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.

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

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.

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

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.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]