Glenn Beck Is Contributing To Global Warming

Talking to Sir Dick Branson today, Glenn Beck said the following: "I believe in global warming."

OK, fine. We broke the record this year in Phoenix for the number of days over 110, so who am I to argue with Beck. On the other hand, we also had one of the coolest thirty days between mid July and mid August, so anyway…

Then Beck went a step further. He told Branson that he wasn't sure they agreed on how to – solve the problem -.

Uh… what problem? Was he not aware that the Earth has been much warmer than it is now? Does Beck realize that there's every chance that a warmer world might be better in many ways than the current one?

That's why I don't mind them doing research on how to curtail warming – just as long as they don't try to implement it. Doing so might result in unanticipated and highly undesirable changes, e.g. ethanol, good (maybe); ethanol from corn, bad. The time to start curbing stuff is when it becomes abundantly clear that we can no longer adapt to and live with a warming planet.

And that time is still hundreds of years off, even if some people like Al Gore might be all panicked now. That only proves they are somewhat to considerably below average in the intelligence department… and/or insane.

And it's pretty easy to see why.

They're concerned that the average temperature might increase a few degrees. Now did I just mention that Phoenix has had thirty days above 110 this year? OK, no, I didn't mention the number of days, but the point is that in Phoenix, the average summer high is about twenty degrees higher than where most of you live. And you're worried about warming three degrees?

Weatherman: "The high tomorrow will be 86. If it weren't for global warming, we'd be looking at 85.5… which some smart alecks would round up to 86."

Although I can see why you might feel concerned if you picture the desert as a vast wasteland because you've seen movies – like those featuring the public school system, but in reality the picture of a wasteland couldn't be further from the truth.

"But you can't grow anything in the summer and it hardly rains," you say? Right, we can't grow much during the hottest months. On the other hand, we can grow things over the other eight months.

And how many months do you enjoy in your garden?

And as for drought, are you kidding, you'll have an abundance of water once the polar ice cap melts.

Besides, people seem to think that as the Earth warms, there will be less rain. Let's see, more water will evaporate because it's warmer, so somebody please tell me where that will go? I mean, have you ever been to Miami in the summer?

So the point is, it's not so much that there's a problem with global warming as there is a problem with global hysteria. And if you join it, it's gonna cost you. And worse, if you join it, it's gonna cost ME.But I'm not complaining because I'm way more efficient than you are, anyway.

How do I know? Are you watching Living With Ed on Home & Gay TV? Ed Begley Jr. fancies himself to be the quintessential environmentalist, and maybe he is if wasting all kinds of money in order to save a few bucks on energy merits that label, but he did an energy audit on his friend and the result was that the friend spends about ten grand a year on fuel bills – gas, electric, and automobiles. So they replaced all her light bulbs with compact fluorescents.

I'm not kidding.

Ed also reset her pool timer so it ran hours less a day. Uh Ed, shouldn't you have reset the entire pool to, say, a lawn?

Anyway, I have a pool that seems to be a similar size and so the wife and I took a mo to asses our yearly energy bill. It came to about two thousand dollars, and that reflects the new higher gasoline prices we've been living with – and the pool which has become a liability because we don't use it – because the pigeons and ducks do, but that's a past and future story.

By the way, my wife says I'm a short, less handsome, but more rugged version of Ed Begley Jr., so eat your hearts out, guys.

And when you read things like moose and cattle are causing the Earth to warm, understand that getting rid of moose and cattle – good. Getting rid of them because they cause warming, bad. After all, what purpose to animals serve anymore? Don't we have enough films of them – and zoos?

I just saw a documentary that said hundreds of people in Africa are eaten alive by lions every year. And then the narrator lamented the fact that the lion population used to number in the millions and now it's only thirty thousand. Huh? Like Africans don't have enough to contend with from mosquitoes and corruption that the limousine liberals want more lions? And wouldn't that then add to global warming, or are lions carbon neutral because they eat humans?

And would you like to pitch in to give Ed Begley the gift of an African safari?

And back in the good old U.S. of A, suppose warming does somehow cause more drought. Then liberals can do what liberals do best – frantically mobilize people in a massive, symbolic effort. Can't you just see Glenn Beck and Richard Branson linked arm in arm willions of others as the problem of our drought-stricken country is eradicated on one single Saturday with Cry Across America?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Glenn Beck Is Contributing To Global Warming

  1. Brian says:

    i couldn't agree more with you about global warming. but, have you ever listened to glenn beck before? he's not part of any global warming hype, he was out there against the whole thing before rush really got on board with his daily update. i watched that interview, he was anything but agreable, that quote is out of context. keep up the good fight though.

  2. TedWest says:

    Hi, Brian. Mr. Beck has seemed to "moderate" his position considerably since he aired his global warming expose some months ago, almost as if someone has gotten to him. I felt that with Branson and several other people he's interviewed since, he's been almost apologetic in his disagreement and has seemed to imply that he's open to revising his stance. I was very put off by his labeling it a "problem," and now, only time will tell if it s really a problem… or if he is.
    And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks that, at this point, global warming is a problem is, as best, a serious threat to the betterment of the planet… and that's one of my rare understatements.

  3. jayd says:

    Why would you believe that "the time start curbing stuff is when it becomes abundantly clear that we can no longer adapt to and live "
    You should know as well as anyone else, that science is at a state in which the only time this would be abundantly clear is a time in which it is too late. No solution is instantaneous. Thus the goal for early implementation is to prevent a "too late" situation.
    It should be stated that I definitely think that there is no hard proof global warming is caused by humans. Circumstantial evidence, yes. Proof, no.
    But would you ever wait to apply your brakes until it was abundantly clear that you were going to hit a tree? I doubt it. What if your kids were also in the car?

    Also, 3 degrees warmer does seem like a neglibile amount when talking about phoenix (maybe a 2% increase). But consider climates that have lower temperatures – lets say Greenland. A 3 degree increase there is about 6% increase in temperature. Lets also acknowledge that a 3 degree difference is definitely enough to switch from ice to melting ice, causing possibly cascading issues that we just cannot predict.
    Furthermore, the prediction is average global increase, which does not definitively imply an evenly distributed increase across the world. It could very well be such that Phoenix would see a 0 degree increase, and Greenland would see a 6 degree increase. Or Phoenix and Albuquerque see 0, and Greenland 12. Who knows.
    Finally, also know that there are areas of the country where the average temperature does not deviate too much. Phoenix has aproximately a 40 degree difference in averages across the year. Seattle has about a 23 degree difference. So some areas are much more impacted by 3 degrees.

    I guess the long and the short of it is … we dont know what can happen. It might be a good idea to start working towards a solution before its too late. Maybe we shouldnt implement Ginormous Space Umbrellas (the silliest solution I have ever heard in my entire life), but at least some small steps towards curbing a potential problem. What is the worst that will happen if we do something, anyways?

  4. TedWest says:

    "Why would you believe that 'the time start curbing stuff is when it becomes abundantly clear that we can no longer adapt to and live'"
    Well, the short answer is – because I'm not a moron… but here we go again, folks…
    "You should know as well as anyone else"
    Um… I know better than most everyone else.
    "science is at a state in which the only time this would be abundantly clear is a time in which it is too late."
    What a preposterous statement. You not only seem to presume that "science" is monolithic but it's abundantly clear that you know nothing about logic or science, else you would know that it does not follow that "clearness" results in "too lateness."
    And you call yourself a scientologist?
    "No solution is instantaneous."
    You're chock full of assumptions, aren't you? OK, would you believe ner instantaneous? Because there is no reason that a solution can't be "instantaneous." You're only presuming it can't be based on the current level of knowledge and technology. Don't you know that in Sci-Fi movies, the solution is always simple and obvious and that the reason they don't see it is because of hysteria of the sort you're exhibiting?
    "Thus the goal for early implementation is to prevent a "too late" situation."
    And your fallacy is in thinking that clearness precludes "early implementationness," thus resulting in too lateness – utterly irrational.
    "It should be stated that I definitely think that there is no hard proof global warming is caused by humans. Circumstantial evidence, yes. Proof, no."
    I'm sorry, but it's far worse than that. Not only is the "circumstantial" evidence of the most superficial variety, there is no evidence that there will be a net negative if the Earth is warming.
    And still worse is the FACT that the Earth has been warmer before, so the alarmists cannot cite warming itself as a problem (though they do), they can only be frantic about your ludicrous claim that we are about to experience runaway warming, and even if I grant you that possibility, you assume that we will be powerless despite the fact that you can't have the slightest bit of a clue as to what the next century will bring in terms of technological advances.
    We might not even be living on this planet by then.
    "But would you ever wait to apply your brakes until it was abundantly clear that you were going to hit a tree? I doubt it. What if your kids were also in the car?"
    Not only is that a straw man argument, it's beyond absurd, although you seem to live in that land, and I can't, in good conscience dignify that kind of stupidity with an answer, even if that answer would be, "I might, depending on my mood."
    But if you really want me to give you a serious answer, please first tell me the differences between alleged man-made global warming and sort of planning that results in someone planting an oak tree in the middle of a roadway.
    "Also, 3 degrees warmer does seem like a neglibile amount when talking about phoenix (maybe a 2% increase). But consider climates that have lower temperatures – lets say Greenland."
    I covered this in several of my earlier global warming posts here. There is no downside. It's all good… trust me.
    "Lets also acknowledge that a 3 degree difference is definitely enough to switch from ice to melting ice, causing possibly cascading issues that we just cannot predict."
    I'm sorry, did you say, "Probably?" What's the percent of probability? But again, even if a grant you your "cascading issues," there's no reason to assume a net negative.
    Perhaps you're unaware that rising and falling sea levels have occurred before? There's a fortress in England, for example, that Henry VIII built on the beach as a lookout for invading ships, and that fortress is currently a mile inland? METHINKS THAT IF Henry were alive today, he'd welcome the news of melting ice in suburban Greenland!?!
    "Furthermore, the prediction"
    The prediction?" How dare you? Would that prediction be by THE experts? The prediction has also been for two bad hurricane seasons … that have failed to materialize.
    "It could very well be such that Phoenix would see a 0 degree increase, and Greenland would see a 6 degree increase. Or Phoenix and Albuquerque see 0, and Greenland 12. Who knows."
    Irrelevant. such fluctuations happen every year now. But I love your "who knows" tack-on, because I realize that "who knows," to you means, that while we can't know, it will definitely be bad. The fact is, at this point, no one, and especially you, knows anything. More importantly, we shouldn't even be indulging these alarmists, they, and you, should simply be ignored, so I expect you to thank me for taking the time.
    "So some areas are much more impacted by 3 degrees."
    And that impact would definitely be negative, if not horrendous, right?
    "I guess the long and the short of it is … we dont know what can happen"
    Well, by all means then, please get back to me when you do… you know, when it's abundantly clear?
    "It might be a good idea to start working towards a solution"
    Ah… well then it might not. because we'd hate to go to all that nuisance and expense, and deprive so many people of a better life. Because as you know, I'm sure, since you're so fond of the disproportionate, that these measures you want to implement will be inconvenient on people in this country and hellish on the Third-World.
    "before its too late."
    Since you know the science so well, let me educate you on the law – that assumes facts not in evidence.
    Because "before its (sp) too late assumes a problem that needs to be addressed.
    "Maybe we shouldnt implement Ginormous Space Umbrellas (the silliest solution I have ever heard in my entire life),"
    Hey, lot of serious thought went into that idea.
    "at least some small steps towards curbing a potential problem."
    Potential? And the evidence that these "small steps" will accomplish anything is…?
    "What is the worst that will happen if we do something, anyways?"
    You're a comedian, am I right? Because you caused me to shoot ethanol out my nose with that one.
    OK, Let me try to answer that off the top of my head. But while you're waiting what's the worst that happened when we eliminated DDT for, as it turns out, no reason?
    Now this… first, Government imposes more restrictions on the individual for "potentially" no reason. Also, the price of just about everything goes up which disproportionately affects the poor and poor countries. Developing nations fail to develop. Commodities like corn are in short supply. Biofuels actually contribute more of the allegedly harmful emissions than do petroleum-based products. And finally, either nothing works, or the measures are later demonstrated to have been unnecessary – because no one knows…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s