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. 

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.