Hump Day Hilarity – John Oliver’s Twist on Climate

Oliver_videocapJosh writes:

There have been a few tweets about this guy, John Oliver. He got Bill Nye to come on his show to debate a skeptic but then said he would need 96 other people alongside Bill to make it representative.

On the other hand, as we know, [] the alarmist arguments are so weak Bill Nye probably does need that amount of back up.


About these ads
This entry was posted in Humor, Satire and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Hump Day Hilarity – John Oliver’s Twist on Climate

  1. Gary Pearse says:

    Ok, I’ll bite. What are Oliver’s scientific credentials? I’d like to know how funny it really is.

  2. harkin says:

    Our youth are getting their news from clowns like this guy, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher……etc. Makes one weep.

  3. John Whitman says:

    {all bold emphasis mine}

    ‘Hump Day Hilarity – John Oliver’s Twist on Climate’

    – – – – – – – –

    It was funny, thanks Josh.

    But I was halfway expecting the post to be a climate related dig at Hilarity Rodman Clinton.


  4. Speaking of HRC, I might well be canned for being O/T, but do Americans really want somebody’s finger on that big red button who misremembered being under fire?

  5. James Ard says:

    John Who?

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    “. . . 96 other people alongside Bill to make it representative.

    One climokleptomanic fool is pretty much like all climokleptomanic fools. If there are too many on the stage speaking at the same time we wouldn’t know when to laugh.

  7. MattS says:

    “One climokleptomanic fool is pretty much like all climokleptomanic fools. If there are too many on the stage speaking at the same time we wouldn’t know when to laugh.”

    Sure we would. If their lips are moving it’s time to laugh.

  8. Greg says:

    “…. the alarmist arguments are so weak Bill Nye probably does need that amount of back up.”

    Bill Nye is a clown who job is entertaining children by dressing up as a wacky scientist with a silly tie. He probably needs that kind of back up to find his way to the toilet.

  9. Dave says:

    James Ard says:
    May 28, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    John Who?

    What he said…

  10. Chad Wozniak says:

    @John f. Hultquist –
    “Climokleptomaniac” – PRICELESS!! And how true!

  11. philjourdan says:

    They always try to debate the straw man, never the man.

  12. more soylent green! says:

    James Ard says:
    May 28, 2014 at 12:49 pm
    John Who?


  13. cynical_scientist says:

    He has become used to finding his humour by poking fun at the idiocies of the right. It is fertile ground for a humourist because lets face it, there are some really bizarre idiots lurking on the right. This leads to a certain lazy expectation that all fruitloops are to be found on the right and anything on the right is likely to be pure fruitloopery. However the right wing of politics does not have a monopoly on human idiocy and in the case of climate all the most bizarre things are happening on the left. Just go look at the twits on SkS amusing themselves by photoshopping themselves into nazi uniforms. You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

  14. Duster says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    May 28, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Ok, I’ll bite. What are Oliver’s scientific credentials? I’d like to know how funny it really is.

    Doesn’t really matter what his “science” creds are. What are his journalist creds?

  15. Sundance says:

    Oliver was a contestant in the UK ‘Upper Class Twit Of The Year’. He’s wearing #5 and he is funny.

  16. jdgalt says:

    At least you can sometimes argue with a comedian. The people we can’t argue with (but need to convince) are the ones who listen to the comedian for one sound-bite, then turn off the TV.

  17. neillusion says:

    Bit like the paranoid dyskeptic – kept thinking he was following someone.
    Not paranoid if he was.

  18. Brute says:

    Oliver… just another Stewart, that is, a self-appointed sociologist, intellectual, economist, historian,… but comedian when convenient. After all, this is just standup (and not very good but for Colbert) that is shot in a newsroom-like studio to push a claim of credibility on the gullible.

  19. noloctd says:

    Never heard of John Oliver and wouldn’t watch him even if he weren’t as big a fool as his 96 comment indicated. Bill Nye quite frankly wouldn’t know science if it came up and bit him on the behind. He’s essentially the court jester for the self annointed elite who dresses up in pretend [scientist] motley.

  20. AndyL says:

    He wouldn’t need 97 people to balance it out, he would only need 33 because the ratio is actually….

    oh never mind

  21. davidmhoffer says:

    AndyL says:
    May 28, 2014 at 2:50 pm
    He wouldn’t need 97 people to balance it out, he would only need 33 because the ratio is actually….
    oh never mind

    Good point.

  22. pat says:

    another laugh:

    “Years of Living Dangerously” fails to make the Top 100….again:

    TvByTheNumbers: Cable Ratings Monday 26 May 2014

  23. M Courtney says:

    I didn’t see this but I do know that the Now Show was a lot funnier before John Oliver left for the lure of the $US. He does have talent.

    And if you think his wit is blunted by partisan, political close-mindedness… look up Marcus Brigstocke. (not a comedian – just a left wing shockjock without the fleetness of thought.).

  24. pat says:

    btw some of the “Years” “celebrity” cast are off to the Caribbean next!

    27 May: HuffPo: Climate Change: A Challenge For Our Times
    by Ian Somerhalder, Actor
    We are but two short weeks away from the UN’s global World Environment Day
    celebrations on the 5th of June. This year, the theme focuses on the impacts
    of climate change on Small Island Developing States, our “canary in the coal
    mine” for what all low-lying and vulnerable areas will face in the not too
    distant future.
    I am really looking forward to heading to Barbados, this year’s WED host
    country, to witness first hand the problems the island is facing and the
    creative solutions it is coming up with to adapt to these challenge…
    However, this small nation has taken big steps to reduce its climate
    footprint and to provide clean, renewable energy, and opportunities for
    green economic growth, to its people. Among other things, it has pledged to
    increase the share of renewable energy across the island to 29 percent of
    all electricity consumption by 2029. This would cut total electricity costs
    by an estimated $283.5 million USD and reduce CO2 emissions by 4.5 million
    tons, according to the government.
    This year, I have been submerged, no pun intended, in climate change issues.
    I care deeply about this because as a Louisiana native I spent my childhood
    enjoying the beauty, wonder and delicate nature of the Gulf Coast…
    ***I was so fortunate to have also participated in the ground-breaking climate
    change documentary series, Years of Living Dangerously, produced by James
    When I found out about this series, my heart jumped out of my chest, because
    I realized — finally — this needs to happen now. It is hands-down the most
    important project I’ve ever been a part of.
    What scares me the most about climate change is that by some predictions
    half of all species on earth will be extinct within 50 years. We will be
    experiencing floods and droughts that will prohibit agriculture and
    fisheries. It’s going to be increasingly difficult for us to get food and
    water. And within that lies the balance of our very existence…
    It’s hard in these times to avoid eco fatigue, but fellow Goodwill
    Ambassadors Gisele Bündchen, Don Cheadle, ***Yaya Toure and I have joined
    forces to try to make taking action more fun. We are sending out an SOS to
    the world on behalf of Small Island Developing States. Our “message in the
    bottle?” We are all connected. The challenges faced by islands will face us

  25. Bob says:

    That was the dumbest video I have seen in a long time. They guy has a problem with numbers. What the heck is a mathematically correct debate, anyway? If you are right, you are right. I don’t think that 97% of any group agree on anything.

  26. kcom1 says:

    According to Einstein, one is sufficient, if the facts are there. If you need 97, perhaps you don’t have a lot of facts to work with.

  27. Patrick says:

    The British are renowned for their self-aware sense of irony. Unfortunately Oliver displays none of that in the idiotic quotation at the top. In the first part he rightly states that many a person makes “strident” statements about climate change without any reference to facts. In the second part he then stridently claims that “the world will be a complete ball of fire”. Thats irony you can’t even buy.

  28. Do keep in mind that the Oliver / Nye / skeptic vs 97 other people had to have a FAKE skeptic in the skit. No real skeptics were harmed in the recording of the video:

  29. Nye is a mechanical engineer…you know…like Pachauri. Bill worked on planes (at Boeing) while Rajendra got to work on trains at India Railways….makes you wonder who worked on automobiles…

  30. Canman says:

    I wonder if Bill Nye will be doing any debates when the Mann-Steyn trial finally starts. He wrote the forward for the new paperback version of Mann’s book. I’d like to see him try going against Andrew Montford or Ross McKitrick.

  31. Dave N says:

    John who? Could have put any number of names instead of John Oliver’s: Josh has nailed many alarmists, completely.

  32. mrmethane says:

    Saltspringson – you missed a great presentation by Tim Ball the other day. A bigger venue would work if you want to chat

  33. Michael Snow says:

    “…need 96 other people alongside Bill to make it representative.”…OR More

    “the 97 percent or so of climate scientists who say we have a big manmade problem…” at

  34. Michael Snow says:

    Don’t know if it has been noted here yet, but WSJ had and article on the 97 percent by Roy Spencer and Joe Bast.

  35. pat says:

    Michael Snow –

    i posted the Spencer/Bast WSJ piece on an earlier thread, but anyone who missed seeing it should read it. it took such a long time for the MSM to allow space for such an article. of course, it hasn’t taken long for the Guardian’s Climate Consensus crowd to condemn WSJ & everyone else in the article! i just came to comment here because of the “Oliver” reference:

    28 May: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli: The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
    The Rupert Murdoch media continues to deny the reality of human-caused global warming
    This week, they published an editorial denying the 97% expert scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The editorial may have been published as a damage control effort in the wake of John Oliver’s brilliant and hilarious global warming debate viral video, which has now surpassed 3 million views…
    The Wall Street Journal editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institutepolitical advocacy group of Unabomber billboard infamy, and Roy Spencer of “global warming Nazis” infamy…
    For example, in order to reject the findings of the paper my colleagues and I published last year finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, Bast and Spencer referenced a critical comment subsequently published by David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper was based on a blog postwritten by Christopher Monckton, who’s infamous for calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth.”…
    If Murdoch’s The Wall Street Journal keeps publishing editorials that flat-out deny reality, especially from people who compare those they disagree with to terrorists and Nazis, it will lose credibility and fall by the wayside as the rest of the world moves on to debate how to best solve the problem.

  36. tteclod says:

    Perhaps three competent climate scientists should accept Oliver’s challenge: 97 questions from 97 climate change disaster proponents versus 3 questions from 3 climate change disaster skeptics. Each side submits questions three months before the live broadcast event. They go first, and they don’t see our questions until 48 hours after we see theirs. We get 97 minutes broadcast time to answer 97 questions; they get three minutes to answer three questions. Ya’ll may have better questions, but here are my three.

    1. What will be the 30-day running average temperature at Mountain View, Arkansas, for next five years, beginning now?
    2. On July 22, 2020, how many more watts energy supply than the total power consumption of Britain could have been produced by all the wind turbines installed in Britain at peak power output on July 22, 2013?
    3. What total volume of water will pass through the Three Gores dam, Fort Peck dam, and Aswan dam during the 5 years beginning 5 years after now?

  37. sabretruthtiger says:

    I can’t stand that guy Oliver, he’s a smarmy, arrogant, condescending propaganda mouthpiece for the Globalist, liberal Communist, eco-fascist brigade.
    He relies on ridicule as an actual argument as opposed to real facts.

  38. pat says:

    VIDEO: 28 May: Newsmax: John Fund: Media Plays Up Global Warming Despite Hits to Ratings
    Coverage of so-called global warming by CNN and other news outlets is driven purely by agenda without regard for ratings, according to John Fund, a Newsmax contributor and national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.
    And that includes playing down a Wall Street Journal report that debunks Secretary of State John Kerry’s warning about 97 percent of the world’s scientists believe climate change must urgently be addressed.
    “I don’t think you’re going to see CNN and all these other networks that love to talk about global warming talk about the hoax of the 97 percent,” Fund told Dennis Kneale, guest host of “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.
    “They’re going to keep talking about this until frankly, no one is watching. Now Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, is an honest man.
    ***”He said last week at a major journalist dinner in New York … look I know these things don’t get any ratings. I know no one is watching. We’re going to have to find new ways to get these stories on the air so people will finally watch it.”
    But that approach is not about reporting the news, according to Fund.
    “That is driving an agenda. And I credit Jeff Zucker for being an honest liberal because he’s admitted he’s not about reporting, he’s about shoving things down people’s throats,” he said…

  39. pat says:

    Lindsay/Salon’s two cents worth:

    28 May: Lindsay Abrams: WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
    97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise
    PHOTO CAPTION: Rupert Murdoch
    First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers…
    They’re right, of course: The “97 percent” statistic was never meant to establish a consensus on the dangers of climate change. (They’re right, too, that in it’s decontextualized state, it’s sometimes used to mean more than it should. When President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” that last clause wasn’t technically accurate.)…
    Writing in the Washington Post, Jason Samenow said as much last year:

    – What the consensus study does not address is the level of concern about the human role of climate change expressed in the studies surveyed or by the studies’ authors. Nor does it provide a sense of what the studies say about how severe climate change will be, and the consequences. –

    What they’re really trying to do is keep us from moving on to the actual debate, which is no longer about whether scientists agree that climate change is happening: it’s about whether the world should continue to barrel down the highway at breakneck speeds without the benefit of seat belts. Bast and Spencer believe we should. No wonder they don’t want to make that argument — it’s hard to imagine how they could even begin to defend it.
    (Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on all things sustainable.)

  40. pat says:

    John Fund didn’t make it up!

    21 May: Huffington Post: Jack Mirkinson: CNN’s Jeff Zucker: Climate Change Coverage Bores Our Audience
    Capital New York watched New York Times reporter Bill Carter quiz Zucker on Monday at an event for the Deadline Club. Carter pointed out that the network has received quite a bit of criticism for its climate coverage, which has often been found to be either paltry or problematic.
    Zucker candidly said that climate change “deserves more attention,” but that he was merely following the ratings.
    “We haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way,” he said. “When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”…

    20 May: CapitalNewYork: Jeff Zucker talks CNN’s post-plane plans
    Carter asked if the network, which has been criticized for its oversight of climate change, might devote more live airtime to the subject.
    “Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about,” Zucker said, “but we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”…

  41. Philip Schaeffer says:

    Hmm. Anyone got any ideas of what the rough percentage of climate scientists who disagree with the mainstream view on global warming would be? I certainly haven’t seen much of a flood of dissenters showing up here. Where are all these other climate scientists who agree with the view round here? Am I really to believe that out of all the climate scientists out there, that only a few show up here because of the worldwide ‘spiracy?

  42. Gareth Phillips says:

    I think Philip that is the old story of reductionism. There are of course dissenters to a greater or lesser degree, most scientists I know believe the vast majority of what is considered main stream science others believe most of it, some believe less, I know of none who reject all of it. There is no such thing as a believer or a denier, there are just shades, most of which tend towards belief. I think if a scientist or academic did have some misgivings, they would have to be very brave to post on this site. I’m not sure such an action would do their careers a lot of good. Mavericks in science can sometimes achieve much and become very famous, but for every successful maverick, there are many who are just plain wrong. The other difficulty is that in debating o this site you end up fending off a substantial amount of detracting personal attacks which can derail the debate, which to be honest many people with something useful to say would rather just avoid.

  43. knr says:

    Philip Schaeffer actual no one knows how many climate scientists there actual are , partly because there is no actual agreed definition of what a ‘ climate scientists’ is agreed definition of what a ‘ climate scientists’ is .
    Worth remember that the next time the 97% BS claim is made . How you can claim with any degree of accuracy worth a dam what percentage a sub-group is when you don’t have any idea of the size of the whole group it’s a sub-group off , remains a mystery to me. Still it is has valid has claiming nine out of ten cats prefer.

  44. DirkH says:

    sabretruthtiger says:
    May 28, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    “I can’t stand that guy Oliver, he’s a smarmy, arrogant, condescending propaganda mouthpiece for the Globalist, liberal Communist, eco-fascist brigade.
    He relies on ridicule as an actual argument as opposed to real facts.”

    He’s a leftist, and a troll, but I repeat myself.

  45. DirkH says:

    …and I think it will become helpful to characterize leftist media trolls as such; just as many leftist / statist talking points are based on simple trolling techniques. I would go so far as to say that most of TV news consists of trolling, and nearly all what goes for “debate” amongst politicians.

    When we recognize the trolling (and in TV boradcasters, that’s the equivalent of click bait, to drive up viewership through manufactured outrage / 2 minute hate) for what it is, we can easily dismiss it entirely and separate it from factual arguments – which are few and far between, though even the left might once in a blue moon have one.

    It is time to build spam filters for MSM content. They produce 98 % spam.

  46. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    Following John Oliver’s logic an atheist should be presented with a similar crowd assembled from different religions.

  47. Bob Layson says:

    And when CAGWers, as they are wont to do, set up a straw man to knock down he often wins on points*.

    *That is, on points unconsidered or disregarded.

  48. Eric H says:

    Was this the idiot who said that it is ridiculous to cite surveys of opinions on facts, and then hosted a live poll of “scientists” to demonstrate that their opinion must be true because more scientists believe it? I recall thinking while I was watching it whether he had ever heard of publication bias and epicycles.

  49. Justa Joe says:

    Meet the new Piers Morgan same as the old Piers Morgan

  50. wobble says:

    He got Bill Nye to come on his show to debate a skeptic but then said he would need 96 other people alongside Bill to make it representative.

    I hope people on Twitter poked fun at this idiot’s math. He would only need 96 other people if he had THREE skeptics on. If he only had one skeptic on his show, then he’d only need 32 other alarmists alongside Bill Nye to get the proper 97 to 3 ratio. How can people that are so obviously clueless about math and science dare to laugh at skeptics?

  51. wobble says:

    the proper 97 to 3 ratio.

    Sorry, this should have read, “the supposed 97 to 3 ratio.” There’s nothing proper about that ratio.

  52. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Wobble – nice math. Those who can’t add shouldn’t lead.

  53. Clovis Marcus says:

    I wonder why it wasn’t 100%

    I’d like to find the 3% who don’t think the climate changes and don’t there is some human influence on it. They may need some education.

Comments are closed.