I usually don't bother wasting my time with pundits unless they offer some actual entertainment value. And even then, I don't consider them to be accurate sources of information and always check the validity of any drivel that they unleash.

But the crazy that I have been hearing about from a Mr. Glenn Beck has piqued my interest enough that I decided to search for some clips and see if this guy is really the nutcase that he appears to be.

The first clip I came across is an older one about global warming from his days at CNN. Literally less than a minute into the clip and I am laughing at this guy. He is either consciously deceptive, but it seems more likely that he is just clueless. He starts off with a statistic- always a red flag. In his argument against potential dangers from global warming, he states:

"Deaths per year from extreme weather are down 95% since the 1920's".

Uhhh....Glenn, that may be due to I don't know, things like satellites in space which can help us forecast extreme weather, among other technological advances in architecture, medicine, and first response abilities that all help us to save lives. Agencies like FEMA usually do more good than harm as well. Not a good start as far as giving me confidence in your ability to rationally consider topics.

He goes on to say that espousing such views will make you "unhip and friendless". And I'm sorry you feel unhip and friendless Mr. Beck, but your personal self-esteem issues don't really fit into the cold world of logic. If used appropriately, rational thinking will lead you to an accurate conclusion- there are no guarantees that it will be a warm and fuzzy conclusion that makes your life easier. Sometimes the correct answer is a painful truth. However, there is some comfort in that presented with the same data, those who employ logical reasoning will frequently arrive at similar conclusions. Sort of like how almost all the experts and rational scientists who specialize in climatology and related fields have analyzed the data and reached the conclusion that global warming is very likely to be a true phenomenon, and that it is very likely that humans are contributing a significant amount to the process.

He then goes on to discuss the fact that John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, wrote an article stating that AGW is a scam. Glenn, maybe you are impressed that he helped found the Weather Channel and that he is a television anchorman. But that doesn't make him a well-informed scientist. He got his degree in journalism from what I can tell. I mean, would you trust Hugh Laurie to diagnose a serious disease? Would you let him perform your next hemorrhoid operation? No? Because he's not a real doctor, right? You see, you want someone specialized and scientifically knowledgeable about such things. Here's a sample of Coleman's reasoning skills:

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming
frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the
voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex
theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is
based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil
fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is
manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The
Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant
global warming.

...

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component
of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is
absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to
trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we
humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a
naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s
all there is to it; it can’t.

No rational opponent just simply declares their opponent wrong. Look at the red herrings and fallacies in this argument. It's ludicrous. The fact that CO^2 is natural has no bearing whatsover on its role as a greenhouse gas. We naturally produce hydrochloric acid in our stomachs, does that mean it is fine for John Coleman to drink a glass? Sulfur Dioxide is a naturally occuring invisible gas as well. It doesn't mean it's good to have in the atmosphere. Then he finishes with a classic argument from ignorance fallacy- I don't see how it could have an effect, therefore it must not have an effect. I think this should be renamed the arrogant prick arguing from their own perceived omniscience fallacy.

Beck does call it an opinion, but I have a bad feeling he is going to use it like a fact. I won't have time to finish this analysis right now, but will finish it during the upcoming week and then move on into exploring some of the other Beckisms that so far do not seem far-fetched.