Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’

[Mass]

I was already mad at John Stewart yesterday when we reached this interview (the previous segment was about Afghanistan and he found funny to repeat the MSM memes about Kerry there, but at least this was just mimicking the Village eldern), but when this segment reminds us that Stewart is not necessarily well informed on the issues.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/28/stewart-superfreak/

(See video at link)
Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’
from Think Progress by Brad

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.”

...

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.

[Johonny]

1. Not to repeat myself from last night but

Jon basically leads him to the claim that the objections to his book are based on secular religion beliefs in global warming and not science facts. Ghee Jon spend 20 minutes on the google before claiming that huh? Why is it Jim Kramer is the only economist Jon Stewart ever trashes. Jon's lovely SO2 hose that he talked up would a) destroy the ozone layer b) not do anything for Ocean acidification c) has no realistic engineering plan. Yet some how the Freakonomics guy can tell you it's more economically friendly than CO2 usage changes. Instead of asking real questions Jon just lets him declare his opponents dogmatists. Just disgusting. Hey Jon Science is about peer reviews, release your bad material in a public book and the whole science community is going to come down harsh on you. It's not called Dogma, it's called the Scientific Method. Last night was a rare Jon Stewart the Moran night :(

[paulsby]

14. jim cramer is NOT an economist

nor does he claim to be. he's a trader.

i;m a trader, fwiw. i trade futures mostly.

i also said i was shorting the market on the close when the market topped over 10,000. (the dow). that trade has done very nicely

i;m (and jim is ) A TRADER.

i doubt cramer has ever claimed to be an economist, nor is he one.

i think he's a clown, but that's tangential to the fact that he is not an economist.

i have never known an economist who was an active trader. they may exist, but i don't know of any.

traders deal with day to day reality of the markets . that's how we make our money. economists opine about the market and the underlying forces, but almost never trade it. investing is not trading, fwiw

[Johonny]

17. good point

[JonQ]

2. How dare they use facts, statistical analysis

and a scientific approach to an emotional problem?

[Johonny]

6. I think you'll find

just looking at the web, they didn't use facts at all.

[girl gone mad]

15. Huh?

Way to completely miss the point.

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. Jon Stewart is the man when he agrees with the left, but

and a sinner when he doesn't toe the line?:shrug:

I say good for Jon on conducting yet another great interview.

[Mass]

4. Because these guys are no better than the ones he skews every day, but somehow,

they get not only a pass, but he attacks those who say they are wrong.

[JonQ]

7. How exactly are they in the wrong?

You can't berate someone for coming to conclusions you don't like if their methodology is sound.

And at no point in that article did they criticize the methods they used, just that they came to the "wrong" conclusion and that Jon should have attacked them for that.

[Johonny]

16. well I'll simply point to other sources

Basically science is a peer reviewed discipline. Don't expect to write something on one of the most important topics in current science without the nations leading climate scientists answering back. It's hard to take an economic study serious that gets basic things wrong like the efficiency of a solar panel. Basically to make so many fundamental errors as they did was a feeding frenzy in the waiting. It's been suggested they did it on purpose to sell more books. Which I think they probably did. If it was environmentalist attacking that's one thing, but it's the climate scientists attacking and they're doing so based on facts.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/

http://digg.com/environment/Error_riddled_Superfreakonomics_debunked

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/superfreakonomics-on-climate-part-1/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/book-superfreakonomics.html

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php

[JonQ]

29. See this is what I'm talking about

Science is peer reviewed, but op-ed blogs are not.

All your sources failed to cite flawed methodology, instead they engaged in personal attacks or at best quoting what others had to say on the subject.

An op-ed piece, even one written by someone with scientific credentials = ! peer review. One of them cites Wikipedia for christsakes.

[SoBascom]

33. Yes, but Levitt is a super genius who knows more physics than Einstein

because if he says so it must be so!!!

He definitely knows more Minitab than your high school student!

[qazplm]

20. soooo....

he isn't perfect?

[Johonny]

5. what great interview?

He failed to ask the guy one question of substance. It showed either Jon had not read any of the real criticisms of Freakonomics guy or else he agreed with a stance that is being trashed by basically all the counties best economists and scientists. For instance he might of asked freakonomics guy why in the SO2 hose chapter he didn't factor in ozone destruction or CO2 acidification of the Ocean into his economic analysis. They aren't need jerk reactionary questions, but real questions that have scientific merit and economic merit. I mean when Paul Krugman is trashing you, you might want a better reply than "I'm not a Scientist". Yeah but are you even an economist?

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. Sorry but Jon is the best prepared interviewer out there.

He was well prepared. He did the interview he intended to do. Should be fun to watch this thread though.

[Johonny]

12. I know and Jon is really wrong on this subject

He sided with the Freakonomics guy over the nations best scientist and economists. Read the reviews of the book. The "science" presented in the book is so poorly research that it's impossible to take serious. I'd rather think he was poorly prepared instead because I like J Stew too much :)

[Overseas]

9. I was really disappointed in Jon's comment about "stepping on a secular religion."

There is ample empirical evidence of atmospheric deterioration caused by industrialization ( About 200 years, NOT "5,000 years of human history" as I believe Jon said at another point). It does not require faith to understand, just some scientific literacy.

I would have been okay with Jon saying it was interesting to consider ways in which we might cool the atmosphere as an adjunct to curbing carbon emissions, without pretending understanding science was some kind of "secular religion." Evidence-based convictions are not faith-based beliefs.

It would have been a much more interesting discussion if he had really examined just how scientists might engineer atmospheric cooling-- and shown how ridiculously tough that would be to achieve.

It would have been a much more interesting discussion if he had chastised the author for tossing out a pie-in-the-sky concept that could be used by the fringe to help Americans evade addressing the grave damage we have caused to the earth's atmosphere.

Yes that was the least favorite of the Stewart guest interviews I have seen him do to date.

[Birthmark]

10. One of the more disappointing interviews by Jon.

He obviously didn't do his homework and glossed over the difficulties in Levitt's nonsense. It's very unlike Jon Stewart. Everyone has a bad day and Jon has fewer than most.

That said, I'm not upset. GW is a complex subject that the media try to simplify to the disservice of both the public and science, since they simplify poorly.

[rudy23]

11. He's still a treasure, but he misses things from time to time. He is a comedian, mostly.

He totally botched the ACORN thing. He's a very smart layman, which is why he's so good at cutting to the core in his interviews.

[paulsby]

18. he wouldn't have been doing his job if he didn't skewer ACORN

for pete's sake, there are few riper targets for COMEDY than that episode with the ludicrously dressed pimp, etc.

if you wrote a script like that for SNL, people would say it was too unbelievable

it's not jon's job to always be on the democratic-side, whatever you think that may be, or to only skewer institutions on the right.

for pete's sake, if he hadn't skewered ACORN, i would have lost some confidence in him, AS A COMEDIAN, because that's what he is first and foremost.

people seem to forget that. it's like he's a cheating spouse if he dare skewer any sacred cows of the viewer.

people need to get over it. the dems are in power (thankfully) and he's going to primarily point his laser at them, as he should.

[rudy23]

21. There was definitely some comic fodder there, but he focused on the pimp "scooping" the media

on the story that ACORN is a corrupt organization. He didn't get that the pimp was committing entrapment in a shoddy, FOX run "investigative" report. I agree, he is a comedian, but he was trying to make a serious point there.

[paulsby]

22. sorry, i don't buy that

imo, that's spin

i worked undercover. i know the law of entrapment. it was no imo entrapment, and i see no evidence the sting was fox run, only that it was breitbart run.

unlike many here, i think the ACORN sting did a good thing, and i want MORE of it. i would love to see a sting of operation rescue and other rightwing org's for instance.

but regardless of the fact that ACORN has done a lot of good, they were clearly hiring some seriously fucked up people, who would encourage and facilitate child sex trafficking, and i am glad the sting happened

like i said, if that puts me in the minority, so be it. i've been there before.

and from a comedy angle, it's simply priceless.

[paulsby]

13. for pete's sake, he's a comedian

and he's not also going to take the party line side, which is good. when the idiot bush was in power, he had easy pickings, and of course most of his satire was on the ruling party.

guess what? the dems are in power, and he's going to be a comedian that frequently punches at the dems.

he is a comedian first and foremost, not a newsman, and not a democratic party mouthpiece. if you expect him to always be accurate or truthful (however you measure those), let alone have fealty to one party, you are going to be dissapointed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. The interview had nothing to do with dems or republicans.

[paulsby]

35. neither would an interview about abortion

however, it's clear the majority of dems support the right to choose, and the majority don't

similarly, a substantial %age of repubs (not sure if a majority) don't believe in anthropogenic GW, whereas the overwhelming majority of dems do

so, yes. it wasn't about DEMS or REPUBS. but it is an issue that does tend to skew that way

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. The majority of Dems support the theory of Evolution. Evolution is not a Democratic issue.

And slamming evolution is not the same thing as slamming Democrats.

[Johonny]

27. I think if you like Jon then here is a defense of his interview

Jon's interview technique is to allow his subject ample time to defend themselves and explain themselves. This is why people like being interviewed by him. The Freakonomic guy was allowed by Jon Stewart to defend himself to his critics on the basis of his work. If you are a scientist in no way did he do a good job of this. If you are not a scientist it's possible he looked good to you. Well Republicans think they do a good job when they get interviewed by Jon Stewart too. I think most liberals think they talk and talk until they've said so much stupid Jon can't help but bury them. It's Jon's interview style. It sometimes makes crack pots seem legitimate, it often time makes them sound even more stupid to the well informed. I think it usually works very well for him, he's consider a very good interviewer. Sometimes like last night he leaves himself open to criticism for not jumping more at weaknesses when presented to him. But I would point out the Jim Cramer and Jonah Goldberg interviews aren't typical of how Jon operates. Last night I think the subject could have used more attacking by Jon, but I respect that he doesn't usually do that to a great degree. The last three economics persons Jon had on were treated the same way. One I agreed with, the other two I did not. But they all got the same treatment from Jon. That's why people want to do his show.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. I agree, but..

my problem was not really the interview itself. It was the fact that Jon went one FURTHER and chided the audience for not clapping and cheering.

[paulsby]

34. wow. a comedian chided the audience

for not giving him the reaction he wanted?

i'm AMAZED

[nosmokes]

19. Stewart's job description is:*comedian* not political sage FCOL

Some folks get their tights all fucking bunched and twisted over what a dude says whose main job, mission number one, is to get a laugh. His show is on a cable network called Comedy Central. And you have the unmitigated gall to say you're 'mad' at a comic because his politics only agree w/ yours 98% of the time.

Grow up FFS.

Stick w/ the decaf and lay off the second and third helpings of ideology,maybe,huh?

[paulsby]

31. finally, a rational post

people sit here and deconstruct every nuance of what he says, especially when he DARES criticize a position or organization that is held in esteem by the left.

you are SO right.

he is a comedian. and he spent most of the last 8 years rippin' on repubs, because REPUBS were in power, and god knows bush, cheney et al were VERY easy to rip on.

sating that he is a comedian isn't a put down. it doesn't mean there can't be serious points running underneath his comedy.

well, it's a new era, and he has new targets. good for him. it's frigging COMEDY, people.

[Johonny]

32. Jon give interviews and prides himself in his abilities to do so

I think he would be hurt to be thought of as "just a comedian". Certainly KO is more than "just a sports broadcaster". I think Tucker Carlson thought Jon was "just a comedian" and that angle of attack didn't work that well for him. Jon does a comedy show, but he likes to give good interviews of his guests and does not always play his interviews for laughs but to entertain (and I hope to inform a little too). I think you insulted J Stew more than anyone else in the whole thread by dismissing him in such a way.

[Mass]

23. So, you guys are mad because some people noticed that Stewart was wrong on this issue.

All I noticed was that he was not always well informed on the issue. Apparently, it is sacrilegious to notice this.

So, I all leave you to your god. Worship.

[nosmokes]

24. Not at all.

But if you're gonna work up enough energy to post here and bitch about a TV personality's political stance then at least pick one that is in the legitimate realm of targets. It's not as if there's a dearth of opportunity out there. If you actually care about the issue expend your energy and your time doing something that makes sense. Resist the urge to be sidetracked by shiny things that don't mean shit. One of many lessons of the Sixties we seem to have lost is to keep our eyes on the prize.

Getting side-tracked by meaningless and inconsequential fodder like this is not only nonproductive but counterproductive.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. I got your back, Mass

I hate when they attack John Kerry, Al Gore and Joe Biden as these boring guys who talk to much, etc but such is the nature of comedy shows. However the interviews are different. Jon usually tries to conduct those rather seriously. What really bothered me about yesterday was that when he didn't get laughs or support, Jon turned around and attacked the audience. I was thinking "wait...did he just say they want to float pontoons out into the ocean to stop hurricanes?" It was just...weird.

[Quantess]

30. John Stewart is a comedian.

The news he gives us is merely a bonus.