Brian Cox Shows Exactly How Science Isn’t Done

Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.54.22 AM-down

Brian Cox smugly pointed to a NASA graph, and said that it must be accurate because it was made by the people who put men on the moon. He said that anyone who disagreed with him probably didn’t believe we ever put men on the moon.

In other words, Brian didn’t do any research and made a childish appeal to an authority he knows nothing about. The people at NASA who actually put men on the moon aren’t very happy with the small handful of NASA climate fraudsters whom Cox has embraced.  Had he done any research, Cox would have known that the only scientist to have walked on the moon – Harrison Schmitt – is a Harvard PhD, geologist, Former US Senator, and is also a prominent climate skeptic.

This letter was sent to NASA by the people who actually put the men on the moon. They aren’t at all happy with NASA’s junk climate science or their worthless temperature graphs like the one being pointed to by Brian Cox.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 4.54.31 AM

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 4.54.47 AM Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 4.55.36 AM

NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change – Business Insider

Brian Cox took a drawing which he knows nothing about, and attributed it to people who disagree with his conclusions about the graph. Then he ridiculed anyone who disagreed with his unsupportable, unresearched and childish conclusions. This is exactly how real science is not done. Brian should probably leave science to adults, who aren’t as lazy as himself, and are willing to actually do some research before opening their mouths.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Brian Cox Shows Exactly How Science Isn’t Done

  1. Gail Combs says:

    Not only are the people who gave NASA its reputation NOT happy, they decided to look into CAGW.

    One Last Mission…

  2. Crashex says:

    The total number of people at NASA responsible for that particular graph is likely no more than a handful, probably two or three. So, a small group of people can use the historical reputation of a large diverse organization of engineers and scientists to lend credibility to proclamations made toward a political goal using questionable scientific methods and adjustments. You only need to get the right advocates into the proper positions of influence.

  3. Scott Scarborough says:

    The worst thing I heard in the Brian Cox talk was his statement about models. He said that people want and need to know what the future holds so it is perfectly acceptable to model the climate and produce predictions (or projections) without any mention that such models must be validated. If they are not, it is just a lie about your capabilities. All he said is that the models hind-casted well, which is not true and even if it were true means nothing. You can produce a polynomial fit to past temperatures with impressive accuracy. But it has no predictive value at all.

  4. Designator says:

    Just wait for a decent Indonesian volcano to blow their models to hell

  5. Brad says:

    Ironically, the men at NASA who actually put men on the moon reported much different data than what is that graph. But the people who staff NASA today think they were idiots who couldn’t read a thermometer and have since “adjusted” their data into the garbage that is the graph in which Mr. Cox has put his faith.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Knowing what the temperature is doesn’t tell you, Brian Cox or anyone else why it is so.

  7. Peter says:

    Malcolm Roberts missed a golden opportunity to call out Cox.

    As soon as I saw the graph it was apparent that the 1998 El nino spike was truncated and the graph ended in a positive spike but that was the situation about the end of May. Since then there has been a nearly equal negative spike but this was missing from the graph.

    Malcolm Roberts apparently didn’t notice these and instead just rambled on about nasa data being corrupt instead of interrogating Cox.

    I would bet my house that the graph mounted on a backing board was the idea of the producers and they fabricated it it and gave it to Cox. Roberts should have quizzed Cox on whether he had made it and asked why it differed significantly from the satellite datasets. He should also have mentioned that the Australian Communications Media Authority had recently ruled that there had indeed been a temperature pause since 1998 up to December last year before the current El nino spike. The ruling was against a complaint that andrew bolt had allegedly falsely told his viewers in December last year, that there had been a pause since 1998.
    There were a multitude of points that Roberts could have nailed Cox to the wall but instead he just keeps repeating the same old cliches like “empirical evidence”, “correlation isn’t causation”, “the UN is trying to rule the world”, “nasa has corrupted data” etc etcetera, but never directly refutes any of the 10 second “gotcha’s” that are thrown at him. For example, one woman said she knew global warming was real because it was hot where she was recently. Lily, the mathematician, said only scientists and mathematicians are capable of reading a temperature graph. When Cox said implied that if nasa sent a man to the moon, then it couldn’t corrupt data, why didn’t Roberts reply about the above letter to nasa by ex employees?
    A sceptic in his position should be aware of all these facts and be able to quickly rebut “gotcha’s” in a direct manner that lay people can understand, but he seems incapable of doing this. If it had been lord monckton instead, he would have ripped Cox to pieces.

    • Peter:

      Please watch QandA again because I mentioned on air that Cox’s graph had removed the 1998 El Nino temperature spike.

      Please refer to my website: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au

      I can reassure you that I’m aware of the points you raised above. When repeatedly cut off by others on the panel it’s not possible to refute all their points.

      The key point for this stage of our strategy is to reinforce that science is decided by empirical evidence and that those advocating alarm have no such evidence.

      We’re bringing the debate back to the science.

      Stay tuned.

      Malcolm Roberts

  8. This design is wicked! You most certainly know how to keep a reader entertained.

    Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to
    start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Fantastic job.

    I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
    Too cool!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *