Glenn Beck: Climate Confusion


Climate Confusion

BY ROY SPENCER

STAHL:  There's still a lot of skepticism about whether global warming is manmade.

GORE:  I don't think there's a lot.

STAHL:  Well, there's pretty impressive people like the vice president who said we don't know what causes it.

GORE:  You're talking about Dick Cheney.

STAHL:  Yeah, and others who say we don't know what causes it and why spend all this money until we really, really know.

GORE:  I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they are almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the Earth is flat.  That demeans them a little bit but it's not that far off.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN:  Just a little bit.  Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.  Welcome to the program, Roy.

SPENCER:  Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN:  As a guy who worked for NASA, won NASA's medal for scientific achievement, did we land on the moon?

SPENCER:  Well, when I left NASA six years ago, that was part of an oath I took.  So I'm really not allowed to talk about that.

SPENCER:  You would have to kill me if you told me the truth.  Well, I just want to make sure that you know as somebody who, you know, won awards for NASA and worked for NASA that the Earth is round and we did land on the moon.

SPENCER:  Well, what's funny is that Al Gore's urban legend about global warming has now extended to history because it turns out that that's a historic urban legend that mankind used to think the Earth was flat.  It turns out there really isn't any historical evidence for that.

GLENN:  It's -- you know, we just posted an article at CNN.com about big oil and Al Gore and his lies, et cetera, et cetera, and he says that we're talking about 6% of Americans that don't believe in the moon landing but only 21% believe that greenhouse gases are the biggest factor causing global warming.  That's from the New York Times.  Only 21% say this problem is caused by man, yet he makes it sound like, oh, well, that's just, there's nobody.  I mean, you've got to be crazy to not believe that man is responsible for this and yada, yada, yada.  What would you say the split is among scientists?

SPENCER:  Well, the vast majority of scientists, it's not all of them agree that we've warmed.  The big question as you are alluding to is whether -- you know, to what extent is the warming manmade versus natural and what most people don't realize is that there has never been a single scientific study published which has ruled out natural variability for our current warmth.  So I would say, you know, probably over 50% of the scientists think it's mostly manmade but that's a statement of space.  You know, this whole idea of consensus, that's a political term.  And the more we learn about climate variability now, the more I think we're realizing that the climate system isn't really that sensitive to manmade greenhouse gases which would mean that most of the warming we've seen is natural.

GLENN:  I saw you at this conference in New York and we've talked here recently at this conference on skeptics and the problem with it was is you got up to give the speech and I think what you said was really, really important but I don't know what the hell you're even talking about.  You know, you guys are coming in with real science and you were talking about the satellite data and now we have actual data to replace the made-up variables that Al Gore and the global warming people have just said, well, maybe because we don't know, we can't measure this, maybe this number is actually this.  And when you look at -- you know, when you look at the formula to make these computer models, now we actually have data.  And when you plug it in, it changes everything entirely.  Did I get it kind of right on what you were talking about?

SPENCER:  Well, yeah, kind of.  You know, obviously models, computer models are only going to put out what you program into them.  You know, they're very dependent on what you put into them.

GLENN:  Garbage in, garbage out.

SPENCER:  Right.  And what they put into them is the way they think the climate system operates.  And believe it or not, one of the major things we're learning right now is it looks like a lot of these climate scientists, the ones that are running these models, might have confused cause and effect in the climate system when they look at the climate system.  Because we watch -- we look at natural variability, you know, El Nino, La Nina, we try to figure out what's causing what.  Well, it turns out that if you mix up cause and effect, it will always look like the climate system is very sensitive to things like adding CO2.

GLENN:  And how do the new satellites, the new NASA satellite information get -- improve this?

SPENCER:  Oh, the new NASA satellites are really great.  We've got all kinds of new instruments up there now mainly on the NASA aqua and terra satellites and these are giving us all kinds of measurements related to, you know, clouds, types of clouds, temperatures, sea surface temperatures, winds, how much infrared radiation the Earth is giving off.

GLENN:  Roy, how does the average person know what to look for?  For instance, I read a story today that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last ten years, there has been no more global climate change and then they say --

SPENCER:  Well, that's one of those lies, damn lies and statistics things.  Yeah, it hasn't warmed since '98 but if you use '99 as a starting point it's warmed tremendously.  I think the most accurate thing to say statistically is it basically hasn't warmed or cooled in the last seven years.  It's been pretty flat.  And the longer we go without warming resuming, the more it's going to have to warm to catch up to what, you know, the UN is predicting and Al Gore is predicting.

GLENN:  Well, but how do we -- I mean, in the article it said, "Well, wait a minute, that's -- you can't look at it short-term like that, you can't look at it seven years."  Well, what is long term?  When do we see it and say, okay, it's real?

SPENCER:  Pick a number.  There is no number.  The longer you look, you know, the more useful your estimates of long-term change are going to be.  That's one reason why I don't like to say that we're experiencing global warming because that makes it sound like we know what's going to happen in the future.  I only say we've experienced warming in the past, at least up until about seven or six years ago because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.  It could be global warming has stopped for all we know.

GLENN:  Let me -- may I play a piece of audio for you and get your reaction?  Go ahead and play.  This is Ted Turner this week.

TURNER:  Doing it will be catastrophic.  We'll have 8 degrees, we'll be 8 degrees hotter in ten -- not 10 but in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow.  Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.  Civilization will have broken down.  What the few people are left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan and living conditions will be intolerable.  The droughts will be so bad, there will be no more corn growing.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN:  I mean, you are the former senior scientist for NASA on climate studies.  Alarmist?

SPENCER:  Yeah, Mr. Turner is one of our leading global warming experts.  He probably --

GLENN:  I didn't know that.

SPENCER:  I see the forecast has now, you know, gone up to 8 to 10 degrees in only 30 years.  So that's -- man, that's really --

GLENN:  Well, 30 to 40.

SPENCER:  Yeah, 30 to 40 years.  Notice, but also later in the interview he pointed out that it's been a long time since he said something stupid.  So it could be that that's relevant.

GLENN:  Any science, any science that says anything like what he just predicted?

SPENCER:  No, not that I know of.

GLENN:  Yeah, okay.  All right.  I want to -- can you hold for just a second?  Because in your book you talk about some of the dumbest solutions that scientists have and I want to get into that here in just a second.  Climate Confusion.

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.