[0:00]Okay, let's move on because a lot of questions in the audience. Brian, you've anticipated pretty much the next one. It's from uh Susie Wakefield. Um, hello. Recently on Insiders, Malcolm Roberts gave Barry Cassidy his business card. And asked Barry to get back to him when he had proof and data that there is a human element in our increasing climate change. I was hoping the panel could perhaps guide um Barry with some fact and just not opinion on the human element in climate change. I was going to start with Brian Cox uh the scientist on the panel and uh can you provide scientific data or evidence that might help Barry Cassidy convince Malcolm over here that human climate change is reality. Well, yes, and I could sit here and read out figures until I'm blue in the face. I mean, it would actually um, interestingly, the it's getting more worrying if you look at the temperature measurements now. I mean, 2015 and 2016 in particular have seen a a quite shocking acceleration in in many of the measures. Be it surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, etc. So so I the the first few months I noticed of 2016 have um above the average, the pre-industrial average. have been pushing 1.5 degrees. Now, you can't read too much into individual years. You have to be careful because you see these graphs and they're spiky, but there's a there's a clear rise in this. The latest the latest data is actually suggesting that by uh 2024, a 1.5 degree increase um is on the cards now. which puts it very close to the critical. Well, that that's that that's a prediction of the models. But actually in the first the early months of 2016 have already shown that. So so we don't know how 2016 is going to continue. But that that is a worrying problem. Because what would happen if we reach 2%? Oh, there are some uh shocking predictions actually that you see where where places in the in the Middle East for example that are already experiencing temperatures, sometimes in excess of 50 degrees, I think this year. Um become essentially uninhabitable for certain periods of time. So it it exacerbates you know, of sea level rise etc. So what it does it exacerbates some of the problems we're seeing. We just spoke about refugee problems. Um if you begin to get large shifts in climate very fast, then human populations have to respond. So how do you respond on very short time scales? One of the things you do is is you move. So again, I emphasize it's the same answer as the answer the last question I think. this is now a clear global problem. Um the absolute, absolute consensus is that that human action is leading to an increase in average temperatures. Absolute consensus. It it it I can't I I know you may try to argue with that, but you can't. No, not my. so so um so so um but therefore, um, but the key point is can we respond to it? Is it do we have the political institutions and the political will and the organization globally to respond to this challenge, and that worries me immensely. I don't think we do at the moment. I'm going to go quickly to uh Malcolm Roberts, we want to hear from all the on this but Sure, the longest uh temperature record for for temperatures on this planet is a central England temperature record which goes back to the mid 16 1600s. And the first of the, oh sorry, the the latest in 16 in the 17th century, the latest warming cycle in the 17th century going into the 18th century was faster and greater than the latest warming which finished in 1995. And Justin Bieber wasn't flying his private jet around in the 1600s. That's the first thing. The second thing is we've had a pause in in this so-called warming for now 21 years. Depends how you measure it, 21 years. And I'm absolutely stunned that someone who is inspired by Richardman, a fantastic scientist who believes in empirical evidence, is quoting a consensus. Can I just say I just I brought the graph, right? I mean can I just
[4:24]Okay, let's just tell you where where where the pause is. The the pause that's often quoted, there's um if you take this point here, which is about 1997, I think. And you ignore 2015, 2016. You can choose that point and you can draw a slightly straighter trend line on there. But that that's a a misunderstanding. The the question is does that rise? And also, secondly, I had another graph because I thought it. Is it correlated with that which is the graph that shows the um CO2 emissions. the CO2 in parts per million in the atmosphere. You see that peak there, where it goes up. So the the question essentially is, first of all, are those two things correlated? And secondly, do we understand the physical mechanisms? And we we understood those in the 19th century. Can you go back to the middle of the graph there? Yeah. The the that graph. Yeah, the peak in the middle. Yep. What year is that? That's about 1941. Yeah, 1930s and 40s were warmer than the current decades. What's that? What's the data source? Well not exactly. No, no. The original records. The original records are far warmer. But the other thing that tells me that graph has got something wrong with it is that 1998 was about the same as 2015-16. Okay. I was going to I was going to pause here so you'll you'll hear so you're hearing the interpretation of a a highly qualified scientist. Um and you're just saying I don't believe that, is that right? I'm saying I'm saying I'm saying two things. Let me I think I'm saying two things. I'm saying two things. First of all, that the data has been corrupted, and we know that the 1930s were warmer than today. Well, what you mean corrupted? Been manipulated. By him. By NASA. The people that landed men on the moon. you
[6:26]You I I should just ask actually you believe we landed men on the moon. See see the the little trick there? No.
[7:07]It's questioning whether or not I believe that I'm I'm a moon skeptic. Now, are you? No, I'm not.
