Jon Stewart's Oddly Uneducated Views on Climate Change
It's been a strange week or so for Jon Stewart (who I should admit up front I admire and think of as one of our finest investigative journalists).
First, Stewart interviewed Steven Levitt, co-author of SuperFreakonomics, the book that takes all the old climate skeptic arguments and trots them out like they're new and shiny. (Really, the book is disastrous on the science front ... but it's actually even worse as an economic argument since they completely ignore all the massive benefits of decoupling our economy from carbon and fossil fuels -- security, health, savings, etc).
He gives Levitt an unreal pass and laments "how angry people are" and the "secular religion" of climate change. Question: Why is acceptance of vast scientific agreement of a large-scale problem -- and searching for solutions in the most economic way -- portrayed as some emotional reaction?
And why is someone who's normally so critical of vested interests and hidden agendas so unaware of where these really dangerous ideas -- that climate change isn't so bad and is easily fixable -- are coming from (and who's paying for them)?. Stewart comments that Levitt is not denying the science -- but if Stewart had read the criticisms of blogger Joe Romm, the Economist, the Union of Concerned Scientists, (or even my post), he would've understood that the scientists Levitt cites are completely disavowing his interpretation and that their arguments are completely unsupported by facts. Levitt and Dubner are absolutely denying the dominant scientific perspective, and even weirder for an economist, ignoring the economics.
So, last night Stewart interviewed Al Gore and it was a really strange interview. He kept pushing Gore on why there isn't a simple, single solution to the problem. Where's the cheaper alternative and the hover cars, he asked. As if we power our lives currently with only one solution. Of course the solutions to the entire power supply for our economy and lives will be somewhat complicated to change. Gore was trying to say that we do have all the technologies, but we just need the political will to enact them (perhaps oversimplifying the issues, but directionally correct). But Stewart kept acting put out that it won't be as simple as switching from buggies to cars, as he says -- which, by the way, wasn't so simple either. Steward always half jokes, but he's usually far more educated about what he's commenting on.
It's worrisome when someone usually so careful to do his research seems to know so little about a large, important topic that is reshaping global economies and our lives. It just highlights what a large communication challenge we face.
Follow Andrew Winston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GreenAdvantage
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Very true! Part of the problem and Gore was trying to explain it is that the burning of fossil fuels lends itself to a few very large producers, whereas the use of wind and solar power does not necessarily lend itself to large producers but to many smaller producers. Therefore, it may be harder to coordinate many small producers having access to the grid. Also, many of the technologies are still being developed and does not lend itself to easy explanation..
I think the world of Stewart & Co., and I have a deep respect for his satire. He is brilliant.
However, I have noticed that he does seem to be much more knowledgeable about politics and history than about science. It just doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
In this case, his colleague Stephen Colbert is much stronger. He has done science-related humor that reveals a deep understanding of the issues. I noticed that Gore appeared on Colbert that night - and that Colbert's segment did indeed to be more in tune with the science of global warming.
Hey, nobody is perfect.
Seems to me like John was coming from the point of view......That there is no doubt humans have made an impact on earth, but wasn't that really unavoidable given our numbers and our evolutionary tract. I think when he questioned the "secular religion" of the green movement, he was highlighting that we should be weary of anyone claiming that "WE HAVE THE ONLY ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM" ie greenhouse gas/CO2 reduction.
Hate to break it to you but Jon Stewart is first and foremost a comedian. He is not an investigative journalist. He has a backbreaking night and day job of bringing the funny, which he does. This leaves weird gaps in his knowledge, like Sherlock Holmes didn't know the earth orbited the sun. Some things he educates himself about, like the religious/political complexity of the Middle East, particularly if the mainstream media has been lying down on the job. But this thing, he's truly clueless.
On the other hand, I think he may just now be getting a clue. I think he really did take a stab at Gore's book over the weekend, he seemed shook up during the show. Reading Gore can be very scary. I think his interview was coming from that point of view, a shocked disbelief and an underlying panic. He needs time to integrate this into his worldview; once he does he will make sure to learn more and be able to talk cogently about the issue--he always does. I really think he just finally got it, just this week.
Colbert, on the other hand, has known what's what for ages. I was so glad that Gore went on his show too. Colbert pointedly attacked the vested interests, the Formidable Opponent was brilliant.
See Andrew Winston's Profile
Lots of good points here from all. Zaneblue, thanks for your perspective and i agree. when i say stewart is our best journalist, it's with sadness in my heart, since he's mainly a comedian -- that's the state of journalism today. but when he really researched something and has serious conversation with people with vastly different perspectives, it's amazing to behold -- he just does a better job than the traditional interviewers.
I think you may be right that he was a bit shell-shocked at the scope of the challenges and was trying to grapple with it. What Gore maybe didn't do well enough -- and he's been criticized for this -- was bring it down to some tactical examples. e.g., we'll put solar on x million homes, build x million wind turbines, and move to electric cars, etc.....i'm thinking that's what his new book (which i haven't read) is all about, but in that particular interview, he didn't convey it perfectly.
I have rarely heard Stewart do an interview where he did not seem to know more about the subject than his interviewee. He is an excellent interviewer and easily gets people like Bill Kristol to reveal their own hypocrisis. I laughed when he got Kristol to admit that our soldiers got excellent public health care after he had just said that the government could not run a public health care system.
He was just frustrated that the topic has to be so complicated when people aren't equipped to chew on it. If its not easy, we will sit in our recliners, watch Dancing With the Whatever or Glen Beck and watch the oceans rise to drown us. Darwin may just win this one.
"Why is acceptance of vast scientific agreement"
Because there is no such vast scientific agreement. What you see is a publicity campaign subsidised by carbon trading interests on which the "green tech" interests are merely christmas tree decoration. Take away the carbon trades money, the whole green movement production goes away.
Mr. Stewart gives particular interest to cap and trade which I am happy for. Does not let the carbon trades cronies, the astroturfed bloggers and ngo groups, confuse the issue in order to imply cap and trade can not be divided from general energy independence and green concerns.
wait a minute. jon was merely parrotting all the arguments the rest of the planet is saying.
he's not any more un-educatred than the rest of us climate non-professionals.
if you listened to what he was saying you would understand: we need to be convinced that
somewhere along the line the "universal" solution is going to rise to the forefront OR NOT.
look at it another way: in between records and cassette tapes there was 8 track.
a lot of people invested in 8 tracks.............then cassettes made everything obsolete,
and a lot of people wasted a lot of money, and today still can't listen to their old music.
get my drift here?
no one wants to jump on a bandwagon that may be obsolete before the trip is paid for.
we all grasp the concept of technology improvements of one kind of technology. just not
the invention of a total different and better technology that would wipe out the investment
we already made. we as in federal, state, local governments with tax payer dollars and
personal investments. like i just installed a geo thermal hvac system. a huge investment
for me.........it will take years for me to pay off my home equity loan for this one purchase.
i am scared to death that someone will re-invent the wheel and make my house worthless
before its paid off.
I heard an urgency in Stewart's questions I found very interesting. Many people simply check out on this issue and pretend it isn't real. He may not be an expert, but he was expressing a sincere desire to be engaged. He was recognizing that the causes of the problem run very deep and will take great imagination to change. I heard impatience with the status quo, which is exactly what we need to become widespread.
He wasn't begging Gore for the one cure-all solution, he was begging for an inspiring solution, because he knows that's the only kind that will catch on in the way we need it to. Hence, the talk of horse-and-buggies to cars. People didn't switch to cars because they thought they "should", they switched because "wow, amazing!".
Interesting interview.
Urgency? He wants to save people who he likes from betting the barn on cap and trade, my interpretation of past programs.
Is there anybody who disagrees with the monlithic view that CO2 is definitely going to cause climatic chaos that will end civilization and that the only way to fix it is to somehow end our dependence of fossil fuels right now by using some kind of finacial scheme designed by the same industry that brought us the current economic mess, that you think is educated? Or is any variance cause enough to identify anyone as being uneducated?
Secondly...it's Fake news. It's comedy. You certainly don't want to appear to be as humorless as your opponents, do you? And what is an enviromental strategest anyway? Are strategies about finding the truth or merely advancing a postion?
This actually doesn't suprise me much...Younger generations always see a lack of imagination in the elders. Many older people I know believe in global warming, peak oil,etc. However, they, like stewart (or the view he's representing) think that it won't be a problem for fifty years. They want the solution rolled out to them in HD, so they just need to go out and buy a tv to solve global warming. I think Stewart was just channeling a viewpoint that is common among Gore's generation and it allowed Gore to address those issues. He just failed a little on the jokes.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
