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 Wow
    October 5, 2010

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

    Who said you could have it?

  2. #2 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > In addition, you, and others like you, are exactly the reason so many people are put off by the “green” message

    Uh, when someone is complaining that the Socialist Greenpeace Movement are coming to steal their money, there’s nothing being changed.

    But if you can SCARE people into bowing their heads when you are telling lies and making weird and insane proclamations, then you can control the populace.

    After all, the moderate position is always IN THE MIDDLE. So if you can get only the extremists on YOUR side to go nutso and get the extremists against you to shut up, you get your way. Just keep excluding people who you don’t agree with until you’re in the middle.

    Even if you have to manufacture it.

    PS your vomitous outpouring there is rather rich coming from one of the newest yet most windy blowhards on this site.

    Stop appropriating the offence of others to beat others up.

  3. #3 chek
    October 5, 2010

    That Marko-Motl sure is one wild und crazy guy!
    Free like here in West.

    I’ve known guys like Marko-Motl, so in love with freedom that any remaining tenuous connection to reality is an encumbrance and a drag.

    Trouble is, they’ve usually tended to smell of stale alcohol and old piss. Not that they’ve minded…

  4. #4 Wow
    October 5, 2010

    > Trouble is, they’ve usually tended to smell of stale alcohol and old piss.

    They call it a “manly smell”. Like it’s pheromones or something.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    October 5, 2010

    > That Marko-Motl sure is one wild und crazy guy!

    Why am I getting a mental image of the Marko-Motl-Monckton axis…? ;-)

  6. #6 Bill Walsh
    October 5, 2010

    Wow @200,

    Nobody more windy than yourself, “Wow”. And I am not new, I just don’t choose to post often and prefer to take it in for what it is worth. Oh, and I have this other thing called a life which means I usually can’t linger waiting to respond to every post. But when someone like yourself has the audacity to call out another for acting as if they know it all–something you are most guilty of doing–and you choose to do it over and over and over, somebody needs to point it out. So I took it upon myself to do it. Again. You don’t like being called out? Don’t be such an arrogant prat EVERY TIME YOU POST. Either that, or change your name to “God” so we know the qualifications of the person we are dealing with–you know, omniscient and all that.

    As for the rest of you unintelligible rant, perhaps you should clarify, because it sounds as if you are condemning your own cause for trying to use fear to “control the populace”.

  7. #7 chek
    October 5, 2010

    “Why am I getting a mental image of the Marko-Motl-Monckton axis”?

    Perhaps because Monckton’s a tweed wearing, Lordy kinda guy, and tweed, when damp, also famously smells of [piss?](http://www.thistleandbroom.com/scotland/waulking.htm)

    Amusingly, I’m also informed that Cuccinelli is Sicilian for “expelled residue of dysentery”, but I haven’t confirmed that yet.

  8. #8 Stu N
    October 5, 2010

    >Cuccinelli

    I’d assumed it was some sort of bacterium, or at least a very low level single-celled organism. A slime mould perhaps.

    It does sound like it could make you feel very ill.

  9. #9 David Gould
    October 5, 2010

    Regarding people attacking Stu, as someone who experiences attacks from the other side I would request that people do not do these sorts of things. Always begin any conversation with the assumption that the person you are conversing with is a reasonable person. Never leap to things like ‘concern troll’.

    While I found the 10:10 video funny, communication is obviously a big problem for proponents of cutting carbon emissions such as I. This is something that perhaps we all need to work on as individuals.

  10. #10 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    October 5, 2010

    Cuccinelli sounds like a corruption of coccinelle, i.e. ladybugs.

  11. #11 rob
    October 5, 2010

    Global Warming and Cooling Cycle Reporting in the Media:

    1)1900s Global Cooling
    24-Feb-1895, NY Times: Geologists Think The World May Be Frozen Again

    2)1940s Global Warming
    15-May-1932, NY Times: Earth Is Steadily Growing Warmer

    3) 1970s Global Cooling
    21-May-1975, NY Times: A Major Cooling Is Widely Considered Inevitable

    4) 2000s Global Warming
    3-April-2005, Time Magazine: Special Report On Global Warming, Be Worried, Be Very Worried

    http://bit.ly/aVQyxO

    Here is the observed data that supports the above cycles:

    http://bit.ly/cDRQxM

  12. #12 Pinko Punko
    October 5, 2010

    I love how Lubos’ blog has a banner ad right now for Nature Climate Change.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    October 5, 2010

    rob:

    Here is the observed data that supports the above cycles

    Cycles come back to where they were previously. Where in your data was it previously as warm as it is now?

    By the way, your graph dishonestly cuts off the data at 2000. The last 10 years make a big difference to the final level.

  14. #14 rob
    October 5, 2010

    Chris (#211)

    Cycles come back to where they were previously.

    A 60-year cycle with an overall warming of ONLY 0.5 deg C per century as shown in the following plot:

    http://bit.ly/cUvUWj

    By the way, your graph dishonestly cuts off the data at 2000.

    The global warming rate since 2000 is only 0.3 deg C per century, less than the overall long-term warming trend of 0.5 deg C per century as shown in the following plot:

    http://bit.ly/aDni90

  15. #16 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    Rob is definately Gira@

    and Girm@ is wrong, the warming rate from 2000 is [nearly 0.6 degC/Century](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend)

  16. #17 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    >*By the way, your graph dishonestly cuts off the data at 2000. The last 10 years make a big difference to the final level.*

    Humorous that Girm@’s response to this was to argue [erroneously] that including the last 10 years doesn’t make a difference. If that were true Grim@ then you needn’t argue the point, all you need to do is include the current data as Chirs does. You have no reason to leave it out!

  17. #18 rob
    October 5, 2010

    The last two identical 30-years global warmings phases at about 0.15 deg C per decade are shown below:

    http://bit.ly/de8ihf

    And since 2000, the global warming rate is only 0.03 deg C per decade as shown in the following plot:

    http://bit.ly/98dVMm

  18. #19 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    I [take on board](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2838238) the point made by David Gould.

  19. #20 Holly Stick
    October 5, 2010

    A different approach is being taken by a new report on how warming may affect parts of Canada. It talks about “climate prosperity,” as in having benefits as well as harmful effects for Canada.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/study-seeks-silver-lining-in-climate-changes-clouds/article1744369/

    I’m not sure how trustworthy the report is, but it has to be much better than Ezra Levant’s weaselly dishonest idea that tarsands/oilsands oil is “ethical oil” because Canada has better human rights than Saudi Arabia (he ignores the higher cancer rates among aboriginal people living downriver from the tarsands).

  20. #21 jakerman
    October 5, 2010

    Girm@ you are funny in your appraoch, there is no point for me to correct your error more than I have. And alas your posts are not long for this world.

  21. #22 Paul UK
    October 6, 2010

    Just how green is the average person?
    Something for Marko and others to consider.

    Well our local supermarket gives £1000 each month to ‘good’ local causes. The supermarket is a partnership, which means every employee is a partner in the business, including the check out staff and shelf stackers.
    How is the money distributed each month.
    Members of the public nominate ‘good’ causes by filling in a form and the staff choose which 3 will get money from the £1000 fund each month. The division of the £1000 between the good causes is determined by a ‘Greek’ democratic voting system. The stores shoppers pick up a plastic coin at the checkout and on the way out of the store place it in one of 3 voting boxes, each with info about one of the good causes. At the end of the month the plastic coins are counted and the money is split proportionately between the organisations that shoppers voted for.

    So if organisation A got 30% of the vote, they receive £300.

    What is the general trend?
    Well Green organisations do far better than any other organisation, in fact they usually break the records for the highest vote and money received. Animals, children and elderly people get second and third place when competing against trees and wild life.
    A group of volunteers that maintain a small wood, got some 60% of the vote. Another green organisation got 50% whilst an organisation supporting the elderly got 25% in the same week.

  22. #23 Paul UK
    October 6, 2010

    Armstrong and Miller – ‘Kill Them':

    http://youtu.be/mUP3A9imOYU

  23. #24 Paul UK
    October 6, 2010

    Armstrong and Miller – Business meeting ‘kill them':

    http://youtu.be/62H8iJxS-3Q

  24. #25 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    > And I am not new, I just don’t choose to post often

    But when you do, it’s all bollocks, Bill.

  25. #26 Brendan H
    October 6, 2010

    Wow: “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?”

    I did it just to piss you off. Seems to have done the trick.

    Which reminds me. This lunchtime, while walking the streets of my local CBD in search of a tofu sandwich, I spied two scruffy young men loitering with intent, clutching clipboards and wearing a shiny evangelical air.

    As usual, I avoided eye contact, but on passing, surreptitiously and without giving the game away, I glanced at one of the haloed young people. “Wow,” I thought. “You can avoid them on the street, but there’s no escaping them on the blog.”

  26. #27 P. Lewis
    October 6, 2010

    Humour is such a personal thing, which is why I’ve tried staying away from commenting on this video. And black humour is even less to everyone’s taste. In both instances people often can’t get the point, and this is especially so in the latter case. Cultural influences, the lack of a “funny gland”, the inability to think laterally, etc. all have an impact on what individuals consider funny.

    Anyway, I’d query whether it is black humour (which tries to juxtapose the morbid or ghastly with a comical outlook to underscore the notions of senselessness and futility of life). I’d say it belongs to the absurd humour category: the “violation of causal reasoning, with events or behavior that are logically inappropriate”.

    But perhaps there’s some crossover — I’m not going to dissect the definitions (life’s too short!) — as there are obviously morbid elements in exploding people.

    Anyway, my takeaway message from the video was that we all suffer the fallout from the intransigence of others.

  27. #28 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    > I’d say it belongs to the absurd humour category: the “violation of causal reasoning, with events or behavior that are logically inappropriate”.

    Probably right.

    Think “The Young Ones”.

  28. #29 Paul UK
    October 6, 2010

    I’m actually wondering if it is British humour gone wrong??
    I wouldn’t be surprised at all if when the creators had meetings to discuss the idea that one of them suggested the Armstrong and Miller ‘kill them’ sketch idea and everyone thought that would be brilliant to base the video on.

    It seems so close to the Armstrong and Miller sketches that the it couldn’t just be coincidence.

  29. #30 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    What this film has brought up in quite eloquent contrast is that there are many people who are offended *BECAUSE* they *really* believe that this movie is what “eco-greenie-nazie-communist-marxists” want to do to “them”,

    They have been fluffed so full of fear they are paralyzed.

    And to these nutcases, this isn’t humour, but documentary. Because they KNOW this is what the communist liberal One World Order ARE DOING.

    The level of insanity needed to keep this mindview is astounding.

    However, this rather relates to the US political parties too.

    To the Democrats, they are the “Good Guys” in their eyes.

    To the Republicans, the *Democrats* are the “Bad Guys” in their eyes.

    And this difference in the aim of the gaze explains so very much here (note: a similar stance happens between “mainstream” AGW warmists and “mainstream” AGW denialists: to denialists, the warmists are “the bad guys”).

    Since they are the good guys, the Democrats cannot smear, lie, slander and just plain make any old s*it up. That is what Bad Guys do. They can’t take unilateral action and exclude opinions because that would be what Bad Guys do.

    Since the Democrats are the bad guys, ANYTHING the Republicans can or wish to do to get rid of them is not just worthy but *MANDATORY*. After all, the ends justifies the means. So lie, slander, make stuff up, swerve, dodge, deny, obscruct and cry. ANYTHING that stops the Democrats is worthy. After all, it’s getting rid of the Bad Guy.

    Similarly warmists try to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, keep all avenues open and include everyone. After all, they are the Good Guys.

    Denialists will lie, cheat, beat, kill, steal or bully to stop warmists because the warmists are TEH EBILS. Anything goes in getting rid of evil, right?

    Also note that the “getting rid of evil: everything goes” is a very old-testamentarian view. Blood And Thunder Bible.

    And the frequently posted here and elsewhere belief that this 10:10 film is what “liberal warmists” want to do shows that these people believe those who agree the science shows AGW and shows it as a problem to be tackled now are EVIL.

  30. #31 Jeff Harvey
    October 6, 2010

    Holly,

    That report you linked above contains so many elementary scientific flaws that I have lost count. Its clear that few qualified biologists and ecologists contributed to it, otherwise many of their so-called ‘benefits of a warmer climate’ would have to be scrubbed.

    For instance, much of Canada is dominated by acid soils in which coniferous forests predominate. How exactly will croplands expand into areas with totally inadequate soils? These soils take hundreds of years to be generated and maintained by their endemic biota; we will not suddenly experience a shift in their properties over the course of the next 50 years.

    Moreover, biomes are already shifting polewards, but, given the unprecedented rate of warming, there will be clear pheological constraints imposed as different species successfully (or unsuccessfully) move northwards at different rates. Many less motile organisms – such as soil biota – will certainly not be able to keep up with more motile aboveground fauna. Furthermore, dietary specialists will suffer much more than generalists. Under this scenario food webs will unravel, given that most ecosytem processes emerge on the basis of tightly networked interactions over fairly large scales. Once some species begin diappearing from food chains, then we can expect systems to become much more prone to collapse. And, of course, species adapted to cold environments will be forced to advance even furhter north than they are now, and many will be pushed well beyond their thermal neutral zones and will become extinct.

    On all accounts the rapid rise in temperatures at higher latitudes spells ecological disaster. If these changes were gradually occurring over the space of at least a millenium, then I would be more cautiously optimistic. But we are talking about less than 100 years, in systems that have already been seriously reduced by a suite of other human actions. This is not enough time for us to expect systemic adaptation and adaption amongst component species and communities.

    The authors of reports like this are being, in my opinion speaking as a population ecologist, wholly irresponsible. Given that our understanding of the processes regulating the assembly rules and functioning of ecosystems are still rudimentary, I find it takes remarkable hubris for anyone to assume that such a large scale experiment on complex adaptive systems that sustain us will generate benefits that may counter the costs. We are stumbling along blind in the dark, and thus arguing that the rate of warming currently occurring in Canada will have benefits is like arguing that driving at 150 kph on a windy, rain-soaked road makes sense because we will reach our destination more quickly. Its the sprint of folly.

  31. #32 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    Jeff, it’s rather like the difference between chasing a spider out of the house and squishing it.

    With one, you go slow enough for the spider to shift. With the other, you don’t.

    No other difference is needed in the actions on your part. But from the spider’s POV, there’s a hell of a difference.

  32. #33 lord_sidcup
    October 6, 2010

    Apparently someone in the denialist community has produced a spoof of the Curtis video (the term parody does not seem appopriate). Guess what? The spoof is based on the film Downfall – eco-Nazis etc. etc. etc.

    Godwin’s Law says they lose.

  33. #34 Holly Stick
    October 6, 2010

    Thanks, Jeff Harvey for that discussion. I don’t have time at present to look carefully at that report or at who exactly produced it, but was wondering if it is over-optimistic. It’s hard to say what the report is supposed to accomplish; possibly a face-saving way for some Canadian government denialists to climb down from strict denial that climate change is happening.

  34. #35 Chris
    October 6, 2010

    @Wow
    I have news for you: they were actors.
    No children were exploded in the making of this movie.

    Wow you are smart, I didn’t think anyone would have thought of that response. Blunt and off the point.

    Rather like other propaganda, actors are used to tell a story. In this case the obvious take home message of the story is; we say we won’t apply pressure, we’ll just blow you up if you don’t do what we want.

    You may have taken a different message from it or you just feel you have to defend those you think are on your side.

  35. #36 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    You misspelt “on”.

    So many Outraged Of Mayfair (cf Kenny Everett) proclaiming that this movie is true, it did seem to be required to point it out.

    > Rather like other propaganda, actors are used to tell a story.

    You mean agitprop like yours?

    Maybe you don’t think Rush Limbaugh is an actor, pushing propoganda.

  36. #37 Ian Forrester
    October 6, 2010
  37. #38 Holly Stick
    October 6, 2010

    Thanks, Ian, that’s a good article. I don’t know much about the NRTEE, but our newly-appointed Governor General chaired it in the late 1980s, and now I wonder if there is a connection between that and his appointment by PM Harper.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_Johnston#Boards.2C_commissions.2C_and_media

  38. #39 Barry Woods
    October 6, 2010

    I found that my child’s Infant School was signed up to the 10:10 campaign, when I looked at the original 1st October statement.

    It signed off with Oh Well, we live and learn… Onwards and upwards.. (how to keep digging that hole!)

    I showed the Headteacher the Guardian article, and the video… She looked unhappy after watching the 1st minute…

    ‘teachers, never do that ‘single people out, etc’

    It took 1 minute 12 secoonds, for her to ring up 10:10, withdraw the school from 10:10 and say to them that the school would have no further involvement…

    (Sony seems to have come to the conclusion, pretty quickly as well)

    Yet at Deltoid…..

    Many thousands of children were part of the 10:10 Campaign, many have been doubly betrayed, by the video, and by 10:10’s censorship.

    Those children have NOW LEARNT an IMPORTANT LESSON, that there voices can be deleted to, by the people they supported, just for critcising..

    There WERE Lots of abusive ones (they could have just ‘moderated them RealClimate style), why not leave it open for the supportes who were upset… You could see this on the titter and facebook message, saying where have the comment gone, why can’t we comment….

    Of course they did not like the embarrasment, of their own suporters criticising the leaders…

    That is the mindset, delete/ignore/supress/label, wish away anyother thoughts or people… Some of the 3000 plus missing now from the 10 10 apology page…

    Some (now deleted) comments below..

    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry

    2. Dan Woodfine

    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.

    1. Carol Ann Cattell

    Is that the best you can do, 10:10 leaders? Still no apology even to your supporters. Mention jokingly a “lively round on cake”, which was about 5 out of 3000 comments? Like a finishing school dormitory girls’ giggle? And your main statement still says “most” thought it funny but “some” didn’t – but the truth is, as you know, the opposite – that globally, thousands found it crass and unfunny and authoritarian and just, well, crap in promoting your cause.

    You. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

    And some – a handful of goodhearted souls – have loyally supported you, but not terribly well, all the time you were silent. All a bit of a laugh, was it? Going back to Mummy and Daddy and their contacts for a bit more money, now, are we?

    God, you make me angry. And most of us were on your side, if you hadn’t been so blinkered. No, the eco stuff is still there and serious and needs serious consideration, proper scientific facts, and effective action. But I hope to god you lot aren’t anywhere near it. You’re toxic. You can’t even say sorry properly. You’ve no idea, have you? We’re just plebs to be sniggered at, fodder for your little wanky games. For the earth’s sake, just grow up, will you?

    Yeah, I’m a smidgen cross.

    3. 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?

    4. Dear all at 10:10

    I have supported your campaign to date, am pro-green, pro-cutting carbon emissions, and generally very environmentally conscious. I also grew up in a country where people were blown up and killed by terrorists on a daily basis. I know people who died in this way, and from this video, I imagine from this video that no one at your office, or on your creative team, has experienced this.

    The mini-movie campaign indicates a total lack of sensitivity. Further, whatever the intended message might have been, it does implicitly suggest that those who disagree with you should be blown up. If this had been aimed at people who are of a different race, religion, sexuality, etc, it would have been evidently grossly unacceptable.

    Sadly, the mini-movie makes me ashamed to have lent my support, and put my name to 10:10. I imagine your corporate sponsors may feel similarly. I am reluctant to continue to be associated with an organisation which can advertise its cause in this way, even if I support the underlying green cause.

    This is compounded by what is somewhat obviously a non-apology. It is not a sense of humour failure (as you seem to imply) for people who may actually have seen children, friends, etc blown up, not to consider your mini-movie particularly funny.

    The environmental cause will now to have to deal with the damage that you’ve managed to do it. Your supporters deserve a decent apology for the damage you have done to the general reputation of the green movement.

    We will just have to continue onwards and upwards without you.

  39. #40 Mercurius
    October 6, 2010

    Curse you, Richard Curtis! Just when were thiiiiiis close to launching the Great Plan to blow people up with red buttons, you went and blew our cover!

    My Eco-Fascist brethren, the glorious plot is revealed. We are undone. We must now revert to our original plan involving the Nude Bomb and the laser-armed mutant space tigers.

  40. #41 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    > I found that my child’s Infant School was signed up to the 10:10 campaign, when I looked at the original 1st October statement.

    Infant? Well, depends if you’re talking about the movie being shown there.

    You don’t say, but I would expect “no, they didn’t show the film there” in which case, unless you showed these infants the film, in what way have these children been harmed?

    And it’s rather rich with people who deny the truth so that THEY get to live fat and happy, whinging about how their children (who are the ones who will have to pay the bill of their parents’ profligacy) are being “harmed” by the 10:10 campaign because, somehow, a movie they’ll not see and were never in, shows people going “boom. splat”.

    If you’re so concerned about the children, why don’t you think of them and try and ensure that the RISK of a desolate future for them is avoided?

    Hmm?

    Or is the problem actually YOUR children, *everyone else’s kids* can go hang, so long as you get your ends?

    Or, worse, using YOUR children as a smokescreen to hide behind when your venality is the only thing you care about?

    PS, Bill, with all these people complaining about this movie, there MUST be something for it, yes?

  41. #42 Michael
    October 6, 2010

    Chris @ 230

    obvious take home message of the story is;… we’ll just blow you up if you don’t do what we want.

    Damn.

    Chris has seen through our brilliant ruse to camouflage the plan that we want to blow up people who disagree with us, by hiding it in a video where peope are blown up for disagreeing with us.

    With genius like that, how can the denialists be wrong?

  42. #43 chek
    October 6, 2010

    An all too true and sorry tale Barry Woods.
    I had a similar experience both at home and at work when promoting ‘five a day’ to stay healthy.

    Then some maniacs hi-jacked the campaign by demonstrating anybody in possession of fruit was liable to [attack and violent death by gunshot, crushing by 16 ton weights and savaging by wild tigers](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w). Now the boss won’t allow so much as an apple in the building.

    If this isn’t justification for the BBC being absorbed by a shady international right wing media conglomerate with a penchant for making stuff up and inciting hate, then I don’t know what is.

  43. #44 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    PS, Michael, isn’t that the USA’s Modus Operandi??? “Do what we say or we blow you up. Call up G12, Bob! Whoosh! BOOM! Cool! What’s G13 do?”.

    (I think that if Bill Hicks were still alive, he’d’ve died from exploding rage about a hundred million times so far)

  44. #45 Michael
    October 6, 2010

    re: Barry @ 234

    There’s nothing that can be done about those who love to be outraged, and contrive to be so with maximum verbage and volume.

    Barry’s just enjoying himself.

  45. #46 Barry Woods
    October 6, 2010

    Is every one aware at Deltoid, that normal people, can and do read anything posted on the internet, they just may not comment…

    The comments here, are just as much a sceptics PR coup, as the stupid video. Commentors like Wow, especially, as has been commented on, are just reinforcing the perception of the mindest, shown by those behind the 10:10 Campaign…

    Are you aware that people do read Deltoid, without commenting….

    Such is the echo chamber here, I think the regulars may have forgotten that…

    1 minute 12 seconds of that video… and my child’s headteacher pulled the plug.. (she is executive head of Infants and Juniors, and will be speaking to other heads and governors, and secondary schools)

    Because the point is, schools get to see the safe , appropriate material… from campaigning groups…

    The children then go home to look at the safe people that came into their schools website, parents are reassurued (No Pressure front page 10:10 website) and what do they find……

    The campaigning groups are all to awre of this, and save their ‘GOOD Stuff’ (sic) for youtube, social networking, favebook, twiiter, which is the wild west for content..
    .. and all the places the children will use.

    I do not ‘love to be outraged’ – I am however angry, and take it from me, not everyone is like those here, who ‘enjoy’ seeing off /taking down other people…..

    lets see how long O2 last as the sole remaining sponsor…..

    WOW,

    Lets match ‘Carbon Footprints’

    My family has not been on an airplane for 9 years..
    So I imagine mine is lower, than most here…..

    Hypocrites like Franny and Curtis (lots of homes, flies everywhere) just don’t quite get it…

  46. #47 Michael
    October 6, 2010

    Barry, I’m disappointed at the brevity of your latest offering.

  47. #48 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    > My family has not been on an airplane for 9 years

    Oh dear.

    Once EVER in 40 years.

  48. #49 J Bowers
    October 6, 2010

    Statement from 10:10 UK Director
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director

    Apology made (again). Emails are being responded to individually. Any lessons learned I guess. No kids are being blown up in imitation. Future kids lives still being f****d up by climate action delayers. But hundreds of people signed up today. ‘Nuff said.

    241 Barry Woods — “Hypocrites like Franny and Curtis (lots of homes, flies everywhere)”

    Do they? The film’s director got to know 10:10 while on a cross-Europe cycle ride to Cop15. That’s one down…

  49. #50 Wow
    October 6, 2010

    > 1 minute 12 seconds of that video… and my child’s headteacher pulled the plug.. (she is executive head of Infants and Juniors, and will be speaking to other heads and governors, and secondary schools)

    So was she considering making these infants watch the film?

    How very stupid of her.

    Might as well show Omen3 to the little tykes. Or Jaws. Or Alien.

    Mind you, I can’t get the image of Barry waving his brolly at the camera with his bowler hat, screaming hate and then stalking off showing his stockings and suspenders as he leaves.

    Outraged Of Mayfair indeed.

  50. #51 jakerman
    October 6, 2010

    >*Is every one aware at Deltoid, that normal people, can and do read anything posted on the internet, they just may not comment…*

    Yes, I read your comment Barry and I disagreed with your views.

    Your teacher was influenced by your reaction. I suspect she is covering her butt cos you made a fuss. So well done on your little victory.

    I can’t see what useful goal the video is seeking to achieve (unless you count contrverial attention as a goal), yet the film is not promoting anything bad. As I’ve said on other occations, the video is not promoting blowing people up.

    I think you doth protest too much.

  51. #52 jakerman
    October 6, 2010

    Elated by his success I guess Barry thinks hes really on a winner.

    It’s a beat up Barry, in time rational people will see the overeaction pushed by you and your allies.

  52. #53 Donald Oats
    October 6, 2010

    I haven’t watched it. However, other commentators have made it fairly clear that the attempted humour within the Vid has at its core the English/Monty Python/Frost Report kind of humour, or Black Adder for a more modern example. Australians of my age and TV viewing background (hint, age 44, almost 45) saw man on the moon and Monty Python, as well as the Goodies, Yes Minister, Callan, and a thousand bits and pieces from the UK. We were immersed in UK culture via the TV while having no genuine connection with Britain, or a fading memory of what an early childhood in the UK really meant – in terms of cultural absorption.

    Anyone who has seen Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” will appreciate that this could be viewed as a brilliant satire concerning a simple mistake over the identity of the coming messiah, and a harmless poke at the “tyranny” of the ruling Roman elite. Or, it could be viewed as an incredibly insensitive and wholly abusive sneering piece of drivel making a mockery of Christ and the Christianity inspired by our Saviour.

    Obviously both views has elements of consistency with the movie, but the view adopted depends greatly upon the viewer’s own beliefs concerning religion, and their tolerance to having their beliefs used as humourous proposition in a comedy movie.

    Personally, it takes an awful lot to offend me, with the exception of people refusing to play by the rules of the game; another message conveyed within the video in a rather harsh and extreme way. In an argument, it is often referred to as “taking a point to its logical conclusion”, which means demonstrating how legal euthanasia will lead to all old grannies being killed off once they are uneconomic to maintain alive, for example. It is often used to make a reasonable claim appear rather naiive or juvenile, when in fact the original claim is quite nuanced when read in full. Clearly satire and spoofs use this rhetorical ruse to great effect – they garner the element of truth (remaining from the original germ of an idea, before the rhetorical calumny befalls it) and derive humour from specific scenarios based on the so-called “logical conclusion” of the idea. Perhaps this is what has happened in the video in question.

    At the end of the day though, it doesn’t matter what role Gillian Anderson had in it, the much more important thing is to concentrate on a) getting the scientific results into the public awareness but in a manner that they can follow the logic of the reasoning behind the results; and, b) finding ways of confronting politicians concerning their intended or unintended ignorance of the implications of the climate science in 2010. Another Copenhagen is not what the world needs, although it certainly needs regular and frequent inter-country, international dialogue among the leaders and their staff. Bill McKibben’s “Eaarth” is a fairly well written and easy read that sets out ways of moving towards a post-coal, post-fossil-fuel future. Jim Hansen’s “The Storms of my Grandchildren” does a similar job, but with a slightly more pressing argument as to why cuts in non-fuel carbon emissions must be global and must be big. Hansen takes into account the transitional delays of changing a mass-market technology (eg trains and then cars), and even that is relatively easy to do. By Hansen’s reasoning, there is a compelling case for leaving virtually all of our current coal reserves in the ground. If politicians start pushing bills to make it so, then I’ll know that at long last someone with influence has listened and understood.

    I’m much more concerned about particular scientists (all emeritus, oddly enough) who quite frankly lie about their climate knowledge for political ideology, rather than a short video that lacks direction.

  53. #54 SteveC
    October 6, 2010

    Barry Wood, I feel your concern about the irresponsible use of violent imagery just to make a point. Regrettably, this tactic is much more widespread. Consequently, at your behest I will join you in your efforts to ban all government-sponsored TV, web and print media adverts that show gruesome, shocking footage of the results of vehicle accidents, and equally unnecessarily graphic shots of the results of smoking cigarettes on people’s lungs, arteries and so on. Clearly governments have failed in their duty to consider the innocent, impressionable minds of all children. In order to effect this, I take your lead and will rescind my subscription to and support of government of all forms until this appalling lapse is rectified.

    Of course, your upright, principled stand will fall on deaf ears here at Deltoid, populated as it is almost entirely of the barren and the incorrigibly wicked, and those who worship Malthus. Oh and a few who are partial eating raw vegetables and cycling (shudder).

    Nonetheless, I remain certain that your air of moral superiority will rub off, if not on us.

  54. #55 Lotharsson
    October 6, 2010

    > The level of insanity needed to keep this mindview is astounding.

    Apropos that, and noting that it’s not just Tea Partiers who think like that, [Matt Taibbi - How corporate interests and Republican insiders built the Tea Party monster](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0).

    A few choice quotes:

    > A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid [i.e. government funded] scooters, railing against government spending…

    > …I’ve concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They’re full of shit. All of them.

    > At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing. …they’re coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do.

    …which harks back to Altemeyer’s (often deeply inauthentic) “authoritarian leaders” and their (generally) sincere “authoritarian followers” dynamic.

    > It’s just that they’re shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That … is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid.

    And the “death panel” fantasies – totally unanchored to reality in any way – also make an appearance (which fits with the fantasies that “totalitarian greenies” want to kill those who don’t conform).

    Of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky:

    > It’s hard to imagine a more telling demonstration of this particular demographic’s unmatched ability to believe just about anything. …

    > They want desperately to believe in the one-size-fits-all, no-government theology of Rand Paul because it’s so easy to understand. …

    > This, then, is the future of the Republican Party: Angry white voters hovering over their cash-stuffed mattresses with their kerosene lanterns, peering through the blinds at the oncoming hordes of suburban soccer moms they’ve mistaken for death-panel bureaucrats bent on exterminating anyone who isn’t an illegal alien or a Kenyan anti-colonialist.

  55. #56 Lotharsson
    October 6, 2010

    > Anyone who has seen Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” will appreciate that this could be viewed as a brilliant satire concerning a simple mistake over the identity of the coming messiah, and a harmless poke at the “tyranny” of the ruling Roman elite.

    …or as a satire on the willingness of people to delegate judgement and intelligent decision making to others, especially in order to feel part of a mass movement:

    “You’re all individuals!”

    “We’re all individuals!”

    “I’m not!”

    ;-)

    But yes, a lot of religious people found it offensive because they didn’t see it that way … and you have a number of other very good points in your post.

  56. #57 Bernard J.
    October 6, 2010

    Further to Jeff Harvey’s spot-on response [at #226](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2840557) to Holly Stick’s question [at #215](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2839852), it is also important to consider that most of the optimists about the ‘benefits’ of global warming are looking at the world through a Mercator projection. The trouble is, that as agricultural regions are shifted poleward, available arable area does not follow a [Mercator distortion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection).

    The area of viable agricultural land near the poles not only depends upon the correct geology/soil type, upon water availability, and upon lack of conflict with environmental and with urban uses, but also upon simple spatial considerations. There is far less land area between 60° north and 90° north, than there is between the equator and 30° north.

    Humans are living in a fairyland of belief in the boundlessness of so many resources that are in reality quite limited, that sometimes I question the epithet sapiens.

    Homo intellectus, perhaps, in some cases… but Homo sapiens? We have about another half a milion years of evolving to do as a species before we deserve than name.

    The confabulation between parody and reality, that is demonstrated by so many in this thread alone, is proof positive of this.

  57. #58 Mike
    October 7, 2010

    One of our favourite nutter journalists, Miranda Devine, [has a writeup about it](http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/what-it-really-means-to-be-green/story-e6frezz0-1225935082554) in today’s Daily Telegraph after returning from holidays.

    You won’t be disappointed. Ever reliable and predictable, she waxes lyrical about the Heartland Institute’s seminar, the myth-busting Anthony Watts, and then just for good measure invokes Godwin’s Law right at the end. Her break was clearly not a sanity break.

  58. #59 Dave H
    October 7, 2010

    There’s another -gate for this already. I’m sure it will take hold and make its way to the mainstream media through rote repetition.

    Amazing the inability to appreciate the irony of decrying groupthink while being eyeball-deep in it. Amazing the irony of purporting to be against hysteria while manufacturing ones own to a far greater extent.

    There are plenty of genuine anti-AGW scandals that do not have -gate attached primarily I think because the far more rational have a hard time stooping to the intellectual depths necessary to repeat this bilge. Essentially – we’re too embarrassed to flood every message board with accusations of “roachgate” or some such, simply because it is *embarassing and stupid*. Tim’s parodies with “leakegate” etc were worth a smile, but its just too *silly* to go around repeating such hysterical phrases. Of course, the denizens of “the web’s number 1 science blog” have no such qualms. Barry Woods’ actions are those of the hysterical alarmist activist.

  59. #60 Lotharsson
    October 7, 2010

    > Her break was clearly not a sanity break.

    Indeed. It seems to me that her break with sanity started a looooong time ago and hasn’t finished ;-)

  60. #61 SteveC
    October 7, 2010

    Devine, like Bolt, Akerman, Limbaugh and Leake, is a device for generating website hits and advertising revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

  61. #62 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Thing that gets me is that Barry is SO upset by this film that he’s willing to allow global warming to continue to the detriment of his children and theirs just to show how angry he is.

    This doesn’t sound like a concerned parent.

    It sounds like a petulant brat throwing all his toys into the fire in pique.

  62. #63 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    257# and others

    Maybe some regulars here , might ask WOW and others, what he is trying to achieve, with his comments! If it is to persuade or stop people being sceptical… Well he has the opposite effect on me.

    (I might stop commenting for a while and just read.. is that a victory?)

    People do read blogs like Deltoid, and form their own opinion, I imagine the ‘comments’ here help make that opinion. Good PR it is not.

    Have you ever though that you were wrong (as a sanity check) I do, then the lack of evidence and the type of people that comment here, give me a dose of reality..

    I do not believe there is any threat of catastrophic man made golabal warming, based on the complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record, that will damage my children’s future…

    So don’t try the ‘not a concerned parent’ labelling…

    very concerned that the ‘greenshirts’ might be here in 10 years…

    Comments like those here, just reinforce those thoughts that a lot of the CAGW activists are just not rational and are just emoting.

    The headteacher, pulled out, not because of whether or not they believe in global warming, but of the bully, conforming pr techniques and mindest of the people involved, as as I said, this type of thing does get show in secondary schools…

    It is also clearly targeted at the YouTube generation.

    Also children see a company in school and think it safe to explore the same company at home…

    A comment from elsewhere….

    October 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm
    ‘The sole remaining 10:10 corporate sponsor, O2, seems to be having trouble with their website.’

    O2′s now back up (00.56 BST) but doesn’t appear to have any references to 10:10. The search function delivers nothing, whilst their eco sections also seem to make no reference to 10:10.
    http://www.o2.co.uk/thinkbig/planet
    I wonder what this means? The 10:10 website still has them listed, so who knows. Perhaps 10:10 should be checking their emails ..

    Wow… Maybe your friends would like to explain to you, that comments like yours merely harden peoples sceptical ideas…..

    Thanks to you, I don’t quite comment as much as I used to…
    I actually now DO something… (lots of journalists emails)

    Check out the first story about this from JAmes Delingpole and Jo Nova… Eureferendum blog, Thomas Fuller, The Air vent, Watts up, Andrew Bolt… and others….

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056510/go-green-or-well-kill-your-kids-says-richard-curtis-eco-propaganda-shocker/

    JD blog: (Hat tips: Barry Woods/Tom Dalton/Pete Hayes/Old Goat/half the CIVILISED world….)

    They all went to press, at a very similar time (of course others sent emails as well, can’t keep a good PR disaster down. I sent them all an email and a summary of the disaster, 1 hour after the article appeared on the Guardian website…

    so – What to Do with those (sceptical) people – Franny’s words…

    What do do with Barry Woods…

    I await the comments with interest…

    I do hope that the commentors at Deltoid, can prove me wrong on my perception of them………..

    I doubt that Wow, does anything more than sit and type, in the various CAGW ‘echo chamber’, where activists raise the rhetoric amonsgt themselves and increasingly desensitise themselves from behaviour that is ‘threatening ‘ to the majority of the general public..

    IE like Franny and the 10:10 team, how on earth they could not see this reaction, is just beyond me…

    Right or wrong on AGW, how could so many no doubt intelligent, very well educated people at 10:10 (trustafarians the lot of them) not realise a total own goal..

    Maybe some of you will take on board the above, and give it a bit of thought…or will it be a knee jerk cliche response.. Wow’s should be interesting.

