Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’
Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’
On last night’s Daily Show, host Jon Stewart heaped praise on the contrarian approach to global warming taken by SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt, a University of Chicago economist. Stewart was dismissive of the widespread criticism of Levitt and co-author Stephen Dubner, asking, “Have you stepped on a secular religion?” Stewart, often a tough interviewer, coddled Levitt, saying, “I’m sorry you’ve taken so much s**t for it.” He blamed the uproar over SuperFreakonomics on people who “feel you are betraying environmentalism”:
I’ve been somewhat surprised at how angry people are. The global warming chapter, you don’t deny global warming. You don’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor, but they feel you are betraying environmentalism or our world. Why are people so mad?
Watch it:
SuperFreakonomics mischaracterizes the field in order to argue that “moralism and angst” has blinded scientists and policymakers from pursuing the “cheap and simple solution” of geoengineering. Although the book condemns scientists for fearmongering and promotes a radical alternative to existing policy, Levitt tells Stewart, “I don’t try to pretend I know the science.”
In reality, the critics of Levitt’s treatment of climate science and policy are not “dogmatic” believers of a “secular religion” — they are highly respected climate scientists, energy experts, and economists, including climate scientist Ken Caldeira, who has said Levitt and Dubner misrepresented his views. The widespread criticism isn’t based on the book’s personal attacks on Al Gore or its mocking of global warming as a “religion,” but on the multitude of factual errors, misrepresentations, and false conclusions that the authors use to promote their mindless contrarianism. As science journalist Eric Pooley writes, “The book claims the opposite of what Caldeira believes.”
Levitt recommends untested, planetary scale geo-engineering to block the sun as a “band-aid” that “buys us time” if “we might need to do something,” because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time. However, scientists concerned that global warming needs to be reduced rapidly have already found a well-proven approach that’s cheaper and safer than pumping unlimited amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere: stopping black carbon emissions of soot from diesel and biomass burning.
Stewart rightly concluded, “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?” However, he failed to understand his mistake when he added that he had “apparently frightened our audience by suggesting that conservation isn’t the only way out of any of our problems.”
Stewart has excoriated other media darlings for their laissez-faire approach to serious issues, from Tucker Carlson to Jim Cramer, and just last week skewered CNN for its failure to do even basic fact-checking of its guests. Unfortunately, in this instance, there was nothing funny about Stewart’s inaccuracy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Global warming or not I think it would be better to err on the side of caution and strive towards clean energy for the generations that will follow ours.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pmScience or quack science gets peer-reviewed and critiqued, duh.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pmI’m pretty surprised at this junk from Stewart, who’s usually spot-on. We can only hope that he was just punking Levitt — but I don’t think so…
October 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pmBecause that way we can pay some big contractors huge taxpayer bucks to pretend to do something instead of costing big energy a few bucks.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThis episode of The Daily Show is still sitting in my TiVo, unwatched — so I won’t comment specifically about this show. I’ll leave that to others who have actually seen it.
I will say that it’s quite unusual for Stewart to be in the “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?” position, because he almost always DOES know what he’s talking about — being one of the few people we see on the teevee who does his homework prior to an interview (Rachel Maddow being another classic example).
When I see the show, I’ll better be able to evaluate whether Stewart had a point to make that we just didn’t see, whether he really believes in a secular global warming cult, whether he was engaging in some parody so subtle it was completely missed by everyone, whether he has truly gone to the dark side, or if he was just having a bad day.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pmIt shouldn’t be for global warming/climate change alone that we seek a cleaner energy. Really, it’s also a matter of the need for research and development of an energy source that is more available than coal, oil, etc. in the foreseeable future.
Let’s do it for the fact that oil and coal, the dirtier pollutants out there, won’t be around forever. Let’s do it for the fact that we can do more with the sun, wind, and water than just tan, sail, and bathe. Let’s do it for the fact that doing nothing now will put us in a greater risk of a worse economy in the future.
Global warming prevention is a plus-factor for siding with global warming scientists.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pmWell, the fact is that JP Morgan did make So2 commodity that is being paid for to reduce acid rain Mr Levitt because which has caused a significant drop in the burning of high sulfur residual fuels.
I dont think we should have to pay for pollution to get it reduced and its sad that some investment bank had to profit from So2 to reduce So2.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Beefeater:
October 28th, 2009 at 2:12 pmYou do realize that AL Gore didn’t invent the global climate disruption hypotheis correct?
Hell, Stewart can be wrong once in a while if Geraldo can be right once in a while.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:12 pmThe human race deserves the catastrophe it is doing so well to deny.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:12 pmOT
October 28th, 2009 at 2:13 pmHow do you decide which words you are going to bold?
I think the idea of a “secular global warming cult” makes about as much sense as the idea of “creeping socialism”.
Scientists don’t take things on faith! They test *everything*. That’s what science is. Only people who don’t understand science misunderstand this. Only people who don’t understand science see any logic in the concept of ‘faith-based science’.
Cults tend to risk everything on huge all-or-nothing gambles (like massive bioengineering?), not scientists.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:13 pmBeefeater, we don’t believe in all that “sacred” cr@p. The Christofundies are on your team.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:13 pmSeriously, Beefy, you should try to get your prescription refilled. People are looking at you like you’re an idiot.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pmBeefy: “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?”
October 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pmAw heck, Stewart is spot on 99% of the time, so if he misses one, he’s still doing darned good.
I’m in Stewart’s corner on this one.
“I’m fair but I’m firm.” Joe Cortez
October 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pmI’m not going to inundate Stewart with hate mail but I still believe he was wrong and definitely NOT FUNNY.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:19 pmBlock the sun? Really? With what? A big tent?
What an economic moron.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:19 pmlet he whoeth bat .1000 be thy first to shun him.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pmaw c’mon… i watched that – with the prior TP knowledge in mind – and i wouldn’t characterized it was anything like “heaped praise” on the guy… i thought it was more like respectfully acknowledging the differences and the author…
October 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pmI haven’t read the book, but did see the show. Personally, I don’t see the big deal in what was said. Sure, man-made carbon emissions are the source of the trouble. He didn’t deny that.But he(Levitt)very rightly pointed out that we are very unlikely to make significant reductions in CO2, and thus in global temps in the short term. And yes, he is stepping on an almost religiously held fervor that human behavior must be modified to right this wrong. What’s so wrong with exploring the efficacy of other scientific “fixes” that may help mitigate the effects of global warming while we work toward a future of clean energy and better behaviors? After all, time is very quickly running out.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pmEh. Listening to Levitt is still a hell of alot more coherent than listening to Inhofe.
Even the Washington Post is casting him as “The Last Flat Earther”…and apparently, Vitter is supporting climate change legislation. David Freaking Prostitute Mongering Obstruction Causing Vitter.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pmThere is talk of seeding clouds to block sunlight but there are health risks to inhaling such small particles.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:27 pmThis geoengineering stuff scares that hell out of me. They’re talking about all sorts of radical measures and one really wonders if there wouldn’t be all sorts of unintended consequences.
For example, if we block the sun what happens to plant life?
If they pump a bunch of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere what happens to the air we breathe? Would it eventually poison the oceans? Kill the fish?
I posted a link to an article on Scientific American yesterday. When you go to the link you see the logo for Shell oil prominently displayed in three different places. Hmmmmm..
October 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pmWill blocking the sun remove the warming of the Earth or just the light?
If you can’t block the heat then you’ve lost the battle.
If you block the heat you have a new Ice Age.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Exactly. Levitt acknowledged that the “use a hose to pump sulfur dioxide into the sky” was science fiction-y and he didn’t necessarily reject the current attempts to arrest global warming by lowering levels of carbon dioxide. He believes that the efforts will take several decades and that we should be looking for quicker—and more radical—solutions.
And, yeah. There is a definite strain of global warming alarmism out there. It’s in the minority, but its out there. Remember the mayor of Tokyo pleading that his city get the 2016 Olympics, because it would be the last summer Olympics ever due to global warming? That is alarmism. It’s rhetoric like that and anyone saying that if we don’t take drastic steps to halt global warming, New York will be under water in 5 years…that becomes counter-productive.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pmhttp://www.physorg.com/news165847604.html
“Geoengineering” experiments proposed to reduce global warming by blocking sunlight with atmosphere-injected particles may cool the world but still leave carbon dioxide levels dangerously high, Stanford scientists say.
Sunlight-blocking particles would fail to solve the problems of ocean acidification and dying corals, two significant repercussions of climate change, according to a study by Ken Caldeira of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution, Damon Matthews of Concordia University, and Long Cao of the Carnegie Institution. Atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean water, making it more acidic and difficult for animals to build their shells or skeletons, especially corals.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pmI registered here just to defend Jon Stewart who appeared genuinely afraid of, specifically, progressives at the end of the interview.
I think the main problem is that this blog post takes Jon way too seriously here. He’s said all the time that all he’s doing is a comedy show and he doesn’t see it as his role to do hard-hitting interviews. And I’ve always seen him as reasonably open-minded and moderate.
He’s not a climatologist and never pretended to be one. However, he is criticizing the shit that people are giving the author of this book. Whether or not you agree with the contents of the book (which I haven’t read), it isn’t wrong to criticize the *tone* of the reaction to the book which does sound like the book has strayed too heretically against established dogma.
Again, the argument is against the *tone* of the debate. I think the arguments against the contents of the book are probably valid. But I think Jon Stewart was just being open-minded here and speaking of the book from the perspective of a lay person. This was, ultimately, a promotion of the book, not even a review of the scientific standing of the book.
I just don’t want to hear any more crap about “Jon Stewart” going to the dark side. His role has always been as a comedian and, in his best moments, a media critic. I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize the tone of the discussion, which means that progressives and ThinkProgress should also reflect on themselves once in a while, rather than always pointing the finger elsewhere. If you want to punish Jon Stewart here be sure it fits the crime, and I don’t see any crime.
There, I said it.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:32 pmOur useless, idiot, troll, STORMDitch is back. And still clueless as usual.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmStormy, I think I hear something. Yes, yes I did. Its hard to make out. Sounds like Chee and maybe who. Wait. I think I got it. Its your granny yelling “Who ate my cheese puffs!?!”
You better skeedaddle out of the basement for a while.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmYa know, somehow I think that the guy who faced the wrath of the Right for proposing the theory that the dramatic fall in the crime rate in the 90s was more due to the legalization of abortion in the seventies than to anything Rudy 9/11 did, can deal with any shit that the Left is gonna throw at him.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pmbeefymoron
Shows us once again what an ignorant brainwashed moron he is. Then Stormfront comes in to twaddle some more idiocy. What is with these ignorant punkass trolls. Just being the stupidest most uninformed pieces of garbage on their blocks just isnt enough anymore. They have to parade their massive ignorance to a larger audience
October 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pmIsn’t geoengineering what caused the problem in the first place ?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm30. matimp,
Right on.
His show is, at heart, a comedic talk show. He wants to give newsmakers, athletes, entertainers, and academics a chance to promote themselves….and very rarely becomes legitimately confrontational (his interview with Douglas Feith comes to mind, and it was well deserved). He doesn’t have to agree with his guests.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
From Brad’s post;
SuperFreakonomics mischaracterizes the field in order to argue that “moralism and angst” has blinded scientists and policymakers from pursuing the “cheap and simple solution” of geoengineering. Although the book condemns scientists for fearmongering and promotes a radical alternative to existing policy, Levitt tells Stewart, “I don’t try to pretend I know the science.”
In reality, the critics of Levitt’s treatment of climate science and policy are not “dogmatic” believers of a “secular religion” — they are highly respected climate scientists, energy experts, and economists, including climate scientist Ken Caldeira, who has said Levitt and Dubner misrepresented his views. The widespread criticism isn’t based on the book’s personal attacks on Al Gore or its mocking of global warming as a “religion,” but on the multitude of factual errors, misrepresentations, and false conclusions that the authors use to promote their mindless contrarianism.
I think I’ll have to get a copy and read it to see if it really mischaracterizes and misrepresents. If it does, that’s unfortunate, because the issue deserves serious discussion rather than the kind of mockery and attack we see coming from the righties.
OTOH, “highly respected climate scientists, energy experts, and economists” are as capable of error and herd stupidity as anyone else; they haven’t taken leave of their humanity, regardless of their own opinion of their authority. None of us should assume that any authority should be allowed to extrapolate his or her findings without thorough discussion, examination, and argument.
If Levitt’s principle argument is that ““moralism and angst” has blinded scientists and policymakers from pursuing the “cheap and simple solution” of geoengineering”, then he’s way off base. We’re already geoengineering by our modification of the land surface, waterflows and airborne emmissions; all of those went unexamined until relatively recently and that failure to look closely at what we were doing is part of what put us in the predicament we’re in. To engage in the geoengineering of the sort that I’ve seen proposed would carry inforseen consequences that might dwarf our current problems.
In the long term, the “cheapest, simplest” solution to remedying our own effects on climate and the environment is to quit putting crap in the air, water, and soil. Our emmissions, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous have to be rendered non-toxic, inactive, or be sequestered.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWho knew that Beefswallower’s medication regimen was not only controlling his schizophrenia, it was also helping him maintain his “indoor voice” when trying to have a conversation.
Does anyone know who Beefy’s pharmacist is? Can they run and get him a refill?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm@ 38. How about ‘unforeseen’ and emissions, eh?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pmWikipedia:
Yeah, the economist should stick to his field of expertise.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pmBeef, take a long walk on a short pier will ya?
You are irrelevant.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pmBeefy, are you playing MadLibs?
Looks like fun.
Nah. It’s not working for me.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pmNaw, Lieberman would be spending all his time in the Cheney bunker Buffy so we would see and hear less of him.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pmBeefeater,
Maybe you’re jealous that you have no friends here. After all, it’s unclear why you are posting here, rather than on a conservative site, where they brag about killing healthcare reform and the environment.
Are you too yellow to actually face criticism from your peers? Or so pathetic that you must troll on this site day after day? You live an ugly ugly existence.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pmOnly a rightwingnut would think you could correct the problem of putting too many pollutants in the air by putting more pollutants in the air. On the plus side they’ll kill off asthma sufferers faster saving money on health care. /sarc
October 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pmHe can’t do that in his mom’s basement.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pmAh, I love Jon Stewart, but him characterizing concern about geoengineering as “stepping on secular religion” to me is insulting to anyone who is concerned about our environment.
I, for one, am NOT one of those radid environmentalists and am not even sure about this whole cap-and-trade thing being necessarily a good idea.
But if Levitt “recommends” these untested and very radical measures then his book should be scrutinized very carefully and perhaps even criticized.
Also, if Jon said, “I’m sorry that you’ve taken so much shit about it” he is implicitly supporting Levitt and by extension endorsing the book’s views.
Jon Stewart has a very large and very loyal audience. He needs to be careful who he endorses in my view.
There I said it.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pmHe can’t do that in his mom’s basement.
Well someone could stick a waterhose in the basement window and fill it with water
October 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI took Stewarts remark to be sarcasm, but thats just me.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pmI think this Stewart kerfuffle is rather benign compared to his utter negligence in the story of the Pimp n’ Ho-dressed prep-school clowns going undercover at ACORN. A few days after the obvious crock of shit was bandied on Fox, Stewart ran a scathing jab at the networks for “not doing their job.” He bought that fabricated bullshit hook, line, & sinker with absolutely no apology or follow-up.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pmEnnuiDivine says:
Beefeater,
Maybe you’re jealous that you have no friends here.
E.D.(if you know what I mean), how can you say that? My comments here get more votes than just about anyone!
October 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pmwhile I liked the interview, I was disappointed that both men were oblivious to the fact that often engineering solutions have unforseen effects that are often as great or greater than what they were to fix.
Think Kudzu.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm#52 beef says
…My comments here get more votes than just about anyone!
Yeah, negative numbers do add up don’t they?
“I’m firm but I’m fair.” Joe Cortez
October 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm52. Beef,
You’re not the brightest of the lot, are ya. In the interest of placating your intellect, i’ll spell it out:
F
U
C
K
Y
October 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pmO
U
Think carp, killer bees, zebra mussels, lamprey eels, etc. etc. etc.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:15 pmeh… ok TP… I found it to be a funny segment – and I can’t possibly take ‘Super Freakanomics’ seriously… as mentioned in the interview, it talks about using a giant hose to spray water into the upper atmosphere. It’s all just goofy. I have a feeling that anyone taking this guy’s work seriously.. well, they’re just hopeless. I think by worrying about this guy’s work.. you’re only legitimizing the view that climate change folks are a cult…. lighten up.. this book isn’t the threat.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pmK Street Whore says:
what do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate allhave in common?
Uh, they all have a lot of air pollution and asthma sufferers?
October 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pmBeefswallower isnt satisfied to show how incredibly STUPID he is. Now he also has to show he is a LIAR as well as a MORON. Saying Gore tried to steal the election by getting all the votes counted shows just how stupid AND what a liar he is. Also that he HATES democracy. What a punk. Beefy just STFU until you grow an adult brain
October 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pmBeefswallower
You get negative votes because you are a liar and a brainwashed moron that regurgitates the stupidest most ignorant talking points of all time. Just STFU. You are far too stupid to contribute to an adult conversation
October 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pmI’m really surprised that Jon Stewart bought into this guy’s line that people who environmentalism is a religion. That’s a substance free, ad hominem argument of the sort that Jon Stewart typically speaks out very loudly against.
