Merged "Eco-Fascist Snuff Movie"

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Yikes! That's more than a little disturbing.

I think the following video is a much better one on the same subject:

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

Kids commit environmental "guerilla warfare" by doing things like breaking into people's houses and replacing their lightbulbs with longer lasting ones. <Grin> Though this is a music video for a techno DJ, it's not some public service announcement by an environmental group. So I don't take this as being a serious suggestion to break into homes to make their appliances more environmentally friendly, but I do think it's a cute little vid, and I LOVE the song! It's a remix of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in The Wall."

 

[Cicero]

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.

At least the MMGW crusaders are cutting back on their reliance on special effects in their proselytizing presentations. This ad has less special effects than Gore's sci-fi "Inconvenient Truth."

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Bwhhahaha. I bet you read a lot of Andrew Bolt

Then you lose the bet.

Bet you he's read up on Bolters, though!

Space orks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regular orks

 

[SnakeTongue]

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.

When I read "No Pressure" before see the video by the first time, my thought was:

"Pressure? Deep ocean? Implosion... No pressure, no implosion"

Astonished, I saw that someone made just the reverse: explosion.

 

[DC]

At least the MMGW crusaders are cutting back on their reliance on special effects in their proselytizing presentations. This ad has less special effects than Gore's sci-fi "Inconvenient Truth."

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

 

[Thunder]

At least the MMGW crusaders are cutting back on their reliance on special effects in their proselytizing presentations. "

um....its known as AGW "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

 

[CoolSceptic]

Rumour has it that Kyocera has also pulled out of 10:10 sponsorship (link).

Must be more of this "faux/feigned" outrage I keep hearing about. I wish I could confirm whether or not it is "faux" or "feigned", but unfortunately my telepathic skills are simply not up to the job. I'll leave that to others.

 

[Praktik]

I watched it and thought it was actually kind of funny.. good pacing, editing and acting ( I particularly liked the teacher and the corporate dude).

But then again I have a rather adolescent sense of humour. What it reminded of was the Dave Chapelle sketch where the KKK guy takes off his hood, revealing him to be a blind black man who didn't know he was black - and a KKK whitey's head in the audience explodes..

This'll all blow over soon I hope Michelle Malkin got the traffic hits she was looking for with this..

 

[Cicero]

um....its known as AGW "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

formerly known as "Al Gore Warming."

 

[bynmdsue]

No, it's now known as Climate Disruption,or same **** new label.

 

[Travis]

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

Many in the US will continue to so long as there is any political expediency to doing so.

If it might cost some rich people some money and some blue collar workers their jobs it doesn't matter what the science says.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I watched it and thought it was actually kind of funny.. good pacing, editing and acting ( I particularly liked the teacher and the corporate dude).

Some interesting points here. I, too, think in some context this could have been funny. It seems strange, but I think the issue is where the message is coming from.

For example, had a sceptic produced this film, I think they would have been (rightly) excoriated by the AGW advocates as being part of a smear campaign.

On the other hand, had a neutral comedian with no political motives behind it, it could have been quite amusing.

The problem is that it was produced by a group with a political advocacy for action. As such, it comes across as a little bit uncomfortable, and perhaps even slightly threatening.

Consider another example: imagine a film was made with Nick Griffin (UK neo-nazi / scum / racist / bigot) asking a room of immigrants whether they were going to leave the country. Most raise their hands. He asks if any do not intend to leave (no pressure). Two raise their hands. The button is pressed, and the two who do not intend to leave are blown up.

If this was done by Mitchell and Webb, then it would be seen as mocking the BNP. If it was produced and distributed by the BNP themselves, it would be seen as highly disturbing (and rightly so).

On another note: it is curious that people compare this to Monty Python, being quirky / edgy Brit humour. I guess this relates to the British use of irony as much as anything. Whilst Python was edgy for its time, it would be viewed as tame and mainstream now. It is over 30 years old, after all! I'd say the most recent Brit comedian to really push boundaries would be Chris Morris. His series "Jam", although classed as a comedy, was designed to deliberately leave viewers feel uncomfortable and I would say is probably the series that has pushed the boundaries of comedy. Perhaps it could be argued that Richard Curtis was trying to achieve the same effect. But he does it from the wrong side of the fence.

 

[Cicero]

No, it's now known as Climate Disruption,or same **** new label.

The warmers should really get advice from Ochocinco for their next name change. At least he is trying to come up with a name relevant to his position.

 

[DC]

Many in the US will continue to so long as there is any political expediency to doing so.

If it might cost some rich people some money and some blue collar workers their jobs it doesn't matter what the science says.

that seems to be a global problem, not only the US. Sad to see.

 

[Rufo]

The warmers should really get advice from Ochocinco for their next name change. At least he is trying to come up with a name relevant to his position.

I still don't see how the name "global warmers" makes any sense. I don't think they call themselves that.

 

[CoolSceptic]

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

I've been trying to think of the best places on the web to get a thoughtful, balanced discussion from both sides of the debate on climate change. Best I've come up with so far are two blogs:

1. Scienceofdoom - anonymous author with a pro-IPCC line, allows thoughtful discussion from both sides of the debate, some people try to bring it down to bickering but so far pretty fair debate being had

2. Climate, Etc. - Professor Judith Curry's new blog. Not exactly a sceptic, but not exactly pro-IPCC either. Still early days yet, and still scope for it to go downhill, but bearing up well under the strain. Dr Curry has a very fair eye for debate and will allow strong points from either side of the discussion.

ETA: Part of the reason these sites manage a meaningful debate in a way that cannot be achieved on JREF is that people at these sites do try to take the time to understand the point of view of others, rather than just adopting unsupportable positions such as "there is no debate about the science"

 

[Cicero]

I still don't see how the name "global warmers" makes any sense. I don't think they call themselves that.

The TPP doesn't call themselves "teabaggers." What is derogatory about calling the global warming crowd warmers? They do not say that the earth is getting colder. It wouldn't make much sense calling then colders, would it?

 

[Rufo]

The TPP doesn't call themselves "teabaggers." What is derogatory about calling the global warming crowd warmers? They do not say that the earth is getting colder. It wouldn't make much sense calling then colders, would it?

I don't think it's necessarily derogatory at all, it's just that it makes so little sense it's going to cause some confusion in the long run. As DC pointed out, almost everyone contributes to global warming in some way, so activists for counteracting global warming might as well use "warmers" as a genuinely derogatory word for people who refuse to reduce their carbon footprint (since they are contributing more to the warming).

Do you see why this would be confusing in the long run?

 

[DC]

The TPP doesn't call themselves "teabaggers." What is derogatory about calling the global warming crowd warmers? They do not say that the earth is getting colder. It wouldn't make much sense calling then colders, would it?

You are also a Globe Warmer, but you deny it.

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought the ad was incredibly ill-considered. I can guess at the message they were trying to get across, but they failed abjectly. That's what you get from only talking to people who agree with you, I suppose.

On the other hand, I liked the parody where the teacher goes insane and blows up the entire class. Nice bit of editing, that. Sadly it seems to have been pulled offline.