Home 
Enviro-Nutters Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News
Enviro-Nutters Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News
| 25 November 2009
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Yikes. Someone got the talking points. Can you say, “Peer reviewed studies?” Methinks those leaked emails that pretty much show Global Warming is … what’s the best way to put it?… the big fat freakin’ lie we all knew it was, has stirred our friend Ed up some.
You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.
Oh, that old time religion…
Comments
OK.
I am a peer and I hereby pronounce "man made climate change" an abject fraud.
I also accuse Trenberth, Jones, Mann, and Briffa of willfully deceiveing people about things they knew to be false and promoted them to be true, and then trying to cover it up. I also accuse these people of willfully trying to prevent people who disagreed with them from publishing dissenting views with publishers that previously published pro AGW studies.
No one should put any belief in human-related climate change. Absolutely none, it is a fraud based on bugus and completely junk science. The people from the Hadley Centre in England have demonstrated that to the world more completely than my words ever could
Why?
Or are you simply content to be renown as Richard, the blogger who calls people "eejits"?
but still, even if global warming is a big scam (which it is) its still nice to make a cleaner environment. I dont think anybody would want to live in a city which smells of diesel.
If we want to buy 120W tungsten bulbs, we can. If we want to burn wood, we can. I have always done, i have known global warming was a load of nonsense from the begining - but i still do my part in saving energy because oil will not last for ever :-)
A "trick" is also something that All-Star Climate Fraud Phil Jones uses to commit bunco that he assumes other people will keep their mouths shut about.
All the data and what models exist seem to indicate that we have reached a peak in oil production and a long steady decline is ahead of us.
This chronic oil depletion crisis happens to be occurring in parallel with climate change awareness, although peak oil has gotten much less publicity. This is serious stuff, yet the government barely acknowledges its significance because it has serious ramifications on the economy.
So, unfortunately, much of the public has no awareness of our petroleum predicament, and further, a significant number of people actively question the phenomena of peak oil.
Like it or not, a sizable cross-section climate change skeptics also happen to be oil depletion skeptics. There is no arguing this, as you hear it on radio talk shows constantly and you read about it in opinion pieces such as by George Will and a host of others.
So the challenge to the climate science skeptics who claim to be hot-shot statistics wizards — why don’t you “audit” those of us who post on theoildrum.com and other oil depletion blogs?
We are waiting, all of our data is open, we only discuss matters in open daylight, and we will kick your asses with our skillz. Seriously, we have to change our energy policy and soon. Whether it is due to a crisis in climate change, or due to an inexorable decline in easily accessible petroleum, things will change, like it or not. Here is your chance once more to prove someone wrong. Good luck.
And BTW, whatever data we uncover does not belong to us; oil reserve estimates are usually locked up in some corporate or foreign nation-state vault totally immune to FOIA requests. Double good luck in getting that. You will get to see how the people with the REAL money play hardball.
It looks like you have finished mopping the floor with the climate science crowd, and you should be ready for your next conquest. Yes, we are waiting for you, and we knew this day would come.
Thanks for bringing up the oil reserves issue. You're right that it is rarely discussed. I can understand why, actually. The thought of what would happen to the world if the population had risen 50-100%, no alternate power sources had been developed and implemented and we lost access to sufficient oil and natural gas supplies...it's too horrifying to even consider. Yikes!
"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Somebody might want to let Ed know that even still an extensive amount of skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist,
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
populartechnology.net/.../...
Now if Ed wants to talk to someone with a degree in climatology he can talk to,
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC
I find it hillarious that he insults scientists with degrees in Physics as not qualified…
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
Way too funny!
Could you please point me to any articles or papers that the folks you mentioned have written? I'd love to read them and educate myself a bit more on the other side of the debate. Quality dissent and discourse is so hard to find these day, on any topic.
Thanks.
It hurts me to hear that I am so hated for my position on pollution.
I have no problem with citizens having guns. It is a constitutionall y protected right and a wise attitude in a democracy. I own one myself.
I have no problem with people doing exactly what they want to do and living exactly as they wish...as long as it doesn't intrude on my, or anyone else's, ability to do the same.
I don't want to kill old people.
I'm not a 'tard'. I'm very aware of the complexity of the issues surrounding green-house gas emissions and I also know how very hard it will be for the world to un-mesh itself from fossil fuels for power production.
I honestly believe that our country has an unprecedented opportunity to lead the entire world in a technological and manufacturing revolution, by focusing enormous attention on the invention and production of non-fossil fuel power generation. Much smaller, less influential, less inovative countries have already done it. Imagine what we could do, with the power and resources of our country and our people behind it!
Professor
Meanwhile, the garbage piles up, the pollution of our water and food continues, 3rd-world countries led by despots cannot produce the food they need because they don't know how......
And the "powers that be" in the name of "science" want to redistribute whatever wealth [?] the West may still have to those who have need [probably the same despots who are screwing their people as I write.].
I don't think anyone who screams his or her point of view, trying to out "LOUD" the opposition, is contributing anything worthwhile to the conversation. Ed and Stuart are both guilty, here. I'd have liked to have been able to actually hear what each had to say.
I can't lay out the basics of carbon-induced climate change in my 1700 remaining characters, but I will say this: If we release enough of the captured CO2 from an extinct and buried ecosystem back into our atmosphere, eventually our climate, sea levels and ecology will change. No one is arguing with that. The only thing being debated by any scientist is how much we can release before the changes that occur will be severe, and when we will begin to see those changes. Most climatologists, physicists, biologists, oceanographers, geologists, etc., believe that we are already seeing the effects of our actions. Others say what we're seeing is just a natural cycle and not attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. However, any scientist will agree that if we put enough CO2, methane and other "green-house" gasses into the Earths atmosphere, dramatic and catastrophic climate change will occur. If any scientist claims that we can pump as much carbon into the atmosphere as we want and it will not change our climate, then, sadly, he or she is not being honest.
Please take this into consideration as you make your decisions regarding energy consumption, power grid changes and the climate change debate.
Thanks for listening.
I wish you all a wonderful holiday season and New Year. :-)
Begley is an ACTOR, and activist, not a scientist for God’s sake! What in Mr. Begley's life qualifies him an expert on AGW and Scientific "peer review"? He buys a few solar panels, makes a few "green" changes to his lifestyle, makes some TV commercials and suddenly is qualified to proclaim that AGW is an indisputable fact? Because HE believes strongly in AGW, does not mean that the "theory" is any more than a "theory"! What gives Mr. Begley the right to demand that I open my wallet and private property to government intervention on behalf of a "theory" based on doctored and flawed data? Any "science" based on or containing flawed or doctored data is not scientific fact at all!
Begley speaks of "Peer Review" at the same time he shouts down a voice for opposition and for PEER REVIEW! The very definition of "Peer review" REQUIRES that ALL sides of the argument be considered and the argument of those AGW supporters is that there is total consensus! AGW supporters claim that anyone who disagrees is simply in denial and their "opinions" are not worthy of consideration! There can be NO Peer Review under these conditions! These E-mails are simply the tip of the scientific iceberg in a system that is dead set to FORCE the lunacy of AGW on all of us!
The Millions of us who disagree would WELCOME a neutral and unbiased "peer review" of ALL the facts and ALL of the data this would expose the AGW left as political hacks, activists and tainted scientists with their own financial gain as their goal.
RSS feed for comments to this post.