Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ed Begley Jr. Interviewed By Stuart Varney on Fox News

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.”

Comments
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.Mark Frank
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
"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.Berceuse
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
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.GilDodgen
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
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.Brent
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
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 ...AussieID
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
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.Upright BiPed
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
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? :)Nakashima
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san! Welcome to the dark side! :-)tribune7
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
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.jerry
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Mr Tribune7, What happens when the peer review is rigged? Ask Richard Sternberg!Nakashima
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Mark Steyn, in his inimitable fashion, takes on Ed Begley Jr. here: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.htmlWilliam Dembski
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
What happens when the peer review is rigged?tribune7
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply