Home » Culture, Education, Global Warming, Science » Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News

Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News

Here is actor Ed Begley Jr. being interviewed by Stuart Varney on Fox News:

Ed Begley Jr. remarks “I don’t think geologists should write papers about being an actor or newscaster…nor should uh…Don’t get your information from me folks or any newscaster, get it from people with PhD after their name.”

So, if geologists cannot discuss acting, why should we listen to an actor discussing PhD scientists? Wouldn’t we have to listen to Ed Begley Jr. in order to know that we should only listen to PhD scientists? By his own admission we shouldn’t listen to him about who we should listen to because he is not a PhD scientist.

And secondly, notice how he keeps remarking that “peer review” is the gold standard of what should be considered legitimate in the Climate Change debate. But of course, the emails hacked recently from the University of East Anglia’s Climactic Research Unit (CRU) show that the “peer review” process is rigged, where scientists who do not agree with Anthropic Global Warming are shunned from publishing in the “peer review”. When the “peers” who do the “reviewing” are of the mindset that only one position, that of Anthropic Global Warming, should be considered valid, these peers shun the other scientists (just as much qualified PhD scientists as any other) who disagree out of the “review”. Thus the only effect that “peer review” has is to disqualify dissenting science.

Dr. David Berlinski, who does have a PhD after his name, has this to say about the “peer review” process and the “self-correcting” methods of science.

And now it appears that, in light of their embarrassing emails which admit to data manipulation and peer review suppression, the CRU has agreed to publish all of their data….eventually. The article published November 28th, 2009 at Telegraph: explains:

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

Among the leaked emails disclosed last week were an alleged note from Professor Phil Jones, 57, the director of the CRU and a leading target of climate change sceptics, to an American colleague describing the death of a sceptic as “cheering news”; and a suggestion from Prof Jones that a “trick” is used to “hide the decline” in temperature.

They even include threats of violence. One American academic wrote to Prof Jones: “Next time I see Pat Michaels [a climate sceptic] at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: “There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

“This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude.”

Mr. David Holland, a skeptic of global warming, has a different philosophy than of Ed Begley Jr.’s.

A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.

David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.

Mr Holland, of Northampton, complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) last week after the leaked emails included several Freedom of Information requests he had submitted to the CRU, and scientists’ private responses to them.

Within hours, a senior complaints officer in the ICO wrote back by email: “I have started to examine the issues that you have raised in your letter and I am currently liaising with colleagues in our Enforcement and Data Protection teams as to what steps to take next.”

The official also promised to investigate other universities linked to the CRU, which is one of the world’s leading authorities on temperature levels and has helped to prove that man-made global warming not only exists but will have catastrophic consequences if not tackled urgently. Mr Holland is convinced the threat has been greatly exaggerated.

In one email dated May 28, 2008, one academic writes to a colleague having received Mr Holland’s request: “Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??”

Mr Holland, who graduated with an external degree in electrical engineering from London University in 1966 before going on to run his own businesses, told The Sunday Telegraph: “It’s like David versus Goliath. Thanks to these leaked emails a lot of little people can begin to make some impact on this monolithic entity that is the climate change lobby.”

He added: “These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don’t believe they can ever be wrong.”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

72 Responses to Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News

  1. What happens when the peer review is rigged?

  2. Mark Steyn, in his inimitable fashion, takes on Ed Begley Jr. here:

    http://www.ocregister.com/opin.....imate.html

  3. Mr Tribune7,

    What happens when the peer review is rigged?

    Ask Richard Sternberg!

  4. Yes, Richard Sternberg knew that the peer review process is a farce in any discussion of origins in biology so he had to find the few reasonable people that exist who would review Meyer’s article fairly.

    Thank you Nakashima for understanding the hypocrisy of the review process when it relates to origins in biology. I did know you agreed with us.

  5. Nakashima-san! Welcome to the dark side! :-)

  6. Mr Tribune7,

    Nakashima-san! Welcome to the dark side! ;)

    I just got my copy of “Signature in the Cell”, it must already be having an effect. My lightsaber has turned red. I have a sudden desire to move to Seattle and write op-ed pieces. David Berlinski has started making sense to me. Where will it end? :)

  7. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate ID-style.

    There, fixed.

  8. Hopefully not too-far off topic (and trying to tie into this thread!)…

    In a recent BBC documentary called ‘Science – The Power of Doubt’ – shown on one of our Australian networks – it looked at how the mediaeval Muslim community attacked the seemingly unshakeable ideas about science that the Greeks had developed centuries before and that still were unquestionably accepted throughout the rest of the world.

    Their observations began to suggest to them that the prevailing Greek theory that described how every planetary body in the Greek heaven revolved around the earth had some serious flaws.

    As those with a smattering of history amongst our readers will remember the model that Ptolemy created and gave to the world, upon his further reflection, needed some mighty overhauling and redefining. It was fudged further when he realised that the observations he was making didn’t fit the data. But it was out there and accepted. Unquestionably for soooo long.

    Upon looking at the data some of the Muslim astronomical community realised it was “not as trustworthy as it (was) advertised to be!” What else was in error.? They began to question the more basic foundations of the scientific tradition.

    The increasing use of the word Shakk – meaning ‘doubt’ – became obvious in the mediaeval writings. (If I have the word wrong, I know I will be corrected … and happily too!) This was, from my understanding of the programme, an ACCEPTED and ENCOURAGED position: I DOUBT an aspect of science so I will be encouraged to follow the data where it leads.

    What an amazing proposal! In my mind I substituted ID for the subject of this documentary and it was so clear: motivated mediaeval scholars worked in an area that they doubted and standards of accuracy increased because they were unencumbered by the dogmatists that spurned anything that ‘science’ owned.

    Not one of the Muslim scientific literati denied them the chance to DOUBT. Not one of them shouted “peer review”… “you must have a PhD!”

    They said, ‘You doubt? Go work on it …’

    Ed Begley may differ …

  9. I’ll preface this with: I’m not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV—nor do I have PhD after my name . . . sorry, Ed . . . but, I do know one real, actual, living, breathing scientist. And, according to them, peer reviewed journals have long been more politically reviewed than anything else. This admission was a long while ago, and had nothing to do with any current news or events at the time.

    It appears that this is just a small peephole into the living room with one fully grown elephant standing there.

  10. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering.

    I can offer an “amen” to that. Engineers of all varieties — electrical, mechanical, software, structural, or aeronautical, and I am involved in all five in the aerospace R&D biz — quickly learn what works and what doesn’t, and which assumptions are correct and which are not. Reality quickly disposes of one’s ego, self-assurance and “peer review” when computer programs and aircraft crash.

    There is no such reality check on Darwinian or “climate change” speculation. In these pseudo-scientific disciplines (I dare to suggest that they are anti-scientific undisciplines), all evidence can be construed to be supportive of a predetermined conclusion, given enough imagination.

    Experienced engineers have highly trained noses. They can smell BS from a mile away, even when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction.

  11. “Experienced engineers have highly trained noses. They can smell BS from a mile away, even when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction.”

    Gil,

    I work in the aerospace industry as well, and I’m wondering if this is one of the reasons why so many of the engineers I know are Christians. Not that they all think Darwinism is BS, but at the very least, their instincts tell them a materialistic worldview just isn’t right.

  12. So, if geologists cannot discuss acting, why should we listen to an actor discussing PhD scientists?

    They are not comparable. He is not discussing climate change. He is discussing the role of experts. It would be reasonable for a geologist to suggest that if you want to learn about acting go to someone with acting experience.

  13. 13

    If you want to get the goods on religion then talk only to priests and theologians not to Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hithchens. Makes sense.

    Btw in Oz a guy named Tim Flannery is a “man made climate change” guru with strong influence on government policy. Guess what he is – a zoologist turned palaeontologist turned expert on weather and climate. He’s not a research climatologist. Unlike Lindzen who is and locally a skeptic named Bill Kinninmonth who is a metereologist.
    Begley needs to catch up with these guys rather than rely on corrupted peer review processes and scientists/experts who fiddle the data to fit an agenda.

    Add Pat Michaels to the above skeptics list. He is also climatologist.

  14. Sorry that this post isn’t relevant to the topic but I’m not sure how to flag things up that the authors of this website might be interested in.
    Stephen Law is the head of the Centre for Inwuiry in London England. He’s asking for comments on an excerpt for a forthcoming book, some of which is about intelligent design. I’m fairly sure from previous comments he’s made that he hasn’t even looked into the arguments in much depth at all. Perhaps some more competent critics than I could enlighten him a little

    http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/

  15. Nakashima @ 3

    Mr Tribune7,

    What happens when the peer review is rigged?

    Ask Richard Sternberg!

    Not only Richard Sternberg, it would appear, according to accounts, Nakajima-san.

  16. GilDodgen @ 11

    Experienced engineers have highly trained noses. They can smell BS from a mile away, even when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction.

    They can also smell strongly of bullshit when pontificating about disciplines outside their areas of expertise.

  17. Hi everyone.

    Well, the reason why I listen to engineers when they talk about global warming is that they know the limits of computers models – i.e. where they can be trusted and where they cannot.

    Here’s a quote by Robert A. Perkins, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska, and a registered civil engineer, who has 30 years’ experience working in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions:

    Read more: http://www.c3headlines.com/glo.....uotes.html and http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.....z0YLq2dy02

    All the ‘science’ that you read about global warming is based on models, not observed facts. Here are some reasons to doubt the models: Expert statistician Akaike proved that the more parameters a model needs to fit the historical data, the less certain the model will predict the future….All the climate models are incredibly complex, hence ‘over-parameterized.’ The climate models, however, do not even fit the present data, at least in the Arctic….Finally, none of the published models that ‘blame’ human activity for the warming trend account for the known historical variations in global climate.

    Here’s one engineer with a pretty good BS detector: Professor John Brignell . Readers might be interested in this post, by Professor John Brignell , entitled How we know they know they are lying. It lists no less than ten criteria which serve as useful warning signs to laypeople that the science behind the hypothesis of dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming is bogus, and that society is being hoodwinked by an orchestrated scaremongering campaign. Well worth reading.

    Readers might also ike to have a look at his articles, Global Warming as Religion and not Science and Computer modelling and Feedback .

    Another paper I would recommend to readers is A Climate of Belief by Dr. Patrick Frank. In The Skeptic, vol. 14 no. 1. (Here is a link to the Supporting Information for Frank’s paper.) Patrick Frank is a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. In his paper, he argues that the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable.

    The limits of resolution of the GCMs [general circulation models] – their pixel size – is huge compared to what they are trying to project. In each new projection year of a century-scale calculation, the growing uncertainty in the climate impact of clouds alone makes the view of a GCM become progressively fuzzier… It is well-known among climatologists that large swaths of the physics in GCMs are not well understood. Where the uncertainty is significant GCMs have “parameters,” which are best judgments for how certain climate processes work. General Circulation Models have dozens of parameters and possibly a million variables, and all of them have some sort of error or uncertainty…

    So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore. Earth’s climate is warming and no one knows exactly why.

  18. Seversky: They can also smell strongly of bullshit when pontificating about disciplines outside their areas of expertise.

    Information-processing systems are not outside the area of expertise of a software engineer, and living systems are based on such systems. It is the typical Darwinist who is outside his area of expertise in this regard.

    On the subject of climate computer models: One of my engineering specialties is creating computer models with a program called LS-DYNA, which was originally developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early 1970′s for nuclear weapons research by some of the most brilliant people who have ever lived. It has been under continuous development and refinement for more than a third of a century, and has been used and evaluated by countless scientists and engineers. It is arguably the most sophisticated and powerful finite-element analysis program ever created for the modeling of transient, nonlinear, dynamic systems. It has been used for many years in the automotive industry for modeling car crashes.

    All the laws of physics involved in these simulations are thoroughly understood, and material properties are well characterized and documented. Even with all of this, and all the experience of the people who create these models, they still crash a real car to validate the simulations.

    One learns very quickly that a single erroneous assumption or a single programming oversight can completely invalidate a model. The worst part is that the result can be wrong but it may not be obvious that it is. Only empirical testing can finally validate a model.

    One also learns that he can get whatever result he wants by manipulating the parameters.

    The bottom line is that there is no way computer models of the earth’s climate can be trusted. The system is too poorly understood and there is no method of empirical validation except to wait and see what the climate does. In this regard, the climate over the last ten years has done the opposite of what the models predicted, which means they have been empirically invalidated.

    That’s how science works.

  19. 11

    GilDodgen

    11/30/2009

    12:45 am

    A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering.

    I can offer an “amen” to that. Engineers of all varieties — electrical, mechanical, software, structural, or aeronautical, and I am involved in all five in the aerospace R&D biz — quickly learn what works and what doesn’t, and which assumptions are correct and which are not. Reality quickly disposes of one’s ego, self-assurance and “peer review” when computer programs and aircraft crash.

    My experience is that this doesn’t help engineers when they enter the field of designing life aka genetic engineering.

  20. Gil,

    Speaking of manipulating parameters, how’s this?

    Taken directly from source code used in one of the hockey-stick reconstructions:

    original code (..FOIA..documents..osborn-tree6..briffa_sep98_d.pro)
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

    They just programmed the climate curve (hockey stick) into the application which draws the curve – no matter what data it uses. This is the ‘trick’ they talk about in the emails. Here is the portion of the code, which manipulates the curve. It creates a mask, which manipulates the data from 1904 on, dealing with the decline and then artificially magnifying the curve by 2.6 for the last years

    So basically no matter what temperature data is used, whether it be real, proxy, or artificially derived, it will always follow the curve defined by the mask employed in this code. Granted the frequency/period of the highs and lows might vary given different collection methods, it will always produce the same general shape on the graph regardless, ultimately creating an artificial incline beginning at 1904 onwards.

  21. Also, if you’re really interested in spending some time investigating the methods used to generate much of the climate data, Jeff Id from “The Air Vent” has replicated most of the process on his blog that can be found here (code and all):

    Part One

    Part Two

  22. Begley is right: no one should pay any attention to what he says about global warming. Actors get their lines from scripts. Who gave him his “global warming” script, I wonder.

    I have a real issue with the media treating Hollywood elites as if there were experts on this or that issue. Best example was several years ago the House invited Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek to testify on farm related issues. Why? Because they played farmers wives in popular films! Wow, there’s credentials for you.

    What’s Begley’s credentials on global warming, meteorology or climatology?

  23. I don’t understand you people.
    Man-caused global warming has to be true.

  24. @PaulN #20:

    They just programmed the climate curve (hockey stick) into the application which draws the curve – no matter what data it uses.

    They just made the program write a hockey stick regardless of the data? Is that the ‘valadj’ thing with the increasing numbers? Why, the slimy little critters.

  25. waterbear,

    They just made the program write a hockey stick regardless of the data?

    Indeed, hence the programmer’s note above the block of code stating “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline” that serves to denote the fake incline quite explicitly. The numbers give you the exact magnitude to which the graph curve is being periodically increased after 1904 .

  26. Because people who want to hide fakery always make a point of doing so with all-caps and double-exclamation points.

  27. They admitted using tricks. Are they that dishonest? Rather like unfairly using a laplace transform to solve a differential equation. Dog eats homework!

  28. Or people who are confident enough that their code won’t be seen by outsiders.

    [sarcasm]I mean obviously these guys are completely compliant with the freedom of information act, haven’t deleted any data after the big leak, or hidden behind an absurd amount of deceptive tactics. [/sarcasm]

    It’s as if they’re reacting like any honest group of innocent scientific researchers.

  29. @PaulN #25:

    They just made the program write a hockey stick regardless of the data?

    Indeed, hence the programmer’s note above the block of code stating “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline”

    But the valadj thing isn’t actually used in the rest of the program so cannot affect any result, according to this post written by someone who knows the programming language used. From where do you learn that it is “magnifying the curve by 2.6 for the last years” and was the trick referred to in other e-mails and produced the hockey stick?

    Gil, who is a software engineer with a nose for BS, could perhaps help with this.

  30. Waterbear,

    In the very comments section of your post it is revealed that the block of code in question was used in a later rendition of the same file.

    From Dave Scotese:

    Perhaps you could do the world a favor and point out that briffa_sep98_d.pro’s name suggests it’s an earlier version than briffa_sep98_e.pro, and that while the artificial correction is rendered impotent in the former, it is apparently used in the latter.

    Also from Pete:

    Have a look at these.

    briffa_sep98_decline1.pro
    briffa_sep98_decline2.pro

    It looks like the artificial correction was a placeholder until they’d worked out how to do their rotated PCA correction for the decline.

    And something added in to the original post that you seem to have missed blatantly:

    Update: Read the comments below. It’s been pointed out to me that there’s a later version of code in the archive in which similar correction code is not commented out. Details and link below.

  31. Ah, so can we examine the actual contents of
    briffa_sep98_decline1.pro and
    briffa_sep98_decline2.pro?
    I haven’t seen their contents. As the ‘valadj’ thing which you said was the source of the hockey stick turned out not to be, perhaps these other programs aren’t quite what you think they are either.
    If only there was a software engineer on this thread.

  32. Here is some analysis of the code:

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....ate_r.html

    Page down.

  33. There is a followup to that blog.

    Graham-Cumming: The ‘very artificial correction’ flap looks like much ado about nothing to me.

  34. Where are you getting the idea that the given block of code wasn’t used for plotting the graph?

    And not to speak for Gil, but I’m sure he has better things to do with his time and obvious talents than to point out line for line what you’ve obviously overlooked.

    It’s not hard to understand that “valadj” stands for value adjustment, which starts at “yrloc” which most likely stands for year location (1904). The incremental values provided within the next segment are obviously reflected by simply looking at the graph itself, as it follows a small decline and then inclines rapidly. There are no other values in the code that define such a pattern. As for the other two files, I’m sure it won’t take you long to locate them and look at the source code for yourself to see if they contain the same code segments. Do you need anything else?

  35. The bottom line is that there is no way computer models of the earth’s climate can be trusted. The system is too poorly understood and there is no method of empirical validation except to wait and see what the climate does. In this regard, the climate over the last ten years has done the opposite of what the models predicted, which means they have been empirically invalidated.
    That’s how science works.

    Right. Just look how they use computers to forecast weather. And to think they even trusted them to predict the D-day weather! Never trust a scientist. Engineers and computer hacks have a nose for the real facts.

  36. Hmmm… day-to-day weather forecast vs. a millenia of fudged proxy data. Something just doesn’t add up there.

  37. Oh sure, Zachriel @32, we could actually read and try to understand the code and see how that ties up with published papers. Alternatively we could read comments in computer code written in a language we don’t understand, applying transforms we can speculate about the reasons for to data from sources we think we have an idea about and conclude that this is the biggest scientific fraud of modern times. Why else would anyone say “hide the decline” unless they meant “hide the worldwide decline in temperatures”? Just accept already that the smoking polar bear of truth has been exploded beneath the supposedly shrinking iceberg of deceit. As a British journalist with a solid track record on science has the guts to point out; the world is cooling, ice coverage is increasing and sea levels aren’t rising any faster than normal.

  38. And now for something completely different…

    Ecology, evolution and global climate models in one experiment!!1!

    extra goodness – confirmatory data from Teh Real World

  39. waterbear,

    we could actually read and try to understand the code and see how that ties up with published papers.

    First, what evidence, if any, have you seen so far that even infers that we don’t understand what is happening in the code?

    Second, are you referring to the papers that are only selectively published through an exclusive circle of 45 self-referring scientists?

    Alternatively we could read comments in computer code written in a language we don’t understand

    News flash: IT’S NOT HEIROGLYPHICS. You’re simply projecting your own ignorance upon us. Just because you don’t understand what’s going on in the code doesn’t mean everyone else shares your position. Once you have some programming experience with almost any modern code language, it’s not hard to understand what’s going on especially when functions that aren’t specific to any one language are defined and outlined by the programmer, have notes to go along with them, and even a finished graph for explicit visual reference.

  40. If the global-warming alarmists get their way (on the basis of fraudulent, junk “science”), it will mean the end of modern Western civilization and the destruction of countless innocent lives in the third world.

    Why would people want to do that?

    My answer is: They hate humanity (themselves excluded, of course). They are misanthropes.

  41. Berceuse @ 12

    I work in the aerospace industry as well, and I’m wondering if this is one of the reasons why so many of the engineers I know are Christians. Not that they all think Darwinism is BS, but at the very least, their instincts tell them a materialistic worldview just isn’t right.

    Actually, I find it quite alarming so many of them are Christians because when I get on an aircraft I’m hoping the aerospace engineers who designed and built it did a a lot more than pray they got it right. I’m hoping they used good old materialist science.

    As for engineers themselves, the only thing about them that is interesting scientifically is why on Earth so many of them think they think they know biology better than biologists or geology better then geologists or climate better than climatologists.

  42. GilDodgen @ 20

    Information-processing systems are not outside the area of expertise of a software engineer, and living systems are based on such systems.

    Do not confuse the model with the thing being modeled.

    But merely because we can employ a model or a formalisation doesn’t mean that the system we are modeling or formalising is a formal system itself. Consider game theory – nobody thinks that genes rationally assess their interests and then make choices in interactions with other genes. It just happens that the math is useful to model the evolution of fitnesses irrespective of the cognitive abilities of genes and organisms.

  43. GilDodgen @ 41

    If the global-warming alarmists get their way (on the basis of fraudulent, junk “science”), it will mean the end of modern Western civilization and the destruction of countless innocent lives in the third world.

    Why would people want to do that?

    Maybe because if they are right there will be the destruction of countless innocent lives in the third world and a global economic catastrophe on a scale not seen before. Do you really want to be on the side that could have avoided that but didn’t?

  44. Severski:
    “Actually, I find it quite alarming so many of them are Christians because when I get on an aircraft I’m hoping the aerospace engineers who designed and built it did a a lot more than pray they got it right. I’m hoping they used good old materialist science.”

    I understand you are merely being sarcastic, ’cause if you weren’t it would be quite obvious you have a lot to learn about Christian theology especially as it pertains to prayer.

    What is “materialist” science as opposed to “non-materialist” science? If teleology (ie: intelligent design) = non-materialist science then engineering is indeed non-materialist science since engineering deals with how to intelligently engineer a solution to a problem; and how to plan in the present for the accomplishment of a future goal — you know, the stuff that ID Theory attempts to detect.

    So, I hope you are now hoping that engineers use “non-materialist” science.

    Severski:
    “As for engineers themselves, the only thing about them that is interesting scientifically is why on Earth so many of them think they think they know biology better than biologists or geology better then geologists or climate better than climatologists.”

    I do believe Gil has already provided an answer for your question @ 19.

  45. Seversky: Do you really want to be on the side that could have avoided that but didn’t?

    It’s also possible that we are entering another ice age (as was the “scientific” consensus in the 1970s) and this might be mitigated by spreading particulates in the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight.

    Do you really want to be on the side that could have avoided that but didn’t?

    But the major point is that even if human-caused CO2 is a factor in global warming (which has mysteriously ceased, in contradiction to all the computer models), even according to IPCC estimates we would have to shut down essentially all industry and commerce worldwide for 30 years just to mitigate one degree F.

    That’s a guarantee of massive human suffering and death, while global-warming Armageddon is just the eschatology of an earth-worshiping religious cult.

  46. Seversky: Do you really want to be on the side that could have avoided that but didn’t?

    It’s also possible that we are entering another ice age (as was the “scientific” consensus in the 1970s) and this might be mitigated by spreading soot on the glaciers to melt them.

    Do you really want to be on the side that could have avoided that but didn’t?

    But the major point is that even if human-caused CO2 is a factor in global warming (which has mysteriously ceased, in contradiction to all the computer models), even according to IPCC estimates we would have to shut down essentially all industry and commerce worldwide for 30 years just to mitigate one degree F.

    That’s a guarantee of massive human suffering and death, while global-warming Armageddon is just the eschatology of an earth-worshiping religious cult.

  47. My answer is: They hate humanity (themselves excluded, of course). They are misanthropes.

    Any possibility that you may be wrong? Have you really done a thorough analysis of the subject, or are you just making a sweeping accusation based on personal, subjective judgment?

    The probability you may be bearing false witness on a par with the probability natural evolution is improbable = impossible?

  48. 49

    Cabal,

    If the emails released are to be believed, then going by their own words, these scientists tried to downplay the significance of contrary data, they attacked those that did not codify their conclusions, they tried legal maneuvers to avoid releasing data, they tried to coerce publications involved in the peer-review process, etc, etc. And they did, in fact, (regardless of the emails) detroy actual documentation which was vital to a proper peer-review of their work.

    And all this was done as a huge question mark hoovered above them as to the validity of their work, and throngs of media interviews were conducted attacking anyone who even questioned their conclusions. As the Globe told us “The fact of global warming is unequivocal…global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”

    So, why do you think these scientists did what they did?

  49. Hi everyone,

    Jill Bandes makes some telling points in her post, “Climategate just got a whole lot worse” at http://townhall.com/blog/g/9cd.....26f80473d7 . An excerpt:

    Today, the University of East Anglia revealed that the mountains of data used to back up their and the CRU’s climate change predictions are indeed lost.

    Third party requests to view the data had been repeatedly turned down, with the UEA giving various excuses for why it could not make it publicly available. But today, they revealed that the excuses were a farce. The data isn’t there. It hasn’t been there since the 1980′s.

    Even if you accept their claim to have not deleted the information to prevent its disclosure, the fact still remains that the data has indeed been deleted. It’s the data on which climate change scientists, and all the major world governments, have based global warming theories...

    Raw data is raw data. Claims made using the data is not legitimate if it is not available. Even supporters of the global warming movement believe that the original leaked emails make these organizations look terrible. Not having the data that could possibly exculpate them makes them look a whole lot worse. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

    And here’s Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT in an article entitled, The Climate Science Isn’t Settled . Excerpt:

    What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of “bait and switch” scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

    The notion that complex climate “catastrophes” are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA [global average temperature anomaly - VJT], to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

    Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

    Finally, here’s climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer with his latest post, My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate . Some excerpts:

    3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review.

    8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance.

    9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals. Emphases mine – VJT.)

    The level of ineptitude displayed by our so-called “climate experts” is farcical.

  50. CONGRATULATIONS. Uncommon Descent has risen to a
    Technorati Authority of 609
    (#100 overall has a 754 ranking)

    Technorati’s Most influential overall post:

    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
    “Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

  51. Evolution News has a Technorati authority of 597 and is ranked in the Technorati Top Science 100.

    Since you are covering similar material, recommend seeing what it takes to get UD categorized as “Science” at Technorati which would put it in the Top 100 Science.

  52. A great article on the now-exposed corruption of the peer-review process: “Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists

  53. Climategate grows to include other research institutions

    Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won’t discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.

    Climategate begs the question: “is peer review in need of change”?

    In science, as in most disciplines, the process is as important as the product. The recent email/data release (aka Climategate) has exposed the process of scientific peer-review as failing. If the process is failing, it is reasonable to wonder what this implies about the product.

  54. UPDATE

    ‘Climategate’ boss steps down after email scandal

    http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....5806022990

  55. Engineers of all varieties — electrical, mechanical, software, structural, or aeronautical, and I am involved in all five in the aerospace R&D biz — quickly learn what works and what doesn’t, and which assumptions are correct and which are not.

    And no field of engineering assumes that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

  56. FIle this remark by Sen. Graham under non sequitur.

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....query.html

  57. Richard Lindzen of MIT: The notion that the earth’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible…

    This is obvious. If the earth’s climate were to be dominated by positive feedback mechanisms we would not be here, because catastrophic runaway warming would have occurred in the past.

    There is a simple example of this phenomenon in aircraft design and stability.

    Dihedral (wings angled up) produces roll stability (as the aircraft rolls, the lower wing produces more lift and returns the aircraft to roll equilibrium). Sweep in the wings produces yaw stability (as the aircraft yaws, the windward wing produces more drag and returns the aircraft to yaw equilibrium). Positive incidence in the horizontal stabilizer produces pitch stability (as the aircraft dives, speed increases and the horizontal stabilizer produces a positive pitching moment that returns the aircraft to pitch equilibrium).

    Reverse any of these — (anhedral [wings angled down], wings swept forward (although this can be compensated for by a vertical stabilizer on the tail of the aircraft, which is why many aircraft do not employ wing sweep for yaw stability), or negative stabilizer incidence — and the aircraft becomes catastrophically unstable.

    The only exception is if a very skilled pilot can compensate for these inherent instabilities with instantaneous and perpetual control input (or what we call “black box” stability, in which a computer program performs the same control input autonomously).

    The bottom line is that if the earth’s climate were dominated by positive warming feedback mechanisms, we would not be here. The earth’s climate would have long ago crashed and burned.

  58. Sev @42

    As for engineers themselves, …why on Earth so many of them think they think they know biology better than biologists or geology better then geologists or climate better than climatologists.

    1. In the case of Climategate, they clearly knew better than climatologists who were lying.

    2. Thankfully there were climatologists who cared about getting out the actual facts, even though many of them suffered for being a “denier.” Wait, sounds familiar…

    3. Engineers are forced by their profession to practice logic daily, which is useful in all domains. Most biologists couldn’t spell logic.

    3. I caught a $6500 error on my tax returns a few years ago. I’m no CPA, but by your logic I should never have said anything to my CPA.

  59. Lurk @56

    And no field of engineering assumes that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

    Not true. All engineering assumes a meaningful, well-ordered universe. That’s why engineering came to fruition in the Christian world.

  60. A major flaw in the pro-AGW argument has just been highlighted by none other than Phil Jones himself.

    To give some context, remember that the proponents of AGW have generally claimed that global temperatures have remained relatively constant during historical times, then suddenly started to increase in the 20th century. Assuming the possibility of positive feedback in climate, such as less ice causing greater polar warming, or perhaps methane release from the tundra, which are not unreasonable concerns, this move of temperature into apparently previously uncharted territory would be cause for concern (and if one is a Gaia worshipper, becoming completely unhinged).

    Critics have replied that based on the historical records (Greenland actually being green, at least at the edges, vineyards in Great Britain, etc.), the medieval ages had warmer weather than at present, and so while the data did show recent warming, it did not show unprecedented warming, and runaway feedback was not yet a major concern. (It is conceded on all sides that the warming physically due to carbon dioxide itself is not adequate to explain the temperature increases observed in the 20th century; positive feedback is required if carbon dioxide is to raise temperatures the required amount.)

    AGW advocates have responded to this argument by arguing that certain tree ring records can serve as temperature proxies, and that they do not indicate a warming trend during the Middle Ages. How such proxies trump recorded personal observations is not clear, but it does seem like a minimum requirement would be that the proxies match the temperature measurements once those temperature measurements start to be recorded. Therein lies the source of one of the most controversial e-mails in the climategate scandal.

    Phil Jones protests that the “trick” used to “hide the decline” is not nefarious at all, but rather, that when we have actual temperature data, the temperature data should be used in preference to the proxies, and so this was done in the interest of the most accurate temperature data available. This was done only to illustrate the problem they see, and make it easier for those not up to speed to understand what was happening with the temperature.

    So far, so good. I am inclined to believe that Phil Jones is telling the truth here.

    But if so, it shows his complete blindness to the implications of the data for his claims, and a complete lack of objectivity in his approach to the data. For the claim being made is that the proxies are more reliable than historical observations. When the proxies are tested against actual temperatures, they fail (see his graph at the bottom of the page). That is, when temperatures get unusually warm, the proxies do not reflect that warmth. That’s why the decline has to be hidden.

    This is the worst possible failure for the proxies. If one is trying to argue that the temperature hasn’t gotten this high before because the proxies don’t show it, then how is one supposed to believe them when they don’t show it now when we know the temperature went up?

    Now, I suppose that one can argue that the proxies are at least accurate until about 1940, and that they reflect higher temperatures there than at any time previously. But leaving aside the question of whether the proxies were cherry-picked (there does seem to be some evidence of this, and an argument can be made that such cherry-picking could happen innocently; after all, one does want the best proxies), one must remember that tree ring growth is not a function solely of temperature, but is also influenced by moisture, and may even be influenced by carbon dioxide, which, after all, is plant food. Thus, the modern correlation, which looks so good (to a point), may have little directly to do with temperature.

    This is not to say that the data are totally worthless. But it is to say that they are not secure enough to overrule previous human observations. Thus the skeptics are in all likelihood correct when they state that within historical times the earth has been warmer, and the claim that we now have an unprecedented global temperature should be dropped as unsupported by the available evidence.

    Phil Jones claims that the “trick” he used is a useful teaching device. This may very well be true. But if it is teaching a wrong idea, then the more it helps to teach, the worse it is.

    Jones further claims that using this “trick” to “hide the decline” isn’t nefarious, because the decline is well-publicized in the scientific literature. But it is not well-publicized in the literature put out by his side for non-specialists. And non-specialists are the ones being asked to vote to give up their freedom, and pay higher taxes and utility bills. Jones owes it to them to give all the facts, including the ones that are detrimental to his arguments. To claim otherwise is to assert that Jones has a right to effectively dictate economic policy around the world. Is this what we need, a self-appointed climate czar?

    One might argue that it is okay for Jones to be an advocate, and others can advocate for the opposing position, and the rest of us will eventually figure out the truth. But this ignores two considerations. First, scientists are supposed to be impartial. To liken them to lawyers is to drag down their credibility to somewhere south of that of dogcatchers. I don’t think Jones, or any other scientist, wants to go there.

    Second, in a courtroom, both sides get to talk to the jury. Yet in this case, we hear of the silencing of opposing views by keeping them from publishing in peer-reviewed fora, and then claiming that peer-reviewed articles are the only reliable sources of knowledge. When an opposing article is published, his group wants the editor Sternberged, or at least relieved of editorship, and the article, rather than being answered, is ignored as if it hadn’t passed peer review. Thus the two sides don’t get to be heard. Only one side does. This is why in law one cannot convict in front of a grand jury; when only the prosecutor is allowed to speak, one can, as the saying goes, indict a ham sandwich.

    Furthermore, it is prosecutorial misconduct (and plainiff and civil defendant misconduct) not to share the relevant documents with opposing counsel before the trial. If documents are subpoenaed, it is obligatory to release them, and not handing them over, and especially destroying them, is a criminal offense. If Jones wants to act as a lawyer, then he at least should adhere to lawyers’ ethics. To do otherwise is to become the worst kind of lawyer.

  61. Seversky: “As for engineers themselves, the only thing about them that is interesting scientifically…”

    Yes, engineers are boring otherwise. Give me a break.

    “…is why on Earth so many of them think they think they know biology better than biologists or geology better then geologists or climate better than climatologists”

    On what grounds do you make such a sweeping statement? Because of how you feel about one?

  62. SpitfireIXA @60,

    All engineering assumes a meaningful, well-ordered universe.

    Unless you can tell us what meaning is assumed by engineering, your claim reduces to a claim that engineering assumes that the universe has a lot of regularity. That would be true, but it’s not ID.

    But I don’t mean to derail a thread about global warming. There’s actually a whole blog about the relationships between evolution, ID, and engineering; it’s called Evolution Engineered. Link. It’s run by an engineer who is generally sympathetic to ID. I’ve included our discussion in a comment there at the end of the latest Open Thread.

  63. I see that somebody else has (independently) noticed the point I made:

    First, the data games: the data manipulation that has been most seized upon by bloggers involves the choice of which sources of temperature data should be used to reflect climate trends after 1960. Because thermometer-based measurements of the climate are only about 150 years old (and are quite spotty for much of that time), when scientists set out to construct long-term estimates of temperature trends, they use what are called “proxies,” such as tree-ring measurements that ostensibly reveal the temperatures that the tree experienced as it grew. As it happens, the tree-ring proxies match up with the thermometer measurements up until about 1960, when there is a “divergence” between the two sets of data. The tree rings indicate a global cooling after 1960, while the thermometer data indicates a sharp warming.

    The CRU scientists decided to simply stop using the inconveniently non-warming tree-ring data after 1960, and splice the modern thermometer-based temperature readings instead, using statistical methods to smooth out and conceal the transition. In one email, this is discussed as a “trick” developed by Michael Mann, one of the creators of the infamous climate “hockey stick chart,” that would “hide the decline” shown by the tree rings and emphasize the recent spike in thermometer data, preserving the sanctity of the hockey stick. One problem with this is, if the tree rings don’t accurately reflect temperatures since 1960, why should we believe they accurately reflected temperatures in the past? If temperatures could diverge now, couldn’t they have equally diverged in the medieval warm period of 1,000 years ago? If so, current temperatures could be historically unremarkable, cutting away one of the key rationales for blaming human greenhouse gas emissions for recent climate changes.

  64. Freelurker @63

    Unless you can tell us what meaning is assumed by engineering, your claim reduces to a claim that engineering assumes that the universe has a lot of regularity. That would be true, but it’s not ID.

    No, it’s just a historical reality. Christian civilization and not others sparked science and engineering. Unless you spend some time reading the old guys, you don’t realize how significant that was.

  65. SpitfireIXA

    No, it’s just a historical reality. Christian civilization and not others sparked science and engineering. Unless you spend some time reading the old guys, you don’t realize how significant that was.

    You mean the old guys like Hero of Alexandria, Vitruvius, an Frontinus? Engineering began and achieved great things well before the spread of Christianity.
    You and I could trade stories of how engineering flourished and stagnated over time in various Christian and non-Christian cultures, but that would be a distraction.
    My original point was that no field of engineering assumes what ID assumes/concludes, i.e., that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. I have never heard of that topic even coming up as part of an engineering project. (Gremlins, maybe?) The most you can say is that engineering assumes an ordered universe.
    Engineers don’t do what IDists do, and IDists don’t do what engineers do.

  66. To be precise, engineering assumes an orderly (i.e., regular) universe.

  67. Freelurker,

    The most you can say is that engineering assumes an ordered universe.

    I’m not an engineer, but this point cannot be stressed enough in general and applicable for all fields of science.

  68. Clive,
    But it doesn’t need to be stressed; regularity is not at all controversial. And, as I said, it’s not ID. Per Dembski, design is neither regularity nor chance.

    I didn’t mean that engineering assumes that the universe is ordered as in saying that it was ordered by somebody. I meant that engineering assumes the universe is ordered as in saying it has order. My second comment was meant to point this out.

  69. Freelurker,

    But it doesn’t need to be stressed; regularity is not at all controversial. And, as I said, it’s not ID. Per Dembski, design is neither regularity nor chance.

    I wasn’t making any reference to orderly nature as being controversial, it doesn’t have to be a controversial subject in order to be appreciated as incredible nonetheless. All ordinary things should be considered incredible in the same way. We take it for granted that death and dawn and so on occur, but we have no reason to think them ordinary or uncontroversial, other than the mundane and uninteresting conclusion that we’ve simply gotten used to them. But we should not get used to anything about nature. As ideas, they are as peculiar and baffling as enigmas, because they are enigmas. If ID is incredible, I’ve yet to see anything in nature that isn’t incredible by comparison. If we cannot explain the basis of nature, we cannot say that the conclusion of ID is not credible. And on that note we cannot rule out the miraculous because we cannot rule in the “normal,” for we don’t have any reason to consider anything that exists as being “normal” in the first place. All we can say is that things in nature are normal because we’ve gotten used to them, but that is not a real reason, and all we can say about the ‘laws of nature’ is that they appear normal by simply repeating, but to me the very repetition makes them that much more strange and inexplicable. We cannot say what is controversial in nature because we don’t really understand what we mean when we say that nature is uncontroversial.

  70. I noticed that the University of East Anglia have moved the webpage to which I linked. The new webpage is

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/events/cru

    I’m curious as to what caused the move.

    I also notice that Lord Moncton made the same point I did. See
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy......candal.pdf ,
    especially pages 5 and 6. There is an even nastier graph on
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7844#more-7844
    This is really looking ugly.

    For AGW advocates, there is only one cure: immediate and complete transparency. Excuses about being taken out of context require that the correct context be given, and raw data must be released, preferably along with computer codes for the processing programs. Without this, nobody has warrant for believing a word they say, which may be too bad, since it is quite possible that they could be saying something important. But the day of uncritical belief is over.

  71. Clive,

    Your comments #68 and #70 get away from my comments about engineering, but I am responding anyway.

    I agree that the natural world around us is awesome. Further, our ability to model the world, to find regularity in it, is limited and does not remove the awesome-ness. I prefer the word “awesome” over “incredible” because “incredible” implies incredulity, i.e., that we can’t believe something. It may be awesome that gravity always seems to pull objects together, but most of us are willing to believe it.

    I’m taking ID to be the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. The knock against this claim is not that it’s incredible, it’s that it is unsupported. To have an incredible story, you have to have a story in the first place.

Leave a Reply