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!


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Antonio San

Pathetic! Both!


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


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

Daniel Ferry

Hey Ed:
The peer reviewed studies are colluded!


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.

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

“Peer Reviewed” is the magic word, if it’s not peer reviewed, forget all about it!


well that exchange certainly helped move the debate forward!

Is it a film or real life?

Hoi Polloi

They’re getting desperate….


How many “climatologist” are on IPCC? NASA?

Roger Knights

Let’s not behave like Varney.

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


Mantra, peer reviewed, peer reviewed.


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


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.


I Know!

J Lamsam

“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.

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


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

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


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


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


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

Wow! That Ed Begley is unhinged. Scary.


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!!

“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 !!


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

Skeptic Tank

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.


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!


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

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.


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

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


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

David Walton

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


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.


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

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

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]


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.


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


“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.


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.


The Intel compiler appears to be free for personal use.

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.

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


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.


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