Of course, the 10:10 Splattergate video is only one in a series of horrible PR blunders made by the Greens. Read on for commentary and to see yet another shocking example of imagery about killing children in the name of climate change.
From Dr. Benny Peiser’s CCNet mailing, a collection of editorials regarding the 10:10 video:
Businesses Pull Out Of Climate Campaign After Green PR Disaster
Businesses have begun to distance themselves from the carbon-cutting campaign 10:10 over a promotional film the organisation premiered last week that depicts schoolchildren, office workers and celebrities being blown up for not taking action on climate change. Sony UK and Kyocera Mita, two corporate partners of the 10:10 campaign, both condemned the short film ‘No Pressure’, directed by Richard Curtis, today, for being “tasteless” and “shocking”. – GreenWise Business, 5 October 2010
If the goal [of the film] had been to convince people that environmental campaigners have lost their minds and to provide red meat (literally) to shock radio hosts and pundits fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, it worked like a charm. Of course the goal might have been buzz more than efficacy. Too often these days, that’s the online norm. They succeeded on that front. I, among many others, am forced to write about it. Congratulations. –Andrew C Revkin, The New York Times, 4 October 2010
As often as 10:10 tried to pull the film off YouTube, their critics re-posted it. This, at least, proves what a cataclysmic misjudgement Curtis had made. When you try to satirise the critics of your campaign, and it turns out that those very critics embrace your film as demonstrating exactly what they find unbearable about the climate-obsessed eco-lobby, then you know that you have kicked the ball into your own net. Unfortunately, just as a star footballer who scores a spectacular own goal must now endure his foolishness being viewed endlessly on the internet, so Richard Curtis will have this hanging round his neck, like a stinking fish, for as long as he is successful enough to be worth mocking. –Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 5 October 2010
People who believe that humanity is heading towards destruction as a consequence of its misdeeds often take quiet pleasure in imagining the bloodshed to come. That, at least, is my explanation for Richard Curtis’s decision to make a short film for the 10:10 pressure group of climate change fanatics in which he depicted – with huge relish – children being blown to pieces. It’s important to grasp the quasi-religious nature of the 10:10 pressure group. Irrespective of where you stand on AGW, it’s clear that its pernickety commandments, most of them involving energy-saving lightbulbs, won’t make any difference to the fate of the planet. But they do have a sacred significance, as do the deaths in the Curtis snuff movie. There’s nothing like the prospect of the ritual slaughter of children to excite prophecy believers, in my experience. –Damian Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2010
The young don’t need religion, as the environment gives them all the certainty they need. Greenery, as a secular religion, has come to dominate not just the curriculum, but the imagination. It’s Blue Peter‘s recycled bottle tops on a grand scale: lessons on the dangers of global warming, projects on endangered species, litter-picking exercises. As any parent will testify, pester power is as often employed these days to guilt Dad into separating out the recyclables as to beg for the latest Transformer. Colleagues who have suffered their children’s eco-scorn assure me that no member of the Inquisition was ever so ruthless, ever so certain of his faith, as their tiny Torquemadas. –Robert Colvile, The Times, 6 October 2010
===========================================
Meanwhile, the last remaining sponsor of the 10:10 Splattergate video, the cell phone provider “O2” seems to be softening a bit.
Richard North has the story at the EU Referendum
===========================================
A bunch of people have been sending me this, and since it is getting wide play elsewhere, I suppose I’ll have to bring it up here. Last year, the Cannes film festival embraced this mentally repulsive child exploiting ugliness:
Source: http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THEEXPO2009.htm
Act responsible?
Here’s the image from the upper right:
Source: http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THE-EXPO/affiche.pdf
What sort of idiots would put their logo on something like this? The ones at the bottom apparently.
UPDATE: Apparently there are a few people, still so very dense, that this sort of thing does not phase their beliefs:
Here is where you can submit a comment:
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/contact
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For those of you with kids coming home from school all hyped up on recycling, global warming, and so on, with a little bit of research and a short field trip you can poke a gigantic hole in the propoganda without even starting an argument. I did it with all three of my kids and it works like a charm.
The local land waste facility, or land fill, or dump, or nuisance ground, or what ever they call it in your local is the eventual home of all those recyclables for which there is no local capacity to recycle. They work on a schedule and its not too hard to find out the schedule. When the kids started chirping propoganda from school, I invited each of them for a ride to the local dump. There was need for promises of ice cream afterward in some cases, but each was pursuaded to come along.
When the trucks full of recycling start pulling up and dumping everything from glass bottles to newspapers into the dump with all the other garbage, just point at it, laugh, and say “there’s your recycling”.
That prompts an almost immediate WTF? which is a teaching moment of course.
Cures ’em and turns ’em into skeptics in one field trip.
Nibor25 says: “…chatting with my 15 year old daughter, she tells me they have been shown this video in class today. She seems totally unfazed by it and says the teacher just showed it as a laugh…says “hey kids do you want to watch a video”.
Complain or not – that is the question – was the guy just having a laugh or preaching – I don’t know.”
The ultimate objective may have been desensitization of children (and adults) to violence ultimately being used against skeptics. Based on Nibor’s comment, it would appear to have been successful, though at a cost. Every day of counterdemonstration increases their cost. Keep writing and emailing the corporate sponsors and your local newspapers. The life you save may be your own.
Something wicked this way comes.
RichieP says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm
@Greg, San Diego, CA says:
October 6, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I fully agree with you. The fight now is as much with the politics as with the science, in fact even more so now they know they are losing the scientific arguments. The apparent collapse of NIWA’s temperature fiddling is another example that has got to be fought out on the political stage. Change can only come by political means.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/
—————–
I agree with you both and hope Anthony pursues the New Zealand NIWA temperature record story in your link. Wow! Imaging making the following argument:
‘NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.’
If that ain’t an admission that what was being done was more politics than science, I don’t know what would be. I hope there are repercussions!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Putting ideas like the 10:10 video out there isn’t simply offensive, it’s liable to trigger certain people over the edge.
We already have enough on the plate as far as campus shooters and going-postal types.
Offended isn’t the worst thing that can happen, and that isn’t bs.
Regarding recycling, I showed my children this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444391672891013193#
Penn and Teller on Recycling.
I started them at about 5:05, with Prof. Daniel Benjamin’s introduction to the costs of recycling in relation to the supposed benefits, immediately followed at 5:37 by the setup for the part that hooks them: two people are filmed on hidden camera doing a “test” of 8-bin recycling, including “lightly soiled toilet paper–tested in Japan with great results!” They agree to try, for the planet’s sake.
The thing that had the kids rolling was these poor people at 14:00 doing the actual “test”.
Outfitted in rubber aprons and gloves, piles of garbage at their feet, they were speed-sorting all kinds of ordure into the eight different bins, and being blasted with an airhorn every time they made a mistake: “No! That’s WET food refuse! BRAAAAAAP!”
It is a full 1/2 hour episode of the program, but it got my kids thinking, and looking beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” mantras.
p.s.–they are teenagers. When they were smaller, I gave them other examples–lol!
Agree with the other comments on recycling, it works best if you recycle ‘at source’; i.e. find other uses for stuff that you would otherwise throw in the bin.
Something I find hard to get my head around is how little attempt/reward there is in the market to make things that are more ‘modular’ in nature to encourage ‘reuse’ rather than ‘recycling’. Also I’m constantly amazed at the sheer amount of packaging used on some products. Governments could certainly do more in this space to provide appropriate incentives.
What sort of idiots would put their logo on something like this? The ones at the bottom apparently.
===
Thanks, Anthony! I’ve already blasted the sponsors of the 2009 Expo via email, including the links to the site and the link to the .pdf of the poster of the young lady with the noose around her neck.
Here’s everything if anyone wants to cut & paste:
http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THE-EXPO/affiche.pdf
http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THEEXPO2009.htm
eric.edge@eurorscg.com
naomi.troni@eurorscg.com
bruce.stockler@mccann.com
newbus@draftfcb.com
Janice.Capewell@leoburnett.co.uk
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“I’m trying to figure out how to respond when I see some say they are calling “b******t” on people being offended. ”
Just ask them to image the same video with being blown to bits by .
Are they still laughing?
Oops “greater than” signs are bad.
Just ask them to image the same video with being blown to bits by % insert your favorite minority group here % being blown to bits by % insert the well known oppressor group here %
Are they still laughing?
Psychologists tell us that humor often tries to cover deeply anti-social emotions with a socially acceptable smiley face, and that the emotion is often unconscious to the humorist. The 10.10 film demonstrates that \”campaign to reduce carbon emissions\” (or whatever they are calling it this week) is a watermelon campaign — green on the outside and red on the inside. Like their explicitly communist brethren these people would not hesitate to make their hostile fantasy real.
I am not offended by the video, but it does prove something that I have long suspected. Green is just a cover for red, and red is based on violence and terror. Give them half a chance and they will be sending us to gulags.
I know this is off topic, but it is of the same mentality.
Walter Sobchak says:
October 6, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I am not offended by the video, but it does prove something that I have long suspected. Green is just a cover for red, and red is based on violence and terror. Give them half a chance and they will be sending us to gulags.
Really? You think so?
This: http://www.sendasceptictosiberia.org/
…is just a misunderstood Joke.
No sense of humor! eh? brrrrhhh it’s cold up here!
0.10 were not trying to be ‘humorous’ they were working toward a very specific aim, the casual murder of kids in a schoolroom by a kindly authority figure, the workers at the work place and even the peoples celebrities are not immune from retribution of the killer state. This was an expertly created tool to target peoples base fears and appeal to people base instincts, the casual public murder portrayed was in fact a highly sophisticated propaganda tool which intended to produce in the audience a precise reaction at the time of watching but more importantly the weeks,months and years after the video has been viewed.
Every second of the video and the required reaction by the viewer was minutely planned by experts in the field of visual propaganda manipulation, the aim to implant a long term effects in the targets sub conscious mind. It was a very sophisticated propaganda meme enabling tool and those who created it made only one error, they produced and showed it too early.
The public have not yet been properly conditioned into accepting this level of manipulative propaganda, the conditioning process is not far enough along for people to readily accept the subliminal messages. The question is of course just why did they make the basic error of showing this video before the overarching mass conditioning and preparation had been completed?
Time is running out for the movement behind the whole CAGW scare as we all know, the timetable had to be moved up and it was this artificial speeding up of the conditioning process that proved to be their undoing. Anyone who has researched the events in Germany from the 30s onwards will realise that this video was only a step on the road to conditioning a population to accept the unacceptable, to think the unthinkable and to believe the unbelievable.
Kill the unbeliever, do not feel empathy for the criminal selfish anti social heretic because if you do then you too could be murdered, the ritual public killing without warning or pity by the authority figure implants fear and uncertainty in even the believer, remember when Stalin stood at the podium and nobody wanted to be seen to be the first to stop clapping?
Fear breeds hate you see, the fear of association with the ‘criminal’ breeds hatred of the ‘criminal’ and it breeds the fanatical desire to be seen as a true believer for fear of being killed. Right upto their deaths the victims of Stalin pleaded their loyalty with cries of long live Stalin.
The planned deliberate contamination and poisoning of inter human relationships is a vital and key element of a budding dictatorship with the primary aims being to divide,separate,dehumanize,criminalize and instill real and lasting fear and hatred and obedience.
When child abusers/bullies/cults/fraudsters target their victims they follow set steps to prepare and condition their victims first, the error on the part of the film makers was to advance too many steps too soon. What we need to see is an expert deconstruction of this video viewed in this context and only then we truly understand this ugly film, its true intent and the real mindset of its instigators.
Stephen Brown (way up early in the comments):
Here in Australia the state school system teaches the kids all about the evils of CAGW and so on. It’s taught by the social “sciences” teachers who have humanities degrees, etc, and who have no science education at all.
And they have a simple solution to kids who discuss this at home, and give an alternative point of view. The kids fail the subject.
My kids know that they need to give the politically correct answer to get the teacher off their back. Does not mean they believe it. Time to get them reading some WUWT.
If you want to reduce your “carbon footprint”, cold showers make perfect sense.
RichieP says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“I didn’t in any way mean to imply these battles were losses for the English ( I am fully aware we won!), just that serious misjudgements were made by the losers, which also IMO was the case for Hastings – Harold should have bided his time.”
He couldn’t – the reason so many decisive battles were fought in September / October is because (in the NH) that marks the end of the campaigning season, after which the roads got too bad to move troops about. Similarly, since they were until a couple of centuries ago agrarian societies, they couldn’t usually muster large numbers of troops until the harvest was in. This also meant that autumn was a good time to go campaigning because you could live off your enemy’s food stores and give him a seriously nasty winter to look forward to.
OK, back to the thread:
Personally, I was not the least offended by the film, just thought it rather silly. Maybe having my lads help picking bits of ATO (Ammunition Technical Officer – bomb disposal) off roofs in Belfast helped form a fairly cynical view of my fellow men.
Comment I just posted at the Green Chip Stocks website comment page at the link provided by Anthony.
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/contact
You know I just can not understand their mentality!
Dear R.T. Jones,
Regarding your article “3 Offensive Images Of Climate Change.
Why Climate Change Deniers Should Be Blown To Bits!”.
Why is it that becasue you feel the need to believe in something without question, such as the spagehetti monster for example, does it mean that everyone else is obliged to do the same? Why do you label anyone that asks a question about a “settled” conclusion that is being presented, or the methods used to come to that conclusion, as a “denier”, simply because they don’t agree with you?
The 10:10 video IS offensive! It represents the religious zeal that the so called “deniers” complain about from the CAGW crowd. Is this sending the right message to children? You would back peddle very quickly when a 10 year old claims that he killed another because the other was a “climate denier” and he had seen that on the film as the right thing to do.
Why indeed, it is not as if you do not have any personal bias on the subject. The editors note on the site where you have posted your “Nonetheless, I’m calling [/snip] on the whole “Oh, I’m offended” thing.” states that green technologies will be “greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century.”
You are green…greenback.
You are just following the money!
Sincerely,
Brett Mitchell.
Concerned AGW Skeptic.
[REPLY: mod comment error removed.. .. bl57~mod]
Harry the Hacker says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:36 pm
My kids know that they need to give the politically correct answer to get the teacher off their back. Does not mean they believe it. Time to get them reading some WUWT.
I am an Australian living in Italy. My Italian girlfriend plays the mother figure for her 11 year old niece whose mother passed away suddenly about 2 years ago. This above average intelligence young lady who gets perfect grades in her English studies (she is Italian of course) delighted her teacher when she told her that she had a friend (myself) with whom she practised speaking English. In fact, as I also speak Italian, she has asked that when I am around that we speak English instead of Italian.
The other day, I don’t remember exactly how, but the conversation turned to global warming. I asked her if they taught her anything in school about this. She smiled and said yes and spoke confidently and knowledgeably about the perils to polar bears and 10 metres of sea level rise, etc, etc!!!
She is just 11 years old! And they are feeding them with this stuff already! At an age where they just accept anything taught to them!
Try explaining this to an 11 year old. Try explaining balance and bias in an arguement, discussion, or TV/newspaper article. It is quite a delicate task. I explained, not just in relation to AGW but in a general sense also. I explained that she needs to always “ask the question” about anything she hears and always seek the other side of the story. I explianed the concept of critical thinking. I felt a little bad complicating the life of an 11 year old, especially one whose life has had great complications already, but I felt it almost a civic duty in this case! This school education approach (I call it brain washing) has to be stopped, at least until they are a little older and can perhaps “ask the question”.
I also asked her, in order to demonstrate the blind faith religious zealot type attitude, that the next time the subject comes up in class that she tells her teacher that her English speaking friend is quite skeptical on the AGW subject. And then watch the teacher’s reaction! Though I made it very clear to her that she should in no way say that she believd me and that she in fact believes what she has been taught. I do not want her to be ostracised at school as she is truly a promising student.
I will update you when/if she does in fact mention me to the teacher as a skeptic. I will probably be deported! 🙂
WUWT is great. WUWT is already big. But I wait for day when WUWT has the resources to publish in multilple languages. My girlfriend’s niece does have the ability to understand it if it was written in Italian.
Thanks again Anthony. And thanks for the cryptic smile a few days ago. I don’t know what it was about but it was infectious (the smiley that is). I am still smiling!
Brett Mitchell
Anthony. Can I suggest a children’s version of WUWT? I know you will not have time for this – but I am sure other WUWTers could become involved in preparing verssions of many of the articles that get posted up on the main site for a younger audience. Just a couple of paragraphs for each article, some child-freindly images and graphics, and then a link to the main site’s ‘grown-up’ piece for the kids who want to delve more deeply.
It could have stickers, posters to print out a WUWT club – all the sorts of things that kids love getting involved in. Most of all it would be POSITIVE.
Dear Moderator,
I feel you have made a mistake by snipping my comment and making the remark about vulgarity. This was not my vulgarity. This part that you snipped was a direct quote from the article that Anthony had posted above and he had in fact highlighted this in yellow.
I don’t mind the snip but i feel your comment at the bottom ( [REPLY: Vulgarity is not conducive to a friendly blog environment nor intelligent dialog.. .. bl57~mod] ) is a little unfair as it implies that I have made that statement. It wasn’t my comment, it was a direct quote from the article posted by Anthony and it was in fact highlighted in yellow by him, apparently as the central reason for posting the article in the first place.
Regards,
BSM
[REPLY: My apologies. I was off doing other things and about 80 posts had stacked up in the cue. Doing a quick scan to process them as quickly as possible my eye caught the word. I did not take the time to review source or context. Comment will be removed momentaritly. … bl57~mod]
Well I got a name to email at O2, here is my message to them.
Dear sir.
DaveE.
Somewhat OT but re comments by :-
RichieP who says: (October 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm) re origins of the two finger gesture:-
” Even our (now obscene) gesture of disdain and abuse, the V sign, is alleged to have come from the bowmen of the 100 Years War and was aimed at the French ” ,
I believe that I am correct in saying that :-
If the French captured the English longbow archers they chopped off the first two fingers of their right hand so that they could no longer fire arrows at them. So the English archers were taunting the French and effectively saying:- ” Hey we’ve still got our fingers and we will continue to fire arrows at you.”
TTG
Peter S says: October 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
“Anthony. Can I suggest a children’s version of WUWT?…”
Would this not go against what this site is about really? I don’t think it is trying to tell you what to believe, but to present the evidence as it is and to come to your own opinions. You need to be able to understand the evidence and arguments at a certain level before you could reasonably accept a certain viewpoint.
Forgot to mention that I cc’d that email to Richard North so now he too has the email of a real person.
DaveE.