About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck calls climate change deniers Galileo under persecution from global warming cultists

December 14, 2009 5:43 pm ET

From the December 14 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Beck on CRU emails: "This is what happened in the Dark Ages. ... It leads to the tower of Galileo"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (December 14, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
      1 7
      Beck knows history. I'm impressed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (December 14, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
        7 2
        But not very well. His analogy is false.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Quixote (December 14, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
        9 1
        Beck has a childish filtered notion of history which he wantonly revises and inverts to get his points across.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (December 14, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
           
        He knows the History that any eigth grader should know.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc (December 14, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
        1  
        You'd learn more history from an episode of Peabody and Sherman and the Way Back Machine on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.

        Beck seems to know even less about Galileo than he does about the Revolution's most famous atheist Thomas Paine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (December 14, 2009 9:17 pm ET)
        6 1
        hE doesn't know history. He pretends he knows history. And interprets it to suit his own agenda. He says that "the power structure" or "those that hold power" were the ones that persecuted galileo. iT was actually the church that did this just like the church is still trying discredit the use of condoms to combat HIV infection (which is by far the most effective over abtinence), evolution, gay marriage and global warming among other things. Of course, the repugs side with the church over proven science on these issues thus, if we were in galileo's time beck would be the one railing on him that the earth is the center of the universe and not the sun. But beck's ridiculous interpretations prevail.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 14, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
      9 1
      Hmmm - another Beckian take on history, More acurately, deniers are the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church tossing Galileo in prison for being right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (December 14, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
      12 1
      Wait a minute Glenn.

      Galileo was the one who would have evaluated the science and formed an opinion form his observations, not from whoever was lining his pockets.

      Chalk up one more historical figure that Beck knows nothing about.

      Tune in tomorrow for Glenn Beck's hysterical interpretation of historical people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (December 14, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
      12 3
      Okay, Galileo was persecuted by religious fanatics who believed his scientific findings that the earth orbited the Sun instead of vice versa were heretical and not based in Biblical scriptures, which Galileo claimed to not be literal in the first place . . . it would seem to me that Galileo would be more like the proponents of the theories of global warming than the religious fanatics and corporate greedmongers who are opponents. Bad analogy, Beck, but then what's new? Most of your faithful followers won't know enough about Galileo to catch your false analogy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by WoodstockNation1969 (December 14, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
        4  
        true very true... now if Mr. Beck can spin Ronnie Reagon's speech " Tear down this wall" and the Wall fell as Reagon spoke these words, the slaves were free and all was good!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (December 14, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
           
        Actually, bintx to be accurate, the problem is not that his followers do not know enough about Galileo. The problem is that they cannot see a false analogy when it is staring at them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff191 (December 15, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
           
        Most of Beck and Palins followers believe that the world was created in seven days and Moses rode to church on a dinosaur
        Report Abuse
    • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
      1 13
      What is a "climate change denier?"

      Is someone who simply thinks that MAN'S role in climate change isn't the most significant factor a "climate change denier?"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (December 14, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
        2 4
        Are you saying that man's impact on climate change is insignificant? Sure, man has a significant impact, but so does every other living being.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
          3 9
          I mean man's impact as the PRIMARY factor causing change. That is what I question. That does not mean that one denies climate change, because the climate has been changing since it formed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DAWUSS (December 14, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
            1 3
            Got it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (December 14, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
            7  
            I'm pretty sure that even if man is not the primary cause of increased global temperatures, he's the only responsible party who can do something about the problem
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (December 14, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
              9  
              k1dork obviously missed the fact that the major difference in the planet in the past few thousand years is now we have 7 BILLION humans living here.

              Yep, man has little to do with it. Right.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
                2 13
                How did the earth come out of the last ice-age? There weren't billions of people back then? I think the earth goes through warming and cooling trends.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (December 14, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
                  11  
                  <sigh!> Your answer, sir...

                  Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.

                  Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

                  First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

                  Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

                  The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

                  [http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/volstok.gif&w=307]
                  Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.

                  Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

                  So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.

                  In short: No.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (December 14, 2009 7:31 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Very well posted, snoopy! Hats off!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (December 14, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
                      7  
                      I appreciate that, but I won't take credit for the words I provide in quote. Grist has done an awesome job compiling all the misinformation and developing well thought out responses. I am merely a fan of a greater source...
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by worrierking (December 14, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Too bad our opponents can only grasp a concept if it fits on a bumper sticker.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by John Paradox (December 15, 2009 2:39 am ET)
                          1  
                          and, ironically, they tend to be driving the 'big cars' (Suburban Assault Vehicle, etc.)
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (December 15, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
                             
                          Snoopy's post will fit on a bumper sticker. You just have to use very small print.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by papa bear3 (December 15, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Nice, but in a Beckian universe you used too many words. This C02 stuff is way over their heads
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by edgewaterprog (December 14, 2009 8:33 pm ET)
                   
                7 billion humans might not make an impact but 7 billion humans with countless automobiles and coal fire electrical plants and all the other carbon creaters of an industrialized society.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by grunt (December 15, 2009 9:26 am ET)
                1 3
                So the only real solution is population control? We humans are spewing a lot of CO2. Taking cars off of the roads won't reduce temperatures. Changing our energy structure won't do it substantially. The only real solution is population control. Who would you like to kill off first?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by boulderhippy (December 15, 2009 10:45 am ET)
                    1
                  Ask the beauraucrat that is going to control your healthcare, who do they deem expendable.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (December 15, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Taking cars off of the roads won't reduce temperatures

                  Replacing all gas-powered cars with green-powered cars would reduce greenhouse gases, wouldn't it?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by grunt (December 15, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Depends on where the energy to power the car is coming from. Read the cap and trade bill and see how much it will supposedly reduce temps by 2050. If the energy is coming from nuclear power, then yes. Solar and wind cannot produce adequate amounts of energy to power the whole grid, run our cars, and our homes.

                    We can't do any of those things right now. People can't afford wind and solar power. It will take years for adequate nuclear plants to be built. We don't have the technology for everyone to have green cars. Again, we can't afford it.

                    If the world is supposedly going to end if we don't do something this decade, then the world will end. Do the math. It doesn't add up.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
              2 10
              Right, but can we significantly alter the warming trend? If the planet is on a warming trend, there is little we can do to stop it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (December 14, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
                6 1
                We can do our part.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (December 14, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
                5 1
                What if I had proof that the warming trend would not be affected. But, that proof also showed that humans would on average prosper, having more clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe. What if that proof further showed that, once the populations of Earth were able, through renewable energy sources, to provide more fully for themselves, that warfare and the waste of resources devoted to it, would quickly slow to a few pockets of intense fighting, leaving a mostly peaceful planet in it's wake. What if that proof showed that the world's economies would immediately prosper, putting millions to work worldwide implementing these green technologies?

                You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

                What's the alternative? Burn more oil? Pollute the last of the fresh water, the last of the clean air? Spill wreck and ruin across the last pristine spaces on Earth? Not a tough choice for me.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (December 14, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
                  4  
                  These deniers remind me of the guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island to build another monument to their gods.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (December 14, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
            6  
            There are things you can do something about, and there are things you can't. Only a fool would argue not doing anything about what you can because you can't control what you can't. That "don't put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow" mentality is just a coverup for industries that prefer to milk current technology to the last drop before they finally have no choice but to start researching something to replace it. Those kinds of businesses are banking on making their biggest profits charging excessive fees for a dying technology - I would expect someone who has a problem paying for social services would be first on board about paying social services for big industry...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (December 14, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
        6 1
        Irrelevant. Beck's entire analogy is flawed. Galileo would be the proponent, not the opponent. He was persecuted for proposing a scientific theory . . . heliocentrism . . . which was opposed by the religious fanatics of his day, much as man's aggravation of global climate change is being denied by religious fanatics and corporate greedmongers of this day. In other words, he was persecuted for being right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
          1 8
          Irrelevant? I'M ASKING A FREAKING QUESTION! What makes one a "climate change denier?" I'm just saying that one can question MAN'S role in climate change, and STILL believe in climate change.

          I'm just inquiring about the language.

          Also, it does NOT take a religious fanatic to question MAN'S role in climate change. One can question man's role, and still believe in climate change.

          And read up on Galileo. He was imprisoned for heresy, not his theory. Not saying that it was justified, but there's a difference. His heliocentric theory wasn't the main cause of his imprisonment.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pros2pros2940 (December 14, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
            4  
            NO you cannot be a denier as man contributes and that's what the science says : fossil fuels and other MAN MADE causes.

            Yes there are cycles involved but the clear trend is upwards

            Nobody said that MAN is the ONLY thing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DAWUSS (December 14, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
              1 6
              So why won't we hold the other living entities accountable for their impact on the enviornment?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
                1 6
                We should. I say we eat more cows, seeing that they contribute more than man.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 14, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Proof? How many equatorial rainforests do cows cut down every year?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
                      9
                    Proof? Look up "CO2 emissions from cows." From what I've heard, they emit more than factories.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by aassppiicc (December 14, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                      7  
                      Not CO2. I think you are thinking of Methane!
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 14, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
                      7 1
                      There are two problems with your argument: 1) Cows exist in great numbers BECAUSE of our consumption of beef, not in spite of it, and 2) humans contribute to global warming through more than our CO2 emissions.

                      Not that I have a problem with taking a closer look at cattle. We should raise fewer cows, though, not eat more. Cattle are not an economical food crop. I like burgers and steaks, but I have cut way back on my consumption because they aren't a good deal for the environment (or for the wallet). The planet would be much better off if people ate more chicken and fish (or just switched to vegetarianism).
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (December 15, 2009 11:28 am ET)
                  1  
                  Galileo was arrested for heresy because he disputed the churches notion that the earth was the c enter of the universe!!! Eat more cows?!?
                  I find it hard to believe you are this stupid.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
                9
              Thanks for giving a rational reply. They are truly few and far between here.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (December 14, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
                7  
                You ought to know, you are the purveyor of most of the irrational replies, DUDE.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
                    6
                  Right, when I start calling you names or suggest that you're "not Native American," because of your opinions, get back to me.

                  Oh, someone had a question for you about Native American imagery in sports in the other topic. I'd like to hear you answer on that.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (December 14, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                5  
                Dork, to the Catholic Church of Galileo's day, the earth, as God's creation had to be the center of the universe. Believing differently was heresy. His theory was heritical. You must not be Catholic, and not being so, find it hard to believe that anyone could be imprisoned for disagreeing with the teachings of the Church.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
                    8
                  No, I get that. I'm saying that his scientific theory was NOT the primary factor for him being imprisoned. His disrespect of the Pope by characterizing him as "Simplicio" in his writings are where the heresy charges stemmed from.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 14, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
                    5  
                    That renders Beck's argument even more ridiculous.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by epkklk851 (December 14, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
                    5  
                    No, his alienation of the Pope took away his protection from being charged with heresy. The heresy was still his belief in a heliocentric universe. Mocking the Pope was just plain dumb, because it cost him support from a very high place.

                    "Galileo was found 'vehemently suspect of heresy,' namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to 'abjure, curse and detest' those opinions."Wikipedia.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
                        7
                      Isn't the Pope the leader of the church? Of course you're going to catch hell if you insult the leader of an organization with YOUR FATE in THEIR HANDS.

                      Like I said, it was his insults, not his science, that got him imprisoned.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (December 14, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
                        6  
                        his insults, not his science

                        His science WAS an insult to the church.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
                            7
                          To SOME in the church. But, the Pope was on his side.

                          Also, his science was contrary to even the science of the time, which followed Ptolemy's theories.

                          Galileo would have been fine if he hadn't insulted the Pope, which left him to the mercy of those who opposed him.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by RKAllen (December 14, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
                        5  
                        You are engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc. You are saying that he was persecuted and punished for his views on a heliocentric universe because he insulted the pope. This is what is known as a logical fallasy and the other posters are doing very well in proving how wrong you are.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
                            6
                          Galileo would NOT have been persecuted had he not insulted the Pope. Plain and simple.

                          Sure, there were those in the church who wanted to prosecute him for his theory, but they had no power to do so.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RKAllen (December 14, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Once again, you are engaging in a logical fallasy. You can prove that no more than you could prove that had he insulted the pope but supported a universe that was consitent with scripture that he would never have faced any persecution at all.

                            Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are intellectually dishonest.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
                                5
                              OH, you're playing debate team. I get it. Since it's all in the past and happened already, you're saying that I can't make statements like "this would not have happened if this had not have happened."

                              Got it. Don't care.

                              Just having a discussion. Not that serious.
                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by epkklk851 (December 14, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Dork, you can and will persist in whatever you wish to. You defend Glenn and Rush all the time. The Pope told him not to come down on the side of heliocentrism, which he did, and in his book, he gave the most foolish words and positions to a character called "Simpleton" but he also had Simpleton say some of the things the Pope had said. But it was still the science that caused the problem.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
                            5
                          The science was against the science of the time as well. The science of the time even taught that the earth was the center.

                          Galileo would not have been left to the mercy of the religious literalists, had he not insulted the Pope. Can we at least agree on that?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mescal (December 14, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
                            6  
                            No, because that would be a complete distortion of the historical record in order to support the malignantly false claims of Glenn Dreck.

                            Galileo was attacked and silenced by the Church because he taught a scientific theory THAT WAS AT ODDS WITH THE ENTRENCHED BELIEF SYSTEM OF THE FREAKIN' CHURCH.

                            Doughboy got the analogy ass-backwards. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone because of just who and what he is. Dreck is just another smug, dishonest anti-science thug who represents the entrenched interests of the oil industry.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by worrierking (December 14, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Not really. Although science hadn't fully accepted the Copernican theory, Galileo took that as his starting point.

                            Not every scientist of the time believed in the Geocentric theory.
                            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (December 14, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
            4 1
            Boy, you are dense, aren't you? I KNOW about Galileo and I would suggest that YOU read up on Galileo. His theory of heliocentrism was considered heresy by the Roman Catholic church and that, together with a very ill-thought out book, is what got him in trouble. The indictment of Galileo

            Your comments were irrelevant because Beck's entire analogy was flawed. Ask whatever question you want, but in the context of this particular Beck historical malapropism, it is irrelevant.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                6
              The church was allowing Galileo to present his theories, until he satirized the Pope as "Simplicio," in his writings. That is where the heresy stemmed from, not the science.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blueline99 (December 14, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                4  
                dork... why do you try to deflect?

                Gallileo was asked to write his book presenting both sides of the argument without advocacy. Gallileo couldn't do it, because he be knew what was right.

                The Church was only looking for one answer Heliocentrism... it's like when the tobacco companies commission a study, if the scientist don't return the results they want to hear, then the study never gets published.

                Science is science and if it the data is offensive that is no reason to dismiss it.

                Look at the deniers and the studies they point to... see who funds their studies, see if their studies are peer reviewed.

                They aren't, because that's the "science" that's done with an objective in mind.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
                    5
                  Won't the earth continue to warm despite human contribution? The earth has been warming since the last ice age.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (December 14, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    And since the last ice age earth's population has skyrocketed.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
                        6
                      Right, but if the earth could warm out of an ice-age without man, then maybe our role isn't that significant. Not that we can't play a role, but perhaps it isn't significant.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (December 14, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
                        3  
                        7 billion eating, drinking, breathing, driving, flying, resource-exhausting humans "perhaps" doesn't have a significant effect?

                        7 billion - estimated to be almost 11 billion by 2050.

                        For the first time in recorded history you can sail through the Arctic Circle. The largest iceberg EVER recorded is floating toward Australia.

                        And man has nothing to do with any of this. Keep on denyin'. We'll fix the planet and make it better for everyone including you.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by New Frontier (December 15, 2009 8:04 am ET)
                        4  
                        then maybe our role isn't that significant. Not that we can't play a role, but perhaps it isn't significant.

                        If only there were scientists who could study this problem for us lay people.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by edgewaterprog (December 14, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
                      1  
                      That is not really correct foghorn. The population was relatively steady until several thousand years ago when technology and agriculture began to have real changes in the life expectancy of humans. And only in maybe the last couple thousand years has the population really spiked.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by blueline99 (December 14, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Of course the earth has cycles, but to think that man doesn't contribute to the condition is a bit naive.

                    We are a factor to our environment. Growing up in the 70s in southern California, we used to have Smog Alerts every summer (usually when the temp got near 100)

                    In the 70s, Los Angeles would average 100 Stage One alerts. Today, we have less than 10 a year. What happened? Did the earth change or did we change?

                    We changed of course... California adopted its own emission standards for cars. If you look at a California fuel pump, the exhaust gets captured.

                    Now, Smog still exists in southern California, how could it not with such a relatively small area hosting 38 million people. Hundreds of regulation enacted in the 70s made a difference today.

                    We have an effect on our environment. Within my lifetime I have seen the difference we can make.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by k1dork (December 14, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
                      1 4
                      You know what, I agree with you. I can't go for a run without ending up behind some school bus that seems to be single handedly destroying the environment.

                      My real contention is that it takes a religious nut-job to think that man is not playing a role.

                      That is because I know plenty of religious people who think we are to be stewards of the earth, and think that the selfishness of men is leading them not to care about the environment.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by edgewaterprog (December 14, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
                       
                    Actually there have been warm spells and cold spells since the retreat of the last glaciers k1.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by John Paradox (December 14, 2009 7:30 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The Church was only looking for one answer Heliocentrism...oops.. Geocentrism (Earth at center).

                  Gee... didn't see a correction from *ahem* anyone else, who is disagreeing with you and the facts.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by michaelr (December 14, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
            7 1
            Glenn Beck believes that MAN does not have a role in climate change.
            Glenn Beck wants the apocalypse to come.
            Glenn Beck believes that the president is a racist.
            Glenn Beck believes that the president hates white culture.
            Glenn Beck believes that universal healthcare is socialist
            Glenn Beck believes that universal healthcare is Nazism
            Glenn Beck believes that universal healthcare is Fascist
            Glenn Beck believes that universal healthcare is Marxism
            Glenn Beck believes Holdren wants to force you to have an abortion.
            Glenn Beck believes Holdren wants to put sterilizers in the water
            Glenn Beck believes his ratings will go up if he whips you into a frenzy over non-issues.
            Glenn Beck believes there are millions of uneducated people who would rather listen to him than to actually do a 5 minute search on Google.
            Glenn Beck believes the apocalypse is coming.
            Glenn Beck believes you should buy Gold to make the apocalypse taste better.
            Glenn Beck believes that you didn't know he was a paid spokesman for Goldline.
            Glenn Beck believes that MAN does not have a role in climate change.

            k1dork, how can you honestly defend this man?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by opopop (December 14, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
              3  
              Oh Michael why did you bother typing all that out, k1dork won't answer you, he's moved onto another post to talk sh!t
              Report Abuse
          • Author by johnny_nyc (December 14, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
            3 1
            A denier denies.

            Facts don't matter.

            Their minds are made up and can't be changed.

            A denier is a world apart from a skeptic.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 14, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
            4  
            And read up on Galileo. He was imprisoned for heresy, not his theory. Not saying that it was justified, but there's a difference. His heliocentric theory wasn't the main cause of his imprisonment.


            What an insane interpretation. Galileo's theory WAS the heresy!
            It is YOU who have not read up on Galileo.

            I'm just saying that one can question MAN'S role in climate change, and STILL believe in climate change

            Denying man's role in affecting climate change is the cornerstone of the deniers' entire case. They deny that pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases annually into the atmosphere and deforestation on an unprecedented scale is overwhelming the Earth's ecosystems' ability to cope.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Marker (December 14, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
            3  
            You are one Dork.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (December 16, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
            2  
            And read up on Galileo. He was imprisoned for heresy, not his theory. Not saying that it was justified, but there's a difference. His heliocentric theory wasn't the main cause of his imprisonment.


            The question becomes what did he say or do that was heretical. He wasn't randomly accused of heresy. He was imprisoned for his heliocentric theory. That idea was contrary to religious dogma at the time, and for that he was imprisoned.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (December 14, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
        5 1
        dork -

        "What is a 'climate change denier?'"

        It's someone who goes on these blogs to keep asking why no one can ever convince them that AGW is real, even though there's been plenty of posts with urls to good, solid sites.

        But, deniers act like they never, ever even read the posts, or are purposely not reading them, because they have absolutely not desire to know anything beyond their own, pre-conceived notions.

        Ok, so you deniers say it isn't real. That's your problem.

        But not satisfied with their own failure to comprehend reality, deniers waste everyone's time asking questions to which there is absolutely no desire knowing the answer.

        I think that pretty much defines a denier.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by aassppiicc (December 14, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
      2  
      Galileo now eh?
      The man's been dead since 1642, so obviously can't speak up for himself, so I will.
      Unlike Beck the people of the time new that the earth was Spherical (Got ya there Beck, you thought I was going to Say round).
      They obviously did think they were at the centre of the universe much like Beck, but they eventually realised that they were wrong, unlike Beck.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by firthio2 (December 14, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
      4  
      Actually if Beck had looked into the history of this, rather than just accepting the popular myth, he'd know that nearly all learned men knew the Earth was round at this time.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (December 14, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
      2  
      Sigmun Freud could make a cereer with this idiot. I thought FOXNews was run by climate change eniers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by caels (December 14, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
      5  
      The difference is, Galileo had evidence for his claims.

      And of course it wasn't scientists rejecting his claim.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (December 14, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
      7  
      Nope - the global warming deniers are like the people who thought the earth was a flat disk that rested on the back of a giant turtle. And the Sun revolved around it.....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (December 14, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
      6  
      Galileo was a progressive persecuted by conservatives and the church.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (December 14, 2009 7:56 pm ET)
      4  
      He has the right analogy, but he has it backwards. Rhetorical inversions (e.g. reverse victimhood, reverse racism, etc.) have become the master trope of the increasingly desperate and pathetic uber-conservative mouthpieces. In this case, it's plain to see that it's the climate change scientists who are Galileo, while the cultists are the deniers led by Beck and his crazy ilk.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (December 14, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
      2  
      Beck knows this is BS.

      He's smart enough to know what sort of BS gets ratings.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cindermaker (December 15, 2009 9:15 am ET)
        1  
        That's the problem and I fear it's exactly the same with Mr. Limbaugh, they do KNOW better, they are not stupid and I refuse to call them school yard names -- But I really think they say this stuff just to ignite peoples emotions which at this point in history are slathered in lighter fluid - People don't want facts, they want their emotions to be satisfied, they want things to burn. It seems like human nature.

        Whether or nor they know it though, it does not change that what they are saying, whether lies, opinions or just flat out bull -- Needs to be countered, they are talk show personalities and nothing more but a huge chunk of America looks to them for... Science? I don't understand.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (December 14, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
      5  
      Beck calls climate change deniers Galileo under persecution from global warming cultists

      Boy was that history lesson taught wrong!

      [http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2008/63709-TruckOfFail.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (December 14, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
        4
      BIG OOPS!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (December 15, 2009 11:52 am ET)
        3  
        ploudconservative adding an article that doesn't disprove Al Gore and neither does it disprove global warming and man as the major cause. Next ploud will be posting an article about the hacked e-mails and how they prove his case when even the AP shot that hoax down. The Oops ploud is that you've been found not to have a point, I geuss it must feel like emerging from the bathroom into a crowded room with your zipper down. But I doubt you feel shame especially after the last 8 yrs.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Boxer1979 (December 15, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
        2  

        BIG OOPS!

        Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

        Scientists always debate. The whole key to this global warming debate is to let the world know that Man is contributing to global warming. The amount of contributing is up in the air, but pollution is happening and that is something everybody should know(Some people don't).
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Taffstar (December 14, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
      1  
      Since when was the Renaissance in the Dark Ages? For gods sake! Somebody please take this man to task for the pure garbage that comes out of his mouth. Surely there is enough evidence now to completely discredit him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cindermaker (December 15, 2009 9:10 am ET)
      1  
      I actually saw this live yesterday afternoon, I was shocked for half a second, then I realized -- It's Glenn Beck!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Smagoo (December 15, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
        1
      Oh waaaaaahhhhh waaaaahhhhh! Somebody has a differing opinion that us. We MUST persecute this individual for having free thoughts. What a bunch of scard-y-cats liberals are. You're all going DOWN in 2010. Get out of the kitchen if you can't handle a little heat!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (December 15, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
        1
      1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

      2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

      3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

      4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

      5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

      6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

      7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

      8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

      9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

      10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

      11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

      12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

      13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

      14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

      15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

      16) I doubt this will actually get posted because there is truth here
      Report Abuse