I’ll admit – it’s been a long time since I’ve posted a Global Warming Consensus Alert because, frankly, any “consensus” that existed was blown apart by the release of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mails, which revealed a whole bunch of underhanded activity on the part of scientists promoting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. What’s the point anymore? The unshakeable climate “consensus” has been shown to be the fraud that it always was, and the catastrophic climate change scare is receding as a political issue. It seemed like the time was right to retire the Consensus Watch series.

And then the 10:10 Campaign decided to release what has to be the most amazingly awful public relations campaign in the history of public relations campaigns.

To be honest, I’d never heard of the 10:10 campaign before last night, so in that sense, their PR ploy has been successful. It appears to be another one of the seemingly countless organizations that spring up to encourage people to make reductions in their carbon output. Their schtick is that we all need to commit to reducing our carbon output by 10% a year starting this year. (An aside to the businesses that have signed up for this campaign: just what do you anticipate that you’ll be doing in 10 years when you wind your carbon emissions down to zero?) And with October 10 coming up (10.10.10 – clever), they released a promo film on YouTube to, I suppose, raise awareness for their cause.

The video stars Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame, features music by Radiohead, and may just be the worst attempt at public relations in history. CONTENT WARNING: if you think you might be the kind of person who gets offended at graphic footage of people being blown up for not adhering to a scientific theory, you might not want to watch.

Fantastic PR idea, isn’t it? It’s nice to know that there are people who are willing to finance a high-quality film production depicting the casual extermination of individuals like me who haven’t bought into the idea that human activity is the sole cause of a coming climate Armageddon. And honestly, I can’t decide what’s creepier: the portrayal of people so casually murdering others for the crime of not buying into a panic based on a scientific orthodoxy that began to unravel a year ago, or the murderers’ completely nonchalant response to the horrified reactions of the children and office workers who had just been doused in the blood and entrails of the exploded global warming skeptics. It would seem to me that if you’re going to create a film where the heroes commit gruesome crimes, it would be best to have any witnesses to said crimes not react with revulsion and horror in order to establish that your heroes are actually good people, and not, you know, brutal, inhuman beasts.

Kill Em' All

Suggested Logo for 10:10 Campaign

Part of me feels guilty for blogging about this because it is a transparent ploy for attention on the part of people who deserve nothing but contempt, but on the other hand, this film is such a compact and powerful demonstration of the contempt for human life that undergirds much of the modern environmental movement that I can’t resist sharing it. After all, the prerequisite for being comfortable with producing a film that depicts the casual, gruesome murder of one’s ideological opponents (for the greater good, of course) is the belief that human life has no inherent value, and that humans, far from being the crown of creation, are in fact not part of creation at all, but instead a destructive parasite that leeches off of and destroys the pristine beauty of Mother Earth. One may protest that the good folks at 10:10 are just “playing around” or “being funny” or “trying to make a point.” Nonsense. The issue at hand is a disagreement within the scientific community over the interpretation of data. The world is not in imminent danger of destruction. The 10:10 Campaign has no business casually dehumanizing people who simply disagree with them.

(I suppose it might be worthwhile to note the irony of climate alarmists creating a fictional world where they are allowed to exterminate their political opponents after spending years demonizing skeptics even to the point of comparing them to Nazi sympathizers who deny the reality of the Holocaust. Oh, and here’s a link to a nice, breezy article about the film at an environmentally themed website. “It would be so much easier to tackle global climate change if these naysayers were blown up like BP’s oil well.” Yeah, killing all the people who disagree with you would make it easier for you to get your longed-for public consensus.)

David Burge, who those of us in the blogosphere know better as Iowahawk, left a comment on the original YouTube video (that has since been made “private,” ideally out of shame but more likely because it had accomplished its intended purpose of creating “buzz”) that provides a good bit of perspective on this film, and nicely sums up my thoughts on the matter:

In order for your “No Pressure” advert to have been made, I am assuming several writers pitched a professionally-prepared storyboard to a committee, detailing shot-by-shot each second of the film. The committee approved it, along with a minimum $250,000 budget to hire actors, director, & crew. Each scene probably took 3-10 takes, and weeks of post production by special effects wizards.

At no time did a single person involved in this cluster**** say, “hey, maybe it isn’t the best PR to air our fantasies about detonating the people who don’t agree with us into a mist of blood meat and bone fragments.”

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

Amen. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get a bunch of plastic, douse it in oil and set it aflame in honor of the 10:10 Campaign.

  • http://www.davidlohmeyer.com David Lohmeyer

    I don’t understand how a video like this is supposed to make me want to reduce my carbon output… it just makes me angry. I’ve seen films like Shaun of the Dead that have some pretty absurd and clever British humor, but those types of things aren’t taking themselves seriously. This clearly is trying to be serious at a fundamental level and it does it in a horrible way.

  • Nancy

    If the rich thugs and corrupt gov. officials don’t believe in it…how do you expect the PEOPLE to believe in it?? What other examples do they have?

  • mememine69

    When lab coat consultants, pandering politicians, exaggerating enviornMENTALists, fear mongering political ideologists on the left AND the right, PR firms, MainScream Media and Osama bin Laden ALL agree on anything, be suspect not obedient, otherwise YOU are complicit in this criminal CO2 mistake as history will judge you lying CO2 neocons with your climate WMD’s.

  • Elizabeth

    Are you sure that this isn’t classic “disinformation”? It graphically expresses exactly what we know the overpopulation crowd is doing–using the environmental angle to serve a totalitarian agenda. If one were to make that as disgustingly clear as possible, this organization and the film would be the result. By playing it straight, it’s tremendously effective at unmasking what terrorists they are. I’m sure that this must be what’s going on here!

  • peter

    I do kind of believe in the warming theory – at least it does not hurt trying to reduce our gas emissions, but I think that, like you, I am going to set aflame a set of tire on that 101010, because I am absolutely appalled by that video. Your article is great and sum up so nicely and eloquently my thoughts on that. Thanks a lot.

  • Roger McKinney

    “just what do you anticipate that you’ll be doing in 10 years when you wind your carbon emissions down to zero?”

    Is that rhetorical? Of course we’ll be dead because we exhale CO2.

  • Roger McKinney

    Francis Schaeffer said that unbelievers cannot live without absolutes; it violates human nature. So if they rebel against God’s absolutes, they will arbitrarily choose something to replace them. For many years that absolute was communism. Today it is the planet. And as communists and Al Qaeda has shown us, people will murder for their absolutes. As the US turns more away from God, we can expect more of the same.

  • Jason

    I have to add, just out of anal retentiveness, that if we did decrease our C02 by 10% each year, in 10 years we would emit approximately 34.86% of our current levels. In fact, we would /never/ achieve zero emissions with such a process.

    That’s neither here nor there as it is a silly and ridiculous idea to try to reduce CO2. The real problem is not CO2, but resource depletion. When cheap light sweet is no longer commercially viable, and people are paying $250/bbl for sour heavy oil, this will all be a moot point. We will be revelling in nostalgia at our current debate.

  • Dan VandeBunte

    1) Where can I get one of those buttons?
    2) Can it be reprogrammed to detonate people for other reasons?

    Lesson learned. If your reasoning faculties cannot bring you to acceptance of global warming, perhaps your fear of being blown up at school/work will get you there.

    No pressure.

  • Doc

    Message implies to conform or the leadership will depopulate the planet. In effect, the elite have actually signaled what will happen to the debtor class, if they do not conform. Ratcheting up hate and polarization is just one part of the process.

    This advertisement is classic example of how easy it is to control the masses’ reactionary emotions in order to foment more hate in preparation for war.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

  • http://word4ce.com/freemarkets Ben Easton

    Wow, what a PR faux pas! I agree with many of your points, however, your seem to scoff at the possibility of anthropogenic consequences on planet Earth. Whether these changes are climatic, or biological, or material, we humans clearly have a cumulative effect that can be seen, heard, felt, tasted, and smelled. While I don’t cater to the 10:10 program, and while I’m not a scientist who is able to properly analyze the East Anglia Climate Research business, I do think that it is utterly obvious that 6 billion humans (going on 7 billion), some of which own and operate gigantic machines and release colossal amounts of exhaust, toxins, waste, etc. WILL have an increasing effect on the environment. I am not buying into CO2 being the culprit; I believe it is ugliness, waste, and trash. If nothing else, we humans, individually – and thus collectively, need to get more streamlined and aware. This is just good policy.

    To call into question the anthropogenic idea seems crazy when it is clear that humans have been responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species, the redirection of countless rivers, the deforestation of stupendous landmasses, etc. Survival of the fittest? Sure. Maybe.

    I don’t need to join in the smarmy 10:10 club to believe that it’s a good idea to continue to simplify my life and waste fewer resources – mine and those of Mother Earth. That’s been a basic tenet of conservatism for 10,000 years!

    By the way, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the producers of this film had targeted a much bigger and more immediate threat to happy human life on Earth: SOCIALISM. Wouldn’t it be great to see exploding welfare recipients and government demagogues who give away other people’s money?!

  • http://www.acton.org John Couretas

    Elizabeth: I get your point about “disinformation” but this gives the producers of this claptrap more credit for intelligence than they deserve. They obviously weren’t alert to the anti-human ideology buried in their clever, slick production. When it was pointed out to them by those not engaged in the “creative” — it was pulled immediately.

  • Becky

    In addition to all that it seems to me the message was get in line or else. They blew up everyone that didn’t comply, all the time saying no pressure, then at the end they come ask you to join the movement along with the line no pressure.

  • Kris

    That was a predictable troll you posted, Ben Easton.

    QUOTE: “By the way, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the producers of this film had targeted a much bigger and more immediate threat to happy human life on Earth: SOCIALISM. Wouldn’t it be great to see exploding welfare recipients and government demagogues who give away other people’s money?!”

    That last paragraph is very revealing. You are projecting your own misanthropic point of view on those who disagree with you. Who wants to “explode welfare recipients”? You are the one who states that human beings are “responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species, the redirection of countless rivers, the deforestation of stupendous landmasses, etc.” By the evidence of your own words Ben you are not fond of people whether they be rich or poor.

    I hope you can change and see humanity–including yourself!–as the crowning glory of God’s creation.

  • Neal Lang

    “To call into question the anthropogenic idea seems crazy when it is clear that humans have been responsible for the extinction of hundreds of species, the redirection of countless rivers, the deforestation of stupendous landmasses, etc. Survival of the fittest? Sure. Maybe.”

    And to what do attribute the extinction of the millions of species before the first human set foot on Earth? Let’s face it, there would be no “carbon energy” sources, such a coal and oil, had it not be for the mass extingtion of millions of plants and animals over the eons. Perhaps extinction some species are a good thing – the HIV virus comes to me immediately as one specie that should be extinct – or are your in favor of the AIDS because it “thins out” the “human herd!”