Climate Clash: Malcolm Roberts vs Brian Cox

No captions available for this video.

Channel: Eric Worrall

Views: 522,830

Rating: 4.4034462 out of 5

Keywords: One Nation, Australian ABC, ABC, Climate Science, Climate Change, Brian Cox, Malcolm Roberts, Climate Skeptic, Climate Debate, Richard Feynman

Id: _TTsTYCpKUY

Length: 19min 41sec (1181 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 15 2016

Reddit Comments

[u/Wish_you_were_there]

If NASA etc are altering the "empirical evidence" then where is the "empirical evidence" for them doing so?

[u/HSoup]

The counter-consensus claim would only be valuable if that was the ONLY evidence given, but the context here is important. Consensus is trotted out to highlight how professionals are interpreting the data, which in this case is a huge body of complex data that takes an immense amount of education and time to evaluate and understand completely.

Consensus is brought up to address two points by my read:

• If it's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy with almost 100% participation (and I can't get my wife to decide what restaurant we're going to eat at, so that seems unlikely).
• Why should you take [---------]'s word over 98% of professionals whose only job it is to examine and evaluate this information?

I work full-time and spend time with my family, so it doesn't leave me a lot of time to pour over climate information and draw conclusions from that study. I am forced to depend on those sources which I estimate are reputable. If there was any logic behind a global conspiracy, AT ALL, I would consider it (and if you suggest a financial motivation, you don't understand how money works or how well science pays).

Look, if I want to learn about what it's like to be a soldier in a war, I have a few options:

• I can talk to soldiers who've been in a war.
• I can talk to people who haven't been to war but have seen some war movies.
• I can go to war myself.

Since option 3 is too hard, option 1 seems like the only logical one to adopt.

Side note: That guy shouldn't even be allowed to say Feynman, much less inexpertly wield him in defense of his antiscience views.

[u/grahag]

On an issue like this, listening to conspiracy theorists puts us in MUCH more danger than ignoring them. No one can argue that CO2 levels ARE rising. Reducing those levels should be the focus as it's considered to be the primary cause of the warming effect.

Once the permafrost is gone, releasing all that trapped methane "at once", we're well and truly screwed. Once a certain level of ocean acidification occurs, we'll be looking for ways to escape the planet, instead of fixing the issue.

The cherry picking of data is the worst problem with conspiracists. They find a break in the data which either is unexplained or goes against the trend and use that as a reason for their dissent. It's the complete opposite of science.