Thank god Jon Stewart decided to attack climate researchers again

[Johonny]

Jon decides to open the show with yet another claim climate researchers faked data in a non funny context. As if the emails has somehow been proven to show this. As far as I know no agency has yet to formally demonstrate data was faked. Yet Jon claims it yet again as fact. Thanks Jon.

Then if that was a fine way to start we get a roll out of Mike Suckabee reclamation 2.0. Thank god Jon who hasn't given those climate scientist a chance to defend themselves against his accusations has plenty of time for Suckabee to try to reclaim his battered image post shooting rampage. Sorry if Huckebee is getting destroyed by a GOP tactic against paroles. Maybe he shouldn't be a Republican then. Willy Horton ad was only 20 years ago. So Mike why the * are you still in that party if you think it's sooo unfair. So basically another great night of the daily show.

[LostInAnomie]

1. Romney won't let Huckabee forget about it in the Repuke primary.

Not a chance. The Repuke primary is going to be brutal.

[Hannah Bell]

2. what is it with js & huckabee? he's on a *lot*. & he's not that interesting.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. It's not just the Daily Show, it's Colbert too. I think Huckabee makes himself available.

It's a smart strategy.

[Hannah Bell]

11. if i make myself available, will i get a spot every 3 months or so?

people kill to get on those two shows. it's not just he "makes himself available," the hosts want him.

why, i have no clue.

[Winterblues]

15. Begin a run for President and you may just end up on some of those shows.

Enter the realm of politics and many doors will open for you..

[Electric Monk]

3. um, what? wow, did we see different shows tonight? Is one of us sarcasm and irony impaired?

Must be me.

/happy Hanukkah

[cynatnite]

5. Everyone knows Jon Stewart is a bought and paid for global warming denying schill...

:rofl:

[Johonny]

12. first it was not told as a joke but a defense

Jon has given a lot of air to false information about climate the past 3 months. Then last night comes out with a defense and that he believes in climate change. It was not said as a joke but a defense of himself. That is fine. I know he believes, I watch the show. So why are people confused. Well for starters he keeps spreading shaky "facts" like that these hacked emails to "prove" researchers faked data. So far that's a looooong way from being a fact. If Jon doesn't want to be confused with a climate denying hack perhaps he shouldn't spend so much time acting like one. The best way to show this wouldn't be a half hearted defense with the same lie repeated, but to let these men on his show. I'm waiting to be impressed.

I like J Stew. But I don't believe I have to agree with him on everything, and he isn't always telling a joke when he speaks on his show. He has one of the most intelligent shows on the air. His bit on India last night was great. His bits on climate recently have been below his standards.

[naaman fletcher]

6. Have you read them?

Have you read any of the criticisms of the emails? There are plenty of good resources on the net to find out what the claims are. You say that no agency has yet to formally demonstrate that data was faked. That is all tall order, would take years.

Meanwhile, try reading some of the criticisms. In my opinion, some of the data was faked, or at the very least selectively disclosed in order to portray a pre-determined outcome.

Perhaps Jon Stewart actually read the emails and the criticisms of them.

[eqfan592]

7. How about you?

Have you actually read them? It would seem not if you "think" they proove data was faked. Go check out Badastonomy.com and Real Climate to see what they think.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Have you?

Do you have the faintest idea what the controversy is about? It's quite simple: tree ring data correlates with observed temperatures as far back as there are records, UNTIL about 1980. Observed temperatures since 1980 show continued warming. So the 'controversy' is over combining tree ring data up UNTIL 1980 with temperature observations SINCE because taken together and with observed temperatures since c.1850 they show a consistent trend.

[uncle ray]

9. so what data, exactly, do you think is faked?

and why do you believe that?

[RoyGBiv]

10. Request ....

Please point us to some of the criticisms that would lead one to conclude that some of the data was faked.

I've been following this since *before* it was the soup of the day here, and I have seen not a single, reputable source that would suggest any such thing. By "reputable" I mean an individual or group who had not already made it their life's mission to "disprove" climate change science. Even those that do suggest any data was faked don't do so by tackling the data, rather by concentrating *entirely* on the use of the word "trick."

[Johonny]

13. I've read the most "damaging" ones yes

They don't seem very damaging to me at all. I'm willing to see if anyone can make something out of them in the real science realm. Yes this will take about a year. Frankly most of these reports have been out for years and no ones really dented them in the science journals. So that's not a good start for thinking their fake. I've read all the criticism they've managed to print in the real science press. I don't consider Bob's blog site that impressive an evidence, I guess you do. Shrug.

[athenasatanjesus]

14. They manipulate the daily show with accusations of liberal bias

The right portrays the Daily show as an arm of the democratic party,so once in awhile they look harder then they need to to find criticism of the left.
Overall the Daily show is not trying to misinform.

[Toasterlad]

16. Why Does John Stewart Hate America?