Do Something to Cut Carbon Emissions, Kids, or We Will Splatter Your Guts on Your Classmates

This is...stunning:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Francis||

    For an explanation on where this comes from, and how furiously they are trying to pull it out from the internet (without success, of course), see: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....elingpole/
    (latest two articles)

  • Trespassers W||

    "shimmering masterpieces of emetica"

    Nice.

  • ||

    I didn't want this posted at the end of this ridiculously long thread.

    Didn't anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that the white girl is named Jemima? I actually played it back like 3 times and laughed out loud. Other than the kid in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, there's never been a white person named Jemima.

    Calling me a racist shall commence in 3.....2......1......

  • not an idiot||

    Jemima is a common English girls name, faggot.

  • MikeG||

    And "Faggot" is a gay person who smokes a stack of kindling?

  • Trespassers W||

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

  • Les||

    The word, "racist," is less appropriate for your comment than the term, "fucking retarded," or, "pathetically ignorant." But definitely not racist.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, people. Lighten the fuck up.

  • L.N. Smithee||

    "Jemima" is a Biblical name. Job 42:14.

    Smile, you learned something today.

  • ||

    Since Jemima came from the Jewish "Yemima," did Job go by the name Yob?

    Was he then the original gangster?

  • High!||

    Okay, that one was funny.

    But Jemima is a pretty common English name:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemima_Shore

    Why do North Americans see it as not white? Probably it got popular in the British West Indies...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Pop culture, most likely. The popular blackface song "Old Aunt Jemima" and later, the "Aunt Jemima" pancake brand which took its name from the song.

  • ||

    Shouldn't Aunt Jemima drop the slave name by now. How about something more authentic like Aunt Zeituni's Waffles.

  • kiwi dave||

    In Hebrew it's pronounced Iyov, and it's Ayub in Arabic.

  • Mike||

    Yeh..Wah s he ever usin that name.

  • Dave||

    The poet Robert Browning had an Aunt Jemima. No shit. Er, no shite.

  • Pip||

    For those of us who are at work, what is this about? It really would be nice when you post clips if you would add a sentence or two for the benefit of the working man. Of course that would mean actually writing for a living.

  • ||

    Apparently, if you don't actively participate in some carbon-reduction scheme, the people who are promoting this video belief that you should be instantly blown to pieces. And they graphically depict this desire.

  • Abdul||

    Even better, in the first part of the video, two schoolkids who don't raise their hand to participate in a carbon reduction scheme are splattered to bits amongst their classmates to encourage the others.

    The next bit invovles office workers, soccer players, etc.

    I like that they started with the schoolkids to really drive the point home.

  • ||

    They belief it. That should be good English.

  • Brother Wolf||

    Well, because of the lack of description. I thought it was a joke or caricature of the militant green movement. By the end I realized it was serious.. it's really sad.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I thought so too. Then I thought they were poking fun at their own movement for being too dramatic...they really really really weren't. Somehow they are joking about blowing up people who don't want to participate AND serious about it at the same time. It's really disturbing.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    It was more like fantasy than parody for these nihilistic fucks.

  • Brother Wolf||

    Love the handle, btw

  • Dave||

    Yeah, my reaction too.

    I was thinking about how soon I can go electric, but after seeing this I want to take a train to work. Not a passenger train, mind you - but my own steam locomotive complete with a construction crew laying down the tracks and thousands of campfires spewing carbon into the air.

    Assholes.

  • ||

    Soylent green is people, PEOPLE

    The most effective Carbon reduction is killing people...
    KILLING PEOPLE
    If you wanna make an omelet, you gotta commit chicken genocide.

  • Matt Welch||

    It is an advertisement for a campaign to cut carbon emissions, in which kids (and others) who show insufficient enthusiasm for the campaign are intentionally blown to bits, with their guts splattered on everyone around them.

  • Moe Lane||

    To be fair, Matt: the title of your post really does look like hyperbole, and not a clinical description of the contents of the video.

  • ||

    To the contrary it is exactly the content of the video. The message is very explicitly that those who do not obey the dictates of the environmental movement will be killed.

  • ah||

    Yeah, I didn't have any problem putting the pieces together based on the title and the video still, wherein people's guts appeared to be splattered on others.

    Don't pick on Matt!

  • Apogee||

    putting the pieces together

    Ha! Good one.

  • ||

    Does this mean we should club green nazis instead of seals because, you know, a dead person has zero carbon emissions. You know, no pressure.

  • Pip||

    "Does this mean we should club green nazis instead of seals because, you know, a dead person has zero carbon emissions."

    The same holds true for dead baby seals. So club one for gaia.

  • ||

    A video of the high priests of the "climate disruption" movement(or what ever they are calling it this week) sacrificing nonbelievers to appease the gods.

  • PFJO||

    An apt description given the vaguely theological nature of the radical environmentalist belief system.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Nags (a teacher, a corporate boss, soccer coach etc) ask their students/underlings to volunteer to cut their carbon emissions by 10%. Asks for a show of hands of those interested. Most raise hands. Asks for a show of hands of those not interested. A few do. "No problem, no pressure." A red button is revealed. Nags press button, and the skeptics explode in a splash of blood.

    Also, they all have horrific accents, like they're retarded or something. shudder

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    invert the coach/players - go that wrong.

    Oh, and who is that at the end? SCULLYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!

  • Apogee||

    Corporate boss.

    According to the left, isn't blowing employees to bits just typical 'corporate' behavior?

  • dhex||

    to explain it would be to ruin it.

  • ||

    Sorry.

  • Pip||

    Koan much?

  • dhex||

    it's one of those gotta see it to believe it sort of things.

  • The Gobbler||

    I seem to recall a phrase that goes "spoiler alert", but maybe I'm just misremembering.

  • ||

    This pretty much sums up the secret fantasies of eco-freaks whenever they are confronted with people who question their ideology.

    What do you mean, you don't want to wear the ribbon?

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    You will wear the ribbon, you you will die, polluting scum.

  • Brother Wolf||

    That's exactly right. It's also why they would produce this thing and publish it without realizing anything is amiss.

  • Bingo||

    Someone needs to add text at the bottom that says:

    THIS IS WHAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • ||

    New South Park next week...who knows.

  • ||

    I hope they run with it. On the other hand, it's hard to laugh at something so purely evil.

  • ||

    Even harder to parody something that's already a self-parody. How would you exaggerate this for humorous effect? Just animate this in their style and it's already a South Park bit.

  • Bingo||

    WTF, I can't tell if this is satire or not.

  • Gizzle||

    Not.

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

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh, it's real. The cowards took the video down and posted an apology already.

    No Pressure

    Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    In other words, we thought it was hilarious, but we're sorry that some of you are humourless prigs.

  • ||

    I can see how a graphic depiction of somebody being blown up for their political beliefs is comedy gold in theory, but this Richard Curtis guy just doesn't pull it off. Now the Farrelly Brothers, THOSE guys can blow up dissenters and have you shooting milk out your nose.

  • ||

    I can see how a graphic depiction of somebody being blown up for their political beliefs is comedy gold

    To bad this was in English...

    It would be awesome to "Downfall" these videos.

  • cynical||

    As in, dub it over with random crap? Maybe. Bonus is that no one will be able to forget the original for a while.

  • ||

    As in, dub it over with random crap?

    Yeah change the subtitles.

  • ||

    Dub it over with german. Then add subtitles.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes. Use the voice track from Downfall.

    Meta-humor.

  • Brandon||

    I like.

  • ||

    Yeah, maybe not the same parts of thye voive track. But, possibly the part where he asks everyone to leave the vroom except certain people.
    That would fit pretty well with the second clip.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I can see it now:

    Fake German dialog and voiceover with the following subtitles.

    Teacher: So, today we have learned that Islam is the religion of peace and we have no reason to doubt the peaceful intentions of its followers.

    Alright, kids. Just before you go, there's a brilliant idea in the air that I'd like to run by you. It's called junior jihad, and it's something we can all participate in.

    It doesn't have to be a huge thing, but I'd love it if you and your family would think about doing something.

    Boy Student: What sort of think, miss?

    Teacher: Like asking your mother to wear a burqa ... or promising to fast during Ramadan ... or simply praying five times a day.

    Girl Student: I'm thinking of getting a clitorectomy!

    Teacher: That's fantastic, Jemima! Now ... no sense of pressure at all ... but it would be great to get a sense of how many of you might be willing to do this ... just a rough percentage.

    [Display of hands.]

    That's fantastic! And those not?

    Philip and Tracey. That's fine, absolutely fine. It's your own choice.

    [Bell rings.]

    Ok, class, thank you so much for today and I will see you all tomorrow. Oh, just before you go ... I just need to press this little button here.

    [Philip and Tracy explode.]

    Teacher: Allah akbar!

  • Odd||

    Yeah, but this kind of comedy gold usually depicts the political enemy as the wild-eyed kookoo birds instead of making your political buddies look like killer nut jobs

  • Robert||

    It was done best in an ad for Gonella bread by the Muppets.

    "What do you think about Gonella bread?"
    "I don't like it."
    (First one shoots second with cannon, then points cannon at audience.)
    "Now what do YOU think about Gonella?"

  • Bradley||

    You mean Wilkins Coffee?

  • Robert||

    Apparently the Muppets did similar extortion-style ads for many clients in different markets. They're hilarious. So why not grant this 10-10 organiz'n the same accolade for the same thing? Except stretched out to boring length.

  • Bradley||

    Somehow schoolkids' guts being sprayed everywhere doesn't have the same hilarity that puppets shooting each other with cannons does.

  • Robert||

    It has more hilarity if you time it right and don't spoil the surprise.

  • Francis||

    "Many people found ... extremely funny"????

    I don't believe it, or then name the asylum.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Alan Grayson is still giggling.

  • ||

    And Prince Charles.

  • Fluffy||

    Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

    "When we were watching the video around the office, everybody laughed. We didn't realize that people who don't want to exterminate the rest of humanity wouldn't also laugh. We therefore are issuing a token apology to try to get out of the mess we've made for ourselves."

    Fixed it for 'em.

  • Apogee||

    +10

  • Fiscal Meth||

    This video could be funny if it were satire but it's not, it's fantasy scantily clad in humor. And even the humor is confusing because it seems like it should've been written by someone like me who hates these psychotic fascists, but the director and actors clearly meant to portray the button pushers as the protagonists.

  • ||

    Right. Like usually when this kind of thing is funny. It's the Dr. Evil or Mr. Burns character pushing the button.

  • Apogee||

    Yes, Dr. Evil had a hard time eliminating the opponents, failing at eliminating failure.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Honesty in advertising is so rare these days. Bravo!

  • PFJO||

    Good call.

  • Brett L||

    I'm burning a car tire in a pool of used motor oil in my yard tonight in honor of this.

  • Abdul||

    KAboom!

  • The Gobbler||

    Need any mercury? Because I have gallons of the stuff.

  • Brett L||

    Nah. Give it to someone who lives near salmon spawning streams.

  • The Gobbler||

    That would be me. I use it to brighten the paint I apply on the bodies of the flies I tie.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'll have a bit after I smash our CFL's in honor of this website tonight.

    Hate the damn things anyway.

  • ||

    When is the Grey Cup again?

  • Almanian||

    Blast, you got here first, with your quick fingers and wit....

    I'm having a bonfire tonight, AND leaving both the Mustang and Super Duty running in the driveway till they burn through a full tank of fuel each.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It suddenly occurs to me that winter is fast approaching and I have half a tank of propane left in the grill. Burn, baby, burn...

  • protest||

    i'm pouring benzene into the storm drain!

  • T||

    Make napalm with it instead.

  • ||

    And I pledge to buy my family a much larger car as soon as possible.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Just line of a row of spray paint cans for plinking with your .22. A couple cases of Rustoleum should help keep that ozone layer hole open for a few more years anyhow.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Real quick, would all the commentors who are not planning on increasing your carbon footprint tonight please let me know so I can blow you up?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Letting him know is entirely voluntary, of course. No pressure.

  • AA||

    +100 for BSR and FB

  • ||

    I managed to get a stump smoldering yesterday. They don't expect any rain til late next week.

  • Windypundit||

    I've still got five cans of genuine freon coolant that I've been saving for a special occasion...

  • Tman||

    The best part is that the video was taxpayer financed.

    Way to go nanny state! You're financing slasher flicks now. Fantastic.

  • The Gobbler||

    Just as long as no animals were crushed during the making of this film.

  • ||

    are humans animals?
    And being blown up is much, much better than being crushed...probably better than sex.

  • Almanian||

    To bad they're not for the death penalty.

    If they were, they could cast convicts in the rolls of the non-participants, blow them up for REAL, and have a SNUFF film!

  • Almanian||

    Also, it's "too" bad...etc.

  • ||

    I believe Sony and Kyocera chipped in, too.

    So much for my plan to replace by 360 with a PS3.

  • cynical||

    It's not Sony's first time trying to creep people out by financing horrifying videos, if you've actually seen some of the original PS3 ads. That baby doll thing... nightmare fuel.

  • ||

    So much for my plan to replace by 360 with a PS3.

    "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus" just got remastered to HD and packaged together.

    And The Last Guardian is coming out next year.

    Plus Microsoft is pure Evil.

  • ||

    This kind of thing just confirms the insane radicalism that inhabits the hearts of many climate change advocates. Even if this video is not representative, it's hardly surprising.

    It might've worked better if they'd killed everyone, showing that we're all in the same boat or something, but by executing just the naysayers, they show their true colors. Maybe they don't want to slaughter skeptics and nonparticipants, but you don't promote something like this without thinking that brute force is a perfectly acceptable means of persuasion.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Hey, the purges worked pretty well for Stalin. Why shouldn't the eco-left use all the tools available to advance their all-important cause?

  • ||

    But the science is settled!

  • ||

    That's pretty fucking settled. I think the science supporting evolution is settled, but I don't advocate blowing Creationists to pieces.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    This is because you hate Logic. And Reason.

  • The Gobbler||

    Glug, glug, glug...

  • ||

    But the actions of Creationists won't cause the beach houses of the limousine liberals to be underwater by 2150.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Then what good are they?

  • Solanum||

    People must take the science seriously, because of the implication.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Are the scientists taking us out on a boat?

  • Solanum||

    Terrible, terrible things have happened on the ocean. That's what's rattling around in their heads.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    That scene was fantasic. "So They ARE in danger!?"

  • ||

    I don't know if the science is settled...
    What say the Reasonids, Reasonoids, Ah, Reasoners
    Does blowing someone up use less carbon than alternate offing methods?

    Example: drowning (but only if you drive the polluter in an electric car, with the battery charged by windmills, and these are Dutch windmills, and not the unsustainable modern high carbon steel windmills)

  • Brett L||

    Blowing up people pretty much always involves oxidizing carbon. And creating DHMO, that other greenhouse gas.

  • ||

    The most eco-correct method would be to sequester the carbon, so cement overshoes + ocean trench.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Absolutely not! Cement manufacturing is a major source of greenhouse gas and transportation to the deep ocean trench would also cause carbon emissions.

    It would be better to modify the tried-and-true low tech solution developed by Dzerzinsky. Force march the socially diseased animals to an open area, force them to dig a trench, and then bury them. Generally, a local ride in the Black Maria and a bullet in the back of the head will also be necessary for expediency's sake.

    GHG emissions from the discharge of a small-calibre firearm are negligible. To minimize carbon emissions from decay of the corpses, the Dzerzhinsky method could be updated with technology used in modern sanitary landfills. However, this would only slow down decay rather than stop it completely.

    It may be even more GHG-effective to employ the the Beria-Yagoda method for treatment of malcontents. If buried in the permafrost of the frozen north, they'll never decompose. That may more than offset the emissions arising from transporting the malcontents.

  • Francis||

    Yeah,

    one has to be very, very charitable not to see what they like to think about.

    Only after publishing it and seeing it backfired did they decide to pull it out.

  • Kid||

    pull it out

    THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!!!!!!

    HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

  • ||

    You would think this would have never seen the light of day after the Eco gunman seized hostages at the Discovery channel.

  • prolefeed||

    It might've worked better if they'd killed everyone, showing that we're all in the same boat or something, but by executing just the naysayers, they show their true colors.

    It also shows they're bad at math, since by executing about 15% -20% of everyone, they're WAY over their 10% reduction goal.

  • kiwi dave||

    Congratulations, Comrades -- we have exceeded five-year plan for reduction of carbon emission!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The youtubes leave the biggest carbon footprint of all! What could they be thinking?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yeah, those tubes are full of carbon footprints.

  • db||

    I think I'll get my CO2 cylinder refilled and vent it to atmosphere just to make a statement on this. Since it's not technically illegal, I bet I could do it in the public park if I had a license to speak freely (otherwise known as a demonstration permit).

  • The Gobbler||

    Last weekend, I burned old-growth redwood fenching I had put up in '89 for more than 16 hours.

    True story. Burns very evenly, but you've got to add a little apple or maple wood in order to get that wonderful campfire smell.

  • ||

    Why the fuck would you do that? Give it to me and I'll use it to force-carbonate my beer. The CO2 will still end up in the atmosphere eventually... it'll just take a less-direct (and far superior) route.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    WTF??? STUPIDITY!

  • ||

    And, of course, the squirrels.

  • ||

    I can hardly wait for Tony and Chad and MNG to add their two cents........

  • ||

    They're too busy frantically searching for their detonator buttons...

  • Dept of Corrections||

    Gotta exempt MNG - he wants the gummint to pass a law that someone has to push the detonator button for him

  • Fluffy||

    "But I'm actually increasing freedom, because now the rest of the kids are free from having AGW denier kids around, and also free from the effort of pushing buttons themselves!" - MNG

  • Fatty Bolger||

    +100

  • Zombie MNG||

    +100

  • Fatty Bolger||

    +100

  • Zombie MNG||

    +100

  • ||

    =400

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Huh, I thought it was 10000.

  • ||

    That's over 9000!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Vote or die... Pay your taxes or face death from above in PA... Drop your carbon footprint or explode... Stop masturbating or go to hell...

    The shine is starting to come off these high pressure tactics.

  • ||

    "Stop masturbating or go to hell..."

    HEY, I don't mind satire, but your messing with my religion (and sex life) cease and desist or I'll have to fatwa your ass.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    South Park's take on "Vote or Die" was awesome.

    Stan: Puff Daddy?

    Puff Daddy: Your friend Kyle said you don't understand the importance of voting.

    Stan: I...

    Puff Daddy: Apparently you haven't heard of my "Vote or Die" campaign.

    Stan: "Vote or Die"? What the hell does that even mean?!

    Puff Daddy:[whips out a gun from his back pocket, cocks it, and aims it at Stan] What you think it means, bitch!

  • Terr||

    Shake them titties when you vote, bitch.

  • Ted S.||

    Do you really want to see Chuck Schumer shake his titties when he votes?

  • Harry Reid||

    Why not? He's the second hottest member of the Senate.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    The goddess Gaia demands sacrifices be made of unbelievers! Preferably virgin sacrifices, so they don't have a chance to breed more filthy human pollution.

  • ||

    They got the number of people who blew up wrong. It should have been over 50% not just a couple:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....nemissions

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Maybe some of them saw it coming.

  • MNG||

    Guys, it's an ad, not a scientific journal (not that deniers are convinced by either).

    I haven't even watched it but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess its point is that bad things will happen to us if we don't try to reverse the process. Nutty!

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, it is important that we make clear to the unbelievers that they will receive swift death if they do not embrace the Truth. They will submit to our plans, or die.

  • MNG||

    Yes, that is EXACTLY what the ad is getting at!

    WTF?

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    I agree, the people/pollution's unwillingness to accept this is puzzling.

  • Fluffy||

    If I ran an ad saying,

    "Who favors dismantling social security?"

    - and whoever didn't raise their hand got blown away, there's absolutely no way you'd engage in this kind of apologetics.

  • MNG||

    People who support AGW think very bad things will happen if it is not addressed, cities and islands being flooded, drought killing thousands, that kind of thing. So it's natural to pick some kind of physical represenation of calamity like "blowing up" (drought doesn't lend itself to a brief PSA) to stand in for the "dire consequences" of indifference.

    The equivalent for social security would be an ad showing those objecting to social security reform morphing into starving old people or something. And yeah, I would have little problem with that. It's a PSA for God's sake, not a debating society.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, and by showing members of our movement pressing the button to execute the eco-traitors, we make clear that we are unwilling to allow their obstructionism from halting our Grand Plans to save Gaia from the filthy human disease. The people must learn to know Fear!

  • ||

    You need to watch it. It's not "ignoring this could be bad for all of us", it's "if you don't help, we should be able to kill you." Even taken as a joke, all of the threat is directed at people who don't join the movement.

  • MNG||

    You really think the message is "believe in AGW or you will explode via telekinesis?"

    WTF?

    Wouldn't my interpretation that its message is "indifference to AGW will lead to dire consequences?"

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    You fools! The interpretation that was intended is that we are serious about saving the Earth, and if you stand in our way, there will be Dire Consequences! You have been warned!

  • PFJO||

    Have some courage and just say what you mean:

    "Do as you are told or we will murder you."

    To which I say: Fuck off you genocidal, misanthropic psychopaths.

  • Spiny Norman||

    It looks to me like the message is, "Do what we say or we will kill you."

  • ||

    You know, I'm hearing that people all over are repudiating this. I'm talking about AGW advocates. Why are you trying to defend it? It's clearly not saying we'll all die. Just some of us need to.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Wouldn't my interpretation that its message is "indifference to AGW will lead to dire consequences?"

    You're exactly right, and the dire consequences are that you will be killed by eco-fascists.

  • Michael||

    People who support Social Security think very bad things will happen if it is ever repealed or even partially privatized, homeless will be left to die in the streets, the elderly will die due to lack of life-saving medication, that kind of thing. So it's natural to pick some kind of physical represenation of calamity like "profit" (fully explaining this mechanism doesn't lend itself to a brief PSA) to stand in for the "dire consequences" of indifference.

    The equivalent for AGW Climate Change would be an ad showing those objecting to regulations reform morphing into starving old people or something. And yeah, I would have little problem with that. It's a PSA for God's sake, not a debating society.

  • cynical||

    "People who support AGW think very bad things will happen if it is not addressed, cities and islands being flooded, drought killing thousands, that kind of thing. So it's natural to pick some kind of physical represenation of calamity like "blowing up" (drought doesn't lend itself to a brief PSA) to stand in for the "dire consequences" of indifference."

    Bullshit, the consequences of indifference affect everyone, not just skeptics. This is pure eliminationist fantasy.

  • ||

    I wonder if you would be as sanguine about it if it had been created by global warming deniers, or if you would instead be shitting gold bricks ("They're portraying environmentalists as MURDERERS!!! HOW DARE THEY DO THAT!!!" and the like).

  • Tacos mmm...||

    So it's natural to pick some kind of physical represenation of calamity like "blowing up" (drought doesn't lend itself to a brief PSA) to stand in for the "dire consequences" of indifference.

    If this is the intent, it is done very badly. The fact that someone pressing a button is involved in causing the deaths makes them indistinguishable from, well, an execution.

  • Esteban||

    Your missing the point. The global warming isn't killing the skeptics in the video, the characters in charge are killing the skeptics. The point isn't that global warming will kill you, it is that all who don't preach the holy gospel of global warming will be gutted and hanged by the believers. Totally different and relevant to all religions whether it be Christianity, nazism, etc. Dissenters will be destroyed.

  • ||

    Maybe, and here's a crazy idea, you actually watch the ad?

    At least then, your whines will not come from a place of total ignorance.

  • ||

    Fail. The point is that those who don't align with us shall be blown up for their beliefs.

  • The Gobbler||

    Comply or Die!

  • MNG||

    Sigh.

    I mean, it couldn't be that the kids that are blown up are supposed to represent how calamaties await us if insufficient efforts to combat global warming are not taken?

    I mean, look, I get it, for ideological reasons you guys are Teh Scared of AGW. You think it's a mass conspiracy of thousands of secret socialist scientists working to destroy capitalism and Apple Pie or a cult of Gaia worshipers who have secretly infiltrated most major scientific professional organizations to futher their plan to usher in a society where plants rule us.

    But for a minute try to imagine some people honestly disagree with you. Those people think something bad will happen if AGW is not addressed. They make an ad to appeal to young people along those lines. In the ad people who don't care about AGW blow up in order to symbolize the dire consequences of not addressing the problem because of apathy. It's pretty standard stuff for a PSA for young people...

  • Fluffy||

    I mean, it couldn't be that the kids that are blown up are supposed to represent how calamaties await us if insufficient efforts to combat global warming are not taken?

    As someone else pointed out, that can't possibly be it.

    Because the "consequences of inaction" would fall on everyone, if the Earth were to turn into Venus. If you actually believe in AGW.

    Singling out the nonbelievers and isolating them for punishment is clearly designed to tell kids that they will be punished for not accepting the desired policy outcome.

    ESPECIALLY since this is coming from a group that has openly stated that they would like to try AGW "deniers" for "crimes against humanity".

    WTF, dude? We have a group that advocates seizing AGW deniers and applying criminal punishments to them that has made an ad where AGW deniers are punished, and you still have to bend over backwards to find a way to evade the obvious and direct meaning of the ad?

  • MNG||

    "Because the "consequences of inaction" would fall on everyone, if the Earth were to turn into Venus. If you actually believe in AGW."

    Well of course you wouldn't show those buying the message blowing up. What kind of ad would that be?

    Have you ever seen an ad, or understand their purpose? They are supposed to move people, not convey information like a newspaper or journal. For instance, you will not ACTUALLY become cool and sexy by buying Levi's jeans as their ads imply...

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, we must show that our followers will be spared from violent death in the coming purges. Only the people/pollution who accept the Message shall be spared, and with this made clear, all shall join us, whether from love of the Truth, or from Fear.

  • MNG||

    You're the guy at the party who wore something that at first seemed funny and now you wear it to every party and draw attention to it, eh?

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    I do not attend parties, or interact with people/pollution any more than is necessary to advance the Cause.

  • Zombie MNG||

    You're the guy who needs a pair of Levi's so you look cool and sexy. And to get some GAME.

  • Zombie MNG||

    I'm cool and sexy since I bought Levi's. Duh! You're so full of fail today! Get some GAME, playah!

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Levi's jeans are not produced in a zero-emission plant, and so you are an eco-traitor and warrant death. However, as a Zombie, you serve a purpose in reducing the amount of people/pollution in this area, so you shall be spared.

  • Pip||

    Looks like the same two dogs are fucking again.

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/10.....nt_1930313

  • ||

    Religion.
    Believe in God. If you don't, you burn, BURN, in hell. But if you believe, you don't burn. Because God is love.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, depicting the violent bloody murder of the uncooperative is the standard method of making points in PSAs aimed at young people/pollution. You all are dishonest to feign shock at this, as you scummy non-believers do.

    No one can honestly disagree with our message, and only by submitting to our Will to Greenness can salvation from violent death be obtained. Praise Gaia!

  • ||

    You think it's a mass conspiracy of thousands of secret socialist scientists

    The proof of global warming, paleoclimate and instrument record, is the product of maybe 2 dozen scientists. Of those 2 dozen there are maybe 5 who built the science of it all. Hanson is a socialist, Mann is an egoist but mostly apolitical, Jones is the same...as to the other 2 I don't know i only said 5 because there has to be more then just 3.

  • MNG||

    JC
    What's more likely: a handful of scientists have fooled nearly every major professional association of scientists around the world that AGW is occuring, or political think tanks have fooled you into believing the former story?

    I mean really. Think about it.

  • Zombie MNG||

    I think you need to get to a Levi's store and get some LEVI'S!

    And some game.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    What is clear is tat whatever the mass of the people/pollution is immaterial, and we will do whatever it takes to save Gaia, whether they acquiesce or not. Hopefully adds such as this will inspire the Fear necessary for acceptance of our Plans.

  • ||

    What's more likely: a handful of scientists have fooled nearly every major professional association of scientists around the world that AGW is occuring, or political think tanks have fooled you into believing the former story?

    No i think a handful of scientists were wrong and in fact the strong case for global warming has been falsified. We will not get more then 1 degree warming over the next 100 years.

    Their weak case of human CO2 emissions cause global warming may be true...but to worry ourselves over a 1 degree or less over a hundred years is not something to get worried about.

    The science has been shown to be wrong. The 30+ years of satellite records prove it. We will not get catastrophic climate change.

    No conspiracy required.

    I hope this enlightens you about a skeptics thought processes.

  • ||

    For a hundreds of years, scientists believed in the "ether"
    For thousands of years, scientists believed that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object.

  • ||

    The whole "it's intended to show that GW has catastrophic consequences for us all" argument is clearly bullshit because in the video, the people pressing the button are doing so cheerfully, gleefully, enthusiastically, and they're quite pleased with themselves when they've done it.

    MNG's being unusually obtuse, even for him. But then, someone's got to be the Joe.

  • DRM||

    The ability to check raw data for accuracy is vitally important to make sure science is accurate. Scientists for decades thought that Uranus had a weird orbital anomaly that would best be explained by a ninth sizable planet in our solar system. Only looking at the old raw data were we able to determine that the Lowell Observatory made a mistake in recording the position of Uranus. Mistake corrected, we no longer write in astronomy books that there's a Planet X out there perturbing the orbit of Uranus.

    Well, that handful of scientists you mention? They're the only people who had collected together the raw instrumental temperature data on a global scale. They then changed the numbers and deleted the raw data. So, it is now impossible for anyone to check the validity of their changes to the raw data, and thus for anyone to verify the global temperature for dates prior to December 1979. And without verifiable instrumental temperature records on a long baseline, it's impossible to reliably calibrate proxy data, either.

    The result is, from a scientific point of view, we do not know the temperature of the Earth prior to December 1979. We accordingly cannot actually say that the last decade was any warmer than the 1960s.

    That's the actual state of the science, since Climategate. To reach any other conclusion, we have to assume that not only were the climate scientists honest in the mid-1980s, but that they made no serious errors whatsoever. And such an assumption is blatantly unscientific; the ability to verify instead of merely believe is the very heart of science.

  • Neu Mejican||

    DRM,

    Your post is full of factual inaccuracies.

    And a basic misunderstanding of how to scientifically validate something.

  • Apogee||

    Your post is full of factual inaccuracies.

    Then point them out.

  • ||

    Minge, I am not angered so much by the content of that ad as I am the volume. It was so fucking loud my ears now hurt, there outta be a law.

  • ||

    "It's pretty standard stuff for a PSA for young people..."

    Really??? Could you give an example of prior "snuff" PSAs? Non-voters getting beaten with baseball bats perhaps? Litterbugs, lynched?

  • MNG||

    You're kidding me. You need me to cite for you examples of PSA's aimed at young people to warn them about certain hazards that show over the top consequences of not heeding the advice of the PSA.

    Really.

    Are you Amish?

  • Zombie MNG||

    I'm YOU as a ZOMBIE! In LEVI'S!!

  • Warty||

    Over-the-top consequences such as being murdered for failing to show sufficient enthusasim for your betters?

    People like you make me wish I were Amish.

  • MNG||

    Who "murdered" them Warty? Telekinetic environmentalists?

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    By singling out the ecological wreckers and illustrating in a stylized fashion what will become of them if they do not Submit, no potentially carbon-emitting literal explosions will be necessary, praise Gaia.

  • Zombie MNG||

    You're murdering fashion and logicm, MNG.

    Get you some Levi's, and get some GAME!

  • Warty||

    You're right, I see it now. The teacher innocently pushed the button, and then global warming made the students explode. I get it now. It's not some environmentalist fantasy of getting revenge on those FUCKING DENIERS, it's an innocent warning of how global warming makes people exlode. Got it.

  • MNG||

    What would be the point of making an ADVERTISEMENT along those lines? Much more commonly ads try to motivate by scaring. The viewer is not supposed to identify with the teacher, but with those blowing up. The idea is that if we are indifferent bad shit will befall us.

  • Zombie MNG||

    The idea, MNG, is that you need to get some GAME!

    And some LEVI'S!

  • ||

    You forget to mention the ad where all the people wearing K-mart jeans are blown to hell by the Levis' wearing cool and good looking kids.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, MNG is quite correct. We make ads like this to motivate people by scaring them about the fact that we shall destory them in the Cleansing if they do not submit themselves to the Earth Mother's needs. Or to us, as her immediate proxies.

  • ||

    The idea is that if we are indifferent bad shit will befall us.

    No the idea is if we are indiffierent, Those in Power Will Kill Us.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    We shall have Revenge, mistake us not. Gaia shall be cleansed.

  • Fluffy||

    "The SS guards who threw the switches didn't kill those Jews, it was just the impersonal consequences of the gas!" - MNG

  • MNG||

    Ah, so now we see. Fluffy et al decry the hyperbole of this ad; a few minutes later environmentalists=NAZIS and addressing AGW=TEH HOLOCAUST!

    Yeah, wouldn't want any demonization around here!

  • Zombie MNG||

    You need some demon GAME, MNG.

    GET SOME! When you get some LEVI'S!

  • ||

    OK. WTF is up w Levis? I'm laughing so hard I can't see.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    MNG, I applaud your bold revelation of the hypocrisy and bald-faced smears of those who hate the Earth.

    The only demons around here are the Deniers who wish to destroy Great Gaia. We have made clear with this ad, their dark plans will result in their violent killing. They must get the message!

  • Fluffy||

    No, dude.

    I'm just mocking your extreme denial.

    So we have this sequence of events:

    1. Teacher requests behavior change from student.

    2. Student says "No."

    3. Teacher pushes button.

    4. Student is killed.

    And you want to tell us that we're supposed to believe that #4 is supposed to be seen as just the impersonal consequence of some external event?

    Come on, man. They give the teacher agency here. They give them a fucking button to push!

    Your thinking here obviously is "They couldn't possibly mean that, so therefore I will come up with a rationalization that fits a scenario where they don't mean that." Even though it's a group that favors Nuremburg trials for people who deny AGW. They hung people after the Nuremburg trials - you do remember that, right?

  • ||

    I do believe that the teacher could be convicted of murder here, given that the requisite intent has been demonstrated and the clear chain of causation we see in the video. Obvious premeditation, too.

  • Solanum||

    I believe The Urkobold has a similar button at his disposal. Especially troublesome employees have their taints exploded, not merely withered.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I am sure the teacher was only following orders.

    But she did so cheerfully.

    It's no wonder that the greenies are called watermelons.

  • MJ||

    Not the Holocaust.

    The Terror.

  • ||

    Who "murdered" them Warty? Telekinetic environmentalists?

    You still havn't watched the video?

    The teacher PUSHES A BUTTON. Causing them to explode. Clearly in retaliation for not participating in the carbon reduction program.

  • Aristotle||

    You are attempting to argue an easily provable step of causation with MNG, one that everyone else understands. It can't be done! This can't be done! Stop wasting your time, go ahead and push the red button on him.

  • ||

    Sigh. Appeal to 'young people'?

    I'm seventeen, I've been in the socialistic educational system long enough to know that they will shove their views down your throat and they expect you to be damn happy to swallow them.

    That being said, they aren't alluding to any 'calamity' by blowing these people up(lets not forget the school children). They are literally saying: 'You will conform and agree, or we will kill you. Because that's what is good for the planet.'

    I would love to believe that they are really joking, I would love to think that it's symbolic watching people get blown up. But this is actually happening, not people getting blown up, but people punished for not believing. In my (required) U.S. Gov. class we had to watch An Inconvenient Truth, and I was sent to the office for laughing and calling it a load of bull.

    So please, pull your ignorant head out of your ass, and look around you.

  • ||

    I was worried that MNG wouldn't attempt to defend this tripe.

    But now Maat is restored.

  • Fluffy||

    Right. "Bad things" like extermination at the hands of whoever is leading the Climate Change Revolution.

  • ||

    Would you have the same opinion of an ad that had, say, pro-choice people blowing up immediately after saying they support abortion rights?

  • MNG||

    I could easily imagine an ad with pro-choice people saying they support abortion and stem cell research and then being morphed into Nazi's with babies on an assembly line to a furnace...I mean, the point of PSA's aimed at adolescents is goofy hyperbole. Remember "this is your brain on drugs?" They didn't really want to fry and eat people's brains, you know...

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    The birth of further filthy human babies must be stopped. No one would dare suggest such an effective means of saving Gaia was wrong, though a zero-emission process would be preferable to furnaces.

  • Zombie MNG||

    Umm, hello - I want to fry and eat people's brains!

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    You may, but only if you use a zero-emission heat source, such as a solar/electric grill.

  • Zombie MNG||

    Cool and sexy - I'm game.

    Unlike MNG.

  • ||

    Foolish, foolish Zombie MNG, cooking destroys all the vitamin j,m,o, and q. Now shamble out and eat some fresh, RAW brain.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    So in other words, you have not actually watched the video you're so furiously trying to defend with your twisted interpretation.

  • ||

    You didn't answer my question.

    I didn't ask whether you would have a benign interpretation of a pro-choicers are Nazis ad, but one where they are blown up.

  • ||

    How about an ad in which pro-life people blow up abortion doctors using remote controlled explosives?

    wOULD THAT BE FUNNY?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Wrong. Watch the video.

  • Brett L||

    Haha! It's funny when people who aren't fanatic about my cause blow up. Seriously, do yourself the favor of not defending people who go full retard just because you support their cause.

  • Pius||

    Pius Prick MNG reminding us of the infallibility of the murder-on-their-mind pricks of the New World Order.

  • ||

    I haven't even watched it but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess

    You guessed wrong. Its point is that if you don't comply with the groupthink, they'll giggle over blowing you to bits.

    Oh, and before I forget: go to hell, you misanthropic bastard.

    -jcr

  • Denier||

    Guys, it's an ad, not a scientific journal (not that deniers are convinced by either).

    Most warmers in climate 'science' field also believe the world is over populated.

  • Warty||

    Wait. This is NOT satirical? Seriously?

  • ||

    Seriously?

    Well...not seriously.

    More like that video of Suddam Hussain calling out congressmen to be arrested pulled out side and shot...but with a laugh track.

  • Bingo||

    If this had come from some anti-carbon-tax group or anti-global-warming group I would have thought it amusing if not a little over the top because there's no way that mainstream environmentalists feel that way. Right? They wouldn't advocate destroying people who disagree with them!

    Apparently I am very mistaken about the environmental advocates.

  • ||

    Wait. This is NOT satirical? Seriously?

    Are you referring to the video, or MNG's defense of the video?

  • Joe M||

    +3

  • Robert||

    Funny yes, satire no. It's like the Gonella bread ad.

  • hmm||

    Interesting insight into the delusional thinking of the eco-crusaders.

  • ||

    It is difficult to tell this from satire or, possibly, a "false flag" provacation but my best guess is that the people responsible actually thought this would build awareness and support for their program.

    If so, think about how intellectually isolated you would need to be to write, produce, direct, act, edit this without once encountering somebody who was able to point out how psychotic it all is.

  • ||

    Blowing up Richard Curtis would definitely be amusing though.

  • Warty||

    Comedy gold like this is why it's a bad idea to incif MNG. "No, it's just a metaphor, d00ds, srsly!!!"

  • MNG||

    Yeah Warty it's not a metaphor. Those who think AGW is real and should be addressed really want to blow you and children who disagree up. This was a training video.

    Are you fully retarded, or can you still dress yourself and such?

  • Warty||

    Keep digging that hole, moron. Look over there! Deniers!

  • MNG||

    Yea, I'm trying to distract you from the fact that despite your infantile ribbing of the "politically correct" when it comes to something you are a fanatic about youre just as much of a humorless goof...

    I mean really, you think it is not a metaphor. Are you saying the ad is what, a documentary? Jesus.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, the add is a metaphor for how we shall destroy all those who will not accept the Will of our Movement. Gaia shall be preserved!

  • Zombie Jesus||

    MNG, will you please get some game.

    And stop taking my name in vain, you insufferable, used-douche-drinking spank monkey.

  • ||

    No, it's not a documentary. It's a wish-fulfillment fantasy for assholes like you.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yes, the button is a metaphor for a detonator and the eco-fascist is a metaphor for an eco-fascist and two kids are a metaphor for millions of people. It is a fantasy.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    All those who do not accept the Will of our Cause are a disease, and should be disposed of. The ad makes this clear. Whether they can dress themselves is immaterial.

  • Zombie MNG||

    Warty dresses in LEVI'S, MNG!! You need to get YOU some Levi's!!

    Then you'll be SEXY and COOL!

  • MNG||

    Someone didn't take his adderall today...

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Adderall is not produced in an emission-free fashion, and therefore not taking it is Ecologically Correct.

  • Zombie MNG||

    Someone didn't bring any GAME today!

  • hmm||

    Are you, as a political scientist, really going to argue that movements don't use demonization and portraying their opposition as less human or desirable as means to garner support?

  • MNG||

    You mean like implying anyone who supports coercive measures to address AGW is a fundamentalist Gaia worshipper?

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    All shall worship Great Gaia one day, but for the time being Submission to our Will on Her behalf shall be sufficient.

  • Zombie MNG||

    No, not like that. Bring game next time, MNG, bring game.

  • ||

    You mean like implying anyone who supports coercive measures to address AGW is a fundamentalist Gaia worshipper?

    That just means we think they're really stupid, not sub-human or worthy of summary execution.

    I having a flashback to the joe days, when joe would thrash violently around defending the indefensible. Good times, good times. . . .

  • hmm||

    I think any asshole supporting coercive measures to address anything but the most immediate of threats and issues is a flaming fucking asshole who presumes to be superior to everyone else.

    Is that the clarification you were looking for?

  • what an ass you are...||

    for asking a question like that. If they support summary-judgment murder, yes.

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    It is well known that global warming, if left unchecked, will cause those who Deny it to spontaneously explode. This ad is merely a public-service advisory to raise awareness of that fact.

  • Procreating Denier||

    Are Babies Causing Global Warming?
    http://tinyurl.com/y8svzlh

  • ||

    it looks like an expensive production, undoubtedly subsidized by tax dollars

    the message is clear: follow us or meet a quick and violent end

    not a very original message historically, unfortunately

  • Ska||

    I thought this was going to be a trailer for the new Red Dead zombie mode coming out. Man, I was way off.

    Anyone seen my elf shoes? I'm going to hang out at the record store.

  • ||

    I used to hang out at Sonic Boom Records back in the day, but now everybody goes there...lame.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    These are the same types who live in mortal terror of a "Christian theocracy" yet have no problem with the idea of blowing up nonbelievers of Gaia for the sin of "carbon emission."

  • Brother Wolf||

    Ok, they are obviously not really advocating death for people that are unwilling to go along with the plan. However, what the ad is subtly telling us is that the price will be social out-casting... basically, you will be un-friended by polite society. and you wouldn't want THAT.. would you. It's a sleazy appeal to fear.

  • ||

    yeah, it's subtle all right.

    WTF

  • ||

    Then why didn't the ad show people being ostracized? Hell, even the ONDCP can get that message across without turning onscreen drug users into blood grenades.

  • ||

    Because social-outcasting is never followed by violence.

  • Robert||

    I guess it's supposed to look like when the James Bond villian executes gruesomely those who don't get with the program while the rest watch, just to show them he's serious. And it is funny, but would be much more so if it weren't so telegraphed in such a long piece.

  • ||

    MNG's defense of this video is catastrophically LAME.

    Here is the best and only defense.

    Fictionalized video representations of blowing up people in any context is cool. Blowing up poeple on the internet virtually is even cooler.

    Do not believe me?

    Play any first person shooter ever made.

    Anyway i will drop any pretext that i am offended by this video. I will admit i like fictionalized visualizations of poeple being blown up, the only thing that i don't like is that it is Skeptics that are being blown up.

    To say i am offended because of the context would make me a hack. I do not want to be a hack therefor this video is fair game.

  • Warty||

    The way I see it is that the people who made the commercial are flabbergasted that there are still some people who are not convinced, and that's frustrating to them. So, show some explosions and then something something stuff something they'll be convinced about AGW.

    I highly doubt there's any actual malice here, just a vague irritation that some of the little people won't listen to their betters.

  • MNG||

    I hope all the spelling errors and lower case "i"'s are because JC is in a hurry and not because his recently flowering right wing rage is getting ahead of his meds and derangement is setting in...Soon it will be "ARRGH, ME HATE ENVIRONMENTALIST NAZIS!"

  • Zombie MNG||

    I hope your resort to childish highlighting of typing errors is not the result of being frustrated by a ZOMBIE IN LEVIS!

  • Ecologically Awakened||

    Yes, the spelling errors and typos of our opponents in this Crusade for the Earth reveal their lack of intellect and Reason. These fools fail to understand the necessity of Submission, and I applaud you, MNG, for revealing them for the fools they are. Any who dare object to us revealing the violent death which awaits Deniers are but showing the necessity of their extermination.

  • Zombie MNG||

    [drink!]

  • ||

    MNG,

    You would never make this kind of an excuse for a group that you didn't sympathize with. Suppose that the RNC had made a commercial in 2004 with the same scenes only instead of blowing people up who did not restrict their carbon out put it blew people up who did not support the War on Terror. You would have had a cow. And rightfully so.

    But you bend over backwards to defend this. This is not some off handed comment on a blog. This is a full on film made by a professional film maker. And it is made by a group that claims to be a serious group. You cannot make videos of killing your opponents and claim to be taken seriously. And you know good and well that if this crap had been done by a group whose views you didn't sympathize with, you would be lecturing us on the violence associated with the right.

    This is when you reveal yourself to be Joe.

  • ||

    This is when you reveal yourself to be Joe.

    Unless Joe had some head trauma MNG is not Joe. Joe was smarter.

    Also the subjects MNG is interested in are different. Joe loved Castro and Hugo Chaves. MNG does not seem to give a shit about them.

  • ||

    Even joe was smarter.

  • ||

    I hope all the spelling errors and lower case "i"'s are because JC is in a hurry and not because his recently flowering right wing rage is getting ahead of his meds and derangement is setting in

    Dude you should have seen my posts before Firefox had auto spellcheck.

    Therou and Joe would give me so much grief for that.

    I have always been a bad speller....even when I voted for Clinton.

  • ||

    I've decided that from now on, I'll call you "Mongo".

    -jcr

  • Atanarjuat||

    MONGO JUST PAWN IN GAME OF LIFE.

  • Atanarjuat||

    MONGO JUST PAWN IN GAME OF LIFE.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH ONLY ONE ALLOWED ALL CAPS! STEVE SMITH HAVE PATENT! STEVE SMITH GRANT YOU ALL CAPS LICENSE IF LET STEVE SMITH RAPE YOUR SHEEP!

  • Warty||

    "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.

    But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. 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 to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.

    It takes a lot of thinking to be this stupid.

  • ||

    But it's just a metaphor, Warty.

  • Trespassers W||

    I think she meant to say

    "We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 'real people' who now 'die' each year from 'climate change'," she adds.

  • Fluffy||

    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...

    So here they admit that the video is INDEED meant to be a "humorous" look about what "we" should do to anyone who denies climate change -

    - but I have no doubt that MNG will continue to insist that the video is not about punishing people for not believing in climate change.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You know who else wondered "what to do with those people?"

  • ||

    Ghandi?

  • ||

    300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change

    ???????

  • Pip||

    But that's a good thing, right?

  • Franny Armstrong||

    YES! But we need to make sure it's the right people.

  • dee||

    You're not getting it...

    Climate Change employs authority figures as proxies, who willingly punch the red buttons, which are wired to the explosives, that kill the 300,000 people per year who deny the existence of climate change.

    Climate Change is dangerous stuff, just like Guns in reverse...

  • ||

    It takes a lot of thinking to be this stupid.

    Not to mention a whole shitload of neo-fascist tendencies.

    I'll bet their parades won't be as impressive as the originals.

  • Sean Healy||

    You know, if that teacher would just take off her glasses and let her hair down...

  • ||

    Face

    Desk

  • ||

    Come on guys, they don't want to blow deniers up. They really just want to put them in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, so that they can die slowly of AIDS. Blowing them up is too merciful.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Gives me an idea for another video.

    Teacher in classroom asks students to show hands who believes that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of individuals to own guns. Kids look around nervously, a few kids put their hands up. One kid says, "my dad has a shotgun he uses for hunting." Another kid says, "my mom keeps a revolver because our house got broken into last year."

    Teacher says "ok, all of you with your hands up come to the front of the class."

    Teacher lines up the kids in front of the blackboard.

    Teacher pulls out a SAW (M-249) and mows down the students up by the chalkboard. Then turns around to the rest of the class and says, "See how dangerous guns are, students? Aren't the rest of you glad you don't believe that the Constitution says you're allowed to have guns?"

    Haha!! Woo!! That would be fucking comedy GOLD!

  • ||

    MNG claims to support the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd, so that may not be a good retort to him.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Not a retort to MNG; just a comparison.

  • The Director||

    I'm pretty sure he could bitch about anything, even if he supported it.

  • johnl||

    Come and see the violence inherent in the (belief) system!

  • ||

    Bloody peasant.

  • ||

    I'm going to buy cans of gasoline, get steel containers for safety, and burn the gas in my front yard. Just for the hell of it.

    If I can find coal out here in the West, I'll get some of that, and burn it, too.

    Can I buy heavy crude? I mean, I can buy it on the commodities exchange, but can I have it delivered to my house?

    That's what this makes me want to do.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I have a couple hundred pounds of boiler coal in my garage, for my forge.

    That shit smokes like hell when you first get the fire going.

  • ||

    Gotta get me some of that!

  • ||

    Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a name or descriptive word or phrase is transferred to an object or action different from, but analogous to, that to which it is literally applicable; an instance of this, a metaphorical expression.

    If this is a metaphor, then what it is a metaphor for? What's the analogy that they are attempting to draw?

  • ||

    I think it's a metaphor for "The party values loyalty above all else. Dissent and disloyalty will be dealt with accordingly."

    What? You thought is was pithy commentary designed to persuade? Are you some kind of extra-retarded, moral-relativist mongoloid or something?

  • Spiny Norman||

    Observation #1: If you think that the world will be destroyed if people don't change their behavior, you'll be willing to threaten them to get them to change.

    Observation #2: When people object to your threats, you'll pretend you were just kidding.

    Observation #3: No matter what else is going on, the British still have to have a go at the French.

  • Almanian||

    If that was real life, we all know the French dude would have surrendered.

    Eco-Vichy pussy...

  • Fire Tiger||

    What the video should have shown, is 10% of those who wanted to participate in reducing carbon emissions getting blown up.

  • ||

    I bet Chad is just beating his meat raw while watching it over and over and over and over again.

    "Fluffy... BOOM! and Episiarch... BOOM! and J sub D... BOOM! and SugarFree... BOOM! and Pro Libertate... BOOM!"

    I bet he wets himself a little bit every time he gets to imagine pushing the button.

  • prolefeed||

    I'm feeling a little hurt at being excluded here, dude. =(

  • Warty||

    Yeah, dude, what the fuck. I don't get to be Chad's enemy?

  • VoteMuslimNoPork||

    The thing that strikes me about this video is that I'd expect a group of skeptics to make something like this as a parody of enviro-fascists.

    The fact that a pro-global warming group made this is kinda unsettling . . . self-parody is cool and all, but kinda falls flat like GWB's joke about the "rich and elite" being his base.

  • £||

    Great. The American-model free-speech-absolutist internet has allowed fascism to spread to Europe, from Kentucky. Thanks a lot, market fundamentalists.

  • ||

    a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.

    Where does she get a number like 300,000? My guess is she made it up. Or read it somewhere in an article by someone who made it up, or interviewed someone who made it up.

    Does the stupid bitch realize how many people would die each year without the benefits of extensive energy use? Does she realize how many people die in third world countries right now because they don't have access to electric power or clean water?

    There is not a level in hell with a cruel enough eternal punishment for haters like this.

  • ||

    "a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds."

    Take her at her word. If this is true, then why isn't it just to kill the people responsible? This is really sick shit.

  • ||

    Yeah, I know. If you're going to make a number like that up, you've got to go up to at least a million.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    "Every time I clap my hands, another child dies in Africa."

    "Then stop fooking doing it, ya sick bastard!"

  • ||

    You why leftists can't get away with this shit?

    Stalin. Mao. Lenin. Pol Pot. Castro. Guevara. Mugabe. SLA. Baader Meinhoff.
    ETCETERA.

    I, for one, KNOW I'm going to be Up Against The Wall When the Revolution Comes.

  • T||

    I'm not going up against the wall. I ain't going down that easy.

  • ||

    Progressives should make a similar movie about universal health care.

  • ||

    I think that message came across loud and clear anyway.

  • Old Mexican||

    At some point, the level of discourse from AGW proponents is going to arrive at the grotesque . . .

    . . . Ooops! Too late!

  • ||

    You really think the message is "believe in AGW or you will explode via telekinesis?"

    wATCH THE fUCKING vIDEO.

    They explode because the eco-advocate PUSHED THE BUTTON TO MAKE THEM EXPLODE.

  • ||

    You really think the message is "believe in AGW or you will explode via telekinesis?"

    wATCH THE fUCKING vIDEO.

    They explode because the eco-advocate PUSHED THE BUTTON TO MAKE THEM EXPLODE.

  • Francis||

    MNG just listens to the voices in his head.

  • Mind of MNG||

    "In the video that exists only in my head, it's clear that..."

  • Annon Imous||

    I can forgive blowing up schoolchildren, but not Gillian Anderson!

  • cynical||

    On the plus side, blowing up celebrities who are knowing participants falls more into "dark humor", rather than "eliminationist fantasy". If they'd cut the first two scenes and started with the soccer club, they'd probably have skated by on mere bad taste.

  • ||

    Paging Dr. Milgram...Dr. Milgram, please answer the bat-shit crazy phone.

    Here's the thing, if they *really* wanted to show this as a persuasive model, they would have had *other* people around them exploding every time they mentioned a rise if CO2 or some other calamity from AGW, and nothing was done to stem the increase, until the non-participants raised their hand to agree to do something about it.

    Anyone who thinks that this was anything other than "Our fondest wish is for apparatchik to ferret out and execute the disloyal and the non-believers without any trial or parole or any chance to recant their beliefs and comply." needs to check themselves in right now, today. Because something is very fucking wrong with you.

  • Colin||

    If someone told me beforehand that this was a satire of alarmists, I would've never doubted it.

    I truly wonder if the writer of this really isn't on our side.

  • prolefeed||

    It took more than one writer to make this video. It took a buttload of crazy people who were all thinking this was a good idea.

  • Rich||

    From the group's "Ten Tenets" (get it?):

    4. Successes are celebrated, rather than failures highlighted, so as not to discourage people/organisations from signing-up for fear they will be criticised for failing to achieve 10%

    So, see, the video is just typical British humour, like the start of Saving Private Ryan.

    Right.

    BTW, it seems something may be wrong with their server ...

  • ||

    Here's why it is so disturbing.

    It's not because people get blown up. Or even that they are getting killed by carbon reduction advocates.

    It's that the video is making an allusion to using social pressure to get people to participate, and the historical reality is that lot of ostracized people in history have wound up getting literally, actually, executed by the majority.

    Making jokes comparing social ostracism to getting blown up by people in power who hold the majority opinion isn't funny, because that in fact happens all the time.

    Jews? Ostracized minority. Burned in ovens. Gassed.
    Armenians? Ostracized minority. Genocide.
    Homosexuals? Ostracized minority. Beaten to death.
    Blacks in the segregationist south? Ostracized lynched and oppressed.

    Catholics in protestant countries during the reformation? Ostracized and killed.

    Protestants during the reformation in Catholic countries? Ostracized. Then burned at the stake.

    Heretics? Burned at the stake.

    Dissenters in communist countries? Ostracized. then executed.

    Reality. Social ostracism often precedes mass violence by the powerful against the less powerful.

    Making a video in which this is actually something that plays out as dissenters getting blown up for non-participation ... it's not so far gone to think that the people who made this have some dark corner of their mind akin to gay-bashers and nazis. that they are the kind of people who WOULD, if given the power, actually go beyond ostracism to violence.

  • ||

    Armenians? Ostracized minority. Genocide.

    What are you talking about. Hey! Look over there! It's a unicorn!

  • Robert||

    Right...and isn't it clear they want you to know that? It's a threat.

  • ||

    I don't think they *quite* intended to make it a death threat against climate deniers. But you can certainly read it that way.

    Kind of more like a subconscious threat. They would really LIKE to threaten to kill anyone that doesn't reduce their carbon emissions. They would LIKE to terrorize people into submission.

    But they havn't quite got there mentally. I mean, maybe they discuss it half-seriously in private. And that's where this mini-movie came from. Some semi-serious jokign discussion about how the problem is so serious that people who don't participate should be subjected to terrorism to get them to obey.

  • Robert||

    Would you say the same thing of the makers of the products advertised by the Muppets (ex: Wilkins coffee ad linked above) with the extortion theme?

  • Robert||

  • ah||

    You nailed it.

  • Random Dude||

    I'm sure the media will be alllllll over this "eliminationist rhetoric."

    Right? Right?

  • "Crickets Daily"||

    Right!

  • ||

    I think a closer analogy for this kind of film would be a teacher, standing in a classroom, asking her students if they cared about the environment. After most of the children raised their hands, a machine would come and castrate those raising their hands. Why? Because they're against population control.

    Get it?

    Ha ha ha ha.

    Seriously, though, even as an admirer of macabre humor, I found a lot of the humor of the film undercut by its overall viciousness, not to mention exploding school children. Regardless of one's stance on the environment or any given political view, nobody likes to see themselves depicted having a grotesque death for laughs.

    Furthermore, the message of the film is murky. If the message of the film is we all should care about the environment, why are polluters and the skeptics the only ones depicted dying? I don't think the makers of the film actually want those who are polluters or global warming skeptics to die a bloody death but the message of the film simply does not match what the film producers say it is.

    Simply,I think the short was made as: 1. a cathartic "hell, yeah" movie for those in the environmental movement and 2. an attention grabber meant to highlight the anti-global warming cause. As for converting those sitting on the fence with regards to global warming, the film is probably a miserable failure,not only because of its muddled message, but, generally speaking, the public abroad doesn't find exploding school children that charming of an ice breaker.

    As the kids say: EPIC FAIL

  • ||

    Agreed with most of what you wrote. As far as failing goes, this is akin to the "Green Police" Super Bowl ad.

    I disagree with their pseudo-science bullshit. I would be hard to convince anyway, but when they make commercials depicting sceptics as worthy of being asploded, then their arguments become harder to even listen to. Anyone who resorts to this type of knuckle-dragging "do vat ve say or else ve vill kill you," propaganda, however humorous, will have a tough time convincing others they mean well and are fair-minded people.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's the thing. AGW could be utterly discredited tomorrow, and these people would not go away. They would just fall back on Malthus until something better came up.

  • Francis||

    There will always be a fringe of nuts in any political group. So it is not surprising that people like the Unabomber show up from time to time. But when "regular" people make fun of what those nuts would think and do, and when they lay plans, get funding, work on the idea for many days no doubt, then the issue gets serious, I think: the core is infected by the fringe.

    But perhaps I'm wrong, and what I think is the fringe has been in fact the core all along.

  • Fred Sanford||

    MNG makes a lot more sense if you imagine him as MING.

  • Lamonte||

    Aw pops, why you have to go and do that?

  • ||

    I can't even begin to describe how much I hate Tottenham.

  • Trespassers W||

    I mean, yeah, obviously, but why bring this up now?

  • ||

    That was Tottenham in the video. Peter Crouch sucks.

  • Trespassers W||

    Ah, I haven't watched it yet.

    Tottenham: everybody's second most-hated team.

  • Dick Fitzwell||

    I laughed throughout this short piece. When it got to the end I thought, "Where are the right wingers winking and nudging to make sure that we got the joke?"

    Then I realized it wasn't a joke. How much shit would you stir up if you made a short film like this but switched the subject from carbon emissions to something like a free market?

  • ||

    I already made this comment upthread but because I'm obnoxious, I'm gonna make it again.

    It's clearly NOT intended to demonstrate that GW endangers everyone, because the pricks who push the button smirk as they do so. The video implicitly assumes that people watching will sympathize/agree with the BUTTON PUSHERS. They assumed lots of people would watch it and think "oh, ha ha - yes, in a just world, that's what would happen to GW deniers."

    They could not have produced such a disgusting and unbelievably stupid film if their heads were not shoved so far up their asses that they thought people would find this persuasive.

    It's a really stunning own goal. I would say that I'm going to go out and do something incredibly bad for the environment but I live in Houston so, you know - I'm already doing my part.

  • ||

    The video implicitly assumes that people watching will sympathize/agree with the BUTTON PUSHERS. They assumed lots of people would watch it and think "oh, ha ha - yes, in a just world, that's what would happen to GW deniers."

    Exactly. It's the same sort of mindset held by all sorts of violent misanthropic bigots. In a just world ... all the fag would be shot. In a just world, all the infidels would be burned at the stake.

    It's that kind of ugly attitude that leads to mass pogroms. People who joke about killing their political enemies are the same sort of people who actually would do so if they had the power and enough fanatical supporters to get away with it.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yup. Franny Armstrong gives it away when she can't quite let go of the fantasy of destroying the unbelievers, even while trying to downplay the video:

    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.

  • Francis||

    Asaint said "Let the perfect city rise.
    Here needs no long debate on subtleties,
    Means, end,
    Let us intend
    That all be clothed and fed; while one remains
    Hungry our quarreling but mocks his pains.
    So all will labor to the good
    In one phalanx of brotherhood."

    A man cried out "I know the truth, I, I,
    Perfect and whole. He who denies
    My vision is a madman or a fool
    Or seeks some base advantage in his lies.
    All peoples are a tool that fits my hand
    Cutting you each and all
    Into my plan."
    They were one man.

    - David Friedman, circa 1970.

    (Note that he used the word "denies"... He's a prophet!)

  • ||

    I still can't get over the white girl's name being Jemima.

  • DRM||

    How about abortion?

    The class is med students, the teacher is a prof at med school, the prof asks who will pledge to never perform abortions, and, like in the original, the button blows up everyone who doesn't join the pledge.

    And then the person in charge of the organization that made the film? Says that of course they aren't in favor of killing abortion doctors, that's just a joke for the mini-movie. But that the film only showed five med students killed, and that's a mere blip compared to the 46 million baby humans murdered each year by abortion.

  • Esteban||

    Best article i have read in a while.

    By Vedran Vuk

    Let’s start with the assumption that man-made global warming is real. Of course, the next question is, “What to do about it?” The commonly proposed steps are to adopt preventative measures, such as taking the bus, recycling, driving hybrid cars, etc. On a grander scale, there are the Kyoto treaties and cap/trade programs.

    Though this approach masquerades itself as a long-term perspective, it’s really quite short sighted. Why? Because the Earth’s climate will change for natural reasons anyway. Anti-environmentalists always point to the medieval warming period as a way to dismiss global warming. What they don’t realize is that this warming period reveals something much more important. Regardless of the causes for current global warming, a warming period – or even a cooling period – is in our future.

    Global warming prevention is a dead-end agenda. It only prevents man-made global warming and does nothing to stop the Earth’s natural cycles. The world is changing, with or without us. We need to adapt rather than make a hopeless effort to prevent change.

    Environmentalists claim that temperatures only a few degrees higher would wreak havoc on our civilization. If this is true, then we’re in big trouble. If our civilization hangs in the balance of a few degrees, a natural warming period or another ice age are just as likely to wipe us out. The green movement doesn’t have a backup plan for this scenario.

    Imagine this outcome. We make enormous changes to our lifestyles, and environmental treaties around the world are enforced. We actually succeed in preventing man-made global warming. And then a huge volcano explodes and reverses all the hard work. Or another ice age or warming period begins due to natural reasons. What then?

    Also, let’s deal with some political realities. China and other developing giants are not going to significantly reduce emissions. The only way for the environmental movement to achieve its goals would be through a one-world government dictatorship. Just look at other long-term problems, such as Medicare and Social Security. These issues are entirely solvable, ticking time bombs. But no one wants to touch them, because it’s always easier to pass the hot potato to the next generation. If these budget problems are insurmountable within a single country, how will a worldwide green agenda ever work?

    Environmentalist victories such as cap/trade won’t even put a dent in man-made global warming. The vast majority of people will never accept the lifestyle changes necessary to make an impact. They will rather pass a hotter world to the next generation than inconvenience themselves today. We’ve seen this same politically selfish behavior with national budgets and debts around the world. What makes one think that global warming is any different? We will not be able to stop global warming, for the same reasons that a million other global problems remain unresolved.

    Considering the political futility of prevention and natural likelihood of warming anyway, the obvious solution seems to be adaptation. All this hybrid car and reduced-emissions business is wasted technology. We’d be better off finding ways to grow crops in harsher environments. Though adaptive technologies aren’t as urgent, what we can do for now is change our mindset from prevention to adaptation.

    I challenge environmentalists to face the facts and observe the science of people as closely as the science of the environment. If politics, economics, and human nature are ignored, plenty of very smart people will continue to create useless technologies that will do nothing to prevent the inevitable. Scientists need to acknowledge real-world obstacles rather than behave like starry-eyed idealists. Their work is too important to waste on hopeless projects and agendas.

  • Tony||

    The world is changing, with or without us.

    K, but we're changing it a lot in a way that will do incalculable harm to us. And it's possibly able to be mitigated.

    You're echoing something I just heard on this issue... deniers are, deep down, people who don't care about the future of the planet.

    I just don't think that's most people. And this would be a good time for human beings to prove that they can deal with long-term issues proactively. "Adapting" will be much, much more expensive than preventing, in terms of dollars and human lives.

    This argument is based on a very cynical view of human motivations, and conveniently keeps the energy status quo in place for as long as possible. What do we call people who ignore or dismiss science and reality and progress in favor of the industrial status quo? They used to be called pigs.

  • DRM||

    "Adapting" will be much, much more expensive than preventing, in terms of dollars and human lives.


    And your evidence for this assertion is?

  • Tony||

    It's based on what science says will probably happen with warming. Anyway "adaptation" usually means some people adapting and most not adapting. You can prefer darwinian selection (and people in rich countries--the ones who caused the problem--will surely adapt better than people in poor countries), but I prefer being proactive by using our brains.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    So just to be clear, you have no evidence?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I hope someone commits suicide over the hopelessness of global warming.

    Oh, wait, it's happened already.

  • Robert||

    Do you doubt that if the climate were already as these people now fear, and a change were in the offing to what we actually have now, they would be up in arms about that? I just don't believe that this happens to be the best of all possible worlds and that therefore any change would be for the worse.

  • Tony||

    And frankly, this is an issue where libertarians should say "Okay, climate change is a global problem. It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way. The market obviously can't deal with it, or it would have already. This is a job for governments because it is defense of the common good.

    But no. Most of you are idiotic science deniers, secular equivalents of intelligent design proponents, only with a lot more paranoia. You cannot be considered serious people if you deny science. Why would you sacrifice so much credibility in favor of appeasing your asperger's-like antigovernment compulsion?

  • DRM||

    Palentologists are willing to show other scientists the fossils from which they derived their conclusions. If they make a mistake, it can be discovered even decades later and the conclusions corrected.

    Climate scientists deleted their raw temperature data with the result that nobody can check to make sure they didn't make mistakes in adjustment. The result is that there is currently no collection of scientifically-usable global temperature data going back before December 1979. Climate scientists can't actually prove 2010, on a global basis, was warmer than 1975. Without any documented temperature change, it is patently ridiculous to theorize what might be causing a temperature change.

  • ||

    Global warming skeptics might be a bit unhinged, but at least they aren't openly fantasizing about killing people who won't go along with their program.

  • Esteban||

    Tony, when was that article or anything people have said denial? It is taking into account that global warming by humans is real and is suggesting other solutions that might be more cost effective and more logical once you take out all the emotions from the issue at look at the issue rationally which frankly people on the green movement are incapable of doing. Just look at the reaction from the green movement about the book Superfreakanomics where they proposed ways to alter the climate to reduce warming that wasn't in line with the green religions gospel of "cutting emmissions." They bashed it because it didn't fit in line with their religion. They can't have a rational discussion about it. Why wouldn't anybody not be in favor of different solutions to the problem that might?

    One of the solutions was simulating a volcano eruption to cool the earth which would cost nothing. Why can't they even discuss it? Because at the heart of things, the green movement is against the lifestyles of the modern person. Any solution that doesn't involve making other people change how they live is out of the question.

  • Esteban||

    sorry wrote that fast without checking.

    Second to last paragraph:

    Why wouldn't anybody not be in favor of different solutions to the problem that might be more cost effective, more rational or at least have a discussion about them? Other solutions that don't involve just "cutting emissions and CO2?"

  • Tony||

    Cutting emissions is the least we should do. What's wrong with that? It's no more a government intervention than any of the fanciful "adaptations" you're proposing.

    People will have to change their lives significantly if nothing is done--I'm being the conservative here. Again, why are you against cutting emissions? Why is everything proposed by the skeptic camp exactly everything the polluting industries want?

  • Goob||

    Because, you arrogant ass- in most places of the world where people don't have fancy pillows shoved up their asses and pampered roofs over their heads- i.e. 60% of the world- emissions are about the only thing keeping food on the table.

    If you want to reduce emissions, you have to drive up the cost of emissions- it is that simple. And while that means biking to work and feeling all smug in your residential-over-retail flat in the city, it means parents in Africa finding it that much harder to afford medicine and food for their kids.

    You little fucks on the left LOVE to see the savings you make, while at the same time ignoring (or blaming on those fat cat capitalists) the unseen costs that you impose.

  • Tony||

    Carbon-based fuels are simply not sustainable for developing countries. That's just a fact of physics. We're going to have to find new sources of energy for us and for them. Destroying the climate is not great for developing countries either, for that matter.

  • Goob||

    I love how you couch absurd statements as if they are statements of fact.

    Please tell me which law of physics factually states that carbon-based fuels are not "sustainable for developing countries."

    Is that Newton's second law? Hmmmm...no.

    See, the difference between you and I Tony, is that I am acquainted with the facts. And the little bit of science that is "proven" around AGW gives us cause to worry. But fuckers like you take the little bit of science that IS well founded in science, and then use that to steal bases.

    There IS consensus that CO is a greenhouse gas
    There IS consensus that the earth (on average) has warmed since the early 1900s
    There is NOT consensus that this is the warmest humans have ever experienced.
    There is NOT consensus that a warmer earth would be worse than our current world.
    There is NOT consensus that even if it is worse, that it would cost more to mitigate or adapt to these changes than to prevent them.

    Are there papers on either side of the line? Yes. But there is NO definitive consensus either way.

    So take your transparent appeals to "Facts of physics" and return to whatever echo chamber website instilled them into your soft little skull.

  • hmm||

    ...climate change is a global problem. It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way.

    Um, no. Not so much.

    You cannot be considered serious people if you deny science.
    But you are serious for blindly following? Copernicus anyone?

  • Tony||

    I'm being generous comparing it to armed invasion in terms of the human cost.

    I am following current science, which is the best anyone can do. You're blindly following crackpot hucksters.

  • hmm||

    I blindly follow no one. Be that person crackpot or scientist.

    Generous is an understatement.

  • Roidist||

    We get it, Tony. You are a nut case. You really don't have to write another word to prove it any further than you already have. Really, it is settled science.

  • (not) Tony||

    No one is listening to me. You people are stupid poo-poo faces. :'(

  • Zombie Tony||

    It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    You out-failed MNG! Congratulations!

  • Francis||

    I don't know about global warming. But seeing a film like this, I realized that I much prefer the plight of global warming than the tyranny of global warmers.

  • Esteban||

    The point that you miss is yes, wouldn't it be great if we could all come together, form a one world government where we all substantially reduce our standards of living in order to reduce the effects of man made global warming. The point is, the odds of this happening, based on thousands of years of evidence of human nature, politics, human motivation, etc, is about one billionth of a percent. I am sorry, but IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The only way it would happen is if there was a one world dictatorship that could somehow impose standards on every nation in the world. That is of course if the earth didn't blow up anyway because the fight for this led to nuclear war. Yes, the world might come to some agreements about "reducing carbon emissions by 10%, blah blah blah," but this will not do a dent. Do you know what it would really entail to slow down carbon emissions, pollution, etc that is cause by the modern world? To actually make a dent? Probably making the world live like 19th century living standards, and that will not happen.

    Now on to the other point you miss. You say "What do we call people who ignore or dismiss science and reality and progress....". I think you ignore the REALITY of politics and human nature. Dismissing progress you say? Progress would be inventing a clean energy source which would be great, not making people live like 19th century peasants. Wasting billions of dollars of capital that could of been used in a more productive manner in an effort to be "Tackling climate change" is insane. What do we do as a civilization? The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing. Do we keep trying to fight it and keep it at some status quo climate that we deem appropriate? That seems to go against the grain of the environmental movement being that it involves our manipulation of climate.

    And what do we do when civilization is faced with global cooling? Do we say, "ok, we need to go back to the way it was 1000 years ago in the industrial age and release more CO2!!!" Hopefully the green movement supports technological progress, as it is probably the only way we will be able to solve these problems in 1000 years.

    This is not to forget the chance of a black swan. Large volcanic eruptions over the earth's history have changed the earth's climate drastically for the thousands of years that followed them. Or a large meteorite.

    you say "This argument is based on a very cynical view of human motivations, and conveniently keeps the energy status quo in place for as long as possible. What do we call people who ignore or dismiss science and reality and progress in favor of the industrial status quo? They used to be called pigs."

    1. Take a look at the history of human motivation and it is pretty easy to be cynical.

    2. I don't know how you get anything from that article that wants to preserve the "industrial status quo". I think if anything it favors intense technological innovation to prepare humans to face changing climates. Technology will be the thing that saves us. Who wants the status quo? There are millions of greedy capitalists who would love to invent some type of green technology that would replace oil and coal and be economical viable. But guess what? Nothing have come that is economically viable.

    And why not have an honest discussion about the benefits of global warming?

    I leave with this article. I don't like George Will too much, but I think this is a pretty great article called "The Earth Doesn't Care." http://www.newsweek.com/2010/0.....o-it.html#

    "Six million years ago the Mediterranean dried up. Ninety million years ago there were alligators in the Arctic. Three hundred million years ago Northern Europe was a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. “One thing we know for sure,” Laughlin says about these convulsions, “is that people weren’t involved.”

  • Tony||

    One thing we do know now is that people are involved. Who cares if it's a natural or man-made disaster? People and governments respond to both. They always respond to natural disasters if they can. The only hitch here, and the source of your pessimism, is that this requires forethought and a change in lifestyle. All I can say is I hope you're wrong about the inability of humans to cope with future crises, especially ones that won't be able to be fixed unless addressed now.

  • Apogee||

    Who cares if it's a natural or man-made disaster?

    The people from whom you intend to take money, that's who.

    There is already nearly zero accountability for the tracing of funds in government expenditures, and yet you idiots pretend that all the new 'taxes' and 'fees' will be used to cut emissions.

    This is simply theft, on a massive scale.

  • Neil Sedaka||

    Ba-a-a-d Fa- a- ith!
    Just remember the shit he pulled here, to get the 411 on this bitch, okay?

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/05.....nt_1695270

  • cynical||

    Heh, someone should do a video where Muslims ask people they feel about Teh Joos and then suicide bomb anyone who doesn't demand the destruction of the Israeli state. No pressure, right?

  • Warty||

    Okay, climate change is a global problem. It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way.

    I have something to bust out the next time I'm accused of absurd hyperbole.

  • Tony||

    I'm hardly being hyperbolic. We're already probably set to experience costs comparable to war. Doing nothing will introduce costs much greater than any war.

  • ||

    Citation please.

  • prolefeed||

    And frankly, this is an issue where libertarians should say "Okay, climate change is a global problem. It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way.

    Yes, miniscule changes in atmospheric composition that theoretically could cause small fluctuations in temperature beyond the much larger natural fluctuations IS EXACTLY LIKE a blitzkrieg of actual soldiers shooting guns and killing people.

    Exactly equivalent. No significant differences discernable.

    /sarcasm

  • Tony||

    If you understood current understanding of climate change you wouldn't dismiss it so readily. In terms of upending (or just ending) human life, it's probably much worse than any war.

  • prolefeed||

    I live in Hawaii, which has a climate, compared to the Mainland, WAAAAAY hotter than the worst case scenarios of global warming alarmists. And yet, inexplicably, it's a nicer place than the Mainland.

    So, no, not buying your slight increase in temp = WAR! analogy at all, dickhead.

  • Tony||

    Stupid prole, we're not talking about the ambient temperature in your immediate vicinity, we're talking about average global temperature. Islands like Hawaii should do just great!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wait, wait... won't Hawaii be swamped over by the ocean if global warming happens?

    Get it right, Tony.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Tony|10.2.10 @ 2:18AM|#
    Stupid prole!..

    And the beast finally reveals its true form.

  • ||

    Most of you are idiotic science deniers

    Exactly. We deny idiotic science.

    It's comparable to armed invasion in every meaningful way.

    This is a statement of faith, a religious assertion.

    You cannot be considered serious people if you deny science.

    "Deny science" is a meaningless phrase. No one is denying science - we're just insisting that scientists behave like scientists, as DRM mentioned. Transparency, reproducible results, and, at a bare minimum, not destroying raw data and not
    attempting to censor, ostracize or otherwise professionally destroy scientists who question or disagree with their results.

    GW scientists have behaved not like scientists, but like priests.

  • Tony||

    Whatever. You're a science denier. You are denying what science says is fact in favor of lame, bizarre conspiracy theories. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't bothered to consult reliable sources on this issue, you've just read right-wing crackpots.

  • ||

    "Science denier" "what science says"

    You're talking about science as if it were a being, a sentient entity, a force independent of humans.

    Science is a systemized study of the physical world, it's the collection of human knowledge of the world around us, it's a method of gaining and verifying knowledge, it's a lot of things, but it is NOT something that can talk to us. It is also NOT a a monolithic system that can be affirmed or denied in toto.

    Science says that genetically modified grains and livestock are safe for human consumption. Science says that the benefits of DDT use far outweigh the dangers to human beings. I doubt the majority of GW zealots would accept either proposition.

  • Tony||

    All that's true, but that doesn't make you more of an expert source than the near-universal consensus of relevant scientists on the issue.

    If a lefty wants to ignore science on DDT then I'll call him out too.

  • Apogee||

    No you won't. You'll run away like you always do.

    As for the fictional 'conscensus', it's nowhere near universal. It's grant based coercion. I know, because I've personally spoken with many scientists (who I've known for years) that confirm the scam.

  • Xenocles||

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

  • cynical||

    Ridiculous. Look at the ways in which they are different from, say, the extreme Christian Right, or Muslim extremists, or whatever:

    1) Form their beliefs by placing their trust in the words and writings of a class of self-appointed and socially sanctioned wise persons.

    2) Consider anyone who does not completely disagree with them as an enemy and an evildoer.

    3) Transmit these words and teachings on to others (especially children) uncritically, and discourage skepticism or individual verification.

    4) Seek to have their beliefs and morals imposed on nonbelievers both by law and by indoctrination of children in public schools.

    5) Allow these beliefs to govern their sexual and reproductive decisions and strongly desire for the sexual and reproductive decisions of others to be brought into line through legal mandates.

    6) Accept dietary restrictions based on these beliefs.

    7) Accept restrictions on personal behavior, particularly demands for modesty, poverty, self-deprivation, asceticism, and so on, in the name of their beliefs, and laud as heroes those who go above and beyond in this pursuit.

    8) Believe in an impending apocalypse, not through randomness or fate, but as a result of the collective wickedness of the human race.

    9) In some cases, believe that their moral code represents the will and interest of an esoteric being that transcends and is more important than humanity (and, strictly speaking, created humanity, though they do not stress this and think it was either an accident or a mistake).

    10) In even more extreme cases, believe that this entity literally intervenes in human affairs to either punish human wickedness through misfortune or natural disaster, although often punishing the innocent along with the wicked.

    None of those traits are those one would associate with a fledging monotheistic religion -- besides, you can't be a religion if you don't believe in an afterlife, so there. And it's a good thing, too, since we'd otherwise get into a very ugly first amendment debate about where to draw the line to prevent government violating the establishment clause. Your school can make you plant a tree to celebrate Earth day, but if they made you decorate a Christmas tree, there would be hell to pay, metaphorically speaking.

  • GWillie||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMvHWLcIrXU
    Now they might find it offensive

  • ||

    Registered Democrat. Voted Gore, Kerry and Obama.

    Not another penny of mine will go to environmental causes.

    I would like to think that my support goes to constructive purposes, but now I really can't be sure.

    So, no, I wont bother.

  • Tom||

    I thought the car commercials with the "green police" were in bad taste, but this is...as Matt said, stunning.

  • Alex Jones||

    Predictive programming!

  • alan||

    Apologies to the Village Voice. They were right all along. There are some seriously unhinged white people out there as that video proves.

  • cynical||

    +1

  • mr simple||

    So, then, if someone asks me if I'm going to reduce my carbon emissions for some stupid program, then I should immediately shoot them before they can blow me up?

  • The Jury||

    Based on the evidence in this video, we could only conclude that it was self defense.

  • cynical||

    We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty by reason of genre awareness.

  • ||

    then I should immediately shoot them before they can blow me up?

    Not if your shooting emits CO2. Wait, if you kill that person, then you've rid Gaia of another stinking source of CO2. So, yeah, it's ok to shoot them. You'd be doing your part for 10:10.

  • ||

    I forgot to mention that if you shoot them, you must kill them in order to make a useful contribution to 10:10.

    Carry on.

  • Chad||

    Crossbows emit zero carbon, and the arrows are reusable.

  • cynical||

    Plus, they can be made out of parts that can go through a metal detector without getting picked up. And even if you aren't the deadliest shot, you can always poison the bolt.

  • Liberals show their true color||

    Yes, this is exactly the liberal agenda. Do what we want voluntarily, because we have decided it's good for you, and if you don't, we'll not only kill you, we'll spill your guts all over everyone around you to make an example out of you. And we'll start with school children, they must be indoctrinated first. No judge, no jury, before capital punishment, just the liberal agenda or we'll brutally murder you. No pressure.

  • Liberals show their true color||

    Yes, this is exactly the liberal agenda. Do what we want voluntarily, because we have decided it's good for you, and if you don't, we'll not only kill you, we'll spill your guts all over everyone around you to make an example out of you. And we'll start with school children, they must be indoctrinated first. No judge, no jury, before capital punishment, just the liberal agenda or we'll brutally murder you. No pressure.

  • MNG||

    OK, so when I got off work and went home I "watched the F*cking video" during halftime of the BYU "game" and I was wrong, many here were right: it's disturbingly heavy handed. Having the people explode at the press of the button, after simply expressing an unwillingness to confrom, in so many contexts (school workplace, soccer field [wtf?]) makes my interpretation much more untenable. This time your two minute hate was more deserved than many times in the past...

    For the record I don't think this was some fantasy about killing those who don't go along. I think it was some bizarre, failed attempt at strange (like Strangers with Candy strange) comedy. In fact it's likely it includes some self mocking re: it's own disturbing heavy handedness (i.e., in the first setting the teacher reminding them of homework, but of course not for the two kids who blew up) and some misplaced over-the-top attempt at just shocking people (this would fit with the deranged statements quoted above about how they "killed" just five people, but AGW is going to kill thousands, anyone who gets worked up about the first should be much more worked up about the latter). Still, the ad is just disturbing and stupid whatever was attempted.

    It's also interesting how many folks here attacked these people for demonizing their opponents, and then went on to demonize all your opponents on this issue (with AGW proponents being equated to everything from death-cultish Gaia worshippers to Nazis).

  • ||

    Threatening to kill people who don't get with the program is pretty Nazi-like, is it not?

  • ||

    Heck even JOKING about killing people who don't go along with you is pretty Nazi-like.

    I mean, just replace the climate skeptic kids with Jews. hahaha! we're going to kill all the jews! just kidding (no really!)

    You think Nazis didn't joke about exterminating the Jews long before they got around to actually doing it?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Hazel, there were no threats.

    The envirists simply allowed the malcontents to self-identify -- no pressure -- and then literally liquidated them.

    There's no cure for skepticism, and it can be contagious. The mini-movie is honest enough to acknowledge the only effective treatment for skepticism.

    WRT "Nazi-like", I think the comparison is a bit off. The National Socialists were indeed totalitarian, but their focus was murdering individuals comprising ethnic groups that they deemed inferior or dangerous. Though all victims of the 10|10 Project were white, I don't think it is racist. Rather, the 10|10 Project's victims were selected based upon an ideological criterion. This makes it more reminiscent of Lenin, or Mao, or perhaps Pol Pot.

  • ||

    The Nazis didn't exactly limit their executions to Jews. They were more than willing to execute anyone who didn't obey them. Much like the people pushing the button in the film.

    Disobey a Nazi, you were likely to find yourself at the barrel of a gun, Jew or non-Jew.

  • ||

    Hazel, I think you're buying into a popular myth. For the most part, once the Nazis obtained power, they treated their "German" people pretty regularly. Their court systems functioned normally and verdicts and punishments pretty well mirrored those during the Weimar years. The fact of the matter is, there were many people who treated Nazis with mild contempt and comedic derision, and they were basically tolerated without severe punishment until Hitler completely lost it after Stalingrad. Any questioning of the Nazis after that were dealt with rather severely. A perfect example of this would be the editorials from the Berlin papers written after a German Art exhibit put on by Goebbels. They made so much fun of him and the exhibit, Hitler quietly shut it down. No actions were taken against the critics. Ethnic Jews, Poles, Stavs and other "undesirables" were treated differently, but pure Germans, for the most part, were free to mildly criticize during the early years of the Nazi regime.

    Shirer details this phenomenon pretty well in "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," as does Claudia Koonz in "The Nazi Conscience."

  • CatoTheElder||

    Hazel, I'm mostly just being pedantic, but the the enviromental radicals really do align with the Communists rather than the National Socialists.

  • MNG||

    As to the merits of AGW, I think it is probably true that the earth is warming, human activity is a big cause, and bad results to people and property are likely.

    I know a lot of people here are skeptical, and a lot are afraid (because they think it will be used to enlarge government). I simply maintain that it is more likely that you guys have been misled than that all the major international professional scientific organizations that have looked at the topic have been misled. Whatever reason they may have to be misled, there is an obvious (though not necessary imo) ideological for you to be misled.

    It's also goofy to keep pointing to the Climategate thing as somehow discrediting all AGW. Even a casual glance at, say, the IPCC, shows there are many, many more authors who contributed than those implicated there, and literally hundreds of authors work cited in it than involved in Climategate. Whatever improper things they did there (and again I'm more likely to side with the investigations into the matter done by trained scientists, which to date have essentially said "meh" about it all, than the "analysis" made by you guys), it's a gross fallacy that it somehow undermines all that other work. There are entire chapters of the IPCC that deal with evidence apart from temperature readings. One need only look to see that...

    While I think AGW is real and a potential problem, I don't buy any Doomsday predictions at this time. I've been against every carbon tax and cap and trade proposal I've heard of consistently. At this point I think the only role government should play is educational, and then let markets play out (already consumers are voluntarily making carbon reduction choices, and suppliers are meeting this demand in novel ways).

    And I certainly don't want to blow anyone up...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I could quibble here and there, but that's certainly a rational way of looking at it.

    The problem is that the doomsday predictions are the driving force behind the huge AGW industry (as opposed to the science which spawned it). Does Al Gore make hundreds of millions and a Nobel without his highly unscientific claims of doomsday in his movie? Do expensive shorts like this one get funded and made if doomsday is not approaching? Is there any support whatsoever for massive government intervention minus the doomsday scenario? No, no, and no.

  • MNG||

    Oh, I agree a lot of fools accept AGW for foolish reasons, and I'm sure many accept it for wicked reasons. I'm guessing that is true for any movement though. I can only speak to why I accept it and then guess that I'm probably not alone in that...

  • ||

    What gets me is ... if they really believe the doomsday predictions, why do they still fear nuclear power?

    I see the following possibile explanations for this.
    1. They don't actually believe the doomsday predictions.
    2. They are just the kind of people that tend to be alarmed by apocalyptic doomsday predictions of all types.
    3. They are afraid to disagree with others around them who hate nuclear.

    Because if the earth is really going to experience some sort of global catastrophe if we don't reduce carbon emissions by 30% in the next 10 years, then surely the hyprothetical threat of radiation escaping from nuclear waste containment, or whatever, is miniscule in comparison. If the threat is real, these people should be screaming FOR nuclear plants to be built, as quickly as possible.

    But instead they are still, mostly, against them. Including Gore. Why is that? Their stated objections are "it's too expensive" and "it's too dangerous" which is (a) bullshit, and (b) doesn't make any sense in the context of the upcoming apocalypse.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Exactly. That's just one more thing that gives away the game.

    As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.

  • MNG||

    Well, every responsible person I've seen taking the view it is a crisis still thinks it is a somewhat long term crisis (the really bad consequences are going to be felt decades from now).

  • cynical||

    The people that made the video seem to think that climate change (presumably they meant the anthropogenic kind) has already killed 300,000 people. Is that not a "really bad consequence", to a decent human being?

  • Robert||

    Can they name any?

  • MNG||

    Hazel
    I'm all for nuclear power. I've heard some environmentalists that once opposed nuclear power now are for it because they think it is better than other forms of energy.

    I guess one could take Gore's position thought, it would just be like this: nuclear power is unacceptably dangerous and the carbon-bad (or whatever) is unacceptably harmful. I'm sure they envision other alternatives.

  • ||

    The other alternatives are unrealistic and/or cannot be implemented on a short time scale.

    Nuclear is the only realistic option that could reduce carbon emissions in the amount required, within the next 10-15 years.

  • ||

    Well, short of returning to a pre-industrial agrarian society, that is.

    Which, strangely, happens to be a pet project of their too.

    So, we have to ask ourselves: Do they really just want to stop global warming, or do they have a larger social(ist) agenda, and are merely instrumentalizing global warming to enact it?

  • CatoTheElder||

    The answer is obvious, isn't it?

  • Apogee||

    Which leads back to the video.

    It's about controlling others.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Hazel, you missed one. I propose #4: They are clueless romantics who yearn for the happier days before the industrial revolution, before automobiles and electricity. There really are a lot of people sympathize with Ted Kaczynski . They align with other groups of unthinking people into a coalition called Democrats.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Oops, I see in the post immediately above that you already know this!

  • ||

    I think thos people fit in category 2. They generally fear all of modern technology and think it will lead to an vapocalpyse unless we abandon industrial civilization and return to agrarianism.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, Tony:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....-pact.html

    IMO, people like Al Gore should be brought up on charges over these kinds of deaths. Scaring the fuck out of people over what MIGHT happen, is irresponsible.

  • Neu Mejican||

    MNG,

    Sorry, your interpretation of the video is inaccurate. The message is conveyed by the pairing of the bodies blowing up and the repeated phrase "no pressure."

    Their message is closer to "take this seriously, step up and do you part so that we don't have to take coercive measures in the future" It is not "if we don't all pull together there will be negative consequences."

    No matter what they were going for, this PSA looks more like a parody of the standard Environmental Demons so often describe on H&R AGW threads than anything else.

  • cynical||

    "Sorry, your interpretation of the video is inaccurate. The message is conveyed by the pairing of the bodies blowing up and the repeated phrase "no pressure.""

    Ohhhhh, I get it. You're saying that they think that's how "explosive decompression" works? It's a nice theory, but I've never heard of filmmakers being scientifically illiterate.

  • JB||

    Carbon emissions could be reduced by a drastic reduction in the number of environMental retards out there.

    I saw we start with them; they are a waste of carbon.

  • ||

    Carbon emissions could be dramatically reduced if some of the enviro-tards could get over their retarded fear of nuclear power.

  • JB||

    Carbon emissions could be reduced by a drastic reduction in the number of environMental retards out there.

    I saw we start with them; they are a waste of carbon.

  • ||

    my son is in 5th grade and he had a test question that asked what was the biggest threat to the planet? the answer was to many people. it made me so mad. i told him he was a gift from god and could never be bad for the planet. they taught me that same crap when i was in school in the 70's. so we looked up the worlds population in 75 and it was 3.5 billon. average life expectancy in the u.s was 59 years. today there is twice as many people at 7 billion and the average life expectancy is 69. ten years longer. kind of blows a hole in that theroy.

  • ||

    Over at Watts Up With That , an indignant Ms or Madame Laframboise asks :

    " Would those who found the film “extremely funny” have a similar reaction to a film that depicted gays being blown to bloody pulp by religious fundamentalists?"

    Guess It depends on whether the congregation explosively disciplining their pastor found him in bed with a deacon or an altar boy.

  • Robert||

    Even funnier! First of all, just the mention of gays and fundamentalists together is funny. Pastor in bed with altar boy just takes off from there.

    OK, so keeping in mind that these ads have the same theme as those hilarious Muppets ads -- buy our product or we'll kill you -- what do you think was the intention of the advertiser? Simple: to get att'n. Which obviously they did, because here we are discussing them. The Muppets ads said nothing about their products, so they were solely to get att'n. What makes you think the climate change people thought they could get any more than att'n by their ads, which don't make any attempt to persuade? They succeeded in being funny, though not nearly as well as Jim Henson's product.

  • Apogee||

    What an amazingly inaccurate comparison. Had there been legislation discussed about implementing a 'coffee charge' in favor of the brand mentioned in the muppet commercial, then you might have a point.

    The ability of the coffee company to actually implement sales purchases by government fiat would entirely change the nature of the ads.

    There were no politically funded, organized groups labeling non-coffee drinkers as 'deniers'.

    Try again.

  • Robert||

    What if it were a political ad with one Muppet representing voters voting for the other candidate? (Figure the candidate the ad was for as having whatever power over you elected office might afford.) Wouldn't it be just as funny as for a coffee or bread or any of the other products they advertised?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    I'm going to step back from the hyperbolic cliff that has been established in this thread.

    My read: A really lame attempt at "dark" and "edgy" humor, and one of the absolute worst PR failures in recent memory.

    On the other hand, who knows for sure what lies in the dank fetid swamp of people's subconcious minds? I'm sure as hell not giving anyone a good look at mine.

  • Robert||

    There's no such thing as bad publicity.

  • ACORN||

    Wanna bet?

  • asdf||

    fucking ruined that radiohead song for me

  • ||

    "Even a casual glance at, say, the IPCC, shows there are many, many more authors who contributed than those implicated there, and literally hundreds of authors work cited in it than involved in Climategate."

    Except all those other authors based their papers off of the corrupted CRU data.

    It all fruit from the posioned tree.

    I don't understand how people like you continue to miss this point.

  • ||

    Their message is closer to "take this seriously, step up and do you part so that we don't have to take coercive measures in the future" It is not "if we don't all pull together there will be negative consequences."

    No. Their message is one of intimidation: "This is what happens if you dont go along".

    And yes, even mobsters can be "funny" when they joke about what will happen to you if you don't play along with them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement