About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Beck, CEI's Horner denounced Gore's work as "science fiction," spread global warming misinformation

April 10, 2007 3:53 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

33 Comments

On the April 5 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck joined Chris Horner, counsel for the energy industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), in denouncing former Vice President Al Gore's award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, 2006), with Horner saying the film is "pure science fiction." As evidence, Beck cited a New York Times article on global warming -- which, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, includes misleading characterizations, a false comparison, and misrepresentations of Gore's statements. Horner also claimed that, "in about a year, it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming" -- an argument contradicted by NASA surface temperature analyses. He also asserted that Gore "has been saying, for nigh on five years, that we've got 10 years to live," a statement that Gore does not appear to have ever made.

In introducing the segment, Beck stated: "Even The New York Times has said that Al Gore is writing checks that his research couldn't cash. Usually, the only thing you find about Al Gore in The New York Times -- love letters." Horner later echoed Beck's claim, saying: "It took The New York Times about 15 months to pick up on the fact that his movie was pure science fiction before they found some scientists who were willing to say this." But as Media Matters noted, the March 13 Times article to which Horner and Beck were presumably referring included several misrepresentations of Gore's position, including making a false comparison to suggest that Gore exaggerated a potential rise in sea levels.

Additionally, the article's author, New York Times science writer William J. Broad, identified Donald J. Easterbrook as a "rank-and-file" scientist who opposes Gore's views, when, in fact Easterbrook, in a presentation at the Geological Society of America's 2006 annual meeting, suggested that "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2" and predicted global cooling between 2065 and 2100. Moreover, Media Matters has documented that scientists who were identified as skeptics in the article -- Richard Lindzen, Bjørn Lomborg, Roy Spencer, and Benny J. Peiser -- all have made statements questioning global warming that have either been debunked or discredited by the scientific community, which Broad did not report. The Broad article echoes the anti-Gore myths perpetuated by the Times that -- as Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert has noted -- affected the outcome of the 2000 election.

During the segment, Horner also claimed that "it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming," and that "it hasn't warmed since 1998." In fact, as Media Matters has noted, according to NASA, 1998 was a particularly warm year because "a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures." Despite the temperature spike that occurred in 1998, the Climatic Research Unit's Global Temperature Record and a surface temperature analysis of 2006 by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) show a general warming trend since 1970. Moreover, a February 2007 NASA Earth Observatory news release states, "By the early 1980s, temperatures surpassed those of the 1940s and, despite ups and downs from year to year, they continued rising beyond the year 2000."

A graph on NASA's website illustrates the "global mean land-ocean temperature index" from 1880 to 2006:

During the show, Horner also stated that Gore "has been saying, for nigh on five years, that we've got 10 years to live, so, pretty soon ... those chickens are going to come home to roost." In fact, Gore has asserted that, according to "leading scientists," such as NASA's James Hansen, the climate may be reaching "a point of no return" within the next 10 years. On the December 5, 2006, edition of The Oprah Winfrey Show, Gore said: "Some of the leading scientists are now saying we may have as little as 10 years before we cross a kind of point of no return, beyond which it's much more difficult to save the habitability of the planet in the future." Media Matters could find no evidence that Gore has ever said that "we've got 10 years to live."

From the April 5 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Because both sides now know you're full of bullcrap!

Those on the left who do agree with the perceived immediate dangers of global warming think you're a hypocrite. Not only does your palatial mansion use more electricity in a month than the average American home does in a year, but the meat-eater that he is also contributes to cattle emissions, which are infinitely worse than driving a fully loaded Hummer.

Now, that's not my opinion; no, that's the opinion of those crazy conservatives at the U.N.

Now, those on the right have long believed that, you know, something's going on with the Earth's climate, but it's impossible to deny that so much of Al Gore's science is unsubstantiated and his doomsday language is wide -- it's just out of control and counterproductive.

Even The New York Times has said that Al Gore is writing checks that his research couldn't cash. Usually, the only thing you find about Al Gore in The New York Times -- love letters.

Al, the world's onto you. Your self-promotional, politically motivated science fiction -- I say, forget, you know, the diet, grow the beard back, invite your old friends, Ben and Jerry, over for a little reunion. The jig seems to be up!

Chris Horner, he is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). Chris --

HORNER: Yes.

BECK: -- aren't you absolutely shocked that the mainstream media didn't pick up a story about protesters at Al Gore's speech from the left?

HORNER: Well, wait a second. It took The New York Times about 15 months to pick up on the fact that his movie was pure science fiction before they found some scientists who were willing to say this, so I expect in another year or so, they'll figure out that maybe it's worth reporting, because we'll figure out -- in about a year, it'll be almost 10 years since we've experienced any warming, Glenn. You have to remember that it hasn't warmed since 1998.

Maybe, on that anniversary -- that they will notice that, in fact, some college students jeered him. And the reason that's odd is -- you're noting that, yes, he does tend to now speak only before reliably left-wing audiences, sure, but typically elites.

College students may come from the elite strain, but they aren't yet there.

BECK: Right.

HORNER: They haven't figured out that his agenda is really about other people. They realize they'd like to create wealth, and he's going to make it quite difficult for them.

BECK: Let me go to -- let me go -- 'cause you said, you know, it's been 10 years, almost 10 years -- it's been nine now since we've experienced any warming in the globe. Let me go -- let me show you that we seem to have collective Alzheimer's. From The Washington Post -- "Greenhouse Doomsday": "The year is 2035. Phoenix is in its third week of temperatures over 130 degrees. ... Holland is under water. Bangladesh has ceased to exist. ... (This) is not science fiction; it's based on current projections."

At what point do the projections start to catch up on them?

HORNER: Well, when they assign years to them -- I believe that article assigned 2035, so, back then, it was a long time in the future. Right now -- remember, Al Gore has been saying, for nigh on five years, that we've got 10 years to live, so, pretty soon, you know, those chickens are going to come home to roost.

BECK: I don't know if you saw this, but in USA Today, I think it was yesterday, the lead story in the Life section was, scientists say it's too late. It's too late to turn this around. I thought --

HORNER: Right.

BECK: -- "Well, I should go buy the Hummer then."

HORNER: Well, that's when the schism's part starts in the movement because, at that point, the funding drives up. What's the point? Remember, Glenn, we spent $5 billion with a "b" researching this that's purportedly settled, and now it's too late. Why don't we spend the money productively to help with adaptation, which is how societies -- successful societies have always dealt with something that they always face: climate change.

BECK: Chris, thank you. I want to leave you with one quick quote here. It is from Discover magazine: "[W]e have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have." Discover magazine, 1989. Seems like the playbook.

That's "The Real Story" tonight, and in the spirit of equal time, I want to give Al Gore a chance to respond, and I mean this sincerely. Here it is.

[begin video clip]

AL GORE IMPERSONATOR: I want to talk to you today about global warming. We all know the dangers it presents, so I'm not going to try and scare you. I'm just going to present you with the facts.

Here's fact No. 1: If you don't act soon, the Earth will suffer many, many explosions! Bombs! Deaths! It's going to be hell on Earth! Your skin is going to bubble! You're going to burn alive, and you're going to be dead -- dead! So dead you won't even believe how dead you are!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This message brought to you by the Committee to Keep Al Gore's Ongoing 2012 Presidential Campaign Secret.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by duncan12347948 (April 10, 2007 3:59 pm ET)
         

      I like this kind of scfi

      I guess the right cannot stand the truth

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DorisRussell (April 10, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
           

        No they can not. Anyone with common sense needs to understand the facts , and make a educated decision based on the facts. The Earths climate is changing, Al Gore makes a great case as to why. The Right attacks him and makes fun of him becuase they have nothing else.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by greekfurnace (April 10, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
             

          ...because they see a growing, informed populace a direct threat to their bottom line... a bottom line greatly supported by fossil fuels. Beck is an uneducated whore. But, a high-priced whore.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by valentinian (April 10, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
         

      Great, let's bring on the deniers. Need a break from all the flying monkeys defening Imus...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (April 10, 2007 4:19 pm ET)
           

        Is it me or did about three hundred new posters sign up just to defend Imus? I haven't seen any of them before

        Let's see if they weigh in on this Beck thread.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by valentinian (April 10, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
             

          No, it's not just you. I think there was a link to MMfA on the site of a support group for PEOPLE WHO TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (April 10, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
         

      I'm a right-winger who believes the science of global warming.  But I also think this carbon-credit stuff is pretty weak, buying credits so you can continue to do your own thing.  Weak!  And also, Gore should put his money where his mouth is and run for President where he could make real changes in American policy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (April 10, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
           

        he doesn't just "buy credits".  he pays extra money for electricity that goes to a company that must, by agreement, produce it from wind or solar.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (April 10, 2007 4:47 pm ET)
             

          Yes, a company that he owns if I'm not mistaken.  Or at least is heavily invested in.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (April 10, 2007 5:20 pm ET)
               

            and?  he's still doing it. do you know how much he makes out of it?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (April 11, 2007 1:18 am ET)
               

            I thought a core conservative ideology was that innovation and making money by getting in on the ground floor of said innovation is all part of the FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

            What burns the GW deniers most of all is that Al Gore might turn a dollar from this, and if there is one thing a conservative hates more than a welfare mom it's a rich liberal.

            Randy

            Report Abuse
      • Author by valentinian (April 10, 2007 4:39 pm ET)
           

        I think you might be under a misapprehension as to what carbon credits actually do. A polluter who emits less than the limit of CO2 can sell its "right to pollute" to someone else, thus creating an economic incentive to pollute less.

        It's not a perfect system, but it has some appeal, especially to those who prefer markets to regulations...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (April 10, 2007 4:46 pm ET)
             

          Yes, I've read about this because I have a job in the agricultural field.  In essence, some farms or factories can pick up "free money" because they are already polluting below their maximum and can sell that difference to a bigger polluter.  Now I agree that if a company actually REDUCES their emissions to gain this profit it can be a good thing, but if a company is ALREADY doing this anyway, then it doesn't change squat.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by valentinian (April 10, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
               

            I think the idea is that it creates an economic incentive to pollute less, so you don't have to pay for the credit or can even set up a side business selling credits.

            I think it's a cool idea but far from a panacea.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Pithaughn (April 10, 2007 4:53 pm ET)
               

            Bruce, you missed the memo. Let's say I have a coal fired generator and I buy and install scrubbers that reduce my emissions of C02 per kilowatt of electricity produced. I can now sell the difference on the open carbon credit market. This is what is called a market incentive. Without the incentive, corporations will not invest in the scrubbers, no one will invest in scrubbing research, generating plants won't get any cleaner. The alternative is to regulate emissions, but then who is going to pay for the technology? If you oppose regulations, if you oppose raising or diverting taxes for scrubber research then you might be for carbon credit markets.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by greekfurnace (April 10, 2007 5:21 pm ET)
                 

              You hit it on the head... Only until the conservationists make conservation profitable for the fossil fuel crowd... they won't care or take notice. The might dollar rules in those circles. Period.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by LarryE (April 10, 2007 5:37 pm ET)
               

            I'm with Bruce on this, in fact, I suspect I go a little beyond him.

            "Carbon offsets" are on the whole a good idea.  They involve either purchasing non-greenhouse gas-emitting power or in some way paying for such sources of a capacity equivalent to the greenhouse-producing power you use. The idea, stripped to its basics, is that you reduce your "carbon footprint" either by producing fewer carbon emissions or by offsetting the emissions you produce with carbon emissions that will not be produced somewhere else as a result of your purchase of offsets. Either way, the total amount of carbon emissions is reduced.

            "Cap and trade" schemes for emission control are a different story as ultimately they do not reduce the total amount of emissions and could possibly, as in the scenario Bruce mentions, increase them. For that reason, their oft-mentioned success in reducing acid rain is not relevant here: For acid rain, it is the local concentration of sulfur dioxide that is of concern; in the case of CO2 emissions, it is the total amount that matters. And again, cap and trade schemes do very little, if anything, in that direction, which is why I maintain that they are at best a short-term stop gap and by no means a solution.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by oscar the grouch (April 10, 2007 8:07 pm ET)
                 

              And then if you would practice some conservation practices on top of that, think of what you could do for the environment.  Its great to have the $ to buy "Carbon Offsets, but who says you can't buy and still conserve.  Would like to see Gore's electrical bills, if for no other reason than to put to rest some of the figures that have been thrown around here and on the media in the past.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by arebeeo (April 10, 2007 4:27 pm ET)
         

      Don't you love how these bozos denounce the New York Times most of the time then use it as a source for their delusions.  One day they accuse the Times of treason then the next day cite it for scientific acumen.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ajwan (April 10, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
         

      "where he could make real changes in American policy."

      Yeah he can't make direct changes to policy but sure can have an impact. I wonder where would global warming awareness be now without Gore's efforts.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ajwan (April 10, 2007 4:32 pm ET)
         

      When you have lost the debate and you are a loser with a small brain and a big mouth, you make stuff up.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Pithaughn (April 10, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
         

      Beck's show is an entertainment product, like "I love Lucy" or "My favorite Martian". Anyone who can sit through the blather is not gonna be swayed by facts from athiest, godless scientists. It's the segment of the 30% that still thinks Bush is leading the free world, and that he is leading the free world in a favorable way.

      We can only hope that sooner or later, it will be more profitable for CNN and FOX to air something other than right wing extremists who lie for a living. Because, profit margins are all they care about.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by LarryE (April 10, 2007 5:00 pm ET)
         

      So why are they attacking Al Gore?

      Because they can't attack the science of global warming, that's why.

      Consider the new report of the IPCC, the one described as presenting a "near-apocalyptic" view of the future. The Summary for Policymakers that was released on Friday was the result of 5 days of hard, even angry, negotiations between scientists involved in preparing the document and representatives of over 100 nations.

      The result is that every single word in that document can be regarded as a consensus statement between climate scientists and the nations of the world. Every. Single. Word. And even at that, it's weaker than the scientists wanted.

      All Beck & Co. are about is following the old lawyers' saw: When the facts are against you, attack the law. When the law is against you, attack the facts. When the facts and the law are both against you, attack opposing counsel. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (April 10, 2007 5:14 pm ET)
         

      I am not a Beck fan and never listen to him. It seems to me that the problem with Gore et al is that they blame the global warming on man made CO2 causing a greenhouse effect and warming the earth. 

      I've seen reports where volcanoes expel many times more CO2 into the atmosphere than man made emissions. 

      One of the problems with this conclusion is that recent studies do not show an increase in temperature in the lower troposphere where the greenhouse effect should be seen. 

      There are also other studies that show that severe weather is not increasing.

      Still other studies show that the Earth is always in a state of warming and/or cooling. We could very well be in the middle of one of these warming periods.

      Some weather scientists are in disagreement with the methods used to acertain historical surface global temperatures. There are many contributing factors that are not taken into effect, including microenvironmental differences, the effects of simply measuring the temperatures, the lack of ocean surface temperatures. To study something like global temperatures is a hugely complicated and inexact science to say the least.

      Add to it the political influences by environmental activists in both the scientific and political community have forced some scientists to renounce the global warming reports because of built in institutional bias.

      This is just off the top of my head.

      So you can see why some people are skeptical of a politician like Gore. Some of us think he is using global warming as a way to indoctrinate the unsuspecting into a political world view where he is seen as the lone wolf crying out in the desert. All the while he is being hypocritical by using tremendous amounts of energy in his home in Nashville, among other things, heating his pool and buying so called 'credits' from a company that he himself founded and profits from.    

      So I encourage everyone who believes we are in the midst of man made global warming to not blindly accept Gore's movie but go look at the 'other' side has to say.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by skeptical (April 10, 2007 6:01 pm ET)
           

        AA,

        I don't know where you got your info, but there is complete consensus amongst the scientific community that the current rate of global warming is caused byb man made greenhouse gases.

        There is no scientific research or scientist doing research in this area that disputes that fact.

        You need to read scientific information not partisan websites for your info.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (April 10, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
           

        I've seen reports where volcanoes expel many times more CO2 into the atmosphere than man made emissions.

        You're off by a factor of 150.  Many other points are answered here

         

        http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/volcanos-emit-more-co2.html

         

         

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by jawill11 (April 10, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
           

        I would like to respond to some of your concerns:

        From the research I have read, there is discrepency between satellite temp. readings in the troposphere and surface temp. readings, but the cuase for that disrepency is not entirely known, it could be from sampling differences as well as real differences.  Also, the satellite temp readings have been going up over the last several decades, just at an insignificantly different rate.

        I have not seen anything regarding any claim regarding severe weather other than news stories about the 2006 hurricane season, which was not severe in the Atlantic but was severe in the Pacific, and much of that had to do with the el nino effect.  Besides that, the GW effect on storms is more about making storms more severe than they would be otherwise, not necessarily more frequent. There is no debate that the warmer surface temp of the Gulf had to do with the severity of Katrina.

        If you read the studies on GW, they surpass previous warming/cooling patterns in recent history.  Of course all the climatologists have heard of the Midevel Warming Period and have taken it and the others into account when conducting and discussing their research. 

        As for volcanoes, putting a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere at one place in a short period of time has a much different effect than the constant stream of gases put out by anthropogenic activities.

        I have read the "other side" of the debate and I have yet to see any definitive evidence of purely natural explainations for GW.  Most of what is out there is propoganda designed to mislead, and some of it is serious questions from respected scientists that do not disprove any theories, but do raise questions for further research.

         I think also that you will never hear a scientist state that it is 100% proven that all GW is man-made, but that pretty much all the evidence points in that direction.  Even if there are legitimate questions or new evidence, which there have been, none of it changes the fact that a strong body of evidence suggests that humans are affecting the climate. I think that nay reasonable person can agree that, while it is not proven, there is such a significant amount of research out there now that has yet to be disproven, it is imperative that we clean up our act to avoid any more environmental damage. Because one thing that has never been disproven is that whatever the cause of GW, it is happening and I could fill thousands of pages with evidence of the environmental damage it has been causing.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (April 10, 2007 6:20 pm ET)
           

        >>This is just off the top of my head.

         Yea, no kidding. You don't know what you are talking about. Volcanoes spew 1/150 of what man creates. The rest of your stupid talking points have been refuted a hundred times by real science. Is there a reason I should listen to a right-wing blowhard like you rather than all the scientist of the world? 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (April 10, 2007 6:42 pm ET)
           

        I encourage everyone

        I encourage you to check out the actual science (you could start with the IPCC) instead of what you've maybe heard somewhere so you can tell the difference between facts and nanny-nanny naysayer talking points.

        volcanoes expel more CO2

        And the point is what, that things could get even worse even faster if there's a major eruption somewhere? Even taken strictly at face value, that's like being unconcerned about someone punching you in the mouth because if you got hit by a car it would be worse.

        Then there's the fact that such an eruption also releases a great mass of particulates, which produce a cooling effect. That's particularly relevant because of your next claim.

        lower troposphere where the greenhouse effect should be seen

        First, there is no reason by the lower troposphere is to be, apparently, the place where global warming should be seen as opposed to the surface and the stratosphere, both of which show unassailable evidence of global warming, which is why the skeptics never mention them.

        But the point here is that it was realized years ago that volcanic eruptions serve to cool the troposphere more than the surface and so conceal the existence of warming forcings on that layer. What's more, in spite of that, the troposphere has shown a small warming trend over the past decade.

        severe weather is not increasing

        Actually, there is a general agreement that severe weather events are increasing - but there is no consensus on how much of that can be attributed to global warming. 

        Earth is always in a state of warming and/or cooling

        Oh, well, duh. Do you really think this is some dramatic insight? If so, it shows the extreme limitations of your understanding. Knowledge of warming/cooling cycles is old stuff. What, you think scientists don't take that kind of thing into account? Get real.

        weather scientists

        Knowing the difference between "weather scientists" (meteorologists) and "climate scientists" (climatologists) is Global Warming 101. Get back to us when you finish the semester.

        many contributing factors not taken into effect

        Wrong. Every one of those and more are considered. Some are difficult if not impossible to quantify exactly, which is one of the reasons why predictions have a range, to allow for such uncertainties. That, too, is Global Warming 101, in fact it's Science 101.

        global temperatures inexact science

        Inexact, yes, as I just noted. But inexact does not mean wrong. That's especially true here since the issue at hand, contrary to the implication, is not measuring the exact average temperature of the planet (which would in any event be a meaningless number and constantly changing since the Earth is a dynamic system) - it's considering how that temperature is changing. And the way it's changing is clear: It's going up - and going up, with over 90% certainty, because of what humans are doing.

        you can see why some people are skeptical

        I can see, rather, how some people go out of their way to seek out a way to be skeptical, to live in denial.

        he is the lone wolf crying out in the desert

        Right. By describing an overwhelming scientific consensus. A real lone wolf.

        hypocritical buying so called 'credits'

        There is nothing so-called about such credits which, as I noted in another comment, are about reducing the total amount of carbon emissions by seeing to it that what you generate here is avoided somewhere else. Outside of a wingnut's fevered fantasies, there's nothing hypocritical about paying more for electricity than you have to in order to support clean energy.

        company he founded and profits from

        Which in any other circumstance would have been called putting your money where your mouth is.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (April 10, 2007 5:23 pm ET)
         

      In case anyone wants to refer to it, as I have on occasion, a gentleman by the name of Greg Hoke has transcribed An Inconvenient Truth for all to see. 

      I used it once to expose a righty blogger who accused Al Gore of blaming the Aral Sea disaster on global warming in his film, when Gore actually did no such thing. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by iwarrior (April 10, 2007 9:45 pm ET)
         

      I wish it was all just sci-fi. Too bad that it isn't.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by moe (April 11, 2007 6:03 am ET)
         

      This is easy.  Who are you going to believe...Al Gore or The Beaver?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.