Special on Global Warming tonight

Glenn Beck is having a special on his TV show on CNN Headline News. Tonight at 7 PM repeated at 9 PM and 11 PM

There is some truth to mans small part in Global Warming. Al Gore is not totally wrong but it is not as Al Gore says it is by any means. There is a lot of misleading information and stretching of truths going on simply to forward political agendas.

Glenn is going to expose some of this on a special tonight.

We all heard Al Gores side, now lets be open minded to some some truths.

===================================================
From Glenn's Newsletter.

Don't Miss It On TV Tonight -
Exposed: The Climate of Fear
In case some of you haven’t heard or seen me gently mentioning my global warming TV special—“Exposed: The Climate of Fear”—it’s on tonight! Okay, so maybe I wasn’t so gentle and I’ve mentioned it over and over and over again like I’m doing one of those never-ending PBS pledge drives. Whatever—I’ve been so persistent in promoting this special because I believe in the message so intensely.

The truth is, I’m really not a science guy. I mean, I’m interested in it but I’m not some “climate change” groupie who watches the Weather Channel for fun—it’s not my pet project and I don’t talk about it over dinner with friends. But here’s what I am passionate about—getting at the truth…peeling away the layers of hypocrisy and letting the best information available inform, educate and enlighten me. And on the issue of global warming, that hasn’t been happening.

On my TV show, I’ve been telling people to watch this special because “there are two sides to every debate.” Now that I think about it, that’s a lie. The truth is, there are at least two sides to every debate—probably as many sides and points of view as there are informed, articulate people engaged in the debate. It’s a big world out there and even the simple, everyday things are complicated, let alone incredibly complex, nuanced areas of science and climatology that lie at the heart of the global warming issue.

For too long, Al Gore and his film have been preaching one way of thinking about this issue and if you don’t agree, you’re classified as someone who can’t face up to the “truth”… cast aside as an evil enemy of the Earth…no better than a Holocaust denier. That’s exactly what inspired me to get involved in this issue—when science and those who study it refuse to face a challenge to their findings, they abandon rational thought and wrap themselves in tunnel-visioned dogma. Not only is that intellectually dishonest, but it’s anti-science and anti-American. An acceptance and encouragement of diversity of thought is at the very foundation of the way we live. I would have hoped that a guy like Al, you know, who used to want to be president (and probably will want to again) would know that.

So I hope you watch the show and make up your own mind—I don’t want you to blindly agree with me any more than Al Gore or anybody else. Issues affecting our planet are a big deal. But thinking for yourself and not letting anyone—no matter how white their lab coat—scare you into believing them is just as big.
-glenn

You had to know that this was going to garner a long response from me 😛

Interesting, I'll try to check it out. The stuff below is a bit disjointed, but I didn't want to spend two hours composing it 😀

While I don't agree with the assessment that man has only a "small part" in global warming, he is right about one thing at least. Right now Al Gore's message is the one that is getting the biggest voice and that much is true. However, "Far too long" is a bit of a stretch. How long has this been on the national consciousness? Six months? A year? For the 200 years or so of industrialization before that it was simply full steam ahead, who cares what the consequences are (excepting maybe the late 60's/early 70's). I began studying some of this stuff in the 1980's in college and it's just now making it to the general consciousness of the country.

I also think he's getting a bit of extreme with his reference to someone who doesn't believe that climate change is a big issue to someone who would deny the holocaust. I for sure would never do that, nor do I think that most people that I know would either. We may think that you are short-sighted, but I wouldn't go further than that. There are extremists on both sides however who probably will and do.

The truth is, there are at least two sides to every debate—probably as many sides and points of view as there are informed, articulate people engaged in the debate. It’s a big world out there and even the simple, everyday things are complicated, let alone incredibly complex, nuanced areas of science and climatology that lie at the heart of the global warming issue.

Very good point!

What I hope that I don't see from this is a confrontation between scientifically studied information and vague allegations that seem to contradict them but don't really have anything to back them up. I.e. the "We've had colder winters the last few years so global warming can't be happening" argument.

The truth is that this is a complex world and we don't fully understand how things interact. Global Warming is happening, that is a scientific fact. Whether this is a long term trend and what our role in the change is the issue that should be debated. However, given that it is happening, and that the consequences are pretty much universally bad, shouldn't we be looking at what can we do to stop it, slow it, or at least mitigate the consequences? If there are things that we can do to make it easier for us to survive in the future, shouldn't we do them?

I am not going to get into a debate with you on this for obvious reasons. I just wanted to point out the special.

Anything you learned in college is basically driven by the liberal agenda of most professors. Do not even argue with me on this one as I have worked at a University for over 14 years now an see this every day. I see the total BS Emails. I see the total crap they talk about with each other. I see the BS crap they put on their doors and the posters they have in their offices. These people are far from anyone I would take serious on anything. Most are total clueless idiots outside their own fields and even in them. I also know of a few people that work in other more prestige Universities and the consensus is exactly the same.

If you read and study on your own, that is great I respect that. Just do not bring up anything that these idiot professors say.

I will also say though that I think it is interesting that many scientists, and yes it is not just a blanket statement, mention how they disagree with Al Gore and how they cannot even step up and talk about it due to political and peer pressure. So how can you truly see both sides when a lot of scientists are afraid to come out and speak about it for fear of losing funding, position and respect.

I am not saying that I am 100% correct with the issue itself, I am no expert in any of this. I am very open minded to all sides and opinions. I am however not going to just swallow everything that Al Gore stuff down our throats. The guy is an idiot period and anyone that likes him or takes him seriously loses all respect from me period!

Sarge wrote:

What I hope that I don't see from this is a confrontation between scientifically studied information and vague allegations that seem to contradict them but don't really have anything to back them up. I.e. the "We've had colder winters the last few years so global warming can't be happening" argument.

The truth is that this is a complex world and we don't fully understand how things interact. Global Warming is happening, that is a scientific fact. Whether this is a long term trend and what our role in the change is the issue that should be debated. However, given that it is happening, and that the consequences are pretty much universally bad, shouldn't we be looking at what can we do to stop it, slow it, or at least mitigate the consequences? If there are things that we can do to make it easier for us to survive in the future, shouldn't we do them?

No one is saying that it is not happening. What myself and others are saying is that is it really man made? DO we contribute, I believe so how can we not be, at least a little. Are we the MAIN cause, I do not believe that.

To attribute everything that happens on this planet as OUR fault. It always seems to be America's fault first then sometimes man kind in general. We/mankind are the cause of all the problems. That is just such a BS way to live and look at things that everything is mans fault.

Now with all that said who cares. I agree with you in the fact that it is happening. Now can mankind reverse nature somehow? Even the scientists that believe it is us causing it agree that even we got ride of all our cars and power plants, it won't change anything for 100 years. We won't stop living so that is out. So now what? Lets concentrate on how to change things.

The difference is I believe we need to change nature itself. To use science to alter what is natural. You believe we need to change the way all of man kind lives.

I am not debating this yet again and I think this is my last post on this issue if I can restrain myself.

Liberal agenda 😆 What a crock of crap. I think I need to start talking about all stances that I don't agree with as being part of the neocon agenda.

Sarge wrote:
Liberal agenda 😆 What a crock of crap. I think I need to start talking about all stances that I don't agree with as being part of the neocon agenda.

Well, I'll take Pal's word at the extreme Liberal slant of the Universities. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this (community-college-goer here), but I've heard about a lot of 'WTF' shit over the years along those lines (no examples come to mind, though. . .Pal will have dozens, of that I'm sure).

I never watched Al Gore's movie, or recall listening to (or reading) anything he had to say on global warning. I saw some commercials for his movie. . .I don't have TiVo. I have read a few Conservative articles on the subject, but not many.

I understand that Pal believes Colleges to have a Liberal bias, and I will concede the point (just as there seems to be a liberal bias in Hollywood). From what I've heard and read over the years, I don't have much reason to think differently. The problem now is, scientists are in school for years in order to become scientists, and in many cases, work with or in a college environment studying global worming. Does this now mean that scientists are not to be trusted? If so, then who are we to trust?

From a personal standpoint, I have to trust in the scientific process. It's not always perfect (since people are not perfect), but it's the closest thing we have to an unbiased viewpoint.

What I find most interesting is this. Despite having not seen the special you are will to say : "We all heard Al Gores side, now lets be open minded to some some truths."

We points out the fact, the content means nothing to you... it's who said the content.

Myself, I think Al gore is a dingle berry. Didn't vote for him, don't like him. But the facts and data in his documentary are facts I have seen, known and read. There was almost nothing in the movie, I hadn't seen previously.

I ask you this, can you find one peer reviewed science article that says global warming is not caused by humans? Please post it.

Also if you hate the liberal agenda and universities are shameless and only around for the purpose of promoting the liberal, why do you work there and support it. Why not get a job somewhere else? And if you think all professors are assholes and liberal, I would love for you to have met my whole department. Most of them were extreamly anti-liberal, but then again almost all of them were rich white men of rich families of privelidge. (I.e. engineering professors, the reason I say most instead of all is some didn't grow up rich, but they were all men, rich and all except one was white the one exception was a TA and he was of middle eastern decent).

My point in bringing out that point is that by ascribing everything to "the liberal agenda", it diminishes what might otherwise be a rational argument and makes it sound like you have nothing to back up what you say. It is also could be considered insulting to someone because it says that you don't value their opinion because they learned it at a university. I didn't personally take offense to what you say because I am used to it. Being a liberal I am accused of having an agenda all the time. It would be nice to move beyond that someday into the realm of actual discussion.....At the same time I see the appeal of it to many people, it's easy.

Professors do tend to have a liberal bent, especially in the liberal arts colleges. I don't think that is such a bad thing as most college professors that I have had, didn't care if you shared their opinion on something, only that you used your brain to come up with an opinion and could back it up with rational thoughts.

Having liberals around is good for this country and it is one of the reasons we are here in the first place and not still singing God Save the Queen. This country was founded on liberal values and it's only recently that it's become more important to label someone as a "liberal" or "conservative" and tune them out instead of listening to what they are saying.

I like pie....

Thank you....

Everyone has an agenda......

It surprises me to find that someone other than myself in my gaming circle actually listens to Glenn. Be Afraid, I'm actually an "insider".

Drix wrote:
It surprises me to find that someone other than myself in my gaming circle actually listens to Glenn. Be Afraid, I'm actually an "insider".

I have been listening to him for some time now, since he was still in Philly.
I am not a full blown conservative in any way and am not very religious but Glenn really does speak a lot of simple common sense. That is why I like him. He also does not preach to you like others (Rush) do. I just want information and issues brought to my attention. I can then read up more about it if I choose to.

Glenn has so far always seemed to be very level headed and about as neutral as someone can be in that position.

I also like Neil Boortz. He is a libertarian. I am closer to that for a lot of issues.

I do not always agree with either of them but I happen to agree with Glenn about a lot of issues.