Brian Cox has a genius response to a climate-change hater!

Why Evolution Is True

LOL, I love PuffHo headlines. Here, His Highness Brian Cox throws serious shade on a climate-change denialist. This tweet is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Q&A” show which just featured Cox on a panel which includes an elected Senator, Malcolm Roberts, who’s also a climate change denier (Aussies, please tell us who this clown is).

When the politician denied temperatures were rising, Cox pulled out a NASA graph to demonstrate the data. (It’s like pulling Marshall McLuhan from behind a sign in “Annie Hall”). Roberts then claims the supposed rise in temperatures reflects a conspiracy, and Cox notes the difficulty of getting virtually every scientist in the world to conspire as part of the same hoax (that, by the way, is also what creationists believe about us evolutionists.)

And why on earth would scientists want to cook the data anyway? Creationists think evolutionists conspire because the rotten foundations of evolution help prop up our atheism…

View original post 51 more words


Filed under Reblogs

7 responses to “Brian Cox has a genius response to a climate-change hater!

  1. Tim, do you endorse the use of the term climate denialist for people who challenge climate alarmism? Do you really think that virtually every scientist in the world supports alarmism?


    • 97% of climate scientists endorse the science on climate change. This is as high as for any scientific findings. So yes, those who deny scientific facts are denialists.


      • Tim have you read the paper by Cook et al which claimed to demonstrate the 97% consensus?


      • No, I haven’t read it.


      • Lets get a fresh grip on the issues. There appear to be two which are rather different. One concerns denying climate, or climate science, the other is about the so-called consensus.
        First of all, none of the people who reject alarmism deny either climate change or climate science. So what is the point of using the term climate deniers? The realists or sceptics appeal to science and the critical scientific approach, and they generally use science effectively.
        Second, what is the consensus, especially the 97% consensus claimed by Cook et al? If you read that paper you will find the 97% is based on an interpretation of two thirds of the papers because one third could not be scored on the basis of the abstract.
        If you look at the questions that were posed to score the papers, the consensus appears to be 1. there has been warming (not denied by anti-alarmists) and 2. there is a human contribution to warming (accepted by most anti-alarmists). So how come that result was interpreted by President Obama and others to support alarmism?


      • Tim did you watch the show last night where Cox crossed swords with Malcolm Roberts?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s