Some of the comments by people who show no understanding of the issue, but exceptional command of the caps lock key, just hurts my heart and make me despair for the human future

Not enough agreement in the population. We need more education and more involvement. Thanks,very well spoken!

Brian Cox - Please respond to Piers Corbyn's challenge / request for debate. You know what I am talking about.

Why there were no Climate Scientists in a panel about Climate Change? A matematician, an ecologist, an astrophysicist and a writer? WHY?

I gave this a thumbs up but I do not agree on the assertion that climate change is not an immediate problem and we got time to deal with it. Also, they were claiming (I don't think all) that this really won't hurt people any time soon. Those are dangerous and sad positions to be taking but I think it will be a nicer world the longer we live in denial. Once we realize the oncoming onslaught... things will change.

Why don't those convinced that climate change isn't going to have the effects predicted set up an insurance company, undercut the competition and make a fortune?

Another great talk to listen to is this one with Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Society (Paul Watson talks Climate - KZfaq). Such a keen understanding of how important the oceans are to our and all life on the planet's survival.

Why isn't every new home being built furnished with solar roofs? Also, owners of electricity pylons could have double-helix wind turbines attached to them. The power harnessed would be slight individually but given the pylons already accommodate a ground space/area I feel the pylons as a whole would harness huge amounts of energy. Jobs would be created. It would be clean, it's already plumbed in to the current infrastructure... What's not to like or forge ahead with? I'd patent the idea but I think it's an idea that should be open for anyone to utilise.

31:30

Debate? What a joke! All these people think the same thing. This shows that they are afraid of true debate, and Cox either lies about his 'uncontroversial' ideas and that all major political parties swallow his groupthink (UKIP don't) or never leaves his BBC bubble. A better title would've been "Climate Alarmist Circle jerk, with Brian Cox".

The question was asked "can we see the effects of climate change?" I recall the south of UK used to have definite snowfall each winter, it just depended when. Now we barely need thick coats each year.

So Brian, what was your Climate Change Views?

I live in North Carolina, USA. I moved here in 92. Not only have I noticed the change in weather, but we now have several new species that were once only found in Florida or Texas. The American Cockroach/Palmetto bug showed up around 2010, and are now everywhere. Stink bug swarms in spring started in 2017. American Alligator is now a common sight as of about 2019. Armadillo have began showing up in the last year. The new warnings for 2021 are of the migration of invasive snake species from the Everglades in Southern Florida. Species native to Asia, Africa, and South America. Are now right at home in the Mid-Atlantic states of North America... The fascists have withheld technology that would have ended our dependence on fossil fuels bc it would mean the elite lose their monopolies. They have poisoned us, the planet, all life on earth, for temporary personal monetary gain. For worthless paper. Imaginary 1s and 0s. Maybe the ET will save the planet before we destroy it completely

you have to KNOW HOW WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW. if you don't know how we know what we know, it's easy to think it's baseless, because you don't know the base. a lot if people are just WAY BEHIND in terms of knowing how we know anything.

Climate change deniers have already downvoted the video...

skip to 2:37 if you don't want the sales pitch

Superb discussion, the question and answers were comprehensive so was the general consensus amongst panel of scientist that climate change is something we must take seriously.

...(10:00),,... Holy Cow,,, Thats a crazy looking Cat !..lol..

This is interesting and the more data we collect the more we know about the earth it would nice to find out more how the rotation of the earth and the movements of the plates effect the heating of the earth, I am only a builder but I have a questioning mind. I think will will find out more as the time go's by I would love to know if the speed that planets spin at affects the temperature

Ok so light travels at different speeds through different mediums - so if we remove those mediums would light either do nothing or travel faster / instant?

Amaizing but why can't it so difficult to understand for many people

I really love the scientific mind and way of thinking. How wonderful it would be if we could bypass all the middle men a.k.a politicians and morons and just go about things as it should be done and not by someones personal whims like corporations etc.

So many smart and articulate people addressing the wrong topics for the right reasons. It will become hotter and wetter (mostly) for a while. We must adapt to that reality, not pretend we can reverse it. Historically, we have proven very good at adapting and very poor at mitigative planning and implementation - lets go with what we are good at.

Dr Robert Holmes has formulated this equation T = P/(R.d/n) T temperature K P surface pressure R gas constant d density n mean moles. It seems to work on planets that have an atmosphere > 10 kPa to accurately determine their surface temperature regardless of the atmosphere's composition. If planetary surface temperature can be determine by pressure density and mean moles what does this say to the IPCC claim that temperature will raise by up 5 deg C with a doubling of CO2.

Questions, I understand that we can be exposed safely to low doses of radiation. We all know huge nuclear plants are very dangerous. So why can't we build tiny reactors and bury them near our homes for energy? Tiny meaning like the size of an average household washing machine or smaller ? Wouldn't small reactors be a safer,easier, way to handle this energy source?

I presume Co2 absorbs solar energy as soon as it's released. So my question is this. From about 1997 to 2017 humans produced more Co2 during this period than in all of human history combined. But over the same 20yr period the world didn't warm up. Why?

