Glenn Beck: SuperFreakonomics on Global Warming



SuperFreakonomics

GLENN: I don't know if you've read the book Freakonomics, SuperFreakonomics, but I have to tell you the authors of SuperFreakonomics, they are just, can I tell you something? Controversial people, they don't believe in science at all.

Stephen Dubner is on with us now. Hello, Stephen.

DUBNER: Hey, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. You wrote in SuperFreakonomics, let's just say global warming is real. I don't even know where you stand on the global warming issue. And you can tell me now. If not, we can just move on.

DUBNER: I'll tell you. First I want to just ask, are you going to end my career here today?

GLENN: I have a feeling it might be the other way around.

DUBNER: I just want a little advance warning, you know, let my wife and kids know.

GLENN: I'm going to take this one right out of do you believe Barack Obama was has a birth certificate and he was born in the United States?

DUBNER: I do actually. So global warming right then, I'll give you the

GLENN: Why did Glenn Beck's people obviously give him the answers in advance!

DUBNER: (Laughing).

GLENN: Okay. So Stephen, well, let me ask you this: Do you believe the United States government blew up the World Trade Center?

DUBNER: I'm afraid I do not.

GLENN: He was prepared.

STU: How did he answer so fast and accurately?

GLENN: All right. So Stephen, tell me about global warming.

DUBNER: I'll tell you one thing I firmly don't believe well, anyway, we could get into that. We write about it in some detail for SuperFreak. But one thing we looked at is the money flow for the 19 guys, and the data on that is interesting. And you know, in SuperFreakonimcs and also we use data to answer questions. Here's the problem with global warming as you and everybody with even half a brain knows, it is a complex problem, right? If it were a question of turning a thermostat in a room up or down and that was it and measuring the temperature, we wouldn't be having these debates. The problem is it's much more complicated than that. What I believe is that there is pretty good evidence that there's been a little bit of warming over the past hundred years and then what I believe is that there are a lot of scientists who do believe that the greenhouse effect will produce catastrophic warming over the next 20 to 100 years. I believe that there are a lot of scientists who believe that. What I don't believe is that there's a certainty to that at all. And that the minute you begin to discuss the uncertainty, you get shouted down and that's a problem. That's a problem.

GLENN: That's what you know, that's where I want to go with you, Stephen, is you know, here's Bill Nye the Science Guy. I mean, Stephen, you should think about this. Maybe you should be the Book Guy. But here's Bill Nye the Science Guy saying that you're un American or unpatriotic if you, you know, if you are not doing it. Then you have Howard Dean saying that they're just not engaged in science at all. I mean, what kind of scare tactics are these?

DUBNER: They are scare tactics. You know, I kind of look at all this and laugh. I laugh with some pain because it's a drag frankly but what we're seeing in the global warming argument is exactly the same as we're seeing in all the partisan arguments that emanate from Washington. And the reason that we've seen it in the global warming argument is because it has become a political issue by now. Almost purely. Which means that all the scientific arguments, all the economic arguments get subsumed by politics. That's just the way it is. And I, personally I hate it. And personally that's why I write books that try to just say, look, we're going to try to figure this out best we can. And what we figured out is that there seems to pre there seems to be a pretty darn low risk that we're going to have catastrophic global warming. But, but if you do, what do you do about it? And what we say is the current plan of carbon mitigation is so incredibly unworkable and expensive that if you really are worried about the problem, then you should really be spending time to come up with other solutions and geoengineering solutions and so on that we write about. I also just think that people who talk on either side of the aisle about one big snowstorm or two big snowstorms being an indication of anything, when you hear people talk like that, you know what you should do? You should turn off your radio or turn they are not to be listened to. I firmly believe. If they are on your side, I don't know, maybe we'll give you a dispensation.

GLENN: No, they are not on my show. They are not on my show. I say this all the time and mainly for the right. But it happens for the left, too. Look, one snowstorm doesn't make any difference at all. It is a trend. It is the patterns that you're looking for, not a snowstorm here or there.

DUBNER: I'll tell you, from academia I'll tell you a phrase that your listeners should really put in their pocket and hang onto. There are something that psychologists and economists call confirmation bias. You are biased toward things in your brain that confirm what you believe to be true. Let's say when you buy a new car, you buy a Volkswagen. You've never had a Volkswagen before. You now own a Volkswagen. Suddenly you see oh, my God, look at how many people are driving Volkswagens, it's unbelievable. I have the best, most popular, most fantastic car. The only reason you are noticing those Volkswagens is now because you have one. If you believe that snowstorms, whether snowstorms, hurricanes, whatever are going prominent because of global warming, then when there is one, that gets factored into how you interpret it. But I'll tell you what, you remember Katrina. Katrina was the hurricane that made an awful lot of people very concerned that global warming was already producing storms that were both more powerful and more frequent. Let's look at killer hurricanes in the years since Katrina. Hard to find many, right? So does that mean that global warming is not happening? You know what? It means that there's a lot to figure out and that we shouldn't listen to the shouters.


 

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

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.