Journalism is almost gone. There _are_ vestiges remaining in some newspapers and individual investigative TV programs (PBS Frontline in the US and Four Corners in Australia are two stand out examples), but on the whole, journalism has given way to news content delivery. Beyond that, it's on us now, as individuals, to search for facts and truth, cutting out those outlets concerned only with what might trend and by extension generate revenue. It requires more effort and vigilance, but we've never been so connected to our planet. One of the first steps is making the de facto drift away from so-called news outlets a conscious, overt decision. Right now I can think of very little better than telling CNN, for example, to shove it. Spare us your homogenized, hashtag generated stories, parsed and soundbitten by a Brady Bunch grid of analysts, experts, contributors and colleagues, all of whom are on the payroll.

Past forward to three years, and everyone’s the media. Everyone’s opinions are now “facts”

The world changed on the day someone reasoned they could peddle news for profit.

can i rob that? i think that line is fantastic.

Aw, I feel peer-reviewed! Sure - help yourself. ;-)

you're a star!

But the comments section contains plenty of evidence that Cox is right about the disconnect with facts :-)

your view is better than mine. i don't see that reality. what i see isn't pleasant.

Cox doesn't even understand where his peers fall on the issue of climate change models, but suggest we should trust his views.

Yeah he talks to us like we are morons! I can't stand him.

this should be the #1 comment

Andy, the point is to create the model and then test it against past events to see if it is reliable. Science isn't scientific if it is unable to make predictions.

You cannot create a model, using past events to make it, and then test it against those past events, and then say 'it's good' and so will predict the future. You might create a equation with a few variables to predict outcomes..we know how to estimate trajectories of bullets for instance,and how planes fly and the forces in bridges...but the infinite variables of climate and weather. It's computer indulgence!

Brain Cox is there to bash anyone on the head who dares to think for themselves. oh wasn't he in a band called Dare, and then joined another one called D:Ream. A great way for him to cut his teeth as a celebrity scientist, not even the great David Attenborough went that far

But Jonn, Science isn't an explanation....it is merely a measurement of collected data. Explanations are opinions and theory that attempt to make sense of the data measurement.

All with one huge assumption as the foundation: that it all came about without intelligence.

there can be many explanations put forth that are all based on the same set of scientifically collected data.

rubbish

rumac Well said, envy of the world.

Well not really, it is government run and its costs are rising year on year. The American model is actually cheaper and much higher quality, no queues.

free? taxes are a thing.

rumac aye,and it has been around since the eighteenth century. Suddenly, it causes illnesses that have been around since long before

That's your opinion. I'm not in favour of it as it seems quite scary but it offers lots of benefits.

Should that happen, please contact me. I am in.

ESPECIALLY HIS. HE IS THE VOICE AND FACE OF MSM NWO BULLSHIT. A DANGER TO KIDS OF ALL AGES, ESPECIALLY SO-CALLED ADULTS

Philip Croft You’re exactly the type of waffler bull shitter he was talking about. You are the threat

May I recommend: Brian Cox and Kip Thorne in Bratislava 3.11.2021! Thorne explains the importance of maths in modern science. Maybe there is something that Nikola Tesla simple could not have seen...

Bredah Jake About as worthy a theory.

It was older voters who are afraid of change... but it remains to be seen, it may actually be beneficial. I voted remain but never try to predict or judge something until it’s put into practice. Even though I voted remain I did recognise the ridiculous amount of red tape involved in Euro politics. The only thing that really scares me is if future UK governments slowly start changing the human rights act. The EU has the one bang right. We won’t be able to take cases to the EU courts for example (which often overruled UK ones) the highest court we can go to will be within the U.K... but guess that’s what Brexit was, to decide for ourselves without EU interference

I think you are being too prejudicial when you say of older voters that their motivation was that they are afraid of change. Also, a very large group of people between 25 and 50 (something like 45%) voted leave. I certainly don't consider people in their mid to late twenties or early thirties old but that may be a matter of perspective. I think sometimes younger people (college age) don't understand the history of their own societies. This kind of change isn't new and it is not without significant problems. In politics at the moment, the Overton window has been pushed so far left that I would now be considered on the right, where 15 years ago I would have been firmly on the left. I haven't actually changed my views very much, though I will say my views on economics have definitely moved rightward a bit as I have grown older. I am socially liberal. Pro gay marriage, pro choice (though not without limits). I believe in enlightenment values and find it so depressing that the crazy brand of left wing politics is surrendering truth and liberty for the sake of feelings. Also the current trend toward identity (group) rights as opposed to individual rights is very worrying. History has taught us over and over and over again that this form of politics invariably leads to bad outcomes. Quite often nightmarish outcomes. The older people who don't like the current changes that they see happening are not "afraid of change" they are afraid of changes for the worse. Which is hardly the same thing. People who are old (60plus) have seem more change in their lifetimes than any humans who have ever lived. You do them a discredit to dismiss their concerns so blithely. None of what I have said here makes a case for Brexit, nor was it meant to. I, were I a citizen of the UK, would have voted to leave the EU. I would have done so because I loathe large and largely unaccountable bureaucracies. Such are bad at the best of times but far worse when not elected. German guilt for WWII led Angela Merkel to invite a huge number of people into Europe about which no other member state in the Schengen area had any say. This is on the face of it making a mockery of the concept of sovereign states. Further, as someone who has studied the history of Islam to some extent, I am not naive about that particular religion or its goals. Being an adherent of Islam is not grounds of course for immediate condemnation nor immediate refusal of immigration approval but mass Islamic immigration does concern me. I should also point out that it has absolutely nothing to do with race. Such accusations are either the result of deep and abiding stupidity or a very sinister and dishonest attempt to circumvent an argument with lazy cries of bigotry. I am not suggesting at all that you have or would do such but I am sure you have seen such accusations levelled. All of this is just to suggest that the reason for leave and indeed for remain are not simple. I have never presumed as much about the remain case but I see people on the remain side doing so the leave side all to often. Though I am happy to say, you do not seem like such a person to me!

he spelled ignorance wronger thane i sawwed befour

robert smith ah there is always one!

Brian Cox is a half-wit , real science will expose him for what he is one day , an establishment propaganda mouthpiece !

Ha! No point trying to win over the anti evidence brigade. Even got a flat Earther in the mix.

That doesn't even exist. You can be extreme in believing not in disbelieving.

I find Brian Cox so articulate, Whistler4u. I am surprised that everyone does not.

"Those who believe that if God does not all is permitted. That's Extreme Atheism." No, that's illiterate gibberish. "Extreme atheism" is nothing more than a stupid term you came up with to make atheists sound like scary terrorists.

Because the pro brexit campaign was largely false economic claims and racism thinly veiled by exaggerating negative social effects of immigration.

Fek The First simple Brexit was just one example of decisions of huge significant, decisions made from misinformation, down right lies or just sheer ignorance. Sound familiar.

Michael Michael Not to me no. I remember the simplest of questions, to stay in or leave. I remember the then Prime minister saying on national tv, along with all the other major players, that that meant leaving the customs union and single market. I was never ‘misinformed’ i’m sorry if you didn’t understand it (if you voted to remain) but that would be your fault and not mine. My point is how the left in media constantly drop caseous remarks about a democratic vote with ‘post truth’ and the title of this interview. This is the same left wing media in Australia that tried to spread hate and utter non truths and spite about a film called “the red pill” (for example) which some of the news networks hadn’t even seen! The hypocrisy is palpable. The left will always either try and shut differing opinions down, accuse everyone who has a different opinion of ‘racism’ or ‘white privilege’ or maybe ‘stupidity’ even. They have an arrogance that is almost cancerous. I can understand the environment point wholly. There is no doubt the earth is warming.....but to drop a democratic vote for the UKs choice to self governance and a very few peoples ‘opinion’ on global warming are two completely different things, and to conflate the two or to try and put them together is the epitome if the arrogance i described earlier and is an insult to everyone who voted to restore sovereignty back to Britain. And please remember that the lies were from remain, Remember “immediate” economic chaos for just voting to leave. Remember 800,000 jobs lost if we voted to leave. The economy has GROWN and unemployment at record lows AGAIN for another year. And lets not forget Cleggys “An EU army is a dangerous fantasy” And call me Daves “WW3” threat.

Fek The First I, like you, voted to leave based on views I developed during the campaign. I get very angry when remainers assert that I am too old, ignorant, stupid or racist to have voted rationally. I voted as I did based on clear reason, something most remainers failed to do.

Stephen Marshall Yep, they are quite poisonous and their arrogance palpable to say the least. It’s not often i have a civil discussion on this issue, but when i do it very nearly always is the reasonable and charming leavers. As soon as a remoaner turns up...boom, hate. Utter bigotted hate. Still moaning about why they lost, spewing absolute lie after lie. Nice to speak to a normal and eloquent person for once lol. Nice to meet you. 👍🇬🇧

I loved the premise of that movie. I just found it poorly executed.

Bullheaded Egomaniacs? Practising Occultists is closer to the mark.

What's your point? You're using this as an excuse to not understand CO2 on venus?

Over the last several decades, the Marsian polar ice cap has shrunk....it was a CO2 cap...is it a coincidence? Brian only wants to look at things that support man made global warming...Brian is political...ask Brian where those Marsian SUVs are that caused that Marsian global warming?

Yes I liked that title too! double speak is brilliant isn't it? It got me to listen again to his hogwash

The truth hurts?

There's no such thing as a climate change denier , man-made climate change sceptic is a much more accurate description . As for vaccines and all other big pharma medications , it's time people saw them for what they are , ineffective , toxic , and highly profitable , a perfect business model of disease creation and management for profit !

That tin foil hat is looking pretty tight there bro.

Cyther T - That's an ad hominem argument, dumbass! ;)

To believe companies create diseases to cure? They deserve no less.

Some are better than others? "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

To be fair, thats the point of science. To get something truly wrong, is just a way of knowing a new way of failing. No knowledge is bad knowledge, its how you use it that matters.

“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

yes its not science its theories.

so don't panic.

Kadmilos Somnium *"Science is wrong often, so why should we trust it?"* sarcasm...hmmm maybe not anyway the reason you know it is wrong is because it openly advocates when it is wrong. Do you agree that science is humanities best methodology to know what is true relativistically, if not what methodology would you suggest we use? The ONLY shortcoming of science is to do with scientists, in so much that under the current socioeconomic system they are, like everyone, incentivized to gain and maintain a differential advantage over others and so are susceptible to corruption, data falsification, if you want to be critical of something be critical of our global socioeconomic system, but make sure you don't stop at criticism, come to the table with solutions...

Without it you wouldn`t be able to type this shit your talking!!!

Wow! Our society is so based on science. How do you justify that statement while the mecanism younare communicating on is science, we don't fear Polio because of science. One could list thousands of ways our life is possible directly because of science. How could you possibly be so dismissive and negative about this expertise?

IDIOT,,,,,

Science makes occasional mistakes (and corrects them when needed). Conspiracy theorists make demonstrably false claims more or less continuously (and refuse to back down). But its not a matter of who is more trustworthy. Science aims to make experiments reproducible and evidence verifiable so that others can double check. Science does not demand or in any way require trust. This is just an illusion that results from an inability to do science.

Intelligent reaction

Focus on the content, not the container......

Your comment only proves the point.

The mindset required for this comment is literally the problem with humanity. Human Ego, specifically lack of ego identification and an abundance of ego attachment. The 5 sense illusion owns most of humanity.

DAVY...David, c'mon, lighten up son...I actually like the bloke, but not to the point of idealising or groupy status like many. He's in the public domain and ripe for playful critique. Don't go all Freudian on me mate.

IN HIS OWN MIRROR

Lol, climate has never changed at the RATE it is changing right now.

Um, "disconnect" is grammatically correct. Maybe you need a little more of that education.

Here yo go. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqtjl9Sdq-ColZs.html

A phone is only as smart as it’s user.

You can measure the expansion of the universe yourself. You can measure the redshift of stars, caused by the doppler effect. It is important to note that the thing which is expanding is actually the space between objects, not the objects themselves. Once the velocity of said expansion exceeds the speed of light, and current understanding suggests that it will, our sky will no longer be lit with the light of other star clusters; the light will not be able to reach us. We will only have our own local cluster to gaze upon, and the night sky will be darker than ever before. This likely will not occur for a few hundred thousand years, so stargazers have no need to fear.

Hi Mr Jones: thank you for replying. My problem is that nothing can reach the speed of light, let alone exceed it. Or is this no longer true?

@@michaeljohnangel6359 Late response :) No "thing" can reach the speed of light, but in one of his videos he talks about how spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light. My very poor memory has me wondering if it was because it doesn't have mass, and that's the reason the "can't reach the speed of light" rule doesn't apply. Worth looking into further!

which is exactly what it doesn't do anymore because it has become dogmatic. why? because the scientific model is that of 'pay for science' instead of all scientific data being public domain like it used to be. peer review has become a barrier to entry for anyone who would challenge the consensus science because that is what keeps the funding coming. It's incredibly simple and absolutely misunderstood.

They believe science is the best thing we've got in finding out the truth, but that isn't the same thing as saying that everything science finds is necessarily an "absolute truth".

Prove it.

the two were conflated for disingenuous purposes. which should lead you as to the bad actors pushing for globalism.