10:10’s cunning plan

Well, I thought that video was funny (though they flogged the joke to, err, death), but I also think this Monty Python sketch is funny:

That said, the idea seems more like something that Baldrick would have come up with than Baldrick’s creator, Richard Curtis. Many people aren’t going to find it funny, merely offensive, especially since it’s not in the context of a comedy show. The resulting outrage from right wingers is something to behold, with the makers of the video called fascists and Nazis who are advocating murder and genocide. For example, the reliably crazy Lubos Motl (warning: Link goes to a blog with the ugliest design you are ever likely to see):

However, it was the choice of the 10:10 movement to openly promote genocide. They are not just promoting it: much like in the case of The Fate of the World PC game, they are planning it. They are genuinely planning ways how to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 10% a year. And indeed, genocide similar to what they present in the video (or in the game) is the only plausible way how something of the sort may be achieved.

The CIA, FBI, and others should go after the neck of the inhuman activists behind the 10:10 movement and those who harbor them. These people are a genuine threat not only for your well-being and prosperity but for your freedom and health (or life), too. It is amazing that people such as Gillian Anderson (of X-Files) collaborated to produce this atrocious video. Did someone threaten her with a red button (by the way, would Scully believe that such a thing could work?), or is she really such a disgraceful bloody N-word b-word?

Unless she was blackmailed, I do think she may want to go to jail.

Update: Matt Wootton on where he thinks 10:10 went wrong.


  1. Back in 2008, Motl himself advocated for applying eugenics to Climate Alarmists?:

    > I am normally against euthanasia but it simply seems to me that there is no other help for the people who are writing most of the stuff above. It’s literally pandemics. The society should urgently put these people into quarantine, hoping that it is not too late.

    Have the inactivists repudiated Motl’s call for eugenics with the same speed that Joe Romm and Bill McKibben repudiated the 10:10 video? Nope.

  2. #2 Aaron
    October 2, 2010

    Have none of these guys read Swift’s A Modest Proposal? It’s pretty much the same sort of satire.

  3. #3 J Bowers
    October 2, 2010

    The Motl suggested at Tamino’s that environmentalists should be shot. The video is just a spoof. The hypocrisy burns.

    I like the video and it made me laugh out loud at its silliness (especially when the red buttons were pressed). I’m saddened to see so many falling for the trap of worrying what Watts, Delingpole, Motl et al think and how they’ll make much mileage from it. So what? Victim bullies do that kind of thing and always will. It just lets them set the agenda.

    It’ll all blow over.

  4. #4 hengist
    October 2, 2010

    The film is 4 minutes long and makes not a single decent scientific point. The case for cutting carbon emissions is logical and overwhelming, this film suggests that the case is desperate and tyrannical. Humour or lack of it is not the issue. The climate communication problem is littered with mistrust and misinformation, this adds to that. It’s a crap film . Shame.

  5. #5 Stu
    October 2, 2010

    Hi Tim.

    I respect your opinion on this but for me this brings up more than just humorous comedy violence. The skeptics who think people are out to ‘get them’ are wrong but that is a strawman to me. The real disturbing thing about this video is the threat of shuffling people into line and excluding them when they step out of it, in a very coercive manner. This is the very unsubtle take home message that most people are going to get out of this, call it the middleground position if you like- between the paranoid skeptics and the brush it all off it’s funny alarmists.

    That children are involved is especially worrying. Of all groups, children feel the pressures of conformity like no one else. That this film advocates a kind of authoritan rule over people who are too young to develop their own ideas on things is pretty brutal, to be honest. I’m certainly not laughing about this, just because the comic splatters are apparently enough to divorce the film from reality. This is a pretty sick message.

    I think if you want the skeptics and general public to stop seeing you as eco-fascistic weirdos, then the obvious plan is to stop communicating these visions. The AGW movement basically has only itself to blame in this case.

    Just what is the intention here?

  6. #6 Boris
    October 2, 2010

    Haha Motl is a moron.

    But the video is just stupid. I didn’t get the joke, I guess. The whole thing made no sense at all to me.

    The Python sketch is awesome though.

  7. This “Stu” here is apparently a concern troll who’s distinct from the “Stu” who normally frequents this blog.

  8. #8 J Bowers
    October 2, 2010

    @ Frank

    You should make a movie about your experience of making a Heartland spoof movie only to have Heartland think it was serious and hosting it themselves 😉

  9. #9 Hank Roberts
    October 2, 2010

    You’d think nobody’s head had ever exploded before.
    But if you check, Google proves that has happened frequently for all sorts of reasons.

  10. #10 Damian
    October 2, 2010

    Yeah, this ‘Stu’ is your standard concern troll.

    Stu, no pressure.

  11. #11 Stu
    October 2, 2010

    thanks guys, you’ve really reassured me.

    As far as I’m concerned at this moment, ‘Mainstream’ environmentalism can take a hike. You’re way out on a limb.

  12. #12 Stu
    October 2, 2010

    PS, what’s a concern troll?

    Please don’t say ‘you’

  13. J Bowers:

    > You should make a movie about your experience of making a Heartland spoof movie only to have Heartland think it was serious and hosting it themselves 😉

    Well, maybe I should. But I don’t have that much time on my hands, and I don’t want to waste too much working on a video which will eventually only be watched by a handful of folks. 😐

    * * *


    Maybe if you didn’t hem and haw over your supposed ‘skepticism’, you’ll, um, look less like a concern troll. Yep.

  14. Ah yes… for the benefit of lurkers who might now know what a concern troll is:

    > A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[15]

    > An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a “concerned” supporter of Bass’s opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms “IndieNH” or “IndyNH”. “IndyNH” expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[16][17]

  15. #15 elspi
    October 2, 2010

    Someone who wasn’t a concern troll would have googled concern troll.
    Let me help you there.



    Only a troll would pretend not to be able to google.

  16. #16 Paul UK
    October 2, 2010

    10:10 originated in the UK and is an offshoot of Franny Armstrongs ‘The Age of Stupid’ movie. In the UK they have disowned it:


  17. #17 Paul UK
    October 2, 2010

    >I think if you want the skeptics and general public to stop seeing you as eco-fascistic weirdos, then the obvious plan is to stop communicating these visions.

    Oh good grief. Some of those eco-fascistic weirdos in the UK are actually right-wing politicians.
    Thank god we have a level of maturity in the UK. It’s not brilliant, but it’s certainly not as insane as the US or Australia.

  18. #18 Lance
    October 2, 2010

    I love Monty Python. I didn’t find this video shocking or particularly offensive. It just wasn’t very funny.

    The only time I chuckled was when the teacher, after blowing up the two kids, announced the assignment that was due next class and then dead panned, “Except for Philip and Tracy of course.”

    I wonder if, covertly, Curtis was trying to ridicule strident environmentalists? If it is made from the perspective of the majority (people on board with the carbon reductions in this case) it just makes them look intolerant and self righteous.

    Either way it isn’t likely to help “the cause”.

  19. #19 Paul UK
    October 2, 2010

    >For example, the reliably crazy Lubos Motl (warning: Link goes to a blog with the ugliest design you are ever likely to see)…

    Ahh yes. I visited that place probably some 2 years ago.
    Didn’t stay long. It isn’t the worse design, but I reckon that side of the coin (aka the loony right) have a dominance in the badly designed web site market.

  20. #20 Stu
    October 2, 2010

    Maybe if you didn’t hem and haw over your supposed ‘skepticism’, you’ll, um, look less like a concern troll. Yep.

    Frank. I can’t pretend to hold opinions which I don’t hold. Yes, I’m a skeptic in parts- but yes, I would like to see action on climate change. How weird is that? And most certainly yes, I am a traditionally committed environmentalist (see your board)

    O.K. Concern troll…

    *A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold.

    *I explained above, I’ve nothing to hide, my views are in the open. I’ve tried to express myself clearly, and if anyone would like to know where I’m coming from they can probably visit Franks board. If anyone has issues with my opinions, it’s probably a better idea to discuss things with me on a normal rational level than resorting to name calling. It looks paranoid and childish otherwise.

    The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”.

    *Since our points of view seem to be dissimilar on a number of points, then I don’t see how the first part of this sentence really applies. On this second part, well- yeah, my goal in coming here is in taking issue with certain opinions on this video, because as I said earlier this probably doesn’t come across to the average person that this is all harmless fun and games. We have a shared goal in that I would like to see a healthy image attached to the AGW movement, and yeah, I’m kinda concerned that things don’t look to be going too well here. I can stop appearing concerned as soon as you like by not posting on here, if you tell me to go away I will just go away. Again, it will look childish on your part, but I’ll understand.

    The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[15]

    Apparently that’s what I seem to be doing. It’s a strange, unintended effect but there you go.

  21. #21 Stu
    October 2, 2010

    Hrr, on second thoughts. I think I’ll just bow out right now. I feel like I’ve stepped into someones comfy loungeroom rather than a public communications forum. Been having a bit of a weird time with Frank and every other comment I received was ‘troll’. You know my opinion (about the video), I know you don’t care what I think, and we both know that this will probably go nowhere.


    (ps, I asked you guys what a concern troll was because I wanted your description, as there seem to be slightly different meanings attached. I’ve heard it used in other ways as well)

  22. #22 Sy
    October 2, 2010

    The Python video’s awesome. But the 10:10 video, like the campaign itself is pretty lacking


    The ludicrous outrage is pretty predictable… And in fairness if Heartland made a promo film about blowing up ‘alarmists’ it would probably get people’s backs up too…

    Actually… Having a spoof film made about a right wing fossil fuel funded think tank blowing up scientists whose research they don’t agree with could be entertaining and at least contains a truthful metaphor about the way the climate change debate is sabotaged by certain vested interests.

    What’s really sad is that the film failed to make any kind argument at all about the issue and wasn’t funny. It just failed all over.

  23. #23 Other Stu - you know, the one that pissed off Wow
    October 2, 2010

    Well, that was awkward.

  24. #24 Didactylos
    October 2, 2010

    The professed aim was to get people talking about climate change again. Real people, not the pro and anti zealots.

    Did it work?

  25. #25 Fran Barlow
    October 2, 2010

    I think the 10:10 video fits the not a crime but a blunder tag.

    We all know that the delusionals opposed to CO2 mitigation want the discussion to be about anything but the scientific case for robust policy action. That is why they attach the4 suffix “-gate” to everything they can associated with figures in the respectable scientific community, say Al Gore is fat repeatedly and talk about his carbon footprint or invite us all to “stop breathing” (oh the irony!).The “let’s turn the biosphere into an industrial sewer” crowd and their backers in the upper levels of the filth-merchant community are utterly unscrupulous.

    This is an own goal not because it is confronting but because it hands these well-resourced and well connected harpies a new “-gate” with which to drive the scientific arguments away from policy making and plays to their lie that we rather than they are incipiently misanthropic and coercive.

    It would have been entirely possible for such a clip to have taken an entirely different approach — perhaps using the set-up from that film Sliding Doors, tweaked to permit those who want to live in the CO2-constrained world live to walk through a door to a world that is a cornucopia of life, whereas those who take the “let the filth fall where it may” approach go to a world that looks like a post-Armageddon industrial wasteland. I recall that famous image from Cobb, in which the lonely man stands atop a pile of rubbish wondering where to plug in his TV.

    One might have linked small positive actions to markers of biospheric recovery — trees popping up and crops growing, while those subverting the biosphere cause them to disappear and the seas advance on inhabited land. Simplistic to be sure but at least it would have been about key concerns.

    The point is that we who want early, robust, ubiquitous action to mitigate GHG emissions need to avoid playing to the delusionist/filth merchant shibboleths. We need people to understand what is at stake here and the significance for us of the legacy we will leave to those who will follow us. If the generations who follow are moved to curse us for our reckless indifference to their claims for a life no worse than ours, then our lives are already diminished and to that extent irrational.

    That is the point here.

  26. #26 Holly Stick
    October 2, 2010

    It was kind of funny to someone who’s used to Monty Python humour; though the squelchy sound effects were a little too good. But the hysterical denialists will find one excuse or other to accuse AGW realists of whatever crimes their nasty little minds can think up.

  27. #27 Ed Darrell
    October 2, 2010

    Funny, in a Monty Python sort of way — which is to say, it’s probably inappropriate for a serious issue, in front of people (like the denialists) who are sense-of-humor impaired.

  28. #28 Rick Bradford
    October 2, 2010

    Even Joe Romm said: “The video is beyond tasteless and should be widely condemned.”

  29. #30 Mike
    October 2, 2010

    I’m not sure that “crazy” is an accurate description of Motl. He kind of defies any psychological description at all. He’s just “Motl” (maybe a new word for the english language?).

  30. #31 jakerman
    October 2, 2010

    What is the goal of those who commissioned this video? I fear that a) there goal does not seem clear, and b) they are shooting us in the foot.

    I can’t foresee how this will work out for a benefit to the movement towards the political change we need.

  31. #32 Rick Bradford
    October 2, 2010

    “Motl”? Hmmm, doesn’t roll easily off the tongue.

    I suppose one difference between Motl and the Curtis video is that Motl made the comments off his own bat, without government support, a cast and crew of around 100, and a budget unofficially estimated at $400,000.

  32. #33 Robert P.
    October 2, 2010

    Lubos Motl is the only academic I know of who has “gone emeritus” before achieving tenure.

  33. #34 Cedric Katesby
    October 3, 2010

    What’s a “concern troll”?

    Concern troll cannot google concern troll.

  34. #35 Cedric Katesby
    October 3, 2010

    I grew up on Monty Python.
    I watched the video and instantly got the reference.

    At the same time I also saw how the humour-impaired teabaggers were going to try and spin it as evidence that the Nazi socialists are coming to kill us all.

  35. #36 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    October 3, 2010

    I grew up loving Monty Python, Black Adder etc. and have a real appreciation for this dark strain of English humour. The problem is that it does not always translate well, and in the context of the 10:10 video was disturbing.

    The moment I saw it I thought *”Uh oh….”*

    There are two things a mass audience hates to see: harm to animals, and harm to children. These are well established cinematic taboos.

    I *get* the video was designed for the era of YouTube and for going viral, but I think the film makers failed to appreciate how it would be interpreted. For years the denial movement has been trying to link environmentalism with terrorism and that “greenies” are indifferent to human well being.

    Simply put:

    *Dead kids + green message = denialist propaganda victory*

    It took me all of 3 seconds to realise how this video would play up. Did they run it past focus groups? Do they understand just how effective the denial machine is in twisting the messages of climate change activists?

    Memo to activists: spend a lot more time thinking about how the denial movement is going to twist your message. Study their “memes”.

    They’ve been pushing the green=terrorism meme for *years*.

    And then someone goes and makes a video that has people pressing buttons that blows up kids.

    Look at what they’re blogs are doing: linking the 10:10 video to statements by Osama Bin Laden!

    Sure most of the outrage by the likes of Watts, Delingpole, Nova, Bolt, Motl etc. is faux outrage, but they will mine this for years.

    Note to film makers and activists. Here’s a list of things to avoid for future:

    >> Anything with dead kids or actions that see children harmed

    >> Anything with dead kittens (or equivalent cute animal)

    >> Anything that tries to “guilt” the viewer/reader and shame them as guilty of neglecting/abusing children and/or kittens

    >> Anything that has a theme of “punishment” for not thinking or acting in an approved manner (which this video does)

    I’d suggest they spend more time studying 350.org. They are very good at creating positive messages centered around hope, community and activism. The global work party coming up (10/10) is about rolling up your sleeves and making a difference. There’s a good model for other groups to study.

    To be frank, it will take time to undo the damage of this video.

  36. #37 @motsatt
    October 3, 2010

    This video is f**king your movement in the a**.

    Doesn’t matter how much you defend it, it will hurt you bad.

  37. #38 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2010

    Team America World Police, anyone?

    To make their lame, room-temperature-IQ, banal, and factually and ethically wrong point about the need – seen only by American elites and their ass-kissing, fake-edgy corporate sellout sycophants, usually – to be “assholes” to police the world – they blew up a dozen people whose main crime was being right about the Iraq war while the 2 Randroids from South Park were completely full of crap.

    And that’s what this is at the level of, except it’s less slick and probably its main points are far more defendable.

  38. #39 JamesA
    October 3, 2010

    I’m afraid to say I wasn’t too impressed with it myself. The instant you start summarily executing kids in the classroom for disagreeing with teacher, you’re automatically going to start losing a lot of people, regardless of the topic. Rather than Monty Python, it made me think of Battle Royale.

    And how come Richard Curtis has to put an American into everything he makes?

  39. #40 Tlaloc
    October 3, 2010

    I wasn’t bothered by the video, but I really didn’t get the joke.

    My understanding was they were originally intending to attack the complacent ‘no pressure’ approach to Green initiatives, the teachers and employers who invite people to participate, but when people don’t, shrug and let it pass. If they truly believed the end of the world was nigh, would they just shrug it away like that? And if they don’t, what are they doing pretending to be Green?

    But if that was the case, the logical target for the explosions would have been the teacher/employer. That would have made the joke clear. Be an honest sceptic or an honest believer, but don’t be a hypocrite. (The Gillian Anderson one got it right, there. Nice eyeballs effect!)

    But by blowing up the dissenting kids, especially after making the wishy-washy ‘no pressure’ speech, it just looks mixed-up weird. What are they trying to say?

    I know they say you shouldn’t try to analyse humour, but could somebody who ‘gets’ it please explain what the joke/message is supposed to be?

  40. #41 sunspot
    October 3, 2010

    Osama bin Laden calls for action on climate change http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w7l

    hmmm…. from the grave


    getting desperate

  41. #42 Heraclitus
    October 3, 2010

    Tlaloc – my take is that you are right they are highlighting “the complacent ‘no pressure’ approach” to the problems we face, but by their absurdist vision they are showing the impossibility of doing anything realistically other than shrug in response – and indeed the undesirability of doing anything other than this.

  42. #43 Sy
    October 3, 2010

    And they’ve pulled it…


    ‘The charities that backed a Richard Curtis film for the 10:10 environmental campaign said today that they were “absolutely appalled” when they saw the director’s four-minute short, which was withdrawn from circulation amid a storm of protest.

    The charity ActionAid, which co-ordinates the 10:10 schools programme, today welcomed the move. “Our job is to encourage proactive decisions at class level to reduce carbon emissions. We did it because evidence shows children are deeply concerned about climate change and because we see the impacts of it in the developing world where a lot of our work is. So we think the 10:10 campaign is very important, but the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate.’

    Not really surprising. So how much money and carbon were wasted on this spectacular own goal?

  43. #44 Paul UK
    October 3, 2010

    I think Mark Gillars hootervillegazette trumps the Motl site for the bad design of the millenium award. I won’t post a link as I wouldn’t want any sane person to set eyes on it.

  44. #45 Connor
    October 3, 2010


    Yup, there are now a lot more people in the world today aware of 10/10 than there were yesterday. The hallmark of a successful ad campaign.

  45. #46 Lotharsson
    October 3, 2010

    > The hallmark of a successful ad campaign.

    Shame that The Gruen Transfer season just finished – may have proved an interesting topic.

  46. Scott A Mandia:

    Jonathan SwiftHack deserves to have his own blog.

  47. #48 Didactylos
    October 3, 2010

    Marion Delgado: if you thought that was the message of “Team America”, then I think we can officially say that satire is dead.

    But maybe not. Plenty of people didn’t get “A Modest Proposal”, either.

    In your defence, “Team America” does lampoon both the left and the right, so maybe you got a little hung up on the stuff you disagreed with. Also, it’s by no means Swift. Mostly, it’s crass, and insanely funny.

    If there’s satire in “No Pressure”, I missed it. It seems to be one of those viral videos designed to be viral – and that flop so frequently when used as ad campaigns.

    And the response from the deniers! The mere fact that they get all “outraged” about comedy is a clear signal that they have lost touch with reality. However, these same people were outraged by “An Inconvenient Truth”, so I think it’s safe to point and laugh. The tabloid readers and talk radio listeners will always be with us.

  48. #49 Hank Roberts
    October 3, 2010

    Someone needs to recut that so pushing the red button blows off the head of the person holding it.
    More like this:

    [“What’chu got in the trunk?”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLGrXGEMOSo)

  49. #50 Tim Lambert
    October 3, 2010

    Tlaloc, what’s funny is the incongruity between “no pressure” and the cartoon violence. The joke isn’t “on message” — they are sending themselves up.

  50. #51 Tlaloc
    October 3, 2010

    Didadactylos #48,

    Actually, a lot of the sceptics seem rather too pleased with the film. When 10:10 tried to take it down, the sceptics immediately re-posted it, saying they wanted everybody to see how Environmentalists really think.

    As a satire on the totalitarian tendencies of the green left, it really works. The message is “Conform or be executed.” We have a nice Environmentalist lady shown murdering children without conscience. It illustrates a totally insane intolerance for disagreement and dissent.

    If this had been produced by a right-wing anti-green group operating at a level far lower even than Morano, the dystopian humour would be seen as tasteless and misdirected but perfectly understandable. Not that any self-respecting right-winger would do it, because they’d know it would be trashed as ridiculous over-the-top propaganda, clear evidence of tinfoil-hat paranoia, and gratuitously offensive to the sort of images evoking a lot of public sympathy. This video is a paranoid wingnut’s wet dream, the unobtainable object of their every frustrated desire!

    Which is what makes it so mystifying to see it handed to them on a silver plate by a very respectable and high-profile Environmental group, evidently with the expectation that it would be seen positively for their cause. And apparently, it is. Tim thought it was funny. So clearly there is some joke or point to it beyond “we think it would be great if we could murder all the dissenters who disobey by exploding them in a gory mess.” How does this help the 10:10 campaign? Why would anyone want to be on the side of the people ostensibly murdering children who dare to disagree with them?

    The deniers must think Christmas has come three months early! There are multiple screenshots of it splattered all across Morano’s front page. Outraged?! I bet he’s in seventh heaven over this!

    But that’s all water under the bridge, now. What I am curious about, though, is what the joke was supposed to be. Tim said he thought it was funny, and a lot of other people did too. But why?

  51. #52 Tlaloc
    October 3, 2010


    Thanks Tim, but I thought there must be more to it than that.
    ‘Sending themselves up’? So they were deliberately trying to portray themselves from a contrary viewpoint? It seems they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

  52. #53 Craig Allen
    October 3, 2010

    The really ironic aspect of this is that after criticism from all sides the producers promptly pulled the video from YouTube with an apology. But it is non-the-less still freely available because its being hosted and promoted by right wingers so they can use it to vilify environmentalists.

  53. #54 Andy G
    October 3, 2010

    …or was it deliberately OTT and then pulled so it could go viral? 😉

    Made me laugh.

  54. #55 chek
    October 3, 2010

    [Tlaloc said: ” Tim said he thought it was funny, and a lot of other people did too. But why?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2834924)

    Why is any joke funny, and why do some people not ‘get’ what others do? You might as well ask what the colour orange is like, or why blue isn’t everyone’s favourite.

    Glad to hear Morano’s fixated on it though – reminds me of those moranos that bought Beatles’ albums to burn and helped make them legendary that little bit faster. The Objectorati probably hate Hendrix’ version of Star Spangled Banner too.
    It’s good that he doesn’t realise that like it or hate it, it’ll make people think which is always dangerous to moranos and their preferred narratives.

  55. #56 Paul UK
    October 3, 2010

    >But it is non-the-less still freely available because its being hosted and promoted by right wingers so they can use it to vilify environmentalists.

    Which sort of means it works???
    eg. if right wingers take it to own, it’s as good as if they actually produced it. It is then a projection of what they think greens are like.

    Actually just watched it. It’s quite funny IMO. Really ridiculous and OTT.

  56. #57 J Bowers
    October 3, 2010

    What has been revealed is how little the denialati are able to tell the difference between spoof and reality. Just more indication of why they can’t distinguish real science from pseudo-scientific shilling.

  57. #58 jakerman
    October 3, 2010

    >*they are sending themselves up.*

    For what purpose?

  58. #59 Pete Bondurant
    October 3, 2010

    Jeezus! – Only an idiot could be offended by this. This is a fairly typical example of british sketch comedy. If you can’t handle this you are a boring mong who needs desperately to develop your comprehension skills. Their only mistake has been to overestimate the comedic sophistication of the general public. Behold the rise of The Idiot!

  59. #60 Fran Barlow
    October 3, 2010

    What has been revealed is how little the denialati are able to tell the difference between spoof and reality. Just more indication of why they can’t distinguish real science from pseudo-scientific shilling.

    Said J Bowers …

    No. They know it is spoof. These people are simple propagandists for the filth merchant cause and they really don’t care what is produced as long as it can divert people from talking about the rationale for policy action. This is a war for the protection of the right to pollute and they are willing to promote any lie, release any red herring and slander any proponent to win it.

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    October 3, 2010

    I’ve not seen the video, but it is obviously a parody or a spoof, as no rational person would ever claim that “environmentalists” condone the execution of children as a response to a perceived environmental problem. As [J Bowers notes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2835245), it is telling that the Denialati cannot and will not distinguish between truth and fiction – but then, that has always been their problem, whether it pertains to science or to advertising.

    It truly bemuses me that there is such righteous umbrage over this, when it is obviously not a reflection of reality. It seems that people simply do not want to hear what they do not want to hear…

    Take for example the bruhaha over the [HIV Grim Reaper ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo) in the 80s. Personally, as someone working in immunology at that time, I had no problem with the underlying messages that HIV was almost certainly fatal at that time, and that it could strike anyone. The ad was obviously a metaphor, but again there was widespread antagonism to the message, and in this case it was a straightforward one.

    If only the same sensitive petals were as righteous about insisting on opposing the inflicting of death upon the innocent citizens of countries, by illegally invading them…

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    October 3, 2010

    > Not that any self-respecting right-winger would do it, …

    Not so fast.

    Some US bestselling books have used strong eliminationist language about “liberals” (a.k.a. “left wingers” in the US political spectrum, which would be centrish in most Western democracies). Their authors are fairly well known from radio and TV appearances. (And environmentalists are frequently painted as particularly outrageous liberals by these types of authors and their media pals.)

    Try [Dave Neiwert’s blog “Orcinus”](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/) or his book [“The Elminitionists”](http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/orcinus-20/) – he’s been tracking this kind of stuff for years.

  62. #63 Mercurius
    October 3, 2010

    I didn’t like it because because of blowing people up. Blowing people up is wrong. And bad.

    And it’s about time we denounced Aesop as a fraud and a charlatan. Animals can’t speak.

    Also, why was Michael Jackson’s Thriller video so popular? Zombies aren’t real.

    Finally, jumpers shouldn’t be called jumpers, or sweaters. They don’t jump, and they don’t sweat.

    *pulls blanket back over head*

  63. #64 Mike
    October 3, 2010

    I have to agree with some others here that I’m slightly less concerned with the relatively poor taste and “too in your face for the general public” satire in the 1010 video, than I am with the fact that the more “out there” conservatives now seriously believe that an active campaign of genocide and murder is being planned against them.

    Talk about paranoia. That really takes it to the next level.

  64. #65 alex
    October 3, 2010

    I thought it was hillarious. I also find it hillarious that the ‘black helicopter’ loons are convincing themselves that this is proof of the pending new world order.

  65. #66 John
    October 3, 2010

    Oh no, those brave skeptics have uncovered the secret UN plot to explode everybody.

  66. #67 Stephen Gloor (Ender)
    October 4, 2010

    I found the video hilarious and quite got the reference especially as I am a long time Monty Python fan. Reminds me of the Black Knight sketch in Holy Grail.

    The major problem is with it is assuming other people have a sense of humour which sadly, in their zeal to overturn the evils of climate change, most of the right-wingers have lost.

  67. #68 Muzz
    October 4, 2010

    It’s a bit long but it was pretty funny. The Gillian Anderson bit is the best and actually gets the point across rather than laughing at flying strawberry jam gags.
    The outrage actually makes it funnier. “It’s tantamount to genocide!” “Imagine if they were black people or Muslims exploding! What would you bleeding hearts say then?!?” “Whatever happened to tollerance Lefties?!?”
    I bet all these guys were ranting about the largely imagined boogeyman of Political Correctness and its threats to free speech and whatever else back in the day. Truth is no one takes messages and memes more seriously and literally than these right wingers.

    Anyway, my ultimate comedy version of the video would have the recalcitrants spout some denier talking points first. Then someone uses a bazooka on them. That may be missing the point somewhat.

  68. #69 nico
    October 4, 2010

    Lighten up, Bill! I’m enjoying Bill McKibben’s recent book Eaarth (sic)in which he hopefully imagines a totally new world in which we must live “lightly, carefully, gracefully.” I hope his guarded optimism aboiut the planet is justified. But his sonorous piece about the 10:10 video suggests the response: Oh come on Bill, where’s ya sensayuma?

  69. #70 Rick Bradford
    October 4, 2010

    What has been revealed is how little the denialati are able to tell the difference between spoof and reality.

    Not just the ‘denialati’, it seems. The 10:10 web site is being flooded with its own supporters queuing up to denounce the film.

    Dear 10:10

    I’m a teenager who has spent the last year trying to convince my parents to be more aware of the environment, to put more effort into recycling, to save energy etc. And what’s more – it was working.

    They’ve now seen your video and have been interrogating me about who I’m associating with, warning me about “eco-terrorists” and other such nonsense.

    In short, with this video, you’ve completely undone everything I’ve tried to do to help my parents. You’ve made them suspicious of me, and you’ve made them downright angry.

    Thanks for nothing, you bunch of idiots.

    (A Managing Director)

    Our corporate accountants alerted me this evening to the existance (sic) of this video and to remind me that we had made a financial contribution to the 10:10 campaign. Having viewed it, I find it personally repulsive in the extreme. You have had the last donation you will ever get from our business or any business with which I have any influence. What could you have been thinking?

  70. #71 Tim Lambert
    October 4, 2010

    **Update:** Matt Wootton on [where he thinks 10:10 went wrong](http://greenwordsworkshop.org/node/17).

  71. #72 Nick
    October 4, 2010

    The makers have forgotten that many denialists are shameless insincere posturers with a talent for faking outrage,and a delight in sustaining it. This is the cornerstone of their political tactics.

  72. #73 Lotharsson
    October 4, 2010

    > …than I am with the fact that the more “out there” conservatives now seriously believe that an active campaign of genocide and murder is being planned against them.

    Plenty of the more “out there” conservatives already believed that greenies are out to form a communist world government to redistribute all their wealth and take away their precious guns and force them into gay marriages and make Goldman Sachs and Al Gore immensely rich capitalists.

    They didn’t exactly have a strong grasp on reality in the first place.

  73. #74 Nick
    October 4, 2010

    Well put,Matt Wootton.

  74. #75 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    The 10:10 web site is being flooded with its own supporters queuing up to denounce the film.

    Do you honestly believe that? It’s been overrun by wingnuts who are probably making such stuff up. Rememeber Brent and his sockpuppets?

  75. #76 Rick Bradford
    October 4, 2010

    @J Bowers

    Yes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and given the despairing outrage of many of those writing in, yes, I do believe it.

    It is being mirrored everywhere online, even to an extent here.

    They got it wrong and have done damage. How much, we don’t yet know.

  76. #77 John Mason
    October 4, 2010

    That piece by Matt Wootton is the best analysis of what went wrong with the movie that I have seen.

    Cheers – John

  77. #78 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Rick, time will tell. The litmus test will be how many actually do pull from the 10:10 campaign and how many keep signing up. Having got to know how the denialati work, I won’t be even remotely surprised if most of those comments are the likes of BNP and UKIP (“BNP in blazers” as the saying goes here) supporters masquerading as genuine 10:10 supporters. The whole comments thread at 10:10 reads like an unmoderated Guardian thread. One of them even knew me from the Guardian (“C U next time” was his reference, but the shorter version). As soon as this film was released the far right internet forums would have been all a twitter and the lack of moderation at 10:10 gives them an opportunity to go wild. The language alone is a sure indicator of that. In fact, coupled with the insights in the Matt Wooton piece that Tim posted I’m pretty sure of it.

  78. #79 Michael
    October 4, 2010

    My feeling is that as an ad for 10:10 it’s prabably going to be a failure.

    However, as a litmus test for the stupidity of the deniers, it’s been great.

    You would think that, tactically, this would have been a good oppotunity for the inactivists to calmly point out that the poor judgement on this PR campaign, might extend to poor judgment about the best policies to address AGW.

    Apparantly it’s much more gratifying to scream “genocide”.

    That’s the nature of the beast.

  79. #80 Rick Bradford
    October 4, 2010

    You would think that, tactically, this would have been a good oppotunity for the inactivists to calmly point out that the poor judgement on this PR campaign, might extend to poor judgment about the best policies to address AGW.

    Why would they do that? The film wasn’t made by the IPCC, was it, or indeed by anyone with any stature in the climate community?

    Tactically, it would be stupid to try to make any mileage by equating this awful film with any matters pertaining to science.

  80. #81 Warmcast
    October 4, 2010

    The video reminds me of Family Guy.
    One wonders if the people who have made a fuss about this video also make a fuss about Family Guy?

    The answer is probably yes.

    You could imagine Peter Griffin pressing the button. The reality is that most of the people making a big fuss have had the ‘eco-facists’ opinion about greens for many years. They don’t see that the video attacks their opinions of environmentalists as well.

  81. #82 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Just to add to my point above, here’s a comment that was just posted at 10:10:

    2:51 am
    Dont think that some of us missed the implicit anti-whit racism of the film.

    Anyone watching again should note that only whites are shown being negative about the issues, non-whites are all shown as fully on board. Only whites die in the film.

    Reveals a lot IMHO.

  82. #83 Dan Olner
    October 4, 2010

    John, 66: “Oh no, those brave skeptics have uncovered the secret UN plot to explode everybody.”

    A secret UN plot to explode everybody: this makes the whole thing worthwhile.

  83. #84 Lotharsson
    October 4, 2010

    Matt Wooton’s commentary – which I highly recommend – includes this important point:

    > The reason is because it’s not their kind of authoritarianism. The moral authority of greens is – to them – a false authority.

    …which fits quite strongly with Altemeyer’s research on authoritarian followers (e.g. as in “[The Authoritarians](the authoritarians)”). Warning for anyone new to his work that his concept of “left” and “right” refer NOT to the political “left” and “right” but to whether they are supporting the installation of new authorities or the existing authorities.

    Altemeyer points out that authoritarian followers only respect their own chosen authorities. Neiwert and his co-blogger Sara Robinson (whose blog Orcinus I linked to earlier) discusses some of the same themes, particularly in the context of US politics, fundamentalist religion and public discourse. The blog includes a couple of series (“Tunnels And Bridges” and “Cracks In The Wall”) on how to maybe seed the ground for someone who might be getting ready to leave behind such a mindset – and discussion of why most commonly used tactics simply don’t work.

    Maybe the 10:10 guys also need to absorb some of this material before their next effort…?

  84. #85 Michael
    October 4, 2010

    Rick @ 80,

    Which is why I didn’t mention the IPCC or the science.

    You appear to be an unintentional testimony of that to which I referred.

    Arguing in bad faith is a hall mark of the denialati.

  85. #86 Rick Bradford
    October 4, 2010

    Michael @85

    Maybe I should have made myself clearer – my point was that since the film had no claim to scientific content, it would have made no sense to try and attack it on those grounds, as any such effort would rightly be condemned as a cheap shot and a silly irrelevance.

    You may think ‘denialists’ are stupid. But not that stupid.

  86. #87 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Here’s another from the 10:10 comments, in response to the comment I posted about it being anti-white, and by the very same person who called me the c-word…

    @Charles Martel: You’ll notice it’s only the working class looking whites who get bombed.

    Franny Armstrong is a upper class luvvie, the video is a reflection of her violent masturbatory fantasy against lower class scum

    They’re framing it within a race/class conflict, which is classic British far right. The whole thing reminds me of Watts and his scaremongering/victim nonsense about Anna turning up at the shop.

  87. #88 Turboblocke
    October 4, 2010

    IMO the video is just “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” writ large.

  88. #89 Michael
    October 4, 2010

    Rick @ 86,

    Again, which is why I made no such suggestion as “to attack it on” the science.

  89. #90 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    10:10 have closed down and removed the comments on their ‘Sorry’ post.

    I was surprised they let it go on for as long as they did!

  90. #91 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Stu in #20 makes some good philosophical points which are not remotely addressed by calling him a “concern troll”. The claim that his concern is faked amounts to a claim to be able to mind read. Here Tim Lambert is worrying about the negative impact of the video on winning hearts and minds, and what do ‘my’ ‘side’ do?… respond with ad homs.

    The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society… and irresponsibly projects images of extreme violence into the homes of the young and impressionable.

    I don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse.

    The founder of 10:10, Franny Armstrong…

    “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? 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?”

    So she says blowing people up is “a joke”…followed by a “but”… is what follows the “but” then not a joke? How many times can someone “joke” about inflicting extreme violence on people before it becomes “not a joke”? What do you call it when authoritarians tell “jokes” about cruelty? Lenin once told a “joke” about a “committee for social extermination” and Stalin told a “joke” about the Lubyanka… but the committee and the Lubyanka were real. Rush Limbaugh said…

    “Obama said he wants to restore science to its rightful whatever. Then he ought to be leading the way to find out who these people are, what they’ve done, who they’ve infected, who went along with them, calling them out by name. Making sure that every scientist at every university in this country who has been involved in this is named and fired, drawn and quartered”

    Is the “drawn and quartered” a “joke”? If it’s a “joke”… is it okay?

    Glenn Beck said…

    “There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred.”

    That’s a “joke” right?

    Back to Franny…

    “What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet?”

    Same thing we did with “those people” who voted with Chamberlain to appease Hitler, and who supported “peace in our time” in general… nothing. It’s a democracy. “What to do with those people” sure sounds like an authoritarian impulse to me.

    Some reactions of people on ‘our’ ‘side’…

    Michael Tobis “vile misanthropy”

    James Annan “crass”

    Bart Verheggen “sick”

    Bill McKibben “disgusting”

    Joe Romm “grossly offensive”

  91. #92 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society…*

    What a load of rot. It does not promote anything immoral or anti-democratic. It does not promote killing people or blowing people up. Its’s flaw is that its humor is not suited to any useful goal that I can tell.

    Lazar your rant is a waste of space and your claim that its the video not a joke makes you fool at marks you as a political tool.

  92. #93 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Paul Uk — “10:10 have closed down and removed the comments on their ‘Sorry’ post.”

    Well, it got to the point where bovver boys were asking where they live, etc. Not surpised they took it down.

    Lazar, got any comment on that?

  93. #94 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*your claim that its the video not a joke makes you fool at marks you as a political tool.*

    Actually Matt Wootton sums your type up well, you mark yourself as the Doppelgänger of [your own personal demons](http://greenwordsworkshop.org/node/17)

  94. #95 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Some reactions of people on ‘our’ ‘side’…
    Michael Tobis “vile misanthropy”
    James Annan “crass”
    Bart Verheggen “sick”
    Bill McKibben “disgusting”
    Joe Romm “grossly offensive”

    Just as well we’re not denialists, I guess. In other words, we don’t switch off our own critical abilities and need gurus to tell us what to think. Makes me proud to be a “warmist” 😉

  95. #96 Lazar
    October 4, 2010


    “a waste of space” […] “a fool” […] “a political tool”

    … way to win hearts and minds jakerman

    “your own personal demons”

    … you can’t mind read

  96. #97 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar, I’m not trying to win your heart and your mind is clearly made up with your foolish claim. You’ve revealed yourself to be a time waster.

  97. #98 Lazar
    October 4, 2010


    “your heart and your mind is clearly made up”

    … you still can’t mind read

    “You’ve revealed yourself to be a time waster.”

    sigh… yes dear

  98. #99 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar I don’t need to read minds when you write down your claims.

    Try not to be such a transparent dickhead if you want to run your concern trolling a little long without getting called out.

  99. #100 Harald K
    October 4, 2010

    I wonder how anyone can go to the pretty serious effort of making such a thing, without stopping to ask “Is this a good idea?”.

    There are some organizations where you, if you are a responsible person, are going to hear stuff like this a lot:

    “Ah, don’t be such a prude.”
    “Of course it’ll work!”
    “Don’t be such a downer!”
    “You always just want to step on the brakes, if everyone thought like you we’d never get anything done!”

    There have been written many books about organizational culture on the phenomenon. I say the 10:10 people have more important things to do than apologizing, such as finding the answer to “Why the hell wasn’t this stopped at an early stage in the process?”

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.