Appeal to Emotion and Temporal Flaw: By starting off his argument with comparisons to Hitler and Saddam, it doesn't really matter what he says after. This is a very subtle tactic that is extremely effective. The temporal fallacy is also present although it is even more flawed that just assuming we should do today what we did yesterday. The US did not intervene in WWII or invade Iraq because the leaders of these countries had used chemical weapons.
Stephen Colbert uses an appeal to emotion, inferring that if Steve Carell doesn't agree with the outlawing of hurricanes, then he hates children. This could also be seen as an ad hominem attack because Steve's position is against outlawing hurricanes, and Stephen is insinuating that Steve hates children, so his position is wrong. Steve Carell is equivocating the word "outlaw."
Peter concludes that "kerosene is red bull" from his premises that "all kerosene is fuel" and "all red bull is fuel." So diagramming: K ---> F and RB ---> F. Peter has kerosene which would allow him to properly conclude that it is fuel but he cannot use the fact that it is fuel to conclude that it is also red bull. Fuel is necessary to red bull, not sufficient. Don't just reverse!