Sharknado creator mocks climate alarmists during MSNBC interview

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Glenn hasn’t watched a ton of Sharknado or the sequel Sharknado Two: The Second One, but he knows with absolute certainty that there is a powerful, important message behind the film. One that has a powerful message about the dangers of climate change, and how the perils of global warming could result in a true natural disaster of shark-meets-tornado proportions.

Ok, maybe not.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall, the film’s writer Thunder Levin said, “You know we just felt it was time that the world was alerted to the perils of global warming and bio-meteorology, so it was just a matter of doing our research and getting the facts out to everybody.”

While he said it with a straight face, it’s hard to believe that anyone would take his comments seriously. The radio guys thought it was pretty clear he was mocking the climate change alarmists, but just in case they offered him a platform to explain his concerns. Or continue to rip on people who think a Sharknado could really happen. Either way, it should make for good radio.

“Here’s what we can do, see if you can get him on the air and see if we can I have a serious discussion about how Sharknados can actually happen. See if he can present some of the science with us, some of the concerns he has,” Glenn said. “I would like to further this with him. I would like him to come on and tell us. He’s coming into a very, very friendly room that can’t wait to hear the serious message he’s trying to get across.”

Watch the interview below, via TheBlaze:

  • Connor Kenway

    Al Gore went to see Sharknado and thought it was a documentary.

    • Anonymous

      Sharknado was about as documentarian as An Inconvenient Truth, so I could see that.

      • Jon Galt


    • Jon Galt

      Lol. Millions watch that fat guy’s “documentaries” and think it must be fact too.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t be silly, everyone knows there is no such thing as a Sharknado. Now a Sharkicane or a Sharkphoon is an entirely different matter!

  • BlueMN

    Oh, well if the Sharknado guy says climate change isn’t real then it must be so! Take that 97% of climate scientists! It actually appears that Thunder Levin was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to his own film, but something like that isn’t going to stop Beck and his Teabagger Morning Zoo Crew from making fools of themselves again.

    • Anonymous

      Only 97% of Climate Scientists? What happened to the other 3%, stuck in ice down at the south pole?

      and 9 out of 10 expert dentists recommend Colgate. They have to be right.

      • BlueMN

        The other 3% are the same guys who say smoking cigarettes is healthy for you. SCIENCE MOTHERF#%@ER!

        • Hitt Mann

          You’re an embarrassment to yourself.
          But we all enjoy laughing at you.

          • Metalsmith75

            Yeah ! I love discussions that devolve to people throwing baseless insults at each other !!!

            You’re a poopy head ! My 5 year old said that once. I better quote it when trying to make an intelligent conversation.


          Are you sure? I thought those guys researched tobacco, not Climatology. I don’t think anyone disputes the concept of climate change. I think they are disputing the claim that it’s caused by man. The earth was actually warmer during the middle ages than it is today. How does that fit into your alarmist climate change view?

          Here are some important questions for you. Did humanity cause climate change? Is a slightly warmer climate something that could be dangerous? Is there something that we can do to stop it with out going back to a pre-industrialized society? These are all valid questions that seriously change the discussion. If you can’t answer “yes” to all of these questions, then you’re just alarming people for no reason.

    • Yakov Smirnoff

      Oh, well if the guy who used to be the Vice President says climate change is real then it must be so! Take that, college education! The Vice President doesn’t need a degree in climatology, or real world application of said degree. We prefer to get our news from celebrities anyway. How can you argue with a celebrity. Besides, 8,000% of scientists agree. Don’t question the science. After all, that’s how all these scientists get all the science done in their places of science. All they do is show up, yell “SCIENCE MOTHERF#%@ER!”, and all debate is over.

      • BlueMN

        You don’t need a degree in climatology to get information from people with degrees in climatology. SCIENCE MOTHERF#%@ER!

        • Metalsmith75

          .. but you’d be a fool to blindly listen to people who spout crap that doesn’t make scientific sense.

          • BlueMN

            I never blindly listen to people on Fox or GBS/the Blaze.

