Glenn Beck: BBC folds to global warming activist




RELATED STORY


Climate Activist Got BBC to Change 'Global Temperatures Decrease' Article

GLENN:  Amazing.  The BBC ran a story on Thursday about global climate change, global warming.  Global warming.  And now how even the New York Times just added, oh, and Al Gore also said we might freeze to death.  Yeah, I don't remember that, but anyway.  So we've got this global warming problem that CO2 is going through the roof since 1998 but for some reason the Earth is not warming since 1998.  We haven't stopped the growth of CO2.  Why has all of a sudden everything, you know, stopped getting warmer?  That's weird, isn't it?  So this was reported, what, on Wednesday.  On Thursday it broke worldwide and then there was this exchange.  This is an exchange to the BBC reporter that reported that the World Meteorological Organization had said the world is going to get cooler this year.  That the temperatures are going to fall this year and there hasn't been any change in temperature since 1998.  So this environmentalist, the environmental activist decided to write the BBC and here's the exchange of e-mails.  It is absolutely amazing.  First one comes from the environmental activist, from Joe.  Climate changes.  Remember challenge any piece of media that seems it is subject to spin or skepticism.  This is on her blog.  Challenge anything that seems like it is subject to skepticism.  Challenge it.  Here's my goal for the day.  BBC actually changed an article that I requested a correction for.  Joe writes to Roger.  Roger is the author of the article on the BBC.  "Dear Roger, would you please correct a piece published today entitled global temperatures to decrease.  One, a minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked.  That's the quote from the article that she wants changed.  A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked.

This is incorrect.  Several networks exist that question whether global warming has peaked but they contain very few actual scientists and the scientists they do contain are not climate scientists, so have no expertise in this area.

Stu, I would like to know if that's a standard on the IPCC report.  I'd like to know if there's a consensus of scientists because this is the point that I have made.  The scientist is a geologist.  He's not a global climate scientist.  He doesn't know anything about it.

STU:  Right.  And that goes to the point of how that thing is built which is people who have various specialties on certain little parts of it.  They include in this worldwide consensus just to build the number of scientists.

GLENN:  We have Roy Spencer on on Thursday about this very issue.  He is the guy -- he was a NASA award-winning meteorologist, global climate meteorologist.  Award winning, NASA.  No, he's discredited.  Why?  That's his expertise.  Two, global temperatures this year will be lower in 2000 than in 2007.  Roger, you should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the Earth's system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007.  For example, the ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly time scales or massive heat sense that have shown gradual and continued warming.

Not true.  Ask NASA.  The environmentalists are trying to explain away the NASA robots that they just put into the oceans to measure the temperatures of the oceans and it shows no increased temperature.  Untrue.  Thank you for applying your attention to all of the facts and figures, Joe.  Roger writes back:  Dear Joe, no correction is needed.  If the secretary general of the WMO tells me global temperatures are going to decrease, then that's what I'm going to report.  There are scientists who question whether warming will continue as projected by the IPCC.  Best wishes, RH.

Joe writes back:  Roger, I will forward your comments unless you object to some people who may wish to add to your knowledge.  Would you be willing to publish information that expands on your original position which would give a better, clearer picture of what's going on?  Personally I think it's highly responsible to play into the hands of the skeptics who continually promote the idea that global warming is finished in 1998 when that's so patently not true.  I have spent time, a lot of my time countering their various myths and nonarguments saying no, no, no, look at the Hadley Center data.  Global warming is not over.  It is true that people are debating climate sensitivity, how exactly the Earth will respond to radiative forcing but nobody is seriously refuting that increasing greenhouse gases caused increased global temperatures.

That's where the debate is, is it not, Stu?

STU:  There's certainly debate on that.  This is where they try to make the world into this monolithic consensus.  That's not accurate.

GLENN:  I'm not debating that the thermometer is wrong.  I'm not saying I don't believe the thermometer; what are you talking about, the thermometer is -- I'm debating what is causing it.  And that's what scientists are debating.

STU:  Yeah.  They are also debating what is causing it, how much will it actually move it if it is causing it.

GLENN:  Right.  There should be a debate right now.  Global CO2 levels are going up every single year and have gone up since 1998.  Why is the climate not changing?  Why is it not going up?  I saw the chart from Al Gore.  They're directly aligned.  Why isn't it happening?

STU:  Yeah.  And if you listen to the interview with Roy Spencer here, he talked about 1998 because 1998 was an El Nino year.  It was very warm that year.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  But from 2000 -- he goes out of his way to point out, well, don't measure it from there, just measure it the last seven years, from 2001 to 2008.  This's probably a slight down trend, if anything.

GLENN:  As time goes by, it's counterproductive to indicate the Earth cooling down as data tells you the opposite.  As time goes down, listen to this, the infant science of climatology improves.  The infant science of climatology improves.  This is from a climate environmentalist activist.  She herself is saying the science of climatology is in its infant stage.  Why would we do it -- if your infant said the house was going to catch on fire because the toaster is getting warmer and soon the entire house will be on fire, would you listen to your infant?  I wouldn't.  I might want to see that infant gain a little more knowledge, gain a little more experience.  Please do not do a disservice to your readership by leaving the door open to doubt.  Who's silencing whom?

He writes back, the articles made these points quite clear.  We can't ignore the fact that skeptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998.  It's appearing regularly now in the general media but to tackle this and explain it was exactly what I've done.  If people feel like the debate is being censored, it makes them suspicious.  Roger, wait until you hear the followup e-mails and then mysteriously all of a sudden the article changes.  Coming up in a second.

(OUT 11:40)

GLENN:  888-727-BECK, 888-727-BECK.  So the BBC on Thursday releases an article from the World Meteorological Organization that says that the temperature this year is going to go down.  I want to make it very clear.  Even if it does go down, you're a moron if you look at a global temperature in one year period.  I mean, you are just, you are an idiot.  And anybody with half a brain would not say, "Oh, there's no global" -- it's like people who are -- you know, really hot days last summer.  "See, it's evidence of global warming."  No, it's not.  No, it's not.  Really cold days and it was like September and it snowed and be like, see, there's no global warming.  This doesn't mean anything.  You've got to look at it over a several year period.  The longer, the better.  But the meteorological organization, the World Meteorological Organization came out last week and said looks like global warming has stopped.  This year it's going to be cooler than it was last year.  So it's this debate back and forth and we're highlighting it and linking it there on the front page of GlennBeck.com.  But the first part is this woman, she's an environmental climate, environmental activist who's saying you've got to challenge on her blog, you've got to challenge all these people and here's what I've done and so she writes the reporter and she's got this exchange back and forth and the reporter's like, the article stands as it is.  Not changing it.  We've done this.  And if I change my article, then it's going to -- people are going to fill like it's censored which makes them suspicious.  This is what -- I was told this is what I printed.  So she writes back, hey, Roger, this is the third e-mail back.  "When you're in the tube in London, I expect that you occasionally glance at a headline, someone turns the page and you think, really?  Wow.  You don't even read the whole article.  You just get the headline.  A lot of people who read the first few paragraphs of what you say and not read the rest, A, dismiss your writing as it seems that you have been manipulated by the skeptics; or B, jump on it with glee and e-mail their mates and say, see, global warming has stopped.  They only get the headline which is why it's so utterly essential that you give the full picture or as full as you can in the first few paragraphs.  Isn't it interesting how many times on this program we have said, wait a minute, look at the facts.  Here the tenth paragraph in, or on the continuing page.  Then it starts to say the other side, "Oh, no, no, no, that's just -- just have to tell the story that way."  No, you don't.  You are burying the lead.  That's what it's called.  Your word "Debate," this is not an issue of debate.  This is an issue of emerging truth.  You got that?  Control the language and you win the war.  It's not a debate.  It's an issue of emerging truth.  So this is true.  It just hasn't fully emerged yet.  "I don't think you should worry about whether people feel they are counting some sort of conspiracy or suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from hem.  Every day more information is added to the stack showing the desperate plight of the planet.  It would be better if you did not quote the skeptics.  Their voice is heard everywhere on every channel.  They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of truth."

Stu, do you happen to have any stats on how their voices are everywhere?

STU:  Well, I have them in America where ABC has featured global warming dissent at a 1:7 ratio.  So seven global warming alarmist articles, representatives to every one skeptic.

GLENN:  Okay.

STU:  Overall, in all the news organizations, 1:1 against skeptics.  And CBS did a great one which was 38:1.  And only 11% across the board of all the stories mentioned how much it would actually cost.  11%.  Not an important detail in any of these stories.

GLENN:  Listen to this one.  I would ask that you reserve the BBC Online channel for emerging truth.  Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated and that makes you an unreliable reporter.  Do you hear the threat?  I'm about to send your comments to others that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you're being psychologically manipulated.  And that would make him an unreliable reporter.  I'm about to send your comments to others for contribution unless you do not -- they are likely to want to post your comments on forums.  So please indicate if you do not want this to happen.  You may appear in an unfavorable light because it would be said that you have turned your head -- you've had your head turned by the skeptics.  A threat!  Basically "I will destroy your career" because that's what they do.  Response?  From a guy who just wrote, "I've made all these points, it's very clear.  This is what I was told.  The story remains unchanged."  After that he writes, "Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me if you're happier.  We've changed the headline and more."  Unbelievable.

STU:  Interesting, too, Glenn.  If you look at the e-mails, the first e-mail that she sent is at 10:12 a.m. by 11:28 they've got a change from a major worldwide media source on this, something they had already addressed in the article anyway.  One e-mailer gets the BBC to fold in less than an hour and a half.

GLENN:  Unbelievable.  Just unbelievable. 

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld joined Glenn on "The Glenn Beck Podcast" this week to talk about his new book, "The Plus: Self-Help for People Who Hate Self-Help."

Greg admits he is probably the last person who should write a self-help book. Nevertheless, he offers his offbeat advice on how to save America during what has become one of the most tumultuous times in history, as well as drinking while tweeting (spoiler: don't do it).

He also shares his "evolution" on President Donald Trump, his prediction for the election, and what it means to be an agnostic-atheist.

In this clip, Greg shares what he calls his "first great epiphany" on how dangerous cancel culture has become.

"I believe that cancel culture is the first successful work-around of the First Amendment," he said. "Because freedom of speech doesn't protect me from my career being ruined, my livelihood being destroyed, or me getting so depressed I commit suicide. Cancel culture is the first successful work-around of freedom of speech. It can oppress your speech with the scepter of destruction. We don't have freedom of speech anymore."

Watch the video clip below or find the full Glenn Beck Podcast with Greg Gutfeld here.

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.

Use code UNMASKED to save $20 on one year of BlazeTV.

Dr. Simone Gold joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to set the record straight about hydroxychloroquine -- what it is, how it works, and the real reason for all the current controversy surrounding a centuries-old medication.

Dr. Gold is a board certified emergency physician. She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School. She completed her residency in emergency medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York, and worked in Washington D.C. for the Surgeon General, as well for the chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. She works as an emergency physician on the front lines, whether or not there is a pandemic, and her clinical work serves all Americans from urban inner city to suburban and the Native American population. Her legal practice focuses on policy issues relating to law and medicine.

She is also the founder of America's frontline doctors, a group of doctors who have been under attack this week for speaking out about hydroxychloroquine during a news conference held outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

On the program, Dr. Gold emphasized that the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is a "complete myth."

"Hydroxychloroquine is an analogue or a derivative of quinine, which is found in tree bark. It's the most noncontroversial of medications that there is," she explained.

"It's been around for centuries and it's been FDA-approved in the modern version, called hydroxychloroquine, for 65 years. In all of that time, [doctors] used it for breast-feeding women, pregnant women, elderly, children, and immune compromised. The typical use is for years or even decades because we give it mostly to RA, rheumatoid arthritis patients and lupus patients who need to be on it, essentially, all of their life. So, we have extensive experience with it ... it's one of the most commonly used medications throughout the world."

Dr. Gold told Glenn she was surprised when the media suddenly "vomited all over hydroxychloroquine", but initially chalked it up to the left's predictable hatred for anything President Donald Trump endorses. However, when the media gave the drug Remdesivir glowing reviews, despite disappointing clinical trial results, she decided to do some research.

"[Remdesivir] certainly wasn't a fabulous drug, but the media coverage was all about how fabulous it was. At that moment, I thought that was really weird. Because it's one thing to hate hydroxychloroquine because the president [endorsed] it. But it's another thing to give a free pass to another medicine that doesn't seem that great. I thought that was really weird, so I started looking into it. And let me tell you, what I discovered was absolutely shocking," she said.

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.

According to the mainstream media's COVID-19 narrative, the president is "ignoring" the crisis.

On tonight's "Glenn TV" special, Glenn Beck exposes the media's last four months of political theater that has helped shape America's confusion and fear over coronavirus. And now, with a new school year looming on the horizon, the ongoing hysteria has enormous ramifications for our children, but the media is working overtime to paint the Trump administration as anti-science Neanderthals who want to send children and teachers off to die by reopening schools.

Glenn fights back with the facts and interviews the medical doctor Big Tech fears the most. Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America's Frontline Doctors, stands up to the media's smear campaign and explains why she could no longer stay silent in her fight against coronavirus fear.

Watch a preview below:


In order to watch tonight's episode, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Join today to get a 30-day free trial, and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code UNMASKED.

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.

It's high time to leave the partisan politics behind and focus on the facts about face masks and whether or not they really work against COVID-19.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck spoke with Drs. Scott Jensen and George Rutherford about the scientific evidence that proves or disproves the effectiveness of mask wearing to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Then, Dr. Karyln Borysenko joined to break down where the massive political divide over masks came from in the first place.

"I think if we were to talk about this a couple months ago, I might have said, 'Well, there's the science of masks, and there's the emotions of masks.' But, unfortunately, there's something in between," Jensen said. "I would have thought that the science of masks would have to do with the physics of masks, so I did a video a couple months ago where I talked about the pore side of a cotton mask or a surgical mask."

He explained that properly worn masks can help reduce the spread of virus particles, but cautioned against a false-sense of security when wearing a mask because they are far from providing complete protection.

"If you have a triple-ply mask, the pore size will end up being effectively five microns. And five microns, to a COVID-19 virus particle, is 50 times larger. That's approximately the same differential between the two-inch separation between the wires of a chain-link fence, and a gnat," Jensen explained.

"But now what we're seeing is if we have some collision of COVID-19 viral particles with the latticework of any mask ... if you're breathing out or breathing in and the viral particles collide with the actual latticework of a mask, I think intuitively, yes, we can reduce the amount of virus particles that are going back and forth."

Dr. Rutherford said masks are essential tools for fighting COVID-19, as long as you wear them correctly. He laid out the three main reasons he believes we should all be wearing masks.

"So, we're trying to do three things," he said. "First of all, we're trying to protect the people around you, in case you are one of the 60% of people who have asymptomatic infection and don't know it. The second thing we're trying to do is to protect you. The third thing we're trying to do is, if you get infected, you'll get infected at a lower dose, and then you're less likely to develop symptoms. That's the threefer."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.