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.

Comments

  1. #1 adelady
    October 4, 2010

    So Lazar must live somewhere in the retirement village my 85 year old mum lives in. Not too many of her 90+ mates would laugh at South Park or Monty Python or Blackadder or a Scream or Life of Brian DVD.

    Lots of people do laugh at these things. The problem with the vid is that this kind of surreal, buckets-of-blood, pointless silliness is totally unsuited to delivering messages of any sort. Especially to a general audience.

    Don’t like it? You’re not alone. But there’s nothing much to be learned here except that projects like 10:10 need to find a way to get their various groups to think twice about silly stunts.

  2. #2 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    jakerman,

    “I don’t need to read minds when you write down your claims”

    so where did I write down that my “heart and mind” are “made up”, meaning unpersuadable, as you implied?

    “dickhead”

    … what a great advert for ‘my’ ‘side’ you are…

    “concern trolling”

    flap your arms as many times you want… you won’t fly, and nor can you read minds

  3. #3 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    adelady,

    “Lazar must live somewhere in the retirement village my 85 year old mum lives in”

    How lucky are we that we live in the same village as Michael Tobis, James Annan, Bart Verheggen, Bill McKibben, and Joe Romm! I guess us ancients just can’t find images of kids being blown up “funny”. Sorry.

  4. #4 Mary
    October 4, 2010

    This video was incredibly appalling to me. It was on its face just disgusting and wrong. The side-effects of it as damaging to the credibility of the environmental groups and possibly also their funding and support was secondary to me. But it’s clear that corporate and government funding for this kind of thing is now in jeopardy.

    I am not faking my outrage or my “green” credentials. I telecommute, am vegetarian, rarely drive, have no children, insulated my house, and put a solar hot water panel on my roof. I have a solar cooker that I use and have advocated for all of these things. I feel fragged by this.

    Those of you assuming that the angry commenters are all denier trolls are wrong. But I’m sure you need to convince yourself of that.

    Maybe there’s a different cross-cultural problem: in the US we (on the left) are just hoping that none of the right-wing nuts decides to start killing those they disagree with (although some already have). We are praying that the lid stays on that simmering pot. It’s entirely possible that violence could happen here–even candidates for office are slyly endorsing that–check out “second amendment remedies” and Sharron Angle.

    This doesn’t help us. At all.

  5. #5 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    > This video was incredibly appalling to me. It was on its face just disgusting and wrong.

    Do you know what *I* find disgusting and wrong?

    People who think that just because they don’t like something, it’s wrong.

    Tell you what, Mary, here’s some help: don’t watch it. Problem solved.

  6. #6 Mary
    October 4, 2010

    @Wow: yeah–that’s effective. If I don’t watch it of course no one else will see it!! Why didn’t I think of that???

    (Do you have several neurons that are tied up at the moment on something else? Because you didn’t use enough of them in that clever retort. Check your task manager, something’s causing a leak of some sort.)

  7. #7 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Mary:
    >I am not faking my outrage or my “green” credentials. I telecommute, am vegetarian, rarely drive, have no children, insulated my house, and put a solar hot water panel on my roof. I have a solar cooker that I use and have advocated for all of these things. I feel fragged by this.

    But you aren’t going to give up all of that just because of the video are you and I doubt any ‘green’ is or even an intelligent person.
    You’re right it is a negative on the campaign front that so many environmentalists have been working so hard for.
    But I think most of the comments here ‘read’ what is going on correctly. There are a lot of hard right-wing activists that are exploiting the issue.

    Mary:
    >”Those of you assuming that the angry commenters are all denier trolls are wrong. But I’m sure you need to convince yourself of that.”

    Indeed, the issue is embarrassing to many environmentalists, but if you are serious as you say, it’s only a film and some of the responses to it are far more disturbing than the actual video.

  8. #8 Marko
    October 4, 2010

    The eco-fascists have managed to cull 50,000,000 blacks in Africa with their ban on DDT. Do any of you think you are more important to the green-marxists than the huge @#$SDF pile of corpses the green-reaper has already wrought?

    Those who find this ad funny have the same mentality as those who would find a spoof commercial of Germans gassing jews simply hilarious.

    The green thugs are coming out of the closet. Fight them now or watch several more million innocent people be hereded into the cull queue.

    When the Green Jackboots come to my door they will receive the treatment they deserve.

  9. #9 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    As if by magic!

  10. #10 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Paul UK

    “it’s only a film”

    … you could say similar of any propaganda film, poster, book etc… ideas have consequences

    “and some of the responses to it are far more disturbing”

    that (the ‘wrongness’ of alleged responses) is a seperate issue… two wrongs not a right make…

  11. #11 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Wow

    “People who think that”

    no, you can’t mind read

  12. #12 lord_sidcup
    October 4, 2010

    I haven’t got around to watching the Curtis video and might never bother. Is it just tasteless and unfunny or does it contain numerous spurious scientific claims and misrepresentations like, for example, The Great Global Warming Swindle?

    Just asking.

  13. #13 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    >”it’s only a film” … you could say similar of any propaganda film, poster, book etc… ideas have consequences.

    You quote out of context Lazaar. I was directly addressing Mary and her green views. Not what others opinions are. I doubt if Mary thinks all greens are what was portrayed in the video.

  14. #14 Dan Olner
    October 4, 2010

    Gosh: I’m impressed at the number of people on here attacking anyone who says the video was dreadful, stupid and counter-productive. Do I get the label ‘concern troll’ for saying this?

    That video was completely fecking stupid, politically astoundingly naive, and helps those battling ignorance of climate change not one iota, as it’s clearly set the flying monkeys off again, giving them a pretty powerful image to go with it – look, they’ll blow up your children!

  15. #15 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Lord Sidcup:
    >I haven’t got around to watching the Curtis video and might never bother. Is it just tasteless and unfunny or does it contain numerous spurious scientific claims and misrepresentations like, for example, The Great Global Warming Swindle?

    No science what so ever.
    Just three scenes where people are asked to reduce their carbon footprint and if they refuse someone presses a button which ‘explodes’ the them.

  16. #16 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    >”and some of the responses to it are far more disturbing”
    that (the ‘wrongness’ of alleged responses) is a seperate issue… two wrongs not a right make…

    There is actually a big difference. The film was a work of fiction. Those that have posted offending messages are real with real views.

  17. #17 Chris
    October 4, 2010

    The spoofed version below, may make you rethink how “smart”/”funny” etc the original was.

    Same scenario, slightly different agenda

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IrtItfWn1E

    Oh, yes the monty python sketch was fairly amusing, major difference was that is wasn’t trying to force people to conform to someone elses agenda and was absurd rather than vicious

  18. #18 Mary
    October 4, 2010

    @Paul UK: this has nothing to do with me or my personal actions. This has to do with public perception and our ability to make the legislative changes we need to make the real larger-scale changes that we’ve got to put in place.

    This is not theoretical about whether or not I can understand the humor that appeals to 16 year old boys. I have friends working very hard on a ballot initiative in California about environmental legislation–the election is a month from now. The animosity this has generated and the resistance it creates is real.

    This has effects. Real effects. Bad effects. Today.

  19. #19 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    117 Chris — “trying to force people to conform”
    Force? Force people to conform?! You’re having a laugh, or having a Monckton moment.

  20. #20 Hank Roberts
    October 4, 2010

    The original did remind me of Catholic grade school in the US in the 1950s. This will be spoofed forever, with every possible agenda being laid in as the sound track. It’s not just a mistake, it’s a template for repeated mistakes.

  21. #21 Tlaloc
    October 4, 2010

    Much of the issue is not just people blowing up, it’s the specific people blown up and those blowing them up and why.

    Fer’instance. Suppose the teacher had done her lecture, the kids had said yes and no, and then the camera panned to a couple of polar bears crouched outside the window with a plunger, who exploded the two kids. Funny. And then exploded the teacher for letting them off. Funnier.

    Poleybears make a cute victim figure evoking sympathy, while at the same time not associated with any social norms of friendliness or harmlessness. No negativity cast on the active green activists, limited negativity on the target audience of eco-hypocrites – portraying them as ineffectual but not nasty. You can garner further sympathy, send a message, and make it a joke, by showing the bears as ‘homeless’, sleeping rough and begging on the street, say, on the way to their next hit.

    And so on. Writing a genuinely funny and pointed message that gets people on your side is not hard. Some, I’m sure, would have still complained, but you would not get this mass outpouring and the few ‘usual suspects’ could be laughed off.

    But instead, you’ve put the person asking everybody sweetly to ‘do their bit’ in the frame as the one responsible for the blowing up. There is thus too direct a connection between making the request (rather than the refusal) and the consequences. Your scenario has unwittingly paralleled the common archetype of a totalitarian propaganda session followed by the elimination of dissidents for not following the orthodoxy. The main point – that the people saying ‘no pressure’ and letting people off are the problem – has been entirely missed. And the normal realistic bits, set in contrast to the ridiculous, are actually the most scary bit.

    People in Britain share a common awareness of the activities of the animal rights terrorists – nutcases engaged in campaigns of persecution and harassment in a cuddly, ‘bunny-hugging’ cause. In America, James Jay Lee recently hit the headlines. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to find people like Pentti Linkola advocating it seriously, or some of the old Ehrlich/Holdren stuff. And while most people dismiss worries about this stuff as typical internet paranoia, they are dimly aware at a background level of the accusations that the Greens have a bit of a totalitarian streak. Ridiculous and untrue it might be, but to play into it is as bad an idea as Socialists keen on helping the poor doing a funny movie about sending all the rich people to concentration camps in Siberia.

    The internet paranoiacs don’t need that kind of help.

    And as near as I can tell, there wasn’t even any real joke behind it that we’re all missing; that we misunderstood. It was just supposed to be a crude slapstick juxtaposition of sweet and fluffy ecoGreens with extreme psychopathic violence.
    How disappointing.

  22. #22 Cheyenne
    October 4, 2010

    The video was dumb, insulting, and worst of all, not funny.

  23. #23 Muzz
    October 4, 2010

    I told you these authoritarians were also literalists (but so are quite a few other people too. I guess humourless authoritarian greenies is perfectly plausible).

    Matt Wootton’s piece is not wrong, but I think misses a detail or two. The 10:10 writer’s error was in making a joke about activism itself, as Tim points out I think. “We’re trying to be nice and follow our modern democratic principles about this, but we don’t actually believe there is a choice in the matter” is what they’re saying . I think that’s funny and makes a good point, but that context is perhaps a bit meta- for something designed to be broadly accepted.

    It’s arguable that just getting an attractive celebrity or two to give an earnest piece to camera would be more effective (even if you have to listen to pundits bang on about celebrity causes once more). But dammit, I applaud their sincere effort not to be boring.

  24. #24 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Paul UK

    “There is actually a big difference.”

    Of course there are “differences” between the ‘badness’ of the video and the ‘badness’ of other alleged wrongs… “big” is an unconstrained adjective which I don’t have to buy… equality is empirically unsound… two wrongs still don’t make a right… the ‘badness’ of other alleged wrongs doesn’t diminish the ‘badness’ of the video

    “The film was a work of fiction.”

    i should hope so!

    “Those that have posted offending messages are real with real views.”

    The offending video is real, made by real people, with real views.

    “I was directly addressing Mary and her green views.”

    How does the quote “it’s only a film” relate to “Mary and her green views”… what point are you trying to make by “it’s only a film”?

    “I doubt if Mary thinks all greens are what was portrayed in the video.”

    Of course… she’s a “green”…

  25. #25 Heraclitus
    October 4, 2010

    I’ve seen many possible re-write scenarios having different people being blown up for different reasons and every one of them would be far more crass and far more sinister than the original. The only way of possibly getting away with ‘blowing someone up’ when dealing with such an important and real issue is by being utterly absurdist. You can argue whether this approach should have been taken at all, and I’m not going to try to defend it, but given that it was this is the best it could have been.

  26. #26 Dave Andrews
    October 4, 2010

    Hi Tim,

    Realised yet you can’t defend the indefensible?

  27. #27 chek
    October 4, 2010

    So take your concern troll act to psycholand and preach to the psychos to not be psychotic.

    They’re your target audience.

  28. #28 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    > The video was dumb, insulting, and worst of all, not funny.

    > Posted by: Cheyenne

    Says someone being dumb, insulting and not funny…

    Hey, if you don’t like it and think that it is counterproductive, how about getting off your lazy heinies and doing better?

  29. #29 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    > Gosh: I’m impressed at the number of people on here attacking anyone who says the video was dreadful, stupid and counter-productive.

    Why?

    After all, it can’t be complained about attacking people who are here attacking people who made this film.

    Can it?

    Personally, I’m impressed with all these people (like yourself) who demand the right to complain about something and therefore nobody should complain about the complainers (and so many new ones…).

    How does that work?

  30. #30 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar whines:

    >*so where did I write down that my “heart and mind” are “made up”,*

    You demonstrated your concern trolling in your “dickhead” claims such as:
    >*The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society… I don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse.*

    Then,

    >*”dickhead” … what a great advert for ‘my’ ‘side’ you are…*

    More fantasy, I cahllenge you to show how acting a dickhead like you do, and getting called out for it is a great advert for your side.

  31. #31 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    > @Wow: yeah–that’s effective. If I don’t watch it of course no one else will see it!!

    I can tell you why you didn’t think of that, Mary.

    It’s because it’s bollocks.

    No, if YOU don’t watch it, YOU won’t get upset.

    These other people are grown ups and can take the shocks of the world quite fine without you nannying them and being “concerned for them”.

    You see, the problem you have is you’re appropriating other people’s offence.

    Let THEM do that. If they are offended, they can speak up for themselves without “mummy” coming round to complain to the teachers…

  32. #32 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    > no, you can’t mind read

    > Posted by: Lazar

    It would certainly require a mind to exist on the other end, Laz, rather than the pavlovian knee-jerk response that requires nothing more than an autonomous nervous system.

  33. #33 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Mark Wootten’s article is pop psychology, a mixture of assertion without data and mind reading (“why so many people don’t “get” the joke”). My brother-in-law is an anarchist not because he can’t conceive of authoritarianism, but because he lived for decades under authoritarian rule (communism). Lenin who joked about naming one of his more murderous committees the “committee for social extermination” and Stalin who joked about the Lubyanko were not “caring”/”nurturing” types. And “caring”/”nurturing” is not a dichotomy of “authoritarian” e.g. the “nanny” state. So on top of people objecting to what they perceive as pro-fascist sentiment, some guys here want to call them “humorless” closet authoritarians on the basis of wooly hand waving arguments. How not to win hearts and minds.

  34. #34 Wow
    October 4, 2010

    PS Laz, no need to mind read. Ordinary english read was enough

    > This video was incredibly appalling to me. It was on its face just disgusting and wrong.

    ‘course some people don’t think. Do you Laz.

    Or should I say “Brent”?

  35. #35 Brent
    October 4, 2010

    Chek, you stoopid wazzock, the following language alarms me greatly. However misguided you are, I wouldn’t wish this stuff to be directed at your sorry arse:

    -#-

    if this isn’t a huge message that the globalists are going to f*ck*ng kill you, then I don’t know what to tell ya.

    DuckDitch 4 hours ago 2

    -#-

    FlankerDeiniol 10 hours ago
    reckon it’s funny, and much less social and emotional blackmail than ads like Red Cross, Christian Aid, Cancer Research etc which show sufferin kids and people in pain. load of hoo-ha over feck all.

    -#-

    The sick part if the willingness to kill people for it (even ficticiously), especially threatening children.

    =#=

    Nice. Gotta love ecomoonbats who fantasize about killing children that don’t agree with them.

    actually…I don’t.

    =#=

    Greenie Weenies can start by killing themselves. Me? I have some tires to go burn.

    =#=

    The Environmentalists want to kill people based upon ideas, and want to instate a authoritarian system. Am I the only one seeing this trend? I hope not…

    =#=

    Won’t accept that little mark on your right hand or forehead?  No pressure…

    =#=

    Help Save the planet shoot all eco-terrorists in the head

    =#=

    I have an idea:

    Find the eco-fascists in your community and throw them into a volcano to appease Mother Earth.

    =#=

    I’m gonna set off a fucking nuke, but not in a terrorist way, just an awesome planet-killing way! Fuck you greenie.

    =#=

    F*ck ECOMENTALISTS. You people need to be burried in a mass grave.

    =#=

    People, this is serious (this is me again, Brent): I still doubt that you bunch of whack-jobs genuinely believe in Surrey Sahara, but there are (I now see) who take you at face value. I hope that the above comments are from brave-talkers rather than brave-doers.

    Meanwhile, in the Real World, I have some gearboxes to make. I’ll leave you all to your Carbon Wars, and a plague on both your houses.

  36. #36 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    jakerman,

    “claims such as”

    so you associate having an opinion / a belief with being unamenable to reason… whereas I do not at all… how revealing

  37. #37 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Wow,

    Where in that quote does Mary say that the video is wrong because she doesn’t like it?

    “‘course some people don’t think. Do you Laz.”

    Oh, I think of lots of things… right now I’m thinking this forum resembles WUWT in terms of contentless personal invective, with added vulgarity.

    “Or should I say “Brent”?”

    I have no idea who “Brent” is… or why “Brent” is relevant. Please yourself.

  38. #38 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*so you associate having an opinion / a belief with being unamenable to reason*

    Your comment is revealing Lazar, you cannot read my mind yet you attribute this untrue generalization to me.

    You have just fallen foul of the crime you were accusing me of.

    I on the the other hand called you out for drawing specific falsehoods from this video:

    >*The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society… I don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse.*

    Your conclusion marks you out as a agitant with extreme bias. And your methods mark you as a hypocrite.

  39. #39 chek
    October 4, 2010

    Brent (& the concern trolls)
    It’s no more ‘serious’ today than it was last week defore anybody knew of this promo.

    Is it serious that particularly US society breeds a strain of ignorant dupes drip fed ideas by a diseased right wing corporate media? Ever notice that the teabaggers and militias are surprisingly quiet when the Republicans are in power? Well, duh.

    If you think ‘something should be done’ about it, then good for you and like I told Brent @ 126:
    Go take your concern troll act to psycholand and preach to the psychos to not be psychotic.

    They’re your target audience.

  40. #40 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    jakerman,

    “attribute this untrue generalization to me.”

    Yes dear, and anyone can read up the thread and see otherwise. The rest of your contentless insults mercifully binned

  41. #41 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Chris:
    >Oh, yes the monty python sketch was fairly amusing, major difference was that is wasn’t trying to force people to conform to someone elses agenda and was absurd rather than vicious

    Just out of interest, in what way does the video force people to conform?

    Or are you suggesting anyone would do what happened in the video?

  42. #42 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar, are you seeking I add shameless and blatant liar to the list of your earned titles?

    Are you now claiming you did not attribute [this false generalization](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2837315) to me?

  43. #43 MFS
    October 4, 2010

    Oi, Brent,

    You are [banned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2834029) from posting here. Take your crap and sockpuppets elsewhere.

  44. #44 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Lazaar:
    >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.

    Good grief, if that were actually true, just about every moving image would be censored!
    Are you seriously suggesting ’1984′ promotes anti-democracy purely because it portrays a socialist nationalist dictatorship??
    Actually one of the most disturbing films I ever watched in the last few years was Spielbergs ‘War of the Worlds’. It doesn’t make me want to go and kill Martians though.

  45. #45 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    “concern troll” “a waste of space” “fool” “political tool” “time waster” “transparent dickhead” “dumb” “dickhead claims” “acting a dickhead” “mummy coming round to complain to the teachers” “nothing more than an autonomous nervous system” “agitant with extreme bias” “hypocrite” “ignorant dupes”

    Tim, probabilistically, which way do you guess people who are agnostic and possibly new to the issues of AGW will tend to sway, upon watching the video and then stumbling upon this forum? If you had to bet? Not a good advert for ‘our’ ‘side’ doncha think? It isn’t even a flame war (which I like) when there’s no thought to be ripped among the highschool personal insults.

  46. #46 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Paul UK,

    you swapped “portrays” for “promotes”…

  47. #47 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar you provide more confirmation of [my assessment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2837315):

    >>*so you associate having an opinion / a belief with being unamenable to reason*

    >Your comment is revealing Lazar, you cannot read my mind yet you attribute this untrue generalization to me.
    You have just fallen foul of the crime you were accusing me of.
    >I on the the other hand called you out for drawing specific falsehoods from this video:

    >>*The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society… I don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse.*

    >*Your conclusion marks you out as a agitant with extreme bias. And your methods mark you as a hypocrite.*

  48. #48 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    jakerman,

    “Are you now claiming you did not attribute this false generalization to me?”

    have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    i won’t call you a liar… i don’t think you have the wits to lie

  49. #49 J Bowers
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar — “Tim, probabilistically, which way do you guess people who are agnostic and possibly new to the issues of AGW will tend to sway, upon watching the video and then stumbling upon this forum? ”

    Doesn’t matter. If they went to the 10:10 website yesterday they’d have found that 90% of so-called sceptics are raving nutters, conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and rightwing boot boys. An ironic own goal I’d say.

  50. #50 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    I can sympathize with Barton washing his hands of this place. It’s like WUWT on steroids. Enough, kids, you’re too boring.

  51. #51 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Lazaar:
    >”The film was a work of fiction.”… i should hope so!
    “Those that have posted offending messages are real with real views.”… The offending video is real, made by real people, with real views.

    You make my point. You acknowledge the video is fiction and indeed the people that made it are real. They don’t believe in doing what was in the video, they do believe in cutting carbon emissions. If you believe that they want to blow people up, that says a lot about you and your views, than it does about the video. If you are that gullible, then it is no wonder so many people believe Monckton and many others. You lack any rational judgement.

  52. #52 Paul UK
    October 4, 2010

    Mary:
    >”This has effects. Real effects. Bad effects. Today.”

    Yes indeed, but what is done, is done.

    ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’

  53. #53 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    Lazar, I see you have been caught out [and shown up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2837425).

    [Evasion and retreat](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2837427) might be your best hope.

  54. #54 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Paul UK,

    Since you have offered intelligent comment, one final reply…

    “Good grief, if that were actually true, just about every moving image would be censored! Are you seriously suggesting ’1984′ promotes anti-democracy purely because it portrays a socialist nationalist dictatorship??”

    1984 portrayed a brutal totalitarian regime from the perspective of a dissident, written by an author who abhorred and intended to condemn such regimes by his writings.

    The aim of the video is to persuade people to cut carbon emissions. It portrays the ‘good guys’ blowing up people who disagree with that aim. The founder of the group who made the video says… “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?”

    You’re suggesting a false equivalence.

    “They don’t believe in doing what was in the video”

    You can’t read minds. Franny suggests a little amputation might be okay (or is that another “joke”?).

    “You lack any rational judgement.”

    Please don’t stoop to the level of the idiots above.

  55. #55 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    I notice along the way Lazar tried to shift the goal posts:

    He started of with is claims that the video was anit-democratic and that he didn’t buy that it was a joke. But unable to defend that position Lazar tries to prentend he’s only saying what others are saying:

    >*How lucky are we that we live in the same village as Michael Tobis, James Annan, Bart Verheggen, Bill McKibben, and Joe Romm! I guess us ancients just can’t find images of kids being blown up “funny”. Sorry*

    But those named dropped by Lazar seem to share the criticims [I've made](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2834143) of the video, as far as I can tell none of them shares Lazars bazar off the planet calims that the video is not a joke and that it “promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society”.

  56. #56 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*Please don’t stoop to the level of the idiots above.*

    Says the chap who depends on misattributing false generalization such as:

    >*so you associate having an opinion / a belief with being unamenable to reason*

    Or was that stooping in the form of hypocracy, first for compaining of mind reading (then using his own mind powers to misattribute his strawman logic to others) or hypocracy for complaining about abuse, before calling people idiots?

  57. #57 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    Paul UK

    Sometimes a joke is a guarded way of expressing socially unacceptable or dubious beliefs. I think racist jokes are often told in this setting… Of course I don’t really believe X about group Y. It’s just a joke! Well, yes, it’s a joke…

  58. #58 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*I think racist jokes are often told in this setting… Of course I don’t really believe X about group Y. It’s just a joke! Well, yes, it’s a joke…*

    I agree that racist jokes are incideious. But compareing this video to the dehumanising tactic of racist jokes is offensive.

    Its off the plantet Lazar to suggest that this video is equivalent to racits trying to undermine people because of how they were born.

  59. #59 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    jakerman

    “he didn’t buy that it was a joke”

    that’s not what I said…

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

    something can be told as a joke whilst the person telling it can sympathize with the content/morals/narrative… it’s called ‘joking on the square’

    “unable to defend [...] tries to prentend”

    no dummy… read to the bottom of my first comment here (#91)

  60. #60 Lazar
    October 4, 2010

    “to suggest that this video is equivalent to racits”

    No I didn’t. Bye-bye jakerman.

  61. #61 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    You didn’t mean to suggest that this video is equivalent to racits jokes?

    You mean you just put [the two together by accident](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2837676)?

    Is it that you didn’t want to say it, is it that you just wanted to conflat the two in an abstract association while trying to defend your claim that you “don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse”

  62. #62 Eli Rabett
    October 4, 2010

    And how does this differ from Lubos and the Lames favorite book, Atlas Shrugged?

  63. #63 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >*no dummy…*[at least you did't whine about abuse in the the very same post] *read to the bottom of my first comment here*

    I Read it Lazar, I’m not aware of any of the bloggers you refer to sharing your off the wall views about:

    *”The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society… I don’t buy the ‘it was a joke’ excuse.”*

    Nore do I read them associating the video with Stalin.

    Like me, these bloggers criticised video. But is only the loonys that argue this video shows and authoritirian impulse.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    October 4, 2010

    > Is the “drawn and quartered” a “joke”?

    Not really.

    The rabid right in the US – led by message transmitters you quote such as Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and their fellow travelers – likes to claim their eliminationist language is a joke so that they can keep on doing it, but they’re dog-whistling to get support from those who don’t take it as a joke **at all** – and *their* sympathisers:

    > …in the US we (on the left) are just hoping that none of the right-wing nuts decides to start killing those they disagree with (although some already have). … It’s entirely possible that violence could happen here–even candidates for office are slyly endorsing that–check out “second amendment remedies” and Sharron Angle.

    I strongly recommend you [spend some time at Orcinus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2835469).

  65. #65 jakerman
    October 4, 2010

    >>*Is the “drawn and quartered” a “joke”?*

    >*Not really.*

    A key difference being that Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter are Demagogues feeding hate with prejudice and lies.

  66. #66 Anton Mates
    October 5, 2010

    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?

    …N-word?

    I really want to believe that Lubos Motl is insane enough to accuse Gillian Anderson of being secretly black. So I think I will.

  67. #67 SteveC
    October 5, 2010

    Black humour in general is not something everyone gets, and sometimes even those who do get get it experience a humour gland failure on issues they have a personal stake in (me included). The 10:10 mob ought to have realised this before they permitted the film to be released. I’m not saying they should or should not have commissioned or released it, and I’m not passing any judgement on its effectiveness at getting the point across. I am, FWIW, of the view that if you’re an organisation whose purpose is to raise consciousness of a serious issue by means of provocation, you’d better make damned f**king sure you’ve thought about the entire panoply of possible audience reactions, and have prepared yourselves (and your sponsors) for the inevitable adverse reaction. Plainly (judging by the retraction of the video) 10:10 totally misjudged this and their reputation will suffer (some of that justified, much of it not IMO). What’s even more regrettable is that those who seek and have sought to discredit the conservation movement now have another data point.

    And in passing, I have to say much of the comment on this thread does this blog no favours at all. If you can’t make a point without insult, don’t make one at all.

  68. #68 SteveC
    October 5, 2010

    Me (above), erratum:

    Plainly …10:10 totally misjudged this

    That’s better.

    Re the black humour thing, I love it, but it’s not especially well done in this instance IMO. I didn’t “lol”, let alone “rofl”, but I guess some did.

    Question is, why did 10:10 put out something that largely revolved around a joke that only those who understand the issue and the urgency would get, when their express purpose is to jolt people into thought (if not action)?

    But all that said, I sincerely hope 10:10 don’t fall foul of the epidemic of managerialism (“review[ing] our processes and procedures, and shar[ing] the results with our partners”) that so totally and royally screws any chance of creativity and (help me) action

  69. #69 adelady
    October 5, 2010

    It finally dawned on me today, Steve.

    The talented and experienced people involved in producing this film were limited to that kind of experience. Not education, not marketing, not PR, not advertising.

    *All* of the issues you raise would have caused any decent ad agency – the supreme communications experts – to kick this idea into the gutter if anyone put it to them.

  70. #70 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    Lazar — “Sometimes a joke is a guarded way of expressing socially unacceptable or dubious beliefs.”
    And the vast majority of times it’s not; the vast majority of times it’s just a joke. I am getting the impression, though, that the vast majority of pseudo-sceptics wouldn’t know what a joke was even if an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotsman, a rabbi, a priest, an imam, a horse and a talking monkey walked into a bar all at the same time.

  71. #71 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    166 SteveC — “Question is, why did 10:10 put out something that largely revolved around a joke that only those who understand the issue and the urgency would get, when their express purpose is to jolt people into thought (if not action)?”

    You know, even if Spencer, Lindzen, McKitrick, McIntyre, Michaels, Monckton, Christy, Plimer, and Lomborg all proved that sensitivity to doubling results in 6C temperature rise, this is what would happen to the likes of 10:10 and 350.org…

    WUWT will slag them off anyway * Murdoch’s news media will try to grub up dirt on them regardless * Something will happen to cause outrage one way or another * Politicians will still sell their platform to the highest polluting bidder * The Kochs will continue to fund pro-pollution policy groups and thinktanks * Cuccinelli will continue to persecute Michael Mann * the science won’t be good enough.

    Manhattan could go underwater overnight and all coral reefs turn bone white, and it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever to the pattern.

    And there will still be some controversy, just like there still is with tobacco, CFCs, asbestos, DDT, the Moon landings and 9/11, regardless of evidence. The names will just be different.

  72. #72 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    adelady — “All of the issues you raise would have caused any decent ad agency – the supreme communications experts – to kick this idea into the gutter if anyone put it to them.”

    Sorry, but there are plenty of ads that get thrown in the bin even after they’ve been launched. Ikea, Budweiser, XBox360, you name them…
    http://www.oddee.com/item_96766.aspx

    It’s not unusual at all.

  73. #73 Paul UK
    October 5, 2010

    Lazaar:
    >Sometimes a joke is a guarded way of expressing socially unacceptable or dubious beliefs.

    So basically you are admitting that you actually believe ‘greens’ want to kill people if those people don’t reduce their carbon footprints don’t reduce their carbon footprint.
    So effectively the video actually shows what you believe to be true, not what is actually true. As I said, you seem to be very gullible.

    Effectively what you are saying is this video actually happened and shows real events and it was secretly got out by someone and was published for everyone to see.

  74. #74 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > Enough, kids, you’re too boring.

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 6:56 PM

    Followed by:

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 7:59 PM

    and

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 8:56 PM

    and

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 9:08 PM

    and

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 9:11 PM

    The reports of your leaving seem to be exaggerated. Bent likes to be abused verbally on here too, you know. Keeps calling people in a heap, then complaining and saying “so long then” when it’s returned (if you can’t take it, don’t make it, kid) but returning like a dog to its vomit and producing yet more “pearls of the pavement”.

    > It’s like WUWT on steroids.

    Ah yes, concern troll flag #1.

    And I bet BPL didn’t leave because it was like Wuwt on steroids.

    Laz, you’re not winning any hearts and minds and you’re merely being rude abusive and abrasive and ensuring that your message is refuted and built against by your unfunny and disgusting behaviour.

  75. #75 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > Where in that quote does Mary say that the video is wrong because she doesn’t like it?

    Laz, you need english lessons.

    I quoted it.Unless you think Mary *likes* disgusting things.

  76. #76 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > I have no idea who “Brent” is… or why “Brent” is relevant. Please yourself.

    > Posted by: Lazar | October 4, 2010 5:48 PM

    Aye, this is a sockpuppet. Note how he doesn’t know who Bent is, yet here:

    > I can sympathize with Barton washing his hands of this place

    He knows who BPL is and that they left.

    Bent was kicked off recently and on this thread his sockpuppetry was shown and his eviction notice posted.

    So he’s purporting to know something in the dim and distant past, but nothing of a recent event taken on this thread.

    It is an obvious and blatant lie. The question is: why? Because he’s another sockpuppet.

    If Bent is sockpuppeting again, this constitutes computer trespass and is quite a serious crime, Tim.

  77. #77 Paul UK
    October 5, 2010

    Lazaar:
    >1984 portrayed a brutal totalitarian regime from the perspective of a dissident, written by an author who abhorred and intended to condemn such regimes by his writings.

    And you fail to point out that Orwell admitted he was wrong. The book was about his fears for Britain at the end of WWII.
    But like the recent video, you fail to understand the author.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    October 5, 2010

    Lazar writes,

    “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 have not seen the damned film, nor do I necessarily want to, but Lazar’s statement is frankly bizarre. What about actual violence perpetrated by ‘our side’ being projected into the homes of the ‘young and impressionable’? Images of people blown to smithereens by western bombs dropped in exapansionist/resource wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Previous wars fought essentially for the same reason? Comments by western planners and senior politicians arguing in defence of policies that lead to mass murder or ‘depopulation’ in the third world? Has Lazar read the latest peer-reviewed article about conditions in Falluja after the November 2004 US assault? About the effects of white phosphorus dropped in the city and by Israel in Gaza? About the effects of depleted uranium and unexploded cluster bombs that litter Iraq? The problem is that our state/corporate media downplay or ignore our crimes and focus laser-like on those of officially designated enemies. Perhaps the likes of Lazar and Mary are so inculcated in our imperial mentality that they turn a blind eye to the wretched results of policies originating from our ‘democracies’, saving their ire for fictional films.

    Lazar’s ‘democracy’ comment is also illuminating in light of the fact that most of us live in plutocracies which are hardly democratic. Again, the wingnuts on the political right feign morality and concern when irresponsible videos are played, but bury their hands when it comes to horrors that result directly or indirectly from policies emerging from our own countries.

  79. #79 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    Point taken [SteveC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2838065), my denialist radar was over sensitive, and I could have made my point clearer without the abuse.

  80. #80 Brendan H
    October 5, 2010

    Lazar: “The founder of the group who made the video says… “What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet?”

    I also find this comment worrying. This video is an appalling own goal, but it surely was not the conscious intent of the makers to suggest that climate sceptics should be exterminated for not acting over climate change.

    And yet, there is the evidence that the makers got the narrative so completely wrong. In a link above, Mark Wootton quotes one commentator: “…it disastrously allows the climate deniers to look like oppressed underdogs fighting a smug hierarchy”.

    And so it does. Question is: how come the 10:10 people allowed themselves to look like a smug hierarchy?

  81. #81 Steve Brown
    October 5, 2010

    I thought the video was excellent – but I have a sense of humour and a sense of proportion. A lot of old duffers have gone hysterical giving the video a chance to go viral on the Web.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if 10:10 hasn’t had an upsurge in interest from net-savvy teenage schoolkids.

  82. #82 Paul UK
    October 5, 2010

    Marshall Herskovitz, a past president of the Producers Guild of America:
    >”The irony of course is that the video looks like it was made by climate change deniers -– not believers -– as an attack on the supposed “fascism” of those who would mobilize society to reduce greenhouse gases.”

    Over at Andy Revkins blog.
    Well at least someone gets it.

  83. #83 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    >*And I bet BPL didn’t leave because it was like Wuwt on steroids.*

    Correct, BPL took offense toward a thread or two that went to the topic of religion in a manner he disagreed with.

  84. #84 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    Steve Brown — “I wouldn’t be surprised if 10:10 hasn’t had an upsurge in interest from net-savvy teenage schoolkids.”

    Signatories seem to have increased by just under a thousand since yesterday. I’m fairly sure it was up a thousand yesterday from Sunday, too.

  85. #85 chek
    October 5, 2010

    [J Bowers said: "Signatories seem to have increased by just under a thousand since yesterday. I'm fairly sure it was up a thousand yesterday from Sunday, too.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2838300)

    And that surely is the point – many more people know of the 10:10 campaign today than at this time last week. Those who didn’t care about carbon emmissions still don’t care and those that do, probably now know of the campaign.

    The ‘controversy’ no doubt assisted the campaign’s reach more than a conventional and likely unmemorable film about cuddly polar bears (which the denial machine would still have denigrated).

    If your goal is to create interest, it seems to me doubtful that pandering to the imagined sensibilities of some largely mythical reactionary demographic without a creative bone in their heads, would be one way to stifle any new – and as we’ve seen very effective – method devised by a creative team.

    Sure 10:10 have gone through the motions of distancing themselves from any assumed ‘offence’ but the message has now gone viral on it’s own which happily must save them a shedload of server bandwidth charges :)

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    October 5, 2010

    > …it disastrously allows the climate deniers to look like oppressed underdogs fighting a smug hierarchy.

    The irony is that denialists *already* tended to lurch wildly from “we’re oppressed underdogs fighting a smug hierarchy” to “you warmists are dwindling to a tiny enclave of true believers” and back again, depending on which particular meme was being pumped through the echo chamber on any given day…

  87. #87 chek
    October 5, 2010

    @183 should read:
    If your goal is to create interest, it seems to me doubtful that pandering to the imagined sensibilities of some largely mythical reactionary demographic without a creative bone in their heads, would be one way to stifle any new – and as we’ve seen very effective – method devised by a creative team”.

    One of these days I’ll learn to proof read.
    And spell emissions properly.

  88. #88 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    And 10:10′s signatories just rose by around another 50 since my last comment.

  89. #89 Paul UK
    October 5, 2010

    J Bowers:
    >And 10:10′s signatories just rose by around another 50 since my last comment.

    Ah, So our plan is working, tomorrow the world!
    Ha, Ha, Ha (done in an evil voice).

    Dr Greenlove have you perfected that button device yet?

  90. #90 J Bowers
    October 5, 2010

    What’s interesting is that both organisations and businesses are still signing up, not just individuals.

    – Mini Him

  91. #91 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > Dr Greenlove have you perfected that button device yet?

    I just need to add the glowy bit, sire…

  92. #92 Paul UK
    October 5, 2010

    >I just need to add the glowy bit, sire…

    Gut gut sind und die fliegenden Affen bereit?

  93. #93 Chris
    October 5, 2010

    @Paul UK
    Just out of interest, in what way does the video force people to conform?

    Or are you suggesting anyone would do what happened in the video?

    The children in the film are forced to conform, unless you think seeing others being blown up, because they don’t conform is No Pressure.

    Well some people do blow others up for not following their rules, so yes some people would and do do what is shown in the film.

    Do I believe the 10:10 people would?
    Probably not, but as they joke about amputation I’m not 100% sure.

  94. #94 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > The children in the film are forced to conform, unless you think seeing others being blown up, because they don’t conform is No Pressure

    I have news for you: they were actors.

    No children were exploded in the making of this movie.

    Though my sister was bitten by a moose…

  95. #95 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    @PaulUK

    Gesundheit.
    :-)

  96. #96 Brendan H
    October 5, 2010

    Lotharsson: “The irony is that denialists already tended to lurch wildly from “we’re oppressed underdogs fighting a smug hierarchy” to “you warmists are dwindling to a tiny enclave of true believers”…”

    And will do so again. But we’re not talking rational thought. We’re dealing with perceptions. Above I asked the question: how come the 10:10 people allowed themselves to look like a smug hierarchy?

    The 10:10 person who made the second apology for this video speaks about processes, but people also bring their pre-conceived attitudes to processes, hence my concern about the phrase “What to do with those people…” in the first “apology”.

    “Those people” is a phrase that combines self-satisfaction that one is not one of “those people” combined with an impatience that “those people” insist on remaining “those people” and not becoming “our people”.

    There’s a certain evangelical flavour about eco-activists and their moral hectoring that turns off many people, although obviously attracts others. Perhaps this is the wrong approach.

  97. #97 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > Above I asked the question: how come the 10:10 people allowed themselves to look like a smug hierarchy?

    Are they making themselves look like a smug hierarchy, though?

    And your posts have made you look like a smug bugger who believes they are better and more knowledgeable than everyone else.

    Why did you allow yourself to look like that?

  98. #98 Marko
    October 5, 2010

    Where you been for the last 40 years Tim? The green-marxist/fascists have murdered 50,000,000 blacks in Africa with their ban on DDT, with another 1,000,000 plus succumbing to the malaria dripping green reaper each year. They prevent poor countries from developing energy to run hospitals. Must be because they care. They openly call for the destruction of western society as Mo Strong, the father of Kyoto, has famously declared. They openly call for massive population reductions, human culls actually. They openly scream for complete government control of energy. They support science written by greenpeace thugs and mathematical al-gore-ithms that produce a hockey stick graph using random numbers as input. They support scientists who lose, massage, and fudge data.
    What could go wrong giving green jackboots that kind of power?
    See http://www.green-agenda.com if you want to see some quotes from green leaders that prove Motl correct.
    As for the reducing population. Greenies, do us all a favour and jump to the front of the line.

  99. #99 Bill Walsh
    October 5, 2010

    Oh good lord. I can’t take it any longer.

    @195…Wow, you are the undisputed KING of posts that make you look like a “smug bugger who believes they are better and more knowledgeable than everyone else”. You argue with people who share your overall view, just so you can feel, or somehow prove, that you are better. No shortage of evidence. Pick a thread. Enjoy the hypocrisy.

    In addition, you, and others like you, are exactly the reason so many people are put off by the “green” message, however correct or accurate it may be–and the fact that we should take better care of the planet is both correct and accurate with or without AGW. Most people don’t like arrogance and they tend to like condescending rhetoric even less. You display both in spades.

    As for the movie, I don’t find it offensive, just idiotic. Not unlike you Wow.

  100. #100 Marco
    October 5, 2010

    Marko: there never has been a ban on DDT use for malaria. Already your second sentence is thus a libelous lie. The rest adds to the libel and lies. In fact, I have trouble finding anything that is NOT a lie in what you write. I would not be surprised if even your handle is a lie.