[7:18]Oh, right. No, no, but I mean I mean this is a serious accusation. I mean the idea the idea that NASA and presumably I should say to people, by the way, the the Australian Academy of Science have done a brilliant. You can never get any sense on programs like this that are and things, but this the science of climate change, the um the Australian Academy of Science report is superb. I I brought it because I'm going to come and give it to you in a minute, so you can have a read. But that's very good if you want to see the but the point is that the the accusation that that NASA, presumably all the the the the Australian, the the Met office in the UK. Everybody is collaborating to manipulate global temperature data. Is that what you're saying they're collaborating? Well, they're all they've all manipulated in the same way and accidentally got to the same answer. Is that what you say? No, No, this is quite serious. I'm going to just ask the audience just to hang on. We've actually got to hear what's being said here. So it's all very well to laugh, but we want to hear what's being said. These are all experts in their field and they advise us on what is real and what is what is not real. And and as far as I'm concerned, the the the where politics comes into play is how to implement their advice. As far as I'm concerned, politics should be based on empirical evidence. All policy should be based on empirical evidence. I've heard consensus, which is not science. I've heard appeals to authority, which is not science. I'm I've heard um various illusions. Hang on. Hang on, Brian. You showed me a graph of temperature. Yeah, but I could show you You showed me a graph of temperature, but no one has ever explained cause and effect. What is important in science? Hang on. And your and one of your is Richardman. Richardman says it doesn't matter how beautiful, how emotional your theory. If the evidence does not suit, it is wrong. That's what Richardman says. And what we need is is not just empirical evidence. We need empirical. Hang on. We need empirical evidence that demonstrates and proves cause and effect. Greg Hunt says he relies on advice. I have never ever heard Greg Hunt say that he relies on data. Now, Brian, you asked for a minute and you you wanted to you wanted to to respond to what's being. Well, I mean, I brought a point about how you would do science and and and this issue in general. So it's uh obviously a sensible, as you said, a very important question to ask, what will our climate be like? Which is essentially the probability of weather, what's it going to be like in 2050, in 2100 under different scenarios, given that we understand the physical mechanism for greenhouse warming, etc. I mean, you were right in one thing you said, which is that um CO2 is essential for life. It is. The the temperature on the of the Earth would be very low, below freezing, if it wasn't for the fact that we had a greenhouse effect. You see that on Venus as well. So we understand we understand the physical mechanisms. But the point is it's a legitimate question and a very important question to ask. What if we carry on emitting greenhouse gases at this rate or an increased rate or a decreased rate, what do we think will be the impact on the climate in 50 years time? We can only answer that question if we understand it now. I know. So, yes. So, the only the way you do that is you make measurements now of temperatures, sea temperatures, sea levels, Arctic ice, volume, etc., etc., etc. And then you try and model the climate in order to make a prediction about the future. Now, that's the only way that you can make a prediction about the future. There is no other way. So you can check the models and then Let me just finish. No, no, let me finish. has already been proven wrong, hopelessly wrong. Well, no, they they You cross-check them into the past for example, they do quite nicely. Um you they have a large uh but actually shrinking error range on them. But the question is, if you don't do that, if you don't model, which is a central part of the scientific process, how do you go about answering the question? Which as you said, um people here have a right to ask, which is what will the world be like in 2050, in 2075, in 2100. If you don't model it. This would be my question to you, if you don't model it, how can you go about trying to answer the question? The models that the IPCC uses are unvalidated and erroneous and have already been proven hopelessly wrong. And that's a fact. Hang on. I I asked you the other day. That was my question. How would how would you go about answering the question? You answer the question by making projections based on models providing the models are validated and have been proven to be accurate. And the models have already been proven to be inaccurate and the IPCC has has recognized that and admitted it. Now, what we need to do is look at the empirical data, and the empirical data says quite categorically. that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a result of temperature changes. Now, that's flat out wrong. No, it's not. That's correct. It is flat out in. I've looked at the data over the. So you just hang on, we got he to you and now you have to listen to him. It is wrong. That's let me just all right, I'll just give you one snapshot. So, so I took a snapshot of the the the different bits of evidence for 2015. So, global upper ocean heat content, highest on record in 2015. Global sea level, highest on record in 2015. 70 mm higher than that observed in 1993. Global surface temperature, highest on record. El Nino uh something like 10 to 40% contribution to that. Tropical slide flows well above average overall. As you said, um the the even the the anecdotal data. I actually had a a wonderful. I I can't I was going to give a story then but I won't do it because it'll take too long. But as you said so so the point is you you go evidence evidence Arctic continued to warm. Sea ice extent low. Arctic land surface temperature in 2015, 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit above 1981 to 2000 average.
[14:26]But the point is the key point is that if you don't accept that the only way to try to formulate policy on what we do with emissions is to build models. That's the only way you can predict the future, otherwise you have tarot cards. Just before you come in, Malcolm, I'm going to interrupt because I want to hear from
