Return to Transcripts main page
Gloria Steinem Attacks John McCain; Teens Brutalize Disabled Girl, 18; Girl, Boyfriend Kill Family Over Disagreement; Eco-Terrorists Set Fire to Green Development
Aired March 3, 2008 - 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, man-hater Gloria Steinem attacks John McCain, calling his time as a prisoner of war overrated. I`ll examine how dangerously out of touch this thinking really is.
And a cold-blood murder in Texas. A 16-year-old girl and boyfriend brutally ambushed her own family, killing her mother and two brothers. Another example of teenage insanity in America. We`ll have the latest.
Plus, the president of the Czech Republic joins me for a frank discussion on everything from global warming to the Russian elections.
All this and more, tonight.
BECK: Well, hello, America.
After this past weekend, blood shot right out of my eyes. I can`t -- Hillary Clinton must be asking herself, "What the hell am I doing? With supporters like mine, who needs political enemies?"
According to the "New York Observer," cranky feminist Gloria Steinem spoke Saturday night at a women for Hillary campaign event in Austin, Texas, where Ms. Steinem shared some choice words for the likely Republican nominee and war hero, John McCain. So here`s "The Point" tonight.
Good news. Gloria is irrelevant. She`s out of touch, but she is enjoying her equal right to be as moronic and idiotic as anybody else. And here`s how I got there.
I want you to know I am -- as you can probably tell -- no fan of the 73-year-old Gloria Steinem. Never have been. Never liked her all that much. Has nothing to do with her fight for women`s rights. I support equality for women across the board. That`s the way it should be. But I differ from Steinem in one important way: I`ve always supported a women`s right to do anything that she wants to do, and that includes staying at home and raising a family.
Being a full-time mother is infinitely much more of a full-time job than anything I possibly could do, and I feel it is life`s greatest honor and responsibility. And yet, feminists like Gloria Steinem trash women like that all the time.
Steinem and her all-too-aging hippy gal-pals just don`t see it that way. I believe they`ve done more to hurt the self-esteem of those women than men ever did.
She also is fervently antiwar. What a surprise! You`re kidding me! A peacenik `60s era radical? No way. Really?
She was out in full force in Austin over the weekend. She wasted no time laying into John McCain. She said, and I quote, "Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and he got captured. The media would ask, `What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years`?" Unbelievably, the audience laughed.
And then she followed up with, quote, "I mean, hello? Is this supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don`t think so." That was clever. She must have speechwriters.
"I am so grateful," she went on to say, "that Clinton hasn`t been trained to kill anybody." Well, you know what? With all of that malicious bull crap, here`s the point you need to know tonight, America.
You may not want to vote for John McCain, and you know, you may not respect John McCain`s politics, but he has earned the right to be respected for his service and sacrifice to this country, hasn`t he? I can`t even imagine the full extent of his wounds. He lived in a bamboo cage for five and a half years. And they pulled his arms out of the sockets.
I believe the time that he spent living in Vietnam prison camps in a bamboo cage probably taught him a couple of things about commitment, about loyalty, about courage. Those sure sound like traits I want in my president.
Now, let me be clear. If -- if -- if the liberal thinking is that you can`t take apart John Kerry, you know, for throwing away medals, how could you possibly take apart John McCain for living in a bamboo cage?
You know what? Sorry, Gloria. But in case you haven`t realized, we need selfless Americans like John McCain serving our country. And John McCain ain`t alone. There are countless thousands like him, and they are trained to kill people because people are trying to kill us. Although you`re scary enough to scare away some of our freakiest enemies, I`ll bet.
Old lady activists may be good at getting applause from progressive political rallies, but they suck at defending our nation.
I want you to know I don`t support John McCain as a candidate. He`s not my guy. I`m waiting for my guy; I don`t see him. But I do support him as a man and an American.
Hillary Clinton campaign has been so littered with missteps, and this one just may be her last. Gloria Steinem, the `60s are over. Maybe you made sense when everybody was tripping. Far out, man! LSD! Rock on! But I think we`re a little more clear-headed these days. Thank the Lord Almighty.
Leslie Sanchez is a Republican strategist. Representative Heather Wilson is a Republican congressman from New Mexico. I`m sorry. I hope it is congressman and not congresswoman. I want to make sure I have it right.
You are the first and only female vet to serve in Congress. So let me -- let me start with you, Congresswoman.
REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), NEW MEXICO: Sure.
BECK: If you were captured, let`s use her scenario. Do you think the press would have said, "What did you do wrong?" Or do you think maybe we would have gone after that female vet in the same way we did with Jessica Lynch?
WILSON: I thought that what Gloria said was appalling and offensive to everyone who`s ever served in the military, including the many men and women who have -- have been captured in the service of their country. And I`ve always thought she`s out of step with mainstream America, but boy, did she prove it when she spoke for Hillary Clinton in Texas. I think she owes every man and woman who`s ever served in the military an apology.
BECK: You know she won`t. Leslie...
LESLIE SANCHEZ, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.
BECK: ... Bill Cunningham, on something I railed against on the other side last week. Bill Cunningham just used the middle name of Barack Obama. And I thought it was a cheesy political move, but it was at least his middle name. John McCain immediately came out and apologized. Has Gloria Steinem`s -- her words, has Hillary even responded to those words? Has she apologized at all?
SANCHEZ: I think what`s interesting is Hillary has denounced those words, but didn`t reject them. And what`s interesting is she attacked Barack Obama for not flat-out objecting to the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. But still, she stands on a stage with Gloria Steinem. And that`s a clear indication she supports this radical feminist agenda.
It`s an agenda that`s irrelevant. It`s an agenda that is no longer significant, especially when you come off of your Fifth Avenue penthouse apartment and try to talk about our war heroes. I think it`s going to backfire in terms of support, especially when Hillary Clinton is trying to look strong on national security.
And you`re exactly right. Why doesn`t she reject this candidate`s -- this endorsement of Gloria? I think we`re all waiting to see that she does that. It`s reprehensible.
BECK: Congressman, I mean, how -- how does this possibly help Hillary Clinton? All the dope-smoking hippies from the 1960s are going to vote for her anyway. I mean, all these radical feminists, I mean, who`s -- who else is your candidate besides Hillary Clinton? What does this help by any stretch of the imagination, to employ her and use her this way?
WILSON: I think it does call into question some judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. But it -- I think it`s a real wake up call for the American people to realize that there this radical left-wing element that has followers in the Democratic Party that is way out of touch with the needs of this country.
And I -- but it also brings into perspective the differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain as potential candidates for the presidency.
WILSON: And I`m sorry. But the first and most important responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, and military experience is important.
BECK: Does it -- does it scare you at all as somebody who`s sitting there in Congress, listening to some of these people, I mean, there`s extremists, of course, on both right and left.
But I really truly believe both parties have been -- have been hijacked, but the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the uber left. And they are -- they are scared into silence. And I don`t think the American people know what`s coming.
I think if you give a mandate, and Barack Obama sweeps this country because Hillary`s not going to -- I`m sorry, but we`re all sexist, I guess. She`s not going to win. So he`s going to sweep. It will be a Democratic Congress. They`ll interpret this as a giant move to, you know, progressive ideology, and we`re screwed as a nation. Ever worry you?
WILSON: Of course it worries me that that kind of -- the kind of ideology that Gloria Steinem represents or that elements of the Democratic in the far left represents. Because they will leave this country defenseless.
And -- and I find that to be frightening as an American and as a member of Congress, that we would shift our country back into an inward- looking country, ignoring the threats that exist to this country. And I think that`s a major issue in this presidential election, as well as elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives.
SANCHEZ: Glenn, you can`t -- here when you`re talking -- you can`t discount the idea of, you know, this radical feminism and everything Gloria fought for. And we talked about -- you talked about her being irrelevant.
SANCHEZ: I mean, just like the fact that you have someone who, with Congresswoman Wilson, someone who could very likely be the next junior senator from New Mexico.
SANCHEZ: And, you know -- and women is somebody who does this so clearly. Women have come a long way. She is not speaking for women.
BECK: Leslie, you are exactly right. You`re on the money. And I think everybody knows that. Everyone with common sense. I appreciate it. Leslie, thank you very much.
Congressperson, thank you very much. I appreciate it, for being with us.
Coming up, authorities say teenagers, unhappy with their parents, who wanted her to break up with her boyfriend. She was involved with an ambush and slaughter of her entire family over the weekend. It is a grisly case. We`ll have all the details.
Plus, a little later on in the program, some revealing and, some might say, a refreshing interview -- questions for a leader of the Czech Republic. What he has to say about global warming will shake the consensus to its core. Don`t miss it.
BECK: Coming up, the man who said the dire warnings about climate change are propaganda on a global scale. A global warming reality check from the president of the Czech Republic. He`ll be on set with me here in just a few minutes.
But first, if you tried to describe the most horrific crime imaginable, it might be something like the tragedy that we talked about last week in Ohio. Two teenagers, a boy and a girl, hid in the basement of a home where they were trying to steal a car. They waited for the mother to leave for work. They did. She took the car, unfortunately when she did.
They decided to have fun. They attacked her daughter, who was sleeping up stairs. She was an 18-year-old girl with a disability. They tied her up. They clubbed her. They kicked her. They shaved her head. They took her fully clothed, threw her in the shower and soaked her head to toe with water and then they took her outside in the snow and made her walk around barefoot.
Throughout the whole ideal, the young girl was pleading with them, "Please, don`t hit me in the head." She finally explained that she had had brain surgery. That`s when they started clubbing her in the head.
As of now, authorities think these monsters did it purely for fun. I told you about this attack last week. Since then we`ve reached out to the parents of the victim, as well as the defense attorneys in this case. On the advice of the attorneys, everybody is keeping quiet. And I`ve got to tell you, as a dad, I`d be doing exactly the same thing.
However, I am so horrified by this senseless violence that I wanted to bring back the sheriff. His name is Sheriff Richard Jones. He`s the sheriff of Butler County, Ohio.
Sheriff, you said a couple of things to me last seek that we didn`t have a chance to follow up on. And I just -- I just want to get the facts here. The two that did this, they were 16 and 17?
SHERIFF RICHARD JONES, BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO: That`s correct, 16 and 17. The female was 17. The boy was 16.
BECK: Jeez, so it was an older girl, too. And you also told me that they both had records.
JONES: That is correct.
BECK: What are the records? Can you tell me that?
JONES: Well, I`m not allowed to release that information. But as juveniles, but they`re -- I can tell you that this isn`t the first time they`ve been involved in this criminal justice system. I can tell you that.
BECK: Can you tell me if it was violent in nature?
JONES: No, I can`t tell you that. But I can tell you that there was a 2-month-old that they had as a joint child together and that the grandmother of the boy is -- children services -- is keeping the child at this time, which is a good thing.
BECK: Do you know the grandma?
JONES: No, I don`t know the grandmother, but children`s services made that determination to put the 2-month-old with the grandmother.
BECK: Where are the parents of these two?
JONES: The parents with these two have kind of left it up to the courts at this time. And...
BECK: Is it because -- is it because they couldn`t handle the kids or are they just -- do we know anything about the parents? What kind of parents are these people?
JONES: Well, we`re looking into what the parents are and that the parents that the courts appointed what`s called a guardian. And in Ohio they have to be appointed a guardian anyway, but the guardian is an attorney, has appointed by the courts to look out after the two teenagers, their own -- their own best good for them.
BECK: I was sitting in church this Sunday, yesterday, and I heard a young man get up. And he`s from the Humphrey family. He stood up, and he`s, I think, 15 maybe. And he talked about the love of his family, and he talked -- and he wept about how much he loves his sister and his mom and dad and how grateful he is for his mom and dad.
And I thought to myself, how rare is this to be happening in our society? Our families have broken down to the point to where I don`t even understand it anymore. I don`t even understand where these two kids come from. And they`re not alone.
JONES: Glenn, I`ll tell you what. I was told 16, 17 years ago that right where we`re at today, that we would reach a point in our society, with our kids that were, you know, 4 and 5 years old at that time, that we would see the most violent young people in our society as young adults. And we`re seeing that now.
JONES: Violence, ruthless, killings. And then they kill themselves. Suicides, school shootings.
BECK: Let me make another prediction, sheriff. I don`t want to see the next generation. Man`s love for man is waxing cold.
Thank you very much, Sheriff.
JONES: I appreciate it.
BECK: Now tragically, Ohio isn`t the only state experiencing brutal teen crimes. This -- this last weekend in Texas, ambush has left a mother and her two sons dead, the family`s father near fatally wounded. According to authorities, the evil plot was killed out by the family`s 16-year-old daughter, 19-year-old boyfriend and two accomplices, all because the parents were trying to break up the relationship.
Jack Levin is a criminologist and author of "Serial Killers and Sadistic Murderers: Up Close and Personal."
These two stories in Ohio and Texas, they have one thing in common, Jack -- and maybe you can help me -- girls. These young girls that -- it is shocking to me. Is that -- I don`t know. Is that sexist of me? Or what is it? I don`t expect a 16-year-old girl to kill a bunch of people or, in Ohio, torture somebody who is disabled.
JACK LEVIN, CRIMINOLOGIST: No, it`s understandable. Ninety percent of all murders are committed by men. And you know, sure, girls nowadays are more violent than they used to be, but they -- they`re still into hair- pulling and maybe hitting one another. Not guns and not knives. Those things are still used by men and boys and gangs and otherwise.
But you know, when girls kill, they tend to kill people they know well, especially family members.
BECK: I am -- I`m searching and, you know, grasping at straws here for an answer. But in both of these cases, there doesn`t seem to be any remorse. And it`s almost like teens feel like we live in a society with absolutely no consequences. So it doesn`t matter what they do.
J. LEVIN: You know, teenagers generally don`t think about consequences, whether it`s spending 30 years behind bars or getting lung cancer 30 years from now.
Of course, it takes more than that for these, I would call them temporary sociopaths. Or maybe they`re permanent sociopaths. But they -- apparently, in the case in Ohio, this -- this crime was committed, the sadistic crime was committed for the thrill, for the excitement by a couple of powerless people.
And maybe they suffered as children. Of course, that`s no excuse. There millions of American who have suffered from abuse and abandonment and neglect and sexual stimulation and being adopted under terrible circumstances; and they don`t kill anybody, and they are not sadistic. But these two, I believe, did it for the thrill.
BECK: Unbelievable. Jack, thank you very much. And we`ll continue to follow these stories.
Coming up, building green-friendly luxury homes in Seattle. That`s not news. That`s Seattle. Having them torched to the ground by environmental terrorists, yes, that`s news. We will have that story in just a bit.
And then, it`s a beautiful day here in New York City. Actually, perfect day for a conference on global warming. We`ll speak to some of its participants later on in the program. Interviews I promise you, you will not here in hear in mainstream media any place else. Stick around.
BECK: Well, if you think environmental activists are peace-loving tree huggers, guess again. Earlier this morning in a Seattle suburb, firefighters battled a blaze that engulfed four multimillion-dollar homes. A sign was found at the scene by authorities that said, "Build green? Nope, black." Along with the word "ELF" printed on it.
You may not have heard of ELF before. It`s a calling card, according to authorities, for the Earth Liberation Front, a collection of radical environmentalists. Now the FBI is involved in the investigation.
Brian Levin is here. He`s the director for the Center of the Study of Hate and Extremism and associated professor at California State University in San Bernardino.
Brian, if I`m not mistaken, these guys were the -- at one time the biggest terror threat in the United States. They -- they came from Earth First, which were actually peaceful and someone in ELF decided, "You know what? We need to take action ourselves and take it into our own hands."
Earth First was a group in the `80s, and they were involved in something called monkey-wrenching, the most notable of which was putting spikes in trees...
B. LEVIN: ... which could then injure mill workers. When they decided to go on a more peaceful route, they splintered, and ELF came about in about 1992 in the mid- to late 90s. ELF came here to the United States, where they`ve committed acts of terrorism.
BECK: Right. And didn`t the FBI at one point say that these are the most dangerous domestic terrorists that we have?
B. LEVIN: There was a story about that, but to tell you the truth, there is a lot of debate within the terrorism monitoring community. And I certainly don`t agree with -- with that at all.
B. LEVIN: However, it depends on what you`re talking about. If you`re talking about sheer money damage -- money damages and frequency of attacks, the eco-terrorists are certainly a significant domestic terrorist threat.
BECK: I personally define terrorism as somebody who is trying to cause terror to get people to change their -- their way of life.
These guys believe that people are subservient to -- to animals and the earth and everything else. And they will do whatever they have to do. They`ll burn things down. They`ll destroy as much as they can.
I mean, here they are in California -- in Seattle, but they`ve done it in California. They start fires. Well, I mean, how smart is that if you love the earth, to start fires in California and out west?
B. LEVIN: It`s not smart at all. And the damage as a result has been in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So I am not in any way rallying for these individuals. What I am saying, as far as fatalities are concerned, there are certainly movements that pose a bigger threat and have domestically and internationally. So I don`t want to say...
BECK: They`re not targeting people, but I believe that it`s only a matter of time before they cross that line. This is a -- I mean, look, this is a religion. The earth is becoming a religion to some of these nut jobs. We`re sitting on a powder keg that is constantly having matches flicked at it by people like Al Gore in this global-warming movement.
B. LEVIN: I would like to make a distinction. One thing that I`d like to do is not take legitimate areas of public debate and then morph them into the terrorist angle of things. Because you can find people of good will on issues such as abortion and the environment and then radicals that do rocky things. We don`t want to, you know...
BECK: What I`m saying -- what I`m saying to you, Brian, is will you agree that these people, this is almost becoming a religion with these people?
B. LEVIN: Yes.
BECK: And it is a powder keg. It`s only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt.
B. LEVIN: On that angle, you are absolutely correct.
BECK: Brian, I`ve got to run. Thank you very much. We`re up against a break.
Coming up, a conversation with the president of the Czech Republic. Next.
BECK: If you listen to the mainstream media, there is no debate about global climate change. It`s happening. The Earth is getting warmer, there`s nothing you can do about it, man has caused all of it. Scientists agree. Now fork over the cash.
Given those facts, there is absolutely no way that a major conference on climate change, skeptics could possibly be going on in New York City this week. Remember, overwhelming consensus of scientists have said the debate is over. So it would be impossible for over 400 of them to have gathered today for workshops and presentations of topics and -- like the role of nature versus human activity, or the truth about climate change in Florida.
And since it`s clear that anyone who disagrees with the so-called overwhelming consensus on global warming is either a shill for big oil or an uneducated hack, or I believe I was called a corporate fascist by Robert F. Kennedy, that people with impeccable credentials like Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon, Wharton professor Scott Armstrong, or IPCC co- chairman Yuri Israel could be in New York, today, to speak at a conference like that. And there is absolutely no way that a sitting president of an important country like the Czech Republic president, Vaclav Klaus, would be giving the keynote address at a conference, let alone being sitting right here in my studio to talk about it, but wow -- he is.
Mr. President, welcome, sir.
You are a remarkable man because you are fearless on this topic. You are one of the only people that will talk about it as a leader of a nation. And now you are here in New York, you were just reelected. You`ve got your inauguration -- I believe it`s next week?
PRESIDENT VACLAV KLAUS, CZECH REPUBLIC: This Friday.
BECK: This Friday.
BECK: Why are you here in New York?
KLAUS: Well, I consider this topic absolutely crucial, and in this respect what speaks for me is the experience from the past with the communist regime. It was the same problem.
You know, an idea which looks very nice, which transcends the people, now we have to do something about it. And I`m afraid that this is the way how to block freedom, how to stop democracy in the world, and how to stop prosperity as well. You know?
BECK: It is so funny in so many ways. I did a special, a weeklong special all last week on fascism. And this is the kind of thing that they look for.
They look for something -- not war, but a war on something where you could unite everybody. I mean, if you could put a fake spaceship above the Earth and say there is our common enemy, we would unite. That`s what this is.
KLAUS: Well, let`s pay attention to using some words which are used for other things. Fascism I think is an over statement. I wouldn`t do that.
Nevertheless, this is a problem with our freedom. I recently wrote a book about climate change. The subtitle: "What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom?" And my answer is very clear and very resolute. It`s freedom. So this is what bothers me.
BECK: OK. So then help me with the problem with the word "fascism," because if you disagree, you are immediately scared into silence.
BECK: You can`t have a conversation. I mean, I had a conversation today with some of the best scientific minds on the planet on this today. And one of them said to me, "Well, Glenn, I mean, you would be foolish not to consider the other side and really look." But on the other side, on the Al Gore side, they will shut you down and paint you as a lunatic.
KLAUS: That`s the problem. They don`t want to have a conversation. They don`t want to discuss it, because they are afraid that they don`t have enough arguments.
That`s my experience with all of them. But it seems to me that you must have courage to do something, and I know that it`s politically incorrect to have the views I have.
Nevertheless, I succeeded being reelected as president of the country two weeks ago. And everyone in the country knows about my views on global warming and climate change. And I was reelected in spite of that, which means that it`s possible and it`s, I would say, necessary to do.
BECK: Right. Because you`re an economist. I mean...
KLAUS: That`s the basis for my -- for my thinking, because I would say that a global climate change debate is not about science as I would say climatology. It`s more about social sciences because it`s the issue of the society, what to do with people, what to do with mankind. Therefore, I am very sorry that the social science are more or less silent in discussion.
BECK: How do you mean?
KLAUS: They don`t -- they don`t participate in conferences on neither side, you know, which is a problem. I am...
BECK: You know, if you -- you`re an economist, so you know what America is going through in the economy...
BECK: ... and the World Wide Web that this thing is spreading all around. I am so concerned that you take a project like global warming and you spend trillions of dollars. And you give it to an organization like the U.N., what you are doing is you`re selling your sovereignty, you are collapsing the economy as we know it.
True or false?
KLAUS: This is -- this is what I see as well. So for me to send the sovereignty somewhere from the (INAUDIBLE) countries is a problem for me.
The global governance for me who lived in the communist area all kinds of governance represent the problem. So global governance, global problems.
So I am very much against it. And the problem is that it will -- that there is a danger that it will dramatically stop or block economic growth. The rise of the (INAUDIBLE), and especially the problem will be for developing countries.
BECK: When you were -- when you first started hearing this, do you remember a time -- was there a time when you thought to yourself, oh, my, I mean, this is Stalin stuff, this is -- this is the way it all started last time? Was there a moment like that?
KLAUS: I must say that for me it started in the early 70s, but it was not about global warming. It was the environmentalists activities -- about the limits to grow (ph). And it was structurally the same discussion, and it was in the dark communist days in my country. And we were really not free to come here to New York City...
BECK: Right. Yes.
KLAUS: ... and to have this conversation.
Nevertheless, I consider this as a problem, and just the topics have changed a little bit. Nevertheless, the structure of the thinking of people is the same. Some famous environmentalists, permanent participants of the debate, even the topic has changed a little bit, were early here, those very active 35 or 40 years ago. Now the topic is different, the logic is the same.
BECK: Here in America, we are seeing a campaign now where people are just voting in many ways, at least at this point, with their emotion, especially on this issue. They will say -- for instance, I`ve had several people say, "I`m a progressive." And I`ll say, "Well, what does that even mean?" And they`ll say, "Well, it has `progress` in the name."
Or they will say, "I want to vote for the first woman or the first African-American because it says something about me. I want to save the planet." And they don`t think it through.
What would you say to people who aren`t engaging?
KLAUS: Well, again, I must say that to spend most of my life in the communist era is paradoxically in some respect a comparative advantage. You understand some things.
And for me, many terms, many words have had really different meanings, because, for example, when you mentioned the term "progress," it was -- it was so popular in the communist era, in the hands of the communist bosses, you know, that the term "progress" has been so much discredited in my country that I would say that the most noble edition (ph) compared to your country.
Noble edition (ph) in my country would dare to use the term, because everyone would say that this is connected with Mr. Brezhnev and with our Czechoslovakia -- Brezhnev. So no one would use the term. When I hear it here, I think, well, they quite innocently use terms they shouldn`t use.
BECK: Well, some are using it, yes. Some are using it innocently, some I think know what they are doing.
Mr. President, we`re going to have you back later on in the week because I want to talk to you a little bit about Cuba, I want to talk to you about the missile shield. I want to talk to you about Russia and Putin and everything else.
But it is truly a pleasure, sir, to meet you and have you on.
KLAUS: Thank you.
BECK: Thank you so much.
KLAUS: Thank you very much.
BECK: The rest of the interview will be on Wednesday night right here.
Back in a minute.
BECK: Well, I told you last week that we would cover The Heartland Institute`s global warming truth or swindle conference going on here in New York City like it was the second coming of Jesus himself. After all, if this were a traditional gathering of global warming alarmists, the media would be everywhere. But, since it`s full of hundreds of credible, mainstream scientists who happen to disagree with their peers, it`s completely ignored.
In fact, the organizers of the conference actually had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy ads in papers like "The New York Times" just to get the word out that it was happening.
Two people who were not only there today, but also spoke in workshops this morning, and from my program on the radio earlier, Willie Soon, who is a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of Harvard`s Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Bob Carter. He`s a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.
Guys, I see the swarm of reporters behind you now covering the conference. Was there a single reporter there today covering this conference?
WILLIE SOON, HARVARD SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS: I have only personally seen one reporter that is of some consequence would be (INAUDIBLE) of "New York Times" -- myself.
BECK: That are is amazing.
Bob, let me go to -- let me start with you.
The whole thing that every American has seen is that Al Gore chart that has the C02 and the temperature rise.
Could you please dispel this, that C02 leads temperature rise?
BOB CARTER, JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY: Well, the chart you are talking about, Glenn, is only for the last 100 years or so. And it shows the temperature increases in the first part of the 20th century, and then it decreases between 1940 and about 1980. And then it increases again up to the end of the century.
If you plot on that graph, which is curvy, the carbon dioxide increasing graph, it doesn`t correlate very well at all. And in particular, the fastest rate of increase of carbon dioxide took place after the Second World War at precisely the time that the temperature curve was actually cooling.
CARTER: So that makes it very difficult to argue that the carbon dioxide is causing the warming before and after that time.
And Willie, you`re a Harvard physicist. So I`m a rodeo clown. So talk down to me here for a second.
BECK: Tell me about the sun. You say the sun is actually more effective -- giving more effect than anything I am doing with my SUV.
SOON: Yes, indeed. That`s what I found in my research.
For example, when I started to look at -- when everybody was saying that the Arctic is melting, and so all that alarmism started to spread. So I started to look carefully into what the Arctic temperature is doing.
And then when I started looking at that, my god, I am beginning to see that it doesn`t make any sense if you were to try to explain the Arctic temperature change with respect to just simply increasing (INAUDIBLE) C02. The reason is that there was this very large warming from about 1910 or so to 1930 to 1950.
At that time, as you know, there was basically very, very -- no C02 increase at all. Yet, the Arctic was warming by almost a degree Celsius, which is about two degrees Fahrenheit. And then from the 1940s or so to 1970, late 1970, the temperature in the Arctic started to cool, while you know the C02 was rising rapidly. So, it just doesn`t fit.
And then the biggest surprise of my research is indeed that when I started to look at how the sun`s light energy has been changing, the sun`s light output has been changing over that time period, it fitted the changes in the Arctic temperature almost perfectly. Actually, it`s a very, very significant finding. And...
We included this in my book, "An Inconvenient Book."
BECK: And it is -- when you look at the -- when you look at the chart, it`s exact. I mean, it is really, really amazing.
And Bob, you say that -- well, you tell me. The Arctic at one point was much warmer than it is now. And now the sea ice is bigger than it has been since we have been measuring it.
True or false?
CARTER: Glenn, it depends which pole we are talking about. What you just summarized is true for the South Pole, that the sea ice around Antarctica, just by coincident this year, happens to have reached an all- time historic high.
The sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, in the Arctic Ocean, has, as you`ve heard on the news many, many times, been decreasing for the last few years. However, it has recently turned around, and there it is also increasing, and the area is quite large this winter.
BECK: Well, how could people on the Al Gore side explain that one pole is getting colder with more ice, and the other pole is getting warmer?
CARTER: With difficulty, I would say. And you should ask them. I`ll be very interested to hear their answer.
BECK: They think I`m a fascist. They don`t answer those questions.
Willie, in the last nine years...
BECK: ... is the globe getting warmer, colder or staying the same?
SOON: OK. Actually, I think you are referring to the -- I would refer to the best temperature record that we do have, which is those measurements that is done from orbiting satellites, and indeed those satellites were showing that from perhaps 1998 to about 2008 or so, actually as late as the data that just came out, which is around January 2008, you would not find the warming trend that has been, of course, predicted. Because at that particular time period from 1998 to January of 2008, the C02 level actually has been rising quite substantially, actually by some order of maybe 20 parts per million, which is quite significant.
Yet, of course, you do not see the climate system just simply willingly go along with the carbon dioxide rise. So, that is actually indeed one of the big surprises, actually, of what is happening now on planet Earth.
Bob, you say the global cooling you think is a bigger -- is a bigger threat now. What does that mean?
CARTER: Well, what is certain, Glenn, is that it will either cool or warm next. We don`t know which.
CARTER: And if you wish to know which, you should flip a coin.
CARTER: Because the chances are roughly 50-50.
CARTER: If it cools...
SOON: Good point.
CARTER: ... rather than warms, then the effects of that will be much more damaging on our particular ability to grow crops in...
BECK: Guys, I only have time for a yes or no.
Yes or no, this is what the climate does, this is what the planet does, it`s constantly getting warmer and colder? Yes or no?
CARTER: Yes, one after the other.
BECK: Thank you.
It`s a consensus, America.
Thank you, Gentlemen.
Up next, we have more from the International Conference on Climate Change that, believe me, you are not going to see any place else.
Curious, isn`t it?
BECK: We are back with our continuing coverage of The Heartland Institute`s International Conference of Climate Change that no one is covering here in New York City.
I want to introduce you now to Anthony Watts, meteorologist at KPAY in California.
Anthony, good to talk to you. I know you were on the radio program today. We had a fascinating conversation, and these pictures are up on the Web site. But real quick, what did do you and what did you find?
ANTHONY WATTS, WATTSUOPWITHTHAT.COM: Well, what I`m doing is I`m investigating weather stations around the United States. The United States NOAA uses 1,221 weather stations based all around the United States as their official climate recording stations. And what I`m doing, along with a group of volunteers, is going around and examining these stations to find out what exactly is the measurement environment at which the temperatures are being measured. That`s what the project is about.
BECK: To make sure that they`re -- OK.
First I want to put up the Tucson chart if you have the Tucson temperature chart. Tell me about this chart.
WATTS: Well, this one we identified from data early on. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit helped identify this particular station as having the sharpest positive trend of any climate monitoring station in the United States. And so we sent out our volunteers to find it.
We found it. And when we did, we were quite surprised to find that it in the middle of a parking lot at the University of Arizona at Tucson, the Atmospheric Sciences Department.
BECK: Right there. Hang on just a second.
So you know, America, right there on the blacktop. What do you think is going to happen when the sun goes up?
That is outside of the standards in what you`re supposed to have, right?
WATTS: NOAA has a 100 foot rule -- 100 feet away from asphalt...
WATTS: ... from sidewalks, those things. And that certainly is less than 100 feet away from those things.
BECK: Yes. It`s like three feet above it.
Let me show you another picture here. This is another one that has an air-conditioning unit right next to it. Tell me about this one.
WATTS: Well, I believe this one is -- what, is this Oregon?
BECK: No, this is -- no, wait. This is the fire station one.
WATTS: Oh, OK.
This was the station that I found in Marysville, California, that started this whole project. When I discovered that they were measuring the temperature -- and the device that you see labeled there, MMTS...
WATTS: ... is the official temperature center. It`s a little different than other centers, but it`s right at the front end of a parking space.
Now, they park their vehicles front end into that parking space. The temperature sensor sits here. The radiator from the vehicle is here.
Now, that`s just one aspect of it. On another side...
WATTS: Hold on.
BECK: ... I`m sorry, I`m out of time.
But please, you`ll find all of this information on the Web site. Will give you a link at GlennBeck.com.
Anthony, it`s a pleasure. We`ll see you tonight.
From New York, goodnight, America.