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.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.