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
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
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…
The 10:10 video is confirmation that the agw crowd knows the CO2 fraud is over.
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.)
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.
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…”
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.
From AndyW on October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am:
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.
“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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!’
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.
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.
The “satire” and “parody” defense do not hold up as the movies were produced by an AGW propaganda organization. One does not parody oneself.
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.
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.
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
)
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.
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.