Glenn Beck on Global Warming
HLN announced this morning that Glenn Beck will have a special on Global Warming airing Wednesday…
Headline News’ Glenn Beck, the nightly topical talk show featuring radio and TV personality Glenn Beck, presents a special that aims to deflate what Beck perceives as the media hype surrounding global warming and to ask questions about the causes of a warmer planet and possible solutions. The hour-long special report, “Exposed: Climate of Fear,” airs during Beck’s Headline Prime program on Wednesday, May 2, at 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. (ET).
“If you believe the mainstream media hype, you’d think that every time you drive your SUV, the Earth’s temperature rises six degrees,” Beck said. “The reality is that many respected climatologists have questions about both the problem and the solution. We should understand both positions more fully before committing to any solutions that could do more harm than good, both to our environment and our economy. ”
During this special report, Glenn Beck questions the accuracy of Al Gore’s claims in the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth of 20-foot sea level rises and the disastrous effects of increased carbon dioxide levels. The program examines the criticism some esteemed scientists, climatologists and academics have faced for even raising questions about the “scientific consensus.”
The special report also offers a look at the history of what Beck sees as the media hype involving the climate, recalling the “global cooling” scare of the mid-1970s and the transition to the latest round of warnings about global warming.Finally, Glenn Beck considers solutions and examines the Kyoto Treaty, a current guiding principle for the nations of the world to fix the problem of global warming. Beck himself offers his own ideas suggesting innovation – not government regulation – is the answer to solving this problem.
Beck’s first “Exposed” special about Islamic extremism won the night on cable news and garnered the second highest ratings in the history of Headline Prime in the critical P25-54 demographic.
Please let the debate begin. Thank you Glen!
Comment by steve L — April 30, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Oh, goody, another rant by this right-wing nutcase.
Comment by Paula — April 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
I may watch to get the names and “credentials” of these “scientists” Glenn will interview. With the show on mute…
Comment by Keyser Soze — April 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Yes, only the “qualified” or “expert” scientists believe in global warming. The rest, of course, don’t have a clue. Just ask anyone in the MSM.
Comment by Jim — April 30, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Keyser? I thought you were for “truth to power.” What happened?
Comment by erljr — April 30, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Glenn Beck is the biggest tool on television.
Comment by Me! — April 30, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Global show job! ……………..spaceweather.com ………….for the truth on what the sun is doing.
Comment by mike — April 30, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Well, I guess it’s nice that the flat-earthians have a platform… sad that it’s on HLN, of course.
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Well said, to not believe totally in the global warming theory, you are relegated to the flat earth society. There is only one side to this whole story!
Comment by Jim — April 30, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Hopefully the scientists aren’t all graduates from Regents College.
Comment by elmonica — April 30, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Sorry but, Arthur and Jim give us a great example of the liberal religion in practice. A blind faith in whatever the PC cause. I suggest we all keep an open mind on Global Warming and encourage qualified “scientists” prove or disprove their theories using the scientific method. Then publish subject to peer review. Then hopefully the media will present fairly in a thoughtful and balanced manner. Then a public consensus will or will not form.
Comment by steve L — April 30, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
You’re right, Steve, Jim et al - the sun and planets and all the stars in the sky really MIGHT revolve around the earth, all ‘theories’ to the contrary. So I’ll keep an open mind. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll go brush up on my epicycles and deferents
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Mine was a sarcastic remark to Arthur’s sorry commentary. I would prefer not to be in the same sentence.
Comment by Jim — April 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Arthur, Keep drinking the Kool-Aid
Comment by steve L — April 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
yeah, Steve - same flavor as Galileo did, until forced to sip the papal brew.
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Contrary to Al Gore’s “The debate is over,” the debate is actually just getting started. Anyone who knows their history knows the rain forest extended into, and encompased a great portion of North America 500 years ago. How much global warming has happened since then? What of the scientists who say, at the rate the sun is burning out, we need all the global warming we can get? What of the scientists who said in the 70’s that we would run out of oil in the 80’s? And what of the recent studies saying the earth is producing oil and other minerals as fast as we extract them? There is plenty to debate here. Oversimplifying the issue - leaving out any of the evidence - is a big mistake on either side of this issue. For example, last night Sean Hannity did some oversimplifying of his own on the other side.
Comment by erljr — April 30, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
We are at the very end of solar cycle 23 and the start of cycle 24 each cycle is around 12 years .This would be a good place to stare your research into past cycles and the weather .Good luck in your research,now get off your ass and seek the truth.
Comment by mike — April 30, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Wait a minute, which is the “other side” ??
Comment by Jim — April 30, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
The other side is where our souls go when we leave this plane of existance. It’s also a way some of us oversimplify the global warming debate; one side being “exaggerating the dangers of global warming, without having any real proof that it even exists” and the other being “discounting that there is any real evidence of global warming at all.”
Comment by erljr — April 30, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
erljr — Very well said, you saved me some typing! I think we should all keep an open mind on global warming. Clinton first gave this subject greater attention then Gore ran with it and that is good. It certainly has made me try harder to take care of my small part of the world, i.e. we turned the heat down lower this winter and wore sweaters in our home. However, I did not change to the lightbulbs that are pushed because when they are disposed of they are more harmful to the environment. The “carbon credit” myth that is used to justify the extravagant lifestyle of the very rich needs a great deal of scrutiny. Many of the so called conclusions on global warming are based on the same science that can not even accurately predict the weather for next week. Remember that the scientists that are pushing this stand to gain “BILLIONS OF $$$$’s” in federal grants and many others have stock in the solutions that they are pushing. Kept an “OPEN” mind do not be brainwashed into thinking “the debate is over” without hearing “THE DEBATE”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — April 30, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Anyone who knows their history knows the rain forest extended into, and encompased a great portion of North America 500 years ago
500 years ago? After the Columbus discovered America? I have a hard time believing that.
The “carbon credit” myth that is used to justify the extravagant lifestyle of the very rich needs a great deal of scrutiny.
I find it hysterical that the very people who talk about having a credits exchange system for toxic waste, emmissions, and electricity for the business sector (including I should add the Bush White House), take a big ole dump on a similar system for being green. It’s good enough for private enterprise but not good enough for the general public? Hello, McFly??
That said, I think the term Global Warming is overused and overexposed. And I don’t think the science is all there. It’s clear the earth is warming. It’s clear that we do need to cut back on the de-forestation of the planet, especially in the 3rd world. It’s not clear to me that the warming of the earth is caused by “global warming” or this is just a cyclical thing in the planet’s life. By the time we do know for sure, I’ll be dead from old age.
Comment by Spud — April 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
^
Huh? I don’t get it? What’s hysterical? What kind of credit exchange system are you talking about and if they do exist, these are businesses and they are not preaching to be green like these nuts.
These carbon credits is hysterical. Andy Levy had a great line about it. These preacher’s whining about being green put out so much waste compared to the average American but they justify it by buying these credits ex.. planting trees etc… but aren’t they back to square? Why not really preach what you say and buy the credits also, now you’re ahead.
Let’s just listen to these nuts and use 1 square of toilet paper for each #2.
Comment by Lurker — April 30, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
And what of the recent studies saying the earth is producing oil and other minerals as fast as we extract them?
Oh. My. God.
Please show me these studies.
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Conservatives in general feel that the left wants this global warming theory to be true, and want no debate whatsoever putting forth facts to the contrary. And many of the comments, above, confirm our theory.
Why not let Glenn present more facts and data from those who disagree with Algore? What are you afraid of?
Comment by Missy — April 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Good points Spud. However, there are more forest (especially in the US) now than there were 100 years ago. Technology and especially free markets have substituted much more efficient fuels for good old wood and coal. Yes substituting oil and gas for wood have allowed us to save forests so lets not go backwards. Let properly regulated but free markets work and in another 100 years oil and coal will be used as often as the wood burning stove is today.
Comment by steve L — April 30, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Conservatives in general feel that the left wants this global warming theory to be true, and want no debate whatsoever putting forth facts to the contrary.
Liberals feel that conservatives want the global warming ‘theory’ to be false so they can continue to plunder finite resources until it’s way too late.
Look at it this way, Missy. If the conservatives are right but the liberals win the debate, we spend a bunch of money we didn’t need to developing alternate sources of energy and learning how to recycle. If the liberals are right but the conservatives win the debate… millions, if not billions, of people die in the resulting global IRREVERSIBLE climate change, civilization falls, the remaining humans on earth are impoverished hunter-gatherers clinging to a pitiful existence.
Whoops. Our bad.
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Newsflash: Green is now in with Democrats and Republicans Arthur. The conclusions are starting to merge. Green is in with Democrats because of climate change. And Green is in with Republicans because of TGWOT, islamofascism in the Middle East, and Homeland Security. Isn’t it okay to draw the same conclusion from two completely different arguments? Does it matter if you got your chocolate in my peanut butter or I got my peanut butter in your chocolate?
Comment by erljr — April 30, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Green is now in with Democrats and Republicans Arthur.
Depends on which Republicans you ask. Some are still defending their right to despoil. God gave them DOMINION over the earth, ya see.
Does it matter if you got your chocolate in my peanut butter or I got my peanut butter in your chocolate?
Only if you’re allergic to peanuts, I guess. In which case, in either scenario, you’re screwed.
Comment by Arthur — April 30, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Good points. But Republicans are coming around.It may be only a few of the talking head Republicans; but across the nation, it is a majority. Hannity is out of touch when he denounces ethanol.
Comment by erljr — April 30, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
It’s good enough for private enterprise but not good enough for the general public?
I used “myth - an unproved belief” because most of the people who are actually buying these credit believe that they are helping and so far much of the data shows otherwise, thus “scrutiny - a searching examination” into why for example a company that is already getting credit for reducing their emmissions is selling those “same” emmissions to the public in the form of “carbon credits”. Or a company that plants trees for logging and is going to plant those trees anyway is now making “extra” money for carbon credit. If a very rich business man wants to fly around on his private jet. Then so be it, he is free to do as he likes. But, when he turns around and buys so called “carbon credits” from his very own company so he can say I’m rich so I do not need to stop being excessive, but you do. That is wrong in my opinion.
I no longer fish in our fresh water rivers and lakes because of pollution. As a child I pulled my wagon of coke bottles to the store to sell for treat money, today I see coke/beer bottles broken all over parking lots. The beach at the end of the weekend looks like a local landfill. We could all do better!
P.S. Arthur your peanuts line is the quote of the week!:)
Comment by Aunt Mary — May 1, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Beck said,” We should understand both positions more fully before committing to any solutions that could do more harm than good, both to our environment and our economy. ”
Remember plastic not paper in San Franciso? Opps, we were wrong. Plastic is worse than paper. Can your weatherman predict your local weather next week with accuracy? Imagine predicting global warming with only models looking forward using no historical data in the forcasting. Duh.
Comment by MEDULLA ZEPLIN — May 1, 2007 @ 8:17 am
I’m still waiting on the coming ice age that was the scientific “consensus” back in the late 70’s.
Comment by spiffo — May 1, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
I’m still waiting on the coming ice age that was the scientific “consensus” back in the late 70’s.
You’re going to give me a cite on that one, spiffo. All’s I heard in the late 70s was warming, warming, warming. And now it’s here! Yay, us!
Comment by Arthur — May 1, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
I think there was even a Time cover devoted to global cooling back in the early 70’s.
Comment by Jim — May 1, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
“Global cooling” and the “coming ice age” was the left’s “Chicken Little” cause of the day back in the 70’s, and laughably they used a lot of the same science!
Several bloggers have linked to the magazine covers of the time. Here’s a link at the Neocon Express who cites beloved liberal rags such as Time and Newsweek:
http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-like-newsweek-predicted-iceage-in.html
Comment by spiffo — May 1, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I think this is just the start to uncover the real truth behind global warming. I think we will find that it is all about $$$$$MONEY.
I am just sayin!
Comment by We The People — May 1, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
It’s simply about $$$$$$$$$$$$$, about making even more $$$$$$$ right now. Screw everyone else. Screw the future. Don’t change the game. Don’t change the rules; I’m winning right now. You try to change the game while I’m winning, I’ll simply buy (or contribute to buy) influence. I’ll buy (or contribute to buy) pundits and think tanks and media outlet to sow doubt in the minds of the public. I’ll talk it up myself.
Who’s I/me? Almost anyone in middle management in the muiti-national corporate world, but esp. oil, auto, invwatment. The same people who like this war in Iraq. As the country gets sapped of treasure there are winners who wrap themselves in the flag and laugh all the way to the Swiss bank, and btw they have never served in the military, nor anyone they know, certainly no one in their family’s that stupid to become a pawn.
We are being thrown red herrings, e.g., abortion, left and right while the winners are winning even more. Check income stats over the last 20 years, the other 19% of the right-wing PAC contributors, the hangers-on and minions who are thrown crumbs, keep playing in the vain hope they may get rich, too. The funny part is the winners who don’t want the game changed because they’re winning so much are too good at the game.
The other funny thing is that if things only change be revolution because the winners are so invested in the game, it will be too late.
The narcissism is stunning, but this is how we will go out - struggling over stuff that will be rendered useless and worthless by the avertable doom that we are distracted from, just so that the haves keep their stuff, which will become useless and worthless. What an ironic pity for us all.
Comment by brimcmike — May 2, 2007 @ 11:08 am
when someone tells the truth most people wont believe it. Why? maybe its because they dont want to think and rather be led the real problem in this country is an insignifacant number of people are leading the majority in order to gain more power . the majority have lost faith that their elected will act for the good of the country
Comment by louis bentley — May 2, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Note: Predicting Global Warming is not the same as predicting daily weather.
Conservation of energy applies.
When trying to predict the daily weather at some location, a meteorologist is forced to make alot of guesses about the particular environmental state at that particular time and place, and then follow those to a conclusion about the future. The total energy of the system isn’t growing or shrinking, it’s just constantly changing, moving, transforming, etc.
In comes global warming. In this case, the general answers are a bit simpler. Though it is still painfully difficult to predict weather at some time and location, it’s easy to say that the total energy of the system is increasing… whereas in a balanced system, the Sun’s energy enters and leaves the earth-system at similar rates, in a warming system more energy enters the earth-system than leaves.
There is no doubt that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas… that it traps solar heat energy moreso than most other gases in our atmosphere. This is a basic quality of the chemistry of the molecules. There is also no doubt that liquid water absorbs more solar energy than water covered with a layer of ice.
In either case you still can’t count on the weatherman to accurately predict tomorrow’s weather, but you can predict that in total there will be a long-term warming trend.
Think of it this way: Trying to predict the weather is like trying to mathematically predict where the first bubble is going to show up in a pot that’s about to boil. On the other hand, trying to predict Global Warming is like predicting that if you put a pot of water on the stove, and proceed to add heat (energy), then the temperature of the water will increase. It doesn’t take a scientist.
Comment by ytterbius — May 2, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
ytterbius - “There is no doubt that [CO2] is a greenhouse gas… that it traps solar heat energy more so than most other gases (sp.) in our atmosphere”
There is no doubt in whose mind?
CO2 levels in the atmosphere, according to some scientists, TRAIL the increase in temperature. In other words, some scientists not only DOUBT what you say, but in fact say that it is not the CAUSE but the EFFECT.
With the LIMITED and INCONCLUSIVE data accumulated on global climate change over the EONS, to base a decision on the fairly accurate data collected over the less than a few centuries is in short FOOLISH.
The Earth is experiencing global climate change, this is the ONLY fact that cannot be disputed. The causes of these changes being anthopogenic is open for debate. Considering the evidence that the Earth has been been both MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler in the distant past, prior to the industrial revolution AND considering that global climate change has occurred MUCH quicker in the past, AND considering that in the 1970’s scientists WERE predicting Global Cooling, AND considering that, at this date, there has been ABSOLUTELY NO experiment devised that can confirm or deny “anthropogenic climate change” AND considering that the computer modeling utilized to “justify” anthropogenic climate change CANNOT take into account EVERY variable in our ecosystem the ONLY conclusion that a RATIONAL person can come to is that more studies need to be done before we can reach a conclusion.
Of course, I expect that as computing power increases and we can program a model which will take into account MORE variables in the ecosystem then we will have a more accurate picture.
Is there any hurry? In my opinion, not really, since the Earth has had ice ages in the past, any anthropogenic global warming that we are experiencing will be irrelevant come the next one.
Comment by Michael McCall — May 3, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Climate will change. We can not affect it substantially. Worrying is a waste of time, treasure and my patience. Like all life forms, adapt or die.
Comment by Kelley — May 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Thank you Michael for the most intelligent and logical comment that has been posted so far. There is so much knowledge that mankind has yet to learn about everything in our world, it is extremely foolish to make absolute conclusions. If one looks at what is known so far about the creation of our planet and its development to this point, it is obvious that earth will experience dramatic and drastic changes sometime in the future. To think mankind, if we remain on this planet, will somehow escape extinction is just seer arrogance.
Comment by Rich — May 3, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
The debate on this topic has not started yet. This man-made CO2 global warming theory is just political hysteria! What really makes no sense is why is it being pushed. The loud mouths who are pushing this agenda should be required to explain why these glacial-interglacial cycles have been repeated many times long before the industrial revolution! Good job showing the opposite side of this issue Glenn Beck!
Comment by Wayne — May 7, 2007 @ 5:00 pm