Merged "Eco-Fascist Snuff Movie"

[Cicero]

I don't really get the title of this thread. Why call the people behind this campaign "Global Warmers/Climate Changers" if they are attempting to counteract global warming or climate change? It makes no sense.

They are attempting to counteract global warming or climate change by making inane videos? How is that working? It is difficult to keep up with the MMGW (man made global warming) crowd as they have switched the name of their evangelical style belief to climate change.

Given that they used this video, I'd guess it's an attempt at irony. Implying that there is, in fact, tremendous pressure on everyone to reduce their CO2 footprint from the people around them and their own conscience. From the makers' viewpoint, this would be obvious, like saying "We encourage you to do this in order to avoid destroying the planet. But don't worry, no pressure."

Keep guessing.

Like the other attempts at humour in the video, that one probably failed to reach the audience as well.

It would have been much more amusing had they had the global warmer teacher's head explode and show all the hot air escaping.

 

[DC]

Cicero, do you deny the Global Warming and the human contribution to it?

 

[Rufo]

They are attempting to counteract global warming or climate change by making inane videos? How is that working? It is difficult to keep up with the MMGW (man made global warming) crowd as they have switched the name of their evangelical style belief to climate change.

The campaign the video is promoting is an effort to counteract global warming. As for how the video is working as a means to that, I'd say rather poorly.

My question was why you are referring to these people as "global warmers/climate changers" when their expressed goal is not to cause global warming or climate change.

Keep guessing.

No, I think that's what they were trying to do. Do you think it meant something else?

It would have been much more amusing had they had the global warmer teacher's head explode and show all the hot air escaping.

No, that would have been about as pointless as this.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I was referring to Cicero's outrage. He gins himself up over something or other several times a week... usually some alleged liberal bias in the main stream media.

(Okay, I'm assuming he's exaggerating, otherwise he's insane.)

OK, so it's an attack on the poster based on their previous posting history. A bit ad hom ish for my liking but at least I know where you are coming from.

 

[DC]

I like the add. makes people debate.
Other things seem not to help, far to many people still dont realize that we have to change our behavior or atleast the Technoligies we are using.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I like the add. makes people debate.

Really? I'm fine with the ad - I am an advocate of free speech - but I'm not sure what it brings to the debate.

It doesn't discuss the science, and most AGW debates just descend into bickering anyway; this ad is polemic and will simply accentuate the bickering.

The only debate I can see coming from this ad is: Are the 10:10 crowd really this stupid, or is it just one or two of them? Will Franny Armstrong ever work in this field again?

Yep, that's about it I think.

 

[Aepervius]

To be honest after watching the video, without indication I would be thinking of it as a campaign AGAINST 10:10, as an ad showing that the 10:10 things is blackmail against citizen or something.

 

[DC]

Really? I'm fine with the ad - I am an advocate of free speech - but I'm not sure what it brings to the debate.

It doesn't discuss the science, and most AGW debates just descend into bickering anyway; this ad is polemic and will simply accentuate the bickering.

The only debate I can see coming from this ad is: Are the 10:10 crowd really this stupid, or is it just one or two of them? Will Franny Armstrong ever work in this field again?

Yep, that's about it I think.

there is nothing to debate about the Science and is very unlikely to convince deniers anyway.

 

[Virus]

I just watched it and found it absolutely fascist and disgusting. The idea that people who disagree have to be purged to save the future. If these people were around a few decades ago they'd be in the Red Guard. It doesn't help that fanatical environmentalists have used terrorism.

 

[bit_pattern]

I just watched it and found it absolutely fascist and disgusting. The idea that people who disagree have to be purged to save the future. If these people were around a few decades ago they'd be in the Red Guard. It doesn't help that fanatical environmentalists have used terrorism.

Bwhhahaha. I bet you read a lot of Andrew Bolt

 

[a_unique_person]

I just watched it and found it absolutely fascist and disgusting. The idea that people who disagree have to be purged to save the future. If these people were around a few decades ago they'd be in the Red Guard. It doesn't help that fanatical environmentalists have used terrorism.

They don't actually say that at all. It so absurd that it's not too hard to realise it's farcical. What they do actually say is not so obvious, either. So it's bad advertising and it doesn't get it's message across, while generating a mountain of feigned outrage.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Carbon Emissions legislation will *********** murder you, like that.
Saturday, October 02, 2010

September 11th 2001 showed us that they KNOW these ultra-violent shock tactics can project a false message into gullible trained minds, like Franny Armstrong who directed this pro-Global Warming short "NO PRESSURE" penned by Blackadder-writer Richard Curtis for the 10:10 government campaign.

http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2010/10/carbon-emissions-legislation-will.html

----------------------------

Franny Armstrong

Education

Armstrong read zoology at University College, London and her thesis was Is the human species suicidal?

Rescue by Boris Johnson

On 2 November 2009, Armstrong was threatened in the streets of north London by three girls whom she described as looking "like something straight out of central casting". They pushed her against a car and pulled out an iron bar. She cried for help and was rescued by Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who was cycling by. He chased off the attackers and then insisted on escorting Armstrong home. During this 20-minute journey, she suggested that he adopt the 10:10 policy for the tube and that he pedestrianise Camden Town. He replied that he wanted to pedestrianise areas across London.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franny_Armstrong

 

[Virus]

Bwhhahaha. I bet you read a lot of Andrew Bolt

Then you lose the bet.

 

[CoolSceptic]

there is nothing to debate about the Science and is very unlikely to convince deniers anyway.

Interesting.

Had you said something like: there are many AGW sceptics who rely base their views on unscientific ideology, I would certainly agree with you. That said, some advocates of AGW are ideology driven as well. Such is human nature.

And the second part of your sentence - some people will not be swayed by any amount of evidence. But again, that applies to people on both sides - nothing new here.

But the statement "there is nothing to debate about the science" is astonishing. Absolute and profoundly unscientific - really no better than those you criticise.

I am left wondering what AGW advocates hope to achieve by such extreme statements, such as this, and the "mini-movie".

ETA: As an aside, looks like Sony are also engaging in "feigned" or "faux" outrage (however you go about determining these things). I read about this yesterday, but wasn't sure of the authenticity, Andy Revkin claims to have confirmed it:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/climate-group-regrets-shock-film-tactic/

 

[DC]

Interesting.

Had you said something like: there are many AGW sceptics who rely base their views on unscientific ideology, I would certainly agree with you. That said, some advocates of AGW are ideology driven as well. Such is human nature.

And the second part of your sentence - some people will not be swayed by any amount of evidence. But again, that applies to people on both sides - nothing new here.

But the statement "there is nothing to debate about the science" is astonishing. Absolute and profoundly unscientific - really no better than those you criticise.

I am left wondering what AGW advocates hope to achieve by such extreme statements, such as this, and the "mini-movie".

what science should have been debated? There are many threads about AGW, and not one of the deniers has come up with any legit critque of the science, only denial and CT drivel.

 

[CoolSceptic]

what science should have been debated? There are many threads about AGW, and not one of the deniers has come up with any legit critque of the science, only denial and CT drivel.

No point in debating the science on JREF. Advocates on both sides wreck the threads. You have to go elsewhere if you want an informed debate on climate science.

 

[DC]

No point in debating the science on JREF. Advocates on both sides wreck the threads. You have to go elsewhere if you want an informed debate on climate science.

where would that be? and what is your problem with a science and fact based debate like the ones here on JREF?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

'We wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines while making people laugh. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. As a result we've taken if off our website."

Exploding children featured in 10:10 video

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/blogs/exploding-children-featured-in-1010-video

I'm not clicking on that link. Please post a complete transcript.

 

[CoolSceptic]

where would that be? and what is your problem with a science and fact based debate like the ones here on JREF?

I think the science and fact based debate on JREF is excellent in a number of areas, including physics, medicine, biology, etc.

It fails in climate science because of advocacy on both sides causes the debate to descend into petty bickering. Hence why JREF has rules shutting threads on climate science down, but not on physics, medicine, biology etc.

To be honest, I don't think I've yet found a public place on the web where a constructive debate is possible. (I'm pretty sure I haven't searched the entire web yet though ) The most constructive debates I've had on climate science have generally been one-to-one discussions with scientists I work with.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not clicking on that link. Please post a complete transcript.

Teacher ends a lesson (we gather on climate change) by asking the class if there's anything they can do to reduce their carbon footprint, and a few kids make suggestions. She asks if they're all willing to try something, and all but two agree. She assures the two that's their choice, and is no problem, then dismisses the class. Then she remembers one more thing; moves some papers on her desk to reveal a box with a big red button. Presses the button and the two kids explode, showering their classmates in gore.

Scene changes to an office building with the boss delivering a pep talk on carbon reduction, asking for a show of hands on who's made a contribution so far... Same ending. You get the idea.

I'm very sure the idea was not to suggest that global warming deniers deserve to be murdered. I suspect that the idea was to use this ridiculous scenario to hint that climate change is so serious a threat that by choosing to ignore it, you'd be killing yourself. If that was the idea, then it failed badly, precisely because the victims didn't kill themselves - they were killed. It was meant to be shocking but funny. It was just horrible.