Climategate: Stuart Varney "lives with Ed"

Ed Begley Jr. goes ballistic on Fox News. We saw something similarly unhinged with Center for American Progress Dan Wiess, also interviewed by Stuart Varney on Fox News.

From the YouTube description: Ed gets into a shoutfest and can’t stop pointing his finger at Stuart Varney of Fox News: “You’re spewing your nonsense again …” says Begley. We’re talking about Climategate..the recent discovery of e-mails by global warming ‘scientists’ that suggest a cover up..thousands of e-mails and documents (verified by the New York Times) have been released showing scientists trying to cover up the recent decline in temperatures and ‘trick’ the public.
Image: PlanetGreen/Discovery Networks

By Ed’s reasoning, excluding everyone who is “not a degreed climate scientist” that rather puts Dr. James Hansen out of the picture, and many others, including Al Gore.

Watch the video below. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonio San
November 26, 2009 12:28 pm

Pathetic! Both!

November 26, 2009 12:29 pm

Only take climate change advice from degreed climatologists. But your choice of light bulb is clearly a topic for Hollywood B-list actors.

November 26, 2009 12:32 pm

The more hysterics the better.
I’m loving it.

November 26, 2009 12:35 pm

Hey Ed:
The peer reviewed studies are colluded!

November 26, 2009 12:35 pm

Yeah, I watched it ‘live’. Begley was yelling and screaming about ‘peer-review’. LOL but Varney didn’t seem to have the knowledge yet to knock peer-review down. Doesn’t matter, Begley being unhinged was sooooo delicious to watch.
(BTW, Begley was on Foxnews a couple weeks ago-forget if it was Hannity or what–and we learned his wife doesn’t believe any of it and thinks it’s all silly.)
And, believe it or not I saw pigs fly. MSNBC had a bit on ClimateGate (though they didn’t call it that). The NBC reporter was playing it down giving excuses for Jones et al, but the host (filling in for David Shuster) asked some pointed questions that made her say, yeah.
Tameron Hall (sp?) had her lips squeezed so tight you could barely tell she had a mouth. If looks could kill.

November 26, 2009 12:37 pm

Talk about getting red in the face and very pointy as well.
If Ed wants to live the way he does,that is fine,but he should be more diligent on what is happening in the world of climate research.Just making noises about who is qualified is not a convincing argument to build on.
It is a common failing when people fail to separate rational environmentalism activities from alarmist AGW propaganda,that pushes people to make the wrong decision on dealing with the dynamic climate processes we live under.
The question should be asked is why do people like ED be so gosh darn DEFENSIVE over the exposure of unethical and possibly criminal activities,as per the released e-mails.

Ron de Haan
November 26, 2009 12:38 pm

“Peer Reviewed” is the magic word, if it’s not peer reviewed, forget all about it!

November 26, 2009 12:38 pm

well that exchange certainly helped move the debate forward!

November 26, 2009 12:39 pm

Is it a film or real life?

Hoi Polloi
November 26, 2009 12:39 pm

They’re getting desperate….

November 26, 2009 12:40 pm

How many “climatologist” are on IPCC? NASA?

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 12:42 pm

Let’s not behave like Varney.

November 26, 2009 12:43 pm

Search the emails for Holdren and Obama … LOL, there they are!

November 26, 2009 12:45 pm

Mantra, peer reviewed, peer reviewed.

November 26, 2009 12:46 pm

History is not going to be kind to the pro-global warming crowd.

November 26, 2009 12:48 pm

Peer Reviewed, Peer Reviewed that’s all you need to know folks. Even if it’s peer reviewed by a lying manipulating cheat and his lying cheating mates then that’s fine too.
You can see why they refused to debate the subject up until now, they are all a bunch of no nothing tree hugging loons. We need a lot more of this type of interview and the world will get to see the types they have put in charge of their future.

November 26, 2009 12:48 pm

I Know!

J Lamsam
November 26, 2009 12:49 pm

“Peer review”… yes, he keeps mentioning that phrase as if that should be the sole criteria of climate “Truth”.
Most people who have not read the “Crutape Letters” do not realize that the peer review process has been taken over by the “Warmists”.
Only the inner circle gets to judge and jury of the entire peer review process. It has become a sham.

November 26, 2009 12:49 pm

Peer-reviewed, my dear… I thought that this term is effectively dead.

November 26, 2009 12:50 pm

Completely off topic but check this out. I might be wrong but it appears that Mann is suggesting a natural negative feedback??
“A key thing the team discovered was that, in the past, when the planet has been warmed by natural factors it has responded with another feedback mechanism known as the La Nina effect.
This can be thought of as the opposite of El Nino – a sort of “colder phase” of El Nino phenomenon. ”
“”If the response of the Earth in the past is analogous to the temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases… it could lend credence to this counterintuitive notion of a La Nina response to global warming,” said Professor Mann. “

Scott O
November 26, 2009 12:51 pm

[snip – understand your feelings – but let’s not go there -A] This video makes me so angry.

November 26, 2009 12:52 pm

And I thought this post was going to be about Erectile Dysfunction.

November 26, 2009 12:55 pm

I listened to this on the Sirius/XM Fox simulcast (Wed 11/15) and could barely understand them talking over each other.

November 26, 2009 12:57 pm

This is precisely what make me think this is crap. What is it the lawyers say? “If the facts are on your side argue the facts; if the law is on your side argue the law. If neither is on your side bang the table.

Chris S
November 26, 2009 1:06 pm

Wow! That Ed Begley is unhinged. Scary.

November 26, 2009 1:07 pm

Maybe Ed Bedgley was just taking the opportunity to do what he does best — act. He was acting the part of a depraved greenie spouting the usual mantras. I give him full marks for a fine performance. What is it called? Theatre sports!!

November 26, 2009 1:08 pm

“It confirms suspicions I’ve had in my 30 years of working in climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by modellers, and then by a small group of people associated with the IPCC. ….It really is deeply disturbing because what you’ve got here is this small group of scientists, who by the way Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick- he identified 42 people and said, “look, these people are all publishing together, and they are also peer reviewing each other’s literature”…..about 20 years ago I started to question why they were pushing the peer review process so much and now we realise it is because it gives them control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.
On a global scale this is frighteneing because not only do these people control the global temperature data through the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they also control the IPCC – and they have manipulated that, we read in the emails how that was done. “
This was linked to on this very site !!

November 26, 2009 1:09 pm

Shona (12:57:06) :
Next time, offer him Kruschev’s shoe.

Skeptic Tank
November 26, 2009 1:11 pm

I used to respect Ed Begley Jr. Even though I never agreed with him, he walked the walk that he talked. If he wants to ride his bike and rummage through back alleys of fast-food restaurants for used cooking oil, that’s fine with me.
But now, he’s imposing his religion.

November 26, 2009 1:13 pm

ad (12:52:28) :
“And I thought this post was going to be about Erectile Dysfunction.”
LOL! I just sat down at the ‘puter after a wonderful Thanksgiving feast and I glossed over the image in the post labeled ‘Living with ED’.
I’m so used to glossing over the ads now that I actually thought it WAS an ad for Erectile Dysfunction, since my eyes just race past 98% of the ads. It cracked me up when I saw your post and I went back to see what you were refering to.
Thanks for the laugh!

November 26, 2009 1:14 pm

I’ll use an English colloquialism for Ed Begley……
“what a complete twat”………………..

November 26, 2009 1:16 pm

I’m glad I don’t live with Ed!
Perhaps Ed would like to refer to this scientist:
A boffin at the Bulgarian national Space Research Institute has stated that not only are aliens living among us, but that they object strongly to “immoral behaviour” by humanity – such as causing global warming. “Unnatural” acts such as use of cosmetics and “artificial insemination” are also frowned upon by the extraterrestrial visitors.
Luchezar Filipov, deputy head of the space institute at the government’s Bulgarian Academy of Science, made these startling assertions to Bulgarian media earlier this week.
The Sofia Echo, referencing other local media, quotes the eminent space brainbox as stating that “they [aliens] are here right now, among us” and that the extraterrestrials are “conducting surveillance” and – chillingly – “research” on humanity.

“The aliens are very critical of our immoral behaviour and our destruction of the environment,” says Filipov, according to the Echo. “They say that global warming is attributed mainly to infrastructural engineering.”

Oh dear, we’re in trouble now. The Register is primarily computer business news from the amusing side, but has a good scientific and skeptical, err, sceptical, bent. I don’t know what “The Sofia Echo, referencing other local media,” represent.
I left out the crop circle link.

November 26, 2009 1:16 pm

There are obvious issues here with re-directing the argument that news commentators need to address in this sort of on-air discussion:
Argument – Only look at the Peer Reviewed science
Response – what if the peer review process is corrupt?
The Climategate emails clearly show willful and unethical abuse of the peer review process to skew the literature, by black balling certain authors and publishers.
If the peer reviewed process is corrupt, then the peer reviewed literature is not a legitimate reflection of the real science. If the peer review process is corrupt, then you must go outside the peer review literature to find the truth.
Argument – What degree does he have ? (if he is not a climatologist discount his research)
Response – Climatology is a mulit-disciplinary science, no single individual or branch of science research holds exclusive ownership of the science. Physics is at the heart of all weather processes. The physics of CO2 absorption of energy is fundamental to the global warming theory, as are the physics of conservation of momentum, thermodynamics, density, heat content with respect to mass, are all basic physics problems. Likewise geologists know more about past climate than the climatologists, as they have been studying it for almost 200 years since it was introduced as a specific field of study in 1741. Climatology as we know it today is less than 50 years old, and is a very immature science. In fact most “climatologists” do not have degrees in that specialty, but were originally degree’d in other fields. If you only want to use people who are trained as climatologists, you will also discard most of the major players in the peer reviewed literature of climatology.
Climatologist is a job title not a scientific specialty.
Argument – Merge other environmental issues with global warming as if they are inseparable. Atmospheric pollution (air quality in L.A.) has nothing to do with global warming, it is an air quality issue, not a fundamental part of the global warming theory which asserts that man made CO2 is causing unprecedented heating.
You can deny AGW exists, or is trivial, and strongly support good air quality (low particulate emissions, low sulfate emissions, low NOx emissions etc.), likewise you can strongly support energy security and sustainability issues and deny man made global warming. They are not necessarily tied to each other.
Argument – the government can mandate behavior to protect “the commons”
Response – only if the action they mandate, is a legitimate governmental behavior (see scope of government below) and it will mitigate the alleged harm to the commons (ie if CO2 is not responsible for warming, then the type of light bulb I use is irrelevant, as my carbon foot print [from a global warming perspective] is irrelevant )
Also this argument pre-supposes that the mandate is within the proper scope of governments role. In the case of the Federal government, ask them to specify which of the 17 enumerated powers in the constitution allows the Federal government the right to regulate what sort of light bulb I use?

P Walker
November 26, 2009 1:16 pm

Greg , when did Ed Begley Jr . move up to the B list ?

November 26, 2009 1:17 pm

Lazy, insecure posers depend on appeals to authority for their decision making.
He sounds very lazy, and very very insecure.

David Walton
November 26, 2009 1:21 pm

Mr. Ed flails nicely. That AGWF depends on actors for propaganda is entirely fitting.

November 26, 2009 1:24 pm

A second issue to the global warming debate is the competence of the models. The climategate release (and other attempts to analysis the data inputs to the models), clearly show that the data is hopelessly corrupt, and has no provenance.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that:
The climate models are coded with such poor code structure and method that they are indecipherable (ie no one truly knows what they are doing to the data), and since they have never been properly audited or documented they and all their output is not trustworthy.
That the data inputs that go into the models are themselves untrustworthy due to their lack of provenance and modification history.
As a result you have an untrustworthy model, doing unknown things to untrustworthy data, and attempting to specify global temperatures to accuracy that is not possible with the data quality used for its input.
Net result is anything that depends on model output for it to be a valid argument is worthless.

November 26, 2009 1:25 pm

Dear Anthony,
Do you know if anyone has tried to compile and run these FORTRAN programs? The reason I ask is that the big data dump not only contains numerous FORTRAN (*.for) files, but also numerous data input files (*.dat, *.raw). Obviously it will take some time to reverse engineer how it’s supposed to work, however a couple of skilled FORTRAN programmers together with a couple of climate experts should not use more than a couple of weeks to determine exactly what has been done. All they need is a FORTRAN compiler and some coffee – it’s not that many files…
Best Regards,
REPLY: Not yet, the trick is finding the right Fortran compiler. Often a challenge. – A

David Watt
November 26, 2009 1:26 pm

The trouble with Climate scientists as it would appear from what we have learned about CRU is that they don’t consult with the statisticians so their statistics is all over the place. They haven’t done physics and they can’t do the maths so they don’t do any of the fundamental work to establish how climate really works.
Instead they use climate models which they judge on whether they look plausible. Then if reality turns out to be different from the scenarios the models show they adjust the reality.

Leon Brozyna
November 26, 2009 1:27 pm

Happy Thanksgiving indeed! And for this day you serve us this turkey spouting peer review. Oh well, there’s nothing like a shout fest to clear the air … and perk up ratings.
Let’s hear it for peer review!
[deep silence broken by intermittent crickets chirping]

November 26, 2009 1:28 pm

I don’t know about the peer-reviewed literature but they are certainly having a tough go of it on the beer-reviewed side of things.

November 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Possibly I should send an you an email, I have some experience with such compilers… What is your email adress?

November 26, 2009 1:30 pm

“Not yet, the trick is finding the right Fortran compiler.”
Most of the folks I know that use Fortran (both of them, actually) use the Absoft compiler.

November 26, 2009 1:31 pm

Nick (12:50:57) :
Michael Mann is broadcasting SOS because:
he should have listened to dissenting opinions but chose to squash them
by tossing out the following:
a.) Demonstrating an oceanic perpetual motion hypothesis
b.) Wishing for a time machine after they destroyed precious historical documents
c.) Groping for a public grant of credibility after selling his out to ‘the concensus’.
For the express purpose of:
Trying to glue Humpty Dumpty back together again.
The waters are rising, Mr. Mann, not because of global warming, but because of horrific damage to your cause after ramming it into an iceberg of picking on one too many underlings, one of which is the one who outed the whole lot of your kind.
Deep Cooling got you.

November 26, 2009 1:34 pm

The Intel compiler appears to be free for personal use.

November 26, 2009 1:34 pm

Well, I guess no screenwriter could write such “funny” script …
It reminded me about one of Czech Greens in a local “Letterman” show
Q: What is a “biomass”
A: Well, a carrot for example …
Q: A carrot? And that is a biomass? How can you produce energy from that? Do you want to burn it?
A: Yes, probably
Q: Okay, how about some other examples?
A: Well.. let me think (and laughter from the audience)
Thank you Anthony and others for your informations.

November 26, 2009 1:35 pm

The whole issue is now up on our (New Zealand) MSM…titled “Dodgy science gets us all off the hook…”

November 26, 2009 1:36 pm

The link to the Intel compiler is here:
It requires registration but won’t cost you. The Absoft costs a bit much for someone who doesn’t use it as part of their work.

November 26, 2009 1:36 pm

I like Ed. Mainly because he lives the talk (as opposed to, say, Al Gore). But he’s lost his mind here….

November 26, 2009 1:36 pm

Said it before; hope it’s not moderated out this time. Will attempt to couch it more delicately.
In the high level world of “climatology:”
Peer-reviewing = [snip]
Any further questions?

November 26, 2009 1:36 pm

I would recommend Intel Visual Fortran compiler.

November 26, 2009 1:37 pm

A- Oops, please edit out the “e.” Darn it!

November 26, 2009 1:40 pm

Invariant (13:25:58) :
A lot of the files are marked .f90, which means you need a F90 or higher version of Fortran to work.
Haven’t checked the lastest versions of Linux, but they should be out there.
Intel & Compaq make some very good but pricey Fortran compilers.
Used the Compaq Fortran 90 for SPECcpu floating point.

November 26, 2009 1:46 pm

[cute, now stop it. and happy thanksgiving ~ ctm]

November 26, 2009 1:46 pm

Whenever things don’t make sense (Begley’s reaction in this instance), you are often missing a key piece of information. Now, re-run the video in your head with the following in mind – the worldwide socialist/marxist agenda is *THIS* close to killing capitalism, then comes this bombshell out of left field which could derail the entire endeavor.
It’s very hard for them to come up with logical arguments to defend CRU/IPCC, so as most leftists do, when they have no facts to support their argument they resort to increased volume and shutting down debate. There’s no other explanation that explains the distortions and “not a story, move along” narrative from the press and Hollywood. Shame they can’t just be honest about their leftist agenda and sell it on its merits. But then, spreading the misery is a tough sell.

Stephen Skinner
November 26, 2009 1:51 pm

What kind of science degree is an Oscar?

November 26, 2009 1:52 pm

An Interesting shouting match. I seems to me that this was inevitable given Ed Begley’s personal commitment to the religion. He’s hardly likely to admit he’s wrong publicly on Fox News… He’s Zealot so he must be right

November 26, 2009 1:58 pm

Hacking into one computer system is serious, it is a crime.
As we are continually reminded.
Hacking into 97 USA computer systems when you are looking for UFO’s, is OK!!
The English mass media have been 100% against Garry being extradited to the USA . How dare you want this poor chap he has Asperger.
If memory serves me correctly he hack into Fermi lab in Chicago.
Yet the BBC and English media hold up there arms with horror about someone hacking into CRU, while Garry is OK as he is on a “moral crusade”?
The sad thing, for me, is that he has a talent/gift which should be used in these days of computer crime.
How many “strange” people here employed at Bletchley Park?
Thankfully lots and God bless everyone of them.

Magnus A
November 26, 2009 1:59 pm

I do know that hundreds of scientific papers questioning reinforced AGW, but is a non-flat Earth peer reviewed yet? Or Murphy’s law? Is there more realities which can be questioned in real peer reviewed science? Intuitive things as Murphy’s law won’t even need the skills and tactics of Jones and Mann.
Btw, Ed and Stuart end up as friends; here:
The insurance policy Ed talks about is wrong because it’s collectivism. A global political body whith authority to redistribute large amounts of money from rich to poor sounds to me like socialism, which destroys societies.
Also carbon credit systems give control to politicians — at worst down to individual humans. Here an example of what is planned in Britain…
Obama, and other political leaders, must not sign anything in December that enables the politics of climate socialists (*) which may be a platform for things as massive redistribution or carbon trade on global scale. they can sign that they are happy that they met each other in the cosy city of Copenhagen, but that’s enough.
(*) Due to a far left climate blog in Sweden Joachim Schellnhuber, head of Potsdam Insitute for Climate Impact Research (close to Tyndall Centre in East Anglia?), believes that climate change is 95 % about social justice. I guess that means massive redistribution.

November 26, 2009 1:59 pm

“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”
Notice the defense here. It is novel. They likely really have been *had* by a system of quality control that functioned well enough to indeed act as the arbiter of truth for the last few generations. Messy, yes, but rarely corrupt. Peer review was the gold standard everybody outside of a group of “denialists’ [sic] put well earned faith in.
A rarely known example of it breaking down is the “war on fat”, in which the Machivellian was Ancel Keys ( who like Warm Earthers promoted a single bullet theory of cardiac disease in which cholesterol intake was the only “driver” despite the fact that cholesterol is an essential component of cell membrane stability and is highly regulated via negative feedbacks. To this day there is junk science abound in medicine, at least according to quite a few doctor types ( who form a similar book and blog based skeptical community who is flabbergasted at how the media merely acts as cheerleaders of what most academies of medicine endorse. Anti-depressants that work no better than placebo could be another example.
That’s not a bad defense though! Indeed *most* scientific societies quite strongly endorse AGW theory. There is the “paradigm shift” narrative, granted, but that involved grouchy old guys having to die off, not dishonest corruption. The Ed Begleys of the world, along with J. school environmental journalists simply could not believe that so many scientific bodies supported AGW in the face of skepticism if that skepticism were anything other than agenda tainted hokum. Given one or two examples of actual hokum and that was enough to stop the Ed Begleys out there from looking into things themselves to judge by reason alone instead of authority.
Yet despite the fair certainty that AGW is utterly incorrect, I am left with being one blog reader up against The Royal Society of the UK and the main scientific bodies of a slew of countries. That makes the topic pretty hard to breach if it comes up over lunch, and a the kiss of death of budding romance.

November 26, 2009 2:03 pm

” helpgetmeoutofhere (13:58:49) : ”
So far no evidence has emerged that anything was “hacked into”. The word “hacker” is used for everything these days including cases of “we left a file open to world access on a web server and someone found it”. I would wait for further information.

November 26, 2009 2:04 pm

Yep, that’s right Ed, those physicists don’t know anything about the climate.
Maybe I can get him to complain to Oxford University, they should never have taught me atmospheric physics as part of a physics degree.
How did “peer-reviewed” become the defining element of truth in science?

November 26, 2009 2:06 pm

ctm –
Ours was last month. But thank YOU (collectively at WUWT) in the US for taking time from your holiday to provide the vital momentum and responsibility for doing what the MSM refuses to do.

November 26, 2009 2:08 pm

Ahhhh… That was funny. 😀
The most funny thing about it is that they’re probably both quite intelligent and when they realize that the positions are locked they resort to shouting.
Did anyone notice that the Ed-man avoided the topic of the interview totally? 😀
And exaclty why wouldn’t a physicist understand the physical properties of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere?
You can do physics without knowing climatology but You sure can’t do climatology without knowing physics. 🙂

November 26, 2009 2:08 pm

What a cock!

November 26, 2009 2:08 pm

Peer review is great, but those peers cannot be the same people you are working with to obtain the same goals. If you do that it’s like letting university students grade each others final exams.
Who is this Begley guy anyway? Isn’t he just another Hollywood weirdo? Who cares what he thinks, or shouts?

November 26, 2009 2:09 pm

And yes, of course; How many of the worlds population can afford solar cell roofing?
And how many would have the time/money to maintain them?

Magnus A
November 26, 2009 2:10 pm

…and I forgot to say that Joachim “climatechange is 95% social justice” Schellnhuber in the preparation of the Copenhagen summit has been an important person for its “scientific” papers. Lots of reinforcement, tipping points, and “the situation is due to new science much worse than we knew before and what IPCC has said.
I think many (utterly stupid!) politicians may read it as an order to accept radical politics. :-/

November 26, 2009 2:11 pm

Apologies, should explain my last statement, that was genuinely the first thought that went through my head watching that video!
For our American friends, you read that right, I didn’t mis-spell crock!!
Happy thanks giving!

November 26, 2009 2:13 pm

Dear Anthony,
Please use Intel Visual FORTRAN Compiler, it’s clearly the best compiler, I’ve downloaded the big data dump, and it seems that it contains *.f, *.for and *.f90 files. In order to compile fixed format files (*.for) please use the -fixed compiler option. All options are given here:
It should be straight forward to install and compile the code.
Best Regards

North of 43 south of 44
November 26, 2009 2:15 pm

Links currently in upper left corner on say:
UK: Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away…
US: Impression left by emails is that global warming game has been rigged from start…
AUSTRALIA: Five MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax…
RUSSIA: Что скрывают ученые о глобальном потеплении?…

November 26, 2009 2:16 pm

nick 12:50
remarkable – looks like M. Mann has realized the GW train is going off the tracks and is jumping off.

November 26, 2009 2:21 pm

For Linux, GNU Fortran 95 is freely available.
My 2c on peer-review: Peer review means little. Peer review only means that the work is mostly compliant with the standards set by the publisher, and that it’s probably free of glaring errors. It does not mean that the hypothesis is good, tested or even scrutinized.
Peer review is only the first step. After a paper has been published, then other scientists can try to replicate the findings, or otherwise test the hypothesis. If those hostile to the hypothesis can find no fault with the paper, then it’s probably good – but still not necessarily so.
Lastly, papers which do not show the maths, or do not include at least references to the data, source code etc, should not get through peer review. After all, if other scientists have no access to the calculations, data etc then how are they expected to test the hypothesis?

drew chatterton
November 26, 2009 2:23 pm

from the show picture- looks like poor Ed’s getting tired and frustrated at being bossed around on the set-( maybe getting peer reviewed to death at home too!) – he just cant take it anymore- and takes it out on fox news

November 26, 2009 2:24 pm

I have no idea who Ed Begley is, nor his credentials that surely must be precise to terrestrial atmospheric sciences, because he ridicules meteorologists, physicists and perhaps others for their ignorance in the subject he professes great knowledge. Curious in that James Hansen is an astronomer. Michel Mann has his degree in Geology/Geophysics. And it is a shame Varney was unfamiliar with the thread that related a conspiracy to prevent peer review of skeptical papers.
That having been said, this fellow exhibits extreme asocial tendencies. He is likely deranged and should be under the care of a doctor.

Phillip Bratby
November 26, 2009 2:25 pm

As a Brit, who is that nut?
And I was foolish enough to believe that the behaviour of the climate was all based on the laws of physics. I sure am glad that bozo put me right.

November 26, 2009 2:25 pm

crosspatch (14:03:10) :
So far no evidence has emerged that anything was “hacked into”. The word “hacker” is used for everything these days including cases of “we left a file open to world access on a web server and someone found it”. I would wait for further information.
Yes I am aware of that. Bit of a media smoke screen.
Yet the media keep going on about these hacker and how terribly awful to hack an English University. Yet they see it all right to hack 97 US computer systems, just a bit of a laugh.
Things are getting worse
“A GOVERNMENT-BACKED report calling for significant reductions in livestock numbers to tackle climate change and health problems”
We are all going veggie.
Is there no end to this madness?

November 26, 2009 2:28 pm

BTW, a short piece on the New Zealand Climategate manipulation of data.
Icecap has more.

November 26, 2009 2:28 pm

News from Germany:
The studies about climate and global warming are sponsored from german insurence companies (Allianz, Munich Re).
Now, the Munich RE offer the first insurance against climate change results …. and they want 5 Billion Euro from the tax payer ….
Follow the money

Phillip Bratby
November 26, 2009 2:36 pm

Sorry about my previous post. I get it now. He’s an actor. He thought he was auditioning for a remake of “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”.

November 26, 2009 2:39 pm

From Wikipedia:
Personal life
Begley, Jr. was born in Los Angeles, California, the son of Allene Jeanne Sanders and Academy Award winner Ed Begley, both actors (although at the time, Ed Begley was married to Amanda Huff). He grew up on Merrick, Long Island, New York where he attended Stella Niagara Education Park Cadet school in Lewiston, New York. In 1962 the family moved back to California where he graduated from Notre Dame High School, Sherman Oaks, California and Los Angeles Valley College in North Hollywood, California.
Yes, he is surely highly qualified to tell us what the scientific truth is about this whole Warmergate.

November 26, 2009 2:39 pm

Peter (14:21:22) : Lastly, papers which do not show the maths, or do not include at least references to the data, source code etc, should not get through peer review. After all, if other scientists have no access to the calculations, data etc then how are they expected to test the hypothesis?
Brilliant point! Scientific peer reviewed papers including available data is the “channel” in which science is being communicated. If data are not available it’s like sending a message with half of the content missing, we cannot thoroughly understand what is being said and we are unable to judge and check whether it makes any sense…

November 26, 2009 2:40 pm

‘peer review’ is becoming somewhat cheapened by the email mess. Science never stops. The whole point of peer review is to get theories out there for *other scientists and experts* to knock down or corroborate.
Two of the emails in the leaked set demostrate how perverted the peer review process has become.
1. 1255298593.txt
“… other groups — primarily at the NCDC [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] and at GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], but also in Russia — WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results.”
Peer review is supposed to enable replicability. You publish your theory, your results *and* how you got them. If others cannot replicate your results by following the same method then it will not be taken seriously. As the NCDC and GISS groups chose different input data, made different adjustments and presumably processed them with their own software can it still be considered replication of the Hadley/CRU method?
2. 1256765544.txt
Phil Jones believes: “The peer-review system is the safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published.”
That isn’t what peer review is for. Bad science deserves to be published and subsequently rubbished if it is indeed bad. If certain people collude to prevent science they disagree with from ever getting a hearing it is completely unjustified to describe it as ‘bad’ science because it hasn’t been allowed to run the gauntlet of peer review.

Christopher Byrne
November 26, 2009 2:41 pm

How very odd that you should bring up Ancel keys and the demonisation of fats – this is the very reason that I started looking more closely at the science behind climate change – the parallels between medical research and climate research are staggering. It seems like the minute you soften the science, human nature creeps in…

November 26, 2009 2:41 pm

helpgetmeoutofhere (14:25:47) :
(a la Soup Nazi) NO BEEF FOR YOU!

November 26, 2009 2:42 pm

With Intel Fortran you should use the -fixed option for fixed format files. The manual is here:

Just Watching
November 26, 2009 2:43 pm

I think my favourite part is where he cites catalytic converters (which conveniently convert everything to water and CO2) as having saved LA from pollution. Are the two halves of his brain connected?

November 26, 2009 2:44 pm
November 26, 2009 2:54 pm

wow. if the interviewer would’ve been thinking, he could have responded to ed begley regarding “peer reviewed studies” by saying that phil jones et al’s emails show that they’re intent on prohibiting the integrity of the peer review process.
man, begley’s a religious zealot to the extreme. what a nut.

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 2:55 pm

Mr. Ed? Is he one of the king’s horses?

November 26, 2009 2:55 pm

Ed Begley is proof of the conjecture of alternate realities, he lives in one. He was just visiting on the Varney show.

November 26, 2009 2:56 pm

I have to wonder if by spending SOOO much time focusing on CO2 we aren’t avoiding other important things which are often dumped into the environment.
If the jury is still out on warming of the environment then at least clamp down on toxic dumping of PCB’s and other chemical and human waste.

November 26, 2009 2:56 pm

helpgetmeoutofhere (13:58:49) :
Hacking into one computer system is serious, it is a crime.
As we are continually reminded.
Hacking into 97 USA computer systems when you are looking for UFO’s, is OK!!
The English mass media have been 100% against Garry being extradited to the USA . How dare you want this poor chap he has Asperger.
If you knew anything about Gary McKinnon’s case you would know that the guy did nothing and the ‘damage’ caused was embarrassment to the US because they left default install passwords on their servers (yes what DICK HEADS) but the penalty for that crime in this country is a max 2k fine and at max a couple of years (never yet imposed) and we are extraditing the guy to life imprisonment with no parole to save the embarrassment of a few IT dicks in the US.
If they catch the hacker that revealed to the world that global warming was a hoax I will personally donate to his fund as will millions of Brits and some of you Yanks (the brighter ones of course).
And to Gary McKinnon, good luck, we all know they are wrong and it’s a political decision but the corrupt government will soon be gone so maybe there is hope if Cameron’s government is really an honest change.
Best wishes Gary.

November 26, 2009 3:13 pm

Bryn (13:07:39) Bedgley isn’t that god of an actor.

November 26, 2009 3:20 pm

Reminds me of the old cross fire on CNN. Sort of sad for ed.

November 26, 2009 3:21 pm

Well obviously it “Begleys the Question” (sorry I couldn’t resist) about why Ed Begley hasn’t read or seen the part of Climategate that shows that the so called “peer review” was hijacked and stacked and thus can’t be trusted! Oops! Obviously Ed’s not up on the latest developments or is choosing to ignore the evidence of the Very Serious Climategate Peer Review Process Corruption that has taken place!
Read my article “Begleys the Question” here:

November 26, 2009 3:22 pm

Ed mentions how clean Los Angeles is these days. That will be news to my congressman’s office (Dennis Moore, D, 3rd dist. Kansas) where they told me yesterday that coal burning, and coal burning ships are the problem in Los Angeles and the Port of Los Angeles, and that is why we need to stop burning coal. Maybe that is why he voted for cap and tax. But if that is the best information that some congress people have….it’s no wonder we have a problem.

Power Grab
November 26, 2009 3:23 pm

@ NikFromNYC:
Funny you should mention Ancel Keys. I understand his research was done during/after WWII in order to find out what happens when people are starved.
I wonder if they figured out that, among other things, people who are starving (especially for cholesterol) have trouble procreating healthy children, their mental faculties are diminished, and their health becomes generally more fragile.
I wonder if so many people would still swallow this hocum about AGW if there weren’t so many people taking anti-cholesterol meds?
I can’t figure out how the population will remain at sustainable levels to support the world government if cap-and-tax takes so much of their income that they can no longer afford to pay the redistribution penalties AND pay for their meds…. Oh, I get it–they’re not SUPPOSED to survive! This is one way to kill off these annoying, freedom-loving folks who stand in the way of a Big-Brother-worshiping one world government.
On the other hand, perhaps this strategy will backfire on the PTB because, once people have to make a choice between buying food and buying cholesterol-lowering meds, and they choose to buy food, they will regain their vitality and clarity of mind and throw off the shackles.

November 26, 2009 3:29 pm

REPLY: Not yet, the trick is finding the right Fortran compiler. Often a challenge. – A
I used to write FORTRAN professionally for many years. That code looks like VAX fortran from the ’80s with a bit of f90 added here and there. It is so bad it is a pain to read it. When Digital disappeared, VAX Fortran became HP/Compaq Fortran, and at some stage later it became Intel Fortran. Intel Visual Fortran should be good I guess.
A cheaper idea is to run it through F2C

November 26, 2009 3:36 pm

Nick (12:50:57) :
Completely off topic but check this out. I might be wrong but it appears that Mann is suggesting a natural negative feedback??
Knowing Michael Mann (only by various peer-reviewed proxies 🙂 ), I would guess his ultimate purpose is to use it to explain why the past few years haven’t matched the AGW models.

November 26, 2009 3:38 pm

Poor old Ed, all greened up and someone goes and tells him his god is dead. I think I’ll take his advice and just ignore him. One wonders if Begley knows that the IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri holds Phd’s in Industrial Engineering and Economics, neither of which is a climate science?

November 26, 2009 3:38 pm

Who the heck is Ed Begley Jr? Is he a climate scientist? I’ve never heard of him.

November 26, 2009 3:41 pm

Ed, baby… your former President Abe the babe said it best mate:
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. ”
Ed baby, you removed all doubt.
But seriously.. if he keeps arguing that we should not listen to actors, newscasters, etc… why is he even on TV? Is he not even aware of the paradox of his argument?

Christian Bultmann
November 26, 2009 3:42 pm

What is it with those people if they tell a lie they believe it themselves?

November 26, 2009 3:48 pm

LOL I replayed the video and saw, right at the beginning, where all-caring Ed almost jams the end of that solar panel cleaning mop into his wife’s belly. I wonder how large a carbon footprint an ambulance ride to the emergency ward requires? Watch where you swing that thing, Ed! ;->

November 26, 2009 3:51 pm

Pornography is “peer reviewed” but I can’t see basing government policy on it.

Kevin McGrane
November 26, 2009 3:52 pm

Stuart Varney makes a point about incandescent lightbulbs. You’re following us here in Europe. Here in the UK all our incandescent lightbulbs are being phased out by law. It is illegal for shops to stock pearl incandescent lightbulbs of any wattage, and we cannot buy 150W or 100W incandescent lightbulbs. Soon we will not be able to but 60W, then 40W, and so in the near future we will not be able to buy incandescent light bulbs at all. They are all being eliminated by law.
How crazy is that – one can’t buy a pearl lightbulb! Of course, that was a cynical move – eliminate all pearl bulbs at a stroke, only allow for a short time the clear bulbs that are dazzling and people don’t like, so they will reject them quicker. This is government control gone mad.
Of course, most of the time we have our lights on is the cold part of the year, when the heat from incandescent lightbulbs actually provides heating very efficiently, and only in the rooms we are occupying. And we can use dimmers if we wish. Switching to ‘low energy’ bulbs means we have to heat the house more via central heating, and probably heating rooms that we’re not occupying. That’s more inefficient. For most of the time, incandescent bulbs to not ‘waste’ heat; whatever we ‘save’ with ‘low energy’ bulbs we have to make up from some other heater, so in the far northern hemisphere such as UK, there are no realistic savings at all in phasing out incandescents inside domestic dwellings.
When Greenies do calculations on lightbulbs they don’t take this into account, and the economics of using ‘Green’ lightbulbs therefore doesn’t stack up. Most of the economics pushes by the Greens is an absolute fraud. It’s just a way of enslaving and impoverishing us all.

Curmudgeon Geographer
November 26, 2009 4:05 pm

It’s nice that there are media folk who are interested in this issue. But wouldn’t it be nice if media spokesmen were better informed than Mr. Varney? “Peer reviewed” has long been the warmists’ bludgeon. They go to it like a bad habit. After these email, the “peer review” bludgeon is meaningless! Peer review has been hijacked, journals have been tainted, reviewers are fellow travelers. Has that slipped by Stuart?

November 26, 2009 4:06 pm

Some good points there Kevin.
Just a bit of extra info, it’s actually the EU Ecodesign Directive (2005/32/EC)that’s being enforced in the UK and they’ve happily overlooked the fact that low energy bulbs contain significant amounts of mercury.

Christopher Byrne
November 26, 2009 4:09 pm

@ Power Grab – Considering that the hockey team are all clearly stressed, middle-aged men who do not appear to be in the best of health, what is the likelihood that the majority of them are on statins? Could explain their absent-mindedness…

November 26, 2009 4:27 pm

Studies peer reviewed by the boys in the gang, ins’t it?
What did Wegam say about the 44 guys forming a gang for Science and Nature?
As most climatologists are physicists anr/or meteorlogists, why is Ed saying that sceptic physicists can¡t be counted in the debate.
The debate is over, yes. Look through the window and you will see why.

matt v.
November 26, 2009 4:30 pm

To think as Ed Begley, that the current peer review process will solve all the current problems of the climategate is being extremely naïve .When the peers deliberately bias the review process to only promote their narrow view of climate science and attempt to avoid the FOI process, then the peer review system is clearly broken and if left to continue uncorrected, it could lead society at large into economic tragedy that could take decades to correct not to mention the cost. If a profession or a political organization such as IPCC does not have proper checks and balances to avoid this type of corruption , then where was the oversight at CRU, or at the United Nations or by the scientific community at large . Where were all the many scientific bodies who signed unto the AGW science, a science that now appears to have been arrived at by somewhat devious means? A profession that does not police its members will soon find that the government will only be too glad to do it for them and the profession will never be the same.

Atomic Hairdryer
November 26, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: ed_finnerty (14:16:24) :
nick 12:50
remarkable – looks like M. Mann has realized the GW train is going off the tracks and is jumping off.

Someone catch him. As one of the prime movers behind the Team, and creator of the holy Hockey Stick, there is no way he should be allowed to escape from this. If this scam had gone unchecked, it would have cost trillions, and lives. The people responsible for this need to be punished, if nothing else to prevent any other ‘scientists’, SIG’s, or NGO’s thinking they can pull the same stunt again.

November 26, 2009 4:32 pm

ad (12:52:28) : “And I thought this post was going to be about Erectile Dysfunction.”
What? You didn’t notice the compensatory mechanism?

Spenc BC
November 26, 2009 4:42 pm

So here ya go. Here is how Canadian media will deal with this Climate Gate. It will take more than emails and code to stop this train.

Christopher Byrne
November 26, 2009 4:42 pm

“As most climatologists are physicists anr/or meteorlogists, why is Ed saying that sceptic physicists can’t be counted in the debate.”
That’s obvious – it’s because there are too many of them.

November 26, 2009 4:44 pm

Ed keeps going on about peer reveiwed literature.
1. These emails show a clear corruption of the peer reveiw process. Particularly as it relate to dissodant viewpoints in the IPPC
2. Most readers on this blog are aware of over 450 sceptical peer reviewed articles.
3. Where did climate scientists come from – They are physicists/programmers/chemists etc who specialised or found employment in this areas
Finally – the ability to reason and analyse data correctly is the process that counts.
His argument is “Its too hard we must trust the experts – peer reveiw will sort it out” is nonsense. Reason and analysis will sort it out. Its not that difficult. If AGW is real just give us the evidence with that data and the arguments.

Antonio San
November 26, 2009 4:50 pm

Listening to Ed feels like watching Susan Boyle give a masterclass to La Callas!

Keith G
November 26, 2009 4:59 pm

And why, pray, should I listen solely to the views of ‘degreed climate scientists’ as promulgated via ‘peer-reviewed’ papers published in respected journals? Call me a contrarian if you will, but I choose to listen to my own inner Voice of Reason as well.

Robert Wood of Canada
November 26, 2009 5:04 pm

Did the guy who was demanding “read the peer-reviewed PhD climate science papers” actually do so himself?
I expect not; he wouldn’t understand them. Is he a PhD climate scientist? If not, his opinion is worthless, even to himself.

November 26, 2009 5:09 pm

Is there a PhD in climate science?
Personally, I don’t think we know enough to have a Pffft, let alone a Phd!

November 26, 2009 5:26 pm

Ed Begley, Jr is an actor who has whole heatedly embraced the green movement and the sustainability goals. At least he, unlike most such people, puts his money and comfort where his mouth is. He has a TV show called Living with Ed where we get to see how he does this.
The general result is that everyone can see that such a lifestyle is only for a devout fanatic to it or a nut. I personally put him in the devout fanatic category. But he really does try to live as green as possible unlike those who merely mouth the words of the green mantra.
So he is actually fairly knowledgeable when it comes to living as green as you can. In that area he is an expert, but I wouldn’t want to live the way he does.

Jeff Mitchell
November 26, 2009 5:39 pm

I’m almost thinking the skeptics are having way too much fun. I certainly am. I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts.
One idea I haven’t seen much of yet is the idea that if AGW does exist, and is a serious problem, and needed public policy changes, these people have now done way more harm to the idea than the skeptics ever could have. Losing trust in the self appointed authorities poisons all the people who were doing proper research. Peer review now has the possibility of being a pejorative term given how its been used in the press. For me, it is now a red flag.
Not being an academic, I’m not sure what all peer review entails or what standards need to be met to pass peer review. When someone passes a paper they are reviewing, what does that actually mean? As I understand it, it is a critical review of the paper to see that it meets the scientific method ie does it provide a way for independent validation, correct for grammar, style and sourcing. I’m getting the impression there are further nuances of the process that I’m unaware of. If commenters could elaborate, I’d be most appreciative. Since finding comments in a long thread might be difficult, please use the phrase “peer review process” somewhere in the text so I can search for it. Thanks.

Henry chance
November 26, 2009 5:41 pm

And I was worried about the spread of swine flu (head slap)
The spread of “peer reveiwed” studies seems to be even more detrimental.
Look what peer reveiwed dogma did to Begly.

November 26, 2009 5:43 pm

1. It is interesting how the H Team’s interior “peer reviewed” meme became exteriorised into the culture via journalists how interview them.
2. The actor is a hard core loon. He buys carbon offsets. Interview part:
…LAist: For those of us who have a big guilt complex about flying, what can we do to allay our guilt in that area?
Ed Begley, Jr.: I try to avoid it, it’s my last choice on my transportation list. If I have to be somewhere and I have to use a plane, when I buy my ticket I buy a TerraPass, which is a carbon-offset program that puts new clean green electrons in the energy grid and you really are offsetting the CO2 from that plane rid with electrons in solar/wind/geothermal. The more people that do it, the more renewables we will have – it’s a real pound-for-pound transaction for the CO2. You aren’t eliminating the emissions from the jet, that’s true, but when you buy the TerraPass you are totally offsetting the pollution from a power plant somewhere.

November 26, 2009 5:46 pm

“That having been said, this fellow exhibits extreme asocial tendencies. ”
No, I think that’s overharsh. He’s just obsessed with his carbon footprint. He has his entire system filled with sensors hooked up to his computer. He can tell if his wife is taking too long in the shower even if he’s away from home because he logs into his home computer from his laptop. LOL
I’m not worried about her. I suspect when he complains about her long showers she just rolls her eyes and [self snip].

Christopher Byrne
November 26, 2009 6:05 pm

It would be incredibly expensive to live green like him. Not all of us can afford that, even if we wanted to – although I guess it will be out of our hands if the alarmists have their way. As for his ‘greenness’, well I too live a greener existence because I try to follow a paleo lifestyle – one that attempts a modern equivalent of the existence of hunter gatherer paleolithic man. It’s not easy and can be frustrating at times, but it also very rewarding healthwise. Unfortunately, at some point, the paleo lifestyle and the ‘green’ lifestyle diverge – this is the point where you need to check where your wallet is…

November 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Ed Begley doesn’t get it, the emails show suppression of peer-reviewed papers!
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Somebody might want to let Ed know that even still an extensive amount of skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist,
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
Now if Ed wants to talk to someone with a degree in climatology he can talk to,
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC
I find it hillarious that he insults scientists with degrees in Physics as not qualified…
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
Way too funny!

November 26, 2009 6:46 pm

Invariant (13:25:58) :

Do you know if anyone has tried to compile and run these FORTRAN programs? The reason I ask is that the big data dump not only contains numerous FORTRAN (*.for) files, but also numerous data input files (*.dat, *.raw). Obviously it will take some time to reverse engineer how it’s supposed to work, however a couple of skilled FORTRAN programmers together with a couple of climate experts should not use more than a couple of weeks to determine exactly what has been done. All they need is a FORTRAN compiler and some coffee – it’s not that many files…
REPLY: Not yet, the trick is finding the right Fortran compiler. Often a challenge. – A

I strongly recommend you read Poor Harry’s Diary closely. While you will benefit from his three years of effort, I’m sure there will be surprises no matter what you port to! Besides, I think Harry was porting to Sun/Solaris, so if you’re intent to port to Windows or Linux, expect problems. Harry ran into so big/little endian issues, so his code apparently started on a little endian platform.
I always found Coca-Cola worked better than coffee, but I do OS filesystem and networking development. Diagnostic programmers often use coffee and cigarettes. I don’t know scientific programmers use.
There may be multiple compilers involved. From HARRY_READ_ME.txt:
**sigh** WHAT THE HELL’S GOING ON?! Well, time to ask the compiler. So I recompiled as follows:
g77 -o update -Wall -Wsurprising -fbounds-check programs/fortran/update.for

So, Gnu Fortran for one.
I also suggest you move this discussion over to E.M. Smith’s blog, as I’d expect him to be one of the first to start compiling things. He started his blog in part to take a closer look at some GISS code.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:29:40) :

I used to write FORTRAN professionally for many years. That code looks like VAX fortran from the ’80s with a bit of f90 added here and there. It is so bad it is a pain to read it. When Digital disappeared, VAX Fortran became HP/Compaq Fortran, and at some stage later it became Intel Fortran. Intel Visual Fortran should be good I guess.

From E.M. Smith:
There was a request that some of the actual code be put up where folks could see it. OK, a quick ‘wc */*/*’ kicked out about 80,000 lines of code… Not something I’m going to get pasted into WordPress real quick… So I picked one of the shortest programs I could find in the ‘linux’ directory. The program that turns Excel pages into FORTRAN output. This looks to be used to turn Chinese temperature spreadsheets into data files, but could be used on any temperature spreadsheet, so ‘who knows’.
My general assessment of it is that Tim Mitchell has generally good ‘style’. It is readable and he even ‘pretty prints’ with things lined up for both looks and readability. An indication of someone who ‘keeps a tidy mind’ and a very good habit. The use of ‘implicit none’ to prevent the default (‘implicit’) declaration and typing of variables indicates a cautious approach to FORTRAN defaults and a desire to have ‘accidental declaration of variables’ flagged for proper handling.
It starts with an identification block: Who wrote it. What it does. Date written. And includes the assumptions the program makes so you know what to feed it. All very good stuff. It is clearly written in the ‘f90’ dialect (comments start with a ‘!’ instead of the depricated ‘C’. Lower case. Use of ‘::’ and other f90 constructs.
The program is clearly structured, with a nice understandable series of subroutine calls. Each subroutine is clearly demarked with a comment bar. Each subroutine is short and clear. There is a notable absence of comments in the subroutines describing the reason they are set out as a subroutine, the function of the subroutine, and how the method used was chosen. Being fairly simple routines, this is somewhat understandable, but a note or two would be ‘nice to have’.
There is fairly little stated as to why one would choose one input value over another; in the ’select’ routine, for example. The various ‘use [filename}’ directives are left opaque.
The inclusion of the proper compiler directive as a comment showing the other source files needed to build the runnable program is also a very nice touch.
Bounds and validity checking is minimal, but probably OK for a personally run ‘hand tool’. There is a functional, but slightly hokey, call to the Unix environment to run ‘word count – wc’ on the file to find out the lines to process before quitting. Yeah, it works, but… is there some reason not to just read the file one line at a time and when you get the last one, do your ‘EOF – End Of File’ branch handling? Then there is the ‘year check’ that tells you to edit the source code if it finds fault. Somewhat tacky.

Note the reference to running wc – that won’t work on Windows, I don’t know if it will work under cygwin.
I was at Digital during that transistion and know some of the compiler folk. I worked for DEC, Compaq, and HP all from the same cube! When Alpha CPU development was shut down, Compaq sold some of the compiler group to Intel, who continued working on compilers from their same office space. They’re still there – HP sold the building and consolidated the Alpha Servers US presence in Massachusetts.
BTW, they’re a very good crew. It was really tough to write better assembler code than the compiler can generate.

November 26, 2009 7:51 pm

Well if you search far and wide you may now find colleges ofering degree porograms in “climate science.” No doubt they are a hodge-podge of units borrowed from other fields… as they should be. It is an area of study that crosses several fields of science.
That being said, these degrees certainly weren’t around 20-30 years ago when all the so called “climate experts” were doing their schooling. So by Ed’s definition there are NO climate scientists at all with any experience in the field contributing to the IPCC bible and other such publications.
But then, as Ed said, don’t listen to actors…

John M
November 26, 2009 7:58 pm

National Geographic is peer-reviewed?

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 8:04 pm

Keep yelling Ed. You’re making your side look bad.
God bless ClimateGate!

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 8:06 pm

Ed Begley want peer-reviewed climate scientists? Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 8:07 pm

We’re not laughing. This isn’t a joke Ed.

November 26, 2009 8:33 pm

Ed Bagley; never heard of him before. Having seen the video, though, he really doesn’t make much sense. One wonders if he forgot his brain at home before he went to the studio.

Reed Coray
November 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Someone should tell Mr. Ed that the proper name for climatology peer-review is mirror-review–as in when a climatology apostle gazes upon a document and he sees heresy, burn the offending idol and the heretic.

November 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Ric Werme (18:46:34) :
Ric, I’m not entirely certain, but it looks like a poster at Bishop Hill actually got a code fragment to run.

November 26, 2009 9:02 pm

Peer review is supposedly a key factor in determining whether a published opinion or article can be accepted as valid.
What is a peer?
Do I need to return to academia and earn a degree in peering?
Isn’t any web posting that allows for, and generates a discussion of that posting, being peer reviewed?

J. Peden
November 26, 2009 9:21 pm

Only take climate change advice from degreed climatologists.
Well, if that’s approximately what Ed said, I’d argue that he has ruled himself out of being allowed to say anything about climate science, including what he just said. He’s trying to give us climate change advice.

Bruce Richardson
November 26, 2009 9:57 pm

“Peer Review” seems to be little more than a “right on” from very close friends and colleagues. There doesn’t appear to be any attempt at verification. Would anything that they disagreed with pass so-called peer review as things stand now?
Why would any real scientist object to someone trying to find something wrong with their work. That is what the scientist himself should be doing. That is his fellow scientists should be doing too. If they won’t do it then someone else has to.

November 26, 2009 10:09 pm

Sounds like the FORTRAN angle is being worked, but how is the team doing with the IDL code I’ve heard mention of?
‘Cause I’ve been crunching numbers with IDL pretty regularly for about 20 years, if anybody needs a hand decyphering that stuff. (Before that I used FORTRAN.)

J. Peden
November 26, 2009 10:11 pm

I don’t know where anyone ever got the idea that Peer Review was designed or warranted to produce the ‘given truth’. Even if asserted by the Climate Scientists to do so, their peer reviewers haven’t done it! Instead, they have only proven what we all used to know – that data and methods have to be available to as wide a range of interested people as possible, and maybe even to ‘everyone and their mother’.
As has been clearly proven again by this pitiful mess called “Climate Science”, the real Peer Review starts after a study is published.

November 27, 2009 1:54 am

Melanie Philips made a valiant attempt last night on BBC1 Question Time. You could sense the peer review “rebuttal” coming a mile off from the idiot at the other end of the panel. Someone who either didnt have the sense to read the emails pre program or did, but assumes the whole country is illiterate and didnt read them either. Sprinkled with a hefty topping of “If we dont do anything and its true people could die! Think of the children!”. Really, and wrecking the planetary economy for a lie is going to bring about a death free utopia is it?

November 27, 2009 2:40 am

Begley is typical of the AGW Terrorists: You have the right to free speech just so long as you agree with me.
What a pillock! (another English colloquialism)

UK Sceptic
November 27, 2009 4:09 am

Begley was frothing at the mouth so much it made me fear for Mr Varney’s health. Do TV news presenters get a course of rabies shots as a precaution?

Ian W
November 27, 2009 5:35 am

Isn’t ‘climate scientist’ an oxymoron?

James F. Evans
November 27, 2009 5:41 am

What about Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT?
Yes, Begley rolls out the talking points — but you know what?
Every talking point can be refuted with a powerful answer and supporting argument.

November 27, 2009 6:30 am

This item may amuse someone.
How does the American public react to the biggest scientific fraud in history?
Gore Flees in Panic from Chicago Book Signing
Snake Oil Salesman Run Out of Town
November 25, 2009 (LPAC)—Not since Henry Kissinger fled a team of LaRouche organizers, in the back of a delivery truck in New York City’s Central Park in the early 1980s, has an obese fascist moved so fast to escape an angry crowd, as Al Gore did today in Chicago. Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called “We Are Change,” as he was signing his latest fascist screed on the global warming swindle. Gore bolted from the bookstore, raced down an alley, jumped into a waiting car, and tried to speed off, with protesters chasing after him and banging on the car. Midwest LYM organizers, who were also on the scene to confront the global warming swindler, provided an eyewitness account of Fat Albert’s flight of fear.
Make no mistake about it. This little encounter is typical of the kinds of things going on all over the country, as the fascists who brought you the near-destruction of the United States and an onrushing global Dark Age, are no longer walking the streets, smug in the belief that they are literally getting away with murder. The mass strike dynamic is playing out in thousands of ways, every day, and the recent revelations about the “smoking gun” emails from the East Anglia University global warming propaganda center, have made Al Gore’s life a little more miserable.
As Percy Shelley wrote in “The Mask of Anarchy,” “We are many, they are few.”
…Looks like the writing is on the wall for “Global Warming” fraud.

November 27, 2009 6:53 am

Do people really write papers about being an actor?

Colin Artus
November 27, 2009 7:08 am

Re Gary Mckinnon:
The significance of his case is the absence of an evidentiary submission to support the request for extradition. This is a result of the reciprocal extradition treaty that GB/USA entered into after the 9/11 and 7/7 events. Designed to speed the extradition of terrorist suspects, who might otherwise have stalled extradition proceedings, the act has been utilised by the US athorities to circumvent the need for justifying evidence in the case of the ‘NatWest four’ (financial fraud) and GM’s case (hacking). Neither of the cases were intended to fall under the scope of the treaty but, as with most hastily written legislation, there have been ‘unintended’ consequences.
Even more galling is that the USA has never ratified its half of the treaty so the same process does not apply to US citizens accused of crimes in the UK.
It’s not all bad news! If someone can convince a US prosecutor that Phil Jones has committed a crime/felony in the US , then Jones can be extradited to the US no questions asked!

November 27, 2009 8:04 am

You heard it from his own mouth folks … Don’t listen to Ed Begley Jr as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

November 27, 2009 9:05 am

Kevin McGrane (15:52:09) :
Of course, most of the time we have our lights on is the cold part of the year, when the heat from incandescent lightbulbs actually provides heating very efficiently, and only in the rooms we are occupying. And we can use dimmers if we wish. Switching to ‘low energy’ bulbs means we have to heat the house more via central heating, and probably heating rooms that we’re not occupying. That’s more inefficient. For most of the time, incandescent bulbs to not ‘waste’ heat; whatever we ’save’ with ‘low energy’ bulbs we have to make up from some other heater, so in the far northern hemisphere such as UK, there are no realistic savings at all in phasing out incandescents inside domestic dwellings.
Yes. And not just that, the minute I tried a CF bulb for my “reading” light, I was immediately struck by how unpleasant and irritating it was. Working under fluorescents w/windows allowing natural light in isn’t too bad, but in a dark room w/no other light, it’s almost intolerable. Incadescents are a much more natural, “thermal” light, like the sun.
Really smart to force by law a light-bulb that contains mercury, and ends up in landfills. Another example of government doublethink.

November 27, 2009 10:23 am


Pressed Rat
November 27, 2009 11:44 am

Kate, speaking of Al Gore. Paparazzi have spotted Al hastily boarding Leonardo’s DeCaprio’s Gulfstream 4 dragging bulging Gucci suitcases leaking ten-thousand dollar bills. Destination? Unknown, although its rumored Dubai is encouraging super-rich American expats open, customs free, doors in welcome.

November 27, 2009 12:04 pm

It looks a bit like the villian whose just been nabbed by the police and protests his innocence in elaborate lenghts

November 27, 2009 12:12 pm

Hi. Pressed Rat.
Gore and Dubai are welcome to each other.

Indiana Bones
November 27, 2009 12:27 pm

I happen to like Ed Begley and do not disagree with some of his positions. I especially agree that an easy bake oven is a miniature toaster. Ed also supports the move to electrification of transportation which is happening and sensible for all kinds of reasons.
Stuart doesn’t like government telling him what kind of light bulbs he can have at home. He exaggerates when he says jackboots are coming in to inspect his light bulbs. Stuart is a libertarian, Ed is a real environmentalist. The two can co-exist but only if the one-world-government people butt out. The New World Order agenda has kidnapped the good envrionmental movement and twisted it to its political agenda. Political activists driven by marxist ideology are the ones who lie, cheat and obfuscate the science.
Ed is perfectly right that the air in LA has improved dramatically because of pollution control technology. It is a spectacular success. The same cannot be applied to “climate” simply because we don’t have any empirical confirmation of CO2-based warming. But we do need to cut fossil fuel consumption and the reasons to do that remain even without climate change. So Ed’s evangelizing for electric vehicles and lower energy footprints is perfectly okay in my book.
But I do want to keep my easy bake oven… It’s perfect for my thumbnail pies.

November 27, 2009 12:46 pm

Previously I complemented Bedgley for a sterling performance portraying a demented greenie. After reading subsequent cogent contributions here, I must suggest that he had lousy script writers.

an inconvenient individual
November 27, 2009 12:58 pm

Jack (12:46:34) :
“History is not going to be kind to the pro-global warming crowd.”
Michael E. Mann (0926010576.txt):
“I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.”

Indiana Bones
November 27, 2009 1:04 pm

Ric Werme (13:16:07) :
Perhaps Ed would like to refer to this scientist:

Or with the astronomers at the Vatican:
In light of this kind of discussion I suppose the issue of Easy Bake ovens draws little heat…

Pressed Rat
November 27, 2009 1:20 pm

Indiana Bones, let me get this straight. Electric vehicles reduce pollution. OK, I buy that. But, where does the electricity come from? It does not just magically appear at your wall socket. There is a fundamental law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Obstructionist “environmentalists” hate coal and nuclear power generation (for political reasons, BTW). Wind and solar can’t service the demand. They both are simply too inefficient or cost effective to compete with hydrocarbon or nuclear based energy generation.
Check this out: old non-producing oil fields have regenerated, to the surprise of geologists, oil companies and chemical engineers. It’s proving that long-chain hydrocarbon molecules are a result of natural geologic/chemical processes that are still not well understood. In addition, the media reports discoveries of new and massive petroleum deposits on a quarterly basis.
New technologies have been developed for clean coal and reactor designs have been dramatically improved since the fifties designs at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
We’ve got more than enough energy resources right here at home (USA) to provide the power needed for non-polluting electric vehicles until fuel cell or fusion (remember Mr. Fusion in “Back to the Future 2?). It’s the political obstructionists who hate free market Capitalism that are standing in the way.

Richard M
November 27, 2009 1:25 pm

According to Ed Begley there is no such thing as plate tectonics. Since it wasn’t proposed by a geologist in a peer reviewed paper it can’t exist.
Of course, this just demonstrates pure cognitive dissonance by Begley. Since his favorite religion is now in shambles, this is his way of dealing with it. Pure denial.

November 27, 2009 7:15 pm

Invariant (13:25:58) : Obviously it will take some time to reverse engineer how it’s supposed to work, however a couple of skilled FORTRAN programmers together with a couple of climate experts should not use more than a couple of weeks to determine exactly what has been done. All they need is a FORTRAN compiler and some coffee – it’s not that many files…
And it only took “Harry Readme” three years full time (and we don’t know that he ever did get it to work “right”…)

REPLY: Not yet, the trick is finding the right Fortran compiler. Often a challenge. – A

I’ve had pretty good results with f77 under Linux for the old stuff and g95 for the newer “f90” stuff. It’s not the ‘getting it to compile’ that is the hard part, though. It’s the “how do you glue it all together and make it run – Some Assembly Required ” part…
It only took me about 6 months to get GIStemp to run, and it was supposed to be runnable. This is a semi-random set selected to fulfill a FOIA request (IMHO it was the FOIA archive that got accidentally released) and not supposed to be a fully runnable archive. Still valuable but might be missing a few screws 😉

November 27, 2009 7:46 pm

Optimizer (22:09:19) : Sounds like the FORTRAN angle is being worked, but how is the team doing with the IDL code I’ve heard mention of?
‘Cause I’ve been crunching numbers with IDL pretty regularly for about 20 years, if anybody needs a hand decyphering that stuff. (Before that I used FORTRAN.)

I’ve never used IDL and have no real idea how to use it. I’ve seen comments that Linux includes an analog GDL and that it’s a graphics language of some kind. Given that I’m “graphics challenged” and had planned on learning some kind of graphing package to rectify that:
a) I could use advice eventually, probably best over at “my place”
b) Most pressing: Is GDL a good replacement for IDL ?
c) Are my above stated beliefs truthful or am I about to pursue a flock of untamed Canadian aviators?

Indiana Bones
November 27, 2009 9:08 pm

Not every environ mentalist rules out clean coal, nuke or conversion to NG.
The Russians have been writing about abiotic oil for 30 or so years. And we haven’t even begun to talk overunity.

Mikey the Physicist
November 28, 2009 1:29 am

What’s interesting is not so much that he has been suckered in to the warming orthodoxy, but that he then so vociferously defends it. He rabidly defends something that he admits he doesn’t really understand.
That’s the difference between science and politics.
Real scientists don’t defend a scientific theory in that manner as they’re open to the possibility it may be wrong, or that new data may change things. He defends global warming so maniacally because it’s a political movement that ties in with his political views.

Mikey the Physicist
November 28, 2009 1:57 am

By the way, there’s nothing wrong with lightbulbs giving out heat, if you live in a cold climate such that you need to heat the house anyway. If turning on all the lights generates, say, 10% of your required heat, then your furnace will run at 90% of the energy level to maintain the same temperature. It’s common sense, which is not common in warmist thinking.
If the real concern is that the heat is wasted, then that would apply to heat from all sources, not just lightbulbs. The real issue then is to raise the thermal efficiency standard of buildings.
If one were living in a house with the high thermal efficiency of PassivHaus, it might actually be desirable to use a few incandescent lightbulbs as distributed heating sources as well as for lighting.

Mikey the Physicist
November 28, 2009 2:08 am

Peer Review
Hey Ed, the “settled fact” that Saddam had WMD’s and could launch in 45 minutes was comprehensively peer reviewed in cabinets, congresses, parliaments, councils and intelligence committees in the US and UK. (In the UK House of Lords it was literally peer reviewed). Ever heard of corruption of the peer review process?
Saddam also had his rather poor choices peer reviewed by the party members, as no doubt did Stalin and Mao. I’m sure Hitler also conducted some peer reviews with Himmler, Goebels and Goering.

November 28, 2009 11:07 am

E.M.Smith (19:46:49) :
I’ve never heard of GDL, but IIRC “IDL” is for “Interactive Data Language”. You can certainly produce some nice graphical representations, but that’s not what it’s all about.
As an example, you type “plot,x,y” into the user interface, with x and y being vectors of the same length, and a window pops up with a graph of x vs y. That’s the “interactive” part, but equally important is that you can easily operate on vectors and arrays. In fact, you typed “plot,sin(x),y” instead, it would take the sine of each individual element of the vector, x, and plot THAT vs. y instead. No “for” loops, no muss, no fuss.
I believe it’s been popular within some signal processing and image processing circles, because it’s so easy to do operations on data. It’s also almost identical to another language, called “PV-WAVE” whose makers literally bought the rights from the IDL people to create their own “dialect”, of sorts. My impression, however, is that MATLAB may be supplanting IDL, even in those areas.
It’s actually fairly easy for non-IDL users to look at the code and get a pretty good idea about what’s going on with just a little prompting. I have often handed off IDL code to C programmers to translate into C, and there usually aren’t too many things they find too mysterious.
I guess I better check out!

November 30, 2009 5:06 pm

Mark Steyn’s column in The Orange County Register “Cooking the books on climate peer, reviewed, climate” rather effectively dismantles hyper-Ed and the peer-review process:

%d bloggers like this: