Jon Stewart Hammers Ridiculous Fox News Claims on Climate Change During Cold Spell

1555540_798478070178842_1461999363_nAs a political commentator, I’m usually open to discussing almost anything political.  It’s my job, why wouldn’t I?  But not only that, I’ve always been interested in how other people think and behave.  The inner workings of the mind and how we process information is really a fascinating process.

That being said, there are some topics I simply won’t discuss because they’re simply too ridiculous to even debate.  For example, I refuse to engage “birthers.”  If you’re that blind to facts, and that paranoid, why even bother wasting my time?  People who deny climate change are another group of individuals I simply refuse to even bother with.  Sure, I’ll write about the subject, but I refuse to engage in any back and forth with these idiots.

And yes, I use the word “idiots” because that’s what you have to be to really believe climate change is some kind of global liberal hoax.

Has there been science behind the phenomenon that’s been exaggerated?  Of course.  Hell, I can even find PhD scientists who say there’s no such thing as climate change.

But guess what?  These people represent the extreme minority of the scientific community which supports climate change as a whole.  And it’s not as if only 60-70% of the world’s scientists believe in climate change — the overwhelming majority of them (usually listed around 95-97% of them) believe wholeheartedly in man-made climate change.

So, when Jon Stewart sees the clowns on Fox News using a weekend cold spell to “discredit” countless hours of scientific data proving climate change is real, it’s understandable that his head nearly exploded.

Stewart went on to slam the usual Fox News anti-climate change rhetoric by saying that just because something is “your f*cking opinion” doesn’t make it scientific fact.  He then went on to mock Eric Bolling who claimed that climate scientists are embarking on exotic arctic vacations on lavish ships.  Stewart used the term “thousandaires” to describe the fact that most scientists aren’t anything close to rich, unlike the millionaires/billionaires who stand to profit heavily off the belief that climate change is a hoax.

He then went on to take several jabs at Donald Trump’s assertion that this cold weather proves climate change is fake.  Because, you know, if Donald Trump says it — it must be true.

Let me go ahead and break down the Fox News “expertise” behind climate change being a hoax:  If you stick your head out of a window and it’s cold, that proves climate change is a hoax.

That’s about it.

But I love how when massive heat waves and droughts are gripping this country (and world for that matter) like they have for the last several years, Fox News doesn’t say a single word.

It’s just amazing how tens of millions of people actually believe this Fox News nonsense.

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

  • Jim Bean

    When ‘global warming’ became fashionable, the aficionados said ‘Look at the thermometer! Look at the Thermometer! You can’t argue with that!” Then when the thermometer quit delivering the results the aficionados promised they said, “Forget the thermometer! Ignore the damned thermometer! Look at this, that, and the other thing. How bout we call it ‘climate change’ instead!.” If you weren’t skeptical by that point, your brain is malfunctioning. And if you agree with the author that you should never question your initial conclusion or what you’ve been told no matter what new evidence develops, then your brain is clinically dead. (And the fact that Stewart believes his audience is such that he has to use the F bomb in every other sentence to hold their attention tells you a whole lot about the aggregate sophistication of said audience.)

    • DougB

      Jim, I am looking at the thermometer and it scares the crap out of me. The problem is that you, and many others, don’t understand the complex relationships that make up our weather systems. I know that, as a nation, we are not well educated in science and your comments help demonstrate this.

      • Jim Bean

        When climate change became the fad, it was quite simple. ‘Higher atmospheric CO2 content equals higher annual global temperatures.’ It was only after CO2 concentrations continued to rise annually and global temperatures refused to cooperate that it became a ‘complex relationship’ issue that only a few, like you, could appreciate.

      • surfjac

        “Ask a Wall Street analyst and all but the most extreme contrarians will tell you that over the long run, the market is going to go up. Sure, over the last century there have been some downturns, and some
        flat periods of little growth, but if you invested over the long haul you were virtually guaranteed to make money.

        Now consider the question: Is the planet warming?

        Ask a climate scientist and all but the most extreme contrarians will tell you that over the long run, the global surface temperature is going up. Sure, over the last century there have been some periods of
        slight cooling, and some periods where the temperature seemed stable, but if you analyze the temperature trend over a long enough time
        interval you’re guaranteed to find significant warming.” h/t Amy Luers and Leonard Sklar

        Are you saying that without industry, pollution or other forms of man made greenhouse gas production, things would be better or that it doesn’t matter, things would stay the same?

    • Jack Damiels

      are you saying that there is no such thing as climate change or global warming? or that fox news has a more sophisticated viewer base? or what? what is your point?

      • Jim Bean

        I believe climate change is occurring, but also believe there was never a time in billions of years when it wasn’t. I believe man contributes to a yet-to-be-determined degree (more humans emitting 98.6 degrees alone contributes to some degree). I buy into the CO2 heat trapping theory. I disagree that climate scientists have accurately identified the magnitude of the correlation. I believe climate scientists have a financial disincentive to temper the climate change hysteria.
        My point is, the relied-upon scientists have an abysmal record of predicting anything since they ‘settled the science’. They predicted more hurricanes. We had fewer. They predicted ever-higher annual temperatures consistent with ever higher atmospheric CO2 concentration. Comparatively speaking – didn’t happen. Colder than average temperature like we’re enjoying today – they failed to predict. I’m not saying Fox has more sophisticated people. I WILL say, however, that sophisticated people will continually monitor the ‘settled science’ with a critical eye. Allen seems to insinuate Fox shouldn’t be doing that and that anyone who tunes in to absorb the discussion is a fool.

      • Greg Hanson

        Science attempts to answer questions and address issues based on empirical data. Our temperature data goes back a little over a 150 years or so. It’s like a fraction of a second considering the earth’s age. Just because parts of a theory get updated with new data does not mean the entire theory is discredited. A cold week doesn’t dismiss all scientific data. Science is not perfect but should also not be ignored if not fully understood.

      • Jim Bean

        I absolutely agree with you. Many of your brethren use the term ‘science’ in this debate as though it was synonymous with the word ‘fact.’ The true fact is that the CO2 premise is a scientific ‘theory’ based on scientific models, not on historical evidence. It may be a correct theory but it will likely take at least 50 years before it can be elevated to the status of ‘fact.’

    • Richard Tingley

      I’ll be brief. The average temperature of our planet is steadily increasing. This is called “global warming”. Global warming as well as other factors can cause the climate (the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period of time) to change from what we view as the statistical norms. This is called “climate change”.

      What we are seeing is global warming as the result of humans pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the planet can adsorb. This warming is the largest factor resulting in a climate change of the planet. Put that all together and you have human induced climate change.

      • Pipercat

        Be precise, more stored carbon (and other elements in the lithosphere) into the atmosphere.

      • Richard Tingley

        Jim already seemed confused. I did not want to exacerbate the problem. 😉

      • Pipercat

        Ouch.. :)!

      • Jim Bean

        Just out of curiosity, when seeking out informational material on this subject, are you actively seeking out materials that would challenge what you currently believe or are you seeking out materials that are targeted towards affirming what you currently believe?

      • Richard Tingley

        I don’t “believe” anything. The evidence shows us that the planet is heating up and that we are the most probable cause.

      • Brian

        Would that evidence also include the 17 years (and counting) of no statistically significant warming?

      • Richard Tingley

        Was that the evidence provided by the crab people or the thoroughly debunked article by David Rose?

      • Jim Bean

        Richard seems to be playing coy.

    • SayAgain

      “And if you agree with the author that you should never question your initial conclusion or what you’ve been told no matter what new evidence develops, then your brain is clinically dead.”

      What evidence would that be Jim?

    • richard

      It’s just as easy to say climate change denial has become a fad…..among the learning challenged and special needs and Tea Party folks. Very trendy….very cool…..

      • Jim Bean

        It would be just as easy. I used that term because of those who, whenever an atmospheric event seems to support global warming, always claim it is empirical evidence of just that. But when the event seems to cast doubt on the global warming claim, they always say ‘its just a weather event.’ Granted, some of the time that may be true but they see-saw like this 100% of the time and that makes this curious guy nervous.

  • Pipercat

    Damned, pesky science getting in the way of my soon to be, promised, millions…

  • Jason Hartwick

    I don’t doubt climate change. As the author asserts, only an idiot would not see a change in the climate. I clearly see how many of the things humans do are contributing to that. However, I also see that only an idiot does not see how their own “side” of an issue like this has made themselves difficult to listen to. “Global Warming!” was the cry when we had 2-3 years of actual heatwaves and drought. The only places that have experienced drought in the last couple of years are places that experience it anyways because of their geographical location. So the name gets changed. Also, 95-97% of the 95-97% of scientists that agree with it are climate-only scientists, or scientists looking at their data. Those other 3-5%? Scientists who look at geological/fossil records and/or who look at other planets to gather more data than a temperature trend. I am not saying climate change is non-existent. I am, however, also not willing to concede that humans are the ONLY cause. We need to make changes in how we treat Mother Earth, but I think climate change as a shrill reason for those changes has become useless because the people in support of it have made it impossible for skeptics (read: people who think for themselves) to get behind.

    • Jim Bean

      That makes two of us. (Apparently the ONLY two.) Everybody else is firmly on board come hell or high water.

      • surfjac

        If the skeptics refuse to get behind the data accumulated, then they are not skeptics any longer but deniers. And NO, humans are not the only cause but our presence on this planet and the infrastructure built in support of humanity is certainly a major factor.

      • Pipercat

        Make sure you understand what all the hub-bub is all about; global warming or climate change is not unique to contemporary times. However, anthropogenic global warming or climate change is. The difference is the rate the change is happening. This change is being created by three major factors: 1. Releasing stored elements in the lithosphere out into the biosphere is a man-made activity. 2. Humans require more resources than the planet can sustain, which leads to: 3. The massive deforestation (including the poisoning of the oceans) occurring around the globe which is the very mechanism needed to remove these elements from the atmosphere. This hat trick is why glaciers are disappearing, sea levels are rising and seasons are just plain wacky these days.

      • surfjac

        Oh no, shifts in the earth’s orbit, krakatoa events, large meteor strikes, oh sure they all had their day in affecting our global climate before we started pumping carbon into the atmosphere for the past 250 years or so. But if you think that didn’t or doesn’t have an effect, that’s denial. Why are icebergs melting? Gee, maybe it has something to do with warmer oceans which cover most of the earth, which receives most of the solar energy which circulates around the world affecting global climate, maybe? And what’s past is prologue because we’re not cutting back so what we are doing is going into new territory combining our pollution affecting heating/cooling the planet with natural processes of heating/cooling; unnatural transfer of resources through an environment is pollution.
        What’s the problem? Won’t the world be a better place if we enact policies that clean the environment that we live in? I know, there are some very, very wealthy people that won’t be as wealthy as a result but look at how much better life would be for everyone else without even considering financial health of the majority of the world’s inhabitants. That’s the reason we can’t get anything done; the profits of the wealthy would suffer.

      • Pipercat

        Well yes, and basically with all that said, we’re toast. We’ve fucked up beyond repair. Once the glaciers are gone, poof! Imagine India without the Ganges for example. All for that for an already bloated bank account. Quite sad, really…

  • Screamin

    As if Jon Stewart knows anything other than what he’s read in talking points…Oh, he has a PhD ?…Yeah ,right…He’s a commentator, nothing more…

    • Richard Tingley

      Does his lack of a PhD make it any less correct? I do not have a degree in math, does that imply that I can not state that 2+2=4.

      If the only argument you have is attacking the messenger, then you have no argument.

      • Screamin

        Who said anything about him being correct or not. It’s his opinion against the opinion of some of those on Fox news station. ….Boils down to “he said” “she said”… Neither of them are worth listening to because they both are expounding their “opinions” on the topic. What, Stewart is right & Fox is wrong?…What gives Stewart the right to denigrate Fox. If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be a hue & cry about it…You know, typical left double standard in play.

      • Richard Tingley

        When you are dealing with science, opinion largely goes out the window. You have what the evidence shows us. When Fox suggests that a cold snap is proof that global warming or climate change is a hoax , they are wrong.

      • Shel Lynn

        …simply & correctly put – yes. There is a difference between opinion & fact. Faux News calls their opinions “news” as though they were facts. This is misleading, at best.

    • GL

      You do realize that your argument is equally applicable to Stuart Varney or Dan Weiss or any of the other people who Jon Stewart called out in that segment, don’t you?

  • Anthonij

    It’s always good to consider things in perspective… With regard to politics, how are most of the people who don’t believe that climate change is real aligned?… Yup, on the right side…

    And the people who don’t believe that evolution is how life on earth developed and instead believe that a Being in long robes with a big white beard created everything as is a few thousand years ago, how are these people aligned politically?

    The two views go hand in hand, even though the one issue is not directly related to religious belief and the other is… But they are both expressions of the same pathetically childish mentality, the mentality of people who do not think but believe, and what they believe is a combination of what they were taught as kids and what is politically or economically advantageous, at least in their view…

    Denying that man made factors are now an imprtant part of environmental change in general, including climate change, is no less stupidly absurd than believing that evolution is fake and that we were all created a short time ago by a bearded dude in the sky…

    • Screamin

      Just to illustrate how stupid your remark is, I am of the persuasion that climate change isn’t as overly influenced by human activities as the so called “Climate Scientists” (meaning I lean to the right side of the aisle). That said, I am not religious, nor do I believe in ” Creationism”… Your generalizations only serves to highlight your bigotry.

      • Pipercat

        Exactly, I believe the climate scientists, but not the “climate scientists.”

  • Michael Barron

    The first thing that gets me most is this: Climate Change does not mean that there still won’t be times of extreme fluctuation. The general trend is towards warming of the planet. No one has ever said that this does not mean we won’t experience cold swings, but again, the trends are towards warming, not colder or moderate temperatures. Secondly: Even if Climate Change/Global Warming is not real, most of the recommendations to help curb said change are good things that will benefit our planet and humanity. This is the only planet we have (I don’t see space colonization in our near future) so what measures we can take to help the environment are positives, IMHO.

  • Westwoodman

    Right now it’s pretty clear. I mean, really! If there is climate change, we should see some evidence of that, right? I’m so busy trying to stay warm I can’t take the time to look for the evidence….but it seems reasonable that there would be some.

    And, despite the weather right now, I think there probably is Global Warming. It seems like if the globe is going to get warmer, then the cold would have to relocate, right? The cold can’t just go away, so it’s got to move. I think it moved to St Louis, but who knows? Maybe it rented a really big U-Haul and it’s going to go somewhere else next. I’ve heard Boston can be nice this time of year. I guess we’ll see.

  • Diane Henry

    Actually the truth with global warming is the fact that the concept is poorly named. Warming implies a rise in temperature. The gases in the atmosphere being polluted causes weather changes with extreme ups and downs at points. This Arctic freeze is just one of those extremes. Climate change is only slightly more appropriately worded. Scientists’ only true fail with this concept is the naming…… but the concept is still real! There is plenty of evidence to back it up. No matter if people like it or not.

  • Kevin Daugherty

    Was in the Drs office one day and it was about 40 deg outside/ a guy about 60 i guess was commenting on the “cold” weather and said “So much for global warming, huh ?” Well, I didnt respnd but in my head i said “what a moron.” He must watch Fox when not listening to Rush.

  • ErrolG

    Just a thought. If 98% of oncologists agreed you had cancer, would you think it prudent to “wait and see”?

  • DMike

    Global warming has little to do with drought and heat waves; it’s about the raise in AVERAGE OCEAN temperatures which end up affecting the climate as a whole.

  • hermanprovi

    This cold spell is is a production by reuglycans to disprove climate change! Rash Limpbough is the mastermind[less]!