Lower Than This They Cannot Stoop

Guest Post by Thomas Fuller

Depending on when this gets posted, the post Anthony put up titled “O…M…G – Video explodes skeptical kids in bloodbath” may have sunk quite a bit down the pile of posts–Anthony and his squad are prolific posters.

But it can’t get any lower than the content shown in 10 10’s video. A relatively innocuous campaign to persuade people to lower their own emissions by 10 percent has pretty much exploded (literally) any hope that the debate can rise above the Wes Craven level. What’s next? The Last House on the Left… Isn’t Insulated?

The idea that blowing up skeptics is the proper response isn’t at all new–and skeptics have known this for ten years, if the drivel I get in my inbox is any indication at all. The very phrase ‘denier’ comes from a concerted campaign to show skeptics (and lukewarmers like myself, although we often get the double whammy title delayer and denier) as equivalent to those who denied the Holocaust occurred.

There has been a concerted campaign to paint everyone who does not agree with Al Gore and James Hansen as monstrous, ranging from allegories with the railroad trains filled with coal heading to some concentration camp to the late Stephen Schneider’s pathetic paper attempting to assert primacy and purity by miscounting academic publications.

But this is hate speech, pure and simple. It legitimizes almost any action against or characterization of those who do not agree with the most hysterical version of Catastrophic and Cataclysmic Climate Change–shoot ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.

Using ten-year-old kids as both props and victims is a particularly nice touch.

When DDB created an ad for the WWF showing planes crashing into the World Trade Center as an advertisement asking for support for green activism, it was grotesque, tasteless and an insult to all who suffered losses on September 11th, 2001. It would have been impossible to imagine a cruder, less sensitive call to green action.

Until now.

For any of those on the activist side who wonder why skeptics (and lukewarmers) don’t trust the communications put forward by their team, they might wonder just how much any sign of reason might be contaminated by the stench from garbage like this.

Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller

About these ads

133 thoughts on “Lower Than This They Cannot Stoop

  1. I’ve already sent an email to the Club. I’m ashamed to be a Spurs fan.

    It’s embarrassing on so many levels.

  2. Well Tom, infortunately you could say the same thing about democrats/liberals.
    When they run out of ammo, name calling is all they have left.

    I know how this racist, ignorant, homophobe, trailer trash feels.
    The more they do it, the worse they look….

    …now where did I put my bible and guns

  3. How about a video showing the consequences of:

    Insufficient energy to support third world citizens because it has been priced out of their reach with millions dying in squalor.

    Poverty rife in the western world as the lights go out while the windfarms crumble.

    Mercury from all those energy saving light bulbs contaminating our homes and workplaces.

    Starvation worldwide as food prices rise from the increased cost of pesticides and fertilisers.

    Running out of scarce resources far sooner than expected because of the quantities required for electric vehicles.

    A huge mountain of dead vehicle batteries unable to be safely disposed of.

    Vast quantities of uneconomic premature technology having to be consigned to the scrapheaps as we find improved systems for eneregy production.

    And then prominent alarmists being blown up in a similar fashion.

    The silly zealots would be screaming from the rooftops at such a portrayal despite it’s manifest truth as regards the merits of their campaign.

  4. “The Last house on the left” – is not insulated

    Ha ha ha, how about………

    “The Hostel” – That’s what you get for taking a plane to Slovakia
    “The Texas chainsaw massacre” – Better use for a chainsaw than cutting down trees
    “The Shining” – You kept the heating on in that huge hotel for just three people?!!!
    “Halloween” – Yea, I’ve got a trick in store for you alright
    “Jaws” – If the shark don’t get you, the acid water will

  5. You are taking this way too seriously, Tom. It is an amusing video precisely because it plays on the apparent paranoia in your article – the notion that those on my side of the debate are planning on deadly reprisals against sceptics. It is fun to pretend to have a persecution complex, but sad to have a real one.

  6. ” David Gould says: September 30, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    You are taking this way too seriously, Tom. It is an amusing video precisely because it plays on the apparent paranoia in your article – the notion that those on my side of the debate are planning on deadly reprisals against sceptics. It is fun to pretend to have a persecution complex, but sad to have a real one.”

    – Yes, you are right . The Jews had also a persecution complex. They just couldn’t appreciate the nazis’ funny jokes. And the millions of people killed by the left under Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu and co also lacked the sense of humor. What can one expect from the bourgeois and capitalists? The left was joking and they just didn’t appreciate it. Otherwise they all would have had a good laugh of the good jokes done in those concentration camps. Ha, ha… how funny to see people blowing up people! And James Lee, the eco-terrorist, he was just joking and the hostages just didn’t have a sense of humor, they were paranoia.

  7. mircea ,

    Um, equating actual atrocities with comedy violence is … well, I could use strong words but I will go with ‘silly’.

  8. Jimasherman ,

    Sure do, Jimasherman. :)

    I have already been referred to that. The existence of irrational lunatics does not mean that comedy violence is not funny.

  9. Tom Fuller,

    People can stoop lower than the video. For example commenter David Gould stoops lower than the video by saying that if we don’t think it is humorous then we have some pyschological problem.

    There is no bottom . . .

    John

  10. David Gould-why do you support the murder of children?
    children who think for themselves.
    Murder is not funny.
    genocide is not funny.
    My late father in law liberated Dachau.
    He told the story of piles of bodies and
    living skeletons. If you think that this is funny,
    Dachau must be a laugh riot…

  11. Yes, there is clearly something sadly desperate about this video. Now if the Brits made a similar piece on regular dental treatment – that would provide a sensible application of the precautionary principle.

    Also, I am suspicious that Crouch has had his legs surgically reduced, in a deliberate attempt to annoy defenders. Either that or his stilts are corroding in the warm moisture which passes for climate disruption in London.

  12. David Gould says: September 30, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    “mircea , Um, equating actual atrocities with comedy violence is … well, I could use strong words but I will go with ‘silly’.”

    What? Now you lost your sense of humor? It’s funny… Here it is a guy who doesn’t follow the authority and the authority blows him up. Ha, ha, ha … what a good joke!

  13. Anthony Watts,

    Didn’t you already ask that question? I am guessing that, for whatever reason, you want the answer in this thread, too. No problem: yes, I do. Editor, writer and researcher, in case you’re interested. :)

    • Sorry I didn’t see it in the other thread but I did see a lot of responses from you here.

      Moderating via Blackberry

      I was wondering if there might be anything you could do to help the Thompsons?

  14. Douglas Dc,

    Umm, you may have missed it, but this video is *fiction*. Equating Dachau to fiction is a … odd, to say the least. My grandfather was Jewish, so it is really a bit personally insulting. But thinking that me finding fictional violence amusing means that I support the murder of children perhaps indicates that you are not thinking clearly at the moment, and so I will cut you some slack.

  15. I have not bothered to look at it, but perhaps this is an out-growth of the computer-game mentality where you imagine yourself as ‘Wonder Man’ out to save the planet from the big-oil monsters and blast as many of them away as possible to get the highest score. I would not be surprised if someone were not developing a computer-game with this theme right now.

  16. Anthony Watts,

    Unfortunately, my influence extends precisely nowhere. I could write a letter to the federal minister for agriculture that *might* have *slightly* more chance of being read by someone in a position to do something, but that would be about it. And it appears to be a state matter, rather than a federal one. A further complication is that the federal government is Labor and the state government Liberal.

    Perhaps the best advice I could offer is for the family to contact Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the three country independents. Tony Crook, a National Party member from WA but one who wishes to be considered as an Independent, might also be well worth a shot. These people have power in the new hung parliament.

  17. What would alarmists call this sick [snip]?

    I guess they would call it “edgy” or something, I don’t know.

    Go ahead, delete my post for calling it “sick [snip]” but that’s exactly what it is.

  18. “Jimasherman ,

    Sure do, Jimasherman. :)

    I have already been referred to that. The existence of irrational lunatics does not mean that comedy violence is not funny.

    Here’s the deal David.
    I feel strongly about this so I switched up to my full name.
    This is not comedy violence. No matter how you cut it I am not getting the joke. Nor is it absurd enough to be in the Monty Python, Blackadder realm with which I am quite familiar.
    It is quite apparent that people who find it funny fall into two categories.
    A: people that are already propagndized to be enthusiastic to the point of fanatacism about the “Climate Crisis”, and they are a bunch of nutters as we have seen in great detail.
    and
    B: people who find it so over the top that they do not even believe that this is what we in the USA would cal a PSA ( Public service announcement) in advertisement if a political public participation event, sponsored by fanatical NGO’s.

    Pick yer poison wisely .

  19. Well, fictional violence, as in Wile E Coyote and Elmer Fudd and so forth, is amusing.

    Fictional violence, as in A Clockwork Orange, is disturbing.

    Given the propensity for the AGW crowd to label sceptics as denialists (and thus equate them to holocaust denialists) it behoves them avoid going overboard, it would seem to me. Or perhaps they just can’t help themselves … perhaps it is like Bush derangement syndrome. (Climate Sceptics Derangement Syndrome, anyone?)

  20. mircea ,

    Again you are failing to make the distinction – often considered crucial – between reality and fiction. Things that are funny in fiction are often horrific in reality.

    Fiction.
    Reality.

    The key thing to remember here is *they are not the same thing*. I hope that I have helped. :)

  21. Jimasherman,

    By my own estimation, I am in neither category – your opinion as to my mental state may differ, of course. :)

    I find it amusing in large part *because* of the over the top reaction to it. People here are claiming that *because I find this video funny I must support the murder of children or find Dachau a barrel of laughs*. Those are their – apparently – serious claims. Surely you agree that that is either hilarious or very, very sad.

  22. I am thinking perfectly clear Mr. Gould. My wife’s gr. grandfather was Jewish,her mother and father belonged to B’nai B’rith. They belonged because of my father in law
    and his experiences in liberating Dachau. I realize I am just an old Eastern Oregon Redneck, not as sophisticated as you, but. Killing Children in a bloody cloud is not funny. Period.
    Mien Kampf was fiction. The fiction of a clouded,evil mind. Look where it led.
    I work with young people. This “Comedy” “work of fiction” could easily erupt in
    reality. I knew an old man.He was raised in Hitler’s Germany. He went to Hitler
    Youth. He hated Jews, Gypsies, and Gays. His days spent in the seat of a flack 88
    as a young teen, in April, 1945 got him captured by the Americans. If head been
    Captured by the Russians he probably would’ve been dead. He wrote of his indoctrination. He would talk to anyone who would listen to him. He was a
    Nuclear Engineer I knew at the Hanford area. He said”Dehumanization is the
    first step to the ovens.” This video dehumanized those who disagree. Dehumanization is the first step to the end described by- mircea, and my friend.
    As we speak, there is a Terrorist that may or may not have been thwarted by
    the USA,Britian, Germany et.al. These young people were warped by bad men and
    their ideas. Also the perverting of a Religion.
    Yes, it is a stretch, but one that has been made before.

  23. I can only imagine the outrage and “danger” if such a video were produced about abortion , politicians, or many other subjects.

    How about a video of Muslims being blown-up? Would that be funny because it plays on the paranoia of American’s hating Muslims and wanted them gone? What a joke that would be on Muslims! Laughter for everyone!

  24. Richard Sharpe says:
    September 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    “Given the propensity for the AGW crowd to label sceptics as denialists (and thus equate them to holocaust denialists) ”

    Oh for petes sake! I stopped using the word “denier” because people claimed I was making a link with Holocaust deniers, so I switched to “denialist” which was probably better as I think of such people as in denial of an addiction.
    Now Richard is saying Holocaust deniers are actually “holocaust denialists”.

  25. David Gould,

    Patronizing with statements that we just do not get the joke and lecturing on how fiction cannot be compared to reality in this case?

    You are joking of course.

    John

  26. If it’s a joke, I don’t get it. If it’s a piece of vile propaganda, I do get it.
    =============================

  27. John Whitman,

    Seriously: people here are *directly comparing this video with the Holocaust*. And I am *patronising* them by pointing out that one is fiction and the other reality?

    I am indeed poking fun. In response to that idiocy, what other options are open to me?

  28. latitude says: …now where did I put my bible and guns

    No worries, I’ve got a whole truckload of them in my fallout shelter so I can loan you a few. Need any beer and chili-cheese-dogs? Got those with nachos sauce too. I can deliver them with my Diesel 4×4 dually truck… once I get the deer carcasses unloaded ;-)

    @Those who defend the video as “humor”, so call it OK:

    Please post a video showing Mohammed being beheaded by a jew in drag, great fun, I’m sure. Then post one showing a gay woman being gang banged by the football team, do it as animation and make the guys very large, harry, and dumb. How about one showing Jihadies in clown suits blowing up a jewish school… I’m sure it will all be ‘a real hoot’ and nobody would find it offensive or hate speech… /sarcoff>

    Feel OK about defending THOSE ideas as “just humor, get over it”?

    I didn’t think so.

    While I personally find the whole concept of “hate speech” to be hateful ( for exactly the reason that it puts some group in charge of deciding what speech is OK); the fact is that we are saddled with it. So “in for a penny in for a pound”: If you would not accept substituting a {gay, woman, black, jew, moslem, handicapped, asian, Redheaded Stepchild, …} in the video, then it’s “hate speech” and you get to just suck it up and accept that the promoters are “haters”.

    Oh, and advocacy for murder is often a crime. Might want to check your local laws…

  29. David Gould says
    “I find it amusing in large part *because* of the over the top reaction to it. People here are claiming that *because I find this video funny I must support the murder of children or find Dachau a barrel of laughs*. Those are their – apparently – serious claims. Surely you agree that that is either hilarious or very, very sad.”

    Well David I am about 4 posts beyond reason but I can try.
    Firstly, even humor is not always funny. Since we are using Monty Python,
    I can say for instance, that while “Holy Grail” was very funny, “Spamalot” was not.
    Same material, same author, just not funny in that venue ( not to mention the gratuitous “You’ve got to have a Jew” song)
    By the same token, just as movies and plays are different things, so, Humor for its own sake, and funny adverts are two different things.
    No one thinks the guy who uses “AXE” will really get all the chicks but he would like to.
    No one thinks the AGW advocates are really going to kill Skeptics, but they would like to.
    This video is not humor for its own sake but an advertisement meant to intimidate and propagandize young children.
    In that context of NGO sponsored events of sacrifice for the planet, it is unfunny.
    Just as unfunny as the self-deceasing Chimapnzee.
    But more disturbing to us because we already know that our comrades to the left on the climate crisis side, have not just wrong but plainly ( since everyone now knows that it is wrong) evil plans afoot, even for the people they pretend to want to help.
    If you don’t know this stuff, catch up.
    I see you didn’t get the “eugenics” comment.
    Perhaps you should acquaint yourself withe the Malthusian, and Erlichian strains of the climate movement as we have here at some length, and find out how deeply those strains run.

  30. Douglas Dc says: I am thinking perfectly clear Mr. Gould. My wife’s gr. grandfather was Jewish,her mother and father belonged to B’nai B’rith. They belonged because of my father in law and his experiences in liberating Dachau.

    Hmmm…. My F.I.L. was a Drill Seargent in the 101 st Airborne and also participated in camp “liberations” in WWII. My Dad was a “combat Engineer” in the same area and got to blow open various ‘enclosures’. Guess even 2nd hand those experiences change you. I know it did me… My son is picking it up from watching Band Of Brothers and knowing his GrandDad was there…

    Any advocating of blowing up those who do not agree with you is, at best, vile. That this preys on children is both sick and vile. Doing it as part of a politically driven “event” is, IMHO, beyond vile and reminds me of prior manipulation of children by National Socialists…

    Maybe they could start a health oriented “sun cult” and advocate for population reduction among the least “fit”, in a green sort of way, of course. Oh wait, someone already tried that and it didn’t turn out so well…

  31. Douglas Dc,

    Mein Kampf was fiction, but not in the sense that you mean. It was actually a serious statement of intent, although filled with lies. Again, comparing this video to Mein Kampf and saying “If you think that this is funny, Dachau must be a laugh riot…” is more than a stretch; it is a complete break.

    ‘Could easily erupt in reality’. Oh, please. In that case, you must ban all television violence, comedic or otherwise, as it ‘could easily erupt in reality’.

  32. Jimasherman,

    I agree that not all attempts at humour are funny – indeed, I would say that most attempts are not; humour is actually very difficult to do well.

    When you say that AGW advocates would like to kill sceptics, I am not really sure how to respond other than to say: I – a passionate AGW advocate – do not want to kill you or any other sceptic.

    I understand what the word ‘eugenics’ means and where it comes from. But I am unclear what it had to do with me.

  33. By David Gould on September 30, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Seriously: people here are *directly comparing this video with the Holocaust*. And I am *patronising* them by pointing out that one is fiction and the other reality.

    I am indeed poking fun. In response to that idiocy, what other options are open to me?

    ——

    David Gould,

    But I think you do see the point being made by commenters that if we were to write a fiction story about some future fascist government tiring to push red buttons to eliminate Jews, it would not be funny except to someone who would be psychologically sick.
    If you were to agree that such a fiction story would not be funny, then you probably can see why we do not find the 10:10 video funny.

    John

  34. David Gould,

    You certainly have every right to a dark sense of humor. However, it seems a bit strange to express it publicly, especially in contrast to the obvious disgust by others. Do you feel some overriding need to defend what many rightfully view as distasteful? David, you have heard of statements such as, “humor doesn’t travel”, or “humor doesn’t translate”, right?

    So, why don’t you lay-off the folks who are outraged by this stupid video?

    Oh, by the way, it also seems to me the majority of paranoia is on your side, i.e., fear of, at worst, fractional degree temperature changes on decadal or longer time scales. Lighten up, would you?

  35. Oh, and I’d just also point out that the ‘leaders’ of the AGW Crusade have advocated for lawlessness with Hansen having been arrested a couple of times and having testified that breaking the law is OK if your cause is desperate enough. (And that is now case law in the UK). So we have direct ADVOCACY of illegal and violent acts along with a justification of them and a daemonizing behaviour toward skeptics by the very leaders of this ‘movement’.

    It is in that context that this video is floated.

    Yeah, that’s a problem… No, it’s not humor.

    So when some punk in the UK beats up or knifes a classmate for being a skeptic, and gets ‘let off’ due to pointing at the Hansen precident, are you OK with that? (And if you don’t think that can / will happen, spend some time teaching. My spouse is a teacher and that kind of thing happens very often.)

  36. This isn’t aimed at us. It’s aimed at young people. It is meant to paint those who don’t fall into line as less than human. It is meant to stifle dissent and legitimize ridicule and hatred.

    It is hate speech.

  37. Steve Allen,

    The fact that I am defending it indicates a need to do so at some level. I agree that people have different senses of humour. But I do think that the reaction to this video on this website has been over the top, and at the moment it is that reaction I am trying to understand/analyse/poke at.

  38. John Whitman,

    Context is everything, as is timing. History of the World Part I by Mel Brooks has a scene in a Spanish Inquisition torture room which is very funny; Black Adder also had a scene in a torture room that was likewise very amusing.

    I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that me finding this video funny mean that, as one person here has suggested, I advocate the murder of children as social policy? If you do not, then you surely agree that some of the reaction here has been over the top.

  39. Mr. Gould; you keep making the distinction between ‘reality’ and ‘fiction’ which I think the makers of this video are not. They are basing this trash as fact with what you call a comedic vision of violence. I dont see how you can make one distinction and not the other. If you are saying that the whole thing is comedic, then I agree on the point that their viewpoint is comedic, if you can see it that way. I think it more of a ideological mindset with no basis in fact, and therefore yes, it could be viewed as comedic, if you can stomach that kind of comedy. Personally I love violence in my movie/tv viewing, but this is not what is going on here. You are transposing two different ideas together that make no sense, such as my ability to make a salient point simply. Its like saying that because feathers are lite then if your in a room full of feathers it cant be dark. Either they are saying something they believe is true or they are making, in my opinion as well as most other rational people, a very bad and tasteless comedy short.

  40. “No one thinks the AGW advocates are really going to kill Skeptics, but they would like to.”

    I’m far from convinced: the left have always resorted to the mass murder of their opponents when they had the opportunity to do so, when they’re unable to convince them by rational argument… I’m sure there are plenty of AGW-ers who’d be more than happy to send us all off to death^H^H^H^H^Hpublic safety camps if they could.

    Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler; with a hundred million murdered by socialists and communists in the last few decades, what’s a few ‘climate change denialists’ to them?

  41. randybutters,

    I am not sure that this statement ‘They are basing this trash as fact with what you call a comedic vision of violence. I dont see how you can make one distinction and not the other’ means what I think it does, but if so then I disagree.

    To explain, you can set a comedy in the real world alongside real things.

    Thus – and I keep using this because of the writer – Blackadder Goes Forth was set in WW1, a real time with real horror. And yet this was a comedy.

    Satire, which I believe this to be, is pretty much always set ‘in the real world’. In this instance, they are using the real event or project or whatever it is – the 10:10 thing – and setting that alongside the unreality of exploding people for not participating.

  42. Anyone who defends this vile propaganda, or excuses it as “satire,” needs to recall the words of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

    By using red herring arguments like ‘parody’ and ‘satire’ they are being apologists for sending the message that killing opponents is acceptable, so long as Gaia is served.

    There have been too many of these videos made by eco-alarmists for them to now fall back on the ex post facto excuse of “satire.” This video is no more satire than Birth of a Nation, which also advocated lynching of innocent opponents. The mindset is exactly the same.

  43. I don’t want this video flagged in any way to get it removed from youtube.

    I want to keep it there as evidence. I’ve downloaded a copy and will repost it if it is removed. I will repost it on another site to keep it available.

    I want people to see the vile hatred that these people are espousing. I do not want them to be able to shrug and say, “What video?”

    ===

    Nor will I let them get away with, “Hey, lighten up. It’s just a joke.”

    First, that’s the bullies’ excuse.

    Second, if AGW skeptics had put it together as a skit, the warmists would be screaming in outrage.

    Third, if skeptics had put it together but targeted warmists, there would be rioting in the streets.

    No. Not funny.

  44. I don’t understand the idea that blowing people up — yes, David, including in fiction — is in any way construed as comedy.

    Yeah, I never got cartoon characters being blown up or shot or cut into a hundred pieces, either.

  45. David Gould

    Are you aware of the threat that GreenPeace posted on their website earlier this year, “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.” … “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”? The threat was rapidly retracted from here;

    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html

    primarily because of WUWT;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/

    but it can still be read in its entirety here:

    http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/

    Also, Anthony was confronted in his office by an off balance Warmist earlier this year:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/a-note-about-boundaries/

    The bloodbath video isn’t an abstraction, it is incitement. The Warmists are indoctrinating, riling up and desensitizing their rabble and, if any crime results from it, those responsible will be held to account.

  46. For those wishing to discuss this further with me, I am signing off for now. I should be able to respond more over the weekend.

  47. Reminds me of the exploding pig on the ABC (Australian Government) website where children are encouraged to calculate when they would reach their carbon limit and thus need to die. I made a written complaint but was brushed off with the typical “the science is settled excuse.”

  48. Tom,

    A long time ago I wrote that the very logic of the denier metaphor would lead to the idea and endorsement of a final solution for skeptics.

    When you characterize your opponent as beyond reason, force becomes the only method of behavioral control. And the ultimate sanction comes into play.

    This pattern of thought is a part of our consciousness. It’s why words matter

  49. Thanks to E.M.Smith for the eloquence in comments here.

    Saw the first post on this sickness at Steve Goddard’s blog and could not believe the vile hatred in the video. Even more disturbing were some comments at the Guardian, where the ‘humor’ of the video was praised.

    Depravity seems to keep sinking to ever lower depths.

  50. Mr Gould

    Have you really been conducting your one man defence of this indefensible video (on both WUWT threads) during your work hours as an employee of the Australian federal government?

    Now that, my friends is comedy.

  51. I saw the comments pointing to this come in last night and I watched the video then. I was too shocked to react with anything other than horror. The smug look on the faces was too much. We can only hope it might backfire. While it will appeal to many (unfortunately) I think a lot of reasonable people, who might otherwise take a pro-AGW stance, will be equally repelled.

    The ‘blowing up’ and ‘blood everywhere’ part is cartoonish; in a different circumstance it would even be funny. The really repulsive bit is the sneering attitude and the message it sends that there should be recrimination of anyone who is a) an ‘unbeliever’ and/or b) is not prepared to ‘do their bit’. I personally find the portrayal of the ‘office manager’ figure to sum up all I have come to find unacceptable in politico-ecological attitudes in the UK today.

  52. I just finished a book about Thomas Cromwell, one of Henry VIII “prime ministers” (Wolf House by H. Mantel). Burning at stake, drawing and quartering and other more common ways of execution of heretics and adversaries (usually charged with treason) feature prominently in the book. Cromwell himself, Thomas More and many others suffered that fate.

    That was the way to achieve consensus back in those days. Kind of sad to see people presenting the same idea under the guise of humour.

  53. So Mr Gould gets the humour that the rest of us have missed here and then gets a good belly laugh out of trolling our disgust. Mr Gould sees satire and irony in this video that most of the rest of the us don’t. Having watched the end segments of this video a few times, I don’t get the impression that it was intended as satire and irony by the producers. It sure seems to me like they intended to send a very clear and distinct message: “Get with the program or else.”

    As Thomas pointed out, this video that Mr Gould finds so hilariously funny, is aimed at school children. I don’t think many of them will get the satire and irony that Mr Gould enjoys so much. Admittedly, I’m well past childhood and maybe children are far more sophisticated now, but I distinctly recall that when Wiley E Coyote got flattened by a big rock or slid over a cliff and fell a thousand feet to the ground, I found it very funny. I rooted for the Road Runner and found Wiley E Coyote’s misfortune funny because it was a cartoon and even as a child I knew very clearly it was not real. No one really got hurt. Wiley E Coyote would stand up flat as a pancake, stagger around and fade out to the sound of the Road Runner’s beep beep until next Saturday morning. Ditto Elmer Fudd, Mister Magoo, etc. and other cartoon misadventures.

    This video, however, is no cartoon. It’s very realistic; the blood and body parts are very red; the bystanders are splattered quite convincingly. Perhaps Mr Gould would argue that’s the point. It’s all too real, so it must be funny, satiric and ironic. As an adult I might even accept that as a possibility, one that does not appeal to me, but I don’t think young children are going to understand the intentional, and what Mr Gould describes as funny, horrendous violence. What they will understand is that those who didn’t get with the program got blown into puddles of gore. And that is an intended pun aimed at Mr Gould’s peculiar sense of humour.

    As a young teen, I watched Nikita Khrushchev bang a shoe on a UN podium and threaten to bury me, my family and my country. He meant every word of it. I find this video pretty much the same kind of threat from the same kind of people who won’t tolerate those who don’t get with the program. If Mr Gould thinks I lack his sophisticated sense of humour, quite frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.

  54. Thing is, in the real world, you went to a school or workplace and told everyone to cut their CO2 by 10% the minority would be saying yes, most would be giving you the finger.

    This is very good psychology by the propaganda puppeters (who much have watched the works of [snip]*). First make the majority think they are the minority (when the reveres is really true, most people don’t believe in this crap) then make them feel if they don’t conform, they may be executed….

    *[blog policy here does not encourage comparisons in this vein. Understand where you’re coming from but just a mention too far. ~jove, mod]

  55. DJMoore said …
    “Second, if AGW skeptics had put it together as a skit, the warmists would be screaming in outrage. Third, if skeptics had put it together but targeted warmists, there would be rioting in the streets. ”

    I couldnt agree more. In fact, it was so bad that I immediately assumed that skeptics must have put it together as a skit. No-one in their right minds would write this stuff as a pro-AGW ad would they? You mean it really is an ad from a warmist camp ?!

  56. @David Gould:
    Oh yes, there is something irresistibly funny about gratuitous violence. So why does this one give me a bad feeling?
    Because comedy violence, the funny type (Dangerous Brothers (*), Blackadder…), is mostly one individual raging against another individual. Or as far as groups are concerned, it’s the weak against the strong.
    But here we see a couple of sinister strong individuals -the ones controlling the button (how passé not even cordless)- imposing the one ‘correct’ thought and behavior on innocent individuals, the brave ones (who are not inclined to go with the crowd) being simply wiped away by a push on the button.

    And while the viewer is actually supposed to sympathize with the sinister leaders, it works out the other way around …of course. It’s not surprising to read that many people see this as a call for violence against the mavericks who swim against the tide.

    Something wrong with the viewers? Or something wrong with the comedy?

    (*) The Dangerous Brothers “Exploding Politicians” (!!)

  57. I cannot agree with Mr Gould on many fronts. However, I will defend the rastionale that violence can be funny. After all good old slapstick never fades IMHO, I still watch the occasional silent movie of Charlie Chaplin, Harold Loyd, Buster Keaton, & early talkies with Laurel & Hardy, etc, & they still make me laugh, violence & all. It is indeed true that Blackadder Goes Forth was an excellent comedy (partly written by Richard Curtis no less) set in WWI, with all the Anglo-Saxon grim humour to boot to illustrate the futility of such a war, when Germany first attempted to create a Single European Market! (As an aside such a Market cannot survive, Napolean failed France’s attempt in 1815, & Germany failed yet again in the 1940s!)

    Interestinlgy though, it wasn’t the exploding children or adults who just had a different opinion to the voice of authority, of cutting ones carbon footprint by 10% that I found most disturbing, although disturbing it indeed was for me. No indeed, what I found really disturbing, was the expressions of shock & fear on those who were left standing, the children, & the adults. Did they really intend to convey such shock & fear to potential supporters? Was it their intention to convey a world of shocked & fearful people who have just witnessed an arbitrary punishement, an automatic summary execution, if they do not go along with the prevailing authority, & who will suffer these consequences? Is that not reminiscent of Communist Party & Nazi Party representatives in WWII shooting those they arbitrarily believed to be slacking in their vigor of attacking the enemy. Now that really is disturbing! Certainly wisks one into the sci-fi world of Dr Who, Star Wars, et al etc, etc! It won’t do the teaching profession any good will it, displaying violence towards pupils, or managers doing the same against their workers. Who is the Evil Empire now?

  58. FAO David Gould. Thank you for your reasoned responses to some hostile fire. I accept that you have signed off now, having better things to do, but hope you will return and read this. I believe in free speech, and I think you do to. The makers of this video do not. As the AlGoreWarmers circle their wagons, the wheels are now falling off their wagons. That you can not see how this video constitutes such a massive and sick own goal for the AGW crowd, confirms how blinkered your view is.

    I hope this video will be screened again and again, and will never be forgotten, and a warning to others how vile the self righteous EcoFascists can get.

    Please can someone spoof this video, in the manner of “[/snip]” sadly now withdrawn? How the EcoFascists blew themselves up or something?????

    [REPLY: Lets leave the Nazi references out of the conversation. Employing it diminishes the Holocaust and the evil of Hitler / the Nazi. .. bl57~mod]

  59. Mr. Gould;

    No, the reason this isn’t funny is because it is just disgusting. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it’s just poorly scripted and too graphic to be humerous.

    That someone does find it funny is mildy disturbing, but finding that the someone who does is entrenched in the AGW camp isn’t at all surprising. Sheep despise mavericks and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is despised by sheep. Thus a video depicting the graphic violent murder of people who don’t ‘toe the line’ on AGW is smugly satisfying to those who do.

    Not that graphic violence isn’t funny; Monty Python proved time and again the humor to be found there. In this case it’s the lack of humor and comedic effect in the video that isn’t funny. As to paranoia; I am quite certain that those of us who are ‘deniers’ are far more capable of and prepared to defend ourselves than those who believe in this rubbish, so there’s little to fear but fear itself . . . and manbearpig.

  60. Seems I’m the only one who agrees with David Gould – I thought this was a hilarious little movie.
    Frankly, I find the strong reactions by many commenters to be quite scary. FYI – they didn’t blow up any actual kids in the movie – it’s fiction! To compare this with what actually went on during the Holocaust is beyond crazy.
    Maybe I have to fear some of my fellow skeptics more than even the most hysterical AGW:ers…

  61. @David Gould

    Let’s pursue your Blackadder point a bit further. There was a message in Blackadder Goes Forth; that war is bad. But, with the violence almost non-existent, the message had to be delivered through the humour alone, and was successfully done so. We only appreciated the message because we appreciated the humour.

    This is the best way to deliver a message, as the great Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun observed: “The artist and the polemicist need to be separated if both are to thrive.”

    That is not the case with the 10:10 film, which Curtis has got badly wrong.

    First, Curtis has placed the polemic front and centre in this film. It is the message which dominates, and it is a very unpleasant message, as well. Many environmentalists have already expressed their extreme disgust for its tastelessness, bullying, moralizing and contemptuous tone.

    Those who find this video funny are the sort of people who laugh at a disabled person in a wheelchair who is unable to reach the elevator button for their floor.

  62. so? wheres the link?
    what T Fuller posted keeps taking me to google search and a pile of rebubble and his older posts

  63. Try watching this video back to back with this one-

    and then tell me we’re all still having fun.

    I can see where Mr Gould is coming from- he sees this video as a dig at both ‘skeptics’ and ‘warmists’, but the question needs to be asked- is this the true intention of this video? In Art, intention is said to be everything- so we need to be talking about the intentions of this video, not just about how each of us personally may feel about. Just what is it that the creators are trying to say? What’s the message? It’s a serious organisation, so there must be a serious underlying message that needs to be communicated. Trivialising and having/poking fun seems antithetical to the actual aims of this group. Even if we think it’s ‘funny’, is that what we’re meant to take away from this video? This isn’t mere ‘entertainment’, even if it’s meant to be funny- there is a message here.

    Unfortunately imo, the message and intention displayed in this communication is indistinguishable from any other piece of coercive propaganda I’ve ever seen. Furthermore, it’s targeted at kids, the group most sensitive to peer pressures and the need to fit in. This is playing on kids fears of exclusion and social rejection in such an extreme form, by employing shock tactics so graphic that if this was a movie it would have a +15 rating. You know, I’m no prude. I have regularly defended violent videogames and I’m no fan of censorship, but I would draw the line at showing this kind of thing to young kids. Adults may/may not get a kick out of it. This is not for adults. Again, this is a very cynical playing up of children’s fears of exclusion. From that angle at least, this video is not funny in the slightest possible way. “No Pressure”? Pffft.

    This video is a disgrace.

  64. Douglas Dc says: September 30, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    …This video dehumanized those who disagree. Dehumanization is the first step to the end described by- mircea, and my friend…

    David Gould, your lack of appreciation of our distress at this video, already feels like you have dehumanized us… only a little bit but still real. Please.

    It is the science that matters, the science that was not even remotely addressed by the video, the science where those who disagree have already been substantially dehumanized, by orthodoxy. Yet those who disagree do so on the strength of the science, not because they are in anybody’s pay, because they (we) care about truth. Sure, there are always shades of opinion and courtesy but what I’ve said is still the core truth.

    CO2 is a GHG, yes, but in practice, in the atmosphere, it seems to have no effect and is offset by water vapour.

    We emit CO2, yes, but in practice, our emission is tiny compared to the natural flux, and the “isotopes” arguments do not hold up.

    Recent warming has happened, yes, but in practice, it has been warmer in the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene before that, so natural cycles can be that big.

    Recent records of warming have been compounded by all sorts of weather station problems, for which there is ample record of seriously insufficient correction.

    We care about green issues here, but precisely for that reason we don’t want huge sums of money squandered on a non-problem when there ARE real problems to address.

    Most of us here used to believe in AGW, many of us have had to eat our words and say “sorry” but we feel better for having done that.

    I don’t think there is anything else left to say. Except to invite you too to question the science in the light of the above, and consider that saying “sorry” can be good for your health too.

  65. The video is crass, stupid and irresponsible.

    But there is a specific point in which it crosses over the line. All the dancing around by its apologists above ignore the red button.

    Rerun the video but remove the button.

    The button is pressed by an authority figure; the teacher, the boss, the manager of the football club. Authority presses the button. Authority tells the assembled masses what to do and when they don’t do it they are executed. It is an act, not a side-effect.

    That’s the difference.

    It’s not: ‘do the right thing or you will die’ (which is bad)
    It is: ‘do the right thing or we will kill you’.

  66. I would like to hear what David Gould thinks is the main message of this ad. And whether he agrees with it.

  67. Could it still be a (even then tasteless) hoax? – accepted on board by 10:10 a bit like Social Text accepted Sokal?

  68. @David Gould

    It seems like you are in a minority David. The rating system on Youtube has the video at 1:4 ratio in favour of dislike.

    You mentioned earlier that Mel Brookes and Blackadder had portrayed torture scenes that were comical, I agree, they have indeed. However, they were comical depictions of events that had already occurred (or similar to such events) and therefore most people would be able to recognise the comedy element very quickly. This video, on the other hand, is depicting events that have not yet taken place and therefore there is no reference point to judge it’s comedy value. (although there are plenty of examples throughout history of groups being given ‘special’ treatment due to their beliefs)

    Do you honestly believe that not one single person (particularly children) that watches the video will ever be motivated by it to pressurise others to conform to their way of thinking through physical or psychological bullying or even violence?

    If you think that there is even a chance that this video could do so then you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it.

  69. Elise says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:07 am

    “…pressurise others to conform to their way of thinking through physical or psychological bullying”

    This is already psychological bullying.

    Obviously some people think that’s hilarious.

  70. @David Gould says:
    September 30, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    John Whitman,
    ‘Lighten up. We’re not out to get you. :)’

    Do you think any of us rational people here believe a word you say?

  71. tryfan says: (October 1, 2010 at 3:04 am) Seems I’m the only one who agrees with David Gould – I thought this was a hilarious little movie.

    Almost, tryfan… I almost agree with you both, but would put my reaction in the “boring” rather than “hilarious” category — which has much the same endpoint.
        Remember that little ap, gopher shooting? No real gophers died; but it was fun splatting the virtual critters.
        To take the featured vid in any way seriously one must be looking for a fight; or just plain bored. Or maybe too Politically Correct for your own good — and PC always ends up hurting rather than healing.

  72. ” RichieP says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:16 am

    @David Gould says:
    September 30, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    John Whitman,
    ‘Lighten up. We’re not out to get you. :)’

    Do you think any of us rational people here believe a word you say?”

    I think this is missing the real point here. There’s no reason not to believe David, although he is only really able to speak for himself. This isn’t about ‘getting’ skeptics. that’s not what this is about. This is coercive propaganda in making people feel unsecure about holding opinions which may differ from the consensus or authoritative ‘right’ opinion.

    Tell you what David, you (or anyone else defending this ad) find me an open skeptic amongst any of those kids involved in the making of that ad- and I will feel less concerned about this whole thing.

  73. @David Gould

    “Thus – and I keep using this because of the writer – Blackadder Goes Forth was set in WW1, a real time with real horror. And yet this was a comedy.”

    Particularly fascinating here is the fact that Curtis has three houses and four children. That’s precisely two more houses and two more children than he is permitted under the “green” orthodoxy. Perhaps someone could make a video showing them being blown up – in a “spoof” fashion of course; as anyone believing that there was some kind of implicit threat in such a video would obviously be mentally deficient. Obviously.

  74. Thanks for posting on this. The AGW freaks are so out of touch it’s “hilarious”.

    I have found “cartoonish” violence employed as parody wildly funny. This ain’t it. It’s a deliberate effort straight from the echo chamber that uses evry trick in Alinsky’s book to try to portray level-headed people as worthless obstacles to a government-engineered nirvana. (The only thing they got wrong was the “horrified” reaction of those who “went along” with the campaign; they’d really be the first ones cheering.) Well, they can sod off.

  75. It was clear that the “skeptics” in the film (I hesitate to say victims of the violence, as that would justify and validate the intent of the film.) were intended to be shown as losers (can’t even properly raise their hands as they are ashamed of their (lack of) convictions) and self-centered egotists.

    The real propaganda element is then disguised behind the blood and guts so that the message sinks in that only the losers aren’t joining in and look at what happens to them! Just be glad that you are on the “right” side.

  76. Let’s try to analyse the comedic logic of this video. Let’s start with a less contentious comedy, the “Ministry of Funny Walks” sketch. If that had been made by (as it was) an outsider, a non-government author, the absurdity of it would be (as it was) a satire upon the absurdity sometimes displayed by government departments. But if it had been made by a government department, it would have to convey a message along the lines of “Yes, we are sometimes absurd, but we are admitting it here and inviting you to have a laugh about it with us.”

    So how does that translate into the example before us now? If skeptics had produced it, it would carry the message that sometimes AGW authorities are too heavy-handed and stifle dissent, etc. But if (AS IT WAS), it is produced by the AGW insiders themselves, it has to convey, as the funny walks example shows us, a message like “Yes, we are sometimes violent to critics and we do shut them up and put them out of the way, and we invite you to have a laugh about it along with us.”

    If you don’t agree, then what message does it convey? Be specific. Comedy has to have an inner logic: if you produce something that looks hateful and you try to excuse it with “only a joke”, that isn’t good enough if it isn’t possible to explain exactly what the comedic logic of the piece was meant to be. If I have that logic wrong in the above, please explain what you see as the correct comedic logic, in detail. I’ll be surprised if it can be done in any way that does not show up the AGW makers of this video for the violent totalitarians they are.

  77. I have a very strong feeling that if this video was produced and released by Canadians in Canada it would be considered a hate crime and the individuals would be prosecuted.

    Flip the video around and have a teacher that questions some of the science of Global Climate Disruption, talking to a class of students who want to see the proof, the actual data, who want to make up their own minds and be critical thinkers. Then have two rabid greenies in the class. watch them be blown up.

    IMAGINE the reaction from the AGW community. Of this I am certain. They would be prosecuted in Canada an the video would be on every TV station and a front page story in every paper. An CBC, our National Tv staion, government funded, would run with it for weeks.

    Remember the addage, Monkey see, monkey do. We have seen that effect in our schools since the Columbine incident.

    Must be a Canadian lawyer out their that could comment.

  78. Looking at the comments to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film , most — not all but most — of the pro-AGW folks, like David Gould here, enjoyed the clip as just good , attention-getting fun promoting the AGW cause.

    It reminded me of Stephen Colbert’s in-character “testimony” before Congress a week ago. Liberals mostly loved it; conservatives mostly disliked it.

    Well, between disputed tastes and gored oxen, I suppose there’s no settling the ultimate aesthetic value of either stunt.

    However, the liberal intent in both cases was not to tickle their own funny bones but to persuade others to join their causes, and I haven’t seen any arguments that liberals succeeded with these edgy skits. In fact in both cases a number of liberals have argued that the skits hurt their causes. I believe those liberals are correct.

    Consequently I’m pleased with these skits because they reveal to the center swing voters the smug, myopic, arrogance of global warming types and Stephen Colbert supporters.

  79. Leo Norekens @ October 1, 2010 at 1:48 am hits the nail on the head:

    And while the viewer is actually supposed to sympathize with the sinister leaders, it works out the other way around …of course

    David Gould keeps bringing up Blackadder Goes Forth, which was both funny and moving. But Gould fails to realize that in No Pressure Richard Curtis has written a version of BGF in which General Melchett is the good guy and it’s absolutely hilarious the way Capt. Blackadder, Pvt. Baldric et al. keep getting bombed, brutalized, and finally cut down in a hail of gunfire.

    Good luck with that.

  80. Many thanks to Stu for posting the link to that Greenpeace video. That was truly chilling. Such propaganda pieces are not made to promote peaceful discussion but rather to intimidate and indoctrinate. It reminded me of the kid singing The Future Belongs to Me in Cabaret.

    As to Mr. Gould, perhaps he should imagine any other group but “denialists” being blown up so realistically in order to see the lack of humor in the 10 10 video.

  81. Many a true word is spoken in jest

    Meaning

    A literal meaning; that the truth is often found in comic utterances.

    Origin

    The first author to express this thought in English was probably Geoffrey Chaucer. He included it in The Cook’s Tale, 1390:

    But yet I pray thee be not wroth for game; [don’t be angry with my jesting]
    A man may say full sooth [the truth] in game and play.

    Shakespeare later came closer to our contemporary version of the expression, in King Lear, 1605:

    Jesters do oft prove prophets.

  82. David Gould says:
    September 30, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    For those wishing to discuss this further with me, I am signing off for now. I should be able to respond more over the weekend.

    —————–

    David Gould,

    I appreciate your willingness to continue the dialog. Although, I admit it is a little surreal to be discussing this 10:10 video without discussing the fundamental beliefs of the ideological environmentalists pushing it. That is where I think the intellectual meat of the discussion is. But, instead let’s continue to discuss comedy as related to the 10:10 video and comparison to similar fiction.

    First, to answer your following question to me, I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that me finding this video funny mean that, as one person here has suggested, I advocate the murder of children as social policy? If you do not, then you surely agree that some of the reaction here has been over the top.” David, I do not think you are a troll who is jerking us around. I think you mean what you are saying. Based on what you have said, I have no idea about what moral system you adhere to. I do not know what you are advocating other than a very broad perspective on comedy that is something like anything can be funny in certain contexts. I think there is a logical connection between a person’s fundamental values/thoughts and what they find funny (and by the way what art they admire).

    REQUEST: When you get back, I would like to hear what context (you implied there might be one in a previous comment to me) you think would make comedic my following proposed fiction story from my previous comment to you:

    John Whitman says:
    September 30, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    David Gould,

    But I think you do see the point being made by commenters that if we were to write a fiction story about some future fascist government trying to push red buttons to eliminate Jews, it would not be funny except to someone who would be psychologically sick.

    If you were to agree that such a fiction story would not be funny, then you probably can see why we do not find the 10:10 video funny.

    John

    John

  83. David Gould,

    You have told us you have no intention of killing skeptics, which is reassuring. But, David, you are irrelevant. James Lee did not have such restraint, and yet he was inspired by the relatively mild AIT. How many James Lee’s out there will take this as a call to jihad?

    As for the ‘if it’s fictional it must be funny,’ argument, that is fatuous. Fictional violence is only funny, when it is either random and arbitrary (cartoons) or when it parodies. Month Python employed violence but was used to parody by exageration. Such was the case in the spin-off series such as Ripping Yarns. One episode depicted English Victorian private boarding schools which were characterised by brutality. Python parodied this by exagerating the violence to absurd levels, such as children being woken up at 4 am by the ‘school alsations’ and being nailed to the wall as punishments. The viewer understands that this is parody.

    This 10:10 video does not seem to be parodying eco-fascism. If it was, it may be funny. It seems to be promoting murder, but trying to make it acceptable by dressing it in comedic elements. By blowing people up, they hope to get a few laughs, while the viewer takes on board the subliminal message. Had they simply had the victims quietly short in the back of their heads, Soviet style, and the bodies dumped in a shallow grave, nobody would be laughing. Not even you Mr Gould. But what is the difference?

    Like most posters here, I don’t get it.

  84. For those worried about the effect of propaganda such as this on children, I quite understand that view.

    However, take a crumb of comfort in this: I was brought up a Roman Catholic and educated at Roman Catholic schools, my secondary one run by priests where there was the whole nine yards – hellfire and damnation, “prayers for a happy death”, Angelus every day at 12 noon, yearly in-school retreats, you name it.

    But actually, it didn’t work beyond my teens, for me or the majority of my schoolmates, because we all rebelled and rejected it. That’s what happens once puberty begins: many kids start their reflex rebellion against indoctrination by authority.

  85. I think it would’ve been way funnier and more satirical if those who weren’t participating in 10:10 got up before the red button could be pressed and beheaded everyone participating with a samurai sword in a blur of activity. Then that person could say that he’d upped each participating individual’s reduction efforts to 100% and reduced the groups footprint by 90%! Then the narrator could say, “you can reduce your footprint by 10% on October 10, but why stop there? Help others participate to 100%!”

    How’s that for dark comedy?

  86. Hi Michael L

    Yeah, I agree. Kids will always rebel. Although I would definitely feel concern for some kids watching this (others will probably just laugh it off), my problem is really about the intention here, which I find deplorable. In the same way that I have no respect for the preachers of hellfire and damnation in order to align people to a religion. This is no different. Using fear and threat to align someone to your own views is sadly part of the human social toolkit. It’s an old tool in service of a new religion.

    Coercion is never funny, just horrible and sad.

  87. Lucy Skywalker says:

    “Most of us here used to believe in AGW, many of us have had to eat our words and say “sorry” but we feel better for having done that.”

    Lucy-I really never quite bought AGW, due to my skeptical nature.Partly influenced by my years making a living in Aviation, or on a NE Oregon cattle and wheat ranch.
    Knowing people. from Nuke scientists to Southern Oregon coast crabbers and fishermen. Doing a bit of Sailing and Fishing myself, I also associated myself with
    the kids that were “blown up”in the clip. I was the kid who had teachers send a note home: “Doesn’t play well with others.” “Runs with scissors”. etc. I was the “Science
    Geek” in High School and University. But, I admire those who stand up and say.
    “I call Bravo Sierra! on this.” I have. got in trouble for it. Would do it again.
    I’ve posted here that Galileo, went against not the church, but the Ptolemaic “consensus” of the scientists of the time.
    I appreciate you and others who agree that this Video was vile, wrong, and may I use the unsophisticated, concept, evil.
    One of my favorite writers is J.R.R. Tolkien.
    One of his quotes that I have on my office wall:
    “What was once history became legend,what was legend became myth.”
    “Things that were forgotten that should not have been forgotten were lost.”
    This, is what I see in this video…

  88. The thing about satire, is that it is most skillfully used as a weapon by the weak to strike at the oppression of the powerful; A Modest Proposal for example. When the powerful are attempting to use satire as a weapon against the weak, it just comes across as threatening propaganda.

  89. perhaps it would be more funny if they had something along the lines:

    2 guys being asked to prove they had reduced emissions by 10%. Guy 1 says he installed a new boiler reduced emissions. Guy 2 did nothing. Guy 2 gets blown up. somebody points out c02 generated by manufacturing boiler more than the 10% saved. Guy 1 gets blown up too – guy 2 gets medal – for all the good it would do him.

  90. The 10:10 website: Sorry, we’ve taken this video down for now. More info coming very soon.

    That went well.

    It takes a lot more time and money to put together a film than a blog comment or a web page. Yet even so the 10:10 people were unable to foresee that their efforts would, er, explode in their faces.

    The 10:10 video marks a turning point in the global warming debate — not when the AGW advocates started to lose, but when they started to melt down in public.

  91. And then everybody will celebrate Halloween…

    Tom Fuller is right: it is hate speech directed at young kids. It is poor taste and the violence is a reflection of the deep frustration the AGW crowd is feeling. They have been excited to think they’ll save the world and it turns out they’ve been cheated. Just as they were last century when they had to realize that their communist ideal was another totalitarism.
    If that’s what they need to get their message accross, then this is deperate time. I agree with Wiglaf, it was too tame and it’s time they think at saving the solar system from the sun’s programmed giant red stage too…
    Meanwhile we shoudl start a new movement: “Seismic Equality: for an equitable distribution of Earthquakes”. You know what I mean…

  92. a man with a gun took hostages at the Discovery channel over enviromental issues … to claim that skeptics are paranoid because of a video depicting violence against skeptics is financed, made and published is simply ironic … I’m sure we would hear these same claims of paranoia if someone made a video showing Al Gore being blown up …
    Natural warming deniers how about trying this … when someone on your side does something stupid, say “that’s stupid” instead of defending it … defending the indefensible makes you look less and less knowledgeable and more and more paranoid yourself …

  93. Here’s the deal with this pathetic attempt at humor.

    It fails miserably for the same reason that all such humor fails: Fanatics are humorless prigs. So, when they try their hand at it, this is the result. Stupidity and brutality.

    Their humor fails, that is, except to those who share their fanaticism. Mr. Gould is exhibit number one.

  94. The little movie is undoubtedly hateful and destructive. It is an ugly thing to have produced, and all who took part in it have a great deal to be ashamed of. It does provide some insight into the damage that CO2-alarmism has done to the moral fibre of such people.
    They have gone too far, and I suspect their grasp of the scientific arguments is such that they really have no personal idea of why they have gone there. They have merely done something which they think will please their intellectual/political leaders and further their cause – a cause which they have been assured is based on ‘settled science’.

  95. David Gould says:
    September 30, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    Anthony Watts,

    Unfortunately, my influence extends precisely nowhere. I could write a letter to the federal minister for agriculture that *might* have *slightly* more chance of being read by someone in a position to do something, but that would be about it. And it appears to be a state matter, rather than a federal one. A further complication is that the federal government is Labor and the state government Liberal.

    Perhaps the best advice I could offer is for the family to contact Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the three country independents. Tony Crook, a National Party member from WA but one who wishes to be considered as an Independent, might also be well worth a shot. These people have power in the new hung parliament.

    ==========

    Welcome to WUWT David and thanks for the information.

    If you missed Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) comments before Parliament, here’s a link; Excellent speech and remarkable Statesmanship.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/farm_aid/desc/#commentsmore

    Its also posted on the JoNova site.

  96. David Gould [snip] Its pretty obvious from his statements and points of view.
    The video is another death nail in the coffin of humanity. Everyone needs to wake up to the agenda of the totalitarian dictatorship that is the EU. The European Union of Death.

  97. Lucy Skywalker,

    I wish to respond to this:

    “David Gould, your lack of appreciation of our distress at this video, already feels like you have dehumanized us… only a little bit but still real. Please.”

    I can understand why people might not find it funny: humour is not the same for everybody.

    I can understand why people might find it gross: not everyone likes blood and gore.

    I can understand why people might react against it, in that it is an ad for a campaign which many here oppose.

    What I cannot understand in the reaction here is the notion that this video is evidence that – for example – AGW activists are planning on killing sceptics, or that this video somehow equates to the Holocaust, or that me finding this video funny somehow means that I want to implement the killing of children as social policy or would have found Dachau or 9-11 hilarious. And what I am even more surprised at and do not understand is that almost nobody on here raised a murmour about those comments.

    I respect people, whatever their views or ideas or behaviours. And I think everyone should respect people. But views, ideas or behaviours deserve no automatic respect: they stand or fall on their merits.

    So, if you are distressed by this video, please tell me why. If it is because it has made you afraid that I am going to kill you – although I have said that that is not my intention (as if I should have to say that!) some people here have stated that they do not believe me … – then I do not have respect for that viewpoint, as it is ridiculous. (Although I will still feel sorry for your distress).

    So: tell me why this video distresses you.

  98. John Whitman,

    I notice that you did not respond to my question, but anyway.

    Part of the context that I am talking about has been amply demonstrated on this thread: the over-the-top paranoia regarding the supposed warmist agenda to pack you all off to death camps or go around hunting you. Seriously: people here think that I personally want to kill them because I found this video funny. (At least, I assume that they were being serious: perhaps that is intended as humour).

    The other part of the context is the extreme statements made by some on my side of the fence. The video is satirising those by taking them to extremes.

    As such, it is difficult to think up a directly analogous context to fit, say, homosexuals into this picture. But I am sure someone cleverer than I could do so.

  99. David Gould,

    “I respect people, whatever their views or ideas or behaviours. And I think everyone should respect people. But views, ideas or behaviours deserve no automatic respect: they stand or fall on their merits.”

    And you don’t see that this video is sending a message that those with differing views will not be respected? Spoof or satire it may be, but substitute any of the long-fought intolerances and you might get one of the points of concern here. What a thing to teach our children – that they should conform and not think for themselves when someone else decrees that what the greater good is. Summarised here

  100. A comment from one of the copies…

    Maybe Phillips dad couldn’t insulate the loft because they own an apartment without a loft or are too poor to take holidays or are travellling somewhere they can’t reach by train. Maybe dad already changed out the lightbulbs so Phillips dad is alraedy ahead of the curve, thus no need to do these things.Maybe Phillip can’t afford to buy a bicycle or hurt his leg so can’t walk and needs to be driven around by car. KABOOM! Pillip’s dead.

    Copied verbatim so the spelling errors aren’t mine.

    David Gould.

    Propaganda is fiction.

    1) Identify an enemy – check
    2) Dehumanise & marginalise your enemy – check
    3) inure your followers to the unacceptable – check

    Need I go on?

    It didn’t work out too well the last times! Have you been asleep for the last 80 odd years or did you just decide that history was the past & not worth bothering about?

    DaveE.

  101. I am curious about David Gould, he seems to have no concept of evil. Is this because he is an atheist? If so, my answer is, I am not religious enough to be an atheist!

    DaveE.

  102. Dave A. Evans,

    Propaganda is lies. There is a difference between fiction and lying. A propaganda piece intends to convince its viewers that the lies that it is telling are true; a fictional piece tells a story in order to try to teach us some truth.

  103. David Gould says:
    “…So: tell me why this video distresses you.”
    —————
    So, David, while we’re waiting for Lucy to get back to you on that one, can you tell us why you find it funny?
    Did you break out in guffaws of laughter?
    Did you giggle like a prurient school-boy?
    Did a wry smile steal across your face?
    Maybe, you meant “funny, peculiar”.

    Like several other commenters, I find it funny that the ten-tenners found it funny on Thursday, but not so funny on Friday.

  104. MarbellaBoy says:
    September 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    “The Last house on the left” – is not insulated
    Ha ha ha, how about………

    “The Hostel” – That’s what you get for taking a plane to Slovakia
    “The Texas chainsaw massacre” – Better use for a chainsaw than cutting down trees
    “The Shining” – You kept the heating on in that huge hotel for just three people?!!!
    “Halloween” – Yea, I’ve got a trick in store for you alright
    “Jaws” – If the shark don’t get you, the acid water will

    The last house on the left is actually the first house on the right, when you leave, and the insulation is far better than you might imagine, sweet cheeks!

    Chainsaws were meant for wood. Only a misanthropist would use them on humans.

    Just because you can’t see ghosts, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    The only trick on Halloween you’re gonna get is the one you’ve set for yourself.

    When was the last time the Earth’s oceans were acidic, even when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were far higher than now?

  105. Whether humour or otherwise, the video was produced for one purpose only, to castigate anyone who takes an opposing view to the fanatical AGW brigade – the people who find it increasingly hard to argue their case after so much evidence upon which they based their claims has been proven to be false or at best grossly exaggerated. It is very sad that they cannot argue on the scientific level without resorting to personal and slanderous attacks on those that oppose their viewpoint. I was once told in the services that ‘ he who becomes angry or resorts to personal abuse on a point of disagreement always looses the argument.’ The video is the perfect example of such a wise statement.

  106. Of course, this shouldn’t really have surprised me or any of us who found this apparent comedy video funny. It was indeed aimed at children an others who could be considere drelatively young, probably because they haven’t been around lonng enough to have seen it all before when it was good old fashioned Marxist Socialism. However, I seem to recall that one Albert Gore had been saying to young people that they “should not listen to grown ups”, for some time! Is that spookey or what? This is just the beginning, they won’t stop there!

  107. David Gould says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    ————-

    David Gould,

    I replied to your comment over on the WUWT “Blow Me Up, Blow Me Down” post because this comment stream is getting old and nearing its terminus.

    John

  108. David Gould says
    “Propaganda is lies. There is a difference between fiction and lying. A propaganda piece intends to convince its viewers that the lies that it is telling are true; a fictional piece tells a story in order to try to teach us some truth.”

    Or possibly yet another lie, no ?

  109. Or How about “The Turner Diaries “.
    Is it propaganda or fiction ?
    Do you accept the “truth” it tries to teach you ?

  110. This video, was without a doubt the most disturbing, horrible piece of “Global Warming” garbage propaganda, I have ever seen!

    It was MURDER! There really is no other word for it. Absolutely sickening!!!

    Just leave us alone, to get on with living normal healthy lives and focus on sorting out the true environmental and ecological problems of the third world sanitation, child poverty, deforestation and oppresive regimes, etc.

    The idea that CO2 (i.e. plant food) can adjust the global weather is hogwash and everyone knows it!

Comments are closed.