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.


 

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.