Skip to content

What About The Satellites, Brian?

August 16, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




Smug TV scientist Brian Cox produced a graph, purportedly showing how global temperatures are rapidly rising, to convince a gullible audience that we are all going to die.


Given that he is supposed to be a physicist, with great insights into the universe, it is perhaps slightly surprising that he is not aware of the much more comprehensive satellite data, which shows a totally different story.




Cox lost all scientific credibility years ago, when he took the TV dollar. He now carries little more credibility than Bill Nye, the Science Guy (and that is saying something!)


Of course, the heavily adjusted, UHI ridden, extremely patchy surface record MIGHT be right, and the satellite record wrong. But should not a proper scientist look at all of the data, and ask questions when there is such conflict?

Indeed, a proper scientist might wonder why NASA are even responsible for producing surface temperature data, particularly when their own satellites come up with different conclusions.

But it appears that cheap PR stunts are more important to Cox today than scientific integrity.

  1. August 16, 2016 7:45 pm

    Even if you believe the much tampered GHCN based global surface temperature anomaly estimates, when you look at a longer perspective the recent rise looks perfectly natural and nothing out of the ordinary.

  2. August 16, 2016 7:56 pm

    Followed this nonsense in The Australian yesterday after the Australian Broadcasting Communists Q&A show. Made a few utturances in the comments for the stupid and midled that they should actually read what this site says before they make any comment. But thankfully these dulards were in the minority and there was almost unanimous support in the readers comments for the proper science and repudiation of Cox. The vast proportion of thinking people are now awake to the scam and more importantly know what they are talking about including Senator Roberts who was derided by the left wing luvvie audience but correct in his remarks.
    On another topic in the same Australian last weekend a very good article, although poorly headlined, regarding the US Academy of Science review saying in effect that AGW is at an end and cooling may occur. This is despite the fact they support a new front opening to keep “climate science” funded which is called “decadial forecasting” . Ten year views as none of the others have hit the dartboard.

  3. August 16, 2016 8:14 pm

    The dosh and meejah ‘sleb effect seem to have gone to Brian’s head.

    Why is he in Australia? Is he self funding a hol down under – I wonder … and just happened to be called in as an expert witness by ABC?

    or… is his jolly funded by some folk who are desiring of his services?

    I think we should be told 🙂

    I only just found out about Brian’s explanation of why the moon sometimes looks like a banana – … oops!

  4. August 16, 2016 8:15 pm

    Watch Tony Heller`s presentation at the big Nebraska conference on disaster preparedness. 9 July this year. watch how they have altered the real temperature data to give the impression of warming they alter the data and replace a real cooling trend with a lying warming trend. total fraud.. watch the fraudsters at work!

  5. August 16, 2016 8:24 pm

    Again AGW is all about the PR and not full colour science.

    I see that #GetMalcolm stunt, BBC HYS article has open comments 1400 and falling (as they delete some)
    The top rated comments with 200 upvotes are sneering GreenBlobbers

    It’s the second #GetMalcolm stunt the GreenBlob media team, “Malcolm is a conspiracy theorist” was their first one, as they traced back comments he made saying much of GreenBlob families are the same ones who own the Federal reserve bank..(It is true the families own it, but it is disputed as too whether that means they control its policy)

    Since he was a surprise Senator they’d not tried stunts they don’t really matter as he’s in power now for the next 3 or 4 years.

  6. 1saveenergy permalink
    August 16, 2016 9:53 pm

    Brian Cox, the grin with village idiot attached –

    I would say Cox is a d!ckhead….but that would be unkind…so I won’t.

    • Andrew permalink
      August 19, 2016 11:49 am

      It would only be unkind to dickheads

  7. AndyG55 permalink
    August 17, 2016 6:44 am

    The best Cox managed was a graph of heavily mal-adjusted highly UHI, sparse, fabricated temperature non-data…

    and a call to “consensus”.

    As a so-called professor, he should hang his head in shame.

    An UNBELIEVABLY POOR performance.

  8. August 17, 2016 7:28 am

    He’s only making another few bucks, he may even believe the hype!
    Remember professors are now as common as lawyers and are no longer an academic elite.

    As a famous magician once said, scientists are the best (i.e. most gullible) audience as once they see something they will believe it no matter how illusory.

  9. August 17, 2016 8:36 am

    Brian Cox, as an experimental particle physicist, never had any credibility as a climate scientist. Particle physics is a very rare branch of physics, in which the complexity of the world is stripped away to focus on the very simple interactions of a few particles in an accelerator. Climate science is exactly the reverse, it deals with the complexity, and Brian Cox really should not say anything about it, a concept called integrity.

  10. AlecM permalink
    August 17, 2016 8:59 am

    Cox is a charlatan. This is because no professional scientist can ever accept the present IPCC physics.

    It totally ignores two key bits of physics which provide near infinite negative feedback as [CO2] increases and then falsely claims positive feedback based on assuming 1/3rd higher low level cloud albedo than reality. This translates into underestimating low level cloud negative feedback by a factor of 4!

    It’s a mess and any supporter of this mess is supporting an anti-scientific cult.

  11. August 17, 2016 10:58 am

    ALL scientists, doctors and lawyers should immediately lost their license when they enter the realm of television. They are then actors in search of ratings and do not deserve to keep their degrees or licenses. It’s a deliberate lie using creditials that have no meaning any more to sell your shows and TV appearances. You’re an actor now and nothing more.

  12. August 17, 2016 11:01 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Satellite ‘deniers’

  13. August 17, 2016 11:53 am

    Alas poor Brian is in the clutches of the BBC, caught like a fly in the BBCs spider’s web. To be fair to Prof Cox I have his 3 books on the solar system, and he does mention several times the influence the sun has on our climate. There is hardly any mention of CO2, but now he has become a BBC climate change clone, which is a great pity.

  14. August 17, 2016 11:57 am

    In the 1970’s, I was working at the Smithsonian Institution. A couple of “scientists” wanted some data from a project on which I worked. I perceived they were playing a bit fast and loose with facts and told them: “If scientists fudge data or lie about it, when the general public catches on–and they will–academia will be forever trying to get its reputation back.”

    We have gone to the point where no one speaking from the fields of science, medicine, economy, government and certainly the media can be believed. Integrity is now laughed at and worked against. This certainly has dire consequences for society in general.

    These folks are selling their souls for a “mess of pottage.” That didn’t work well for Esau either.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      August 17, 2016 2:23 pm

    • August 18, 2016 10:10 am

      I must agree totally with you, professorships (in the UK anyway) used to be rare and usually aged / skilled people: they are now ten a penny and devalued consequently. The idea that “Scientists say” is like the old “Trust me I’m a doctor” that is an obsolete idea mainly used for devious scams. Similarly, “Peer reviews, Meta data analysis and consensus” have become synonymous with “trust me, this proves it…maybe.”.

  15. CheshireRed permalink
    August 17, 2016 8:31 pm

    In addition to the temps’ graph Cox showed a CO2 graph. It was only a quick glance but looked like the Gervis et al paper that Gervis herself withdrew after failing peer review, and then re-presented with, according to Steve McIntyre, hardly any revisions.
    Anyone able to confirm this?

  16. August 18, 2016 10:01 am

    The “I’s” top energy reporter Tom Bawden was crowing about how Cox had demolished the Aussie arguments with is graph then about how Gavin Smith was concluding that doom was near with 0.84oC temperature rise.

    He is now getting full pages regularly for his preaching: also claims that Peru is suffering from “glacial lake outbursts” due to climate change and how other glaciers are about to follow.

    What is worrying is the paper does not allow any criticism of this stuff and nonsense. My wife thinks that if the nice and clever Professor Cox believes it, it must be right, and so will many others!

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      August 18, 2016 11:11 pm

      If your wife thinks that Professor Cox is ‘nice and clever’
      Take her to spec-savers….or book her into a secure institution !!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: