Professor Brian Cox: Climate Alarmism’s ‘Useful Idiot’

Written by John O'Sullivan

Celebrity British television scientist, Brian Cox, is exposed promoting fraudulent NASA temperature graph to a live Australian audience. In an attempt to discredit fellow panellist Aussie climate skeptic, Malcolm Roberts,  Cox waved his dodgy piece of paper boldly declaring “I’ve brought the graph” (see photo) to a hand-picked audience.

useful idiot

But after the show informed critics were quick to back the skeptic speaker who cut through Cox’s flim-flam to pinpoint precisely the fakery on display.

Rising skeptic star Senator-elect Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation party,  despite attempts to disrupt his response, correctly exposed NASA’s corruption of the data. Roberts pointed out the unethical removal of the 1998 El Nino, the false reduction of warm 1930’s temperatures and politically biased inflation of temperatures for more recent years.

But Cox was having none of it preferring to continue to act out his role as useful idiot. On the night it certainly seemed to work for the British physicist behind BBC’s Wonders of the Universe. Cox not only won over the quiescent studio audience but photos of the charming professor and his graph soon appeared on the BBC, The Guardian and other MSM organs.

Fellow climate realists were quick to endorse Roberts and emphasised where and why Cox’s graph was fake. Two articles published back to back illustrate this point. The first by Thomas Richard shows how NASA whisked away the cooling period of the 20th century and the 1998 El Niño by using a The second article, ‘NASA Successfully Eliminates the 1998 El Nino’ is by Steven Capozzola. In itCapozzola writes:

Has anyone looked at the recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis? A chart of it was used in a recent Australian Broadcasting Company debate on global warming to make the case that surface temperatures have risen continuously during the past 20 years.

chart-altered

There’s a pretty blatant problem with the NASA chart Cox showed, however. And it’s a fault that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of climate studies would recognize.

The NASA GISS analysis essentially eliminates the 1998 El Niño. Instead of the ’98 El Niño towering above neighboring years, thanks to its massive release of stored Pacific Ocean heat content, 1998 is simply depicted as one rung on an ever-climbing temperature ladder. And then, suddenly, there’s 2016, with an El Niño that explodes far above all of the preceding years.

If one hasn’t studied any recent climate data, then the chart looks plausible. After all, it was produced by NASA…

But the NASA GISS analysis contradicts every other recent measure of global temperatures. Specifically, the 1998 El Niño produced a major spike in temperature readings and one that the 2016 El Niño has been hard-pressed to beat. (An intervening El Niño in 2010 was far smaller by comparison.) But net global temperatures essentially flatlined in the intervening period of 1998-2016.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6

None of this is discernible in the NASA GISS analysis, however. And so, it’s disturbing that NASA is promoting such a graph—and that climate alarmists are using it without either knowing or caring that it is based on a very distorted representation of temperature data.

This sort of deception isn’t a complete surprise, though, given the questionable study published last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But it reveals the degree to which academic and government elites will pursue their own agenda at the expense of institutional honesty.

Read more by Capozzola at climatechangedispatch.com

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Once more – final attempt.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Must be too big – try this –

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I tried to attach graph but it didn’t attach. Trying again.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Firstly Malcolm made a mistake to even go on Q&A – it is nothing more than politically correct propaganda TV emphasizing the host’s and production teams’s own personal belief systems and often using derogatory language to belittle any non believer.

    Secondly Malcolm could have armed himself with this graph from a NASA site about the 40th anniversary of the Nimbus program -http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php.

    It clearly was a NASA publication, it clearly shows the various El-Niño events, it clearly shows a positive anomaly for almost the whole period (1979 – 2005 – inconsistent with radiation trapping) and it is entirely different to the later graph presented by Cox thus establishing there has been data manipulation.

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi John,

    In a book by S. G. H. Philander (I believe because I have lost the title page) I read: “Quinn et al. (1978) used this information to complile the following list of “strong” El Nino episodes: … 1884, 1891, 1899, 1911, 1918, 1925, 1926, 1941, 1957, 1958, 1972.
    (Quinn, et al. (1978) Historical trends and statistics of the Southern Oscillation, El Nino, and Indonesian droughts. Fish. Bull. 76, 663-678.

    I call your attention to this relative to the temperature anomalies shown in the NASA GISS figure for the years before, during, and after 1941. Which in this graphical display stands out like a sore thumb without any comment.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi John,

      And as I further study the NASA GISS data, I see I should call attention to the period between 1900 and 1920 when the Lowess Smoothing curve indicates a cool period despite the clearly visible “strong” El Nino episodes of 1911 and 1918. The clear evidence of the NASA GISS is the average temperatures of adjacent years can be quite different. Which seems to force the conclusion that such cannot be the result of any greenhouse gas (except for the possibility of water vapor) for the trend of carbon dioxide’s increasing concentration from year to year is a relatively smooth and slow increase. And it would be interesting to see what the trend of the atmospheric dewpoint temperatures, measured at the same places and times that the carbon dioxide concentrations are measured, might be.

      Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed