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.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
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.

















This would require the demise of most of their programming.
That's kind of like Pledges trying to Climb a Greased Pole.
Fox News, "The Home of Mis-information"
Only the 1st Amendment protects them from receiving a Criminal Citation.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
"there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors"
"on-screen" in TV lingo means roll-in video, graphics and titles. So basically all they are saying is they are not going to misspell things, show the wrong books, and run the wrong clips. The anchors, reporters and hosts of course are free to say whatever the heck they want to whether or not it has an factual basis. They are not subject to the "Zero Tolerance" policy.
That "Zero Tolerance" policy is just a ploy and means absolutely no change in the way Fox conducts themselves.
Yes Ms "ABC News reported 2 million, oh wait, no, that number was just pulled out of my a$$", somehow, you and all the other dimwits who think fact-checking their enemy love this story, and people who actually care about facts and reality, and check out what that "trick" is, they are somehow not caring about lies and misinformation! :O How do they do it?
"Oh, woe is us! We and the bloggers are the ONLY ones who are even mentioning this!" (Of course to them, "this" is the term "climategate.")
No one else is covering the email issue? This is just CNN. If Fox and deniers knew how to do searches, they'd find more coverage. It's just the MSM isn't calling it "climategate."
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/12/02/snow.climate.emails.cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html
Fox - wrong on this, wrong on just about everything else.
I'm just sayin'.
.
Of course, Stewart shows that he doesn't really understand why one would have adjusted data, rather than just raw data. I've emailed his show to try to explain why.
But no original data was destroyed here, dunce. The weather monitoring stations still have that original data.
How do you NOT know this - we've explained it here day after day recently. How dumb are you that even after having something explained multiple times, you still don't get it?
The data was dumped a generation ago, when storage space wasn't so easily acquired - hard drive space didn't used to be so cheap like it is now. When Bush did it, he had no excuse, and he was trashing original, irreplaceable information.
The original temperature data is still readily available from the same places that it was originally gathered! If that data will expose them as frauds, your side should start gathering up that data from all those sources, and start proving them to be frauds. Go for it. Waste your time on a wild-goose chase - we'd love for you to do that, in fact! Maybe that would stop your side from spewing the nonsense you do that poisons our national debate!
That's because when the president deletes emails, he's broken the law.
Make a note of it.
Last point: electronic data storage was extremely expensive in the 1980s.
I've yet to see any of these denialists concede that the small amount of data was discarded a long time ago. It fits their narrative better to pretend it was a recent event.
It wasn't "destroyed". The weather monitoring stations have the original data still. The climate scientists just don't have it in to provide in a FOIA request from the deniers.
And there's no reason to keep it. It's saved other places. They used data that was adjusted for reasonable reasons, and they ran out of storage space back in the 1980's, a generation ago.
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
--Albert Einstein
*slow golf clap*
Media Matters is lucky to have a blooger such as thou posting here. You really need to find a new hobby and spend less time at the pc. Really.
Your personal attack doesn't reflect badly on me. It reflects badly on you.
Jon Stewart made a statement that shouldn't be left out there, so yeah, I provided his staff some advice. I think that's exactly what a responsible adult should do - make sure their heroes correct mistakes or misstatements. I am not sure at all why someone would object to being corrected if they're wrong, but what's clear is that you objected when I proved that YOU were wrong, and so you have a kneejerk reaction to my very appropriate advice to Jon Stewart!
Whining like that, Jollymon, makes you look like a whiner. It doesn't do anything to make me look bad.
And the very next time I need advice from you, I'll be sure to let you know. I am not ashamed, nor should I be ashamed, that I know more about this topic that Jon Stewart does. I am baffled as to why you think that my knowledge is a bad thing, or that exposing others to my knowledge is a bad thing.
STEWART: Oh, for f**k'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.
But it's not true that "it doesn't look good." If scientists didn't scrub data for these kinds of issues, that would be something that didn't look good. Scientists behaved totally properly in this instance, and Jon Stewart bought into the rightwing spin that adjusting the data was a thing that looked suspicious.
I am baffled as to why Jollymon would think that it's a bad thing to disabuse Jon Stewart from buying into a rightwing talking point!
I love how you can't see that you act like its your sole responsibility to tell people the facts as seen from your point of view. That is one of the most arrogant, self-centered attitudes I have ever seen. I just enjoy pointing that out to you. Not my problem you can't deal with it. And keep living in your delusional world. You have never given me a "beat down." You make me laugh. At least you didn't give yourself thumbs up yet, but I know you will soon, you can't resist it. ;-)
I am not sure why this was such a difficult thing for you to understand - oh, wait, no, I'm not actually too surprised that you couldn't figure this out.
And no, you're the one who was whining about me. After being attacked unfairly, responding is not equivalent to whining.
Let me give you a clue - here's the definition of whining. It fits what you did!
Whining is a feeble, peevish complaint. Your complaint that I shouldn't inform Jon Stewart's staff of a problem with him buying into the rightwing slant was incredibly feeble. It showed your preconceived ideas about me - you were already peeved about me, and simply used this as an attempt to make me look bad.
You're the whining one, not me.
This place is 100% for people to express their opinions. Again, if I didn't know you, I would be stunned that you don't understand that this a perfect place to tell people the facts as seen from one's own point of view. It's crazy that you don't grasp that fact.
But in this case, with this issue, I wasn't even doing that - I was explaining to the staff of the Daily Show that there really isn't an issue with the manipulation of some of the data, and informed people know this. This isn't an opinion issue in any way! It's not 'from my point of view'. It's the way it is!
The clearly delusional person is you. You whined about me and made a personal attack that had nothing to do with the posting that MMFA had made.
So, you can continue to make a fool of yourself, or you can stop. I hope you continue to make a fool of yourself - I really enjoy it when goofballs like you can't figure out that you're hurting your own credibility and I am laughing at you!! Please continue.
You are a self-righteous, self-centered twit who takes your opinions way too seriously and thinks you are an expert on everything because you read blogs. Sorry, but if you think the staff of the Daily Show needs correcting from you, YOU are the utterly and completely delusional person. Again, I am simply pointing that fact out to you. Deal with it.
And did you read your own words? "This place is 100% for people to express their opinions...I would be stunned that you don't understand that this a perfect place to tell people the facts as seen from one's own point of view"
So your opinions and your point of view are facts? Do you even read what you write? What a joke!
And do you think I care about credibility on a blog? All you care about is thumbs up and getting approval from others. How sad is that? I am hardly the fool here, because I don't take myself seriously, whereas you obviously do. Pathetic.
And if you are so smart, why are you wasting your time blogging when you obviously should be a writer for the Daily Show. Well? Go on. Apply smart one.
I know that Jon Stewart needed correction on that issue. I didn't think it. It wasn't my opinion. It was fact.
My opinion is not fact. I never said nor implied that my opinion is fact. It's too bad that you feel compelled to expose your lack of reading comprehension in such a way. The way that my "opinion" about the facts is relevant here is that I determine which subjects I am going to talk about, and which ones I should defend with factual information. It is a fact that I am often a very good defender and explainer about factual information. I am not sure why you suggest that's a bad thing, but, believe me, it's not a bad thing at all.
And you clearly have a bug up your butt about me, and this is about your antagonism towards me, not about anything I actually did wrong.
And that's your problem, not mine.
And how I choose to spend my time, and why I spend my time the way I do, is none of your concern, nor is it in any way relevant to any discussions we should be having here. Yet you somehow think that by attacking me, you're making valid points?
You're still just a whining baby, and you're still just making yourself look foolish, but please, continue. I love it when crazy fools like you get yourselves all worked up like this, and you mark yourselves as posters not to be trusted or listened to.
I wouldnt' care a lick if I never got another thumbs up, but it's indisputable that they are a sign of positive approval from the community if you get them all the time, or a lack of credibility if you don't get them hardly any of the time. I guess you've been a lesser recipient. I get plenty, but I don't care a whit about them. I simply happen to understand what they mean - the fact that I understand what they mean doesn't equate to me craving them, but simple-minded person you are, you somehow conclude that the fact that I understand what they mean supports your invalid allegation.
And yeah, I take myself seriously. I understand my capabilities and my weaknesses, and you don't seem to understand how foolish you look here - you aren't as self-aware as you appear to think you are.
So, please, continue to make a fool of yourself. I am thrilled to continue to help you in that process if you so choose. It's up to you!
Oh, and I'm just me, a middle-aged lady from West Texas.
[BTW, you've never gotten a "thumbs up" from me . . . I find your posts to be pompous and uninformative as heck.]
So, just get over yourself . . . you're not nearly as important as your over-inflated ego would lead you to believe.
And I will continue to point out troll posts when I think it's helpful. If you don't think it's helpful to stop threads from going off topic, that's your choice. I'm baffled as to why you think that I should listen to you on that subject either.
And you're totally wrong about "my take" on the Stewart thing. I got his sarcasm, but he wasn't being sarcastic about the comment "it doesn't look good." He was being serious. He was clearly saying that it doesn't look good - that it's a thing that looks like a chink in the armor. And since it's not, his saying so hurts the effort. He said it puts wind in their sails. But it only does that if one buys into the rightwing spin of things.
It's you who had his comment fly right over your head.
And please, don't ever give any post a thumbs up that you don't want to, mine included. The only posts I give thumbs ups to are on long threads where I expect to come back multiple times, and I typically hit every one BUT my own so that I can later come back and find my comments as well as new comments to see if anyone has replied to me as well as new posts.
I don't care how many thumbs up I get. That doesn't change the fact that thumbs up ARE an indication of the community's feelings towards the credibility of the post. I don't think it in general says much about the poster, but I am sure that some people vindictively downrate other posters or reflexively uprate other posters. The ratings are mostly reflective of the quality of the post itself, as it should be, but I would continue to post exactly as I have posted if I never got another thumbs up!
So, you don't like me. Good. I am not posting here to make any friends. I don't care if you like my posts or not, or think that I'm pompous or not. And I am baffled as to why you think your assertion about your personal feelings towards me have any place on this site in any case. Personal attacks are out of place here.
And your assertion that my posts are uninformative? Clearly your personal animus has clouded your vision. But that's your failing that you need to examine.
And thanks bintx for pointing out that fact about Dell again, its appreciated. But I'm sure Dell will just claim you are another screen name of myself. If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.
Az long az ewe undersuud whot eye ment iz all dat matterz.
It is like the word dither....they all use the same words.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html
Randy
Fox should have given him credit and produced his entire comments. Of course most of the programming on Fox is opinion and is presented as such.
The other networks are censoring the news so they are no better than Fox.
The point in the story is that the press on the left is even now making fun of these e mails. I guess MMFA did not want to talk about that either.
However, the point of his story was that Fox truncated Stewart's SATIRICAL piece last night on how the talking heads on the right were making more out of these e-mails than exists to make it appear as if Stewart AGREES with the talking heads on the right which, of course, wasn't what he was doing at all.
Flew right over your head, didn't it?
Seriously?
Its very embarrasing to consider their output to the international communities, and the impressions of america that they give to those communities.
I mean, who's side is Fox Management on?
"When in doubt, PARSE quotes and PARSE video to make your point. Don't be afraid to flat-out distort what the source actually said. Bend and twist it to fit our agenda, as we are the arbiters of reality."
Randy
Randy
Why are so many of us in love with, and invested in, the concept that humans destroying the Earth? Why are so many of us willing to sacrifice our human rights, prosperity and lives?
Is it some sort of deep suicidal programing? Is it that for all the evil we do these days we desperately need to feel self-righteous about something? (e.g.: Christians who "sin" as much as any other person, yet look down on others who maybe don't know the Bible that well or don't go to church that often)
We all need to take a look inside ourselves and eradicate the guilt and self-hatred. Most of it is unwarranted and is simply the result of brainwashing. Love yourself, your species, and set your mind free. Don't worry. I'm not too good at it either, but I'm trying.
Sorry, but I think the opposite. I think that continuing to blindly pump chemicals into the environment, pour oil and garbage into oceans, pollute the air, endanger the lives of the other creatures who inhabit this world, all while ignoring the very real consequences of those actions seems more like self-destructive behavior to me. I don't think killing my planet is "setting my mind free".
Thanks, but I'd rather take care of my home.
I'm with you there! I'll just put it this way: you ask the Black Panthers (civil rights), the Red Stockings (women's liberation)... legitimate grassroots movements that were unfortunately co-opted and steered into serving the very establishment these activists set out to dismantle.
I see what the problem is here. You apparently choose what you want to believe and adjust the facts you'll accept to fit that choice. We, on the other hand, believe what the facts show us and conduct ourselves accordingly.
Wow. Fearmonger much?
I take your comments sincerely, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Environmental concerns have absolutely nothing to do with guilt. When humans are responsible for ecological change -- whether it's the pollution of a single lake or an increase in greenhouse gases worldwide -- I could care less whether or not anyone feels guilty. What is far more pressing is what actions can be taken in the present so that as few people as possible now and in the future suffer and sacrifice as a consequence.
The very real and frequent public assertions that concern for the environment or concern for poor people or concern for those who face discrimination must be rooted in self-hatred and guilt, frankly, seem to me to be a far more pressing concern than the dubious guilt and self-hatred that they presuppose.
Chances of Fox commenting on the warm weather confirming climate change? ZERO.
It's going to snow next week up here!
Chances of Fox commenting on the snow disputing climate change? LIKELY.
When these folks on Fox tout abnormally cold temperatures, they are confirming global warming.
Unfortunately, Faux will be referring to the anomalous temperatures in the 80s and the batch of e-mails as proof global climate change doesn't exist until believing in it is more profitable than oil.
Why haven't all us "libruls" started vehemently pronouncing climate change non-believers, teaparty crazies, and (not to get too far off topic) anti- public option/single payer/universal healthcare miscreants as unpatriotic and savages? Isn't that what you do when "your president" is in power?
And the wonderful Inhofe comment was sarcasm!
Sounds like Jon has more in common with Sen. Inhofe than he thinks.
The oil companies wrote the Capand Trade Bill. You idiots still want this? You morons really want to be taxed 15% more on your electric bill? You tards really want this Cap and Trade garbage? Why? Because Al Gore supports it?
You really want Goldman Sachs running this carbon exchange?
If this email escapade stops cap and Trade, so be it. Only a real zombie would support this crap.
i'm no wing nut, however Cap and Trade is the end of working people. It will destroy us by taxing us to death, all because Al Gore said so? Get a grip, stop being sheep
The quote was 100% accurate...just incomplete.
You guys are thinking that "error" means a lapse in journalistic integrity. At Fox News? Come on.