.

          In my original refutation of Bates’ lies about NASA/GISS, I provided Bates a direct link to global temperature results I computed that disprove his lies. Yet he dishonestly continues to repeat them.

          I provided Bates a plot of results that I computed using data from just 30 stations scattered around the world (all rural so as to eliminate any UHI effects).

          The results I presented to him were very clear — my own 30-station results computed from adjusted *and* raw data lined up very nicely with the NASA results (computed from data taken from *6,000* stations).

          Here is the link to my 30-station results that I provided to Bates *months* ago: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6Y3hyQ1ZnamxVMWM/view

          My 30-station raw and adjusted data results are plotted in green and blue, respectively. The official NASA results (computed from the entire 6,000+ station GHCN data-set) are plotted in red. As anyone who can interpret a simple X/Y plot can see, my results show a warming trend very consistent with NASA’s.

          If NASA were doing anything sneaky/underhanded with the data, then I would not have been able to replicate the NASA warming trend so closely with raw temperature data **using college-freshman programming techniques**.

          Again, let me emphasize that I presented those results to Bates **months ago**.

          Bates is shockingly dishonest and incompetent. He deserves nothing but utter contempt and derision. There is no place for him in polite society.

        • Mike Male Says:

          blah blah blah…how about “dickhead”? That suits you perfectly well with the garbage you continually spout here. The time for respectful refutation of morons like you and your ilk has long past. You may as well be telling me the Earth is flat and the moon landing never happened. Namecalling does not diminish the fact that your feelpinions are incorrect and your conspiracy ideation is stupid. You always carry on about “facts” and yet when your twisted version of “facts” are demonstrably wrong you refuse to acknowledge your mistake. That makes you an arrogant moron and a dickhead. A couple of inconvenient facts for you but there they are.

  8. Tom Bates Says:

    Sure a lot of people posting who love to call anybody who disagrees with them names. Take the word “denier”. What is that supposed to mean? If I understand all the people calling others names that means you are unconvinced that man is warming the planet. Plenty of people over at NASA must than be deniers as they have a model which shows changes in earths orbit and tilt will be warming the world for the next 25000 years. The scientists over at NASA who actually measured CO2 forcing must be baby deniers, they found a forcing of 0.08F which they expressed as 2/10ths of a watt, that turns out to be 340 times less than the forcing from those orbit changes. To their credit they never mentioned the 0.08F number nor that solar forcing is 1360 watts per square meter, not the 340 times less. Fortunately NASA and NOAA refused to extend the study or due it again. I bet they do not like to be called names by Cox or the others in the AGW camp. The study of the temperatures using the Greenland Ice core was by a denier even though he got his money from NASA. The study showed it was warmer than today for most of the last 4000 years through 2011 except for the little ice age which we must be in since it is colder than 1000 AD unless trees grow under ice in Alaska that old. Best of all never mind that Giss, the source of Cox nice graft is 66 percent plugs or that the authors of that nice colored graft not shown on this blog caution it is full of errors and should be used with caution. Oh yes one more thing, RSS shows the world is currently cooling and has for months while never getting as hot as the 1997-98 El Nino.

  9. firstdano Says:

    I LOVE the audience laughing out loud at this denialist’s ludicrous argumentation!

    Best,

    D

    • pendantry Says:

      I love it too, but the big problem is that this denialist is in a position to determine policy, and the audience is not. Makes for great theatre… and a lousy future world.

  10. Lionel Smith Says:

    Finally, ‘Bates’ continued

    Do look at the work of James Balog and http://extremeicesurvey.org/

    find and watch a copy of ‘Chasing Ice’: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/chasing-ice/ . Who to believe – Balog and his painfully obtained photographs or Jim Inhofe and his snowball?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: