Blow Me Up, Blow Me Down

Screencap from 10:10's "No Pressure" video 10/1/10. Click to watch a version with comments from around the web

Guest post by Thomas Fuller

Well, with the calming passage of 24 hours, let’s take another look at the 10:10 video showing the splatterfest of gore as skeptics play the more volatile roles from the worst portions of the movie ‘Scanners.’

It’s still disgusting.

I spent four years in the Navy and have seen a lot. The film did not upset me physically or emotionally. My reaction was mental (Cue Michael Tobis: “See? Fuller’s going mental…”)

What disgusts me first is its target. The video is meant for the young. Young people get blown up by a calm and engaged teacher in the first scene, and music and sports and film figures appealing to the young are both victims and perpetrators throughout.

Our reaction is irrelevant. They are not talking to us. They are talking to our children.

What are they saying? That it’s okay to ostracize, bully and dismiss those who don’t agree that climate change is uber alles (Oops! Godwin alert, Godwin alert) and that skeptics or the children of skeptics are fair game for… whatever.

As there is no real attempt at humour in the video, there’s no point in pretending it’s a parody. It’s instructional. It’s not even aimed at helping children work towards reducing emissions. It’s about helping children take aim at those who do not.

This is worse than Orwellian, although Eric Blair would certainly understand the meaning behind this message. And I don’t want to (and internet traditions would forbid me in any case) link this to the propaganda tactics of World War II. So somewhere in between those two, there is a special place in hell reserved for those whose intent it is to legitimize the cruelty of children towards each other based on what has evidently become a religious belief. And I hope that none of the film’s makers reaches that special place ahead of their allotted timespan–but I hope they get there.

Joe Romm and Bill McKibben have already announced they are ‘Shocked! Shocked!’ that gambling is going on in their casino and that their perpetual campaign of invective and calumny has produced people who actually believe them and hate skeptics. So I guess it’s no harm, no foul. Just as it was not their fault when a disturbed environmentalist took hostages at the Discover Channel headquarters, just as when the WWF made an ad showing planes flying into New York skyscrapers, just as when a Greenpeace blogger told skeptics the world over that ‘we know where you live.’ And as Anthony Watts knows full well, they also know where you work. But none of this is the fault of those who whip up the frenzy and the furor of those stupid enough to believe their hyperbole, enough to do something vicious, cruel, stupid or illegal.

So I guess I can’t blame hysterics like Romm and McKibben, who spend their days babbling about hell and high water and related mystical miseries, for any of the troubles we’ve seen. Except for the kids who will be downloading that video tonight. Both William Golding (Lord of the Flies) and J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan) knew full well that children need no help in being cruel.  But this gives them license and legitimacy. And for that, Joe and Bill, I do hold  you responsible. You sent the message first–it took years for 10:10 to make it explicit.

Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller

Blow Me Up, Blow Me Down

Thomas Fuller
Well, with the calming passage of 24 hours, let’s take another look at the 10:10 video showing the splatterfest of gore as skeptics play the more volatile roles from the worst portions of the movie ‘Scanners.’
It’s still disgusting.
I spent four years in the Navy and have seen a lot. The film did not upset me physically or emotionally. My reaction was mental (Cue Michael Tobis: “See? Fuller’s going mental…”)
What disgusts me first is its target. The video is meant for the young. Young people get blown up by a calm and engaged teacher in the first scene, and music and sports and film figures appealing to the young are both victims and perpetrators throughout.
Our reaction is irrelevant. They are not talking to us. They are talking to our children.
What are they saying? That it’s okay to ostracize, bully and dismiss those who don’t agree that climate change is uber alles (Oops! Godwin alert, Godwin alert) and that skeptics or the children of skeptics are fair game for… whatever.
As there is no real attempt at humour in the video, there’s no point in pretending it’s a parody. It’s instructional. It’s not even aimed at helping children work towards reducing emissions. It’s about helping children take aim at those who do not.
This is worse than Orwellian, although Eric Blair would certainly understand the meaning behind this message. And I don’t want to (and internet traditions would forbid me in any case) link this to the propaganda tactics of World War II. So somewhere in between those two, there is a special place in hell reserved for those whose intent it is to legitimize the cruelty of children towards each other based on what has evidently become a religious belief. And I hope that none of the film’s makers reaches that special place ahead of their allotted timespan–but I hope they get there.
Joe Romm and Bill McKibben have already announced they are ‘Shocked! Shocked!’ that gambling is going on in their casino and that their perpetual campaign of invective and calumny has produced people who actually believe them and hate skeptics. So I guess it’s no harm, no foul. Just as it was not their fault when a disturbed environmentalist took hostages at the Discover Channel headquarters, just as when the WWF made an ad showing planes flying into New York skyscrapers, just as when a Greenpeace blogger told skeptics the world over that ‘we know where you live.’ And as Anthony Watts knows full well, they also know where you work. But none of this is the fault of those who whip up the frenzy and the furor of those stupid enough to believe their hyperbole, enough to do something vicious, cruel, stupid or illegal.
So I guess I can’t blame hysterics like Romm and McKibben, who spend their days babbling about hell and high water and related mystical miseries, for any of the troubles we’ve seen. Except for the kids who will be downloading that video tonight. Both William Golding (Lord of the Flies) and J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan) knew full well that children need no help in being cruel.  But this gives them license and legitimacy. And for that, Joe and Bill, I do hold  you responsible. You sent the message first–it took years for 10:10 to make it explicit.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
482 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 1, 2010 9:16 pm

I’ve just finished posting my own 24-hours-later thoughts. My concluding remarks are pretty much in sync with Tom’s:
If We Are Not Free to Disagree, We Are Not Free

Editor
October 1, 2010 9:25 pm

I don’t see this as something directed at kids, I see it as form of self expression, a fantasy of what people at 10:10, 350.org, etc. would like to do with the skeptical community – simply make us disappear with no concern, no regrets, and an unstated appreciation that we will have made a 100% cut in our carbon footprint.
That, and their complete comfort at lying to people who disagree with them.

jeremy of W.A.
October 1, 2010 9:26 pm

Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
It’s a cultural thing.

October 1, 2010 9:30 pm

I too have come to similar conclusions about this video here. Using young children AND having young children blown up in front of other young children by an authority figure is really well beyond what anybody could classify as acceptable – regardless of the cause.
Interesting though was the fact that in the related videos (4th or 5th) was ‘CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality’ – maybe Google takes into account the content of comments as well when working out what is related. Either that or reality itself has a bone to pick with the 10:10 crowd..

Cassandra King
October 1, 2010 9:32 pm

I see this disgusting film as a direct and stark warning for all normal people whatever camp they belong to, sceptics and alarmists both have a direct stake in coming down hard on on this hate product and stating clearly together that it has no place in our civilisation.
Its time to put our differences aside and fight this kind of sickness together because if we do not the consequences for all of us could be disastrous, the legitimization of cruelty and casual violence toward those thought to be different must be squashed ASAP, once children have that blood lust within them it is almost impossible to remove it.
The world saw the ugly results in the 30s and we very nearly succumbed to a dark age.
This was not comedy, this was never meant to be funny and the claim should be exposed for the lie it is. There is nothing funny about the training our our young to despise and hate the untermenschen. I urge any doubters to watch a film called ‘the eternal Jew’ it shows what goes through the mind of a film maker with a political message of hate to peddle.

David Walton
October 1, 2010 9:33 pm

Our reaction is irrelevant. They are not talking to us. They are talking to our children.
Precisely. But no pressure.

October 1, 2010 9:34 pm
Jeff Wiita
October 1, 2010 9:36 pm

They say that the video has been taken down at URL

but I still find it at URL

October 1, 2010 9:41 pm

The organization’s name, 10:10, and their push to reduce carbon emissions by 10%, coupled with the slaughtering of a few dissenters in every scene (roughly 10%?), reminded me of the Roman disciplinary practice of decimation.
Decimation was a punishment imposed on Roman military units for failure, cowardice, or mutiny in which one in ten (10% of) soldiers were selected by lot to be slaughtered by their comrades. Only the decimated victims in 10:10′s video are chosen for this ultimate punishment by their failure to make the “right” choice. No pressure. Decimating the global population sure is one way to reduce carbon emissions by 10%…
For more on my take on this video, see my blogpost: 10:10′s Decimate the Global Population Campaign.

April E. Coggins
October 1, 2010 9:46 pm

I am still trying to decide if the video was made to desensitize their base or alarm us. Or both. This was clearly a propaganda video made by a master of film. What is the message he is trying to send? Strange as it sounds, I wonder if the film maker didn’t intentially expose this group, all the while the lefty group-thinkers were so eager to get along that they dared not question him for fear of being exploded, socially.

October 1, 2010 9:46 pm

jeremy of W.A
I’m half American and half English (by geography not birth.) The Holy Grail is one of my favorite movies and I have watched most Black Adders.
This piece of crap is not comparable for many reasons. It is a hate piece targeted at children.

Evan Jones
Editor
October 1, 2010 9:46 pm

Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.

But no pressure!

wayne
October 1, 2010 9:47 pm

You are right Thomas, this was no out-of-this-real-world sci fi film that even kids can separate from reality. Many people might think people commenting are upset is because the film upset them. Contraire. I’m old enough to see through it without damage. People are commenting and are upset with what it will do to millions or more innocent minds out there include all of the world’s children and grandchildren. It either teaches them 1) lifelong fear or worse 2) the feeling that another’s life is worth nothing that doesn’t agree with them.
Where the hell is the FBI and Interpol who have the responsibility to protect citizens and their children from such blatant filth. This is a mass-murderer maker. As I understand it this film is now being passed out privately and underground and out of the public’s scrutiny. Is it going to make it’s way into schools and colleges?
This is nothing but terror at it’s core. Plain and simple. They d–ned well better be thankful I do not have any real power over their futures and the futures of the people who caused them to feel they needed to make such a film.

Evan Jones
Editor
October 1, 2010 9:47 pm

P.S., if this were Monty Python, Monty Python wouldn’t be Monty Python.

October 1, 2010 9:49 pm

Al Gore targets youth too:

ImranCan
October 1, 2010 10:06 pm

The video shouldn’t be called 10:10. It could have been 7/7. A group of people decide they don’t like the opinions or way of life of another group so they do exactly what was shown in this video … they push a little red button and blow them all to pieces.
London Underground, July 7th, 2007 …… 50 dead. Countless more scarred for life.
What was the bloody difference between that and the this 10:10 video ?

jeremy of W.A.
October 1, 2010 10:08 pm

Steve Goddard says This piece of crap is not comparable for many reasons. It is a hate piece targeted at children.
Well, looking at the first scene I see a number of stereotypes being developed. The goody-goody two shoes cycling girl, the ‘honest’ suggester of sensible ideas, and finally the malcontents.
As I remember my childhood at that age, the first two were of very low repute while the malcontents were generally popular.
That the malcontents were blown up was – and still is – uber cool. Hono(u)r to them.
I showed my kids the clip and all they could do was laugh.
I’m starting to suspect the script-writer was acting as a double agent

Evan Jones
Editor
October 1, 2010 10:09 pm

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
And parts is parts.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzLVIc-O5E&fs=1&hl=en_US]

Andrew W
October 1, 2010 10:09 pm

The last two paragraphs could easily be rewritten to point the other way; it’s the sceptics like you and Anthony who’re ‘Shocked! Shocked!’ that gambling is going on in their casino and that their perpetual campaign of invective and calumny has produced people who actually believe them and hate warmists! And given that those two paragraphs immediately follow a sentence in which you say you hope the films makers go to hell . . . . well, don’t you realize how one eyed (I’m playing nice) that makes you?

Arthur King of the Britains
October 1, 2010 10:10 pm

Jeremy, I know the Black Knight and David Ginola is no Black Knight.

Kan
October 1, 2010 10:15 pm

Jeremy of W.A
I thought at first it was just over the top British humor as well. Then I read the interviews of the cast, and the producers.
Still looking for the wink, not seeing it.

Rick Bradford
October 1, 2010 10:18 pm

You know that this particular bunch of AGW clowns have made a mistake when even Joe Romm feels obliged to trash them: “The video is beyond tasteless and should be widely condemned.”

October 1, 2010 10:20 pm

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python
Monty Python had a different feel to it. What they did was intended to be funny. This 10:10 video is shocking and sickening. People who persist in saying it is funny to those who are shocked by it may need to do some soul searching. Even the makers of the film aren’t defending it to those who are offended by it.
Monty Python’s “Tennis Anyone? Monty Python’s “Sam Peckinpa’s Salad Days.” ” may be one of the skits you are referring to, jeremy of W.A., when comparing this horrible 10:10 video to Monty Python. But that skit was funny and obviously meant to be funny.
I think to call the 10:10 video funny may partly be due to passive aggression in some people.

Editor
October 1, 2010 10:21 pm

This Jon Stewart segment takes a while to get going, dances around the subject, contains crude language and concepts, and is sure to rile some people up, but the parallels are there, so here it is:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-2-2010/story-hole—children-s-cartoons-from-hamas

savethesharks
October 1, 2010 10:22 pm

I agree with the previous posters that this was aimed at children.
Indeed, listen to the comments of two of the child actors in the film, from the now youtube banned “behind the scenes” video:
One young chap of about age 10 who was blown up in the first scene says something to the effect:
“I am very up…to getting blown up…to save the world.”
Then a young teenage teen actor, says, with a smile on his blood and guts covered face:
“Hi my name is Drew Barnard and I think it is fun to explode children…for a good cause.”
!!!!!
Now I am sure what these kids are saying, are with a wink.
We all have the fascination with the blood and guts and halloween and horror. I get that.
This video is not that.
There is an extremely sinister undercurrent here.
It is pure evil….and the producers now realize their error…and now they have retracted.
Good for them. Nice to see some semblance of consciences remain.
But what about the many minds of children you USED and influenced here?
How are you going to retract that?
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

TomRude
October 1, 2010 10:22 pm

They showed who they really are much more graphically than we ever could. So thanks for their honesty… it saved us lots of work.

BFL
October 1, 2010 10:25 pm

The push by the climate groups in the last few decades to gain political and economic control which can so severely affect living standards has added an extra layer of believability in the fascist message of this kind of video. England and most of Europe have already had green energy and carbon initiatives involuntarily forced on them. In the US we are expecting this to happen shortly with the EPA’s forcible and involuntary regulation of CO2 and removal of incandescent bulbs. This may play well with the climate control groups but it is not going to go over easily at all in the US where individual freedom to decide a course of action or to have a choice in desired products tends to be sacrosanct. Considering the kinds of things already in the climate control pipeline, why would anyone not think that this video would back up anti-climate fears at a personal level.

Peter Wilson
October 1, 2010 10:26 pm

This is clearly a major stuff up by the warmists, but I’m beginning to wonder about Richard Curtis. Is it not conceivable than he is actually on our side, and has produced this vile piece of trash to illustrate just what obscene lengths the eco-totalitarians will tolerate.
Surely he was wanting to see how far he could go for just one person to say “hey, you can’t do this, this makes us look like the Khymer Rouge”. But no, these eco-warriors sat through the pitch, the mock ups, the rushes and the previews, and they all thought it was a great idea.
Very revealing as to the mindset involved, I suggest. Thanks Richard, you really showed them up!

a jones
October 1, 2010 10:28 pm

Tom
Like you I am a ex tar: different navy of course.
I simply don’t know what to make of this.
As a sort of second career I have been writing scripts all my life and even directing films and I still don’t what this is about.
Technically they must have spent a fortune which could have been done for a fraction of the price.
But what is it they are trying to say? Apart from an addiction to SFX instead of a proper storyline. Even bad propaganda, sorry when I worked for the BBC they were called information films, need a storyline not some kind of Awful Warning like this.
That is for sandwich board men: the End is Nigh and such like.
Frankly I cannot get terribly upset about exploding people even children on screen, it is fantasy even if it is in appallingly bad taste. Lots of people will attack me for that no doubt: think of the children etc. But within limits, which this exceeds, children do love gruesome tales. So do adults: let the flesh creep. Provided good wins over evil in the end of course.
So in this where is the good?
I can also understand, being British and having written many scripts for UK comedy shows, why these people might have thought it was funny.
It isn’t of course, correctly handled it could have been both funny and driven home a point. As it is does neither and offends many people, and I find the apology for doing this incredibly and pompously self righteous.
So call me baffled, bemused and ready for a home for the bewildered.
Kindest Regards

Doug in Dunedin
October 1, 2010 10:31 pm

jeremy of W.A. says: October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.It’s a cultural thing.
======================================================
Well Jeremy of W.A. I am not so sure about the cultural thing. I enjoy (and understand) the ironic humour of British comedy – watched and enjoyed only last night a re-run of Blackadder – the final of the WW1 series when Darling was forced by the general to join Blackadder and Baldric in ‘going over the top’. This video is completely different. If this was a serious attempt to persuade people to cut co2 emissions, forget the comedic connection. Even if you are British.
The key point reiterated in all three segments was that the perpetrators exonerated themselves from responsibility for their actions knowing full well that they could eliminate the dissenters at a touch of a button – ‘no pressure – your choice’ and then went on to push the button and continue the discourse as though nothing of any moment had happened. Nothing like (say) the general who genuinely believed that Darling wanted to do his duty above all else an go over the top with Blackadder even though the general excused himself from doing the same on the grounds of his advanced years. (Bl—dy old bluff and gormless hypocrite that he was!
You can’t get away from the message in this video. And I have to conclude that the message was genuine. But it backfired. The video should assist the sceptic’s cause – hugely!
Doug

pat
October 1, 2010 10:32 pm

They are crazy. This is, of course, wishful thinking.
Humor would have a far different tone to normal people.

Jimash
October 1, 2010 10:44 pm

Well said Thomas.
This stuff is aimed at children. And echoing Steve it IS hate speech.

Billy Sol Hurock
October 1, 2010 10:46 pm

I think it may be time for Franny Armstrong to appear on ” Farm Films -Celebrity Blow-Up!”

C,mon Franny! Get your voice even more shrill! C’mon Franny, you can do it!
YEEE HA! She blowed up! She blowed up REAL GOOD!
Until next time,
may the good Lord take a likin’ to ya and blow ya up REAL GOOD!

savethesharks
October 1, 2010 10:53 pm

a jones says:
October 1, 2010 at 10:28 pm
It isn’t of course, correctly handled it could have been both funny and driven home a point. As it is does neither and offends many people, and I find the apology for doing this incredibly and pompously self righteous.
=============================
It is none of the above. It is crap. No matter how you label it.
Yah there is some artistic integrity with the production and the special effects.
But it ends there.
There is an Orwellian sickening undercurrent below it all.
And THAT is the reason so many reasonable people are up at arms.
I can not tell you how angry and defensive this video makes me. Good thing I will not meet up with any of the production staff any time soon LOL.
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Bernie
October 1, 2010 10:55 pm

This has no redeeming value. It is certainly no Monty Python – which are funny when they are (a) understandable and (b) don’t go on too long.
This piece of propaganda reflects the intolerant attitudes of those who are intent on telling us what to do. In this regard, it is the mirror image of what goes on at Climate Progress courtesy of Joe Romm.

Doug S
October 1, 2010 10:57 pm

Whether or not the clip was aimed at children, the potential for this kind of propaganda to be forced on our kids and grand kids is very serious. I believe our public schools are vulnerable to political progressives and their distorted views. The way I suggest we fight back is to support homeschooling and other forms of educational alternatives that reduce central control over public education. Somehow we’ve allowed the progressives to infiltrate the US public education establishment and our children are being fed this kind of garbage on a regular basis. In the end, I think these bas***ds will fail because their views are far outside the sphere of common sense that God gave human beings. Perhaps in time genetic engineering will allow simians to read and write and the progressives can force feed the monkeys their drivel.

jeremy of W.A.
October 1, 2010 10:59 pm

Kan says
I thought at first it was just over the top British humor as well. Then I read the interviews of the cast, and the producers.
Actually I’m very interested in the cast interviews. Unfortunately It’s been blocked on Youtube. Do you have a free link I can view?
Did they interview the script writer as well? If so, what comments were made?

SSam
October 1, 2010 11:07 pm

Well, look at the bright side, now people can know how they really feel about dissenting opinion. In a nutshell, “Obey or die.”
Elsewhere, a fitting example of the UHI effect on steroids. The Vdara “Death Ray” Hotel.
Melts plastic, drives people away from the pool, can probably even cook pop corn if you set it up right.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/las-vegas-hotel-pool-sunlight-swimming-tourists/story?id=11739234

rbateman
October 1, 2010 11:08 pm

evanmjones says:
October 1, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Yup, parts is parts.
As Popeye would say “Well, blow me down”.

Editor
October 1, 2010 11:12 pm

Tangential to my prior post, the last time I saw Jon Stewart curse so much was in his Climategate segment:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data

Evan Jones
Editor
October 1, 2010 11:16 pm

Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.

I’m averting my eyes, O Lord.

October 1, 2010 11:21 pm

I can only agree with Thomas Fuller. This is not satire, it is shameless hate propaganda. To even suggest it has any artistic or humorous value, demeans the hundreds of fine satirical works of literature, right back to Aristophanes. It is not the violence per say, it is the underlying message of permission to attack those who disagree with you or are different from you, that is offensive to me. To use children in this way is simply non sexual child pornography. (Someone else came up with that in another thread. I have shameless stolen it.)

AndyW
October 1, 2010 11:22 pm

Oh spare me these fake prudish Victorian attitudes that have suddenly appeared due to it coming from “the other side” and seems to be a stick to beat them with.
Andy

DeNihilist
October 1, 2010 11:28 pm

just showed it to my 18 yr old son, slightly amused, but thought it was sick. Whereas I found it humourous.
And no, it does not show the “real” plans of the left, just like Delingpole does not show the “real” plans of the right.

TGSG
October 1, 2010 11:36 pm

funny, yeah… when I see children blown to bloody bits in a classroom the first thing I do is giggle like a little schoolgirl.
no shame, or no children. sick
that one’s for you David G. commenting on the Aussie dime.
still pissed

ianl8888
October 1, 2010 11:38 pm

It is satire – very poorly done, but satire none-the-less
I also bet that most young kids love it, like “Sean of the Undead” or similar. My children laughed themselves stupid, without believing one single syllable of it
Yankeeland is also known as an irony-free zone, with some justification. I have quite a few US colleagues – knowledgeable, clever, sharp but with their humour I always feel there is a bit missing (or as we Aussies say, a few bricks short of a full load). There is definitely a dead zone in there, a vaguely uncomfortable feeling. And so it is with the obtuse reactions shown in most of the above posts
Ask children if the old and brilliant Bugs Bunny cartoon series ever induced them to go on a murderous rampage, or if they just laughed themselves silly. This is not conceptually different – how many young children have any control over, or even care, how much CO2 they poop?

TGSG
October 1, 2010 11:40 pm

Oh spare me these fake prudish Victorian attitudes that have suddenly appeared due to it coming from “the other side” and seems to be a stick to beat them with.
Andy
Hey Andy (if that is your real name) show me a comparison piece from the skeptic side and I’ll listen. Until you do you’re no different than the people who put out this crap. Sick

Toto
October 1, 2010 11:41 pm

The Killing Fields, Rwanda, Kristallnacht, KKK lynchings, Ireland, Bosnia, Spanish Civil War, American Civil War, etc etc etc. Not all “wars” are fought between countries. You *really* do not want to start down this path. There are evils which lurk within that must not be provoked.

October 1, 2010 11:41 pm

“Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children.”
George Orwell – 1984
And this video says, join the party, become a member. As said before, 1984 is a warning, not a manual.

SSam
October 1, 2010 11:42 pm

So… what exactly is prudish about detesting what is essentially a vicarious snuff flick?

John Wright
October 1, 2010 11:50 pm

First reaction of an Englishman…
Very strange video. Certainly not funny. I think they’re trying to tell us it’s urgent to act with no exception, otherwise we’re all doomed – or something to that effect.
That point comes across clearly enough. It’s the deliberate pressing of the red button that bothers me.
What was going on in these filmmakers’ heads?
Some here call it “professional”. What do they mean by that? The effects? I could do those on iMovie. No it’s the height (or rather the depths) of clumsy.
I don’t think it will have much effect on kids.

Orkneygal
October 1, 2010 11:52 pm

It would be nice to hear what mothers in Iraq, or Pakistan or Israel, or Afganistan have to say about this video. That would help put it in better cultural perspective, as some has suggested above.
In my culture, the idea of blowing up children for any reason is repulsive, immoral and could only be fostered by truly bent near sub-humans. But that’s just my culture.

Kate
October 1, 2010 11:53 pm

Strangely, the BBC has no reports of this video; not a single mention of it anywhere.
Those who wish to protest at the sponsors of the video have a page which makes it easy as it names them all and includes links to all their websites:
http://sadhillnews.com/2010/10/01/eco-terrorism-1010global-org-no-pressure-ad-campaign-made-possible-by-sony-and-others

MangoChutney
October 1, 2010 11:53 pm

O/T
Richard Black’s blog is now being destroyed by the moderators. I’ve had the following 2 posts moderated out of existence, despite them being on topic:
“Subject:
‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance
Posting:
Richard
JoNova comments here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/blog-warfare-warmist-attacks-their-own/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29
Subject:
‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance
Posting:
@Barry Woods #218
Already commented on Richards blog on the slur:
As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: “I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#P101061367
And he still hasn’t apologised for it
Mention anything even slightly off topic and whoosh, gone
Has RC taken over the BBC?
/Mango

Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand
October 1, 2010 11:54 pm

Anthony – I suggest that the intentions of the maker of the video (Richard Curtis) and the intentions of the commissioners of the video (1010) are not the same. My immediate reaction was that Richard Curtis is satirising 1010 and their ilk (and making big fools of them as well). Time will tell whether my take on the video is correct. Bear in mind that Curtis is a complete rebel by nature.
The video is designed, among other things, to shock, and appears to have succeeded rather well in this respect. I am intrigued that a fictional video succeeds in shocking people better than public statements by Greenpeace, Hansen, Suzuki, Gore, Holdren et al. I guess it shows the power of the medium.
Richard Curtis is a clever man, he has made his fame and fortune. I suggest he has a secondary motive, which is to stir up the debate on hate speech, or at least to get people thinking about it (by a sort of reverse psychology). I suspect the video cannot be found in breach of any laws in the UK, which only cover things like race and religion. Those people who are blown up in the film do not fit into any recognisable legal category under hate speech legislation. Curtis’ associates such as Rowan Atkinson were outspoken in their opposition to a recent attempt to extend hate speech laws in the UK (because it would kill comedy). For my part, I am with Rowan Atkinson on this one, and am inclined to view hate speech legislation with suspicion. Those who seek to control speech remind me rather too much of those who would like to have a red button.
All the best.

GavinL
October 1, 2010 11:55 pm

“jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
It’s a cultural thing.”
I’m British and I didn’t find the film funny, more like disturbing.
I laughed my socks off when Mr. Creoscote blew up, but remember it was a wafer-thin mint that did the damage rather than a cold, calculating figure of authority pressing the button.
Please do not try to argue that it is just British black humour as that doesn’t wash.

MangoChutney
October 1, 2010 11:56 pm

and on topic:
I’m unconcerned about this video, i think Curtis and 10:10 have shot themselves in the foot, because this video will always surface somewhere on the Internet to haunt them
/Mango

Phillip Bratby
October 1, 2010 11:58 pm

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British”.
I think you will find we British have stated our case at James Delingpole. 998 comments so far. I have never seen so many condemnatory comments by we Brits.
We loved Monty Python and Blackadder. But we can tell the difference between comedy and hate-filled ecofascism.

Shona
October 2, 2010 12:02 am

Comment from a Brit, Pythonesque, it is not.
It’s awful, though it may backfire, the blown up kids are the cool ones.
Given the propensity for kids to refuse what wrinklies tell them, it may be time for a backlash

Andrew W
October 2, 2010 12:07 am

Andy does have a point about the genuineness of the screams of indignation and offense when so many of those doing the screaming are celebrating the videos immortality as a stick to beat warmists with, if the indignation was so important, wouldn’t those people prefer to see it forever gone?

BrianMcL
October 2, 2010 12:15 am

I might be wrong but were the people blown up even sceptics?
Maybe the message is that to be deemed worthy of salvation you must “tythe” – simply doing nothing isn’t enough, you must give up 10%

Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand
October 2, 2010 12:17 am

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Well, looking at the first scene I see a number of stereotypes being developed. The goody-goody two shoes cycling girl, the ‘honest’ suggester of sensible ideas, and finally the malcontents.
As I remember my childhood at that age, the first two were of very low repute while the malcontents were generally popular.
That the malcontents were blown up was – and still is – uber cool. Hono(u)r to them.
I showed my kids the clip and all they could do was laugh.
I’m starting to suspect the script-writer was acting as a double agent
************************************************************
Jeremy – I agree with your assessment. The same can be said of the other scenes. The footballer who is blown up is the legend (he even talks about the game, whereas the coach is drilling the players for penalties – negative football at its most obvious). The office workers who couldn’t care less about what their lousy manager is asking them to do are the ones who would have “respect” from their colleagues. And Gillian Anderson is the popular figure (with a fictional anti-establishment persona) versus the unknown conformist with the red button. So in every scene it is the cool dudes who are exploded. The maker wants us to be on their side.
All the best.

TGSG
October 2, 2010 12:17 am

The tolerant, enlightened Environmenta Left would NEVER stoop so low as to dehumanize those who disagree with them, much less suggest they be exterminated. Because yaknow, once you’ve identified those who are responsible for all the ills befalling everyone else, it’s only logical that someone should be empowered to remove them. But you people we wanted to kill just aren’t smart/nuanced enough to get this little bit of humor, so we removed it, sorry you’re not as enlightened as we are.
Amazingly bizarre that through all the different steps this film took.. from conception to screenplay to shooting to final edit to the person who gave the final OK… not a one of them said “nah this is just a touch over the top”.

Leon Brozyna
October 2, 2010 12:19 am

Nope … doesn’t get any better with age.
Now let’s see if there are any slightly strange people out there who might take this video’s message to heart and try to come up with their own 10% solution.

DaveF
October 2, 2010 12:20 am

I’d just like to echo Gavin L’s reply to Jeremy of WA. I’m British too, and my sense of humour is considered ‘robust’ even here, emanating, as it does, from the Goons, Kenneth Horne, Python etc. This video was something else entirely. It was sick.

John in NZ
October 2, 2010 12:30 am

If it had been made by skeptics, it would have been satire. The satire would be ridiculing the believers.
But this was made by believers. Did they intend to ridicule themselves?
I suspect Richard Curtis was making fun of them and they simply didn’t get the joke.

Dave Wendt
October 2, 2010 12:30 am

It’s not exactly primetime coverage, but the video was the lead topic on “Redeye”, Greg Gutfeld’s show on Fox.

artwest
October 2, 2010 12:33 am

I’m perfectly aware of the British sense of humour – being British, for a start – and wasn’t at all shocked by the violence in what was supposed to be a humorous context.
What appalled me was a) how poor and laborious it was and b) the message of the film.
The only way that you could read it as being anything other than saying that anyone even slightly sceptical deserves to die is if you believe that 10:10 and Richard Curtis, one of it’s oldest supporters, would want to completely undermine themselves and the cause in which they fervently believe. I don’t buy that for a second.
I think it’s a monumental misjudgement from people not thinking outside of their own little bubble and guaging how those outside the bubble are going to react. Let’s not forget that Franny Armstrong called her patronising sermon The Age of Stupid. That’s the way to make the unconverted warm to you.
I suspect that once Curtis had delivered a script then everyone else dared not question the Great Man even if they had reservations. They probably thought that he should know better than they what would work as a film and thought that at least his name would be great publicity.
However, Richard Curtis is hardly known as a “message” writer and his one real previous attempt at something on his own which had a message was The Girl in the Cafe – a clunking, borefest set around a G8 summit.
Curtis also has no real experience with humour quite this black. The darkest thing by far he has done is Blackadder which was tame by comparison. It was also co-written by Ben Elton, a writer far more at home with black humour and who was probably the source of most of the darkness in Blackadder.
Many if not most of Curtis’s scripts have been written with others, have been adaptations, and/or been heavily script edited by his wife Emma Freud. Perhaps she was away on the day he dashed this off.
It almost seems like a safe middle aged purveyor of romantic trifles suddenly decided that he could be as edgy and “in your face” as the cool kids and ended up getting it as horribly wrong as your granddad trying to rap.
To end on a lighter note:
A piece of Curtis’s writing from happier times which really was witty:

(No dismembered body parts involved)

Adam Gallon
October 2, 2010 12:41 am

As another Englishman, who loves Monty Python/Fawlty Towers and all other such comedy.
Satire? The only satire is on those who advocate silencing dissent, which seem to be quite a few on the pro-AGW side of affairs.After all, the science is settled & one shouldn’t give equal (Or indeed any) airtime to those who deny it!
I don’t really believe in AGW – I kill you.
Ahmed the Dead Terrorist is satire, this isn’t.

DennisA
October 2, 2010 12:44 am

For some background on the producers and the Age of Utter Stupidity, check out
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-environmental-activist-mind-set-the-age-of-utter-stupidity

Mick
October 2, 2010 12:54 am

I’ve just seen this promo video for the first time…I am stunned and numbed that such appalling rubbish should be funded by any organisation other than a totalitarian group bent on taking away individual freedom from me, my children and any other person wishing to disbelieve their propaganda….how long must we endure this type of sublime mental blackmail, and especially in this case, passed off as humour?

Spector
October 2, 2010 12:56 am

I would think that any official use of any video like this would constitute harassment, violation of civil rights, and the creation of a hostile work or education environment.

October 2, 2010 1:05 am

They are trying to spin it as a joke, that people did not get British humour…..
No… I still laugh at Mr Creosote (monty Python – Meaning of LIfe)
This was different, ignore the blood and gore, it was characterisisng those who disagree, or even not that bothered, as lazy, misfits, stupid looking, outsiders, etc….
In a school, the voice of authority, has a casual indifference, even those children not blown up look shocked.. Same in the office, people who don’t fit in with the crowd, the boss, YOU, Choose, No pressure message. (the footballers are too dim, to see what they are involved in, but afgain, the manager coach are the authority here)
With Gillian anderson, you have to FULLY agree, not just do a little bit, or RED BUTTON.
I imagine, they thought it was funny, and at a level, one RED button might be.. BUT four times… You Choose, No pressure (4 times)
They (creative, rich elite media types, no doubt very inteligent, but no scoiince qualification, I have 2 degrees, hard science)feel superior to those who disagree, they are the elite, we the uneducated masses to be looked down upon.
It shows there feeling for people that do not agree… misfits, stupid, lazy, ugly, scruffy, outsiders, the bullied, that don’t fit in… and they take it to an extreme (blow them up). But in reality, it is about bullying, excluding anyone who does not agree, labbeling, calling them an outsider….
Where have we seen that before in history (cockroaches , in rwanda, the 1930’s) jokes, not a parallel people will say… don’t go over the top they say, ONLY a JOKE, don’t you have a sense of Humour…..
But how many people became desensized to ‘DENIAR’ in the last few years (casual use by some). Powerful message in the film, don’t satnd out, don’t disagree, don’t even be indifferent… You are with us or against us…… so it is BULLYING, controlling, with only the extreme over the top violence, allowing them to say it is a joke.
This type of humour is usually anti-authority, making you feel for the underdog… Comeuppance for being mistreated, etc..
NOT here, merely not being that bothered, brings down a casual violence, by this evangelical zeal.
For the people in authority DO know where you live – ‘We Know Where You Live’ (extreme greenpeace thinking/mentality).
I’ve met people that just look at me differently (as some sort of DENIAR) when I have expressed my thought or challenged thier statemenets. At my local Transition Town Meeting – They have a 10:10 meeting today, with councillors, the mayor, members of my community…
ANYWAY.
Don’t let them spin this as a joke tha backfired (it showed their thoughts for those who disagree with their worldview)
Here is an UNGUARDED, immediate reaction, in the GUARDIAN COMMENT section. He posted it in horror, then had to come back again, he was so UPSET with 10:10
This was a BOARD MEMBER OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
I sent the below to the BBC:
A comment from a FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Board Member – in the Guardian.. (immediate unguarded, un PR reaction)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth – Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:27AM
God knows I’m on your side but this just panders to the morons who think we’re ‘Eco-fascists’ – own goal, guys.
Kill it and do something better.
Disturbing!
He came back for some more. (my asterisks)
2nd comment.. (could not leave it..)
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth – Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:33AM
Actually, I have to say something stronger,
this film is f***ing ridiculous.
I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so f***ing stupid.
There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.[snip], where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
This is just ludicrous.
Presumably this is John…..
http://www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/about_us/board/board_members.html
John Halladay
“Friends of the Earth Trust and Limited
Elected Board member for South Central Member of:
Engagement Committee
Elected: 2008
Due for re-election: 2011
John’s particular interests in the environmental field include recycling, the concept of individual carbon allowances and the effect of increasing world population on the environment. He works as a Human Resources consultant greening the employment practices in UK companies and is also the joint co-ordinator of Bracknell & District Friends of the Earth.”
The BBC should be reporting this whole story to the general public, not perceived to be protecting the CAGW message.
On all the ‘usual’ blogs, there is deep cynicism that the BBC will not touch on this story….
I hope that the BBC can prove them wrong.
Please BBC this shows a ‘green bubble’ groupthink at work.. (much like Gordon Brown’s ‘bigot’ moment – the media ran with that, why not this?)
Did not ONE person, involved in this (there must have been hundred or more) not think to say: ‘hang on, is this really a good idea..’
Or was, it ‘NO pressure’ preventing anybody saying it was daft.
Or was green groupthink at work… Of course ‘NO pressure’ in those who might think it was a bad idea… so kep quiet.
It was going to be shown in CINEMAS..
EVERY single other environment group is absolutley furious with 10:10
Don’t let them pretend otherwise…
[Reply – you had three versions of this stuck in the spam filter. I’ve posted the first one ~jove, mod]

October 2, 2010 1:10 am

I disagree with Thomas Fuller that this vile digusting piece of hate mongering is aimed at our children. To an extent perhaps it is, but only as side effect resulting in intimidation of the youth.
The real aim of this Orwellian horror is to rally those of a like mind, a call to arms if you will. The victims are portrayed as malcontents, they are eliminated without emotion, without remourse. They are executed as non chalantly as one takes out the garbage. The message is aimed at other warmists, and the message is clear. They portray at once the urgency with which action must be taken, and by dehumanizing the victims, justify their elimination as something necessary, just like taking out the garbage. While more explicit and over the top than the Greenpeace gaffe, it is at its core identical in portraying skeptics as dangerous, and that the urgency of global warming may mean that they must be removed as obstacles to emission control by any means, and justified both by the danger they represent and that they are not fully members of humanity in the first place, more comparable to a bag of garbage or a vermin infestation than to human beings.
That this video saw the light of day at all is indicative of the mind set of those who made it. They are invested in their belief system, and have abandoned rational debate in favour of “what to do about the dissenters”. Only people who are already invested in the notion that there is something wrong with skeptics and that they are less than human could have seen “humour” in this videa, and failed to see the backlash it would spark.
So have no illusions. It was not aimed at our children per se, there was nothing in it that would pursuade anybody in regard to the global warming debate at all. It was a call to arms and a call to action by like minded people, with the dehumanizing of skeptics throughout the video as rationalization to make real action more acceptable.
The excuse by some official at 10:10 that they were not “really” advocating killing people was followed by a suggestion that perhaps a few amputations would be in order. The message in that was pretty much an admission that they had over reached in their attempt to rally the troops, but that was no apology, it was just a ratcheting down of the rhetoric. Having failed to get murder legitimized, they backed down to mere amputations, and then withdrew that remark as well.
But the message to other warmists was clear. Catastrophe must be averted, time is running out, and “we” must prepare to start taking real action against “them” for “we” are the real humans who care about the planet and “they” are just vermin or bags of garbage who are in the way of Truth and Justice.
I don’t know who if anyone they will pursuade to their side. I think it clear however what they think of themselves (defenders of all that is good) and what they think of “those others” (evil selfish geneticaly defective exploiters of all that is good)

October 2, 2010 1:19 am

I particularly like the Satire defense which totally misses the mark about the structure of satire. Satire operates through the emotions of shame and guilt, which is why it is more prevalent in shame based guilt based cultures and in cultures which care about appearances and propriety. There is no satire in a culture that lacks a strong sense of what is “proper.” Satire works best when the object of derision is an authority or institution . Satire is the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. That is why the best american satire is chiefly political satire-think Will Rogers– and why the best British satire– think swift for juvenalian satire and monthy python for horatian satire– is about class and position. When you dont have the power or position to reason with the power structure, your only option is satire, shame them, make fun of them. This is why the piece fails as a satire. In this piece, who exactly is the object of the satire? The skeptics in the piece are not shamed into changing ( which is how satire operates as a rhetorical device), rather the object of satire ( if there is one) are the authorities. Which means, of course, that it is self defeating as a work of satire since the point of the piece is to get people to listen to authorities.
Simply, if it’s a satire, then it’s a self defeating satire. Which means of course that it does not function like a satire, even if it was intended as a satire. The lesson is that when it comes to determining the “meaning” of a piece, authorial intention is not controlling. Something meant as a satire that fails to operate as a satire, is not a satire.

mrjohn
October 2, 2010 1:19 am

” just as when the WWF made an ad showing planes flying into New York skyscrapers,”
I work in advertising and I know a scam ad when I see one. The WWF poster does not look like a genuine WWF ad, rather one an advertising agency slipped in under the radar in an attempt to gain recognition at various industry awards shows. I believe a branch of the WWF OK’d the ad, but I wouldn’t great store by that, there are ways of blagging stuff through a client. It did not get wide print exposure, which suggests no real media budget, and the work itself suggests a very small production budget, exactly what you expect when an agency does this kind of thing “pro bono-ish”
A few years ago there was a video on the internet of Honda’s Asimo robot falling over during a demonstration, I thought it was funny, showed it to one of my Japanese co-workers (I work in Tokyo), he found it sad, like a watching a child fall over. I feel the same about this film in a way, not for the makers, but reading the attempts to rationalize it on blogs and the Guardian. It’s just sad, the debate can do better than this.

anna v
October 2, 2010 1:27 am

Islam spread and almost conquered the known world because of this sequence:
Say “Allah is the one God and Mohamed his prophet” and be saved. Otherwise “off with your head”. Swords were cleaner.

mrjohn
October 2, 2010 1:33 am

The simple difference between this and Monty Python is Python did not have an overt or covert political agenda.

Editor
October 2, 2010 1:33 am

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
It’s a cultural thing.

Well, as one Brit/Pom/Limey who grew up on Monty Python (OK, so I was at University of Bristol when Python began), I truly understand satire, irony and sarcasm from a UK perspective – or at least as expressed by the verious genius comedic wits that eminated from Oxbridge in those years.
This is something completely different (sorry to paraphrase but hard not to) – this is sinister in the extreme.
History is replete with zealotry emanating from beliefs (as opposed to known truths).
We have seen so many attrocities in the name of religion, the Inquisition, The Malleus Maleficarum that culminated in the Salem trials, many 20th century topics just too horrendous to mention, religeous fundamentalism, McMarthyism that ostracised so many patriotic Americans who’s only sin was freedom of thought and expression – the list goes on and on
How many wars have been waged in the name of Religion? It doesn’t even need to be different religions – Christian on Christian is always good for a bloodbath.
To all these must be added the religion that is now CAGW – the loonatics are taking over the asylum – and don’t care what they do or who they hurt in the process.
One question I have every time – is the cure worse than the predicted disease?
From one Brit who knows when to laugh – and when to be ashamed!
Andy

richard verney
October 2, 2010 1:36 am

I haven’t previously commented on this, since I did not want to raise this **** to a stature worthy of comment.
Of course it is clearly marketed at kids, ie., the internet generation.
Those involved in the making and marketing of this video could not see the harm that it would inflict since they are too close to the cause to be objective; it was like preaching to the converted. In matters of this kind (PR matters) it is always a good idea to run it past the opposite camp to see what comments arise and then to take these on board if a more impressive product is to be created.
I am English and I consider that I have a good sense of humour, but I did not find the video at all funny. The joke was old (Monty Python has long since done the blowing up of people joke), and the same and only ‘joke’ was repeated 4 times. You might laugh once at a person slipping on a bananna skin but you will not laugh 4 times when you see the same gag repeated over and over again; am I the only one who does not find ‘You’ve been framed’ funny. There is only a certain number of times that you can be amused by people falling down. tripping over (weather on the dance floor or otherwise), falling into water. Same O same O.
Further, and this surprised me the most, that apart from the first scene there was no effort to put forward a message relating to how one can go about reducing one’s carbon foot print. The video was not at all educational and herein lay one of its biggest problems. Since it did not seek to teach how one could contribute to reducing the CO2 footprint, the only message left was that if you disagree with me, I will kill you.
I think that the video would have been less shocking and come into less criticism if through out it had sought to suggest practical ways in which an effective reduction in CO2 could be achieved.
What worries me is that there is no such thing as bad publicity and the reaction to this video on the web will have encouraged more of the target audience (the young internet generation) to watch the video to see what all the fuss is about and it is likely that that target audience won’t be digusted by the underlying message that if you disagree with me it is OK for me to kill you.

Les
October 2, 2010 1:36 am

For jeremy of W.A
Well I am British and naturally love and enjoy Blackadder, Fawlty Towers and Monty Python. Like all the other Britons on here, I don’t find this even remotely amusing. I was absolutely incensed and I have written a strongly worded email to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (whose team I’ve supported for 45 years). The parallels to “The Eternal Jew” are too strong to ignore (you are not one of us and therefore are only vermin to be eradicated). Moreover THFC has always been known as a Jewish club whose supporters call themselves “The Yids”. For them to loan some of their players and staff for this mini film is beyond belief. The message of “The Eternal Jew”
ended up at gates marked “Arbeit Macht Frei”. This film is essentially no different. Its utterly appalling and it’s makers should be prosecuted.

Ross
October 2, 2010 1:37 am

Paul Deacon Your attempted defence of this video by suggesting that Curtis and 10:10 somehow have diffenerent agendas doesn’t stackup when you look at what Curtis says in interviews he has made since.
eg
“Richard Curtis, is equally proud of the production: “The writer of Four Weddings and a Funeral and Blackadder and an early 10:10 supporter, acknowledges that the 10:10 film is very direct.”
“The 10:10 team are a fearless, energetic bunch, completely dedicated to getting the public fired up about climate change. They also turn out to be surprisingly good at blowing stuff up,” he said.”
This clearly shows they are “on the same page” with this rubbish.

October 2, 2010 1:40 am

My problem is that the video in question was designed to be shown in schools. Not for adults, but for year 9 science classes. It contains no ‘science’, so what’s it’s point? If my children were still this age and I found out such material was being used in their classes, there would be several stiff letters to the local education authority, and demands to the school board to dismiss those responsible.
Have formally written to my UK MP and MEP’s asking that they investigate. Have further requested that funding for similar organisations to 10:10 is withheld until a full enquiry into the matter has been held. Not that the powers that be will actually do this, but I just couldn’t resist the opportunity.
As for the flaccid attempts to compare the video to Monty Python, Blackadder etc. I would like to make the point that comedy violence has to be heavily stylised or it’s just not funny. Perhaps the director and production team did not understand this basic principle.

Jack
October 2, 2010 1:41 am

Comment for Toto:
Let me get this straight: Rwanda, Bosnia, Serbia, Cambodia belong on the same list as the US Civil War? Lots of white people killing lots of white people in order to eliminate slavery in the US is the same as blacks killing blacks from a different tribe or Non muslims killing muslims, (or the other way around), or brown people killing brown people because they are middle class, or just to eliminate political opposition.
Well, regarding the US Civil War, I think I know which side Toto would have fought for.

BrianMcL
October 2, 2010 1:47 am

I’ve managed to think of a pythonesque link, please bear with me and apologies to anyone offended by the religious analogies.
First it was the sin eaters and their carbon indulgences, now tytheing, what’s next, the Spanish Inquistion?
Nobody expects…, etc.

Editor
October 2, 2010 1:49 am

mrjohn says:
October 2, 2010 at 1:33 am
The simple difference between this and Monty Python is Python did not have an overt or covert political agenda.

Not to get OT or sidetracked, but as a humble undergrad at the time, I would have to say Python had a huge Political agenda – taking the p**s out of authority was on a par with what the Yanks and Timothy Leary were up to with their “Peace” protests – bring down the consevative institutions.
Come to think of it – this is where Greenpeace, WWF, et al came from !!!
Andy

RW
October 2, 2010 1:49 am

“As there is no real attempt at humour in the video, there’s no point in pretending it’s a parody. It’s instructional”
Ha ha ha. Instructional? Are you serious?
There was clearly an attempt at humour. It was misjudged and poorly executed, but it was clearly an attempt at humour. If you think it was instructional, you’re flailing off into wild paranoia.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
October 2, 2010 1:57 am

I’m afraid that many people have fallen for a old trick here – publicity stunt. By making a big thing about this and getting them to withdraw it is EXACTLY what they intended from the start! Can you people not see this? It’s used very often here in England – and people still fall for it. Here is the Daily Telegraph today, “The spokesman denied that the withdrawal was planned from the beginning as a publicity stunt.” That means it was!
We’ve had lots of these here. A few years back, a table football company (what you amusingly call ‘Fuseball’) said they were going to axe their ‘Subutteo’. There was outcry. Men (still remembering their childhood) were incensed. After a few weeks it was decided not to scrap Subuutteo at all! Well surprise, surprise! They never had any intention of doing anything of the sort, but it gave them game massive publicity and sales.
It doesn’t always work. Our principle chocolate bar here (Cadburys) this week tried a similar stunt. We suffer from political correctness here terribly, mostly at the hands of the European Union (EU). One of the ways that the EU try to make our lives worse is to insist on eurosizing. This is where grams and kilograms are obligatory rather than pounds and ounces. Cadburys most indignantly stated this week that there famous tag line ‘A glass and a half of milk in every bar’ was going to be dropped, and would now be ‘The equivalent of 426ml of fresh liquid milk in every 227g of milk chocolate’. Thing is, few bought the stunt because the Trading Standards Institute stated that they in fact had no legal problem with the original description, and that Cadburys had taken it upon itself to put out that statement.
So you see people (Anthony), it would have been better NOT to draw any attention to the 10:10 video. By doing so you have played perfectly into their hands, and are continuing to do so.

pwl
October 2, 2010 1:57 am

The 10:10 people desire to murder ALL people who don’t agree with their political view regarding climate.
“There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

October 2, 2010 2:02 am

BrianMcL says: …. “Stand aside worthy adversary!”
Global warmer …. hop, hop, hop!

Jim
October 2, 2010 2:09 am

Another Brit here that didn’t find it funny. Not that shocking either, as we all know how anti-human the eco-warriors are too. Anyone who thinks its satire ought to re-watch it carefully. If it was satire the joke would be on the teacher (and other ‘authority’ figures). They would be the target of the piece. Satire is not satire unless the target is obvious. The whole point of satire is to exaggerate the characteristics of the target to its logical conclusion. So a satire of the teacher would involve her arriving at school in an SUV, dressed in fur, and telling the pupils to save 10% of their carbon emissions so she could go on driving her big car, and then blowing up those who disagreed. Thats satire. Merely proposing a sensible thing (everyone saving 10% of their carbon emissions) and then coldly killing those who disagree is not.

October 2, 2010 2:09 am

Ross says: ““The 10:10 team are a fearless, energetic bunch, completely dedicated to getting the public fired up about climate change.”
…. burn the witches!!! (?)
Come on, the best thing we could have done is to have said nothing. Global warmers always claimed to be the victim of the “oil conspiracy” out to silence them. Now it is patently obvious that they are the establishment figures in these videos trying to silence anyone who dares disagree with them.
If we had said nothing and let this film get out to the schools it would have turned the youth (and probably half the teachers) against the bullyboy global warmers and their fascist conformist ideology.

Ralph
October 2, 2010 2:10 am

They have form with this. Not so long ago they produced a scare-film for children, where all the animal were drowning because of climate change. Not so shocking as blowing people up, but of the same genre. It was a hyper-distress film targeted at kids.
I cannot find a copy, they seem to have deleted it from YouTube . If you can find a copy, please post it.
And as I said before, you can make a formal complaint to the Met police under thie hate-crimes unit. It is a simple online form. You only need to have been going through London for this to be a Met police issue. Loki online under Met Police Hate Crimes unit.
They cannot prosecute, unless a certain number of complaints have been received.
.

October 2, 2010 2:12 am

I finally got around in watching the actual video, i got as far as 1 minute 20.
This would have been satire and therefore funny if the teacher name was, lets say miss “Teatime” (pronounced as Tea-ah-time-eh) and that she blew up the kids for not believing in either the Hogfather or the Tooth fairy.
This is not funny at al, its just a few steps from things that happend here in the Netherlands (and in the rest of occupied Europe) some 70 years ago, where kids at school where wondering why some of their classmates disappeared overnight and where never seen again.

rbateman
October 2, 2010 2:19 am

10% solution: Religious excuse for murder, perhaps.
(from the SPPI link:) This is what activist film maker Franny Armstrong thinks about her work:
“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet?”
How did she equate using something as innocuous as a bit of energy in daily life (that was put in place by the powers that be) with actions that threaten the whole planet (such as a nutjob with a thermonuclear device)?
Someone goes beyond mere activism, reaches deep into the pit of hate, and it gets pasted up on the Internet anyway.
Escalation.

Ralph
October 2, 2010 2:20 am

Blowing people up is always humour, and never offensive. The next film will feature orthodox Jews being blown up by Palestinians. Or Kurds being blown up by Iraqis. Oh, what a laugh. And let’s teach this to our children too, as being the norm…. (sarc off)
They still don’t understand?

The Engineer
October 2, 2010 2:21 am

The Guardian has really lost the plot. They now have an article on Bin Ladens opinions on Climate Change right next to the “10:10” video.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/02/osama-bin-laden-climate-change

CarolP
October 2, 2010 2:23 am

I am fairly certain that there is no example of a Monty Python sketch in which the the individual who dared to stand out against easy conformity was portrayed as the villian. I have always though the the Emperor’s New Clothes was a fundamental text for English satire, this production is the mirror image.
To those who are comparing it to ‘A Modest Proposal’ I’d say yes, you have a point but ‘A Modest Proposal’ was itself misunderstood and hence backfired
(Writing as an English woman of Welsh & Scottish ancestry)

rbateman
October 2, 2010 2:28 am

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 2, 2010 at 1:57 am
The stunt was not over a marketing choice, and there are some things that cannot be kept quiet about.
Like allowing a group to single out a sector of society for extermination.

DaveF
October 2, 2010 2:30 am

I’m also appalled at the poor English pronunciation of the schoolteacher – “..ge”ing your dad to insulate the loft..”etc. No wonder so many school-leavers are illiterate.
[regret some of us north of England folk do pronounce our words in such colloquial ways ~ac]

Derek Reynolds
October 2, 2010 2:31 am

10:10 have said “sorry”.
But are they sorry for rocking the boat, or simply sorry they didn’t get their message across in a more palatable way. They will try again, and again, for they are working for government, and our taxes are paying for their efforts. I find this episode both enlightening in as much as it shows the ‘green’ movement for what it is, exposing the harsh reality of ‘we will make you obey’ by indoctrinating young minds into believing their propaganda wholeheartedly who then regurgitate it without any further thought or opportunity to research and discuss. Brainwash them while they are young, and you have them for as much of their lives that matters – people are tools able to self motivate themselves if given enough ‘reason’ – no matter it is not supported by evidence. All around the world this can be seen to work, famously in the way German people supported Hitler. It was the same with Communist Russia, and Japan too, the people did not want war, but the propaganda machines told them that without it, they were doomed.
This ‘humorous’ (?) mini video produced by 10:10 has many undesired consequences. Apart from the shock tactics deployed in ‘blowing up children’, which in itself would not be contemplated in an Iraqi, Palestinian, or Israeli school for very obvious reasons, it has ridiculed the people involved in the making of the film, and the tactics of the so called ‘environmental movement’ showing the depths to which they will go. This is not about environment, it’s about mind control. But there may now be many children who having watched the film, genuinely be aware that not following the class orthodoxy may get them into trouble. Not that they might expect to be ‘blown up’, but that either; they will be taken aside for a talking to, or be met with bullying tactics from their school ‘pals’. This latter is exactly how in Germany during the second world war the Gestapo and SS were able to find and round up dissidents – they were grassed on by neighbours and sometimes relations who feared for their own lives if they covered for someone, or even simply kept quiet. It’s the tactics of fear. The war on terror is the perfect cover for a war using terror to make obedient the slave nation.
Children and women first.

Ralph
October 2, 2010 2:38 am

I am also wondering about the cost of this film, It seems to be quite an epic of casting, professionals and props.
Either 10:10 are rolling in money, or I have a suspicion of help from a Quango (explanation… Quango – a fringe government organization using government money). If this film was made with Quango financial assistance, we need to know.
.

October 2, 2010 2:39 am

I really think people are falling for this publicity stunt hook line and sinker. The aim of the film was to illicit the kind of response they have got and to obtain the pompous responses of climate “deniers” who “don’t see the joke”.
We’ve seen many of these “shock” publicity campaigns, where the original film was only meant to create something that got talked about. In that regard they seem to be 100% effective!
Still, I found it incredibly funny – because it was so obviously a shot in the foot – I still can’t believe it was done by those believing in global warming. The look on the kids face as they suddenly realise that their nice green teacher is a psychopath who’d kill any one of them who didn’t agree with her. I would liken this to the shock US airline passengers got when they suddenly realised that if they passively went along with airline hijackers they would be flown into skyscrapers!

Grey Lensman
October 2, 2010 2:51 am

This quote from Franny really sticks in my craw
““Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet?”
I have worked the last ten years to really do something to improve quality of life and the environment and enable people to earn a real living. I am trying to help Maori friends , develop their indigenous crops for example, but they cannot get a small grant to do so because the project actually aims to do something rather than is pure research. I can recount very many more examples. To get small sums of money to achieve massive results is next to impossible, so to see this woman with her hate and threats being sponsored by Sony and the Guardian just makes more more determined to succeed.
Sadly New Zealand is ruled by these people, Gareth being a prime example.
With the knowledge and expertise available, why is NZ not 100% renewable energy?
In an agricultural country why is so much land set aside?
Why have they disposed of dairy farms and substituted “Milk Powder” factories.
The likes of Franny and Gareth have a lot to answer for.

John Silver
October 2, 2010 3:01 am

All gore or Al Gore, what’s the difference?

Mike Post
October 2, 2010 3:08 am

The UK Conservative Party support the 10:10 campaign, as does Deputy PM, Nick Clegg. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/02/10-10-campaign-tory-frontbench
The Conservative Party is currently holding its annual conference. If the Party does not repudiate this vile Richard Curtis video, the world can draw its own conclusions.

Huth
October 2, 2010 3:11 am

Thank you, Andrew W. I’m shocked too by the mention of hell in such a nasty way. From the UK, it often seems that Americans wish others in hell. They need to calm down and stop being so mediaeval in their reactions. Seems to me that wishing others in hell is just as bad as blowing people up. Worse, because hell (for people who are so primitive as to believe in it) is supposed to go on forever. Gross.

david
October 2, 2010 3:13 am

Freedom of expression is a great blessing in many respects. One reason is that it allows insight into the mind and thoughts of the person expressing. Thought is action in fancy, an expression of the “desire” of the one expressing. To paraphrase the Gita, ” desire leads to recklesness, then the memory all betrayed, saps the mind, till purpose mind and man are all undone.”
Any decent study of history “memory” is fair warning to those who think such actions will remain in fancy only.

joe
October 2, 2010 3:16 am

print your own campaign t-shirt:
[/snip]
[REPLY: Linking to an image of major vulgarity is the same as posting the word in a response. … bl57~mod]

October 2, 2010 3:19 am

TGSG says: October 2, 2010 at 12:17 am

Amazingly bizarre that through all the different steps this film took.. from conception to screenplay to shooting to final edit to the person who gave the final OK… not a one of them said “nah this is just a touch over the top”.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Why did NOBODY making the film see what the public reaction would be?
It’s the insulation from debate, fostered by years of Hansen, Gore, Romm, RC, Bob Ward, Schneider, et al, that has built this impregnable fantasy-land “don’t argue with me, I know the science” attitude. That is what frightens me, all this energy going into “education”. It’s why Monckton took Gore to court.
So I say again, although “I was only acting under orders” is no defence, we still need to take the science at the top to the cleaners. The science, not the scientists, as far as humanly possible. Then let the scientists go through their Damascus moment, repent, be truly “born again” as real scientists, relearn Scientific Method, take on board the importance of citizens’ science, and THEN return to their jobs (not fear being stripped of them)… but with an honourable agenda this time.
The work of things like the 12-Step Program, and many top coaches, is clear evidence that saying “sorry” and resolving to make amends works, not just for the health of the individual concerned, but also for his economic wellbeing.

October 2, 2010 3:22 am

Thanks to the reader for posting the Beck/Gore clip.
This movement of violence didn’t start yesterday. It’s been in the works a long time.
The indignation is long overdue. But, better late than never I guess.
The protesters have been getting increasingly violent for years. That’s something we’ve known for a long time anyway. This clip is just blunt about it. Call it the spiral of enviro-violence.
My wife watched the clip and she said it will be very successful in drving people AWAY from the cause – for sure. She found it aggressive, threatening, intimidating – a real turn off. She was quite upset by it.
I then showed her the Greenpeace hooded punk kid clip…and that was enough.
So far in Germany, not a peep about it in the media.

Gareth Phillips
October 2, 2010 3:24 am

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
It’s a cultural thing.
———————————————————————————
Response.
I’m not sure. I’m from the UK and I loved the Python, but the humour was directly in a different way, it was directed at a particular genre of films and entertainment and parodied them to excess. There is a difference here. What if the joke had been to shoot the children in the head? or drive others into gas chambers? It could be made so gross as to be theoretically funny, but the point is that such satire would be directed at particular scientific ideas and people, not other genres of entertainment. We know that blowing people up is not a joke, and is a sensitive issue for many. How would this film be viewed by someone who had lost loved ones from the suicide bombings on the London Underground? Not so funny then eh? You’ll recall Thatchers point of wishing she had a red button she could push which would solve all the problems of unemployed people? same thing, same lack of understanding and insight into the beliefs of others.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 2, 2010 3:26 am

*ahem*
One thing I found that may be more stupid and irritating than this video, is the ongoing opinions that Richard Curtis was some sort of double-agent, or deliberate saboteur, or otherwise did what he did knowing it would blow up in 10:10’s face.
The man is a professional. He wants people to purchase his content and services. He knows the people doing the buying do not want to deal with people who are erratic and willing to disrupt and sabotage their clients.
Either Curtis has done his best to deliver to his client what they wanted, or this was an act of career suicide. The first case seems far more likely.
These weak attempts at being backhanded apologists for 10:10 are rising to their own level of being disgusting. They invested considerable time and resources into doing this video. If they had sensed anything amiss during the process then they would have intervened rather than waste those efforts. By the proposed scenario, not only was Richard Curtis committing career suicide, but also 10:10 was too stupid to realize they were being deliberately thwarted. Groups like that don’t operate without expert marketing advice coupled with experienced public relations consultants, married with professional content generators. Do you think they could have gotten all these big names to sign up without such?
Richard Curtis delivered what the customer wanted. The customer was satisfied, the content was released. A professional effort by all involved, beginning to end. It was the tireless efforts of this site and others that informed the presenters of this professional marketing effort that, yes, there is a line, and yes, they have crossed it.
These people know what they do. They have their message, they know how to deliver it. They know how to quell dissent and ridicule skepticism. They got what they wanted, their funny little video, and they waited for the world to laugh with them as loud as they were laughing.
To insist these 10:10 people were somehow hoodwinked by the nefarious Mr. Curtis, is stupid, and irritating. To pretend they didn’t realize what the message crafted into this video was really saying, is irritatingly stupid. They knew, they did it, they released it.
This excuse being floated, that 10:10 didn’t realize the seriousness of what they were doing, because they were fooled and betrayed by one man, has as much validity here as it did as a defense at any war crimes trial over the last 50+ years, as it does as an apologizing explanation for jihadist murderers. The likely truth is harder to accept, but has been valid from antiquity until now and will be so in the future. They did not see those they went against as real people, as fellow humans, and they were surprised there was such a fuss over their actions against these non-humans.
For my part, I endure these people as well as I will endure those providing these awkward contrived excuses for them, these who willingly enable the others by sowing doubt about their motivations. To support our orderly and civil society, I shall endeavor to keep the entire internet between myself and them at all times. Perhaps that will prove sufficient.

DJ Meredith
October 2, 2010 3:26 am

One early commenter showed the video to their kids, and mentioned the kids laughed, thinking it was funny. In a macabre way, it is. If that’s the level that the AGW crowd must stoop, without addressing the actual science, they’re pathetic.
One other aspect that is troubling is the manner in which an adult, a teacher, casually kills children.
Can we imagine the outrage if the video had been produced showing kids blowing up teachers? If the video had been produced by kids?

Curiousgeorge
October 2, 2010 3:31 am

This film is a symptom of something darker, and more sinister and widespread than merely having to do with the climate/CO2. Look around at what has been going on in the world for the past few decades. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it scares the hell out of me.

BrianMcL
October 2, 2010 3:34 am

Hi Ralph at 2.20am
I think you might be after actonco2’s bedtime stories?
Try searching for that, it should be there.

Boudu
October 2, 2010 3:35 am

So the message is conform or die. Where is the satire here ?
And the resulting future after this suggested genocide is one where all the cool, rebellious characters (Ginola, Scully etc) are gone, exterminated, leaving those who don’t question and don’t dare to have a point of view that differs from the consensus.
Yes, I’m British. Yes I love Python. In fact, (slipping into upper class accent) nobody enjoys a good bit of satire more than I do . . . but trying to compare this hateful trash with the intelligent, inspirational Pythons is not just wrong but desperately sad.

BrianMcL
October 2, 2010 3:36 am

Mike Haesler – “it’s only a fleshwound”?

jeremy of W.A.
October 2, 2010 3:39 am

Further to my comments on Satire, Monty Python etc. I forgot to include self-deprecation.
Self deprecation is the art of putting oneself down for the amusement of others. Self satirisation is pretty much the same thing.
This clip is a self satarising piece that uses a ‘cartoon’ image of homicidal greenies blowing up dissidents – in order to attract attention, perhaps even attract a laugh, but overall to put the message across about energy saving.
There’s way to many serious people around these days.

Atomic Hairdryer
October 2, 2010 3:39 am

Re: jeremy of W.A

Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)

You can get Britishness in pill form now? Damn, those scientists are good. I’m British, I’m offended. Whether people find this offensive or not may depend on whether they expect to have their finger on the button, or not. If you don’t, you may be offended, but not for long because Franny & Co are happy to push it. No need to bother about boring details like evidence based debate, or even reasoned debate. Just believe, or die. Truly she is living in the age of stupid.
She even tries to downplay the violence by saying-

Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

I know climate policies proposed by her and her ilk will cost an arm and a leg but I didn’t think they meant it so literally. So amputate away, it could save me money and I’d lose weight. Would do nothing for reducing carbon though because amputees generally need more help and support.
We’re aware of that because we have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, where believers are only too happy to push the button for real. Those soldiers are fighting and being killed or crippled so that others can have the right to believe, debate and make their own choices, and not face summary execution at the hands of people who think like 10:10.
But the 40+ media professionals, plus presumably others who worked on this lavish ‘mini-movie’ failed to see how this could send the wrong message. That’s a bit worrying and says a lot about their world view. So 10:10’s grand 10-10-2010 campaign has suffered spectacular blowback. Their sponsors and supporters are no doubt happy with a campaign that wants to summarily execute non-believers. Poor Franny may have anticipated jetting off to the US and then Cancun on the fundraising trail, but may be as welcome at a party as a dose of crabs now. Hey Franny, where’s your button?

October 2, 2010 3:41 am

How can it be that schools supposedly support 10:10 when 10:10 produces videos of teachers blowing up scoolchildren?
Case study: 10:10 schools
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/05/case-study-1010-schools
“Children at Argyle primary school learn about climate change and the 10:10 initiative in a workshop run by Actionaid.”
“It is these kind of challenges that the school’s headteacher, Laura Wynne, and many others like her, are grappling with as they try to cut their carbon emissions by 10% for the 10:10 campaign.”
“Having signed up to 10:10 a couple of months ago, Wynne is now working out how best to bring that bill down, with the help of ActionAid, the charity responsible for helping schools with the initiative.”
In light of the “no pressure” video, how should we interpret this?
This is so disgusting that it is beyond comments.
Please stop these people before the video turns into reality.

joe
October 2, 2010 3:46 am

blimey. i get that thru on the gradiuan!

ianl8888
October 2, 2010 3:46 am

@Mosher
your quote:
” … rather the object of satire ( if there is one) are the authorities. Which means, of course, that it is self defeating as a work of satire since the point of the piece is to get people to listen to authorities. …”
Now you’ve got it. As I said, it is satire, but very poor satire. It missed the mark. I think it’s funny enough for kids in the sense of silly splatter films, but neither of my children believed a single word of it. Nor do I think it will provoke murderous outbursts … but then, I don’t support censorship at all.
And as you likely know, I’m a very hard AGW sceptic. This silly little film doesn’t bother me at all, rather the hysteria to denounce it I find unsettling. Are people really so silly as to be scared of it ?
One of the comments above maintained that no Monty Python skits singled out sections of society like this. Oh yes, some skits did – eg. an early one depicting people from the British aristocracy being so stupid that violently removing them from the gene pool was an altruistic act to be rewarded with audience laughter

October 2, 2010 3:50 am

I finally had the chance to see this video… Well, to be honest I stopped after the 2nd button. That was more than enough.
Picking a place to start on this is tough. There are so many things to point out. Things like the targets being the withdrawn, dorky, not cool people to begin with. The kind of people mocked as the stupid ones in commercials.
There is no attempt at humor here. This is a statement that the world is better off without certain people. There is certainly some significant money behind this and the fact that such money and such a message were together on this is disturbing.
If I take this video into consideration with other recent news events in the US. The recent plan of the White House to get ISP’s and industry to self censor themselves on what the WH considers acceptable.
Recently when US health insurance companies said increasing premiums were caused by the recent change in health care law, they were told to stop all claims like that or be cut out of all future dealings with the government.
I am becoming concerned that there will be actual problems with free speech in parts of the world that have not experienced such problems before in the near future. It is difficult to say if these unrelated themes will cause problems for Skeptics in the future, but is raises the potential for it happening.

DR
October 2, 2010 3:51 am

Email sent yesterday around an Oxford University mailing list. Note the timestamp (UK time) – by that time the ‘reaction’ had resulted in the original video being taken down, but no mention of that.
————————————————————————————-
Climate humour on a wet, wet, wet Friday
Ian Curtis [xxx@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 October 2010 17:09
To:
eci-all@xxxxx.ox.ac.uk
Attachments:
Dear All,
forgive a late fri run-round ..but you might be intrigued by this piece
of humour from Richard Curtis/ 10:10. Will be interesting to see the
reaction …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

Ian Curtis
xxx@xxxxxxxx
Environmental Change Institute
Oxford University
OUCE, South Parks Rd, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk
————————————————————————————

beesaman
October 2, 2010 3:52 am

Just emailed the BBC to ask why it’s not made the news anywhere on their sites or transmissions, I don’t expect I’ll get a reply. Wonder why?

dave ward
October 2, 2010 3:53 am

jeremy of W.A. – I don’t need lessons in being British, I have been all my life. I also love Monty Python and am old enough to remember it when it was first shown. But there is no comparison with this piece of filth.
I also accept that many kids see and play with far worse computer games every day. But again there is no comparison with them “having a laugh”, and being effectively told that disagreement with a fake religion means death….
I have complained to my MP, and asked if this is really what her party wants to be associated with, but on past experiences, I don’t expect much of a reply.

Grey Lensman
October 2, 2010 3:57 am

Got it, bite back with their own laws.
Use the new Harman “offensive” law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316837/Employers-face-equality-law-nightmare-Coalition-pushes-ahead-Harriet-Harmans-Act.html
Now that would be sweet justice

beesaman
October 2, 2010 3:59 am

Oh and being English and a teacher I do have a problem with this film!
Anyone who doesn’t and professes to be a teacher should do some soul searching. Maybe you are not in the right profession.

M White
October 2, 2010 3:59 am

Lets have a vote
A Joke
or
A Threat

DR
October 2, 2010 3:59 am

Is the ‘Behind the scenes’ video available anywhere? There’s a bit with kids here – complete with a couple of chilling quotes – but I had the impression there was a longer version.

Stefan
October 2, 2010 4:01 am

In a different context, the images of people blowing up in a bloody mess could be acceptable to the audience. A fictional horror, a comic horror, a sci-fi drama, whatever. But the context here completely scuttles their efforts to communicate a message.
The children are just innocent small people who have done nothing wrong. They disagreed but in our eyes there is nothing wrong about that. We don’t find blowing up innocents funny.
Imagine the context of the 10:10 film makers. In their eyes, the world is one united consensus of caring people who are being held back by a few who are so selfish, so ignorant, that their presence threatens all the peoples of the planet. It is soo frustrating trying to get through to these people, that well… we know you try but, wouldn’t it be funny if you know, you could just ‘get rid’ of them? With a button. Just like that.
The problem for 10:10 has got to be, most of the people reject that interpretation. Most people say, “you’re killing innocents for not believing your dogma”.
By making this they have shown how out of touch they are.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
October 2, 2010 4:02 am

I’m getting to really like Mike Haseler’s posts. He has it right, as I do, that this is simply a publicity stunt that you have all fallen for. Why can you not all see that? I’m annoyed that you’ve all been suckered in.

1DandyTroll
October 2, 2010 4:04 am

So it’s ok to blow up kids now, or what?
Darn it, and I have just bought a refurbished flame thrower to help with the ice melting project. Don’t know if I can afford refurbished explosives too, and besides, last time I tried the refurbished explosives they didn’t work at all, very weird, something about being one time boomers or what ever, pfft, why resell em at all? o_O

Stacey
October 2, 2010 4:05 am

The members of 10:10 are tax payer funded fantasists.
Franny Armstrong, 10:10 founder, said the shock tactics were justified. “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.”
QED
The facts of the matter are that millions die every year due to lack of clean drinking water and proper sanitation. A contributory factor to these deaths is the anount of funds diverted from overseas aids budgets into the fantasy of solving the made up problem of dangerous AGW.

Stephen Skinner
October 2, 2010 4:07 am

Dr Jacob Bronowski’s passionate and moving defence of science.

October 2, 2010 4:08 am

Curiousgeorge says: October 2, 2010 at 3:31 am

This film is a symptom of something darker, and more sinister and widespread than merely having to do with the climate/CO2. Look around at what has been going on in the world for the past few decades. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it scares the hell out of me.

Stand in your integrity and see what speaks to you.
Right through history, people have had experiences like yours. Challenge is not new, it’s just that the particular form each time is new.

John
October 2, 2010 4:09 am

“Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.”
There is no new opinion to posit, the ghastly intent of this disgusting video is evident from any number of viewings. Any trace of irony – beyond it having the opposite effect to that intended – is absent. Trying to make comparisons with Monty Python or British style humour is ludicrous and shows a lack of any understanding of either.
Monty Python was surrealistic, it used parody, word-play, it took well-known (to the British) social conventions, institutions and taboos and turned them on their heads and caricatured and lampooned them.
In Monty Python style it would have been the teacher who exploded when she pressed the red button, for example. That would be the unexpected; the irony.
The 10:10 video does none of that. It presents those who disagree with the premise as less than Human, worthy of no consideration and thus justifies their execution by unpleasant means; just as heretics were gouged with red-hot pincers and burned at the stake in past times when the righteous declared them anathema and ex-communicant.
What I want to know is why in a Country where independent thought or causing offence is no longer permitted thanks to the previous Socialist regime and to start a joke with, “There was an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman…” is sure to result in several squad cars-full of police calling round to take the citizen to task for “hate speech”, the perpetrators of this video are still at large.
Anybody got a box with a red button?

Bruce Cobb
October 2, 2010 4:19 am

Andrew W says:
October 2, 2010 at 12:07 am
Andy does have a point about the genuineness of the screams of indignation and offense when so many of those doing the screaming are celebrating the videos immortality as a stick to beat warmists with, if the indignation was so important, wouldn’t those people prefer to see it forever gone?
No, because the video shows the true nature of what we are up against. At this point, I’d say it is the warmists who would most like to have it disappeared, as they indeed tried to, but they were too late. Now, all they can try to do is spin and damage control, but clearly that isn’t working either. LOL.

beesaman
October 2, 2010 4:21 am

Ah at last the BBC have caught up! But interestingly they toned down the language they used to report it. Instead of killed or murdered they used exploded or dispatched. In all the tone of the reporting was very light on 10:10. Again I wonder why? As to us all being suckered in, well maybe we knew all along how violently radical the warmists would be, history repeating itself when it comes down to belief over reason. But it will be short lived, as reason will prevail.

Stefan
October 2, 2010 4:22 am

Franny Armstrong, 10:10 founder, said the shock tactics were justified. “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.”
Richard Curtis and an explosion of publicity

Well, if climate change death is as real as claimed, then by making that film, with professional actors, crew, lights, equipment, etc. they will have produced CO2 and consumed resources, thus killing some real people somewhere. If not killing, maybe chopping off a few limbs here and there.
It is that old excuse; we can consume because we are doing it for a better cause, whilst you people are only consuming due to selfish greed.
Frankly, if you watch “Psychoville”, you can see this is just cutting edge humour, bordering offensive to funny, but that’s not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that 10:10 are championing a falsehood.
The scary thing is how would these idiots run things if they got into power. I mean, even Mussolini did useful things. But these idiots… sheesh.
Maybe the best reply to someone who calls people “denier” is to call them “idiot”.

timheyes
October 2, 2010 4:27 am

BBC finally get around to mentioing the story… must have been a busy news day yesterday!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726

Rick Bradford
October 2, 2010 4:32 am

In some comments elsewhere, a figure of 400,000 British pounds is being suggested as the cost of making this film — I can only hope that the price to its makers turns out to be much higher in terms of lost funding, sponsorship withdrawal, and so on.

lisa hart
October 2, 2010 4:36 am

there was a new law came in friday its time to use that law to sue the makers of this film you have the right to sue if you are affended by this film its time to take them down and hurt them where it hurts in the green pigy bank

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 2, 2010 4:38 am

And now for something completely different.
Well it’s not completely different, but different enough, without being too different as that’d be strange.
I found this fine example of (C)AGW arithmetic presented on a locally-produced show, as would be presented to impressionable schoolchildren, as provided by a company doing appliance recycling for the local electric companies per their energy efficiency programs.
Old refrigerators contain styrofoam. In the making of it, the dangerous greenhouse gas CFC-11 may have been used as a blowing agent. In each refrigerator there is the equivalent of two and a half tons of environment-damaging CO2. After the old units are cut apart with a Sawzall (known as a reciprocating saw among you civilians), the styrofoam is stripped out. There are about 10 pounds of styrofoam per unit, containing about one pound of gas.
It was shown how the styrofoam, from a big pile of pieces from many units, was carefully bagged to guard against the release of this dangerous gas. The styrofoam is then appropriately taken care of “elsewhere.”
There you have it. A single pound of CFC-11, found in old styrofoam in an old refrigerator, is as dangerous to the environment as a greenhouse gas as 2 1/2 tons of CO2. Yes, that is the styrofoam numbers, the refrigerant is not included.
Gee, if it came down to it, I should be able to claim at least ten tons of carbon credits for what’s in the house and on the property. Although if it really is as damaging to the environment as that much carbon dioxide, maybe I should save that styrofoam for use in an actual greenhouse.

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 2, 2010 4:41 am

@Ric Werme says: October 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm
well said!
jeremy of W.A. says: Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Have it on DVD and VHS. Watched often. Have the whole Faulty Towers series too. Don’t need a “course” as Mum is from England. I get the irony sarcasm just fine, love English humor, and know I have the English sense of humor as my friends don’t always get my jokes for exactly those reasons.

Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.

OK. It’s worse crap than I thought the first time. Cold. Manipulative. Hateful. Vile.
Substantially no “humor” in it at all (and no, not even dry droll British humor). Just a load of “Blow Up Children who Do Not Submit”.

It’s a cultural thing.

I’m sure it is. Like eating your children during famine, or beheading those who do not agree with you, or blowing up innocents in airplanes to make a statement. All “cultural things” too. So was worshiping a sun cult and purification (of body, soul, and population). It’s not the fact that it’s a ‘cultural thing’ that is in dispute, it’s the nature of the ‘culture’ involved… and it isn’t British.
Sidebar: I’m especially fond of the “Gamy Leg” skit and also love A Fish Called Wanda… Oh, and “Mr. Creosote” was delicious 😉

hunter
October 2, 2010 4:42 am

Grist, sadly and disgustingly, is basically defending the movie and blaming ‘deniers’.
Here is what I left there as a comment:
“Blaming Marc Morano for for what a mainstream cliamte activist organization has shown about the dark side of the AGW social movement is almost as dumb as defending the movie.
That would be like blaming the ADL for pointing out that an anti-Semitic group made a movie about killing Jews and then defending the humorous intent of the movie, and that killing jews is not really what it is all about.
If people are not free to disagree, they are not free.
Perhaps a more thoughtful response from opinion leaders of the AGW movement would involve repudiating 10:10 and their movie and calling for a civil tone by AGW believers, including respectful dialog with people we will from now on call ‘skeptics’ and stop denigrating them, their ethics and beliefs. Most of all eco-activists need to stop pretending that their beliefs entitle them to threaten people, break the law, or support those who do. If you cannot get this message out, your movement will be fatally weakened in a matter of months.
From a reasonable person’s perspective, this move is simply a logical step in a movement that has gotten more and more shrill, self-righteous and demanding, even as public opinion tires of it. Face it: calling ‘global climate disruption’ for over 20 years has failed. Find something better to do than to defend blowing up children who disagree with you.
The ‘yecchhhh!’ factor is now attaching itself to you.
And I bet you completely miss the message. ”
I wonder how long it will take them to delete it?

anna v
October 2, 2010 4:42 am

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 2, 2010 at 3:39 am
Further to my comments on Satire, Monty Python etc. I forgot to include self-deprecation.
Self deprecation is the art of putting oneself down for the amusement of others. Self satirisation is pretty much the same thing.
This clip is a self satarising piece that uses a ‘cartoon’ image of homicidal greenies blowing up dissidents – in order to attract attention, perhaps even attract a laugh, but overall to put the message across about energy saving.
There’s way to many serious people around these days.

It is not a cartoon. A cartoon would have been distasteful but would not have raised this fuss. Cartoons, and before that Punch and Judy etc shows allowed expression of aggression harmlessly, because it is evident that it is not real people, but extremes of real people behavior.
This “no pressure” is made like a documentary. Would you let your kids see a real war conflict documentary with blood and gore? In our TV in Greece they shade over the blood and gore even for adults. This video was made in order to look real and convey reality, not distancing abstraction from human behavior, as cartoons are.
I think you are wrong.
I agree with those who say it is pornographic, in the sense of snuff films. There are people who get their excitement from snuff films. This caters to the perverts who fantasize blood and gore.
The people who are saying that they intended to have this effect for publicity are wrong, too.
Would you accept the 9/11 perpetrators saying it was for publicity? Then yes, this was also done for publicity.

Anat
October 2, 2010 4:44 am

John at 4:09,
I agree. The Monty Python comparison is completely false.
Beside, the makers of this film excuse the killing in very serious if totally delusional terms:
“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
They obviously meant every drop of blood quite literally.

TinyCO2
October 2, 2010 4:46 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726
The BBC have finally got something up online but as you would expect they’re not condeming it, just following the joke gone wrong meme.
There are quite a few questions on the net asking if this was a publicity stunt, that they were intending to take the vid down anyway. The aim, to get us all talking about 10:10 which 99% of people have never heard of. I have my doubts that they got exactly what they were after LOL.

huxley
October 2, 2010 4:47 am

jeremy of W.A: I followed the comments on the film at the Telegraph and the Guardian. The majority of UK opinions were negative as well. It’s not only clueless Americans who didn’t appreciate “No Pressure.”
As a clueless American who’s a big fan of British shows like Monty Python and Blackadder, the film missed the mark in many ways. First, it wasn’t nearly cartoonish enough, as Python was, to distance the audience from the horror. Second, I don’t remember children ever being killed in anything Monty Python did. Third, Monty Python material was anti-authoritarian and anti-violence. The Black Knight in Holy Grail was not a sympathetic character. The Peckinpah satire was anti-violence.

jeremy of W.A.
October 2, 2010 4:48 am

Just for light relief here,
Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmnOpoGAPw
I’m sure you’ll get the joke.
[thanks for the reminder ~jove, mod]

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
October 2, 2010 4:48 am

Another cult that kills unbelievers…

October 2, 2010 4:49 am

I imagine if all involved (the rich media creative types, and the funders) cut their own emmisions by 10%..
Then their emmisions would still be MANY times that of mine…
My family haven’t flown for a long time (can’t face it with under 4’s)
Yet @i’m sure Franny, curtis, et al, think nothing of it..
I bet none of them even buy a JP Morgan Climate Care carbon offset, from their bunch of ‘merchant bankers’ friends in the trendy ‘chattering classes’ parts of London. Did they carbon offset, to relieve their troubled minds, about all the CO2 they are emmiting….?
http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/
How many houses properties does Curtis have again (london west country, etc)
So to all thos eco rich activists preaching…
When you have REDUCED your ‘carbon footprints’ to merely ONLY 10 times mine….
Then I might start laughing, vs being very concerned that they are in positions of power (ie media and establishment, the luvvie, political circuit)

hunter
October 2, 2010 4:50 am

The AGW apologists who are asserting that this was all just a big funny joke that the moronic denialist scum are too stoopid to get are doing the best thing possible:
Helping the echo-chamber of AGW drive straight off the cliff into the trash heap of history.
Please, do keep it up.
Like most dysfunctional social movements, AGW’s worst enemy is its strongest true believers. 10:10 meant this to be mainstream, huge and wildly helpful in getting the AGW dogma more widely accepted.
10:10 is slick, funded by huge corporations and governments, and attracts the alleged best and brightest.
If a skeptical group had made fun loving video where skeptics could blow up AGW promoters droning on about how much worse things really are, or holding some huge tax payer funded ‘climate conference’ at the push of a button, would that be cute?
Please. The makers would be facing terrorism charges already.
Memo to believers: Keep it up. This is making people simply go ‘yuck’.
At you.

Jean Parisot
October 2, 2010 4:56 am

I am having a fabricator make a red button like the one on the movie. I will personally deliver it to Senator Inhofe to keep on hand for the post November hearings.

JunkkMale
October 2, 2010 5:01 am

Read a lot around this, and the only funny part I can so far glean is how all the creators and their apologists’ stories seem to evolve hourly… and contradict endlessly.
Don’t mention ze Audi ad… I did once but think I got away with it!
Personally I am now awaiting a) the BBC to eventually twig that it’s looking silly gazing at its navel in the bunker, again, and b) speaking of public funds being committed without much choice, for a few quango investor senior board types explaining their support for this.
I mean, like the £6M ‘bedtime stories’ worked so well for Ed ‘n his plans ‘n all.

TinyCO2
October 2, 2010 5:05 am

I’m ashamed to admit this but the awfull advert is in keeping with modern UK youth humour. Mony Python isn’t a good reference point because it was 40 years ago! We’ve had 40 years to warp what (in my opinion) already warped comedy. OK, this is at the upper edge of repulsive for us but not way out of bounds. Little Britian is a more apt comparison. Violence and sheer cold blooded victimisation is weaving itself into our society, no small wonder it creeps into what should be polite society.
From a comedy persepctive the real crime is it was a very poor joke, repeated 4 times, just in case you didn’t laugh the first 3 times.
On behalf of the British sense of humour… sorry.

October 2, 2010 5:07 am

A contributory factor to these deaths is the anount of funds diverted from overseas aids budgets into the fantasy of solving the made up problem of dangerous AGW.
It’s not really that. “Aid budgets” cannot solve poverty. Charity can certainly help people in distress and that is laudable, but it will never help an economy escape poverty. The primary problem is deliberate action by western agencies to prevent development in the Poor World, precisely because those agencies are the tool of people like these film-makers who despise wealth and comfort (0ther peoples’, they don’t mind a bit for themselves) and thus they actively prevent development.
The Poor World remains poor because western elites have decided it will not be allowed to become rich. For the good of the planet. It’s a new and particularly pernicious form of imperialism.

Chris B
October 2, 2010 5:11 am

Maybe it is a British thing, which explains why the rest of us don’t get the joke.
In the historical play/movie, A Man For All Seasons, Henry VIII asks all his loyal subjects for a little favour. When he meets resistance he puts “no pressure” on Thomas More (and Bishop John Fisher) to sign the Oath of Succession/Supremacy. Because they would not sign the “oath” they were beheaded.
Everyone else in Britain who were given the “request” signed on.
I think I get it now.

Brownedoff
October 2, 2010 5:12 am

Ralph says:
October 2, 2010 at 2:10 am
“Not so long ago they produced a scare-film for children, where all the animal were drowning because of climate change.”
The scare film is here:
http://tinyurl.com/ygdaq6c
Many people complained and this is what happened:
http://tinyurl.com/ye5msne
You will need a lot of time and a strong stomach to wade through the report, but
at that time (early 2010) the IPCC reports were called upon to justify rejection of many of the complaints.
The film maker is reported as saying that it was not aimed at children, but they recognised that children may see it. So thats all right then.

October 2, 2010 5:18 am

No reaction from the BBC yet: (5 mins ago)
A search of the BBC website for ‘No Pressure’
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=toolbar&uri=%2F&q=%22no+pressure%22
yields nothing………………

Frank K.
October 2, 2010 5:19 am

I wonder if people would have found it “funny” – you know, “British satire” – if a group of skeptics had produced a similar video showing Hansen, Gore, Jones, et. al. being blown up in a graphic manner for their positions on catastrophic global warming…
In any case, this is all about MONEY, and until the people who are funding these 10:10 clowns are exposed and shamed, nothing will change. That’s why I opine that 99% of what passes for global warming “research” is nothing more than make-work projects for government and academic scientists who want their slice of the Climate Ca$h pie…

English Monty Python lover
October 2, 2010 5:19 am

@ jeremy of W.A “Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)”
So you think this film is satire? Been said already by quite a few people, but perhaps you should consider that satire and irony mostly work because they expose and exaggerate underlying truths.

Phil M2
October 2, 2010 5:23 am

Now if only we could get them to build their own red buttons and self carbonate.

kwik
October 2, 2010 5:38 am

My son is sendt to a trip to Auschwitch this year on something called “Tolerance trip”.
The young is learning tolerance. I like that.
However , the socialist teachers in Norwegian schools….I dont think they learn the children what tolerance really is. Or in-tolerance.
They dont learn that In-Tolerance comes in new shapes every time. They dont learn the children how to recognise in-tolerance, when it pops up again under a new name.
So, they learn that something called nazism is bad. And they learn that nazism is some obscure Right-wing stuff they must stay away from. End of story.
What if they learned that nazism is short for National Socialism, a sort of socialism turned bad. What if they learned that socialism in itself is a way of in-tolerance.
If every one in a society is supposed to be equal in every way, you need to do something about those who do not want to conform.
You must use force against them. That is when in-tolerance come into play.
So my question to the teachers is;
How can you be a socialist, and teach our children tolerance at the same time?

RR Kampen
October 2, 2010 5:39 am

[snip. You’ve been around here long enough to know that calling people “denialists” is not appropriate. Stop it. ~dbs, mod.]

Stephen Brown
October 2, 2010 5:44 am

Jo Nova has issued a very interesting challenge:
“My Challenge to Green groups: Call off your attack dogs.
For peace loving environmentalists, you may not have asked for this, but your true colors are being tested and the test comes from within. The challenge goes out to the Greens, Greenpeace, WWF, The Wilderness Society, CAN and the Sierra Club. Will you allow your sycophant totalitarian bullies to push these death-threats under the guise of joke, or will you stand up for human-rights, for peace, for non-violent answers – and denounce 10:10 and demand it’s immediate dissolution? Do environmentalists dream of violent deaths of the children of those who disagree? Unless you issue clear official statements that you are appalled by the 10:10 threats, that this kind of sicko-psycho intimidation is dangerous and uncivilized, then we mark you as tacitly approving. It only takes one written press release for your organisation to make its stance clear. What say ye?”
I wonder how many green groups will dare to distance themselves from 10:10?

Stefan
October 2, 2010 5:44 am

I agree with TinyCO2, this is basically in keeping with recent British stuff like Psychoville. This is stuff I couldn’t bear to watch, but after you get over the vileness, it gets funny due to its clever stuff.
However, that’s not what really annoys me about this video. Vile or not, it promotes a falsehood. It attacks reason. It is just a media campaign, well funded, well organised, promoting false views, or if you will, views which are mostly false, and damaging.
I wish the environmental movement would find wherever they’d left their brains and go fetch them.
Osama Bin L. drives an old carefully preserved VW (love those N. cars!) to the United Nations to deliver a speech on global warming in the wake of the Pakistani floods, He implores the world to do something. Some nations disagree, notably Obama and Cameron. Obama says ok, no pressure, and blows them up with RPGs from across the room. Next an Arab stands up, rich from oil wealth and says, Osama, the Earth is but a speck of dust in the eyes of Allah, you are a failed Muslim! So he pushes a button and Mohammed enters and sprays everyone in the room with a volley of spears. Funny? No? After a while trying to be shocking just gets very boring. I suppose we should hand it to real writers like Curtis who can be creative.
It is just a pity they’re idiots when it comes to science.

Chris B
October 2, 2010 5:45 am

Stephen Skinner says:
October 2, 2010 at 4:07 am
Dr Jacob Bronowski’s passionate and moving defence of science.
A very moving piece by Bronowski, but I think his premise is not accurate. It was the thick use of the questionable science of eugenics, coupled with an absence of the dogmatic religious belief in the immortal human soul of every human being that animated those committing the atrocities alluded to in the clip.
Similar situation with 10:10 and their dubious “climate science” coupled with dogmatic eco-pantheism. Hopefully they were not foreshadowing their hopes and dreams in their film/fantasy, should they come to power.

October 2, 2010 5:47 am

@Jeremy
“Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.”

At risk of being snipped I have to say that is absolute patronising rubbish. This already tired canard that the bad reactions are uncool people who don’t “get” British humour is despicably desperate and jingoistic. I’m a Brit and a lifelong fan of the quintessential British humour expressed in the likes of Monty Python, Blackadder, Brass Eye, In the Thick of it etc etc. This sick and offensive video bears absolutely no relation to these fine traditions and I’m already sick to death of seeing people who presume to speak for me as a Brit making specious claims that it is a “cultural thing”.
[no you don’t get snipped, because you are not attacking the person, just what he said – strongly worded, but polite enough ~jove, mod]

Dave
October 2, 2010 5:49 am

I may be in a small minority here, but whilst my sympathies are with WUWT in general, I find what I’ve seen here to be a total over-reaction. I laughed at the video – at them, not with them – and at its bizarre content. I wasn’t in the least bit bothered by the gore and the screaming. I was, and remain, bothered by the video basically equating skepticism with thought-crime, but I thought the video was no more than a more than usually explicit statement of the warmist-fanatics’ view. No surprise, nothing to see, and nothing here that’s worse than what they normally do. This was par for the course, so why are people so upset?
I would note that I come from a family with very poor taste in humour. My grandmother lost her sister in the Nazi camps, but still tells poor taste jokes about the holocaust. Maybe this is why I’m not offended by the way the content was presented, but, still, I’m not. What I’m annoyed and offended by is the idea that lies behind the making of the film, and that was something we all knew about already.
just my £0.02 worth.

October 2, 2010 5:49 am

Regarding the apologist for the propaganda snuff film in question,
it just goes to show that some people can rationalize anything
if they believe that their ends justify any means whatsoever.
This film is not satire or humour, certainly not Monty Python.
The “this is British humour” rationalization is a load of bollocks.
M.P. did not advocate killing children who questioned their humour.
As a previous poster speculated, one possible way to understand this is that Curtis wanted to see what was the most offensive script that he could come up with and still have the eco-righteous approve it.

October 2, 2010 5:51 am

Off-topic, but here’s my nomination for roll-your-eyes quote of the week:
“In an article from November 5, 2008, Josh Willis states that the world ocean actually has been warming since 2003 after removing Argo measurement errors from the data and adjusting the measured temperatures with a computer model his team developed. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

ImranCan
October 2, 2010 5:51 am

@De Nihilist
just showed it to my 18 yr old son, slightly amused, but thought it was sick. Whereas I found it humourous.
And no, it does not show the “real” plans of the left, just like Delingpole does not show the “real” plans of the right.
I disagree with you – I do not think it is humorous … I find it profoundly disturbing. However its OK that we disagree, although I’m not sure I’d ever want to have a drink with you. What I find interesting is your insinuation that its ‘OK’ because it doesn’t show ‘real’ plans by the left … and then defend that by somehow comparing it with Delingpole because of something he hasn’t done.
Wacko and bizarre.

e
October 2, 2010 5:53 am

Wow…seriously…
Who the hell thought this was a good idea.

Henry chance
October 2, 2010 5:54 am

Romm’s posturing is feigned outrage.
The dead seem to not be those sceptics. They seem to be those that do not cooperate with the group mandates.
Hansen, Romm and several others express dangerous events and seem to show glee in destruction of non believers.
We need to make this an example of their branding.
I am a skeptic and the other party is the 10:10 crowd.

October 2, 2010 5:55 am


At 9:26 PM on 1 October 2010, jeremy of W.A. had written:
I’m not in the least surprised that the majority of Warmists who have a problem with this are American, as are the majority of Climate Realists.
“It’s a cultural thing.

Yeah, I’d have to agree with that. Most assuredly “cultural.” From the moment I saw that first scene begin – with the little English kids in the kind of uniform dress that we tend to associate chiefly with Roman Catholic parochial schools here in the states – I flashed instantly on a novella by Darian Worden titled Bring a Gun to School Day (2008).
From Jim Lesczynski’s review (at http://tinyurl.com/2w7g6w2 ):
Nevertheless, Bring a Gun to School Day isn’t really about guns, nor is it really about school. It’s about the self-destructive compulsion of modern society to forsake freedom for the illusion of security, to retard the capacity for critical thought in our youth, and to stamp out any trace of real individuality wherever it is found. As a condemnation of the modern police state and nanny state, it succeeds brilliantly.
I expect that the reason why so very, very many of those “who have a problem with this [vicious 10:10 video] are American” is that every American (especially the government-worshiping warmist types) knows full well that the immediate response to any such action on the part of our public school gulag bureaucrats would leave the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming fraud – all of them – once and for all incapable of anything other than putrefaction.
As General Burgoyne had occasion to observe of the illegal American militia besieging the British Boston garrison in 1775, we are a rabble – but we are most assuredly “a rabble in arms.”

Mike A.
October 2, 2010 5:56 am

Would the once prominent British Fascist Oswald Mosley have warranted this 10:10 crap?
-Just asking.

October 2, 2010 5:57 am

it is on the BBC…… bit hard to find
BBC: Environmental campaigners axe gory film
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726
Environmental campaigners 10:10 have withdrawn a film showing a teacher graphically exploding two of her students who refuse to reduce their carbon emmissions, after complaints.
In a statement, the group apologised to anyone offended.
The film aimed to “bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh,” the group said.
Lizze Gillett, Global Campaign Director for 10:10, told the BBC: “As you can see from various comments and social media sites some people thought it was funny and a good tool to get people talking about climate change but others strongly disliked the mini-movie. We decided to take it off our website to avoid upsetting people. ”
———————————–
They are ‘spining’ , pretending the opposite reaction, to this already….

mike roddy
October 2, 2010 5:59 am

I agree with Tom and the commenters here that the film was confusing and in bad taste. Trying to hang Romm and McKibben with it makes no sense, since both renounced it.
As for related finger wagging at “alarmists” (like me)…no.
Many people have did from global warming, in this very early stage. It will get much worse. That makes the fossil fuel companies, and their useful idiots on the blogs and in the media accessories to murder.

October 2, 2010 6:01 am

On top of everything else, isn’t it the case that AGW supporters tell us we need to cut by 80%? So what’s the point in asking for just 10%? How many kids would be blown up if the teachers had asked for 80%? And explained that this would mean no iPods, iPlayers, Wiis, car lifts to every social event, etc, etc.
What do such organisations do when they recognise they’re irrelevant? They make themselves into the news rather than focusing on the messages they’re intended to promulgate. This is quite an extreme way to do it, but then that’s part of the process. It’ll get them some more government funding and that’s their real aim.

Ian W
October 2, 2010 6:01 am

For Jeremy of W.A.
I _am_ British and I am also ex-military and I can assure you I am perfectly familiar with and a user of black humour.
This video was NOT humorous. It was a targeted hate and dehumanising video showing that it is acceptable to kill opponents to your particular argument or point of view. This has none of the hallmarks of Monty Python, none whatsoever and for you to keep trying to refer it to Monty Python shows your misunderstanding of the genre and is insulting to its creators.
This video shows what will happen if the AGW proponents continue in their whipping up of their more fringe supporters. Unfortunately, there are some that are extremely easy to whip up and I can see this video being shown by them repeatedly, as they all giggle over it and desensitise themselves to the idea of harming or killing people that disagree. This is the whole essence of conditioning.
If you cannot see that then you exhibit more than a different sense of humour.

Grey Lensman
October 2, 2010 6:04 am

Here is a Sony brag about working with 10.10. I looked at their comments, Guess what, cease and desist from outraged people. I added my own, “No more Sony products for me” comment and why
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/09/1010-sponsor-sony-prepares-their-101010

AndyW
October 2, 2010 6:05 am

Interesting how the number of posts on these blog posts differ between science and entertainment.
A really scientific post = 50 posts
A post on a film – 5000 posts
Shows how much this entire blog just falls into entertainment for the masses and not something doing much good ?
Andy

Bill Illis
October 2, 2010 6:07 am

It is an interesting examination of “group think” and “noble corruption” – as Anthony termed it – in that the video actually made it to the internet.
A lot of planning, a lot of money, a lot of review must have gone into this before it came out on Thursday.
At some point, somebody must have “put up their hand” and said this is in such bad taste and is so morally wrong that we should stop this video now. Others must have said this video will backfire on the organization immensely so let’s stop now. I’m sure a few did but it went ahead anyway.
“Group think” that they were on the right side must have overwhelmed any qualms. Is the process that much different – making videos versus conducting science on the climate. I imagine the same human tendencies can take over in both areas.

Chris B
October 2, 2010 6:10 am

“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.”
To be safe we need to keep the spotlight on these people to ensure they never get elected and get a chance to put their full malthusian plan into action.

Stu
October 2, 2010 6:11 am

Apparently, I’m banned now from posting at Climate Progress.
I left a comment at the site of another guy who was quite rude to me. But that will probably disappear as well. Here it is for posterity-
“Hi Frank.
I just want to understand your reaction to my post on CP. I spelled out plainly that I have been involved in environmental restoration for years and have a consciously low carbon footprint.
Your reaction to my post was that I was an ‘inactivist sock puppet’.
Listen, I have no problem with actions on climate change, so I’m not sure where this came from. I’ve been a CC campaigner/anti nuke campaigner at various times.
Maybe you could list your ‘actions’?
This kind of response to me is exactly representative of the message of the video under discussion, where any deviation from officialdom is greeted with swift retribution, hostility, attack, and silencing. I am banned now from CP apparently so I guess Romm doesn’t really take kindly to this freedom of thought thing either. You know, I am a fairly reasonable guy. You could have engaged me in conversion and persuaded me by whatever it was that you thought I needed to know. I am open minded.
You are others at CP are alienating environmentalists and people who may care about these issues by your approach and that to me is a concern. Concern troll I may be. I agree you all need to sit down calmly and work out what needs to be done here. I suggest better interactions with the people who have problems about the messages being communicated in ‘mainstream’ enviromental media, for a start. You might find that the values being pushed in these communications are not so mainstream and that people are likely going to get upset. And damn right I am upset.
Unfortunately, due to your failure to engage with me on a human level, I’m still upset. And I will be likely pass along my experiences here to anyone who may be interested. If Romm doesn’t want people to connect him to the main message of this campaign than he should bloody well act appropriately!
Stu

Golf Charley
October 2, 2010 6:14 am

I still can’t believe they did it! AGW supporters must be as dazed and confused as Charlton Heston’s character in the final scene of Planet of the Apes.
I am thinking of school rooms and offices across the world on monday morning, as authority figures mention global warming, and everyone legs it!
If Governments including UK and USA are going to reopen their whitewashed enquiries, and re interview the likes of Hansen, Jones, Mann, Acton, Oxburgh etc, could the committee chairs have a grey box with a red botton on it please?

Jimmy Haigh
October 2, 2010 6:19 am

To all of those comparing the 10:10 filth to Monty Python – has anyone asked any of the Monty Python team their opinion? If I was one of the Monty Python guys I wouldn’t be too happy about the comparison.

trbixler
October 2, 2010 6:24 am

Is this hate crime covered by the 1st amendment? If not then where is the action against these purveyors of hate and violence? No response from the MSM! Maybe its OK with Couric. Maybe its OK with our government! Obama had a teaching moment with a professor and a cop but no teaching moment involving violence to children over his pet cause involving millions of viewers!

AJB
October 2, 2010 6:26 am

The Guardian appears to have just pulled the entire article complete with comments. However, the story has now appeared over at the Daily Mail where it’ll reach far beyond the Moonbat echo chamber.

3x2
October 2, 2010 6:28 am

Franny Armstrong (from the Guardian ) …
What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? … Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions … All our lives are at threat …
These are the kind of people you are dealing with. Zealots.
What makes them dangerous is that, unlike more mainstream religions, sinning, punishment and judgement day are to be a shared experience. The upshot of which is that while there are still “sinners” around the “righteous” will be “punished” right along with them. All believers have to be zealots, their immediate futures depend on it.
You have to wonder at supposedly intelligent people like Romm who suddenly discover that they no longer command of the mob they have spent so long stirring up. Perhaps he should have read history rather than Physics.

October 2, 2010 6:34 am

This would all just be a bad joke if it weren’t for the ongoing brainwashing of our children by our public schools, and the murder-suicides the Carbon Fraudsters have inspired.
If there is a ray of hope, it is that by the time crusading children were slaughtered and sold into slavery, that social mania was already subsiding.

October 2, 2010 6:35 am

mike roddy says:
October 2, 2010 at 5:59 am
“Many people have did [died?] from global warming, in this very early stage. It will get much worse. That makes the fossil fuel companies, and their useful idiots on the blogs and in the media accessories to murder.”
Oh? Who?

Editor
October 2, 2010 6:37 am

Stephen Skinner says:
October 2, 2010 at 4:07 am
> Dr Jacob Bronowski’s passionate and moving defence of science.
Ah, someone remembers. I bought my first color TV to watch his Ascent of Man series.
Just a few days ago I heard a reference to this being the 30th anniversary of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. (The one with the stupid dandelion space ship made of star stuff). Galling reminder, the Ascent of Man was so much better….

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 2, 2010 6:41 am

Jean Parisot said on October 2, 2010 at 4:56 am:

I am having a fabricator make a red button like the one on the movie. I will personally deliver it to Senator Inhofe to keep on hand for the post November hearings.

Make sure to follow the proper labeling standard for red buttons sent to politicians, in this case it would be labeled “Reset”. If you were sending a reset button it would be labeled “Overload” (you’re trying to blow something up). This is done due to the tendency of politicians to do the opposite of what they say, thus this system avoids accidents. It’s a proper diplomatic protocol, just ask the US State Department for confirmation.

Richard M
October 2, 2010 6:41 am

If, as some have mentioned, the intent of this movie was simply to increase the visibility of the 10:10 organization. Then, it has clearly worked. I had never heard of them before, but now that I have, I find them to be a bunch of hateful lunatics.
I have the feeling that was not the message they meant to to deliver.

Editor
October 2, 2010 6:42 am

Seen at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
I don’t know if this is the first reference.

RapidEddie
2 October 2010 1:18AM
Splattergate. I’m going with Splattergate.

BrianMcL
October 2, 2010 6:43 am

In the justification for this nonsense we keep being told that the pretend deaths of a few is justified by the deaths of 300,000 real people each year.
Where does this 300,000 figure come from? I mean, can anyone name any of them? Surely that would be a more powerful message.

chris y
October 2, 2010 6:44 am

GavinL says:
October 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
“I laughed my socks off when Mr. Creoscote blew up, but remember it was a wafer-thin mint that did the damage…”
The first time I saw that scene was in a movie theater. I laughed so hard I fell out of my seat.
The film has demolished any semblance of credibility that 10:10 may have had. Wile E. Coyote has more credibility when it comes to recommendations on climate policing, er, policies. Perhaps IPCC Pachauri could release a public service announcement to help restore some integrity- you know, throw the IPCC’s integrity behind 10:10…

October 2, 2010 6:48 am

The 10:10 video is confirmation that the agw crowd knows the CO2 fraud is over.

Francisco
October 2, 2010 6:52 am

jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
============================
So you are saying that this kind of “satire” is so quintessentially British and subtle that it cannot be grasped by other nationalities without hard studies in Britishness and Satire?
You mention Monty Python as representative of this kind of work. How do you explain that their movies were also very popular outside of Britain, including many non-English speaking countries?
How do you explain, reading through the reactions, that we find so many educated British people who fail to grasp the wonderful subtelties you hint at? Does the proper understanding of this movie require acquaintance with some kind of extremely advanced Britishness, so advanced that it remains inaccessible even to most British people?
On the other hand, I read comments by an Australian saying this humor is readily accessible to Australians, but has no chance going through customs in the US — so maybe this is a Commonwealth kind of humor. But then, here in Canada, people are finding it hard to understand as well.
Would you at least care to tell us exactly WHO or WHAT is being satirized in that little movie? (I mean, other than the goody-two-shoes characters and their views.)

David L. Hagen
October 2, 2010 6:52 am

These film makers attack the foundations of our Rule of Law. They portray that it is right to murder people to “save” the earth from catastrophies projected by alarmists.

TomFP
October 2, 2010 6:53 am

To those who like me are attracted to the idea that Curtis has got his hand up Franny wossername’s skirt, I think the best comparison for this sort of parody is not Monty Python, but The Office, which made me laugh and cringe in equal measure – I cried with mirth, but wanted to hide from the TV behind my own sofa. While it’s just possible that a man with Curtis’ ear for cant and drivel can be a warmy, it beggars belief that he would also imagine that this film furthered his cause. My suspicions were reinforced when my spies sent me this early draft of Franny’s withdrawal notice – the part in italics seems to have been redacted 🙂
“Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. We assumed that Mr Curtis, who is known for the concerns he professes about African poverty, would be a fully paid up CAGW cultist, and didn’t think to question him too closely n the matter. It turns out that his concerns about African poverty are not merely professed but sincerely felt, and that Mr Curtis is in reality outraged at the prospect that abused and shoddy science is being used to deny Africa the path to betterment enjoyed by Europeans. When he suggested blowing up kids, we thought it might be a bit OTT, but hey, he was the creative one, right? We thought we were commissioning a dead-cool, edgy movie to promote a self-evidently virtuous cause. How were we to know he was in reality crafting for us enough rope to hanghhh…”

Pamela Gray
October 2, 2010 6:53 am

I just bought a TV (Emmerson). Looked up “Sony” to see if they were the controlling company. Nope. If they had been, I would have taken it right back to Walmart. From now on, Sony and all its brands are on my no-no list.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 2, 2010 6:53 am

From AndyW on October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am:

Shows how much this entire blog just falls into entertainment for the masses and not something doing much good ?

Very well then, you can go somewhere else and do a lot of good. Accumulating positive karma never hurts, and you might need a lot some day.

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 6:53 am

“jeremy of W.A. says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm”
I will not make an apology, but comparing this utter rubbish to Monty, well, you have no idea. Even John Cleese is on film stating that even the Pythion team didn’t know what Python was all about. It was “out there”, experimental, it was leading edge TV in Britain in it’s day, just like The Goons on radio before. John Cleese (Who’s name was “Cheese”, before his father changed the family name to Cleese) and Connie Booth decided the 12 episodes of Fawlty Towers would be the only ones, never to make a sequel as they knew, after writing and producing, they would not and could not do better. And it’s true, I am glad there was never a sequel. The 12 episodes are 12 classics that are timeless.
Now, references to Mr Creosote exploding being funny. Well, yes it is IMO, but Mr Creosote chose his fate. This 10:10 vidoe just dehumanises people who follow a different path but then don’t get a choice in thier fate. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 6:59 am

“mike roddy says:
October 2, 2010 at 5:59 am”
Really? Directly from climate change, or some form of dogma? I would suggest the latter. Aztec/Moche = human sacrifice, war etc. In modern times, war, disease (The “Spanish” ‘flu killed more people after WWI that during WWI itself). Since the advent of the car, millions have died from crashes.
Don’t see anything attributed to C02 driven, man-made, climate change there.

Jimmy Haigh
October 2, 2010 7:01 am

AndyW says:
October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am
“Interesting how the number of posts on these blog posts differ between science and entertainment. ”
Andy – you have noticed the WUWT hit counter?
56,571,825 and counting.
We don’t discuss many films here.

Tim
October 2, 2010 7:04 am

Hello Thomas Fuller,
I believe that you are so right with your belief that the target market of this propaganda video is children. I’ve read so many personal blogs from parents about their kids, both in Australia and the UK, relating the bias of teachers pushing the AGW theory as truth to their classes , thereby making any young dissenters automatically wrong and bad in the eyes of their classmates.
The producers of this video had obviously done their research and focus group work and were well aware of the shock it would create, and also were well prepared to say “sorry folks”, (but only after it went viral and the message was delivered globally). There were no ‘mistakes with humour’ – just well planned, well researched, well funded and targeted propaganda.
This war will unfortunately not be won simply by scientific integrity and truth – I wish it could be – but rather it also needs to disseminate that truth via insightful marketing.
Thanks for the insight.

Pamela Gray
October 2, 2010 7:15 am

I have since become convinced that it matters little that the producers may have been hoodwinked by the writer/director’s take on the debate (re: the finger pointing alluded to in TomFP’s comment). What matters are the sponsors. The list is filled with “AGWAR-morist” sponsors I never buy from, but there are a few biggies that spread their wares far and wide. Consider my door shut to those wares.

3x2
October 2, 2010 7:17 am

If you take out the explosions and insert more moderate punishments, “re-education” for the kids and a dead career path for the adults, the the video is pretty much a short documentary of UK life.
The UK is a lost cause but I have faith that the march of the zombie army will be fought hard in the US. Don’t let us down.

Pamela Gray
October 2, 2010 7:18 am

AndyW, if you have a debatable point about the film, offer it. Otherwise your posts are, in my opinion, looking like drive-by shots of hot air. Why do you find the film enlightening?

David Ball
October 2, 2010 7:20 am

Like the guy who thought it would be a good idea to fly Air Force one around Manhattan with an F-15 following it during the first couple of months of the new presidency, scaring the total (snip) out of New Yorkers. Brilliant PR stuff. Foot-Shooters Inc.

anna v
October 2, 2010 7:22 am

AndyW says:
October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am

Interesting how the number of posts on these blog posts differ between science and entertainment.
A really scientific post = 50 posts
A post on a film – 5000 posts
Shows how much this entire blog just falls into entertainment for the masses and not something doing much good ?
Andy

I went and counted all post responses on this vile video. No more than 1200 all 5.
So you are either innumerate, or a liar. Your choice.
BTW the real scientific posts often hit 250.

Beth Cooper
October 2, 2010 7:24 am

Al Gore’s Holy Hologram puts it in its historical context…’Another cult that kills unbelievers…’
‘We’ve got a little list…
We’ve got you on our list!’

Robert of Ottawa
October 2, 2010 7:26 am

Boy, Spurs must have got an earful. Here is the response I received from the Tottenham Hotspurs Customer Service Manager at 0830 this morning:
Note: They are employing the PARODY defense.
Thank you for your email and we fully understand your reaction to this film.
The Club has been a supporter of 10:10 since its inception and the organisation has been instrumental in debating the issues surrounding climate change.
We took part in the film in good faith. We appreciate that this film may offend some and that others will see it as a typical Richard Curtis tongue-in-cheek approach to raising awareness.
We shall pass you response to 10:10.

John Norris
October 2, 2010 7:26 am

re:”Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary …”
Monty Python did not have an agenda of ideological cleansing. These folks appear to. Monty Python’s agenda was to make a living getting laughs. Poor analogy.

Robert of Ottawa
October 2, 2010 7:29 am

The “satire” and “parody” defense do not hold up as the movies were produced by an AGW propaganda organization. One does not parody oneself.

Kitefreak
October 2, 2010 7:31 am

Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand says:
October 1, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Those who seek to control speech remind me rather too much of those who would like to have a red button.
———————-
I’ll second that.
And, incidently, YouTube/Google are far from being bastions of free speech, IMO.

mike roddy
October 2, 2010 7:33 am

Colonel Sun,
Sorry for the typo. “Died” is correct. As in deaths from historic heat waves in Russia, France, and India.
There’s a lot more to come. Try reading the scienco on the subject. And yes, Anthony Watts and Tom Fuller will share responsibility for these horrors. And no, I don’t want to blow them up, or even shut them up. Communicating the actual scientific evidence is my goal.

DirkH
October 2, 2010 7:35 am

Great… it’s on the Daily Mail only because Curtis is such a well-known figure… 10:10global.org will be gone faster than you can say “revisionist”. And i guess the guys that dragged Sony, Microsoft and O2 into this marketing fiasco can look for a new job now.
(About the involvement of the above mentioned companies; here is the German site of 10:10 bragging about it:
http://www.1010global.org/de
)

Julian in Wales
October 2, 2010 7:36 am

I think this film is aimed at waverers. It is aimed at believers who may be thinking of becoming luke warm believers. The over riding images are of the images of shock amongst the believers about what happens if you leave the cult. The lady who is giving her help for free is blown up for being a bit luke warm in her commitment.
The controller are surely sociopaths. They press their buttons with glee, there is no remorse even though the well behaved children under their care are obviously upset.
This is not about converting, it is about controlling the flock using brutal totaliarian methods.
It has nothing to do with British humour, look at the Gaurdian comments, the British are not finding it funny.

Robert of Ottawa
October 2, 2010 7:37 am

That this wasn’t meant “to be funny” is that they used real-world people, kid’s icons, that is members of Tottenham Hotspurs football club. Kids look up to these people.

Francisco
October 2, 2010 7:40 am

RR Kampen says:
October 2, 2010 at 5:39 am
[snip. You’ve been around here long enough to know that calling people “denialists” is not appropriate. Stop it. ~dbs, mod.]
=================
Well, I don’t get so upset about that word. After all, we do deny (not just doubt) many things the alarmists take for granted, and there is an excellent book by Lawrence Solomon, titled The Denialists, that reviews some of the scientific literature against CAGW from a very friendly perspective.
I accept that humans, like any other organism, must have some kind of effect on climate. I am skeptical about claims that our effect is significant. And I adamantly deny it has ever been demonstrated that humans have a *measurable* effect on climate. Whatever effect we may have, it remains unmeasurable to date. In that sense, I am a pure denialist, not a skeptic.
Richard Lindzen has often hinted that skepticism may be too polite a word to describe the logical reaction to many of the CAGW claims. See for example:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf
[…]
“Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.”

DirkH
October 2, 2010 7:42 am

DirkH says:
October 2, 2010 at 7:35 am
“[…](About the involvement of the above mentioned companies; here is the German site of 10:10 bragging about it:
http://www.1010global.org/de
)”
I think i should better copy the text because it’ll be gone quickly:
“Genug geredet, fangen wir an. Großbritannien macht es gerade vor; 80.000 Sign-Ups von Einzelhaushalten bis hin zu Firmen wie Microsoft, 0², Sony und und und…

Translation: Enough talk, let’s begin. The UK leads with example: 80,000 sign ups by individual househols as well as by companies like Microsoft, O2, Sony and many more.

PJP
October 2, 2010 7:44 am

John Kehr says:
October 2, 2010 at 3:50 am
I finally had the chance to see this video… Well, to be honest I stopped after the 2nd button. That was more than enough.

You really need to see the end. The message there is very clear when Gillian Anderson is vaporized, and her eyeballs slide down the window — no matter who you are, you WILL believe, or die. Your life is less than nothing to us, its almost too much effort to push the button on you.
These people are clearly sick.

Kitefreak
October 2, 2010 7:44 am

TGSG says:
October 2, 2010 at 12:17 am
Amazingly bizarre that through all the different steps this film took.. from conception to screenplay to shooting to final edit to the person who gave the final OK… not a one of them said “nah this is just a touch over the top”.
—————————————————-
I find that amazing too. I think it shows how totally psychologically absorbed they are by their ‘religion’, that they literally cannot imagine anybody not finding it funny. I’ve believed for a while now, that people betray themselves by the jokes they make. The warmers have really exposed themselves here, as many folks have already said.

October 2, 2010 7:45 am

The big picture is summed up by Gillian Anderson at the end. It’s not even enough to “talk the talk” and ally with them. If you don’t sacrifice for the common good then it’d be better that you were removed from the earth so that you’re not causing problems. Give up 10% or 100%. Your choice. No pressure.

October 2, 2010 7:45 am

Regardless of the intent of the producers this video turned out to be a mildly amusing black-humor satire of the Green’s totalitarian zealotry. Not as funny as the pioneer in this genera: the Green Police commercials that aired during the Superbowl here in the USA. Hoisted by one’s own petard comes to mind.

Stu
October 2, 2010 7:50 am

I saw this referenced on the Guardian website-
‘Doctor Bronowski Defends Science’

Very relevant.

Douglas Dc
October 2, 2010 7:51 am

Time to jump in again. The Pythons did not kill children in their skits. Children did not get covered in blood and gore. Now I have seen blood and gore. Including my own. from
accident, aircraft crashes,cattle and hog butchering. Children here are butchered. There are already children being butchered in real life. War, crime,terror, we are worried about a real attack in Europe and the USA by the Bad Men of the Quedist movement. This Film is worthy of Lili Riefenstahl. Who, in later life was something of a greenie herself. Though she was a better director,technically.
Thank you Mr. Fuller, and others who see this as what it is- a hate film.

Andrew30
October 2, 2010 7:53 am

What is the difference between the people that support the actions of 9/11 and the people that support the actions of 10/10?
Only 1 step to the left.

WTF
October 2, 2010 7:54 am

evanmjones says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Go and view Monty Python and the holy Grail. Look up Satire in the dictionary. Then take a course in being British (N.B. work very hard on the Irony / Sarcasm section)
Finally review the video again and posit a new opinion.
============================================================
I grew up on MP. I have as dark a sense of humour as anyone. Laughed my bleep off at “we are here for your liver – what? – well you signed the card” and when the Catholic woman dropped the kid while doing the dishes I think I bleeped myself. The Holy Grail I have watched 20 times. I see something new to laugh at everytime I watch it. The question here is context. If this “film” had appeared as a Python sketch or on SNL or on MAD TV or even South Park I probably would have cried laughing. But it wasn’t. It was put out by a Government sanctioned organization which wants to tell us how to live. Their choice of message was ‘comply or die’. That is not funny, that is scary. How is that any different than the message any number of terrorists try to send. Another issue is timing. Just a few weeks after the Discovery Channel hostage taking and that whacko’s declared Manafesto. Please don’t try to excuse by ignoring context. Context is everything in this situation as it is in most.
[That wasn’t me. I was just quoting it. ~ Evan]

John
October 2, 2010 7:57 am

The idea of simply murdering their enemies to get them out of the way comes easily to many the far left. It’s why so many left-wing revolutions end up creating large piles of bodies and why so many on the left not only turn their head at such atrocities but still idolize murderous thugs like Mao, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. It’s so much easier to murder your enemies that convince them to agree with your insane beliefs and plans. Maximilien “The Incorruptible” Robespierre and his Reign of Terror were not an aberration of history but the predictable results of an utopian ideology taken to its logical conclusion. We know this because the same thing happens, again and again.

watttyler
October 2, 2010 7:58 am

jeremy of W.A, don’t excuse this with crap about non-existence British cultural superiority. If you mean that the British are further along a path of degeneracy, then you might be correct.
Unlike the fantasies of Monty Python, the victims of this film are representative of every man; some of which do not agree with the eco-fascists. Their punishment for what should be an inalienable right is elimination -it is a statement of the desires of the eco-fascists. In fact, when you take into account the views of people like Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola, who want climate change deniers to be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and a vast majority of humans killed, then you realise that this is only half the story.
We shouldn’t back away from calling these people Nazis just because they call us deniers. We don’t intend to enslave and kill the masses. They do. Lets call them out so that they don’t get a chance.

Jan
October 2, 2010 8:01 am

If this film was supposed to be satire, they did a darn good job of satirizing their own.
What I marvel at is why people who have demonstrated such appallingly bad judgment should think they’ve got it all right, and those that don’t agree with them have got it wrong. They are so wrapped up in their own sense of self-righteousness, they clearly act without doing much in the way of deep thinking. These are not the kind of people anybody should heed.
It isn’t the first time gruesome images and ideas have been used to promote the cause. It is however the worst of the lot. Perhaps this will be the end of the escalating level of overt threats made toward those of us who don’t care to join the cult of AGW.

WTF
October 2, 2010 8:03 am

Of course my first two MP references were from The meaning of Life just to be clear. Can’t make a context argument then screw up my references 😉 Also laughed hysterically at Life of Brian when they were on the cross singing. So my black humour rep is fully intact thank you very much mr evanmjones.
[REPLY – The italics were quotes from jeremy of W.A.. Go back and look underneath the italics and you will see my reactions to the quotes. ~ Evan]

Squidly
October 2, 2010 8:08 am

I am simply stunned. Speechless really. It is simply despicable and vial.

Viv Evans
October 2, 2010 8:09 am

Having poured out my anger about this vile video elsewhere, I am still aghast that one major point of this video has escaped attention.
That is the use of the ‘red button’ to blow children and adults up.
Leaving aside the aspects of green propaganda, ‘humour’, ‘Brits find it vaguely funny’ etc – why is it that nobody is disturbed by the obvious connection between this video and the suicide bombers in this world, who also just press a button to kill themselves and all innocent bystanders?
Have we become so desensitized to violence that we don’t even notice how the makers of this video even make fun, apparently, of suicide bombings?
I am and remain appalled and [self-snipped] angry.

WTF
October 2, 2010 8:10 am

Another telling point about this “film” is the number of people they represent as not going along with the consensus. To them in their self imposed bubble they think that those who do not agree with them are a very small minority. The fact that they thought they had to make this “film” I think proves otherwise.

tommy
October 2, 2010 8:12 am

@P Gosselin
Not a peep about the video/campaign in norwegian media either. No surprise since this country is run by these people and media subsided by these very same people.

Stefan
October 2, 2010 8:14 am

I’ve heard said:
Curtis is not a cutting edge writer. He is old. By comparison, shows like Psychoville leave you feeling that the oddball characters are endearing.
If this film was supposed to help convince people, it failed. So what’s the point?

David L. Hagen
October 2, 2010 8:15 am

Copy of letter sent to:
———————————————————-
Kazuo Inamori, Founder & Chairman Emeritus
Makoto Kawamura, Chairman
Tetsuo Kuba, President
Kyocera Group
Honorable Founder Inamori, Chairman Kawamura & President Kuba
Thank you for your foundation of “Living Together” built on you ethical perspective “What is the right thing to do as a human being?” and for your effort to “build trust relationships with all stakeholders”. This affirms Jesus’ teaching: “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”
However, your company is supporting the 10:10 UK group at 1010global.org. Though claiming to act for the environment, 10:10 UK is destroying our foundational Rule of Law. By their video “No Pressure”, they promote teachers violently murdering children who do not agree with their advocacy.
Please repudiate 10:10’s teaching children to murder.
Please remove your support from 10:10 UK.
Yours sincerely
Dr. David L. Hagen
—————————————————
See Kyocera’s Top Management Message
Please express your opinion to Kyocera at CSR Activities (Society and Environment)
———————————–
Please express you opinion to Naomi Climer, chair of Sony’s sustainability leadership group, regarding Sony’s support of 10:10 UK.
Yotaro Kobayashi, Chairman of the Board
Sir. Howard Stringer, Sony Corporation Chairman, CEO
howard.stringer@jp.sony.com
Naomi Climer, Vice President, Sony Europe
c/o Corporate Social Responsibility Department
Sony Corporation
See Sony’s environmental commitment.

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 8:16 am

“Robert of Ottawa says:
October 2, 2010 at 7:26 am”
Easy fix. Don’t buy their merchandise!

beesaman
October 2, 2010 8:17 am

Thinking on this and reading the recent comments, yes it does fit, they are Eco-nazis. Plain and simple and we should, as others have suggested, name them for what they are.

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 8:21 am

“mike roddy says:
Sorry for the typo. “Died” is correct. As in deaths from historic heat waves in Russia, France, and India.”
Really, really, REALLY, lame! Forget the RECORD deaths from cold in central Europe which OUTSTRIP the hot deaths. Go, please do, go check it, google it if you will. Here in Australia, we’ve had our coldest September in 16 years, but I guess this is just weather. I wonder how cold the NH winter will be this year. Well, by all accounts, it’s shaping up to be as cold or colder than last year (30-40 cold records set. Did anyone say 1970’s coming iceage?).

Ken Hall
October 2, 2010 8:23 am

Monty Python was a comedy show, showing a wide range of comedy skits, purely for the purpose of amusement. This 10:10 video is part of a political campaign setting out to wilfully dehumanise their political opponents. I would suggest that this is a very large and crucial distinction.
This video is not only aimed at children, but at the sub-conscious of the moderate believer. This is aimed at desensitising them to the idea of killing non-believers.
BTW, I am British, I love Monty Python, Blackadder, not the nine o clock news, even two pints of lager and a packet of crisps.

Olen
October 2, 2010 8:24 am

Whatever their reasons it is sick. They have trouble dealing with adults who want proof so they attack our children and grandchildren and if they can brainwash them they have it made for the next generation.
This is not science or education its abuse by a political agenda and worse its abuse of children by attempting to sell them on a fraud and by promoting the idea that murdered and death for anyone who does not agree is OK. It is disgusting and should be prosecuted. All the wondering about their reasons does not matter when a child is being used in such a fashion. And selling it with humor does not make it acceptable.

Richard Sharpe
October 2, 2010 8:24 am

Translation: Enough talk, let’s begin. The UK leads with example: 80,000 sign ups by individual househols as well as by companies like Microsoft, O2, Sony and many more.

Make sure that these companies, like Microsoft, O2, Sony, etc learn of our indignation and disgust at the video and suggest to them that it tars them with the same brush.
Time to fight back!

Caleb
October 2, 2010 8:28 am

Some have suggested certain Skeptics (such as myself) are as bad as this 10-10 crowd, for saying “hateful” things such as, “There should be Nuremberg Trials for Alarmists.”
I think James Delingpole concluded a recent editorial with a statement like this, though he may have had second thoughts and edited the statement out, as I now can’t find it.
I would like to point out the Nuremberg Trials were real trials, involving real witnesses and real evidence.
My emphasis is on the word “real,” as in “truth.”
On the other hand, over the past few years we have seen many signs that the work of the likes of Hansen and Mann was based on unreal witnesses and unreal evidence.
My emphasis is on the word “unreal,” as is fraud, falsehood, fake, forgery and f—— fudging.
I feel these people should be hauled forward, and demanded to produce the data they hide. If people object to the phrase “Nuremburg Trials” we can simply use the phrase, “Congressional Hearings.”
The harm they have done is huge. Not only have billions been wasted on dealing with a problem which may well be a total fraud, but a generation of children have been needlessly frightened and misdirected.
The most alarming misdirection of all is contained in the sentence, “The science is settled.”
Why is this alarming? Well, it suggests that a sort of “Nuremberg Trail” has already been held, and a verdict has already been reached. Therefore all that is left to do is to execute the condemned, by pushing a little red button.
I am personally feel threatened, for more often than not, in my life, I have been in the minority, whether it be in childhood classrooms, or work places, or on sporting teams. I’m the guy who gets exploded in the 10-10 film.
Fortunately, in real life, I dealt with a majority who, though often annoyed by my objections, often gave me a fair hearing.
Sometimes I realized I was mistaken, and dropped my minority views.
However other times, and these are the times I most like to remember, I was able to get a truth across to the majority. I got to see annoyed expressions turn into looks of enlightenment, as everyone got what I was trying to say, and realized it was a so-called “stroke of genius.”
I think if most of us look back on brain-storming sessions, when a group of people sat about attempting to answer a tough question, we can recall occasions when the brilliant answer came like a shaft of light, from the last person you expected.
However this 10-10 film advocate exploding the very people who may hold the answers we most desperately need. Inadvertently it explains why dictatorships tend to self-destruct. It is because they kill off their most brilliant thinkers.
We need to object to the mind-set displayed by this 10-10 firm with all our strength and heart and soul.

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 8:30 am

“DirkH says:
October 2, 2010 at 7:42 am
Translation: Enough talk, let’s begin. The UK leads with example: 80,000 sign ups by individual househols as well as by companies like Microsoft, O2, Sony and many more.”
Simple. Boycot their products. Buyer power has so much…persuasive clout!
Don’t need windows at home, Linux is available along with PLENTY of apps.
O2? Virgin, Telecom etc etc….?
Sony? Panasonic, Samsung, Pinoeer etc etc?
Purchasing choice has power.

Allen
October 2, 2010 8:31 am

The Orwellian undertones are the most disgusting part of this video – thanks to previous posters for not only pointing this out but also marshalling the appropriate passage in 1984. I can see David “throw the infidels in jail” Suzuki nodding his head in approval at this hate propaganda.
The satire defense only belies a complete ignorance of the concept of satire (see any irony here?) and is yet another desperate attempt to win an argument.

Gary
October 2, 2010 8:40 am

Not many people have commented on the exploitation of the children in the film. The “how it was made” clip clearly shows that they’re just having fun and are too young to make make the necessary moral judgment. What is most chilling, though, is the lad at the end who says with a self-satisfied expression, it’s for a “good cause.” He’s well on the way to being a politician or bureaucrat who will make decisions furthering his own agenda without giving a thought to human consequences.

MartinGAtkins
October 2, 2010 8:43 am

Franny Armstrong is probably the most inept self absorbed propagandist in the entire AGW movement. Her film “The Age Of Stupid” was panned as over emotional drivel by film critics. One critic suggested the film title aptly described Armstrongs level of cognitive development.
Here’s a classic shock add, with the mother of all explosions.

barbarausa
October 2, 2010 8:45 am

Jeremy of WA:
I love Monty Python. As a Yank, I understand that there are fundamental differences in humor, and sometimes am shaking my head in wonder over Pythonesque endeavors that leave me saying “Boy, those Brits!”
But they are honestly funny.
One of the things that Python violence had going for it was the LACK of production value. “cherchez la vache!”, and a stiff-legged cow dummy flies over the castle wall. The man behind the bush getting blown up? A floppy dummy flying about, with distinct cuts in the film, and jumps in the resolution.
Often as not, the skit would plunge into one of the brillinatly intricate and strange animation sequences.
The production values at 10:10 were very high.
Recently we “celebrated” the anniversary of 9:11 here in the US, which some groups acknowledged with a “never forget” republishing of a lot of video and photographs of what occurred that day, including the many people who fell or leapt to their deaths from their trapped inferno on the upper floors of the towers–gee, I find that falling polar bear ad, with the whine of airplanes as the soundtrack, from planestupid.whatever sovery very edgy and funny. Really makes me think.
Photos that are not widely available, due to action by survivors and the families of the deceased, showed Manhattan streets littered with unrecognizeable bits of gore from the jumpers. A moving photo I saw was of an employee of the Marriott at ground zero out with an armload of clean linens covering the bits of people before the towers collapsed and buried them, providing dignity to the remnants of human beings that looked quite similar to the fake gore of the 10:10 button pushing.
Had it been truly Pythonesque, with slapstick blood and guts signalling the surreal fantasy of it all, they might be able to get away with “edgy satire”.
But it was vivid enough, and calm enough–“no pressure. Your choice…to die. Now next?”–that it went beyond humor.
I know a woman who had to take her child’s toothbrush and comb to New York to attempt to locate a fragment of them. Not identified to date.
My brother’s younger son was out of contact for three days, because his apartment was one of the buildings damaged, and in the chaos he could not get through to his dad, or vice versa. We thought he was gone for good.
This was not funny, and it can’t be dismissed as a “cultural thing”.
Is it funny to the poor people of the mideast, when something detonates next to a friend or relative?
Have these insular and arrogant clowns ever had to flick a piece of person off of themselves as the teacher does in the film? Have they ever had to try to identify and claim a bit of gore?
Pardon me for epressing these things–I guess it’s a cultural thing.

Kate
October 2, 2010 8:47 am

There is a disease that afflicts all those in positions of authority. They believe themselves to be superior to all those who are not like themselves and/or don’t share their convictions.
For example, let’s consider the USA… Home of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law… Correct?
Medical ethics in the USA
Strict regulations in the US today make clear that it is unethical to experiment on people without their consent, and require special steps for any work with such vulnerable populations as prisoners.
But the archived records of Dr.John Cutler, a government researcher involved in the Tuskegee study, show that from 1932 to 1972 they tracked 600 black men in Alabama who had syphilis without ever offering them treatment. In Tuskegee, scientists knew African-American sharecroppers had become infected with syphilis but withheld treatment to track the progression of the disease.
Not content with that outrage, Cutler went on, with his scientific experiments, and with the connivance of the US Government, to infecting patients in a mental hospital with STDs. US Government officials provided prostitutes to patients in the Guatemalan institute from 1946 to 1948 to to test if the relatively new drug, penicillin, could prevent them catching STDs.
Hundreds of men and women were exposed to syphilis and gonorrhea during the research. If the patients failed to contract the illnesses they were deliberately inoculated. In Guatemala, prisoners, soldiers, and inmates in mental asylums were willfully infected, sometimes by using prostitutes provided by the scientists or sometimes by pouring the germs onto skin abrasions the researchers had caused.
What we see in this video is an expression of the same “superior” psychology underlying Cutler’s experiments as those involved in perpetuating the man-made global warming fraud, and its wretched propaganda. The only difference is the identity of the victims. Instead of poor, illiterate, black people, the mentally ill, and Guatemalens, they target so-called “deniers”. By so doing, the mask has slipped, and the true face of the monster is glimpsed.

October 2, 2010 8:51 am

Just saw the most awesome quip from poster “greenmeat” over at the Guardian thread:
Before you read it, remember that Richard Curtis, who wrote this utter travesty, also wrote and directed ‘Love Actually’ and ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’:
“Maybe Richard “Bomber” Curtis should have linked the title to his earlier efforts…..
“Four Explosions and an Own Goal” perhaps……………………..
or “Hate Actually”

I particularly like the second one.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
October 2, 2010 8:55 am

PLEASE, I urge you to stop mentioning this – you’re giving them exactly what they want! See:
AndyW says:
October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am
You are demeaning the anti-AGW campaign and our ’cause’. For Cliff’s sake (Brit humour) shut up! Anthony should never have drawn attention to it.

MartinGAtkins
October 2, 2010 8:58 am

Or try this.

anna v
October 2, 2010 9:02 am

mike roddy says:
October 2, 2010 at 5:59 am
“Many people have did [died?] from global warming, in this very early stage. It will get much worse. That makes the fossil fuel companies, and their useful idiots on the blogs and in the media accessories to murder.”

Ok, lets exorcise this phantom:
http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/2#IDAVHMFL
There are 56000000, that is 56 million deaths each year. People are not immortal.
In 1990 the leading causes of disease burden were pneumonia, diarrhoeal diseases and perinatal conditions. By 2020, it is predicted that NCDs will account for 80 percent of the global burden of disease, causing seven out of every 10 deaths in developing countries, compared with less than half today[1,2].
NCD are non comunicable diseases:
Non communicable diseases are more and more prevalent in developing countries where they double the burden of infective diseases. If the present trend is maintained, the health systems in low-and middle-income countries will be unable to support the burden of disease. Prominent causes for heart disease, diabetes, cancer and pulmonary diseases can be prevented but urgent (preventive) actions are needed and efficient strategies should deal seriously with risk factors like smoking, alcohol, physical inactivity and western diet.
Can you see global warming there? More drinking? inactivity? western diet?smoking? are these AGW related?
In any case, the number pulled out of the hat, 300.000, is noise in the 56 million deaths. From malaria only there are almost 3.000.000 deaths per year. Have you seen videos blowing up the people who do not believe in DDT?

Francisco
October 2, 2010 9:04 am

3×2 says:
October 2, 2010 at 7:17 am
The UK is a lost cause but I have faith that the march of the zombie army will be fought hard in the US. Don’t let us down.
======================
I do think the UK (and Europeans in general) have swallowed the CAGW pills in a much more obedient and uncritical manner than the US, and they seem to be less capable of independent thinking, at least on this matter. The ease with which they can be made to regurgitate pieties like: “We have 4 years to avoid catastrophe” is discouraging. The inevitable devastation of the planet due to our carbon emissions, and the beneficial effects of carbon-controlling scams, seem to have penetrated the core of their brains with the force of self-evident Euclidian axioms. In that sense, they are a lost case. I am not sure what the reasons for this may be. I have heard people theorize that basic education in Europe is much more centered around the notion of students simply repeating what they were told or taught, with no room for personal critical analysis until much later, if any. I don’t know if this is true, but the critical docility of most Europeans on this topic is definitely higher than in the US.
Outside of the first world, of course, the topic of climate change is virtually non-existent in people’s daily concerns.

Edwin
October 2, 2010 9:09 am

It didn’t take long for these clowns to start looking like a lonely shag on a rock. Apparently the 10:10:10 event is now “completely unrelated” to 10:10.
http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/

Steve
October 2, 2010 9:14 am

Cancelled my 15-year long O2 relationship today. Sending a letter to O2 HQ registering my disgust. Suggest others do the same.

Steve
October 2, 2010 9:16 am

I love British humor. I get it. And the message of this video is indeed “conform or die”. Yes, dry, over-the-top, self-mocking, but nonetheless it is a warning to all who will not conform.

WTF
October 2, 2010 9:18 am

By showing basically the same thing four times the “film” makers are following a well defined plot. 1 – shock, 2 – define the enemy, 3 – re-enforce the “message”, 4 – dehumanize the victim. In this case with “humour”. Classic case of desensitizing the masses to a violent method to achieve a goal so they will take part or placidly standby. Where have we seen that before???

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 9:22 am

“Steve says:
October 2, 2010 at 9:14 am
Cancelled my 15-year long O2 relationship today. Sending a letter to O2 HQ registering my disgust. Suggest others do the same.”
On ya! As we say down under! Consumers, speak out! I have contacted my family back in the UK to do likewise.

October 2, 2010 9:23 am

BrianMcL says: “What? Behind the rabbit?”

John Whitman
October 2, 2010 9:25 am

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

—————
David Gould,
With all due respect, I sure did answer your question. I said, “Based on what you have said, I have no idea about what moral system you adhere to.” So, I am clueless about whether you advocate the murder of children as social policy. That is your own personal issue.
By your own words you support the actions of the10:10 environmentalists concerning the making and showing of the “No Pressure” video. However, you do seem defensive about your support. So, you got to work that out yourself. : ) Many here would sincerely support you if you choose to work through that.
An important opportunity was given to independent thinkers by the 10:10 environmentalist group’s release of the “No Pressure” video. I sincerely thank them for that. This event is as important as the CRU email release. The opportunity they gave us is the clear focus that can easily now occur to muster a lot of independent thinkers to do penetrating intellectual analysis on what groups like 10:10 really stand for compared to the context of the dominate trends in modern civilization. That is what many of the commenter’s with broad perspective are evolving this discussion into. I welcome that. No independent thinker will waste this golden opportunity just as no independent thinker wasted the CRU email release opportunity. Happy days!
My analysis of the 10:10 environmentalists is that they are basically nihilist and therefore completely incompatible with the existence of modern civilization on the most fundamental of levels.
Ahhh, Dave, where did your mention of the homosexual thing come from? My future fiction story example wasn’t about homosexuals. Please explain.
John

Patrick Davis
October 2, 2010 9:30 am

“Francisco says:
October 2, 2010 at 9:04 am”
Euopeans have no control over the EU Parliament. It’s like the UN, UNelected. Most Brits want out of the EU, and have done since it was taken there in 1974.

Richard Sharpe
October 2, 2010 9:40 am

Edwin says on October 2, 2010 at 9:09 am

It didn’t take long for these clowns to start looking like a lonely shag on a rock. Apparently the 10:10:10 event is now “completely unrelated” to 10:10.
http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/

It is telling that Osama bin Laden has jumped on the environmental bandwagon.
I suspect that they are all that fanatical …

Robert of Ottawa
October 2, 2010 9:41 am

WTF says: October 2, 2010 at 8:10 am
Another telling point about this “film” is the number of people they represent as not going along with the consensus. To them in their self imposed bubble they think that those who do not agree with them are a very small minority. The fact that they thought they had to make this “film” I think proves otherwise.
WTF, I don’t think this film was aimed at the non-conformists; I think it was aimed at the wavering conformist, to keep them in the cult.

October 2, 2010 9:41 am

I completely agree that this is addressed to children – and maybe others who don’t yet understand the world and can be “re-educated” about basic issues. Kids may simply be scared into obedience by such things. They won’t be sure whether this can happen to them.
Many of us, adults, are trying to boast how courageous we are – and how it is utterly impossible for someone to scare us. But I think it is not quite true – and moreover, it’s surely untrue for many others. The votes may be 1:10 against the movie on YouTube and elsewhere. People are shocked. But be sure that for everyone 1 shocked person who thinks that the greens have lost it, there is at least 1 person elsewhere who will get “the message” that it is really impossible to oppose the carbon regulation movement.
BTW the right lyrics is not “You blow me up, you blow me down” but “You quark me up, you quark me down”, a song “Strong Interaction” by Les Horribles Cernettes (LHC):
http://musiclub.web.cern.ch/MusiClub/bands/cernettes/songs/strong_int.html
MP3 is on that page, too. 😉

John Blake
October 2, 2010 9:41 am

“We love death more than life,” as Islam’s jihadi terrorists are wont to put it. Let us term these True believers “Thanatists,” death-eaters rather than nihilists per se. Regardless of professed tenets, be they Leninists, Hitlerites, homicidal mullah-dullahs, they are uniformly Luddite sociopaths opposed to every rational precept of post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization. (See Paul Ehrlich, Science Commissar John Holdren of “seething maggots” fame, Princeton’s Peter Singer, latterly Keith Farnish beloved of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth and other Green Gangers of their ilk.)
“Splattergate” gauleiters want you dead, beginning with your sons and daughters, and will stop at nothing to advance their goal. We have been saying this for twenty years; well-meant meliorative responses are fatally naive. Why else do AGW Cultists always assume the balance-of-force is on their side?
The time has come, amigos, to show them otherwise.

dkkraft
October 2, 2010 9:46 am

This video is not appropriate for children. Anyone who would willfully expose a child to this material is a monster.
For adults, on the other hand, this is an interesting piece of work. Clearly it has elicited strong reaction which, after all, was it’s intention.
With respect to intentions, creativity is interesting. Art is, among other things, the expression of the universal via the particular. Work that does not express an aspect of the universal is not art. The universal (or eternal or Gebsers origin, pick a name) is not wholly contained within our psychological sense of the conscious mind. Much of it resides in the (heuristic) unconscious – think of Jung’s collective unconscious for example. Intentions are conscious, and yet creativity includes unconscious elements, it’s not for nothing that Homer and Milton invoke the Muses. So it is important to realise that a creative output exists independant of its creators intentions. It is an object in and of itself.
So what do we have here “in and of itself”. Clearly this is satire. But who is being satirized? Based on the comments from skeptics and warmists alike that are plain for everyone to see, it is immediately recognizable that the satire is directed at the authoritarian greens themselves.
If we deconstruct this further we see that what is revealed are some of the nastier (from a western perspective, but it must be noted universal), features of a tribal consciousness (this for sure is a heuristic definition – deficient magical conscious structure is better). Anyway, what are these features?
Demonization of the Other
Annihilation of the Individual
Shamanism (i.e. appeal to authority – deficient indicated by use of sorcery)
Whether wholly intentional or not, this video has revealed the dominant consciousness structure of the authoritarian greens. Furthermore, this (ancient) structure is latent in everyone. Thankfully many of us have evolved far enough beyond this that this latency does not manifest itself.
This video does reveal the universal, and ugly as it may be, it is art.
BTW – I really do wonder if the director/writer has put one over on the 10:10 folks, and in their enthusiasm to be close to this celebrity / shaman (combined with the other blind spots indicated above) , they just couldn’t see it.

Jimmy Haigh
October 2, 2010 9:49 am

Mike Haseler says:
October 2, 2010 at 9:23 am
BrianMcL says: “What? Behind the rabbit?”
This will be the Holy Grail rabbit who lived in the cave of Caernbannog?
“Have ye seen the teeth?”
For anyone interested, the ‘cave of Caernbannog’ is a disused copper mine on the southern shores of Loch Tay in Perthshire about half way between Kenmore and Kilin at coordinates: 56°30’49.82″N, 4° 7’38.34″W. The real name of the ‘cave’ is Tomnadashan mine.
I visited this mine when I was about 8 and that’s when my interest in geology started.

Francisco
October 2, 2010 9:50 am

@anna v:
October 2, 2010 at 9:02 am
===============
Regarding causes of death and indicators of personal health, you may like the following excerpts from a recent essay by anarcho-physicist Denis Rancourt (slam atoms AND the State), even though some of them may sound a bit over the top.
From “Some Big Lies of Science”
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html
[…]
Life expectancy has increased in First World countries thanks to a historical absence of civil and territorial wars, better and more accessible food, less work and non-work accidents, and better overall living and working conditions.
*The single strongest indicator of personal health within and between countries is economy status, irrespective of access to medical technology and pharmaceuticals.*
It’s worse than that because medicine actually has a negative impact on health. Medical errors (not counting misattributed deaths from correctly administered “treatments”) are the *third leading cause of death* in the US, after heart disease and cancer, and there is a large gap between this conservative underestimate in the number of medical error deaths and the fourth leading cause of death [2]. Since medicine can do little for heart disease and cancer and since medicine has only a small statistical positive impact in the area of trauma interventions, we conclude that public health would increase if all MDs simply disappeared. And think of all the time loss and stress that sick people would save…
One of the most dangerous places in society is the hospital. Medical errors include misdiagnoses, bad prescriptions, prescriptions of medications that should not be combined, unnecessary surgery, unnecessary or badly administered treatments including chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and corrective surgeries.
[…]
The lie extends to the myth that MDs anywhere near understand the human body. And this well guarded lie encourages us to put our faith in doctors, thereby opening the door to a well orchestrated profit bonanza for big pharma.
The first thing that Doctors Without Borders (MSF) volunteers need to do in order to contribute significantly in disaster zones is to “forget their medical training” and get to work on the priority tasks at hand: water, food, shelter, and disease propagation prevention; not vaccinating, or operating, or prescribing medication… Public health comes from safety, stability, social justice, and economic buying power, not MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) units and prescription drugs.
[…]