The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Blowing Up the Climate Skeptics

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Blowing Up the Climate Skeptics

By Paul Chesser on 10.1.10 @ 1:19PM

Referring to the video that Chris mentioned earlier, it was absolutely despicable. It is still on the web but I will not link it or embed it. The theme was alarmists in leadership exhorting their underlings (like a teacher and her schoolchildren) to take steps to reduce their carbon emissions by 10 percent. Those who didn't raise their hands (yes, children) in favor of the program were literally blown up by their leader with the push of a button. Their blood and guts splattered those around them, as graphically as you can imagine -- no, more than you can imagine. The message: climate deniers must die an extremely violent death.

The video is the work of a group called 1010.org, and they claim that Sony is one of their partners. They also list extremist Bill McKibben of 350.org as another partner.

This is where communism and socialism ultimately lead -- even of the eco-variety. You don't get with the program; you get exterminated.

As Iowahawk posted at 1010's YouTube site:

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."

This has got to be the biggest FAIL in the entire history of the internet. Anyone remotely associated with the production of this film should forever be banished from any public institution in the English speaking world, and immediately referred for psychiatric evaluation.

It was indeed an extremely detailed plan for this video.

In the 1970s Pol Pot wanted to build a communist agrarian utopia which only needed one or two million people. As for the rest of the Cambodian population, the Khmer Rouge used to say, "to keep you is no benefit; to destroy you is no loss." The regime killed about 1.7 million people -- about a quarter of their population.

The beliefs expressed by the 1010.org people are no different.

topics:
Global Warming, Environmentalism, genocide, Climate Change

View all comments (46) | Leave a comment

Humphry Dumfries| 10.1.10 @ 2:05PM

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4gU965ppcA

Jason Gillman| 10.1.10 @ 2:09PM

Sick.

Thought they can argue it is a "funny" way of spreading their message, in reality it exposes the freakish disregard for human life, and the climate's importance over such things. It is a fantasy to be sure.

These people have no soul.

Chris Horner| 10.1.10 @ 2:35PM

I've updated my post re this, below. Despicable, or completely detatched and somewhat deranged people.

Patriot| 10.1.10 @ 2:39PM

Satanic. These are the same kind of people who support infanticide.

JFGalt| 10.1.10 @ 2:40PM

Unbelievable that they would think that this is good PR! Jason has it dead on right - These people have no soul. These people are either Nazis or Bushistas - You're Either With Us Or You're Against Us. I wouldn't want to be associated with people like that no matter what the issue. Ugh!

SoCon| 10.1.10 @ 2:47PM

"Nazis or Bushistas." That's a joke; more likely it's braindead Leftists who are pushing this hateful garbage. Did you notice that only white people were blown to bits?

PCC| 10.1.10 @ 3:09PM

It is only funny to people who share their irrational devotion to the climate change religion.

Kirk Patrick| 10.4.10 @ 11:28AM

Well said.

SpiralArchitect| 10.1.10 @ 4:22PM

Yes, concerning anyhting more than 200 years ago there was a static temperal environment on Earth.

Core tempratures vented through tectonic / volcanic/seismic even geiser activity have never been a factor. Lets not even consider Space - nothing from that great distance could be of concern... well, except maybe the 'Dark Ages' known as not because they were lacking in science or love but they were actually DARK. Commonly accepted as result of either comet or meteorite particulates in the atmosphere.

Hey, one Solar Flare could ruin your whole day.

Yes, the party of "we need to do..." where "we" = 'you' ( meaning not them). Sickening.

Susan | 10.1.10 @ 4:47PM

Bill McKibben has responded to this video at 350.org. He finds it disgusting. I am concerned that you Paul and commenters here have jumped to conclusions about the video without knowing anything about the group that made it. Their website has either been taken down or is overloaded with traffic since I can't get on it. Remember anyone can post anything on the internet. Why post the following statement without verifying it? "The video is the work of a group called 1010.org, and they claim that Sony is one of their partners. They also list extremist Bill McKibben of 350.org as another partner." Contact McKibben and Sony and ask them first. The scientific evidence for climate change is unequivocal. It needs to be addressed and people like McKibben are bringing people together to do that. He is in no way an extremist.