    • Nathaniel Myrmel

      Love when people just spout party line talking points. It isn’t that people disbelieve that climate change is going on. It is on what it is largely the cause. It is all in how you ask a question and this poll of scientists prove it. If even 1% of the change is being calculated to be influenced by man, then saying man contributed to the climate is accurate. But wouldn’t it be far more prudent to look into and talk about the 99% rather than the 1%? Our climate is so complex with so many variables and it’s because of its complexity that models for hurricanes, future weather forecasts, and even their own climate change models are highly inaccurate.

      • noen

        This is complete nonsense and it is clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • Guest

      Not that 97% thing AGAIN. It’s discredited 100s of times and yet people still spout it. Read the facts. get the truth. There is NO 97%. This oft-cited statistic is based on an online survey with a sample size of only 77 people, and the survey didn’t even ask to what degree humans contribute to climate change.”

      It’s 77 out of 79 people – all of which are job-protectionist climate “scientists” (i.e. mathematical modellers)

      • noen

        WRONG, it’s a survey of over 2000 published studies in science journals. The evidence for global warming is settled science. People who deny the reality of man made climate change are flat Earthers.

        • Metalsmith75

          That’s funny, moron, because no one has been a “flat earthier” for at least 700 years. You’re so thick, you probably think that Columbus was a flat earth denier in his day. No one thought the earth was flat that recently.

        • Ted Bear

          More “settled science”?
          We laugh at yesterday’s “settled science”.
          We need to get past the “settled science” bs.
          Almost all people once thought that the sun revolving around the earth and the earth’s flatness were “settled science”.
          All debate and research must be allowed and encouraged.
          all data must be pure and public.
          Beware of those who seek to silence the opposition, they are always dishonest.

          • noen

            Actually none of that is true. Educated people knew the Earth was round 2000 years ago. There is a lot of science for which there is no longer any controversy anymore. Relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution and climate change are all in the realm of heavily confirmed science for which there is no credible scientific opposition.

            Climate denialism is like creationism or internet cranks who deny relativity, it isn’t even science and deserves no serious consideration at all. NO ONE is censoring real debate or the conduct of real science. All that is happening is that industry funded shills are being exposed for their lies and propaganda and the gullible and weak-minded on the right being exposed for the fools they are.

            You cannot win the argument based on science so you resort to denialism. It will not change reality one bit. Refuting science deniers on the right is child’s play. I coupld easily refute Glenn Beck or Stu on air but he would never allow me or anyone like me to talk because he cannot risk being exposed for the circus clown that is all he will ever be.

          • Ted Bear

            Nothing is settled….let all research and debate continue honestly and openly. Always beware of those who seek to silence the opposition.
            I am not denying anything except the ability of either side to claim victory. I bought into the whole thing for a while until. Ehen something is based on facts, we all should. What NO ONE should buy into is the the use of gross exaggerations based on dubious modeling based on some, but not all, of the facts. When it was exposed that there was corruption among the scientists leading the charge, I took notice. When evidence that the world overall has been cooling for 16 years and that the 1930s were hotter than now…I took notice that most of the alarmists and most of the medua completely ignored those facts. When the amount of money being made on carbon credits etc, by some of these leaders was exposed, I removed my support.
            We had an ice age. It went away. Should we have tried to maintain the ice age if we were there.? We were not there and could not have caused it. We also could not have prevented it or hastened the meltdown. When I was a kid in the 70s, many of the same crowd were talking abouy anither ice age that would have started by now.
            I have had enough of the nonsense. I have also had enough of American regulation foecing most manufacturing to take place in areas of the world that do not curb pollution at all.
            The world suffers daily from the naivete and unintended consequences of progressive policies. I am skeptical of all policies from either side and any studies from any grouo funded by one side or the other.


    • Metalsmith75

      Why don’t you say exactly what the “Teabagger Morning Zoo Crew” are so foolish for believing. Is it that scientists don’t agree on many large “theories” ? That the scientific publishing community is so frightened and PC it makes the IRS look like dirty hippies rolling in mud in upstate New York ? Watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” if you’re a disciple of published scientific consensus. Sheep. Lemmings.

    • Anonymous

      You mean the 97% of the 77 selected scientist who were actually ask “is man affecting the climate”. Hardly a meaningful survey.

  • Jim

    I have it recorded. I’ll be watching this weekend…to learn some safety tips. Thank God I don’t live near the ocean!

  • Nutt66

    Hey Beck!
    Reality happens … even if your theology says different

    • Metalsmith75

      Well, besides the Joseph Smith stuff, his theology is pretty darn accurate. What does your’s say ? Disciple of Darwin ?! No one that actually understands evolution (the piling up or beneficial, random mutations) could possibly believe it as truth. It doesn’t even pass the smell test. If you’d like, I would be glad to help you understand something you probably blindly support.

      • noen

        Science is not religion. Creationism is not science. You are a fool.

        • Sunset Rider

          Be careful whom you call a fool! Even Albert Einstien said that the more he learned about the universe in which we live, the more he was convinced of a Devine Creator.

          Any true scentist understands the scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, collect data, evaluate data, if data is consistent with the hypothesis it becomes theory, continue to test theory with generations of new data, after an exhaustive amount of data has been found to be consistent with theory it becomes a scientific law. Be advised, scientific law is not fact. Science never proves anything but only supports.

          There are examples of scientific law being changed because of new data having come forth (even in recent years).

          Science was born out of religion in an attempt to understand how things pertaining to creation works and good science has always supported a Devine Creator.

          There is good science (numerous amounts of data consistently supporting the hypothesis over and over without fail) and there is bad science.

          Darwinism is a monumental example of bad science. Darwin was an atheist so in his attempt to support his hypothesis, he disregarded all data that did not support his hypothesis.
          In fact, Darwin’s so called theory never made it past the hypothesis stage. And a theory is exactly as is states. A theoretical assumption based on collected data. Darwinism certainly never made it to the scientific law stage of science because he could not even get past the hypothesis without manipulating the data. He and Al Gore would have been great comrades!

  • noen

    Actually he wasn’t mocking climate change. He was mocking himself and his silly movie. He wasn’t actually being serious not does he actually believe something like sharknado could actually happen.

    Climate change is of course a scientific fact. Silly movies that mock themselves say nothing about the scientific reality of global warming.

    • Metalsmith75

      Climate change has been a constant since creation, but man-made climate change is very recent. Also very insignificant. 40 years ago, scientists were ranting about a “new ice age”. Don’t you remember ?!?!? Yes, let’s all get frantically alarmed about scientists with an axe to grind and a book (or film) to sell !!!

      • noen

        It is simply not true that scientists were predicting a new ice age 40 years ago. That was a NewsWeek cover. It was typical media hype of a non issue. The fact is that even 40 years ago scientists were studying climate change and concerned about the effect of fossil fuels on our environment.

        You know nothing of what you are talking about. You don’t understand the science at all.

        • Anonymous

          It’s been more than 40 years

          “Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times June 23, 1890

          And they still aren’t right.

          • noen

            I’ll take your non-response as an admission that I was right. Thank you. As for the NT Times, you are still citing media and not science. Even in 1890 the NY Times was still not a scientific journal. Nor is gossip from farmers 100 year ago “data”.

            You are ignorant. You do not understand even the most elementary concepts of science.

          • Anonymous

            I would not be so quick to dismiss this information. We only
            have about 100 years of recorded meteorological information. To discount what experienced farmers have noted as gossip would be a mistake. Oral tradition is a reliable and valuable source of information. The idea that this information was the printed words from experienced farmers should not be dismissed so brashly.

            We know that the Earth has been experiencing climate change in cycles. How does one account for the changes before the industrial age? Global warming and then cooling is a normal process that the Earth experiences. To say
            that man is causing it is outrageous.

            Science has proven that cows and other forms of livestock
            are the major greenhouse gas producers. They are producing several times more greenhouse gases than man is producing; even in this industrial age.

            To stop global warming we would need to remove
            all of the livestock. How would you suggest we proceed with their removal?

    • Anonymous

      Climate change has been happening since day one on earth. That is why you have never heard of climate unchanged. It’s man made climate change that is totally bogus.

  • Stars Moon

    Since the beginning of time the only thing constant about climate is change