|“Why is it everything to do with the effect of human emissions of CO2 is given a false label?
“For example “climate change” is a false label taken to mean only man made global warming. Thus all climate change is falsely attributed by politicians and advocates to human causes, even though we know climate change is natural.
[Phillip Bratby, in Judith Curry's Open thread: week in review]
There’s a guy in Australia called “Mike”, who has a blog on which the about page indicates that he doesn’t know any more about “the science” than I do. His blogroll links to the usual suspects (as though non-alarmist blogs do not exist). But I’m certainly not going to criticize him for that because I choose (albeit, I suspect, for a different reason) not to include any alarmist links in my blogroll.
His blog’s title and an excerpt from its raison d’etre:
Many of us suffer from “climate paralysis”, the fear that any individual attempt to address climate change is meaningless. And to be honest for a long time I thought the scale of the problem rendered individual actions meaningless. Like many, I placed hope in the world’s governments agreeing upon a common approach to this emerging global catastrophe.
“They will fix it….” I thought to myself.
However the failure at Copenhagen demonstrated we can’t simply sit back and hope someone else fixes the problem. Watching the tragedy of Copenhagen’s failure unfold filled me with despair and anger.
As much as that failure filled me with despair, it dawned upon me that we also share that responsibility.
Fighting the denial industry’s disinformation campaign is my contribution.
Perhaps he is unaware that the only known “denial industry disinformation campaign” is that of the likes of Ernst Zundel and David Irving: Denial of the Holocaust is their game, and denigrating Jews is their aim.
Clearly Mike is a dedicated believer in “this emerging global catastrophe”, who has embraced all the tenets of the climate bible. But he was civil, so I was prepared to set aside the fact that in so labelling those with whom he disagrees, he was doing himself and his “cause” a disservice, because I thought there might be room for common ground when I saw his post:
In an age when most people are sensitive to acts of terrorism and the safety of children, I’m stunned the makers behind the “10:10 No Pressure” video would combine these two concepts in order to raise awareness about climate change.
The video was intended to raise people’s awareness about 10:10 and it’s worthy goal of asking people to reduce their individual CO2 emissions.
However, the video ”punishes” those indifferent to acting on climate change by blowing them up.
This includes children.
Seriously, blowing up kids?
Denier blogs, websites and the online columns of sceptical journalists are alight with outrage (either real or feigned) about “eco-terrorists”, their code word for environmentalists.
Videos such as are intended for a mass audience, most of whom do not want to see children, puppies and small kittens harmed.
I’m not saying film makers should play it safe.
However, they should be alert to the virtual “war” going on between those hoping to prompt action on climate change and those hoping to delay action.
In this war the weapons are words, blogs, YouTube videos and Twitter.
In this “war” symbolism matters.
Dead children are an awful, dreadful symbol to link to your cause.
Didn’t agree with all of his post, but I could certainly agree with parts. So I continued to read the comments. In response to one commenter, he began:
“I think it is important to stress that the 10:10 did not actually suggest we should punish, harm or “blow up” those that disagree with us. It was an attempt at humour, but a failed one.”
To which I had responded (via reply to another commenter’s post):
Did you happen see the Oct. 1 E-mail that Armstrong sent out to “all 10:10-ers” proudly announcing the launch on the Guardian website’s front-page? She urged all recipients to fwd to friends and “pretend facebook friends” so that it would go viral.
There was no mention of “humour” or satire in the E-mail – nor, I might add, even a pixel of either in the image her words conjured up:
“It’s a fairly simple and to-the-point premise, I’m sure you’ll agree: we celebrate everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
If, as you claim, this is not “suggesting” that those who don’t share your views should be punished, harmed or “blown up”, then what would you say Armstrong was suggesting?
I didn’t see the E-mail until after I had seen the movie, but it struck me as being – not to put too fine a point on it – right on the mark they disingenously tried to claim they had missed.
Incidentally, I don’t know how long it took them to make the movie, but I do know it took them 3 “Takes” over 4 days before they could produce a half-decent apology.
As of 10/8/2010 07:01 PM there was no answer to my question. But there was a non-responsive rant:
Oh for heavens sake, do people really think a planned genocide would be announced via an Internet video by a British comedy writer?
The video is tasteless, but really the response of the “sceptics” has been ALARMIST, over wrought and overly dramatic.
Even worse, they are disparaging the memory of the Holocaust by claiming some silly Nazi link to this video.
Political debate around the globe has descended into farce: 25% of the American pop think Obama is a Muslim. 50% reject evolution. People think the 9/11 attacks where conducted by Bush. Deniers are waging a war on science.
Message to people of the Earth: get real. It’s time to act like adults, not idiots.
Hmmm … Too much pressure?!
Alas, the author of this rant was Mike (aka watchingthedeniers). It seems that – far from finding any common ground – I’ve had a “close encounter of the Orwellian kind”:
A guy who is obviously convinced that this is the dawning of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe” calling those who do not share his views “ALARMIST” is ironic and amusing. But a guy who chooses the nym – and dubs his blog – “Watching the deniers” accusing those with whom he disagrees of “disparaging the memory of the Holocaust” is … Amazing. Simply amazing.
Oh, well … Sorry, “Mike” … looks like I must have asked a very inconvenient question.