Willey| 10.1.10 @ 4:53PM

Susan, if you really believe that scientific evidence for "climate change" is unequivocal, you are a braindead extremist.

Just remember to "Hide the decline" Susan.

Susan Van Kleef| 10.1.10 @ 5:43PM

No Willey, I am not brain-dead. I am not an extremist either. I just accept that the scientific process is valid. 97% of active climate scientists accept the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal. I would like to know where you get your information about climate issues that leaves you to still believe that “hide the decline” i.e. Climategate in any way negated the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal. I’m not a big Wikipedia fan but is would be a good place to start reading about the independent reviews that showed the science is sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....ontroversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
As for the hockey stick graph it has been shown to be accurate over and over again. Recently a review of the Wegman Report, which criticized the hockey stick graph, has been shown to be poor scholarship. See the Wikipedia entry about the hockey stick and Google “Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report” (I can only put two links in the comment)

I just came across this website when I was trying to find out more information about the disgusting video. I have no illusions that anyone who reads this site would agree with me. I just thought there should be an alternative viewpoint.

Willey| 10.1.10 @ 6:06PM

The Hockey Stick graph has been completely discredited, Susan--and you know it. Wikipedia is a joke like you, and another climate change lie from you Leftists does NOT help your cause.

This hideous, inhuman video from your side further illustrates the contempt you Leftists hold for all of us great unwashed. We get it.

Sorry, it's too late for your Leftist propaganda--we are no longer listening. Nice try, though.

Susan Van Kleef| 10.1.10 @ 6:19PM

Exactly where and by whom has the hockey stick been discredited? What are their credentials? How about some evidence? This is science, it needs evidence. Wikipedia has good links to other resources. As I said, it is only a place to start. I am only allowed to put two links in each comment so sending a comprehensive list of links from working scientists is impossible. It really does limit good discussions of the issues.

Also, as my original point said, assuming that somehow that disgusting video represents the viewpoints of the millions of people who accept that global warming in unequivocal is rather close minded of you. Do all people who disagree with President Obama's policies think that he should be represented with a Hitler mustache or as a monkey? The people I know who disagree with Obama find those representations reprehensible.

JP| 10.1.10 @ 6:46PM

The Hockey Stick (MBH9x) is a statistical study, not a scientific discovery. If you want to debate the Hockey Stick from a statistical point of view, I'm all for it. First we need to visit Mann's use of Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The foremost statistician in the world, Dr Wegeman (Chair of Mathematics, George Mason), wrote a quite lengthy review of Mann's use (or mis-use) of PCAs. See his testimony before Congress as well as his written reviews. Next, there is the divergence problem concerning Mann's Foxtail Bristlecone proxy (it cannot be calibrated to loal temps -it diverges way too much on warmside). It is this proxy more than any other that supplies Mann with the blade on his hockey stick. There is also serious issues with the Yamal proxies (well documented by McKitrick and McIntyre, as well as Lohle). The Hockey Stick also fails the monte carlo and white noise tests (Hans von Storch as well as McIntyre have shown that no matter what numbers one plugs into Mann's algorithims, one gets hockey sticks).

I could go on, but we will start with those.

Tom Anderson| 10.1.10 @ 7:11PM

JP, is it my imagination, or has NO ONE returned to answer ONE point you made in your articulate post?

Can I carry you around with me and flash this kind of information the next Susan I run into?

JP| 10.1.10 @ 7:17PM

The Wegman Report has some pretty serious flaws. It was not peer-reviewed by paleoclimatologists.
"The report itself contains numerous cases of obvious bias, as do process, testimony and follow-on actions. Of 91 pages, 35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning. Its Bibliography is mostly padding, 50% of the references uncited in the text. Many references are irrelevant or dubious. The team relied heavily on a long-obsolete sketch and very likely on various uncredited sources. Much of the work was done by Said (then less than 1 year post-PhD) and by students several years pre-PhD. The (distinguished) 2nd author Scott wrote only a 3-page standard mathematical Appendix. Some commenters were surprised to be later named as serious “reviewers.” Comments were often ignored anyway. People were misused." See entire report here: http://deepclimate.org/2010/09.....n-report/.

Also there was the National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) report to congress that said the statistical issues with the hockey stick were small in effect. Mann and his team corrected them. 12 papers since then, using different statistical methods, have supported the hockey stick. There is an overemphasis on Wegman and McIntyre and McKitrick by those who are skeptical about global warming. There are much more analysis that needs to be considered.

Willey| 10.1.10 @ 11:49PM

Thanks, JP, I knew it was only a matter of time before an AmSpec Brainiac appeared to blow Susan's BS out of the water. Liberals can't argue their ideas or science because both are based on lies.

Susan, oh, Susan--where are you? Crickets...

JP| 10.2.10 @ 1:20AM

Susan,
The Paleos got it wrong. That is, they got the math wrong. MBH98 was a STATSITICAL ANALYSIS of proxies. The experts in stats repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Mann's work, and it just wasn't Wegman. And Mann never answered pointed questions concerning an entire slew of problems pointed out by people who do stats for a living. And Wegman etl als also pointed the incesteous situation in Climate Science where climate scientists "peer review" each others work. This scandalous situation doesn't occur in other fields. The state of paleo-climatology is joke, and the majority of people realize this. Climategate came as little surprise to people who have followed this issue.

Esse Quam Videros| 10.4.10 @ 6:20PM

I am not a statistician, but I am am Chemist. I have the good sense to recognize the limits of my understanding and am happy to look at things from my discipline's perspective. I have come to the conclusion that Climatology and environmentalism are made up sciences, pseudo- sciences that over represent their truth claims. When you see applied Climatology it is Lysenkoism, the results must match the political agenda. This indicates Fraud and falsifying the data. Thanks for the illumination from the statistical side.

Sheryl Schachtner| 10.1.10 @ 6:19PM

Susan, there is an interview posted by the guardian; I'll provide a link.
The producer of the 1010 video says "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?"
If she really doesn't think that they should be blown up, perhaps she could elaborate on what she means by "amputating".... (the article this quote is from can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....ssure-film)

Susan | 10.1.10 @ 6:33PM

Sheryl,
I really don't know much about the group behind the video and don't want to make assumptions. I did not see "Age of Stupid". Clearly by the reaction of overall disgust with the video by people with a wide variety of viewpoints the makers of the film may have made some exceptionally serious misjudgments about how their message was presented. My point still is that there are too many people who somehow believe that those of us who accept the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal would also support this video for getting the message across. That is absolutely not true.

Willey| 10.2.10 @ 12:00AM

"The scientific evidence for climate change is UNEQUIVOCAL?" You want to walk that back a little, Susan? You look ridiculous.

Also, there are way too many people on your side who are absolutely hateful, and unworthy of our trust. To many of us that video is a perfect representation of what you eco-terrorists think of us.

Nice try at damage-control, though.

Kirk Patrick| 10.4.10 @ 11:31AM

One word Susan: CLIMATEGATE!

Hide the Decline!

This video captures the violent visions that went through every Warm-monger's mind when Climategate exposed them as the fraudsters they are. This video amounted to a stomping, whining temper-tantrum from a screaming infant.

Mari| 10.1.10 @ 5:21PM

The mask slipped.

Patriot| 10.1.10 @ 5:30PM

Again. Stupid libtards.
LOL

West Houstonn Geo| 10.1.10 @ 6:32PM

Quoting Susan Van Kleef:
"As for the hockey stick graph it has been shown to be accurate over and over again."
Commenting:
Susan? Please have a look at http://climateaudit.org/
This is run by Steven McIntyre who examined the "hockey stick" with a fellow named (I believe) McKitrik. Their analysis absolutely, in no uncertain terms, shows the method that produced the "hockey stick" to be so pitifully invalid that it will produce hockey sticks out of RANDOM noise!
I accepted the AGW line unexamined until, one day I decided to read up on the subject (I am an Earth Scientist of 30 years experience).
Really, for your own sake, don't believe me. Go out and read and learn more. You will, I promise, find the truth about a shamefull fraud perpetrated upon us all.

Susan | 10.1.10 @ 6:56PM

But after McIntyre (an engineer in the mining industry) and McKitrick (an economist) wrote their report it was roundly trounced by scientists with much more expertise then they have. So "for my own sake" I go out and read widely and choose to accept the conclusions of scientists who truly work in the field. I have not accepted it unexamined. Go to the RealClimate Blog (written by very experienced climate scientists) and search for hockey stick. Then go to Skeptical Science (written by John Cook who has a background in solar physics) and search for hockey stick again. You will find that McIntyre and McKitrick really didn't have the expertise to write the paper and their conclusions don't hold water. There is no fraud here. If you have any links to climate scientists who support McIntyre and McKitrick send them my way.

Huub Bakker| 10.1.10 @ 10:46PM

On the contrary Susan, McIntyre may be a mining engineer but his job was to identify fraudulent mining claims by running statistical tests on them. The very reason he chose to examine the hockey stick is because he had seen so many of these in his career. They were a clear warning sign that something was not kosher.

As to the National Science Council's report. In front of a Congressional Committee, its chairman was asked if his report's conclusions differed in essence from those of Wegman. His reply was that it did not.

As to replications of the hockey stick curve by so-called independent sources, they have all used strip bark bristlecone pines that the National Research Council's report said should not be used.

In Mann's latest hockey stick curve he has used sediment data from Tiljander upside down and in spite of Tiljander's warning that the last fifty years or so of the data cannot be used because of interference from human earthworks etc. It is this data that has provided his latest attempt to have a hockey stick shape.

BTW have a look at the tone of the comments on the RealClimate blog during the discussion of Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion book review by Tamino. Compare the hammering that people like Judith Curry get there with comments on Anthony Watts' or Steve McIntyre's blogs. Neither Anthony nor Steve would incite commenters to get stuck into dissidents; any such comments would get snipped immediately.

West Houston Geo| 10.1.10 @ 6:41PM

Hey Susan,
This is Steve's "Hockey Stick Studies" zone:
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

Alan Simpson| 10.1.10 @ 7:08PM

Susan, you are making a fool of yourself, the US Senate Wegman report gave Mann a fail. Maybe you should read it and educate yourself.

Susan | 10.1.10 @ 7:24PM

See the above link to the report about the Wegman report. Read the executive summary at least. As I said, relying on the Wegman as the definitive report is well, foolish. Why ignore the National Research Council Report and the 12 studies that came after that?

Man Among Sheeple| 10.4.10 @ 4:17PM

Be it 12 or 1200, they are invalid.

One moron is easily dismissed, but somehow 100,000 morons must be correct. It's called 'The Bandwagon Fallacy.'

Climate Scientist| 10.1.10 @ 8:51PM

Please don't break my rice bowl!

David| 10.1.10 @ 10:15PM

Combine this shocking video with that of the Greenpeace advert and you get the big picture:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heral.....s_of_1010/

Huub Bakker| 10.1.10 @ 11:04PM

Susan,

You sound like a reasonable person who is prepared to search for the truth and I certainly would not condone Willey's 'braindead extremist' comment. I have a doctorate in chemical engineering and 20 years of experience as an academic in areas of modelling, control and others. I have looked in vain for any evidence to disprove the null hypothesis that AGW is not occurring. I have found none. Evidence for global warming by itself cannot be used to disprove the hypothesis, nor can models that cannot predict the warming unless CO2 is added in. Including the effect of ocean currents or solar cycles would allow them to adequately predict the recent (until 1998) warming. Evidence that CO2 absorbs IR in the lab also does not constitute evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. And yet, despite all this, people are prepared to say that the science is "unequivocal." No real scientist would be prepared to make such a statement on the evidence presented.

As a control engineer I can tell you that the idea that the Earth could survive 3-4 billion years with CO2 in the atmosphere (much of it at concentrations 10 times what it is today) with strong positive feedbacks (as AGW requires to be a concern) is laughable. If there really was a possibility that there could be a 'thermal runaway' it would have happened well before now.

Have a look, prove me wrong, find me up at a New Zealand university and let me know. I would be very keen to see the evidence.

Patriot| 10.2.10 @ 12:03AM

I don't know, Huub, I think Susan is more concerned with spin than facts. Fascist eco-freaks like her abhor the truth.

Huub Bakker| 10.2.10 @ 11:22AM

They have other sponsors too. From Troy Media:

“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.”

I don't have their email addresses.

10:10's email address in the UK is hello@1010uk.org but go to their home page for other countries.

gran torino| 10.2.10 @ 11:34AM

Well, silly me, I actually thought at first it was a video against the eco-warriors. I mean, what sane group goes around gruesomely blowing even schoolchildren up? What a shock when I discovered it was by the eco-savages against deniers! Lousy PR doesn't even start to cover the problems with this video, it is blood-curdling that anyone would consider this a valid tactic against the opposition.

clover| 10.2.10 @ 5:21PM

"it is blood-curdling that anyone would consider this a valid tactic against the opposition."

except maybe the mentally disabled Liberals.

gearjammer| 10.2.10 @ 5:49PM

Susan is like one of those Japanese that never surrendered and lives on an island.

Willey| 10.3.10 @ 4:36PM

...in caves.

Kirk Patrick| 10.4.10 @ 11:34AM

With the final score Forum 100, Susan 0, we'll be back after this.

Man Among Sheeple| 10.4.10 @ 4:11PM

I, too, am a scientist (Master's level, working on my doctorate) and am published in reputable journals on several topics that have nothing to do with climate science. While I am not a climatologist, I have been working in science or science education virtually all of my career (almost 15 years). When one has the experience, one is at least *capable* of educated questioning and skepticism. Whether one has the common sense or the spinal column necessary to voice such skepticism is another matter.

The "science" behind anthropogenic climate change is not only NOT unequivocal, it barely exists at all. Others in this comment column (specifically Huub Baker) have done an adequate job of pointing that out in detail. Whether or not there are "scientists" out there saying otherwise is irrelevant, as science is only valid when it is conducted validly, and there are many talking heads who are desperately trying to maintain a funding stream, reality be damned. These spineless characters are a disgrace to the profession, and should be drummed out with all possible speed, *not* given further forums to warp reality, pass off invalid conclusions based on manufactured or very poorly controlled data, and give justification to the actions of would-be mass murderers who don't have a scruple about anything except what proceeds from their twisted minds.

As for the 10:10 people, I believe they should practice what they preach, blow themselves up, and cut their own carbon emissions by 100%. This should be equivalent or better of a 10% reduction from everyone.

Autumn| 10.4.10 @ 4:37PM

Hear, hear! I also believe the eco-nazis should practice what they preach. Who is up first?

Esse Quam Videros| 10.4.10 @ 6:40PM

Mr. Man,

To summarize: Garbage in, garbage out. You are so right.

Even outside of a particular discipline those scientists that work hard and still don't get the result they seek can smell when somebody's cooking stinks. Sometimes it's in the math, sometimes its in the data sets, sometimes it's when it looks a little too good. For me, without even looking at it closely, AGW was always suspect because it constantly made claims of support from so many quarters that it wasn't falsifiable - heat AND cold, droughts AND floods, etc. were all indicators. In the words of the Church Lady, "How ConVIENient." In addition there were never any other suspects in the lineup except for Anthropomorphic CO2. The deck stacking was apparent.