Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-28-10, 10:46 AM   #101
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

State climatologist invited, then uninvited to meeting on extreme weather.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b..._invited_then/

Quote:
Friday, September 24, 2010
Enviro and Media Agenda on Extreme Weather - State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally
David R. Legates, Ph.D., C.C.M

Introduction

On Wednesday, August 25, I was invited by Environment America to speak at its September 8 press conference on “Extreme Weather in Delaware”, to promote the release of their new report on the subject at Legislative Hall. Ms. Hannah Leone was pleased to have me speak because my “knowledge on climate change and weather would be a great asset to the event.”

On Friday, August 27, I was uninvited from the event by Ms. Leone, who noted that “I believe it is in the best interest of the success of our report that you do not participation [sic] in this event” but “as lead climatologist in the state, your opinion would be beneficial to us.” She had earlier indicated to me in a telephone call that she wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page at the event.

I believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Delaware that my “knowledge on climate change and weather” is made public, in light of the biases that are potentially inherent in the Environment America report. I say ‘potentially inherent’ because, although I was promised a copy of the report, even after I was uninvited, I have yet to receive it. However, Ms. Leone was kind enough to indicate the premise of the report in her first e-mail to me:

On September 8th we will be holding a press conference around our new Environment America Extreme Weather Report that examines the science linking global warming with hurricanes and tropical storms; coastal storms and sea level rise; flooding and extreme rainfall; snowstorms; and drought, wildfire and heat waves. The report includes snapshot case studies of these extreme weather events that have occurred in the U.S. since 2005, and the damage that they caused, including a case study in Delaware. We do not suggest that these extreme weather events were caused by global warming. Rather, the point of examining the recent extreme weather events - and the economic losses and other negative impacts they caused - is to document why we need to take action to protect against them, including by reducing emissions of pollutants that are changing our climate.

The contradictions and biases evidenced by my communications with Environment America are fascinating. Although they willingly admit that “we do not suggest that these extreme weather events were caused by global warming,” they are willing to assert that: (1) average planetary temperatures continue to increase; (2) the frequency and/or intensity of these events are increasing; and (3) reducing ‘climate changing’ CO2 emissions will protect against these events. I will argue that none of these assertions is true.

Conclusions

As a Delaware Native who has lived in this State for almost forty years, I care very much about the Diamond State and its ecology. I too am concerned that we act as good stewards of our environment. As a scientist, I have spent my entire professional career studying weather and climate and trying to understand climate change processes. I am therefore outraged when I see outright misstatements of fact being used for political gain. My concern is that there has been no significant increase in extreme weather - just an increase in its coverage with a more global media and an increase in its hype due to the political ramifications that climate change can have.

Environment America’s claim that the alleged increase in extreme weather events can be alleviated by taking action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide is unfounded. These events have not been increasing in either frequency or intensity and they are clearly not linked to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. Limiting carbon dioxide emissions will have no effect at all on the frequency or intensity of these events. Unfortunately the negative ramifications of attempting to limit such emissions will be far too real. Our best solution is to make the public more aware of these dangers, provide more timely detection and dissemination of potential extreme weather hazards (in which the National Weather Service and several State agencies have been actively engaged), and encourage people to stop building in hazardous locations, thereby putting the existing population more at risk.

See detailed analysis of all the weather threats claimed by Environment America and other environmental groups, psuedoscientists and mainstream media alarmists here.

It is clear these groups and their media messengers are uninterested in facts or the truth just in communicating the scare message that they think will bring their movement to success. This is just another example of the blatant hypocracy that the public must be made aware of.
I'm sure Environmental America assumed Legates, as an employee of the state, was a CAGW alarmist (BTW, several state climatologists have lost their jobs because they are skeptics - it's been talked about here). Finding he wasn't, he was no longer welcome. After all, the science is settled, right?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-10, 10:48 AM   #102
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Closely following the last post, an eminent climatologist has been invited, then uninvited to submit a letter to Nature.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...ion-continues/

Quote:
The season of disinvitation continues
Posted on September 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts

As we’ve seen previously this week:
Enviro and Media Agenda on Extreme Weather – State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally …”disinvitation” seems to be the latest tool for stifling debate.

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Invited Letter Now Rejected By Nature Magazine
UPDATE: September 27 2010 – see the post “You Are Invited To Waste Your Time”

I was invited by Nature magazine to write a Letter in response to the September Exeter meeting http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/home, and have been working with a member of their staff on edits over the past two weeks. This morning, I received the startling e-mail below from Nature’s Chief Commissioning Editor. Quite frankly, the only way I can interpret this behavior is as an example of the continued bias in Nature’s reporting of climate issues. Their statement that “We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question” is a remarkable admission.
Dear Professor Pielke, Thank you very much for taking the time to write to Nature, upon request. And for the revisions you’ve made, again at our request. We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page. We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate. We apologise for having taken up your time in this way. Sincerely, Sara Abdulla Chief Commissioning Editor Opinion [incl Correspondence and Books & Arts] Nature
Here is what was rejected: Temperature dataset effort vulnerable to problems by Roger A. Pielke Sr. Peter Stott and Peter Thorne recently conducted a meeting in Exeter to improve the quality control and archival procedures for global surface temperature data, at which I was not present. I applaud the aim of this meeting (doi:10.1038/4661040d) — to solicit multiple views from the climate community on how to create confidence in raw data and metadata, and to provide a set of blind benchmarking tools for the assessment of data adjustment algorithms. But I worry that the group seemingly has yet to tackle some valid concerns about that data. I was glad to see in the meeting notes several candid admissions of the shortcomings of existing surface temperature data assessments. The group acknowledged the problem of undocumented changes to temperature records and a lack of international exchange of detailed stations histories, as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset. They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously. The group’s commitment to quantifying and reporting statistical uncertainties and data adjustments is to be commended. But the meeting notes suggest that the group did not sufficiently address other valid concerns about data collection [Pielke et al 2007]. These include the need to improve the improve the documentation of humidity at temperature stations [e.g. Davey et al 2006; Fall et al 2010], the height of the observations [Klotzbach et al 2009, Lin et al 2007] and to pay more attention to the siting of surface stations. Many stations still have not been documented with photographs, for example – this is a simple problem that should be addressed immediately. I would like to see the Exeter group address these issues explicitly, and, importantly, make a commitment to having all analyses and findings from these data sets assessed by independent scientists [Mahmood et al 2010]. All too often in the past, results have been assessed by scientists associated with the agencies that performed the analyses. This should not continue. References Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo, 2006: Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the eastern United States – Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of heat content. Global and Planetary Change, 54, 19–32. Fall, S., N. Diffenbaugh, D. Niyogi, R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Rochon, 2010: Temperature and equivalent temperature over the United States (1979 – 2005). Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.2094. Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652. Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, G. Bonan, P. Lawrence, B. Baker, R. McNider, C. McAlpine, A. Etter, S. Gameda, B. Qian, A. Carleton, A. Beltran-Przekurat, T. Chase, A.I. Quintanar, J.O. Adegoke, S. Vezhapparambu, G. Conner, S. Asefi, E. Sertel, D.R. Legates, Y. Wu, R. Hale, O.W. Frauenfeld, A. Watts, M. Shepherd, C. Mitra, V.G. Anantharaj, S. Fall,R. Lund, A. Nordfelt, P. Blanken, J. Du, H.-I. Chang, R. Leeper, U.S. Nair, S. Dobler, R. Deo, and J. Syktus, 2010: Impacts of land use land cover change on climate and future research priorities. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 37–46, DOI: 10.1175/2009BAMS2769.1
In other words, I would suspect some creeps like Jones, Mann and Schmidt objected. It is even admitted (although I can't be sure of exactly who these "attendees" were). But of course, the CRU and realclimate crowd do not try to keep skeptics (and Pielke, at most, is a very mild skeptic) out of journals. The Climategate whitewashes told us that.

You get this? Pielke, Sr was asked by Nature to submit the letter. He and others worked on it for two weeks. Then without even seeing it, he was told it wouldn't be published. The once great Nature journal might as well be Scientific American now. Or the Journal of Homeopathy or something.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-10, 11:04 AM   #103
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Steve McIntyre honored - sort of - by New Statesman.

http://www.newstatesman.com/global-i...cintyre-keeper

Quote:
50 People Who Matter 2010 | 32. Stephen McIntyre
New Statesman
Published 27 September 2010

Climategate keeper.

Stephen McIntyre. Credit: Getty Images

When the mining expert Stephen McIntyre challenged the basis of climate science on his blog, he became a figurehead for many climate-change sceptics.

His subsequent involvement in the 2009 "Climategate" controversy at the University of East Anglia (he was referred to in the hacked emails over 100 times) emboldened the sceptics further and changed global opinion: the number of people who believe man is responsible for global warming has fallen.

The influence might not be positive, but there's no doubt he has shaped the debate.
What the hell is "The influence may not be positive" supposed to mean?

Thankfully, the comments (nearing 100) are almost 100% supportive of McIntyre's positive influence.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-10, 03:54 PM   #104
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Many extinct animals aren't.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/some-...929-15xd9.html

Quote:
Some extinctions exaggerated
Ian Sample London
September 30, 2010

Back from the dead: The Guadalupe fur seal (left) is now thriving,
while the bridled nailtail wallaby (right) has also been spotted again.
A SURVEY of the world's mammals reveals that more than a third of species once feared extinct have since been spotted in the wild, in one case 180 years after the last confirmed sighting. Rare mammals that were considered dead but later rediscovered were typically missing for 52 years.

An example cited in the report published yesterday is the Guadalupe fur seal, feared extinct after being slaughtered by Russian and American hunters for their skins. None could be found at breeding grounds and as sightings elsewhere tailed off, the species was consigned to history.

But small numbers of the animals clung on in island caves and were rediscovered only decades later. The population is now thriving, with the latest estimate putting their number at 15,000 or more.

The case of the Guadalupe fur seal is far from unique. One rodent, the Bahian tree rat, which lives in forests on the Brazilian coast, went missing in 1824. Despite efforts by conservationists, the animal was not rediscovered until 2004.

The bridled nailtail wallaby was once common in eastern Australia but seemed to die out in the 1930s. It was spotted in 1973 by a contractor who was preparing to clear an area of land. After he raised the alarm, the habitat was bought by the local parks service to save the animal.

Another creature, a small marsupial called Gilbert's potoroo, was missing for 115 years before it was rediscovered in the south of Western Australia in 1994.

Diana Fisher, who led the survey at the University of Queensland, said the number of mammals going extinct was still accelerating despite large numbers of lost animals being found.

Conservation experts have already warned that the world is in the grip of the ''sixth great extinction'', as imported species and diseases, hunting, and the destruction of natural habitats deal a fatal blow to plants and animals.

Writing in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Dr Fisher lists 180 mammals reported as extinct, feared extinct, or missing since the year 1500. Of these, 67 were later found to be alive and well.

Animals that were picked off by new predators were rarely rediscovered, while those threatened by a loss of habitat or hunting by humans were more likely to be holding on in small colonies, she found.

The survey highlights the uncertainties in lists of extinct species, but Dr Fisher said it should help conservationists target their searches for missing species by focusing on those most likely to be alive.

More than 25 large-scale searches have failed to find the Tasmanian tiger (thylacine), which has not been seen for nearly 80 years.

Dr Fisher said her analysis puts the chance of the species surviving at ''virtually zero''. Mammals that were hunted to extinction before the 20th century, such as Steller's sea cow, the Falkland Islands wolf, sea mink and the large Palau flying fox are also unlikely to be found now, she said.

''Conservation resources are wasted searching for species that have no chance of rediscovery, while most missing species receive no attention,'' Dr Fisher said. ''Rather than searching ever more for charismatic missing species, such as thylacines in Australia, it would be a better use of resources to look for species that are most likely to be alive, find out where they are, and protect their habitats.''

According to Dr Fisher's survey, the most likely missing mammals to be found alive are the Montane monkey-faced bat in the Solomon Islands; Alcorn's pocket gopher, which was last seen in the high forests of Mexico; and the lesser stick-nest rat, a large, soft-furred desert animal once seen in Australia.
Of course, you need some alarmism in such an article, thus: "Conservation experts have already warned that the world is in the grip of the ''sixth great extinction'', as imported species and diseases, hunting, and the destruction of natural habitats deal a fatal blow to plants and animals." As we have seen before (see http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10374543 ), there is no evidence any such "sixth great extinction" is occurring. Now it appears formerly thought extinct animals may be being found faster than species are now being lost.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-10, 11:38 AM   #105
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Must see video on Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and the cosmic ray theory:

It will not let me use the embed code so see it here:

http://vimeo.com/14356185

Well worth five minutes of your time.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-10, 10:54 PM   #106
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

You all have to watch this.

I think the lowest point in the debate has been reached. Unsurprisingly, it is once again the alarmists. I've always thought we may not have reached the bottom but I can't imagine anything lower than this. And, while you may think it's some sort of parody, it isn't. These are actual alarmists, including the idiot director of an alarmist travesty of a film from a year or two ago called The Age of Stupid (look it up) and Gillian Anderson(!).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/3...-in-bloodbath/

Quote:
O…M…G – Video explodes skeptical kids in bloodbath
Posted on September 30, 2010 by Anthony Watts

My Inbox exploded with tips today, this one in particular. This unbelievably vile video from the 10:10 campaign takes the award for the most disgusting climate and carbon reduction video ever. It is in a class by itself, which is off the scale. See also Ryan Maue’s post below this one on the 350.org tie in for 10:10.



What were they thinking? They weren’t, because this is going to have the exact opposite effect they intended it to have. I don’t have words to describe my disgust with the video.

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO IMAGERY



Here is what they say about it on YouTube:
The1010Campaign | September 30, 2010

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

Whippersnapping climate campaign 10:10 teams up with legendary comic screenwriter Richard Curtis – you know, Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill, co-founded Comic Relief – and Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong to proudly present their explosive new mini-movie “No Pressure”. The film stars X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola – with music donated by Radiohead. Shot on 35mm by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson, “No Pressure” celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t.
I know people will be upset by this, please keep your comments civil – Anthony
In the comments, two more videos were posted proving this is not a parody or a hoax:





Finally, here's the film on the 10:10 organization's website:

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

They seem to be very proud of it.

Update: See below for stuff on the pulling of the video and non-apology apology.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-01-10 at 04:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 09:25 AM   #107
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
An example cited in the report published yesterday is the Guadalupe fur seal, feared extinct after being slaughtered by Russian and American hunters for their skins. None could be found at breeding grounds and as sightings elsewhere tailed off, the species was consigned to history.

But small numbers of the animals clung on in island caves and were rediscovered only decades later. The population is now thriving, with the latest estimate putting their number at 15,000 or more.
When I can I expect to be able to buy some fur seal boots?
__________________
Everyone else is bound to leave, but you.
And they swear their love is real;
They mean, I like the way you make me feel.

gamertag: IAMNOTwiththem
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 10:26 AM   #108
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,770
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
You all have to watch this.

I think the lowest point in the debate has been reached. Unsurprisingly, it is once again the alarmists. I've always thought we may not have reached the bottom but I can't imagine anything lower than this. And, while you may think it's some sort of parody, it isn't. These are actual alarmists, including the idiot director of an alarmist travesty of a film from a year or two ago called The Age of Stupid (look it up) and Gillian Anderson(!).
So can the polarity on this "easy button" be reversed (like on Star Trek) to summarily execute the alarmists? That would probably result in less bloodshed.

10:10's desperation in creating such a video is palpable.
__________________
"Wishbone is spelled with an E not a 3..... *Be gone*" - Minor Threat
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 12:37 PM   #109
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,654
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Everyone seems to be either an alarmist or denier... what happened to the skeptics still weighing the data?
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 12:40 PM   #110
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The 10:10 people have (rather reluctantly) apologized and they removed the "No Pressure" video from their website although they are not trying to remove it from other sites. This closed faster for Gillian Anderson than the second X-Files movie.

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

Quote:
Sorry.

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

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website. 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,

Eugenie, Franny, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
How could anyone have thought this was funny?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 04:51 PM   #111
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

10:10 said they would not try to remove the video from other sites. However, it's now gone from YouTube. Try clicking above and you get a message that it's a "private video." The same with the "behind the scenes" short film.

Fortunately, you can still see this future Oscar winner for Best Live Action Short:

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 04:58 PM   #112
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Delingpole always comes through:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...l/#dsq-content

Quote:
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail!
By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: October 1st, 2010

I predicted this morning that No Pressure – Richard Curtis’s spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign – would prove a disastrous own goal for the green movement.

But what I could never have imagined was how quickly public disgust – even among greenies – would reach such a pitch that the campaigners would be compelled to withdraw it from the internet.

That, at any rate, is what they keep trying to do – cancelling it whenever it appears on You Tube, pulling it from their campaign website and so on.

Unfortunately their efforts are being frustrated by people on the sceptical side of the climate debate, who keep peskily insisting on reposting the video where everyone can view it. And rightly so. With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

I don’t think any of us will ever be able to look at another Richard Curtis movie in quite the same way ever again. It may even be that we will now never, ever be able to enjoy another episode of the Vicar of Dibley, because all we’ll be able to think about is Dawn French with a Panzerfaust beneath her cassock ready to blast off the heads of any members of her congregation who don’t believe in Man Made Global Warming. What a sad day this is for us all.

PS If you want to register your disgust, a commenter from the previous blog Reconstruct has some helpful suggestions:
Now you’ve seen the video, prepare not to be surprised that your taxes helped pay for it.

The 10:10 Campaign is supported by:
ActionAid (Govt of UK 2nd largest funder in 2009);
The Carbon Trust (surely #1 on the list of quangos-to-go);
The Energy Saving Trust.

Be not surprised that The Guardian is their ‘media partner’.

On the other hand, if you’re outraged by the video, you might be interested to know that they also have a small number of genuine commercial sponsors: O2, Sony and Kyocera all have helped fund the 10:10 Campaign.

I suggest that the first thing to do is to make your outrage known to O2, Sony and Kyocera, suggesting that their commercial interests might not be furthered by funding murderous nazi will-fulfillment propaganda
.
It seems 10:10 may even be lying about not trying to remove it from other sites. Someone is making it disappear but, of course, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube or unring the bell. It's out in cyberspace now forever.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 05:20 PM   #113
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I think that video is spot on about the stalinist agenda of the global warming religion. Disagree and die. When someone tells you what they are all about, believe them.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-10, 09:30 PM   #114
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by arminius View Post
I think that video is spot on about the stalinist agenda of the global warming religion. Disagree and die. When someone tells you what they are all about, believe them.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/01...t-disavows-101

Quote:
Eaarth Inhabitant Disavows 1010.org Video
By Paul Chesser on 10.1.10 @ 6:28PM

Commenter Susan made me aware in my earlier blog post that 350.org's Bill McKibben, a partner with 1010.org, has issued a statement that claimed his group had nothing to do with their gross-out, kill-the-deniers video, and called it "disgusting." From his statement, which he issued after learning about the video after he (surprise!) climbed off a plane in Boston:
Climate skeptics are going to make a big deal of this. The video represents the kind of stupidity that really hurts our side, reinforcing in people's minds a series of preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we're out-of-control elitists. Not to mention crazy, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor....
Crazy? Now where would we get that idea, Bill? Maybe from your lamentations at church in Copenhagen:
Those damned shriveled ears of corn. I've done everything I can think of, and millions of people around the world have joined us at 350.org in the most international campaign there ever was. But I just sat there thinking: It's not enough. We didn't do enough. I should have started earlier. People are dying already; people are sitting tonight in their small homes trying to figure out how they're going to make the maize meal they have stretch far enough to fill the tummies of the kids sitting there waiting for dinner. And that's with 390 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.
Or from that last book you wrote -- "Eaarth:"
"The world hasn't ended, but the world as we know it has -- even if we don't quite know it yet," [McKibben] writes. "It's a different place. A different planet. It needs a new name." Since it's earth-like, he says, let's call it "Eaarth."
Or perhaps from your political instincts:
The task at hand is keeping the planet from melting. We need everyone -- beginning with the president -- to start explaining that basic fact at every turn."
Yeah Bill -- flyin' all over the place to give speeches, talkin' 'bout death and destruction...just where would we get the idea that you're all crazy elitists? And then you say stuff like this today:
We've known the (1010.org video) creators for years--they put out a statement apologizing for their lapse. But it's the kind of mistake that will haunt and hurt efforts.
McKibben's so elitist and crazy that he doesn't even realize it was not a mistake; it was absolutely intentional, with a lot of people devoting weeks, if not months, of planning into it.

It was not a mistake because it revealed what the alarmists really are.
Just like you say, arminius.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-10, 04:47 PM   #115
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Franny Armstrong: the mind behind the 10:10 video (it's not pretty):

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-environ...tter-stupidity

Quote:
The Environmental Activist mind-set: The Age of Utter Stupidity
Source: SPPI
by Dennis Ambler
October 2, 2010

We have had “An Inconvenient Truth”, “The Day After Tomorrow”, “Acid Test” “The Age of Stupid”, all propaganda films pushing the central tenets of the Global Warming movement and produced by professional film-makers.

We have had scary adverts for children, warning of the planet’s imminent collapse unless we “mend our ways” and that means your parents, kids.

We now have a new low in media presentations, a film that was available on You Tube, until it was pulled today, within a few hours of the exposure it received when the Guardian highlighted it as part of their support for the 10:10 climate change campaign. I suspect they were quite surprised by the reactions even from AGW supporters.

This delightful film series has the title “No Pressure” and is written by Richard Curtis, a highly successful writer with a long list of comedy successes to his name. It comes from the Franny Armstrong stable, famous for the dreadful “Age of Stupid” film, showing a world destroyed by its inhabitants. This nice little example is no comedy, although it producers think it is highly entertaining. The title of the Guardian article in which the film is linked, is entitled: “There will be blood”.

The main message from the film is that the planet has only four years left for long term survival unless we all cut back our emissions of CO2 now. Anyone who doesn’t agree is detonated, with lots of blood and guts sprayed around. It even has a rider attached that says: This film contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing. Not suitable for children.

This is what activist film maker Franny Armstrong thinks about her work:

“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet?

Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.”

This woman is so hilarious it hurts.
So anyone who disagrees with them has “an affliction” and is threatening everybody’s existence on the planet. What crass, hubristic arrogance from this spoilt brat.

[b]The Guardian interviewer asks her, “But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people?”

Her reply: “Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. [Not three or five, Franny? -m] All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”

“We ‘killed’ five people [I count eight, Franny; but you must be right, it's your film - m] to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” she adds.

Of course she has no evidence to back up this valueless claim, which comes from the United Nations, but in fact previous centuries have shown considerable mortality from extreme weather events long before carbon dioxide became flavour of the month.

They are perverting the minds of young children:

“Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: “I was very happy to get blown up to save the world.”

Although again intended to be in jest, (I hope), is it an over-reaction to suggest that that sounds like a jihadist?

Richard Curtis, is equally proud of the production: “The writer of Four Weddings and a Funeral and Blackadder and an early 10:10 supporter, acknowledges that the 10:10 film is very direct.”

“The 10:10 team are a fearless, energetic bunch, completely dedicated to getting the public fired up about climate change. They also turn out to be surprisingly good at blowing stuff up,” he said.”

So how many eco-terrorists of the future are they fostering by this crude attempt at propaganda. Maybe their next proposal will be to “eliminate” China to stop their emissions….

Armstrong’s film, the “Age of Stupid”, was embraced by the Royal Society in March this year, when they organized a Public Symposium with the Tate Modern Gallery in London. It’s title was: Rising to the Climate Challenge – Artists and Scientists Imagine Tomorrow’s World.

“Tate and the Royal Society collaborate by bringing together scientists and artists to imagine the social and psychological impacts of climate change.

On 19 and 20 March, Tate and the Royal Society collaborate to bring you a screening of the film The Age of Stupid following, (sic) by a discussion and a public symposium about the social and psychological impacts of climate change.”

If that is what passes for science today from the august 300 year old Royal Society, it’s no wonder they had so many complaints from their members that they have had to re-write their treatise on climate change to remove a lot of the non-science.

Franny Armstrong has a film company called “Spanner Films”:

“Former pop drummer and self-taught filmmaker Franny Armstrong, born 1972, has directed three feature documentaries – The Age of Stupid (2008), McLibel (2005) and Drowned Out (2003) – which have together been seen by 70 million people on TV, cinema, internet and DVD worldwide. In the early days of the internet in 1996 she founded the McSpotlight website, which Wired magazine described as “the blueprint for all activist websites”.

Through her company, Spanner Films, “Franny” pioneered the “crowd-funding” finance model, which allows filmmakers to raise reasonable-size budgets whilst retaining ownership of their films – Age of Stupid is the most successful known example, raising £900,000+ from 300+ investors – as well as the “Indie Screenings” distribution system, which lets anyone make a profit by holding screenings of independent films – Stupid was screened locally 1,100+ times in the first six months.

Then in September 2009, a million people watched Stupid’s Global Premiere event – featuring Kofi Annan, Gillian Anderson & Radiohead’s Thom Yorke – in 700 cinemas in 63 countries, linked by satellite. In September 2009 Franny founded the 10:10 climate campaign, which aims to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010.

It seems that she has found considerable traction and no doubt funding, from public companies and government bodies.

The campaign has amassed huge cross-societal support including Adidas, Microsoft, Spurs FC, the Royal Mail, 75,000 people, 1,500 schools, a third of local councils, the entire UK Government and the Prime Minister, (then Gordon Brown, no doubt the new incumbent has been happy to go along with it as well) 10:10 launched internationally in March 2010 and, as of July 2010, has autonomous campaigns up and running in 41 countries, where some of the key sign-ups include the French Tennis Open, the city of Oslo and L’oreal.

Armstrong’s parents are both in the environment game and also feature on the spannerfilms website.

Her step-mother is co-founder of the OneWorld Network and co-director of OneWorld UK.

Her father, Peter, is co-founder of the OneWorld Network and director for the OneWorld International Foundation, although their site shows no activities since 2008. He is described as a former BBC radio and TV producer and a policy advisor to governments and international bodies on the use of information and communications technology for global sustainable development.

Let us hope that this excursion into the ridiculous will make her sponsors think again about their relationship with this type of distorted propaganda.
Franny, you're a worthless person, but I wouldn't press the red button on you. Even in a "funny" film.

Maybe I've figured out how Franny came up with five "killed" people instead of eight. Perhaps skeptics and others insufficiently fanatical enough to buy her program are like slaves when the Constitution was written. Remember, the slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person? Franny's counting the bad people as 5/8 of a person. Well, it is a slightly higher value.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-10, 05:17 PM   #116
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Is 10:10 a fringe group? Are they not representative of environmental groups?

http://sppiblog.org/news/carbon-emis...make-its-point

Quote:
Carbon emissions reduction film “blows up” children to make its point
Source: Troy Media
By David Semour
October 2, 2010

REGINA, SK, Oct. 1, 2010/ Troy Media/ – It’s hard to know what to make of a serious short film in which a teacher blows up children as young as 10 for disagreeing with climate change activism, with their blood and guts splattered over terrified class mates. It’s not a question I ever expected to ask, until the “10:10” campaign released just such a video this week.

The video consists of four scenes. In each, a teacher, a company manager, a soccer coach, and a sound producer breezily intone an audience to reduce their carbon emissions. The target is a ten-per-cent reduction over twelve months beginning in 2010, which is the thrust of the 10:10 global campaign. They close with what turns out to be a menacingly sarcastic caveat “no pressure,” which is also the title of the film. In each scene the majority of the audience enthusiastically pledges to reduce their emissions, but one or two refuse or are indifferent. The scenes end with the authority figure pushing a red button that detonates the dissenters to a puree. Their blood covers the hysterical survivors.

Quickly pulled from website

After less than a day, the campaign took the movie off their website and issued an apology. The film is still available elsewhere.

I’d like to think that the film’s makers are fringe players in the global community of climate change activists or that they didn’t really believe it would help their cause, or that they just have a “different” sense of humour than I do. Let us test some of these possible escape hatches from the charge that this is actually the rotten core of the whole climate change activist movement.

For a fringe campaign, 10:10 has been remarkably successful. Around 100,000 people from 152 countries have signed up. British Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged the entire British government to participate. Large companies are associated with 10:10, including Britain’s Royal Mail, the electronics giant Sony, and Facebook. The United Nations-backed Climate Neutral Network is one of its many “partner” organisations. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Greenpeace are supporters through their proxy the Global Campaign for Climate Action.

So 10:10 is not a fringe organization. They’re widely trusted in the global climate activist community. Whether these adherents will now denounce the campaign for its tasteless exercise in arrogance and sadism remains to be seen. Let’s hope so, but it seems unlikely for the following reason.

It’s been a terrible year for climate change activists. The Copenhagen conference was an abject failure, “Climategate” was a humiliation, the temperature record has stubbornly refused to offer any statistically significant warming for a decade now and the global economic slowdown has shifted public attention away from the global warming issue.

What better time to reach for a favourite tactic of the radical environmentalist movement, which is best described by prominent global warming alarmist Steven Schneider as “. . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”? Through this lens the film makes perfect sense.

The 10:10 founder, Franny Armstrong, justified it by telling the Guardian “All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”

So it wasn’t the act of fringe lunatics, nor a miscalculation. But perhaps I just need to lighten up? After all, the official campaign website does say “Successes [at reducing emissions] are celebrated, rather than failures highlighted, so as not to discourage people/organisations from signing-up . . .” Whether or not it’s funny is a matter of personal opinion, but the film got roasted for being unfunny and worse in the comment sections of both YouTube and the Guardian before its official withdrawal.

Forcing their will on others

Of greater concern is what the film’s maker would need to believe in order to think it’s funny, and their influence on children. This film makes such a joke out of people with differing views that we shouldn’t be remotely offended by their murder. After centuries of progress towards a world of free thought and speech, the video takes us to a paradigm where it’s right to force our will on others with explosives. As one of the exploded children said in a “behind the scenes” clip, he “thinks it’s ok for children to be blown up for a good cause.”

That an organisation well respected by global climate change activists thought that might be funny betrays a global movement of hysteria that is out of touch with modern civilisation and rotten to the core.
I think you have to go to James Lee or the Unabomber to find the "fringe" of the environmental movement these days. And even they sound much like many so-called mainstream enviros in their writings. Only their acts make them even candidates for the fringe. The Greenpeace nuts who trespass and vandalize are praised by enviros everywhere so they are not the fringe. 10:10 didn't really kill people or break laws like Greenpeace so I wouldn't call them fringe.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-10, 08:51 AM   #117
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Californians: why you should vote "yes" on Proposition 23:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-269159--.html

Quote:
Published: Oct. 1, 2010
Updated: Oct. 3, 2010 12:06 a.m.
Mark Landsbaum: Escape clause from global warming law
By MARK LANDSBAUM

If AB32 isn't at least delayed, state economy will be sent into a deep freeze.

If Proposition 23 on the Nov. 2 ballot doesn't pass, your lives, livelihoods and liberties will come inescapably under the thumb of the Administrative State.

Hyperbole, you say? Landsbaum's off his rocker, you say? Read on.

Prop. 23 would merely delay – mind you, not repeal – implementation of the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, perhaps the most arrogantly misnamed law the California Legislature ever passed.

The Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, set in motion an army of unelected, unaccountable Air Resources Board bureaucrats to write restrictive regulations and concoct an arbitrary cap-and-trade program to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide. In effect, AB32 imposes a onerous energy tax to transfer wealth from innocent taxpayers and politically out-of-favor industries to endeavors that can't pay for themselves without taxpayer subsidies, things like windmill farms.

For perspective, carbon dioxide is the stuff you exhale. It's essential for plant growth, making it necessary for human existence. It's also a byproduct of virtually every human commercial activity, from pouring concrete to driving a car to flipping the light switch. What CO2 isn't, is a pollutant, even though the Supreme Court was persuaded to declare it one in 2007.

If government can regulate, tax and ration CO2, government can control just about everything. That's not hype.

Prop. 23 would delay this army of bureaucrats from inflicting who-knows-what economy-killing policies yet to be drafted. That's obviously prudent, considering unemployment in this state persistently hovers above 12 percent, and state government already is dysfunctional and out of control. The delay would prevent the state from rewarding friends and punishing enemies until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, which has occurred three times in the past 40 years.

AB32 is wrong in at least two significant ways. It's based on bad science and will result in bad economics.

The Science

The first thing to understand is that the only place manmade CO2 ever created catastrophe is in computer models. In fact, the presumed cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 and higher temperatures also exists only in theory.

If higher levels of CO2 were an absolute cause of hotter temperatures, we would have seen temperatures soar over the past dozen years because CO2 levels dramatically shot up. Instead, temperatures have been level or declining.

Then there's the inconvenient truth that the Earth has been at least as warm, or even much warmer than it is today, long before man began spewing CO2 into the air anywhere near the rate we do now.

Some of the same climate alarmists who demand we implement Draconian controls like AB32 are the same people who insisted in the 1970s the Earth was headed into a new Ice Age that would kill millions and cripple civilization. That catastrophe didn't happen, but we are to trust that this one will. Chicken Little comes to mind.

Not incidentally, the motive in the '70s was the same as today: control. Whether we're going to freeze or roast, the argument is that government must have greater control to save us.

Speaking of ice ages, the planet has been coming out of the most recent one for a few hundred years, quite a while before the uptick in industrial CO2 emissions of the past half century. One might reasonably surmise that we should be getting a tad warmer. If there's any increased warming in the past century, it's as likely a natural cycle as any other explanation.

Then there's this: Even by alarmists' calculations, temperatures over the past century increased less than 1 degree Celsius. If that sounds tiny, it's because it is. Is it conceivable when dealing with literally a fraction of a degree that the margin of error in measuring temperatures might come into play? You decide.

After the Soviet Union fell, more than 100 surface climate-data stations in the eastern portion of the nation, including Siberia, stopped recording temperatures. Russians had more important things to do. About that time, the so-called average global temperature began increasing.

Measuring stations that record surface temperatures "are disappearing worldwide at an alarming rate," says meteorologist Anthony Watts. Some have been closed, including many in Canada and Russia. Others simply disappeared. Those remaining can be problematic. Many once were located in placid pastoral settings but today are on heat-reflecting concrete and asphalt.

Watts' SurfaceStations.org documented 1,003 of the 1,221 U.S. measuring stations and found many "located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements."

Those measurements, probably a better yardstick for how hot concrete can get than atmosphere, are included when calculating the so-called global temperature.

"How do we know global warming is a problem if we can't trust the U.S. temperature record?" Watts asks. By the way, the U.S. measuring stations are universally regarded to be far more reliable than the rest of the world's.

When climate researchers' e-mails were leaked last year, it was apparent that they consistently resisted challenges to their practices. One practice is "adjusting" temperature readings to align them with what "should" be expected – at least what is expected by researchers, whose grants hinge on defining global warming as a problem. A Russian think tank charged that measurements still being collected in that country were cherry-picked, discarding lower temperatures.

Let's sum up: Incomplete, questionable, perhaps cherry-picked temperatures that are "adjusted." Did we mention margin of error?

It is this hodgepodge of sporadic, questionable temperature data that's fed into the touted computer models to project the future. Garbage in, garbage out?

One more point: climatologists on both sides agree that they haven't a clue whether or how much clouds increase, decrease or do both to global temperatures. They generally agree, however, clouds have far greater influence than CO2.

The Economics

If AB32 isn't stopped, by the time it is fully implemented it will have cost California about 1 million lost jobs, according to a Cal State Sacramento study. It also will increase costs for anything produced by energy. Electricity rates will go up as much as 60 percent, according to the Southern California Public Power Authority, and gasoline, diesel and natural gas prices will increase.

Opponents of Prop. 23 say the global warming law will offset this harm by creating "green" jobs. They promise these "clean-energy" jobs will sprout within renewable-energy industries, such as solar and wind power.

Next time you drive past windmill farms in the hinterlands, count how many "workers" you see toiling away. I've never see one. Ask yourself how many times you'll need to hire a "green" installer to put that outdoor plumbing on your roof to rig your house with solar panels.

Well, there's always the manufacturing jobs AB32 will create. In China.

To become windmill-reliant, whatever manufacturing jobs are created, there won't be many in California because of its burdensome, costly regulations. China, which doesn't have a cap-and-trade scheme that inhibits manufacturers, builds windmills for places like California, which we are told must have a cap-and-trade scheme. What's wrong with this picture?

Christopher Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed," notes that advocates for laws like AB32 say we must not let China win the windmill race. The fact is, the U.S. already has installed 33 percent more windmills than China, which apparently prefers selling them to saps like us. Incidentally, every three weeks China brings online a new, CO2-spewing, coal-fired power plant to meet its energy needs.

Let's allow, for argument's sake, that green jobs should be encouraged. Here's the problem: They are economic losers. Ask Germany, the Netherlands or Spain. In Spain, where green jobs are heavily subsidized by taxes, for every green job created, two normal jobs were lost. Moreover, those thrown out of work required unemployment aid.

Does it make sense to create a new economic model based on a product, whether windmills, solar panels or biofuels, that must be subsidized by taxpayers? Even if we disregard the viable jobs and profitable industries destroyed by such a policy, what of the tax-subsidized new ones we create?

"The very presence of subsidies and targeted favors for a particular good means that the real value of the resources being used to create that good is greater than the value of the good itself," William L. Anderson, associate professor of economics at Frostburg State University, writes in the Freeman. "No economy can grow under such circumstances. The reality is that 'green energy' actually causes the economy to contract."
Oh, and you might want to dump uber-alarmist Barbara Boxer and keep ex-Governor Moonbeam from beaming back in to phaser your state into oblivion.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-10, 09:58 AM   #118
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The alarmists are dehumanizing the people who are not 100% on board with their entire agenda. Reminds me of an ersatz people once known as Kulaks. They too were a danger to the peace loving masses of supreme authority. This whole thing has nothing to do with climate or science, it's just about control.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-10, 03:11 PM   #119
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I've been waiting for the inevitable. Take-offs on the 10:10 video.

Here's one:

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-10, 03:20 PM   #120
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Climate Progress's (an alarmist site) Joe Romm condemned the 10:10 video but still will not allow skeptics' uncomfortable, inconvenient comments.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/0...omment-3952858

Quote:
Over at Climate Progress – an anti-skeptic website where the moderator JR believes we’re all “country-destroying murderers”, I left a comment that I thought was pretty tame:
Whatever position one takes on man-made global warming, this video does great damage because it solidifies a sense that more and more people have about the environmental Left – that you’re apocalyptic ideologues that see skeptics as “deniers” worthy of being treated like Nazis and disposed of. People can figure out the import of the code words you use to marginalize your opponents, but this lurid fantasy, it says to many that the tide is turning against you and that your reaction is predictably extreme. We can all agree that the video is horrendous. What isn’t evident to MMGW apostles is that fewer people will see this video as an unfair representation of the extent of your fanaticism.

Maybe it is natural, considering the changes you’re insisting humans make in their lives, that when submission didn’t come fast enough you’d raise the fear another notch. But I think you’ve overplayed your hand, and the reaction to this video will offer a glimpse into the damage you’ve done to your own credibility. Several scandals poorly defended have done deep damage already, now a video revealing how deep the contempt for the opposition goes is supposed to be waved away with a non-apology from 10:10 campaign?

20 years ago it might have been recognized for the clumsy satire it is. Today, you’re responsible for ratcheting up the fear to a level where no one can tell anymore just how far you’d go to save the planet. There’s something “extremely funny” about blowing up people who disagree with you? Have we seen so much terrorism by now that it’s lost its horror, its inhumanity?

The line between government/corporate funded environmental activist groups and environmental terrorists just got a little thinner. When the life of the planet is on the line, apparently the means justify the ends. There’s nothing funny about that…
JR deleted it. Then When I asked why, considering it offered a challenge his side ought to want to defeat, he deleted that comment as well. I expect the reason was stated in his response to a “denier” who asked sheepishly why dissenting opinions were being deleted:
[JR: In general, I don't print posts that mis-characterize large numbers of people concerned about the climate.]
Yes, the irony runs rich over there…

Evrviglnt on October 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM
JR, of course, is Joe Romm himself, one of the more over the top, foaming at the mouth alarmists.

What conclusion is one supposed to draw when skeptic sites routinely allow open discussions and alarmist sites routinely will not print anything that makes them uncomfortable?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-03-10 at 11:50 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-10, 02:44 PM   #121
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Alarmist journalist Andrew Revkin has a pretty good column about the 10:10 video. Read the insane defenses he has posted. These defenses show the rot, while not universal in the environmental movement is, as the enviros are fond of saying, "worse than we thought."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...mate-campaign/

Quote:
Dot Earth - New York Times blog
October 4, 2010, 11:01 am
A ‘Pretty Edgy’ Climate Campaign
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Hey, in an entertainment universe where a blood-soaked psychopath can be a hero and flesh-munching zombies can be hilarious (to me, too), what’s a few exploding schoolchildren?

Late last week, a British climate group released “ No Pressure,” a mini-film aimed at rounding up new recruits to its “10:10″ movement, in which people, schools, companies and other participants pledge to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent in a year.

On paper, the project had everything going for it — the screenwriter of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” music by Radiohead, on-screen talent including Gillian Anderson, a partnership with The Guardian newspaper, which got the exclusive, unveiling the video with a gushy blog post that called it “attention grabbing” and “pretty edgy.”

.
Attention grabbing and “pretty edgy,” indeed. The opening scene shows a school teacher cheerily tallying hands of those in her class agreeing to cut their carbon, then pushing a red button, bursting two naysayers like balloons filled with fruit punch. Other scenes repeat the spattery process in an office and on a soccer field. The video makes last year’s “ polar bears falling from the sky” film clip fighting frequent flying look like Teletubbies.

If the goal had been to convince people that environmental campaigners have lost their minds and to provide red meat (literally) to shock radio hosts and pundits fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, it worked like a charm. Of course the goal might have been buzz more than efficacy. Too often these days, that’s the online norm. They succeeded on that front. I, among many others, am forced to write about it. Congratulations.

Then again, it could be a conspiracy. Perhaps the filmmakers were simply highly-paid double agents for big oil and big coal trying to undercut the global effort of the similarly named 10-10-10 campaign kicking off on Oct. 10 (the 10:10 group is one of thousands of participants in the international climate “work party”).

If so, they certainly provided a body blow, as the lead organizer, Bill McKibben, noted on many green blogs over the weekend.

In the end, the 10:10 organizers posted an unbelievably flimsy apology, expressly allowing folks to copy and distribute the film on YouTube even as they (meaninglessly) pulled it from their home page. They closed with this inexcusably flacid “wink, wink” line:
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….
The only amusing thing about this followup statement is how closely it resembles the semi-non-apology Rush Limbaugh offered his listeners last year a week after he proposed that I kill myself if I really think human population growth is bad for the planet. He actually went further, saying:
Uh, I, er, Mr. Revkin, for crying out loud. I’m making a point. I’m not advocating death. I do not advocate death on this program. I do not advocate control over anybody else’s life.”
I e-mailed a query about the film over the weekend to Franny Armstrong, one of the founders of the 10:10 effort and the director of the biting 2008 climate film “ The Age of Stupid.” When I hear back, you’ll get an update.

Blood spatter aside, “No Pressure” proves, beyond a doubt, that we really are living in the age of stupid.

I’d like to see the group’s sponsors, including Sony, figure out an upside to this effort. They should either state why they continue to provide support or pull out.

I’ve rounded up some other reactions (including a defense) from a few folks involved in film and/or environmental communication work or analysis. You can read them below.

Personally, I’ve got to agree with a critique offered by a YouTube account holder who was one of many who took up the 10:10 invitation to download and repost the video — in this case with the environmental group’s “apology” superimposed on the imagery:
If the same kind of video had been made about blowing up atheists, agnostics, christians, jews, muslims, whites, blacks, asians, homosexuals, left-wingers or right-wingers, it would have been met with understandable disgust; this video is a shameful display of DOUBLE STANDARDS.
[I'd add that if it were made about blowing up alarmists it would be met with that same understandable disgust. Could you just imagine? - m]

Here’s the input from others:

Maria Luskay, a media and communications professor at my new home base, Pace University, sees a generational divide over violent imagery:
Our youth are growing up in a generation of Quentin Tarantino “in your face” types of films. This is not alarming at all to them. They are used to seeing this on screen. The same rule applies for graphic video games.

No pressure – this is nothing new.

I believe it will be more of a shock to adults, like myself, who believe that it is too edgy and violent and don’t want to see blood and guts splattered on our TV’s. But isn’t that the objective of the campaign – to leave an impression?
Randy Olson, the creator of the “Sizzle” climate mock documentary and author of “ Don’t Be Such a Scientist,” sent this riff:
I think the film was horribly offensive. I also think Stephen Colbert should be boycotted for making a mockery of the U.S. Congress, Jon Stewart should be punished for his unwillingness to treat serious American politics seriously, and South Park should be banned altogether. Given the desperate state of today’s world — more violent and filled with hatred, pain and suffering than any time in history — there is simply no place for this stuff. It’s time for humor to be added to the list, alongside polio and tuberculosis, as things to eradicate in our lifetime.
Marshall Herskovitz, a past president of the Producers Guild of America and producer of films and TV shows including Blood Diamond and thirtysomething, is working on a campaign he describes as trying to “change the conversation regarding climate change and renewable energy.” Here’s his view of the video:
The sad spectacle of the 10:10 video is a perfect illustration of worldwide failure over the issue of climate change (not to mention the pornographication of violence which has overtaken world media in recent years). The irony of course is that the video looks like it was made by climate change deniers -– not believers -– as an attack on the supposed “fascism” of those who would mobilize society to reduce greenhouse gases. The truth is that those of us who believe we are in a planetary emergency are indeed desperate and frustrated and angry -– but we’re not in charge, we’re not blowing up people, and in fact we are leaderless and ineffective.

The video reflects that lack of leadership, reflects a movement — if you can even call it that — that cannot even articulate its own desperation. Every great movement –- anti-slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights –- succeeded finally because passionate people went out in public and articulated and demonstrated that passion, at risk of life and limb, over and over again. Because human beings are moved by passion, and very often persuaded by it.

The deniers will deny until the moment they either stop making money from it, or they truly understand that they are dooming their children. In the meantime, the rest of us can only declare passionately what we believe, and work as hard as we can for the changes we believe are necessary. And so far we have failed at both, with the fact that someone well-meaning could have made this video as proof of that failure.

I envy the deniers, really, for they are not yet compelled to see the terrible truth: That there is no time left for us to fail.
Edward Maibach, the director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University:
I’ll admit that I find it funny, but then again, I’m a sucker for British humor. Regardless, I think they used bad judgment in producing it (unless it was completely pro bono) and in posting it. Even if all of their intended audience members and other important stakeholders found it to be funny (which, apparently, they didn’t), what was the point of the spot? That nearly everyone is participating in 10:10 (i.e., saving energy is a new social norm)? Surely there are better ways to make that worthy point.
Tom Bowman, a consultant in climate communication:
I confess that I find it funny also. It makes its point about normative behavior in a way that we used to see on Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Saturday Night Live. In the absence of message testing on this spot, perhaps the seriousness of the climate threat and ideological opposition to science findings lead us to be a little to serious about climate messaging. There is room for many voices, even for dark humor. But I do think the spot was weak in the same way so many messages are: it fails to demonstrate how absurdly easy cutting emissions by 10% really is. Plugging electronics into power strips that get turned off can probably do it. Changing all of one’s light bulbs to CFLs would almost certainly do it. In other words, the relative simplicity of achieving the 10% goal really does make non-compliance look silly.
[Using the word non-compliance sounds a little authoritarian, eh? - m]

There’s much more reaction out there on this film, with rare alignments of people including Roger Pielke, Jr., and Joe Romm. The Guardian has rounded up apologies from backers of the effort, but hasn’t apologized itself yet (unless I missed it).
The Randy Olson and Marshall Herskovitz responses are particularly loony. On what planet do these people live? I wish they'd go save their planet and leave ours alone.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-04-10 at 06:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-10, 03:01 PM   #122
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I was going to write to Sony requesting that they remove themselves as sponsors of 10:10. They have already done so.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/04...rs-out-as-1010

Quote:
Corporate Partners Out As 10:10.org Cosponsors
By Paul Chesser on 10.4.10 @ 2:44PM

It looks like Sony and Kyocera Mita have demanded their removal from all associations with the extremist climate group 10:10.org, which produced that exploding schoolchildren video last week. The corporations' names have been removed from the list of partners, and a lengthy post by Sony's point-person on climate change, Naomi Climer, has been deleted from the 10:10 site.

Not only that, but a huge U.S. environmentalist promoter and partner, 350.org (headed by Bill McKibben), is no longer listed as an organizational partner. Both 10:10 and 350 have been heavily promoting an October 10 (10/10/10) "global workday" to supposedly bring fresh attention to the global warming threat. The message from 350.org's press shop:
We respect 10:10's previous work to encourage companies, schools, and churches to voluntarily cut their carbon emissions 10%. Upon seeing the video, however, we have informed 10:10 that we can no longer remain partners on 10/10/10 or any other initiative. 350.org maintains an absolute commitment to nonviolence in word and deed.
After Friday's weak apology, 10:10 U.K. director Eugenie Harvey issued this statement today, clearly stung by the global outrage:
We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.

I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.

10:10 is a young and creative team but we will learn lessons from this. We are going to investigate what happened, review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors.
Being "young and creative" is a bunch of garbage and another lame excuse. Gillian Anderson, whose CGI-generated guts were splattered in the film, is neither young nor creative, yet she went along with the program. Dozens if not hundreds of others were involved in the creation of the video and you can't tell me they all were "young and creative." They were just committed to the message. As Iowahawk wrote:
In order for your "No Pressure" advert to have been made, I am assuming several writers pitched a professionally-prepared storyboard to a committee, detailing shot-by-shot each second of the film. The committee approved it, along with a minimum $250,000 budget to hire actors, director, & crew. Each scene probably took 3-10 takes, and weeks of post production by special effects wizards.

At no time did a single person involved in this (expletive) say, "hey, maybe it isn't the best PR to air our fantasies about detonating the people who don't agree with us into a mist of blood meat and bone fragments."
At his site Iowahawk imagines how the video plans came together, which sounds pretty plausible.
Good for Sony which was easily the highest profile sponsor. It was stupid of them to get involved in the first place but at least they have the sense to get out now.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-10, 03:06 PM   #123
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The Iowahawk satire referred to above is pretty funny (that is, actually funny, rather than alarmofunny).

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...0/mad-men.html

Quote:
Mad Men
Iowahawk
October 1, 2010

Environmental PSAs have certainly evolved since the day of Woodsy Owl and Iron Eyes Cody, if this educational film from the UK is any indication (h/t Tim Blair).

An impressive piece of work to be sure, especially when you consider the amount of effort that went into its making. It might even make a boffo Harvard Business School case study.

London, sometime earlier this year: The 10:10 Project, a nonprofit NGO focused on reducing carbon, convenes a high level meeting in their posh modern conference room. After reviewing PowerPoint on the results of their latest government grant proposals and white-liberal-guilt fund raising campaigns, the 10:10 marketing team reports that previous communication efforts have not been proceeding as expected.

"Perhaps what we need is a fresh new campaign," offers one of the conferees. "Something different, provocative... something edgy. Something that will really get our message across." This is greeted with great excitement. The finance director pours through spreadsheets and identifies a budget source. An executive screening committee is appointed who develop timelines and begin scheduling meetings with London's top agencies and independent film production firms.

Several weeks later, after sitting through a half dozen agency presentations that have yet to meet their standards, 10:10's highly paid executive brain trust arrives at a meeting at the sleek offices of London's hottest agency Splodey, Youngblood, Gutz & Bones. After introductions, small talk, and pastries, SYG&B's creative director - winner of 5 British Clio awards - strolls confidently to the television monitor at the front of the room and walks the 10:10 clients through a scene-by-scene video storyboard pitching a new promotional mini-movie that will solve their communication dilemma. The smoothness of the presentation masks the hundreds of late night man-hours and debating the SYG&B creative department spent in crafting it - but it was worth it.

"Brilliant!" exclaims the 10:10 executive committee chair, to the enthusiastic nods of his colleagues. "Add one more exploding child, and I think we have a winner."

Small changes are made to bring the production budget under $400,000, and the agency brings in a high profile horror director to put it on film. Ads are taken in the trades to announce casting calls. After reading through the script the Tottenham Hotspur football club agrees to allow its players to appear in the project. Fees are discussed through the players' agents.

For nearly an entire week, the director and his two assistant directors peer intently at each auditioning actor as they pantomime reactions to imagined exploding bodies next to them. Do they give a convincing portrayal of traumatic shock? Will they read through the line again? It takes at least three auditions per role to finally cast the film, but this is what it takes to create art.

Finally, with five separate locations scouted and scheduled, a unionized crew hired, and with craft services contracted, filming begins in late August. Excited members of the 10:10 team are on hand to witness the magic of movie making. Assistants with light meters take careful measurements of each shot and run the actors through their blocks. Hair and makeup and blood bucket workers stand at the ready. The shooting goes smoothly, requiring only five or six takes per scene.

A week later, the raw footage goes to post production where the award winning editor begins paring it down to its final length. Special effects are subcontracted to London's top CGI and sound designers, to give the flying blood and bone fragments the you-are-there realism that will enhance the film's carbon-awareness-raising impact.

After some last minute tweaks the director delivers the final cut to SYG&B in late September. A gala weekend premier screening is arranged at the 10:10 office, with key 10:10 donors, board members, staff and spouses on hand. As the film ends, party-goers erupt into enthusiastic applause. The director steps forward to accept toasts and accolades, and take a polite bow.

And somehow, throughout this entire process, not one of the hundreds of people involved seemed to have questioned the wisdom of an advertising message advocating the violent, sudden death of people who disagree with it.

Don Draper, call your office.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-10, 04:00 PM   #124
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

H/T to wishbone for full-sized version of this cartoon:


Last edited by movielib; 10-05-10 at 08:29 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-10, 04:38 PM   #125
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,464
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Here is a video of Richard Curtis, who I assume is talking about one of his regular films. It's put together with scenes from the 10:10 film he wrote (and some other stuff).



There's a brief spot with 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong too.



And here is what is probably a real 10:10 ad with an extra line added for truth in advertising.

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0