    Ps:

    One of these days I will really shock everybody….I will right a short comment… ;) (joke)

    The sceptical blogs, say the same about me on that one (long comments)… There a common bond of humanity between sceptics and ‘warmists’ after all! (the BBC’s Richard lack’s words – so official BBC description.)

  63. #64 lord_sidcup
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods says:

    I do not believe there is any threat of catastrophic man made golabal warming, based on the complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record.

    The Royal Society (to name just 1 scientific body) says:

    There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

    Ignore the “catastophic” red rag and note that Barry says the “complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record”.

  64. #65 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Shorter Barry:

    I see no ships.

    PS It looks like Barry’s REAL agenda has now emerged. He was looking for a stick to beat up the work needed to combat climate change and he used his children to do so.

    Pathetic and monstrous at the same time.

  65. #66 chek
    October 7, 2010

    I don’t believe anyone here will see any point in trying to court you Barry, though you do seem to be primed and ready ill-informed fodder for any teabagging equivalent bunch of right wing rabble rousers that emerge in the UK.

  66. #67 Michael
    October 7, 2010

    Barry’s turgid ramblings make me wish my head would explode.

  67. #68 P. Lewis
    October 7, 2010

    Barry’s turgid ramblings make me wish my head would explode.

    Pressing the red button… NOW!!!

  68. #69 Michael
    October 7, 2010

    …..ah, blessed relief!

    Thanks P. Lewis.

  69. #70 Chris O'Neill
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods:

    People do read blogs like Deltoid, and form their own opinion, I imagine the ‘comments’ here help make that opinion.

    Deltoid is not here to inform people’s opinion on climate science. It is not written by climate scientists after all. It is here to comment on what people say about climate science. If you have come here to learn about climate science then you are not very good at finding out where to learn about climate science.

  70. #71 Michael
    October 7, 2010

    OK Barry, I’ll give you a chance to show that you’re not what you appear to be, which is a gullible, anti-science, nincompoop;

    Barry;

    …complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record…

    How will you recognise this evidence, if/when it exists?

  71. #72 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    Wow, my expectations have been met… this really is an echo chamber.

    How about 10:10 in their own words.. lots of comedy here.
    There are some really unintentional funnies here…

    I put itinmy favourites a few days ago- and it still works!!

    http://www.1010global.org/uk/about/inside/team

    Take a look at their OWN job descriptions in their OWN words post – Splattergate’

    ie… a few examples..10:10 Team

    Jonathan Bown
    Job title: Press Manager
    Actual job: Making sure as many people as possible know what a great job 10:10 and its supporters are doing..

    Maddy Carroll
    Job title: PR Manager
    Actual job: Make sure we’re seen and heard in all the right places

    Robin Houston
    Job title: Technical director

    Actual job: Making sure the web site works Laughing too loudly at inopportune moments

    There are some great funnies here, so ‘No Pressure’ was a joke… Well I’m laughing at these job descriptions now….

    Especially this one….

    Check out the 10 10 board member Chris Rose:
    who runs this:

    http://www.campaignstrategy.org/index.php
    » HOW TO WIN CAMPAIGNS – UPDATED
    How to Win Campaigns is a practical guide for creating and running successful campaigns.

    Order the updated 2010 edition and see more details of How To Win Campaigns at:
    » http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=102418

    ‘The definitive guide to the campaigner’s arts, a magisterial A to Z of how to win hearts and minds.’ – Alex Kirby, BBC

    » Find out more about How to Win Campaigns…

  72. #73 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    266# so you agree, no evidence has been shown of a human signature…

    I’m sure you now have your own cliched opinions of me, that fit into the stereotypes of the self derived propaganda of the CAGW activists…

    But, I guess we all will just have to accept each other the way we are, even WOW, (who for his anonymous username, could be a 14 year old boy, with acne, having a laugh for all I know), in the words of Franny’s team..

    ‘oh Well, we live and learn, Onwards and Upwards’

  73. #74 Jeff Harvey
    October 7, 2010

    As Michael said, I would like to ask Barry what qualifications he uniquely possess to be able to say that there is a *complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record*.

    I assume, Barry, that you are have spent much time perusing the voluminous peer-reviewed empirical literature on the subject, and that you possess the necessary scientific acumen to be able to separate ‘sound’ climate science from the shoddy variety?

    Or are you, as I suspect, imposing your own political bias and wilful ignorance on the other readers of this thread?

    Moreover, since you apparantly are appalled by the contents of a fictional video, perhaps you can enlighten us here as to your views of some of the real horrors currently going on in the world involving real people, often the by-products of western economic and military policies? Given that US and UK bombs have blown real people, including many children, to bits in various parts of the globe recently, perhaps you can tell me how you reconcile this against the contents of the 10:10 video? I agree that the video was an ‘own goal’ (the makers should have realized that it would be a real propaganda coup for those anxious to ensure that nothing changes and that we continue on our current, destructive, unsustainable path), but how much does real death and suffering compare with the fictional kind?

  74. #75 chek
    October 7, 2010

    [Barry Woods said: "self derived propaganda of the CAGW activists"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2842866)

    I couldn’t help wondering which propagandist site you picked up the new and unscientific prefix ‘catastrophic’ from. It’s becoming quite the denialist canard du jour with regard to AGW in a doublethink newspeak kinda way. It’s also quite the clue to your usual environs.

  75. #76 Damian
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods: Wow, my expectations have been met… this really is an echo chamber.

    This Barry Woods is what we call a meta-denier. The deniers have the echo chamber for their silliness (‘CAGW’ is the signature). But BW fights back with ‘Noes! *You* have the echo chamber!’

  76. #77 Michael
    October 7, 2010

    Barry;

    266# so you agree, no evidence has been shown of a human signature…

    No Barry, I was giving you a chance to show you could make some coherent argument based on science.

    No good deed goes unpunished.

  77. #78 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > Wow, my expectations have been met… this really is an echo chamber.

    Yes, when your head is empty, Barry, you will hear an echo wherever you go.

  78. #79 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Just thinking. Is Barry another Sock?

    CAGW.
    A Walter Mitty life.
    English at least evident.

    Tim Curtin this time?

    What other offers do we have?

  79. #80 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    Tim thought the video funny, I thought the job descriptions funny, of the 10:10 team…

    So It sounds like sense of humour failure all around..

    Please define a ‘deniar’… So when a law gets past, I know how to behave …. Don’t want to get locked up.

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    October 7, 2010

    > 266# so you agree, no evidence has been shown of a human signature…

    Comprehension fail.

    > Please define a ‘deniar’…

    How about a person with bad spelling who asserts that all of the published scientific evidence on a subject *simply does not exist*?

  81. #82 chek
    October 7, 2010

    I’m thinking a made up story of imaginary umbrage sprinkled with tell-tale liar jargon probably picked up from some mustachioed liar site.

    I wonder if Barry would care to share the name and town of the oh so deeply offended school?

  82. #83 Ian Forrester
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods continues to show his absolute failure to even try and understand climate science. No wonder people keep on telling him what a shoddy excuse for a human being he is. Barry, if you don’t understand something then you should keep quiet about it, not repeat dishonest and incorrect information you get from all the denier sites you visit.

    You are pathetic and a disgrace to educated society. That is why you receive so many negative comments here.

  83. #84 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > How about a person with bad spelling who asserts that all of the published scientific evidence on a subject simply does not exist?

    Which entomology shows why “deniar” [sic]: the evidence is there but Barry denies it even exists.

    “I see no ships”.

  84. #85 Lewis Deane
    October 7, 2010

    I think it’s become very sad when such things as poverty, development, enough food to eat becomes mixed up with stupid videos and rhetoric. We should all give it a rest.

  85. #86 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    What do they have to do with a movie about AGW, stupid or not?

    Nothing.

    It’s a “Ooh! Look! Monkeys!” distraction. I.e. “Don’t discuss AGW, there are people who are starving!!!”.

    Or, in other words, tiresome concern trolling.

    All three of those things will be made worse by AGW and a continuation of the dependence on fossil fuels.

    Do you think that, when petrol is 50x as expensive, the rich will be suffering as much as the poor (who require food in the shops, brought there by vehicle)?

    No, they’ll be the first ones to feel the pinch.

    So, please stop the stupid rhetoric about poverty, development and food production and give it a rest, Lewis. Without dealing with AGW any improvement we make in any of them will be short lived at best (and if we actually do anything about them other than use them as a distraction).

  86. #87 Lewis Deane
    October 7, 2010

    No, I think something more – the whole discussion has become infantile – Where is the talk about estimating possible impacts? I would like to hear some constructive conversation.

  87. #88 Lewis Deane
    October 7, 2010

    By the way, Tim, comparing the rather sad effort of the 10:10 campaign to Monty Python is just meaningless. But, if you wish, continue to rub it in!

  88. #89 Lewis Deane
    October 7, 2010

    Actually your wrong and you know your wrong, but you won’t admit. Strange thing is, there is no conflict between ‘caring’ for the planet and lifting people out of poverty. But, if there were, which would you choose? Which children would you decide to have killed – your ‘putative’ children or the ones before your feet?

  89. #90 Lewis Deane
    October 7, 2010

    I’m sorry that was an answer to the anonymous fool after me not to you, Tim. I took the bait! AH!

  90. #91 chek
    October 7, 2010

    [Lewis Deane wrote:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-2843346) “the rather sad more effective than they expected in their wildest dreams effort of the 10:10 campaign”.

    Fixed that for you Lewis.

  91. #92 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > Strange thing is, there is no conflict between ‘caring’ for the planet and lifting people out of poverty.

    Strange thing is, you’re the only one saying that.

    But if you don’t care for the planet, all those other things don’t happen, or happen for a very short period of time before the bill comes due.

    > Where is the talk about estimating possible impacts?

    In the IPCC reports

  92. #93 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > But, if there were, which would you choose? Which children would you decide to have killed – your ‘putative’ children or the ones before your feet?

    Uh, who is going round killing children?

    Nobody in the IPCC.

    However, military people are doing so.

    Oddly enough, the leak of that is garnering hate for Wikileaks, as opposed to the dead children in the van.

    Isn’t that odd.

    And what the heck does that have to do with anything written here on this thread, unless you buy in to the idea that “warmists” want to explode people in front of the kids…

    For someone who wants

    > I would like to hear some constructive conversation.

    You have a funny way of asking for it…

  93. #94 mike
    October 7, 2010

    Dead kids in a van? Sorry I’m not familiar with that video? Now there’s a video where some idiot drove his kids to an active battle zone. And that idiot paid a certain price for his child-endangerment ways. But no dead kids. So you must be speaking of another video–link, please.

  94. #95 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    Actually I had thought about my own blog – I even bought the domain name…. you guys just keep tempting me to start it..

    In the mean time I just need to keep sending article in to others…

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100057873/1010s-no-pressure-exploding-kids-campaign-why-it-was-such-a-success/

    I am very sincere now, the powers of persuasion here (woW, and friends), are just a bit impolite.

  95. #96 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Go on Barry.

    We’re on tenterhooks.

  96. #97 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > Dead kids in a van?

    [Yup](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo).

    > Sorry I’m not familiar with that video?

    Why do you question your familiarity? That isn’t a query. I think you meant it to be a statement, in which case either a full stop or exclamation mark would be correct.

    > Now there’s a video where some idiot drove his kids ~through their home town~

    Fixed that for you.

  97. #98 mike
    October 7, 2010

    Wow,

    Still no dead kids. Check it out. You’re a little slow aren’t your, Wow.

    Wow, probably be a better use of your time to work on getting your facts right, rather than re-living your glory days as teacher’s pet in Mr. Milquetoast’s English class.

  98. #99 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Yup, dead kids. One of the pilots even says “Serves him right for bringing his children to a warzone”.

    At least you’ve stopped trying to kid on it was someone driving into a warzone and therefore “deserved it”.

  99. #100 mike
    October 7, 2010

    Wow,

    This is perverse. No dead kids, Wow. If I’m wrong, give me the time on the film clip where the kids are killed. The kids were rescued by American troops, Wow. Sorry to break the news to you. I know the disappointment this causes you. The kids didn’t die–no red button and no blood splatter and so not your kind of film.

    The locution: “At least you’ve stopped trying to kid it on it was someone…” Wow, this is simply not up to Mr. Milquetoast’s standards. No head-pat.

    Incidentally, I never said he (the idiot father) “deserved it.” You’ve put words in my mouth. Let’s see now, Wow, you can’t follow films and can’t read. But somehow you’ve established yourself as Deltoid’s very own little Mr. Style Minder. How do you do get a job like that? And in this economy?

    Finally, I guess we have different views of parenting. I think it imprudent to drive one’s kids to a known, active fire fight and that a father who would do such a thing is an idiot. You, on the other hand, think there’s no problem with such a quality-time family adventure. But I guess you’re hip and cool and I just have an old fashioned view of child safety. Also, I don’t like seeing kids being reduced to blood platter–a hang-up of mine, you know.