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. 

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.