1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14143/another-nail-in-the-agw-movement-coffin/

Another Nail in the AGW Movement Coffin

October 5, 2010 by

And just like with the Climategate emails, the greens have hammered it in themselves with a star-studded ad that portrays the totalitarian mindset so perfectly and so disgustingly, that it stands alone, and without comment as a self-indictment. Warning: the video is very graphic in terms of gore.

The backlash was so quick and so universal, that the “10:10″ campaign responsible for it pulled it within hours. Thankfully, in the age of the internet, that will do nothing to stop its dissemination.

Nothing that any enemy of the green movement could have crafted could be so damning. Many moderates probably have misgivings about the green movement which remain submerged or inchoate. Watching a video like this is just the thing for bringing such misgivings to a head, and crystallizing in the mind exactly what this vicious movement is all about. Even after apologizing for any offense the ad may have caused, the founder of 10:10 can’t help but sound disturbingly totalitarian: “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change.”

Did they expect to have to pull it all along? Do they expect even this kind of press to still be good press? If they do, they’re wrong. This will do nothing but turn people on them.

Here is what everyone who debates a enviro on television or in front of an audience should do. The first time the enviro gets particularly righteous on you, take a moment to anxiously crane your neck to try to get a good look at his podium. When they ask you what you’re looking for, say you’re just making sure they don’t have a button.


mr taco October 5, 2010 at 12:41 am

i bet they wish they had such a button

Robert October 5, 2010 at 9:24 am

All statist politics is about the quest for such a button.

Rick October 5, 2010 at 1:53 am

Pathetic. Disgusting. I’m all for conserving wilderness where possible but I’ve had it with the AGW crowd.

Gil October 5, 2010 at 3:26 am

However it could asked whether forced child conception and birth restrictions is the same thing as killing children (mathematically it would)? What if environmentalists were found putting a substance in the water that prevented women from conceiving (but had no other health effects on foetuses or children) after the population seriously aged and most adults were past their best child-rearing years? It had been said that at the same time the Irish Potato Famine was happening there was a push to force Irish men and women into celibate Catholic vocations for the sole sake of preventing them from having babies. Likewise think of all the missing adults (and rapidly ageing society) because of the China’s One Child Policy.

Andrew Withers (LPUK) October 5, 2010 at 5:06 am

the ‘ making of’ film is worse- see the child in the last clip say its fine to explode children in such a good cause.


Seattle October 5, 2010 at 5:50 am

I think we all knew something like this would happen eventually. I think it’s wonderful that people are (rightfully) disgusted. If people accepted this video then there would really be no hope left.

Jeffrey Tucker October 5, 2010 at 6:01 am

Absolutely incredible

Jeffrey Tucker October 5, 2010 at 6:15 am

In a related matter, the NYT runs a story that might as well have appeared in the Onion: US Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels; Insurgents Keep Blowing Up Oil Tankers


Martin OB October 5, 2010 at 6:24 am

“No pressure” LOL. Is this for real? Who are these guys?

Martin OB October 5, 2010 at 6:37 am

Hmm, well, it may have been just a poor attempt at black humour. Maybe they were so confident of their good press they didn’t think anyone would take the video seriously, take it as threat. They were wrong.

I’ve seen this pattern often in lefties, that they joke about murdering people (such as famous people with opposing views) and expect everyone to laugh, as if left-wing individuals and governments had never killed a fly. Sometimes I think they are only half-joking.

Fallon October 5, 2010 at 6:39 am

I saw the video before reading commentary or any ancillaries. I thought it was satire using the Shaun of the Dead model.

geoih October 5, 2010 at 6:40 am

As with anything done by the government: Do what we say, or we’ll kill you.

mpolzkill October 5, 2010 at 7:33 am

Do you get it now, Tokyo Tom, where some of us got the idea of “eco-fascists”? Lovely of them, like the twisted children they are, to completely expose themselves like this.

Jkillz October 5, 2010 at 7:51 am

I can laugh at pretty much anything (see my Bill Hicks collection), and I can even see a point in this where it’s meant to elicit laughs. If this is satire, it fails miserably. The thing is, satire has some pretty obvious rules in order to work: for instance, the objects — not the heroes — of the satire should be caricatured; the visual gag should be in some way self-inflicted; and a context should be established.

Of the four scenes, only the 4th follows these rules, and that was the only one I chuckled at. The first three were nearly the opposite, with the protagonists as caricatures who inflicted the gag on others with almost no context.

Is it satire? Yes, I think so. And poorly done.

The making-of video linked above, in which one of the children says it’s fine to blow children up for a good cause — that child’s comment was black humor. I might disagree with the makers of the video, but I can see the humor in such a statement. The ad, on the other hand, has no humor to it unless one is in strong agreement with the aims of the ad. And so the ad fails again in its attempt (if it was the goal) to persuade anyone.

David October 5, 2010 at 9:05 am

From the beginning the chicannery of the global warming/climate change/climate disruption crowd has been so blatant, I fail to understand how intelligent observers have ever fallen for it. Perhaps the greens’ own arrogance is finally provoking brutal honesty about themselve and their real intentions. Fascism is a horrible, ugly thing.

james b. longacre October 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

im not sure what you mean by intelligent observers. when mass media makes a claim, when the theories are taught in various levels of education centers one may want to look further . looking further often leads to blatant falsheoods and lies. to the non scientist, going thorugh some technical data can be time consuming hard to understand.

Ruthiness October 8, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Oh it’s real alright.. Just go to this site to see the “green philosophy” and know that these green groups have the ear of the United Nations which adopted UN Agenda 21 to further the “sustainable” movement back in the 90′s.


The green movement has become a religious cult which has spawned religious fanatics that feel that humans have “sinned” against their God Gaia (mother earth) and the sinners must be mostly eliminated through the friendly sounding phrase of “reducing their footprint”. I don’t want anyone touching my freaking footprint thank you very much.

These people have the AUDACITY to indoctrinate our children in their ideology – meanwhile ClimateGate has proven their entire premise is WRONG and based on faked scientific data. The green movement is about as evil as Dr Evil or some other James Bond villain seeking to control the world – and they are in YOUR TOWN pushing “sustainable development” RIGHT NOW

J Cortez October 5, 2010 at 9:23 am

When I saw the ads, I thought they were a joke.

On first viewing, I laughed because I thought the point was to mock the “humans are evil” enviro-lobby for how truly insane they are. I thought they were satire by The Onion or some other group, designed to attack the anti-human movement. Only after the first viewing did I learn it was actually the enviro-lobby that created those ads. I assume the enviro-crazies meant to create some kind of black comedy, but man, what a failure.

This campaign shows how this entire movement is not just crazy but outright totalitarian. I already thought them misinformed and deranged, this episode intensifies dislike and low opinion of these people.

Robert October 5, 2010 at 9:31 am

“People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sean October 5, 2010 at 9:38 am

where did that 300,000/year death toll come from? They must be picking and choosing various natural disasters as the result of “man-made” climate change.

Scott D October 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm

That is correct, Sean and it’s junk science. They used natural disasters and “climate sensitive” diseases such as malaria to arrive at that number. Roger Pielke Jr. ripped it to shreds in an article last year, which does not appear to be available online anymore, though you can find reference to it in other articles. He disproved their research by showing that socio-economic changes can completely account for all of these deaths. Essentially, people have been moving into the areas most prone to damage by extreme weather. I seriously doubt that even the people who wrote up that report believe it.

Gary Hall October 5, 2010 at 9:44 am

I understand the jokes in the ad – the frumpy, Mother Earth teacher with her jam-jar glasses; the fact that the smug schoolgirl is called ‘Jemima’ (a name that implies the parents wish to move up the social ladder, commonly used to caricature Guardian readers). It’s intended to be self-effacing. Then they start blowing people up. The problem is that this implies a strong message of totalitarianism, which they clearly didn’t think anyone would take seriously. Sadly, for them, people have taken it seriously because we know they secretly would like to do this if at all possible.

There are five premises that must be true before I can get on board with the eco-fascists:
1) The Earth’s temperature is changing (generally rising).
2) The change is outside of ‘normal’ anomaly values.
3) The change is anthropogenic.
4) We can do something about it.
5) The state must force everyone to act, because they won’t do so voluntarily.

I generally get stuck around 2. However, putting my empathetic hat on, if you can imagine that someone makes it all the way to 5 and genuine believes that AGW is going to destroy the planet (within 4 years I have read in places) they will be frustrated by the perceived lack of action. So they create point 6) The state will not do enough to stop AGW and so more drastic action is required: removing the causes by physical force. I think this is where James Lee got to.

Johan Hari would argue that hitting 4 implies 5: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-well-save-the-planet-only-if-were-forced-to-784893.html – the last three paragraphs directly deal with the libertarian point of view.

Joshua Park October 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Somewhere around 2 or 3, you also have to assume that the change would be a detriment. In other words, you would assume that current global temperatures are ideal.

Russ the Apostate October 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

I agree with Joshua Park. I think you should add:

3.5) The change is harming people.

I can get to 3. But I can’t make it past 3.5, so 4 through 6 are moot points.

Ruthiness October 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Furthermore – following that line of thought – one would have to prove that there have never been examples of extreme temperature before in the history of Earth if one would like to prove it has to do with human activity (aka footprint). That logical question alone totally debunks their human activity link to any change in our climate.

It’s sad to see the environmental movement go off on this deep end into oblivion. Their original goal was a good one – to stop polluting our environment so we have clean water, clean air etc. Now that is in fact a worthy cause but somewhere along the line it became a gaia cult which hated humanity and that is what is called “self-defeating” and suicidal thinking. Much like the shakers we can only hope that the greenies decide not to procreate and pass on their “green genes” to another generation..

Silas Barta October 5, 2010 at 10:11 am

Wow, these enviros sure don’t understand how satire works. You’re supposed to satirize the *other* side, not your own.

But this reminds me — has anyone seen the Jim Henson Wilkins coffee ads? He does kind of the same thing, but with Muppets — i.e., you don’t like Wilkins coffe, you die horribly.

EconAndre October 5, 2010 at 11:06 am

This is really scary. The ad implicitely assumes that each person is rigged with explosives. And so the Green Dictator (GD) can simply select the non-conformists for a deadly dispatch. The next day if they don’t obey, they can be eliminated too.

This reminds me of the RFID trashcans/recycling. If you don’t obey the GD, he will dispatch you too through regulatory and financial penalties.

Monty Python is really funny, like taking out a mosquito with a bazooka, but 10-10 is really sick. The Black Book of Communism needs to reserve a chapter for these totalitarians.

Walt D. October 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

This is what is really scary.
Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way
After the record heat wave this summer, Russia’s weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.
Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.

Deefburger October 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm

This is what it looks like when your passion for an ideal replaces your compassion for others. Freedom is about allowing others to be. What this film shows us is the lack of compassion that furthering their ideals requires in order to “create” change. Change can be forced, but not compassionately. Change, left alone, will happen as will happen.

Jokes contain truth and juxtaposition of truth. Forcing people to change anything by decree and justification of the use of force to enact that change, will eventually lead to destruction of the very principals that inspired the “need for change” in the first place. Wasn’t the point of saving the planet saving all people? And why is it we can believe in ourselves enough to want change, but not believe in each other enough to allow it to happen?

Daniel Hewitt October 5, 2010 at 3:53 pm
J. Grayson Lilburne October 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm

That is a brilliantly written post.

Jeffrey Tucker October 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Here is the 10:10 response and explanation

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.

Deefburger October 5, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Expect more faux pas. Those who can’t see themselves clearly will continue to show themselves sans mask and makeup. And they will be as stunned at the reception they get as the 10:10 people seem to be. It’s amazing to me that they can’t see the evil truth that would be the outcome of their fantasy. They can’t see that for all of their noble causes, the means they choose to those ends are evil even if they really don’t mean to “eliminate” anybody, really. I hope this film haunts their cause as much as it is going to haunt my estimation of them.

I already do as much as possible to reduce my “footprint”. I believe that what I do in this world comes back to me in some way. There is nothing wrong with this thinking. But I do not impose my will on others to do as I do. That too has a way of coming back to me.

Nicholas Gray October 5, 2010 at 6:40 pm

The irony is, that anonymous British forecasters believe that the British winter ahead will be as bad as the one last year, which seems to be a return to British weather of 30 or more years ago. I thought this meant that we could blame it on solar fluctuations, not humans- however, it could be that the gulf stream is changing course because of climate change.
Opposed to that, is the reality that Australia has just had a cooler winter than we’ve had for some time, with lots of drought-breaking rain. So, maybe we don’t know as much as we would like about the weather.

Ohhh Henry October 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Pssstttt !!!

It ain’t “AGW” any more. It’s “climate disruption“. Pass it on.

Thieving Opportunists

mushindo October 6, 2010 at 1:08 am

This thing was issued by 1010 themselves? wow Im gobsmacked – I thought it was a satire OF them!

anyway, after all that scripting, hiring and rehearsing actors, and filming it with careful attention to the special effects, one can hardly write it off as a ‘mistake’. Thats like saying the invasion of Iraq was a brief lapse of judgment.

Russell Wilcox June 12, 2011 at 1:09 pm

My spouse and i really enjoy what we publish in this article. Highly new in conjunction with wise. A solo trouble however. I’m operating Ie using Debian in conjunction with components of the respective existing design bits generally is a minor wonky.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: