To Glenn Beck: Stop Spreading Global Warming Lies [Petition]

glenn beck global warming lies

Tell Glenn Beck to stop spreading global warming lies via the petition below.

Glenn Beck is a genius to some, and, well,… the opposite to others. But no matter what ideas come to his head, he needs to refrain from telling lies. Several global warming “skeptics” have come around recently and are changing their perspective on this critical topic, but Glenn Beck is one of a handful of media personalities who continue deny the clear science and continues to spread false information about global warming.

On April 23, Glenn Beck said “Cap-and-trade is the biggest socialist scam, totally discredited climate change industry and zero warming for over a decade.” Discredited climate change industry? Hardly. Climate scientists and their work have been firmly backed up by hundreds of the leading scientists in the world and some of the most prestigious and critical academic bodies in the world.

It’s time for Glenn Beck to cool it with his unsubstantiated claims.

As the introduction to a petition on, sponsored by the League of Conservation Voters, puts it:

Even though we have all just sweated through the hottest six months and the hottest ten years on record, Glenn Beck is still on the air attacking global warming science and the solutions to address the issue. And despite recent polls showing 65 percent of Americans support a comprehensive energy and climate bill, Beck is still trying to discredit the very scientists who have proven global warming is a significant threat to the planet…. Let’s set the record straight with Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck needs to listen to his conservative colleagues and economists and stop his counterproductive anti-climate science ego trip.

To help put the pressure on Beck to stop spitting out lies about global warming, sign the petition on now.

Photo Credit: The Rocketeer via flickr

60 thoughts on “To Glenn Beck: Stop Spreading Global Warming Lies [Petition]”

  1. This petition, along with everyone who signed it, is incredibly ignorant. Allow me to spell this out for you: GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. You have been lied to. Please stop acting like there’s some major catastrophe going on and actually do some research. The earth is cooling. It heats up and cools down periodically, and NOTHING humans can do (with the exception of a nuclear war) is capable of causing a mass change in global climate conditions.

  2. At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with being more mindful about how we use earth’s limited resources, whether you are a realist, or a fucking idiot.

  3. If there is global warming it is most likely caused by the sun’s activity ie sun spots.
    We are now entering a new phase of less activity which will generally lead to lower temperatures. In regard to CO2 emissions mankind is resposible for only 3 per cent of total emissions. Too small to make any significant difference to world temperatures. In fact more CO2 would be beneficially to the Earth AS PLANTS WOULD GROW FASTER and enable us to produce food quicker.

    1. John C: these claims have been debunked so many times it is getting extremely boring to discuss them. 1) we are now coming out of the deepest solar minimum in ages. if not, warming would have been even greater in recent years. 2) human CO2 emissions ARE significant and are causing massive climate changes (~97% of climate scientists will tell you this, thousands of them,… not bloggers, not heart doctors, but climate scientists). 3) CO2 increase plant growth up to a point. same with the oceans. it has been identified that plants are absorbing less CO2 and biodiversity is going to be greatly damaged by climate change. the oceans are becoming significantly more acidic and dangerous for marine life due to the much greater amounts of CO2 they are absorbing.

      1. You must feel embarrassed to to have to use that University of Illinois survey of 2009 to back up your claims. They surveyed 10257 scientists of which only 3146 decided to answer thir 2 questions and they then decided to accept the answers of only 77, 75 of whom gave the required answers in the affirmative giving you your 97%. The real outcome is +99% disagree with your premise.
        This aside since when did opionion or consensus make something fact. Did thinking the world was flat make it flat? Did thinking that the Sun revolved around the Earth make it fact? Those who thought not were persecuted and howled down by the majority and forced to recant their statements.
        Same as now people with actual facts that disprove the current popular line of man being responsible for global warming are either ignored, piloried or shouted down as deniers. When those who believe can come up with any unconfirmed theory, exageration, mis-statement or model and are instantly believed by the gulible and compliant press.
        Just like that survey of yours.
        Does it not seem strange to you that no models put up by Warmists can predict any of what has happened in the past? How then can you rely on these same models to predict the future.
        The fact is whether Global warming is caused by CO2 or not our contribution to is so minimal any reduction we make will not have any effect long term on whether the planet heats up or not.
        Of course this not to mention that the main Greenhouse gas is water vapour and I don’t see much talk about that.
        With regard to sun spots I suggested you read the paper presented to the International Conference on Climate Change March 2008, by David Archibald headed Solar Cycle 24, which will contradict your bored assertion.

        1. John C: there are so many problems in your comment I don’t know where to start. first of all, there is clear scientific consensus on this topic, which is why even the most respected scientific bodies are expressing support for climate scientists and their findings.

          but let’s take a quick look at things from a different angle real quick. the Earth was believed to be flat until the scientific evidence to the contrary became clearer and clearer and the “skeptics” became smaller and smaller in number (especially the scientific skeptics) and “scientific consensus” was reached. the same thing has occurred with global warming.. though, there are still “skeptics” funded by the coal and oil industry who purposefully spread bad science and all those who pick it up without understanding things well enough. anyway, here is more on the scientific consensus (

          “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
          Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

          “But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

          “So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted – and relied upon.

          “In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. Several studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

          “We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

          “In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.”

          And regarding CO2’s effect on climate, your statement is just plain false again. here’s more on the topic from a recent article:

  4. Global Warming is the biggest scam of the decade. Do the research on your own, look at all the facts and you will realize that global warming is a scam.

      1. @zachary: Clearly YOU have been looking at propaganda rather than research. All legitimate research shows that not only is the earth entering a cooling period, but that any recent warming has been caused by natural climate fluctuation,

        1. NJ: i’ve gotten into countless such comment back-n-forths. while i provide the clear scientific proof and consensus, deniers play the Gish gallop game. you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts

  5. (Copied from a recent IBD Editorial 12/22/10, which expresses my thoughts distinctly)

    Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they’re so wrong? Maybe it’s because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them “mitigate” the adverse impacts of warming.

    This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate.

      1. It’s always for the children isn’t it? Please don’t concern yourself about me or my children, because we sure don’t care about you. We care about FAMILY first, then friends. By the way, your concern does sound just like the old time revival meeting preachin.

  6. Global Warming maybe ,But some useing it to tax us ,
    thats for dam sure!
    Me I think its normal, the tilt of the earth and how close it gets to the sun.

  7. Are we willing to bet the health of Planet Earth on Glenn Beck’s scientific intellect, I think not. I go with science, let’s keep the Earth healthy.

  8. 68% of 51,000 members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’”

    see the names of the scientist that disagree with you and Al BORE;

    1. I don’t care how many scientists don’t agree with climate change,I care about what the evidence is. What does geology,geophysics,or professional egineering have to do with climatology? Scienists don’t number in the thousands or tens of thousands. They number in the millions, thus rendering your list insignificant.Calling people names doesn’t help your case. It shows your an ignorant bigot.

  9. The sky isn’t falling. Our living earth isn’t dying. most importantly, the collective wisdom of the worlds leading scientists and academics have been wrong many times thoughout history. ie: the earth isn’t flat either. We arent in any immenent danger so why dont we see if the earth adjusts and cycles before we let the fear mongers line their pockets with the cash from the bs industries they create. CO2 creates more plant life, more plant life creates more O2 and the cycle continues.

    1. By the way, are these the same genius scientists and academics that brought us clean fuel legislation in california in the 1990’s. 30% cleaner 30% less efficient and 30% higher cost. Net effect is the same amount of pollution to travel the same distance only at a higher price. People supported that lie too.

    2. @swegin no dangers facing us yet? look at Russia, look at the floods that have killed thousands in Asia, look at the heat waves that have killed numerous people already. let’s wait until it gets 10 times worse? your grandkids will thank you and others for that foresighted thinking.

  10. I have no remorse for this man, regardless of what he eventually decides, but this is beyond stupid for him to continue putting this false information out on the airwaves.

  11. A brief explanation of global warming using the numbers, watch out, I really do understand science. So according to the theory for CO2 based global warming what happens is that the O2 -> CO2 exchange, most prominently put out by fossil fuels, is causing heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and not radiated back into space. The term for a substance’s characteristic to trap heat is specific heat capacity. It is expressed as J/gK or Joules per gram Kelvin. In layman terms that means that if a substance has a specific heat capacity of 1 J/gK then it take 1 joule of energy (joule is just a measurement of energy, it’s equal to a calorie) to heat 1 gram of the substance 1 degree kelvin (Kelvin is sort of like Celsius, except it starts at the lowest possible temp and goes up from there, in other word there is no negative Kelvin, at least not that we know of yet.) Now the higher the specific heat capacity the more it takes to heat a substance up and the longer it takes for that substance to cool down. According to the theory CO2 must have a higher J/gK than O2, that way when we replace the O2 with CO2 the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere rises and it takes longer for the atmosphere to cool down (the sun provides more than enough to heat it up in the first place.)

    Turns out it doesn’t. Due to the nature of gases their J/gK changes with temperature, so for this example I’m going to use 300 K, that works out to about 80 F. At that temp CO2 has a specific heat capacity of .846 J/gK and O2 .918 J/gK. But it actually gets worse than that. You see they lie a little, it’s not a 1 to 1 exchange of CO2 to O2, here is the balanced equation for the burning of octane, better known as gasoline, this is what your car does: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O. You see there’s actually 9 more O2 pulled out of the atmosphere, the extra oxygen comes out the other side as water. So to show the specific heat capacity in atmosphere for this equation what we have is 25 O2 = 22.95 J/gK and 16 CO2 13.536 J/gK. Okay, admittedly this is a little simplified, the problem is that to show exactly how much the atmosphere’s J/gK changes for this requires some rather complicated math, the point is that, if anything, the burning of fossil fuels should be making the atmosphere cooler, less able to hold heat in, at least according to the theory. But that equation has a dirty little secret, it makes water and water has a massive 4.19 J/gK. Now much of this water will fall out of the atmosphere as precipitation, but just using the numbers I gave only 2 – 3 molecules would need to stay in the atmosphere to tip the balance back towards heating, but then if we had a global conference on stopping water from being put into the atmosphere I think it would cause most people to pause.

    I win, WITH SCIENCE!!!

    1. Mejes, you far from win here. you put together a little explanation on how a few things work. it does nothing to refute the much more in-depth scientific findings of climate scientists. it is like a mole hill compared to a mountain, or chain of mountains. also, as has been noted by them repeatedly, the stratosphere is cooling and the Earth is warming, as they expected.

      1. So what you’re saying is . . . you can’t refute it. Forgive me if I’m don’t allow myself to be lead astray by the keepers of the scientific knowledge, I’m nailing my thesies on the door so to say. And to be honest the leaked emails showed them talking about the cardinal sin of science, manipulating the numbers., A scientist should never, ever consider or even joke about it, let alone send out an email about it. It’s like joking about having a bomb at the airport, you just don’t do it. In the case of the scientists, they lost all credibility.

        1. Mejes, they didn’t fudge the numbers at all. I think you misread it bcs you were reading cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes. As far as your thesis, keep on with it, go into depth with it, the reality is out there.

  12. Glenn Beck is a ‘genius’ only so far as he knows how to keep himself in the media spotlight so as to make more money. It’s not even worth arguing with him or trying to stop him, because the more you do, the more you will fuel his desire to continue on his path.
    It has nothing to do with common sense or genius and everything to do with making as much money as he can before his flame burns out.
    Unfortunately the media (including you guys) give him too much airtime which perpetuates his ‘controversial’ profile.
    Stop it, and he will fade away like the many, many others before him.

  13. What are you guys smoking or are getting a per centage of the take from Al Gore? You have not analyzed the critical data or asked the critical questions of the global warming scientist. Al Gore will not even debate the issue of global warming. So get you facts straight about who is spreading global warming lies.

    1. DDD, have you analyzed the data?i tell you that i’ve looked over a ton of scientific literature on the matter. but the public is not that interesting in the scientific articles. nonetheless, i’m happy to share scientific literature on any aspect of climate change with you.

      Al Gore is not debating for 1 clear reason: global warming deniers can spout out any lies they want in a debate and get as much attention for them, equal attention for them, as the real scientific arguments and findings get. in other words, 50% of the attention on real science & 50% of the attention on fabricated, debunk science.

      1. I like science too. For instance SCIENCE tells me that EXPLOSIVES were responsible for the destruction of WTC 1,2 and 7. Not hydrocarbon fires. SCIENCE tells me that HUMANS landing on the MOON is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. SCIENCE tells me that GLOBAL WARMING as defined today IS A HOAX. Have a nice day.


  15. You’ve got to be kidding. “Skeptics”, “Leading Scientists”? Really? I have yet to hear any of the wanna-be scientists actually proving anything of late, and least of all those wonderful pseudo-intellectuals over at U. of E.Anglia who, if I do remember correctly, kind of let the cat outta the bag on this whole discussion. Seriously, even Nasa scientists have been saying for 15 yrs now that the earth goes through these warm/cool cycles. That’s actually makes sense, esp. when you’ve got snow and subzero temps in Texas and Florida in the last two years. hmmm.

    1. Terri, you must have been asleep for the past several months. NASA is speaking as plainly as anyone that we are already experiencing global warming and that much more is expected. there are so many articles on this i don’t even see the point of putting any links in this comment. if you’ve missed them, you must be getting all your news from Fox or something. & on the other matter, the science of the U. of East Anglia scientists has been reviewed by numerous independent sources now and the resounding conclusion is: THEIR SCIENCE IS STRONG AND CORRECT

  16. You can’t really be serious? There is still nothing more than a consensus on global warming–and the question really regards manmade global warming (different subject). Check the dictionary to see if consensus and science are synonymous. I will call Glenn personally to tell him to stop sharing his viewpoint when you stop sharing yours.

  17. there is no proof that global warming is a fact…the earth has a cycle of ups and downs in its climate for example the ICE AGE! There is no reason why Glenn cant give the other side of the issue…thats the point of American Politics…your petition is pointless. The only lie about Global warming is the thought that it actually exists…ive taken an environment science class…I think I would know.

    1. @k: wow, you’ve taken an environmental science class. the 97% of climate scientists who would teach you a climate science class at the top universities in the world disagree with you. and they have explained why your points are false numerous times, but the word is getting out to you because Beck and others prefer to report on long-discredited scientific claims.

    1. @Jimmie: no one has ever shown data manipulation by these climate scientists. a lot of people claim it, but the independent reviews show what is obvious, the science is clear and strong

  18. Put your heads in a freezer for bout an hour, or better yet, wait and see how this winter is going to be. Then call me. The only thing that is heating up is Al Gore’s pockets getting rich thanks to all you idiots who thinks he is the Green God. Gotta go, have to fill up my truck. God Bless America and the freedom it represents.

    1. @xman: last winter was one of the hottest on records, and 2010 is looking to be the hottest year on record. but perhaps you haven’t looked at the temp records or announcements from NASA and NOAA

      1. Hottest on record.

        How far back do climate records actually go? Do we have enough information to make a conclusion, or are we just making educated guesses? You calculate the percentage of time we have cataloged and compare it to the length of time science claims the earth has existed, you will find that our data is quite inadequate to substantiate the claims made by those analyzing data. As of right now global warming is still a theory, humans were in consensus that the earth was flat less than 400 years ago.

        1. Clayton, look at the difference between your comparison regarding scientists who believed the Earth was flat. those scientists didn’t want to believe things were different from what they had assumed without sound science. eventually, they were the clear minority. some actually still exist today, I hear, believing that our trips to space are even big government conspiracies. if you are going to make a comparison between that issue and this one, i think it should be made the other way. the people who are still claiming that climate change caused by humans isn’t happening (i.e. Glenn Beck) are the flat-Earthers.

          don’t forget to consider the relationship between flat-Earthers and religion and the relationship between global warming deniers and religion as well.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top