Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News
| November 29, 2009 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Culture, Education, Global Warming, Science |
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.”
72 Responses to Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
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?
SpitfireIXA @60,
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.
I see that somebody else has (independently) noticed the point I made:
Freelurker @63
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.
SpitfireIXA
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.
Freelurker,
I’m not an engineer, but this point cannot be stressed enough in general and applicable for all fields of science.
To be precise, engineering assumes an orderly (i.e., regular) universe.
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.
Freelurker,
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.
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.
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.