The Inconvenient Sequel to Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Debunked

Monday on radio, Glenn talked with Cato Institute expert Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, about Al Gore's latest movie An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.

"This is probably going to surprise you, but his central claim is that he was even more right than he thought," Epstein said.

In the film, Gore points to the success of the 100 percent renewable city of Georgetown, Texas --- but 100 percent isn't entirely accurate.

"Imagine that Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, wants to cross the ocean without using fossil fuels. He doesn't want to just have a sailboat, right? Well, what does he need? He needs fuel, diesel or some form of oil fuel. So how is he going to be 100 percent solar and wind?" Epstein asked, hypothetically.

Al Gore to the rescue.

"In addition to the engine that's really doing the work, let's put a sail on top of the yacht so that, you know, it gets a little bit of power from the wind. And then [Gore] said, well, Tim Cook, we'll pay the other passenger so they say they got the energy from the engine and you got the energy from the sail," Epstein explained.

Glenn and his co-hosts reacted strongly to the explanation.

"That is awesome," Stu said.

"Oh, my gosh," Glenn said.

"That is awesome," Pat said.

"Oh, my gosh," Glenn said.

"You have to admire it at some level. At some devious level, you have to admire it," Stu said.

"Oh, my gosh," Pat said.

Listen to the full interview for Epstein's recommended approach to debunking climate propaganda --- and why he says there's hope for the future.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Alex. I am happy to say, I did not go to the -- to the opening weekend of Al Gore's new movie. I'm sure people were beating a path to its door to see all of the truth.

Did he address in the movie, Alex, at all the -- the idea that almost everything he said in the last movie was wrong?

ALEX: This is probably going to surprise you, but his central claim is that he was even more right than he thought.

STU: Wow! What a surprise.

PAT: I love that.

GLENN: Really? Really?

How -- how exactly was he right?

ALEX: Well, one thing that he does is with some of the specific predictions, such as the 20-foot rise in sea levels, he acknowledges them at the beginning and then makes some other points and then pretends that they've been acknowledged and that he's been vindicated. So one of them is I guess clever for that reason, to acknowledge and then to act like you've dealt with them. Which is more powerful than I guess not dealing with them -- or, not acknowledging them.

But I think it's important that the central narrative of the movie is that, A -- you indicated this before -- the Georgetown renewables are taking over the energy world, so fossil fuels are no longer necessary. And, B, climate is more dangerous than ever. Those are the two threads. And he says rightly that those were the two threads of the first movie. So a lot of it hinges on, are those two claims true? And they're not.

GLENN: Okay. Well, take me to the 100 percent renewable city like Georgetown, Texas.

ALEX: So you see a really interesting image because you see this very self-satisfied mayor. And Gore is very happy because this is allegedly the reddest county and the reddest city and the reddest state and the reddest country. Blah, blah, blah. Right? And they're using 100 percent renewable.

Now, the first thing you see if you're a serious viewer is just a lot full of gasoline costs. So this should -- and renewable energy, not renewable electricity.

So this should be a giveaway. And then more broadly, I think if you think about it, you should know that, well, solar and wind are unreliable sources. The proper name for them is not renewables. It's unreliables. So how -- how is the whole town going to be powered at night and in different weather conditions? That should be suspicious, and they should at least give you an explanation if such a magical feat is to be pulled off.

That doesn't happen at all. So if you look into it, this is actually a pretty standard dishonest practice. What happens is there's a grid that has a bunch of reliable sources and then a little bit of unreliable energy. And then people who want to look really good, they pay the grid to say, "Hey, we want credit for all the unreliable energy." So in this case, there's something like 14 percent renewable, which includes hydro, which is reliable. But there's a solar wind portion.

So Georgetown makes a contract with the grid that says, hey, we want you to label all of our grid electricity solar and wind and everybody else as dirty, and we'll pay for that. And that's what Apple and Facebook and Google do. So it's just a pure accounting fraud.

PAT: Wow. That's amazing.

GLENN: Wait. How do you do that? How do you -- they -- if I have -- if I have a -- if I'm connected to the grid and I am using let's say solar. I can only use so much solar for so long during the day. If I'm not using all that solar, I put it back into the grid and then I can claim that I am completely clean, even though at night I may not be using batteries? I may be using the grid?

ALEX: Right. This is -- this is a much worse version of that because it's just -- the percentages are so vastly different. I mean, I've thought about it this way. Imagine that -- you know, with Apple. Imagine that Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, wants to cross the ocean without using fossil fuels. He doesn't want to just have a sailboat, right? Well, what does he need? He needs fuel, diesel, or some form of oil fuel. So how is he going to be 100 percent solar and wind?

And so that's Al Gore's basic solution as well. In addition to the engine that's really doing the work, let's put a sail on top of the yacht so that, you know, it gets a little bit of power from the wind. And then he said, well, Tim Cook, we'll pay the other passenger so they say they got the energy from the engine and you got the energy from the sail.

(laughter)

STU: That is awesome.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: That is awesome.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: You have to admire --

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: You have to admire it at some level. At some devious level, you have to admire it.

GLENN: So he says the -- catastrophic temperature rise. Sea level rises. Flooding, drought, storms and disease. All of that has come true. Can you take those apart, one by one?

ALEX: Well, can I take them apart all at once and then we can do one by one?

GLENN: Oh, sure. Yeah.

ALEX: Because I think as a viewer of this movie, we have a responsibility, which is to demand that people who document important issues give us the whole picture about those issues. So one thing we should ask ourselves is, what would the whole picture look like? What kind of evidence would we need? And in terms of a climate catastrophe, climate getting catastrophic dangerous, the number one thing we would need to know is what is the trend? What is the global trend? Not just one example, but what is the global trend of climate-related deaths? People dying from storms and floods. Because this is what Gloria is claiming is worse.

Now, anyone watching this movie would infer -- because Gore doesn't give this data, but they would infer that millions of people a year are dying from climate and this is worse than ever. But, in fact, if you look back, millions of people used to die from climate before we were industrialized fully. So in the '30s, you had millions of people who died from climate.

But last year, I don't think anyone could imagine this. They tallied all climate-related deaths from international disaster database from stores -- international disaster database from storms and floods and heat and cold everything that is supposedly getting worse. And last year, the worst year ever -- it's always the worst year ever, there were 6,114 climate-related deaths, globally

GLENN: Wow.

STU: That's a huge drop. It's over 90 percent from not too long ago, less than 100 years ago.

PAT: Hmm.

ALEX: Right. And it's because nature doesn't give us a safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us a dangerous climate that we make safe.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Have you seen -- I saw an article this weekend about the permafrost melting. And they were talking about how in Siberia, these giant holes are opening up. And in the article -- I mean, the headline was something like, climate change, you know, disaster. Permanent frost melting. And I click on it.

And in the article, it quotes scientists as saying, this has nothing to do with climate change. This has something to do with the -- I don't even know. The axis, or the tilt of the earth has changed -- something has changed. But it has nothing to do with climate.

Have you read about this at all?

ALEX: Well, I don't know if it has nothing to do with climate. I think that the spreading of the term "climate change," as an allegedly coherent term, is very destructive to thinking because it's not a coherent term. So I think it's just easier to talk about CO2 levels. So if we think, okay. Do higher CO2 levels cause this? The truth is no. But what I'm concerned about is, is there change? But how is human flourishing going? And what human flourishing needs to go, into advance, is lots and lots of energy for everything in life, including protecting ourselves from the climate.

So I would go so far as to say that even if we want to do it, at this point in technological history, we do not have the ability to make climate significantly more dangerous by emissions, but we can make it far, far safer by our energy.

GLENN: We have Alex Epstein in. He's the author of the book Moral Case For Fossil Fuels. He's also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and heads up the Center for Industrial Progress.

You know, the -- the -- the current thinking is, just let this -- you know, the old generation like me, die. Because everybody, you know, under 40 believes this to be true. And so now they're just saying, just let it play out. We'll get what we want, you know, from the younger generation once the younger generation sees its power. Do you see that as viable, any way to combat that?

ALEX: Well, I've managed to escape. I'm going to be 37 tomorrow. So I don't know if they want me to die. They probably do.

GLENN: Right. Oh, I do think they want you to die.

STU: They definitely want you to die, Alex. There's no doubt about that.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALEX: So I think that -- I'll tell you, my experience is actually very positive on this. Which is that if these issues are explained a certain way, you can win a lot of people over.

In San Francisco right now, I spoke at Google last week on this, and I had a lot of success.

The key is this: We have to -- the way to do it is to not focus on, is there climate change or not? Which is a very vague kind of thing anyway. Climate non-change. It's just this thing where -- that's not the issue.

The issue is, what is the best policy if we look at the positives and negatives for human flourishing? So I don't have to prove that fossil fuels have no impact on climate. I have no desire to prove that. I just have to show that overall, this is -- it's a really, really good thing that we keep using fossil fuels and, in fact, use more than fossil fuels. And that if we don't, it will be really bad for a lot of people.

And, in fact, Glenn, I don't remember if you remember this, I remember this very well, we talked a couple of years ago. And I had told you that by using energy, we basically multiple our power by 96, by using machines and fuel. And you said, "Hey, could you teach 96 people to do that?" And since then -- to do what you do in terms of persuasion, since then, we have a couple of programs. So if you want to do this, if you 96 listeners, we can just send them 96 programs. And we can see how effective they are in persuading their peers.

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: Hmm. It would be an interesting thing to watch.

GLENN: I'd love that. All right. So let's get some information on that. I'd like to also ask you, Alex, if you would like to come down and hold our hand through the -- the -- you know, The Inconvenient Sequel. Because I'd like to take a group of people who really want to know this, want to know the facts. Want to listen to both sides. And then can go in and decide for themselves with the facts and then go do something about it. I'm really interested in finding people from university camps that would like to discover the real truth and then -- and go out and be able to combat this.

Would you be willing to come down, and we'll take a group of listeners and you can talk to us afterwards and prepare us to go out. And we'll run it on TV and everything else.

ALEX: Yeah. I'd love to do that.

GLENN: Okay. Well, don't -- you're so verbose sometimes.

STU: What time is it right now? It's very early in the morning, I suppose.

ALEX: No, no, no. I have a lot -- I have too many ideas about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALEX: So I'll tell you one, but I just want to enthusiastically accept the invitation as the main thing. But one thing that I would consider, because I'm really interested in this, is just giving people before they watch the movie, not any facts, but a few questions or guidelines about it.

GLENN: I'd love that. So give those to us now, if we happen to have somebody in our life who is going to it, that we can say, "Hey, we want you to watch with these questions in mind." What are they?

ALEX: Okay. So one is, what does this movie want us to do? I think that's very important to know. What action does it want us to take?

GLENN: Okay.

ALEX: And then two would be, is it giving us the whole picture that we would need to take that action? Is it giving us the whole picture?

And one thing would be, is it giving us both the positives and negatives of what it tells us to do, or is it just giving one side?

And even with that, you would disqualify 90 percent of documentaries as worthless.

GLENN: Hmm. Alex, thank you so much. Love to have you on again. We'll talk to you off the air. He is the author of the book, moral case for fossil fuels.

STU: Great book you have to read. The central argument it seems Gore makes in all of his previews is, the single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing the ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and also absurd and irresponsible. It happened on October 29th, years ahead of schedule.

PAT: So ridiculous.

STU: So he's saying I called a flood of New York, and a flood of New York happened.

GLENN: Sandy.

STU: Now, of course, you're right. Sandy is what he's talking about.

GLENN: But he was talking about sea levels.

STU: Permanent sea level rises of 20 feet.

PAT: Why?

STU: That would displace 100 million people.

PAT: Greenland melted. That's why.

STU: Because Greenland melted. And the amazing part about it, he has such big balls that in that section of -- there's a 70-second section about that claim. In the section, he tells you all of the things that would prove his current claim wrong. It's right -- it's legitimately like the next sentence after the one he features in the movie tells you that the prediction had nothing to do with a hurricane or a storm.

Nearly two years after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, the mystery of who planted two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee offices remains unsolved. Thankfully, the bombs were found and disabled before they could cause any harm, but with their potential for devastating consequences — not to mention the massive investigations into all things relating to Jan.6 — why does it seem like this story has practically fallen off the face of the earth?

No one in the corporate media has even tried to look into it, and the government's narrative that the bombs were meant to be a diversion for the Capitol riot doesn't make sense when you look at the timeline of events.

So, on this week's episode of "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck broke down the timeline of events that led up to the discovery of the bombs and how the facts appear to point toward one sinister conclusion:

  • Security footage reportedly shows that the two pipe bombs were planted in front of the DNC and RNC the day before the riot.
  • Neither bomb was concealed.
  • Then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris entered the DNC headquarters at approximately 11: 30 am on January 6.
  • At approximately 12:40 pm on January 6, the first pipe bomb was discovered sitting in plain sight outside the DNC headquarters, raising questions as to why the incoming vice president didn't have better security.
  • The pipe bomb had a one-hour kitchen timer that had apparently stopped with 20 minutes left on the timer. (Remember, the bombs were planted on January 5.)
  • The Secret Service reportedly erased their communications from January 5t and January 6 by "accident."

"It doesn't really hit you unless you look at it as a timeline, and then you're like, 'wait a minute that doesn't seem right.' The unsolved mystery of the pipe bomb has been used by the government to show that January 6 riot was part of a larger coordinated attack ... that the bombs were a diversion to get the Capitol police away from the Capitol," Glenn explained.

"But the bomb had a one-hour timer and it was planted at 8 p.m. the night before. So the bomb would have to go off the night before at about 9 p.m. on January 5. How's that a diversion? It's not physically even possible."

Watch the video clip below to hear more or find the full episode of "Unsolved Mysteries: 7 Deep-State SECRETS Biden Wants Buried" here.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Biden administration has weaponized the federal government against the American people. But officials have hidden most of their attacks behind a secretive and cavernous bureaucracy.

There are so many unsolved mysteries that Joe Biden and the Democrats not only refuse to answer, but in some cases appear as though they are ACTIVELY trying to cover up. Like what happened on January 6? Who is Ray Epps? Who planted the pipe bombs? What’s in Biden’s executive order on elections? What happened to the SCOTUS Dobbs leaker? What’s the COVID origin story? What’s happening with crypto, FTX, and the Central Bank Digital Currency?

These are just a few of the unsolved mysteries that we need to DEMAND answers on. On his Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck outlines a chalkboard that will leave you convinced the DOJ and FBI are LYING to the American people. The more secrets the Deep State holds, the more its power over us grows.

Watch the full episode of "Glenn TV" below:

Unsolved Mysteries: 7 Deep-State SECRETS Biden Wants Buried | Glenn TV | Ep 238

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'I NEVER thought I'd talk about this': Was Glenn Beck's CHILLING dream actually a WARNING?

(Left) Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images/(Right) Video screenshot

On the radio program this week, Glenn Beck decided to share a very unusual, extremely vivid dream he had ten years ago — a dream he thought he'd never talk about on the air until he began to see it as a warning that we should all know about.

"I never ever thought I would talk about this on the air, but I feel compelled to tell you that seasons have changed again, and it is becoming more and more apparent. You need to know what you're dealing with," Glenn began.

"If you are a long-time listener of this program, you know that one of the reasons I left New York ... was that I had a medical condition. Part of it was brought on by no REM sleep for about 10 years ... and for 10 years, I never had a dream," he explained. "However, during this period I had what could be described as a dream. I do not believe it was."

"In this 'dream' ... I am in a hallway of the White House. And I'm walking into a big room where there's a bunch of cubicles, and people look up like, 'who's walking in?' There are people behind me, but I don't know who they are yet. I just know I'm being pushed forward by them," Glenn continued. "I realize that everybody in the White House is terrified of who's ever behind me ... I glance back and I see people that are in uniforms that I've never seen before. I have seen them since, but that will be for some other time...."

"So, these guys in the uniforms are in the hallway, and one guy says, 'him, him, and him, take them out' ... and I'm the only one still sitting at the table. They go out ... then I hear three gunshots and they say, 'yeah, that happened pretty quickly for them. However, you, we're going to get to know ... because you really have no idea who you're dealing with.' And that's when one of them ... ripped off his face and he was Satan. Or, he was a demon, okay? Horrifying. Then I wake up."

Glenn went on to explain that, while the dream was so vivid and disturbing that he thought about it almost daily for well over a year, it was what happened next — during a discussion with a prominent religious leader — that really hinted his "dream" might actually have been a vision of the future and a warning.

"I will never forget it, and I will never dismiss it," Glenn said of what he learned. "I'm sharing it with you today because you must not dismiss what you're dealing with. We are not in a battle [of] politics ... our whole culture has become evil."

"You have to get to a point where you are going to choose a side. There will be no one left on the benches, and if you think you can sit it out you will end up on the wrong side. I urge you to know who you serve. This is a different time in human experience. This is not normal. None of this is normal," he warned.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'The Fedcoin is HERE': Glenn Beck reveals what the Fed was up to while YOU weren’t watching

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

While Americans were preparing for Thanksgiving last Wednesday afternoon, the Federal Reserve moved forward with its "Central Bank Digital Currency" program, and that wasn't the only controversial policy that was rolled out while you weren’t watching.

On the radio program, Glenn Beck reviewed the latest financial stories you may have missed over the holiday weekend, including how Biden's pause on student loan payments may be extended again and yet another sketchy Hunter Biden investment.

"You might have missed what happened Wednesday afternoon at the Fed," Glenn began. "They started their CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency. Yes, the Fedcoin is here. Now they rolled it out on Wednesday — I mean, that was the only day they could do it, you know, because they've been denying that any of this stuff was happening. But they could only get it [launched] when no one was paying attention. So they rolled it out, and it's in its beta test now."

"By the way, India just rolled out its retail pilot program for digital rupees as well. But don't worry," he continued. "Maybe we should start having the conversation of, 'Gosh, this looks like the mark of the beast.' I mean, doesn't it? But surely it's not. Of course not. Not from the U.S. government. They never do anything underhanded or evil. Never."

Watch the video clip below. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.