As NewsBusters reported Thursday, a goodly number of fallacies about the Kyoto Protocol were identified in Glenn Beck’s “Exposed: The Climate of Fear” special presented on CNN Headline News Wednesday. Not the least of these was that soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore himself stated when he was Vice President that this treaty would not be submitted to Congress for ratification “until there`s meaningful participation by key developing nations.”

However, there are two other important issues that skeptics raise which the media generally ignore:

• If America participated in Kyoto and met the treaty’s targets, virtually nothing would be accomplished as it pertains to climate change
• Moneys and energies allocated to address global warming could be better spent to solve more pressing international maladies.

With that in mind, Beck interviewed Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, and asked this pivotal question that Gore and his sycophant followers never want answered:

Video Clip: Real (3 MB) or Windows (2.5MB), plus MP3 (1 MB)

[A]s a guy who believes in manmade global warming, why don`t you think Kyoto is the solution?

What followed was the dirty little secret the alarmists don’t want anybody to know:

Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good… It will basically postpone global warming for about five years at the end of the century.

That set up this marvelous exchange about what other pressing problems are facing the planet, and how all this global warming discussion is unnecessarily diverting attention:

BECK: Let me play devil`s advocate here. Al Gore has made mention of malaria a lot. Some people say we could save 100,000 people on malaria alone if we do something about global warming. Why wouldn`t we save 100,000 people?

LOMBORG: We could probably save about 85 million people from malaria if we did something about malaria. These people are suffering right now.

Why is it we`re talking about making very expensive moves doing virtually no good 100 years from now when there are real people that we can really save very cheaply from malaria right now?

Good questions, yes? Wouldn’t it be nice if Gore’s followers in the media actually asked him similar questions rather than declaring him one of the most influential “scientists and thinkers” on the face of the planet?

Regardless of the answer, Lomborg had much more to say on this issue:

BECK: OK. You started something called the Copenhagen Consensus, and this was a group of experts from the U.N., economists, et cetera, et cetera, and you prioritized all of the world`s biggest problems and where we would be most effective in spending our money. AIDS was number one, right?

LOMBORG: Yes, and basically the point is again to say we have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree. We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost.

Let`s focus on where we can actually do a lot of good. If we care about this planet, if we care about its environment, shouldn`t we do where we can do the most good first?

What these Nobel laureates basically told us if we spend our money on HIV/AIDS, we can do $40 word of good for every dollar. If we spend it on Kyoto, we can only do 30 cents. Let`s do the $40 first.

Get the point? This group of Nobel laureates concluded that $40 worth of good could be accomplished with every dollar we spend on AIDS as opposed to 30 cents for every dollar we spend trying to hit Kyoto targets.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that liberal media elites don’t understand the economics involved, nor that they don't care when the agenda is clearly more important than actually solving problems.

Recognizing the obvious absurdity, Beck asked Lomborg what the top five issues on these laureates’ list were, and where global warming fell:

Basically what they told us was it was HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, free trade, malaria and agricultural research. Those are things that we can do cheaply and do an immense amount of impact in this world right now and also for future generations.

Kyoto came down at the bottom. Not because climate change is not real, but simply because the way we tackled it through Kyoto is very expensive and a very poor way of helping the world.

Think this will be the topic of discussion at a media outlet near you any time soon?

What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Well, when Al Gore testified before Congress on global warming just a couple of months ago it was a media circus, but also testifying that day without any fanfare or really any coverage was Bjorn Lomborg. He`s the author of the best-selling book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He`s an expert on the economic impact of global warming.

Bjorn, you`re not a scientist, you`re a political scientist, so I`m not going to ask any science questions. I want to ask you, as a guy who believes in manmade global warming, why don`t you think Kyoto is the solution?

BJORN LOMBORG, AUTHOR, "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST`S GUIDE": Well, essentially exactly because of what you showed in the clip. Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good. That`s not a good deal.

BECK: Let me -- let me show the chart.

LOMBORG: What we need to look at is to try to find smarter ways.

BECK: This is the chart. This is the impact of Kyoto here on this chart, compared to if we do nothing?

LOMBORG: Yes. Basically no change. It will basically postpone global warming for about five years at the end of the century.

BECK: OK. Let me...

LOMBORG: That`s not a very good deal.

BECK: Let me play devil`s advocate here. Al Gore has made mention of malaria a lot. Some people say we could save 100,000 people on malaria alone if we do something about global warming. Why wouldn`t we save 100,000 people?

LOMBORG: We could probably save about 85 million people from malaria if we did something about malaria. These people are suffering right now.

Why is it we`re talking about making very expensive moves doing virtually no good 100 years from now when there are real people that we can really save very cheaply from malaria right now?

BECK: OK. We just had a situation -- I don`t remember when it was -- just a few years ago, where we had a massive heat wave in Europe. Thirty- five thousand people in France alone died. Another 2,000 people died from this heat wave in England.

If we don`t stop global warming, won`t things just get worse and worse and more people will die just from -- from the heat?

LOMBORG: Glenn, that`s exactly true and that`s, of course, what Al Gores tells us. With global warming you`re going to see more heat deaths, but what most people don`t tell us is we`re also going to see much less cold deaths.

And actually, many more people die from cold than from heat, so for England alone you mentioned the number 2,000 people. Actually that`s what we expect will die from more heat waves in 2080, but what we have to remember is that 20,000 fewer will die from cold each year in 2080.

Now I`m not sitting and saying we should go for global warming, but I`m saying we need to know both.

BECK: OK. You started something called the Copenhagen Consensus, and this was a group of experts from the U.N., economists, et cetera, et cetera, and you prioritized all of the world`s biggest problems and where we would be most effective in spending our money. AIDS was number one, right?

LOMBORG: Yes, and basically the point is again to say we have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree. We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost.

Let`s focus on where we can actually do a lot of good. If we care about this planet, if we care about its environment, shouldn`t we do where we can do the most good first?

What these Nobel laureates basically told us if we spend our money on HIV/AIDS, we can do $40 word of good for every dollar. If we spend it on Kyoto, we can only do 30 cents. Let`s do the $40 first.

BECK: Give me -- give me the top five quickly, and where does global warming fall in this list?

LOMBORG: Basically what they told us was it was HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, free trade, malaria and agricultural research. Those are things that we can do cheaply and do an immense amount of impact in this world right now and also for future generations.

Kyoto came down at the bottom. Not because climate change is not real, but simply because the way we tackled it through Kyoto is very expensive and a very poor way of helping the world.

BECK: Bjorn, thanks.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.