Glenn Beck: No consensus?

GLENN: I want to start with this. If the science, if it really is truly about science, wouldn’t we maybe stop the global warming train at this point? Wouldn’t we just take a pause and say action wait a minute, hang on.

There’s too many things that are happening now in global warming that show that this is a massive fraud. Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit in East, is it Anglia University? Where is East Anglia University? Is that in London?

STU: U.K., yeah.

GLENN: This guy is a big guy, right, Stu? You’ve been our climate kind of guy on the program?

STU: Yeah. He’s one of the guys that came up with the baseline.

GLENN: The hockey stick thing.

STU: Yeah, he contributed to that. He wasn’t that guy’s from University of Penn but, you know, this is one of the guys who keeps major records of the temperature going back in history. I mean, and this is, of course, what they judge all this stuff on.

GLENN: Okay. So Phil Jones is the head of climate research. He has given an incredible interview. He has admitted now that the warming of the late 20th century, the warming that alarmists claim is so unprecedented and therefore must be mandated is indistinguishable to the warming between 1860 and 1880, 1910 and 1940, before CO2 was a significant factor. Indistinguishable.

STU: Right. So before there was any of our crazy SUVs affecting the climate, twice in the last 130 years the exact same thing as they’re complaining about now has occurred.

GLENN: He admits now that the temperature readings of only 130 years ago are more uncertain because of sparser coverage of temperature stations. I mean

STU: So they’re hedging yeah.

GLENN: How do you even I mean, we’ve been saying this for years. Where were the thermometers 1,000 years ago? "Well, we can go and…" well, what does this mean for the estimates going back thousands and thousands of years?

STU: Yeah, when you’re hedging your bets essentially on over 100 years ago, slightly over 100 years ago and complaining about their accuracy then, how can you be complaining about, you know, all these changes that have supposedly happened thousands and thousands of years ago.

GLENN: I’m going to bring Pat in in just a second to talk about what the president is now doing, what John Kerry is now doing. All these people are moving forward. I’m going to talk about political ramifications here in a second. But we’re not done with the, just the admissions in this one interview. He now admits that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Let me say it again. There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. He admits that there has been global cooling since 2002, though not at a statistically significant pace. He admits that this might not have been the warmest period of the last 1,000 years, the central argument on the hockey stick graph.

STU: That’s one of the most amazing ones in the entire interview because this is I mean, this is deconstructing everything that Al Gore talked about in his movie. There was initially this period that was supposed to be warm that got erased as they went through. It used to be the common knowledge of all climate scientists and that got erased over the years. I mean, when Michael Mann, the guy you were talking about with the hockey stick graph said, oh, no, no, it was completely flat this entire time, has only risen recently. Well, he is saying right here that there’s still significant debate going on about that. If that’s true, that’s a huge admission.

GLENN: Huge. He admits that there is much debate over whether the medieval warm period was global in nature as opposed to only the northern hemisphere. If it was global, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. He admits that they don’t actually know that man is responsible for global warming. They just can’t explain it any other way. So they assume it’s correct.

They can’t explain it any other they can’t explain what? That there hasn’t been any warming since 1995? There’s been no statistically significant warming? That the temperature readings of the 130 years ago are more sun yes or no, that the warming of the late 20th century is indistinguishable between 1860 and 1880, 1910 to 1940s warming? I mean, what, what are we trying to prove here? He admits that he asked a colleague to delete all e mails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.

Now, why would you do that? I mean, unless you think you’re doing something wrong, why would you do that? There’s no reason to you’re doing history. You are the people saving the planet. Don’t you think all of your records would be important? He admits to having trouble keeping track of information over the years and most importantly he admits that there is no consensus among climate scientists.

Now, where’s Al Gore? This is amazing. Quote: I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future but for the instrumental past as well. So there’s no consensus.

STU: Yeah, I was surprised to hear him say that the idea of a scientific consensus is not the position of the vast majority of climate scientists, the vast majority.

GLENN: So he thinks there’s a consensus in the scientific community that there is no consensus.

STU: Yeah, that’s the way to put it.