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.


 

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.