10:10 – They just don’t get it!

10:10 No Pressure Screenshot

More like 0/10. I saw tips come in about this last night on WUWT. I watched and I was horrified, sickened. I’m not squeamish at all – honestly. Before I explain my reaction, here is what now appears at the site that produced it: http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

Sorry.

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. 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 of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website.

We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change.

Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards, Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

No I didn’t find the killing offensive.  But I certainly didn’t find the film funny. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE EXPLODING PEOPLE. Here’s why I hated it. We have freedom of religious and political opinion, and of sexual expression; we fight hard for racial equality.  Suddenly from the very same people who insisted we should be politically correct, there is a new PC – that it is not correct to hold an opinion that is different on the matter of climate change.  It is about the sneering looks of absolute disgust and condescension on the faces of the actors.  They may be actors but that is too real and that is why it isn’t funny.

One comment at WUWT stood out for me and captured it in a nutshell (thanks ‘Stu‘):

“This is coercive propaganda in making people feel insecure about holding opinions which may differ from the consensus or authoritative ‘right’ opinion.”

In my naivety, when I first started to doubt the science behind global warming a few years ago, I casually dropped my growing uncertainty (for that is all it was at the time) into a conversation at an event.  The person to whom I was chatting turned out to be ‘connected’ (i.e. a government advisor).  He looked at me and said immediately “Oh, you’re one of THOSE people”, he paused, and then walked away.  I will never forget the look he gave me or the tone of his voice. He may only have uttered six words but his tone was like vitriol and it still makes me cringe at the memory. Just like that man, this film is all about sneering by those who think they are in a position of moral superiority and that they can and should dictate what the rest of us should think, feel and do.

NO!  For a start let’s teach our children how to think for themselves; that there is value in questioning the orthodoxy; and that diversity of opinion is a good thing.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to 10:10 – They just don’t get it!

  1. Katabasis says:

    Brilliant post mate.

  2. Stu says:

    Thanks Verity. A sad honour to be quoted like this but we have a serious issue here which needs thrashing out. The producers response seems hardly reassuring. As I said on another blog just now, this is a case of moral bankruptcy confusing itself with moral superiority. It’s all very ugly.

  3. Pingback: Peaceful Warriors of Mother Earth Apologize « ricketyclick

  4. Verity Jones says:

    Thanks for the positive comments folks. As I said I was speechless last night. I didn’t even know where to start and what aspects of it horrified me the most. And really it was the thought that anyone – especially a child – who might be unsure, is coerced into silence. If we lose the ability to question we have a major retrogressive step in all humanity’s hard-won freedoms.

    Stu – a dubious honour indeed. I got angry a few years ago. But anger is a wasted emotion unless you channel it into something 😉

  5. Stu says:

    “And really it was the thought that anyone – especially a child – who might be unsure, is coerced into silence. If we lose the ability to question we have a major retrogressive step in all humanity’s hard-won freedoms. ”

    Yep. It’s really a nightmare vision. Extremely disturbing.

  6. P Gosselin says:

    The film by itself is just a twisted morbid piece which alone would have little impact. But the most disturbing thing is that it’s the latest in a long pattern of very disturbing events that have taken place lately:
    1. “We know where you live” incident
    2. Nuremberg trials for global warming denier bastards
    3. sceptics being reduced to flat-earthers
    4. American kids being called 10,000 ton babies
    5. PNAS black list
    6. calls for decertifying sceptic meteorologists
    7. all the intimidation
    8. Greenpeace hooded kid
    etc.
    This graphic flick is the last straw that may have broken the enviro-wacko’s back. It clearly puts the spotlight on what these zealots are up to.
    The flick itself is interesting because in all three scenes, everyone isdressed in some type of uniform under an authority figure: teacher – boss – coach. Anyone not complýing to the rules embodied by the uniform is eliminated.

    Last year the science establishment got rocked. This year the activist establishment is getting rocked. Next, the politcal establishment?

  7. P Gosselin says:

    Myself, I’m beyond the questioning part. I’ve got all the answers all need. I’m into the toppling and overthrow part.

  8. David Gould says:

    Verity Jones,

    Thanks for linking here.

    As I said at WUWT, people deserve automatic respect. But ideas do not. I respect everyone’s right to hold whatever opinion that they choose. But I do not respect all or even most of those opinions. So: I do not respect (for example) the opinion that the US government was behind 9-11; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that non-believers in a deity will spend eternity burning in hell; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that climate scientists are lying about the science.

    Your feeling is that the video did not respect you as a person: fair enough. I disagree, because I read it as satire pointing at warmists* AGW proponents who use extremist language and sceptics who have the notion that this represents something along the lines of what warmists* AGW proponents are planning for them.

    But I find your argument a reasonable one.

    A question: do you find the many comments made to me at WUWT regarding me wanting to kill sceptics or finding the Holocaust funny reasonable arguments?

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

    • Verity Jones says:

      David,

      “the video did not respect you as a person”

      Not what I am saying at all. However, despite this being billed as satire, several commenters elsewhere have pointed out that the dehumanisation of opponents is a common and worrying theme in conquoring dissent. I completely accept that the extreme reaction to the dissent could be viewed as funny, but it is the attitude to the dissent that we cannot, and should not as a society, tolerate.

      I despair of my fellow humans sometimes when I read some of the comments at WUWT. Disussions were more entertaining and intelligent a year and more ago, pre-climategate, when I followed it more closely. Now it is hard for the moderators to keep up and consequently to read or even have a ‘conversation’ on a thread. It is easier to ignore the stupid comments than waste time on them. I had to go back and check – now I see what you mean.

      I think most of the banter was just that – and I think you could see such comments and responded in the same tone. Unfortunately, for some emotions were running high today. There was so much to react to in that video – it was a shock initially to me. At first I couldn’t think straight about what I’d just seen, but after a while I was able to divorce the cartoon violence from the attitudes that I did find abhorrent. Not everyone is able to think like that. I think many people just had a gut reaction and were completely irrational in their reactions to what you said.

      • David Gould says:

        Verity Jones,

        The thing is, that is exactly what I believe this video was intending to do: look hard at extremist positions.

        Sure, the basic message is ‘cut your emissions’. Then there is the added point of the shock: to get the message circulated. And then there is the satire, which is of extremism.

        I think that this video is funny, and I think it has a powerful message against extremism. The mistake appears to be that the filmmakers did not realise that *people would take it literally*.

        The fact that quite a few sceptics I spoke to on WUWT were prepared to believe that this is the warmist*pro-AGW program is, for me, the disturbing thing.

        What has actually happened in the course of the debate on climate change such that sceptics are prepared to state categorically that I am lying when I say that I do not want to kill them?

        I do not understand it. The video was, for me, easy to understand. People’s wild reaction to it not so much.

        *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

    • papertiger says:

      So: I do not respect (for example) the opinion that the US government was behind 9-11; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that non-believers in a deity will spend eternity burning in hell; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that climate scientists are lying about the science.

      Excuse me. There are a few things I don’t respect either. For one, when the purveyors of a newly born branch of government science, not even out of the diapers, declare themselves the winner of a debate that never took place, and that their adherents actively continue to avoid, and proceed directly to urging political remedies which strangely match the “remedies” of all the most evil murderous totalitarian ideologies though out history.
      I don’t respect that.

      Was Jimmy Hansen lying when he declared that global warming was happening in 1988?
      We have testimony that his appearance in congress was orchestrated to happen on what was calculated to be the historically hottest day on the year; that operatives made sure the air conditioning was tampered with just for the spectacles sake.
      We have the IPCC created as a result of that congressional hearing; it’s charter to find evidence, no matter how tenuous, proving man made climate change flies in the face of all established scientific practice.
      When even the IPCC’s own flawed methods show a fifteen year cooling spell compared to recent history, they invent an arbitrary 30 year limit on what is acceptable evidence, a limit that if it were applied to Dr Hansen would have prevented the “birth” of the IPCC entirely; (only 12 years between the predicted ‘new ice age coming due to man made climate change’ and the ‘ global warming due to man made climate change’ about face).

      I don’t respect con artists imposing restrictions and rules on the rest of us that they don’t apply to themselves.

      I could go on. I could talk about the Galileo mission to Jupiter culmination just as the planet develops a second Great Red Storm capable of swallowing the whole of the Earth, and the event being covered as a Wikipedia exclusive instead of the front page in the national media, because it would have clashed with the global warming movement.
      Ever heard of lies of omission?

      I could talk about polar bear populations rebounding to doom. Ocean acid stories invented out of whole cloth. Antarctic ice shelves calving due to increasing pressure of more ice being pointed at as “evidence” of non-existent warming.

      No lies? I could spend years regurgitating the lies perpetrated in the name of climate science.

  9. jorgekafkazar says:

    David Gould says: “…Your feeling is that the video did not respect you as a person: fair enough. I disagree, because I read it as satire pointing at warmists* AGW proponents who use extremist language and sceptics who have the notion that this represents something along the lines of what warmists* AGW proponents are planning for them.”

    On what internal evidence from the video do you base that statement?

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  10. Ric Werme says:

    One shortcoming of not growing up British is that I don’t get British humor. Perhaps the folks behind the movie thought it was all a jolly good time like I read, and I’m quite willing to accept it. However, is this really humor, or is it really a fantasy of how they’d like to handle the skeptic problem?

    I’m not sure I like thinking that 10:10 folks et al read my comments on the web and fantasize about blowing me up.

    My fantasies are much more pedestrian – e.g. seeing the 10:10 members freeze their butts off this winter.

    Ah yes, the video of Air Force I bringing our president home from Copenhagen and landing at the beginning of a major snow storm in Washington was a truly heartwarming moment as it was a fantasy realized. It made up for the crappy snow season I had in New Hampshire where the storm track belonged.

  11. Rick Bradford says:

    I think that if there is a sense of humor failure here, it lies with the makers of the film, not the viewers, and it seems that most commenters, on both sides of the AGW divide, agree with me.

    The apology “Oh well, we live and learn.” is not only insincere but wrong. They don’t learn.

    They have pulled similar tasteless stunts in the past and will continue to do so, because they are shockingly self-centered (i.e., narcissistic) and assume that their viewpoint is the primary determinant of other people’s and that other people do not have thoughts, feelings, or motivations separate from or distinct from theirs.

  12. Keith Minto says:

    Ric Werme says:
    October 2, 2010 at 12:59 am

    One shortcoming of not growing up British is that I don’t get British humor.

    Humour or humor often does not cross the Atlantic very well. In Australia we straddle the US and British cultures but this episode is decidedly unfunny, but so unfunny and extreme that I wonder if the the director Richard Curtis planned the very reaction that happened. Richard Curtis as an Aussie/NZ expat to Britain was able to combine skilful scriptwriting with a certain amount of Australian irreverence to produce life-affirming scripts. Just look at ‘4 weddings’ and ‘Love actually’. In the DVD of ‘Love actually’ in the alternative scenes at the end is one of the most life-affirming scenes I have ever seen, where this African farmer has to explain to his wife why his crop failed, it is only 5minutes long but is so warm and heartfelt that it still haunts me.
    So, I am baffled at why this very talented scriptwriter would be involved in writing this project.

  13. mariwarcwm says:

    Extremely well put – I was quite speechless at the ghastliness of this video, and you have put into words why I found it so offensive. Long live scepticism. Keep up the good work

  14. Stu says:

    Hi David G

    I put forward to you on the WUWT thread (in the comment supplied above by Verity in his post) that the real issue here is one of coercion, and not whether people are out to get skeptics or not. I think I set a challenge where if you could find one child involved in the making of that ad who was openly skeptical of CAGW then I would be feeling better about this little stunt. I understand your position on this ad and I also accept it, it’s just that I do not think that this was the real intention here. That’s my own position.

    Your comment:

    “people deserve automatic respect. But ideas do not. I respect everyone’s right to hold whatever opinion that they choose. But I do not respect all or even most of those opinions. So: I do not respect (for example) the opinion that the US government was behind 9-11; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that non-believers in a deity will spend eternity burning in hell; I do not respect (for example) the opinion that climate scientists are lying about the science.”

    You know, I sort of agree here. My problem is with people attaching themselves strongly enough to any one idea to the point that that idea represents them totally in everything they do. Seeing some of the posts over at Climate Progress just now, gives me that feeling. A creepy, violent certainty with no room for discussion or interpretation- the kind of thing which is also present in this latest campaign. I have also seen it at WUWT and other climate blogs so I’m not really picking on CP here, although I was fairly unimpressed with CP. You may have seen my post where I described my enviromental credentials (vego, no car, working in environmental restoration) and then by some twist of logic I am suddenly labeled as a ‘inactivist sock puppet’. Lovely.

    I don’t know whether climate scientists are lying about stuff or overselling certainty. I’m sure most aren’t. I have a few ‘concerns’ with a couple of the main protagonists but I am not fixated on labeling them as liars or bad scientists. I respect the opinion that they are doing the best that they can under the circumstances. I respect a point of difference on this. The problem for me is this hard stance which seeks to make impossible any kind of skeptical comment or enquiry. I think skeptics have valid concerns including the current state of the instrumental temp record. $100,000,000 has just been asked to get things upto scratch here so the skeptics must be onto something…

    I’ll post off with a link to a youtube video which I think is very relevant to this discussion, it’s a clip with a Dr Bronowski on the BBS series, ‘Accent of Man’. Please watch.

    • Verity Jones says:

      Thanks for posting the video. I found it quite chilling. I’m not done with this yet because I haven’t felt this outraged for ages.

    • David Gould says:

      Stu,

      I have a serious problem with you linking that video to discussions about the 10:10 movie, and it is the same problem that I have with all hyperbole that links or likens it to Holocaust: it is paranoid fantasy; the exact paranoid fantasy, in fact, that the 10:10 people were satirising. (They were also satirising extremist people on my side of the debate).

      And people shutting down comments in blogs and arguing vehemently for their point of view and making wild and emotional statements because of it *cannot possibly be legitimately compared to anything associated with the Nazi regime*. If it could be, then *all* arguments between people with strong views could be legitimately so compared.

      I personally reject certainty as a goal. I like Kant and Schopenhaur. We can never know the thing in itself – the truth, if you like. All we can get are structures and systems which work better than previous structures and systems at predicting the future. And I am a huge fan of Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies – I believe it to be a wonderful defence of the open society and the best attack on its opposite.

      But in an argument when I argue a position I am not generally going to spend every second sentence saying, ‘I could be wrong.’ What I will do is argue my case as strenuously and as passionately as possible in order to test it and test the opposing case. This does not mean that I am saying, ‘I am absolutely certain!’

      No scientist that I know of – and I have spoken (very briefly) via email with Drs Hansen and Jones on matters to do with the science and the politics – does. They might say, for example, that they are as certain that the world is warming as they are that gravity will pull them downwards if they step out off the roof of a building. They are not claiming absolute certainty; they are, rather, certain as one can be given the limitations of reasoning and observation.

      As to those who treated you badly, I did follow a link to Deltoid and saw that. It was silly, rude and arrogant of them. But silliness, rudness and arrogance is commonplace (I am sure that I am silly and rude at times, and I know that I am arrogant most of the time, although I try to play it down).

      • David Gould says:

        And I forgot to respond to the question re a sceptic child.

        I have to say that I would doubt it very much. If I were a sceptic, I would not donate my time to an advertising campaign that was pro-AGW. I might take paid work for a cause that I did not have strong feelings for either way, but not if I was anti it. I am not sure where that leaves us.

  15. DirkH says:

    Curtis destroyed them, and they’re still confused about how to react (see David Gould above). This is getting funnier by the minute. Don’t know why he did it, but if anyone tells me he didn’t know what he was doing, i don’t belive that. He’s got at least 30 years of experience as a writer. Maybe he just did it to show he could. Or maybe Franny was too bossy. Who knows.

  16. Stu says:

    This whole thing is just sad. Sad that the CAGW crowd gets a kick out of this video, sad that many skeptics now feel they have ultimate proof that AGW is just a plot to put skeptics in shallow graves, and sad because people just aren’t listening to each other.

    I made one post on Tim Lambert’s page about this, and for the most part every comment I received back on it lazily dismissed me as a ‘concern troll’. Really, from this- I can only conclude that some of these people must be babies- emotionally and morally stunted brats. And if ‘concern troll’ is the only thing they can come up with in reply, then intellectually as well. Amazing how black and white the world must appear to the true believer, just no awareness of human complexity at all. Really, someone like me must represent the very next level down from the extreme CAGW position, and there was no attempt or interest in communication there at all. These people are simply ‘right’. No wonder they have absolutely no ability to enagage with the public successfully – how videos like this get made is really no wonder at all when you think about it.

    *shrug…

    • Verity Jones says:

      Kevin who collaborates with me on this blog credits Tim Lambert for his conversion to scepticism. Apparently Tim criticised or possibly ridiculed John Brignell (Numberwatch), whom Kevin holds in high esteem. That was enough to make him start to question climate stuff and hang out at Climate Audit.

  17. Stu says:

    Hmm, I wanted to edit out that last part after ‘shrug’. I didn’t see it still there before I posted.

    [Reply – done!]

  18. Verity Jones says:

    I just felt I had to report here Professor Ross McKittrick’s reaction to the No Pressure video (posted on the Environmental Economics course introduction at Univ. of Guelph):

    “I find this film quite disturbing. The people who made this barbaric propaganda are not outlaws or extremist terrorists, they are government-funded, celebrity-endorsed professionals expressing a point of view they consider to be the respectable mainstream of social opinion.

    Leave aside the fact that they miss the whole concept of targeting measures on the variables of actual interest (in this case CO2 emissions) rather than piling on indirect measures, or that the idea of equating marginal abatement costs to marginal damages is, to say the least, nowhere to be found. The really appalling thing is the celebration of violence and intimidation to enforce total conformity with one particular view of the environment. Who knows how many people in the story put up their hands out of peer pressure, because they were afraid of asking questions. It turns out they had good reason to be afraid. The victims in this film were the ones who thought for themselves and spoke their minds. In this environmental group’s fantasy, the punishment for that will be swift and brutal every time.

    If, by the end of your time here at Guelph, you have gained some determination to think for yourself and not to be intimidated, even when everyone around you is marching in lockstep behind the cause du jour, then your education will have served a good purpose.”

    Brilliant!

  19. P Gosselin says:

    Effective parodies are coming out. Jo Nova has posted 2 of them.
    Example: Final Green Solution:

    • Verity Jones says:

      Yes, I’ve seen quite a few of them. Some good, some terrible. Let’s hope this keeps on running. It is just too awful to be allowed to be forgotten.

  20. Verity Jones says:

    Oh the comments on the 10:10 site are delicious!
    http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry

  21. Pingback: Global Warming - Page 165 - Volconvo Debate Forums

  22. Verity Jones says:

    I really like this one:

  23. David Gould says:

    DirkH,

    I am not particularly confused in my response – at least I do not think so.

    1.) I found it funny.
    2.) I believe that it satirises extremists on both sides (humour poked at oneself can be a good way to sell a particularly message).
    3.) I believe that the makers did not understand that what one of the things that they were poking fun at – the meme regarding the environmental movement as the next totalitariansim – is one held by a lot of people.

    Re 3, I did not understand this, either. I am still amazed at how many people have taken this video as a serious indication of warmist*pro-AGW intentions. And how many so readily link it to the Holocaust and so forth. I do not understand this perspective. I am trying, but failing.

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  24. Stu says:

    David-

    A quick repost from Keith Kloor’s (I’m almost done with this now)

    “PS, I enjoyed the comment below as humour (shadenfreude) but it also brings up fairly logical concerns (to me anyway) over the possible intended effects that this video was maybe meant to deliver.

    ”Here’s the viral profile for what the 10:10 grant-hippies and Three-Home Curtis thought would happen with their oh-so postmodern effort:

    Shown in schools and cinemas, the kids would pick up first on the Big Red Button device, going on to use a mimed BRB in a similar way to a “talk to the hand” gesture against anyone telling them something they don’t like. Meanwhile, the stinking “message” floats into their uncritical minds as a Fact of Life, i.e. “Deniers are too lazy or selfish to act for the benefit of the Many, so we would all be better-off without them”.

    How clever they thought they were.

    And how richly deserved the outcome for them now.”

    I’ve no proof that this was meant to be shown in schools. I can think back to when I was at school- showing a video like this would have been unthinkable. I wonder, is it unthinkable now?
    What are you thinking, Franny?”

  25. Stu says:

    Wow- David, I actually just realised I missed a couple of your posts above in response to me. Sorry about that. I will quickly respond.

    you say:

    “This does not mean that I am saying, ‘I am absolutely certain!’

    No scientist that I know of – and I have spoken (very briefly) via email with Drs Hansen and Jones on matters to do with the science and the politics – does. They might say, for example, that they are as certain that the world is warming as they are that gravity will pull them downwards if they step out off the roof of a building. They are not claiming absolute certainty; they are, rather, certain as one can be given the limitations of reasoning and observation.”

    Yep, and I totally respect that.

    My problem is in the overselling of certainty- and how people pick up on that and run with it. Franny the producer herself seems to think that we have ‘4 years left to ‘stabilise’ the climate system’. I don’t know where she got that from, whether she really thinks it’s true, or whether she’s using this information to goad people into action. Maybe I’m behind the times on this but I think if there was scientific evidence that we had ‘4 years to stabilise the climate system’, I would know about it, since I tend to seek this stuff out.

    I would offer that problems can arise when people get too alarmed about things, too certain. That seems to be proven in history but there is no evidence that we’re similarly about to make the same mistakes. But you know history, right. The problem with this ad to me is that it seems to want to shut down the case for reasonable doubt. And that is really the crux of the matter. I tend to get a lot out of looking at some of the statements being made in the media on climate change through the lens of a situational ethics approach- the ‘ends justify the means’ idea. To me, there is lots of distortion and it’s not being reigned in by people who seem to know better on these things. This may be all fine now, and not too damaging, but how far will we allow ourselves to go. Lies of omission can easily turn into outright lies if people think the stakes are high enough. It’s as the Archbishop John Robinson finally concluded on situational ethics, that it ‘would all descend into moral chaos’.

    This ‘ad’, is immoral to me.

    • David Gould says:

      Stu,

      Hyperbole is common in advertising campaigns and with pressure groups of all kinds. Four years is a very arbitrary number, especially for ‘stabilising the climate system’. It does kind of match what the IPCC said in 2007 about stabilising *emissions* by mid-decade (2015), and perhaps that is where she is getting the idea from.

      I do not know whether it is fair to blame climate scientists or even warmists* AGW proponents generally for the claims of certainty that many make. Certainty was a human curse long before AGW popped into view – humans hate doubt and seek certainty, even when they must know that the certainty that they have found cannot be true.

      As to alarm, the issue is that, if the science is in the ballpark, there are things to be alarmed about, and possibly very alarmed about. Fear is indeed the mindkiller, but fear can also be rational (although it rarely turns out that way – I agree with you on the history thing).

      As to the ‘ends justify the means’, yes, there are serious problems with that viewpoint and it is certainly the case that many give the impression online of subscribing to it. I tend to take most such statements with a grain of salt, as in real life the vast majority of people do not act in such a manner. Indeed, I have come to the view that the vast majority of online discourse on controversial topics is damaging humanity, as people say things to each other that they would never say in real life. Social conventions exist for a reason, and mainly that is to protect people from one another. These conventions fail online, and I am concerned at the effect that this may be having on the brains of the young in particular.

      This is one reason why I do my best – and I fail a lot of the time – to be reasonable in online discussions. I think someone at WUWT accused me of being a concern try trying to overwhelm them with faux reasonableness – something like that, at any rate – but that is my normal style.

      As to finding the 10:10 video immoral, fair enough. I disagree, obviously. But I am starting to see why people might come to the view that you hold.

      *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  26. Stu says:

    And as far as your problem with pairing the 10:10 ad with the Bronowski film, I think it is the perfect foil, or perfect partner to this other film. Both exist as warnings of extremism. It doesn’t mean that I think that the 10:10 are extremists, I don’t even think that film has anything to do really with climate change. It’s useless as a film on climate change. It says nothing about environmentalists, or the Green movement. It’s talking about something else entirely, and what it’s talking about is exactly the kind of thing that Bronowski is talking about in his film- arrogance, dogma, and push button philosophy.

  27. Stu says:

    Also-

    “Re 3, I did not understand this, either. I am still amazed at how many people have taken this video as a serious indication of warmist * pro-AGW intentions. And how many so readily link it to the Holocaust and so forth. I do not understand this perspective. I am trying, but failing.
    Reply ”

    You make an extreme video, there will be extreme reactions. It’s not hard to understand.

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  28. Stu says:

    Additionally, I think people are just venting. Let them vent. They’ll get over it.

  29. Stu says:

    PS, sorry for all the replys! I should probably just wait a bit before hitting send 🙂

  30. David Gould says:

    Stu,

    I agree: there will be extreme reactions; that was not surprising to me. What is surprising to me are the numbers. There is no way that I would have imagined these as mainstream/majority perspectives, and yet that is what they appear to be.

  31. Stu says:

    Heya

    I think part of the problem here is that the mainstream, as represented by actual people, seem to be very concerned about the level of support being shown to this ad by mainstream media. I’m specifically talking about The Guardian here but it goes a bit further than that. There is an enormous disconnect here between people and the media, and maybe there has been for some time. Franny spinning the reaction to the film that ‘many people found it extremely funny, and some didn’t’, just works people up even more. My reaction, if this ad had actually ended up being broadly accepted across the board by the average person, would have been one of absolute horror. I would probably have just shut down, it would have been unfathomable. Instead, I just got pissed off. I was happy with the way that things have turned out. What people are doing I think, is just showing up in numbers, to show that this kind of thing isn’t on- signed… ‘the mainstream’. People have had to do it because the media wouldn’t do it. There seems to be no responsibility there. And yep, it will all calm down in time, and it’s already probably calming down right now. Bridges will need to be built again, wounds licked and healed. The best medicine is likely going to be humour, with gentle digs at both warmists* AGW proponents and skeptics for going so overboard. Let’s laugh at ourselves again, because that film just sucked the comedy right out. And then move on.

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  32. David Gould says:

    As far as I know, the only person on the entire internet supporting this video has been me. 😉

    Which mainstream media organisations have supported it other than the Guardian?

  33. David Gould says:

    Stu,

    I also think that there is such a disconnect between the two sides in the climate debate that bridges cannot be built. You are only accepted by a side if you join that side, or are perceived as doing so. That is my pessimistic observation from five years of following it. The internet has harmed, not helped, the debate.

  34. Stu says:

    When I mean bridges, i’m referring more to bridges of perception. People don’t need to agree with one and other, but the warmers will be helped if the skeptics can see that they are not all closet fascists, and the warmers need to see that skeptics are not all shills for the oil industry or simply interested in ‘disinformation’ campaigns. To me, this is all paranoia, and both sides are guilty. It’s doing no-one any good, but political types may feel that it is. I would say they are wrong. The lukewarmers are I think are the only ones actively involved right now in trying to reign in some of the more extreme distortions being given to each side. There will need to be a truce at some point, or peoples paranoia will simply overrun them to the point where they’re not dealing in reality at all. Skeptical support has grown amongst the public because precisely because the public understands that people like Steve M are NOT oil shills. It hurts the warmist* pro-AGW side when people say that he is. Similarly, climate blogs will need to show more responsibility towards not allowing piling on, which is already official policy over at Climate Audit, for example. We need better channels of communication where people are allowed to disagree but there is a basic level of respect there. Otherwise, we’re just encouraging noise. I don’t know if this is optimistic or not, but it’s worth trying.

    The problem with this film wasn’t just with sceptics. I sent the video to my mum, who’s an AGW believer or supporter- her take is that ‘the experts should know what they’re talking about’. I would say that this a very mainstream perception. This is what she said of the ad-

    “Re the video about climate change. Good on Stu for saying exactly what he thought about the stupid thing. It is still available in Aus from various sites but I wouldn’t bother chasing Asi it as it really revolting. I am not in favour of censorship as it is only by a free media one can hope to understand what weirdos are out there.”

    *Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.

  35. Stu says:

    *little note – my mum is talking to my partner there, who’s pet name is Asi.

Comments are closed.