Comedy | December 02, 2009 | 23 comments

Jon Stewart Takes on "ClimateGate"

source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/jon-stewart-climate-gate.php

pjacobs51
I was wondering when Jon Stewart would finally weigh in on so-called 'Climate Gate' the non-controversy that the climate change deniers are clinging to as 'smoking gun' proof that climate change is some sort of a weird, massive conspiracy perpetrated by liberal elite ne'er do wells

Stewart takes on popular targets like Senator James Inhofe, the thinness of the Climate Gate case, and gives some 'friendly words of advice' to the climate scientists in question.


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/jon-stewart-climate-gate.php
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Comedy,   Current Tonight,   5 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

23 comments // Jon Stewart Takes on "ClimateGate"

  • Paven
  • newactnltd
  • newactnltd
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • Image

    • This article reveals the Saudi-Arabia connection, fossil fuels, hence Bush-Cheney, lying military industrial complex/republicans/money. We need to stop poisoning the planet, however we get there. It's not that we want to put "industry" out of business (like Alex Jones likes to rant about), it's that the 'industries' have to stop polluting. There are clean ways to make energy and they need to start using them. How about mass producing solar panels for an 'industry' to start today in America and put people back to work? Where is the leadership on this Obama? We don't need a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan. We can use ethanol either grown in the seas or on land not presently growing crops to heat our homes, fuel our cars: Carbon neutral (david Blume says it actually absorbs more carbon than is released in use). Stop the war, the biggest source of pollution and income to all the corrupt people on this planet. Bring the troops home and let's start Green Industry in America. Throw out the Republicans and blue-dog Democrats and that includes you Obama if you are impeding this. Just cap and penalize pollution, that includes radiation. Do something right for a change. If people were honest, we wouldn't have all these problems.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm

      Excerpt:
      Saudi Arabia is an influential member of the G77/China bloc which leads the "developing world" side in many elements of the UN negotiations.
      Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.
      "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
      "Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
      "So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."
      'Out of step'
      As the world's leading oil producer, Saudi Arabia has previously fought attempts to agree curbs on emissions, and has also argued that it should receive financial compensation for "lost" revenue, given that constraints on emissions might restrict oil sales.
      To some long-time observers of the UN negotiations, Mr Al-Sabban's comments indicate a continuation of this strategy.
      "[The Saudis] appear to have regressed to the days when they were out-and-out climate deniers - not surprising for a fossil fuel dependent economy, but not far-sighted and certainly out of step with the rest of the developing world."

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • Kaia
    • 0
      Kaia  

    • People, you need to read the emails in context - for instance, the decline being talked about is in high latitude tree ring density from 1961 onward and how from 1961 to today, tree rings are not as reliable as those from 1000-1960 A.D.

      REPEAT: the DECLINE is in TREE RING DENSITY!!!!!

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

      Please read this article, it is very specific, and shows exactly how people like Rush and Beck are lying to you and have distorted, nay, are lying about these hacked emails.

      We have known about global warming and the greenhouse effect running amok for decades - why is everyone such a global warming hater - what are you scared of?
      Less man-made greenhouse gases and pollution?

    • 2 years ago
  • newactnltd
  • sirpaulmcdarkney
  • thedirtman
    • 0
      thedirtman  

    • Why would Al Gore be considered part of the scientific community? Al Gore is just using the community to pursue his political agenda - just like everyone else in the news. Real science doesn't make news. And why should people fear scientists?

      The reason for the climate cooling over the last five years is the lack of solar activity. Al Gore thought that he needed to make it appear the carbon dioxide was the singular reason for the warming trend from 1985 to 2005. I have a correlation that fits better. It successfully predicts the cooling trend and its end in 2012 when solar activity returns to normal.

      09x + .91y = z

      where x is the normalized sunspot total
      y is the normalized atmospheric CO2 concentration
      and z is the Temperature Anomaly in degrees Celsius

      For both Al Gore believers and Al Gore skeptics, I challenge anyone to come up with a correlation that produces a better correlation coefficient than this one. To me, it shows that politicians will continually tempt people into applying a detective "whodunnit" approach to the scientific questions in order to get a political kneejerk response. When it comes to science the only reasonable murder mystery analogy is the "Murder on the Orient Express". AGW has to fit into a cumulative model with every other climate component in order to be successfully predicted.

    • 2 years ago
  • Peter_Soloshchenko
    • 0
      Peter_Soloshchenko  

    • Global Warming is a political thing , not a sientific, in Russia , on The First Channel, the Tv documentry openly showed that GW is bullshit (Like we didn't know) , at least my country is not involved in this "Green" , low emission and whatever supidity. Though it doesnt make Russia a better place , lol .

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • Peter_Soloshchenko:

      Then explain the melting glaciers, the melting arctic and the melting Greenland. People like you are extremely naieve and play directly into the hands of people who stand to make billions if the status quo remains unchanged. A discussion between scientists, especially those attempting to calibrate computer models, will often use words like "trick" in the same way you and I would use the term "another way" Thats what scientists do, they experiment. The error made by these scientists was one of being naieve in assuming someone wouldn't attempt to use their private conversations for political purposes.

      Also, even if these particular scientists were attempting to rig the data, when their work came up for peer review, it would be shredded. Thats the advantage of the scientific method, crap work and concepts get shredded and tossed. Unlike the diatribe of fools like Infohoe who vomit out the words put into their mouths by lobbyists.

    • 2 years ago
  • occhipij
  • pjacobs51
    • 0
      pjacobs51  
    • occhipij:

      "Have you even been watching the news? I mean...you're not deaf-mute are you?"

      I don't think you see who has the most to gain, or should I say LOOSE, in the global warming debate.

      Remember 2005, the year you and I paid $4 - $5 a gallon for gas, the year Exxon had a $23 billion net profit, the same year Exxon got caught RED handed paying scientists over $8 million to "pad" their evidence (in other words, LIE). Don't you think big oil and big coal have something to loose here, and they would try anything to stop it?

      "Motivated by money" there you go!

      Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

      (Read: Some Like it Hot - Mother Jones)

      Your right about one thing though, I don't watch TV news.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • occhipij:

      "Well, most things in life are motivated by money...we know this. This just gives the government an excuse to impose carbon taxes on individuals, and corporations"

      So they cap and trade... and what is the result? Hm?

      Do you care to share what economic impact this will have on our nation, occhipij?

      After describing the economic impact, please share with us what the problem with carbon taxing is.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • occhipij:

      So your implication from the above is that this will weaken our economy against china's?

      What's to stop us from keeping it domestic. Further, you haven't expressed a problem with climate change regulation at all. In fact, you went out of your way to suggest the taxation of oil as a solution, when you were initially complaining about it.

      So, tell me: what happens in a US if we impose any regulation on high carbon energy, let's assume it's oil? When the government intervenes of this way, how does it impact the economy?

      We can talk about free markets all day and all night, but the corrections of these free markets are the damage that they do to society. Is it good to privatize and deregulate an industry whose corrections are slow, painful, and totally avoidable through nationalization?

    • 2 years ago
  • bushama
  • t_nel
  • CreditFigaro
  • ras_menelik
  • t_nel
  • frimer
    • 0
      frimer  

    • Told ya...
      yuuuuu uuuuu.....Al honey where are youuuuuuu? Copenhagen?? Errrrrr think again! Find a good lawyer bitch cause we are coming for your ass!

      DEBUNKED! :P Peace!

    • 2 years ago
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos