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.
- Log in to post comments
Hi Tim,
Realised yet you can't defend the indefensible?
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.
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
Chris (#211)
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
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
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
Back in 2008, Motl himself advocated for applying eugenics to Climate Alarmists™:
> I am normally against euthanasia but it simply seems to me that there is no other help for the people who are writing most of the stuff above. It's literally pandemics. The society should urgently put these people into quarantine, hoping that it is not too late.
Have the inactivists repudiated Motl's call for eugenics with the same speed that Joe Romm and Bill McKibben repudiated the 10:10 video? Nope.
Have none of these guys read Swift's A Modest Proposal? It's pretty much the same sort of satire.
The Motl suggested at Tamino's that environmentalists should be shot. The video is just a spoof. The hypocrisy burns.
I like the video and it made me laugh out loud at its silliness (especially when the red buttons were pressed). I'm saddened to see so many falling for the trap of worrying what Watts, Delingpole, Motl et al think and how they'll make much mileage from it. So what? Victim bullies do that kind of thing and always will. It just lets them set the agenda.
It'll all blow over.
The film is 4 minutes long and makes not a single decent scientific point. The case for cutting carbon emissions is logical and overwhelming, this film suggests that the case is desperate and tyrannical. Humour or lack of it is not the issue. The climate communication problem is littered with mistrust and misinformation, this adds to that. It's a crap film . Shame.
Hi Tim.
I respect your opinion on this but for me this brings up more than just humorous comedy violence. The skeptics who think people are out to 'get them' are wrong but that is a strawman to me. The real disturbing thing about this video is the threat of shuffling people into line and excluding them when they step out of it, in a very coercive manner. This is the very unsubtle take home message that most people are going to get out of this, call it the middleground position if you like- between the paranoid skeptics and the brush it all off it's funny alarmists.
That children are involved is especially worrying. Of all groups, children feel the pressures of conformity like no one else. That this film advocates a kind of authoritan rule over people who are too young to develop their own ideas on things is pretty brutal, to be honest. I'm certainly not laughing about this, just because the comic splatters are apparently enough to divorce the film from reality. This is a pretty sick message.
I think if you want the skeptics and general public to stop seeing you as eco-fascistic weirdos, then the obvious plan is to stop communicating these visions. The AGW movement basically has only itself to blame in this case.
Just what is the intention here?
Haha Motl is a moron.
But the video is just stupid. I didn't get the joke, I guess. The whole thing made no sense at all to me.
The Python sketch is awesome though.
This "Stu" here is apparently a concern troll who's distinct from the "Stu" who normally frequents this blog.
@ Frank
You should make a movie about your experience of making a Heartland spoof movie only to have Heartland think it was serious and hosting it themselves ;)
You'd think nobody's head had ever exploded before.
But if you check, Google proves that has happened frequently for all sorts of reasons.
Yeah, this 'Stu' is your standard concern troll.
Stu, no pressure.
thanks guys, you've really reassured me.
As far as I'm concerned at this moment, 'Mainstream' environmentalism can take a hike. You're way out on a limb.
PS, what's a concern troll?
Please don't say 'you'
J Bowers:
> You should make a movie about your experience of making a Heartland spoof movie only to have Heartland think it was serious and hosting it themselves ;)
Well, maybe I should. But I don't have that much time on my hands, and I don't want to waste too much working on a video which will eventually only be watched by a handful of folks. :|
* * *
"Stu":
Maybe if you didn't hem and haw over your supposed 'skepticism', you'll, um, look less like a concern troll. Yep.
Ah yes... for the benefit of lurkers who might now know what a concern troll is:
> A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[15]
> An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH". "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[16][17]
Someone who wasn't a concern troll would have googled concern troll.
Let me help you there.
http://tinyurl.com/y8th2zq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
Only a troll would pretend not to be able to google.
10:10 originated in the UK and is an offshoot of Franny Armstrongs 'The Age of Stupid' movie. In the UK they have disowned it:
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry
Stu:
>I think if you want the skeptics and general public to stop seeing you as eco-fascistic weirdos, then the obvious plan is to stop communicating these visions.
Oh good grief. Some of those eco-fascistic weirdos in the UK are actually right-wing politicians.
Thank god we have a level of maturity in the UK. It's not brilliant, but it's certainly not as insane as the US or Australia.
I love Monty Python. I didn't find this video shocking or particularly offensive. It just wasn't very funny.
The only time I chuckled was when the teacher, after blowing up the two kids, announced the assignment that was due next class and then dead panned, "Except for Philip and Tracy of course."
I wonder if, covertly, Curtis was trying to ridicule strident environmentalists? If it is made from the perspective of the majority (people on board with the carbon reductions in this case) it just makes them look intolerant and self righteous.
Either way it isn't likely to help "the cause".
Tim:
>For example, the reliably crazy Lubos Motl (warning: Link goes to a blog with the ugliest design you are ever likely to see)...
Ahh yes. I visited that place probably some 2 years ago.
Didn't stay long. It isn't the worse design, but I reckon that side of the coin (aka the loony right) have a dominance in the badly designed web site market.
Maybe if you didn't hem and haw over your supposed 'skepticism', you'll, um, look less like a concern troll. Yep.
Frank. I can't pretend to hold opinions which I don't hold. Yes, I'm a skeptic in parts- but yes, I would like to see action on climate change. How weird is that? And most certainly yes, I am a traditionally committed environmentalist (see your board)
O.K. Concern troll...
*A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold.
*I explained above, I've nothing to hide, my views are in the open. I've tried to express myself clearly, and if anyone would like to know where I'm coming from they can probably visit Franks board. If anyone has issues with my opinions, it's probably a better idea to discuss things with me on a normal rational level than resorting to name calling. It looks paranoid and childish otherwise.
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns".
*Since our points of view seem to be dissimilar on a number of points, then I don't see how the first part of this sentence really applies. On this second part, well- yeah, my goal in coming here is in taking issue with certain opinions on this video, because as I said earlier this probably doesn't come across to the average person that this is all harmless fun and games. We have a shared goal in that I would like to see a healthy image attached to the AGW movement, and yeah, I'm kinda concerned that things don't look to be going too well here. I can stop appearing concerned as soon as you like by not posting on here, if you tell me to go away I will just go away. Again, it will look childish on your part, but I'll understand.
The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[15]
Apparently that's what I seem to be doing. It's a strange, unintended effect but there you go.
Hrr, on second thoughts. I think I'll just bow out right now. I feel like I've stepped into someones comfy loungeroom rather than a public communications forum. Been having a bit of a weird time with Frank and every other comment I received was 'troll'. You know my opinion (about the video), I know you don't care what I think, and we both know that this will probably go nowhere.
Seeya.
(ps, I asked you guys what a concern troll was because I wanted your description, as there seem to be slightly different meanings attached. I've heard it used in other ways as well)
The Python video's awesome. But the 10:10 video, like the campaign itself is pretty lacking
http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/why-1010-doesnt-work/
The ludicrous outrage is pretty predictable... And in fairness if Heartland made a promo film about blowing up 'alarmists' it would probably get people's backs up too...
Actually... Having a spoof film made about a right wing fossil fuel funded think tank blowing up scientists whose research they don't agree with could be entertaining and at least contains a truthful metaphor about the way the climate change debate is sabotaged by certain vested interests.
What's really sad is that the film failed to make any kind argument at all about the issue and wasn't funny. It just failed all over.
Well, that was awkward.
The professed aim was to get people talking about climate change again. Real people, not the pro and anti zealots.
Did it work?
I think the 10:10 video fits the not a crime but a blunder tag.
We all know that the delusionals opposed to CO2 mitigation want the discussion to be about anything but the scientific case for robust policy action. That is why they attach the4 suffix "-gate" to everything they can associated with figures in the respectable scientific community, say Al Gore is fat repeatedly and talk about his carbon footprint or invite us all to "stop breathing" (oh the irony!).The "let's turn the biosphere into an industrial sewer" crowd and their backers in the upper levels of the filth-merchant community are utterly unscrupulous.
This is an own goal not because it is confronting but because it hands these well-resourced and well connected harpies a new "-gate" with which to drive the scientific arguments away from policy making and plays to their lie that we rather than they are incipiently misanthropic and coercive.
It would have been entirely possible for such a clip to have taken an entirely different approach -- perhaps using the set-up from that film Sliding Doors, tweaked to permit those who want to live in the CO2-constrained world live to walk through a door to a world that is a cornucopia of life, whereas those who take the "let the filth fall where it may" approach go to a world that looks like a post-Armageddon industrial wasteland. I recall that famous image from Cobb, in which the lonely man stands atop a pile of rubbish wondering where to plug in his TV.
One might have linked small positive actions to markers of biospheric recovery -- trees popping up and crops growing, while those subverting the biosphere cause them to disappear and the seas advance on inhabited land. Simplistic to be sure but at least it would have been about key concerns.
The point is that we who want early, robust, ubiquitous action to mitigate GHG emissions need to avoid playing to the delusionist/filth merchant shibboleths. We need people to understand what is at stake here and the significance for us of the legacy we will leave to those who will follow us. If the generations who follow are moved to curse us for our reckless indifference to their claims for a life no worse than ours, then our lives are already diminished and to that extent irrational.
That is the point here.
It was kind of funny to someone who's used to Monty Python humour; though the squelchy sound effects were a little too good. But the hysterical denialists will find one excuse or other to accuse AGW realists of whatever crimes their nasty little minds can think up.
Funny, in a Monty Python sort of way -- which is to say, it's probably inappropriate for a serious issue, in front of people (like the denialists) who are sense-of-humor impaired.
Even Joe Romm said: "The video is beyond tasteless and should be widely condemned."
A Modest Carbon Proposal by Jonathan Swifthack
I'm not sure that "crazy" is an accurate description of Motl. He kind of defies any psychological description at all. He's just "Motl" (maybe a new word for the english language?).
What is the goal of those who commissioned this video? I fear that a) there goal does not seem clear, and b) they are shooting us in the foot.
I can't foresee how this will work out for a benefit to the movement towards the political change we need.
"Motl"? Hmmm, doesn't roll easily off the tongue.
I suppose one difference between Motl and the Curtis video is that Motl made the comments off his own bat, without government support, a cast and crew of around 100, and a budget unofficially estimated at $400,000.
Lubos Motl is the only academic I know of who has "gone emeritus" before achieving tenure.
What's a "concern troll"?
Concern troll cannot google concern troll.
Urk.
I grew up on Monty Python.
I watched the video and instantly got the reference.
At the same time I also saw how the humour-impaired teabaggers were going to try and spin it as evidence that the Nazi socialists are coming to kill us all.
;)
I grew up loving Monty Python, Black Adder etc. and have a real appreciation for this dark strain of English humour. The problem is that it does not always translate well, and in the context of the 10:10 video was disturbing.
The moment I saw it I thought *"Uh oh...."*
There are two things a mass audience hates to see: harm to animals, and harm to children. These are well established cinematic taboos.
I *get* the video was designed for the era of YouTube and for going viral, but I think the film makers failed to appreciate how it would be interpreted. For years the denial movement has been trying to link environmentalism with terrorism and that "greenies" are indifferent to human well being.
Simply put:
*Dead kids + green message = denialist propaganda victory*
It took me all of 3 seconds to realise how this video would play up. Did they run it past focus groups? Do they understand just how effective the denial machine is in twisting the messages of climate change activists?
Memo to activists: spend a lot more time thinking about how the denial movement is going to twist your message. Study their "memes".
They've been pushing the green=terrorism meme for *years*.
And then someone goes and makes a video that has people pressing buttons that blows up kids.
Look at what they're blogs are doing: linking the 10:10 video to statements by Osama Bin Laden!
Sure most of the outrage by the likes of Watts, Delingpole, Nova, Bolt, Motl etc. is faux outrage, but they will mine this for years.
Note to film makers and activists. Here's a list of things to avoid for future:
>> Anything with dead kids or actions that see children harmed
>> Anything with dead kittens (or equivalent cute animal)
>> Anything that tries to "guilt" the viewer/reader and shame them as guilty of neglecting/abusing children and/or kittens
>> Anything that has a theme of "punishment" for not thinking or acting in an approved manner (which this video does)
I'd suggest they spend more time studying 350.org. They are very good at creating positive messages centered around hope, community and activism. The global work party coming up (10/10) is about rolling up your sleeves and making a difference. There's a good model for other groups to study.
To be frank, it will take time to undo the damage of this video.
This video is f**king your movement in the a**.
Doesn't matter how much you defend it, it will hurt you bad.
Team America World Police, anyone?
To make their lame, room-temperature-IQ, banal, and factually and ethically wrong point about the need - seen only by American elites and their ass-kissing, fake-edgy corporate sellout sycophants, usually - to be "assholes" to police the world - they blew up a dozen people whose main crime was being right about the Iraq war while the 2 Randroids from South Park were completely full of crap.
And that's what this is at the level of, except it's less slick and probably its main points are far more defendable.
I'm afraid to say I wasn't too impressed with it myself. The instant you start summarily executing kids in the classroom for disagreeing with teacher, you're automatically going to start losing a lot of people, regardless of the topic. Rather than Monty Python, it made me think of Battle Royale.
And how come Richard Curtis has to put an American into everything he makes?
I wasn't bothered by the video, but I really didn't get the joke.
My understanding was they were originally intending to attack the complacent 'no pressure' approach to Green initiatives, the teachers and employers who invite people to participate, but when people don't, shrug and let it pass. If they truly believed the end of the world was nigh, would they just shrug it away like that? And if they don't, what are they doing pretending to be Green?
But if that was the case, the logical target for the explosions would have been the teacher/employer. That would have made the joke clear. Be an honest sceptic or an honest believer, but don't be a hypocrite. (The Gillian Anderson one got it right, there. Nice eyeballs effect!)
But by blowing up the dissenting kids, especially after making the wishy-washy 'no pressure' speech, it just looks mixed-up weird. What are they trying to say?
I know they say you shouldn't try to analyse humour, but could somebody who 'gets' it please explain what the joke/message is supposed to be?
Osama bin Laden calls for action on climate change http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w7l
hmmm.... from the grave
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w7n
getting desperate
Tlaloc - my take is that you are right they are highlighting "the complacent 'no pressure' approach" to the problems we face, but by their absurdist vision they are showing the impossibility of doing anything realistically other than shrug in response - and indeed the undesirability of doing anything other than this.
And they've pulled it...
http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/1010-promo-pulled/
'The charities that backed a Richard Curtis film for the 10:10 environmental campaign said today that they were âabsolutely appalledâ when they saw the directorâs four-minute short, which was withdrawn from circulation amid a storm of protest.
The charity ActionAid, which co-ordinates the 10:10 schools programme, today welcomed the move. âOur job is to encourage proactive decisions at class level to reduce carbon emissions. We did it because evidence shows children are deeply concerned about climate change and because we see the impacts of it in the developing world where a lot of our work is. So we think the 10:10 campaign is very important, but the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate.'
Not really surprising. So how much money and carbon were wasted on this spectacular own goal?
I think Mark Gillars hootervillegazette trumps the Motl site for the bad design of the millenium award. I won't post a link as I wouldn't want any sane person to set eyes on it.
@Didactylos
Yup, there are now a lot more people in the world today aware of 10/10 than there were yesterday. The hallmark of a successful ad campaign.
> The hallmark of a successful ad campaign.
Shame that The Gruen Transfer season just finished - may have proved an interesting topic.
Scott A Mandia:
Jonathan SwiftHack deserves to have his own blog.
Marion Delgado: if you thought that was the message of "Team America", then I think we can officially say that satire is dead.
But maybe not. Plenty of people didn't get "A Modest Proposal", either.
In your defence, "Team America" does lampoon both the left and the right, so maybe you got a little hung up on the stuff you disagreed with. Also, it's by no means Swift. Mostly, it's crass, and insanely funny.
If there's satire in "No Pressure", I missed it. It seems to be one of those viral videos designed to be viral - and that flop so frequently when used as ad campaigns.
And the response from the deniers! The mere fact that they get all "outraged" about comedy is a clear signal that they have lost touch with reality. However, these same people were outraged by "An Inconvenient Truth", so I think it's safe to point and laugh. The tabloid readers and talk radio listeners will always be with us.
Someone needs to recut that so pushing the red button blows off the head of the person holding it.
More like this:
["What'chu got in the trunk?"](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLGrXGEMOSo)
Tlaloc, what's funny is the incongruity between "no pressure" and the cartoon violence. The joke isn't "on message" -- they are sending themselves up.
Didadactylos #48,
Actually, a lot of the sceptics seem rather too pleased with the film. When 10:10 tried to take it down, the sceptics immediately re-posted it, saying they wanted everybody to see how Environmentalists really think.
As a satire on the totalitarian tendencies of the green left, it really works. The message is "Conform or be executed." We have a nice Environmentalist lady shown murdering children without conscience. It illustrates a totally insane intolerance for disagreement and dissent.
If this had been produced by a right-wing anti-green group operating at a level far lower even than Morano, the dystopian humour would be seen as tasteless and misdirected but perfectly understandable. Not that any self-respecting right-winger would do it, because they'd know it would be trashed as ridiculous over-the-top propaganda, clear evidence of tinfoil-hat paranoia, and gratuitously offensive to the sort of images evoking a lot of public sympathy. This video is a paranoid wingnut's wet dream, the unobtainable object of their every frustrated desire!
Which is what makes it so mystifying to see it handed to them on a silver plate by a very respectable and high-profile Environmental group, evidently with the expectation that it would be seen positively for their cause. And apparently, it is. Tim thought it was funny. So clearly there is some joke or point to it beyond "we think it would be great if we could murder all the dissenters who disobey by exploding them in a gory mess." How does this help the 10:10 campaign? Why would anyone want to be on the side of the people ostensibly murdering children who dare to disagree with them?
The deniers must think Christmas has come three months early! There are multiple screenshots of it splattered all across Morano's front page. Outraged?! I bet he's in seventh heaven over this!
But that's all water under the bridge, now. What I am curious about, though, is what the joke was supposed to be. Tim said he thought it was funny, and a lot of other people did too. But why?
#50,
Thanks Tim, but I thought there must be more to it than that.
'Sending themselves up'? So they were deliberately trying to portray themselves from a contrary viewpoint? It seems they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
The really ironic aspect of this is that after criticism from all sides the producers promptly pulled the video from YouTube with an apology. But it is non-the-less still freely available because its being hosted and promoted by right wingers so they can use it to vilify environmentalists.
...or was it deliberately OTT and then pulled so it could go viral? ;)
Made me laugh.
[Tlaloc said: " Tim said he thought it was funny, and a lot of other people did too. But why?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…)
Why is any joke funny, and why do some people not 'get' what others do? You might as well ask what the colour orange is like, or why blue isn't everyone's favourite.
Glad to hear Morano's fixated on it though - reminds me of those moranos that bought Beatles' albums to burn and helped make them legendary that little bit faster. The Objectorati probably hate Hendrix' version of Star Spangled Banner too.
It's good that he doesn't realise that like it or hate it, it'll make people think which is always dangerous to moranos and their preferred narratives.
>But it is non-the-less still freely available because its being hosted and promoted by right wingers so they can use it to vilify environmentalists.
Which sort of means it works???
eg. if right wingers take it to own, it's as good as if they actually produced it. It is then a projection of what they think greens are like.
Actually just watched it. It's quite funny IMO. Really ridiculous and OTT.
What has been revealed is how little the denialati are able to tell the difference between spoof and reality. Just more indication of why they can't distinguish real science from pseudo-scientific shilling.
>*they are sending themselves up.*
For what purpose?
Jeezus! - Only an idiot could be offended by this. This is a fairly typical example of british sketch comedy. If you can't handle this you are a boring mong who needs desperately to develop your comprehension skills. Their only mistake has been to overestimate the comedic sophistication of the general public. Behold the rise of The Idiot!
Said J Bowers ...
No. They know it is spoof. These people are simple propagandists for the filth merchant cause and they really don't care what is produced as long as it can divert people from talking about the rationale for policy action. This is a war for the protection of the right to pollute and they are willing to promote any lie, release any red herring and slander any proponent to win it.
I've not seen the video, but it is obviously a parody or a spoof, as no rational person would ever claim that "environmentalists" condone the execution of children as a response to a perceived environmental problem. As [J Bowers notes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…), it is telling that the Denialati cannot and will not distinguish between truth and fiction - but then, that has always been their problem, whether it pertains to science or to advertising.
It truly bemuses me that there is such righteous umbrage over this, when it is obviously not a reflection of reality. It seems that people simply do not want to hear what they do not want to hear...
Take for example the bruhaha over the [HIV Grim Reaper ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U219eUIZ7Qo) in the 80s. Personally, as someone working in immunology at that time, I had no problem with the underlying messages that HIV was almost certainly fatal at that time, and that it could strike anyone. The ad was obviously a metaphor, but again there was widespread antagonism to the message, and in this case it was a straightforward one.
If only the same sensitive petals were as righteous about insisting on opposing the inflicting of death upon the innocent citizens of countries, by illegally invading them...
> Not that any self-respecting right-winger would do it, ...
Not so fast.
Some US bestselling books have used strong eliminationist language about "liberals" (a.k.a. "left wingers" in the US political spectrum, which would be centrish in most Western democracies). Their authors are fairly well known from radio and TV appearances. (And environmentalists are frequently painted as particularly outrageous liberals by these types of authors and their media pals.)
Try [Dave Neiwert's blog "Orcinus"](http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/) or his book ["The Elminitionists"](http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/d…) - he's been tracking this kind of stuff for years.
I didn't like it because because of blowing people up. Blowing people up is wrong. And bad.
And it's about time we denounced Aesop as a fraud and a charlatan. Animals can't speak.
Also, why was Michael Jackson's Thriller video so popular? Zombies aren't real.
Finally, jumpers shouldn't be called jumpers, or sweaters. They don't jump, and they don't sweat.
*pulls blanket back over head*
I have to agree with some others here that I'm slightly less concerned with the relatively poor taste and "too in your face for the general public" satire in the 1010 video, than I am with the fact that the more "out there" conservatives now seriously believe that an active campaign of genocide and murder is being planned against them.
Talk about paranoia. That really takes it to the next level.
I thought it was hillarious. I also find it hillarious that the 'black helicopter' loons are convincing themselves that this is proof of the pending new world order.
Oh no, those brave skeptics have uncovered the secret UN plot to explode everybody.
I found the video hilarious and quite got the reference especially as I am a long time Monty Python fan. Reminds me of the Black Knight sketch in Holy Grail.
The major problem is with it is assuming other people have a sense of humour which sadly, in their zeal to overturn the evils of climate change, most of the right-wingers have lost.
It's a bit long but it was pretty funny. The Gillian Anderson bit is the best and actually gets the point across rather than laughing at flying strawberry jam gags.
The outrage actually makes it funnier. "It's tantamount to genocide!" "Imagine if they were black people or Muslims exploding! What would you bleeding hearts say then?!?" "Whatever happened to tollerance Lefties?!?"
I bet all these guys were ranting about the largely imagined boogeyman of Political Correctness and its threats to free speech and whatever else back in the day. Truth is no one takes messages and memes more seriously and literally than these right wingers.
Anyway, my ultimate comedy version of the video would have the recalcitrants spout some denier talking points first. Then someone uses a bazooka on them. That may be missing the point somewhat.
Lighten up, Bill! I'm enjoying Bill McKibben's recent book Eaarth (sic)in which he hopefully imagines a totally new world in which we must live "lightly, carefully, gracefully." I hope his guarded optimism aboiut the planet is justified. But his sonorous piece about the 10:10 video suggests the response: Oh come on Bill, where's ya sensayuma?
Not just the 'denialati', it seems. The 10:10 web site is being flooded with its own supporters queuing up to denounce the film.
**Update:** Matt Wootton on [where he thinks 10:10 went wrong](http://greenwordsworkshop.org/node/17).
The makers have forgotten that many denialists are shameless insincere posturers with a talent for faking outrage,and a delight in sustaining it. This is the cornerstone of their political tactics.
> ...than I am with the fact that the more "out there" conservatives now seriously believe that an active campaign of genocide and murder is being planned against them.
Plenty of the more "out there" conservatives already believed that greenies are out to form a communist world government to redistribute all their wealth and take away their precious guns and force them into gay marriages and make Goldman Sachs and Al Gore immensely rich capitalists.
They didn't exactly have a strong grasp on reality in the first place.
Well put,Matt Wootton.
Do you honestly believe that? It's been overrun by wingnuts who are probably making such stuff up. Rememeber Brent and his sockpuppets?
@J Bowers
Yes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and given the despairing outrage of many of those writing in, yes, I do believe it.
It is being mirrored everywhere online, even to an extent here.
They got it wrong and have done damage. How much, we don't yet know.
That piece by Matt Wootton is the best analysis of what went wrong with the movie that I have seen.
Cheers - John
Rick, time will tell. The litmus test will be how many actually do pull from the 10:10 campaign and how many keep signing up. Having got to know how the denialati work, I won't be even remotely surprised if most of those comments are the likes of BNP and UKIP ("BNP in blazers" as the saying goes here) supporters masquerading as genuine 10:10 supporters. The whole comments thread at 10:10 reads like an unmoderated Guardian thread. One of them even knew me from the Guardian ("C U next time" was his reference, but the shorter version). As soon as this film was released the far right internet forums would have been all a twitter and the lack of moderation at 10:10 gives them an opportunity to go wild. The language alone is a sure indicator of that. In fact, coupled with the insights in the Matt Wooton piece that Tim posted I'm pretty sure of it.
My feeling is that as an ad for 10:10 it's prabably going to be a failure.
However, as a litmus test for the stupidity of the deniers, it's been great.
You would think that, tactically, this would have been a good oppotunity for the inactivists to calmly point out that the poor judgement on this PR campaign, might extend to poor judgment about the best policies to address AGW.
Apparantly it's much more gratifying to scream "genocide".
That's the nature of the beast.
Why would they do that? The film wasn't made by the IPCC, was it, or indeed by anyone with any stature in the climate community?
Tactically, it would be stupid to try to make any mileage by equating this awful film with any matters pertaining to science.
The video reminds me of Family Guy.
One wonders if the people who have made a fuss about this video also make a fuss about Family Guy?
The answer is probably yes.
You could imagine Peter Griffin pressing the button. The reality is that most of the people making a big fuss have had the 'eco-facists' opinion about greens for many years. They don't see that the video attacks their opinions of environmentalists as well.
Just to add to my point above, here's a comment that was just posted at 10:10:
Reveals a lot IMHO.
John, 66: "Oh no, those brave skeptics have uncovered the secret UN plot to explode everybody."
A secret UN plot to explode everybody: this makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Matt Wooton's commentary - which I highly recommend - includes this important point:
> The reason is because itâs not their kind of authoritarianism. The moral authority of greens is - to them - a false authority.
...which fits quite strongly with Altemeyer's research on authoritarian followers (e.g. as in "[The Authoritarians](the authoritarians)"). Warning for anyone new to his work that his concept of "left" and "right" refer NOT to the political "left" and "right" but to whether they are supporting the installation of new authorities or the existing authorities.
Altemeyer points out that authoritarian followers only respect their own chosen authorities. Neiwert and his co-blogger Sara Robinson (whose blog Orcinus I linked to earlier) discusses some of the same themes, particularly in the context of US politics, fundamentalist religion and public discourse. The blog includes a couple of series ("Tunnels And Bridges" and "Cracks In The Wall") on how to maybe seed the ground for someone who might be getting ready to leave behind such a mindset - and discussion of why most commonly used tactics simply don't work.
Maybe the 10:10 guys also need to absorb some of this material before their next effort...?
Rick @ 80,
Which is why I didn't mention the IPCC or the science.
You appear to be an unintentional testimony of that to which I referred.
Arguing in bad faith is a hall mark of the denialati.
Michael @85
Maybe I should have made myself clearer - my point was that since the film had no claim to scientific content, it would have made no sense to try and attack it on those grounds, as any such effort would rightly be condemned as a cheap shot and a silly irrelevance.
You may think 'denialists' are stupid. But not that stupid.
Here's another from the 10:10 comments, in response to the comment I posted about it being anti-white, and by the very same person who called me the c-word...
They're framing it within a race/class conflict, which is classic British far right. The whole thing reminds me of Watts and his scaremongering/victim nonsense about Anna turning up at the shop.
IMO the video is just "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" writ large.
Rick @ 86,
Again, which is why I made no such suggestion as "to attack it on" the science.
10:10 have closed down and removed the comments on their 'Sorry' post.
I was surprised they let it go on for as long as they did!
Stu in #20 makes some good philosophical points which are not remotely addressed by calling him a "concern troll". The claim that his concern is faked amounts to a claim to be able to mind read. Here Tim Lambert is worrying about the negative impact of the video on winning hearts and minds, and what do 'my' 'side' do?... respond with ad homs.
The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society... and irresponsibly projects images of extreme violence into the homes of the young and impressionable.
I don't buy the 'it was a joke' excuse.
The founder of 10:10, Franny Armstrong...
"Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?"
So she says blowing people up is "a joke"...followed by a "but"... is what follows the "but" then not a joke? How many times can someone "joke" about inflicting extreme violence on people before it becomes "not a joke"? What do you call it when authoritarians tell "jokes" about cruelty? Lenin once told a "joke" about a "committee for social extermination" and Stalin told a "joke" about the Lubyanka... but the committee and the Lubyanka were real. Rush Limbaugh said...
"Obama said he wants to restore science to its rightful whatever. Then he ought to be leading the way to find out who these people are, what theyâve done, who theyâve infected, who went along with them, calling them out by name. Making sure that every scientist at every university in this country who has been involved in this is named and fired, drawn and quartered"
Is the "drawn and quartered" a "joke"? If it's a "joke"... is it okay?
Glenn Beck said...
"There's not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there's not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred."
That's a "joke" right?
Back to Franny...
"What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet?"
Same thing we did with "those people" who voted with Chamberlain to appease Hitler, and who supported "peace in our time" in general... nothing. It's a democracy. "What to do with those people" sure sounds like an authoritarian impulse to me.
Some reactions of people on 'our' 'side'...
Michael Tobis âvile misanthropyâ
James Annan âcrassâ
Bart Verheggen âsickâ
Bill McKibben âdisgustingâ
Joe Romm âgrossly offensiveâ
>*The video promotes ideals which run contrary to a democratic and cooperative society...*
What a load of rot. It does not promote anything immoral or anti-democratic. It does not promote killing people or blowing people up. Its's flaw is that its humor is not suited to any useful goal that I can tell.
Lazar your rant is a waste of space and your claim that its the video not a joke makes you fool at marks you as a political tool.
Paul Uk -- "10:10 have closed down and removed the comments on their 'Sorry' post."
Well, it got to the point where bovver boys were asking where they live, etc. Not surpised they took it down.
Lazar, got any comment on that?
>*your claim that its the video not a joke makes you fool at marks you as a political tool.*
Actually Matt Wootton sums your type up well, you mark yourself as the Doppelgänger of [your own personal demons](http://greenwordsworkshop.org/node/17)
Just as well we're not denialists, I guess. In other words, we don't switch off our own critical abilities and need gurus to tell us what to think. Makes me proud to be a "warmist" ;)
jakerman,
"a waste of space" [...] "a fool" [...] "a political tool"
... way to win hearts and minds jakerman
"your own personal demons"
... you can't mind read
Lazar, I'm not trying to win your heart and your mind is clearly made up with your foolish claim. You've revealed yourself to be a time waster.
jakerman
"your heart and your mind is clearly made up"
... you still can't mind read
"You've revealed yourself to be a time waster."
sigh... yes dear
Lazar I don't need to read minds when you write down your claims.
Try not to be such a transparent dickhead if you want to run your concern trolling a little long without getting called out.
I wonder how anyone can go to the pretty serious effort of making such a thing, without stopping to ask "Is this a good idea?".
There are some organizations where you, if you are a responsible person, are going to hear stuff like this a lot:
"Ah, don't be such a prude."
"Of course it'll work!"
"Don't be such a downer!"
"You always just want to step on the brakes, if everyone thought like you we'd never get anything done!"
There have been written many books about organizational culture on the phenomenon. I say the 10:10 people have more important things to do than apologizing, such as finding the answer to "Why the hell wasn't this stopped at an early stage in the process?"
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
@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.)
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.
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.
As if by magic!
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...
Wow
"People who think that"
no, you can't mind read
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.
>"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.
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!
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.
>"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.
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
@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.
117 Chris -- "trying to force people to conform"
Force? Force people to conform?! You're having a laugh, or having a Monckton moment.
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.
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.
The video was dumb, insulting, and worst of all, not funny.
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.
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"...
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.
So take your concern troll act to psycholand and preach to the psychos to not be psychotic.
They're your target audience.
> 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?
> 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?
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.
> @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...
> 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.
Mark Wootten's article is pop psychology, a mixture of assertion without data and mind reading ("why so many people donât âgetâ 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.
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"?
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
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.
>*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.
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.
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
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?
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-…) to me?
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.
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.
"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.
Paul UK,
you swapped "portrays" for "promotes"...
Lazar you provide more confirmation of [my assessment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…):
>>*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.*
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
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.
I can sympathize with Barton washing his hands of this place. It's like WUWT on steroids. Enough, kids, you're too boring.
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.
Mary:
>"This has effects. Real effects. Bad effects. Today."
Yes indeed, but what is done, is done.
'Keep Calm and Carry On'
Lazar, I see you have been caught out [and shown up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…).
[Evasion and retreat](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…) might be your best hope.
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.
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-…) 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".
>*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?
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...
>*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.
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)
"to suggest that this video is equivalent to racits"
No I didn't. Bye-bye jakerman.
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-…)?
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"
And how does this differ from Lubos and the Lames favorite book, Atlas Shrugged?
>*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.
> 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-…).
>>*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.
...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.
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.
Me (above), erratum:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Point taken [SteveC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…), my denialist radar was over sensitive, and I could have made my point clearer without the abuse.
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?
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.
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 -â not believers -â as an attack on the supposed âfascismâ of those who would mobilize society to reduce greenhouse gases."
Over at Andy Revkins blog.
Well at least someone gets it.
>*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.
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.
[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-…)
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 :)
> ...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...
@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.
And 10:10's signatories just rose by around another 50 since my last comment.
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?
What's interesting is that both organisations and businesses are still signing up, not just individuals.
-- Mini Him
> Dr Greenlove have you perfected that button device yet?
I just need to add the glowy bit, sire...
>I just need to add the glowy bit, sire...
Gut gut sind und die fliegenden Affen bereit?
@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.
> 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...
@PaulUK
Gesundheit.
:-)
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.
> 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
> Oh good lord. I can't take it any longer.
Who said you could have it?
> 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.
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...
> 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.
> That Marko-Motl sure is one wild und crazy guy!
Why am I getting a mental image of the Marko-Motl-Monckton axis...? ;-)
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".
"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.
>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.
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.
Cuccinelli sounds like a corruption of coccinelle, i.e. ladybugs.
I love how Lubos' blog has a banner ad right now for Nature Climate Change.
rob:
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.
Rob is Girm@?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240/…
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)
>*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!
I [take on board](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…) the point made by David Gould.
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-…
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).
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.
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.
Armstrong and Miller - 'Kill Them':
http://youtu.be/mUP3A9imOYU
Armstrong and Miller - Business meeting 'kill them':
http://youtu.be/62H8iJxS-3Q
> And I am not new, I just don't choose to post often
But when you do, it's all bollocks, Bill.
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."
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Holly, Richard Littlemore has a post about this at [DeSmogBlog](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-prosperity-canadian-government-launch…)
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…
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.
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.
> 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?
Chris @ 230
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?
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.
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)
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.
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 findâ¦â¦
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...
Barry, I'm disappointed at the brevity of your latest offering.
> My family has not been on an airplane for 9 years
Oh dear.
Once EVER in 40 years.
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...
> 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.
>*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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 â 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.
> 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.
Further to Jeff Harvey's spot-on response [at #226](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…) to Holly Stick's question [at #215](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…), 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.
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-b…) 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.
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.
> 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 ;-)
Devine, like Bolt, Akerman, Limbaugh and Leake, is a device for generating website hits and advertising revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.
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.
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
âThe sole remaining 10:10 corporate sponsor, O2, seems to be having trouble with their website.â
O2â²s now back up (00.56 BST) but doesnât 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…
JD blog: (Hat tips: Barry Woods/Tom Dalton/Pete Hayes/Old Goat/half the CIVILISED worldâ¦.)
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.)
Barry Woods says:
The Royal Society (to name just 1 scientific body) says:
Ignore the "catastophic" red rag and note that Barry says the "complete lack of evidence of a human signature in the climate record".
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.
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.
Barry's turgid ramblings make me wish my head would explode.
Pressing the red button... NOW!!!
.....ah, blessed relief!
Thanks P. Lewis.
Barry Woods:
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.
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;
How will you recognise this evidence, if/when it exists?
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 â Splattergateâ
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 weâre 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...
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'
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?
[Barry Woods said: "self derived propaganda of the CAGW activists"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…)
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.
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!'
Barry;
No Barry, I was giving you a chance to show you could make some coherent argument based on science.
No good deed goes unpunished.
> 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.
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?
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.
> 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*?
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?
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.
> 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".
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.
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).
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.
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!
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?
I'm sorry that was an answer to the anonymous fool after me not to you, Tim. I took the bait! AH!
[Lewis Deane wrote:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…) "the rather sad more effective than they expected in their wildest dreams effort of the 10:10 campaign".
Fixed that for you Lewis.
> 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
> 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...
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.
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-pr…
I am very sincere now, the powers of persuasion here (woW, and friends), are just a bit impolite.
Go on Barry.
We're on tenterhooks.
> 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.
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.
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".
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.
I'd say that Barry Woods' promoting of Professor Delingpole tells us all we ever need to know about Barry the Tool.
Happily that epithet has more than one meaning, and none of them are complimentary to a thinking human being.
Mike's soldiers wear white hats and don't kill children.
Except they do, and they admit that they do. Mike might like to google Ethan McCord to find out, though I expect Mike will find any excuse to justify whatever horror the imperium visits on the untermenschen.
I visted the Farnborough airshow in 1988. Those 30mm cannon rounds that equip the Apache helicopter are about the same size if slightly slimmer than a coke bottle. Filled with explosive.
We now return you to our regular troll-free program, possibly minus ten Godwin points, but what the hell.
Mike & mike are not the same person. Probably obvious, but I don't want @295 attributed to me!
Barry,
I asked you for your method for identifiying the "human signature in the climate record".
Still nothing but fluff.
Mike
American troops do wear white hats at least in comparison with those of other nations, including the Brits. Some bad apples. Sometimes mistakes are made. But when people are trying to kill you or your comrades, there's not a lot of time to ponder the situation. The precautionary principle, you know.
Incidentally, I don't need to go to a fruity airshow to know what a 30mm round looks like--(what kind of coke bottles do they have in England anyway!). But what's your point? Bullets, especially 30mm rounds, kill people. Is that your brilliant insight? Or that prissy mama's boys get the willies when they behold the weapons of war? No news there, you know.
Mike, I think you need to get in on the fight and show us how it's done. You know: lead from the front and never make a mistake and, perhaps, devise some innovative "green" tactics, as well. Maybe you could even send us back some sensitive, anguished posts describing your battlefield heroics. And if you do join the action, Mike, you'll deflect any criticism that you're a pompous little twit, rather presumptuously disparaging brave men doing a tough job that are ten times (at least) your better.
But we can imagine you'll not get any closer to a scrap than an airshow. Right, Mike? Enjoy your protection and security, pal, that others secure for you.
A closing thought, Mike. And I can speak with some authority, those that put their butts on the line for you, don't even care for your good opinion--truly important matters occupy their mind.
P. S. Your fellow-spirt, Wow, has by this time discovered that no kids were killed in the Wikileaks film. I think old Wow is now lying low hoping this whole thread goes away. Could be wrong though. I mean, Wow could be man enough to come up on the air and admit he has been wrong. Time will tell.
@mike
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902â1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents"
[Smedley Butler, Major General USMC.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)
Things didn't noticeably change under Bush43/Cheney regime.
And you're in denial about infanticide, as well as climate change.
What a tangled web you weave, other mike.
>*I think you need to get in on the fight and show us how it's done. You know: lead from the front and never make a mistake and, perhaps, devise some innovative "green" tactics, as well. Maybe you could even send us back some sensitive, anguished posts describing your battlefield heroics.*
You mean like the war monger Bush? And the desk jockies that initiated the steps that lead the massicares of thousands of innocents?
>*American troops do wear white hats at least in comparison with those of other nations*
US Troops are reved up to dehumanise the indigenous populations whose nations they occupy. The terms "Gook", and "Rag Head", "Hajji Sand Nigger" are tools for this.
Dehumanising indigenous peoples is tactic to bypass some moral filters and encourage 'decisive action'. Little wonder that children and innocents are slane given the positoin that the US troops are placed in by desk jockies.
Chek,
It's good to get a semi-intelligent post, finally. Thank you, Chek, sort of. General Butler is a hero of mine (and of the Corps). And it is undoubtedly the case that the commitment to higher purpose, self-sacrifice, and courage of many young men in uniform (and now young women, as well)has been abused by cynical plutocrats and profiteers--just as starry-eyed enviormentalists have been abused by Big Green.
While such abuses of the armed forces occur, the need remains for a ready, credible means of national defense and that that force remain under the control of the civilian authority. Otherwise, its juntas and Hitlers in control of our destiny. If the military is employed for less than noble purposes, then it is the fault of voters like you, Chek.
After a good start, you blew it, Chek. Bush/Cheney? How are the policies of President Obama appreciably different? Afghanistan? Iraq? Maybe Pakistan. Iran anyone? Unlike General Butler, Chek, your world view is preposterously simple-minded and naive. I recommend you grow out of your please-be-my-friend need to belong to a group, shed your status as a "greenie" pawn, and start thinking for yourself. Then you'll begin to be worthy of man of General Butler's stature. Might even become one yourself.
As far as the "truth" of infanticide goes, just what is the truth of infantifice, Chek? Or is this a pop-off innuendo without merit of a kind with Wow's scurrilous little potshot? There is no policy to target children in the American Armed services. On the contrary, US soldiers and Marines are famous for their kindness and solicitude for kids (I know there are counter-examples, but they are rare). But you know that, don't you, Chek? In war civilians, including children, are killed. But you knew that, too, didn't you, Chek. However, to conflate collateral loss, to include the wrenching loss of children's lives, with the deliberate killing of children is a stunt unworthy of you, Chek (I hope). On the other hand, if you know of deliberate killings of children by military members of the United States Armed Forces, I'll gladly forward such information to the respective service IG.
As far as climate change goes, for what it's worth, Chek, I am not a climate change "denier." I think climate changes. But I do think for myself. Try it, you might get to like it.
Let's see now. Wow makes a scurrilous and untrue accusation. I offer a simple correction. Then Wow responds and not only persists in his error, but offers me, as a bonus, a little fuss-budget English lesson. Then Mike, everyone's favorite air-show commando, comes up on the air and identifies me as a troll (I guess I picked on his buddy and made him look bad). And now you, Chek, after a really great start, fizzle out and conclude your ever so urgent post with a limp-dick literary allusion (the weaving webs business--you've got to be kidding me). See what I mean, Chek? You are running with the wrong crowd, guy. You need to smarten up and get your act together.
Correction: upon reading a clearer account by Ethan McCord [here](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/emcc-a28.shtml), of the two children in the van shown in the wikileaks incident, one child was merely badly wounded and the other only badly wounded enough to be initially presumed dead unlike their accompanying father who received a 30mm shell to the chest and actually was dead.
Well, that's a relief.
All's well that ends well, eh other mike?
Jakerman,
My post to Chek provides a response to your post, as well.
But I do note the daring, original insights your post offers--drawn from personal experience, I'm sure. And no stereotypes. That's what I like best about your post, Jakerman.
By the way, Jakerman, you've heard of Hitler, haven't you? Bunch of dehumanized American soldiers and Marines, saved your butt from that guy. Maybe you didn't know that. Now you do. And from the Communists too(don't kid yourself, Jakerman, you would have been in the Gulag, not running the Gulag, like you think--the Bolsheviks, tough guys I have to admit, would never trust someone like you (a wrecker, an intellectual, a technocrat, a whiny little twit) with a senior position in their most important instrument of terror and oppression).
Get the picture, Jakerman. Try harder. It'll come to you if you try really hard.
What a nasty little guy you are, Chek. But yes, thank God the kids were saved--and provided the best medical care our Armed forces can provide. You also know, if you watched the Wikileaks video that there was no knowledge on the part of the choper crew that there were kids in the van. The van was acting suspiciously (please look at the video and you'll see the streets are otherwise deserted except for armed men of military age--the locals knew the score) and was suspected of being a car bomb. That's why it was destroyed.
But you are not interested in a good faith understanding of the event, are you, Chek. Your pathetic need is, instead, to score points. What a lowlife.
I get the strong impression, Chek, that I'm dealing with some dizzy kid. You know, Chek, it's not healthy for you to spend so much time on the computer (just ask your mom). At your age you should be interested in girls, sports. Healthy activities like that. Save the "big" thoughts for when you've done some growing up.
@ 262: Michael, think clearly; you should be wishing Barry's head would explode.
@ 305: I call Godwin. You lose.
The reason the film missed its mark is because its makers have no empathy with the people they were trying to reach, and little or no awareness of what normal people find acceptable.
The makers are not stupid (in an IQ sense) but are utterly clueless (in an EQ sense). Thatâs another way of saying âThey donât get it.â
They possess a sort of dehumanized sense of moral self-righteousness and certitude, which backfired in this case and will inevitably do so again, as it has in the past.
What ordinary people in their millions have seen is the disdain in which they are held by a handful of arrogant narcissists who want to ram collectivist policies down their throats whether they like it or not. And they don't like it.
This is why the AGW movement is slipping, and will ultimately lose out -- regardless of any science -- because the despised masses hate the creepy people behind the movement and the lofty contempt they display for others.
And around 700 people signed up to 10:10 yesterday.
That's a lot of unsubstantiated wishful thinking, Rick.
Exactly the kind of thing idiot columnists and nincompoop websites would have you believe, but have zero evidence for.
Let's just say that my experience differs greatly, and that no gardeners or allotment holders (both popular pastimes with the over 40's) that I know have any doubts about climate change. The clue for them is in the ever extending growing season.
Mike, your need to reach back to WWII is an abdication of critical assessment of the situation that has developed in the 65 years since.
I.e. WWII does not give allied forces a free pass for the end of time.
More recent developments (Vietnam, Iraq) show the Mititary-Poltical Profit complex has terribly damaging consequences. US agression is [underming the the global goodwill](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/usa.iran) towards towards the US.
People around the world [have experience the US](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) interference in [domestic politics](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm), or as ocupiers
Certain corporations do very well out of US agresion, and certan corporations strategically support candidates and parties to ennsure 'the right' guys win office to ensure that the US polices matches their corporate self interest.
Smedley Butler stood up to a takeover of government, Eisenhower warned of this take over. Now applogists like Mike uncritially support many of the actions resulting from this takeover.
Rick Bradford's comments should be viewed with [his record](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate…) in mind.
Jakerman,
Well you almost managed a cogent post, until at the very end you attributed views to me, I do not hold. What's with you guys, can't you conduct a discussion without putting words in someone's mouth. Always got to try and score a point at the end!
Jakerman, I'm going to give you one more chance. If you don't show intellectual integrity in the future, then I'm not going to let you impose on my valuable time again. Your loss, not mine.
I agree with everything else you say. So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm's way on dubious purposes? The military is the servant of our elected representatives. Except to defend the constitution or to refuse an unlawful order, our Armed Forces are morally and legally obligated to follow the dictates of our Commander-in-chief and the chain-of-command. Our soldiers and Marines are not allowed to launch a junta anytime they have a "better" idea. So if you've got a bone to pick--pick it with the government leaders you shake the pom-poms for come every election.
Once in the fight, however, our soldiers and Marines (and sailors too) have the obligation to fight to win within the Law of Land Warfare and the rules of engagement, to include the right of self-defense. And if we get another menace like Hitler or the Commies, you'll be glad your nation has the means to defend itself from such predators. No pass for WW II. It's a dangerous world, made much less so by a few superb young men and women defending our nation--even if their valiant services are, from time to time, abused by "Green" politicians, among others.
>*you attributed views to me, I do not hold.*
It happens to the best of us Mike, you did for me also. I guess that means you need to think about the implications of your jibe: "*you guys, can't you conduct a discussion without putting words in someone's mouth.*
>*So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm's way on dubious purposes?*
It's complex, and itâs also a profit complex.
Certain things work in politics, including advertising (putting your message in peopleâs heads) and controlling the media. Both require $.
Imagine your goal is to gain power, few candidates now days can run a successful campaign without tens of millions of $. To gain this (and gain victory) you can work long and hard to get this bit by bit from everyday people, or you can save a lot of time, energy, and be more assured of $ result by gaining the support of someone with lots of $.
It happens that some people with lots of $ earn their $ via activity that has an impact on the lives of others. Some of this activity has a negative impact and people seek to regulate that to preserve long term wellbeing for themselves and others. But regulation requires political power, and hence political power can affect the $ of some more than others.
Here we see a self reinforcing feedback. $ concentrated in the hands of the few can either be protected or threatened by politic power, Hence for some people, whose profit can bee affected by regulation it can be seen to be in their self interest to give lots of $ to a candidate that will protect their self interest.
Few people enter politics to be mercenaries, so candidates only accept $ from big business to beat the other guy who is always worse. âIf I didnât do it, she would and she is crazyâ.
Now it happens that domestic regulation is not the only complex, there are also complexes around foreign policy and military action. Certain nations do things that affect the $ of our corporations, such as changing labor laws or nationalising natural assets like mineral wealth. The right candidates can gain $ by pushing for our policy or action that changes the actions of other countries.
It also happens that these countries who affect the profits of our corporations are [threatening our existence](http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/01/05/looking-at-the-invasion-of-panama…), ruled by terrible people (we should know as they were often our assets).
Fortunately for the good politicians (those who only take $ to win ahead of the worse candidate) it so happens that standing up against countries that âthreaten our securityâ is popular among the masses who receive their awareness filtered via the media profit complex.
> So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm's way on dubious purposes?
I can't tell which country's elections you're referring to, but context suggests American. And if so, then the presumptions in your question seem particularly ignorant. *Both* major parties do it in American politics - and because of the political system a third party is not viable until one of the two dominant parties completely crumbles, which certainly hasn't happened yet. That means you *cannot* elect a party to power that won't do it.
Never mind the truly bizarre implication that voters assent to - and are responsible for - *every* action subsequently undertaken by their elected representatives.
mike, you keep talking about you Americans fighting Hitler and "the Commies". Are you not aware that the only reason the Allied forces which included the Americans won WWII is because of the Russians? Without them Hitler would probably have won in Europe. Ironic, eh, since some of them definitely were not white hat types.
Jakeman,
Great post. I'll keep in touch if you don't mind.
Lotharsson,
Kinda agree. But then, why find fault with the Armed Forces for carrying out the legal orders of your elected representatives. Prefer a military dictatorship?
Holly Stick,
WWII would not have been possible if Stalin had not cut a deal with Hitler to jointly carve up Poland, with Stalin further gobbling up the Baltic States and the Finnish Karelian peninsula.
When Great Britain and France declared war on Germany, to Stalin's delight, Uncle Joe withheld his forces so that Germany was spared a second front. During the first 18 months or so of the war, Stalin poured foodstuffs and raw materials into Germany to massively support Germany's war effort. Likewise, good comrades elsewhere in Europe and the United States were enjoined to help Germany's war effort.
Of course, Stalin was angling to get everyone else to knock themselves out so he could pick up the pieces. But Hitler stabbed Uncle Joe in the back before Uncle Joe could stab Hitler in the back.
And no, the Soviet Union's war effort was not essential to winning the war with Germany. Only America's effort was essential. The Soviet Union's contribution merely meant the war ended as soon as it did and Germany was spared a nuclear holocaust. Even without the bomb, Germany could not have defeated the U. S. and especially the U. S. and Britain alliance. Don't believe Soviet propaganda. You saw what short work (admittedly it took a few decades) the U. S. made of the Soviet Union. Same fate awaited Germany.
> But then, why find fault with the Armed Forces for carrying out the legal orders of your elected representatives.
Seriously? I guess this makes sense in a hardcore authoritarian follower worldview (see Bob Altemeyer's research), but not mine, because:
(a) otherwise you're not holding your elected leaders to account.
(b) elected leaders are supposed to *represent* the will of the electorate to some extent, and they can't do so if you never express an opinion.
(c) legality does not define the boundaries of morals, ethics - or even (leaving all of those considerations aside) what you think is appropriate and suitable for your leaders to be doing.
"I was only following orders".
Didn't work out too well when the US were leading the prosecution.
And the geneval convention makes what these soldiers a war crime.
You know what the US does to war criminals [don't you](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR20061…)?
And the bombing of Japan in WW2 was done to ensure that the Russians (who got in to Berlin first, despite a US convoy starting off early and getting into a shelling from the UK artillery who were "shock-and-awe" ing the german emplacements, hence their common friendly fire incident) didn't join in as they said they would to help the Americans.
Dropping the bomb was as much about politics and making it U-S-A! As tactical.
But War is Hell and the military HAVE to ensure that their men are as moral as possible so that a slip doesn't put them into War Criminal territory. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening, with the explicit approval of many of the more vocal "hawks".
> I offer a simple correction.
But don't offer any correction to any of your own verbal diarrhea.
Drove his children into a war zone? No, into his town.
Scurrilous? You're projecting, but all nutjobs do that because if everybody is as vile and evil as you are, then you can sleep at night knowing that you're no worse than anyone else (note how when human rights come up in a political discussion, the right wing almost always say something along the lines of "we're better than China, though, so why don't you go live there?").
You are scum, mike.
Vile scum.
Lotharson,
You seem to be another one of these guys anxious to score points. Except for your snotty tone, your first post was worth my while. But then you turn doofus on me:
-How do propose the military hold elected officials to account? March on the Capitol with fixed bayonets. What are you proposing? That the military goes on strike if it doesn't like an order (had that model in Japan under the Meiji constitution--didn't work out so well did it?). On the other hand a military officer's oath of office, in the United States, is a sacred oath, sworn before God, to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign an domestic. So there is a military check on a tyrannical executive branch. But that check has been employed with great reluctance historically--only during the civil war did U. S. officers, in significant numbers, exercise that option on behalf of their perceived states' rights under the Constitution. I don't want another civil war. But then I don't like blood spatters. On the other hand, the oath to support and defend the Constitution is sacred and binding.
-Your second point is a little bewildering--do I give the slightest impression I have reservations about giving an opinion? Now a serving officer does have limitations on his public speech--although it is not absolute. But again, what do you see as the model for the military in a democratic society? Generals dressing down Prime Ministers and Presidents? You don't see any problem with that, huh?
-As to your third point, I agree--who wouldn't? But your point is made in the context of the role of the military in a democratic/republican government. My view, and it is the view of American officers, is that the military is bound by legal orders of President and any other view invites rule by junta. However, orders that entail crimes against humanity and the like are not binding on the military. Indeed, there is an affirmative obligation to refuse such orders. You've got a different view, perhaps. Want to show us your cards?
Let me be presumptuous, Lotharson. You're a slick guy who has figured out a dozen or more hustles which affix you to the public tit. At the same time, you admire yourself in the mirror for your lofty view of the evil empire while sucking up its bounty. And, of course, your moral superiority just happens to remove from you any sense of military obligation your country--dovetailing neatly with your natural cowardly inclinations and freeloading low character. One out of three? Two? All Three? I bet all three.
On the other hand, Lotharson, old pal, when you see a funny film about kids exploding in blood spatter, be honest, doesn't that get your little big-man Himmler-like hormones aflow? And putting bullets in the back of the heads of thousands? Again, honesty please, isn't that one of your treasured wet dreams?
But maybe I'm wrong and owe you an apology, Lotharson, for my presumption. So just what are you doing to thwart the evil empire? Anything? And just what benefits of the evil empire have you rejected (benefits, not obligations and burdens of citizenship)? Other than self-congratulatory posts to blogs and hanging out with Bob Altemeyer and grooving on his "work", just what is the substance of your life of virtue?
Hey Wow! Good to have you back, guy. I'd given you up for dead (figuratively speaking, of course).
Geez, Wow, I must have really struck a nerve. I mean two whole messages. And the stately progression of the messages! The first, sort of sane, though with a hint of barely hanging on. Then Pow! the second one a total freak-out. A thunderbolt, Wow! You're the man, Wow.
Although your combination meltdown, freak show, and blood splatter had an entertaining quality, seriously, Wow, you are mentally ill. You need help, old buddy.
Mike,
Your big error here is to assume that, because individual U.S. soldiers are mostly, 'nice guys doing a tough job', you forget the background as to what they are doing, where they are doing it and why thay are doign it. The problem is that in their 'institutional role' they do monstrous things collectively because the institution itself - the basis of wars fought on grounds entirely different from those drip fed to us by the corporate mainstream media - are indeed monstrous. Its the same thing as defending a Corporate CEO on the basis that he's a sweet guy who is a well-respected community member. That may all be true, but once he dons his CEO cap, he is working for an institution that does horrific things. This is because he is working for others in order to maximize trhe return of their investments. Its the same with any military establishment.
"Iraq has been destroyed, never to rise again", were the words of Nir Rosen, a respected commentator of the region, when he visited in 2008. A recent study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a leading medical journal, published a study, 'Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009'. The survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah showed a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. It found a 10-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia. By contrast, Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia. According to the study, the types of cancer are âsimilar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout".
Of course, the western MSM gave this a bye, much as they did with the sanctions of mass destruction that may have killed between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqi citizens between 1991 and 2003. The Lancet studies and the study by Opinion Business Research, which estmated staggeringly high death tolls for Iraqis as a result of the invasion and occupation, were also routinely ridiculed in the media. We can go back to previous wars - most recently Viet Nam - and find the same denial. Of course there has been denial in the west, because our crimes are rarely if ever reported, and, when they are, they are downplayed. The point I am making is that the US military is not located in over 140 countries in order to defend freedom but to ensure that capital flows remain in the right direction. Smedley Butler summed it up perfectly. Senior US planner George Kennan said more-or-less the same thing is 1948, and more recently when he said that US foreign policy should aim to 'protect our resources' which just so happened to lie under the land masses of other countries in South America. This is the US miltary's job nowadays IMHO. To subjegate the resource wealth of other countries, outright expansionism, and the nullification of alternative systems. All at the behest of the powerful elites which dominate domestic society. And I think there is a lot of evidence to prove this, if one bothers to look for it.
Sorry to say, but IMHO your comments on WWII are pretty gumbified. It certainly is not as simple as you suggest. Certainly the Allied effort played a crucial role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. But so did the Russians, who destroyed the German panzer divisions in the east and seriously undermined Hitler's main obsession, which was to capture Russia and its vast wealth of natural resources. Most importantly, the wars being fought today at the behest of corporate power have little (or should I say, much less) to do with what happened 70 years ago. Certainly many US corporations became wealthy as a result of WW II, but the wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan are all about pipelines and blue and black gold. The US State Department wrote in 1950 that the Persian Gulf represented the 'Greatest material prize in history' and a 'Source of stupendous strategic power'. Expand that to include the vast natural gas reserves in the Caucasus region and its clear why US planners covet the region. Zbignieuw Brezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard' (1998; a veritable Bible for the neocons) lays it out in fine print. But it goes even well before that, to the Council of Foreign Relation's 'Grand Area Strategy' (1939) which was a blueprint foir the carving up of west Asia's mineral wealth. Hong Kong Times journalist Pepe Escobar brilliantly exposes all of the myths and realities in his books, 'Globalistan' and 'Obama does Globalistan'.
All of this puts into perspective, as far as I am concerned, what the US military is doing in the world today. All of this nonsense about 'rules of engagement' (meaning rules for shooting and killing people) masks the real agenda.
Rick Bradford -- "This is why the AGW movement is slipping, and will ultimately lose out -- regardless of any science -- because the despised masses hate the creepy people behind the movement and the lofty contempt they display for others."
Hmmm. Interesting criteria you have for deciding on whether to f**k up our next generation of kids or not. Perhaps they'll be reading a lot of internet posts like yours during history lessons.
> You seem to be another one of these guys anxious to score points.
This seems like projection to me, but I could easily be wrong.
> How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?
I didn't. Try reading what I posted again, in context. You appeared to be trying to blame (some of) the electorate for the actions of their elected leaders, like so:
> So why do you and others like you keep electing creeps who send our armed forces in harm's way on dubious purposes?
My comments were in response to *that*, not to the idea (which I don't think had been raised at that point) of having "the military hold elected officials to account". If I misinterpreted you on that score, my apologies. But if I did not, that means that your post - although I agree with parts of it (e.g. the paragraph that includes "You've got a different view, perhaps. ") - wasn't at all related to what I was saying, and imputes to me views that I do not hold.
> You're a slick guy who has figured out a dozen or more hustles which affix you to the public tit.
LOL! Your mind-reading skills are no better than average, although you do score points for above average creative imagination. As one example, I'm employed in the private sector and I'm valued enough by my employer for my contributions to be quite well rewarded for it - and anyone who knows me would state that I am anything *but* "slick". The rest of your imaginings are little better - especially the rather sick but revealing fantasy you have that a movie I haven't seen "get[s my] little big-man Himmler-like hormones aflow". Is it truly difficult for you to imagine the possibility that I'm not authoritarian - either follower or leader - and that others with similar concerns might not be either? And if so, have you ever reflected on why that is?
Harvey,
I greatly appreciate your thought-provoking post. Some of your points, I've wrestled with myself, others I've just not got to or even considered. Without either agreeing or disagreeing with the detail of your analysis, the issue I addressed in my previous posts, is the most relevant aspect of your analysis to my interests. So please indulge me.
To put the matter in a form for further discussion, let me ask: If we assume everything you say is accurate and that your analysis is the final word in its treatment of current geo-politics and the American (and British?) governments, then what is the proper place and role of the Armed forces of the United States and Great Britain? I've offered my view in some previous posts, at least from an American perspective. May I ask how yours might differ? I am genuinely interested in your reply.
Incidentally, I loved the word "gumbified". Just as soon as I look up its precise meaning, I intend to enthusiastically lock it up in my treasure chest of oddball words. Keep 'em coming, please.
The Russians. Salt of the earth. And like Germans and Americans and Japanese and, indeed, like everyone else , they share the same human substance that forms us all. I have the highest regard for the Russians' martial abilities (some scary dudes) and their astounding feats of arms in WWII. Russian efforts saved hundreds of thousands of American and British lives, undoubtedly, at the expense of their own. But Stalin was evil incarnate befitting his murderous Communist creed. And we would have won without them--unless Germany's u-boats had prevailed in the Battle of the Atlantic. Fortunately, we won that critical battle. But it was close. At least, that's my best read of the war.
Again, Harvey, I sincerely thank you for your great post. Although my initial estimate is that we probably don't have too much of a shared worldview, I anticipate that I'm going to learn a lot, if you would be so kind as to exchange a couple of posts with me. Maybe even have my mind changed.
almost right on pinocchio,
If you know the finer details of WW2 then you would know that Hitler was forced into that war, truth is the first casualty of war and the victors then write the history.
Did you read this ? http://www.tinyurl.com.au/wfv
from here http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Lotharsson,
You're right and I'm wrong. My presumption was misplaced and well, presumptuous. You are owed an apology. And I sincerely apologize and am delighted you are such a good guy--I'm not being facetious. Indeed, I couldn't be happier to learn my first impression of you was so hare-brained wrong (although I'm chagrined that could have gotten it so wrong). Lesson learned.
I hope that my apology mends fences between us enough to continue a conversation. In that regard, may I ask what you see as the proper place and role of the Armed forces of the United States and Great Britain, in the areas you addressed (and others you might care to address). You know my view. Fire away. What's the better alternative?
Incidentally, I also apologize for spelling your name wrong. I'm usually attentive to names, but dropped the ball this time. Again, my apologies.
Mike,
Many thanks for replying. Sorry to be so heavy handed. Gumbified was pretty tactless. Anyway, I can tell you that I have wrestled with this question for a long time to. Many USA veterans who have been abandoned by their country I am sure feel exactly the same way. Stan Goff, a retired veteran, writes a great weblog, 'Feral Scholar', in which he addresses many of these issues. I admire the guy for his honesty. He is a proud American, much like Andrew Bacevich, who lost his son in Iraq. Read his books too. They are real eye-openers. He angrily criticizes the increased militarism of US policy since the end of the Viet Nam war, and claims that, if continued unchecked, it will destroy democracy in time. Like me, he argues that the real agendas for Pentagon planners is far different from that which we read in the MSM on a daily basis.
I guess I just not trust politicans. I see them as paid liars on behalf of those who pull the strings behind them. By these I mean the corporate lobbyists and establishment, who ahave their own very specific agenda. I have read a lot of declassified UK planning documents that are described in detail in books by British historian, Mark Curtis (the books are entiled, "Web of Deceit" and "Unpeople". Many of these documents are declassfied under the Freedom of Information Act and are freely available in large library archives for anyone who wants to see what really drove the foreign policy establishment in thew 1960s and 1970s (and little has changed now). Curtis spent a lot of time in libraries reading up on these documents, and for reasons of brevity he focussed on the middle east. What he found was truly shocking, at least if we consider the usual narrative that is endlessly regurgiated in the MSM. UK planners, for the most part, expressed concern that people living in countries with large oil and/or natural gas deposits might embrace nationalistic regimes which would try and use their own resources for internal development e.g that is to benefit their own people (witness the overthrow of nationalist Mohammed Mosadegh in Iran in 1953). This concerned UK planners because it would 'conflict with the interests of British businesses'. Therefore, UK planners advised that 'everything should be done to ensure that the British government influences internal decision-making processes' in these countries.
Curtis explained that in document after document, the same pattern emerged. Far from supporting internal democracy in middle eastern nations, successive British goverments were terrified of it, because they would lose influence over the ways in which the internal natural resources of these countries - and expecially the profits generated from them - would be divided.
US planning dcouments from Latin American tell much of the same story (hence Kennan's quote). And, as Greg Grandin eloquently points out in his book, 'Empire's Workshop', the US has traditionally expoloited the wealth of countries in its 'own backyard' as a means of developing the right strategies for expansion into the 'Grand Area' as I described the CFR described the west Asian region. I see the future as one based on who controls pipelines that criss-cross the east- and central-Asian energy grid. And, most importantly, the bemerging role of China as a world superpower and Russia as a supplier of natual gas and oil. Read up on the 'Shanghai Co-operation Organization'. Formed in 2001, it partners Russia and China, with India, Pakistan and Iran as 'non-member' observers. Its a kind of NATO-east; get used to the acronym, its going to be around awhile.
So, what role do I see for the US and UK military? Let me put it this way: IMO both countries would gain a lot more favor in the world if they spent more money saving people and less money killing them. We, meaning those holding the club, may be blind to economic and political realities on the ground but the people at the receiving end of the club know exactly what is going on. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq know what the invasions and occupations are all about, even if we in the west prefer to believe in imperial illusions. I think that US and UK military have no role in the world outside of directly defending on our own shores. So long as there are US military bases set up in 140 plus countries, I think that there will be growing resentment. The Pentagon has become a veritable "House of War" (in the words of American writer James Carroll) that was actually supposed to be decommissioned after WWII. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warmed of a military-industrial complex in his resignation speech in 1961, and his words resonate more now than ever.
I have more ideas along this themse but I will save them for later.
> How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?
They don't.
Watch series 3 and 4 of Babylon 5 for how a soldier being asked to do the immoral should hold his elected officials to account: by NOT DOING the immoral act.
That is the ENTIRE POINT of the Nuremberg Trials conclusion that "I was only following orders" is no defence to war crime accusations. The soldier has a DUTY to uphold the Geneva conventions and cannot be forced to obey an immoral command.
It IS hard to do when, in a war (though this gives the lie to "Mission Accomplished", doesn't it) you see your friends shot, blown up and lying in pieces, wailing in pain.
But they are PROFESSIONALS. They (all of them) knew that bullets and bombs were going to figure highly in their career and that death for them is definitely on the cards.
> Posted by: mike | October 8, 2010 5:11 AM
Did you actually have *anything* to say, mike? Or are you just bloviating?
Musta hit a nerve to have you avoid saying anything of substance yet HAVE to say "something".
Harvey,
Again, I'm most appreciative that you've shared so freely your considerable study of contemporary affairs. A portion of the history you cite, I've stumbled across myself. And many of your thoughts have crossed my mind, as well. If I may, there are three considertions I have.
-While many of the foreign policy issues/events you cite (and don't get me started on the mind control and medical experiments) appear very questionable, some of the decisions, I suspect would make a certain sense if viewed from the perspective of the original decision makers.
--Through much of the 20th century the Western democracies faced mortal rivals who aspired to destroy our democracies and replace them with fascist, nazi, communist, or Imperial Japanese alternatives. So what I can't eliminate as a possibility in most cases, is that otherwise repugnant decisions might have a convincing rationale, that is not immediately apparent.
--Let me give a non-geopolitical example that might better capture the flavor of my thoughts: During WWII British code breakers achieved astonishing access to the Axis' most secret communications, as I know you are aware. One intercept revealed that the town of Coventry was to be targeted in a forthcoming bombing raid. Despite that prior knowledge, the British government deliberately decided not to evacuate Coventry's population and the ensuing raid inflicted grievous casualties on the predominantly civilian population. On the surface, the British government's decision seems unconscionable, but at the time, it was judged that the country's code breaking successes must be kept secret and an evacuation of Coventry might have betrayed that secret to the Germans. So in the case of Coventry, the seemingly indefensible suddenly becomes defensible.
-The "isolationist" retreat of America (as its detractors term the option) you propose has much appeal, I would say. However, I can't quite be convinced that the option is a better one. Periods of prolonged peace (relatively speaking) have been associated with great powers enforcing a code of conduct among nations--the Pax Britannica and the Pax Romana, for example. Even earlier, the unification of the kingdoms of upper and lower Egypt conferred on the Nile river valley centuries of peace unknown in Mesopotamia. There may be other mechanisms by which a stable peace can be achieved, but until such mechanism can be practically secured, the current Pax Americana has its appeal. Absent a global, or at least regional cop, I fear much of the world would return to the level of bloodletting seen in the first 75 years of the 20th century. On the other hand, the U. S. would not likely suffer, itself, if it confined its Armed Forces to the defense of the homeland and critical sea lanes (we are a maritime nation). Again, chewing on this one and would appreciate your thoughts.
Finally, I'm still not sure, Harvey, as to your view of the place and role of the the U. S. Armed Forces. Does the place and role of the U. S. Armed Forces differ based on employment, in terms of obligations of its Officers and men? Or is such a matter constant regardless of the employment? Currently, the obligations of military personnel are invariant and most basically to: support and defend the constitution, obey the legal orders of the duly constituted civilian military authority, adhere to the Law of Land Warfare and the principles developed at Nuremberg, and perform courageously and competently assigned military missions. Some portions of the above obligations involve binding, indeed sacred, oaths. Do you propose re-designing the above sorts of obligations of military members? Or, perhaps, the real concern is how the military is employed by civilian authority, not the military members' current obligations. Something like a tyro mechanic misusing a tool--nothing wrong with the tool, just its employment.
I have much enforced time on the hands, Harvey. So I could keep this chit-chat going longer than the law allows. I suspect you, on the other hand, have a real life and need to attend to more important affairs. As you get a chance, any further thoughts would be appreciated.
Wow,
I'm just bloviating, Wow. You've found me out. Darn!
Babylon 5? Wow, the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations. You seem to be suffering from an over-rich diet of Manga comics, video games, and TV shows. Get out into the real world. Join the Army or Marines even. You need some life-experience. I mean, put to the test some of your cocksure theories.
Glad to see you've somewhat calmed down. I was getting worried, Wow.
> the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations.
Then why did these soldiers forget? It is against conventions of war to fire upon people who have not been identified as combatants.
I.e. the original party shot up.
It is against the conventions of war to shoot at those who, civilian or not, are recovering the wounded on the battlefield.
It is against the conventions of war to shoot at unidentified targets like the children in the pickup.
Either they were ordered to, or they did it themselves.
In the latter case, there's no cause to ask:
> How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?
Because this was the soldiers themselves, not their elected officials.
PS these soldiers get to vote, too, don't they?
And not forgetting the fourth.
> the obligation of soldiers/Marines to disobey unlawful orders, to include unlawful orders to perform unconscionable acts, is well covered in military law and regulations.
Then why did these soldiers forget? It is against conventions of war to fire upon people who have not been identified as combatants.
I.e. the original party shot up.
It is against the conventions of war to shoot at those who, civilian or not, are recovering the wounded on the battlefield.
It is against the conventions of war to shoot at unidentified targets like the children in the pickup.
Either they were ordered to, or they did it themselves.
In the latter case, there's no cause to ask:
> How do propose the military hold elected officials to account?
Because this was the soldiers themselves, not their elected officials.
PS these soldiers get to vote, too, don't they?
And not forgetting the fourth.
> You seem to be suffering from an over-rich diet of Manga comics, video games, and TV shows.
During Iraq War II (the sequel to the smash hit Iraq War) there were interviews with the soldiers on the battlefield. One young tank gunner said (quoting from memory):
I put the music on loud and it's just like a computer game.
How about YOU go out there and stop being an armchair hawk, mike?
Wow,
Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. The Wikileaks incident was within the provisions of the Law of Land Warfare and the ROE's in place at that time (not to say some agenda-laden lawyer might not try to argue to the contrary). That's why no action was taken against the helicopter crew. So quit faking it, Wow. For Pete's sake. Better yet, get in uniform and show us how its done.
Just had a look at the 10:10 count again and it's gone down by about 2000, having gone up by the same amount??
Is that 4000 withdrawn and 2000 signed up?
Or was the increase due to bogus sign ups, eg. false post codes and email addresses?
I think maybe bogus sign ups are more likely.
small mike, you can justify away as much as you will, but it remains that Iraq was invaded without even the fig leaf of UN authority as step two in a gamble for regional dominance.
The wikileaks incident shows what happens when foreign soldiers are in a strange land flying about with 30mm hammers looking for 30mm problems to nail. What some kid poorly trained in local conditions and hyped up on danger believes transforms into the combined might of judge, jury and executioner of multiple innocent victims. It may not be procedure, but its inevitability is obvious. Neither is it likely to be the only such incident. Your tired old 'bad apples' excuse was also wheeled out at Abu Ghraib before the extent that the public could stomach was made known. The full extent? I doubt it. That'll come out in 20 years time.
Of course the invading army will excuse its soldier's actions. Just as the contractors were excused massacring that wedding party and whatever else is required to make the whole operation procede expediently. Such considerations are hardly a measure of the morality or basic human decency of the situation though. Try not to conveniently forget that while that's good enough for you, not everybody sees it that way in other parts of the world, and supreme power has a historical habit of shifting where it resides on a fairly frequent basis. From the rumours, when a senior enough whistleblower writes the book, Fallujah will become as well known as Dresden or Baba Yar. There's damned good reasons reporters were 'embedded' and the free roving ones tended to meet sticky ends until the rest saw which way the wind was blowing.
And lastly your febrile imaginings about who and what I am in #303 & #306 are pants-pissing laughable.
Paul UK said: "I think maybe bogus sign ups are more likely."
I'd agree. When I looked at about 11 o'clock last night UK time, Monckton, Montford and Delingpole were allegedly the latest sign ups.
Chek,
Hi, Chek! First Wow and now you, Chek. Life is good.
This post is one of your best yet, maybe even the very best. The thing I like most about the post is that it is a full, brilliant display of your many dimensions: seer, prophet, judge, jury, executioner, witch hunter, commissar, devil's advocate, grand inquisitor, mad scientist, prima donna, town gossip, mama's boy, spoiled brat, village idiot, and pest. A classic of its kind, really.
Fallujah=Dresden, Baba Yar? And how do we know? Chek has heard some rumours. Case closed. Lock'em up. Let's see now Chek, Baba Yar was on Hitler's watch. But Dresden? Who were the heads of government responsible for Dresden, Chek? I can never remember. But whoever they were they must be equal to Hitler, right? Isn't that how Chek-logic works?
Despite the far, far, far OT and boring moralising going on in many comments above, I'll just note that the little video was...well...hilarious.
[And if people remember things like Mr. Creosote...or the Young Ones...why has no one brought up the SCTV classic line, "They blowed up good!"...?]
chek:
>I'd agree. When I looked at about 11 o'clock last night UK time, Monckton, Montford and Delingpole were allegedly the latest sign ups.
It's gone down from about 95,000 to about 73,000 in a few hours. That doesn't seem right.
Could it have been hacked?
Is it easy to un-sign once you have joined?
Well I just signed up for 10:10 and there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to be removed via email or the web site.
So either:
1. The site is hacked.
2. 10:10 are removing vast numbers of bogus signups
3. 10:10 are removing vast numbers because people are asking to be removed as a result of the video.
I refer to the UK site in my last post, not the global one.
Between 22:00 and 23:46, Franco,Mussollini,Hitler,Stalin and Pauline Pot were jokingly signed up.
Elsewhere, children and smiling, enthusiastic people trying to make a difference and improve the future, are having their picture taken planting trees.
That seems a damn effective delineation of the difference, to me.
The count seems to be going up again at a slower rate, from the 73,000s. I don't know what the count was before the video.
They seem to be still collecting cities and local government signing up.
Britons are less environmentally conscious than they were five years ago, with twice as many people now "bored" by talk of climate change as in 2005, [according to a report by market researchers Mintel].
Experts warn that green fatigue is a major reason why there are more cars on the roads, more planes in the sky and no reduction in the mountain of packaging waste.
Analysts believe the recession together with a backlash against "extreme" environmentalist pressure has reduced people's enthusiasm to combat climate change.
"Climate change is important, but the people who are more extreme have split everyone into two camps," one respondee noted.
The Splattergate video isn't going to help; time for another struggle meeting......
>according to a report by market researchers ... Experts warn ... Analysts believe ... one respondee noted
Instead of posting more vacuous drivel like the above, why don't you try to address [the questions you've repeatedly run away from](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate…) on the thread you tried to troll earlier?
The UK 10:10 count is back up to 96,000 plus, from 73,000 or so.
They certainly have major issues with the software and web site, whatever they are.
> but it remains that Iraq was invaded without even the fig leaf of UN authority as step two in a gamble for regional dominance.
Uh, it was more than that, it was the defence of the US monetary system.
Iraq were trading internationally in Euros.
This is not good for the dollar.
Note the "Axis of Evil". Iraq. Iran (also trading oil in Euros, other trade in USD). North Korea (ditto) and Venezuela.
Note the last one there.
It always seemed out of place to me, but when someone pointed out that Venzeula was trading oil in Euros and was going to, like Iraq, trade all international trade in Euros rather than the US Dollar, it made sense.
Iraq was nothing more than a punishment beating to get all the countries in line and trading in dollars.
I'd agree that is a strong likely factor Wow, but I'd also suggest that the international financial system is a largely notional if widely accepted virtual construct.
Players trust that the figures on their screens will be honoured, but they hold nothing tangible.
Having boots and tanks on the ground to claim actual physical commodities and assets (as per the Brzezinski 'doctrine' whether oil, grain or forseeably even water) counts for more in terms of strategic power, at least in the short term.
> but I'd also suggest that the international financial system is a largely notional if widely accepted virtual construct.
And the movement of international trade to USD from UKP was a major factor in creating the US as a superpower (as the UK was before they gave it up to pay for US aid).
It means you can print money and people HAVE to buy it.
But the Euro is becoming a better bet and many countries have discussed moving to it. Oil trade in the Middle East is a no-brainer especially for those where the Western Involvements have caused problems. After all, you get in trouble if you deal with The Great Satan (which is hyperbole, but that's politics).
> counts for more in terms of strategic power, at least in the short term.
But it counts for NOTHING internationally. It's the merest speed-bump for most, but when the US invaded Iraq and publicly crushed them, those with american bases in their country had to have second thoughts about bucking US interests.
And why the boots and tanks? In order that US dollars and US interests are listened to.
Which the punishment beating of Iraq ensured was put forefront.
I accept the international politics, but abhor the hypocrisy. Admit that politics is merely the continuation of war and that you aren't "the leader of the free world" but merely the biggest player, looking out for your own interests.
As does every country.
In case anyone missed it, [Anthony Watts had this to say](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the…) to Phil Clarke when he freely admitted that he had signed 10:10's signy thingy:
That's a big call, Watts.
From what dim, dank dungeon did you dredge up that dark descriptor?
Bernard J
Your Watts link is broken.
Or has Watts removed the post?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/an_inconvenient_ligh…
[Paul UK](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…).
The time-stamp on the Watts thread is "October 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm".
The link in my [previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/1010s_cunning_plan.php#comment-…) is the same as the one attached to the time-stamp:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the…
so I am not sure why it doesn't work, but if you follow the date/time or simply search for "snuff", it should come up.
I've saved the page in case Watts removes his comment.
Tim,
As much I respect your right to hold an opinion, the views you are expressing are extremely damaging to the environmental cause we presume you to support.
Bill McKibben of 350.org quickly identified the video for what it is and condemned it as the rantings of an extremist fringe.
It is a common feature of extremists that they believe they are following a noble cause and the ends will justify the means. If your cause is saving the world, is it not logical that any means necessary are justified to achieve it? Only the week before the video there was the eco-terrorist gunman James Jay Lee in America. Greenpeace recently used the "we know where you live" line to warn deniers.
Luckily, extremists who think it should actually go that far are presently in the minority. But their presence is having a pernicious influence on the wider environmental movement.
There is a tendency towards intolerance and dehumanisation of any dissent or scepticism. An attempt to make it socially unacceptable and accusations of evil by an allusion to holocaust "deniers".
And it's already happening. Many teachers already do political advocacy for Green politics, and it would be a brave child who stood up against a teacher and the rest of the class to express a contrary view. Employers already do the same, mostly for more cynical reasons it has to be said, and there are few employees independent enough to speak up against the boss.
No, mostly people will stick their hands up in support in public, and then ignore it in private. They don't believe, but they're not going to make their own lives any harder by opposing it.
But that's the first step in social conditioning which occurs in
authoritarian societies. Once you have made it socially unacceptable to speak in defence of an opposing view, you can then introduce stronger methods of encouragement without anyone being able to object. Not execution,of course, but regulation and compulsion to authority.
And that's what scares people about this video - that it portrays a
ridiculously exaggerated version of this already worrying tendency.
No one is worried that the greenies are actually planning to splatter sceptics, they're worried that some in the environmental movement have reached a mindset where they now openly advertise it as humour. Where they don't even notice the message being advocated is the authoritarian use of horrific threat.
The scariest part of the splattergate video is not the explosions, but the authority figure's (teacher, employer) speech leading up to it.
Capitan sensible are you concerned at the authoritarian rules than prevent murder and slavery?
Teachers promote these authoritarian rules and it would be a brave student who stood up to that.
Are you concerned that people in positions of power push authoritarian rules about how we can live together, like not dumping your trash on the street or not dumping chemicals in the river?
I think you need to be more concerned with anti-democratic authoritarianism such as concentration of media ownership, and the power exerted by extreme concentration of wealth in the political process.
You are way off the mark picking on this pythonesk joke sketch.