Scientist Brian Cox on Trump's America, that Q&A episode and mankind leaving Earth
Updated
Physicist and presenter Professor Brian Cox discusses how to fight scientific ignorance, where we are heading as a species and who will get us to Mars.
We're 'on the verge' of becoming a multi-planet species
Humanity will develop a more collaborative mindset when it starts to reach to Mars and beyond, Professor Cox says.
"I think spaceflight can do more. It's not just planting a flag on a planet and it's not just sending rich tourists into space. It's actually the next step on the road to making us a multi-planet civilisation."
"I genuinely think that we are on the verge of doing that.
"We now have the means to do it. And for the first time in a long time, we have the will do to it.
"It's not actually governments now. But it's companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. These companies have ambition."
The first mission to Mars might be a public-private collaboration
The mission to land people on Mars will be "a very different thing from the Apollo program," Professor Cox says.
"I suspect that the first missions to Mars will be some kind of public-private partnership that'll be partly funded by private money."
ABC and iview April 4-6
Professor Brian Cox and Julia Zemiro will be joined by scientists and personalities to inspire Australia to explore our solar system. Live from Siding Spring Observatory they will tackle astronomy's most intriguing questions.
The emergence of commercial spaceflight companies means expensive space travel will become less about taxpayer money, he says.
Although Elon Musk's SpaceX still gets taxpayer money via its contract with NASA to supply the space station, its satellite launch business is making strides, Professor Cox says.
"Access [to low-Earth orbit] has got incredibly cheap since companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic," he says.
"The idea that space-faring is a demand on taxpayers is becoming a thing of the past.
"Part of that is the reduction in cost, but a great deal of it is that space is already profitable, that's why there are a lot of satellites up there.
"So I think we're moving into a different phase of space exploration."
Coming head-to-head with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Q&A
In August last year Professor Cox made headlines when he brought climate graphs onto the ABC's Q&A program to show to One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.
Senator Roberts, a climate change sceptic, questioned scientific consensus and argued that NASA had corrupted climate data.
Professor Cox now tells ABC News the best way to tackle people who reject the science might be to not engage them at all.
"In general, it's not a good idea to engage in people who are obstinate in that way," he says.
"There's a debate that goes on in the scientific community about this."
Professor Cox says one view is that it can be counterproductive to try to argue with people who disregard the scientific consensus.
"You essentially elevate them to a level they should not be at. You present to the public the impression that there is a legitimate debate to be had," he says.
"However, some of these people, certainly in Australia and the US, not so much in Europe these days, but some of these people are politicians. So they have a platform. So what do you do?"
"I'm two minds.
"Programs like Q&A, they're almost pantomime in a sense. There's clearly no time to debate the detail of a complex idea such as climate change.
"So really it comes down to an impressionistic game. Who do the viewers trust, who appears more plausible? It's a difficult position to be in actually.
"I don't know the answer really. I can see both sides of the argument [on whether you should debate these people]."
Is NASA and climate science under threat in Trump's America?
"Yep."
"We have a set of people who for their own ends have tried to discredit science," Professor Cox says.
Science is the study of nature and process by which people understand the natural world, he says, "so it's the best we can do essentially".
"So when we reach a consensus view, that's essentially a snapshot of our best knowledge of a particular process or phenomenon at any given time."
Professor Cox says scientists refine their understanding when new knowledge is acquired, so there is no "dogma" or "truths" in science.
He says it is "ludicrous" for people to dismiss scientific consensus.
"We're talking about blustering people, people who are overconfident and have no humility, who don't think. That's the sort of person who says 'I know better than these people who study these things'. It's nonsensical."
"Imagine that we're flying on a plane, and imagine that the passengers decide that they think they can fly the plane better than the captain. So they say 'come on, we've had a vote and we all think that it's our right as a citizen to land this plane rather than you. It doesn't matter that you've studied it for 20 years'.
"That's what we're dealing with when we're dealing with these people who are in powerful positions in certain countries.
"What you're saying is, I don't believe the best that we can do as a human race at a particular time. It's nonsensical to me."
The answer to the threat of scientific ignorance is education, he says.
"It's making sure we invest in education so the citizens in our democratic societies can take sensible decisions and see these people for the charlatans that they are."
Professor Cox is in Australia ahead of ABC TV's Stargazing Live on April 4-6.
Topics: science-and-technology, astronomy-space, space-exploration, spacecraft, government-and-politics, earth-sciences, australia, united-states
First posted
