Everybody Has Seen Jon Stewart vs Congressional Climate Denial, Right?

It’s pretty funny. Also, while I think Holdren overreached vs Pielke a few months back, he handles himself very well here.

UPDATE: It’s in the clear on YouTube now for y’all aliens to view.


  1. I loved it. Must view, do look! Here's a more direct link link without the advertising, but also missing the Huffpost article.

    However, I don't agree that Holdren missed it on Pielke Jr. Pielke Jr. is a nasty fighter who thinks his sh** don't stink, and he's good at claiming wins that are not wins, and bending over backwards to meet critics halfway doesn't make it true.

  2. Yup, excellent takedown by Stewart as usual. But, also as usual (and off topic, I suppose), I'm annoyed by the cheering crowd in his audience. I strongly suspect that they are every bit as up to speed on who actually knows what and how they know it as Dana Rohrbacher. In fact, stupid (well, ignorant at the least) as Rohrbacher may be, I suspect the average voter in his district knows more than the average Stewart audience member. They may hate it, twist it, etc. but his district is affluent and the schools are well-funded. I expect that they are, on average, well-read, though what they read may be pretty far from mainstream. Hard to prove, but that's my intuition.

  3. Sure enough, plenty of idiots. I meet them. But that doesn't address the point. I remember back in 1972 when the great "we" shut down Sheridan Road because of, if memory serves, the mining of Haiphong Harbor. I know a few things: 1) I had only the vaguest of notions regarding what we were doing and why; 2) I had no thought that it was any kind of effective action (though ymmv); 3) It was, for me and many others, an opportunity to exhibit solidarity with a group to which I wanted to belong and not much else; 4) It was a great party; 5) Not a whole lot of people were moved by my (and at least another of our mutual friends) seven day juice, methedrine, marijuana, LSD "hunger strike"; 6) One can generate lots of warm, fuzzy feelings by showing emotional solidarity with "one's" group and just as many by joining in the castigation of "not one's" group; 7) The fake risk of being beat up and jailed by the Evanston police was titillating.

    This is what I see at the Daily Show. Don't misunderstand, Stewart (and his team, I would assume) is uniquely talented at this type of lampooning and I heartily endorse it. But, I suppose, it's the Comedy Channel and their product is eyeballs and their customer is advertisers and the eyeballs are judged to love the group think. Of course, this is not unique to Comedy Channel, the same applies to Fox News, National Geographic, and any other non-subscriber TV channel.

    Also, Holdren did do well here. And, I have to snarkily add, he doesn't have the goofy hair do of Moniz. I've seen the latter speak in person and it was hard to take him seriously, especially after being accustomed to Steven Chu. I guess that speaks more to my superficiality than to Moniz' credibility but I wonder if I'm the only one.

  4. I was taking an easy shot; your point is sound and important.

    For what it's worth, Naomi Klein's book is turning out to be a big disappointment - it's turning out to be far more stroking the prejudices of the leftist tribe than it is a cogent analysis of the situation. Since I promised various people, including Klein's assistant, a review this is unfortunate; it's turning out to be (otherwise) a pointless slog.

    It's also a case in point.

    But what choice do we have? (More to follow)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.