Jon Stewart Crushes the Stupidity of Republicans on Science Committee: ‘Are You F**king Kidding Me?!?!’ (Video)

jon-stewart-climateWhen it comes to pointing out the absolute stupidity often shown by Republicans, few do it better than Jon Stewart. Then again, when you’re dealing with a joke of a political party, what better place to mock that idiocy than on Comedy Central?

Take for instance Stewart’s absolutely thrashing of three Republicans on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology; Representatives Larry Buschon (R-IN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Steve Stockman (R-TX), who all happen to be climate change deniers.

Stewart seemed especially annoyed at Buschon for dismissing the facts about climate change, with his reasoning being that the science is backed by “climatologists whose career depends on the climate changing. I could read that, but I don’t believe it.”

Let that sink in for a moment. Buschon’s “defense” for not trusting climate scientists is because their job security relies on climate change being real. That, quite possibly, might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard uttered from the mouth of another human being (considering his position and the context) – ever

But then Stewart absolutely crushed Buschon, saying, “Since we’re talking about the influence money might have on climate change opinion, it turns out Representative Buschon’s three biggest campaign donors are Murray Energy, Koch Enterprises, and Peabody Energy. And trust me, those three well-funded companies would love to disprove climate change to the satisfaction of the scientific community at large. So if scientists could be bought, these motherf**kers would’ve already made it rain in nerdtown.”

Amazing coincidence, isn’t it? Someone who refuses to believe in climate change being largely funded by three companies that profit heavily by destroying our planet.

That’s what floors me with Republicans when it comes to climate change denial. That conservative voters never seem to link the fact that the Republican party mostly denies the existence of climate change – while also being heavily funded by companies that are largely dependent upon practices that are literally destroying our planet.

Stewart also slammed Buschon for saying that “both sides” need to refrain from using fear tactics.

“What he’s basically saying is, it is unfair to talk to us about the scientific or medical consequences of our actions because they’re scary, and we really don’t feel like doing anything about it, anyway, so from now on, why not agree that science and the oil industry both have opinions,” Stewart said. “Oh, and before you tell your kids to wash their hands after they take a sh*t so they don’t spread disease? Maybe we should also spend an equal amount of time hearing from Big Fecal.”

But when Stockman tried to use water displacement (saying that when ice melts in a glass, the liquid in the glass doesn’t overflow) to discredit climate change, that’s when Stewart lost it.

“Are you f**king kidding me?!?,” Stewart asked in complete disbelief.

Because, as those of us who aren’t complete idiots know, it’s not the ice that’s already in the water that we’re concerned about causing ocean levels to rise. It’s all the ice that’s currently on land, that will eventually melt into our oceans, that will cause them to rise.

It’s absolutely stunning that these kinds of individuals are on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, yet don’t even seem to understand basic science.

Initially I laughed at the comments made by these three Republican congressman. That was until the reality started to sink in that this isn’t a joke. I was witnessing three Republicans, on a committee that’s supposed to be about scientific facts, who have literally been bought off by big oil to ruin our planet just so that their profit margins continue to grow.

Watch the segment below via Comedy Central:


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • chaserblue

    I can’t imagine why anyone would be surprised. We had Todd Akin on the Science Committee, along with Paul Broun, who gave a fire and brimstone speech about how evolution was straight from Satan in hell meant to trap god fearing Christians. Yes. He’s on the Science Committee. Then of course, there’s Michelle Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee. The irony is just…staggering… it’s as if some prankster just couldn’t help themselves…

    • Ed Simonis

      And these committees are parts of government of the most powerful nation on the planet….Scary….

      • PNUT1

        It really pathetic that these ignorant mother funkers make decisions that impact the whole planet.
        I hope that those three have heart attacks, they are bad news.

      • DavidD

        I think I will settle for having them off the commitee.It woukd be nice to have on the commitee people who aren’t bribed by anyone and who can see that seeking truth from facts we can prove is what science is all about.
        I don’t care if they are people of faith.Most people can see that science and faith are just different aspects of the human condition.True faith needs no science to be expieranced as valid because science is not relevant to faith.Faith is a belief not based on anything but subjective intuitions about the Infinite.As finite creatures that is all we have.
        Science is an intellectual construct with a univerasl method .It is a tool to understand the reality of phenomenon occuring around us as part of a natural process.
        They are contradictionary processes Faith being thesis, science being anti thesis and the dialectical balance is synthesis.This synthesis being unique to the individual based on how he/she percieves it.Faith vrs doubt. .

    • Anthony Edwards

      Committees are made up of people appointed by their parties and they are meant to keep to party lines. I would wager that the Democrats see it as more of a responsibility.

    • JR

      I know! It would be funnier if it was a town council or something, but these morons could ruin the whole planet, or get people killed through their stupidity.

      As an American, sometimes I don’t know if I should laugh, or cry out of embarrassment!

  • Macdoodle

    What man made climate change should we blame the last ice age on and the melt off of all those glaciers that resulted from extreme global warming?

    • crabjack

      You know how long that took to happen, beginning to end????

      • frankly2

        Yes we know how long but we also know that there are instances in history where we have had short term and rapid warm ups. An example of it is the Roman warm period which came on fast, resulted in a time period of enormous agricultural proliferation and lasted for centuries until we cooled again. Given the current slow down in warming the whole argument that we are seeing a rapid temperature change and thus it must be caused by man is becoming suspect.

      • Jo Clark

        Bangs head on desk.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        What current slowdown in warming? With sources, please, other than FOX.

      • UnrepentantLib

        First off, the “apparent” slow down in warming is not happening. What happened was more heat was going into the oceans because of increasing trade winds. Winds whip up waves. Waves expose more water to the atmosphere. More exposure means more water absorbs more heat.
        The fact that warmings and coolings happened before the industrial age doesn’t prove that human activity can’t alter the climate. People died before the invention of guns. Would you take that as proof that guns can’t kill people? Many factors can cause a warming or cooling of the atmosphere. We know that greenhouse gases can trap heat. We also know that humans have been releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the rate of hundreds of billions of tons a year for decade after decade. Maybe that’s not causing global warming, but that’s sure not the way to bet.

      • frankly2

        There have been 52 separate theories about where the heat is going. The truth is they don’t know. They don’t have enough data to show it is going into the oceans and in fact that idea by itself begs the question if the oceans can absorb heat then the oceans also might have given off the heat that caused the earth to warm for the last few decades.

      • crabjack

        We don’t know where the heat is going (even though the oceans are warming)? Yet we (seem to) know that there was global warming during the time of the Roman Empire? I haven’t been able to find a legitimate source for this claim.

      • frankly2

        We have such a short history of data on Ocean temperatures that we can’t conclude that the oceans are absorbing the “missing” heat. As for the temperatures in the Roman Warm Period you should be careful challenging that because the historical data of temperatures is a very very large part of the current climate modeling that is predicting AGW. If you can’t find the hundreds of articles and studies which describe it I am afraid I can’t help you.

    • chaserblue

      It wasn’t man made, but I believe it had something to do with celestial disruption. It’s not like the heavens have always been so calm and collected. We do live in a turbulent galaxy. Just take a look at the asteroid belt. That’s quite possibly an exploded planet. The Earth has reversed poles at least nine times according to geological record, and from reading Hamlet’s Mill, legends from all around the world say that there were many disruptions, some that came close to wiping us out and possibly did take out the thunder lizards. It wouldn’t have even take a large celestial event to cause an ice age. There’s speculation, (stemming from Velikovsky’s work) that the book of Exodus wasn’t so much fleeing prisoners as it was a band of catastrophe survivors.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        It wasn’t man made. WHAT wasn’t man made? Other fluctuations in temperature? What? You are saying that our current situation is caused by an exploded planet? Our current situation is caused by US, pure and simple. Which is the only hope we have, since we can change our behavior.

      • chaserblue

        The previous ice age was not man made. Follow the bouncing conversation before you start lecturing me…

    • Cathryn Sykes

      Yes, we’ve had climate change in the past. Do you realize that every time it happened on this scale, much of the life on earth was destroyed? As much as 90% of the species? The GOOD thing about this time is that since WE ARE CAUSING IT, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO STOP IT. Or are you saying we should fold our hands and watch civilization, hundreds of miliions of people, and life as we know it be destroyed?

    • Skip Tilley

      What you meatheads don’t understand is Man is not causing climate change, we are causing accelerated climate change. and what melted off all those Glaciers from the last ice age is the normalization of temperatures.

    • humaze

      yeah its a black and white tit for tat world huh, moron.

    • PNUT1

      Watch the committee meetings where these three get spanked by Dr. Hayden, there are your answers. You are misinformed.

  • frankly2

    A not so slight over exaggeration of comments pulled out of context. The progressives want to call the republicans anti-science but then we turn around and the progressives are anti the science of fracking (there is a consensus that it does no harm). In Vermont the progressives banned fracking when there isn’t even any possibility that Vermont will have some. The progressives are anti the science of nuclear power, immunizations, technology, GMOs and a host of other man made advances. In fact if it is science that we can classify as man is doing good they are generally against it and any science that shows “man is bad” they are all over it.

    • Jo Clark

      “…fracking (there is a consensus that it does no harm).”

      WHUT? Are you insane? Your whole post is absolutely nutjob, batchit insane.

      • frankly2

        Thank you for proving my point.

    • chaserblue

      Of course it’s harmless…if you don’t mind your water catching on fire, or earthquakes frequenting an area that isn’t prone to them. Or not being able to go outdoors because the soil is poisoned…it’s perfectly reasonable to pump millions of gallons of mystery sludge into the Earth. And have them refuse to tell you what they’re saturating the ground with because “it’s a company secret! Shhh…don’t tell.” It gets lots of fun, too, when children start coming down with illnesses they shouldn’t have, or be exposed to, but, all of a sudden, there’s an epidemic. Yeah, it’s perfectly harmless.

      • frankly2

        Thanks for proving my point so completely.

      • chaserblue

        You really are just a simple creature, aren’t you?

      • frankly2

        Life is simple for the smartest people. Thanks for acknowledging that.

    • Gwynne

      The only consensus on fracking not being harmful is from the oil industry and those they have paid off. Do you know what chemicals they use in fracking? What those chemicals will do to your body or your kids’ bodies? And then we have the earth quakes that fracking causes, but don’t let that get in the way. Please don’t say it doesn’t cause earth quakes, just check out Colorado and Oklahoma where they are fracking! As for Progressives being “anti the science of nuclear power, immunization, technology, GMOs and a host of other man made advances”, where did you get your information? I consider myself to be a progressive as are many of my friends and we are not against any of those items, as long as they don’t cause harm to any living animal or the planet Earth!
      We only have one planet, what’s is so very wrong with taking care of it?

      • frankly2

        Thank you for completely proving my point. You are more anti-science than any skeptical republican. There is no republican who thinks we should not take care of the planet. What we know is that the democrats and liberals are using science for their own agenda so we want to separate the science from the politics.

      • Gary Smith

        You’re a delusional liar, spouting *exactly the opposite* of the truth.

      • frankly2

        Your insults instead of arguments just show that I am correct. Paul Krugman said it very well when he said that he knew he was right when they started calling him names. So, once again, thank you very much for proving me right with your insults.

      • Gary Smith

        “There is no republican who thinks we should not take care of the planet.”

        Biggest lie of the day award. See the voting record by party of every single major piece of environmental legislation for the past 20 years, idiot.

      • frankly2

        So by calling me an “idiot” you think you win the day. That hurts you more than it hurts me. I know I’m not an idiot and your use of the term makes you look like one.
        What major piece of “environmental legislation” are you talking about? Almost everything proposed has been by left wing democrats that would not have helped the environment and crushed our economy. While not legislation the very recent regulations promulgated by the EPA are great examples. The rules they propose are very costly to implement, will raise the cost of energy for the poorest amongst us and will do absolutely nothing to improve the environment. The environmentalists are big on symbolic victories. The republicans are not stupid enough or impractical enough to buy into that kind of foolishness. But I will give you a shot. What legislation do you want to talk about that the republicans voted against. Let’s discuss them one at a time.

      • Gary Smith

        Jesus H, Christ, you’re either extremely stupid — which I have no problem believing, given your asinine statements that defy any sane logic — utterly deceived by your own party’s propaganda, or you suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance.

        Regardless, the claims you make are 180 degrees out of alignment with reality. Republicans vote against environmental protections far, far, fucking FAR more than they vote for them.

        Period. Full stop.

        No one with a functioning brain and eyes can realistically claim otherwise.

        In addition, they are extremely anti-science when the science doesn’t fit their political beliefs; this goes along with the previous point.

        www dot usnews dot com/news/articles/2014/02/11/environmental-scorecard-flunks-house-gop-with-its-lowest-marks-on-record

        “The average score for House Republicans is the lowest they’ve had on our score card,” says Jeff Gohringer, the [League of Conservation Voters’] communication director. “It’s lower than the average score House Republicans have received since the Gingrich Congress.”

        In “key votes” ranging from offshore drilling to the Keystone XL pipeline, 20 evaluators from a range of environmental groups gave House Republicans – who made up the 219 lowest individual scores overall – an average score of a paltry 5 percent. That trumped the lackluster 2012 average and was well below the GOP average from the Newt Gingrich years in the 1990s.

        Senate Republicans, meanwhile, got an average score of 17 percent, with caucus members filling out the lowest 45 scores in the Senate.

        House Democrats scored an average of 87 percent, with their Senate counterparts tallying an average of 92 percent. Overall, the two houses received total averages of 43 and 58 percent, respectively – up slightly from 42 and 56 percent in 2012.

        The LCV attributed the low scores to the influence tea party conservatives, who it claims “has caused the House Republican average to continue a dismal decline,” the group said in a statement.

        __________________________

        2011: – 27 GOP votes to block action to address climate change, including votes to overturn EPA’s scientific findings that climate change endangers human health and welfare; to block EPA from regulating carbon pollution from power plants, oil refineries, and vehicles; to prevent the United States from participating in international climate negotiations; and even to cut funding for basic climate science..

        – 77 GOP votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, including votes to repeal the health-based standards that are the heart of the Clean Air Act and to block EPA regulation of toxic mercury and other harmful emissions from power plants, incinerators, industrial boilers, cement plants, and mining operations.

        – 28 GOP votes to undermine Clean Water Act protections, including votes to strip EPA of authority to set water quality standards and enforce limits on industrial discharges; to repeal EPA’s authority to stop mountaintop removal mining disposal; and to block EPA from protecting headwaters and wetlands that flow into navigable waters.

        – 47 GOP votes to weaken protection of public lands and coastal waters, including votes to curtail environmental review of offshore drilling; to halt reviews of public lands for possible wilderness designations; and to remove protections for salmon, wolves, and other species.

        ___________________

        www dot gallup dot com/poll/167084/democrats-republicans-differ-top-priorities-gov.aspx

        Look at the % difference between the two parties who regard the environment as a high priority: 71% of Democrats, and 32% of Republicans. Far less than half of Republicans think the environment is a high priority.
        ___________________

        www dot washingtonpost dot com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/30/gop-platform-highlights-the-partys-drastic-shift-on-energy-climate-issues/
        ___________________

        I could provide more, but I think that’ll do to prove that your claims about “there is no republican who thinks we should not take care of the planet” is a flat out, bald faced, brazen lie. From a flat out, bald faced, brazen liar. And a fucking idiot to boot.

    • planetary meltdown

      Yes, well tell me one place Republican’s aren’t anti-science that doesn’t include corporate profiteering at all cots? In other words Republican’s are as corrupt as it gets, all they care about are corporate funds and trickle down economics until we destroy the planet.

      • frankly2

        Republicans are never anti-science. That is a liberal myth. Funny how in Europe the liberals are the group considered anti-science. The same is true here.

      • OpenMinded

        “Republicans are never anti-science”??? So they fully support the teaching of evolution in schools? They don’t want to force ancient beliefs on people? They aren’t shouting from the mountain tops that climate change is just a scare tactic, instead of using science to prove their point? Or are we just on opposite world today?

      • frankly2

        “I am working on a substantial manuscript on the political correlates of scientific knowledge and plan to explore some of my larger findings in future posts when I’m a bit farther along. But I’ll reveal a bit about the NSF’s main 9-question index of scientific knowledge. Like so many things related to education, the highest scoring political groups on this index in 2012 are on both the right and on the left: conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, liberals overall, and Republicans overall.” (Last is democrats overall)

        Jim Lindgren is a law professor at Northwestern University, with a BA from Yale and a JD and a PhD in (quantitative) sociology from the University of Chicago. He is a cofounder of the Section on Scholarship of the Association of American Law Schools and a former chair of its Section on Social Science and the Law.

      • Gary Smith

        What color is the sky in your world, moron? Because out here, in reality, it’s blue. Is it green in there where you live?

  • It’s actually pretty simple…..if by now, you are still not accepting the basic science of anthropogenic climate warming, it is because of the cognitive dissonance brought on by your political philosophy. If you cannot understand science because being a loyal conservative or a Republican means not accepting science then you have neutralized yourself in the discussion. It’s exhausting to hear the same old red herrings….and having to listen to the idiot Republicans on the science committee embarrass themselves. If this is the best deniers can do then just stop….looking and sounding stupid doesn’t get you anywhere….but congrats on being a loyal Koch sucker. The science is in, take the time to read about it. Understanding the causes of AGW is no more difficult than understanding why a car gets hot when you roll up the windows and park it on the street in August.

  • Ivan Renko

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. this past weekend called for the imprisonment of any climate change skeptics who dissent from the “consensus” of the “scientific community”. He lamented that the US Government is not permitted by law to “punish” or imprison those who disagree with him, and that this was a problem of existential proportions.

    This isn’t an unknown business analyst on a Saturday morning Fox show referencing internment camps 70 years ago in explaining that our country once used far more extreme measures than profiling…..that caused this blog to go into full freak-out mode.

    Allen, Asher, Nemisis? Is this where it starts? Is this the Slippery Slope?

    Jail for dissenters?

  • PRIME79

    Scientists careers depend on climate change being real? I think he’s actually talking about religious leaders….whose careers depend on magic being real.

  • Cemetery Girl

    I could believe in politicians, but their income relies on their lobbiests and big campaign supporters…

  • Leaning Blue

    It is really sad that the rabid base of the republican party don’t realize they’ve been brainwashed into denying climate change by those who profit from it. And republican politicians are climate deniers, not because they really don’t believe it’s happening, but because they are bought and paid for by the energy companies that profit immensely and who also don’t give a crap if they pollute our water or our air. But I blame more the apathetic left or middle of the road people than I do the rabid conservative base. We’re not going to do a damn thing about this problem until it’s too damn late.

  • OpenMinded

    This is deeply disappointing, and further proves that we need to get rid of career politicians, of businessmen that can buy their way into the Senate/Congress, and start electing intelligent, thoughtful people that truly want whats best both for our nation and our world. (If only Tyson/Nye 2016 wasn’t a joke!)

  • crabjack

    I just watched this again. How stupid can our politicians possibly be? Ice melting in a glass? What a buffoon!!!!

  • Aaron Cooper

    I complete reject the science that says cow farts and meat eaters cause climate change. Let me say this again, read my lips, it will be a cold day in hell before some damn environmentalist takes my right away to eat meat because methane causing more warming than CO2. Of course if you start telling people to stop eating meat to save the environment I guarantee the movement will collapse.