RADIO

These climate change FACTS will SHOCK your liberal friends

If you regularly watch the mainstream media, you probably think climate change will cause Earth’s extinction — and SOON. But that’s not the case says Bjorn Lomborg, author of ‘False Alarm.’ He joins Glenn to share the FACTS on climate change — ones that will SHOCK your liberal friends. For example, did you know human fatalities related to the climate have drastically DROPPED? Plus, he details how climate policy currently being pushed by far-left elite could be DISASTROUS for our future. Listen to the full interview to find out more.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Bjørn Lomborg is on with us. Good to talk to you, Bjørn. How are you?

BJORN: I'm good. And how are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very concerned. You know, I care about the environment. I think most people do. We all want clean air. We all want animals to live. We want to have forests that thrive, et cetera, et cetera. But we have to do it their way, or no way at all. I am completely off the grid. I have complete clean energy. I'm all on the power of the sun, wind. At my ranch. And I like it. I don't think it's feasible for everybody to do. But I like it. However, we're being forced into something called The Great Reset. And, honestly, Bjørn, I think this is -- I think this is going to turn out to be akin to Mao's five-year plan. I think if they continue to do the things they're doing, especially on farming and energy. We are going to lose a lot of people. Am I -- am I overthinking this, or worrying too much?

BJORN: Well, Glenn, you certainly have a right to worry. Given that Mao's five-year great leap forward was a phenomenal catastrophe of unprecedented disaster levels, I think we're probably not there. But it is certainly something that will leave us much less well off. And we'll actually not fix very much of climate. Which, of course, is the real tragedy in some way. So what's happening to a very large extent is that everyone is being inundated with these messages, that we're seeing ever more catastrophic impact to climate change, which is mostly just not true. And if you look at the data, we actually see, for instance, fewer people dying, from climate-related deaths over the last 100 years. It's dropped about 99 percent. Why? Because being rich means that you're much more resilient. We used to have a world where about half a million people died every year, for climate-related disasters. Like flood drops. And extreme temperatures. And storms. And today, that number -- so last year, it was less than 7,000 people dying -- of course, at the same time. Where many people more people on the planet. We're being told the story, that the world is coming to an end. Now, if you believe this. And many more people believe this. The rich countries in the world, showed that about 60 percent of all people now believe, that it's likely global warming, leads to the extinction of mankind. This is a concern, that's not at all what the climate panel is telling us. It's telling us, as you just mentioned, climate is a problem. But it is not the end of the world. That matters, because if you're scared witless. And you're being told, an existential crisis. It's the end of mankind. Of course, you're willingly to spend anything and everything on this issue. But the reality is, we're very likely to spend a huge truckload of money. And that's where your worry comes in. So, for instance --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

BJORN: Sure.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. It's not just that, Bjørn . It is. And I know it killed maybe 20, 30 million people. It was an absolute disaster that is -- that is just not compared to anything else. Over in China. But when you couple in energy, just look at the starvation, that's going to happen, because Russia is blocking the ports. And we're having this fight over oil. Then on top of it, when you don't have the fertilizer, that fertilizer is responsible for crops that yield about 30 percent more. You just don't change everything overnight from transportation to the way you prepare the field. To the fertilizer. They're planning on changing everything. Their words, from fork to plate by 2030. That just sounds like something that globally, could cause millions of people to die.

BJORN: And you're probably right. If they actually got it the way they want it. But remember, they can't actually run the entire world. Although, I'm sure they would love to. So the reality is, that most countries are going to resist this very strongly. So one country, as you mentioned. As Sri Lanka, that actually went organic overnight, and essentially, got rid of all synthetic fertilizer. And, remember, synthetic fertilizer is what makes it possible for half the world's population, about 4 billion people to live. Half of all our molecules, inside us, have only been made possible, through synthetic fertilizer. Overnight, they said, let's get rid of all that. And, you know, it was not rocket science, to predict that this would actually lead to all the bad things that you can think about. So, fundamentally, food production collapsed, and you're seeing the outcomes. Huge protests. People have been afraid. The president's mansion. And he's flown out of the country. This is a -- but most countries are not dumb enough to do this. So fortunately, we're not going to see things going that bad. What we are likely to see, to see really poor policies. So just very, very briefly. McKinsey actually estimates if we go net zeros, Biden and many other Western leaders are proposing. So basically, if we cut our fossil fuel use dramatically, that could cost $5.6 trillion, every year in the world. For the average American, one model estimates, that by mid-century, this would cost the average American, more than $10,000, per person. Per year. But, of course, remember, you guys are going to -- you know, rebel against that, way before it gets to $10,000. You will not be willing to accept that. So, yes. They're proposing really, really poor and effective policies. But we're going to get against them, way before that. But it can still be a lot of money lost for very little benefit.

GLENN: So tell me what's happening with the farmers over -- where is it? The Dutch farmers, I think. Yeah, in Holland. They're protesting. German farmers are starting to protest. Tell me the impact that they're having on this policy.

BJORN: So it's important to recognize. And this is a different kind of policy. So this is mostly a nature policy. So it's still an environmental policy. But the EU has the tendency, as many well-meaning organizations to say, oh, let's just go all out on green stuff. And when you just say it, it sounds nice. We should have living circumstances, that are equivalent to, if there were no human beings. Sounds nice, until you start realizing, oh, wait. There's actually huge cost. So Holland has realized, that they have actually signed up to something that sounded nice. And a lot of politicians said it. We should reduce our nitrogen deposits, so that biosystems, that are low in nitrogen, which are sort of slightly desert-like, they also survive. That's a nice thing to have. What they didn't think about was, this would basically abrupt a lot of the Dutch farmers. Remember, Holland exported a huge amount of food. By some estimates. Their second largest ag supporter of food in the world. So this really matters for the world. They're telling Dutch farmers. They can produce a lot less. Now, in normal policy, you would just have made all these nice-sounding promises. Then when you're evangelizing to pay for it. You're saying, oh, wait. Wait. I'm not actually going to do this. What happened. An environmental group sued the government and won, so the government's own Supreme Court is now telling the government, you have to do what you promised. And that's why this becomes so expensive. Because nobody really wants to do this. Except, of course, the environmental groups, and now the Dutch court. And the problem with this is, if you imagine what happens, if you actually sued politicians for everything they promised. We would have to spend enormous sums on if we go to much better schools. And fixing all the potholes. And get more military. And get tax relief. And all the things, you can imagine. Publicly, more than our entire national budget. You can't run an apology like that. You're basically setting yourself up for spending much more money than you have. You don't run policy through courts. You run it through -- I don't know. Democracy. That's how we work these things out. And that's where you find out, oh, wait. I actually promised stuff I can't keep. Unfortunately, that's not happening. And I fear that we're going to see more of this. So the Dutch actually had a similar case on climate. Where they promised us, couldn't actually afford to uphold it. But then they got sued in court. Now they have to do it. Although, it's incredibly costly. And, likewise, although the Paris agreement is not binding. The US has not ratified it. It's not implausible to imagine, that sooner or later, people will sue in American courts, and possibly win. Because Biden has said, we should do Paris. And then you suddenly have those ten thousand dollar per year, per American cost that nobody actually wants to support. And that is how revolutions are born.

GLENN: So, yeah. That's a frightening thing in and of itself. The -- Sri Lanka did what now the -- the world bank has a new strategy to open up finances. Meaning, money printing. They -- Sri Lanka did this. They actually embraced modern monetary theory. And that's how they're saying, they're going to pay for all this. As we saw in Sri Lanka. That collapsed. That doesn't work.

BJORN: No. You can't just print money. Then you get inflation. Unfortunately, that's one of the things -- so Bank of America is actually estimating that if you go down this route of net zero, it will add what they call 3 percent of inflation. So extra inflation every year for 20 years. But you don't want that. Nobody wants that. And nobody tells you, that that's what's going to happen, if you have a lot of governments printing money. It's not rocket science. Because you can't just print more money, it doesn't mean that there's more stuff to buy it. It means prices will go up. So the fundamental point here is to recognize, if you actually want to help people, one of the best ways to do that. Is to make them rich. Because if they're rich, they're also resilient. Look at these heat waves. You just talked about, you have 106 in Texas. Why does this not kill everyone in Texas? Oh, because you have air-conditioning. It's not like you have to figure out, how we avoid most of the problems with heat. Now, remember, heat waves are still dangerous. Absolutely -- you know, drink -- sorry. Cold water. And getting in air-conditioned rooms. And maybe buy those jobs that you were advertising earlier. But what you absolutely should not do is say, let's change the entire global economy's fundamental engine, in order to make it slightly less hot. That's not how you do this. Because, remember --

GLENN: Bjørn Lomborg, the author of False Alarm. I'm sorry. I've got to go. We have a network break. They're screaming at me in my ear. President of Copenhagen Consensus Center. Bjørn, thank you so much for all that you do, and being a voice of reason on this. On this topic. God bless. Thank you.

BJORN: Thank you

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

RADIO

SHOCKING: Glenn Beck Interviews 'Detransitioner' Deceived by Doctors

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

RADIO

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?


STU: Hmm.



GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.



STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.



GLENN: They don't. They don't.



He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.



And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.



And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.



STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.



GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.



There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.



This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.



But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.



I mean, an enormous flagpole.



I love the flag. I love it!



And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.



For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?



And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.



However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.



If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.



We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.



Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.



Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!



And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.



You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.



And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.



And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.



It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.



Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.



We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.



Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.



You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.



You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!



You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?



But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.



But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.



But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!



And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.



The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.



Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?



The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?



DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.



DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.



GLENN: Good. I know.



DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.



GLENN: Oh.



DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.



And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.



GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?



DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.



And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.



They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.



GLENN: Wow!



DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.



Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.



What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.



Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.



The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.



It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!



GLENN: What was their thinking?



DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.



GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?



And correct the ProPublica story, would you?



DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.



GLENN: Yes.



DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.



This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.



I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.



And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.



And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.



And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.



Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.



And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.



These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.



GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.



Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.



When it's in the State Department.



When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.



It's out of control!



It's just completely out of control.



And who is overseeing all of that.



DARREN: That's a great question.



I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.



A fourth of its money came from USAID.



In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.



So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.



And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.



And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.



It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.



And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.



We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.



GLENN: Good. Good.



DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.



So within the next couple of weeks.



We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.



GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.



I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.

RADIO

Brother of Hamas hostage reveals United Nations' "CRUCIAL MISTAKE"

Ilay David, brother of Hamas hostage Evyatar David, joins Glenn Beck to share his brother's story 676 days after he was taken hostage. Evyatar made headlines after Hamas released footage of him digging his own grave. Ilay also gives a strong message to the UN: "Talking about a Palestinian state out of the blue...it's a crucial mistake."