Stewart and Colbert double team climate change deniers with a satirical approach that ends in a world of eternal darkness.

Our most popular post by traffic criticized both sides of the climate change debate for faulty reasoning. The logic typically goes like this: It’s unseasonably cold and snowing, therefore global warming is a myth. Or, it’s unseasonably warm and this particular weather event is extreme, therefore we’re experiencing climate change in real time. Both positions are absurd.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert took on the issue in an uncharacteristically redundant way. When both shows “cover” a story, it’s typically from much different angles. In both cases, the fake news hosts point out that one could just as readily conclude that night would become a permanent state after the sun had dropped behind the horizon.

Let us know who you think did a better job of illustrating the absurdity of denying (or supporting) climate change based on a single day or weather event.

Incidentally, do you think waning support for climate change action is partly the result of its complexity and the difficulty of communicating the nature of the threat in simple sound bytes? Is the science too complicated to inspire enough people to take the threat seriously? Do we need a different approach in addressing the core problem of climate change without relying on the highly politicized nature of climate change?

The Colbert Report on the bailout of U.S. automakers: Season of Giving.

“Instead of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we’re giving to Ford, Chrysler, and GM.”

We’ve written plenty about GM’s strategic mistakes and the pending bailout of Detroit’s Big 3 automakers, which started back in early September. We recognized that GM was heeding the wake-up call back in July. Alas, it was too little too late. The sad truth is that America’s Big 3 have to go. No amount of taxpayer dollars can save them. Throwing good money after bad doesn’t begin to describe what this will amount to.

This is no ordinary recession. It’s a fundamental restructuring of our economy, where untold trillions of wealth are being erased, never again to be recovered, along with just as much credit…the precious credit that afforded us a fictitious standard of living and false sense of security. We literally mortgaged our entire economy and quality of life over the past six years, and now it’s time to pay. It’s the bubble of all bubbles. And in the face of this, there is no way that Detroit can survive.

These are bloated, inefficient companies with sub-par products that had a tough time making real profits in the best of times. Not only are they not competitive with foreign automakers, they aren’t competitive with domestic companies that just happen to carry a foreign name. These companies can re-build Detroit if re-building Detroit is meant to be. Otherwise, GM is little more than a healthcare company that makes cars. If anything, that $34 billion should go to into a healthcare system that will enable U.S. companies to compete with foreign rivals that have no such costs. This goes for all types of companies.

On a more practical level, these funds should be used to help the workers who will lose their jobs, because they are going to be lost. Thirty-four billion dollars will only buy time, and then there will be nothing left to extend unemployment benefits or provide job training when the companies inevitably go under.

Detroit is like a homeowner who can’t afford to pay their mortgage. They’re looking for a restructuring and a bit of help. But one has to look at why they got themselves into this position in the first place and consider whether extending more credit or different terms is really going to produce a different result.

According to a recent report, “More than half of delinquent homeowners whose mortgages were modified earlier this year ended up redefaulting within six months. The high redefault rate raises concerns about the long-term effectiveness of loan modifications, which many are pushing as a key solution to the nation’s financial crisis.”

This is exactly what will happen with Detroit. Six months from now, they’ll be back in front of Congress asking for more. In other words, they’ll redefault.

The governemnt is powerless when it comes to supporting over-valued asset prices. Market forces are just too strong. Whether it’s General Motors or a condo in Miami, injecting government funds will only prolong the inevitable and make it more painful for everyone. We need to let the market do its thing. Just as forest fires are natural and necessary from time to time to clear the brush and make way for new growth, we need to find a bottom as quickly as possible so we can start to rebuild. In order for this to happen, there can be no Big 3 automakers. Certainly not the way we know them today.

Stephen Colbert gets into bed with Big Oil and celebrates the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling with a new ad campaign.

Now that the Congressional ban on offshore drilling has been lifted, Stephen Colbert and the Prescott Oil Company wants to drill, baby, drill.

Colbert hailed the lifting of the ban as a tremendous success, that will “reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1%…10 to 20 years from now.”

“It’s about time these oil companies caught a break,” he continued. “This has not been easy for them. Every time their profits go up, so do gas prices. They can’t win. And as for the environmental impacts of drilling, folks, no one cares more about the environment than oil companies.”

Prescott Oil has a new campaign that demonstrates its commitment to the environment, family values, and alternative fuels. In order to fulfill these commitments, the company needs for you to do your part and buy more of its oil.

But Prescott isn’t the first to make this logical connection between saving the environment and consuming more oil. Below are advertisements from Exxon, BP, Valero, Shell, and Chevron that all have the same inspiring message: the more oil you buy, the better off we’ll be. Can you guess which one was banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority for what amounts to greenwashing?

You may also want to have a box of tissues handy. There are some real tear-jerkers.

The Colbert Report interviews GM Vice Chairman and global warming skeptic Bob Lutz on the new 2011 Chevy Volt.

Bob Lutz is GM’s Vice Chairman and one of the world’s more high-profile global warming skeptics. Stephen Colbert invites him on the show to talk about the recently unveiled 2011 Chevy Volt. Lutz mentions that one of the options will be a photovoltaic roof panel for recharging the batteries or running the AC, much like the 2009 Toyota Prius. To which Colbert responds, “Can I actually charge this thing by plugging it into the cigarette lighter in my Hummer?”

On the subject of global warming, the two have some light back and forth:

Colbert: Why not just call this the Chevy Gore? You don’t believe global warming is real, you’ve said so.

Lutz: I accept that the planet is heated, but I, like many noted scientists, I don’t believe in the CO2 theory.

Colbert: Exactly! I just think that people are leaving their toaster ovens open. [Or] it’s just sun-spot activity.

Lutz: In the opinon of about 32,000 of the world’s leading scientists, yes.

We have no idea where Lutz gets the 32K figure. We’ve heard about the 400 scientists, which turned out to be 19. What’s so puzzling, however, about Lutz’s position and his citation of supposed scientists is that Big Oil has had these “scientists” on the payroll for the better part of a decade, specifically so they could promote this very skepticism. As we wrote in How to Debate Climate Change, “Most are aware that Big Oil supports disinformation campaigns and that it’s paying scientists to write articles undercutting the broad consensus on climate change.”

The irony is that Lutz and his ilk are buying this Big Oil propaganda. Meanwhile, his company’s cozy relationship with Big Oil has lead them to the verge of bankruptcy, unless American taxpayers come through with a bailout. The supreme irony is that the bailout is to help GM meet efficiency standards that it needs to achieve anyway to stay competitive with foreign automakers. When will they learn?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart calls McCain on offshore drilling double-talk and offers some comic relief for the financial crisis.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill compromise that lifts the ban on offshore drilling. This is similar to the bill being hammered out in the Senate that we fundamentally support. Of course, when both sides compromise no one ends up happy. But that’s the nature of politics.

“The House Democratic energy bill passed, pleasing basically nobody. Republicans called it a sham because it did little to bring more oil drilling; environmentalists think there’s too much drilling. The Senate has its own ideas. Bottom line, notes the WSJ, between the Senate’s stab at energy and the president’s veto, the energy bill is DOA. In fact, it’s little more than an invitation for environmentalists to sue, argues the WSJ edit page.”

The fact that it pleases nobody should be a signal that it’s good policy. Contrarily, when either side gets a hard-on about a bill, such as the Medicare prescription drug plan, it’s a clear sign that it’s pleasing lobbyists and special interests in a huge way. This bill does nothing of the sort. For the oil companies and the Republicans they support, it’s a superb example of “careful what you wish for.”

Jon Stewart also comments on the financial crisis. If you’ve ever watched CNBC, you know what he’s talking about when he calls them out for having their heads up their collective asses. Stocks are up? Better buy before they go higher! Stocks are down? It’s a buying opportunity! These stocks are on sale! That’s how the CNBC cheerleaders operate, constantly pumping the market. Congress should legislate a disclaimer for financial news shows. It’ll be a new crawl above the stock prices that says, “These journalists have no f’ing idea what they’re talking about.”

By our calculations, yesterday marked the day America officially slipped into a socialist economy. The $85 billion bailout of AIG means that our federal government is now one of the largest single shareholders, if not the largest. Upwards of $300 billion of taxpayer dollars, all of which is actually borrowed from foreign governments, has been put at risk…so far.

The New York Times tallies up investor losses for the past year: a cool $4 trillion. TechCrunch sums it up:

Citigroup: $236.7 billion to $97.8 billion.
Bank of America: $236.5 billion to $150.2 billion.
AIG: $179.8 billion to $32.3 billion
Goldman Sachs: $97.7 billion to $61.3 billion
American Express: $74.8 billion to $45 billion.
Morgan Stanley: $73.1 billion to $41.1 billion.
Fannie Mae: $64.8 billion to $700 million.
Merrill Lynch: $63.9 billion to $24.2 billion
Freddie Mac: $41.5 billion to $300 million.
Lehman Brothers: $34.4 billion to $2.5 billion.
Washington Mutual: $31.1 billion to $2.9 billion

The Daily Show juxtaposes George W. Bush’s 2000 acceptance speech with John McCain’s and exposes striking similarities.

On its final night of “covering” the Republican National Convention, The Daily Show kicked off the final 59 days of this election with two masterpieces of video archiving and editing. First, Steward cuts together a clip that shows McCain repeating many of the same empty promises that were made by George W. Bush in 2000 on issues like changing the tone of Washington D.C., fixing our failed education system, and bipartisanship. McCain even echoes Bush’s smaller details like a promise to share credit with the Democrats for all of the great things he plans to do.

The second is a mini-documentary that tells the story of McCain’s tragic fall from a free thinker to a partisan drone, starting in 2006 when he embraced the very same hate mongers he’d once referred to as “agents of intolerance”. He panders to the base by changing (some might say flip-flopping) his positions on both abortion and Bush’s tax cuts. And he contradicts himself about the Iraq war.

McCain has appeared on The Daily Show many times. Stewart clearly respects him, and you can see hints of reluctance after the first clip. McCain has sacrificed his integrity and succumbed to the dark side of partisan, neoconservative politics, all of which is driven by blind ambition. He must be defeated in November. If the economy is any indication, the Democrats should have it in the bag. Then again, no party is better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than the Dems.

Colbert spoofs the Democratic National Convention’s green efforts and transitions into an interview with Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

After more than a week off, the Colbert Report returns with a exceptional show. Following a bit where Colbert juxtaposes DNC commentary with B-roll from Burning Man, he explores the convention’s green efforts.

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr then joins Colbert for a quick interview in which he admits that anthropomorphic climate change aka global warming is real. He recounts how he was convinced by attending one of the WE events with Al Gore and, per the Libertarian platform, says that the market should figure it out.

We’ve quoted Libertarians before in reference to climate change and property rights. In principle, we’re very much aligned with Libertarian thought. However, most succumb to the dogma and fail to address issues reasonably. Climate change is a great example.

Global warming and all of its related crises have been caused by government meddling in the form of making oil cheaper than it ought to be through taxpayer subsidies, U.S. military protection, and so much persuasive foreign relations. The full costs of burning oil, coal, and natural gas have not been factored into the unit price; on the contrary, government has functioned to make them even cheaper than they should be. And for what? To line the pockets of corporations who control those resources at the expense of our health, economy, and national security.

Unregulated free markets also give us toys with lead, the mortgage and credit crisis, and a rash of health issues related to our food supply. Markets need to be free to the degree that they don’t do harm. That’s certainly open to interpretation, but the above examples demonstrate clear harm. And if those in the free market do harm, they ought to be held accountable.

In the best “Formidable Opponent” yet, Stephen Colbert debates offshore oil drilling with himself. We take the Democrats to task on blowing the issue entirely.

Energy has quickly become the issue of issues in this year’s election. It’s not so much that anyone cares about energy security or pollution. The debate is not about forward-thinking policy. It’s just that a gallon of gas costs too damn much. The solutions we hear are pretty surprising. Small government is great in principle until it costs you $150 to fill up your truck…at which point we expect the government to step in and make oil cheap again.

In fact, this is really an economic issue that is symptomatic of our buy-now-pay-later global economy, which is ultimately driven by the illusion of cheap oil. It’s artificially cheap, like a negative amortization mortgage, where we’ll be making up for that low, introductory rate from now until the day oil runs out completely.

The solution for many is to drill for more of it. Offshore drilling has become a so-called wedge issue. The take-charge Republicans are for it while the tree-hugging Democrats are against it. It’s ridiculous that this has even become an issue. Amazing as it is, the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to put them on the defensive and swing public opinion in their favor…despite having the Bush administration’s bottomless pit of scandal, incompetence, high crimes, and misdemeanors. If Obama loses, he should start his own party, because the Democrats will have proven themselves incompetent beyond repair.

Part of the problem is that the Democrats think the American people are in a position to figure out that offshore drilling is not a reasonable solution. Instead, these politicians come across as preaching from ivory towers while middle-class Americans struggle to make ends meet and find jobs. They can be excused for wanting and expecting a quick fix, even if it doesn’t make sense. Politics, in many ways, is like business: you have to know what your customers want and give it to them. Otherwise, you go out of business or get voted out.

Truth is, more drilling of any kind is not a solution. It’s going to happen sooner or later, but it’s not a solution. Instead, the reasoning goes like this: if the Democrats are opposed to offshore drilling for touchy-feely environmental reasons, then there certainly must be something to it. That’s not reason enough not to drill; it must be political; therefore, we must drill. Just in case something good can come from it. Because all I’m looking for is a sense of security. Offshore drilling is like the Homeland Security Advisory System, also known as the threat level. The threat of a terrorist attack and the price of gas don’t actually change, but our perceptions of them do…thanks to a color-coded chart and the lifting of executive and congressional bans on drilling.

Which is fine. Lift the ban. Then let oil companies deal with the states and so many environmental NGOs in the courts, while repealing taxpayer subsidies, which should be done anyway, and enacting environmental regulations in the next administration. It’s called picking your battles. For whatever reason, the Democrats consistently pick the wrong ones.

But here’s the reality (again). If we drill for offshore oil, it goes into the world market. It adds supply which can, in massive quantities, drive down prices. But it drives down prices for everyone. Even if offshore drilling drove down the price of oil in 10 years (it won’t), we’d be doing the world a huge favor at our own expense. Instead, if we develop domestic, renewable energy to replace oil, it stays here. We reap the lion’s share of the benefit in the form of more energy security, less pollution, more jobs, more exports, and lower prices.

Stephen Colbert tackles the issue in a Formidable Opponent segment (above) in which he debates himself. Part of his case (if you can call it that) is that the threat of additional oil supply from offshore drilling will spook speculators and drive down price. The assumption is that supply and output are not a problem and that speculators have driven up the price. There’s evidence of that lately with the sudden fall from $145/barrel to $117/barrel. This case can certainly be made. However, we’re more likely to attribute it to the unprecedented drop in demand, driven by a massive economic slowdown coupled with a fury of conservation. It’s a potent one-two punch.

Hilton proposes a reasonable solution to offshore drilling and the energy crisis. Where have we heard that before?

By now, you’ve all seen the Paris Hilton video (heh, heh), where she responds to the McCain campaign’s desperate attempt to paint Obama as a vacant celebrity by associating him with…vacant celebrities. We Tweeted about the McCain ad the day it was released. The Hilton response appeared on Funny or Die and has been making its rounds on cable news, YouTube, and the blogosphere ever since.

The Hilton video has been widely celebrated as well done, and we concur. Yes, it’s hot. And we’re sure this won’t be the last we’ll see from the latest “presidential candidate”. The most brilliant part (and this is truly miraculous) is that it actually makes Hilton sound informed and intelligent when it comes to energy policy.

Hilton says, “Why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidates’ ideas. We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will create new jobs and energy independence.”

In Part 3 of How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics, we said, “The solution for many conservatives is to drill for more oil. With prices at historic highs, that goes without saying. Market forces will certainly respond accordingly. In addition, President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling. This may very well be justified provided taxpayers don’t subsidize it and oil companies are forced to purchase bonds in excess of any possible cleanup costs associated with a spill (more on this later). So long as it makes economic sense under these conditions, it’s worth exploring.”

Congress should lift the federal ban and replace it with “strict environmental oversight” in the form of expensive bonds while removing oil subsidies and tax breaks. Then, as conservatives always champion, leave it up to the states to decide. All three west-coast governors oppose it, partly due to compromising the beauty (and resulting revenue) that draws millions to their spectacular coastlines.

But this also ignores the fact that offshore drilling will do nothing for gas prices or energy independence; not now and not in 10 years. If China is willing to pay more for that oil, that’s where it will go. It’s a global commodity that goes to the highest bidder. If we’re lucky, that extra supply might take a dollar or two off the price of oil, which benefits every country that uses oil just as much as it does the United States. Is that worth spoiling our coastlines for?

Anyone who’s been to Santa Barbara, which is arguably one of the most beautiful places on earth, knows what the offshore oil rigs do for the experience. We kayaked the Santa Barbara coast in a story for National Geographic Adventure, in which we explored the possibility of classifying it as a National Seashore. The one hurdle in terms of grouping this with Cape Cod and Padre Island is the oil infrastructure. There are clearly costs to offshore drilling that go far beyond exploration, and these need to be considered in any decision.

Lest we forget, the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill played a huge role in sparking the modern environmental movement, lead to the birth of Earth Day less than four months later, and precipitated the offshore ban on oil drilling in the first place.

Again, it should be up to the states, and it’s not entirely up to the people. In a representative democracy, we elect representatives to weigh the full scope of costs and benefits before making decisions that will affect these states for generations to come.

Stephen Colbert takes a curiously serious approach to an interview with The Green Lantern’s Brendan Koerner.

We’ve written about the conundrums faced by consumers in Indecision Green, where making the green or greener choice isn’t always clear. This includes everything from biofuel to light bulbs and the supreme question: paper or plastic?

Stephen Colbert invites Brendan Koerner of Slate’s The Green Lantern to weigh in with some expert opinion. (The Starbucks bit is from a previous segment.) Colbert manages to take it semi-seriously while staying in character by questioning whether you use your car’s AC or roll down the windows to “save gas…and thus the planet.” Koerner, as you’ll see, says the rule of thumb it to run the AC above 45 mph due to the drag coefficient of having the windows down at higher speeds. Otherwise, enjoy the breeze, conserve gas, and “save the planet”.