Replying to Tombee,
You should be aware that correlation may match EITHER cause OR effect and empirical determinations are required to define which (not models) OR alternatively there may be no relationship to a phenomenon at all. For instance increasing use of some commodity might match global warming. Hamburgers? Increasing Council rates….sorry just guessing.

Cox’s graph looks like an oldish version of the repeated adjustments by GISS to the historic records. When Senator Roberts pointed out the big bump in the middle centred on 1941, did you notice that Cox evaded that issue. (BTW, that bump used to be bigger before a progressive generally anticlockwise rotation of the whole curve). The rapid warming leading up to 1941 was before the big acceleration in CO2 starting with WW2 industrialization etcetera. If Senator Roberts had been allowed to continue he might well have been able to point out that clearly it does not correlate with the CO2 curve.

The UAH (University of Alabama) satellite data for the lower troposphere here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ shows two very big spikes corresponding to the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016 and the lack of correlation with CO2 is immense. The big El Nino in 2010 also shows up well and note that it and 1998 both emerged from and then descended to below the centroid of the oscillation and that 2016 is plummeting down towards La Nina much more rapidly than 1998. There is no correlation between El Nino and CO2. There is also a plateau AKA as “The Pause” but now disappeared by GISS.

If you compare this with today’s GISS graph you may notice a strange thing that the formerly known “1998 Super El Nino” so very prominent in the satellite records has also been disappeared by GISS.

If you don’t believe the UAH data there is also the very similar plot here that employs entirely independent algorithms by RSS: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

I’d better stop before I blow my 350 word allowance.

if the evolution fantasy can be swallowed as science then people will adopt any other fallacy. Alarmist adopt the same tactics as evolutionist by demonising people who point out facts and truth. They constantly ignore there numerous failed predictions, data fiddling and false narratives.The alarmist very much play on the minds of the naive. They have certainly managed to dumb down many people.

Sorry Jenny, but have to agree with Aiden here. Simply put some of the global warming is down to known knowns, Solar thermal output an elliptical orbit, El nino and other variations!

THE REST IS DOWN TO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE!

While the sun may be responsible for some of it, it is hard to correlate record setting hottest years on record 14 15 and 16 if the trend continues. With an actual wane in solar thermal output, occurring and continuing from the mid seventies. (NASA)

A scientist like you claim to be, wouldn't ignore or dismiss empirical evidence as easily as you seem to, without an ideological imperative or worse, fossil fuel funding?

We have choices that don't have to include an economic meltdown, but rather the very opposite!

Like an algae based fuel, unrefined ready to use as is, jet fuel and diesel, that even with a fuel excise imposed, could retail for just 44 cents a litre. Quote unquote. (industry expert/manager working in our northwest, in a algae based diesel fuel project)

Or cheaper than coal thorium, which we have enough of to power the world for up to 700 years? The Indians are working on a 30 NW prototype that they claim could be up and working this year!

Then there's biogas and ceramic fuel cells in combination, with a world beating 80% energy coefficient (worlds cheapest power) currently powering Apple's new H.Q. Which as a combination produces mostly pristine water vapor as the exhaust product!

Just to name a few existing and proven carbon neutral or carbon free alternatives! That beat the pants of anything provided by the fossil fuel industry, even as they focus on wind farms and solar voltaic as the only competition they want to tussle with and for the most obvious financial reasons

Perhaps that's the real problem for you and most of the other fossil fueled denialists?

Assure us Jenny, that none of your funding or research grants originates or comes or came from the oil or coal sector?
Alan B.

Correction, the Indians are working on a 300 MW prototype.
Apologies, Alan B.

Keep on the warpath Jennifer . We are very lucky to have you.

Iwas appalled by Brian Cox's showmanship on that show.

His waggling and then throwing of a piece of paper ( with a squiggly line on it ) at another panel member was beneath what is expected of a scientist. He did not allow discussion of what it was and ( more importantly) what is was not.

He is another Paul Flannery, giving advice on subjects he is not qualified to deal with.

Paul Flannery, paid but unqualified government advisor on climate, advised us the dams would never be full again. Governments, at huge cost, built desalination plants now mothballed because the dams are too full of water.

He warned of the rising of sea levels and bought a water frontage property at Berowra.

The, in practice enforced, use of wind power , particularly in South Australia has led to large increases in the cost of electricity to our households and manufacturing industries.

We are already suffering sadly from this pseudo- science. Thank you for calling for sanity.

Cox.s use of the term "absolute consensus" in relation to anthropogenic global warming is either ignorance ( from a scientist!) or a straight forward lie.

Without harnessing the energy of fossil fuels, from the 1700s onwards 90% of world's population, would not be here for lack of the means to produce, transport and distribute food and shelter to sustain the population.

If there is anthropogenic global warming, where is the evidence it is caused by CO2 rather than the far more potent atmosphere affecting gases given off by that increased 90% of the population and the hugely increased livestock herds used to feed it?

What is the answer then? Multiple genocides to reduce populations to the level where we can comfortably walk around from cave to cave?

I hope we get some adults in government before too much damage is done.

I'm hoping that this shorter URL will take us to the 4,000 year temp reconstruction, which I tried to post previously. It does help put things in perspective, something Brian Cox was perhaps missing on Monday night: http://bit.ly/2b0Bt7x