tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central October 27, 2011 9:00am-9:30am PDT
comedy central [cheering and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show." my name is jon stewart. man! we got a good one for you tonight. our guest, oh, this is true, particle physicist lisa randall. so get ready to get your learning on. yo. trying to get kids interested in science. what up, [bleeped]? but first we're coming up on the second anniversary of a scandal that rocked the scientific community. no, it's not the discovery of albert einstein's lingerie collection. [laughter] e equals mc... i'm talking about climate-gate, the 2009 controversy surrounding possible irregularities in climate research data. >> some stolen e-mails are
giving encouragement to global warming sceptics. >> hackers seized a file of more than 1,000 e-mails. >> in those e-mail, some climate scientists seem to be suggesting that perhaps they're massaging the data. >> jon: ah, and then releasing it. yes. [laughter] hacked e-mails suggested that some global warming scientists were guilty of massage with release. [laughter] ironically giving their critics erections. >> climate-gate has revealed that global warming and that movement is run by hacks and frauds. >> the global warming hoax continues to be exposed and debunked. >> one of the things we have learned through climate-gate with the e-mails is this is an unsettled science. >> perhaps it may even be fraud. >> jon: poor al gore, global warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented.
[laughter] me from, really, that's only two years ago? [laughter] i'm aging in dog years. well, since climate-gate, it's no surprise that the number of americans who believed in global warming has been dropping from 7 % in 2006 to only 59% now. it's change of 20% or minus 6.6% celsius or 266 calvin percent. i got a scientist on tonight. i've been reading up on this [bleeped] all day. all right. [applause] if only... if only an impartial arbiter could come in, remove the warming debit's political implications and just examine the science. and if only that person could be
funded in large part by two titans of a seldom-heard constituency of the global warming debate, the oil industry. [laughter] yes, richard muller, the berkeley physic's professor that took on the charge of re-examining climate data had as his biggest private funders, the koch brothers. no, not those two. different coke brothers. those guys i don't even think are brothers. that's the guys. charles and david koch. so you see where this research is going. sure enough last week sceptical doc muller announced his results in an op-ed in the "wall street journal." whoa, global warming is real. did not see that coming. yes, the study funded by the koch brothers confirms that the original research was actually correct. the earth is getting warmer or,
judging by this graphic, getting more embarrassed. [laughter] climate-gate was a huge news story. i bet debunking climate-gate is going to be hoosier. -- hoosier. >> foodies of the world rejoice, the mcrib is back. >> time to literally pig out again. >> the boneless barbecue pork sandwich will be on the menu until november. >> we also found a mcrib locator web site. >> how excited are you about the mcrib? >> i can't believe there's pork in the mcrib. i thought it was kosher. [laughter] >> jon: you know, they reintroduce the mcrib every [bleeped] year. it's not big news. reintroducing the mc-dlt or shamrock shakes all year long, that's big news. i don't get this, man. climate-gate was huge news. the debunking of climate-gate got a total of 24 seconds of cable news coverage.
liberal media, doh! global warming real. you win this round, science, but what do you really want? what's your end game? aasif mandvi has more. >> science claims it's working to cure disease, save the planet and solve our greatest mysteries, but what's it really up to? from global warming... >> i don't believe global warming is real. >> to evolution... >> absolutely not. i don't believe in that. >> to the h.p.v. vaccine. >> her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. >> it seems science is up to something. >> there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects. >> could these republican candidates be right? tonight we answer the question: science -- what's it up to? to get the cold, hard facts on
science, i sat down with republican strategist noelle macfore. >> scientists are scamming the american people right and left for their own financial gain. >> now, do you have any, i don't want to say evidence, not data. >> i think every american, if they really thought about it, would have a gut feeling that some of these numbers that the scientists are putting out are not right. >> i knew it. i knew it. i knew it. i mean, i didn't know it, but i knew it. >> one of the most notorious swindlers is columbia biology professor, nobel prize winner dr. martin chalfey. i caught up with him at his luxurious palace of science. i'll play along here. what are you studying?
>> i'm studying nerve cell development. >> yeah, the oldest grift in the book, right, the old switcheroo. >> probably no other occupation has so many people questioning what they do all the time. and demand that you confirm the experiment. >> but even that's a neat little trap. >> scientists are the only people qualified to comment on scientific theories. this is what raises doubt with not only republicans but americans. >> it's like why are sure jobs the only ones allowed to perform surgeries and other surgeons are the only ones who get to say whether or not this surgery is necessary or not, right? >> absolutely. >> doesn't make any sense. >> it never makes any sense. >> and the only other people that can check to make sure that they're not manipulating... >> are other scientists. >> they're very smart, these scientists. >> that's what i'm saying. >> it's all too obvious once you
know the scam. >> it's not really a scam. all that we do in science is subjected to a process called peer review. >> but who are your peers? >> the peers are other scieists. >> bingo. it's like you went on trial for rape and the jury is full of rapists. i mean, how are you different from a rapist in >> definitely not a rapist. >> that's what a wipist would say. [laughter] tell me how you are not a rapist? >> am i really supposed to answer this? >> the worst part is the rapists are coming for your children. >> thousands of elementary school students, high school students do science fair projects, and they do a spectacular job. >> you're a sick [bleeped]. you're not going to get away with this. with our most vulnerable at stake, i went undercover to a national science fair to try to save them from science. >> i investigated l.e.d. material using quantum physics. >> jesus, what have they done to
you? i needed to open their eyes. >> i did a simulation of dark matter effects on galaxies. >> you're just a bright-eyed kid stepping off the school bus wanting to know how the universe works. >> yeah. >> who told you this data is true? >> my brain got me this conclusion and these results. >> stop listening to your brain and start listening to your hearts. years from now a video pops up on the internet and you'll break your parents' heart. >> my parents support me. they think science is good. >> pretty soon you're hooked on that grant money, looking for next big score. that's how it works. is that what you want? >> yes. [laughter] >> what? >> yeah. it's taught me a lot. >> what i witnessed was heartbreaking, and sadly whether science is peddling quantum physics or evolution, the corruption of our children happens every day right under our noses. >> it's very confusing for a child to be only taught
evolution to, go home to a household where their parents say, well, wait a minute, you know, god created the earth. >> what is the point of teaching children facts if it's just going to confuse them. >> it confuses the children when they go home. we as americans, we're paying tax dollars for our children to be educated. we need to offer them every theory that's out there. it's all about choice. it's all about freedom. >> i mean, it should be up to the american people to decide what's true. >> absolutely. doesn't it make common sense? >> tragically, the future offers little hope. do you want to be a scientist? >> yeah. >> this country is in big trouble and it's all because of people like you. >> sorry. >> sorry is not good enough. >> aasif mandvi. >> jon: welcome back.
well, it's wednesday. you know what that means? time for our occupy wall street round-up. how are things going amongst those who have taken to the streets to protest our nation's wealth inequality? oh, new york, adorable. philly, going very well down. there cincinnati, the queen city. oh, washington, d.c., so nice they won't let us join the union. and oakland, how are things --
[laughter] [bleeped] happened in oakland? didn't you guys hear the bucolic bugs bunny wake-up music? what's going on, oakland? chill out. very slowly, tell me what happened? >> they were there for about two weeks. things were pretty much peaceful during that period. and then police saw the situation deteriorating in terms of a public safety threat. they saw health conditions getting bad, so they decided to get rid of those protesters to tell them to disband. >> jon: so the city was concerned about a public safety threat, so they did this. [gunfire] seems a little heavy handed. unless was one of the protesters godzilla? [laughter]
that would justify an attack. not that there weren't ruffians out there. okay. that kid looks like trouble. i bet that professor's class is dull. oh, are you [bleeped] kidding me? that guy was a public menace? what do you think, that chair comes on ramming speed in come on. look, i know a self-selected group of people can't take over public space forever. it's public space. it's for everyone, including people who don't consider drum circles to be sleepy time music, but seems to me there might have been a less... [ismtates machine-gun fire] way of resolving this. if you don't want the protesters to occupy that space because it's across from city hall, you know, those kinds of things, i'm sure you have plenty of nice public areas.
jack london square right there, boom. popular area down by the water frongtd. maybe that. what about the oakland coliseum. it's october. you know the a's aren't going to be using it. boom! boom! baseball slam. [applause] did i just tear my rotator cuff making a joke? listen, oakland, i know you want to keep the peace while respecting people's right to assemble, but it's hard to watch your reaction to this group of protesters with the tear gas when every sunday you host an occupation for these folks. the mad max re-enactors club, because believe me, they start peeing in public, a lot sooner than those other protesters. we'll be right back.
>> welcome back. my guest tonight, a physics professor at harvard university, also a bestselling author. her new book is called "knocking on heaven's door: how physics and scientific thinking illuminate the universe and the modern world." please welcome lisa randall. hello. [cheering and applause] thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me here. >> jon: it's called "knocking on heaven's door: how physic and scientific thinking illuminate the universe and the modern world. physics and science illuminate the universe and the modern world. why do we fight so hard not to be illuminated by it? >> that is a really good yes,
and i don't know the answer. i find it so fascinating and exciting, but i guess part of the reason might be that some of the ideas are removed from what we see in our daily lives. they're not necessarily the most intuitive. so we have to get outside the frame of human scales or human sizes and think about what's really going on at places where you actually need technology to make measurements. but my hope is that if people learn more about it or are aware of it then they won't be so afraid and they will be more interested. >> jon: i thought it was interesting to watch in the first part, there's a sense that this is very complicated, and it sounds made up. [laughter] so you must be making it up and then it's a very easy thing to say, and the reason you're making it up is because you're working for the democrats. [laughter] you know, somehow... i don't understand how it becomes a political issue. it's a very strange little turn that happens there. >> and part of the problem i think is that we actually don't always talk about the science. we're a little bit afraid to
talk about the science itself. we talk about people. when we report, this person said this, this person said that. and that's not the same as really understanding what is at the root of it. and it's also true that science isn't always entirely predictive at 100% level. that's part of the nature of science. that's why we still have research. and that's not a bad thing. and because we so much want science to just say, this is the way it works, we sometimes lose that and we lose the fact that this uncertainty is actually interesting. it's place people can think and you want to understand the assumption, understand the questions people are asking, so you can move forward. >> jon: i always felt that the more you learn from scientific research, the more mysterious and incredible the universe becomes. you know, even if you learn exactly what happened at the big bang, what a particle is or whatever other things you clearly are making up, that doesn't discount, that doesn't ever get... i don't think we'll ever get to the point where we know everything and therefore there's no room for god or faith
or anything. is that... why are they incompatible? >> well, okay. first of all, i another say the fact there are all these questions is fantastic. first of all, it would be weird if we lived at the one time where we suddenly knew all the answers. that's what gives us room to do stuff. but in terms of room for god, people can think whatever they want. there's room for social implications or psychological, but science actually tells us a very definite way of moving forward. it doesn't say we know the answer to everything. it says this is what we know. this is the degree of precision with which we know it, and this is how we can move forward, an we can move forward by studying things that we can test. we can have ideas. we don't yet know the answer. that was the title of my book, "knocking on heaven's door" was supposed to convey the idea that we do know a lot, but there is an edge beyond it that we're still trying to pry open. and so this is what signs does. and there's nothing wrong with that. >> do you think the confluence of science and the individual...
has science gotten so complex and our knowledge gotten so great that we still have room for things like, you know, we had walter isaacson steve jobs, this guy in his garage took what was the forefront of semiconductor science and could still in his garage fashion new and incredible things that would help you play pong. [laughter] are we at a point where that still will be able to... is there a vanguard of that can still occur with the individual? >> look, you know, when people were working out in the early 1300s how it is this at tom could make sense with nucleus and electrons, they weren't thinking about pong. many years later people found that, wow, this has implications. there's semiconductor industry. we can do electronics. and it changes the world. i don't think we always know what those things are at the time we're doing it. but somehow it seems that these advances come maybe not exactly
in tandem but certainly when we have more knowledge to think through them. >> jon: is there any... why do you think the further we get into it, we're still stuck in that fossil fuel, you know, engine, and we haven't been able for 100-some years with all the advances we made in so many areas, why energy is still somewhat in its 1880s, 180 r 90s form still. >> this is part of the problem. because i'm the scientist doesn't mean i know the answer to that question. >> here's the thing. here's part of the answer. you can say anything and i would have no idea what the hell you're talking about. >> because i don't think the answer is entirely science. i think part of it is science. there isn't a magic bullet yet. they haven't developed the new battery that's going to replace everything at this point. and that's a difficult science. and it doesn't happen the way the web happens or things expo innocent estimate. you have to do some hard research to come up with something. i think obviously there's a lot of entrenched business interests. there's a lot of other things involved that have nothing to do
with science. and i think that gets confused, how science interfaces with the world. that's why it's important to know a scientific thing and how it's being used. >> it's so nice to finally have someone come on and tell us to our faces it's all a big scam. and i really appreciate it. thank you very much. knocking on heaven's door. you got to get this. lisa randall.