Al Gore wanted the Firenado, so why did he get denied?

November 16, 2012

Writer

You may recall a crazy viral video a few months ago shot by an Australian filmmaker named Chris Tangey that featured something being called a Firenado. It was a tornado that was basically on fire. Naturally, Al Gore wanted to use it as evidence of global warming (which it had nothing to do with). Tangy said no - then Gore got deceptive and tried to trick him into licensing the video. Tangey didn't fall for that either.

WATCH the viral video below:

Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: All right. We want to talk to Chris Tangey. He's a guy who runs Alice Springs Film and TV out of Australia. The only reason why I know this film company is because of the Alice Springs chicken at Outback, and that's all I know. And if that's what they do in Alice Springs, I am all for a film company about it. But that's just for us Australians that know Australia so very, very well. Chris is ‑‑ he runs this film unit in Australia and he's the guy who captured, and I don't know if you've seen it, a fire tornado. And it's an amazing piece of video of a tornado out of fire. I mean, it looks like, you know, it looks like the Ten Commandments.

Well, he received a phone call and we're going to let him tell the rest of the story. Hi, Chris, how are ya?

TANGEY: Good day, Glenn. Good morning. It's five minutes into good morning here, tomorrow.

GLENN: It's midnight there?

TANGEY: Yes. Saturday morning here by five minutes. So...

GLENN: I believe because it's still Friday at the beginning ‑‑

TANGEY: I can still say good morning.

GLENN: I believe since it's Friday here we should all become Australian and take the rest of the day off. So Chris, you captured ‑‑

TANGEY: You must post me some of this chicken, too.

GLENN: Yes. You captured this fire tornado. Tell me about the phone call that you got.

TANGEY: Okay. Yeah, I got ‑‑ well, it's actually an e‑mail. I got an e‑mail from the office of Al Gore wanting to use it in his presentations for the next five years, in his PowerPoint presentations and I knew what he did. I thought, that sounds a little interesting. I've got to have a little look into a little bit more of this and research his activities in the past and what he would be likely to be using it for. So once I got through that process, I really just had come to the conclusion that I had to say no because, you know, this had nothing to do with global warming or climate change or climate disruption ‑‑

PAT: Fantastic.

TANGEY: ‑‑ whatever it's called these days, but it was a very localized event, a highly localized event that really had nothing to do with even rather, let alone climate change.

GLENN: So tell me what caused this. It's a firenado? That's what we call it here. What is it called?

TANGEY: Yeah, they call it a firenado. I mean, the proper name apparently is fire whirl. I knew nothing about it like you until I saw this thing happening in front of me. I thought, what on Earth is that. But yeah, it's apparently called a fire whirl and not many people have actually captured them particularly up this close and for that long. And it was ‑‑ the particular circumstances here were that it was on a cattle station or cattle ranch and at the bottom end of this cattle station, this fire had been burning for about ten days, probably deliberately lit. So it wasn't even a natural fire in that sense. And they had been looking after this particular mesa, this big mesa near, there's rocks down here approximately 20 kilometers away, 50 mile away, and they had been protecting that habitat. They had been living on this cattle ranch for about 55 years and there's a particular grass there called spinifex which burns incredibly hot and they had been protecting that particular patch and when this fire came in from the north and hit that patch, there's probably a big buildup of resin and oil, which is what causes this grass to burn so intensely hot that had probably built up for 50 years. So it was an incredibly localized event caused this, you know, I guess you could say unique event of that sort, some sort of unique circumstances. And that's what it was. It was an unusual fuel load at the base of it.

GLENN: Okay. So it happened, Al Gore writes you, you check him out. You're a guy who's, you don't know ‑‑ you're not paying much attention to global warming. You don't know if it's happening or not happening. What happens next?

TANGEY: Well, I got back to them and explained my circumstances and that they had told me that Mr. Gore himself had seen the video and wanted it personally. So anyway, I thought that was all over. And then a month later I got an e‑mail from somebody saying ‑‑ they were from a nonprofit organization who was doing an Internet show and they would like to use it and wanted to pay me to use it. And they called themselves the Climate Reality Project. When I did a bit of research on this, I found that it was actually the founder and chairman was actually Al Gore. Then I did a little bit of research on the producer and I actually got back to her and said, "Look, you know, I don't know what's wrong with the internal bits of Mr. Gore's organization but, you know, you're asking me again and we actually had, you know, quite a big concern about it before," and the producer actually ‑‑ I thought, well, maybe she must be ‑‑ she must be a scientist. I checked that out; no, she's not a scientist. I thought, well, maybe she's made science films before; no. And I thought, well, maybe she's made natural documentaries, nature documentaries or something; no. It turned out that her last job producing was on Inspector Gadget 2 and she lives in Los Angeles.

GLENN: Yeah.

TANGEY: She's a Hollywood producer who lives in Los Angeles, and I found that a bit astonishing as well. But anyway, the bottom line was I had to say no again because really, to use this in that context is ‑‑ you know, if I used it myself in that context, I'd say ‑‑ you know, I'd feel like I was deceiving people really.

GLENN: Right. Now, Chris, I don't know if you know about me at all here in the United States, but ‑‑

TANGEY: I do, Glenn. I used to watch you on television for many years.

GLENN: God bless you. Well, I ‑‑

TANGEY: We get all that down here.

GLENN: Well, I don't know. I mean, the pictures are upside down when you get them.

PAT: (Laughing.)

GLENN: The ‑‑ we started a network called TheBlaze and we're creating fire effects kind of like this, you know, for different reasons and I don't know what you're charging for this video, but I'd like to ‑‑ I'd like to see if we could lease it from you just for the sole purpose of pissing Al Gore off.

TANGEY: Man, I have read about you guys and I've read about all the stuff you're doing.

GLENN: Yeah.

TANGEY: And I'm with you 100%.

GLENN: Really?

TANGEY: And you guys get it for nothing.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You are the best. Thank you. Thank you. You are the best. So what are you doing to protect it? Because these guys are really shady. Are you ‑‑ have you talked to anybody about protecting this so they don't use it?

TANGEY: Well, it's a little bit different. The copyright law is a little bit different in Australia in that we don't even have to put "copyright 2012" and your name on it. It's automatically copyrighted as soon as you create the work, they call it the work. And so it automatically is mine, and I'm the only copyright holder, and anything you've seen anywhere basically has been licensed by me. So if he was to use it, it would be a breach of copyright.

PAT: Wow, that's great.

TANGEY: What would happen then, how a little guy in the outback could take it up against a billionaire, I don't know. But maybe that could be the little, the swap deal we do for the firenado.

GLENN: That's great.

TANGEY: Your lawyers and (inaudible.)

GLENN: That's great. Chris, thank you so much and thank you for taking a stand and being smart with it. In the world where people will go for a fast buck, for you to be responsible with what you have is inspiring and I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

TANGEY: Well, I just love you guys and your slogan, I can't recall it right at this moment, but I saw it yesterday to do with truth.

GLENN: Yeah, truth lives here.

TANGEY: Exactly what ‑‑ exactly. And I think that's exactly what we need in this world. And we need to know what we're looking at, what we're listening to, you know. How do we know otherwise.

PAT: Chris, the video is actually part of a larger documentary, right? Isn't it part of a movie?

TANGEY: No, no, no. No, no, no. No, I was actually location scouting a movie.

PAT: Oh, okay, that's where I got that.

TANGEY: I always do location scouting. So I don't know where it's going yet.

PAT: So if people want to see it, where can they go if they want to see the firenado.

TANGEY: If they search "fire tornado Australia," I think there's one on YouTube.

GLENN: Great. Thank you. We'll link to it on TheBlaze. Thank you so much, Chris. God bless.

TANGEY: Fantastic. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye‑bye. I think we should.

PAT: He's great.

GLENN: I think we should license that thing.

PAT: I think so, too.

GLENN: We should put it on a commercial and the commercial would be we really don't have use for this but Al Gore wanted it really bad and we have it and, Al, you can't have it.

PAT: It's interesting to hear that because Gore obviously doesn't care about the science involved. There is no science involved. It's not about global warming but he would have made it about that.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he's ‑‑

PAT: To think about what he would have said about this, "Look, it's so bad that the atmosphere is creating fire tornadoes."

GLENN: He would have done it.

PAT: He would have done that.

GLENN: He would have done it.

JEFFY: But we know that now because of the call from the future.

GLENN: Our ‑‑ the call from the future?

JEFFY: Chris Tangey. He called from the future this morning.

GLENN: That's right. He did. He called from tomorrow morning.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So he knows.

PAT: Wow.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep