BPSDB That’s right, Faux News thought Stewart’s coverage was just great, no irony or sarcasm at all.
The sad news is, Fox is right. The Daily Show earned that praise and deserves it, unfortunately.
Once again Stewart acted largely as an echo chamber for a climate story rather than as the insightful wit that cuts to the truth with clever juxtapositioning. Completely absent was Stewart’s trademark of letting a talking head crawl out on a limb, and then presenting some visual or commentary that exposes the lie.
Notwithstanding a couple of cheap shots at Inhofe, which is both too easy and pointless to the story, and affirming that the emails do not topple climate science, which is obvious to anyone with a brain, Stewart contributed nothing new. Instead Stewart just let’s the main claims of the CNN talking head stand. Not just stand, but clearly accepts the claims as stated to be both accurate and true.
Jon, seriously … when Fox thinks you’re doing a great job maybe it’s time to double check just what it is you are doing. Not to say that it’s necessarily proof that you’re screwing up, but it’s sure not a good sign.
I am not asking Stewart to do anything different from his usual schtick; quite the opposite, I want to know why he didn’t do his usual schtick?
Make no mistake, many aspects of this story are too nuanced, complicated, or as yet unresolved to be suitable for The Daily Show to tackle. Nor am I asking The Daily Show to be some sort of news show format. It’s not, it’s a comedy show. But it’s a comedy show that does cover the news of the day, and does so with a particular style … usually.
Elements of the story, particularly the elements covered in the CNN report, did lend themselves to being deflated with the usual Daily Show format. Further, this aired Dec 1st, when all of the information needed to craft a classic Stewartesque puncturing of the wingnut hysteria were easily available. One phone call or two hours of an intern’s time on the internet were all that was required, and yet that’s not what we got.
How could Stewart have handled it? Well, take the “hide the decline” piece. How hard would it have been to follow the talking head with this graph
clearly showing:
- there was no temperature decline to hide in 1981, and
- the CRU data is no different from the other data sets, hence obviously had not been tampered with.
Instead of exposing the misleading story, Stewart chose to reinforce it “It’s just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you.” He then uses that to segue into helping spread the lie that the raw temperature data from the 1980s has been destroyed, another lie he could have debunked, but chose to repeat instead.
As for the accusations of draconian suppression of dissent, I can easily see Stewart using his standard ‘speaker in the ear’ bit to clarify that:
- the alleged suppression was not of dissenting views, but of work and journals thought to be false, and that
- these works and journals did indeed turn out to be false.
Not only would that have been easy, it would have been standard Stewart style, but it’s not what we got. Instead we got a straight read as if Stewart were some Fox News sock puppet reading the teleprompter … no wonder Fox thought it was a wonderful performance.
So what does this mean? Is it that the facts are so hard to find that even The Daily Show can’t come up with them despite their considerable resources? What does that tell us about how the average member of the thinking public is getting their information?
Or is Stewart & Co. really so clueless on simple climate science that they start to border on Denial? That may seem hard to believe, but since when does Stewart uncritically accept and repeat stories exactly as the appear on popular media? Yet he did so here, and also with his servile fawning over the Superfreaks climate scam.
Regardless of why, this is not good given how relatively influential Stewart is. What next? Inhofe as a special and honoured guest? co-hosting with O’Rielly? Seriously Jon, if you’re not going to give climate stories the standard Stewart lampooning with all of it’s insight, accuracy and wit, please don’t cover them at all.
Much more of this sort of coverage and Glenn Beck will be holding you up as an example for the popular media to emulate, and I am not sure you want to go there …
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
One screwed-up piece of coverage is possibly just a simple fumble.
When there are two, on the same topic, then you have the makings of an ugly trend.
Mind you, he could still redeem himself if he invited Naomi Oreskes.
[…] Colbert TV Actor Fox News praises Jon Stewart for climategate coverage …give climate stories the standard Stewart lampooning with all of it’s insight, accuracy and […]
Hi Mike
Great blog and thanks for pointing this out. I’ve always admired Jon Stewart’s show, but agree that this was way below par.
Hope you might like this piece I wrote today.
http://asharpminor.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/copenhagen-and-the-audacity-of-truth/
I was so annoyed when I watched this last night (DVR – I’m always a day behind). I completely agree with Cedric – the makings of an ugly trend in how The Daily Show is handling the climate change issue. Very disappointing.
I don’t agree with you that Stewart could have debunked the denialists on this point. His whole schtick is to quote people out of context, and the debunking of the false CRU narrative is simply too difficult for his audience. (Yes, I said that. Go ahead and accuse me of arrogance.)
The potency of the CRU emails is that they can so easily be misrepresented, and that few people — not even Jon Stewart — are aware of the double standards that apply to climate sceptics and climate scientists. Sceptics can spout all manner of conspiracies and be taken seriously and never have their reputations called into question; climate scientists have to be as pure as the driven snow.
—-
Mike,
Suggestion: don’t refer to the stolen email incident as ‘Climategate’. It implies fraud and deception – other than that of the hacker. And that’s exactly what the Deniers are aiming for.
“The stolen emails” or “SwiftHack” seem appropriate:
> Given the similarities between this smear job and the Swift Boat attacks on Senator John Kerry, SwiftHack is a far more appropriate name.
http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/25/climategate-the-swifthack-scandal-what-you-need-to-know/
—-
I noticed Jon Stewart first showed the “we can’t account for the current lack of warming” quote, followed by the “hide the decline” quote. Anyone watching might think those quotes are related to one another. That was the impression given, certainly.
That’s how information filters out to the media, unfortunately.
Consider this, what if the whole world jumped on board with AGW and did everything you wanted to stop it. What would the world be like? Do you think that it will be some envro-topia? With all the trapping of the modern world , yet none of the drawbacks?
IF we do nothing and you are wrong, then no harm no foul, life goes on. IF we do nothing , and you are right , then disaster, a second Dark Ages. If we do everything you want , and you are wrong , we are in a second Dark Ages. If we do everything you want and you are right , we have a second Dark ages.
Without industrailization and consumerism , the “modern world” can NOT exist for the majority of the world’s population. IF it exists only for a minority, it will eventually end up badly for all involved. The modern age is a hopeless deathtrap, if you are right.
No matter how you slice it, the AGW world is a world of poverty and misery. Those who live in poverty will stay in poverty and those not in poverty are doomed to join them. The world you live in , civilization itself will destroy civilization.Can you understand why people are skeptical?
—-
> If we do everything you want , and you are wrong , we are in a second Dark Ages.
Wrong. We end up with the clean, renewable energy that we need to move to – peak oil?! – regardless of the reality of global warming.
Not emitting CO2 is not synonymous with living in a mud hut.
Joshua? I can’t help but comment on the following:
“If we do nothing and you are wrong, then no harm no foul, life goes on. If we do nothing , and you are right , then disaster, a second Dark Ages. If we do everything you want , and you are wrong , we are in a second Dark Ages. If we do everything you want and you are right , we have a second Dark ages .”
Each one of these ‘if, then’ statements apparently looks analytic or logical to you.
However, each one of these conditional-type statements is untrue. Does that matter, to you?
One can assert a logical or causal connection such as the following: if you are a human being and your are right about that, then you have feathers and two wings for flying.
One would be wrong. See how that works?
I can’t tutor everyone, so please get some basic logic skills.
So when the Daily Show had al gore on and they did not challenge him on any of his claims, does that earn the same criticism as the Climategate piece?
—-
“The issue is exposing blatant lies. If Gore was guilty of any then they should be exposed, but I haven’t herard of any. By contrast, blatant lying is all the Denialosphere does.”
It’s difficult to expose blatant lies when there is so much FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) propagated by the extremes of both sides. Your reply to my post aptly provides a good example of that extreme.
Climate Truths and Fears!
Apparently I had some explaining to do, for remarks posted on line when I dared to question the Climate Change Experts, and their “Conspiracy” to avoid the
truth behind the Science! Well I do say – how dare they – sit down in Copenhagen to hold world discussion on Climate Change and NOT include alternate causes, or even the real causes for Global Warming, Radiant Energy buildup!
In the remarks directed back at me I was very disturbed by how little some PHD holding Scientist, knew about the problem of Global Warming. It led me to question what are, they being taught about the subject. I am not a PHD trained Environmental Scientist. I am an Engineering Technologist who has been working in the Geographical Information Industry for more than 18 years now. I have had an interest in following the Planets Weather since 1980’s when I first read an article in a Science Magazine about how there would be bigger and stronger storms on the Planet by the turn of the century. My collage friends and I first questioned then what Mankind was doing that Scientist had to be publishing warnings about drastic Weather changes? This has been a hobby of interest for
me not a cause for a professional career. So I have not been trained to think in a specified manor or in a specialized field on the subject, all thoughts here
are my independent thoughts as a long time observer.
Let’s get some facts straight first, as I have come to know them! Global Warming is the buildup of Heat from Radiant Energy in the Atmosphere. Today Real Climate Change is considered to be the buildup of Green House Gases that
trap and hold this Heat in the Atmosphere. These “TWO” key factors are 50 – 50 partners in what Environmental Scientist say is occurring on the Planet today. So I believe professionals having a meetings to talk about half of the problem is a problem they are not planning to solve. It is not then hard to question the motives of those involved. Politics has always been about manipulating the truth for power or profitable gain. Science is supposed to be about learning the truth! One can easily than assume there is a Politically Motivated Conspiracy going on when there has been a Grand Scheme hatched and put in place to only address half of the problem.
When professionals claiming to be Environmental Scientist inform me that Radiant Energy has nothing to do with Climate Change or Global Warming, I can’t help but
ask who taught you that? Green House Gases could not cause Global Warming by themselves! Radiant Energy on the other hand would fry the Planet to a crisp if Green House Gases were not there protecting it from such a thing. We get 99.99% and more of our Radiant Energy from the Sun. Studies done by NASA and others have concluded that Sun is not producing anymore Radiant Energy than it has in the past. Mankind is the only producer of New Radiant Energy in the Earth’s
Atmosphere.
For more than 100 years now Mankind has been making and transmitting Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy into the Atmosphere, Radio and TV are early
examples. About 50 years ago Mankind started using this energy to transmit Telephone Calls over long distances quickly and a lot cheaper. In 1983 the Cellular Telephone Industry was born, when United States declassified digital
technology. Global Warming is about 100 years old, and Real Climate Change is about 25 years old. One does not need to be a Scientist to see that there is a “Pattern” to follow here.
The declassified Digital Technology subdivided any 1 Frequency used to transmit Mankind’s Radiant Energy into 400 smaller Frequencies. This allowed Mankind to
increase its ability to pollute the Atmosphere with Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy by 400% overnight. The public had no known reasons to be
concerned so no real public objections were made about doing this. Mankind had been using this Technology for 75 years by then and it was doing no harm. In limited amounts this Technology was known to be safe, but no one studied how harmful it would be if we increased it by a factor of 400 times greater. There were early concerns from some Scientist that an increase in this type of energy
in the Atmosphere would help create larger Storm Systems that would occur more often. So Articles warning about Weather Changes did appear in Science Magazines at the time. No one was even thinking it could cause Climate Change. With the aid of Satellites this Technology is now used all over the world today and it is the fastest growing New Industry on the Planet. It is also producing
the fastest growing Pollution in the Atmosphere more so because it uses the method of “Resonating Energy” as the key function in how it works.
Resonating Energy is not a form of Energy. It is better described as a method or process for increasing or spreading energy. It is the transformation of Slow
Energy into Fast Energy. When the Electrons in an Atom are caused to move faster, they cause the Electrons in surrounding Atoms to move just as fast. This energy spreads outward from the source making much more, Faster Energy than was ever used to induce the Resonating Energy Process into being. This is a method of energizing Electrons in Atoms at a Sub-Atomic level and Newton’s Laws for the transfer of energy in the Physical World do not apply here.
When Mankind transmits Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy we use very little to make a whole lot more! Only a very small portion of this new Fast
Energy is ever taken back out of the Atmosphere by a Manmade receiving device. For the most part this Electro Magnetic Fast Energy does not leave the Planet.
Most of this form of energy gets trapped by Earth’s Magnetic Field, and gets absorbed back into the Earth at some point in time. Most of the Sun’s Radiant Energy that heats the Planet is not Electro Magnetic and passes through the Earths Electro Magnetic Field. Because of this it is Mankind’s New Radiant Energy that is getting fast tracked to the Planets Poles not the Sun’s Radiant Energy, which has staid consistent! The Earths Electro Magnetic Field becomes twice as dense (2x) and gets twice as close (2x), to the surface of the Planet over the Polar Regions. This is an Intensifying Factor of Four (4x) over the Polar Regions of the planet, where Real Climate Change is today happening Four times (4x) faster than anywhere else!
Radiant Energy, (Electro Magnetic or Not) is a form of energy but it is NOT a form of Heat. Some would have you believe it gets its name from Radiant Heat it does not. The name comes from Radiation, because it is a form of Radiation. Radiant Radiation Energy must come into contact with Physical Matter before it becomes Radiant Heat Energy. Microscopic Particles of Matter suspended in our Atmosphere also react with Radiant Radiation Energy and are heated as a result of that reaction. Suspended Microscopic Particles of Matter in our Atmosphere
must be allowed to cool down to be removed from the Atmosphere. Energy that does not allow for this cooling to occur will cause these Suspended Microscopic Particles of Matter like Green House Gases to build up in the Atmosphere. Most of the Radiant Radiation Energy reaches and reacts with the surface Matter on the Planet. Today Four times (4x) more of Mankind’s Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy is coming into contact with the surface of the Planet in the Polar Regions where it heats Matter like Polar Ice on contact, than anywhere else on the Planet.
Green House Gases like Carbon Dioxide CO2 are Atmospheric Insulators that protect Planet Earth from temperature changes. They protect the Planet from
becoming too cold or too hot. Too few will cause Radiant Heat loss, too many will cause Radiant Heat gain in our Atmosphere. They do as much to stabilizing
temperatures for each Region of the Planet as they do for the whole Planet. They also work to help keep too much of the Sun’s Radiant Energy from baking the Planet Surface, this protection is called Global Dimming.
Maintaining a balance level of these Gases is very important, because Gods life forms evolved here under this balance. There is very little doubt that Modernized Mankind is causing an increase in these Gases in the Atmosphere and is disrupting their balance. They do NOT however cause Climate Change by themselves! In fact the whole concept of there being a Tipping Point where the
Planet will heat up faster is a very interesting fact. Interesting because we have not reached it yet, and the Planet is heating up very fast. Only after we
reach the Tipping Point should we start to see a significant melting of the Polar Caps based on this Theory. The Polar Caps are melting at an increased rapid rate today, implying that today’s buildup of Green House Gases has nothing
directly to do with the melting of the today’s Polar Caps. Recent exposed discoveries that data to support this Theory have been found to have been, falsified. This makes it now more likely than ever that Mankind’s new sources of Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy are contributing to the heating of the Polar Caps directly. Any Radiant Energy that prevents Green House Gases
from cooling down would also cause them to appear to be increasing in the Atmosphere.
I found it very interesting when I read that Carbon 14 Dioxide (C14O2) was named the fastest growing form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Atmosphere and the
Leading Indicator of real Climate Change in the UN IPCC Report on Climate Change when it was released. On September 11, 2001 Mankind or NATO turned off the
Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy transmitted by the public Wireless Telecommunications Industry over North America for 6 hours. This one event caused the only measurable positive impact in the Atmosphere in 30 years. All the Green Efforts together to date have not had this impact. There was both a temperature change and a measurable decrease in C14O2 in the Atmosphere.
Scientifically unsubstantiated News Reports reported that the grounding of the Airplanes for three days caused a reduction in Global Dimming and this was the
resulting effect. Most Scientist in the world, agree that a Reduction in Global Dimming should have caused an increase in the Suns production of C14O2, the
opposite occurred!
The Sun Radiant Energy makes this radioactive form of Carbon Dioxide C14O2, but the Nitrogen and Oxygen that are needed in the process do not come from the Sun,
they only come from the Planet Earth. Resonating Oxygen Atoms bond with Nitrogen Atoms to make this form of Carbon Dioxide. Non Resonating Oxygen Atoms
bond with Hydrogen Atoms to form Water H2O, at a lower level in our Atmosphere. Rain Water, helps cool our Atmosphere and remove Green House Gases from the
Atmosphere! On September 11, 2001, for 6 hours NATO turned off the Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy Frequencies that cause Oxygen Atoms to Resonate 54 to 66
Giga-Hertz. We use these Frequencies to transmit long distance Wireless Telephone Calls. Studies have been done by the Telecommunications Industry to
find ways to overcome “Signal Loss” caused when Oxygen Atoms absorb the Electro Magnetic Resonating Radiant Energy transmitted. Mankind is providing the
Catalyst for this Electro Chemical Reaction to occur in the Atmosphere.
Turning off the Frequencies that cause Oxygen Atoms to resonate alone will NOT stop Global Warming. They make up less than 5% of the Frequencies now used by
this Industry today. Carbon 14 Dioxide may be the fastest growing, form of CO2, but it is a very small portion, less than 1%, of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere, and an almost insignificant amount when compared to all the Green House Gases. Like the UN, I’m just using it as an indicator, to help demonstrate the negative impact Mankind’s Electro Magnetic Resonating Radiant
Energy is having on our Global Environment. The bigger concern should be the growing volume of Electro Magnetic Resonating Radiant Energy Mankind is transmitting into the Atmosphere. More of this Energy is gets absorbed at the
Planet’s Polar Regions, and restriction or plans to reduce them are none existent. There even has been a recent expansion in the Frequencies now available to be used. Why were there no discussions about this at Copenhagen? Radiant Energy is 50% of the cause of Climate Change!
How would you survive an Eleven Month Long Winter? Many of you have heard of the Global Warming Alarmist talking about the possibility of a Polar Shift. Some say the Poles are getting ready to switch, the North Pole will become the South Pole and the South Pole will become the North Pole, no big deal as long as we don’t lose Gravity somewhere in the middle of it all. Others believe that
Planets Poles will start shifting or jumping about the globe causing havoc with the seasons and the weather along with shifts in the Earths Tectonic Plates.
There is a third scenario that has not been talked about and that is the loss of the Summer, and Winter Solstice. Today the Planet rocks on its Axis, moving about 4 degrees each month. Every six months the Planet’s Axis shift and it
swings back in the opposite direction. We call the two days of the year that this occurs on as the Summer Solstice or the Winter Solstice. At the point in time when this occurs, the Polar Regions are at their most extreme difference in temperature. One is about as cold as it gets and one is about as hot as it gets. What is going happen if the loss of Polar Ice is so great that it affects
the occurrence of Solstice? What if the Solstice stops?
Our season will change and living as we have come to know it will end. If the Solstice starts occurring more frequently than our seasons will grow shorter and
come more often. Will we have time for a growing season? If the Solstice stops occurring, our seasons will become much longer, and the Planet will then be
revolving in two directions. West to East, and South to North, or North to South, depending on which direction the Planet is rocking when it occurs. Based on how the Planet moves while it rocks on its axis a second rotation would take about 90 months to complete one rotation. This will cause 8 different seasons, each lasting a little longer than 11 months each. We would have 4 different seasons moving though the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Scientist, believe that Polar Shifts have occurred on the Planet in the past, but what if they didn’t shift? What if only the mass of Earth floating on the Core of the Planet
shifts while the Poles stay constant in their relevant location in the Solar System? Worst case Scenario, longer Seasons along with shifts in the Earths Tectonic Plates. It will sure make survival interesting to say the least.
Nostradamus for saw in his visions an end to living as we have come to know it on December 21, 2012, the expected date for the Winter Solstice. The Mayan Calendar, the first Farmers’ Almanac, was a guide to follow from growing season to growing season. It depicts an end to our known seasons on December 21, 2012, a change in the occurrence of the Solstice would account for this. If on
December 21, 2012 Mankind comes to realize that Global Warming has caused the Winter Solstice to change, we will be at least six months to late, if we aren’t already. God said he would never destroy the Earth again, he never said Mankind would never have the power to do it. How will you survive an Eleven Month Long Antarctic Winter?
I pray I am wrong, but I fear worst than that, I fear that I am right, and nobody is listening!
John R. Staples
Fredericton, NB
Canada
WOW, I thought I had heard all the loony ideas before but this one is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. WOW, who would ever have guessed that our cell phone calls would result in the formation of carbon14dioxide. WOW, no wonder cell phones cause cancer, all that energy so close to our brains (sarcasm).
John, I hope in your day job you never have to make decisions based on knowledge of chemistry or physics.
Just what sort of Engineering technology degree do you have? Please tell me where you got it so I can avoid anyone who has similar training.
I have never read so much pseudo-science in one post, are you trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the most nonsense on one page?
John Staples.
There’s a forum for you where you might like to promote your ideas – Nexus magazine. If you add a dash of Gnostic metaphysics you might also be able to publish in New Dawn…
Back in the real world though, Messrs Dunning and Kruger are sitting eyes agog and jaws slack at the their witness of what must truly be the epitome of their enonymous effect.