Own goal: 10-10 No Pressure video a disaster

WARNING: IMAGES MAY DISTURB

In an age when most people are sensitive to acts of terrorism and the safety of children, I’m stunned the makers behind the “10:10 No Pressure” video would combine these two concepts in order to raise awareness about climate change.

The video was intended to raise people’s awareness about 10:10 and it’s worthy goal of asking people to reduce their individual CO2 emissions.

However, the video “punishes” those indifferent to acting on climate change by blowing them up.

This includes children.

Seriously, blowing up kids?

Denier blogs, websites and the online columns of sceptical journalists are alight with outrage (either real or feigned) about “eco-terrorists”, their code word for environmentalists.

Sceptical UK journalist James Delingpole:

What’s fascinating, reading this kind of thing, is seeing just how far removed from reality the green movement has gone. Kyoto is dead. Copenhagen was a flop. Cancun is going to make a mockery of all those green dreams about global carbon emissions legislation. And how do the environmentalists respond?

By force of argument?

By presenting new evidence which supports their cause?

Nope.

By threatening to blow up anyone who disagrees with them.

And not just that: they believe this is actually an entirely reasonable and rather amusing position to adopt.

This isn’t, of course, the first time green propagandists have inadvertently revealed the murderous misanthropy which lurks behind their cloak of ecological righteousness.

Jo Nova over at her blog:

10:10 produced a star studded sicko fantasy of what their real Christmas gift wish is for the world. When you can’t convince people with reason, mark anyone who disagrees, blow up their children.

Their true nature is so on display… softly, softly,  quietly under the guise of “nice”: trick them, decieve them, say “No Pressure”, and then be judge, jury and executioner in gratuitous orgasmic revenge: press a button and see exploding blood and guts splat on the wall.

The sore losers are soooooo frustrated.

Spot the difference with green terrorism and Islamic Extremists. At least the jihadi’s are not pretending to hide their greedy egotistical self-interest by pretending to “care” about the planet.

Andrew Bolt chimes in with claims about “eco-fascisism” and links the 10:10 video with Osama Bin Laden:

It took barely a day to shame tjhe [sic] eco-fascist 10:10 campaign, partially funded by taxpayers of course, to scrap what’s surely the vilest and most threatening global warming “awareness” campaign yet…

…Meet the latest warming alarmist, who doesn’t stop at merely threatening people to get his way:

OSAMA bin Laden expressed concern about global climate change and flooding in Pakistan in a reported audio recording that hit the internet on Friday.

‘’The number of victims caused by climate change is very big … bigger than the victims of wars,” said the voice, whose authenticity could not be immediately verified and was made available by SITE Intelligence Group.

There’s something about the green cause that really appeals to this man.”

I’d note that James Delingpole also links Bin Laden with the 10:10 video, as does Jo Nova.

They are all spreading the same “meme”: that environmentalism is akin to terrorism.

They’ve been pushing this link for years…

And then someone goes and makes a video about blowing up children….

/faceplam

Video taken down, but it will live forever in the minds of the denial movement

The video has been taken down from the 10:10 site, and the organisers have issued an apology:

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 won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

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,

Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team

At the very least 10:10 realised their mistake. However this thing will live on the internet forever, and will be used again and again as propaganda by the denial movement.

Memo to activists and communications people: watch the deniers

“The Road”, brilliant but hard for any parent to watch

My only advice to people trying to create PR campaigns or raise awareness is spend a bit of time analysing how the denial movement will distort your messages and twist their meaning.

This is what they are paid to do.

They do nothing else except wage a PR war.

One of the major criticism’s of the environmental movement – especially beloved by the deniers - is supposed indifference to human well being.

To release a video in which children are blown up as a form of punishment is not simply poor taste. It gives the denial movement ammunition, playing up to their campaign to link environmentalism with terrorism.

If environmentalists are trying to breach the wall of indifference about climate change, your starting point should be the diffusion of the criticism that they are indifferent to human flourishing.

Blowing up children will not achieve that goal.

Not funny. Period.

I love dark humor.

The creator of this video was behind the hilarious Black Adder series, and the 10:10 video is reflective of that strain of humor. I also get that this was designed for the YouTube age, to go viral and thus raise awareness. I get it was meant to be a little “risky.

But to be frank, I did not find it funny.

As a father, I find any depictions of harm to children disturbing.

For many people, harm to animals in a film is more disturbing than watching thousands die by alien invasion, tidal waves or nuclear war. The same rule applies to children which is why even brilliant films such as “The Road” are so emotionally grueling.

Videos such as this are intended for a mass audience, most of whom do not want to see children, puppies and small kittens harmed.

I’m not saying film makers should play it safe.

However, they should be alert to the virtual “war” going on between those hoping to prompt action on climate change and those hoping to delay action.

In this war the weapons are words, blogs, YouTube videos and Twitter.

In this “war” symbolism matters.

Dead children are an awful, dreadful symbol to link to your cause.

About these ads

61 thoughts on “Own goal: 10-10 No Pressure video a disaster

  1. Hey not to set off topic but can anyone give me overview of. New York Car Insurance Reform 295 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10007 (646) 351-0824 They’re just down the block from me. I was wondering once they were a good insurance company. I need to get hold of coverage, it is the law you know, but I need to have a good price price plus I want friendly service.

  2. Tony D. says:

    Regardless of the intent of the makers, here’s a sure result: At least in the United States, where I live, millions of kids are going to be shown this video by their parents and told, “See? This is what the environmentalists want to do to you.”

  3. RichTea says:

    Calling climate realists ‘deniers’ is as stupid and ill-judged as is the repugnant concept of the 10:10 child murder horror flick. Just goes to show the puerile reasoning powers of the CO2 fuelled man-made acceptors.

  4. Watching the Deniers says:

    …ergo it shows now desire or intent to kill. It was a poor attempt at humour. I think you need to acquaint your self with Monty Python and Black Adder…

    Holy Grail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ

    Salad days from MTFC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-NpyaOWV0

    Very typical of the strain of UK humour using blood etc. The film director is from this school. In context can be funny.. out of context, tasteless.

    So all these claims of “terrorism” and the suggestion greens are about to orchestrate a mass killing of sceptics are hysteria.

    Now, who is alarmist here?

    • Paul T Horgan says:

      …I think that you mis-speak.

      In Grail the violence was in context. It was not sudden or unexpected. No one just reached for a weapon and killed people. Apart from the rabbit, but again that was in context. The build-up had been that this was a deadly creature.

      In ‘Salad days’ it was clear before the violence that this was ‘as directed by Sam Peckinpah’

      Please try again. And do better this time. I’m willing to wait. Don’t rush.

  5. Paul T Horgan says:

    I’m afraid that you fail to get to the heart of the problem here.

    This film was not made by a couple of activists and a camcorder over a wet weekend. It went through a highly professional production process, using state-of-the-art special effects. The ideas were storyboarded and scripted by the creators. This was a conscious group effort.

    No-one who was involved in the film understood they were doing something wrong. Perhaps they were ‘only obeying orders’?

    This film cannot but accurately reflect the mindset of the people involved. They essentially state that in their opinion that people who opt out of a voluntary activity on grounds of conscience should be murdered in an organised fashion.

    There can be no other interpretation than this. This is the core message of the film. This must be the core mindset of its creators. And this is why they must be opposed. We live in a free society that encourages the development of ideas through debate. If people who oppose a certain view are seen as physically expendable by people who hold that view, what does that tell us about those people? What does that tell us about the fundamental validity of their ideas?

    This film demonstrates without moderation the moral bankruptcy behind the climate change movement. Instead of using ideas and concepts based on reason, it is depicts itself as a belief system backed by the threat of violence.

    And that is why it is highly comparable to Bin Laden.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Wow! The maker of Four Weddings and Funeral is in fact behind the plot to kill millions! Yes, and they would announce this “plan” by broadcasting it to millions.. very sneaky. Very subtle indeed. There must be a vast machinery of death behind the film makers. Shock troops, prisons being built, lists of names been drawn up… oh yes. It’s all part of “The Plan”.

      Yes, that must be the only possible explanation.

      Or it was done in poor taste by people who don’t understand the debate.

      Please, meet my friend Occam’s Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

      Now, what was I saying about values determining beliefs and the denial machine fusing climate scepticism to a “god, liberty, country and free markets” world view.

      Thanks for stopping by!

      • Paul T Horgan says:

        “Or it was done in poor taste by people who don’t understand the debate. ”

        I challenge you to find *any* evidence that the people behind this splatterfest don’t understand the debate.

        I don’t mind waiting. Please, take your time. Do a good job.

    • adelady says:

      Paul, You really don’t know the golden rule, do you.

      “When it’s a choice between a conspiracy and a fckup, take the fckup every time.”

      • Paul T Horgan says:

        I think your comment is out of context.

        There is no such choice.

        It is a fckup. I am simply stating that it was done deliberately by some fcked-up people because of their fcked-up ideas.

  6. sgeos says:

    Whether the intent was humor or not is beside the point. Actions trump intent. I didn’t mean to hit your kid with my truck. Unimportant. (Sorry, but this one is my standard example.)

    Blowing children up was supposed to be funny? Unimportant. Blowing people up if they disagree was supposed to be funny? Unimportant. What I took away from this video was:
    “You are free to disagree with use, but diversity in thought is unacceptable. If you do not conform to our standards, we will kill you. If your children do not conform to our standards we will kill them. When we kill people, it will be a public display so that everyone knows the consequences for unacceptable thinking.”

    If the goal is indeed to promote higher human standards of living (either mean or baseline), I don’t see how threatening human rights violations promotes that goal. Human rights violations reduce standards of living by definition. Acting on anti-humanitarian ideologies has a track record of creating strife and suffering that dwarfs natural disasters, especially when there is money to be made by doing so. This is my concern with this video.

    Whether we can control the weather or not is a complete separate issue, and a far less important one in my opinion. So far as I can tell, people have a history of over-inflating their worth in and actual influence upon the framework of the natural universe. People have been sacrificed to make sure the sun keeps coming up. Now we need to regulate the amount CO2 (something we breathe out, and something plants breathe in) to control the temperature of the… earth? Or is it the temperature of the sun that we need to control? Even if the weather can be controlled via carefully executed human rights violations, does that actually improve standards of living?

  7. [...] Clearly Mike is a dedicated believer in “this emerging global catastrophe”, who has embraced all the tenets of the climate bible. But he was civil, so I was prepared to set aside the fact that in so labelling those with whom he disagrees, he was doing himself and his “cause” a disservice, because I thought there might be room for common ground when I saw his post: Own goal: 10-10 No Pressure video a disaster [...]

  8. Nana says:

    With friends like these, who needs enemies?

    They literally blew it. ( I am not joking.)

    I can’t believe they spent so much time and energy making a film to blamish their reputation – and the reputation of many other people trying to fight climate change.

    One day people will look back and say “after the 10:10 film things changed.”

    Sorry for being rude but: Big egos, small brains.

  9. DaveMcRae says:

    This comment at ClimateProgress was spot on:
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/03/no-pressure-video-offensive-1010-campaign/#comment-299230

    Folks, compare the pro-science community’s reaction to the 10:10 misfire with the denier community’s reactions to their own misfires/slurs.

    Which side is more willing to call out its own? The obvious answer to this question will tell you all you need to know about both communities.

  10. Proud Denier Here says:

    You greenies are real cowards.

    WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE SUPER FUND SITES CREATED IN SMALL TOWNS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY WHEN LOCAL LANDFILLS BRIM WITH MERCURY FROM THOSE TOXIC BULBS BIG BUSINESS HAS CONNED CONGRESS INTO MANDATING?

    What about the local watershed POISONED by these bulbs that don’t last as long as advertised, and are NOT CHEAPER WHEN YOU DO SIMPLE MATH.

    All these curly bulbs of toxic waste do is kill your eyesight and and SHIFT THE PROFIT FOR ELECTRICITY FROM the BACK to the FRONT , RE: LOCAL POWER CO-OPS TO BIG BUSINESS , in the form of Obama baller, Geoffrey Imeldt’s $8 lightbulb! If it costs $1 for and incandescent bulb and $7 to run it over its lifetime, HOW IS IT ANY “SAVINGS” to buy a $7 bulb that costs $1 to run—over the SAME LIFETIME—with the ONLY NET EFFECT BEING TO POISON THE WATER TABLE “LOCALLY” (since y’all all love that term so damn much)

    HHMMMmmmmmmmm?

    RICH GE STOCKHOLDERS via CRONIE CAPITALISM, and POOR CITIZENS WITH POISONED DRINKING WATER>>>>

    WHAT. THEN. GREEN. IDIOTS?

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Most of this post is abjectionable, angy and inchorent.

      This is classic internet trolling.

      ADVICE TO READERS: do not enage.

      I’m letting Proud Denier’s comment through this once, and unless the tone changes future posts will be banned.

      Message to PD: keep it civil, polite and intelligable. Seriously mate, you look like a crank with these wild accusations and use of upper case.

      I’ll let it stand as a record of how some people think about the world.

    • RichTea says:

      Don’t call yourself a ‘Denier’. This is the rhetoric invented by the PR agencies used to script the global warming scam and imposed deliberately and unconsciously by the flock who follow this script. But you do not need to apply this false, loaded, insulting, discriminatory and very inappropriate terminology to yourself. ‘Climate realism’ is perhaps a more appropriate term, to reflect the logical fact-based stance of the informed. Regards

  11. Brendan H says:

    “I think it is important to stress that the 10:10 did not actually suggest we should punish, harm or “blow up” those that disagree with us. It was an attempt at humour, but a failed one.”

    Agreed. Nevertheless, the overt message was: exterminate the non-conformists, so whatever good intentions the creators may have had, that message came through loud and clear.

    Speaking of “good intentions”, should people be given a free pass because they appeal to their pure motives? I don’t see why, given that good intentions do not necessarily translate into good outcomes.

    The “good intentions” argument highlights a major aspect of the climate wars: the battle for the high moral gound, and that’s the major failure of this video. Further, if the good intentions went so badly wrong, that is a good reason to analyse the reasons why.

    Presumably, the 10:10 people are doing so as we write, but I have long sensed an irritation/impatience with dissent from some of the more committed warmers, and this comes through not only in the video but in the initial “apology”.

    One notable aspect of the reaction to this video was the knee-jerk defence by some warmers, along the lines: “Gee, I thought it was funny”, and “But the deniers are just as bad”. What was missng from these tribal reactions was any element of critical self-scrutiny.

    Which raises many questions. Is my opponent wrong in everything they say and do? Should environmentalism be immune to critical scrutiny, in all its aspects, including its politics and morality? Should global warming be so closely associated with enviromentalism? And so on. If the warmers don’t tackles these issues, someone else will.

    • hro001 says:

      “I think it is important to stress that the 10:10 did not actually suggest we should punish, harm or “blow up” those that disagree with us. It was an attempt at humour, but a failed one.”

      Did you happen see the Oct. 1 E-mail that Armstrong sent out to “all 10:10-ers” proudly announcing the launch on the Guardian website’s front-page? She urged all recipients to fwd to friends and “pretend facebook friends” so that it would go viral.

      There was no mention of “humour” or satire in the E-mail – nor, I might add, even a pixel of either in the image her words conjured up:

      “It’s a fairly simple and to-the-point premise, I’m sure you’ll agree: we celebrate everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”

      If, as you claim, this is not “suggesting” that those who don’t share your views should be punished, harmed or “blown up”, then what would you say Armstrong was suggesting?

      I didn’t see the E-mail until after I had seen the movie, but it struck me as being – not to put too fine a point on it – right on the mark they disingenously tried to claim they had missed.

      Incidentally, I don’t know how long it took them to make the movie, but I do know it took them 3 “Takes” over 4 days before they could produce a half-decent apology.

      http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/love-of-no-pressure-is-forever-having-to-say-youre-sorry/

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Oh for heavens sake, do people really think a planned genocide would be announced via an Internet video by a British comedy writer?

        The video is tasteless, but really the response of the “sceptics” has been ALARMIST, over wrought and overly dramatic.

        Even worse, they are disparaging the memory of the Holocaust by claiming some silly Nazi link to this video.

        Political debate around the globe has descended into farce: 25% of the American pop think Obama is a Muslim. 50% reject evolution. People think the 9/11 attacks where conducted by Bush. Deniers are waging a war on science.

        Enough!

        Message to people of the Earth: get real. It’s time to act like adults, not idiots.

  12. Mike says:

    Regarding “how the denial movement will distort your messages and twist their meaning,” in connection with this video, I would like to say that in general what the “deniers” are saying about it on blogs does not seem to involve any twisting and distorting. Rather, it seems to me that the video does savour of fanaticism. Obviously it dehumanizes dissidents, in a most shocking and disturbing way, by inviting the viewer to laugh at their being murdered. Pointing this out does not involve any distortion. It is no use saying that it was intended to be humorous, because not everything gets a free pass just because it is clothed in outrageous humor. There is such a thing as a malicious joke, and malicious laughter, and we are left wondering — what sort of person would think this is funny?

    • adelady says:

      What sort of person laughs hysterically at a Scream DVD on movie night, or the grotesque humour in the Monty Python / Life of Brian genre?

      Absurdity, grotesquerie, silliness, surrealism, pointless buckets of blood. Not inherently funny, but done in that pointless, weird world – absolutely hilarious.

      The problem for the producers of this thing is that this is very much within a particular Brit cultural stream. And to get it right – to hit the funny bone – is hard enough. To hit the funny bone **and** deliver a particular message that you want to get through to lots and lots of people? Far too hard, in my view.

      There are other comic genres that are much easier to work within. Even if your farce or your slapstick is not terribly funny, you might still get the message across. This particular effort isn’t very funny (even if you’re a Python fan) and its message was confused anyway.

  13. Citizen Snork says:

    @ WTD
    It would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. You say you publish 99% of comments, apart from those who lack a civil tone. Interesting that you consider everything which reinforces your belief system as ‘civil’ and anything oustide to be worthy of censor.

    If you allow such statements as;
    The purpose of the video was to get the attention, which it did. The deniers are intelligently designed to scream all at the same time in their echo chamber. You cannot expect them not to do that. They are funded to do this.

    Belief in AGW is just that a ‘belief’. It is decribed as such in English law “Religious belief or belief of a similar nature”. The reason for the precedent in law is simply that AGW is a theory, as it cannot be proved by any test available.

    You permit those who sate your beliefs to accuse those who do not agree with monatary motives. Hardly encouraging ‘free speech’ now is it?

    AGW has given the middle classes a cause, which previously they did not have. An ideal opportunity to tell everyone else how they should live and what they should believe. Usually, just beacuse they say so.
    The perfect situation, the ability to consume and spend by buying ‘eco’ products’ in a pathetic attempt to be ‘greener’ than the Joneses, in combination with the ‘we are saving the world’ deluded messianic complex.

    Interesting that these people never take on any significant adversary, rather direct their ire and clucking of tongues at those around them.

    Name me one single significant event or awareness which has made any real difference. No government, despite all the gesturing and sabre rattling has ever made any genuine concession to your beliefs, merely lip service.
    You can hold all the protests and rallies you can muster, it will not make a single shred of difference.
    You are, I assume, unwitting, accomplices to your own demise and that of government will.

    I say, if goverments are in total agreement on any subject, bet the other way if you want to be on the side of progress and decency. Remember Iraq anyone?

    The message in the video is simple : Convert or die. The base propaganda techniques used are akin to any shill trying to misdirect from any issue.

    Shame where is thy blush?

  14. Kevin says:

    Why is this blog ommitting to publish many of my comments. I am not thretening people merely stating a point of view. Prove your openess to free speech and publish them. Otherwise we will all realise that you are not the transparent organisation you claim to be. Thank you

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I publish 99% comments, except those that lack a civil tone – calling environmentalists “fascists” etc. gets them blocked. We are all entitled to our opinions, however it does not give anyone (including me) the right to hurl insults or engage in personal attacks.

      I welcome open debate, and encourage people to engage in civil discourse.

      One thing I’d make clear is that this is a personal blog, not adjunct of any organisation, political party or company.

      @ Kevin – you are more than welcome to post comments, engage me and regular members of the WtD “community”. I never block information, however I moderate comments that would cause serious offence or contain inappropriate language.

      You’ll find that the mainstream press does this as well, so in that regard I’m no different.

      I’m an advocate of free speech, and regard it as fundamental “human right”. So please, talk to us. But treat us with respect. Remember, on the other side of the monitor are other human beings.

      We may just end the shouting match that typifies the climate debate. At least in one small corner of the web.

      All the best, and welcome.

  15. adelady says:

    Biggest problem of all I’ve just realised. The only people involved were artists, creative, committed, film-makers, you name it – many of them well-known with good track records.

    What isn’t on the list is the consummate communicators – the ad agencies.

    If anyone had been crass enough to take this to an ad agency meeting they’d have been kicked out of the door for wasting everyone’s time.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Indeed, sad to say but it is about PR, spin. The makers wanted to entertain, that was their benchmark. In the arts, causing offence isn’t an issue. It’s part of being an artist.

      The climate debate is more akin to one of the longest running election campaigns in history, with both sides competing for the “votes” (peoples beliefs about the reality of AGW) of the general public.

      It’s about focus groups, aligning messages with an individuals core values, tailoring communications campaigns, using a variety of media channels and segmenting the audience and building messages around specific demographics.

      This is why the denial machine is effective: they are using the same techniques that the most successful political parties have developed over the last several decades.

      Communications from “our side” are pitched generally at the “middle brow” market and tailored for people of a certain education, world view and demographic (middle class, liberal/centrist) with an emphasis on reasoned debate.

      The deniers “go for the gut”….

      They ask “How do you *feel* about global warming?” Does it scare you? Well don’t worry it’s not real! It’s the fantasy of the same liberal types that call you stupid!”

      Hmmm… there is a blog post in there somewhere. Get back to you.

  16. Watching the Deniers says:

    I think it is important to stress that the 10:10 did not actually suggest we should punish, harm or “blow up” those that disagree with us. It was an attempt at humour, but a failed one.

    My point – in case it was not clear – was that it failed as a piece of communication. It was an attempt at irony, poking fun at those “want to do something” but don’t. “No, no pressure!” Boom! “Haw, haw!”.

    For me the most troubling thing is that they conceived this video in a vacuum, without any consideration of the audience and how their message could have been interpreted. Humor is a very subjective thing.

    In an age of the industry funded “Tea Party Movement” and astro-turfing, I’m stunned they didn’t consider how their film would be received. Simply put it provided “ammunition” for the denial movement, allowing them to continue pushing the “green = terrorism” meme.

    We know how the denial machine works, we know how effective it can be and how they spin facts. However I suspect the makers failed to consider these facts.

    The film makers may be good at entertaining, but not communicating: there’s a difference. It was a massive blunder, they failed to understand the nature of the debate and the tactics of the deniers.

    The climate debate is highly partisan, and there are those with very strong views on the science and how we should communicate.

    Due to the asymmetrical nature of this debate, we “warmists/alarmists/activists” have far less room for error than the deniers. It’s not fair, but that’s how it is.

    Our moves have to be far more considered.

    Consider the how the tiny errors within the IPCC got spun into a “scandal”. Consider the many body blows to his credibility Monckton has received… yes he is down, but he’ll pop up again later this year or next with his reputation reinvigorated.

    Why? Because people want to hear that the science is wrong. They don’t want it to be true. They don’t want to change their lifestyles. They don’t want to leave a world ravaged by AGW to their kids and grandchildren. Better to believe it is not happening…

    Denial is a safe, soothing placebo to make people not worry about the future. We have to cut through that.

  17. Gareth says:

    I have a sneaking suspicion that this affair could rebound on the deniers. Their response has been so hysterically over the top that no sane person could ever take them seriously. All No Pressure does is confirm their worldview to themselves, not to the wider public. The noise is loud in their echo chamber, but nowhere else…

    • Rudi says:

      Wait, the response was over the top? How about the video! That was over the top!

      The way it’s looking at the moment, we’ll all end up with egg on our face, and it’ll be back to square one. We “deniers” have the moral high ground right now, but enough people seem to be intent on squandering it …

      • Neven says:

        The deniers most certainly don’t have the moral ground if AGW turns out to be a very problematic thing. This ad cannot be compared to Pakistan on a regular scale. And the more successful the denier delaying tactics are, the more responsible they will be for the misery and death of millions of people. That’s just pure and simple logic. Remember that, Rudi, on the moment you realise how you have let yourself be misled by the status quo people. You are being played.

        But it’s a horrible, horrible ad. And there certainly is a part of the environmentalist movement (which isn’t half as homogenous as the denialist movement, where utter nutcases like Monckton, Delingpole, Corbyn and Plimer are accepted because they serve a purpose) that is obviously so frustrated with the slow pace and the semi-solutions, that they most of all would like to see a large part of humanity disappear.

        I don’t think they are actually willing to commit genocide, like the ‘ill doers are ill deemers’ denialists are suggesting, but they wouldn’t mind if the avian flu really did come to pass and killed by the b/millions. There most definitely is a misanthropic element to a part of the environmental movement, and I think this ad was a bit of a Freudian slip for the people behind it (like Frannie Armstrong).

        I don’t like people like that, just like I don’t like denialists.

      • Rudi says:

        @ Neven: OK, you’re assuming that the Pakistan floods are a result of AGW and that therefore anyone who opposes the environmentalist agenda is directly responsible for the deaths of millions. When you put it that way, I can see where your frustration is coming from. Fair enough!

        Obviously, if the Pakistan-AGW link indeed exists, then we should be cutting down on our footprints like there’s no tomorrow. That’s exactly why we should be engaging in dialog. But all the 10:10 video has achieved is to polarize the whole deal and make it personal. If, as you believe, AGW really exists and is a problem, then the makers of the 10:10 video should be considered just as guilty as “deniers” … if not more so, since they had the correct information and yet deliberately made something which set back the solution.

        Another note I’d like to add here is that, at least outside America, the “deniers” are not the “status quo” by any means. All cars in South Africa now cost thousands extra because of the Emissions Tax. Also, I spent all my days at university learning about how AGW is supposed to work, but from what I saw there, it was all fueled by political outrage and historical revisionism rather than science – perhaps I just had a bad lecturer. On the other hand, a professor in the same department who is an active atmospheric researcher pointed out that the evidence for AGW is tentative at best (but recommended that we cut our emissions anyway, which is what I’m doing). Let’s also not forget the fact that the Kyoto Protocol demands that the West cut its emissions but China gets a free pass to continue polluting. And keep in mind how the AGW jetsetters like Al Gore are making fortunes selling snake-oil carbon credits (“indulgences from the Church of Global Warming”), while living the high life and producing as much CO2 as 40 American households.

        I guess what I’m saying is, I’m just not seeing the science and the personal integrity there. I try to act responsibly anyway because I believe we *don’t* know what the human impact on the environment is, and that therefore it’s better to minimize that impact. In fact that’s what our “denier” professor recommended. I think that that kind of approach would be much better than staking everything on AGW … because what if that’s wrong? Then everyone will be like, “Oh, AGW didn’t pan out, so now I can pollute as much as I like,” … and I don’t think either of us wants that.

      • Neven says:

        OK, you’re assuming that the Pakistan floods are a result of AGW

        I think it plays a part, especially if it comes about more regularly. Did you notice the floods all around the world this year? They had 500-year floods in parts the US where the last 500-year flood happened 11 years ago.

        at least outside America, the “deniers” are not the “status quo” by any means.

        With status quo-people I mean the people who benefit most from the status quo, not the deniers per se. Skeptics never believe this, but millions are being pumped into a big (mostly covert) propaganda effort to keep money flows as they are. Mostly and most successfully in the US (like you say yourself), because the US economy has the whole world in its grip.

        That’s exactly why we should be engaging in dialog. But all the 10:10 video has achieved is to polarize the whole deal and make it personal.

        True, IMO.

        If, as you believe, AGW really exists and is a problem, then the makers of the 10:10 video should be considered just as guilty as “deniers”

        True, IMO.

        Let’s also not forget the fact that the Kyoto Protocol demands that the West cut its emissions but China gets a free pass to continue polluting.

        I think the West has a far greater responsibility in taking the lead, as it has profited immensely from the capitalist system so far, at the expense of developing nations.

        And keep in mind how the AGW jetsetters like Al Gore are making fortunes selling snake-oil carbon credits (“indulgences from the Church of Global Warming”), while living the high life and producing as much CO2 as 40 American households.

        True, IMO. In fact, I’m pretty sure that people like Richard Curtis, Gillian Anderson, David Ginola and Peter Crouch have a carbon footprint that’s about 10 times too high. Cut 10% off and it’s still 90% too high.

        I think that that kind of approach would be much better than staking everything on AGW … because what if that’s wrong?

        Well, I don’t think AGW theory will turn out completely wrong, but you are right that there’s too much focus on AGW alone. There are a lot more global problems, like financial bubbles, resource wars, ocean pollution and overfishing, peak oil and top soil erosion, massive die-off of bees. There is only one solution for all these problems and that is a transition towards a sustainable society. The first step is ditching the idiotic neoclassical economic concept of exponential and infinite growth. The next steps follow from that.

        But everything about this ad is wrong, wrong, wrong.

      • Rudi says:

        Yup, to say that the ad “missed the mark” would be like saying that the known universe is “on the largish side”. Perhaps some good might come of this if it gets people talking about these matters (and they do need to be talked about), but that will be in spite of, and not because of, the filmmakers’ misguided efforts. And it has caused unnecessary polarization, so it would still have been better if the film wasn’t made in the first place.

      • Neven says:

        Perhaps some good might come of this

        There won’t come any good of this. It will just suck up more time as it gets spun out of all proportions. Normally I will blame the deniers of that (like with the non-event of ClimateGate), but this time I’ll blame the more fanatical part of the environmental movement.

        And it has caused unnecessary polarization

        Ah well, polarization will progress regardless as AGW and all those other problems progress synchronously. Human psychology (and the well-known phase of denial, followed by rage) dictates it.

      • Rudi says:

        Ja but that is kind of like climate change, isn’t it … just because it happens all by itself doesn’t mean that it’s OK to accelerate it ;)

  18. Rudi says:

    See, this is why I’m leery of the environmentalist movement. Sure, I recycle (cardboard/paper, glass, plastic, cans), I switch off lightbulbs when I leave the room for extended periods (and don’t use incandescent bulbs for room lighting), I don’t leave water running, I don’t drive when I can walk, etc. But I do this because I realize that resources are not unlimited – and here in South Africa we have had power cuts lately, so I’ve had this fact demonstrated to me practically. I also know that said resources are often being piped to us from other countries where people are often poor (and in fact some areas are being made politically unstable in order to keep the prices down). It’s not because I’ve been cowed into believing that we’re going to bring Gaia’s ire down on our heads if we don’t toe the environmentalists’ line. If anything, the 10:10 video would have inspired me to be as wasteful as possible for the next week or so, but of course that would be an empty gesture anyway.

    I’m relieved if the 10:10 “No Pressure” disaster isn’t the opinion of everyone in the environmentalist movement, but color me utterly unsurprised that the video was produced in the first place. And that’s why you’re having these problems: not because we “deniers” are grasping at straws, but because you’ve confirmed our existing suspicions. Whether or not those suspicions are correct in the first place is another matter of course, but you can’t really be surprised at our reaction, now can you.

    For those of you who do seem to be sincere and not inclined towards terrorism, I don’t envy your position right now. Shake off the extremists and the snake-oil-peddling career politicians – they are parasites – and then maybe we can get around to discussing your ideas on their own merit.

    • Nick says:

      Sigh… another literalist. So,back in 1985,when Ronald Reagan announced during a microphone test that the US would “..begin bombing in five minutes..”,you took it at face value?

      Nice to see you can allow that some environmentalists are “not inclined towards terrorism”. From my experience in the Intranets,most of the alarmism and advocacy for violence comes from the anti AGW elements.

      • Rudi says:

        Ah, I didn’t take Reagan’s statement at face value for the simple reason that I wasn’t born yet back then ;)

        I suppose it depends where you hang out online, people on both sides of the divide tend to sensationalize the opinions of their opponents. But you remember that environmentalist guy who went on a rampage at the Discovery Channel offices? In my opinion that sort of thing needs to be discouraged, wouldn’t you say … rather than having videos depicting terrorism passed off as some sort of “dark and edgy” humor?

        I’m glad that the 10:10 video is getting so much flak from even other environmentalists, but given the precedent set by Discovery Channel Guy (and others; just look at the general history of Greenpeace, PETA, and the rest), I can’t pretend to be surprised that someone somewhere thought this misguided advert was a good idea. I mean, these are the guys who want to artificially reduce the human population at rates that are impossible without killing people in numbers that would make Stalin blanch.

        You can’t really blame us for taking these things at face value, because we don’t know the internal politics of the environmentalist movement, so who’s to say that slaughtering all dissidents isn’t (as I’ve heard people opine) the secret desire of every environmentalist out there? You lot only know that it’s meant to be humor because you know your own goals. Those on the outside looking in, by and large, don’t.

        Even if this tendency of advocating violent murder is an extreme-minority view among environmentalists (as I’m inclined to believe), this minority is very vocal, so dissociating yourselves from them should be a priority if sanity and reason are to prevail. They’re handing the “deniers” free ammo at this point, and as fun as it is to see your opponents self-destruct, I’d rather have constructive dialog than “victory” for one side or the other. Because there’s some element of truth to be had from both sides, IMO, even though I don’t believe that the balance of it is on the side of environmentalism.

      • Nick says:

        Rudi,like it or not,stylised hyper-violence has long become normalised in entertainment.

        So taking it literally is really not a credible adult response.This ‘literal’ response has clearly been the rhetorical reaction of choice by anti-AGW types,seized on with unconcealed,unapologetic glee,which is consistent with so much of their behavior. If only they would spend more time actually building a coherent scientific response…

        Like raising examples of mentally ill individuals behavior as though it may be an insight into the actions of a group. I really_can_blame you for irresponsibly compounding the situation with that sort of canard.

      • Rudi says:

        Nick, re: your comment @ 23:16 of 5/10.

        I know that hyper-violence is a norm in entertainment, heck, I watch these things myself. But surely you can see how terrible the PR is if environmentalists (who must surely be aware of the stereotype of “eco-terrorism” which exists, whether deservedly or not) make a video which has as its core message that those who disagree deserve to die. Call it “humor” all you want.

        And blame me all you want – as I already explained, those who are not part of the environmentalist movement are unaware of its internal politics and don’t know which aspects of it to take seriously. And as I mentioned, there has just been an incident of terrorism (the attack on the Discovery Channel) by a loony who claimed to be acting in the name of environmentalism. So making an ad that depicts your opponents getting blown up is … well, it’s preaching to the choir, at the very least. You’re not going to convince any fence-sitters with this one.

        Sure – a whole bunch of “deniers” have really taken a whole lot more mileage out of this than is legitimate, and I really must roll my eyes at some of the opinions of our constitution-quoting friends from across the pond. But if the man on the street sees you making videos about how you will blow up his kids if they dare disagree with your agenda – whether you intend it as humor or not, and whether he believes it to be a serious threat or not – expect to earn his enmity.

        What I’m saying is, I don’t believe you want to kill people (the jury’s still out on Greenpeace & Co., though). What I’m saying is, if you want someone to be on your side, making a movie about you killing their children is not an effective tool for communication.

        By the way, you mentioned Reagan’s comment about bombing the Russians? He didn’t plan it, it was a wisecrack, and he thought the mike was off. The 10:10 guys intended to communicate their film … they had several weeks during production to realize what a rotten idea it was. There’s no comparison to make there.

      • Nick says:

        Indeed ,Rudi,I agree this is video mistake,as you can see what I said in the first comment on this thread. And while I identified the piece as intended humor,I do not personally find it amusing:I can simply see the intent of the writers was not literal,and knowing their background as humorists,I recognize their comic style and mechanisms. I’ve already made those points previously as well.

        My argument is that a disproportionate,ill-judged and now withdrawn effort does not justify disproportionate and ill-judged responses. Many responses to this piece that I have seen involve incitements to violence,and wild tangential falsehoods about Nazism,fascism,eugenics,global conspiracies,etc.

        10:10 blew this opportunity to communicate.Now,their opponents are trashing their own opportunity to respond rationally and incisively,as you seem to agree.

        You’re right about the context of my Reagan anecdote,but the point of that was that Reagan got a similar hysterical,politically motivated response from his opponents that revealed more about their intent and insincerity than they realised.

      • Rudi says:

        Fair enough! We seem to be in agreement then :)

  19. toby says:

    What on Earth were they thinking? And did they not, you know, put on some experimental viewings for people from the real world? Isn’t that they sort of think film makers and marketing people are paid for?

    I am fed up defending this stupid video. I’ve made it out as Pythonesque farce (like the Black Knight scene in The Hold Grail) and misplaced irony until I’m blue in the face.

    But I am angry with these cretins and their stupid own goal.

  20. I believe firmly in free speech, intellectual freedom, the duty of citizens to question authority, and the right to hold opinions that diverge from the majority view.

    While I concede that other responses to this film are possible (I’ve read hundreds of reactions in the past 48 hours), from my perspective as a former vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, this film treats the things I mention in the paragraph with contempt.

    To me, this film says that those who question the prevailing orthodoxy deserve (should expect?) to be liquidated. If humanity didn’t have the deaths committed by Mao, Stalin & Hitler against people who were seen as threatening to the orthodoxy on its conscience I might be more sanguine about this film. But real people died. In the tens of millions . And if those deaths are not to be in vain, we can’t afford to be sanguine about the possibility of that sort of ugliness returning.

    My own thoughts on this film are here:

    If we are not free to disagree, we are not free

    All the best.

    • Nick says:

      I find your outrage a little synthetic,Donna.

      Surely,no one could confuse the outrageously exaggerated violence and special effects,and the caricature distracted jobsworth button-pushers,as anything other than references to the Britcom tradition post The Goon Show?? The Brits have made an artform of portraying all comic characters unsympathetically,and all outcomes bathetic.It springs from a fatalistic historically-informed world-view.

      It’s a joke. Black humour. Don’t want to co-operate to save the planet? Of course,we’ll just blow you up! As if,Donna,AS IF ‘we’ would…it’s burlesque,absurdism. Attention-grabbing,without intended literality.

      Of course,I absolutely concede it was ill-judged,precisely because I know to anticipate ‘sincere’ responses such as yours.

      I also find it a bit rich to attempt to equate the real fate of millions of innocent ,unconsulted people at the hands of genuine psychopaths with the mock fate of film characters that were actually given choices of action before their absurd terminations. The murdered millions were not given ANY choices in so many,many cases.

  21. I think Adelady’s point that dark humour only works if youve got nothing to say is spot on. Let’s face it we can’t really trust the ad industry and assorted media luvvies to make the green case – their first love is consumerism.

  22. [...] people hated it though. There was the predictable slating from climate sceptics of course – Mike on the Watching the Deniers blog has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of ‘No Pressure…, and YouTube is filled with copies of the film titled ‘Richard Curtis Sick Exploding [...]

  23. William says:

    Argh, I can’t believe these people were dork enough to do this. And (just to repeat what everyone else has said) the bloody thing wasnt even funny. They will find it rather hard to recover from this; lets just hope they haven’t damaged everyone else too badly in the process.

    • Kevin says:

      Lets hope they have set their miserable cause back forever. They are worse than the NAZI party!!

  24. adelady says:

    ” the 10:10 No Pressure makers are A List film talent with all the tools and technology at their disposal. And what do they produce? ”

    Perhaps they should have considered all the misbegotten clunkers that had even more money and talent at their disposal.

  25. Ben says:

    Ready, Fire, Aim…

    A for ambition, E for execution! :-(

  26. The video is worse than linking “dead children” to your cause, though. The people who don’t accept 10:10 in the video are not destroyed by galloping environmental disaster; they’re destroyed by the button-push decision of the authority figures who presented them with the “choice.”

    That does *not* send the message that our failure to preserve the environment will kill us. It sends the message that our fellow human beings will kill us for not making what they think is the right “choice.”

    Not a very effective way to persuade people to go green.

  27. Freddy says:

    I think the 10:10 video was fine.

    The purpose of the video was to get the attention, which it did. The deniers are intelligently designed to scream all at the same time in their echo chamber. You cannot expect them not to do that. They are funded to do this.

  28. Watching the Deniers says:

    Agree adelady, there are a variety of ways using humour.

    Peter Sinclair’s “Climate denial crock of the week” is a very good example of combining slapstick humour, good science and debunking to great effect.

    And Peter makes them himself in his basement…

    the 10:10 No Pressure makers are A List film talent with all the tools and technology at their disposal. And what do they produce?

    An example of a great video comes from the 2007 remix of the Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” by Swedish DJ Eric Prydz (titled “Proper Education”). Video described as thus:

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

    “The music video for this song includes teenagers escaping school while doing parkour stunts and other various actions, like jumping from building to building. They then sneak into a number of apartments and perform energy efficient tasks, such as replacing lightbulbs with their energy efficient equivalent, turning down thermostats, turning off televisions, putting bricks in toilets (to save water) etc. Finally, they tap into the apartment complex’s power grid and power down the whole building, before re-lighting some of the apartments so that the words “SWITCH OFF” appear in lights on the side of the building. The video ends with the words “you don’t need an education to save the planet”.

    Clip is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IttkDYE33aU

    I love this clip!

    It’s got kids, a thumping dance beat, classic Prog-Rock and a good message. It taps into sense of fun, rebellion and doing something positive.

    Watching this makes me smile.

  29. adelady says:

    Although many people find Monty Python, Black Adder and the Scream movies hilarious, some allegedly creative people overlook what makes them funny.

    They’re surreal, silly and pointless.

    As soon as you have a point to make, you have to look to some other style. If you’re trying to be funny at the same time, farce or slapstick would be a much better choice.

  30. Des Carne says:

    Even if 1010 No Pressure was intended to be in the Monty Python genre, its creators had plenty of time to realise in how bad taste it is and how it would rebound against them, and the movement for sanity on climate change as a whole. I don’t think it can be possible be dismissed as an innocent mistake. It begs the question if it were not deliberately intended to muddy the waters and undermine reasoned debate – it certainly makes our argument look unreasonable. But then reason has little to do with the reasons deniers deny. A little sophistication is required to communicate on this matter – if you like dark humor, check out Dmitry Orlov – the focus of his outlook is peak oil and economic collapse, but climate change figures prominently in his thinking – the 1010 makers should take some lessons on relevance and communication from him: http://www.cluborlov.blogspot.com

  31. Nick says:

    Well put. It’s a poorly judged concept,and pretty second-rate writing and mugging as well,and I find it hard to explain how the producers could be ignorant of how this would be played by faux-outrage shills like Delingpole. There is no shortage of evidence for the cynicism of the UK tabloid opinionati,following the fallout and retractions over the wild email claims. Meanwhile ,Joan Over’s response is absolutely demented…

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 773 other followers

%d bloggers like this: