Friday
Oct012010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A measured view from Grantham
Oct 1, 2010 Climate: CRU The FT has given space in its letters columns for more of Jeremy Grantham's staff - this time from the other institute, at Imperial - to respond to Lord Turnbull's article the other day. Dr Simon Buckle's contribution is much more measured than Bob Ward's laughable piece the other day, as you would expect from a former diplomat. He agrees that the IAC recommendations should be put in place immediately, but rejects calls for a renewed inquiry into what went on at CRU.
The problem with a civil service insider saying that there should not be a credible investigation of CRU is that it ends up looking like Sir Humphrey sweeping problems under the carpet. Again.
[Post amended to correct Dr Buckle's affiliation]
Reader Comments (97)
I see Osama bin Laden has joined the 10:10 club.
Just your average blood thirsty religous zealot doing his bit to save the planet by blowing bits of it up.
Eco-loonery has just got a lot more darker in nature.
sorry for the typos, I have to dash things of, whilst amonsgt 3 young children...
I've aslo spent the last 10 years commenting on a blog, with an EDIT function....
Now if EXXONMobil could send me that LONG OVERDUE cheque.......
I could spend as much times as Bob Ward (ie 2 minutes?! or more? ) crafting my comments...
Jack - According to BBC all my recent comments are OFF-Topic in Richard Black's earthwatch..
They'd rather talk about some bear, and ignore/not allow any comments about, the biggest green pr disaster ever.
ALL the other green groups are furious as well.
Admit it, Barry, you don't have Bob 'Lightning Fingers' Ward's typing skill.. :-)
Just got my mail today and it's franked with a 10:10:10 logo and this URL:
www.royalmail.com/1010
I looked all round each letter in case of a red button...
I thought the Guardian were going to stop using 'deniers'
Andrew Simms yesterday:
74 months and counting …There are no certainties when it comes to climate change but we can be sure the greatest risk is not taking any action to mitigate it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/oct/01/ipcc-pachauri-climate-change-criticism
"But, if deniers of human-driven climate change were hoping for rare succour, they will be disappointed. "
The recommends are going against them in the comments!
And that is the people getting 'past moderation' (censorship)
In days of yore (and possibly even today) there were complaints and outcries by many against "the military- industrial complex" who were said to have an undue influence over our lives.
Today there is a new complex, "the climate science-industrial complex". Moreover it is reinforced by powerful political backing and in the UK by legislation, notably The Climate Change Act, against which only 5 MPs voted No.
Despite climategate, the climate science-industrial complex continues to plough ahead aided and abetted by its cheerleaders. This video is but one, extreme (if counter productive) manifestation of this. So far as the UK is concerned, the locals are going to have to lump it for I see no political inclination - let alone will - to repeal or amend the said Act. It will require a political revolution to do so.
I believe Richard Curtis's latest little gem is being referred to in media circles as....
"Hate Actually"
oldtimer
Good interpretation of Eisenhower's Farewell Address. But Churchill's wartime warning of a 'new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science' is equally chilling when reinterpreted to todays version of extremist socio-religio-political zealotry. Rapidly evolving from rub-a-dub-dub nursery rhyme propaganda to the repulsive X-rated.
Off topic, but this needs a thorough airing. I hope someone can keep the film available on the net so that everyone can see how environmentalists deal with people who disagree with them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11458726
Thanks for the BBC link...
Comments left on the Guardian website where the film was posted before being taken down on the 10:10 site, were split between those congratulating the team and others who thought it was in bad taste.
Biased BBC... that BBC piece is a disgrace...
Comment from the Guardian showing how groupthink evolves...
I was approached to advise Age of Stupid in its early stages.
I decided against having any input because they didn't seem fussed about facts or conveying anything complex, it was about grabbing attention. I have since spoken to other people who dropped out at various stages, with similar misgivings.
The film, and 10: 10 are preaching to the choir.
Pulling this film and saying "oh well" really isn't good enough.
If this is the most important issue facing the planet - and i agree, it is - then there's a responsibility on the part of film makers and campaigners to use their skill and creativity to convey the complexity of what's involved. The majority of people have stopped caring about climate change because they don't like being lectured.
'No Pressure' is like every shouty, edgy NGO campaign film from the 90s has been minced up and stuck through a sieve.
Much as I liked Richard Curtis and Gillian Anderson back then, their time - and the time for yelling strap lines at the general public - is over.
Make Bollocks History.
(I shall be selling rubber pledge bracelets made in Fairtrade Foundation accredited sweatshops in China, just as soon as I register the doman... )
They obviously wanted "No pressure" to become a viral catch phrase, well I think and hope it will. I will be using it.
JC
"that BBC piece is a disgrace.."
It's so weaselish, they can't even bring themselves to say that it showed people being killed. Instead, they were 'exploded', something I thought only applied to, er, explosives.
Could it be that they are actually embarrassed by it?
And imagine if this had been made first:
link
Hang on. Read that BBC piece again. Thats not the tenor of yesteryear. In fact the story itself would have been greeted by silence. They are waking up and smelling the coffee. And make no mistake it will not go unnoticed by the gullible but well intentioned, and the circles they move in. Reflecting perhaps on the monster they have nurtured.
Saturday, 19:30 and Guardian put reaction piece up...
Guardian reaction piece
Tone has slightly changed, still in denial though...
@Barry: the Guardian only agreed not to use "denier" in headings/sub-headings and bylines. I think the sub-editors work. Contributors are free to write what they like.
From the Guardian heading...
Short movie backing CO2 campaign is pulled after Four Weddings writer's joke backfires
Isn't something being defined as joke dependant on people laughing?
I find myself agreeing with both James P and with Pharos - yes, the BBC piece is laughable in that it neglects to point out that the reaction against the 10:10 film has been overwhelmingly negative and that even 10:10's supporters such as ActionAid and also 350.org's Bill McKibben have been appalled.
But yes - they are reporting it (with the customary slight time lag, of course.) I don't recall the BBC covering the PlaneStupid falling polar bear ads, which were also withdrawn, at the end of last year due to complaints, although I think they did manage to report on the infamous "Bedtime Stories" ads. So they're getting there, sort of. Early days, baby steps and that kind of thing.
That was a good find Barry. Imagine one of the trustees of TERI-Europe, preaching to the rest of us about finance, models, the fate of humanity and the like. ::)
Well – the shock effect of Richard 'n Franny's exploding kids extravaganza, aka “Splattergate”, has worn off somewhat now, leaving us all feeling a bit like the survivors in the film – soiled and horrified.
Franny and her little helpers have put up a flip cynical apology on her 10:10 website and hope that we'll all forget and their big green gravy train will roll on.
Will it though? An unprecedented tide of revulsion has spread across the blogosphere and the mainstream media, as millions of ordinary, decent people have recoiled from this revolting and inhuman propaganda piece.
Many may shrug their shoulders and think “there's nothing we can do about it” - but there is.
10:10, the organisation that thought up, commissioned and produced this highly professional piece of dirt, receives substantial support from government departments, NGO's, commercial sponsors and high profile individuals – all of whom rely on the support of the public at large.
Now we've all seen radical activist groups demanding boycotts of everything from airlines to Israeli oranges – but they're usually ineffective since vocal minority groups tend to be small in numbers and weak in purchasing power.
Once you offend the much greater, if less vocal, “silent majority” of ordinary, peaceful, non-activist citizens however – the balance of power shifts dramatically.
Here are a few suggestions which just might make you feel a little better:-
Sony are a major supporter of 10:10, so if you're planning any consumer electronics purchases, make a rule for a few months “anything but Sony” - and tell the salesman why.
Or email: Sir. Howard Stringer, Sony Corporation Chairman, CEO, howard.stringer@jp.sony.com
O2 are another major supporter in the UK, so – same thing there, so no new O2 mobiles or internet services and drop into their high street store and remind them why.
Email: pressoffice@o2.com
Kyocera are also a major sponsor in the UK so avoid their printers and copiers.
Email: Makoto Kawamura, Chairman,Kyocera https://www3.kyocera.co.jp/form/app/input?region=gl&frmid=csr
Don't watch any movies, videos or TV progs featuring Richard Curtis or Gillian Anderson anywhere on the credits (you've probably seen 'em all anyway and, lets face it, they weren't that good).
There are more comprehensive lists of associated companies, charities, councils, politicians and schools who have signed up to 10:10 on their UK website and Wikipedia page – have a look and let them know how you feel.
Finally, why don't we all do what Franny wants and make October 10th a really special carbon day.
Take your car for a really long drive, fire up the gas barbecue and the patio heater and invite the neighbours round, if you're lucky enough to have a boat – take it out for a blast otherwise just enjoy an extra long hot shower and turn the thermostat up a notch.
Just for Franny – you know you want to!
When AGW starts to bwe a non-event this is the next one lined up to take its place.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/5000000000000-the-cost-each-year-of-vanishing-rainforest-2096367.html
Where do they get $5 Trillion from ?
'Latests findings of the study were presented at the United Nations last month. It was widely praised in environmental circles for its ability to model the impact of a loss of biodiversity on global rates of poverty and economic inequality. '
Oh its that word 'Model' again !!!!!
I have just e-mailed Howard Stringer at Sony telling them him that despite being a regular purchaser of Sony products I will not be buying any in future as long as they continue to fund 10:10, the producers of the despicable "No pressure" snuff movie.
My wife is still talking about it, and has talked to her friends about it... So it certainly had an effect.
A few days later I still find it amazing it was released. They may well have put it past the 10:10 organisers at Sony etc. But they would have a likely similar mind-set. Had they shown it to just one senior person at those companies, I am sure they would have flagged it. But the whole mind-set seems to have been "contribute but do not participate".
And I have noticed something weird. The teachers mannerisms, method of speech, constant smiling etc. are so close to Franny (in the above "Ed and Franny" video).
More background... viral was the plan... mission accomplished...
Hello 10:10ers,
Even by my not-entirely-downbeat standards, I really am extremely over-excited to tell you that our Richard Curtis-written mini-movie, “No Pressure”, is premiering right now on the front page of the Guardian website, see pic below. (If it’s off the Guardian by the time you get this message, you can watch at: http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure )
The 4-minute mini-movie stars The X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola – and features music donated by Radiohead. 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. So if you’ve ever wondered what the inside of David Ginola looks like, here’s your chance to find out.
I am completely blown away, pun intended, by the sterling efforts from our 40-person professional film crew, who all donated their time and equipment for free. Please, please, please, please forward the info below to as many friends and pretend facebook friends as you possibly can manage without getting sacked from your job, as that’s by far our best chance of going viral and waking a whole load more people up to the climate crisis.
Thanking you all very much. And looking forward to seeing everybody in action next weekend for 10:10:10.
Onwards and upwards,
Franny
Founder of 10:10 and
Director of The Age of Stupid
@barry
Your wlecome entire are remarkably typo-free given the external pressures that you are under - and the lack of an 'edit' function.
But my remarks were about the composition of the piece, not its transmision.
As TomFP remarked, it is sometimes hard work to discern the flow of your argument, and the nuggets of wisdom may well get missed when the reader too has only limited time available.
For the impact to be greatest, an argument must be easy to follow as well as full of facts and references. On a blog -which is most definitely not a scientific paper - if it can't be read and understood by a non-expert in 30 seconds or less, I submit it will be overlooked and forgotten. Only the very interested student will follow up links to other pieces, so you also need to summarise their meaning in a sentence or two.
If the argument is long or very complex, 'headline' it at the beginning so that casual readers will know whether to bother to stay or not.
Hope you find these helpful...and thanks for all the great work.
Here is a list of 10:10 sponsors...
http://sadhillnews.com/2010/10/01/eco-terrorism-1010global-org-no-pressure-ad-campaign-made-possible-by-sony-and-others
Suggest asking them all how long they have considered it appropriate and funny to kill children whose views do not accord with their own.
It seems that before Franny makes another pseudo-snuff movie about those pesky ‘deniers’, she might have a few words around the dinner table with her sister, who seems a bit of ‘denier’ in her own right when it comes to HIV/AIDS.
http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-fih-and-aids-denialism/
Ho Hum. I guess I'd better post as a token warmist / apologist. (despite being neither)
I've seen the 'behind the scenes video - available via eureferendum - search google for same.
The kids in the movie thought it was uber cool to be exploded for a good cause. The outrage seems to be from adults of many persuasions.
I've shown this to my kids and their friends who exhibited no major outrage. More it was 'why was this made' - what is the message? (Admittedly they are media studies students or graduates)
The acceptance of the movie seems to be age based. But I'm guessing the basic (older) response is:
I'm a climate realist: this is pure Nazi intimidation / child porn / exposing the real nature of the Green eco-Nazis
or
I'm a warmist. I really hope this is not (see climate realist) if so I abhor it.
My view - of little value - is that it's a self-deprecating piece of film that is aimed at a younger audience and tries to inject a bit of humour that is relevant to the audience.
I strongly suspect - devoid of any data - that the major moral outrage is from adults and that the newer generation doesn't really care so much.
I expect some comments about propaganda, perveting youth etc. My response is that kids are smarter than you think (but often dumber than a 10 foot pile of bricks on some topics, e.g. sex and booze)
Overall: Chill-out. It's not worth the bother.
My 21 year old son thought it wasn't funny (and he can be a sicko) and didn't see what the point was.
Even so, your point about adults is interesting - it was conceived and made by adults, and withdrawn after a few hours by adults!
My journalist friends in their thirties thought it was disgusting and crazy and vile.
Roddy Cambell said
My journalist friends in their thirties thought it was disgusting and crazy and vile.
I'm sort of caught here. I was in my teens when Monty Python was the rage. I even was around during the At last the 1948 show. I liked them both.
I'm not upset at all with this video. My kids vary from occasional guffaws to an analytic - what does it mean?
I raise my flags in that I found SouthPark marginal, and Family Guy well over the mark.
I think the issue is not whether it was actually funny but that the message is aimed at the young and intended to "groom" their thought patterns. This is particularly insidious when the "evidence" for AGW is based purely on mathematical modelling with significant questions about the data used (particulatly when it has been unavailable for scrutiny).
It appears , rightly or wrongly, as a devious attempt to control the thoughts of the young and naive. The young don't se it because all they see is the "humour" but are affected nonetheless by the message. The older and more experienced see it for what it is.
Steve
Sorry, but I think that's just silly. The 'young' are not so naïve as to be insidiously groomed by a message that says this issue is so overwhelmingly important that you have to fall in line or else. The ones who weren't exploded looked pretty startled too!
I have yet to find someone who saw 'humour' in it either. I stand aside for nobody in my enjoyment of really bad humour. 'It's not funny till it's not funny' is my motto. But this didn't make it off the starting blocks.
Roddy Cambell said
The ones who weren't exploded looked pretty startled too!
Go and look at the behind the scenes video at http://www.youtube.com/v/dMnr5tlF5gQ?fs=1&hl=en_GB&rel=0&border=1
This is a film productuion. The kids are happy. The startled expression is part of the production.
@Roddy Campbell
I disagree, I think the young can be groomed, but don't worry I won't be pressing "the button" because you disagree with me.
The message is also very hypocritical from people who almost certainly have a much larger carbon footprint than the intended recipients.
Don't get me wrong I'm all in favour of saving energy, we recycle, I walk the youngest 2 kids to school, my eldest 2 kids walk to school, we haven't been abroad in 2 decades (financial constraints), I work from home (so no travel to work fuel), my wife walked 1.5 miles to Tesco's yesterday to get the weekly shopping rather than use her car.
So why should I take this message (assuming it's well intended) on board when the makers/originators almost certainly consume far more than we, as a family do?
No Pressure
For those of limited memory, 'no pressure' first starred in Blackadder (i.e. Richard Curtis ) in - damn it! I can't find a video link! Blackadder and Baldrick caught by baddie German who invites Blackadder (Baldrick ?) to visit him later 'no pressure'
Jerry,
The clear message is conform with authority or authority will kill you.
Does your memory not stir? The Inquisition. Burning at the stake. Soviet how trials. The Cultural Revolution.
This video is not a joke.
'how' should be 'show'!
Mike Post
I'm afraid I don't agree with you, and I doubt I will ever convince you otherwise.
I accept you have your views. I have mine - that this is relatively harmless and certainly not worth the effort of getting upset about it.
I expect the warmists will have serious angst about this. I also expect the realists will make hay while the sun shines. Overall - in my view - it's a minor blip of no consequence.
Finally found it! Blackadder No Pressure
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blackadder+flasheart&aq=0
6:00 minutes in - though the rest is worth watching
A minor blip as it stands perhaps, especially if it has been fully withdrawn from the intended public use in, for example cinemas, and not merely from the 10:10 website.
But the legacy may well be substantial. The movie will remain 'on the record', thanks to the Internet, and it may serve for many years as a means of spreading alarm about alarmists of the calibre of 'Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team', plus Mr Curtis and his coworkers. It is, after all, an example of the unspeakable in promotion of the indefensible.
No more of a minor blip as the emails, himalayas etc etc
Merely another indicator as to the depths of deceit some are prepared to go
It's a great video. Great like being able to see what a snake is thinking. Or see the conscience of a shark.
Notice there are no trees, no polar bears, no drowning Bengalis. No: the problem is not the environment, instead the problem ispeople who don't join the cult. And at the end of the full length version the problem is the studio actress who thinks she has joined the cult but she's not been enthusiastic enough.
And the defiant non-apology. They see it as a tactical error of showing their hand too soon - not an underlying problem of being a sick apocalyptic cult.
It is so far off the mark that one wonders if Mr Curtis has fooled someone.... after all he isn't an unintelligent fellow. But it does seem to one hell of an own goal. Someone I showed it to thought it was some sort of a parody AGAINST global warming
Jerry,
You don't agree with the consensus interpretation of the message or you think the video is a joke?
I agree with John Shade, Stephen Lewis and Jack Hughes - a stunning own goal. And, since the 10:10 campaign must have some sort of governance in place, the video must have been approved by the 10:10 executive before it was released. It will, in my opinion, be an enduring window into the soul of the 10:10 organisation.
I note that Druids have now been accepted in the UK as a "religion". Is it not now time for those who believe in Anthropological Global Warming to apply to become a properly recognised religion? They could then build churches where they could worship their God or Gods and listen to sermons that exhort them to live zero carbon lifestyles. The rest of us could then get on with our lives. Rather like the way most of us ignore Christianity and the other religions in the UK.
"it's a minor blip of no consequence"
With nearly 1000 comments on CiF in 3 days?
Have now looked through a massive but seemingly unending comments section in the Guardian and at least 80% including many environment activists are dismayed by the promo film. One is complaining that many people they had got on board with 10 10 are contacting them today to complain/consider changing their allegiance.
I'd say the film has had a negative overall effect. Though I did start considering the double triple bluff scenarios of producing the film.. but I am a cynic by nature
Just for the record... Independent posted a reasonable piece..
Independent
By my many posts I had no wish to mirror WUWT and the moral outrage there. I was just concentrating on the UK media treatment. My simple viewpoint was that it was just a nasty piece of propaganda. Which thankfully has rebounded off the wall of an open internet. A wall that shone a light on people who did not expect such inspection.
The viral analogy was apt. The anti-bodies in this case were present. And now the virus has mutated (look at the alternate videos.)