Fox & Friends crops Jon Stewart quote to suggest "Climategate" emails made him a global warming denier
While discussing the purported "Climategate" emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, Steve Doocy claimed that Jon Stewart "really took a shot at Al Gore," then aired a clip of Stewart stating, "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented." But Doocy -- in a possible violation of a recent Fox News memo on "Quality Control" -- did not air Stewart's subsequent statement in which he said the emails don't "disprove global warming," but do offer ammunition to global warming deniers.
Doocy highlights Stewart's "pretty extraordinary" statement that "[g]lobal warming completely debunked" by emails
From the December 3 edition of Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Speaking of which, next week, you know the president of the United States is going to be heading to Copenhagen en route to pick up his Nobel Peace prize. Extraordinarily -- Copenhagen is going to be all about global warming and climate change and stuff like that. Extraordinarily, take a look at this. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, which has historically bashed Republicans and, you know, not bashed Democrats, really took a shot at Al Gore. Look at this.
STEWART [video clip]: Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh the irony. The iron-y.
DOOCY: It is pretty extraordinary that Jon Stewart would be taking a shot at Al Gore, who's been on his program a couple of times. But at the same time, the mainstream media for the most part not covering this whole "climate-gate" thing. It just seems to be us and bloggers like you.
MALKIN: That's for sure. And that is because most of the mainstream media have been the official enablers of the climate-change cult, and I did a column yesterday that was in the New York Post, another one of the few outlets that will tell the truth and expose this entire "climate-gate" scandal and highlighted the "climate-gate" deniers within the Obama administration.
Everyone from John Holdren, who's been a global warming hysteric for the last 30, 40 years, to Carol Browner, who has a very sordid record of destroying data herself, to Spencer Chu, the energy secretary, who earlier this year compared Americans who challenged a lot of this cult mentality about global warming and climate change to unruly teenagers. So, there you go. These are the people who are supposed to represent sound science in the Obama administration, and not a single one of them telling Obama to hold on a minute and take a look at the new information that's come out.
KILMEADE: I understand that people don't have their whole lives to dedicate to climate change, but if you read these emails, you don't need to be a scientist to understand. They actually say the word "trickery" when it comes to numbers and to reach conclusions. I don't know how the president could continue to show up in Copenhagen. He doesn't have a plan. He doesn't have an approved -- cap-and-trade is not even approved. So he's got nothing to say.
Fox & Friends aired the clip over the caption, "All The President's Deniers; Evidence Surfaces That Data Was Manupulated."
But Stewart went on to say, "Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not," but it is "catnip" to deniers
From the December 1 edition  of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:
STEWART: Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, the irony, the iron-y. Actually, the real story is not quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading study centers for global warming show them discussing them discussing their work a bit -- how do I put this -- casually.
WENDELL GOLER (Fox News White House correspondent) [video clip]: He wrote, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
STEWART: See, it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline . It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science. In disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.
GOLER [video clip]: University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.
STEWART: Oh, for fuck's sake. Why would you throw out raw data  from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s. Laminated. What did you keep?
GOLER [video clip]: The scientists say the kept something called value-added data.
STEWART: Value-added data? What is that? Numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of Energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.
SEN. JAMES INHOFE [video clip]: The fact that this whole idea on the global warming, I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won, you lost, get a life.
STEWART: All right. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. I mean, that guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was before he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. if you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys, who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skull-fuck polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now, apparently, by God's tears.
Recent Fox News memo calls for "zero tolerance for on-screen errors"
A Fox News memo posted  by FishbowlDC on November 23 acknowledged "a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months" and stated that in the future, "there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors" and "[m]istakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the 'mistake chain,' and those who supervise them ... up to and including termination":
Subject: Quality Control We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced: Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.