How Brian Cox keeps his cool is quite impressive. Here, he’s arguing with an Australian senator and climate change denialist, Malcolm Roberts, who keeps insisting, quite rightly, that evidence is important, that evidence trumps opinion, that policy should be defined by empirical evidence…and every time Cox shows him the evidence, he simply rejects it, accusing NASA of faking the data, and arguing that the various climatoogical agencies have been colluding to “corrupt” the data.
I guess it’s a step forward that the kooks are at least acknowledging that real data is important, now we just have to carry it through to the next step, of paying attention when the data slaps them in the face.
Of course, things would be different if he had any evidence that NASA did fake the data.
As per my earlier comment, this kook not only claims NASA is faking the data, but that “[the money trails] could be traced back to a few families who are making of dollars” (somehow involving the UN).
Logic goes like this:
I am right.
Being right is determined by rationality of supportive evidence.
Therefore it follows rationality and evidence supports me.
The “doing it for the money” argument is my favourite denialist argument because how obvious and upfront the money is for those on the denialist side.
the money trails] could be traced back to a few families who are making trillions of dollars”
The house of Saud, the Koch brothers, Bushco? The guys who sell that smelly shit you can burn that releases CO2? Them?!
I didn’t think that I would ever see Cox’s charm turn quite so irritable.
Nah, that’s just NASA faking moar data. Actually, I think NASA subcontracted that job out to the Illuminati. Or was it the Club of Rome? Whoevar, clearly someone earning of dollars from NASA. Or the UN. Well, from someone…
Until we stop electing deniers and the proudly ignorant, no positive movement will occur. Climate change is a global issue and needs a global and organized response (that means a political solution).
Cox didn’t call our Roberts on rejecting the evidence and data he was presenting, not explicitly enough at least.
Still, Cox deserves all my respect for not bashing the moron with his pile of data.
I will soon have my exam for Australian citizenship, but am frankly a bit embarrassed.
Back in my days as an anti-environmentalist right-winger, I was led to believe the climate scientists were closeted Communists out to use “junk science” as a means to destroy good old ‘Murican capitalism and freedom with their tyrannical clean air and water regulations. The nightmare scenario was that the evil commie-lobs would strip us of all technology and private property and we be left to suffer in a pre-industrial Hell controlled by despotic hippies. I suppose the appeal to McCarthyism works better in countries that are still ridiculously anti-Marxist decades after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.
Edit: “…commie-libs…”
Wasn’t there some problem with Cox and his wife ignoring evidence on the subject of trans* identities and rights a while back?
Malcolm Roberts published a ‘paper’ in 2013 debunking AGW. In it he showed a graph plotting a 12 month running average of atmospheric CO2 levels at Hawaii (the famous Keeling curve – the running average is to remove the natural seasonal variation, lower in summer and higher in winter) against a 21 year running average of average southern oceanic surface temperatures (the running average is to remove natural variation due to solar cycles, El Niño/la Niña events, volcanic eruptions).
The graph showed a perfect straight line correlation between the two. So Roberts then claimed that it proves that global warming causes increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (and lung cancer causes cigarette smoking). His ‘rationale’ is the Keeling curve again with its sawtooth pattern of increase – higher in winter and lower in summer but still increasing each year by 2-3 ppmv since it was started in 1958. The decrease in summer is due to plants drawing down an enormous amount of atmospheric CO2 in the northern hemisphere growing season, which is then released back into the atmosphere by plants and animals in the winter.
Roberts argues that it’s due to the southern oceans again – in the southern winter the oceans are cooler and owing to Henry’s law hold more CO2 dropping atmospheric CO2 in the northern hemispheric summer, and in the southern summer they’re warmer releasing CO2, so in the corresponding northern summer atmospheric CO2 increases.
Maybe. If the southern hemispheric atmosphere mixes rapidly and completely with the northern (what about the doldrums?). And if the northern oceans have no effect on atmospheric CO2 (warmer northern summer oceans should cause increasing atmospheric CO2 levels).
If the graph is true, he’s either documented that global warming is happening (because atmospheric CO2 is increasing progressively that axis becomes a time axis) or he’s provided very good empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels cause global warming.
Roberts also denies that the 40 billion tonnes of CO2 humans dump into the atmosphere each year has any effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Roberts got elected because in his state One Nation got 1.19 quotas, which got Pauline Hanson elected and left Roberts with 0.19 of a quota which made it certain that he’d still be in the running when the 12th and final senator was decided. Candidates with lower votes were progressively eliminated and their preferences distributed until there were two left. Roberts and one other (I think it was a libertarian one) and Roberts had more votes and was elected.
He faces an election in 3 years. If One Nation gets the same vote he’ll have 0.6 of a quota (it will be an ordinary half senate election) and have a good chance of being reelected. Or One Nation will implode, as they’ve done before, and he’ll lose.
He’s a One nation senator. Imagine if Fox news were a political party and then make it dumber.
Hey PZ, you guys don’t get to have the monopoly on drongoes. We need ours, too.
And this one manged to get elected to the Senate with the support of the 77 dipsticks who voted for him. Take that, Democracy!
git the pitchforks!
Glad the “don’t criticize people when they do transphobic things” crew is still here.
gijoel @ 14
He’s not just a One Nation senator he’s also a Sovereign Citizen. If it wasn’t for being a Senator this guy would be hilarious. As it is he’s in a position to do a lot of damage.
I’m not sure a focus on “facts” really helps much. For my local climate denier it just makes him sound like a condescending jackass because he plays the role like someone who’s seriously considering things while other people are just running a around with their hair on fire for no reason.
All the while ignoring anything that doesn’t actually agree with him of course. I mean it, he literally acts like he doesn’t hear it, he’ll argue for hours all the while bringing up nothing but straw men because if we’re ever actually having the same conversation the facts always bury him. So if he ever reaches a point where he can’t ignore what I’m saying, he’ll walk away so he can pretend the facts are on his side without interruption.
About Cox/transphobia:
Dunno whether he ignored evidence about trans people. Hadn’t heard of it, would like to. Wouldn’t make him wrong about climate science though, if anything it would just make my approach to this post more like “Look! Even this jackass can figure out the right side of the issue.”
Political solutions require ditching purity tests on unrelated issues unless the goal is to divide people. Too many people are horrible about something or other. Even me (because yes, I get that I’m an asshole for bringing this up; unfortunately I think it’s the practical approach).
I’m pretty sure it’s more a case of people not feeling like the “Acceptable Ally Purity Test” has to be applied every single time, no matter the topic.
I’d rather not support people that support ideologies that directly make my life worse, even if they might help me in other respects. If you’d be cool with that, that’s fine by you, but just pointing out that he and his wife have said some problematic stuff isn’t remotely egregious.
He was on the “universities have no right to screen lecturers just because they peddle transphobic pseudoscience” side of that whole debacle last year, and this post on the Orbit talks about his wife’s aforementioned shaky treatment of trans issues.
That being said, yes, doesn’t make him wrong about climate change.
But just like how I’d rather side with a science advocate that isn’t a fuckwhistle (like PZ) over one that is a fuckwhistle (like Dawkins), I’d probably prefer to lend my support to a climate change scientist that doesn’t have that baggage, if one exists.
Er, a scientist advocating climate change awareness. Words fail me sometimes.
The kook(Roberts) is not a scientist (albeit he apparently claims otherwise); instead, “he has a mining engineering degree” according to The Grauniad.
Right, I wasn’t talking about Roberts vs Cox, I was saying that I’d prefer to support a climate change advocate who doesn’t have transphobic baggage over Cox, who does.
@bargearse Yeah I saw his rational wiki page. He’s stupid all the way down.
Also this.
Honestly, I think this is entirely an engineering problem.
Place electrodes into the seats and strap the participants in, whoever argues without presenting solid evidence gets 40 kv at 10 ma, increasing in 10 ma increments for each evidence free objection.
I doubt it’ll actually reach 100 ma, harmless, but effective.
Cox presents well established metrics and trends, no shock. Roberts makes an evidence free objection, shock.
Undecided if sarcasm should get a shock, but if there is no evidence, I’m leaning toward shock. For me, well, my batteries would get recharged a little… ;)
That’d be more fair than my first inclination to try for a home run with his teeth, using my cane.
But then, that’s what caused me to sit my thyroid in the corner with, “Now, STFU, sit here, look at the corner and think about what you suggested”.
@blf and @Ranum
Oh look, it’s the Rothschilds and Rockefellers again. No matter how interestingly kooky conspiracy theories may look like sometimes, they always seem to boil down to “the jews are at fault for this somehow”.
I understand criticism of Cox’s opinions, but l don’t see how he can be held responsible for those of his wife, nor do I think it is strong evidence of common ground on that issue.
Unless I missed something at the time, it struck me that Cox was throwing trans people under the bus for the sake of “free speech”, rather than because he was actively espousing sympathies with the ideas of transphobes. Did I miss something more directly abusive?
Anyway, that is certainly a stain against his record, but we still need advocates for science who command public attention. It would be great if they turned out to be good people, but don’t underestimate the positive effects Cox has had on promoting the public understanding of science. I’m just not sure that there is any way to vet the superstars of popular science for humane social views prior to their rise to fame.
Unfortunately, all of our advocates reflect the cultures from which they are drawn, and very few are without either a few obnoxious opinions or (at the very least) a hefty dose of privilege. This is particularly the case where we want advocates with advanced degrees, status, and expertise.
It’s not that I think that Cox’s belief that universities are somehow obligated to give a platform to every bigot with a book is particularly major, it’s just a factor for me that would be the deciding factor between me supporting him over an equally qualified but less shitty science advocate.
Like, as mentioned above, I support PZ way more than I do Dawkins, because PZ’s not a regressive douchebag. Sure, Dawkins is a laudable scientist and has done a lot to advocate for both science and atheism, but if given the choice between the two, I’d pick PZ every time.
I understand entirely. And I know that the issue is more abstract for me, immune as I am from any direct effect.
It is just unfortunate that effective advocacy requires a perception of authority beyond simply being on the right side of evidence. That is why we have such a shallow pool of people who have significant public impact.
Cox should have followed the don’t debate creationists rule. The ABC in Australia follows a “teach the controversy” policy, where extreme, and extremely stupid, views get equal airtime with normal people. This follows the installation of a Murdoch drone as ABC chief exec, amid recent revelations by ABC presenter Jon Faine of re-education sessions for ABC staff, presumably to get them to tow the Liberal/Murdoch party line.
ABC current affairs programs should be ignored these days, their content is about as balanced as Fox News.
It’s a Jewish conspiracy for Malcolm when you dig down. The money comes back to the Rothschilds apparently. I think the Jews are responsible for the Communists well, do they’ve got the whole thing covered.
I shouldn’t really expect more from a One Nation politician, but still.
@rorschach: We should manufacture a controversy where Hanson and Roberts are a dumb version of the Reptilians or something. Maybe ABC will air it.
Its not about purity, its about the fundamental danger posed by some of these people. And, this guy, if he is “One Nation”, and one of the crazy “sovereign citizen” types… oh boy. The number of these people around has jumped, massively, precisely because they have a) gotten people elected, but b) none of the people they think are conspiring against them have been impeached or arrested. If Trump gets elected, but somehow the houses do not change hands, and, once again, nothing changes the way these crazy people want, we may not have to worry about Trump doing anything insane, the nearly 300 brand spanking new militias, and all the other nut cases, assuming they don’t all get arrested first, (as has thankfully been the case so far) will make the the US look like its in the Middle East. These people flipping out of their minds, not just wrong.
The University of Queensland is offering a free online course
This course has started already, but perhaps it will be offered again. It looks like a great way to gain skills to respond to those that deny climate change.
here’s some extra ammo for you then.
you can get rid of the “laudable scientist” part.
he WAS a scientist, for a short time, but never really contributed much to the science of evolutionary biology itself in the end. His one flash in the pan, the idea that selection acts on genes directly (instead of selection happening at the level of the individual), was pretty much a bust from the get-go, and never got better, and he fought for it longer than he should have. Developmental biology itself is a pretty good refutation of his hypothesis, let alone the very very very few cases one might be able to squidge into the idea that “selection is acting on genes” in the field. like group selection… it’s simply not supported by the vast majority of what we see out there.
so, leave him at “excellent science popularizer”, and compare him specifically to others of that stripe, as that was by far and away how he spent most of his life.
Show the chemistry. Demonstrate the greenhouse effect in a lab. Show the increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses produced by humans over the past century and projections of continued emissions into the future. Show the potential emission of additional greenhouse gasses by such things as methane clathrates and such, also caused by AGW. Show how the climate models have NOT been proven wrong as the idiot claims, they’ve been proven to be TOO CONSERVATIVE.