Plus Levitt has gotten a lot of facts flat out wrong in his book. He misrepresented the work of scientist Ken Caldeira.
WTF, Jon Stewart?
October 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pmMy comments here get more votes than just about anyone!
Thats probably the truest statement you have ever made here, unfortunately we arent playing golf
October 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pmlux says:
lighten up.. this book isn’t the threat.
I hope you’re right – the fact is, though, some people are using the book’s faulty ‘facts’ as an excuse to slam those of us who are concerned.
For example, this column from the WSJ:
Suppose for a minute—which is about 59 seconds too long, but that’s for another column—that global warming poses an imminent threat to the survival of our species. Suppose, too, that the best solution involves a helium balloon, several miles of garden hose and a harmless stream of sulfur dioxide being pumped into the upper atmosphere, all at a cost of a single F-22 fighter jet.
Good news, right? Maybe, but not if you’re Al Gore or one of his little helpers.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pmThink of that, a large garden hose ends Gore’s act.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pmK Street Whore says:
You’re “census” is completely incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the poorest city in the country based on population percentages in that same study is Brownsville, TX – which until two years ago (a year after this study came out, mind you) was Republican-controlled and funded.
Try again, amigo.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pmMr.Duke says:
It could end your act too. Stupid man.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:17 pmK Street, thanks for filling in for Olby Sucks. Care to cite your article?
October 28th, 2009 at 4:19 pmMr Duke
Think of THIS you are STUPID even for the pile of dogshit you are
October 28th, 2009 at 4:26 pmI bet Jon Stewart reads this thread. He’ll actually be reading my words. I should come up with something really deep to say to really impress him. “Hey Jon! Look at me! Look over here! Wooooo. Wooooooooo. Dooooo dooooo doooooo. Homina, homina.”
Wow, I can’t believe Jon Stewart actually just read what I wrote. Cool.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pmjimspice, did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby? I’m so sorry.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm@48
“Also, if Jon said, “I’m sorry that you’ve taken so much shit about it” he is implicitly supporting Levitt and by extension endorsing the book’s views.”
Jon isn’t endorsing the book’s views so much as being open to them. And that’s the right that any lay person (myself being one of them) has: we can read whatever we want and be open to what we read. The line is where we suppose we have more authority than we actually have. The idea that a comedian has the authority to endorse a view on climatology is ridiculous.
I bought the first Freakonomics when it came out (it was actually from seeing the book on Jon’s show). I think this subject has caused me to retroactively doubt the contents of the first book. But I think you guys need to stop this practice of targeting people who disagree with you. If Jon Stewart was starting a campaign to block climate legislation, then I would understand this sort of heavy-handed response. But ThinkProgress is going way over the line here, in my opinion.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:30 pm@64
October 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pmI think the authors of Superfreakonomics are just using the controversy to make sales. They are being heretical for it’s own sake, which really isn’t any better than dogmatism, in my view. I respect ThinkProgress’s discussion about the book Superfreakonomics, and has certainly educated me on the subject. I think Jon Stewart has become collateral damage however in this whole ordeal. The book has officially become radioactive.
Okay, I think I’m obvious biased myself here. I think Jon will correct himself given the way he looked at the end of last night’s show.
Anyway, sorry for posting too much in this thread. I might comment in other posts here, so long as the moderators allow me. I don’t know if I’m an actual liberal, but probably center-left.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pmWe’ll have to leave it there.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pmI am glad that TP is showing their objectiveness by including this obvious gaffe by a show that is purportedly liberal. I really love the show and as so many pointed out the crew putting it together is mostly right on, however this is probably the show’s darkest moment. I am not a dogmatist, an alarmist, or a cultist, but I do have what may be called a religious fervor for dispelling ignorance, and in this case Jon is plain ignorant and wrong. Until he issue a correction or at least presents a coherent view on the dangers of pollution I will refuse to watch his show and will advise all of my friends and everyone following this thread to do the same. I urge everyone to take this seriously, I really like his show too, but he has really stunk the place up and he needs to make it right.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pmThe book was reviewed critically by Eric Pooley, a former Fortune Magazine editor and an acquaintance of the authors. See http://que2646.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/26/3426646-freakonomics-guys-flunk-science-of-climate-change-eric-pooley- for a link to the review.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm