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.
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!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
http://netlib.sandia.gov/f2c/index.html
http://webscripts.softpedia.com/script/Development-Scripts-js/Compilers/f2c-compiler-26867.html
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.
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?
Who the heck is Ed Begley Jr? Is he a climate scientist? I’ve never heard of him.
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?
What is it with those people if they tell a lie they believe it themselves?
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! ;->
Pornography is “peer reviewed” but I can’t see basing government policy on it.
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.
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?
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.
@ur momisugly 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…
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.
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.
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.
ad (12:52:28) : “And I thought this post was going to be about Erectile Dysfunction.”
What? You didn’t notice the compensatory mechanism?
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.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/notes-on-a-climate-research-scandal/
“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.
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.
Listening to Ed feels like watching Susan Boyle give a masterclass to La Callas!
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.
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.
Is there a PhD in climate science?
Personally, I don’t think we know enough to have a Pffft, let alone a Phd!
DaveE
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.
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.