You can fret about Climate Change if you want, as long as no money leaves my pocket.

I can't help thinking that one of the panel looks like Jeremy Corbin.

Well we are currently getting a few tons of Methane from Fracking all over the uk and usa. Methane is of course 86% worse than CO2.

it's amazing how dilettantes will assume that they have found huge holes in the arguments of scientists, and that they know better than the consensus of the peer-reviewed scientific community. amazing ego and hubris!

So you want the south pole to turn into a tourist centre? Planes, trains and automobiles roaming the poles? That in spite of the fact that the south pole is not a very hospitable world. But we talk about it again in 50 years and maybe you will have sunny beaches in Antarctica ;-)

Why are these things turned on 1/2 an hour before the event starts? Then not rectified? Too much science involved in that ?

It's amazing that there was room for all those people with Cox's massive ego in there. No warming for 20 years...so much for the failed CO2 hypothesis.

Reference Timestamp 13 minutes: So a 1 million year ice core record somehow represents the entire history of planetary climate change? Why not show the ENTIRE history of atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding global temperatures going back say 3.5 billion years? Dinosaurs were around 65 million years ago, the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago. One million years ago is NOT a long time in planetary time scales. Lets for example use a relatively small timeframe of 540 million years. From a statistical sampling perspective if you had a room full of 540 people would you think picking one person who happens to be standing in the front row and then present their characteristics as being representative of all 540 people to be a sensible proposal? IMO this looks like an unethical and unbalanced presentation of "pop science" by a panel of four who are all in violent agreement with each other. Data is cherry picked to suit and promote an already determined dogma of anthropogenic climate change as being "irrefutable". There are tens of thousands of scientists who think it is refutable. Most people in the room will be blinded by the big number of a million years and think this is sufficient time based on their inability to compare their relatively short life spans with 1 million years. The most recent one million years pales into insignificance versus the 3.5 billion years of fossil records (i.e. this discussion is therefore pivoted on a data sample of 1 out of a population of 3,500).

Things can only get better. *starts shufflin*

Ok since I am hungry this is easier to watch than the other video. Don't watch videos about food when you are hungry.

Climb aboard the IPCC gravy train. Take a look to the left, take a look to the right. You will see the bad science that is all around.

This is a good example of bad science.

How can we limit warming to 2 degrees? We have another 40 years of co2 effects to encounter, if we stopped tomorrow, but we will continue to burn for many years yet. Youd have to be very political to think theres hope of 2 degrees, its frustrating to see they are being so conservative, and what appears to be very unrealistic.

Problems,troubles, climate change, disease out break, shortage of food, increased conditioner in the air.....etc. are good for the species evolution because that is/was the basis for the evolution theory. Right? Thanks.

In the past, there have been much more rapid changes in climate than what is observed today. Species are forever adapting to changes in their environments. For example, 6,000-7,000 years ago, polar bears, walruses and penguins had far less snow and ice in their environment than today.

This is not a debate though. For it to be a convincing debate, you need some of the prominent scientists with contrary views to have their bit, right? One can hardly call oneself objective if one will only present the portion of agreement. I believe it's often referred to as an "echo chamber", right? It's certainly not the case that it is hard to find credible professors in directly relevant fields with compelling, peer reviewed and convincing science to contradict very fundamental portions of what is assumed to be rudimentary in this, well, not debate but let's say, friendly chat and expression of agreement on one side of the argument. Just off the top of my head: There is professor Judy Curry, head of the climate science department at Georgia Tech. Professor Bob Carter. Professor William Happer of Princeton University. Professor John Christy. Professor Fred Goldberg. Dr. Richard Keen. Professor Matt Ridley. Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. Dr. Roy Spencer... who actually ran the NASA team collecting the satellite IR temperature data during the Clinton and part of the Bush administrations. Dr. Moore... Ecoscientist and co-founder of Greenpeace. Professor Richard Lindzen, senior climate science professor at MIT. Oh, there are many. Certainly not a majority or anything of the kind, but throw a rock in a bush and you hit three.

royal society is a charity? what does that mean?

Would any of you like me to show you how to make a dinosaur, when it gets hot enough?

He can't possibly think those sideburns are a good look lmao

Hi Why are we not allowed to travel to the South Pole?

Rather see Brian alone. Too many cooks. But I'm a bit biased. I like hard science minus the pleasantries.

Maybe these folks could run a study on the effects of the unmarked planes that are running around with reckless abandon spraying whatever it is they are spraying on us and see if in fact they are not part of the problem!!

Bring out suppressed technology.

And now 2021 nothing have happen, and remains is just talks, talks...

Ya

Unfortunally the carbon cycle is about 30 years not 300 years en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations#/media/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg

Anyone?

The truth is a small group like this can not possibly know enough to determine anything useful about Earth's climate. You would need a team of Hundreds of Scientists from Hundreds of different fields, each being open minded and dedicated to a life time of study and research to even come close to understanding and making accurate predication about Climate Change. Simply saying your a Climatologist and blaming so called greenhouse gas emissions is like saying your a Automotive engineer because you can put air in your tyres and petrol in the tank.

Humans depend on plants and insects to survive. If they can't adapt quickly enough there goes our food supply. Also, if we stopped depositing CO2 into our atmosphere there would be fewer particles in the air to create the umbrella effect (global dimming) that currently shields the earth from some of the sun's energy, resulting in an even faster pace of global warming as the "umbrella" dissipates. What we need to do is find a way to remove a significant portion of the CO2 that we have already deposited into our atmosphere. Absent that, global warming will continue with devastating consequences for all life on this planet.

There is no Greenhouse Effect. Crack open a Physics textbook. it's pretty obvious the Hypothisis is totally flawed.

Could have had some actual climate scientists that have an alternative view. Peirs Corbyn has been asking for a debate on climate change for years.

That gezzers muttons!

CowSpiracy (Netflix doc) ......thoughts on agriculture??

How many new species of life are being created by the increased climate change?

And to answer the question on the boost for evolution by climate change. Yes evolution follows climate change but today the climate is simply going way to fast, species will not be able to adapt and will go instinct

If those atoms absorb so much energy, couldn't this absorbed energy be used somehow? Kind of a carbon based solar panel in the upper atmosphere.

They make anyone a professor now

I hope Brian Cox, Bill Nye Lawerence Krauss and others can all put their "man pants" on if/when they ever figure it out unless they already have and are just cashing in. I cant imagine that there in the dark on this one but I do hope they are !

we have reached PEAK FOOD

Call someone ''Sir'' and I start to take them less seriously.Part of a hierarchical,obedient,society.

w

I believe in Climate Change. But doing something about will be VERY costly in both monetary and social terms. To embark on such an undertaking, we must know EXACTLY what we are dealing with. Currently, we do not. We need to invest much more into developing a lot better climate models. See the equally esteemed Professor Tim Palmer's address to the Royal Society on the issue (also available on KZfaq). That is what I find perplexing - all these people proposing all sorts of measures without first advocating investing in much more powerful computers so we can answer this crucial question.

I think not.

Solar #geoengineering is currently in full-scale deployment.

A lot of talk for storage!

I just notice they have the same name…

Stop chopping the bloody trees, rainforests and jungles down and replant on a massive scale. Problem solved.

I think everyone who has a new home should buy Elon musk design on box homes good for the environment get a electric car or hybrid truck for get about the old days thay are gone including government houses 🏘

But if you go to Eton, and can therefore be in the cabinet, why would you get a science degree?

The echo in that echo chamber is deafening.

What is the point of having a panel and a questioner who All have the same opinion ? No argument so rather pointless.

Why are there no climate experts on the panel a particle physicist and a bat expert 🧐

Would have been more interested if the counter argument was also represented on the panel. I admit i am a layman and do not know what the truth is, but it appears that the climate change proponents do not like to be challenged.

Brian Cox apparently doesn't understand physics. Amazing.

10:50 I am sorry, but what in the world is going on in this mans face

Let's move to Mars so we can destroy that too.

Small Local Thorium Salt Reactors

Problem is with renewable energy is it uses up just as much carbon and pollution to make and keep running as just just burning coal we also have to keep coal plants running incase the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow and the biofuel well I don't think burning trees is the answer to burning coal

I've seen no change ever and these two Danish chaps couldn't find any evidence on land or sea in their recent paper 03-18 -Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature by Frank Lansner, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen

Yes, it's been warming for about 300 years. Before that, it was cooling for several hundred years. What started the warming 300 years ago? Where's the data that shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature? What caused the ice age? What ended the ice age?

Here is something not being mentioned Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed) by Robin Wylie, University College London | October 15, 2013 07:11pm ET

I expect a 2 degree C increase from base by September 2018 based on a 50 gigatonne burst of methane from the Arctic in 2017.

bollocks.

Ultimate anti-hero !

imagine taking your car to the garage for service, because you don't know what's wrong with it, and can't fix it yourself, only to have a huge argument with the mechanics about what the problem is. how would you know what you're talking about?

video is out of sync

The agonizing sphere collectively spare because gymnast gradually deserve concerning a cooperative shoe. mighty, obnoxious air

dont the solar panels strip solar flares from the sun so dont you think that part of the cycle would be the shrinking of the sun but when the clouds repair themselves given chance the sun can grow, just a point to point out, not to be complacent but to carry on going, proffessor brian cox sorry about my dyslexia

How long would their boss keep their funding going and keep them in employment if they did have data to say the opposite. Not very long I think. Ride that gravey train.

science gets a lot wrong - actually

He need to go to babaers to get clean shave

miscalculations

Methane production could be massively reduced if we all go 100% plants only and stop farming animals. Unfortunately, while some cows can be reintroduced to the wild, most will have to be culled for maximum impact - not very ethical.

"planets system" That is non existent man! So your "research" is a lie, you just researched how to make lie..Right? thanks.