Glenn Beck

Rebuttal to Glenn Beck on Global Warming: A common problem with media personalities is actually multifaceted. They tend to market to their base and they tend to not understand the science and confuse the issue. This results in a battle of science vs. rhetoric. Glenn Beck is an excellent example and exhibits the problem well. Unfortunately, in the media, he is not alone.

Glenn Beck on what he doesn't know.
Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck simply does not understand the contextual relevance of what he is talking about on the subject of Global Warming. For whatever reasons, be they marketing to his base, or simple naivete or ignorance, he continues to ignore the relevant context of the facts regarding this global warming event.

Hence, when he chooses someone to interview to support his own views, he chooses those that are at or below his level of understanding regarding the relevant science.

Glenn Beck with Bjorn Lomborg

Here’s the problem: Bjorn Lomborg is not representing the problem honestly when examined in context. This illustrates that Glenn Beck is unaware that Bjorn Lomborg is misrepresenting the science by using facts out of relevant context. It also illustrates that Glenn Beck does not understand the relevance of the facts regarding human caused global warming.

So, where do you get with the blind leading the blind? Nowhere, or lost.

For example, when Bjorn focuses a comment by Al Gore saying “sea levels could rise 20 feet”, but the IPCC says it is going to be 1 foot.

He is stating ‘facts out of context’ of the scientific understanding. What the IPCC says is that the current science that has made it through the strictest review process in the world shows that sea level will only rise 1 foot (by 2100). The leading edge of the science indicates that sea level will rise 2 meters by 2100. But even that is likely incorrect. As we come to understand the positive feedback mechanisms, we can see that they indicate potentials of 3 to 5 meters of sea level rise may be possible by 2100.

“Take for instance malaria, which Al Gore talks quite a bit about, he tells us global warming makes malaria worse so we should do something about global warming. That sounds smart but the point is he could save 2 million lives with the malaria through climate change; we could save 28 billion lives, isn’t that better?”

There are more than a few problems with Lomborgs statement. First, how can he save 28 billion people? The global population is still under 7 billion. So for him to save 28 billion people he may have to immigrate some folks from another planet.

To be fair, he must have misspoke, but the main point is that by not focusing on the global warming problem it is reasonable to see that solving the problems Lomborg is talking about will be more expensive and possibly unaffordable. The risk to reward ratio of concentrating on malaria alone, without concentrating on global warming is more likely to result in a lose/lose scenario.

Lomborg is using a strawman argument as a red herring in his assessment. It is a non sequitur. It is easy to see that Bjorn Lomborg is incorrect once you review his logic.

Glenn Beck with Martin Durkin

Glenn Beck again chooses to blindly have faith in a person that did a documentary that fits his view but is so far outside of the scientific reality, Martin Durkin (who made the film) had to reedit it (several times), and release the new version(s) due to the numerous scientific inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

Glenn Beck

“You are not an ideologue on this, I mean you didn’t ask to make this special for channel 4, they came to you right; And you have made several scientific documentaries.” (This is a red herring – media outlets and producers often owrk together to make money in broadcasting. It’s like saying Fox News came to me, right, and we have made many shows – the logic he uses merely panders to his base in support of his position.)

Martin Durkin

“Yes normally I make documentaries which weighed in, in support of reason, in support of science, against people who are waging irrational fights against science. But on this occasion I find that a lot of the people that seem to be arguing, as far I can see, fairly irrational arguments, claim to be scientists themselves. I mean obviously there’s a sizable scientific backing for this theory.”

The funny thing about this is that the scientific documentaries Glenn Beck is referring to are just not good or even reasonable in their representations of the science:

‘Against Nature’

“The Independent Television Commission (ITC) stated that 4 complaints were upheld because “the programmes breached the Programme Code in respect of the failure to make the four interviewees adequately aware of the nature of the programmes, and the way their contributions were edited.” For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time television.”

‘Storm in a D-Cup’

“The 1998 documentary on breast implants was originally developed for the BBC but was eventually produced for Channel 4 after the BBC declined to commission it; the BBC’s in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored evidence contradicting his claims in the program.”

Glenn Beck with John Coleman

John Coleman was founder of the Weather Channel. Does that mean anything regarding global warming? Coleman talks about hundreds of scientists that disagree with mainstream science on global warming. He talks about a petition signed by 19,000 scientists. He talks about the Hockey stick and says it is wrong?

The trouble with John Coleman’s points is that they have little to do with the science. They are however emotional appeals and red herrings that are supposed to make him sound right and the science sound wrong. For an in depth analysis of the John Coleman arguments visit: Global Warming: The Greatest Scam in History

It is important to realize that facts out of context, or the number of people agreeing, are not the final tests in science. The determining factors include: does the evidence, and the physics, explain the phenomenon? In the case of the science of climate change and human caused global warming, they match very well. In the absence of any other attribution, one is compelled to be reasonable based on the science, and it is appropriate to ignore peoples ‘opinions’.


The body of Durkins work exemplifies his lack of scientific credibility. He makes controversial films and ignores the relevant science by taking facts out of context and misrepresenting the views of those he interviews by selective editing of the content. Filmmakers often market to a particular base on controversial subjects in order to ensure sales.

The fact that Glenn Beck gave Durkin the stature of a credible filmaker is absurd, but worse than that, Glenn Beck believes the rhetoric also, while ignoring the relevant science and contexts of scientific fact.

Document Actions