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.


 

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


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 corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

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.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.